« Back to Summary
Do you think the ICML2010 reviews were different in quality from those at related conferences?
#Response DateWhat conference are you comparing to and what is the subject area?
1Jun 10, 2010 7:01 PMCOLT, NIPS, theory, algorithms
2Jun 10, 2010 7:12 PMNIPS
3Jun 10, 2010 7:20 PMNIPS, AISTATS (Bayesian inference)
4Jun 10, 2010 8:24 PMNIPS, topic models
5Jun 10, 2010 8:25 PMNIPS
6Jun 10, 2010 8:38 PMNIPS
7Jun 10, 2010 9:15 PMCOLT, NIPS, ECML Reinforcement Learning
8Jun 10, 2010 10:02 PMACL, NAACL: The NLPers tend to write longers reviews with more details, and be more polite.
9Jun 11, 2010 1:31 AMNIPS2009, machine learning
10Jun 11, 2010 5:17 AMNIPS
11Jun 11, 2010 6:45 AMNIPS
12Jun 11, 2010 8:09 AMCVPR, ICCV, NIPS. Computer Vision and Machine Learning
13Jun 11, 2010 8:37 AMNIPS tends to be somewhat better. AISTATS this year was similarly bad.
14Jun 11, 2010 1:26 PMUAI
15Jun 11, 2010 1:36 PMAAAI in unsupervised learning
16Jun 11, 2010 2:31 PMDefinitely more extensive reviews than what I'm used to getting from NIPS.
17Jun 11, 2010 3:07 PMNIPS; boosting
18Jun 11, 2010 3:11 PMNIPS
19Jun 11, 2010 10:55 PMNIPS, for example.
20Jun 11, 2010 11:02 PMMuch better than kdd and ilp Roughly same at aaai, ecml, uai area is statistical relational learning
21Jun 12, 2010 3:57 AMNIPS, CVPR, AISTATS
22Jun 14, 2010 5:53 AMNIPS, graphical models and continuous time models.
23Jun 14, 2010 9:31 AMUAI
24Jun 14, 2010 9:14 PMNo experience with other conferences