A Grammar of Machine Learning Workflows: Rejecting Data Leakage at Call Time
Not on the map. Why?
Abstract (arXiv)
Data leakage has been identified in 648 published papers across 30 scientific fields. The knowledge to prevent it has existed for over a decade; the problem persists because the tools do not enforce what the textbooks teach. This paper presents a grammar (eight typed primitives connected by a directed acyclic graph with four hard constraints) that makes the most damaging leakage types structurally unrepresentable within the grammar's scope. The core mechanism is a terminal assessment gate: the first call-time-enforced evaluate/assess boundary documented in the peer-reviewed ML methodology literature (to my knowledge, as of May 2026), backed by a specification precise enough for independent reimplementation. A companion landscape study across 2,047 datasets grounds the constraints in measured effect sizes. Two reference implementations (Python, R) are available.
Key facts. Cited by 1 paper in the map (data through 14 Oct 2026). Builds on 8 of its 53 references that are in the map. First posted on arXiv 11 Mar 2026.
Builds on
8 of 53 references.
References · 8
- 2014OpenML: networked science in machine learningcited by 526
- 2015The Ladder: A Reliable Leaderboard for Machine Learning Competitionscited by 69
- 2021Cross-validation: what does it estimate and how well does it do it?cited by 65
- 2022Leakage and the Reproducibility Crisis in ML-based Sciencecited by 65
- 2019The Machine Learning Bazaar: Harnessing the ML Ecosystem for Effective System Developmentcited by 13
- 2022Data Leakage in Notebooks: Static Detection and Better Processescited by 7
- 2025LeakageDetector: An Open Source Data Leakage Analysis Tool in Machine Learning Pipelinescited by 2
- 2025LeakageDetector 2.0: Analyzing Data Leakage in Jupyter-Driven Machine Learning Pipelinescited by 2
Built on by
Citing papers per year: 2026: 1.
1 paper.