I've been annoyed for a while people don't use a common parameter weight/compute budget for benchmarking papers.
That said, it does make it easier to claim progress...
That said, it does make it easier to claim progress...
Right now I'm just happy when people are including parameter, GMACs (or FLOPs), and throughput. I always include those and the GPUs I used. I also frequently include more information in the appendix but frankly when I include it in the front matter the paper is more likely to be rejected.
I can tell you why this isn't happening though. There's a common belief that scale is all you need. Which turns into "fuck the GPU poor". I've published works where my model is 100x smaller (with higher throughput, and far lower training costs), and the responses from reviewers tend to be along the lines "why isn't it better?" or "why not just distill or prune a large model?" There's this weird behavior that makes the black box stay a black box. I mean Yi Tay famously said "Fuck theorists" on twitter