Harnessing the Universal Geometry of Embeddings

I'm not as heavy on the maths stuff involved in this as other people commenting appear to be.

But the idea makes sense, of course there is still recoverable data in embeddings, that's the point. Though as I constantly find the more you try to squeeze into an n bit vector the more watered down everything gets.

I suppose a latent space could be encrypted/mapped in some way to resolve that, but how many people are exposing their vectors in the first place?

The point of the paper isn't that embeddings contain information, it's that even if you don't know what model generated a set of embeddings you can still recover information from the geometry of the point cloud itself.

The fact that this is possible also adds some pretty strong restriction to the set of possible maps you could use to remove that information. No linear map will work since all embedding spaces are ~an orthonormal matrix apart, so some form of encryption is necessary. This wasn't known until very recently.

> It's not science until it passes peer review

Peer reviewers don't generally reproduce the work in the publications they are asked to review, at least not during the review process itself. Neither do journal editors.

If you want a real vanity press, check vixra and its origin story.

ArXiv does have moderators and endorsers in each area, although they are usually light-touch, weeding out literally unreadable submissions, ones that so obviously ignore formatting guidelines that it beggars belief they could comply with a typical journal's rules, and ones that are clearly submitted to the wrong area.

If anything, I think sometimes the net is too fine. Will Kinney just this week had a version of https://www.acsu.buffalo.edu/~whkinney/SpecialRelativityBoot...> rejected by the arXiv, for example. The reasons for arXiv-rejection can be opaque.

Having a stable document early (a pre-print) tends to widen the scrutiny of papers that may ultimately be published to a journal whose editor's expertise lies in a very different area from the submission; this can and does lead to author corrections being made before journal publication.

There are plenty of peer-reviewed papers which are hot garbage that have found their way into prestigious high-impact journals like Nature and Science (see https://retractionwatch.com/the-retraction-watch-leaderboard...> for examples, and note none of the top 10 are in areas covered by the arXiv).

> being published by a famous professor from a prestigious university is also no guarantee

Everyone in academia knows this, including the vast majority of famous professors from prestigious universities, because of online repositories like https://retractionwatch.com/retractions-by-nobel-prize-winne...> (and much more sadly because of https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nobel_disease>, lower-profile versions of which academic paper-writers -- and dissertation writers -- tend to encounter as they chase the history of the problem before them or read late citations to works they are relying upon). This particular part of your set of claims is is not a real problem in academia or with the arXiv in particular.

Finally, what value does publication in a predatory journal bring? Do you believe that peer review and editing were actually even performed in the majority of MDPI's most predatory journals, for example? https://www.predatoryjournals.org/news/list-of-all-mdpi-pred...> Some papers published in some of their pay-for-publication open access journals don't even get submitted to the arXiv; one might hope this is out of embarrassment by the authors, although the (low) bar set by the arXiv itself is certainly a factor.

The remedy for a reasonably argued but wrong academic paper isn't lack of publication, failed peer review, or editorial alteration, but rather reply papers. That's the academic dialogue.

"We believe these representations are not serious, they're just really good friends."

Thanks for this reply, your points are well taken and it really got me to think about this stuff.

I suppose you could view arxiv as being a way to let more people do a peer review on the papers, i.e. as one component of a more open and transparent peer review process. As such, it is certainly a welcome alternative to what the snootier journal reviews do, which is to put off reading your paper for a year, and then spend about 50 seconds looking for a reason to say "no".

But I had a narrow point to make when I said that arxiv is a vanity press: just because something is on there doesn't guarantee that it is correct, or even useful. It is a vanity press in the sense that it will publish pretty much anything--modulo obscenity and porn laws, and apparently also some sanity checking by arxiv moderators--but so does a vanity press for print books.

To your point of predatory journals, power-broker reviewers and such, yes, I have done my fair share of suffering from them. It slows down good research and passes through bad research. The system is badly in need of reform, and arxiv gives a much needed alternative.

But really, the problem is (as one of my profs said) that science is totally run on volunteer, unpaid labor. Peer reviewers are very busy, get paid nothing, it is mostly a distraction. This leads them to look for other ways of being compensated--e.g. the can try to be a power broker, a feared authority, etc.

The real solution would be to actually pay peer reviewers and fund them so they can actually reproduce the results. Here's how it could work: when a researcher submits a grant proposal, they budget for enough money to fund the research and enough money to peer review and reproduce it. If the research isn't good enough to warrant an attempt to validate it, then it isn't worth doing in the first place.