Curious note (imo): this only works so effectively in mathematically weak tracks.
-
-
-
My experience is that a paper which has math is often not assigned reviewers who will check the math (in ICML/NeurIPS/ICLR), regardless of track or subject area or whatever.
- Još 6 drugih odgovora
Novi razgovor -
-
-
Hvala. Twitter će to iskoristiti za poboljšanje vaše vremenske crte. PoništiPoništi
-
-
-
Nice empirical results, but the authors didn’t provide a proof that math was an adversarial patch. Weak reject.
- Kraj razgovora
Novi razgovor -
-
-
Indeed!
Kraj razgovora
Novi razgovor -
-
Just giving my two cents here. I haven’t written a math heavy paper yet- I come from a background of pure mathematics though. Currently I’m working on some cool computational homology for narrative analysis and people aren’t critical enough of my work because they see 1/2
-
“Oh cool some hard math! The work must be right then” it’s so hard to get feedback on my mathematics if no one in my field fully understands what I’m actually doing! Everyone gets it at an intuitive level sure, but I still don’t know if I’m using the right abstractions.
- Još 1 odgovor
Novi razgovor -
-
-
Reviewer 2: This paper is clear and thorough, but it unfortunately failed to trigger my $$\sum$$ receptor. Author: We thank Reviewer 2 for their feedback and have copy pasted the definition of AdaBoost into our paper.pic.twitter.com/vfUGCUVdva
Ovo je potencijalno osjetljiv multimedijski sadržaj. Saznajte više
Hvala. Twitter će to iskoristiti za poboljšanje vaše vremenske crte. PoništiPoništi
-
Čini se da učitavanje traje već neko vrijeme.
Twitter je možda preopterećen ili ima kratkotrajnih poteškoća u radu. Pokušajte ponovno ili potražite dodatne informacije u odjeljku Status Twittera.
)
