Negative Results in Computer Vision: A Perspective

A negative result is when the outcome of an experiment or a model is not what is expected or when a hypothesis does not hold. Despite being often overlooked in the scientific community, negative results are results and they carry value. While this topic has been extensively discussed in other fields such as social sciences and biosciences, less attention has been paid to it in the computer vision community. The unique characteristics of computer vision, particularly its experimental aspect, call for a special treatment of this matter. In this paper, I will address what makes negative results important, how they should be disseminated and incentivized, and what lessons can be learned from cognitive vision research in this regard. Further, I will discuss issues such as computer vision and human vision interaction, experimental design and statistical hypothesis testing, explanatory versus predictive modeling, performance evaluation, model comparison, as well as computer vision research culture

Defining Replicability of Prediction Rules

In this article I propose an approach for defining replicability for prediction rules. Motivated by a recent NAS report, I start from the perspective that replicability is obtaining consistent results across studies suitable to address the same prediction question, each of which has obtained its own data. I then discuss concept and issues in defining key elements of this statement. I focus specifically on the meaning of "consistent results" in typical utilization contexts, and propose a multi-agent framework for defining replicability, in which agents are neither partners nor adversaries. I recover some of the prevalent practical approaches as special cases. I hope to provide guidance for a more systematic assessment of replicability in machine learning

Predicting the replicability of social science lab experiments

We measure how accurately replication of experimental results can be predicted by black-box statistical models. With data from four large-scale replication projects in experimental psychology and economics, and techniques from machine learning, we train predictive models and study which variables drive predictable replication. The models predicts binary replication with a cross-validated accuracy rate of 70% (AUC of 0.77) and estimates of relative effect sizes with a Spearman rho of 0.38. The accuracy level is similar to market-aggregated beliefs of peer scientists [1, 2]. The predictive power is validated in a pre-registered out of sample test of the outcome of [3], where 71% (AUC of 0.73) of replications are predicted correctly and effect size correlations amount to rho = 0.25. Basic features such as the sample and effect sizes in original papers, and whether reported effects are single-variable main effects or two-variable interactions, are predictive of successful replication. The models presented in this paper are simple tools to produce cheap, prognostic replicability metrics. These models could be useful in institutionalizing the process of evaluation of new findings and guiding resources to those direct replications that are likely to be most informative