The organizer of a machine learning competition faces the problem of maintaining an accurate leaderboard that faithfully represents the quality of the best submission of each competing team. What makes this estimation problem particularly challenging is its sequential and adaptive nature. As participants are allowed to repeatedly evaluate their submissions on the leaderboard, they may begin to overfit to the holdout data that supports the leaderboard. Few theoretical results give actionable advice on how to design a reliable leaderboard. Existing approaches therefore often resort to poorly understood heuristics such as limiting the bit precision of answers and the rate of re-submission. In this work, we introduce a notion of "leaderboard accuracy" tailored to the format of a competition. We introduce a natural algorithm called "the Ladder" and demonstrate that it simultaneously supports strong theoretical guarantees in a fully adaptive model of estimation, withstands practical adversarial attacks, and achieves high utility on real submission files from an actual competition hosted by Kaggle. Notably, we are able to sidestep a powerful recent hardness result for adaptive risk estimation that rules out algorithms such as ours under a seemingly very similar notion of accuracy. On a practical note, we provide a completely parameter-free variant of our algorithm that can be deployed in a real competition with no tuning required whatsoever.
Matching this hardness result, there is a computationally efficient algorithm in @cite_3 that achieves an error bound of @math which implies a bound on leaderboard accuracy that is worse than ours for all @math They also give an algorithm (called EffectiveRounds) with accuracy @math when the number of rounds of adaptivity'' is at most @math While we do not have a bound on @math in our setting better than @math The parameter @math corresponds to the depth of the adaptive tree we define in the proof of ub . While we bound the size of the tree, the depth could be as large as @math , the proof technique relies on sample splitting and a similar argument could be used to prove our upper bound. However, our argument does not require sample splitting and this is very important for the practical applicability of the algorithm.
@cite_3
2950541101
A great deal of effort has been devoted to reducing the risk of spurious scientific discoveries, from the use of sophisticated validation techniques, to deep statistical methods for controlling the false discovery rate in multiple hypothesis testing. However, there is a fundamental disconnect between the theoretical results and the practice of data analysis: the theory of statistical inference assumes a fixed collection of hypotheses to be tested, or learning algorithms to be applied, selected non-adaptively before the data are gathered, whereas in practice data is shared and reused with hypotheses and new analyses being generated on the basis of data exploration and the outcomes of previous analyses. In this work we initiate a principled study of how to guarantee the validity of statistical inference in adaptive data analysis. As an instance of this problem, we propose and investigate the question of estimating the expectations of @math adaptively chosen functions on an unknown distribution given @math random samples. We show that, surprisingly, there is a way to estimate an exponential in @math number of expectations accurately even if the functions are chosen adaptively. This gives an exponential improvement over standard empirical estimators that are limited to a linear number of estimates. Our result follows from a general technique that counter-intuitively involves actively perturbing and coordinating the estimates, using techniques developed for privacy preservation. We give additional applications of this technique to our question.