Which Leakage Types Matter?

arXiv cs.LG / 4/7/2026

💬 OpinionIdeas & Deep AnalysisModels & Research

Key Points

  • The paper reports 28 within-subject counterfactual experiments across 2,047 tabular datasets (and a boundary experiment across 129 temporal datasets) to quantify how four ML data leakage types affect measured performance.
  • Normalization/estimation leakage (e.g., fitting scalers on the full dataset) is found to be negligible, producing at most |ΔAUC| ≤ 0.005 across tested conditions.
  • Selection leakage (e.g., peeking during preprocessing or seed cherry-picking) is substantial, with roughly 90% of the observed performance gain attributed to noise exploitation that inflates reported scores.
  • Memorization leakage grows with model capacity, increasing from about d_z = 0.37 for Naive Bayes to about 1.11 for Decision Trees.
  • Boundary leakage is invisible under random cross-validation, and the authors argue that common textbook emphasis should be inverted: selection leakage matters most at practical dataset sizes, while normalization leakage matters least.

Abstract

Twenty-eight within-subject counterfactual experiments across 2,047 tabular datasets, plus a boundary experiment on 129 temporal datasets, measuring the severity of four data leakage classes in machine learning. Class I (estimation - fitting scalers on full data) is negligible: all nine conditions produce |\Delta\text{AUC}| \leq 0.005. Class II (selection - peeking, seed cherry-picking) is substantial: ~90% of the measured effect is noise exploitation that inflates reported scores. Class III (memorization) scales with model capacity: d_z = 0.37 (Naive Bayes) to 1.11 (Decision Tree). Class IV (boundary) is invisible under random CV. The textbook emphasis is inverted: normalization leakage matters least; selection leakage at practical dataset sizes matters most.