Re:Jeff Dean Responds to EDA Industry about AlphaChip
by xpe on Sunday December 01, 2024 @09:14AM
(#42288546)
> Trying to pass that off as a significant "advance" in a "scientific publication" borders on scientific fraud and should definitely be called out.
If true, your stated concerns with the AlphaChip paper -- selective benchmarking and potential overselling of results - reflect poor scientific practice and possible intellectual dishonesty. This does not constitute scientific fraud, which occurs when the underlying method/experiment/rules are faked.
If the paper has issues with how it positions and contextualizes its contribution, criticism is warranted, sure. But don't confuse this with "scientific fraud".
Some context: for as long as benchmark suites have existed, people rightly comment on which benchmarks should be included and how they should be weighted.
If true, your stated concerns with the AlphaChip paper -- selective benchmarking and potential overselling of results - reflect poor scientific practice and possible intellectual dishonesty. This does not constitute scientific fraud, which occurs when the underlying method/experiment/rules are faked.
If the paper has issues with how it positions and contextualizes its contribution, criticism is warranted, sure. But don't confuse this with "scientific fraud".
Some context: for as long as benchmark suites have existed, people rightly comment on which benchmarks should be included and how they should be weighted.