REVIEW 1 cited by
A Metric Learning Reality Check
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
Deep metric learning papers from the past four years have consistently claimed great advances in accuracy, often more than doubling the performance of decade-old methods. In this paper, we take a closer look at the field to see if this is actually true. We find flaws in the experimental methodology of numerous metric learning papers, and show that the actual improvements over time have been marginal at best.
Forward citations
Cited by 1 Pith paper
-
Cherry-Picking in Time Series Forecasting: How to Select Datasets to Make Your Model Shine
Judiciously choosing just four datasets can make 46% of forecasting models appear best-in-class and 77% top-three, so dataset selection alone can distort reported performance.
Discussion (0). Continue with ORCID to comment.