GCRI · Labs
AI dalam alur kerja ilmiah
Machine learning now enters science at every step: screening literature, designing experiments, analysing images and sequences, emulating simulations and drafting text. Each use can speed discovery and each can introduce errors that look like findings. This page sets out how models are evaluated for scientific use, where leakage, benchmark overfitting and silent drift arise, and what evidence editors, funders and regulators need before they rely on a model-assisted result.
Bagaimana pekerjaan berjalan.
Testbed operations
AI in scientific workflows · Field lab coast · Campaign 5
Sensor deployment
garis pantai ilustratif
Sensors
| S-01 tide | 94 | 0.0 | Nominal |
| S-04 salinity | 76 | 0.4 | Recalibrate |
| S-07 wave | 95 | 0.1 | Nominal |
Sensor vs reference
Gbr.Testbed operations: example names and illustrative values, not a record or a live system.
AI in scientific workflows: how the risk develops.
Model evaluation and scientific assistance. The dossier below sets out how the risk develops, what is measured, where the data come from, how it is modelled and who decides.
Leakage inflates performance
When information from the test set reaches training, through duplicates, shared patients, neighbouring sites or preprocessing fitted on all the data, a model appears more accurate than it is. Leakage has been documented in many fields that adopted machine learning.
Benchmarks get overfitted
Repeated tuning against the same public benchmark selects models that fit its quirks. Gains on a leaderboard can vanish on new data, and contamination of training corpora with benchmark items makes scores hard to interpret.
Drift and distribution shift
Instruments, protocols, populations and software change. A model validated on last year’s data or another lab’s scanner can degrade without any visible error. Monitoring after deployment is part of the evaluation, not an extra.
Generated text and fabricated sources
Language models can produce fluent text, citations and code that are wrong. Unchecked, these errors enter manuscripts, peer reviews and proposals, and spread through citation. Disclosure and verification policies exist because such errors are hard to see.
How AI in scientific workflows is modelled, measured and tested.
Model, asumsi, data, dan ketidakpastiannya, dalam bentuk yang akan diperiksa ilmuwan atau insinyur. Strukturnya mengikuti metode yang dipublikasikan. Nilai yang digambar bersifat ilustratif, bukan temuan.
Model, persamaan, dan asumsi
The model structure used for AI in scientific workflows, the assumptions it makes and how each is tested.
Ri = f(Hi, Ei, Vi, Ci)bahaya, keterpaparan, kerentanan, dan kapasitas penanggulanganEAL = ∑k pk · Lkatas peristiwa k dengan probabilitas tahunan pkxt+1 = A xt + B ut + εtA carries the couplings, u the shock, ε the error| Asumsi | Mengapa ini dibuat | Bagaimana ini diuji |
|---|---|---|
| Bahaya dan eksposur bersifat independen dalam satu peristiwa | Menjaga integral kerugian tetap dapat dihitung | Bandingkan dengan pencocokan kopula pada catatan gabungan |
| Keterkaitan bersifat linear di dekat titik operasi | Membiarkan guncangan merambat melalui A | Uji di luar rentang linear lalu bandingkan |
| Kurva kerentanan dapat dipindahkan antartempat | Kurva lokal jarang tersedia | Validasi terhadap kerugian teramati jika tersedia |
- Masukan
- dataset berversi dengan asal-usul yang tercatat
- Keluaran
- distribusi, bukan angka tunggal
- Kode
- dirilis bersama kartu model dan pengujiannya
- Reproduksi
- data, kode, lingkungan, dan seed yang sama
AI in scientific workflows changes each domain’s methods.
- AirDalam praktikML rainfall-runoff models in research.What a reader can checkOut-of-sample tests
- KesehatanDalam praktikAI-assisted analysis of surveillance data.What a reader can checkValidation and bias
- Keanekaragaman hayatiDalam praktikAutomated species identification.What a reader can checkError by region
Findings feed the seri Metode dan Teknis. AI use follows NIST’s AI RMF and is disclosed; models carry NS-12 cards under the proposed Nexus Standards.
- Workflow evaluations.
- Disclosed AI use cases.
Apa yang diukur, dan seberapa baik.
