hunch_net hunch_net-2007 hunch_net-2007-257 knowledge-graph by maker-knowledge-mining
Source: html
Introduction: There are very substantial differences in how question asking is viewed culturally. For example, all of the following are common: If no one asks a question, then no one is paying attention. To ask a question is disrespectful of the speaker. Asking a question is admitting your own ignorance. The first view seems to be the right one for research, for several reasons. Research is quite hard—it’s difficult to guess how people won’t understand something in advance while preparing a presentation. Consequently, it’s very common to lose people. No worthwhile presenter wants that. Real understanding is precious. By asking a question, you are really declaring “I want to understand”, and everyone should respect that. Asking a question wakes you up. I don’t mean from “asleep” to “awake” but from “awake” to “really awake”. It’s easy to drift through something sort-of-understanding. When you ask a question, especially because you are on the spot, you will do much better.
sentIndex sentText sentNum sentScore
1 There are very substantial differences in how question asking is viewed culturally. [sent-1, score-0.937]
2 For example, all of the following are common: If no one asks a question, then no one is paying attention. [sent-2, score-0.202]
3 To ask a question is disrespectful of the speaker. [sent-3, score-0.598]
4 Asking a question is admitting your own ignorance. [sent-4, score-0.446]
5 The first view seems to be the right one for research, for several reasons. [sent-5, score-0.066]
6 Research is quite hard—it’s difficult to guess how people won’t understand something in advance while preparing a presentation. [sent-6, score-0.448]
7 By asking a question, you are really declaring “I want to understand”, and everyone should respect that. [sent-10, score-0.699]
8 I don’t mean from “asleep” to “awake” but from “awake” to “really awake”. [sent-12, score-0.067]
9 When you ask a question, especially because you are on the spot, you will do much better. [sent-14, score-0.312]
10 Some of these effects might seem minor, but they accumulate over time, and their accumulation can have a big effect in terms of knowledge and understanding by the questioner as well as how well ideas are communicated. [sent-15, score-0.595]
11 A final piece of evidence comes from checking cultural backgrounds. [sent-16, score-0.432]
12 People with a cultural background that accepts question asking simply tend to do better in research. [sent-17, score-1.232]
13 By being conscious of the need to ask questions and working up the courage to do it, you can do fine. [sent-19, score-0.374]
14 A reasonable default is that the time to not ask a question is when the speaker (or the environment) explicitly say “let me make progress in the talk”. [sent-20, score-0.918]
wordName wordTfidf (topN-words)
[('asking', 0.426), ('awake', 0.416), ('question', 0.347), ('ask', 0.251), ('cultural', 0.197), ('accumulate', 0.123), ('accumulation', 0.123), ('conscious', 0.123), ('declaring', 0.123), ('drift', 0.123), ('presenter', 0.123), ('spot', 0.114), ('preparing', 0.114), ('speaker', 0.114), ('accepts', 0.108), ('paying', 0.103), ('asks', 0.099), ('admitting', 0.099), ('guess', 0.095), ('really', 0.091), ('wants', 0.09), ('differences', 0.09), ('checking', 0.09), ('understanding', 0.087), ('environment', 0.085), ('lose', 0.083), ('understand', 0.083), ('minor', 0.081), ('background', 0.081), ('advance', 0.08), ('piece', 0.078), ('effects', 0.078), ('default', 0.078), ('something', 0.076), ('worthwhile', 0.075), ('viewed', 0.074), ('tend', 0.073), ('consequently', 0.073), ('common', 0.072), ('won', 0.07), ('mean', 0.067), ('final', 0.067), ('explicitly', 0.066), ('view', 0.066), ('ideas', 0.063), ('progress', 0.062), ('especially', 0.061), ('knowledge', 0.061), ('effect', 0.06), ('everyone', 0.059)]
simIndex simValue blogId blogTitle
same-blog 1 0.99999994 257 hunch net-2007-07-28-Asking questions
Introduction: There are very substantial differences in how question asking is viewed culturally. For example, all of the following are common: If no one asks a question, then no one is paying attention. To ask a question is disrespectful of the speaker. Asking a question is admitting your own ignorance. The first view seems to be the right one for research, for several reasons. Research is quite hard—it’s difficult to guess how people won’t understand something in advance while preparing a presentation. Consequently, it’s very common to lose people. No worthwhile presenter wants that. Real understanding is precious. By asking a question, you are really declaring “I want to understand”, and everyone should respect that. Asking a question wakes you up. I don’t mean from “asleep” to “awake” but from “awake” to “really awake”. It’s easy to drift through something sort-of-understanding. When you ask a question, especially because you are on the spot, you will do much better.
