-
Notifications
You must be signed in to change notification settings - Fork 55
Peer Review Rules #290
New issue
Have a question about this project? Sign up for a free GitHub account to open an issue and contact its maintainers and the community.
By clicking “Sign up for GitHub”, you agree to our terms of service and privacy statement. We’ll occasionally send you account related emails.
Already on GitHub? Sign in to your account
base: master
Are you sure you want to change the base?
Peer Review Rules #290
Changes from all commits
File filter
Filter by extension
Conversations
Jump to
Diff view
Diff view
There are no files selected for viewing
| Original file line number | Diff line number | Diff line change |
|---|---|---|
|
|
@@ -127,6 +127,21 @@ MLCommons shall retain a library of past audit reports and send copies to MLComm | |
|
|
||
| An audit is expected to be completed within a 90 day period. Audits failing to meet this timeline can be requested to be invalidated by the auditee. The final decision to accept such a request will be taken by the Working Group. | ||
|
|
||
| === Assigned Peer Review Process | ||
|
|
||
| In addition to general MLCommons review rules outlined https://github.com/mlperf/policies/blob/master/submission_rules.adoc[here], Inference workgroup uses Assigned Peer Review to improve scrutiny of the results. The goal is to ensure that each submission is reviewed. The process, executed by Results Chair, is as follows: | ||
|
|
||
| * Each submitter will be assigned another submitter to review. | ||
|
|
||
| * Chair will open a github issue against each company that has review assignment. Issues will be closed once reviewers indicate that they had finished their tasks. | ||
|
Contributor
There was a problem hiding this comment. Choose a reason for hiding this commentThe reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more. I agree with the github issue process, but again don't want to prescribe the process into the rules. Perhaps this could go into a 1 pager document off the rules for future reference. I think it is okay to leave these exact details to the discretion of the chair and working group to adjust as necessary and is practical. |
||
|
|
||
| * During the review, reviewers are asked to pay special attention to: (1) results validity, (2) methodology, (3) instructions for reproducibility, and (4) content of json files in systems directory. | ||
|
|
||
| * Any issues discovered are to be filed as github issues and resolved as usual. The issues should be filed before the deadline to raise objections. | ||
|
|
||
| * Submitters are encouraged to review other submissions beyond their assigned review. | ||
|
|
||
|
|
||
| == Scenarios | ||
|
|
||
| In order to enable representative testing of a wide variety of inference | ||
|
|
||
Uh oh!
There was an error while loading. Please reload this page.