In this milestone, you’ll present partial results from the initial implementation of your project’s solution, and your focus will be on analyzing and discussing these results. A thoughtful discussion involves recognizing both positive outcomes that support your approach and negative or unexpected outcomes that highlight areas for improvement or potential challenges. This is crucial for advancing your solution and demonstrating scientific rigor.
Here’s a guide to structuring a thorough results discussion, along with some examples from the field to illustrate the style and depth expected.
Objective: Identify the aspects of your approach that are working as expected or yielding promising outcomes, then relate these findings to your project’s goals.
-
Highlight Strengths: Focus on metrics where your approach has shown improvement or met expectations. Explain why these results are encouraging and what aspects of your design likely contributed to the positive outcome.
-
Quantify the Gains: Provide concrete measurements. For example, if your solution improved latency, report the exact improvement (e.g., “Our approach reduced latency by 30% compared to the baseline configuration”).
-
Interpret the Relevance: Connect your results back to the problem motivation. For example, if your project addresses energy efficiency, discuss how the observed energy savings contribute toward making ML models more sustainable.
-
Example: In a typical ML Systems paper, such as one on optimizing distributed training frameworks, authors might highlight the performance gains achieved through a new load-balancing algorithm. They’d quantify the gains (“We observed a 20% reduction in training time over traditional frameworks”) and explain why this matters (“Reducing training time directly impacts the feasibility of real-time ML applications and cuts operational costs for large-scale deployments”).
Objective: Examine areas where results fell short of expectations. Discussing these openly demonstrates scientific maturity and can guide improvements.
-
Identify Shortcomings: Acknowledge specific metrics where your solution did not meet the desired standards. For example, if memory usage was unexpectedly high, make a note of this and hypothesize why it might have occurred.
-
Propose Explanations: Offer reasonable explanations for the observed shortcomings. Perhaps the configuration parameters need adjustment, or maybe there’s an inherent trade-off in your approach (e.g., improving speed at the cost of higher memory usage).
-
Frame as Learning Opportunities: Emphasize that these setbacks provide insights. For instance, mention that higher-than-expected resource usage highlights a trade-off that you’ll address in the next phase. This demonstrates that you’re aware of the limitations and actively working to overcome them.
-
Example: In an MLSys paper that introduces a new model parallelization approach, authors might report higher-than-expected network latency under certain configurations. They could discuss this in terms of network bandwidth constraints and then outline planned optimizations, like model partitioning adjustments, to address the issue.
Objective: To adopt a scientific approach, aim for a balanced and objective tone. Discuss both positive and negative findings as parts of a larger, iterative learning process.
-
Contrast and Compare with Expectations: For each result, reflect on whether it met, exceeded, or fell short of your expectations based on initial hypotheses or prior benchmarks (such as data from the motivation experiment). This approach adds depth to your analysis.
-
Relate to Similar Studies: Cite similar challenges or results from established ML Systems papers. For example, if you encountered challenges with model convergence in a distributed setup, reference other papers in MLSys or similar conferences that encountered or addressed convergence issues, explaining how your approach compares or why your setup might yield different outcomes.
-
Examples from Other Papers:
- Energy Efficiency in Distributed ML: Papers like those from MLSys or SOSP often present trade-offs between energy savings and performance. For instance, the paper might show that while energy savings increased by 15%, the model accuracy dropped by 5%. They discuss why this trade-off is acceptable or outline further experiments to mitigate the accuracy loss.
- Scalability in ML Pipelines: Papers addressing ML pipeline scalability may discuss challenges like diminished returns on scaling beyond a certain point. An analysis might state, “We found that while adding resources initially improved throughput, gains plateaued past 16 nodes, likely due to overhead from inter-node communication.” They then suggest optimizations or acknowledge inherent limitations in current distributed frameworks.
-
Introduction to Results: Briefly describe what you hoped to observe based on your initial hypotheses.
-
Summary of Positive Outcomes: Begin with the strengths. Describe successful aspects, include quantitative improvements, and interpret their importance.
-
Detailed Discussion of Shortcomings: Explain where and why your results fell short. Use data and reasonable assumptions to support your analysis, and connect these findings to specific elements of your setup or approach.
-
Conclusion and Next Steps: Wrap up with a reflection on how these findings shape your next steps. Specify which modifications you plan to implement to address the shortcomings or to build on the strengths observed.
- Stay Objective: Avoid overstating positives or underplaying negatives. This milestone is about learning, not perfection.
- Use Visuals: Include plots or graphs where possible to visually illustrate trends or anomalies in your data.
- Draw Connections: Where applicable, relate your findings to your initial motivation experiment or to comparable studies.
- Be Specific: Vague discussions don’t provide value. Include precise measurements and targeted hypotheses about why certain results occurred.
By approaching this milestone with a balanced analysis, you’re setting the stage for a well-rounded final report that demonstrates both the strengths and evolution of your project.