2 0.11315235 454 hunch net-2012-01-30-ICML Posters and Scope
Introduction: Normally, I don’t indulge in posters for ICML , but this year is naturally an exception for me. If you want one, there are a small number left here , if you sign up before February. It also seems worthwhile to give some sense of the scope and reviewing criteria for ICML for authors considering submitting papers. At ICML, the (very large) program committee does the reviewing which informs final decisions by area chairs on most papers. Program chairs setup the process, deal with exceptions or disagreements, and provide advice for the reviewing process. Providing advice is tricky (and easily misleading) because a conference is a community, and in the end the aggregate interests of the community determine the conference. Nevertheless, as a program chair this year it seems worthwhile to state the overall philosophy I have and what I plan to encourage (and occasionally discourage). At the highest level, I believe ICML exists to further research into machine learning, which I gene
3 0.093933381 424 hunch net-2011-02-17-What does Watson mean?
Introduction: Watson convincingly beat the best champion Jeopardy! players. The apparent significance of this varies hugely, depending on your background knowledge about the related machine learning, NLP, and search technology. For a random person, this might seem evidence of serious machine intelligence, while for people working on the system itself, it probably seems like a reasonably good assemblage of existing technologies with several twists to make the entire system work. Above all, I think we should congratulate the people who managed to put together and execute this project—many years of effort by a diverse set of highly skilled people were needed to make this happen. In academia, it’s pretty difficult for one professor to assemble that quantity of talent, and in industry it’s rarely the case that such a capable group has both a worthwhile project and the support needed to pursue something like this for several years before success. Alina invited me to the Jeopardy watching party
4 0.093762659 360 hunch net-2009-06-15-In Active Learning, the question changes
Introduction: A little over 4 years ago, Sanjoy made a post saying roughly “we should study active learning theoretically, because not much is understood”. At the time, we did not understand basic things such as whether or not it was possible to PAC-learn with an active algorithm without making strong assumptions about the noise rate. In other words, the fundamental question was “can we do it?” The nature of the question has fundamentally changed in my mind. The answer is to the previous question is “yes”, both information theoretically and computationally, most places where supervised learning could be applied. In many situation, the question has now changed to: “is it worth it?” Is the programming and computational overhead low enough to make the label cost savings of active learning worthwhile? Currently, there are situations where this question could go either way. Much of the challenge for the future is in figuring out how to make active learning easier or more worthwhile.
5 0.089261569 40 hunch net-2005-03-13-Avoiding Bad Reviewing
Introduction: If we accept that bad reviewing often occurs and want to fix it, the question is “how”? Reviewing is done by paper writers just like yourself, so a good proxy for this question is asking “How can I be a better reviewer?” Here are a few things I’ve learned by trial (and error), as a paper writer, and as a reviewer. The secret ingredient is careful thought. There is no good substitution for a deep and careful understanding. Avoid reviewing papers that you feel competitive about. You almost certainly will be asked to review papers that feel competitive if you work on subjects of common interest. But, the feeling of competition can easily lead to bad judgement. If you feel biased for some other reason, then you should avoid reviewing. For example… Feeling angry or threatened by a paper is a form of bias. See above. Double blind yourself (avoid looking at the name even in a single-blind situation). The significant effect of a name you recognize is making you pay close a
6 0.082573503 2 hunch net-2005-01-24-Holy grails of machine learning?
