Re:A Worrying Analysis of Recent Neural Recommendation Appro...
by DennisP on Monday July 22, 2019 @06:12PM
(#20502778)
Sorta makes you wonder whether this messy, poorly-tested, unreviewed code is correctly implementing the algorithms they think they're testing.
Re:A Worrying Analysis of Recent Neural Recommendation Appro...
by ACow_Adonis on Monday July 22, 2019 @08:56PM
(#20503603)
Oh I don't wonder :) After a few years experience with analysis you sometimes see certain patterns in papers which strongly suggest bugs you've experienced, phenomenon in the data set you're already familiar with, and hacking/overfitting. And some of the languages are specifically designed to keep running and produce wrong results rather than crash and abort: a cynical man might say this is a feature not a bug and that's why they're popular.
As a non-wealthy, non-academic, this isn't a battle I'm interested in fighting directly. There are other hills I'd rather die on :)
Also, more likely and non- nefarious, but no less harmful, there's just an academic culture that says "this is what a paper looks like and this is what it contains". Moving from this pattern increases the odds you'll not be published, and it would also likely result in a scandal when someone uses it to point out that the peers in peer review are neither peers (they can't read nor understand nor test the code) nor reviewing (they won't actually put resources into code review).