hunch_net hunch_net-2007 hunch_net-2007-249 knowledge-graph by maker-knowledge-mining
Source: html
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
sentIndex sentText sentNum sentScore
1 Since many people start out shy of public presentations, this can be a substantial challenge. [sent-2, score-0.26]
2 Here are a few notes which might be helpful when thinking about preparing a presentation on research. [sent-3, score-0.382]
3 Talks which don’t start by describing the problem to solve cause many people to zone out. [sent-5, score-0.527]
4 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. [sent-7, score-0.898]
5 This is an easy-to-understand failure mode as it’s very natural to want to include everything. [sent-8, score-0.294]
6 Example of this are: Your slides are so densely full of equations and words that you can’t cover them. [sent-10, score-0.236]
7 Your talk runs over and a moderator prioritizes for you by cutting you off. [sent-11, score-0.517]
8 You motor-mouth through the presentation, and the information absorption rate of the audience prioritizes in some uncontrolled fashion. [sent-12, score-0.532]
9 The rate of flow of concepts simply exceeds the information capacity of the audience. [sent-13, score-0.583]
10 Even with nondense slides and an easy succinct delivery, this can often happen. [sent-14, score-0.236]
11 One way to prioritize is figure out: “What would I present in 1 minute? [sent-15, score-0.363]
12 When you are working in an area, it’s typical to buildup an internal shorthand for concepts. [sent-19, score-0.098]
13 This needs to be peeled away when preparing a presentation. [sent-20, score-0.187]
14 Decide what the minimal set of concepts are, and then be sure to define them as they are introduced. [sent-21, score-0.242]
15 Some people try to get a talk right by practicing it relentlessly until it is memorized, and then deliver it as a memorized monologue. [sent-24, score-0.864]
16 This is terrible, because people in the audience know it is a memorized monologue and zone out. [sent-25, score-0.856]
17 A good talk is delivered like a conversation, where it happens to be your turn to speak for awhile, and practicing that is more difficult. [sent-26, score-0.446]
18 Some practice by yourself can be helpful—but not too much. [sent-27, score-0.142]
19 A much better method is to practice on your friends by delivering to them before delivering it to the wider world. [sent-28, score-0.753]
20 The points above avoid the common failure modes which seem to come up with first-time presenters. [sent-29, score-0.236]
wordName wordTfidf (topN-words)
[('memorized', 0.34), ('concepts', 0.242), ('delivering', 0.227), ('practicing', 0.227), ('prioritizes', 0.227), ('zone', 0.201), ('preparing', 0.187), ('prioritize', 0.176), ('failure', 0.155), ('slides', 0.143), ('practice', 0.142), ('mode', 0.139), ('audience', 0.136), ('say', 0.135), ('talk', 0.131), ('presentations', 0.13), ('present', 0.114), ('presentation', 0.111), ('presenters', 0.101), ('delivery', 0.101), ('monologue', 0.101), ('typical', 0.098), ('succinct', 0.093), ('equations', 0.093), ('shy', 0.093), ('flow', 0.093), ('uncontrolled', 0.093), ('start', 0.089), ('deliver', 0.088), ('capacity', 0.088), ('delivered', 0.088), ('exceeds', 0.084), ('wider', 0.084), ('minute', 0.084), ('cutting', 0.084), ('helpful', 0.084), ('minutes', 0.081), ('describing', 0.081), ('modes', 0.081), ('people', 0.078), ('motivate', 0.078), ('cause', 0.078), ('terrible', 0.078), ('rate', 0.076), ('conversation', 0.075), ('decide', 0.075), ('runs', 0.075), ('guide', 0.073), ('friends', 0.073), ('figure', 0.073)]
simIndex simValue blogId blogTitle
same-blog 1 1.0 249 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
2 0.16151333 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
3 0.13466622 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
4 0.094533347 91 hunch net-2005-07-10-Thinking the Unthought
Introduction: One thing common to much research is that the researcher must be the first person ever to have some thought. How do you think of something that has never been thought of? There seems to be no methodical manner of doing this, but there are some tricks. The easiest method is to just have some connection come to you. There is a trick here however: you should write it down and fill out the idea immediately because it can just as easily go away. A harder method is to set aside a block of time and simply think about an idea. Distraction elimination is essential here because thinking about the unthought is hard work which your mind will avoid. Another common method is in conversation. Sometimes the process of verbalizing implies new ideas come up and sometimes whoever you are talking to replies just the right way. This method is dangerous though—you must speak to someone who helps you think rather than someone who occupies your thoughts. Try to rephrase the problem so the a
5 0.092237346 493 hunch net-2014-02-16-Metacademy: a package manager for knowledge
Introduction: In recent years, there’s been an explosion of free educational resources that make high-level knowledge and skills accessible to an ever-wider group of people. In your own field, you probably have a good idea of where to look for the answer to any particular question. But outside your areas of expertise, sifting through textbooks, Wikipedia articles, research papers, and online lectures can be bewildering (unless you’re fortunate enough to have a knowledgeable colleague to consult). What are the key concepts in the field, how do they relate to each other, which ones should you learn, and where should you learn them? Courses are a major vehicle for packaging educational materials for a broad audience. The trouble is that they’re typically meant to be consumed linearly, regardless of your specific background or goals. Also, unless thousands of other people have had the same background and learning goals, there may not even be a course that fits your needs. Recently, we ( Roger Grosse
6 0.089002304 461 hunch net-2012-04-09-ICML author feedback is open
7 0.084111616 416 hunch net-2010-10-29-To Vidoelecture or not
8 0.082320847 187 hunch net-2006-06-25-Presentation of Proofs is Hard.
