3 ms·

The paper has recently been called into question for overestimating their performance relative to BERT: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=36758433 https://ne

The paper has recently been called into question for overestimating their performance relative to BERT: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=36758433 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=36758433. Might be good for the blog's author to take this into account in their explainer. The author's perspective sounds a bit too positive (and borderline salesmanlike).

eyegor 3y ago
The second to last section "some potential issues with the paper" discusses the top-2 finding.
- liliumregale 3y ago
  Yes - it's mentioned, but doesn't the framing below make it sound like they're still advocating for this paper? > In essence, it's advisable to take the paper’s reported figures with a grain of salt, particularly as they cannot be precisely reproduced as described. Nonetheless, this approach continues to deliver unexpectedly well. A "grain of salt" is different from "critical evaluation flaw," and if the reproduction's results are true, then the method doesn't after all "deliver unexpectedly well".
  - abhi9u 3y ago
    I take your point that it could have been more strongly worded. The reason I say it "devliers unexpectedly well" is because the whole concept of using gzip for classification is unintuitive, and even after fixing the flaw it still manages to get decent accuracy (given that it is no more beating state-of-the-art models).
    - liliumregale 3y ago
      Further analysis shows that it doesn’t perform well at all—successes are tied to things like test set leakage. https://kenschutte.com/gzip-knn-paper2/ https://kenschutte.com/gzip-knn-paper2/ This paper isn’t any surprisingly effective result. It’s thoroughly shoddy scholarship by which the authors should feel embarrassed.
abhi9u 3y ago
Thank you for reading :-) I mentioned it towards the end, in the 2nd last paragraph. Those issues in the evaluation do bring its accuracy down a bit, even then it performs better than expected, considering it is doing knn on compressed data.
- liliumregale 3y ago
  Well…one that peeks at the test set labels. https://kenschutte.com/gzip-knn-paper2/ https://kenschutte.com/gzip-knn-paper2/

eyegor 3y ago

The second to last section "some potential issues with the paper" discusses the top-2 finding.

liliumregale 3y ago
Yes - it's mentioned, but doesn't the framing below make it sound like they're still advocating for this paper? > In essence, it's advisable to take the paper’s reported figures with a grain of salt, particularly as they cannot be precisely reproduced as described. Nonetheless, this approach continues to deliver unexpectedly well. A "grain of salt" is different from "critical evaluation flaw," and if the reproduction's results are true, then the method doesn't after all "deliver unexpectedly well".
- abhi9u 3y ago
  I take your point that it could have been more strongly worded. The reason I say it "devliers unexpectedly well" is because the whole concept of using gzip for classification is unintuitive, and even after fixing the flaw it still manages to get decent accuracy (given that it is no more beating state-of-the-art models).
  - liliumregale 3y ago
    Further analysis shows that it doesn’t perform well at all—successes are tied to things like test set leakage. https://kenschutte.com/gzip-knn-paper2/ https://kenschutte.com/gzip-knn-paper2/ This paper isn’t any surprisingly effective result. It’s thoroughly shoddy scholarship by which the authors should feel embarrassed.

abhi9u 3y ago

Thank you for reading :-) I mentioned it towards the end, in the 2nd last paragraph. Those issues in the evaluation do bring its accuracy down a bit, even then it performs better than expected, considering it is doing knn on compressed data.

liliumregale 3y ago
Well…one that peeks at the test set labels. https://kenschutte.com/gzip-knn-paper2/ https://kenschutte.com/gzip-knn-paper2/