|
|
|
|
|
|
by sriku
1441 days ago
|
|
|
A rather tangential comment - this paper is an example of how NOT to write an abstract. An abstract is expected to tell me what new piece of knowledge I can learn by reading more. The content of this abstract is only 20% of what a real abstract should be .. the first half of the first sentence is almost all that's needed (could include which archa it beats). The rest of the abstract needs to cover this (perhaps one sentence each) - 1. Intro - a note on the overall problem domain - object detection in this case and bit zoomed in to the DL space.
2. Related work - work so far in the domain .. without critizin it.
3. Problem statement - what is the knowledge gap in the related work this paper is talking about.
4. Solution - how did we address the gap.
5. Validation - how do we claim our solution addressed the gap it was intended to address. This paper's abstract covers only the last part and sporadically a bit of 2. What I want to know is this abstract is "what is the new learning in the yolov7 arch?" Perhaps the bigger picture here is that it points to metrics chasing as a proxy for a "research agenda" in the ML community. |
|
|