The Challenge of Reproducible ML: An Empirical Study on The Impact of Bugs
Why this work is in the frame
A frame that forgets how it found something cannot be audited. These are the routes that admitted this work.
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Reproducibility is a crucial requirement in scientific research. When results of research studies and scientific papers have been found difficult or impossible to reproduce, we face a challenge which is called reproducibility crisis. Although the demand for reproducibility in Machine Learning (ML) is acknowledged in the literature, a main barrier is inherent non-determinism in ML training and inference. In this paper, we establish the fundamental factors that cause non-determinism in ML systems. A framework, ReproduceML, is then introduced for deterministic evaluation of ML experiments in a real, con-trolled environment. ReproduceML allows researchers to investigate software configuration effects on ML training and inference. Using ReproduceML, we run a case study: investigation of the impact of bugs inside ML libraries on performance of ML experiments. This study attempts to quantify the impact that the occurrence of bugs in a popular ML framework, PyTorch, has on the performance of trained models. To do so, a comprehensive methodology is proposed to collect buggy versions of ML libraries and run deterministic ML experiments using ReproduceML. Our initial finding is that there is no evidence based on our limited dataset to show that bugs which occurred in PyTorch do affect the performance of trained models. The proposed methodology as well as ReproduceML can be employed for further research on non-determinism and bugs.
Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.
Full frame distilled prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.004 | 0.004 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
Machine scores (provisional)
The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.
Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from it