9 0.077554829 75 hunch net-2005-05-28-Running A Machine Learning Summer School
10 0.075414956 93 hunch net-2005-07-13-“Sister Conference” presentations
11 0.073475994 22 hunch net-2005-02-18-What it means to do research.
12 0.070352212 73 hunch net-2005-05-17-A Short Guide to PhD Graduate Study
13 0.067138083 40 hunch net-2005-03-13-Avoiding Bad Reviewing
14 0.065605745 98 hunch net-2005-07-27-Not goal metrics
15 0.064751908 484 hunch net-2013-06-16-Representative Reviewing
16 0.064293623 203 hunch net-2006-08-18-Report of MLSS 2006 Taipei
17 0.062327433 194 hunch net-2006-07-11-New Models
18 0.062186375 344 hunch net-2009-02-22-Effective Research Funding
19 0.061994493 146 hunch net-2006-01-06-MLTV
20 0.061167806 437 hunch net-2011-07-10-ICML 2011 and the future
topicId topicWeight
[(0, 0.157), (1, -0.027), (2, -0.028), (3, 0.067), (4, -0.034), (5, 0.015), (6, 0.008), (7, 0.005), (8, 0.005), (9, -0.019), (10, -0.027), (11, 0.003), (12, 0.033), (13, 0.072), (14, 0.083), (15, -0.037), (16, 0.021), (17, 0.134), (18, -0.015), (19, 0.073), (20, -0.009), (21, -0.02), (22, 0.032), (23, 0.016), (24, 0.027), (25, 0.021), (26, -0.021), (27, -0.057), (28, -0.121), (29, 0.057), (30, -0.112), (31, -0.019), (32, 0.006), (33, 0.019), (34, 0.072), (35, -0.083), (36, 0.05), (37, 0.067), (38, -0.072), (39, -0.003), (40, 0.048), (41, -0.008), (42, -0.013), (43, -0.004), (44, -0.043), (45, 0.076), (46, -0.039), (47, 0.032), (48, 0.117), (49, 0.013)]
simIndex simValue blogId blogTitle
same-blog 1 0.95675123 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
2 0.772277 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
3 0.69694662 187 hunch net-2006-06-25-Presentation of Proofs is Hard.
Introduction: When presenting part of the Reinforcement Learning theory tutorial at ICML 2006 , I was forcibly reminded of this. There are several difficulties. When creating the presentation, the correct level of detail is tricky. With too much detail, the proof takes too much time and people may be lost to boredom. With too little detail, the steps of the proof involve too-great a jump. This is very difficult to judge. What may be an easy step in the careful thought of a quiet room is not so easy when you are occupied by the process of presentation. What may be easy after having gone over this (and other) proofs is not so easy to follow in the first pass by a viewer. These problems seem only correctable by process of repeated test-and-revise. When presenting the proof, simply speaking with sufficient precision is substantially harder than in normal conversation (where precision is not so critical). Practice can help here. When presenting the proof, going at the right p
4 0.66763347 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
5 0.63565826 91 hunch net-2005-07-10-Thinking the Unthought
Introduction: One thing common to much research is that the researcher must be the first person ever to have some thought. How do you think of something that has never been thought of? There seems to be no methodical manner of doing this, but there are some tricks. The easiest method is to just have some connection come to you. There is a trick here however: you should write it down and fill out the idea immediately because it can just as easily go away. A harder method is to set aside a block of time and simply think about an idea. Distraction elimination is essential here because thinking about the unthought is hard work which your mind will avoid. Another common method is in conversation. Sometimes the process of verbalizing implies new ideas come up and sometimes whoever you are talking to replies just the right way. This method is dangerous though—you must speak to someone who helps you think rather than someone who occupies your thoughts. Try to rephrase the problem so the a
6 0.60676014 162 hunch net-2006-03-09-Use of Notation
7 0.57933044 231 hunch net-2007-02-10-Best Practices for Collaboration
8 0.54094237 54 hunch net-2005-04-08-Fast SVMs
9 0.53706723 203 hunch net-2006-08-18-Report of MLSS 2006 Taipei
10 0.51323587 416 hunch net-2010-10-29-To Vidoelecture or not
11 0.50697076 22 hunch net-2005-02-18-What it means to do research.
