The scientific method in step by step chain of thought in natural language processing for machine learning - how to modulate science, what and how to process each step, with 10 examples of the entire workflow.

Applying the scientific method to Natural Language Processing (NLP) and Machine Learning (ML) transforms the process from simple "hacking" into a rigorous, reproducible, and systematic discipline. It provides a framework for asking meaningful questions, testing ideas logically, and building upon results in a structured way.

In this context, "modulating science" means adapting the formal principles of the scientific method to the iterative and empirical nature of machine learning development. It's about ensuring your experiments are controlled, your results are valid, and your conclusions are based on evidence rather than intuition.

Here is the step-by-step chain of thought for applying the scientific method to an NLP/ML problem.

## Step 1: Observation & Problem Formulation

This is the "what if" or "I notice that..." phase. You identify a real-world problem or a pattern in language data that could be addressed with NLP. The goal is to move from a vague idea to a well-defined problem.

What to process: Business needs, user feedback, unstructured text data (e.g., emails, reviews, reports), or gaps in existing research.
How to process:
1. Explore the Data: Perform an initial exploratory data analysis (EDA). Look at text length, common words (n-grams), and sentence structures. Identify noise, like HTML tags or boilerplate text.
2. Define the Scope: Clearly state what you want to achieve. Is it a classification, generation, or extraction task?
3. Identify Constraints: What are the limitations? Latency requirements, computational budget, data availability, and ethical considerations (e.g., bias in data).
4. Frame the Question: Convert the problem into a specific, measurable, and answerable question.
  - Vague Idea: "We get too many support tickets."
  - Specific Question: "Can we automatically classify incoming support tickets into one of five categories (e.g., 'Billing', 'Technical Issue', 'Account Query') with an accuracy greater than 95% to route them efficiently?"

## Step 2: Formulate a Falsifiable Hypothesis

A hypothesis is a clear, testable statement about the expected outcome. It's not a question, but a proposed answer that you will attempt to prove or disprove. A key aspect is that it must be falsifiable—there must be a way to prove it wrong (1, 2, 3).

What to process: The specific question from Step 1, knowledge of existing NLP models, and available data.
How to process:
1. Propose a Solution: Suggest a specific model, architecture, or technique to solve the problem.
2. Establish a Baseline: Your hypothesis should be compared against a simpler or existing method. This baseline provides a crucial point of comparison to measure improvement (4, 5, 6).
3. State the Expected Outcome: Clearly define the metric for success (e.g., accuracy, F1-score, BLEU score) and the expected result.
  - Good Hypothesis: "A DistilBERT model fine-tuned on our dataset of 10,000 support tickets will achieve a higher F1-score for ticket classification than a baseline TF-IDF with a Logistic Regression model."
  - Bad Hypothesis: "Using a transformer model will be good for our tickets." (Not specific, not measurable).

## Step 3: Experiment Design & Data Preparation 🧪

This is the planning phase for your test. How will you set up your experiment to ensure the results are valid and unbiased? This is where rigor is most critical.

What to process: Raw text data, model choices, and evaluation metrics.
How to process:
1. Data Collection & Cleaning: Gather your data. Pre-process it by tokenizing, removing stop words (if necessary), handling punctuation, and normalizing text (e.g., lowercasing).
2. Data Splitting: Divide your data into three distinct sets:
  - Training Set: Used to train the model's parameters.
  - Validation Set: Used to tune hyperparameters (e.g., learning rate, number of layers) and prevent overfitting.
  - Test Set: Held back until the very end. It's used only once to provide an unbiased evaluation of the final model's performance on unseen data (7, 8, 9).
3. Select Evaluation Metrics: Choose metrics that align with the problem. For imbalanced classification, accuracy is misleading; use Precision, Recall, and F1-score instead. For translation, use BLEU or METEOR.
4. Control Variables: To ensure a fair comparison, keep other factors constant. Use the same random seeds for initialization and data shuffling to ensure reproducibility. Both the proposed model and the baseline should be trained and tested on the exact same data splits.

