PreprintCited by 92Machine Learning and Data ClassificationAdvanced Bandit Algorithms ResearchPrivacy-Preserving Technologies in Data

The Ladder: A Reliable Leaderboard for Machine Learning Competitions

Open access
Blum, Avrim, Hardt, Moritz·2015·arXiv

Abstract

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.

The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.

Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.

A few free checks a day · papers already verified open instantly · results are public

Integrity signals

Registry

DataCite · 10.48550/arxiv.1502.04585

Cites

Statistics

Claims the paper makes

The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.

Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.

A few free checks a day · papers already verified open instantly · results are public

Claims other papers make about this one

Each is checked against this paper’s own text: does it say what the citing paper says it does?

  • Validation accuracy can overstate test accuracy.

    “Validation therefore both guides later edits and selects the final harness, so validation accuracy can overstate test accuracy; Appendix C.3.2 bounds this gap by how much the feedback reveals about the validation set (Dwork et al., 2015;Blum & Hardt, 2015).”

    From VERSE: Verified Self-Evolving Optimizer for Agent Harnesses (2026) · cites this paper as Blum & Hardt, 2015

Self-check

Percentages, sums and reported differences re-computed from the paper’s own numbers.

The self-check needs the paper’s full text.

Cites

No references could be resolved yet.

Research works printed but not linked: 6

  1. [DFH + ] Cynthia Dwork, Vitaly Feldman, Moritz Hardt, Toniann Pitassi, Omer Reingold, and Aaron Roth. Preserving statistical validity in adaptive data analysis. In Proc. 47 th Symposium on Theory of Computing (STOC) . ACM, 2014.
  2. [HTF] Trevor Hastie, Robert Tibshirani, and Jerome Friedman. The Elements of Statistical Learning . Springer, 2001.
  3. [HU] Moritz Hardt and Jonathan Ullman. Preventing false discovery in interactive data analysis is hard. In Proc. 55 th Foundations of Computer Science (FOCS) , pages 454-463. IEEE, 2014.
  4. [Ioa] John P. A. Ioannidis. Why Most Published Research Findings Are False. PLoS Medicine , 2(8):124, August 2005.
  5. [SU] Thomas Steinke and Jonathan Ullman. Interactive fingerprinting codes and the hardness of preventing false discovery. CoRR , abs/1410.1228, 2014. · arXiv
  6. [Tsy] Alexandre B. Tsybakov. Introduction to Nonparametric Estimation . Springer, 1st edition, 2008.

Cited by

Sorted by citations

Authors
Blum, A., & Hardt, M.
Affiliations
Carnegie Mellon University (US)
Venue
arXiv
Publisher
arXiv
Published
2015
ISSN
2331-8422 (ISSN-L)
OpenAlex
W1798749056
Cited by
92
References
0
Citations by year
2026: 2 · 2025: 1 · 2024: 1 · 2023: 2 · 2022: 1 · 2021: 13 · 2020: 15 · 2019: 26 · 2018: 10 · 2017: 10 · 2016: 6 · 2015: 4 · 2014: 1
Type
posted content
Language
en
Open access
Locations
  • arXiv (Cornell University) (submittedVersion)
  • arXiv (Cornell University)
Topics
  • Physical Sciences › Computer Science › Artificial Intelligence › Machine Learning and Data Classification
  • Social Sciences › Decision Sciences › Management Science and Operations Research › Advanced Bandit Algorithms Research
  • Physical Sciences › Computer Science › Artificial Intelligence › Privacy-Preserving Technologies in Data
Keywords
machine learning competition, adversarial attacks, parameter-free algorithms, Kaggle, hardness results

About these checks

Registry, retraction, Cites and statistics results are computed, not judged, with one exception: a printed reference that no index lists is read once by a model before it counts as a citation error. Claims are extracted by a model and kept only when their quote appears verbatim in the text; each cited source is then checked, with a model’s help, for whether it says what the claim relies on. Those verdicts can be wrong — read the claim’s quote and the cited source before relying on one.

Statistics and arithmetic are recomputed, not judged.

Confidence bands are shown only for fields calibrated on our annotated test set. None is calibrated yet, so no band is shown.

What counts as a claim ›How we measure confidence ›How we check this ›

Are you an author, or do you see a problem with this page? Request a review