PreprintCited by 152Privacy-Preserving Technologies in DataStatistical Methods and InferenceMachine Learning and Algorithms

Generalization in Adaptive Data Analysis and Holdout Reuse

Open access
Dwork, Cynthia, Feldman, Vitaly, Hardt, Moritz, Pitassi, Toniann, Reingold, Omer, Roth, Aaron·2015·arXiv

Abstract

Overfitting is the bane of data analysts, even when data are plentiful. Formal approaches to understanding this problem focus on statistical inference and generalization of individual analysis procedures. Yet the practice of data analysis is an inherently interactive and adaptive process: new analyses and hypotheses are proposed after seeing the results of previous ones, parameters are tuned on the basis of obtained results, and datasets are shared and reused. An investigation of this gap has recently been initiated by the authors in (Dwork et al., 2014), where we focused on the problem of estimating expectations of adaptively chosen functions. In this paper, we give a simple and practical method for reusing a holdout (or testing) set to validate the accuracy of hypotheses produced by a learning algorithm operating on a training set. Reusing a holdout set adaptively multiple times can easily lead to overfitting to the holdout set itself. We give an algorithm that enables the validation of a large number of adaptively chosen hypotheses, while provably avoiding overfitting. We illustrate the advantages of our algorithm over the standard use of the holdout set via a simple synthetic experiment. We also formalize and address the general problem of data reuse in adaptive data analysis. We show how the differential-privacy based approach given in (Dwork et al., 2014) is applicable much more broadly to adaptive data analysis. We then show that a simple approach based on description length can also be used to give guarantees of statistical validity in adaptive settings. Finally, we demonstrate that these incomparable approaches can be unified via the notion of approximate max-information that we introduce.

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.1506.02629

Cites

1 of 1 references verified0 citation errors · 0 not checkable

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 Dwork et al., 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

