Abstract
Evaluation of new methodology in deep learning (DL) research is typically done by reporting point estimates of a few performance metrics, calculated from a single training run. This paper argues that this frequently used evaluation protocol in DL is fundamentally flawed -- presenting 8 questionable practices that are widely adopted in the evaluation of new DL methods. The questionable practices are derived from violations of statistical principles of the scientific method, and from Hansson's definition of pseudoscience. A survey of recent publications from a top-tier DL conference indicates the widespread adoption of these practices in state-of-the-art DL research. Lastly, arguments in favor of the questionable practices, possible reasons for their adoption, and measures that have been taken to remove them, are discussed.
Sign-in/Register to access full text options 
Talk to us
Join us for a 30 min session where you can share your feedback and ask us any queries you have
Schedule a callMore From: Proceedings of the Northern Lights Deep Learning Workshop
Disclaimer: All third-party content on this website/platform is and will remain the property of their respective owners and is provided on "as is" basis without any warranties, express or implied. Use of third-party content does not indicate any affiliation, sponsorship with or endorsement by them. Any references to third-party content is to identify the corresponding services and shall be considered fair use under The CopyrightLaw.
