Machine Learning

1 readers

1 users here now

Community Rules:

Be nice. No offensive behavior, insults or attacks: we encourage a diverse community in which members feel safe and have a voice.
Make your post clear and comprehensive: posts that lack insight or effort will be removed. (ex: questions which are easily googled)
Beginner or career related questions go elsewhere. This community is focused in discussion of research and new projects that advance the state-of-the-art.
Limit self-promotion. Comments and posts should be first and foremost about topics of interest to ML observers and practitioners. Limited self-promotion is tolerated, but the sub is not here as merely a source for free advertisement. Such posts will be removed at the discretion of the mods.

founded 11 months ago

MODERATORS

communick@academy.garden

[R] Do some authors conscientiously add up more mathematics than needed to make the paper "look" more groundbreaking? (alien.top)

submitted 9 months ago by Inquation@alien.top to c/machinelearning@academy.garden

0 comments fedilink hide all child comments

I've noticed a trend recently of authors adding more formalism than needed in some instances (e.g. a diagram/ image would have done the job fine).

Is this such a thing as adding more mathematics than needed to make the paper look better or perhaps it's just constrained by the publisher (whatever format the paper must stick to in order to get published)?

no comments (yet)

sorted by: hot top controversial new old

there doesn't seem to be anything here