A Worrying Analysis of Recent Neural Recommendation Approaches

Re:A Worrying Analysis of Recent Neural Recommendation Appro... by disgruntledphd2 on Tuesday July 23, 2019 @06:10AM (#20505603)

I dunno, I get where you are coming from with respect to literate programming, but I find that it's often better to show all the versions in an org file (or whatever tool you use) and write up a report separately including the final results.

In general, you'll have a lot of approaches that don't work out which are nice to have a record of, but definitely don't merit being in the final paper.

[ Parent | on HN ]

Re:A Worrying Analysis of Recent Neural Recommendation Appro... by codebje on Wednesday July 24, 2019 @09:11AM (#20514858)

A published code base doesn't necessarily mean a full revision history, just something others can reproducibly build and run.

If your claims don't depend on specific behaviours of some body of code, you wouldn't need it - eg, an article claiming some asymptotic performance of an algorithm should describe the algorithm in the abstract s.t. the performance bound can be proven, not some specific language's implementation of the algorithm.

[ Parent | on HN ]