hunch_net hunch_net-2005 hunch_net-2005-89 knowledge-graph by maker-knowledge-mining
Source: html
Introduction: The health of COLT (Conference on Learning Theory or Computational Learning Theory depending on who you ask) has been questioned over the last few years. Low points for the conference occurred when EuroCOLT merged with COLT in 2001, and the attendance at the 2002 Sydney COLT fell to a new low. This occurred in the general context of machine learning conferences rising in both number and size over the last decade. Any discussion of why COLT has had difficulties is inherently controversial as is any story about well-intentioned people making the wrong decisions. Nevertheless, this may be worth discussing in the hope of avoiding problems in the future and general understanding. In any such discussion there is a strong tendency to identify with a conference/community in a patriotic manner that is detrimental to thinking. Keep in mind that conferences exist to further research. My understanding (I wasn’t around) is that COLT started as a subcommunity of the computer science
sentIndex sentText sentNum sentScore
1 The health of COLT (Conference on Learning Theory or Computational Learning Theory depending on who you ask) has been questioned over the last few years. [sent-1, score-0.339]
2 Low points for the conference occurred when EuroCOLT merged with COLT in 2001, and the attendance at the 2002 Sydney COLT fell to a new low. [sent-2, score-0.673]
3 This occurred in the general context of machine learning conferences rising in both number and size over the last decade. [sent-3, score-0.46]
4 Any discussion of why COLT has had difficulties is inherently controversial as is any story about well-intentioned people making the wrong decisions. [sent-4, score-0.318]
5 Nevertheless, this may be worth discussing in the hope of avoiding problems in the future and general understanding. [sent-5, score-0.135]
6 In any such discussion there is a strong tendency to identify with a conference/community in a patriotic manner that is detrimental to thinking. [sent-6, score-0.325]
7 Keep in mind that conferences exist to further research. [sent-7, score-0.114]
8 My understanding (I wasn’t around) is that COLT started as a subcommunity of the computer science theory community. [sent-8, score-0.378]
9 This implies several things: There was a basic tension facing authors: Do you submit to COLT or to FOCS or STOC which are the “big” theory conferences? [sent-9, score-0.395]
10 The research programs in COLT were motivated by theoretical concerns (rather than, say, practical experience). [sent-10, score-0.391]
11 This includes motivations like understanding the combinatorics of some models of learning and the relationship with crypto. [sent-11, score-0.598]
12 This worked well in the beginning when new research programs were being defined and new learning models were under investigation. [sent-12, score-0.559]
13 Perhaps the community shifted focus from thinking about new learning models to simply trying to find solutions in older models, and this went stale. [sent-14, score-0.566]
14 Perhaps some critical motivations were left out. [sent-15, score-0.248]
15 Many of the learning models under investigation at COLT strike empirically motivated people as implausibly useful. [sent-16, score-0.602]
16 Perhaps the conference/community was not inviting enough to new forms of learning theory. [sent-17, score-0.175]
17 Many pieces of learning theory have not appeared at COLT over the last 20 years. [sent-18, score-0.532]
18 The good news is that this year’s COLT appeared healthy. [sent-20, score-0.223]
19 Perhaps an even better measure is that there were many younger people in attendance. [sent-23, score-0.099]
wordName wordTfidf (topN-words)
[('colt', 0.449), ('motivations', 0.248), ('appeared', 0.223), ('theory', 0.209), ('models', 0.203), ('occurred', 0.159), ('motivated', 0.148), ('health', 0.14), ('went', 0.134), ('attendance', 0.128), ('concerns', 0.128), ('perhaps', 0.123), ('programs', 0.115), ('conferences', 0.114), ('conference', 0.1), ('last', 0.1), ('fell', 0.099), ('detrimental', 0.099), ('facing', 0.099), ('merged', 0.099), ('questioned', 0.099), ('subcommunity', 0.099), ('sydney', 0.099), ('younger', 0.099), ('low', 0.093), ('implausibly', 0.092), ('venue', 0.092), ('new', 0.088), ('wrong', 0.088), ('inviting', 0.087), ('rising', 0.087), ('strike', 0.087), ('tension', 0.087), ('questionable', 0.083), ('stoc', 0.083), ('controversial', 0.079), ('accepting', 0.079), ('discussion', 0.079), ('relationship', 0.077), ('identify', 0.077), ('shifted', 0.074), ('investigation', 0.072), ('story', 0.072), ('tendency', 0.07), ('understanding', 0.07), ('avoiding', 0.068), ('discussing', 0.067), ('older', 0.067), ('addressed', 0.067), ('beginning', 0.065)]
