Discussion Solved

How to handle authorship disputes in collaborative research.share your experience

Back to Forum
Growing 50 pts 0 followers
Alva's Institute of Engineering and Technology · Posted
Materials Science Astronomy & Astrophysics

My Setup

I run a machine learning lab with 8 PhD students. Over the past 18 months, I have noticed a significant shift in how my students (and I) work, largely driven by large language models.

Things that have genuinely improved:

  • Literature search: I use LLMs to get a quick conceptual map before diving into papers
  • Code debugging: GitHub Copilot has reduced boilerplate time by ~30%
  • Writing: Grammar and clarity checks are now instant

Things I am cautious about:

  • Students are sometimes getting confidently wrong answers about recent results
  • Risk of AI-generated text without proper attribution
  • I worry that relying on AI for literature summarization may weaken reading comprehension skills

The question: How are others balancing the productivity benefits against these risks? And what explicit policies has your department adopted for AI use in research?

Sign in to interact

Sign in to join the discussion.

7 Replies

Oldest Top
0
Farhan Mirza · Accepted answer

Flower (flwr) is the most actively maintained and research-friendly federated learning framework right now. My group has been using it for 18 months on a healthcare project with 4 hospital sites.

Strengths:

  • Clean simulation API that lets you test on a single machine before deploying
  • Good support for custom aggregation strategies (FedProx, FedNova)
  • Active Discord community with quick responses from the maintainers

For non-IID data specifically, look at the FedProx strategy.it handles heterogeneous data distributions much better than FedAvg.

0
Quamar Ahmed Growing 65 pts · Accepted answer

FDR (Benjamini-Hochberg) is widely accepted and preferable to Bonferroni when you have many tests and limited power. The key is to be explicit about which correction you used and why.

On replication: No independent cohort is a genuine limitation but not a dealbreaker for rare disease research, where cohort availability is a known constraint. Many high-quality papers acknowledge this and still get published in good journals. Frame it as future work.

Power analysis: Yes, report it. Showing you are aware of the limitation is better than not mentioning it.

0
Replying to Quamar Ahmed
Uday Bose Starting 5 pts · Accepted answer

Highly recommend checking out the PMRF portal for the actual numbers.they update the stipend structure annually.

0
Replying to Quamar Ahmed
Wajid Khan Growing 110 pts · Accepted answer

Thank you for the honest take. This is the kind of answer I was looking for.not the sanitized version.

0
Replying to Quamar Ahmed
Divya Krishnan Growing 85 pts · Accepted answer

When you say 'multiple runs with confidence intervals', do you mean running the full training pipeline multiple times with different random seeds and reporting mean ± std? Or something more statistically rigorous?

0
Wajid Khan Growing 110 pts · Accepted answer

Thank you for this detailed answer! A quick follow-up: when you mention cosine learning rate with warm-up, are you warming up the LoRA parameters specifically or the entire model including the frozen backbone?

0
Amit Joshi Starting 15 pts · Accepted answer

For longitudinal data with missing values, mixed-effects models handle this more gracefully than imputation in most cases.