Priyanka Nanayakkara

Sayash Kapoor, Emily Cantrell, Kenny Peng et al. · princeton

Machine learning (ML) methods are proliferating in scientific research. However, the adoption of these methods has been accompanied by failures of validity, reproducibility, and generalizability. These failures can hinder scientific progress, lead to false consensus around invalid claims, and undermine the credibility of ML-based science. ML methods are often applied and fail in similar ways across disciplines. Motivated by this observation, our goal is to provide clear reporting standards for ML-based science. Drawing from an extensive review of past literature, we present the REFORMS checklist ($\textbf{Re}$porting Standards $\textbf{For}$ $\textbf{M}$achine Learning Based $\textbf{S}$cience). It consists of 32 questions and a paired set of guidelines. REFORMS was developed based on a consensus of 19 researchers across computer science, data science, mathematics, social sciences, and biomedical sciences. REFORMS can serve as a resource for researchers when designing and implementing a study, for referees when reviewing papers, and for journals when enforcing standards for transparency and reproducibility.

Jessica Hullman, Sayash Kapoor, Priyanka Nanayakkara et al.

Recent arguments that machine learning (ML) is facing a reproducibility and replication crisis suggest that some published claims in ML research cannot be taken at face value. These concerns inspire analogies to the replication crisis affecting the social and medical sciences. They also inspire calls for the integration of statistical approaches to causal inference and predictive modeling. A deeper understanding of what reproducibility concerns in supervised ML research have in common with the replication crisis in experimental science puts the new concerns in perspective, and helps researchers avoid "the worst of both worlds," where ML researchers begin borrowing methodologies from explanatory modeling without understanding their limitations and vice versa. We contribute a comparative analysis of concerns about inductive learning that arise in causal attribution as exemplified in psychology versus predictive modeling as exemplified in ML. We identify themes that re-occur in reform discussions, like overreliance on asymptotic theory and non-credible beliefs about real-world data generating processes. We argue that in both fields, claims from learning are implied to generalize outside the specific environment studied (e.g., the input dataset or subject sample, modeling implementation, etc.) but are often impossible to refute due to undisclosed sources of variance in the learning pipeline. In particular, errors being acknowledged in ML expose cracks in long-held beliefs that optimizing predictive accuracy using huge datasets absolves one from having to consider a true data generating process or formally represent uncertainty in performance claims. We conclude by discussing risks that arise when sources of errors are misdiagnosed and the need to acknowledge the role of human inductive biases in learning and reform.

Priyanka Nanayakkara, Johes Bater, Xi He et al.

Organizations often collect private data and release aggregate statistics for the public's benefit. If no steps toward preserving privacy are taken, adversaries may use released statistics to deduce unauthorized information about the individuals described in the private dataset. Differentially private algorithms address this challenge by slightly perturbing underlying statistics with noise, thereby mathematically limiting the amount of information that may be deduced from each data release. Properly calibrating these algorithms -- and in turn the disclosure risk for people described in the dataset -- requires a data curator to choose a value for a privacy budget parameter, $ε$. However, there is little formal guidance for choosing $ε$, a task that requires reasoning about the probabilistic privacy-utility trade-off. Furthermore, choosing $ε$ in the context of statistical inference requires reasoning about accuracy trade-offs in the presence of both measurement error and differential privacy (DP) noise. We present Visualizing Privacy (ViP), an interactive interface that visualizes relationships between $ε$, accuracy, and disclosure risk to support setting and splitting $ε$ among queries. As a user adjusts $ε$, ViP dynamically updates visualizations depicting expected accuracy and risk. ViP also has an inference setting, allowing a user to reason about the impact of DP noise on statistical inferences. Finally, we present results of a study where 16 research practitioners with little to no DP background completed a set of tasks related to setting $ε$ using both ViP and a control. We find that ViP helps participants more correctly answer questions related to judging the probability of where a DP-noised release is likely to fall and comparing between DP-noised and non-private confidence intervals.