Christine R. Kirkpatrick

Mark Mazumder, Colby Banbury, Xiaozhe Yao et al.

Machine learning research has long focused on models rather than datasets, and prominent datasets are used for common ML tasks without regard to the breadth, difficulty, and faithfulness of the underlying problems. Neglecting the fundamental importance of data has given rise to inaccuracy, bias, and fragility in real-world applications, and research is hindered by saturation across existing dataset benchmarks. In response, we present DataPerf, a community-led benchmark suite for evaluating ML datasets and data-centric algorithms. We aim to foster innovation in data-centric AI through competition, comparability, and reproducibility. We enable the ML community to iterate on datasets, instead of just architectures, and we provide an open, online platform with multiple rounds of challenges to support this iterative development. The first iteration of DataPerf contains five benchmarks covering a wide spectrum of data-centric techniques, tasks, and modalities in vision, speech, acquisition, debugging, and diffusion prompting, and we support hosting new contributed benchmarks from the community. The benchmarks, online evaluation platform, and baseline implementations are open source, and the MLCommons Association will maintain DataPerf to ensure long-term benefits to academia and industry.

E. A. Huerta, Ben Blaiszik, L. Catherine Brinson et al.

A foundational set of findable, accessible, interoperable, and reusable (FAIR) principles were proposed in 2016 as prerequisites for proper data management and stewardship, with the goal of enabling the reusability of scholarly data. The principles were also meant to apply to other digital assets, at a high level, and over time, the FAIR guiding principles have been re-interpreted or extended to include the software, tools, algorithms, and workflows that produce data. FAIR principles are now being adapted in the context of AI models and datasets. Here, we present the perspectives, vision, and experiences of researchers from different countries, disciplines, and backgrounds who are leading the definition and adoption of FAIR principles in their communities of practice, and discuss outcomes that may result from pursuing and incentivizing FAIR AI research. The material for this report builds on the FAIR for AI Workshop held at Argonne National Laboratory on June 7, 2022.

Odd Erik Gundersen, Kevin Coakley, Christine Kirkpatrick et al.

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.

Christopher Harrison, Christine R. Kirkpatrick, Inês Dutra

Motivation: Traditional computational cluster schedulers are based on user inputs and run time needs request for memory and CPU, not IO. Heavily IO bound task run times, like ones seen in many big data and bioinformatics problems, are dependent on the IO subsystems scheduling and are problematic for cluster resource scheduling. The problematic rescheduling of IO intensive and errant tasks is a lost resource. Understanding the conditions in both successful and failed tasks and differentiating them could provide knowledge to enhancing cluster scheduling and intelligent resource optimization. Results: We analyze a production computational cluster contributing 6.7 thousand CPU hours to research over two years. Through this analysis we develop a machine learning task profiling agent for clusters that attempts to predict failures between identically provision requested tasks.

Kevin Coakley, Christine R. Kirkpatrick, Odd Erik Gundersen

Reproducing published deep learning papers to validate their conclusions can be difficult due to sources of irreproducibility. We investigate the impact that implementation factors have on the results and how they affect reproducibility of deep learning studies. Three deep learning experiments were ran five times each on 13 different hardware environments and four different software environments. The analysis of the 780 combined results showed that there was a greater than 6% accuracy range on the same deterministic examples introduced from hardware or software environment variations alone. To account for these implementation factors, researchers should run their experiments multiple times in different hardware and software environments to verify their conclusions are not affected.