3 ms·
Not true. It quantifies publications in top conferences. These are highly competitive, and you cannot just publish any junk there. If the site were to measure A
by vzaliva 1y ago
Not true. It quantifies publications in top conferences. These are highly competitive, and you cannot just publish any junk there. If the site were to measure ANY publications, then it would be indeed skewed, as you suggested.
- zipy124 1y agoI'm not refering to junk papers by quantity, but that not all papers at the same venue are equal, and some fields take longer. For example a logic/programming-language paper often takes much longer to theorize than an AI paper. Even within the same field should a paper that speeds up LLM's by 10x be equal to one that improves object detection accuracy in a specific dataset by 2%, or a dataset paper? All could be published at NeurIPS and all are good papers, but that does not make them equal in impact. A better example might be that a hypothetical paper curing some cancer through some magic technology, or a differnt one detecting cancer better using AI could both target a similar venue (as evidenced by various nature puplications), but are vastly different in impact.