Live data from Hacker News

I don't trust papers out of “Top Labs” anymore

old.reddit.com

51–53 of 53 posts

Re: I don't trust papers out of “Top Labs” anymore

#51
post #27

CIFAR-10 is consists of 10,000 test images. So 0.03% of CIFAR-10 is 3 images. At this tiny number, the randomness is starting to affect the scores. Like labeling mistake of test data by human. Maybe, training SotA with different random seeds make its score 0.03% better or worse. Hell, 17,810 TPU core-hours is a huge number. You can't ignore the work of randomness. What if a cosmic ray hit a specific memory cell which…

TPUs make numerical errors more frequently than you'd expect- and it's not cosmic rays, it's QA errors (individual chips were manufactured that passed QA but very occasionally, for specific inputs and operations, produce garbage). When you run on a full pod, many workloads will eventually see corruptions, often in the form of a propagating NaN in critical data like the gradient or weights, that the training cannot recover from.

In fact in a recent big paper from Google they mentioned that training occasionally went wonky in completely nonreproducible ways, but I am pretty sure I know what happened.

Re: I don't trust papers out of “Top Labs” anymore

#52
post #23

It’s even worse in biology where some labs consistently publish in Nature, Science, Cell. Some of the papers are outright fraudulent. Don’t even trust the numbers. At least for ML you can mostly reproduce the results, even in if they’re not that interesting.

I wanted to reproduce (actually: use) a paper published in 2021. They provide a notebook, and I went to run it. I can't even get past the first cell (importing torch) because the API has already changed.

So in biology, they write papers that can't be reproduced becaue they're fraud, but in ML, they write papers that can't be reproduced because the setup is too fragile.

Re: I don't trust papers out of “Top Labs” anymore

#53
post #47

Earlier quoted context omitted.

That's a very good counterargument. Perhaps the true, underlying problem is the lack of social mobility in research. But, while I really don't think this is problem is particular to machine learning, this type of sentiment (as described in the OP) is very common in the field. I've seen it a lot on reddit, and even in real life. Why so? Why is this form of inequality so hard to swallow for some ML scientists?

I don't know either. Is it easier to confuse one's identity in ML as to whether one is doing computer science, computational science, application development, or even consulting/services? There is obviously a long history of "resource disparity" in high-performance and distributed computing worlds. When I was more enmeshed in that field in the late 90s-early 2000s, I did not see this raising too much concern among my…

Thanks for your thoughtful answer, you have some interesting insight on this :)
Post reply on HN