1 / 6

Book proposal with Andrew Blake

Book proposal with Andrew Blake. An edited collection on “Learning and Inference in Vision” With 50-70 pages of tutorial material: Estimation theory AR models Classification Graphical models Particle filters http://www.ai.mit.edu/people/wtf/ proposal.html.

aspen
Télécharger la présentation

Book proposal with Andrew Blake

An Image/Link below is provided (as is) to download presentation Download Policy: Content on the Website is provided to you AS IS for your information and personal use and may not be sold / licensed / shared on other websites without getting consent from its author. Content is provided to you AS IS for your information and personal use only. Download presentation by click this link. While downloading, if for some reason you are not able to download a presentation, the publisher may have deleted the file from their server. During download, if you can't get a presentation, the file might be deleted by the publisher.

E N D

Presentation Transcript

  1. Book proposal with Andrew Blake • An edited collection on “Learning and Inference in Vision” • With 50-70 pages of tutorial material: • Estimation theory • AR models • Classification • Graphical models • Particle filters • http://www.ai.mit.edu/people/wtf/proposal.html You are the target audience. We’d welcome your comments on the book proposal.

  2. On Weds, May 15 • Please turn in: • One final copy of your course project paper (for me to read) • Two copies of your review of the other paper (one for them, one for me).

  3. This week

  4. http://www.ai.mit.edu/courses/6.899/papers/reviews.txt 1. Briefly describe the paper and its contribution. 2. Is the exposition clear? How could it be improved? 3. Are the references adequate? List any references that are needed. Cite specific publications or public disclosures of techniques. 4. Could the work be reproduced by a skilled graduate student? 5. Are limitations and drawbacks of the work adequately discussed?

  5. We’ll skip this… 6. How would you rate this paper for the SIGGRAPH 2002 Papers program on a continuous scale from 1 to 5, where: 1 = Reject 2 = Doubtful 3 = Possibly accept 4 = Probably accept 5 = Accept

  6. http://www.ai.mit.edu/courses/6.899/papers/reviews.txt 6. Does the paper discuss the following items? How well? (1) the comparison with alternative methods in such a way (e.g., with real or re-used data) as to allow rigorous evalution; (2) the degree to which human intervention is involved in generating the result (i.e., is this an automatic method, or a human-coached method?); and (3) the "brittleness" of the results, i.e., will the method work for ANY data, or only for the models shown, or only for models in some class? 7. How could the author improve the paper? Feel free to give constructive comments at whatever levels you'd like--from wording corrections to paper organization to research assumptions.

More Related