Author: Uri Blass
Date: 14:36:20 09/05/02
Go up one level in this thread
On September 05, 2002 at 17:09:44, Matthew Hull wrote: >On September 05, 2002 at 16:43:16, martin fierz wrote: > >>On September 05, 2002 at 13:43:10, Matthew Hull wrote: >> >>>On September 05, 2002 at 13:28:20, Miguel A. Ballicora wrote: >>> >>>>On September 05, 2002 at 10:05:05, Robert Hyatt wrote: >>>> >>>>>On September 05, 2002 at 00:25:58, Miguel A. Ballicora wrote: >>>>> >>>>>>On September 04, 2002 at 18:38:17, Dann Corbit wrote: >>>>>> >>>>>>>My take on the matter (in one paragraph): >>>>>>>Robert wrote a paper on parallel speedup, showing a 1.7 increase for 2 CPU's (as >>>>>>>derived from his more general formula). Vincent was unable to reproduce this >>>>>>>sort of speedup, and thought the research was faulty. Robert agreed that the >>>>>>>test set was limited and you won't always get that sort of speedup, but as an >>>>>>>average (over a broad set of positions) that's about what he got. There has >>>>>>>been some acrimony over whether superlinear speedups are possible. I think that >>>>>>>the jury is still out on that one. >>>>>>> >>>>>>>At any rate, that's my take on the whole thing. >>>>>>> >>>>>>>Vincent always sees things in pure, jet black or gleaming, powder white. If >>>>>>>something isn't terrific, then it is pure junk. While I think his mode of >>>>>>>interesting is a bit odd, it's one of the things that make Vincent interesting. >>>>>> >>>>>>He crossed the line when he used the word "fraud" and "lie" >>>>>>to describe a scientific paper without any solid proof (he only proved a flaw in >>>>>>the presentation). Too serious. >>>>>> >>>>>>To be honest, I am embarrassed to be reading this thread. One side does not >>>>>>recognize a flaw (it could be honest and I believe it, happens many times, big >>>>>>deal) and the other makes pathetic accusations of fraud mixing it up with old >>>>>>issues (Deep blue etc.). To top it all, ad hominem attacks. >>>>>> >>>>>>In this conditions it is impossible to discuss anything. >>>>> >>>>>While I understand what you mean, I don't see any major "flaw". >>>> >>>>No, it is not major, it is a very minor flaw in the presentation. Not a big >>>>deal, but you cannot stand there and say that it is just ok. You cannot say that >>>>it is ok the way you rounded it and everything is justified by the big >>>>variability. The only thing that the big variability shows is that the flaw is >>>>minor, but it does not show that there is no flaw in the presentation. In those >>>>cases standard deviations should be shown using numbers that were rounded >>>>properly. >>>> >>>>Don't get me wrong, I understand and accept completely everything you say, if I >>>>were accused of fraud I would go overboard myself. But please, do not try to >>>>convince us that those tables are the proper way to present something. >>> >>>Under the circumstances, I don't think he had a choice. It was the only way to >>>add the data so long after the fact at the request of the referees. Was he >>>supposed to say in the paper that the refs wanted the data so I was forced to >>>extrapolate it? What would you have done in that situation? >> >>of course he had a choice! when a referee asks you for something more than what >>you have in your paper, you can either comply, and produce that data, or you can >>try to convince him that it's not important. even if you fail to convince the >>referee, the editor of the journal has the last word about publication, and if >>your paper is really good (it is), then you can also survive a hostile referee. >>bob should either have rerun his tests and saved his logs to produce real data, >>or he should have convinced the referee that this data is unnecessary (it is!), >>and if that failed, he should have admitted to the journal editor that he did >>not have the raw data any more, and asked him to publish it all the same. >>making up data (to please a referee or for other reasons) and passing it on as >>actual data is probably the biggest no-no of all in science. > >"Making up data" is too strong here. The times and nodes are functions of the >speedup. Deriving them from this function is not "making up" data, it's >calculating the data from a known function. It is the case if you really calculate the exact numbers but in this case an estimate for the time was calculated. If you have a function that give you the exact data that is missing there is no problem but unfortunately it was not the case here. Uri
This page took 0 seconds to execute
Last modified: Thu, 15 Apr 21 08:11:13 -0700
Current Computer Chess Club Forums at Talkchess. This site by Sean Mintz.