[nephanth]

> That would be purely statistic and not based on any algorithmic insight.

This is machine learning research ?

[sigmoid10]

Usually we still ask for statistics to be at least valid (i.e. have a significant signal under a null hypothesis). This paper doesn't even do that. It's like claiming no humans have been to the moon and then "verifying" this by randomly asking a million random strangers on the street if they've been there.