Welcome! Please contribute your ideas for what challenges we might aspire to solve, changes in our community that can improve machine learning impact, and examples of machine learning projects that have had tangible impact.
Lacking context for this site? Read the original paper: Machine Learning that Matters (ICML 2012). You can also review the slides.
Special issue on "Machine Learning Impact"
  • Cynthia Rudin suggested the idea of a special issue (perhaps of MLJ) devoted to this subject.  I can see that being one way to provide a forum for people to talk about their ML projects that have already had an impact, how they evaluated it, and what lessons were learned that others could benefit from.  What do you think?  I'm envisioning a short-paper kind of submission, with a structured format, which should make it a lot less work than a typical journal paper (and possibly wider read as well!).
  • 8 Comments sorted by
  • I like the idea.  Would be happy to help make it happen, if it would help.
  • Excellent -- thanks, Terran!

    Jennifer Dy suggests calling it "Machine Learning Success Stories," a title I really like.  

    Cynthia and I are going to talk about it more.  I hope we can take you up on your offer to help -- and anyone else who wants to get involved.
  • I can help too.  You and I have already done a MLJ special issue :)
  • Good idea.  There have been occasional MLJ special issues on applications (though I don't recall seeing one in a while).  I don't know whether anyone has done a short-paper collection.  FYI, back in 2004 we did a special issue on Data Mining Lessons Learned (v.57, n1-2), which may or may not be relevant:  http://www.informatik.uni-trier.de/~ley/db/journals/ml/ml57.html . 

    I think the important thing is to consider what you want out of the papers since they won't be typical journal research articles.
  • Tom, absolutely, your Data Mining Lessons Learned issue is an inspiration.  We're also aiming to provide a lot of guidance up front on structure, and to formulate useful review guidelines, for exactly the reason you say (atypical journal papers).  We'll want to avoid getting well intentioned but (effectively) non-responsive submissions.  If you'd be interested in lending your guidance/feedback on the CFP and review guidelines, it would be very welcome!
  • As one example, we're discussing the merits of imposing a requirement such as having a domain expert as a co-author, with a designated Commentary section inside the paper; or putting forth the name of an uninvolved domain expert to provide an accompanying Commentary to be published alongside the paper.  Too restrictive?  Any thoughts?

    Cynthia pointed out that in some domains, the collaborating domain expert has professional or proprietary reasons for not wanting to be explicitly named.  I think though that this could be gotten around with the softer requirement of specifying an informed (even if uninvolved) domain expert to provide the assessment.

  • The Special Issue is a go!  Submissions are due November 16, 2012.

  • Here is a link to the final published issue:

    We got a lot of great papers!  I'd love to see more out there, too.


To post or add a comment, please sign in or register.


Tip: click the star icon to bookmark (follow) a discussion. You will receive email notifications of subsequent activity.
If search doesn't work, try putting a + in front of your search term.