What is going on with these graphics?
It's an XKCD styled graph by the looks of it. There are a couple generators out there that take data and make the hand drawn looking graphs. e.g http://xkcdgraphs.com/
And they look fucking awful.
Half the papers at NIPS would be rejected if the review process were rerun
11–20 of 55 posts
Re: Half the papers at NIPS would be rejected if the review process were rerun
#12Is this the Neural Information Processing Systems convention you're talking about? I'm sure more than a few people won't have any idea what "NIPS" stands for.
To be fair, calling it "Neural Information Processing Systems" isn't significantly more informative. The name is just a quirk of history; NIPS in its modern form includes research in all areas of machine learning, not just neural nets.
Re: Half the papers at NIPS would be rejected if the review process were rerun
#13What is going on with these graphics?
It's an XKCD styled graph by the looks of it. There are a couple generators out there that take data and make the hand drawn looking graphs. e.g http://xkcdgraphs.com/
Also, matplotlib, the most commonly-used Python plotting package, can generate xkcd-ized plots with a single additional command (see http://matplotlib.org/xkcd/examples/showcase/xkcd.html).
Re: Half the papers at NIPS would be rejected if the review process were rerun
#14Is this the Neural Information Processing Systems convention you're talking about? I'm sure more than a few people won't have any idea what "NIPS" stands for.
To be fair, calling it "Neural Information Processing Systems" isn't significantly more informative. The name is just a quirk of history; NIPS in its modern form includes research in all areas of machine learning, not just neural nets.
In fact for some years neural networks were very out of fashion there, and it was almost purely a statistical machine learning conference. I tend to just think of it as a machine-learning conference named "NIPS", which stands for something historical (like Perl and Lisp do).
Re: Half the papers at NIPS would be rejected if the review process were rerun
#15I am surprised the committees were "tasked with a 22.5% acceptance rate". Couldn't more than 77.5% of the submissions have been of poor quality?
Re: Half the papers at NIPS would be rejected if the review process were rerun
#16I am surprised the committees were "tasked with a 22.5% acceptance rate". Couldn't more than 77.5% of the submissions have been of poor quality?
Highly (almost vanishingly) unlikely at a "top-tier" venue like NIPS.
Re: Half the papers at NIPS would be rejected if the review process were rerun
#17Earlier quoted context omitted.
It's an XKCD styled graph by the looks of it. There are a couple generators out there that take data and make the hand drawn looking graphs. e.g http://xkcdgraphs.com/
And they look fucking awful.
They're supposed to look hastily-made to reflect the imprecision in the estimates.
https://www.chrisstucchio.com/blog/2014/why_xkcd_style_graph...
Re: Half the papers at NIPS would be rejected if the review process were rerun
#18Re: Half the papers at NIPS would be rejected if the review process were rerun
#19This is the way "peer review" works. It is basically random. I have always found it comforting whenever I had a paper rejected as I would know it was nothing to do with the quality of my work. I would fix any of the typos found by the reviewers (you always get a spelling nazi as one of reviewers) and send it out again unchanged. I only have had one paper rejected twice and it was accepted unchanged on the third attempt.
Re: Half the papers at NIPS would be rejected if the review process were rerun
#20Earlier quoted context omitted.
Highly (almost vanishingly) unlikely at a "top-tier" venue like NIPS.
Can you say more about why you believe this is true?
What does "poor quality" mean? There is no absolute standard for quality. "Poor" is something like "less good than usual compared to the recent work in this community". So the top-scoring third-ish of papers sent to the currently-converged-on favourite venue of a community are pretty much by definition not poor. Unless something very weird indeed happens one year. There are usually only very few really excellent papers, though. Most papers are filler in retrospect.
Also, conferences need to accept a decent number of papers so that people will show up and cover the costs of the meeting. Venues are usually booked long before the program is fixed.