Liangzu Peng
@liangzu.bsky.social
PhD student @ UPenn
Research: Continual Learning, Optimization
Research: Continual Learning, Optimization
Got precisely this response as an author:
Thanks for your responses. I maintain my score (5).
Thanks for your responses. I maintain my score (5).
Dear reviewer: Did you write any of the following?
- Thanks for your responses. I maintain my score (5).
- All my concerns have been resolved (6).
Lack of reasoning on how you think about scores and what it takes for you to improve it makes it hard to understand your stance!👇
- Thanks for your responses. I maintain my score (5).
- All my concerns have been resolved (6).
Lack of reasoning on how you think about scores and what it takes for you to improve it makes it hard to understand your stance!👇
December 3, 2024 at 4:17 PM
Got precisely this response as an author:
Thanks for your responses. I maintain my score (5).
Thanks for your responses. I maintain my score (5).
Thanks for the list. I am just following each of them no brainers
Just put together a starter pack for Deep Learning Theory. Let me know if you'd like to be included or suggest someone to add to the list!
go.bsky.app/2qnppia
go.bsky.app/2qnppia
November 28, 2024 at 12:30 PM
Thanks for the list. I am just following each of them no brainers
I had the suspicion for "top 2% papers" listed for oral papers accepted to conferences. Imo "2% acceptance rate" is more accurate and honest. This is only a minor concern of mine. Perhaps people didn't think that much when they say "top"
Anyone else getting suspicious of applicants for faculty (or even postdoc!) listing themselves as “Stanford Top 2% Scientists” on resume? 🤨
It’s wild enough that we rank universities, but ranking every individual researcher? 🚩
When institutions use it to judge talent, we have a serious problem 🔬
It’s wild enough that we rank universities, but ranking every individual researcher? 🚩
When institutions use it to judge talent, we have a serious problem 🔬
November 28, 2024 at 12:22 PM
I had the suspicion for "top 2% papers" listed for oral papers accepted to conferences. Imo "2% acceptance rate" is more accurate and honest. This is only a minor concern of mine. Perhaps people didn't think that much when they say "top"