7 0.076414168 132 hunch net-2005-11-26-The Design of an Optimal Research Environment
8 0.075703554 295 hunch net-2008-04-12-It Doesn’t Stop
9 0.074382871 260 hunch net-2007-08-25-The Privacy Problem
10 0.072298564 51 hunch net-2005-04-01-The Producer-Consumer Model of Research
11 0.072115853 22 hunch net-2005-02-18-What it means to do research.
12 0.070053712 91 hunch net-2005-07-10-Thinking the Unthought
13 0.065825105 170 hunch net-2006-04-06-Bounds greater than 1
14 0.061134223 76 hunch net-2005-05-29-Bad ideas
15 0.061037622 249 hunch net-2007-06-21-Presentation Preparation
16 0.060265496 286 hunch net-2008-01-25-Turing’s Club for Machine Learning
17 0.058276951 149 hunch net-2006-01-18-Is Multitask Learning Black-Boxable?
18 0.056779288 96 hunch net-2005-07-21-Six Months
19 0.056495767 347 hunch net-2009-03-26-Machine Learning is too easy
20 0.056115914 332 hunch net-2008-12-23-Use of Learning Theory
topicId topicWeight
[(0, 0.141), (1, -0.009), (2, -0.019), (3, 0.093), (4, -0.043), (5, -0.005), (6, -0.001), (7, 0.028), (8, 0.016), (9, 0.009), (10, -0.01), (11, 0.001), (12, 0.017), (13, 0.031), (14, 0.035), (15, -0.007), (16, 0.011), (17, 0.037), (18, -0.002), (19, 0.031), (20, -0.03), (21, 0.057), (22, 0.045), (23, 0.012), (24, 0.046), (25, -0.089), (26, 0.002), (27, -0.004), (28, -0.024), (29, -0.002), (30, -0.034), (31, 0.003), (32, -0.052), (33, -0.026), (34, -0.058), (35, -0.014), (36, -0.005), (37, 0.03), (38, -0.079), (39, -0.011), (40, -0.023), (41, -0.038), (42, -0.024), (43, -0.025), (44, -0.006), (45, 0.01), (46, 0.083), (47, -0.033), (48, -0.031), (49, 0.033)]
simIndex simValue blogId blogTitle
same-blog 1 0.97465968 257 hunch net-2007-07-28-Asking questions
Introduction: There are very substantial differences in how question asking is viewed culturally. For example, all of the following are common: If no one asks a question, then no one is paying attention. To ask a question is disrespectful of the speaker. Asking a question is admitting your own ignorance. The first view seems to be the right one for research, for several reasons. Research is quite hard—it’s difficult to guess how people won’t understand something in advance while preparing a presentation. Consequently, it’s very common to lose people. No worthwhile presenter wants that. Real understanding is precious. By asking a question, you are really declaring “I want to understand”, and everyone should respect that. Asking a question wakes you up. I don’t mean from “asleep” to “awake” but from “awake” to “really awake”. It’s easy to drift through something sort-of-understanding. When you ask a question, especially because you are on the spot, you will do much better.
