REVIEW 1 cited by
Ten ways to fool the masses with machine learning
Not yet reviewed by Pith; the record is open.
This paper has not been read by Pith yet. Machine review is queued; the pith claim, tier, and objections will appear here once it completes.
SPECIMEN: schema-true, not a live event
T0 review · schema-true
One-sentence machine reading of the paper's core claim.
pith:XXXXXXXX · record.json · timestamp
Signed reviews
read the original abstract
If you want to tell people the truth, make them laugh, otherwise they'll kill you. (source unclear) Machine learning and deep learning are the technologies of the day for developing intelligent automatic systems. However, a key hurdle for progress in the field is the literature itself: we often encounter papers that report results that are difficult to reconstruct or reproduce, results that mis-represent the performance of the system, or contain other biases that limit their validity. In this semi-humorous article, we discuss issues that arise in running and reporting results of machine learning experiments. The purpose of the article is to provide a list of watch out points for researchers to be aware of when developing machine learning models or writing and reviewing machine learning papers.
Forward citations
Cited by 1 Pith paper
-
Requirements Engineering for Machine Learning: Perspectives from Data Scientists
Based on four interviews, the paper argues that requirements engineering for ML needs new requirement types, including explainability, freedom from discrimination, data requirements, and an understanding of ML perform...
Discussion (0). Continue with ORCID to comment.