about
The Scientific Method in the Science of Machine Learning (arxiv.org)
2 points by untilted on May 1, 2019 | hide | past | pdf | discuss on HN

In plain words: Machine learning research often reports results without forming testable hypotheses or measuring uncertainty. Drawing on how physics enforces rigor, a position paper recommends stating hypotheses, testing them, and estimating uncertainty so researchers can explain causes, not just effects.

Abstract

In the quest to align deep learning with the sciences to address calls for rigor, safety, and interpretability in machine learning systems, this contribution identifies key missing pieces: the stages of hypothesis formulation and testing, as well as statistical and systematic uncertainty estimation -- core tenets of the scientific method. This position paper discusses the ways in which contemporary science is conducted in other domains and identifies potentially useful practices. We present a case study from physics and describe how this field has promoted rigor through specific methodological practices, and provide recommendations on how machine learning researchers can adopt these practices into the research ecosystem. We argue that both domain-driven experiments and application-agnostic questions of the inner workings of fundamental building blocks of machine learning models ought to be examined with the tools of the scientific method, to ensure we not only understand effect, but also begin to understand cause, which is the raison d'être of science.

Jessica Zosa Forde, Michela Paganini
arXiv:1904.10922 · cs.LG, stat.ML · submitted Apr 24, 2019
abstract · pdf · html · 4 pages + 1 appendix. Presented at the ICLR 2019 Debugging Machine Learning Models workshop

add comment on HN