MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W4400909960 · doi:10.1109/icde60146.2024.00468

Exploring the Space of Model Comparisons

2024· article· en· W4400909960 on OpenAlexaff
Andy C. Yu, Parke Godfrey, Lukasz Golab, Divesh Srivastava, Jaroslaw Szlichta

Bibliographic record

Venuenot available
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldComputer Science
TopicExplainable Artificial Intelligence (XAI)
Canadian institutionsYork UniversityUniversity of Waterloo
Fundersnot available
KeywordsComputer scienceSpace (punctuation)

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Deploying machine-learning (ML) models is difficult and fraught with peril. Replacing an old model with a new one may introduce new biases and weaknesses that were easily over-looked. Unlike software updates where we have best practices (unit tests and the like), such best practices for ML are only now evolving. The ML deployment pipeline suffers further from a fracture: on the one side, one has the “data-science” (DS) pipeline, in which one extracts, loads, transforms, and maintains the vast lakes of data the models need to be trained on; on the other side, one has the “ML” pipeline in which experts test and evaluate models, often comparing many, for fitness for the task. To progress ultimately, these two pipelines must be integrated into a single DS/ML pipeline. We posit that doing so rests on model explainability and comparison.

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 distilled prediction

Teacher imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.000
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.000
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Theoretical or conceptual · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Methods · Consensus signal: none
Teacher disagreement score0.949
Threshold uncertainty score0.241

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.001
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.001
Open science0.0010.000
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0000.000

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.

Opus teacher head0.285
GPT teacher head0.327
Teacher spread0.042 · how far apart the two teachers sit on this one work
Validation statusscore_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from it

Classification

machine, unvalidated

Machine predicted; a candidate call from one teacher head, not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designTheoretical or conceptual
Domainnot available
GenreMethods

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".

Quick stats

Citations0
Published2024
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same topicExplainable Artificial Intelligence (XAI)French-language works237,207