2021
DOI: 10.20944/preprints202103.0135.v1
|View full text |Cite
Preprint
|
Sign up to set email alerts
|

Towards CRISP-ML(Q): A Machine Learning Process Model with Quality Assurance Methodology

Abstract: Machine learning is an established and frequently used technique in industry and academia but a standard process model to improve success and efficiency of machine learning applications is still missing. Project organizations and machine learning practitioners have a need for guidance throughout the life cycle of a machine learning application to meet business expectations. We therefore propose a process model for the development of machine learning applications, that covers six phases from defining the scope … Show more

Help me understand this report
View published versions

Search citation statements

Order By: Relevance

Paper Sections

Select...
2
1
1
1

Citation Types

0
20
0

Year Published

2021
2021
2024
2024

Publication Types

Select...
4
4

Relationship

1
7

Authors

Journals

citations
Cited by 25 publications
(39 citation statements)
references
References 71 publications
0
20
0
Order By: Relevance
“…53 In general, larger consistent data sets result in better ML models and reduce over-fitting. 54 Due to the fixed recording angle and flow orientation of the current data set, conventional data augmentation techniques cannot be applied to increase training variability. Specific flow field-related augmentations are difficult to define and might introduce artifacts in the artificially augmented samples.…”
Section: Discussionmentioning
confidence: 99%
“…53 In general, larger consistent data sets result in better ML models and reduce over-fitting. 54 Due to the fixed recording angle and flow orientation of the current data set, conventional data augmentation techniques cannot be applied to increase training variability. Specific flow field-related augmentations are difficult to define and might introduce artifacts in the artificially augmented samples.…”
Section: Discussionmentioning
confidence: 99%
“…The recently published CRISP-ML(Q) (Studer et al, 2020 ) proposes an incremental extension of CRISP-DM with the monitoring and maintenance phases. While the study mentions “model explainability” referring to the technical aspects of the underlying model, it does not consider interpretability and explainability in a systematic way as CRISP-ML (Kolyshkina and Simoff, 2019 ).…”
Section: Crisp-ml Methodology—toward Interpretability-centric Creation Of ML Solutionsmentioning
confidence: 99%
“…The methodology then ensures that participants establish the activities for each stakeholder group at each process stage that are required to achieve this level. CRISP-ML (Kolyshkina and Simoff, 2019 ) includes stages 3 and 4 (data predictive potential assessment and data enrichment in Figure 1 ), which are not present in CRISP-ML(Q) (Studer et al, 2020 ). As indicated in Kolyshkina and Simoff ( 2019 ), skipping these important phases can result in potential scope creep and even business project failure.…”
Section: Crisp-ml Methodology—toward Interpretability-centric Creation Of ML Solutionsmentioning
confidence: 99%
“…BugDoc [21] looks at changes in a pre-processing pipeline that cause the models to fail, where high-level script and ordering is used to identify bad configurations. Others provide quality assurance frameworks [44] or embedded simulators to estimate fairness impacts of a particular pipeline [9]. Again, however, these are not geared for deep data introspection.…”
Section: Related Workmentioning
confidence: 99%