2 0.63757277 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
3 0.59808117 76 hunch net-2005-05-29-Bad ideas
Introduction: I found these two essays on bad ideas interesting. Neither of these is written from the viewpoint of research, but they are both highly relevant. Why smart people have bad ideas by Paul Graham Why smart people defend bad ideas by Scott Berkun (which appeared on slashdot ) In my experience, bad ideas are common and over confidence in ideas is common. This overconfidence can take either the form of excessive condemnation or excessive praise. Some of this is necessary to the process of research. For example, some overconfidence in the value of your own research is expected and probably necessary to motivate your own investigation. Since research is a rather risky business, much of it does not pan out. Learning to accept when something does not pan out is a critical skill which is sometimes never acquired. Excessive condemnation can be a real ill when it’s encountered. This has two effects: When the penalty for being wrong is too large, it means people have a
4 0.59540546 295 hunch net-2008-04-12-It Doesn’t Stop
Introduction: I’ve enjoyed the Terminator movies and show. Neglecting the whacky aspects (time travel and associated paradoxes), there is an enduring topic of discussion: how do people deal with intelligent machines (and vice versa)? In Terminator-land, the primary method for dealing with intelligent machines is to prevent them from being made. This approach works pretty badly, because a new angle on building an intelligent machine keeps coming up. This is partly a ploy for writer’s to avoid writing themselves out of a job, but there is a fundamental truth to it as well: preventing progress in research is hard. The United States, has been experimenting with trying to stop research on stem cells . It hasn’t worked very well—the net effect has been retarding research programs a bit, and exporting some research to other countries. Another less recent example was encryption technology, for which the United States generally did not encourage early public research and even discouraged as a mu
5 0.59452683 358 hunch net-2009-06-01-Multitask Poisoning
Introduction: There are many ways that interesting research gets done. For example it’s common at a conference for someone to discuss a problem with a partial solution, and for someone else to know how to solve a piece of it, resulting in a paper. In some sense, these are the easiest results we can achieve, so we should ask: Can all research be this easy? The answer is certainly no for fields where research inherently requires experimentation to discover how the real world works. However, mathematics, including parts of physics, computer science, statistics, etc… which are effectively mathematics don’t require experimentation. In effect, a paper can be simply a pure expression of thinking. Can all mathematical-style research be this easy? What’s going on here is research-by-communication. Someone knows something, someone knows something else, and as soon as someone knows both things, a problem is solved. The interesting thing about research-by-communication is that it is becoming radic
6 0.59248829 222 hunch net-2006-12-05-Recruitment Conferences
7 0.58034194 22 hunch net-2005-02-18-What it means to do research.
8 0.57008773 162 hunch net-2006-03-09-Use of Notation
9 0.56717741 151 hunch net-2006-01-25-1 year
10 0.5584808 73 hunch net-2005-05-17-A Short Guide to PhD Graduate Study
11 0.54983866 132 hunch net-2005-11-26-The Design of an Optimal Research Environment
12 0.5450111 382 hunch net-2009-12-09-Future Publication Models @ NIPS
13 0.54252458 249 hunch net-2007-06-21-Presentation Preparation
14 0.54154515 147 hunch net-2006-01-08-Debugging Your Brain
15 0.53759563 110 hunch net-2005-09-10-“Failure” is an option
16 0.53645402 493 hunch net-2014-02-16-Metacademy: a package manager for knowledge
17 0.52331084 202 hunch net-2006-08-10-Precision is not accuracy
18 0.52313858 48 hunch net-2005-03-29-Academic Mechanism Design
19 0.51977438 90 hunch net-2005-07-07-The Limits of Learning Theory
20 0.51326054 187 hunch net-2006-06-25-Presentation of Proofs is Hard.
topicId topicWeight
[(10, 0.05), (27, 0.154), (38, 0.029), (53, 0.077), (55, 0.101), (73, 0.337), (94, 0.099), (95, 0.037)]
simIndex simValue blogId blogTitle
1 0.94277883 476 hunch net-2012-12-29-Simons Institute Big Data Program
Introduction: Michael Jordan sends the below: The new Simons Institute for the Theory of Computing will begin organizing semester-long programs starting in 2013. One of our first programs, set for Fall 2013, will be on the “Theoretical Foundations of Big Data Analysis”. The organizers of this program are Michael Jordan (chair), Stephen Boyd, Peter Buehlmann, Ravi Kannan, Michael Mahoney, and Muthu Muthukrishnan. See http://simons.berkeley.edu/program_bigdata2013.html for more information on the program. The Simons Institute has created a number of “Research Fellowships” for young researchers (within at most six years of the award of their PhD) who wish to participate in Institute programs, including the Big Data program. Individuals who already hold postdoctoral positions or who are junior faculty are welcome to apply, as are finishing PhDs. Please note that the application deadline is January 15, 2013. Further details are available at http://simons.berkeley.edu/fellows.h
same-blog 2 0.88634801 257 hunch net-2007-07-28-Asking questions
Introduction: There are very substantial differences in how question asking is viewed culturally. For example, all of the following are common: If no one asks a question, then no one is paying attention. To ask a question is disrespectful of the speaker. Asking a question is admitting your own ignorance. The first view seems to be the right one for research, for several reasons. Research is quite hard—it’s difficult to guess how people won’t understand something in advance while preparing a presentation. Consequently, it’s very common to lose people. No worthwhile presenter wants that. Real understanding is precious. By asking a question, you are really declaring “I want to understand”, and everyone should respect that. Asking a question wakes you up. I don’t mean from “asleep” to “awake” but from “awake” to “really awake”. It’s easy to drift through something sort-of-understanding. When you ask a question, especially because you are on the spot, you will do much better.
