Is machine learning good or bad for the natural sciences?
2405.18095
0
0
Abstract
Machine learning (ML) methods are having a huge impact across all of the sciences. However, ML has a strong ontology - in which only the data exist - and a strong epistemology - in which a model is considered good if it performs well on held-out training data. These philosophies are in strong conflict with both standard practices and key philosophies in the natural sciences. Here we identify some locations for ML in the natural sciences at which the ontology and epistemology are valuable. For example, when an expressive machine learning model is used in a causal inference to represent the effects of confounders, such as foregrounds, backgrounds, or instrument calibration parameters, the model capacity and loose philosophy of ML can make the results more trustworthy. We also show that there are contexts in which the introduction of ML introduces strong, unwanted statistical biases. For one, when ML models are used to emulate physical (or first-principles) simulations, they amplify confirmation biases. For another, when expressive regressions are used to label datasets, those labels cannot be used in downstream joint or ensemble analyses without taking on uncontrolled biases. The question in the title is being asked of all of the natural sciences; that is, we are calling on the scientific communities to take a step back and consider the role and value of ML in their fields; the (partial) answers we give here come from the particular perspective of physics.
Create account to get full access
Overview
- Explores the potential impact of machine learning on natural sciences
- Discusses both the benefits and risks of using machine learning in scientific research
- Highlights the importance of a critical and thoughtful approach to the application of machine learning in the natural sciences
Plain English Explanation
Machine learning, a form of artificial intelligence, has become increasingly prevalent in scientific research across various fields, including the natural sciences. This paper examines the potential influence of machine learning on the natural sciences, considering both the opportunities and challenges it presents.
One of the key benefits of machine learning is its ability to discover new patterns and insights in large and complex datasets that may be beyond the scope of human analysis. This can lead to the development of new theories and the acceleration of scientific discoveries. However, the paper also highlights the potential risks of overreliance on machine learning, such as the introduction of biases and the oversimplification of complex natural phenomena.
The paper emphasizes the need for a critical and thoughtful approach when integrating machine learning into scientific research. Researchers must be aware of the limitations and potential pitfalls of these techniques, and they should strive to combine machine learning with domain-specific knowledge to ensure that the insights generated are scientifically meaningful and aligned with the underlying principles of the natural world.
Technical Explanation
The paper explores the potential impact of machine learning on the natural sciences, considering both the opportunities and challenges it presents. The authors highlight the ability of machine learning to discover new patterns and insights in large and complex datasets, which can lead to the development of new theories and the acceleration of scientific discoveries. However, the paper also emphasizes the potential risks of overreliance on machine learning, such as the introduction of biases and the oversimplification of complex natural phenomena.
The authors stress the need for a critical and thoughtful approach when integrating machine learning into scientific research. They argue that researchers must be aware of the limitations and potential pitfalls of these techniques and should strive to combine machine learning with domain-specific knowledge to ensure that the insights generated are scientifically meaningful and aligned with the underlying principles of the natural world.
Critical Analysis
The paper raises valid concerns about the potential risks of overrelying on machine learning in the natural sciences. While the authors acknowledge the benefits of machine learning, such as its ability to uncover new patterns and accelerate scientific discoveries, they rightly point out the need for a critical and thoughtful approach to its application.
One of the key issues highlighted is the risk of introducing biases into the research process through the use of machine learning. If the data or algorithms used are not carefully curated and validated, the insights generated may be skewed or misleading. The paper also cautions against the oversimplification of complex natural phenomena, which can occur when machine learning models are applied without a deep understanding of the underlying principles.
The authors' emphasis on the importance of combining machine learning with domain-specific knowledge is particularly important. By integrating machine learning with the expertise and understanding of domain experts, researchers can ensure that the insights generated are scientifically meaningful and contribute to the advancement of the natural sciences.
However, the paper could have explored in more depth the specific ways in which machine learning can be responsibly and effectively integrated into scientific research. Additionally, the authors could have provided more concrete examples or case studies to illustrate the potential benefits and risks of machine learning in the natural sciences.
Conclusion
This paper provides a balanced and thoughtful examination of the potential impact of machine learning on the natural sciences. While acknowledging the benefits of machine learning, such as its ability to uncover new patterns and accelerate scientific discoveries, the authors also highlight the need for a critical and responsible approach to its application.
The key takeaway is that machine learning should not be viewed as a silver bullet for scientific research, but rather as a powerful tool that must be used in conjunction with domain-specific knowledge and a deep understanding of the underlying principles of the natural world. By adopting this approach, researchers can harness the full potential of machine learning while mitigating the risks and ensuring that the insights generated are scientifically meaningful and contribute to the advancement of the natural sciences.
