Model Similarity Mitigates Test Set Overuse
Open accessAbstract
Excessive reuse of test data has become commonplace in today's machine learning workflows. Popular benchmarks, competitions, industrial scale tuning, among other applications, all involve test data reuse beyond guidance by statistical confidence bounds. Nonetheless, recent replication studies give evidence that popular benchmarks continue to support progress despite years of extensive reuse. We proffer a new explanation for the apparent longevity of test data: Many proposed models are similar in their predictions and we prove that this similarity mitigates overfitting. Specifically, we show empirically that models proposed for the ImageNet ILSVRC benchmark agree in their predictions well beyond what we can conclude from their accuracy levels alone. Likewise, models created by large scale hyperparameter search enjoy high levels of similarity. Motivated by these empirical observations, we give a non-asymptotic generalization bound that takes similarity into account, leading to meaningful confidence bounds in practical settings.
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?
Real-world classifiers are highly similar to each other, and when one classifier is better than another on real data, it tends to be strictly better in a point-wise sense for the most part.
“Specifically, real-world classifiers are not only highly similar to each other (Mania et al., 2019), Mania & Sra (2020) also observe that when one classifier is better than another on real data, it tends to be strictly better in a point-wise sense, for the most part.”
From Limits to scalable evaluation at the frontier: LLM as Judge won't beat twice the data (2024) · cites this paper as Mania et al., 2019
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
Deep Residual Learning for Image Recognition
He, K., Zhang, X., Ren, S., & Sun, J. (2016) · 2016 IEEE Conference on Computer Vision and Pattern Recognition (CVPR) · doi:10.1109/cvpr.2016.90 · Cited by 235,474 · see citing works
ImageNet classification with deep convolutional neural networks
Krizhevsky, A., Sutskever, I., & Hinton, G. E. (2017) · Communications of the ACM · doi:10.1145/3065386 · Cited by 112,155 · see citing works
Flagged first, then by citations
Research works printed but not linked: 17
- [1][1] R. Bassily, K. Nissim, A. Smith, T. Steinke, U. Stemmer, and J. Ullman. Algorithmic stability for adaptive data analysis. In Symposium on Theory of Computing (STOC) , 2016. https: //arxiv.org/abs/1511.02513 . -
- [2][2] A. Blum and M. Hardt. The Ladder: A reliable leaderboard for machine learning competitions. In International Conference on Machine Learning (ICML) , 2015. https://arxiv.org/abs/ 1502.04585 . -
- [3][3] J. Deng, W. Dong, R. Socher, L.-J. Li, K. Li, and L. Fei-Fei. ImageNet: A large-scale hierarchical image database. In Conference on Computer Vision and Pattern Recognition (CVPR) , 2009. http://www.image-net.org/papers/imagenet\_cvpr09.pdf . -
- [4][4] L. Devroye, L. Györfi, and G. Lugosi. A probabilistic theory of pattern recognition . Springer, 1996. http://www.szit.bme.hu/~gyorfi/pbook.pdf . -
- [5][5] C. Dwork, V. Feldman, M. Hardt, T. Pitassi, O. Reingold, and A. L. Roth. Preserving statistical validity in adaptive data analysis. In Symposium on Theory of computing (STOC) , 2015. https://arxiv.org/abs/1411.2664 . - · arXiv
- [6][6] V. Feldman, R. Frostig, and M. Hardt. The advantages of multiple classes for reducing overfitting from test set reuse. In International Conference on Machine Learning (ICML) , 2019. https://arxiv.org/abs/1905.10360 . - · arXiv
- [8][8] G. Huang, Z. Liu, K. Q. Weinberger, and L. van der Maaten. Densely connected convolutional networks. In Conference on Computer Vision and Pattern Recognition (CVPR) , 2017. https: //arxiv.org/abs/1608.06993 . -