12 0.49878043 44 hunch net-2005-03-21-Research Styles in Machine Learning
13 0.49875045 147 hunch net-2006-01-08-Debugging Your Brain
14 0.49622068 75 hunch net-2005-05-28-Running A Machine Learning Summer School
15 0.49543431 88 hunch net-2005-07-01-The Role of Impromptu Talks
16 0.49306139 146 hunch net-2006-01-06-MLTV
17 0.48647523 202 hunch net-2006-08-10-Precision is not accuracy
18 0.46911106 257 hunch net-2007-07-28-Asking questions
19 0.4400036 98 hunch net-2005-07-27-Not goal metrics
20 0.43928468 73 hunch net-2005-05-17-A Short Guide to PhD Graduate Study
topicId topicWeight
[(27, 0.128), (53, 0.11), (55, 0.063), (56, 0.065), (65, 0.363), (94, 0.106), (95, 0.073)]
simIndex simValue blogId blogTitle
same-blog 1 0.81747121 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
2 0.71635485 398 hunch net-2010-05-10-Aggregation of estimators, sparsity in high dimension and computational feasibility
Introduction: (I’m channeling for Jean-Yves Audibert here, with some minor tweaking for clarity.) Since Nemirovski’s Saint Flour lecture notes , numerous researchers have studied the following problem in least squares regression: predict as well as (MS) the best of d given functions (like in prediction with expert advice; model = finite set of d functions) (C) the best convex combination of these functions (i.e., model = convex hull of the d functions) (L) the best linear combination of these functions (i.e., model = linear span of the d functions) It is now well known (see, e.g., Sacha Tsybakov’s COLT’03 paper) that these tasks can be achieved since there exist estimators having an excess risk of order (log d)/n for (MS), min( sqrt((log d)/n), d/n ) for (C) and d/n for (L), where n is the training set size. Here, “risk” is amount of extra loss per example which may be suffered due to the choice of random sample. The practical use of these results seems rather limited to trivial
3 0.58337688 403 hunch net-2010-07-18-ICML & COLT 2010
Introduction: The papers which interested me most at ICML and COLT 2010 were: Thomas Walsh , Kaushik Subramanian , Michael Littman and Carlos Diuk Generalizing Apprenticeship Learning across Hypothesis Classes . This paper formalizes and provides algorithms with guarantees for mixed-mode apprenticeship and traditional reinforcement learning algorithms, allowing RL algorithms that perform better than for either setting alone. István Szita and Csaba Szepesvári Model-based reinforcement learning with nearly tight exploration complexity bounds . This paper and another represent the frontier of best-known algorithm for Reinforcement Learning in a Markov Decision Process. James Martens Deep learning via Hessian-free optimization . About a new not-quite-online second order gradient algorithm for learning deep functional structures. Potentially this is very powerful because while people have often talked about end-to-end learning, it has rarely worked in practice. Chrisoph
4 0.55377328 432 hunch net-2011-04-20-The End of the Beginning of Active Learning
Introduction: This post is by Daniel Hsu and John Langford. In selective sampling style active learning, a learning algorithm chooses which examples to label. We now have an active learning algorithm that is: Efficient in label complexity, unlabeled complexity, and computational complexity. Competitive with supervised learning anywhere that supervised learning works. Compatible with online learning, with any optimization-based learning algorithm, with any loss function, with offline testing, and even with changing learning algorithms. Empirically effective. The basic idea is to combine disagreement region-based sampling with importance weighting : an example is selected to be labeled with probability proportional to how useful it is for distinguishing among near-optimal classifiers, and labeled examples are importance-weighted by the inverse of these probabilities. The combination of these simple ideas removes the sampling bias problem that has plagued many previous he
5 0.49856168 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
6 0.49729711 202 hunch net-2006-08-10-Precision is not accuracy
7 0.4721432 286 hunch net-2008-01-25-Turing’s Club for Machine Learning
8 0.46921903 151 hunch net-2006-01-25-1 year
9 0.46702537 438 hunch net-2011-07-11-Interesting Neural Network Papers at ICML 2011
10 0.46359745 307 hunch net-2008-07-04-More Presentation Preparation
11 0.46285769 57 hunch net-2005-04-16-Which Assumptions are Reasonable?
12 0.46192977 191 hunch net-2006-07-08-MaxEnt contradicts Bayes Rule?
13 0.4599728 478 hunch net-2013-01-07-NYU Large Scale Machine Learning Class
14 0.45964992 187 hunch net-2006-06-25-Presentation of Proofs is Hard.
15 0.45814475 132 hunch net-2005-11-26-The Design of an Optimal Research Environment
16 0.4577744 416 hunch net-2010-10-29-To Vidoelecture or not
17 0.4565466 370 hunch net-2009-09-18-Necessary and Sufficient Research
18 0.45654005 22 hunch net-2005-02-18-What it means to do research.
19 0.45605162 297 hunch net-2008-04-22-Taking the next step
20 0.45518506 358 hunch net-2009-06-01-Multitask Poisoning