Setiap indikator membawa satuan, frekuensi, jenis sumber di baliknya, dan label bukti yang akan dibawa suatu nilai. Tidak ada nilai yang ditampilkan: sebuah program menyediakannya berdasarkan wewenangnya sendiri.
| Indikator | Unit | Kadensi | Jenis sumber | Label |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Held-out evaluation design stated | percent of model-based studies | tahunan | Audit against the REFORMS checklist | TERAMATI |
| Code and model weights available | percent of studies with runnable code and weights | tahunan | Repository and article audit | TERAMATI |
| External validation | percent of models tested on data from another site or period | tahunan | Literature review | ESTIMASI |
| Galat kalibrasi | expected calibration error, dimensionless | per model | Held-out evaluation | TERAMATI |
| Performance gap under shift | difference in the primary metric between internal and external test sets | per model | Validation reports | TERAMATI |
| AI use disclosure | percent of submissions with a disclosure statement | tahunan | Journal submission records | DINYATAKAN |
| Contamination checks reported | percent of benchmark evaluation reports | tahunan | Evaluation reports | DILAPORKAN |
Asal bukti.
Set data publik bernama dan catatan kelembagaan, masing-masing dengan kelas lisensinya. Sumber berdasarkan perjanjian hanya digunakan sesuai ketentuannya dan tidak pernah diterbitkan ulang.
| Sumber | Apa yang diberikannya | Kelas lisensi |
|---|---|---|
| OpenML | Datasets, tasks and evaluation runs with standardised splits | Open, CC BY |
| Hugging Face Hub model and dataset cards | Documented models and datasets with stated training data and limitations | Licence per model or dataset |
| MLCommons benchmarks | Shared benchmarks and measurement rules for model performance | Open, Apache 2.0 |
| AI Incident Database (Responsible AI Collaborative) | Reported failures and harms of deployed AI sistem | Terbuka, dengan atribusi |
| Software Heritage | Archived source code with persistent intrinsic identifiers | Open archive, licence per repository |
| arXiv metadata | Preprints across physics, computing and quantitative biology | Metadata CC0; licence per paper |
| Zenodo (CERN) | Citable deposits of code, models, data and evaluation outputs | Open, licence per record |
Siapa yang memutuskan, dan apa yang dilayani bukti.
Laboratorium prepares evidence. The decisions below are taken by the authorities named, under their own rules, and never by the platform.
| Siapa yang memutuskan | Pertanyaannya | Bukti yang dilayani halaman ini |
|---|---|---|
| Journal editors and reviewers | Whether a model-based claim rests on an evaluation that excludes leakage and tests generalisation | REFORMS or TRIPOD+AI checklist, split design, external validation, code availability |
| Penyandang dana penelitian | Whether applicants and reviewers may use generative AI, and on what disclosure terms | Funder policy, disclosure records, documented verification of generated content |
| Medicines and device regulators | Whether an AI component in a medical product is validated for its intended use | Prespecified evaluation, external validation, predetermined change control plan |
| Research integrity offices | Whether an allegation involving fabricated or generated content is substantiated | Provenance of text, data and code; version history; tool logs |
Keluaran yang dihasilkan topik ini
- Evaluation protocols that fix splits, metrics and baselines before training
- Model cards and datasheets with intended use, limits and known failure modes
- Leakage and contamination audits of model-assisted studies
- Reproducible pipelines with code, weights, environment and data versions archived
What experts ask about AI in research.
- What task is the model doing, and what is it compared against?
- Was the model evaluated on data independent of the data it was trained or tuned on?
- How does performance change when conditions shift away from the training data?
- Can the output be checked by a person or a simpler method, and is it?
- Which steps of the workflow were assisted, and is that disclosed in the result?
Where AI helps and where it misleads.
Machine learning models learn statistical regularities from data. They can be very effective where those regularities are stable and data are plentiful, for example classifying land cover from satellite imagery or emulating a climate model to explore many scenarios. They are weaker where data are sparse, where the system changes over time or where rare events matter most, which describes much of risk science.
Common failure modes are well understood: leakage, where information from the test set reaches training; pergeseran distribusi, where conditions in use differ from those in training; shortcut learning, where a model relies on a spurious cue; and overconfident outputs without calibrated uncertainty. Generative models add the risk of fluent but fabricated content, including citations and code that looks correct but is not.