3 0.58155876 317 hunch net-2008-09-12-How do we get weak action dependence for learning with partial observations?
Introduction: This post is about contextual bandit problems where, repeatedly: The world chooses features x and rewards for each action r 1 ,…,r k then announces the features x (but not the rewards). A policy chooses an action a . The world announces the reward r a The goal in these situations is to learn a policy which maximizes r a in expectation efficiently. I’m thinking about all situations which fit the above setting, whether they are drawn IID or adversarially from round to round and whether they involve past logged data or rapidly learning via interaction. One common drawback of all algorithms for solving this setting, is that they have a poor dependence on the number of actions. For example if k is the number of actions, EXP4 (page 66) has a dependence on k 0.5 , epoch-greedy (and the simpler epsilon greedy) have a dependence on k 1/3 , and the offset tree has a dependence on k-1 . These results aren’t directly comparable because different things a
4 0.57674527 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 0.54543263 454 hunch net-2012-01-30-ICML Posters and Scope
Introduction: Normally, I don’t indulge in posters for ICML , but this year is naturally an exception for me. If you want one, there are a small number left here , if you sign up before February. It also seems worthwhile to give some sense of the scope and reviewing criteria for ICML for authors considering submitting papers. At ICML, the (very large) program committee does the reviewing which informs final decisions by area chairs on most papers. Program chairs setup the process, deal with exceptions or disagreements, and provide advice for the reviewing process. Providing advice is tricky (and easily misleading) because a conference is a community, and in the end the aggregate interests of the community determine the conference. Nevertheless, as a program chair this year it seems worthwhile to state the overall philosophy I have and what I plan to encourage (and occasionally discourage). At the highest level, I believe ICML exists to further research into machine learning, which I gene
6 0.54498661 437 hunch net-2011-07-10-ICML 2011 and the future
7 0.54409915 207 hunch net-2006-09-12-Incentive Compatible Reviewing
8 0.54296786 286 hunch net-2008-01-25-Turing’s Club for Machine Learning
9 0.54084402 297 hunch net-2008-04-22-Taking the next step
10 0.53889751 95 hunch net-2005-07-14-What Learning Theory might do
11 0.53589296 423 hunch net-2011-02-02-User preferences for search engines
12 0.53472441 141 hunch net-2005-12-17-Workshops as Franchise Conferences
13 0.53349078 256 hunch net-2007-07-20-Motivation should be the Responsibility of the Reviewer
14 0.53298128 343 hunch net-2009-02-18-Decision by Vetocracy
15 0.53287083 221 hunch net-2006-12-04-Structural Problems in NIPS Decision Making
16 0.53225046 132 hunch net-2005-11-26-The Design of an Optimal Research Environment
17 0.53165334 204 hunch net-2006-08-28-Learning Theory standards for NIPS 2006
18 0.53008568 96 hunch net-2005-07-21-Six Months
19 0.52888685 40 hunch net-2005-03-13-Avoiding Bad Reviewing
20 0.52823329 202 hunch net-2006-08-10-Precision is not accuracy