- [11][11] J. Langford. Quantitatively Tight Sample Complexity Bounds . PhD thesis, Carnegie Mellon University, 2002. http://hunch.net/~jl/projects/prediction\_bounds/thesis/thesis.pdf . -
- [12][12] L. Li and A. Talwalkar. Random search and reproducibility for neural architecture search. In Conference on Uncertainty in Artificial Intelligence (UAI) , 2019. https://arxiv.org/abs/ 1902.07638 . -
- [13][13] H. Liu, K. Simonyan, and Y. Yang. Darts: Differentiable architecture search. In International Conference on Learning Representations (ICLR) , 2019. https://arxiv.org/abs/1806.09055 . - · arXiv
- [14][14] B. Recht, R. Roelofs, L. Schmidt, and V. Shankar. Do ImageNet classifiers generalize to ImageNet? In International Conference on Machine Learning (ICML) , 2019. https://arxiv. org/abs/1902.10811 . -
- [15][15] O. Russakovsky, J. Deng, H. Su, J. Krause, S. Satheesh, S. Ma, Z. Huang, A. Karpathy, A. Khosla, M. Bernstein, A. C. Berg, and F.-F. Li. ImageNet large scale visual recognition challenge. International Journal of Computer Vision , 2015. https://arxiv.org/abs/1409. 0575 . -
- [16][16] K. Simonyan and A. Zisserman. Very deep convolutional networks for large-scale image recognition. 2014. https://arxiv.org/abs/1409.1556 . - · arXiv
- [17][17] A. Smith. Information, privacy and stability in adaptive data analysis, 2017. https://arxiv. org/abs/1706.00820 . -
- [18][18] C. Szegedy, W. Liu, Y. Jia, P. Sermanet, S. Reed, D. Anguelov, D. Erhan, V. Vanhoucke, and A. Rabinovich. Going deeper with convolutions. In Conference on Computer Vision and Pattern Recognition (CVPR) , 2015. https://arxiv.org/abs/1409.4842v1 . - · arXiv
- [19][19] C. Yadav and L. Bottou. Cold Case: The Lost MNIST Digits. 2019. https://arxiv.org/ abs/1905.10498 . - · arXiv
- [20][20] T. Zrnic and M. Hardt. Natural analysts in adaptive data analysis. In International Conference on Machine Learning (ICML) , 2019. https://arxiv.org/abs/1901.11143 . · arXiv
Cited by
Sorted by citations
Limits to scalable evaluation at the frontier: LLM as Judge won't beat twice the data
Dorner, F. E., Nastl, V. Y., & Hardt, M. (2024) · arXiv · doi:10.48550/arxiv.2410.13341
“Specifically, real-world classifiers are not only highly similar to each other (Mania et al., 2019), Mania & Sra (2020) also observe that when one classifier is better than another on real data, it tends to be strictly better in a point-wise sense, for the most part.”
Self-citation
- Authors
- Mania, H., Miller, J., Schmidt, L., Hardt, M., & Recht, B.
- Affiliations
- University of California, Berkeley (US)
- Venue
- arXiv
- Publisher
- arXiv
- Published
- 2019
- Volume
- 32
- Pages
- 9993-10002
- ISSN
- 2331-8422 (ISSN-L)
- arXiv
- 1905.12580
- OpenAlex
- W2946947608
- Cited by
- 11
- References
- 2
- Citations by year
- 2026: 2 · 2025: 1 · 2023: 3 · 2022: 1 · 2021: 4
- Type
- posted content
- Language
- en
- Open access
- green
- arxiv.org
- Locations
- arXiv (Cornell University) (submittedVersion)
- arXiv (Cornell University)
- Funders
- National Science Foundation (1752814)
- Microsoft Research
- Defense Advanced Research Projects Agency (FA8750-18-C-0101, FA8750, W911NF-16-1-0552)
- Office of Naval Research (N00014-18, 17-1-2191, N00014-17-1-2401, N00014-17-1-2191, N00014-17-1, N00014-18-1-2833, N00014, N00014-17)
- Topics
- Physical Sciences › Computer Science › Artificial Intelligence › Machine Learning and Data Classification
- Physical Sciences › Computer Science › Artificial Intelligence › Stochastic Gradient Optimization Techniques
- Physical Sciences › Computer Science › Artificial Intelligence › Domain Adaptation and Few-Shot Learning
- Keywords
- test data reuse, model similarity, overfitting, generalization bounds, hyperparameter optimization, confidence limits
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
