it's auto-generated - it says so at the top. i don't see the point of this at all since you could reproduce by simply searching "survey" or "introduction". at minimum a cite count would've been helpful to distinguish well written ones from poorly written ones
Comments
it's auto-generated - it says so at the top. i don't see the point of this at all since you could reproduce by simply searching "survey" or "introduction". at minimum a cite count would've been helpful to distinguish well written ones from poorly written ones
The list of terms to include/exclude looks like it has taken some trial and error to compile: https://github.com/impredicative/arxiv-ml-reviews/blob/maste...
For example, it excludes "aerial survey", "peer review" and similar false positives.
It'd be easy to split them by year or subject, as that's provided by the arXiv.
Just how is the subject provided by arXiv? By subject, do you mean the categorization such as stat.ML, cs.AI, etc.?
yea sure why not? like just a tiny bit more curation would've made this actually useful. as it stands now it's just an unordered list.
It's currently ordered by date, with most recent on top. It's not unordered.