archive-cc.com » CC » I » ICML.CC

Total: 273

Choose link from "Titles, links and description words view":

Or switch to "Titles and links view".
  • ICML 2012 – International Conference on Machine Learning
    26 July 1 2012 Edinburgh Scotland back to conditions ICML 2012 Survey Results Comments about the conference format Conditioned on questionee being an area chair No short talks Either no talk spotlight one or two slides one or two minutes top or full talk I conjecture that the five minute short talk format will tempt too many people into cramming too much into their slides and or going overtime Perhaps

    Original URL path: http://icml.cc/2012/survey-results/getcol.php?col=30-c&cnd=1 (2016-02-18)
    Open archived version from archive

  • ICML 2012 – International Conference on Machine Learning
    for tutorials Author instructions Submissions Awards For Participants Registration Accommodation Venues Travelling to Edinburgh Scholarships Visa Information Sponsors International Conference on Machine Learning June 26 July 1 2012 Edinburgh Scotland back to conditions ICML 2012 Survey Results Comments about co

    Original URL path: http://icml.cc/2012/survey-results/getcol.php?col=32-c&cnd=1 (2016-02-18)
    Open archived version from archive

  • ICML 2012 – International Conference on Machine Learning
    Reviewer assignment should be automated not done by AC secondary meta reviews added an unreasonable amount of workload and the instructions regarding them apparently changed during the process It s difficult to deflate author feedback changing my mind on papers versus discussion changing my mind on papers My mind changed but it s hard to say which caused it IMO author feedback is a good forcing function for discussion but perhaps not as useful as stats might show The question about the quality of the majority of reviews of our paper hides a fair bit of variance we had one highly confident but wrong review while the others were good We were pleased to see that the ICML review process was robust to this problem Allowing substantial changes and uploads of new versions of submissions moves this conference too much towards a journal model The aim should be to decide whether the snapshot of the work taken at submission time is ready for prime time or not As an area chair I did not like the procedure of selecting reviewers as for many of the papers I was responsible for the most appropriate reviewers were at their quota One other

    Original URL path: http://icml.cc/2012/survey-results/getcol.php?col=33&cnd=1 (2016-02-18)
    Open archived version from archive

  • ICML 2012 – International Conference on Machine Learning
    much noise in the reviewing process for it to be useful in determining the relative quality of different papers amoung those that have been accepted Also lower scores can sometimes indicate problems with writing and have nothing to do with the quality of the ideas and whether they are worth being presented for longer than 5 minutes Have the authors upload a 20 minute video of their presentation results slides to an appropriate site Such sites can be an ICML 2012 youtube vimeo whatever channel or something with more structure like videolectures where content is categorized by sessions This should be optional for the authors No short talks Either no talk spotlight one or two slides one or two minutes top or full talk I conjecture that the five minute short talk format will tempt too many people into cramming too much into their slides and or going overtime Perhaps poll again after the conference videotape all talks I particularly like the ICML decision in the past to give each paper a talk This allows nice focused sessions contrary to conferences such as NIPS CVPR ICCV The fact that ICML offers the opportunity to give a talk even short to all papers is absolutely essential As a speaker or attendee in ICML it makes a big difference in the conference experience I think this feature should be saved Reduce presentations to 17 3 or 16 4 instead of 20 5 In case of the poster option I would suggest to have long poster sessions in order to not penalize the papers accepted only as posters Shorten each talk a little Remove the option of invited application papers again definitely 5 tracks is enough perhaps too many I d rather add a day and reduce number of tracks while keeping paper

    Original URL path: http://icml.cc/2012/survey-results/getcol.php?col=30-c&cnd=2 (2016-02-18)
    Open archived version from archive

  • ICML 2012 – International Conference on Machine Learning
    Venues Travelling to Edinburgh Scholarships Visa Information Sponsors International Conference on Machine Learning June 26 July 1 2012 Edinburgh Scotland back to conditions ICML 2012 Survey Results Comments about co location with other conferences Conditioned on questionee being a reviewer Bioinformatics like ISMB SIAM Conference on Data Mining ISMB or another medical bioinformatics conference would also be interesting AIStats AISTATS Co location does little for me I m too burnt

    Original URL path: http://icml.cc/2012/survey-results/getcol.php?col=32-c&cnd=2 (2016-02-18)
    Open archived version from archive

