The AIhub coffee corner captures the musings of AI experts over a 30-minute conversation. This month we discuss the role of arXiv and publishing in the field of artificial intelligence research. Joining the discussion this week are: Tom Dietterich (Oregon State University), Sabine Hauert (University of Bristol), Carles Sierra (CSIC) and Oskar von Stryk (Technische Universität Darmstadt).
Sabine Hauert: Tom, you are one of the moderators for arXiv. Could you tell us a bit about how the process works?
Tom Dietterich: Generally, authors have to submit a LaTeX source and it gets automatically regenerated and watermarked and then it goes to a panel of moderators. Authors are supposed to attach to their article a primary category and as many secondary categories as they want. As moderators we check that those are appropriate. There is also automated plagiarism detection. ArXiv has some rules, one of which being that if you revise a paper you are supposed to revise the original arXiv submission not post a new one. And if you have supplementary materials that’s a revision not a new submission.
Tom: The arXiv originated in the physics community and the idea was that these are pre-prints of papers that have been submitted for publication. I’d say we’ve drifted away from that. In computer science we have a lot of people, from companies and from labs, posting things that haven’t been submitted anywhere, as far as I can tell. I guess they are doing this as a form of rapid publication. Others post to arXiv at the same time as submitting to a journal. Personally, I’m always keen to get the reviewers’ feedback before posting. We sometimes get submissions of class projects or very poorly done reviews and we try to filter those out. To be suitable, a paper really needs to make a scientific claim, present some evidence for it, and have citations. But, we are not doing a full review. There are areas where the moderators do need to do more careful filtering though, such as perpetual motion machines in physics and, recently, papers relating to COVID-19. We’ve been getting a lot of chest x-ray, neural net papers claiming accuracy to four significant figures on a test set of 100 images, with no confidence intervals, for example. So, we’ve been rejecting a lot of those.
Tom: My experience is that even papers from famous people are still in rough form the first time they are submitted. But on the other hand, it has been tremendously productive for the research community to give a very fast turnaround. About three years ago there were some papers submitted to ICLR that claimed to have defences against adversarial attacks on computer vision systems. And before the conference even happened, a group at Berkeley had already defeated them all. So that showed the rapid cycle of claim and counter claim facilitated by articles posted rapidly on arXiv. Also, it’s great that there’s a place where everything is available.
Sabine: I think that this rapid publication is exactly how it should be. In robotics it sometimes takes a year to get your papers published. I like the openness of arXiv as well. Because in robotics it hasn’t been fully adopted, what happens is that sometimes someone will go on arXiv and almost kill your idea because they’ve gone out before others in the community, who have waited for the peer-review process to follow its course. I’ve had situations where I’ve seen a press-release about an article that was released on arXiv about a field I work in that really wasn’t up to scratch and actually almost got rejected in peer-review. And you’ve lost the race then when their paper is publicly posted first. I think what we need to do is have a system where a) either everyone goes for arXiv or b) we have some fundamental change with the publication system so that it has arXiv elements to it – the openness and the speed. It’s hard to have both processes in parallel. I think that the AI community has converged more towards arXiv than the robotics community.
Tom: Yes, we do have a problem with some so-called “flag-planting” papers. Two years ago there was a whole flurry of papers on writing captions for images and all of the big labs put their papers onto arXiv within one week of each other. We do watch out for this. When people send a paper that looks like it’s really not finished yet, we do ask them to finish it then submit it.
Sabine: Personally, I’m a bit wary of making things public until they’ve been peer-reviewed. I like my work to be vetted.
Tom: I read an article about the history of peer-review and peer-reviewed journals; they didn’t really spring up until after World War Two, about the same time government funding for research started happening. I think that’s an interesting dynamic. Peer-review used to be the kind of thing Darwin and Newton did – send the manuscript around to their colleagues and get feedback. I wonder if we’ll go back to that – before we put something on arXiv we’ll get an internal peer-review, from peers or people in our organisations.
Carles Sierra: In the Royal Society journals in the 19th century the reviews were commentaries. So, the reviews were public and there was a dialogue established between authors and commentators in the same journal. It’s true, the current version of peer-review is quite a modern thing.
Tom: How do you feel about open review?
Carles: Open review is probably the way to go. You can gain from having open reviews from prestigious professors. It will make things more transparent than they are now. And if things were more open you could find new collaborators. If your paper is reviewed and you receive nice comments from a reviewer you could then ask to work together. This is what happened in the 19th century, in terms of establishing these collaborations.
Tom: Terence Tao (a mathematician at UCLA) hosts an open problems section on his website. He poses a question and dozens of people may contribute. They then publish a paper with the contributors as authors. It’s a different model for doing science and it’s certainly very effective.
Tom: On the topic of open review, the first time ICLR did open review they got some unsolicited third-party reviews because all the papers go up at the time of submission. One of these reviewers went through the proofs, found a bug, and fixed it. That’s just an example of collaboration to solve problems. It’s kind of ego-less research.
Carles: One of the questions in this kind of situation is: how do you assign credit? If you do things in a transparent way then maybe there are mechanisms by which authors and contributors can acknowledge the contributions of each person. Then, when it comes to promotions and grant awards, these contributions could be properly acknowledged as part of the process. It would be different to current practices where we just count publications. It’s more about the community’s opinion of your work. For that we need to be much more open and much more transparent than we are.
Sabine: I wonder, is the switch happening progressively and it’s a change of culture or do we need a decision for things to just pivot away from the current publishing models? Maybe we do value the current publishing models?
Carles: The current model is very difficult for young people. They need to build up their careers. Sometimes it’s difficult to persuade them not to publish too much and not to publish in prestigious journals, but where the paper best fits. When you are young you need to care about publications and where you publish because it does affect your career. Changing the model is very difficult.
Sabine: What about an arXiv-type system for grants? Right now the grant system is very similar to the classical publishing system in that you send it in, sequentially to a number of venues, you wait a long time for review comments, then it could just be rejected. If we had a central place to put our grants that people bid for, as a community, then we could scale-up the whole grant making process and avoid duplicate work.
Tom: I often have a lot of technical ideas I put into a grant that I don’t want to make public at that stage. Certainly, I can imagine describing the question I’m trying to solve, or the system I plan to build – that makes sense. It might help the funding agencies to prioritise, seeing what the community wants to focus on.
Oskar: I would rather consider the reviewing process of grants. Currently the reviews are not published – seeing these alongside the proposal could be very insightful, if possible. It was noticed that one shouldn’t write a proposal that is too ambitious and visionary because at least half of the reviewers may not be able to follow the technical details. There have been some very strange comments because they didn’t understand the proposal at all. Whether your proposal is successful is highly dependent on the composition of the reviewers. Therefore, I think that there is scope for improvement of the refereeing process when it comes to grants.
Sabine: Moving onto the topic of filtering and discovery, how can we make sure that the top content bubbles through?
Oskar: Having a good review and a recommendation from a recognised member of the community can definitely help.
Tom: The ICLR conference was purely online this year. Subsequently, on Twitter, some people have been posting lists of their favourite 10 papers. I think it would be great if more people took the time to do that. One fantasy of mine is that we create a network of people who try to find papers from obscure groups, or from young researchers, and promote them. This would be a way of helping people who aren’t at a large institute with huge resources for promotion.