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
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.
Forward citations
Cited by 2 Pith papers
-
Pitfalls in Evaluating Language Model Forecasters
A systematic critique showing temporal leakage and extrapolation flaws can undermine claims that LLM forecasters match or beat humans.
-
Red Teaming AI Policy: A Taxonomy of Avoision and the EU AI Act
A taxonomy of avoision under the EU AI Act, with strategies to escape scope, exploit exemptions, and manipulate risk or operator categories.
Discussion (0). Sign in to comment.