"Garbage In, Garbage Out" Revisited: What Do Machine Learning Application Papers Report About Human-Labeled Training Data?

Supervised machine learning, in which models are automatically derived from labeled training data, is only as good as the quality of that data. This study builds on prior work that investigated to what extent 'best practices' around labeling training data were followed in applied ML publications within a single domain (social media platforms). In this paper, we expand by studying publications that apply supervised ML in a far broader spectrum of disciplines, focusing on human-labeled data. We report to what extent a random sample of ML application papers across disciplines give specific details about whether best practices were followed, while acknowledging that a greater range of application fields necessarily produces greater diversity of labeling and annotation methods. Because much of machine learning research and education only focuses on what is done once a "ground truth" or "gold standard" of training data is available, it is especially relevant to discuss issues around the equally-important aspect of whether such data is reliable in the first place. This determination becomes increasingly complex when applied to a variety of specialized fields, as labeling can range from a task requiring little-to-no background knowledge to one that must be performed by someone with career expertise.

Garbage In, Garbage Out? Do Machine Learning Application Papers in Social Computing Report Where Human-Labeled Training Data Comes From?

Many machine learning projects for new application areas involve teams of humans who label data for a particular purpose, from hiring crowdworkers to the paper's authors labeling the data themselves. Such a task is quite similar to (or a form of) structured content analysis, which is a longstanding methodology in the social sciences and humanities, with many established best practices. In this paper, we investigate to what extent a sample of machine learning application papers in social computing --- specifically papers from ArXiv and traditional publications performing an ML classification task on Twitter data --- give specific details about whether such best practices were followed. Our team conducted multiple rounds of structured content analysis of each paper, making determinations such as: Does the paper report who the labelers were, what their qualifications were, whether they independently labeled the same items, whether inter-rater reliability metrics were disclosed, what level of training and/or instructions were given to labelers, whether compensation for crowdworkers is disclosed, and if the training data is publicly available. We find a wide divergence in whether such practices were followed and documented. Much of machine learning research and education focuses on what is done once a "gold standard" of training data is available, but we discuss issues around the equally-important aspect of whether such data is reliable in the first place.