The ELM Scandal: 5 Easy Steps to Academic Fame

[ELM-Xposed]

The “extreme learning machines (ELM)” are indeed worth working on, but they just shouldn’t be called “ELM”. With annotated PDF files at http://elmorigin.wix.com/originofelm , you can easily verify the following facts within 10 to 20 minutes:

1. The kernel (or constrained-optimization-based) version of ELM (ELM-Kernel, Huang 2012) is identical to kernel ridge regression (for regression and single-output classification, Saunders ICML 1998, as well as the LS-SVM with zero bias; for multiclass multi-output classification, An CVPR 2007).
2. ELM-SLFN (the single-layer feedforward network version of the ELM, Huang IJCNN 2004) is identical to the randomized neural network (RNN, with omission of bias, Schmidt 1992) and another simultaneous work, i.e., the random vector functional link (RVFL, with omission of direct input-output links, Pao 1994).
3. ELM-RBF (Huang ICARCV 2004) is identical to the randomized RBF neural network (Broomhead-Lowe 1988, with a performance-degrading randomization of RBF radii or impact factors).
4. In all three cases above, G.-B. Huang got his papers published after excluding a large volume of very closely related literature.
5. Hence, all 3 "ELM variants" have absolutely no technical originality, promote unethical research practices among researchers, and steal citations from original inventors.

Please forward this message to your contacts so that others can also study the materials presented at this website and take appropriate actions, if necessary.

ELM: The Sociological Phenomenon

Since the invention of the name “extreme learning machines (ELM)” in 2004, the number of papers and citations on the ELM has been increasing exponentially. How can this be imaginable for the ELM comprising of 3 decade-old algorithms published by authors other than the ELM inventor? This phenomenon would not have been possible without the support and participation of researchers on the fringes of machine learning. Some (unknowingly and a few knowingly) love the ELM for various reasons:

• Some authors love the ELM, because it is always easy to publish ELM papers in an ELM conference or an ELM special issue. For example, one can simply take a decade-old paper on a variant of RVFL, RBF or kernel ridge regression and re-publish it as a variant of the ELM, after paying a small price of adding 10s of citations on Huang’s “classic ELM papers”.

• A couple of editor-in-chiefs (EiCs) love the ELM and offer multiple special issues/invited papers, because the ELM conference & special issues will bring a flood of papers, many citations and therefore high impact factors to their low quality journals. The EiCs can claim to have faithfully worked within the peer-review system, i.e. the ELM submissions are all rigorously reviewed by ELM experts.

• A few technical leaders, e.g. some IEEE society officers, love the ELM, because it rejuvenates the community by bringing in more activities and subscriptions.

• A couple of funding agencies love the ELM, because they would rather fund a new sexy name, than any genuine research.

One may ask: how can something loved by so many be wrong?

A leading cause of the current Greek economic crisis was that a previous government showered its constituents with jobs and lucrative compensations, in order to gain their votes, thereby raising the debt to an unsustainable level. At that time, the government behavior was welcome by many, but led to severe consequences. Another example of popularity leading to a massive disaster can be found in WW II as Hitler was elected by popular votes.

The seemingly small price to pay in the case of the ELM is the diminished publishing ethics, which, in a long run, will fill the research literature with renamed junk, thereby making the research community and respected names, such as IEEE, Thomson Reuters, Springer and Elsevier, laughing stocks. Similar to that previous Greek government and its supporting constituents, the ELM inventor and his supporters are “borrowing” from the future of the entire research community for their present enjoyment! It is time to wake up to your consciousness.

Our beloved peer-review system was grossly abused and failed spectacularly in the case of the ELM. It is time for the machine learning experts and leaders to investigate the allegations presented here and to take corrective actions soon.

5 Easy but Proven Steps to Academic Fame

1. The Brink of Genius: Take a paper published about 20 years ago (so that the original authors have either passed away, retired, or are too well-established/generous to publicly object. Unfortunately, pioneers like Broomhead and Pao have passed away). Introduce a very minor variation, for example, by fixing one of the tunable parameters at zero (who cares if this makes the old method worse, as long as you can claim it is now different and faster). Rewrite the paper in such a way that plagiarism software cannot detect the similarity, so that you are not in any of the “IEEE 5 levels of plagiarism”. Give a completely new sensational name (hint: the word “extreme” sounds extremely sexy).
2. Publication: Submit your paper(s) to a poor quality conference or journal without citing any related previous works.
3. Salesmanship: After publishing such a paper, now it is time to sell the stolen goods! Never blush. Don't worry about ethics. Get your friends/colleagues to use your “big thing”. Put up your Matlab program for download. Organize journal special issues, conferences, etc. to promote these unethical research practices among junior researchers who would just trust your unethical publications without bothering to read the original works published in the 1980s or 1990s. Of course, the pre-requisite for a paper to be accepted in your special issues/conferences is 10s of citations for your unethically created name and publications. Invite big names to be associated with your unethically created name as advisory board members, keynote speakers, or co-authors. These people may be too busy to check the details (with a default assumption that your research is ethical) and/or too nice to say no. But, once “infected” with your unethically created name, they will be obliged to defend it for you.
4. The Smoke Screen: Should others point out the original work, you claim not to know the literature while pointing to a minor variation that you introduced in the first place. Instead of accepting that your work was almost the same as the literature and reverting back to the older works, you promote your work by: (1) repeating the tiny variation; (2) excluding the almost identical works in the list of references or citing and describing them incorrectly; (3) excluding thorough experimental comparisons with nearly identical works in the literature so that worse performance of your minute variations will not be exposed; (4) making negative statements about competing methods and positive statements about your unethically created name without solid experimental results using words like “may” or “analysis”; (5) comparing with apparently different methods. You can copy the theories and proofs derived for other methods and apply to your method (with tiny variation from those in the old literature) claim that your method has got a lot of theories while others do not have.
5. Fame: Declare yourself as a research leader so that junior researchers can follow your footsteps. Enjoy your new fortune, i.e., high citations, invited speeches, etc. You don’t need to be on the shoulders of giants, because you are a giant! All you have to do to get there is to follow these easy steps!

One can call the above steps “IP” (Intelligent Plagiarism), as opposed to stupid (verbatim) plagiarism specified by the IEEE in “5 levels”. The machine learning community should feel embarrassed if “IP” (Intelligent Plagiarism) was originally developed and/or grandiosely promoted by this community, while the community is supposed to create other (more ethical) intelligent algorithms to benefit the mankind.

In mid-July 2015, G.-B. Huang posted an email on his ELM@mlist.ntu.edu.sg emailing list. This email was forwarded to ELM.exposed@gmail.com for our responses. As usual, this email was meaningless and our remarks are available at http://elmorigin.wix.com/originofelm .

Email for feedback: ELM.exposed@gmail.com