mlsanityData to 7 Oct 2026

Rip van Winkle's Razor: A Simple Estimate of Overfit to Test Data

arXiv 2102.13189 ↗First posted 25 Feb 2021cs.LG stat.MLcited by 8

Not on the map. Why?

Abstract (arXiv)

Traditional statistics forbids use of test data (a.k.a. holdout data) during training. Dwork et al. 2015 pointed out that current practices in machine learning, whereby researchers build upon each other's models, copying hyperparameters and even computer code -- amounts to implicitly training on the test set. Thus error rate on test data may not reflect the true population error. This observation initiated em adaptive data analysis, which provides evaluation mechanisms with guaranteed upper bounds on this difference. With statistical query (i.e. test accuracy) feedbacks, the best upper bound is fairly pessimistic: the deviation can hit a practically vacuous value if the number of models tested is quadratic in the size of the test set. In this work, we present a simple new estimate, em Rip van Winkle's Razor. It relies upon a new notion of textquotedblleft information contenttextquotedblright of a model: the amount of information that would have to be provided to an expert referee who is intimately familiar with the field and relevant science/math, and who has been just been woken up after falling asleep at the moment of the creation of the test data (like textquotedblleft Rip van Winkletextquotedblright of the famous fairy tale). This notion of information content is used to provide an estimate of the above deviation which is shown to be non-vacuous in many modern settings.

Key facts. Cited by 8 papers in the map (data through 7 Oct 2026). Builds on 14 of its 30 references that are in the map. First posted on arXiv 25 Feb 2021.

Builds on

14 of 30 references.

References · 14

  1. 2015Deep Residual Learning for Image Recognitioncited by 51,809
  2. 2014ImageNet Large Scale Visual Recognition Challengecited by 8,441
  3. 2015Batch Normalization: Accelerating Deep Network Training by Reducing Internal Covariate Shiftcited by 6,979
  4. 2016Densely Connected Convolutional Networkscited by 6,691
  5. 2019Transformer-XL: Attentive Language Models Beyond a Fixed-Length Contextcited by 1,830
  6. 2019Do ImageNet Classifiers Generalize to ImageNet?cited by 1,507
  7. 2018Do CIFAR-10 Classifiers Generalize to CIFAR-10?cited by 197
  8. 2014Preserving Statistical Validity in Adaptive Data Analysiscited by 102
  9. 2015Algorithmic Stability for Adaptive Data Analysiscited by 88
  10. 2015The Ladder: A Reliable Leaderboard for Machine Learning Competitionscited by 67
  11. 2019Model Similarity Mitigates Test Set Overusecited by 37
  12. 2014Preventing False Discovery in Interactive Data Analysis is Hardcited by 34
2 more
  1. 2019Calibration, Entropy Rates, and Memory in Language Modelscited by 32
  2. 2019The advantages of multiple classes for reducing overfitting from test set reusecited by 14

Built on by

Cited by year (2026 to 7 Oct)

Citing papers per year: 2021: 1; 2022: 1; 2023: 0; 2024: 4; 2025: 1; 2026: 1.

8 papers.