This page collects useful resources regarding Experiment-Oriented Computing (EOC), a concept introduced in my ESEC/FSE 2018 paper The Case for Experiment-Oriented Computing (local free download). Computational experimentation technology can be found in many forms, sometimes explicit and dedicated, but more often intertwined with other concerns. In almost all cases I’m aware of, however, there is no proper understanding of the wide scope that such technology can have. Nevertheless, it is useful to map the technology that does exist, since it can help us track, motivate and imagine the progress of proper EOC tools and systems. I’ve also created a related infographic for dissemination to practitioners.
A/B Test Libraries, Frameworks and Services
In Software Engineering, experimentation is often confused with mere A/B testing. This is actually a very popular technique, so it would be futile to try to curate all such tools here. Rather, I will focus on those that for some reason are particularly interesting or representative.
- Facebook’s PlanOut: a framework for large-scale A/B testing, used at Facebook.
- Optimizely: A popular service that calls itself “the world’s leading experimentation platform.” It allows non-programmers to take existing web pages and modify them in order to determine the effects of such modifications. This is achieved by dynamically instrumenting the page before delivering to customers. Other forms of experimentation are also possible, some relating to personalization of pages with respect to users, locations and perhaps other factors.
- Unbounce: A popular service to design and deploy landing pages (and other artifacts, it seems). Critically, allows for easy A/B testing, provided that the user spends some time designing the versions to be tested.
- Effective Experiments: A platform for managing experiments conducted through other tools. Seems useful for teams with long-term commitment to experimentation.
Experiment Tracking and Versioning
- Version Control System for Data Science Projects: Uses git to track experiments. Includes a number of additional abstractions, such as metrics and Machine Learning pipelines, in order to allow easier assessment and reproduction of results.
- Sacred: Python library to define, run and track experiments. “Sacred is a tool to configure, organize, log and reproduce computational experiments. It is designed to introduce only minimal overhead, while encouraging modularity and configurability of experiments.”
- Sumatra: Primarely a command-line tool for “managing and tracking projects based on numerical simulation and/or analysis, with the aim of supporting reproducible research. It can be thought of as an automated electronic lab notebook for computational projects.” Also provides a Python library for deeper integrations and customizations.
- Experimenter: Uses git versioning in order to track both experimental setup and results.
Reccrd:Used to be a Python library and a related online service to store experimentation results. The link, however, no longer points to the right place.
- MLflow: Describes itself as “an open source platform for the machine learning lifecycle”. Allows the tracking of experiments, the organization of projects (in particular, to permit easier reproducibility) and — less importantly from an experimentation point of view — the deployment of models to various tools.
- ModelDB: Allows the tracking of Machine Learning experiments results by close integration with selected libraries, currently Spark’s MLlib and scikit-learn.
- Comet: Cloud-based programmatic experiment tracking, hyperparameters optimization, source and results comparison, git versioning and documentation. Commercial, but offers free access to open source projects.
- Weights and Biases: Cloud-based programmatic experiment tracking, rather similar to MLflow’s tracking component. Interestingly, has some ways to log artifacts to make their later inspection easier (e.g., 3D objects for visualization). Free for small projects, commercial or not.
Experimentation with Users
- Amazon’s Mechanical Turk: One of the most well-known platforms to recruit users to complete arbitrary tasks online. Obviously useful for experimenting with users. For example, Toomin et al. have studied user preferences by performing experiments using Mechanical Turk.
- Clickworker: an alternative to Mechanical Turk, with various pre-defined use cases.
- What-If Tool: Part of TensorBoard, allows users to interact with model features and exemples in order to quickly assess their effect in learning. This is manual tool, designed to allow users to manipulate and understand models in real-time.
- Hydra: a CLI application framework from Facebook that seems to help in automating experimentation workflows by making configuration variation easy, including the management of corresponding outputs. Take a look at their tutorial.
Real-World Applications, Laboratories and Companies
- Experimentation at Uber
- Related presentation: A/B testing at Uber: How we built a BYOM (bring your own metrics) platform
- Uber’s Michelangelo Machine Learning management platform.
- Experimentation to optimize Pinterest’s recommendation system: Diversification in recommender systems: Using topical variety to increase user satisfaction
- Microsoft’s ExP Experimentation Platform. There’s a lot of original papers, talks and other contents here, particularly regarding A/B testing.
- Designing Adaptive Experiments to Study Working Memory. A practical example of using Probabilistic Programming (through the Pyro library) to choose optimal experimental parameters while performing the experiments. More concretely, given how subjects have responded so far, what should be the length of the next sequence of digits to measure memory capacity. See the paper by Foster et al. as well.
The nature of experimentation itself:
- Radder, H. (2009).The philosophy of scientific experimentation: a review. Automated Experimentation, 1(1), 2.
- Kohavi, R., & Longbotham, R. (2017). Online controlled experiments and a/b testing. In Encyclopedia of machine learning and data mining (pp. 922-929). Springer US.
