Good practices for evaluation of machine learning systems

• URL: http://arxiv.org/abs/2412.03700v1
• Date: Wed, 04 Dec 2024 20:30:16 GMT
• Title: Good practices for evaluation of machine learning systems
• Authors: Luciana Ferrer, Odette Scharenborg, Tom Bäckström,
• Abstract summary: We discuss the main aspects involved in the design of the evaluation protocol: data selection, metric selection, and statistical significance.<n>We include examples taken from the speech processing field, and provide a list of common mistakes related to each aspect.
• Score: 28.2601701453212
• License: http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/
• Abstract: Many development decisions affect the results obtained from ML experiments: training data, features, model architecture, hyperparameters, test data, etc. Among these aspects, arguably the most important design decisions are those that involve the evaluation procedure. This procedure is what determines whether the conclusions drawn from the experiments will or will not generalize to unseen data and whether they will be relevant to the application of interest. If the data is incorrectly selected, the wrong metric is chosen for evaluation or the significance of the comparisons between models is overestimated, conclusions may be misleading or result in suboptimal development decisions. To avoid such problems, the evaluation protocol should be very carefully designed before experimentation starts. In this work we discuss the main aspects involved in the design of the evaluation protocol: data selection, metric selection, and statistical significance. This document is not meant to be an exhaustive tutorial on each of these aspects. Instead, the goal is to explain the main guidelines that should be followed in each case. We include examples taken from the speech processing field, and provide a list of common mistakes related to each aspect.

Related papers

• Existing Large Language Model Unlearning Evaluations Are Inconclusive [105.55899615056573]
  We show that some evaluations introduce substantial new information into the model, potentially masking true unlearning performance.<n>We demonstrate that evaluation outcomes vary significantly across tasks, undermining the generalizability of current evaluation routines.<n>We propose two principles for future unlearning evaluations: minimal information injection and downstream task awareness.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2025-05-31T19:43:00Z)
• Data Fusion for Partial Identification of Causal Effects [62.56890808004615]
  We propose a novel partial identification framework that enables researchers to answer key questions.<n>Is the causal effect positive or negative? and How severe must assumption violations be to overturn this conclusion?<n>We apply our framework to the Project STAR study, which investigates the effect of classroom size on students' third-grade standardized test performance.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2025-05-30T07:13:01Z)
• Probably Approximately Precision and Recall Learning [62.912015491907994]
  Precision and Recall are foundational metrics in machine learning. One-sided feedback--where only positive examples are observed during training--is inherent in many practical problems. We introduce a PAC learning framework where each hypothesis is represented by a graph, with edges indicating positive interactions.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2024-11-20T04:21:07Z)
• Diverging Preferences: When do Annotators Disagree and do Models Know? [92.24651142187989]
  We develop a taxonomy of disagreement sources spanning 10 categories across four high-level classes. We find that the majority of disagreements are in opposition with standard reward modeling approaches. We develop methods for identifying diverging preferences to mitigate their influence on evaluation and training.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2024-10-18T17:32:22Z)
• One Model Many Scores: Using Multiverse Analysis to Prevent Fairness Hacking and Evaluate the Influence of Model Design Decisions [4.362723406385396]
  We show how multiverse analysis can be used to better understand fairness implications of design and evaluation decisions. Our results highlight how decisions regarding the evaluation of a system can lead to vastly different fairness metrics for the same model.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2023-08-31T12:32:43Z)
• In Search of Insights, Not Magic Bullets: Towards Demystification of the Model Selection Dilemma in Heterogeneous Treatment Effect Estimation [92.51773744318119]
  This paper empirically investigates the strengths and weaknesses of different model selection criteria. We highlight that there is a complex interplay between selection strategies, candidate estimators and the data used for comparing them.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2023-02-06T16:55:37Z)
• Efficient Real-world Testing of Causal Decision Making via Bayesian Experimental Design for Contextual Optimisation [12.37745209793872]
  We introduce a model-agnostic framework for gathering data to evaluate and improve contextual decision making. Our method is used for the data-efficient evaluation of the regret of past treatment assignments.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2022-07-12T01:20:11Z)
• Injecting Planning-Awareness into Prediction and Detection Evaluation [42.228191984697006]
  We take a step back and critically assess current evaluation metrics, proposing task-aware metrics as a better measure of performance in systems where they are deployed. Experiments on an illustrative simulation as well as real-world autonomous driving data validate that our proposed task-aware metrics are able to account for outcome asymmetry and provide a better estimate of a model's closed-loop performance.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2021-10-07T08:52:48Z)
• Information Theoretic Measures for Fairness-aware Feature Selection [27.06618125828978]
  We develop a framework for fairness-aware feature selection, based on information theoretic measures for the accuracy and discriminatory impacts of features. Specifically, our goal is to design a fairness utility score for each feature which quantifies how this feature influences accurate as well as nondiscriminatory decisions.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2021-06-01T20:11:54Z)
• Leveraging Expert Consistency to Improve Algorithmic Decision Support [62.61153549123407]
  We explore the use of historical expert decisions as a rich source of information that can be combined with observed outcomes to narrow the construct gap. We propose an influence function-based methodology to estimate expert consistency indirectly when each case in the data is assessed by a single expert. Our empirical evaluation, using simulations in a clinical setting and real-world data from the child welfare domain, indicates that the proposed approach successfully narrows the construct gap.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2021-01-24T05:40:29Z)
• Models, Pixels, and Rewards: Evaluating Design Trade-offs in Visual Model-Based Reinforcement Learning [109.74041512359476]
  We study a number of design decisions for the predictive model in visual MBRL algorithms. We find that a range of design decisions that are often considered crucial, such as the use of latent spaces, have little effect on task performance. We show how this phenomenon is related to exploration and how some of the lower-scoring models on standard benchmarks will perform the same as the best-performing models when trained on the same training data.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2020-12-08T18:03:21Z)
• Counterfactual Predictions under Runtime Confounding [74.90756694584839]
  We study the counterfactual prediction task in the setting where all relevant factors are captured in the historical data. We propose a doubly-robust procedure for learning counterfactual prediction models in this setting.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2020-06-30T15:49:05Z)

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.