simIndex simValue blogId blogTitle
same-blog 1 0.99999976 89 hunch net-2005-07-04-The Health of COLT
Introduction: The health of COLT (Conference on Learning Theory or Computational Learning Theory depending on who you ask) has been questioned over the last few years. Low points for the conference occurred when EuroCOLT merged with COLT in 2001, and the attendance at the 2002 Sydney COLT fell to a new low. This occurred in the general context of machine learning conferences rising in both number and size over the last decade. Any discussion of why COLT has had difficulties is inherently controversial as is any story about well-intentioned people making the wrong decisions. Nevertheless, this may be worth discussing in the hope of avoiding problems in the future and general understanding. In any such discussion there is a strong tendency to identify with a conference/community in a patriotic manner that is detrimental to thinking. Keep in mind that conferences exist to further research. My understanding (I wasn’t around) is that COLT started as a subcommunity of the computer science
2 0.29299176 453 hunch net-2012-01-28-Why COLT?
Introduction: By Shie and Nati Following John’s advertisement for submitting to ICML, we thought it appropriate to highlight the advantages of COLT, and the reasons it is often the best place for theory papers. We would like to emphasize that we both respect ICML, and are active in ICML, both as authors and as area chairs, and certainly are not arguing that ICML is a bad place for your papers. For many papers, ICML is the best venue. But for many theory papers, COLT is a better and more appropriate place. Why should you submit to COLT? By-and-large, theory papers go to COLT. This is the tradition of the field and most theory papers are sent to COLT. This is the place to present your ground-breaking theorems and new models that will shape the theory of machine learning. COLT is more focused then ICML with a single track session. Unlike ICML, the norm in COLT is for people to sit through most sessions, and hear most of the talks presented. There is also often a lively discussion followi
3 0.2175453 324 hunch net-2008-11-09-A Healthy COLT
Introduction: A while ago , we discussed the health of COLT . COLT 2008 substantially addressed my concerns. The papers were diverse and several were interesting. Attendance was up, which is particularly notable in Europe. In my opinion, the colocation with UAI and ICML was the best colocation since 1998. And, perhaps best of all, registration ended up being free for all students due to various grants from the Academy of Finland , Google , IBM , and Yahoo . A basic question is: what went right? There seem to be several answers. Cost-wise, COLT had sufficient grants to alleviate the high cost of the Euro and location at a university substantially reduces the cost compared to a hotel. Organization-wise, the Finns were great with hordes of volunteers helping set everything up. Having too many volunteers is a good failure mode. Organization-wise, it was clear that all 3 program chairs were cooperating in designing the program. Facilities-wise, proximity in time and space made
4 0.2028162 452 hunch net-2012-01-04-Why ICML? and the summer conferences
Introduction: Here’s a quick reference for summer ML-related conferences sorted by due date: Conference Due date Location Reviewing KDD Feb 10 August 12-16, Beijing, China Single Blind COLT Feb 14 June 25-June 27, Edinburgh, Scotland Single Blind? (historically) ICML Feb 24 June 26-July 1, Edinburgh, Scotland Double Blind, author response, zero SPOF UAI March 30 August 15-17, Catalina Islands, California Double Blind, author response Geographically, this is greatly dispersed and the UAI/KDD conflict is unfortunate. Machine Learning conferences are triannual now, between NIPS , AIStat , and ICML . This has not always been the case: the academic default is annual summer conferences, then NIPS started with a December conference, and now AIStat has grown into an April conference. However, the first claim is not quite correct. NIPS and AIStat have few competing venues while ICML implicitly competes with many other conf
5 0.18893574 86 hunch net-2005-06-28-The cross validation problem: cash reward
Introduction: I just presented the cross validation problem at COLT . The problem now has a cash prize (up to $500) associated with it—see the presentation for details. The write-up for colt .
