Leakage and the Reproducibility Crisis in ML-based Science

AI-generated keywords: Data leakage Reproducibility ML-based Science Model info sheets Logistic Regression

AI-generated Key Points

The license of the paper does not allow us to build upon its content and the key points are generated using the paper metadata rather than the full article.

  • Machine learning (ML) methods are widely used in scientific fields for prediction and forecasting.
  • Data leakage is a significant issue that can lead to reproducibility failures in ML-based science.
  • The authors conducted a systematic investigation and found data leakage to be prevalent in 17 fields, affecting 329 papers.
  • They propose a fine-grained taxonomy of eight types of leakage to understand the problem better.
  • The authors argue for fundamental methodological changes to prevent cases of leakage from being published.
  • Model info sheets are proposed as a reporting mechanism to address all types of leakage and detect instances before publication.
  • A reproducibility study in civil war prediction shows that papers claiming superior performance by complex ML models fail to reproduce due to data leakage.
  • Complex ML models do not significantly outperform older statistical models like Logistic Regression (LR).
  • Model info sheets could have helped detect these errors, emphasizing their importance as a reporting standard.
Also access our AI generated: Comprehensive summary, Lay summary, Blog-like article; or ask questions about this paper to our AI assistant.

Authors: Sayash Kapoor, Arvind Narayanan

Abstract: The use of machine learning (ML) methods for prediction and forecasting has become widespread across the quantitative sciences. However, there are many known methodological pitfalls, including data leakage, in ML-based science. In this paper, we systematically investigate reproducibility issues in ML-based science. We show that data leakage is indeed a widespread problem and has led to severe reproducibility failures. Specifically, through a survey of literature in research communities that adopted ML methods, we find 17 fields where errors have been found, collectively affecting 329 papers and in some cases leading to wildly overoptimistic conclusions. Based on our survey, we present a fine-grained taxonomy of 8 types of leakage that range from textbook errors to open research problems. We argue for fundamental methodological changes to ML-based science so that cases of leakage can be caught before publication. To that end, we propose model info sheets for reporting scientific claims based on ML models that would address all types of leakage identified in our survey. To investigate the impact of reproducibility errors and the efficacy of model info sheets, we undertake a reproducibility study in a field where complex ML models are believed to vastly outperform older statistical models such as Logistic Regression (LR): civil war prediction. We find that all papers claiming the superior performance of complex ML models compared to LR models fail to reproduce due to data leakage, and complex ML models don't perform substantively better than decades-old LR models. While none of these errors could have been caught by reading the papers, model info sheets would enable the detection of leakage in each case.

Submitted to arXiv on 14 Jul. 2022

Ask questions about this paper to our AI assistant

You can also chat with multiple papers at once here.

The license of the paper does not allow us to build upon its content and the AI assistant only knows about the paper metadata rather than the full article.

AI assistant instructions?

Results of the summarizing process for the arXiv paper: 2207.07048v1

This paper's license doesn't allow us to build upon its content and the summarizing process is here made with the paper's metadata rather than the article.

In the paper "Leakage and the Reproducibility Crisis in ML-based Science," authors Sayash Kapoor and Arvind Narayanan address the widespread use of machine learning (ML) methods for prediction and forecasting in various scientific fields. They highlight the methodological pitfalls, particularly data leakage, that can lead to severe reproducibility failures in ML-based science. The authors conduct a systematic investigation into reproducibility issues in ML-based science and find that data leakage is indeed a prevalent problem. They analyze literature from research communities that have adopted ML methods and identify 17 fields where errors related to data leakage have been found. These errors collectively affect 329 papers and, in some cases, result in overly optimistic conclusions. To provide a comprehensive understanding of data leakage, the authors present a fine-grained taxonomy of eight types of leakage ranging from textbook errors to open research problems. They argue for fundamental methodological changes to ML-based science to prevent cases of leakage from being published. To address this issue, Kapoor and Narayanan propose model info sheets as a reporting mechanism for scientific claims based on ML models. These info sheets aim to address all types of leakage identified in their survey by providing detailed information about the models used and potential sources of data leakage which can help detect instances of leakage before publication. To investigate the impact of reproducibility errors and evaluate the effectiveness of model info sheets, the authors undertake a reproducibility study in the field of civil war prediction. In this field, complex ML models are believed to outperform older statistical models such as Logistic Regression (LR). However, their study reveals that all papers claiming superior performance by complex ML models compared to LR models fail to reproduce due to data leakage. Furthermore, they find that complex ML models do not significantly outperform decades-old LR models. The authors emphasize that these errors could not have been caught by simply reading the papers but could have been detected through the use of model info sheets. They conclude that adopting model info sheets as a reporting standard can help identify and prevent data leakage, ultimately improving the reproducibility of ML-based science.
Created on 22 Aug. 2023

Assess the quality of the AI-generated content by voting

Score: 0

Why do we need votes?

Votes are used to determine whether we need to re-run our summarizing tools. If the count reaches -10, our tools can be restarted.

The previous summary was created more than a year ago and can be re-run (if necessary) by clicking on the Run button below.

The license of this specific paper does not allow us to build upon its content and the summarizing tools will be run using the paper metadata rather than the full article. However, it still does a good job, and you can also try our tools on papers with more open licenses.

Similar papers summarized with our AI tools

Navigate through even more similar papers through a

tree representation

Look for similar papers (in beta version)

By clicking on the button above, our algorithm will scan all papers in our database to find the closest based on the contents of the full papers and not just on metadata. Please note that it only works for papers that we have generated summaries for and you can rerun it from time to time to get a more accurate result while our database grows.

Disclaimer: The AI-based summarization tool and virtual assistant provided on this website may not always provide accurate and complete summaries or responses. We encourage you to carefully review and evaluate the generated content to ensure its quality and relevance to your needs.