hunch_net hunch_net-2005 hunch_net-2005-80 knowledge-graph by maker-knowledge-mining
Source: html
Introduction: … and you should use that fact. A workshop differs from a conference in that it is about a focused group of people worrying about a focused topic. It also differs in that a workshop is typically a “one-time affair” rather than a series. (The Snowbird learning workshop counts as a conference in this respect.) A common failure mode of both organizers and speakers at a workshop is to treat it as a conference. This is “ok”, but it is not really taking advantage of the situation. Here are some things I’ve learned: For speakers: A smaller audience means it can be more interactive. Interactive means a better chance to avoid losing your audience and a more interesting presentation (because you can adapt to your audience). Greater focus amongst the participants means you can get to the heart of the matter more easily, and discuss tradeoffs more carefully. Unlike conferences, relevance is more valued than newness. For organizers: Not everything needs to be in a conference st
sentIndex sentText sentNum sentScore
1 A workshop differs from a conference in that it is about a focused group of people worrying about a focused topic. [sent-2, score-1.26]
2 It also differs in that a workshop is typically a “one-time affair” rather than a series. [sent-3, score-0.486]
3 (The Snowbird learning workshop counts as a conference in this respect. [sent-4, score-0.548]
4 ) A common failure mode of both organizers and speakers at a workshop is to treat it as a conference. [sent-5, score-1.01]
5 This is “ok”, but it is not really taking advantage of the situation. [sent-6, score-0.167]
6 Here are some things I’ve learned: For speakers: A smaller audience means it can be more interactive. [sent-7, score-0.596]
7 Interactive means a better chance to avoid losing your audience and a more interesting presentation (because you can adapt to your audience). [sent-8, score-1.08]
8 Greater focus amongst the participants means you can get to the heart of the matter more easily, and discuss tradeoffs more carefully. [sent-9, score-0.891]
9 Unlike conferences, relevance is more valued than newness. [sent-10, score-0.285]
10 For organizers: Not everything needs to be in a conference style presentation format (i. [sent-11, score-0.686]
11 Significant (and variable) question time, different talk durations, flexible rescheduling, and panel discussions can all work well. [sent-14, score-0.388]
wordName wordTfidf (topN-words)
[('audience', 0.327), ('workshop', 0.251), ('differs', 0.235), ('speakers', 0.213), ('organizers', 0.201), ('focused', 0.191), ('presentation', 0.177), ('means', 0.175), ('conference', 0.162), ('panel', 0.162), ('duration', 0.15), ('treat', 0.15), ('valued', 0.15), ('worrying', 0.141), ('affair', 0.141), ('heart', 0.141), ('regularly', 0.141), ('relevance', 0.135), ('snowbird', 0.135), ('minute', 0.135), ('adapt', 0.135), ('counts', 0.135), ('tradeoffs', 0.135), ('flexible', 0.121), ('losing', 0.121), ('mode', 0.112), ('ok', 0.107), ('discussions', 0.105), ('interactive', 0.105), ('unlike', 0.101), ('variable', 0.101), ('format', 0.097), ('smaller', 0.094), ('participants', 0.094), ('discuss', 0.093), ('greater', 0.093), ('focus', 0.089), ('group', 0.089), ('needs', 0.086), ('everything', 0.086), ('talks', 0.086), ('matter', 0.085), ('taking', 0.085), ('failure', 0.083), ('advantage', 0.082), ('amongst', 0.079), ('style', 0.078), ('chance', 0.075), ('learned', 0.072), ('avoid', 0.07)]
simIndex simValue blogId blogTitle
same-blog 1 1.0000001 80 hunch net-2005-06-10-Workshops are not Conferences
Introduction: … and you should use that fact. A workshop differs from a conference in that it is about a focused group of people worrying about a focused topic. It also differs in that a workshop is typically a “one-time affair” rather than a series. (The Snowbird learning workshop counts as a conference in this respect.) A common failure mode of both organizers and speakers at a workshop is to treat it as a conference. This is “ok”, but it is not really taking advantage of the situation. Here are some things I’ve learned: For speakers: A smaller audience means it can be more interactive. Interactive means a better chance to avoid losing your audience and a more interesting presentation (because you can adapt to your audience). Greater focus amongst the participants means you can get to the heart of the matter more easily, and discuss tradeoffs more carefully. Unlike conferences, relevance is more valued than newness. For organizers: Not everything needs to be in a conference st
2 0.24781723 141 hunch net-2005-12-17-Workshops as Franchise Conferences