Flagged first, then by citations

Research works printed but not linked: 31

  1. [BDMN05] Avrim Blum, Cynthia Dwork, Frank McSherry, and Kobbi Nissim. Practical privacy: the SuLQ framework. In PODS , pages 128-138, 2005.
  2. [BE02] Olivier Bousquet and Andr´ e Elisseeff. Stability and generalization. JMLR , 2:499-526, 2002.
  3. [BH15] Avrim Blum and Moritz Hardt. The ladder: A reliable leaderboard for machine learning competitions. CoRR , abs/1502.04585, 2015. · arXiv
  4. [BNS13] Amos Beimel, Kobbi Nissim, and Uri Stemmer. Characterizing the sample complexity of private learners. In ITCS , pages 97-110, 2013.
  5. [BSSU15] Raef Bassily, Adam Smith, Thomas Steinke, and Jonathan Ullman. More general queries and less generalization error in adaptive data analysis. CoRR , abs/1503.04843, 2015. · arXiv
  6. [CT10] Gavin C. Cawley and Nicola L. C. Talbot. On over-fitting in model selection and subsequent selection bias in performance evaluation. Journal of Machine Learning Research , 11:2079-2107, 2010.
  7. [DFH + 14] Cynthia Dwork, Vitaly Feldman, Moritz Hardt, Toniann Pitassi, Omer Reingold, and Aaron Roth. Preserving statistical validity in adaptive data analysis. CoRR , abs/1411.2664, 2014. Extended abstract in STOC 2015. · arXiv
  8. [DFN07] Chuong B. Do, Chuan-Sheng Foo, and Andrew Y. Ng. Efficient multiple hyperparameter learning for log-linear models. In NIPS , pages 377-384, 2007.
  9. [DKM + 06] Cynthia Dwork, Krishnaram Kenthapadi, Frank McSherry, Ilya Mironov, and Moni Naor. Our data, ourselves: Privacy via distributed noise generation. In EUROCRYPT , pages 486-503, 2006.
  10. [DL09] C. Dwork and J. Lei. Differential privacy and robust statistics. In Proceedings of the 2009 International ACM Symposium on Theory of Computing (STOC) , 2009.
  11. [DMNS06] Cynthia Dwork, Frank McSherry, Kobbi Nissim, and Adam Smith. Calibrating noise to sensitivity in private data analysis. In Theory of Cryptography , pages 265-284. Springer, 2006.
  12. [DN03] Irit Dinur and Kobbi Nissim. Revealing information while preserving privacy. In PODS , pages 202-210. ACM, 2003.
  13. [DN04] Cynthia Dwork and Kobbi Nissim. Privacy-preserving datamining on vertically partitioned databases. In CRYPTO , pages 528-544, 2004.
  14. [DR14] Cynthia Dwork and Aaron Roth. The algorithmic foundations of differential privacy. Foundations and Trends in Theoretical Computer Science , 9(34):211-407, 2014.
  15. [Dwo11] Cynthia Dwork. A firm foundation for private data analysis. CACM , 54(1):86-95, 2011.
  16. [Fre83] David A. Freedman. A note on screening regression equations. The American Statistician , 37(2):152-155, 1983.
  17. [Fre98] Yoav Freund. Self bounding learning algorithms. In COLT , pages 247-258, 1998.
  18. [HU14] Moritz Hardt and Jonathan Ullman. Preventing false discovery in interactive data analysis is hard. In FOCS , pages 454-463, 2014.
  19. [LB03] John Langford and Avrim Blum. Microchoice bounds and self bounding learning algorithms. Machine Learning , 51(2):165-179, 2003.
  20. [MMP + 10] Andrew McGregor, Ilya Mironov, Toniann Pitassi, Omer Reingold, Kunal Talwar, and Salil P. Vadhan. The limits of two-party differential privacy. In FOCS , pages 81-90. IEEE Computer Society, 2010.
  21. [MNPR06] Sayan Mukherjee, Partha Niyogi, Tomaso Poggio, and Ryan Rifkin. Learning theory: stability is sufficient for generalization and necessary and sufficient for consistency of empirical risk minimization. Advances in Computational Mathematics , 25(1-3):161-193, 2006.
  22. [Ng97] Andrew Y. Ng. Preventing 'overfitting' of cross-validation data. In ICML , pages 245-253, 1997.
  23. [NS15] Kobbi Nissim and Uri Stemmer. On the generalization properties of differential privacy. CoRR , abs/1504.05800, 2015. · arXiv
  24. [PRMN04] Tomaso Poggio, Ryan Rifkin, Sayan Mukherjee, and Partha Niyogi. General conditions for predictivity in learning theory. Nature , 428(6981):419-422, 2004.
  25. [Reu03] Juha Reunanen. Overfitting in making comparisons between variable selection methods. Journal of Machine Learning Research , 3:1371-1382, 2003.
  26. [RF08] R. Bharat Rao and Glenn Fung. On the dangers of cross-validation. an experimental evaluation. In International Conference on Data Mining , pages 588-596. SIAM, 2008.
  27. [RR10] Aaron Roth and Tim Roughgarden. Interactive privacy via the median mechanism. In 42 nd ACM STOC , pages 765-774. ACM, 2010.
  28. [SSBD14] Shai Shalev-Shwartz and Shai Ben-David. Understanding Machine Learning: From Theory to Algorithms . Cambridge University Press, 2014.
  29. [SSSSS10] Shai Shalev-Shwartz, Ohad Shamir, Nathan Srebro, and Karthik Sridharan. Learnability, stability and uniform convergence. The Journal of Machine Learning Research , 11:2635-2670, 2010.
  30. [SU14] Thomas Steinke and Jonathan Ullman. Interactive fingerprinting codes and the hardness of preventing false discovery. arXiv preprint arXiv:1410.1228 , 2014. · arXiv
  31. [WLF15] Yu-Xiang Wang, Jing Lei, and Stephen E. Fienberg. Learning with differential privacy: Stability, learnability and the sufficiency and necessity of ERM principle. CoRR , abs/1502.06309, 2015. · arXiv

Cited by

Sorted by citations

Authors
Dwork, C., Feldman, V., Hardt, M., Pitassi, T., Reingold, O., & Roth, A.
Affiliations
  • Microsoft (United States) (US)
  • Google (United States) (US)
  • University of Toronto (CA)
  • University of Pennsylvania (US)
Venue
arXiv
Publisher
arXiv
Published
2015
ISSN
2331-8422 (ISSN-L)
OpenAlex
W1663583528
Cited by
152
References
1
Citations by year
2026: 1 · 2025: 4 · 2024: 5 · 2023: 5 · 2022: 9 · 2021: 28 · 2020: 22 · 2019: 25 · 2018: 17 · 2017: 17 · 2016: 13 · 2015: 4 · 2014: 1 · 2012: 1
Type
posted content
Language
en
Open access
Locations
  • arXiv (Cornell University) (submittedVersion)
  • arXiv (Cornell University)
Topics
  • Physical Sciences › Computer Science › Artificial Intelligence › Privacy-Preserving Technologies in Data
  • Physical Sciences › Mathematics › Statistics and Probability › Statistical Methods and Inference
  • Physical Sciences › Computer Science › Artificial Intelligence › Machine Learning and Algorithms
Keywords
adaptive data analysis, overfitting, generalization, hypothesis verification, differential privacy, description length, statistical validity, interactive data analysis

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