Amid mounting concern about the reliability and credibility of machine learning research, we present a principled framework for making robust and generalizable claims: the multiverse analysis. Our framework builds upon the multiverse analysis introduced in response to psychology's own reproducibility crisis. To efficiently explore high-dimensional and often continuous ML search spaces, we model the multiverse with a Gaussian Process surrogate and apply Bayesian experimental design. Our framework is designed to facilitate drawing robust scientific conclusions about model performance, and thus our approach focuses on exploration rather than conventional optimization. In the first of two case studies, we investigate disputed claims about the relative merit of adaptive optimizers. Second, we synthesize conflicting research on the effect of learning rate on the large batch training generalization gap. For the machine learning community, the multiverse analysis is a simple and effective technique for identifying robust claims, for increasing transparency, and a step toward improved reproducibility.

Amid mounting concern about the reliability and credibility of machine learning research, we present a principled framework for making robust and generalizable claims: the multiverse analysis. Our framework builds upon the multiverse analysis introduced in response to psychology's own reproducibility crisis. To efficiently explore high-dimensional and often continuous ML search spaces, we model the multiverse with a Gaussian Process surrogate and apply Bayesian experimental design. Our framework is designed to facilitate drawing robust scientific conclusions about model performance, and thus our approach focuses on exploration rather than conventional optimization. In the first of two case studies, we investigate disputed claims about the relative merit of adaptive optimizers.

Amid mounting concern about the reliability and credibility of machine learning research, we present a principled framework for making robust and generalizable claims: the multiverse analysis. Our framework builds upon the multiverse analysis introduced in response to psychology's own reproducibility crisis. To efficiently explore high-dimensional and often continuous ML search spaces, we model the multiverse with a Gaussian Process surrogate and apply Bayesian experimental design. Our framework is designed to facilitate drawing robust scientific conclusions about model performance, and thus our approach focuses on exploration rather than conventional optimization. In the first of two case studies, we investigate disputed claims about the relative merit of adaptive optimizers.

A vast number of systems across the world use algorithmic decision making (ADM) to (partially) automate decisions that have previously been made by humans. When designed well, these systems promise more objective decisions while saving large amounts of resources and freeing up human time. However, when ADM systems are not designed well, they can lead to unfair decisions which discriminate against societal groups. The downstream effects of ADMs critically depend on the decisions made during the systems' design and implementation, as biases in data can be mitigated or reinforced along the modeling pipeline. Many of these design decisions are made implicitly, without knowing exactly how they will influence the final system. It is therefore important to make explicit the decisions made during the design of ADM systems and understand how these decisions affect the fairness of the resulting system. To study this issue, we draw on insights from the field of psychology and introduce the method of multiverse analysis for algorithmic fairness. In our proposed method, we turn implicit design decisions into explicit ones and demonstrate their fairness implications. By combining decisions, we create a grid of all possible "universes" of decision combinations. For each of these universes, we compute metrics of fairness and performance. Using the resulting dataset, one can see how and which decisions impact fairness. We demonstrate how multiverse analyses can be used to better understand variability and robustness of algorithmic fairness using an exemplary case study of predicting public health coverage of vulnerable populations for potential interventions. Our results illustrate how decisions during the design of a machine learning system can have surprising effects on its fairness and how to detect these effects using multiverse analysis.

Amid mounting concern about the reliability and credibility of machine learning research, we present a principled framework for making robust and generalizable claims: the multiverse analysis. Our framework builds upon the multiverse analysis (Steegen et al., 2016) introduced in response to psychology's own reproducibility crisis. To efficiently explore high-dimensional and often continuous ML search spaces, we model the multiverse with a Gaussian Process surrogate and apply Bayesian experimental design. Our framework is designed to facilitate drawing robust scientific conclusions about model performance, and thus our approach focuses on exploration rather than conventional optimization. In the first of two case studies, we investigate disputed claims about the relative merit of adaptive optimizers. Second, we synthesize conflicting research on the effect of learning rate on the large batch training generalization gap. For the machine learning community, the multiverse analysis is a simple and effective technique for identifying robust claims, for increasing transparency, and a step toward improved reproducibility.