Introduction: Founding a successful new conference is extraordinarily difficult. As a conference founder, you must manage to attract a significant number of good papers—enough to entice the participants into participating next year and to (generally) to grow the conference. For someone choosing to participate in a new conference, there is a very significant decision to make: do you send a paper to some new conference with no guarantee that the conference will work out? Or do you send it to another (possibly less related) conference that you are sure will work? The conference founding problem is a joint agreement problem with a very significant barrier. Workshops are a way around this problem, and workshops attached to conferences are a particularly effective means for this. A workshop at a conference is sure to have people available to speak and attend and is sure to have a large audience available. Presenting work at a workshop is not generally exclusive: it can also be presented at a confe
3 0.18379641 203 hunch net-2006-08-18-Report of MLSS 2006 Taipei
Introduction: The 2006 Machine Learning Summer School in Taipei, Taiwan ended on August 4, 2006. It has been a very exciting two weeks for a record crowd of 245 participants (including speakers and organizers) from 18 countries. We had a lineup of speakers that is hard to match up for other similar events (see our WIKI for more information). With this lineup, it is difficult for us as organizers to screw it up too bad. Also, since we have pretty good infrastructure for international meetings and experienced staff at NTUST and Academia Sinica, plus the reputation established by previous MLSS series, it was relatively easy for us to attract registrations and simply enjoyed this two-week long party of machine learning. In the end of MLSS we distributed a survey form for participants to fill in. I will report what we found from this survey, together with the registration data and word-of-mouth from participants. The first question is designed to find out how our participants learned about MLSS
4 0.16588773 234 hunch net-2007-02-22-Create Your Own ICML Workshop
Introduction: As usual ICML 2007 will be hosting a workshop program to be held this year on June 24th. The success of the program depends on having researchers like you propose interesting workshop topics and then organize the workshops. I’d like to encourage all of you to consider sending a workshop proposal. The proposal deadline has been extended to March 5. See the workshop web-site for details. Organizing a workshop is a unique way to gather an international group of researchers together to focus for an entire day on a topic of your choosing. I’ve always found that the cost of organizing a workshop is not so large, and very low compared to the benefits. The topic and format of a workshop are limited only by your imagination (and the attractiveness to potential participants) and need not follow the usual model of a mini-conference on a particular ML sub-area. Hope to see some interesting proposals rolling in.
5 0.16484819 307 hunch net-2008-07-04-More Presentation Preparation
Introduction: We’ve discussed presentation preparation before , but I have one more thing to add: transitioning . For a research presentation, it is substantially helpful for the audience if transitions are clear. A common outline for a research presentation in machine leanring is: The problem . Presentations which don’t describe the problem almost immediately lose people, because the context is missing to understand the detail. Prior relevant work . In many cases, a paper builds on some previous bit of work which must be understood in order to understand what the paper does. A common failure mode seems to be spending too much time on prior work. Discuss just the relevant aspects of prior work in the language of your work. Sometimes this is missing when unneeded. What we did . For theory papers in particular, it is often not possible to really cover the details. Prioritizing what you present can be very important. How it worked . Many papers in Machine Learning have some sor
6 0.13610454 431 hunch net-2011-04-18-A paper not at Snowbird
7 0.13532203 75 hunch net-2005-05-28-Running A Machine Learning Summer School
8 0.13466622 249 hunch net-2007-06-21-Presentation Preparation
9 0.13205214 93 hunch net-2005-07-13-“Sister Conference” presentations
10 0.11853465 46 hunch net-2005-03-24-The Role of Workshops
11 0.10567023 452 hunch net-2012-01-04-Why ICML? and the summer conferences
12 0.10376562 113 hunch net-2005-09-19-NIPS Workshops
13 0.097110815 377 hunch net-2009-11-09-NYAS ML Symposium this year.
