TY - JOUR
T1 - REFORMS: Consensus-based Recommendations for Machine-learning-based Science
AU - Kapoor, Sayash
AU - Cantrell, Emily
AU - Peng, Kenny
AU - Pham, Than Hien
AU - Bail, Christopher A.
AU - Gundersen, Odd Erik
AU - Hofman, Jake
AU - Hullman, Jessica
AU - Lones, Michael Adam
AU - Malik, Momin M.
AU - Nanayakkara, Priyanka
AU - Poldrack, Russell A.
AU - Raji, Inioluwa Deborah
AU - Roberts, Michael
AU - Salganik, Matthew J.
AU - Serra-Garcia, Marta
AU - Stewart, Brandon M.
AU - Vandewiele, Gilles
AU - Narayanan, Arvind
N1 - Publisher Copyright:
© 2024 The Authors.
PY - 2024/5/3
Y1 - 2024/5/3
N2 - 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 recommendations for conducting and reporting ML-based science. Drawing from an extensive review of past literature, we present the REFORMS checklist (recommendations for machine-learning-based science). It consists of 32 questions and a paired set of guidelines. REFORMS was developed on the basis of 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.
AB - 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 recommendations for conducting and reporting ML-based science. Drawing from an extensive review of past literature, we present the REFORMS checklist (recommendations for machine-learning-based science). It consists of 32 questions and a paired set of guidelines. REFORMS was developed on the basis of 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.
KW - Consensus
KW - Humans
KW - Machine Learning
KW - Reproducibility of Results
KW - Science
UR - http://www.scopus.com/inward/record.url?scp=85192031009&partnerID=8YFLogxK
U2 - 10.1126/sciadv.adk3452
DO - 10.1126/sciadv.adk3452
M3 - Article
C2 - 38691601
SN - 2375-2548
VL - 10
JO - Science Advances
JF - Science Advances
IS - 18
M1 - eadk3452
ER -