ArticleScientific reports2025
Data reconstruction from machine learning models via inverse estimation and Bayesian inference.
Article in Scientific reports, 2025. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Not yet cited in PubMed.
What it found
Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.
The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.
The trial behind it
Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.
Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.
Who cites it
0 citing papers in PubMed.
No citing paper in PubMed yet.
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
4 authors.
Funding
Abstract
This study explores the task of data reconstruction from machine learning models via inverse estimation and Bayesian inference, with the goal of recovering the original dataset solely based on the trained model. We introduce a novel theoretical framework that investigates the factors affecting the data reconstruction quality. Specifically, we derive expressions that quantify how variations in key variables influence the divergence between true and estimated posteriors by examining the concurrent behavior of their partial derivatives with respect to independent variables. This derivative-based approach establishes theoretical correlations between the variables, demonstrating that the fidelity of the recovered data is governed by two primary factors: (1) the accuracy of the assumed prior, and (2) the accuracy of the machine learning model. Empirical results across multiple benchmark datasets and machine learning algorithms corroborate these theoretical predictions, reinforcing the validity and robustness of our theoretical framework. Practically, our data reconstruction method enables the creation of synthetic models that closely replicate the performance of the original models. This work contributes to advancing the theoretical understanding and practical techniques for data reconstruction and model introspection within the context of machine learning.
Identifiers
What OpenQuestion holds
Registered trials
Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the OpenQuestion graph.