  • ICML 2012 – International Conference on Machine Learning
    less papers for each reviewer Extending the review period will not be helpful since there will still be only a limited time one can allocate to reviewing I think the author response protocol while it can be helpful in few marginal cases is costing too much for its value since it causes too much additional work to authors and reviewers The amount of time we spend on getting our paper accepted to a conference and on reviewing papers is steadily increasing This comes at the expense of time for research which is what we all really want to be doing I have this unsatisfactory feeling that for a lot of papers the final decision turns out to be mostly based on chance this feeling is shared with NIPS From the reviewer point of view there are so many submitted papers that I tended to assign a lot of weak rejects to help making a choice since a lot of papers would have to be rejected in the end only for papers I really thought they had to be accepted did I assign an accept either weak or not In retrospect I wonder whether this was a good choice and I think if this policy was not shared by most reviewers it is not a good one From the author point of view it is obviously always painful to have one s papers rejected I submitted 3 papers and had 0 accepted 2 were heavy in maths introducing novel ideas with some experiments 1 was introducing a novel idea with quite a lot of experiments to assess it A large majority of reviews were unsatisfatory either missing completely the point probably it was stated too unclearly or showing a lack of background from the reviewer to be able to raise the really good questions In the end I find it very difficult to tune a paper for a submission to ICML most of the times it is found either too theoretical or too practical At the same time we have the feeling that some a lot of accepted papers should have been blamed as ours ICML and NIPS are victim of their success I have the feeling that something around 40 or more of submitted papers are worth being accepted It is really a waste of time effort for the whole community to reject so many good papers The presentation of new results is delayed this is not good for research and not good for authors I think ICML should grow to a larger number of parallel sessions I totally dislike the idea of having 20 sessions in parallel as in certain conferences but at ICML there are half days during which no session has any appeal to me Having one or two extra sessions in parallel thus accepting more papers would be interesting Finally I acknowledge the effort you do this year to try new things to improve the selection process at ICML I feel like having an author response is incredibly helpful as both an author and a reviewer As an author even though reviews haven t necessarily changed I feel like the discussion paper decision seemed to have been influenced by rebuttal As a reviewer the responses have helped clarify aspects of a paper and has helped me feel more less confident about my review ECML PKDD did not have rebuttals this year and as a reviewer I really didn t like it I really liked being able to see the final score the authors gave to the paper That should be done every year In terms of the review process I think reviewers should give more credit to looking at new problems applications in the work I had one paper that I felt was partially penalized by a reviewer because we only looked at a suite of problems in a new and important application domain but did not run on some standard benchmarks I think credit should be given for looking at a new application when there is a technical innovation required to analyze that domain I also think that care should be taken to ensure that there is diversity in terms of the papers submitted and the papers accepted This year for the first time I felt like AAAI had more ML papers submitted that were of interest to me than ICML did I also think getting the camera ready instructions and presentation poster instruction out a bit earlier would be good I also think it may be worth while to make the submission paper length be 8 pages but give accepted papers a 9th page b c reviewers usually correctly ask for additional detail in the paper It would be nice if the reviewers could see the final decisions including meta reviews Note I only reviewed 1 paper on request secondary meta reviews added an unreasonable amount of workload and the instructions regarding them apparently changed during the process My reviewing experience this year was pure bliss My frustration when reviewing for ML conferences had been growing for several years This year I really enjoyed reviewing for ICML The Toronto matching system based assignments process certainly made a difference But I also think the process program chair and area chairs followed during the reviewing period was very well balanced Great job I think that John and Joelle did an exceptional job This was flat out the best reviewing experience I ve seen for any conference Kudos congratulations and thanks The review period was far too short in my opinion Also I reviewed a paper that looked like this Theorem statements without proof sketches in the main paper and all proofs in a 20 page supplement I thought this violated the requirement that the main paper be self contained and voted to reject on that basis Some of my co reviewers disagreed In the end we all voted to reject for a different reason Could the author instructions be revised to clarify this issue Tone and

    Original URL path: http://icml.cc/2012/survey-results/getcol.php?col=33&cnd=2 (2016-02-18)
    Open archived version from archive

  • ICML 2012 – International Conference on Machine Learning
    paper is good So I suggest you substantially reduce the number of talks Another option is to make all of the presentations 15 minutes instead of 20 There is far too much noise in the reviewing process for it to be useful in determining the relative quality of different papers amoung those that have been accepted Also lower scores can sometimes indicate problems with writing and have nothing to do with the quality of the ideas and whether they are worth being presented for longer than 5 minutes nips like spotlight poster sessions might be good Moreover paper acceptance rate might be decreased slightly to 22 25 No short talks Either no talk spotlight one or two slides one or two minutes top or full talk I conjecture that the five minute short talk format will tempt too many people into cramming too much into their slides and or going overtime Perhaps poll again after the conference It is preferable that the length of the talk for each accepted paper is the same With the high number of papers presented in parallel it might be an interesting option to offer all presenters the option of putting up a poster in a dedicated poster area during a lunch evening session That way delegates could either discuss a talk they heard durring the day in more detail or catch up on talks they missed in parallel sessions informing presenters that these posters might be simply print outs of the slides rather than full fledged posters videotape all talks I particularly like the ICML decision in the past to give each paper a talk This allows nice focused sessions contrary to conferences such as NIPS CVPR ICCV no idea what would be a good thing to do Not my problem but good luck

    Original URL path: http://icml.cc/2012/survey-results/getcol.php?col=30-c&cnd=3 (2016-02-18)
    Open archived version from archive

  • ICML 2012 – International Conference on Machine Learning
    one was planning to attend anyway as major scientific events is not necessarily a good idea as it would mean extremely long trips of 2 weeks time Adding a smaller event just prior to or at the end of the conference within a week seems fine aamas AISTATS NIPS SIAM Conference on Data Mining ISMB or another medical bioinformatics conference would also be interesting ICANN AIStats IEEE ICDL Epirob Co

    Original URL path: http://icml.cc/2012/survey-results/getcol.php?col=32-c&cnd=3 (2016-02-18)
    Open archived version from archive