How to avoid machine learning pitfalls: a guide for academic researchers

Read original: arXiv:2108.02497 - Published 8/30/2024 by Michael A. Lones
Total Score

4

📊

Sign in to get full access

or

If you already have an account, we'll log you in

Overview

  • Mistakes in machine learning practice are common
  • Mistakes can lead to a loss of confidence in machine learning findings and products
  • This guide outlines common mistakes and how to avoid them
  • Focuses on issues in academic research, such as the need for rigorous comparisons and valid conclusions
  • Covers 5 stages of the machine learning process

Plain English Explanation

Using machine learning can be tricky, and it's easy to make mistakes that undermine the reliability of the results. This guide explains some of the most common errors that can crop up when doing machine learning, and how to steer clear of them. It's especially aimed at researchers working in academia, who need to make sure their comparisons are thorough and their conclusions are sound. The guide covers the key steps in the machine learning process, from what to do before building models, to how to properly evaluate and compare them, all the way to reporting the findings.

Technical Explanation

The guide outlines common mistakes that occur when using machine learning and how to avoid them. It focuses on issues that are particularly relevant in academic research, such as the need to do rigorous comparisons and reach valid conclusions.

The guide covers five stages of the machine learning process:

  1. What to do before model building: Ensuring the right problem is being solved and the data is appropriate.
  2. How to reliably build models: Proper model design, training, and validation.
  3. How to robustly evaluate models: Comprehensive and unbiased evaluation methods.
  4. How to compare models fairly: Conducting rigorous and fair model comparisons.
  5. How to report results: Transparent and complete reporting of findings.

By addressing these key areas, the guide aims to help researchers and practitioners avoid common pitfalls and produce reliable, trustworthy machine learning results.

Critical Analysis

The guide provides a comprehensive overview of the common mistakes that can occur in machine learning practice, particularly in the context of academic research. It rightly emphasizes the need for rigor and validity throughout the entire machine learning process, from problem definition to model evaluation and comparison.

One potential limitation of the guide is that it may not fully address the unique challenges and considerations that arise when deploying machine learning models in real-world, production environments. The paper on challenges in deploying machine learning models could provide a helpful complement to this guide.

Additionally, the guide could benefit from a more in-depth discussion of issues related to fairness and bias in machine learning, as these are crucial concerns that can significantly impact the reliability and trustworthiness of machine learning systems.

Overall, the guide is a valuable resource for researchers and practitioners looking to improve the quality and rigor of their machine learning work. Encouraging critical thinking and a nuanced understanding of the limitations and potential pitfalls of machine learning is an important step in advancing the field and building confidence in its findings and applications.

Conclusion

This guide provides a comprehensive overview of the common mistakes that can occur in machine learning practice, particularly in academic research. By addressing key stages of the machine learning process, from problem definition to model reporting, the guide aims to help researchers and practitioners produce more reliable and trustworthy results.

While the guide does not fully address the unique challenges of deploying machine learning models in production environments or the important issues of fairness and bias, it is a valuable resource for improving the overall quality and rigor of machine learning work. Encouraging critical thinking and a nuanced understanding of the limitations and potential pitfalls of machine learning is crucial for advancing the field and building confidence in its findings and applications.



This summary was produced with help from an AI and may contain inaccuracies - check out the links to read the original source documents!

Follow @aimodelsfyi on 𝕏 →

Related Papers

📊

Total Score

4

How to avoid machine learning pitfalls: a guide for academic researchers

Michael A. Lones

Mistakes in machine learning practice are commonplace, and can result in a loss of confidence in the findings and products of machine learning. This guide outlines common mistakes that occur when using machine learning, and what can be done to avoid them. Whilst it should be accessible to anyone with a basic understanding of machine learning techniques, it focuses on issues that are of particular concern within academic research, such as the need to do rigorous comparisons and reach valid conclusions. It covers five stages of the machine learning process: what to do before model building, how to reliably build models, how to robustly evaluate models, how to compare models fairly, and how to report results.

Read more

8/30/2024

🔄

Total Score

0

Unraveling overoptimism and publication bias in ML-driven science

Pouria Saidi, Gautam Dasarathy, Visar Berisha

Machine Learning (ML) is increasingly used across many disciplines with impressive reported results. However, recent studies suggest published performance of ML models are often overoptimistic. Validity concerns are underscored by findings of an inverse relationship between sample size and reported accuracy in published ML models, contrasting with the theory of learning curves where accuracy should improve or remain stable with increasing sample size. This paper investigates factors contributing to overoptimism in ML-driven science, focusing on overfitting and publication bias. We introduce a novel stochastic model for observed accuracy, integrating parametric learning curves and the aforementioned biases. We construct an estimator that corrects for these biases in observed data. Theoretical and empirical results show that our framework can estimate the underlying learning curve, providing realistic performance assessments from published results. Applying the model to meta-analyses of classifications of neurological conditions, we estimate the inherent limits of ML-based prediction in each domain.

Read more

7/15/2024

Questionable practices in machine learning
Total Score

0

Questionable practices in machine learning

Gavin Leech, Juan J. Vazquez, Misha Yagudin, Niclas Kupper, Laurence Aitchison

Evaluating modern ML models is hard. The strong incentive for researchers and companies to report a state-of-the-art result on some metric often leads to questionable research practices (QRPs): bad practices which fall short of outright research fraud. We describe 43 such practices which can undermine reported results, giving examples where possible. Our list emphasises the evaluation of large language models (LLMs) on public benchmarks. We also discuss irreproducible research practices, i.e. decisions that make it difficult or impossible for other researchers to reproduce, build on or audit previous research.

Read more

7/18/2024

🏷️

Total Score

0

Beyond development: Challenges in deploying machine learning models for structural engineering applications

Mohsen Zaker Esteghamati, Brennan Bean, Henry V. Burton, M. Z. Naser

Machine learning (ML)-based solutions are rapidly changing the landscape of many fields, including structural engineering. Despite their promising performance, these approaches are usually only demonstrated as proof-of-concept in structural engineering, and are rarely deployed for real-world applications. This paper aims to illustrate the challenges of developing ML models suitable for deployment through two illustrative examples. Among various pitfalls, the presented discussion focuses on model overfitting and underspecification, training data representativeness, variable omission bias, and cross-validation. The results highlight the importance of implementing rigorous model validation techniques through adaptive sampling, careful physics-informed feature selection, and considerations of both model complexity and generalizability.

Read more

4/22/2024