## Step 4: Execution & Measurement

This is the "doing" phase. You run the experiment you designed, training your models and meticulously recording the outcomes.

What to process: The prepared data splits and the chosen model architectures.
How to process:
1. Train the Baseline Model: Implement and train your simple baseline (e.g., TF-IDF + Logistic Regression). Record its performance on the validation and test sets.
2. Train the Proposed Model: Implement and train your hypothesized model (e.g., fine-tuning DistilBERT).
3. Hyperparameter Tuning: Use the validation set to find the best hyperparameters for your proposed model. This is an iterative sub-cycle.
4. Final Evaluation: Once you have a final, tuned version of your model, run it exactly once on the held-out test set. Record the performance metrics.
5. Log Everything: Keep detailed logs of code versions, model parameters, and all results. Tools like MLflow or Weights & Biases are excellent for this.

## Step 5: Analysis of Results

Now you interpret the data you've collected. This step goes beyond just looking at the final numbers; it involves understanding why you got those results.

What to process: The recorded metrics from all models (baseline and proposed).
How to process:
1. Compare Metrics: Directly compare the performance of your proposed model against the baseline using the chosen metrics. Did you see a statistically significant improvement?
2. Error Analysis: This is crucial. Don't just look at the score. Examine the specific instances where your model failed.
  - Use a confusion matrix to see which classes are being confused.
  - Read the actual text samples the model got wrong. Are they sarcastic? Do they contain domain-specific jargon? Is there a pattern to the errors?
3. Assess Biases and Fairness: Analyze if the model performs differently for various subgroups in the data (e.g., text written in different dialects or from different demographics).

## Step 6: Conclusion & Interpretation

Based on your analysis, you draw a conclusion about your hypothesis.

What to process: The comparison between your hypothesis and the experimental results.
How to process:
1. Support or Reject the Hypothesis: State clearly whether the evidence supports or refutes your initial hypothesis.
  - Example Conclusion: "The results support our hypothesis. The fine-tuned DistilBERT model (F1-score: 0.96) significantly outperformed the TF-IDF baseline (F1-score: 0.85) on the test set."
2. Summarize Learnings: What did you learn from the error analysis? For instance, "The model struggles with short, ambiguous tickets, which suggests a need for more data in these categories or feature engineering to capture context."
3. State Limitations: Acknowledge the limitations of your work. Was the dataset small? Was it limited to a specific domain (e.g., only English-language tweets)?

## Step 7: Communication & Iteration 🔄

The final step is to share your findings and use them to inform the next cycle. Science is an iterative process.

What to process: Your conclusions, limitations, and insights from the error analysis.
How to process:
1. Report Findings: Communicate your results to stakeholders, your team, or the wider community through reports, presentations, or academic papers. Your report should be clear and reproducible.
2. Deploy (if applicable): If the model meets the required performance, it may be deployed into production. This involves MLOps practices like monitoring for performance degradation over time.
3. Formulate a New Hypothesis: Your conclusion and error analysis almost always lead to new questions. This starts the scientific method all over again.
  - New Question: "Our model fails on sarcastic support tickets. Can we improve performance by first training a sarcasm detection model and using its output as a feature for our classification model?"
  - New Hypothesis: "Adding a sarcasm feature will improve the F1-score on the 'Technical Issue' class by at least 5%."

This loop of hypothesis, testing, and refinement is how scientific progress is made in machine learning.

## 10 Examples of the Full Workflow

Here are 10 examples laid out in a table following these steps.

