My tactic is to start by checking the papers that actually GET IN to major conferences (Neurips, ICLR, ICML are a good start). This narrows the search considerably. Doing a Google scholar search, for example, will just yield an insurmountable number of papers. This is, in part, due to the standard “make public before it is accepted” methodology (arXiV preprints are fantastic but they also increase the noise level dramatically).
Now, having been burnt by the chaos of the review processes of the aforementioned conferences, I am certainly aware that their publications are by no means the “Gold standard” but the notion of peer review, including the intended outcomes of improvement therethrough, is powerful nonetheless.
My tactic is to start by checking the papers that actually GET IN to major conferences (Neurips, ICLR, ICML are a good start). This narrows the search considerably. Doing a Google scholar search, for example, will just yield an insurmountable number of papers. This is, in part, due to the standard “make public before it is accepted” methodology (arXiV preprints are fantastic but they also increase the noise level dramatically).
Now, having been burnt by the chaos of the review processes of the aforementioned conferences, I am certainly aware that their publications are by no means the “Gold standard” but the notion of peer review, including the intended outcomes of improvement therethrough, is powerful nonetheless.