3 ms·
I've been looking at the bias in rankings for a little while. I think one way to identify and raise awareness of the biases, is just put rankings together side-
by lazyjeff 4y ago
I've been looking at the bias in rankings for a little while. I think one way to identify and raise awareness of the biases, is just put rankings together side-by-side. I did this for computer science programs, and there's some interesting differences that I noticed:
https://jeffhuang.com/computer-science-open-data/#bias-in-computer-science-rankings https://jeffhuang.com/computer-science-open-data/#bias-in-co...
- evouga 4y agoThe focus on best paper awards is odd as the major conferences of some CS subfields dole out awards as if they were party favors, and those of other subfields don't have best paper awards at all. For instance SIGCHI 2021 had 28 best papers out of 747 accepted papers (or 3.7%) whereas CVPR 2021 had one best paper out of 1660 accepted papers (0.06%). I have no opinion about whether it's "better" to be stingy or generous with best paper awards. But obviously any kind of ranking that doesn't account for differences between conferences and subfields is going to be quite suspect.
- lazyjeff 4y agoFair point, it's something I'm aware of and it's a bit intentional to counterbalance the "normalization bias" already done in other rankings, if that's what you meant by "account for differences". To put another way, to count in a way such that a CVPR best paper is worth 28-fold a CHI best paper is also quite suspect. There's a rabbit hole you can go down to find the best conference to submit to where the submission-to-best-papers is low, to optimize for this. PS: note that there's an upper bound to best paper awards, which is "< 1% of submitted papers".