[D] Was this quake AI a little too artificial? Nature-published research accused of boosting accuracy by mixing training, testing data
I usually prefer not to post articles in the popular press, but since this topic about the recent Deep Learning Earthquake publication on Nature has gathered considerable upvotes and discussion only on this subreddit (not anywhere else AFAIK), I’m glad some of the press has also picked up on it to make the broader community aware of our concerns.
The Register has published an article “Was this quake AI a little too artificial? Nature-published research accused of boosting accuracy by mixing training, testing data” (link) summarizing the ordeal. The author, Katyanna Quach IMO is a well-informed reporter to cover machine learning, so I believe she probably used this subreddit to source some of her leads.
Some previous discussion on this subreddit:
Misuse of Deep Learning in Nature Journal’s Earthquake Aftershock Paper
and follow up thread:
One neuron is more informative than a deep neural network for aftershock pattern forecasting
I would like to thank everyone who contributed to the discussion since I think it is important to call these papers out, and make what is wrong known to the wider community outside of research.
submitted by /u/milaworld