Viewing a single comment thread. View all comments

Even_Stay3387 OP t1_iyvyx5w wrote

Reply to comment by dojoteef in [D] NeurIPS 2022 Outstanding Paper modified results significantly in the camera ready by Even_Stay3387

are you sure this is allowed? data leakage... really funny. I can also post a very very good results to cheat the review and then say I am sorry there is data leakage here.

−141

mil24havoc t1_iyw1c2s wrote

You should be a better scientist. Best papers shouldn't be awarded for performance, that would be bad science. Best papers are awarded for innovation and quality. Fixing your results is the responsible thing to do.

188

42gauge t1_izye18i wrote

> Best papers shouldn't be awarded for performance, that would be bad science. Best papers are awarded for innovation and quality

But exceptionally good performance, whether real or fake, is usually used as a predictor for innovation and quality. If the authors hadn't made this mistake, this paper would have obviously been of higher quality - and yet, do you really think it would have stood out even more without that error?

1

dojoteef t1_iyw254f wrote

Mistakes happen. In this case the authors report the issue publicly and should be commended for that.

The NeurIPS organizers can choose to address the issue in whatever way they deem appropriate, especially as the authors are not hiding the fact that their results were changed.

Of course you're free to assume it's malicious if you want (at least that seems to be the stance your taking, but if it's not then I might have misinterpreted your response).

174

dulipat t1_iyw3ycl wrote

Very good results with bad scientific method will be rejected anyway

42

42gauge t1_izye37i wrote

Did this paper have very good results with bad scientific method?

1