@fchollet Wrong. It depends on what you're trying to do. If you want to predict what you cannot see, getting something very correlated to it will help you reconstruct it. Who cares about causality.
Inverse Problems: Discrete or Continuous? @MehrsaPourya et al. from @big_epfl explain that box splines and multi-res bridge the gap:
"A Box-Spline Framework for Inverse Problems with Continuous-Domain Sparsity Constraints”
On early access:
https://t.co/DHIBwsHCKu
Inverse Problems: Discrete or Continuous? @MehrsaPourya et al. from @big_epfl explain that box splines and multi-res bridge the gap:
"A Box-Spline Framework for Inverse Problems with Continuous-Domain Sparsity Constraints”
On early access:
https://t.co/DHIBwsHCKu
Adding noise before some nonlinearities helps preserve information. We found this also in statistical models for electronics :-)
Our sawtooth model and how noise makes or breaks the game: https://t.co/oWulS7GVoU
Just learned: Adding randomness before quantization helps! One-bit quantization of X is sign(X). If |X|≤c then it's better to store sign(X+Y) where Y is uniformly distributed on [-c,c]!
Why? We still have
E[X] = E[c*sign(X+Y)]
1/n
https://t.co/W6VmZaVtwi
@outrun86@dehshibi@docmilanfar I'll agree that no one has the experience or expertise to review an enormous volume of papers well. And yep, I just try to laugh at some editorial/reviewer decisions too.