Papers should add a section benchmarking frontier models, argues VIGA thread on broken peer review
FinanceYF5 · x · 2026-09-18
Continuing the Michael Black / VIGA thread, the author argues academic peer review remains fixated on 'technical novelty,' pushing researchers to tweak architectures rather than move the field forward.
Proposal: papers should add a new section, like 'Related Work,' that evaluates current frontier models on the task — failing to try Astra or successor models means the survey is incomplete.
Related event: Scholars argue research should first stress-test existing LLMs(2 posts)→
More from Research
- Custom BB-SLAM hits 0.02m accuracy with pure visual odometry, no LiDAR or IMU — broodsugar · 2026-09-18
- Genomics researcher: nobody has 'solved' variant prioritization, but old-score-only views are outdated — anshulkundaje · 2026-09-18
- Aggregate variant scores like CADD still useful when paired with context-specific effects — anshulkundaje · 2026-09-18
- Learning phenotypic scores to map molecular effects into disease-relevant prioritization — anshulkundaje · 2026-09-18
- Collapsing context-specific variant scores into one universal score loses key information — anshulkundaje · 2026-09-18
- Supervised sequence-to-omics models excel at context-specific regulatory predictions — anshulkundaje · 2026-09-18