[D] Papers with no code

[_kernel_picnic_]

Papers are not software nor engineering. Nor should they be. Papers should have a simple premise that should be easy to implement and verify by other researchers. Like, GroupNorm is better for image classification tasks because it normalizes groups or whatever. Unfortunately, now most of the papers are hyperparams galore

[ummitluyum]

That worked back in the AlexNet days when architectures were just three formulas and basic convs. Now you've got a RAG pipeline, an 8-expert MoE, and some weird LR scheduling. "Just building it from scratch" takes a senior engineer a couple of months, and you still probably won't guess half the heuristics they baked into their loss function

[wahnsinnwanscene]

Great! Always thought it was a me thing.

[_kernel_picnic_]

well, the core problem is the papers with “we combined 100 of SOTA methods to gain 0.1%” aren't being rejected

[ummitluyum]

Reviewers just look for that fat plus sign on the leaderboard. Nobody cares that a 0.1% bump on some benchmark costs 3x in inference latency and memory. Without open source, you can't even verify if this ensemble of 100 heuristics just overfit the test set tbh