10 comments

[ 3.1 ms ] story [ 33.9 ms ] thread
The comment field on arXiv reads:

> This paper has been withdrawn by the author due to lacking of enough experiments

PSA: In case you didn't know, anyone can publish anything to arxiv.
I missed the actual paper before it got taken down. But as someone in the field, I'd like to say that these are real researchers at a respected group.

The Helsinki group has done a lot of lovely work over the last few years -- ladder nets come to mind. This paper is by Yuan Gao, and his advisor Dorota Glowacka. Dr. Glowacka has a pretty substantial publication record, mostly focused on reinforcement learning:

https://scholar.google.com/citations?user=sDZkDHQAAAAJ&hl=en

Yuan Gao is a second year grad student, and this is one of his first publications. I think it shows a lot of integrity to realize a weakness in your work and remove it, pending refinement.

That's exactly why double blind reviewing is necessary. #bias
I hope my previous comment didn't come across as me suggesting that the paper shouldn't be scrutinized because it comes from an established research group. Of course, it absolutely should be and double blind review is a helpful mechanism for achieving this.

One possible reading of the parent comment was an attack on the researchers. Of course, the parent probably didn't mean it that way but it might still feel hurtful to the authors and I wanted to clarify it. :)

It was an attack on HN'ers blindly upvoting things from arxiv, because most HN readers do not properly scrutinize postings from arxiv or take it with a grain of salt.

I was well aware these were actual researchers. Your comment probably didn't help very much here because most HN'ers, again, will just see that the authors are PhD's or from a decent group, and assume it's a legit paper.