6 0.16000263 394 hunch net-2010-04-24-COLT Treasurer is now Phil Long
7 0.14317256 368 hunch net-2009-08-26-Another 10-year paper in Machine Learning
8 0.14214717 21 hunch net-2005-02-17-Learning Research Programs
9 0.14098813 437 hunch net-2011-07-10-ICML 2011 and the future
10 0.13931175 454 hunch net-2012-01-30-ICML Posters and Scope
11 0.13604133 95 hunch net-2005-07-14-What Learning Theory might do
12 0.12217969 332 hunch net-2008-12-23-Use of Learning Theory
13 0.12172125 318 hunch net-2008-09-26-The SODA Program Committee
14 0.1128419 374 hunch net-2009-10-10-ALT 2009
15 0.11124216 242 hunch net-2007-04-30-COLT 2007
16 0.11030403 458 hunch net-2012-03-06-COLT-ICML Open Questions and ICML Instructions
17 0.10869491 194 hunch net-2006-07-11-New Models
18 0.10824733 235 hunch net-2007-03-03-All Models of Learning have Flaws
19 0.10391119 403 hunch net-2010-07-18-ICML & COLT 2010
20 0.10339325 356 hunch net-2009-05-24-2009 ICML discussion site
topicId topicWeight
[(0, 0.245), (1, -0.15), (2, 0.018), (3, -0.023), (4, -0.016), (5, -0.097), (6, -0.033), (7, 0.001), (8, 0.011), (9, -0.038), (10, 0.066), (11, 0.042), (12, -0.127), (13, 0.129), (14, 0.18), (15, -0.061), (16, 0.238), (17, -0.008), (18, -0.052), (19, -0.029), (20, 0.028), (21, 0.048), (22, 0.135), (23, 0.126), (24, -0.052), (25, -0.017), (26, 0.007), (27, 0.111), (28, -0.033), (29, -0.024), (30, 0.005), (31, 0.002), (32, -0.045), (33, 0.05), (34, 0.009), (35, 0.082), (36, -0.004), (37, -0.054), (38, -0.004), (39, -0.045), (40, -0.101), (41, 0.082), (42, -0.089), (43, -0.045), (44, -0.04), (45, 0.015), (46, 0.025), (47, -0.089), (48, 0.039), (49, 0.007)]
simIndex simValue blogId blogTitle
same-blog 1 0.96940595 89 hunch net-2005-07-04-The Health of COLT
Introduction: The health of COLT (Conference on Learning Theory or Computational Learning Theory depending on who you ask) has been questioned over the last few years. Low points for the conference occurred when EuroCOLT merged with COLT in 2001, and the attendance at the 2002 Sydney COLT fell to a new low. This occurred in the general context of machine learning conferences rising in both number and size over the last decade. Any discussion of why COLT has had difficulties is inherently controversial as is any story about well-intentioned people making the wrong decisions. Nevertheless, this may be worth discussing in the hope of avoiding problems in the future and general understanding. In any such discussion there is a strong tendency to identify with a conference/community in a patriotic manner that is detrimental to thinking. Keep in mind that conferences exist to further research. My understanding (I wasn’t around) is that COLT started as a subcommunity of the computer science
2 0.8203842 394 hunch net-2010-04-24-COLT Treasurer is now Phil Long
Introduction: For about 5 years, I’ve been the treasurer of the Association for Computational Learning, otherwise known as COLT, taking over from John Case before me. A transfer of duties to Phil Long is now about complete. This probably matters to almost no one, but I wanted to describe things a bit for those interested. The immediate impetus for this decision was unhappiness over reviewing decisions at COLT 2009 , one as an author and several as a member of the program committee. I seem to have disagreements fairly often about what is important work, partly because I’m focused on learning theory with practical implications, partly because I define learning theory more broadly than is typical amongst COLT members, and partly because COLT suffers a bit from insider-clique issues. The degree to which these issues come up varies substantially each year so last year is not predictive of this one. And, it’s important to understand that COLT remains healthy with these issues not nearly so bad
3 0.78458989 324 hunch net-2008-11-09-A Healthy COLT
Introduction: A while ago , we discussed the health of COLT . COLT 2008 substantially addressed my concerns. The papers were diverse and several were interesting. Attendance was up, which is particularly notable in Europe. In my opinion, the colocation with UAI and ICML was the best colocation since 1998. And, perhaps best of all, registration ended up being free for all students due to various grants from the Academy of Finland , Google , IBM , and Yahoo . A basic question is: what went right? There seem to be several answers. Cost-wise, COLT had sufficient grants to alleviate the high cost of the Euro and location at a university substantially reduces the cost compared to a hotel. Organization-wise, the Finns were great with hordes of volunteers helping set everything up. Having too many volunteers is a good failure mode. Organization-wise, it was clear that all 3 program chairs were cooperating in designing the program. Facilities-wise, proximity in time and space made
4 0.76309961 453 hunch net-2012-01-28-Why COLT?