This summary was produced with help from an AI and may contain inaccuracies - check out the links to read the original source documents!
Related Papers
🖼️
Opportunities for machine learning in scientific discovery
Ricardo Vinuesa, Jean Rabault, Hossein Azizpour, Stefan Bauer, Bingni W. Brunton, Arne Elofsson, Elias Jarlebring, Hedvig Kjellstrom, Stefano Markidis, David Marlevi, Paola Cinnella, Steven L. Brunton
0
0
Technological advancements have substantially increased computational power and data availability, enabling the application of powerful machine-learning (ML) techniques across various fields. However, our ability to leverage ML methods for scientific discovery, {it i.e.} to obtain fundamental and formalized knowledge about natural processes, is still in its infancy. In this review, we explore how the scientific community can increasingly leverage ML techniques to achieve scientific discoveries. We observe that the applicability and opportunity of ML depends strongly on the nature of the problem domain, and whether we have full ({it e.g.}, turbulence), partial ({it e.g.}, computational biochemistry), or no ({it e.g.}, neuroscience) {it a-priori} knowledge about the governing equations and physical properties of the system. Although challenges remain, principled use of ML is opening up new avenues for fundamental scientific discoveries. Throughout these diverse fields, there is a theme that ML is enabling researchers to embrace complexity in observational data that was previously intractable to classic analysis and numerical investigations.
5/8/2024
Knowledge-guided Machine Learning: Current Trends and Future Prospects
Anuj Karpatne, Xiaowei Jia, Vipin Kumar
0
0
This paper presents an overview of scientific modeling and discusses the complementary strengths and weaknesses of ML methods for scientific modeling in comparison to process-based models. It also provides an introduction to the current state of research in the emerging field of scientific knowledge-guided machine learning (KGML) that aims to use both scientific knowledge and data in ML frameworks to achieve better generalizability, scientific consistency, and explainability of results. We discuss different facets of KGML research in terms of the type of scientific knowledge used, the form of knowledge-ML integration explored, and the method for incorporating scientific knowledge in ML. We also discuss some of the common categories of use cases in environmental sciences where KGML methods are being developed, using illustrative examples in each category.
5/3/2024
✅
Position Paper: Rethinking Empirical Research in Machine Learning: Addressing Epistemic and Methodological Challenges of Experimentation
Moritz Herrmann, F. Julian D. Lange, Katharina Eggensperger, Giuseppe Casalicchio, Marcel Wever, Matthias Feurer, David Rugamer, Eyke Hullermeier, Anne-Laure Boulesteix, Bernd Bischl
0
0
We warn against a common but incomplete understanding of empirical research in machine learning that leads to non-replicable results, makes findings unreliable, and threatens to undermine progress in the field. To overcome this alarming situation, we call for more awareness of the plurality of ways of gaining knowledge experimentally but also of some epistemic limitations. In particular, we argue most current empirical machine learning research is fashioned as confirmatory research while it should rather be considered exploratory.
5/28/2024
🤿
Reliability and Interpretability in Science and Deep Learning
Luigi Scorzato
0
0
In recent years, the question of the reliability of Machine Learning (ML) methods has acquired significant importance, and the analysis of the associated uncertainties has motivated a growing amount of research. However, most of these studies have applied standard error analysis to ML models, and in particular Deep Neural Network (DNN) models, which represent a rather significant departure from standard scientific modelling. It is therefore necessary to integrate the standard error analysis with a deeper epistemological analysis of the possible differences between DNN models and standard scientific modelling and the possible implications of these differences in the assessment of reliability. This article offers several contributions. First, it emphasises the ubiquitous role of model assumptions (both in ML and traditional Science) against the illusion of theory-free science. Secondly, model assumptions are analysed from the point of view of their (epistemic) complexity, which is shown to be language-independent. It is argued that the high epistemic complexity of DNN models hinders the estimate of their reliability and also their prospect of long-term progress. Some potential ways forward are suggested. Thirdly, this article identifies the close relation between a model's epistemic complexity and its interpretability, as introduced in the context of responsible AI. This clarifies in which sense, and to what extent, the lack of understanding of a model (black-box problem) impacts its interpretability in a way that is independent of individual skills. It also clarifies how interpretability is a precondition for assessing the reliability of any model, which cannot be based on statistical analysis alone. This article focuses on the comparison between traditional scientific models and DNN models. But, Random Forest and Logistic Regression models are also briefly considered.
6/13/2024