14 0.096835248 343 hunch net-2009-02-18-Decision by Vetocracy
15 0.095508121 53 hunch net-2005-04-06-Structured Regret Minimization
16 0.090456925 488 hunch net-2013-08-31-Extreme Classification workshop at NIPS
17 0.087987706 437 hunch net-2011-07-10-ICML 2011 and the future
18 0.087268606 198 hunch net-2006-07-25-Upcoming conference
19 0.085558951 404 hunch net-2010-08-20-The Workshop on Cores, Clusters, and Clouds
20 0.083855495 21 hunch net-2005-02-17-Learning Research Programs
topicId topicWeight
[(0, 0.15), (1, -0.109), (2, -0.1), (3, -0.071), (4, -0.01), (5, 0.137), (6, 0.048), (7, -0.004), (8, 0.027), (9, -0.012), (10, -0.006), (11, -0.02), (12, 0.08), (13, 0.113), (14, 0.076), (15, -0.073), (16, 0.027), (17, 0.252), (18, -0.128), (19, 0.098), (20, -0.054), (21, -0.17), (22, 0.072), (23, 0.108), (24, 0.099), (25, 0.09), (26, -0.043), (27, -0.033), (28, -0.082), (29, 0.101), (30, -0.141), (31, 0.039), (32, 0.004), (33, -0.083), (34, 0.103), (35, -0.142), (36, 0.025), (37, 0.008), (38, -0.003), (39, 0.013), (40, -0.009), (41, -0.0), (42, -0.007), (43, -0.001), (44, -0.015), (45, 0.023), (46, -0.01), (47, 0.124), (48, -0.003), (49, 0.015)]
simIndex simValue blogId blogTitle
same-blog 1 0.98977375 80 hunch net-2005-06-10-Workshops are not Conferences
Introduction: … and you should use that fact. A workshop differs from a conference in that it is about a focused group of people worrying about a focused topic. It also differs in that a workshop is typically a “one-time affair” rather than a series. (The Snowbird learning workshop counts as a conference in this respect.) A common failure mode of both organizers and speakers at a workshop is to treat it as a conference. This is “ok”, but it is not really taking advantage of the situation. Here are some things I’ve learned: For speakers: A smaller audience means it can be more interactive. Interactive means a better chance to avoid losing your audience and a more interesting presentation (because you can adapt to your audience). Greater focus amongst the participants means you can get to the heart of the matter more easily, and discuss tradeoffs more carefully. Unlike conferences, relevance is more valued than newness. For organizers: Not everything needs to be in a conference st
2 0.69553769 141 hunch net-2005-12-17-Workshops as Franchise Conferences
Introduction: Founding a successful new conference is extraordinarily difficult. As a conference founder, you must manage to attract a significant number of good papers—enough to entice the participants into participating next year and to (generally) to grow the conference. For someone choosing to participate in a new conference, there is a very significant decision to make: do you send a paper to some new conference with no guarantee that the conference will work out? Or do you send it to another (possibly less related) conference that you are sure will work? The conference founding problem is a joint agreement problem with a very significant barrier. Workshops are a way around this problem, and workshops attached to conferences are a particularly effective means for this. A workshop at a conference is sure to have people available to speak and attend and is sure to have a large audience available. Presenting work at a workshop is not generally exclusive: it can also be presented at a confe
3 0.65916431 234 hunch net-2007-02-22-Create Your Own ICML Workshop
Introduction: As usual ICML 2007 will be hosting a workshop program to be held this year on June 24th. The success of the program depends on having researchers like you propose interesting workshop topics and then organize the workshops. I’d like to encourage all of you to consider sending a workshop proposal. The proposal deadline has been extended to March 5. See the workshop web-site for details. Organizing a workshop is a unique way to gather an international group of researchers together to focus for an entire day on a topic of your choosing. I’ve always found that the cost of organizing a workshop is not so large, and very low compared to the benefits. The topic and format of a workshop are limited only by your imagination (and the attractiveness to potential participants) and need not follow the usual model of a mini-conference on a particular ML sub-area. Hope to see some interesting proposals rolling in.
