Jake M. Hofman’s research while affiliated with Microsoft and other places

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 recommendations for conducting and reporting ML-based science. Drawing from an extensive review of past literature, we present the REFORMS checklist (recommendations for machine-learning-based science). It consists of 32 questions and a paired set of guidelines. REFORMS was developed on the basis of 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.

Science is facing a reproducibility crisis. Previous work has proposed incorporating data analysis replications into classrooms as a potential solution. However, despite the potential benefits, it is unclear whether this approach is feasible, and if so, what the involved stakeholders-students, educators, and scientists-should expect from it. Can students perform a data analysis replication over the course of a class? What are the costs and benefits for educators? And how can this solution help benchmark and improve the state of science? In the present study, we incorporated data analysis replications in the project component of the Applied Data Analysis course (CS-401) taught at EPFL (N=354 students). Here we report pre-registered findings based on surveys administered throughout the course. First, we demonstrate that students can replicate previously published scientific papers, most of them qualitatively and some exactly. We find discrepancies between what students expect of data analysis replications and what they experience by doing them along with changes in expectations about reproducibility, which together serve as evidence of attitude shifts to foster students' critical thinking. Second, we provide information for educators about how much overhead is needed to incorporate replications into the classroom and identify concerns that replications bring as compared to more traditional assignments. Third, we identify tangible benefits of the in-class data analysis replications for scientific communities, such as a collection of replication reports and insights about replication barriers in scientific work that should be avoided going forward. Overall, we demonstrate that incorporating replication tasks into a large data science class can increase the reproducibility of scientific work as a by-product of data science instruction, thus benefiting both science and students.

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.

Traditionally, scientists have placed more emphasis on communicating inferential uncertainty (i.e., the precision of statistical estimates) compared to outcome variability (i.e., the predictability of individual outcomes). Here, we show that this can lead to sizable misperceptions about the implications of scientific results. Specifically, we present three preregistered, randomized experiments where participants saw the same scientific findings visualized as showing only inferential uncertainty, only outcome variability, or both and answered questions about the size and importance of findings they were shown. Our results, composed of responses from medical professionals, professional data scientists, and tenure-track faculty, show that the prevalent form of visualizing only inferential uncertainty can lead to significant overestimates of treatment effects, even among highly trained experts. In contrast, we find that depicting both inferential uncertainty and outcome variability leads to more accurate perceptions of results while appearing to leave other subjective impressions of the results unchanged, on average.

Numerical perspectives help people understand extreme and unfamiliar numbers (e.g., \330 billion is about \1,000 per person in the United States). While research shows perspectives to be helpful, generating them at scale is challenging both because it is difficult to identify what makes some analogies more helpful than others, and because what is most helpful can vary based on the context in which a given number appears. Here we present and compare three policies for large-scale perspective generation: a rule-based approach, a crowdsourced system, and a model that uses Wikipedia data and semantic similarity (via BERT embeddings) to generate context-specific perspectives. We find that the combination of these three approaches dominates any single method, with different approaches excelling in different settings and users displaying heterogeneous preferences across approaches. We conclude by discussing our deployment of perspectives in a widely-used online word processor.