Demonstration venue · read-only. Every page can be browsed; the buttons that would change it are switched off. Create an account to run TaxoReview on your own data. A simulation from public publication records: the people listed were not invited and did not agree to review.
? Tutorial for this page

Rebecca Gelles

dblp:248/1640 · DBLP profile ↗
← Back
1ranked-venue papers
1as first author
1since 2021 · last 2024
0009-0008-2853-3040ORCID · reported

Domains — the database's venue-derived domains; a paper can count in several

Artificial intelligence and machine learning · 1 · 1 first-author · 1 since 2021Graphics, computer vision, multimedia, augmented reality and games · 1 · 1 first-author · 1 since 2021

Expertise — from the expertise taxonomy: the topics of the expert's papers under the CCF categories. A weight counts papers with recency: 1 for a paper about the topic, 0.3 when the topic is its context, halved every five years.

Interdisciplinary, comprehensive, and emerging computing
1 paper
Computational social science and digital humanities · 100%
Artificial intelligence
1 paper
Efficient and distributed learning · 100%

Topics — the 1 heaviest of 2, each with the papers that count most for it

TopicWeightPapersLastEvidence papers
Computational social science and digital humanities
science of science
0.812024
Resource Democratization: Is Compute the Binding Constraint on AI Research? · AAAI 2024

Methods — techniques the papers use, named apart from their topics

survey · 1.5empirical study · 1.5
YearPublicationVenuePosition
2024 Resource Democratization: Is Compute the Binding Constraint on AI Research?
abstract
Access to compute is widely viewed as a primary barrier to AI research progress. Compute resource stratification between academic and industry researchers is therefore a source of concern. Yet the experiences of researchers who might encounter resource constraints in their work have received no direct study. We addressed this gap by conducting a large survey of AI researchers that posed questions about project inputs, outcomes, and challenges. Contrary to popular narratives, responses from more than 500 participants revealed more concern about talent and data limitations than compute access. There were few differences between academic and industry researchers in this regard. The exception were researchers who already use large amounts of compute, and expressed a need for more. These findings suggest that interventions to subsidize compute without addressing the limitations on talent and data availability reported by our respondents might cause or exacerbate commonly cited resource inequalities, with unknown impact on the future of equitable research.
Rebecca Gelles, Veronica Kinoshita, Micah Musser, James Dunham
AAAI1