#	Task	Question	Hypothesis	Experiment	Analysis & Conclusion	Next Iteration (New Hypothesis)
1	Sentiment Analysis	Can we classify movie reviews as positive/negative with >90% accuracy?	A fine-tuned RoBERTa model will outperform a Naive Bayes classifier on the IMDB dataset.	Train both on 80% of data, validate/tune on 10%, test on 10%. Measure F1-score.	Conclusion: Hypothesis supported. RoBERTa (94% F1) beat Naive Bayes (86%). Error analysis shows failures on reviews with sarcasm.	A model pre-trained on a corpus of sarcastic text will improve F1-score on the sarcastic subset of the test data compared to the current RoBERTa model.
2	Spam Detection	Can we reduce false positives in email spam filtering to <0.1%?	A TF-IDF vectorizer with a Support Vector Machine (SVM) will have a higher precision at 95% recall than a simple bag-of-words model.	Use a dataset of spam/ham emails. Split data, train both models, and compare precision-recall curves.	Conclusion: Hypothesis supported. SVM achieved higher precision. Error analysis reveals struggles with nuanced phishing attempts.	Using named entity recognition (NER) to identify brand names in emails will reduce false positives for phishing emails compared to the SVM-only approach.
3	Machine Translation	Can we improve our English-to-German translation of technical documents?	A Transformer model (like T5) fine-tuned on our technical documents will achieve a higher BLEU score than the general-purpose Google Translate API.	Translate a test set of 1,000 sentences with both methods. Have human experts evaluate a subset and calculate the BLEU score for the full set.	Conclusion: Hypothesis supported. The fine-tuned T5 had a higher BLEU score (42 vs 38) and fewer terminology errors.	Incorporating a custom terminology glossary into the T5 model's training process will further increase the BLEU score by at least 2 points.
4	Text Summarization	Can we generate concise, accurate summaries of news articles?	An abstractive summarization model (BART) will be rated higher for coherence by human evaluators than an extractive model (TextRank).	Generate summaries for 100 news articles using both models. Have 3 human evaluators rate each summary on a 1-5 scale for coherence and factual consistency.	Conclusion: Hypothesis supported. BART scored higher on coherence but occasionally hallucinated facts.	A RAG (Retrieval-Augmented Generation) model will match BART's coherence while reducing factual hallucinations by over 50%.
5	Named Entity Rec. (NER)	Can we extract drug and disease names from medical reports with >95% F1-score?	A Bi-LSTM-CRF model will outperform a standard spaCy NER model for identifying domain-specific entities in medical text.	Annotate 2,000 reports. Train/test both models on the custom-annotated data. Measure F1-score for "DRUG" and "DISEASE" entities.	Conclusion: Hypothesis supported. The custom model (96% F1) was better at identifying novel drug names than the general spaCy model (89% F1).	Pre-training the Bi-LSTM's embedding layer on a large corpus of medical journals (like PubMed) will improve F1-score on unseen drug names.
6	Question Answering	Can our chatbot answer user questions from our internal knowledge base accurately?	A RAG model that retrieves documents and then generates an answer will achieve a higher Exact Match (EM) score than a model that only searches for the most relevant document.	Create a test set of 200 question-answer pairs from the knowledge base. Run both systems and measure the EM and F1 scores.	Conclusion: Hypothesis supported. RAG provided more direct and accurate answers. Failures occurred when questions were highly ambiguous.	Adding a query disambiguation step before the retrieval process will improve the RAG model's EM score on ambiguous questions by 10%.
7	Topic Modeling	Can we identify the main discussion topics in our customer feedback forum?	A BERTopic model will produce more coherent and distinct topics than a traditional Latent Dirichlet Allocation (LDA) model.	Run both models on the forum data. Evaluate using a topic coherence score (e.g., C_v) and by having a domain expert rate the interpretability of the top 10 topics from each model.	Conclusion: Hypothesis supported. BERTopic had a higher coherence score and the topics were judged as more meaningful by the expert.	Pre-processing text to merge semantically similar terms (e.g., 'crash', 'freeze', 'hang') into a single token will improve topic coherence scores further.
8	Author Attribution	Can we identify the author of an anonymous text from a group of 3 known authors?	A stylometric approach using character n-grams and a linear SVM will classify the author with higher accuracy than one using only word frequencies.	Collect a corpus of known texts from each author. Create features for both methods. Use 10-fold cross-validation and measure classification accuracy.	Conclusion: Hypothesis supported. Character n-grams captured subtle writing styles better, leading to higher accuracy (91% vs 78%).	Adding features based on punctuation usage patterns will improve the character n-gram model's accuracy on shorter anonymous texts (<500 words).
9	Grammar Correction	Can we automatically correct grammatical errors in user-generated text?	A sequence-to-sequence model fine-tuned on a dataset of grammatical errors will have a lower word error rate (WER) than using a rule-based system like LanguageTool.	Create a test set of sentences with known errors and their corrections. Process with both systems and measure the WER of the output.	Conclusion: Hypothesis supported. The neural model was more flexible and corrected a wider range of errors, resulting in a lower WER.	Training the model on a dataset specifically augmented with common non-native speaker errors will improve its performance on text from that demographic.
10	Toxicity Detection	Can we detect toxic comments on our platform in real-time (<50ms latency)?	A distilled version of a BERT model (e.g., DistilBERT) will achieve a comparable F1-score (>95% of the full model) to a full BERT-base model while meeting the latency requirement.	Train both models on the Jigsaw toxicity dataset. Measure F1-score and average inference time on a production-like CPU.	Conclusion: Hypothesis supported. DistilBERT achieved 98% of BERT's F1-score but was 60% faster, meeting the latency budget.	Quantizing the DistilBERT model to INT8 precision will further reduce latency without decreasing the F1-score by more than 1%.

