>this really weird brute force statistical analysis
Care to explain why you call the method "really weird"? Is there a flaw in the statistics that you can correct?
Here's [1] his publications - all well cited, his h-index is good, and I find no refutation of complaints in the literature about his methods. He seems quite competent in this area.
>how you can state there's no reason whatsoever to suspect him of cheating is absurd
If cheating does not show up in performance then is it cheating? If there is any performance gain then it should show up at some statistical level.
Care to explain why you call the method "really weird"? Is there a flaw in the statistics that you can correct?
Here's [1] his publications - all well cited, his h-index is good, and I find no refutation of complaints in the literature about his methods. He seems quite competent in this area.
>how you can state there's no reason whatsoever to suspect him of cheating is absurd
If cheating does not show up in performance then is it cheating? If there is any performance gain then it should show up at some statistical level.
[1] https://scholar.google.com/citations?user=8nk9k5oAAAAJ&hl=en...