-
Is machine learning good or bad for the natural sciences?
Authors:
David W. Hogg,
Soledad Villar
Abstract:
Machine learning (ML) methods are having a huge impact across all of the sciences. However, ML has a strong ontology - in which only the data exist - and a strong epistemology - in which a model is considered good if it performs well on held-out training data. These philosophies are in strong conflict with both standard practices and key philosophies in the natural sciences. Here we identify some…
▽ More
Machine learning (ML) methods are having a huge impact across all of the sciences. However, ML has a strong ontology - in which only the data exist - and a strong epistemology - in which a model is considered good if it performs well on held-out training data. These philosophies are in strong conflict with both standard practices and key philosophies in the natural sciences. Here we identify some locations for ML in the natural sciences at which the ontology and epistemology are valuable. For example, when an expressive machine learning model is used in a causal inference to represent the effects of confounders, such as foregrounds, backgrounds, or instrument calibration parameters, the model capacity and loose philosophy of ML can make the results more trustworthy. We also show that there are contexts in which the introduction of ML introduces strong, unwanted statistical biases. For one, when ML models are used to emulate physical (or first-principles) simulations, they amplify confirmation biases. For another, when expressive regressions are used to label datasets, those labels cannot be used in downstream joint or ensemble analyses without taking on uncontrolled biases. The question in the title is being asked of all of the natural sciences; that is, we are calling on the scientific communities to take a step back and consider the role and value of ML in their fields; the (partial) answers we give here come from the particular perspective of physics.
△ Less
Submitted 31 May, 2024; v1 submitted 28 May, 2024;
originally announced May 2024.
-
Constructing Impactful Machine Learning Research for Astronomy: Best Practices for Researchers and Reviewers
Authors:
D. Huppenkothen,
M. Ntampaka,
M. Ho,
M. Fouesneau,
B. Nord,
J. E. G. Peek,
M. Walmsley,
J. F. Wu,
C. Avestruz,
T. Buck,
M. Brescia,
D. P. Finkbeiner,
A. D. Goulding,
T. Kacprzak,
P. Melchior,
M. Pasquato,
N. Ramachandra,
Y. -S. Ting,
G. van de Ven,
S. Villar,
V. A. Villar,
E. Zinger
Abstract:
Machine learning has rapidly become a tool of choice for the astronomical community. It is being applied across a wide range of wavelengths and problems, from the classification of transients to neural network emulators of cosmological simulations, and is shifting paradigms about how we generate and report scientific results. At the same time, this class of method comes with its own set of best pr…
▽ More
Machine learning has rapidly become a tool of choice for the astronomical community. It is being applied across a wide range of wavelengths and problems, from the classification of transients to neural network emulators of cosmological simulations, and is shifting paradigms about how we generate and report scientific results. At the same time, this class of method comes with its own set of best practices, challenges, and drawbacks, which, at present, are often reported on incompletely in the astrophysical literature. With this paper, we aim to provide a primer to the astronomical community, including authors, reviewers, and editors, on how to implement machine learning models and report their results in a way that ensures the accuracy of the results, reproducibility of the findings, and usefulness of the method.
△ Less
Submitted 19 October, 2023;
originally announced October 2023.
-
Towards fully covariant machine learning
Authors:
Soledad Villar,
David W. Hogg,
Weichi Yao,
George A. Kevrekidis,
Bernhard Schölkopf
Abstract:
Any representation of data involves arbitrary investigator choices. Because those choices are external to the data-generating process, each choice leads to an exact symmetry, corresponding to the group of transformations that takes one possible representation to another. These are the passive symmetries; they include coordinate freedom, gauge symmetry, and units covariance, all of which have led t…
▽ More
Any representation of data involves arbitrary investigator choices. Because those choices are external to the data-generating process, each choice leads to an exact symmetry, corresponding to the group of transformations that takes one possible representation to another. These are the passive symmetries; they include coordinate freedom, gauge symmetry, and units covariance, all of which have led to important results in physics. In machine learning, the most visible passive symmetry is the relabeling or permutation symmetry of graphs. Our goal is to understand the implications for machine learning of the many passive symmetries in play. We discuss dos and don'ts for machine learning practice if passive symmetries are to be respected. We discuss links to causal modeling, and argue that the implementation of passive symmetries is particularly valuable when the goal of the learning problem is to generalize out of sample. This paper is conceptual: It translates among the languages of physics, mathematics, and machine-learning. We believe that consideration and implementation of passive symmetries might help machine learning in the same ways that it transformed physics in the twentieth century.
△ Less
Submitted 28 June, 2023; v1 submitted 31 January, 2023;
originally announced January 2023.
-
Fitting very flexible models: Linear regression with large numbers of parameters
Authors:
David W. Hogg,
Soledad Villar
Abstract:
There are many uses for linear fitting; the context here is interpolation and denoising of data, as when you have calibration data and you want to fit a smooth, flexible function to those data. Or you want to fit a flexible function to de-trend a time series or normalize a spectrum. In these contexts, investigators often choose a polynomial basis, or a Fourier basis, or wavelets, or something equa…
▽ More
There are many uses for linear fitting; the context here is interpolation and denoising of data, as when you have calibration data and you want to fit a smooth, flexible function to those data. Or you want to fit a flexible function to de-trend a time series or normalize a spectrum. In these contexts, investigators often choose a polynomial basis, or a Fourier basis, or wavelets, or something equally general. They also choose an order, or number of basis functions to fit, and (often) some kind of regularization. We discuss how this basis-function fitting is done, with ordinary least squares and extensions thereof. We emphasize that it is often valuable to choose far more parameters than data points, despite folk rules to the contrary: Suitably regularized models with enormous numbers of parameters generalize well and make good predictions for held-out data; over-fitting is not (mainly) a problem of having too many parameters. It is even possible to take the limit of infinite parameters, at which, if the basis and regularization are chosen correctly, the least-squares fit becomes the mean of a Gaussian process. We recommend cross-validation as a good empirical method for model selection (for example, setting the number of parameters and the form of the regularization), and jackknife resampling as a good empirical method for estimating the uncertainties of the predictions made by the model. We also give advice for building stable computational implementations.
△ Less
Submitted 15 January, 2021;
originally announced January 2021.
