Making Progress Based on False Discoveries

The study of adaptive data analysis examines how many statistical queries can be answered accurately using a fixed dataset while avoiding false discoveries (statistically inaccurate answers). In this paper, we tackle a question that precedes the field of study: Is data only valuable when it provides accurate answers to statistical queries? To answer this question, we use Stochastic Convex Optimization as a case study. In this model, algorithms are considered as analysts who query an estimate of the gradient of a noisy function at each iteration and move towards its minimizer. It is known that $O(1/\epsilon^2)$ examples can be used to minimize the objective function, but none of the existing methods depend on the accuracy of the estimated gradients along the trajectory. Therefore, we ask: How many samples are needed to minimize a noisy convex function if we require $\epsilon$-accurate estimates of $O(1/\epsilon^2)$ gradients? Or, might it be that inaccurate gradient estimates are \emph{necessary} for finding the minimum of a stochastic convex function at an optimal statistical rate? We provide two partial answers to this question. First, we show that a general analyst (queries that may be maliciously chosen) requires $\Omega(1/\epsilon^3)$ samples, ruling out the possibility of a foolproof mechanism. Second, we show that, under certain assumptions on the oracle, $\tilde \Omega(1/\epsilon^{2.5})$ samples are necessary for gradient descent to interact with the oracle. Our results are in contrast to classical bounds that show that $O(1/\epsilon^2)$ samples can optimize the population risk to an accuracy of $O(\epsilon)$, but with spurious gradients.