Machine learning methods are commonly evaluated and compared by their performance on data sets from public repositories. This allows for multiple methods, oftentimes several thousands, to be evaluated under identical conditions and across time. The highest ranked performance on a problem is referred to as state-of-the-art (SOTA) performance, and is used, among other things, as a reference point for publication of new methods. Using the highest-ranked performance as an estimate for SOTA is a biased estimator, giving overly optimistic results. The mechanisms at play are those of multiplicity, a topic that is well-studied in the context of multiple comparisons and multiple testing, but has, as far as the authors are aware of, been nearly absent from the discussion regarding SOTA estimates. The optimistic state-of-the-art estimate is used as a standard for evaluating new methods, and methods with substantial inferior results are easily overlooked. In this article, we provide a probability distribution for the case of multiple classifiers so that known analyses methods can be engaged and a better SOTA estimate can be provided. We demonstrate the impact of multiplicity through a simulated example with independent classifiers. We show how classifier dependency impacts the variance, but also that the impact is limited when the accuracy is high. Finally, we discuss a real-world example; a Kaggle competition from 2020.

翻译：暂无翻译