REVIEW 1 cited by
Data Leakage in Notebooks: Static Detection and Better Processes
Not yet reviewed by Pith; the record is open.
This paper has not been read by Pith yet. Machine review is queued; the pith claim, tier, and objections will appear here once it completes.
SPECIMEN: schema-true, not a live event
T0 review · schema-true
One-sentence machine reading of the paper's core claim.
pith:XXXXXXXX · record.json · timestamp
Data Leakage in Notebooks: Static Detection and Better Processes
read the original abstract
Data science pipelines to train and evaluate models with machine learning may contain bugs just like any other code. Leakage between training and test data can lead to overestimating the model's accuracy during offline evaluations, possibly leading to deployment of low-quality models in production. Such leakage can happen easily by mistake or by following poor practices, but may be tedious and challenging to detect manually. We develop a static analysis approach to detect common forms of data leakage in data science code. Our evaluation shows that our analysis accurately detects data leakage and that such leakage is pervasive among over 100,000 analyzed public notebooks. We discuss how our static analysis approach can help both practitioners and educators, and how leakage prevention can be designed into the development process.
Forward citations
Cited by 1 Pith paper
-
ML2B: Benchmarking LLMs on Cross-Lingual ML Pipeline Generation
A new open-source benchmark evaluates LLM-generated end-to-end ML pipelines from Kaggle competition descriptions translated into 13 languages, with 6 private tasks to limit data leakage.
discussion (0)
Sign in with ORCID, Apple, or X to comment. Anyone can read and Pith papers without signing in.