机器学习与理论娴熟性 -- 一种现象学解释

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。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
查看原文
分享 分享
微信好友 朋友圈 QQ好友 复制链接
本刊更多论文
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.
求助全文
通过发布文献求助,成功后即可免费获取论文全文。 去求助
来源期刊
自引率
0.00%
发文量
0
期刊最新文献
Abductive explanations of classifiers under constraints: Complexity and properties Explaining Non-monotonic Normative Reasoning using Argumentation Theory with Deontic Logic Towards Explainable Goal Recognition Using Weight of Evidence (WoE): A Human-Centered Approach A Metric Hybrid Planning Approach to Solving Pandemic Planning Problems with Simple SIR Models Neural Networks for Vehicle Routing Problem
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
现在去查看 取消
×
提示
确定
0
微信
客服QQ
Book学术公众号 扫码关注我们
反馈
×
意见反馈
请填写您的意见或建议
请填写您的手机或邮箱
已复制链接
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
×
扫码分享
扫码分享
Book学术官方微信
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:481959085
Book学术
文献互助 智能选刊 最新文献 互助须知 联系我们:info@booksci.cn
Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。
Copyright © 2023 Book学术 All rights reserved.
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号 京ICP备2023020795号-1