Categories
- Advertising (1)
- Artificial Intelligence (AI) (13)
- Classification (3)
- Clustering (1)
- Coding / Programming (8)
- Cryptography (1)
- Data Mining (19)
- Economy / Investing (1)
- ewrt linux (2)
- Fixing Stuff (8)
- Machine Learning (31)
- Math (2)
- Politics (3)
- Predictive Modeling (4)
- Psychology (3)
- Ramblings (26)
- Random (9)
- Security (15)
- Society (12)
- Sociology (4)
- spam (3)
- Statistics (16)
Latest Postings
- August 5, 2010 1:06 am: Elo Scores and Rating Contestants
- July 11, 2010 8:56 pm: GraphLab & Parallel Machine Learning
- June 15, 2010 8:21 pm: PHP configuration using htaccess on 1and1 shared hosting
- February 28, 2010 12:21 pm: Energy efficient data mining algorithms
- February 16, 2010 11:56 pm: Alternative measures to the AUC for rare-event prognostic models
- January 26, 2010 9:54 pm: Spam Filtering by Learning a Pattern Language
- January 10, 2010 5:37 pm: Strong profiling is not mathematically optimal for discovering rare malfeasors (on rare event detection)
- November 13, 2009 12:27 am: Starcraft AI competition
- July 25, 2009 8:34 pm: Random characters in text mode -> graphics card
- June 7, 2009 5:04 pm: Programs stealing the input focus
Links
Blogroll
Uncategorized
Useful Links
Archives
- August 2010
- July 2010
- June 2010
- February 2010
- January 2010
- November 2009
- July 2009
- June 2009
- May 2009
- April 2009
- March 2009
- February 2009
- January 2009
- December 2008
- November 2008
- October 2008
- September 2008
- August 2008
- July 2008
- June 2008
- May 2008
- April 2008
- March 2008
- February 2008
- January 2008
- December 2007
- November 2007
- October 2007
- September 2007
- August 2007
- July 2007
- June 2007
- May 2007
- April 2007
- March 2007
- February 2007
- January 2007
- December 2006
- November 2006
- October 2006
- September 2006
- August 2006
Torpedo-Reviews in Machine Learning Conferences
Interesting post over at hunch.net about reviewers bidding for papers in order to shoot them down. Make sure to read the comments… That state of mind of some reviewers might explain why the least-informative and most negative reviews always come with the highest confidence rating in ML conferences (specifically NIPS).
April 10, 2009 6:29 pm at 6:29 pm (April 10, 2009)
Same thing happened to me just recently with my application to SIGIR.
Since I trace my logs I could see that they even did not bother to try my tool, whereas I stressed that the most powerful part in my Demo presentation is to see how it really works.
September 21, 2009 12:09 am at 12:09 am (September 21, 2009)
This is hilarious:
http://th.informatik.uni-mannheim.de/People/Lucks/reject.pdf
Rejection letters for some of the most influential papers written in Computer Science.