3 ms·

Here's a paper I read yesterday. Kindly review it for me: http://arxiv.org/pdf/1107.2875.pdf http://arxiv.org/pdf/1107.2875.pdf The scheme you are advocating

Here's a paper I read yesterday. Kindly review it for me: http://arxiv.org/pdf/1107.2875.pdf http://arxiv.org/pdf/1107.2875.pdf The scheme you are advocating might have succeeded 200 years ago, when science was happening at a much for fundamental level than it is now. These days, things are so specialized that what the OP says is spot-on: only a handful of people are qualified to knowledgeably comment on your work. What's more, these people are all /incredibly/ busy; I would know since I spend my time trying to get their attention (grad student) :-) In short, the way we conduct research is kind of like what Churchill said about democracy; it's the worst system except for all the other systems.

angersock 15y ago
Thank you sir/madam for an opportunity to better explore the depths of my ignorance. I have previously wondered what sort of use abstract algebra and geometry would be put to outside of various parts of applied mathematics or physics, and I would now appear to have an excellent example. :) As I've mentioned in another reply, I'd like to see the system cleaned up and made more accessible. I'm a mechanical engineer by schooling and a graphics programmer by trade, so I don't frighten easily at math or algorithms. That said, this paper gave me quite a start. How deep down the rabbit-hole would you say it is in the field of computer vision? Is it fairly advanced/niche in application, or is it about some sort of foundational knowledge that is supposed to be known backwards and forwards by practitioners of the art? I feel as though a better way of presenting the papers might aid in understanding (clear list of dependencies for knowledge, clear list of applications, clear note of "hey, this is a minor optimization, so don't sweat the details if you don't get it", etc.), but my personal metrics for judging this may not be correct. Any feedback would be appreciated.
- munin 15y ago
  "don't sweat the details if you don't get it" is probably the opposite of what you want to communicate to a reviewer ;) if there is a problem in "the details" the entire work might need to be scrapped.

angersock 15y ago

Thank you sir/madam for an opportunity to better explore the depths of my ignorance. I have previously wondered what sort of use abstract algebra and geometry would be put to outside of various parts of applied mathematics or physics, and I would now appear to have an excellent example. :) As I've mentioned in another reply, I'd like to see the system cleaned up and made more accessible. I'm a mechanical engineer by schooling and a graphics programmer by trade, so I don't frighten easily at math or algorithms. That said, this paper gave me quite a start. How deep down the rabbit-hole would you say it is in the field of computer vision? Is it fairly advanced/niche in application, or is it about some sort of foundational knowledge that is supposed to be known backwards and forwards by practitioners of the art? I feel as though a better way of presenting the papers might aid in understanding (clear list of dependencies for knowledge, clear list of applications, clear note of "hey, this is a minor optimization, so don't sweat the details if you don't get it", etc.), but my personal metrics for judging this may not be correct. Any feedback would be appreciated.

munin 15y ago
"don't sweat the details if you don't get it" is probably the opposite of what you want to communicate to a reviewer ;) if there is a problem in "the details" the entire work might need to be scrapped.