Pith. sign in

REVIEW 2 cited by

Questionable practices in 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

arxiv 2407.12220 v2 pith:BOQKQ56G submitted 2024-07-17 cs.LG cs.CLcs.CY

classification cs.LGcs.CLcs.CY
keywords practicesresearchmodelsquestionableresearchersauditbenchmarksbuild
verification ladder T0 review T1 audit T2 compute T3 formal
0 comments
read the original abstract

Evaluating modern ML models is hard. The strong incentive for researchers and companies to report a state-of-the-art result on some metric often leads to questionable research practices (QRPs): bad practices which fall short of outright research fraud. We describe 44 such practices which can undermine reported results, giving examples where possible. Our list emphasises the evaluation of large language models (LLMs) on public benchmarks. We also discuss "irreproducible research practices", i.e. decisions that make it difficult or impossible for other researchers to reproduce, build on or audit previous research.

Discussion (0). Sign in to comment.

Forward citations

Cited by 2 Pith papers

Reviewed papers in the Pith corpus that reference this work. Sorted by Pith novelty score. Full citation record

  1. Pitfalls in Evaluating Language Model Forecasters

    cs.LG 2025-05 accept novelty 6.0 of 10

    A systematic critique showing temporal leakage and extrapolation flaws can undermine claims that LLM forecasters match or beat humans.

  2. Red Teaming AI Policy: A Taxonomy of Avoision and the EU AI Act

    cs.CY 2025-06 accept novelty 5.0 of 10

    A taxonomy of avoision under the EU AI Act, with strategies to escape scope, exploit exemptions, and manipulate risk or operator categories.

Pith tools