mlsanityData to 7 Oct 2026

Don't Push the Button! Exploring Data Leakage Risks in Machine Learning and Transfer Learning

arXiv 2401.13796 ↗First posted 24 Jan 2024cs.LG cs.AIcited by 11

Not on the map. Why?

Abstract (arXiv)

Machine Learning (ML) has revolutionized various domains, offering predictive capabilities in several areas. However, with the increasing accessibility of ML tools, many practitioners, lacking deep ML expertise, adopt a "push the button" approach, utilizing user-friendly interfaces without a thorough understanding of underlying algorithms. While this approach provides convenience, it raises concerns about the reliability of outcomes, leading to challenges such as incorrect performance evaluation. This paper addresses a critical issue in ML, known as data leakage, where unintended information contaminates the training data, impacting model performance evaluation. Users, due to a lack of understanding, may inadvertently overlook crucial steps, leading to optimistic performance estimates that may not hold in real-world scenarios. The discrepancy between evaluated and actual performance on new data is a significant concern. In particular, this paper categorizes data leakage in ML, discussing how certain conditions can propagate through the ML workflow. Furthermore, it explores the connection between data leakage and the specific task being addressed, investigates its occurrence in Transfer Learning, and compares standard inductive ML with transductive ML frameworks. The conclusion summarizes key findings, emphasizing the importance of addressing data leakage for robust and reliable ML applications.

Key facts. Cited by 11 papers in the map (data through 7 Oct 2026). Builds on 9 of its 48 references that are in the map. First posted on arXiv 24 Jan 2024.

Builds on

9 of 48 references.

References · 9

  1. 2016"Why Should I Trust You?": Explaining the Predictions of Any Classifiercited by 5,040
  2. 2015Return of Frustratingly Easy Domain Adaptationcited by 389
  3. 2019Unmasking Clever Hans Predictors and Assessing What Machines Really Learncited by 359
  4. 2020Common pitfalls and recommendations for using machine learning to detect and prognosticate for COVID-19 using chest radiographs and CT scanscited by 158
  5. 2019Assuring the Machine Learning Lifecycle: Desiderata, Methods, and Challengescited by 39
  6. 2022Toward cross-subject and cross-session generalization in EEG-based emotion recognition: Systematic review, taxonomy, and methodscited by 17
  7. 2022On The Effects Of Data Normalisation For Domain Adaptation On EEG Datacited by 13
  8. 2022Management of Machine Learning Lifecycle Artifacts: A Surveycited by 13
  9. 2022Data Leakage in Notebooks: Static Detection and Better Processescited by 7

Built on by

Cited by year (2026 to 7 Oct)

Citing papers per year: 2024: 2; 2025: 2; 2026: 7.

11 papers.