But in my mind there is also a lot of overlap. Mind providing some concrete examples? For instance what is discovering "transfer learning", "pre-training with self-supervised learning", or "building PyTorch"?
But in my mind there is also a lot of overlap. Mind providing some concrete examples? For instance what is discovering "transfer learning", "pre-training with self-supervised learning", or "building PyTorch"?
Yep! There can be. But if you want concrete examples, I used Xgboost to identify people within a population at risk for an adverse event. This is strictly #1. If I optimized Xgboost code to make it faster, that's also probably firmly #1. If I improved Xgboost with a better understanding of gradient boosting to provide more accurate results, that's probably a firm case of overlap. When Leo Breiman [0] did his work that led to gradient boosting and tools like Xgboost, that was firmly #2.
It's like the difference between, say, applied and pure sciences. One is focused on developing and studying new algorithms, while the other is focused on using algorithms developed by someone else in practical applications.
To put it differently, it's like physics vs engineering. A physicist might develop new structural analysis methods, while the engineer would use those methods to model a bridge.
But I was asking because I was specifically looking for concrete examples in deep learning.
In the field of ML, a concrete example might be the tool Xgboost (#1) and the original work that led to and developed Gradient Boosting itself (#2), of which Xgboost is an implementation, and probably one that has helped refine the underlying theory as well.
ML has lots of examples where the researcher(s) for #2 were also doing #1. A famous paper in NLP comes to mind as an excellent example of this overlap (PDF: https://www.csie.ntu.edu.tw/~b92b02053/print/good-turing-smo...)
You're confusing the occupation with the role. Just because your job title is professor of structural engineering it doesn't mean that you are not studying "matter, its motion and behavior through space and time, and the related entities of energy and force."
I think this is what we try to capture as “expanding human knowledge”.
IMO the more isolated the result (“technique x gave good results for problem y, the end”), the less like “research” it is. Though plenty such papers get into good conferences every year. A nice story and a little reviewer luck go a long way.
#1 might ask about the performance of a deep neural network in approximating a given model in a specific application. Alphafold, on the front page currently, is an example of #1.