PreprintCited by 232Scientific Computing and Data ManagementAcademic Publishing and Open AccessResearch Data Management Practices

Improving Reproducibility in Machine Learning Research (A Report from the NeurIPS 2019 Reproducibility Program)

Open access
Pineau, Joelle, Vincent-Lamarre, Philippe, Sinha, Koustuv, Larivière, Vincent, Beygelzimer, Alina, d'Alché-Buc, Florence, Fox, Emily, Larochelle, Hugo·2020·arXiv

Abstract

One of the challenges in machine learning research is to ensure that presented and published results are sound and reliable. Reproducibility, that is obtaining similar results as presented in a paper or talk, using the same code and data (when available), is a necessary step to verify the reliability of research findings. Reproducibility is also an important step to promote open and accessible research, thereby allowing the scientific community to quickly integrate new findings and convert ideas to practice. Reproducibility also promotes the use of robust experimental workflows, which potentially reduce unintentional errors. In 2019, the Neural Information Processing Systems (NeurIPS) conference, the premier international conference for research in machine learning, introduced a reproducibility program, designed to improve the standards across the community for how we conduct, communicate, and evaluate machine learning research. The program contained three components: a code submission policy, a community-wide reproducibility challenge, and the inclusion of the Machine Learning Reproducibility checklist as part of the paper submission process. In this paper, we describe each of these components, how it was deployed, as well as what we were able to learn from this initiative.

Integrity signals

Registry

DataCite · 10.48550/arxiv.2003.12206

Cites

Statistics

Recomputing p-values needs the paper’s full text.

Claims the paper makes

We couldn’t retrieve this paper’s full text, so its claims and self-check weren’t run. The registry and citation checks still apply.

Claims other papers make about this one

Each is checked against this paper’s own text: does it say what the citing paper says it does?

  • Most checklists currently in use are not developed for ML-based science in general but rather for specific scientific or research communities.

    “Further, most checklists currently in use are not developed for ML-based science in general but rather for specific scientific or research communities.4,38”
  • Standards of this kind crystallise an ever growing corpus of academic literature that has explored ML data quality challenges and ways to mitigate them.

    “Standards of this kind crystallise an ever growing corpus of academic literature that has explored ML data quality challenges and ways to mitigate them [25,57,64,70].”
  • A singular focus on immediate data users can flatten the variety of uses and data quality requirements encountered at various stages of the ML development pipeline over the longer term.

    “However, this singular focus can flatten the variety of uses and data quality requirements that are encountered at various stages of the ML development pipeline over the longer-term [57,70].”
  • Distinguishing between different classes of users is necessary to understand the radically different backgrounds and tasks needed to keep ML data quality pipelines running smoothly.

    “Distinguishing between these different classes of users is necessary if we are to understand the radically different backgrounds and tasks that are needed to keep ML data quality pipelines running smoothly [57].”
  • Data quality must be defined using stage-specific approaches that are sensitive to where in the ML lifecycle the data are encountered and who encounters them.

    “Instead, data quality must be defined using stage-specific approaches that are sensitive to where in the ML lifecycle the data are encountered and who encounters them [25,57].”

No citation lists for this paper

No citation lists for this paper yet — checked again daily.

References 20 · Cited by 232

Authors
Pineau, J., Vincent-Lamarre, P., Sinha, K., Larivière, V., Beygelzimer, A., d'Alché-Buc, F., Fox, E., & Larochelle, H.
Affiliations
  • Meta (United States) (US)
  • Université de Montréal (CA)
  • University of Washington (US)
Venue
arXiv
Publisher
arXiv
Published
2020
ISSN
2331-8422 (ISSN-L)
OpenAlex
W3013688454
Cited by
232
References
20
Citations by year
2026: 3 · 2025: 48 · 2024: 44 · 2023: 51 · 2022: 37 · 2021: 38 · 2020: 11
Type
posted content
Language
en
Open access
Locations
  • arXiv (Cornell University) (submittedVersion)
  • Papyrus : Institutional Repository (Université de Montréal) (submittedVersion, cc-by)
  • arXiv (Cornell University)
Topics
  • Social Sciences › Decision Sciences › Information Systems and Management › Scientific Computing and Data Management
  • Social Sciences › Decision Sciences › Information Systems and Management › Academic Publishing and Open Access
  • Physical Sciences › Computer Science › Information Systems › Research Data Management Practices
Keywords
reproducibility, machine learning research, reproducibility challenge, research reliability, open research, experimental workflow

About these checks

Registry, retraction, Cites and statistics results are computed, not judged, with one exception: a printed reference that no index lists is read once by a model before it counts as a citation error. Claims are extracted by a model and kept only when their quote appears verbatim in the text; each cited source is then checked, with a model’s help, for whether it says what the claim relies on. Those verdicts can be wrong — read the claim’s quote and the cited source before relying on one.

Statistics and arithmetic are recomputed, not judged.

Confidence bands are shown only for fields calibrated on our annotated test set. None is calibrated yet, so no band is shown.

What counts as a claim ›How we measure confidence ›How we check this ›

Are you an author, or do you see a problem with this page? Request a review