Rip van Winkle's Razor: A Simple Estimate of Overfit to Test Data
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
- 2015Deep Residual Learning for Image Recognitioncited by 51,809
- 2014ImageNet Large Scale Visual Recognition Challengecited by 8,441
- 2015Batch Normalization: Accelerating Deep Network Training by Reducing Internal Covariate Shiftcited by 6,979
- 2016Densely Connected Convolutional Networkscited by 6,691
- 2019Transformer-XL: Attentive Language Models Beyond a Fixed-Length Contextcited by 1,830
- 2019Do ImageNet Classifiers Generalize to ImageNet?cited by 1,507
- 2018Do CIFAR-10 Classifiers Generalize to CIFAR-10?cited by 197
- 2014Preserving Statistical Validity in Adaptive Data Analysiscited by 102
- 2015Algorithmic Stability for Adaptive Data Analysiscited by 88
- 2015The Ladder: A Reliable Leaderboard for Machine Learning Competitionscited by 67
- 2019Model Similarity Mitigates Test Set Overusecited by 37
- 2014Preventing False Discovery in Interactive Data Analysis is Hardcited by 34
2 more
Built on by
Citing papers per year: 2021: 1; 2022: 1; 2023: 0; 2024: 4; 2025: 1; 2026: 1.
8 papers.
- 2021The Benchmark Lotterycited by 133
- 2024Inherent Trade-Offs between Diversity and Stability in Multi-Task Benchmarkscited by 26
- 2025Overtuning in Hyperparameter Optimizationcited by 4
- 2024Unraveling overoptimism and publication bias in ML-driven sciencecited by 3
- 2024Questionable practices in machine learningcited by 3
- 2022Recurrent Convolutional Neural Networks Learn Succinct Learning Algorithmscited by 2
- 2026What Fits (Into Few Tokens) Doesn't Overfit: Compression and Generalization in ML Research Agentscited by 1
- 2024Responsible AI in Open Ecosystems: Reconciling Innovation with Risk Assessment and Disclosurecited by 0
- 2026What Fits (Into Few Tokens) Doesn't Overfit: Compression and Generalization in ML Research Agents9 Jun 2026
- 2025Overtuning in Hyperparameter Optimization24 Jun 2025
- 2024Responsible AI in Open Ecosystems: Reconciling Innovation with Risk Assessment and Disclosure27 Sep 2024
- 2024Questionable practices in machine learning17 Jul 2024
- 2024Unraveling overoptimism and publication bias in ML-driven science23 May 2024
- 2024Inherent Trade-Offs between Diversity and Stability in Multi-Task Benchmarks2 May 2024
- 2022Recurrent Convolutional Neural Networks Learn Succinct Learning Algorithms1 Sep 2022
- 2021The Benchmark Lottery14 Jul 2021