Introduction: By Shie and Nati Following John’s advertisement for submitting to ICML, we thought it appropriate to highlight the advantages of COLT, and the reasons it is often the best place for theory papers. We would like to emphasize that we both respect ICML, and are active in ICML, both as authors and as area chairs, and certainly are not arguing that ICML is a bad place for your papers. For many papers, ICML is the best venue. But for many theory papers, COLT is a better and more appropriate place. Why should you submit to COLT? By-and-large, theory papers go to COLT. This is the tradition of the field and most theory papers are sent to COLT. This is the place to present your ground-breaking theorems and new models that will shape the theory of machine learning. COLT is more focused then ICML with a single track session. Unlike ICML, the norm in COLT is for people to sit through most sessions, and hear most of the talks presented. There is also often a lively discussion followi
5 0.6718334 86 hunch net-2005-06-28-The cross validation problem: cash reward
Introduction: I just presented the cross validation problem at COLT . The problem now has a cash prize (up to $500) associated with it—see the presentation for details. The write-up for colt .
6 0.65260237 88 hunch net-2005-07-01-The Role of Impromptu Talks
7 0.62857348 452 hunch net-2012-01-04-Why ICML? and the summer conferences
8 0.59330755 47 hunch net-2005-03-28-Open Problems for Colt
9 0.59277052 242 hunch net-2007-04-30-COLT 2007
10 0.57271302 368 hunch net-2009-08-26-Another 10-year paper in Machine Learning
11 0.54124409 458 hunch net-2012-03-06-COLT-ICML Open Questions and ICML Instructions
12 0.51652378 447 hunch net-2011-10-10-ML Symposium and ICML details
13 0.51254094 44 hunch net-2005-03-21-Research Styles in Machine Learning
14 0.50034994 454 hunch net-2012-01-30-ICML Posters and Scope
15 0.49187809 437 hunch net-2011-07-10-ICML 2011 and the future
16 0.48327568 270 hunch net-2007-11-02-The Machine Learning Award goes to …
17 0.48027629 95 hunch net-2005-07-14-What Learning Theory might do
18 0.47350881 335 hunch net-2009-01-08-Predictive Analytics World
19 0.47335887 318 hunch net-2008-09-26-The SODA Program Committee
20 0.46452564 21 hunch net-2005-02-17-Learning Research Programs
topicId topicWeight
[(3, 0.018), (10, 0.026), (27, 0.211), (38, 0.046), (42, 0.261), (53, 0.049), (55, 0.173), (94, 0.057), (95, 0.071)]
simIndex simValue blogId blogTitle
1 0.95211822 485 hunch net-2013-06-29-The Benefits of Double-Blind Review
Introduction: This post is a (near) transcript of a talk that I gave at the ICML 2013 Workshop on Peer Review and Publishing Models . Although there’s a PDF available on my website , I’ve chosen to post a slightly modified version here as well in order to better facilitate discussion. Disclaimers and Context I want to start with a couple of disclaimers and some context. First, I want to point out that although I’ve read a lot about double-blind review, this isn’t my research area and the research discussed in this post is not my own. As a result, I probably can’t answer super detailed questions about these studies. I also want to note that I’m not opposed to open peer review — I was a free and open source software developer for over ten years and I care a great deal about openness and transparency. Rather, my motivation in writing this post is simply to create awareness of and to initiate discussion about the benefits of double-blind review. Lastly, and most importantly, I think it’s e
2 0.94963235 255 hunch net-2007-07-13-The View From China
Introduction: I’m visiting Beijing for the Pao-Lu Hsu Statistics Conference on Machine Learning. I had several discussions about the state of Chinese research. Given the large population and economy, you might expect substantial research—more than has been observed at international conferences. The fundamental problem seems to be the Cultural Revolution which lobotimized higher education, and the research associated with it. There has been a process of slow recovery since then, which has begun to be felt in the research world via increased participation in international conferences and (now) conferences in China. The amount of effort going into construction in Beijing is very impressive—people are literally building a skyscraper at night outside the window of the hotel I’m staying at (and this is not unusual). If a small fraction of this effort is later focused onto supporting research, the effect could be very substantial. General growth in China’s research portfolio should be expecte