4 0.62615287 249 hunch net-2007-06-21-Presentation Preparation
Introduction: A big part of doing research is presenting it at a conference. Since many people start out shy of public presentations, this can be a substantial challenge. Here are a few notes which might be helpful when thinking about preparing a presentation on research. Motivate . Talks which don’t start by describing the problem to solve cause many people to zone out. Prioritize . It is typical that you have more things to say than time to say them, and many presenters fall into the failure mode of trying to say too much. This is an easy-to-understand failure mode as it’s very natural to want to include everything. A basic fact is: you can’t. Example of this are: Your slides are so densely full of equations and words that you can’t cover them. Your talk runs over and a moderator prioritizes for you by cutting you off. You motor-mouth through the presentation, and the information absorption rate of the audience prioritizes in some uncontrolled fashion. The rate of flow of c
5 0.58601534 203 hunch net-2006-08-18-Report of MLSS 2006 Taipei
Introduction: The 2006 Machine Learning Summer School in Taipei, Taiwan ended on August 4, 2006. It has been a very exciting two weeks for a record crowd of 245 participants (including speakers and organizers) from 18 countries. We had a lineup of speakers that is hard to match up for other similar events (see our WIKI for more information). With this lineup, it is difficult for us as organizers to screw it up too bad. Also, since we have pretty good infrastructure for international meetings and experienced staff at NTUST and Academia Sinica, plus the reputation established by previous MLSS series, it was relatively easy for us to attract registrations and simply enjoyed this two-week long party of machine learning. In the end of MLSS we distributed a survey form for participants to fill in. I will report what we found from this survey, together with the registration data and word-of-mouth from participants. The first question is designed to find out how our participants learned about MLSS
6 0.57835275 93 hunch net-2005-07-13-“Sister Conference” presentations
7 0.56246144 377 hunch net-2009-11-09-NYAS ML Symposium this year.
8 0.54179496 416 hunch net-2010-10-29-To Vidoelecture or not
9 0.50861555 198 hunch net-2006-07-25-Upcoming conference
10 0.48562244 307 hunch net-2008-07-04-More Presentation Preparation
11 0.46491802 431 hunch net-2011-04-18-A paper not at Snowbird
12 0.4566038 88 hunch net-2005-07-01-The Role of Impromptu Talks
13 0.45435452 146 hunch net-2006-01-06-MLTV
14 0.45399407 75 hunch net-2005-05-28-Running A Machine Learning Summer School
15 0.44266573 54 hunch net-2005-04-08-Fast SVMs
16 0.42485598 53 hunch net-2005-04-06-Structured Regret Minimization
17 0.41765529 187 hunch net-2006-06-25-Presentation of Proofs is Hard.
18 0.40403539 46 hunch net-2005-03-24-The Role of Workshops
19 0.40198269 277 hunch net-2007-12-12-Workshop Summary—Principles of Learning Problem Design
20 0.38391316 114 hunch net-2005-09-20-Workshop Proposal: Atomic Learning
topicId topicWeight
[(27, 0.192), (53, 0.054), (55, 0.085), (87, 0.397), (92, 0.068), (94, 0.019), (95, 0.074)]
simIndex simValue blogId blogTitle
same-blog 1 0.88764578 80 hunch net-2005-06-10-Workshops are not Conferences
Introduction: … and you should use that fact. A workshop differs from a conference in that it is about a focused group of people worrying about a focused topic. It also differs in that a workshop is typically a “one-time affair” rather than a series. (The Snowbird learning workshop counts as a conference in this respect.) A common failure mode of both organizers and speakers at a workshop is to treat it as a conference. This is “ok”, but it is not really taking advantage of the situation. Here are some things I’ve learned: For speakers: A smaller audience means it can be more interactive. Interactive means a better chance to avoid losing your audience and a more interesting presentation (because you can adapt to your audience). Greater focus amongst the participants means you can get to the heart of the matter more easily, and discuss tradeoffs more carefully. Unlike conferences, relevance is more valued than newness. For organizers: Not everything needs to be in a conference st
2 0.65612715 151 hunch net-2006-01-25-1 year
