Machine Learning and Theory Ladenness -- A Phenomenological Account

• URL: http://arxiv.org/abs/2409.11277v1
• Date: Tue, 17 Sep 2024 15:29:14 GMT
• Title: Machine Learning and Theory Ladenness -- A Phenomenological Account
• Authors: Alberto Termine, Emanuele Ratti, Alessandro Facchini,
• Abstract summary: We argue that both positions are overly simplistic and do not advance our understanding of the interplay between ML methods and domain theories. Our analysis reveals that, while the construction of models can be relatively independent of domain theory, the practical implementation and interpretation of these models within a given specific domain still relies on fundamental theoretical assumptions and background knowledge.
• Score: 44.99833362998488
• License: http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/
• Abstract: In recent years, the dissemination of machine learning (ML) methodologies in scientific research has prompted discussions on theory ladenness. More specifically, the issue of theory ladenness has remerged as questions about whether and how ML models (MLMs) and ML modelling strategies are impacted by the domain theory of the scientific field in which ML is used and implemented (e.g., physics, chemistry, biology, etc). On the one hand, some have argued that there is no difference between traditional (pre ML) and ML assisted science. In both cases, theory plays an essential and unavoidable role in the analysis of phenomena and the construction and use of models. Others have argued instead that ML methodologies and models are theory independent and, in some cases, even theory free. In this article, we argue that both positions are overly simplistic and do not advance our understanding of the interplay between ML methods and domain theories. Specifically, we provide an analysis of theory ladenness in ML assisted science. Our analysis reveals that, while the construction of MLMs can be relatively independent of domain theory, the practical implementation and interpretation of these models within a given specific domain still relies on fundamental theoretical assumptions and background knowledge.

Related papers

• Hypothesis-Driven Theory-of-Mind Reasoning for Large Language Models [76.6028674686018]
  We introduce thought-tracing, an inference-time reasoning algorithm to trace the mental states of agents. Our algorithm is modeled after the Bayesian theory-of-mind framework. We evaluate thought-tracing on diverse theory-of-mind benchmarks, demonstrating significant performance improvements.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2025-02-17T15:08:50Z)
• One Example Shown, Many Concepts Known! Counterexample-Driven Conceptual Reasoning in Mathematical LLMs [57.48325300739872]
  Leveraging mathematical Large Language Models for proof generation is a fundamental topic in LLMs research. We argue that the ability of current LLMs to prove statements largely depends on whether they have encountered the relevant proof process during training. Inspired by the pedagogical method of "proof by counterexamples" commonly used in human mathematics education, our work aims to enhance LLMs' ability to conduct mathematical reasoning and proof through counterexamples.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2025-02-12T02:01:10Z)
• Review and Prospect of Algebraic Research in Equivalent Framework between Statistical Mechanics and Machine Learning Theory [0.0]
  This paper is devoted to the memory of Professor Huzihiro Araki who is a pioneer founder of algebraic research in both statistical mechanics and quantum field theory.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2024-05-31T11:04:13Z)
• Is machine learning good or bad for the natural sciences? [7.41244589428771]
  We 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 without taking on downstream biases.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2024-05-28T12:01:52Z)
• Explainability for Large Language Models: A Survey [59.67574757137078]
  Large language models (LLMs) have demonstrated impressive capabilities in natural language processing. This paper introduces a taxonomy of explainability techniques and provides a structured overview of methods for explaining Transformer-based language models.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2023-09-02T22:14:26Z)
• Logic-Based Explainability in Machine Learning [0.0]
  The operation of the most successful Machine Learning models is incomprehensible for human decision makers. In recent years, there have been efforts on devising approaches for explaining ML models. This paper overviews the ongoing research efforts on computing rigorous model-based explanations of ML models.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2022-10-24T13:43:07Z)
• Scientific Inference With Interpretable Machine Learning: Analyzing Models to Learn About Real-World Phenomena [4.312340306206884]
  Interpretable machine learning offers a solution by analyzing models holistically to derive interpretations. Current IML research is focused on auditing ML models rather than leveraging them for scientific inference. We present a framework for designing IML methods-termed 'property descriptors' that illuminate not just the model, but also the phenomenon it represents.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2022-06-11T10:13:21Z)
• The Need for Interpretable Features: Motivation and Taxonomy [69.07189753428553]
  We claim that the term "interpretable feature" is not specific nor detailed enough to capture the full extent to which features impact the usefulness of machine learning explanations. In this paper, we motivate and discuss three key lessons: 1) more attention should be given to what we refer to as the interpretable feature space, or the state of features that are useful to domain experts taking real-world actions.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2022-02-23T19:19:14Z)
• Learning by Design: Structuring and Documenting the Human Choices in Machine Learning Development [6.903929927172917]
  We present a method consisting of eight design questions that outline the deliberation and normative choices going into creating a machine learning model. Our method affords several benefits, such as supporting critical assessment through methodological transparency. We believe that our method can help ML practitioners structure and justify their choices and assumptions when developing ML models.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2021-05-03T08:47:45Z)
• Machine Learning Force Fields [54.48599172620472]
  Machine Learning (ML) has enabled numerous advances in computational chemistry. One of the most promising applications is the construction of ML-based force fields (FFs) This review gives an overview of applications of ML-FFs and the chemical insights that can be obtained from them.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2020-10-14T13:14:14Z)

This list is automatically generated from the titles and abstracts of the papers in this site.

This site does not guarantee the quality of this site (including all information) and is not responsible for any consequences.