Underspecified ML Pipelines
Image credit: Unsplash
The Underspecification Problem: Why Multiple Fits Hide Different Behaviors
In ML, underspecification arises when training leaves multiple valid solutions. Each fits the data but may act differently in production. This gap appears when objectives focus too narrowly or evaluation datasets are too limited. [1]
When pipelines lack clear objectives—focusing solely on statistical metrics or small test sets—models exploit any shortcut that boosts scores. Underspecified ML pipelines produce models that succeed on training data but fail in production.
- They memorize training examples without grasping true task logic.
- They match iid test distributions but misbehave on real-world inputs.
Shortcut Learning: The “Clever Hans” Effect
The term Clever Hans comes from a famous horse in the early 1900s that appeared to solve math by hoof taps – until investigators realized that the horse was just picking up subtle cues from its trainer (who would tense up when Hans reached the right number of taps!).
In ML, a “Clever Hans” model achieves high metrics for the wrong reasons. It masters shortcuts rather than learning the intended task.
Unfortunately, shortcut learning [2] is widespread:
- Vision Classification — “©WildlifePhotos” tags served as tiger indicators.
- Wolf vs. Husky — models used snowy backgrounds to label “wolf” [3].
- Manufacturing Sensor Data — quality predictors tied to line speed rather than true defects.
- NLP Sentiment — Punctuation “!!!” was systematically read as negative, despite sometimes signaling excitement.
High validation scores often mask disastrous deployment failures.
Shortcuts Are Hard Targets
“Clever Hans” tactics collapse under new contexts—but remain hidden by perfect test-set accuracy.
Several ML pipelines remain underspecified. We often fail to supply context or incentives that guide models toward true solutions—especially when the “right” strategy is harder to learn than a shortcut. As researchers note, models solve datasets, not real tasks. Because evaluation sets mirror recent training snapshots, Clever Hans tactics stay hidden—until the environment shifts even slightly.
We need tests that capture true task requirements—tests where shortcuts will fail.
How Domain-Aware Verification Exposes Shortcuts and Fills Specification Gaps
Domain-aware verification employs expert rules to detect shortcuts before deployment.
Invariance Tests — swap irrelevant features (e.g., background, watermark) and expect consistent outputs.
Directional Expectations — apply realistic variations to generate counterfactuals that stress-test shortcuts.
Domain-aware checks reveal hidden flaws, differentiating staging models that share similar test accuracies. Yet, alerting alone won’t solve underspecification.
Close the feedback loop: convert failed domain tests into training constraints or data-augmentation signals. This steers learning toward real tasks, not just datasets.
VerifIA integrates human insight and application-specific knowledge into domain-aware test suites. It then executes these suites and provides a detailed report of failures, guiding practitioners to refine pipelines and retrain on meaningful patterns.
Therefore, we gain confidence that our models work for the right reasons—and will adapt as conditions evolve. In an era of complex, high-stakes AI, this approach is essential for safe, reliable, and ethical intelligent systems.