Workflow effects matter as much as model accuracy. When a tool is used at several stages, small errors can accumulate, and reviewers may give automated outputs more trust than they deserve.
How AI tools are evaluated.
- 01
Held-out and out-of-distribution tests
Evaluation on data separated by time, place or source. This is the minimum for any claim of generalisation.
- 02
Baselines
Comparison with simple statistical methods and expert judgement. A complex model that does not beat a simple baseline is not adding value.
- 03
Calibration and uncertainty
Checks that stated confidence matches observed accuracy, using kuantifikasi ketidakpastian.
- 04
Provenance and disclosure
A record of which model, version and prompts or settings were used at each step, so the workflow can be re-run or audited.
Benchmark scores rarely transfer directly to a new research setting, and a model’s behaviour can change between versions. Evaluation is repeated when either the task or the model changes.
Cara hal ini dikaji, dan apa yang tidak dapat dinyatakan metodenya.
- 01Kecerdasan buatan dan pembelajaran mesinPenyaringan berbantuan untuk tinjauan sistematis · Model pengganti untuk memandu eksperimenDiterapkan di sini
- 02Kuantifikasi ketidakpastian dan validasi modelAnggaran ketidakpastian pengukuran · Analisis sensitivitas model simulasiDiterapkan di sini
- 03Probabilitas dan statistikaPerencanaan ukuran sampel dan daya uji · Meta-analisis dengan penilaian biasDiterapkan di sini
- 04Inferensi kausal dan evaluasi dampakUji coba teracak dan peluncuran bertahap · Evaluasi program kuasi-eksperimentalDiterapkan di sini
- 05Rekayasa sistemKetertelusuran dari persyaratan hingga verifikasi · Tinjauan kesiapan per tahapDiterapkan di sini
Where this page’s references lead.
Badan dan dokumen yang menjadi acuan halaman ini. Status dan edisi berubah; setiap tautan menuju badan penerbitnya.
Tanya jawab.
What is data leakage?
Is a high benchmark score enough to publish a method?
Can a generative AI tool be listed as an author?
Why publish model weights and code?
Does Labs use generative AI to write findings?
Can Labs evaluate a commercial AI model?
Why compare with simple baselines?
Kontribusikan bukti dari halaman ini.
Laporan is the Consortium’s quarterly publication. What you know about this subject can become evidence, a case or a correction in the next edition, credited to you and published under CC BY 4.0 where it is your own work.
- SurelGerbang GW-GCRIKirim dari halaman iniBukti, koreksi, kasus, metode, tinjauan, terjemahan, atau masukan profil. Kiriman tiba dengan label halaman ini, sehingga editor pemiliknya menerimanya.
- ZenodoDeposit terbukaDeposit dan ajukan ke komunitasTerbitkan catatan Anda sendiri di Zenodo dengan ORCID iD Anda, lalu ajukan ke komunitas Reports di sana. Kurator meninjaunya; DOI tetap milik Anda.
- LaporanGCRILihat semua cara berkontribusiJenis kontribusi, cara masing-masing ditinjau, kredit yang Anda terima, lisensinya, dan apa yang tidak pernah diterima.
Jangan pernah mengirim data pribadi, rincian infrastruktur sensitif, atau apa pun yang tidak berhak Anda bagikan. Kontribusi ditinjau sebelum digunakan. Mengirimkannya tidak memberikan hak kepenulisan atau editorial, dan sponsor tidak pernah membeli sebuah temuan.
Bawa metode, dataset, atau pertanyaan.
Informasi dan pertanyaan sudah terbuka hari ini. Sebuah pertanyaan menerima nomor referensi dan menyebutkan langkah berikutnya; lamaran, pembayaran, alokasi komputasi, dan pendaftaran hanya dibuka ketika tim, ketentuan, dan kapasitas tinjauannya tersedia.
Dokumen hukum.
Peta, data, dan gambar di situs ini ditampilkan untuk konteks dan informasi umum. Semua itu bukan nasihat, prakiraan, atau peringatan; batasan informasinya dijelaskan dalam Penafian dan Pemberitahuan Data.