5 ms·
2013 NIPS Proceedings – Advances in Neural Information Processing Systems
- seiji 13y agoNow prove each of those titles isn't auto-generated by the HN headline generator.
- djulius 13y agoNow the game is : Among these tons of (bad/good) applied mathematics , find the maybe existing one paper that will : - Have a real world application - Go through the years More difficult : only by reading titles.
- noelwelsh 13y agoThis attitude is pretty tedious. In research we can't predict in advance what will have lasting value. That's why it is called research. Same thing in applies in startups.
- djulius 13y agoTons of papers are published every year for the sake of publication, careers, .... absolutely not for the sake of science. Most of them do not even contain any significant delta with previous research. An important activity of the researcher is to sort between interesting papers and garbage, since the selection process of even high level conference is deeply broken. Just read SIGIR proceedings where every paper beats the previous baseline by 0.X % on datasets that do not represent the real problem, it's just an example among many others. Also check this interesting analysis where the authors analyse best vs top cited papers over a span of ten years: http://arnetminer.org/conferencebestpapers http://arnetminer.org/conferencebestpapers Here you can see that some conferences where able to identify lasting value and others not.
- deleted 13y ago[deleted]
- deleted 13y ago[deleted]
- hershel 13y agoInteresting. Say i wanted to find best papers or at least very usefull papers related to some subject, how should i go about it?
- davidy123 13y agoSo only pure breakthroughs are valued in science, everything else is "garbage?" Interesting perspective you have there.
- djulius 13y agoThat's absolutely not what I wrote. I said that the motivations behind academics to publish lead to the publishing of tons of papers that while being scientifically correct (at least for top-tier conferences) bring absolutely nothing to the party.
- presty 13y agowhile we're at it, here's from ICML2013 http://icml.cc/2013/?page_id=47 http://icml.cc/2013/?page_id=47 (click on the schedule images)
- benhamner 13y agoI made a nicer version of this to browse for the ICML 2013 papers, based on a similar thing Andrej Karpathy did for the NIPS 2012 papers: http://benhamner.com/icml2013preview/#/ http://benhamner.com/icml2013preview/#/ Don't believe anyone's done this for NIPS 2013 yet.
- gcr 13y agoFor those of you studying computer vision, the entire CVPR2013 proceedings are released under open access: http://www.cv-foundation.org/openaccess/CVPR2013.py http://www.cv-foundation.org/openaccess/CVPR2013.py In a few days, ICCV 2013 papers will be published too: http://www.cv-foundation.org/openaccess/ICCV2013.py http://www.cv-foundation.org/openaccess/ICCV2013.py
- benhamner 13y agoThis is an interesting case study in how the submitted headline affects the page's rank on HN. I'd originally submitted this earlier today, with the headline "Neural Information Processing Systems (NIPS) 2013 Proceedings": https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=6815771 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=6815771 It only got one other upvote and never made it to the front page. Meanwhile, another article submitted at almost exactly the same time with far less interesting content but a more provocative headline (on a user getting banned from Uber for API abuse) got ~15 votes, pushing it onto the front page. I re-submitted this page with a slightly more descriptive (and buzzwordy) headline ("State of the art Machine Learning papers: NIPS 2013"), and it almost immediately ended up on the front page. Since then the headline has been reverted to the page's headline, again slowing the rate at which it's received votes.
- presty 13y agoInteresting, but maybe too much witch-hunting? I mean, the title influence could've had as much impact as the time of posting. Your first post did not hit HN's RSS feed (IIRC, at least 3 votes are needed for the vanilla feed), otherwise I would've upvoted it. This one did.
- benhamner 13y agoHa, potentially. The dangers of drawing conclusions from N=2.
- karpathy 13y agoBy the way, just this evening I formatted the accepted papers in a nicer way: (okay, I'm biased) http://cs.stanford.edu/people/karpathy/nips2013/ http://cs.stanford.edu/people/karpathy/nips2013/ The page allows you to toggle LDA topics and off to browse the papers, or (my personal favorite) find a paper you like and sort the other papers according to tf-idf similarity, which tends to reveal exceptionally relevant papers.
- kyzyl 13y agoVery, very nice job. Your page is a great is example of sane, simple and functional data visualization. I've been sifting through these papers trying to prioritize by to relevance to my work so that I can get them into mendeley and dig in. You just made it a lot easier. Looks like a pretty good haul this year, for me :-)
- noelwelsh 13y agoThis is awesome. Thanks!
- tlarkworthy 13y agoThis is a massive time saver.
- ogrisel 13y agoYou should contact the NIPS organizers to have this kind of tools built-in into the conference site. Would be great to have this similarity-based navigation on http://openreview.net http://openreview.net as well.
- ajtulloch 13y agoAlexandre Passos has an excellent editorial selection of NIPS 2013 papers (along with some comments) on his blog at [1]. [1]: http://atpassos.me/post/67560831508/nips-2013-reading-list http://atpassos.me/post/67560831508/nips-2013-reading-list.