Sebastian Lobentanzer

Omar Benjelloun, Leonardo Martins Bianco, Isabelle Guyon et al.

Reproducibility is fundamental to the scientific method, yet remains a critical challenge in machine learning. Contributing factors include underspecified execution details and brittle software environments. Human-centric remedies, such as checklists and manual verification, help but require intensive effort and fail to scale. To address this, we introduce Croissant Tasks: a declarative, machine-actionable metadata format that abstracts low-level implementation details into high-level specifications. This format enables conceptual reproducibility: verifying claims via independent, agent-generated implementations rather than brittle source code replication. We contribute: (1) the Croissant Tasks specification, formally decoupling task problem from solution; (2) an automated LLM pipeline that retrofits existing benchmarks into this format; and (3) empirical validation showing autonomous agents can ingest these specifications to generate functional, accurate reproduction pipelines from scratch. We envision this format as a new foundation for automated and conceptual reproducibility in machine learning.

Rafi Al Attrach, Rajna Fani, Sebastian Lobentanzer et al.

Croissant has emerged as the metadata standard for machine learning datasets, providing a structured, JSON-LD-based format that makes dataset discovery, automated ingestion, and reproducible analysis machine-checkable across ML platforms. Adoption has accelerated, and NeurIPS now requires Croissant metadata in every submission to its dataset tracks. Yet in practice Croissant generation usually starts with uploading data to a public platform, a path infeasible for governed and large local repositories that hold much of the high-value data ML increasingly relies on. We release Croissant Baker, a local-first, open-source command-line tool that generates validated Croissant metadata directly from a dataset directory through a modular handler registry. We evaluate Croissant Baker on over 140 datasets, scaling to MIMIC-IV at 886 million rows and 374 Parquet files. On held-out comparisons against producer-authored or standards-derived ground truth, Croissant Baker reaches 97-100% agreement across multiple domains.

Gregor von Laszewski, Wesley Brewer, Jeyan Thiyagalingam et al.

Benchmarks are a cornerstone of modern machine learning, enabling reproducibility, comparison, and scientific progress. However, AI benchmarks are increasingly complex, requiring dynamic, AI-focused workflows. Rapid evolution in model architectures, scale, datasets, and deployment contexts makes evaluation a moving target. Large language models often memorize static benchmarks, causing a gap between benchmark results and real-world performance. Beyond traditional static benchmarks, continuous adaptive benchmarking frameworks are needed to align scientific assessment with deployment risks. This calls for skills and education in AI Benchmark Carpentry. From our experience with MLCommons, educational initiatives, and programs like the DOE's Trillion Parameter Consortium, key barriers include high resource demands, limited access to specialized hardware, lack of benchmark design expertise, and uncertainty in relating results to application domains. Current benchmarks often emphasize peak performance on top-tier hardware, offering limited guidance for diverse, real-world scenarios. Benchmarking must become dynamic, incorporating evolving models, updated data, and heterogeneous platforms while maintaining transparency, reproducibility, and interpretability. Democratization requires both technical innovation and systematic education across levels, building sustained expertise in benchmark design and use. Benchmarks should support application-relevant comparisons, enabling informed, context-sensitive decisions. Dynamic, inclusive benchmarking will ensure evaluation keeps pace with AI evolution and supports responsible, reproducible, and accessible AI deployment. Community efforts can provide a foundation for AI Benchmark Carpentry.

Sebastian Lobentanzer

Agentic AI systems are deployed with expectations of substantial productivity gains, yet rigorous empirical evidence reveals systematic discrepancies between pre-deployment expectations and post-deployment outcomes. We review controlled trials and independent validations across software engineering, clinical documentation, and clinical decision support to quantify this expectation-realisation gap. In software development, experienced developers expected a 24% speedup from AI tools but were slowed by 19% -- a 43 percentage-point calibration error. In clinical documentation, vendor claims of multi-minute time savings contrast with measured reductions of less than one minute per note, and one widely deployed tool showed no statistically significant effect. In clinical decision support, externally validated performance falls substantially below developer-reported metrics. These shortfalls are driven by workflow integration friction, verification burden, measurement construct mismatches, and systematic variation in who benefits and who does not. The evidence motivates structured planning frameworks that require explicit, quantified benefit expectations with human oversight costs factored in.