Alberto Termine, Emanuele Ratti, Alessandro Facchini
{"title":"机器学习与理论娴熟性 -- 一种现象学解释","authors":"Alberto Termine, Emanuele Ratti, Alessandro Facchini","doi":"arxiv-2409.11277","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"In recent years, the dissemination of machine learning (ML) methodologies in\nscientific research has prompted discussions on theory ladenness. More\nspecifically, the issue of theory ladenness has remerged as questions about\nwhether and how ML models (MLMs) and ML modelling strategies are impacted by\nthe domain theory of the scientific field in which ML is used and implemented\n(e.g., physics, chemistry, biology, etc). On the one hand, some have argued\nthat there is no difference between traditional (pre ML) and ML assisted\nscience. In both cases, theory plays an essential and unavoidable role in the\nanalysis of phenomena and the construction and use of models. Others have\nargued instead that ML methodologies and models are theory independent and, in\nsome cases, even theory free. In this article, we argue that both positions are\noverly simplistic and do not advance our understanding of the interplay between\nML methods and domain theories. Specifically, we provide an analysis of theory\nladenness in ML assisted science. Our analysis reveals that, while the\nconstruction of MLMs can be relatively independent of domain theory, the\npractical implementation and interpretation of these models within a given\nspecific domain still relies on fundamental theoretical assumptions and\nbackground knowledge.","PeriodicalId":501479,"journal":{"name":"arXiv - CS - Artificial Intelligence","volume":null,"pages":null},"PeriodicalIF":0.0000,"publicationDate":"2024-09-17","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":"{\"title\":\"Machine Learning and Theory Ladenness -- A Phenomenological Account\",\"authors\":\"Alberto Termine, Emanuele Ratti, Alessandro Facchini\",\"doi\":\"arxiv-2409.11277\",\"DOIUrl\":null,\"url\":null,\"abstract\":\"In recent years, the dissemination of machine learning (ML) methodologies in\\nscientific research has prompted discussions on theory ladenness. More\\nspecifically, the issue of theory ladenness has remerged as questions about\\nwhether and how ML models (MLMs) and ML modelling strategies are impacted by\\nthe domain theory of the scientific field in which ML is used and implemented\\n(e.g., physics, chemistry, biology, etc). On the one hand, some have argued\\nthat there is no difference between traditional (pre ML) and ML assisted\\nscience. In both cases, theory plays an essential and unavoidable role in the\\nanalysis of phenomena and the construction and use of models. Others have\\nargued instead that ML methodologies and models are theory independent and, in\\nsome cases, even theory free. In this article, we argue that both positions are\\noverly simplistic and do not advance our understanding of the interplay between\\nML methods and domain theories. Specifically, we provide an analysis of theory\\nladenness in ML assisted science. Our analysis reveals that, while the\\nconstruction of MLMs can be relatively independent of domain theory, the\\npractical implementation and interpretation of these models within a given\\nspecific domain still relies on fundamental theoretical assumptions and\\nbackground knowledge.\",\"PeriodicalId\":501479,\"journal\":{\"name\":\"arXiv - CS - Artificial Intelligence\",\"volume\":null,\"pages\":null},\"PeriodicalIF\":0.0000,\"publicationDate\":\"2024-09-17\",\"publicationTypes\":\"Journal Article\",\"fieldsOfStudy\":null,\"isOpenAccess\":false,\"openAccessPdf\":\"\",\"citationCount\":\"0\",\"resultStr\":null,\"platform\":\"Semanticscholar\",\"paperid\":null,\"PeriodicalName\":\"arXiv - CS - Artificial Intelligence\",\"FirstCategoryId\":\"1085\",\"ListUrlMain\":\"https://doi.org/arxiv-2409.11277\",\"RegionNum\":0,\"RegionCategory\":null,\"ArticlePicture\":[],\"TitleCN\":null,\"AbstractTextCN\":null,\"PMCID\":null,\"EPubDate\":\"\",\"PubModel\":\"\",\"JCR\":\"\",\"JCRName\":\"\",\"Score\":null,\"Total\":0}","platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"arXiv - CS - Artificial Intelligence","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/arxiv-2409.11277","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"","JCRName":"","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0
摘要
近年来,机器学习(ML)方法论在科学研究领域的传播引发了关于理论阶梯性的讨论。具体地说,理论阶梯性问题是指机器学习模型(MLMs)和机器学习建模策略是否以及如何受到使用和实施机器学习的科学领域(如物理、化学、生物等)的领域理论的影响。一方面,有人认为传统科学(ML 之前)和 ML 辅助科学之间没有区别。在这两种情况下,理论在分析现象、构建和使用模型方面都起着不可或缺的作用。另一些人则认为,ML 方法论和模型与理论无关,在某些情况下甚至不需要理论。在这篇文章中,我们认为这两种立场都过于简单化,并没有促进我们对 ML 方法与领域理论之间相互作用的理解。具体来说,我们分析了 ML 辅助科学中的理论独立性。我们的分析揭示出,虽然构建 MLM 可以相对独立于领域理论,但这些模型在特定领域内的实际应用和解释仍然依赖于基本理论假设和背景知识。
Machine Learning and Theory Ladenness -- A Phenomenological Account
In recent years, the dissemination of machine learning (ML) methodologies in
scientific research has prompted discussions on theory ladenness. More
specifically, the issue of theory ladenness has remerged as questions about
whether and how ML models (MLMs) and ML modelling strategies are impacted by
the domain theory of the scientific field in which ML is used and implemented
(e.g., physics, chemistry, biology, etc). On the one hand, some have argued
that there is no difference between traditional (pre ML) and ML assisted
science. In both cases, theory plays an essential and unavoidable role in the
analysis of phenomena and the construction and use of models. Others have
argued instead that ML methodologies and models are theory independent and, in
some cases, even theory free. In this article, we argue that both positions are
overly simplistic and do not advance our understanding of the interplay between
ML methods and domain theories. Specifically, we provide an analysis of theory
ladenness in ML assisted science. Our analysis reveals that, while the
construction of MLMs can be relatively independent of domain theory, the
practical implementation and interpretation of these models within a given
specific domain still relies on fundamental theoretical assumptions and
background knowledge.