> 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, yo

> 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.