Post-Selections in AI and How to Avoid Them
Juyang Weng

TL;DR
This paper highlights the often-overlooked issue of post-selection bias in AI experiments, critiques current protocols, and proposes developmental errors as a new metric to ensure transparency and robustness in AI training.
Contribution
It introduces a comprehensive analysis of post-selection flaws in AI research and proposes developmental errors and developmental networks as novel solutions to improve transparency and reliability.
Findings
Post-selection biases can mislead AI experiment results.
Developmental networks inherently avoid post-selection pitfalls.
Current protocols often lack transparency in post-selection reporting.
Abstract
Neural network based Artificial Intelligence (AI) has reported increasing scales in experiments. However, this paper raises a rarely reported stage in such experiments called Post-Selection alter the reader to several possible protocol flaws that may result in misleading results. All AI methods fall into two broad schools, connectionist and symbolic. The Post-Selection fall into two kinds, Post-Selection Using Validation Sets (PSUVS) and Post-Selection Using Test Sets (PSUTS). Each kind has two types of post-selectors, machines and humans. The connectionist school received criticisms for its "black box" and now the Post-Selection; but the seemingly "clean" symbolic school seems more brittle because of its human PSUTS. This paper first presents a controversial view: all static "big data" are non-scalable. We then analyze why error-backprop from randomly initialized weights suffers from…
Peer Reviews
No public reviews on file for this paper yet. If you reviewed it on a platform where reviews are public (OpenReview, ICLR, NeurIPS, ICML), you can paste yours below so the community can read it here.
Videos
No videos yet. Explain this paper in a talk, walkthrough, or lecture? Add one.
Taxonomy
TopicsReinforcement Learning in Robotics · Computability, Logic, AI Algorithms · Evolutionary Algorithms and Applications
