The reviewed record of science sign in
Pith

arxiv: 2204.07610 · v2 · pith:YGZ7LHQJ · submitted 2022-04-15 · cs.LG · cs.AI

Sources of Irreproducibility in Machine Learning: A Review

Reviewed by Pith T0 review T1 audit T2 compute T3 formal T4 kernel pith:YGZ7LHQJrecord.jsonopen to challenge →

classification cs.LG cs.AI
keywords frameworkconclusionsexperimentslearningmachinedesignexperimentfactors
0
0 comments X
read the original abstract

Background: Many published machine learning studies are irreproducible. Issues with methodology and not properly accounting for variation introduced by the algorithm themselves or their implementations are attributed as the main contributors to the irreproducibility.Problem: There exist no theoretical framework that relates experiment design choices to potential effects on the conclusions. Without such a framework, it is much harder for practitioners and researchers to evaluate experiment results and describe the limitations of experiments. The lack of such a framework also makes it harder for independent researchers to systematically attribute the causes of failed reproducibility experiments. Objective: The objective of this paper is to develop a framework that enable applied data science practitioners and researchers to understand which experiment design choices can lead to false findings and how and by this help in analyzing the conclusions of reproducibility experiments. Method: We have compiled an extensive list of factors reported in the literature that can lead to machine learning studies being irreproducible. These factors are organized and categorized in a reproducibility framework motivated by the stages of the scientific method. The factors are analyzed for how they can affect the conclusions drawn from experiments. A model comparison study is used as an example. Conclusion: We provide a framework that describes machine learning methodology from experimental design decisions to the conclusions inferred from them.

This paper has not been read by Pith yet.

discussion (0)

Sign in with ORCID, Apple, or X to comment. Anyone can read and Pith papers without signing in.

Forward citations

Cited by 3 Pith papers

Reviewed papers in the Pith corpus that reference this work. Sorted by Pith novelty score.

  1. The Shift Toward Open and Reproducible AI Research

    cs.AI 2026-06 unverdicted novelty 5.0

    Analysis of 56,800 AI conference papers shows code and data sharing rose from 11% to 64% from 2014 to 2024, with inferred reproducibility increasing from 28% to 64%.

  2. The Shift Toward Open and Reproducible AI Research

    cs.AI 2026-06 unverdicted novelty 5.0

    Longitudinal study of 56,800 AI papers finds sixfold increase in code+data sharing from 2014-2024 with inferred reproducibility rising from 28% to 64%.

  3. Position: Ideas Should be the Center of Machine Learning Research

    cs.LG 2026-05 conditional novelty 4.0

    Machine learning research should prioritize ideas by testing their predicted behavioral signatures in modern models through custom experiments instead of leaderboard chasing or abstract theorems.