Introduction: At the one year (+5 days) anniversary, the natural question is: “Was it helpful for research?” Answer: Yes, and so it shall continue. Some evidence is provided by noticing that I am about a factor of 2 more overloaded with paper ideas than I’ve ever previously been. It is always hard to estimate counterfactual worlds, but I expect that this is also a factor of 2 more than “What if I had not started the blog?” As for “Why?”, there seem to be two primary effects. A blog is a mechanism for connecting with people who either think like you or are interested in the same problems. This allows for concentration of thinking which is very helpful in solving problems. The process of stating things you don’t understand publicly is very helpful in understanding them. Sometimes you are simply forced to express them in a way which aids understanding. Sometimes someone else says something which helps. And sometimes you discover that someone else has already solved the problem. The
3 0.48075005 225 hunch net-2007-01-02-Retrospective
Introduction: It’s been almost two years since this blog began. In that time, I’ve learned enough to shift my expectations in several ways. Initially, the idea was for a general purpose ML blog where different people could contribute posts. What has actually happened is most posts come from me, with a few guest posts that I greatly value. There are a few reasons I see for this. Overload . A couple years ago, I had not fully appreciated just how busy life gets for a researcher. Making a post is not simply a matter of getting to it, but rather of prioritizing between {writing a grant, finishing an overdue review, writing a paper, teaching a class, writing a program, etc…}. This is a substantial transition away from what life as a graduate student is like. At some point the question is not “when will I get to it?” but rather “will I get to it?” and the answer starts to become “no” most of the time. Feedback failure . This blog currently receives about 3K unique visitors per day from
4 0.47442913 238 hunch net-2007-04-13-What to do with an unreasonable conditional accept
Introduction: Last year about this time, we received a conditional accept for the searn paper , which asked us to reference a paper that was not reasonable to cite because there was strictly more relevant work by the same authors that we already cited. We wrote a response explaining this, and didn’t cite it in the final draft, giving the SPC an excuse to reject the paper , leading to unhappiness for all. Later, Sanjoy Dasgupta suggested that an alternative was to talk to the PC chair instead, as soon as you see that a conditional accept is unreasonable. William Cohen and I spoke about this by email, the relevant bit of which is: If an SPC asks for a revision that is inappropriate, the correct action is to contact the chairs as soon as the decision is made, clearly explaining what the problem is, so we can decide whether or not to over-rule the SPC. As you say, this is extra work for us chairs, but that’s part of the job, and we’re willing to do that sort of work to improve the ov
5 0.47395504 437 hunch net-2011-07-10-ICML 2011 and the future
Introduction: Unfortunately, I ended up sick for much of this ICML. I did manage to catch one interesting paper: Richard Socher , Cliff Lin , Andrew Y. Ng , and Christopher D. Manning Parsing Natural Scenes and Natural Language with Recursive Neural Networks . I invited Richard to share his list of interesting papers, so hopefully we’ll hear from him soon. In the meantime, Paul and Hal have posted some lists. the future Joelle and I are program chairs for ICML 2012 in Edinburgh , which I previously enjoyed visiting in 2005 . This is a huge responsibility, that we hope to accomplish well. A part of this (perhaps the most fun part), is imagining how we can make ICML better. A key and critical constraint is choosing things that can be accomplished. So far we have: Colocation . The first thing we looked into was potential colocations. We quickly discovered that many other conferences precomitted their location. For the future, getting a colocation with ACL or SIGI
6 0.47337326 220 hunch net-2006-11-27-Continuizing Solutions
7 0.47327685 478 hunch net-2013-01-07-NYU Large Scale Machine Learning Class
8 0.47320786 203 hunch net-2006-08-18-Report of MLSS 2006 Taipei
9 0.47226608 293 hunch net-2008-03-23-Interactive Machine Learning
10 0.47159278 466 hunch net-2012-06-05-ICML acceptance statistics
11 0.47102982 194 hunch net-2006-07-11-New Models
12 0.47097111 370 hunch net-2009-09-18-Necessary and Sufficient Research
13 0.47080854 360 hunch net-2009-06-15-In Active Learning, the question changes
14 0.46877602 343 hunch net-2009-02-18-Decision by Vetocracy
15 0.4683409 378 hunch net-2009-11-15-The Other Online Learning
16 0.46764368 132 hunch net-2005-11-26-The Design of an Optimal Research Environment
17 0.46612152 458 hunch net-2012-03-06-COLT-ICML Open Questions and ICML Instructions
18 0.46596324 406 hunch net-2010-08-22-KDD 2010
19 0.46556866 464 hunch net-2012-05-03-Microsoft Research, New York City
20 0.46536899 279 hunch net-2007-12-19-Cool and interesting things seen at NIPS