The Challenge of Reproducible ML: An Empirical Study on The Impact of Bugs
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.
How this classification was reachedexpand
Full frame machine prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. The Gemma side is a direct model label for every work in the frame, read from the title-only record. The Codex side is a classifier learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and calibrated to design-weighted sample rates; fields without enough sample support carry no Codex call. Candidate is the union of the two sides; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.067 | 0.410 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.003 | 0.003 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.002 | 0.006 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.004 | 0.007 |
| Open science | 0.003 | 0.004 |
| Research integrity | 0.002 | 0.004 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.002 | 0.001 |
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 itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.
How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".