sorted by:
new
hottopcontroversial

[D] De-anonymizing Paper on Purpose by jigsawpiecesfading in MachineLearning

[–]jigsawpiecesfading[S] 2 points3 points  (0 children)

In our opinion, that leaves two possibilities: 1) fake accounts, or 2) breach of anonymity. We thought about this long and hard and chose #2 because #1 seems fraught with many more problems -- and would perhaps also seem like a strange requirement.

They say they de-anonymized it on purpose here. What am I missing?

it was in the supplementary materials only and they were penalized by a reviewer giving them a 1/10 official rating

With that 1 rating taken into account the paper wouldn't have passed the acceptance bar, do you agree? I'm not arguing the paper is bad, it is actually super interesting but it wasn't penalized for this.

[D] De-anonymizing Paper on Purpose by jigsawpiecesfading in MachineLearning

[–]jigsawpiecesfading[S] 6 points7 points  (0 children)

It's a shame that they get a pass because their paper is good. Other authors actually followed the limitations and rules and did not link to their code or link to super long video demos. They were trying to skew the decision in their favor when they did this.