Hacker News Reader

Comment by srean | Hacker News Reader

> Then reduce the variance on a Gaussian prior.

Are you sure that doing this after seeing the data is valid and does not suffer from the equivalent of peeking-into-the-test-set problem ? There are ways to address the peeking problem but that requires additional machinery.

I don't dispute your broad claim but the first counterexample you quote seems problematic.

View on HN

You can choose the prior according to any selection rule that does not see the data (actually, you can do more, but justifying this is the realm of empirical Bayes and requires some more precise arguments). In this case, you can choose it according to the model size and provided that your Jacobian is full rank, you will get increasing marginal likelihood.

What threw me off was the (possibly misunderstood) suggestion for minimizing the generalization bound over the prior after the data has been incorporated.

Ah, sorry for the misunderstanding, I can see how my comment reads that way. That is done in the Gaussian process context, not in my first example, and yes, it's a dirty idea, but you can justify it using differential privacy arguments (basically you are optimizing few parameters and these do not have full interaction with the data).

Yeah, I had read one of your parallel comments and understood what you had meant. Differential privacy is a good formulation (well, the only one I know) to deal with the peeking problem in general.

Reply on news.ycombinator.com