- Foster, A., Jankowiak, M., Bingham, E., Horsfall, P., Teh, Y.W., Rainforth, T. and Goodman, N., (2019). Variational Bayesian Optimal Experimental Design. Advances in Neural Information Processing Systems 2019.
- Kluyver, T., Ragan-Kelley, B., Pérez, F., Granger, B. E., Bussonnier, M., Frederic, J., … & Ivanov, P. (2016, May). Jupyter Notebooks-a publishing format for reproducible computational workflows. In ELPUB (pp. 87-90).
- Shen, H. (2014). Interactive notebooks: Sharing the code. Nature News, 515(7525), 151.
- Miao, H., Li, A., Davis, L. S., & Deshpande, A. (2017, April). Modelhub: Deep learning lifecycle management. In 2017 IEEE 33rd International Conference on Data Engineering (ICDE)(pp. 1393-1394). IEEE.
- Gharib Gharibi et al. (2019). ModelKB: Towards Automated Management of the Modeling Lifecycle in Deep Learning. In Proceedings of the 2019 IEEE/ACM 7th International Workshop on Realizing Artificial Intelligence Synergies in Software Engineering (RAISE).
- IEEE Computer Society (2018). Bulletin of the Technical Committee on Data Engineering: Special Issue on Machine Learning Life-cycle Management.
- Bakshy, E., Eckles, D., & Bernstein, M. S. (2014, April). Designing and deploying online field experiments. In Proceedings of the 23rd international conference on World wide web (pp. 283-292). ACM.
- Silva, M., Hines, M. R., Gallo, D., Liu, Q., Ryu, K. D., & Da Silva, D. (2013, March). Cloudbench: Experiment automation for cloud environments. In Cloud Engineering (IC2E), 2013 IEEE International Conference on (pp. 302-311). IEEE.
- Sparkes, A., Aubrey, W., Byrne, E., Clare, A., Khan, M. N., Liakata, M., … & Young, M. (2010). Towards Robot Scientists for autonomous scientific discovery. Automated Experimentation, 2(1), 1.
- Hunter, D., & Evans, N. (2016). Facebook emotional contagion experiment controversy. Research Ethics, 12(1), 2–3.
In Human-Computer Interaction (HCI), there are tools that help users to experiment with the design of various types of artifacts. These range from very simple approaches (e.g., quick previews) to highly sophisticated ones, based on optimization or learning techniques. Beyond their specific design applications, such tools are, by definition (the ‘Human’ part of HCI), very close to users, and therefore can be rich sources of inspiration for more general experimentation interfaces.
- Carter, S., & Nielsen, M. (2017). Using artificial intelligence to augment human intelligence. Distill, 2(12), e9.
- Seidel, S., Berente, N., Lindberg, A., Lyytinen, K., & Nickerson, J. V. (2018). Autonomous tools and design: a triple-loop approach to human-machine learning. Communications of the ACM, 62(1), 50-57.
(Computational) Scientific Discovery.
- Langley, P., Simon, H. A., Bradshaw, G. L., & Zytkow, J. M. (1987). Scientific discovery: Computational explorations of the creative processes. MIT press.
Active Learning. Burr (2012)’s description of the field explains the importance for experimentation very well: “Traditional ‘passive’ learning systems induce a hypothesis to explain whatever training data happens to be available (e.g., a collection of labeled instances). By contrast, the hallmark of an active learning system is that it eagerly develops and tests new hypotheses as part of a continuing,interactive learning process. Another way to think about it is that active learners develop a ‘line ofinquiry,’ much in the way a scientist would design a series of experiments to help him or her drawconclusions as efficiently as possible.“
- Burr Settles (2012). Active Learning. Morgan & Claypool Publishers.
Software analytics (and related experimental concerns). Although, in principle, software analytics can be entirely passive (and therefore not experimental), in reality software provides an ideal medium for supporting experimentation (i.e., because arbitrary interaction can be implemented). Hence, it is worth understanding the area.
- Bird, C., Menzies, T., & Zimmermann, T. (Eds.). (2015). The Art and Science of Analyzing Software Data. Elsevier.
- Menzies, T., Williams, L., & Zimmermann, T. (2016). Perspectives on Data Science for Software Engineering. Morgan Kaufmann.
Philosophy of Science. Unsurprisingly, I find the discipline to be quite insightful.
- Hanson, N. R. (1977). Patterns of discovery an inquiry into the conceptual foundations of science. CUP Archive.
- 2014: Everything You Need To Know about Facebook’s Controversial Emotion Experiment
- 2016: Why These Tech Companies Keep Running Thousands Of Failed Experiments
- 2017: The Surprising Power of Online Experiments
- Sarah Zhang (2019).The 500-Year-Long Science Experiment. In: The Atlantic.
- This is actually not at all automated, but comments on a unique challenge: how do you support experiments that last centuries? Here, scientists are looking for ways to do this manually, such as rewriting the experiment’s instructions every 25 years to keep them up to date for future generations. What would an EOC technology to support such long-term experiments look like? Perhaps just like these scientists are rewriting instructions manually, an experimentation software could rewrite itself over time?