Searcharxiv⌕ Search
Home/Archive/arXiv

arXiv · 1809.05596

The Generic Holdout: Preventing False-Discoveries in Adaptive Data Science

Preetum Nakkiran·Jarosław Błasiok
View original source ↗Read source document ↗Export metadata ↓

Abstract

Adaptive data analysis has posed a challenge to science due to its ability to generate false hypotheses on moderately large data sets. In general, with non-adaptive data analyses (where queries to the data are generated without being influenced by answers to previous queries) a data set containing $n$ samples may support exponentially many queries in $n$. This number reduces to linearly many under naive adaptive data analysis, and even sophisticated remedies such as the Reusable Holdout (Dwork et. al 2015) only allow quadratically many queries in $n$. In this work, we propose a new framework for adaptive science which exponentially improves on this number of queries under a restricted yet scientifically relevant setting, where the goal of the scientist is to find a single (or a few) true hypotheses about the universe based on the samples. Such a setting may describe the search for predictive factors of some disease based on medical data, where the analyst may wish to try a number of predictive models until a satisfactory one is found. Our solution, the Generic Holdout, involves two simple ingredients: (1) a partitioning of the data into a exploration set and a holdout set and (2) a limited exposure strategy for the holdout set. An analyst is free to use the exploration set arbitrarily, but when testing hypotheses against the holdout set, the analyst only learns the answer to the question: "Is the given hypothesis true (empirically) on the holdout set?" -- and no more information, such as "how well" the hypothesis fits the holdout set. The resulting scheme is immediate to analyze, but despite its simplicity we do not believe our method is obvious, as evidenced by the many violations in practice. Our proposal can be seen as an alternative to pre-registration, and allows researchers to get the benefits of adaptive data analysis without the problems of adaptivity.

Explore related subjects

stat.MEcs.LGmath.STstat.TH

Keep this discovery

BibTeXRIS

Preetum Nakkiran, Jarosław Błasiok. 2018-09-14. The Generic Holdout: Preventing False-Discoveries in Adaptive Data Science. https://arxiv.org/abs/1809.05596

Cite the original work for its findings. Save a collection to share your selection of sources.

KEEP EXPLORING

Related papers

arXiv2026

Surprise Reduction and Nullification in Bayesian and Inverse Bayesian Inference under Ambiguous Prediction-Error Attribution

In non-stationary environments, prediction errors may signal environmental change or transient outliers, and adaptive systems must track such changes without overreacting to outliers. We distinguish surprise reduction, which updates beliefs to fit observations, from surprise nullification, which weakens constraints imposed by the predictive structure, and formalize both within Bayesian and inverse Bayesian (BIB) inference. Belief and likelihood updates are derived from variational objectives sharing a nullification strength, determined endogenously by minimizing surprise under the candidate post-update predictive distribution. In the Gaussian case, nullification expands belief and likelihood variances by a common factor relative to standard Bayesian updating, leaving the ratio unchanged. BIB thus defers attribution of the prediction error, committing to neither latent-state change nor observation-process uncertainty. The nullification strength is carried over as a candidate and is maintained or released according to the predictive surprise of the next observation. In a mean estimation task with outliers and changepoints, no scanned parameter setting of a Sage-Husa-type adaptive Kalman filter, fixed-strength BIB variant, or belief-forgetting-only variant outperforms BIB in both changepoint tracking and post-outlier stability. An oracle-informed reduced Bayesian model tracks changepoints better but is less stable after outliers. Although BIB maintains no explicit hypotheses about changepoints or outliers, it generates event-dependent dynamics. The learning rate increases after changepoints, whereas after outliers, nullification is released, and this increase is suppressed. Deferring attribution and letting subsequent observations differentiate the responses may constitute a principle of adaptive inference in non-stationary environments.

stat.ME↗
arXiv2026

Generalized Ridge Refitting for the Lasso and Prediction Improvement Bounds

We study a class of Lasso based estimators obtained by applying a quadratic correction on the Lasso equicorrelation set. The penalty matrix determines both the magnitude and geometry of the correction and contains, among other cases, the isotropic Lasso--Ridge correction, least squares refitting, Gram proportional interpolation between the Lasso and least squares, and coordinate specific penalties. We first derive a closed form representation and isolate the positive gain component of the resulting prediction improvement. We then control the remaining stochastic linear term in expectation by localizing the random signed equicorrelation model around a deterministic reference support. This yields a finite sample expectation bound that explicitly accounts for the randomness induced by Lasso model selection. The resulting decomposition provides a unified framework for understanding when Lasso based quadratic corrections can improve prediction.

stat.ME↗
arXiv2026

Discretization in covariate-adaptive randomization: gains and losses

Covariate-adaptive randomization(CAR) is widely implemented in clinical trials to balance prognostic covariates across treatment arms. Continuous covariates are often discretized into strata in practice, yet their consequences are not clearly understood. This paper provides a comprehensive study of the impact of discretization on both the CAR design process and the inferential results thereafter. We establish the asymptotic properties of both imbalance measures and treatment effect estimators under discretized and non-discretized settings. Practical recommendations are given on when and how discretization should be employed. We show that discretization in design is generally recommended, as it enhances robustness against model misspecification. However, if the true model is known, the most efficient strategy is to balance covariates according to that model in the design. The theoretical results are corroborated by extensive simulation studies and an empirical application to a diabetes trial dataset. Together, the results clarify the gains and losses of discretization in CAR and pave the way for learning impact of discretization to other designs and beyond.

stat.ME↗