GCRI · Labs
科学ワークフローにおける AI
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.
作業の進め方。
Testbed operations
AI in scientific workflows · Field lab coast · Campaign 5
Sensor deployment
例示の海岸線
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
図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.
モデル、その仮定、データ、不確実性を、科学者やエンジニアが確認する形で示します。構造は公表された手法に従っています。描かれた値は例示であり、知見ではありません。
モデル、方程式、仮定
The model structure used for AI in scientific workflows, the assumptions it makes and how each is tested.
Ri = f(Hi, Ei, Vi, Ci)ハザード、エクスポージャー、脆弱性、対処能力EAL = ∑k pk · Lk年間確率 pkxt+1 = A xt + B ut + εtA carries the couplings, u the shock, ε the error| 仮定 | 作られる理由 | 検証の方法 |
|---|---|---|
| 一つの事象の中では、ハザードとエクスポージャーは独立している | 損失の積分を扱いやすく保つ | 同時記録に当てはめたコピュラと比較 |
| 結合は動作点の近くで線形である | ショックを A を通じて伝播させる | 線形範囲を超えて摂動を与えて比較する |
| 脆弱性曲線は場所を越えて適用できる | 地域固有の曲線はめったに得られない | 観測された損失がある場合はそれに照らして検証 |
- 入力
- 来歴付きのバージョン管理されたデータセット
- 成果物
- 分布であり、単一の数値ではない
- コード
- モデルカードと試験とともに公開
- 再現
- 同じデータ、コード、環境、シード
AI in scientific workflows changes each domain’s methods.
Findings feed the 手法と技術シリーズ. 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.
何を、どの程度うまく測定しているか。
各指標には、その単位、更新頻度、背後にある出典の種類、値が持つことになるエビデンスのラベルが付いています。値は表示しません：プログラムが自らの権限のもとで値を提供します。
| 指標 | 単位 | 周期 | 出典の種類 | ラベル |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Held-out evaluation design stated | percent of model-based studies | 年次 | Audit against the REFORMS checklist | 観測 |
| Code and model weights available | percent of studies with runnable code and weights | 年次 | Repository and article audit | 観測 |
| External validation | percent of models tested on data from another site or period | 年次 | Literature review | 推定 |
| 較正誤差 | expected calibration error, dimensionless | per model | Held-out evaluation | 観測 |
| Performance gap under shift | difference in the primary metric between internal and external test sets | per model | Validation reports | 観測 |
| AI use disclosure | percent of submissions with a disclosure statement | 年次 | Journal submission records | 申告済み |
| Contamination checks reported | percent of benchmark evaluation reports | 年次 | Evaluation reports | 報告値 |
エビデンスの出所。
名前の明示された公開データセットと機関の記録。それぞれにライセンス区分があります。合意に基づく出典は、その条件のもとでのみ使用し、再公開することはありません。
| 出典 | 提供するもの | ライセンス区分 |
|---|---|---|
| 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 システム | オープン、帰属表示 |
| 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 |
誰が決め、エビデンスが何に役立つか。
ラボ prepares evidence. The decisions below are taken by the authorities named, under their own rules, and never by the platform.
| 誰が決定するか | 質問 | このページが提供するエビデンス |
|---|---|---|
| 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 |
| 研究資金提供者 | 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 |
このトピックが生み出す成果物
- 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; 分布シフト, 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 不確実性の定量化.
- 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.
どのように研究され、手法が言えないことは何か。
Where this page’s references lead.
このページの読解の基準となる機関と文書。状態と版は変わります。各リンクは発行機関へ移動します。
質問と回答。
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?
このページからエビデンスを提供する。
報告書 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.
- メールゲートウェイ GW-GCRIこのページから送信するエビデンス、訂正、事例、手法、レビュー、翻訳、プロファイルへの入力。このページのタグが付いて届くため、担当の編集者が受け取ります。
- Zenodoオープンな寄託寄託してコミュニティに提出するORCID iD を使って Zenodo に自分の記録を公開し、そこから Reports コミュニティに提出してください。キュレーターが審査し、DOI は引き続きあなたのものです。
- 報告書GCRI貢献のすべての方法を見る貢献の種類、それぞれの審査方法、受け取るクレジット、ライセンス、決して受け付けないもの。
個人データ、重要インフラの機微な詳細、共有する権利のないものは決して送らないでください。寄稿は利用前にレビューされます。送付によって著作者としての権利や編集上の権利が生じることはなく、スポンサーシップで調査結果を買うことは決してできません。
手法、データセット、または問いを持ち込んでください。
情報提供と問い合わせは本日から受け付けています。問い合わせには参照番号が付き、次の手順が示されます。申請、支払い、計算資源の割り当て、登録は、担当チーム、規約、審査体制が整ってから開始します。
法的文書。
このサイトの地図、データ、図表は、背景と一般的な情報として示すものです。助言、予報、警報ではありません。情報の限界は免責事項とデータに関する注意事項に記載しています。