Is machine learning good or bad for the natural sciences?
<|reference_start|>Is machine learning good or bad for the natural sciences?: Machine learning (ML) methods are having a huge impact across all of the sciences. However, ML has a strong ontology - in which only the data exist - and a strong epistemology - in which a model is considered good if it performs well on held-out training data. These philosophies are in strong conflict with both standard practices and key philosophies in the natural sciences. Here we identify some locations for ML in the natural sciences at which the ontology and epistemology are valuable. For example, when an expressive machine learning model is used in a causal inference to represent the effects of confounders, such as foregrounds, backgrounds, or instrument calibration parameters, the model capacity and loose philosophy of ML can make the results more trustworthy. We also show that there are contexts in which the introduction of ML introduces strong, unwanted statistical biases. For one, when ML models are used to emulate physical (or first-principles) simulations, they amplify confirmation biases. For another, when expressive regressions are used to label datasets, those labels cannot be used in downstream joint or ensemble analyses without taking on uncontrolled biases. The question in the title is being asked of all of the natural sciences; that is, we are calling on the scientific communities to take a step back and consider the role and value of ML in their fields; the (partial) answers we give here come from the particular perspective of physics.<|reference_end|>
@article{hogg2024is,
    title={Is machine learning good or bad for the natural sciences?},
    author={David W. Hogg (NYU, MPIA, Flatiron) and Soledad Villar (JHU, Flatiron)},
    journal={arXiv preprint arXiv:2405.18095},
    year={2024},
    archivePrefix={arXiv},
    eprint={2405.18095},
    primaryClass={stat.ML astro-ph.IM cs.LG physics.data-an}
}