Reducing cross-sample prediction churn in scientific machine learning

Small-to-medium scientific datasets place machine learning pipelines under two compounding pressures. Single-run feature selection produces feature sets that change substantially under small perturbations of the training data, and any procedure that uses the same data for selection, tuning, and evaluation produces optimistically biased performance estimates. The two failure modes are routinely treated as separable, but in the regimes where scientific data live, they interact: an unstable selection inflates the variance of an already-optimistic score, and standard remedies for one rarely address the other. RobustModelMaker is a Python framework that couples bootstrap stability selection with strict nested cross-validation, performs all preprocessing and selection inside each fold, and produces a stability-tested feature subset together with a leakage-safe performance estimate. The framework supports nine algorithms across binary classification, multiclass classification, and regression. Behaviour is verified by a deterministic test suite spanning unit, performance, and reproducibility checks on three real scientific datasets comparing to three alternative selectors (ANOVA F-test, recursive feature elimination with cross-validation, and Boruta) on both predictive score and a Jaccard measure of selection stability. RobustModelMaker is competitive in score with the best alternative selector on each dataset, and occupies a position on the joint score-stability frontier that none of the alternatives match across all three task types. Two example applications, ovarian cancer biomarker discovery from the PLCO Trial and critical-temperature regression on the UCI Superconductivity Data, illustrate how the framework is used in practice and what trade-offs become visible when stability is treated as a first-class deliverable rather than an emergent property.

Modern machine learning progresses through empirical work, benchmarking new methods to evaluate relative performance. However, the statistical variability inherent to evaluation - exacerbated by the stochastic nature of many algorithms - often makes performance estimation unreliable due to the limited test samples available, leading to a validation crisis in which genuine advances are difficult to discern. In this work, we show that cross-validation improves markedly confidence when evaluating and comparing learning algorithm performances. We introduce the concept of sample gain, which quantifies the virtual data augmentation achieved by using multiple cross-validation splits to reduce benchmarking variance. Experiments on both synthetic and real-world datasets (histopathologic scans and NLP fine-tuning) demonstrate that multiple splits can substantially improve the reliability and stability of performance estimates, with diminishing returns often setting in later than expected. We also introduce a procedure to dynamically early-stop cross-validation by estimating from the first few folds if subsequent folds will bring large sample gains. Our findings highlight the value of pushing cross-validation on available samples to achieve robust and reliable benchmarking.

Data leakage -- contamination of a model with information unavailable at baseline -- is the dominant reproducibility failure in machine-learning-based science, yet detection tools require training code, external data, or domain expertise. None operates on the artifact an auditor most often holds: the model's output. We ask what can be decided about leakage from predictions and outcomes alone. We give a decision-theoretic framework in which leakage diagnostics are functionals of the predicted-risk/outcome law, parameterized by a threshold-weighting linked to proper scoring rules and decision-curve analysis. We prove a sharp impossibility: a recalibrated leak matching an honest model's calibration and discrimination is indistinguishable from honest performance by \emph{any} function of the predictions, so the broad class is detectable only against an externally supplied ceiling on achievable discrimination. We then prove what leakage cannot hide: a near-deterministic subgroup -- the signature of a near-label leak -- produces a sustained unit-purity head that no legitimate predictor of a non-deterministic outcome can manufacture, yielding a prior-free test. These results organize leakage into a trichotomy -- miscalibrated, broad-calibrated, and deterministic -- each with a matched detector and failure mode. We validate on UK Biobank using time-windowed comorbidity leakage with known, graded severity, measuring a detection floor of $Δ\cstar \approx 0.007$ on this endpoint, below which residual leakage is undetectable from output and too small to alter conclusions. The numerical floor is cohort- and endpoint-specific; the structural lesson is general: output-only detection fails where residual leakage is indistinguishable from an honestly stronger predictor. The test returns a verdict on a prediction vector in under a second on commodity hardware.