The Ladder: A Reliable Leaderboard for Machine Learning Competitions
Open accessAbstract
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.
Integrity signals
Registry
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.
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
- [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.
- [HTF] Trevor Hastie, Robert Tibshirani, and Jerome Friedman. The Elements of Statistical Learning . Springer, 2001.
- [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.
- [Ioa] John P. A. Ioannidis. Why Most Published Research Findings Are False. PLoS Medicine , 2(8):124, August 2005.
- [SU] Thomas Steinke and Jonathan Ullman. Interactive fingerprinting codes and the hardness of preventing false discovery. CoRR , abs/1410.1228, 2014. · arXiv
- [Tsy] Alexandre B. Tsybakov. Introduction to Nonparametric Estimation . Springer, 1st edition, 2008.
Cited by
Sorted by citations
Measuring the predictability of life outcomes with a scientific mass collaboration
Salganik, M. J., Lundberg, I., Kindel, A. T., Ahearn, C. E., Al-Ghoneim, K., Almaatouq, A., Altschul, D. M., Brand, J. E., Carnegie, N. B., Compton, R. J., et al. (2020) · Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences · doi:10.1073/pnas.1915006117 · Cited by 322 · see citing works
Self-citationUtility is in the Eye of the User: A Critique of NLP Leaderboards
Ethayarajh, K., & Jurafsky, D. (2020) · Proceedings of the 2020 Conference on Empirical Methods in Natural Language Processing (EMNLP) · doi:10.18653/v1/2020.emnlp-main.393 · Cited by 147 · see citing works
The Effect of Natural Distribution Shift on Question Answering Models
Miller, J., Krauth, K., Recht, B., & Schmidt, L. (2020) · arXiv · doi:10.48550/arxiv.2004.14444 · Cited by 74 · see citing works
Evaluation Examples are not Equally Informative: How should that change NLP Leaderboards?
Rodriguez, P., Barrow, J., Hoyle, A. M., Lalor, J. P., Jia, R., & Boyd-Graber, J. (2021) · Proceedings of the 59th Annual Meeting of the Association for Computational Linguistics and the 11th International Joint Conference on Natural Language Processing (Volume 1: Long Papers) · doi:10.18653/v1/2021.acl-long.346 · Cited by 47 · see citing works
Building Continuous Integration Services for Machine Learning
Karlaš, B., Interlandi, M., Renggli, C., Wu, W., Zhang, C., Mukunthu Iyappan Babu, D., Edwards, J., Lauren, C., Xu, A., & Weimer, M. (2020) · Proceedings of the 26th ACM SIGKDD International Conference on Knowledge Discovery & Data Mining · doi:10.1145/3394486.3403290 · Cited by 30 · see citing works
VERSE: Verified Self-Evolving Optimizer for Agent Harnesses
Wang, Z., Ge, Y., Wang, Z., Wang, H., Xu, Y., Frandsen, J., Fu, S., Wilson, A. C., & Reddy, C. K. (2026) · arXiv · doi:10.48550/arxiv.2610.02616
- Authors
- Blum, A., & Hardt, M.
- Affiliations
- Carnegie Mellon University (US)
- Venue
- arXiv
- Publisher
- arXiv
- Published
- 2015
- ISSN
- 2331-8422 (ISSN-L)
- arXiv
- 1502.04585
- 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
- green
- arxiv.org
- 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