REFORMS: Reporting Standards for Machine Learning Based Science

Machine learning (ML) methods are proliferating in scientific research. However, the adoption of these methods has been accompanied by failures of validity, reproducibility, and generalizability. These failures can hinder scientific progress, lead to false consensus around invalid claims, and undermine the credibility of ML-based science. ML methods are often applied and fail in similar ways across disciplines. Motivated by this observation, our goal is to provide clear reporting standards for ML-based science. Drawing from an extensive review of past literature, we present the REFORMS checklist ($\textbf{Re}$porting Standards $\textbf{For}$ $\textbf{M}$achine Learning Based $\textbf{S}$cience). It consists of 32 questions and a paired set of guidelines. REFORMS was developed based on a consensus of 19 researchers across computer science, data science, mathematics, social sciences, and biomedical sciences. REFORMS can serve as a resource for researchers when designing and implementing a study, for referees when reviewing papers, and for journals when enforcing standards for transparency and reproducibility.

Reconciling the accuracy-diversity trade-off in recommendations

In recommendation settings, there is an apparent trade-off between the goals of accuracy (to recommend items a user is most likely to want) and diversity (to recommend items representing a range of categories). As such, real-world recommender systems often explicitly incorporate diversity separately from accuracy. This approach, however, leaves a basic question unanswered: Why is there a trade-off in the first place? We show how the trade-off can be explained via a user's consumption constraints -- users typically only consume a few of the items they are recommended. In a stylized model we introduce, objectives that account for this constraint induce diverse recommendations, while objectives that do not account for this constraint induce homogeneous recommendations. This suggests that accuracy and diversity appear misaligned because standard accuracy metrics do not consider consumption constraints. Our model yields precise and interpretable characterizations of diversity in different settings, giving practical insights into the design of diverse recommendations.

Large language models shape and are shaped by society: A survey of arXiv publication patterns

There has been a steep recent increase in the number of large language model (LLM) papers, producing a dramatic shift in the scientific landscape which remains largely undocumented through bibliometric analysis. Here, we analyze 388K papers posted on the CS and Stat arXivs, focusing on changes in publication patterns in 2023 vs. 2018-2022. We analyze how the proportion of LLM papers is increasing; the LLM-related topics receiving the most attention; the authors writing LLM papers; how authors' research topics correlate with their backgrounds; the factors distinguishing highly cited LLM papers; and the patterns of international collaboration. We show that LLM research increasingly focuses on societal impacts: there has been an 18x increase in the proportion of LLM-related papers on the Computers and Society sub-arXiv, and authors newly publishing on LLMs are more likely to focus on applications and societal impacts than more experienced authors. LLM research is also shaped by social dynamics: we document gender and academic/industry disparities in the topics LLM authors focus on, and a US/China schism in the collaboration network. Overall, our analysis documents the profound ways in which LLM research both shapes and is shaped by society, attesting to the necessity of sociotechnical lenses.

Mitigating dataset harms requires stewardship: Lessons from 1000 papers

Concerns about privacy, bias, and harmful applications have shone a light on the ethics of machine learning datasets, even leading to the retraction of prominent datasets including DukeMTMC, MS-Celeb-1M, TinyImages, and VGGFace2. In response, the machine learning community has called for higher ethical standards, transparency efforts, and technical fixes in the dataset creation process. The premise of our work is that these efforts can be more effective if informed by an understanding of how datasets are used in practice in the research community. We study three influential face and person recognition datasets - DukeMTMC, MS-Celeb-1M, and Labeled Faces in the Wild (LFW) - by analyzing nearly 1000 papers that cite them. We found that the creation of derivative datasets and models, broader technological and social change, the lack of clarity of licenses, and dataset management practices can introduce a wide range of ethical concerns. We conclude by suggesting a distributed approach that can mitigate these harms, making recommendations to dataset creators, conference program committees, dataset users, and the broader research community.