***

References

Popper, K. (1959). The Logic of Scientific Discovery. Hutchinson & Co. This is the foundational philosophical text on the concept of falsifiability as a criterion for what is considered scientific.
Gelman, A., & Loken, E. (2013). The garden of forking paths: Why multiple comparisons can be a problem, even when there is no "fishing expedition" or "p-hacking" and the research hypothesis was posited ahead of time. Department of Statistics, Columbia University. Link
Goodfellow, I., Bengio, Y., & Courville, A. (2016). Deep Learning. MIT Press. Chapter 5 discusses the basics of machine learning, which implicitly rely on the falsifiability of hypotheses through testing on unseen data. Link
Drori, I., et al. (2022). A-GH: A General Platform for Automated Hypotheses Generation. arXiv preprint arXiv:2210.10343. Discusses the formalization of hypothesis generation in the context of AutoML. Link
Sculley, D., et al. (2018). Winner's Curse? On Pace, Progress, and Empirical Rigor in Machine Learning. SysML Conference 2018. This paper emphasizes the need for strong baselines and rigorous testing. Link
Bouthillier, X., & Varoquaux, G. (2020). Survey of machine-learning experimental methods at NeurIPS2019 and ICLR2020. arXiv preprint arXiv:2003.10515. Highlights the importance and sometimes lack of proper baselines and statistical testing in ML research. Link
Raschka, S. (2018). Model evaluation, model selection, and algorithm selection in machine learning. arXiv preprint arXiv:1811.12808. Provides a detailed overview of the importance of data splitting. Link
Kohavi, R. (1995). A study of cross-validation and bootstrap for accuracy estimation and model selection. Proceedings of the 14th International Joint Conference on Artificial Intelligence (IJCAI). A classic paper on the methods and importance of proper validation. Link
Cawley, G. C., & Talbot, N. L. C. (2010). On over-fitting in model selection and subsequent selection bias in performance evaluation. Journal of Machine Learning Research, 11, 2079-2107. Explains the pitfalls of "data leakage" from the test set. Link

Additional Readings

"The Scientific Method in Practice" by Hugh G. Gauch, Jr.: A great book that provides a broad overview of the scientific method beyond just a single discipline.
"A Few Useful Things to Know about Machine Learning" by Pedro Domingos: A highly-cited paper that covers key lessons in applied machine learning, many of which align with scientific rigor. Link
"Rules of Machine Learning: Best Practices for ML Engineering" by Martin Zinkevich (Google): A practical guide from a Google engineer that outlines rules for building effective ML systems, heavily emphasizing iteration and empirical evidence. Link

Marie Landry Spy Shop

Search This Blog

THE FULL BLOG ARCHIVES