Versioning code, data, and models helps establish reproducibility in machine learning. Despite this, a critical question remains: how do you link a specific model artifact to the exact training process that created it? Imagine you trained a dozen models, each with slightly different settings. A week later, you find one model performs exceptionally well. Can you confidently identify the exact code version, dataset hash, and hyperparameter combination that produced it? This is where experiment tracking comes in.
Think of experiment tracking as the methodical lab notebook for your machine learning projects. It is the practice of systematically logging all relevant information associated with each training run. By doing so, you create a complete and auditable record that connects every component, transforming a potentially chaotic process into a disciplined and scientific one.
Without a formal tracking system, ML development often relies on fragile methods like spreadsheets, complex file naming conventions (model_final_v2_with_more_data.pkl), or scattered text files. This approach is prone to human error, difficult to share with teammates, and nearly impossible to scale. When you formally track your experiments, you gain several significant advantages:
A comprehensive experiment log should capture everything needed to understand and reproduce a training run. These components typically fall into four main categories.
Parameters are the inputs that configure a training run. They are the settings you control. It's helpful to log anything that could influence the final model.
learning_rate for a neural network, the max_depth of a decision tree, or the number of n_estimators in a random forest.random_seed used for initialization, which ensures that stochastic processes are repeatable.Metrics are the quantitative outputs that measure the performance of your model. They tell you how well the model is doing on a particular task.
Artifacts are the files produced during and at the end of a training run. Logging artifacts means storing them in a way that links them directly to the run that created them.
.pkl, .h5, or .pt file). This is the most important artifact.requirements.txt that lists the versions of all libraries used, ensuring the software environment can also be recreated.To complete the chain of reproducibility, you must link the experiment back to the versioned code and data.
While you could start by logging this information to a simple JSON file, this approach quickly becomes difficult to manage and compare. Specialized tools are designed to solve this problem by providing both an API for logging and a user interface for viewing the results.
Popular open-source tools like MLflow Tracking and DVC Experiments provide a structured way to manage this process. The general workflow looks like this:
Here is a simplified Python-like example of what this looks like, using functions that mimic a typical experiment tracking library:
import experiment_tracker as et
# Define hyperparameters
params = {
"learning_rate": 0.01,
"epochs": 10,
"optimizer": "Adam"
}
# 1. Start a new run
with et.start_run(run_name="adam_optimizer_run"):
# 2. Log parameters
et.log_params(params)
# Load data and preprocess it
train_data, test_data = load_data("data/v2.0")
# Train the model
model = train_model(train_data, params)
# Evaluate the model
metrics = evaluate_model(model, test_data) # e.g., returns {"accuracy": 0.92, "loss": 0.15}
# 3. Log metrics
et.log_metrics(metrics)
# Save the model file
model.save("model.h5")
# 4. Log the model file as an artifact
et.log_artifact("model.h5")
# The run is automatically ended when the 'with' block exits.
This code creates a self-contained, reproducible record. The tracking tool stores all this information, linking the logged parameters, metrics, and the model.h5 artifact together under a single run ID.
The real power of experiment tracking becomes apparent when you need to compare multiple runs. Instead of digging through files and folders, you can use the tool's user interface to view all your runs in a clean, filterable table.
A typical experiment tracking UI allows you to compare runs. In this example, you can quickly sort by a metric like "Accuracy" to find the best performing run (
run_ghi_789) and see the corresponding hyperparameters (max_depth=10,n_estimators=100) that produced it.
Many tools also provide visualizations to compare runs, such as scatter plots that map hyperparameters to outcomes or charts showing how training loss decreased over time for different models. This visual feedback is invaluable for building intuition and guiding your next set of experiments.
By integrating experiment tracking into your workflow, you create a complete, auditable history of your model development process. It is the practice that ties together your versioned code, data, and models, ensuring that your work is not only effective but also transparent and reproducible.
Was this section helpful?
© 2026 ApX Machine LearningAI Ethics & Transparency•