3 0.94698256 242 hunch net-2007-04-30-COLT 2007
Introduction: Registration for COLT 2007 is now open. The conference will take place on 13-15 June, 2007, in San Diego, California, as part of the 2007 Federated Computing Research Conference (FCRC), which includes STOC, Complexity, and EC. The website for COLT: http://www.learningtheory.org/colt2007/index.html The early registration deadline is May 11, and the cutoff date for discounted hotel rates is May 9. Before registering, take note that the fees are substantially lower for members of ACM and/or SIGACT than for nonmembers. If you’ve been contemplating joining either of these two societies (annual dues: $99 for ACM, $18 for SIGACT), now would be a good time!
same-blog 4 0.88086122 89 hunch net-2005-07-04-The Health of COLT
Introduction: The health of COLT (Conference on Learning Theory or Computational Learning Theory depending on who you ask) has been questioned over the last few years. Low points for the conference occurred when EuroCOLT merged with COLT in 2001, and the attendance at the 2002 Sydney COLT fell to a new low. This occurred in the general context of machine learning conferences rising in both number and size over the last decade. Any discussion of why COLT has had difficulties is inherently controversial as is any story about well-intentioned people making the wrong decisions. Nevertheless, this may be worth discussing in the hope of avoiding problems in the future and general understanding. In any such discussion there is a strong tendency to identify with a conference/community in a patriotic manner that is detrimental to thinking. Keep in mind that conferences exist to further research. My understanding (I wasn’t around) is that COLT started as a subcommunity of the computer science
5 0.86524546 282 hunch net-2008-01-06-Research Political Issues
Introduction: I’ve avoided discussing politics here, although not for lack of interest. The problem with discussing politics is that it’s customary for people to say much based upon little information. Nevertheless, politics can have a substantial impact on science (and we might hope for the vice-versa). It’s primary election time in the United States, so the topic is timely, although the issues are not. There are several policy decisions which substantially effect development of science and technology in the US. Education The US has great contrasts in education. The top universities are very good places, yet the grade school education system produces mediocre results. For me, the contrast between a public education and Caltech was bracing. For many others attending Caltech, it clearly was not. Upgrading the k-12 education system in the US is a long-standing chronic problem which I know relatively little about. My own experience is that a basic attitude of “no child unrealized” i
6 0.85268819 216 hunch net-2006-11-02-2006 NIPS workshops
7 0.84241802 22 hunch net-2005-02-18-What it means to do research.
8 0.76304251 40 hunch net-2005-03-13-Avoiding Bad Reviewing
9 0.75779372 452 hunch net-2012-01-04-Why ICML? and the summer conferences
10 0.73184127 406 hunch net-2010-08-22-KDD 2010
11 0.73133808 437 hunch net-2011-07-10-ICML 2011 and the future
12 0.72818506 454 hunch net-2012-01-30-ICML Posters and Scope
13 0.72675574 466 hunch net-2012-06-05-ICML acceptance statistics
14 0.72619343 464 hunch net-2012-05-03-Microsoft Research, New York City
15 0.72425985 484 hunch net-2013-06-16-Representative Reviewing
16 0.72260994 343 hunch net-2009-02-18-Decision by Vetocracy
17 0.7209332 36 hunch net-2005-03-05-Funding Research
18 0.72078955 225 hunch net-2007-01-02-Retrospective
19 0.72064906 333 hunch net-2008-12-27-Adversarial Academia
20 0.71613294 51 hunch net-2005-04-01-The Producer-Consumer Model of Research