Skill 17 · Huggingface Paper Publisher
Subchapter 17.4
templates/ml-report.mdMarkdown7 KBView on GitHub
Machine Learning Experiment Report
Researchers: {{AUTHORS}} Date: {{DATE}} Status: Draft / Final / In Review
{{ABSTRACT}}
What specific question are we trying to answer?
How will we measure success?
| Property | Value |
|---|---|
| Name | Dataset name |
| Source | Origin of data |
| Size | Number of examples |
| Features | Feature count and types |
| Target | What we’re predicting |
| License | Usage rights |
| Split | Size | Percentage |
|---|---|---|
| Train | X examples | Y% |
| Validation | X examples | Y% |
| Test | X examples | Y% |
Key insights from data exploration:
Describe the model architecture:
Input → Layer 1 → Layer 2 → ... → Output| Component | Configuration |
|---|---|
| Type | Model family |
| Parameters | Total count |
| Layers | Number and types |
| Activation | Functions used |
| Dropout | Regularization rate |
What are we comparing against?
| Hyperparameter | Value | Rationale |
|---|---|---|
| Learning Rate | 1e-4 | Tuned via grid search |
| Batch Size | 32 | GPU memory constraint |
| Epochs | 100 | Based on validation |
| Optimizer | AdamW | Standard for transformers |
| Weight Decay | 0.01 | Regularization |
| LR Schedule | Cosine | Smooth convergence |
# Training pseudocode
for epoch in range(num_epochs):
train_loss = train_one_epoch(model, train_loader)
val_loss = validate(model, val_loader)
if val_loss < best_loss:
save_checkpoint(model)| Resource | Specification |
|---|---|
| Hardware | GPU model and count |
| Memory | RAM and VRAM |
| Training Time | Hours/days |
| Cost | Estimated compute cost |
Include plots of:
| Model | Accuracy | Precision | Recall | F1 | AUC |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Baseline 1 | 0.65 | 0.64 | 0.66 | 0.65 | 0.70 |
| Baseline 2 | 0.78 | 0.77 | 0.79 | 0.78 | 0.82 |
| Ours | 0.89 | 0.88 | 0.90 | 0.89 | 0.93 |
| Class | Precision | Recall | F1 | Support |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Class 1 | 0.90 | 0.88 | 0.89 | 500 |
| Class 2 | 0.87 | 0.91 | 0.89 | 450 |
| Class 3 | 0.88 | 0.89 | 0.88 | 550 |
Examples where the model performs well.
Examples where the model fails and why.
| Configuration | Score | Change |
|---|---|---|
| Full Model | 0.89 | - |
| - Feature Set A | 0.85 | -0.04 |
| - Feature Set B | 0.87 | -0.02 |
| - Augmentation | 0.86 | -0.03 |
What types of errors is the model making?
Which features matter most?
| Feature | Importance | Notes |
|---|---|---|
| Feature 1 | 0.35 | Most predictive |
| Feature 2 | 0.28 | Secondary signal |
| Feature 3 | 0.15 | Marginal impact |
How does the model generalize to other datasets?
| Dataset | Score | Notes |
|---|---|---|
| Original | 0.89 | Training distribution |
| Dataset A | 0.82 | Similar domain |
| Dataset B | 0.71 | Different domain |
Performance under adversarial conditions.
Performance across demographic groups or sensitive attributes.
| Batch Size | Latency | Throughput |
|---|---|---|
| 1 | 10ms | 100 QPS |
| 8 | 45ms | 178 QPS |
| 32 | 150ms | 213 QPS |
Key takeaways from the experiment.
| Objective | Status | Notes |
|---|---|---|
| Objective 1 | ✅ Met | Achieved target |
| Objective 2 | ⚠️ Partial | Close to target |
| Objective 3 | ❌ Not Met | Needs more work |
What did we learn from this experiment?
Results from hyperparameter tuning.
Supplementary experiments not included in main text.
Links to code repositories:
Detailed data documentation following standard practices.
Model documentation following responsible AI practices.
This file