Accounting for Variance in Machine Learning Benchmarks
Authors:
Xavier Bouthillier,
Pierre Delaunay,
Mirko Bronzi,
Assya Trofimov,
Brennan Nichyporuk,
Justin Szeto,
Naz Sepah,
Edward Raff,
Kanika Madan,
Vikram Voleti,
Samira Ebrahimi Kahou,
Vincent Michalski,
Dmitriy Serdyuk,
Tal Arbel,
Chris Pal,
Gaël Varoquaux,
Pascal Vincent
Abstract:
Strong empirical evidence that one machine-learning algorithm A outperforms another one B ideally calls for multiple trials optimizing the learning pipeline over sources of variation such as data sampling, data augmentation, parameter initialization, and hyperparameters choices. This is prohibitively expensive, and corners are cut to reach conclusions. We model the whole benchmarking process, reve…
▽ More
Strong empirical evidence that one machine-learning algorithm A outperforms another one B ideally calls for multiple trials optimizing the learning pipeline over sources of variation such as data sampling, data augmentation, parameter initialization, and hyperparameters choices. This is prohibitively expensive, and corners are cut to reach conclusions. We model the whole benchmarking process, revealing that variance due to data sampling, parameter initialization and hyperparameter choice impact markedly the results. We analyze the predominant comparison methods used today in the light of this variance. We show a counter-intuitive result that adding more sources of variation to an imperfect estimator approaches better the ideal estimator at a 51 times reduction in compute cost. Building on these results, we study the error rate of detecting improvements, on five different deep-learning tasks/architectures. This study leads us to propose recommendations for performance comparisons.
△ Less
Submitted 1 March, 2021;
originally announced March 2021.
