3 ms·
It's not an arbitrary dataset. To be taken seriously you need to beat SOTA on several standard benchmark datasets where only reaching SOTA on one is already har
by ogrisel 11y ago
It's not an arbitrary dataset. To be taken seriously you need to beat SOTA on several standard benchmark datasets where only reaching SOTA on one is already hard.
Or alternatively, reach comparable level of validation accuracy with significantly less compute or memory usage (computational complexity).
Or alternatively, reach comparable level of validation accuracy with only a subset of labeled samples + unlabeled samples (sample complexity).
- eli_gottlieb 11y agoThat still amounts to publishing when you can say, "We know it does work" as opposed to "We know why it works".
- aminorex 11y ago...which is very valuable. After all, we don't know when, if ever, a satisfactory explanation (by what criteria?) will derive. To defer all progress in the field until it should meet the standards of some other field would be a great loss, and might preclude any number of future further discoveries.
- eli_gottlieb 11y agoAs far as I understand the concept of "science", an empirical observation (including "it works from an engineering perspective, kinda") is only ever an observation. Scientific progress, by definition, involves advancing our understanding of hows and whys.