Pith. sign in

REVIEW 1 cited by

Debugging Machine Learning Tasks

Not yet reviewed by Pith; the record is open.

This paper has not been read by Pith yet. Machine review is queued; the pith claim, tier, and objections will appear here once it completes.

SPECIMEN: schema-true, not a live event

T0 review · schema-true

One-sentence machine reading of the paper's core claim.

pith:XXXXXXXX · record.json · timestamp

arxiv 1603.07292 v1 pith:RNLMBMLP submitted 2016-03-23 cs.LG cs.AIcs.PLstat.ML

Debugging Machine Learning Tasks

classification cs.LG cs.AIcs.PLstat.ML
keywords dataerrorslearningmachineprogramscodetasksamounts
verification ladder T0 review T1 audit T2 compute T3 formal T4 reserved
0 comments
read the original abstract

Unlike traditional programs (such as operating systems or word processors) which have large amounts of code, machine learning tasks use programs with relatively small amounts of code (written in machine learning libraries), but voluminous amounts of data. Just like developers of traditional programs debug errors in their code, developers of machine learning tasks debug and fix errors in their data. However, algorithms and tools for debugging and fixing errors in data are less common, when compared to their counterparts for detecting and fixing errors in code. In this paper, we consider classification tasks where errors in training data lead to misclassifications in test points, and propose an automated method to find the root causes of such misclassifications. Our root cause analysis is based on Pearl's theory of causation, and uses Pearl's PS (Probability of Sufficiency) as a scoring metric. Our implementation, Psi, encodes the computation of PS as a probabilistic program, and uses recent work on probabilistic programs and transformations on probabilistic programs (along with gray-box models of machine learning algorithms) to efficiently compute PS. Psi is able to identify root causes of data errors in interesting data sets.

discussion (0)

Sign in with ORCID, Apple, or X to comment. Anyone can read and Pith papers without signing in.

Forward citations

Cited by 1 Pith paper

Reviewed papers in the Pith corpus that reference this work. Sorted by Pith novelty score.

  1. What Do Developers Ask About ML Libraries? A Large-scale Study Using Stack Overflow

    cs.SE 2019-06 unverdicted novelty 6.0

    Empirical study of Stack Overflow posts on ML libraries finds prevalent API misuses, lack of early error detection, and a need for more SE research on debugging and model behavior understanding.