5 ms·
With this field advancing so fast, I guess if we could do something like this, that would be great: Maintain a running list of: - 3-5 most important papers in
by fizixer 10y ago
With this field advancing so fast, I guess if we could do something like this, that would be great:
Maintain a running list of:
- 3-5 most important papers in the last 3 months
- 3-5 in the last 1 year (not all in the 3 month list would make into this list)
- 3-5 in the last 5 years.
I guess it's difficult for a small number of people to rank the papers. Maybe a hackernews or reddit style upvote/downvote system can be used, with a list that essentially scrapes arxiv for papers.
- j2kun 10y ago> I guess it's difficult for a small number of people to rank the papers. This is what's done every year at the AI conferences. No need for a new voting system. - 3-5 most important papers in the last 3 months: The "best paper award" deep learning papers of the most recent 1-2 AI conferences. - 3-5 in the last 1 year: Top cited deep learning papers from AI conferences this year. - 3-5 in the last 5 years: Top cited deep learning papers from AI conferences in the last 5 years. Since AI conferences don't happen every day (or even every month) this would not be a hard list for a novice to maintain.
- hueving 10y ago>This is what's done every year at the AI conferences. No need for a new voting system. Not really. Academia rarely ranks things important to the application (aka industry) of a field of study. An efficiency improvement that completely changes the economics of something would likely be rejected from an academic conference for being 'incremental'. Similarly, 'novel' work is much more highly rewarded in these conferences than improvements to existing techniques, experiment replications, or negative results, all of which are more important to industry. Bibliometrics are garbage and represent little more than a popularity contest (and what is controversial). It's basically like if you took up votes and down votes on reddit and just had them both increment a single score. If they were worth anything, there wouldn't be such a thing as review papers that highlight important developments.
- j2kun 10y ago> Academia rarely ranks things important to the application (aka industry) of a field of study. "Rarely" is a strong word. I think the truth is closer to, "Academia has screwed up as a whole in a very small number of cases, but usually works just fine, and always self-corrects eventually."
- hueving 10y agoI'm not talking about screwups. I'm talking about fundamentally unaligned objectives between academia (advancing the edges of knowledge) and industry (making knowledge useful in an economic sense). It's not a problem, it's just something you have to recognize so you don't have the wrong expectation.
- deleted 10y ago[deleted]
- fizx 10y agoIf only we had a way of learning how to rank these papers...