[2022 spring] ECCV 2020 SCAN (20217096)

[EsYoon7]

논문에서 제시하고 있는 method를 명확하게 두 스텝으로 설명해주셔서 이해가 수월했습니다. STL10 dataset의 경우 supervised로 학습한 것보다 본 논문에서 제시한 unsupervised 방식으로 학습한 성능의 더 좋은 결과를 보인 것이 흥미로웠습니다.

[wala-nias]

Thanks for the nice review. Here some remarks:

• Figures and tables do not have captions.
• The motivation of the paper is not covered.
• Could you also provide more details in the Methods and Experiment sections.
• Result subsections are not clearly separated.

[KelaJussi]

I liked how clear and concise the review was, it was fast to read. I think you could add a brief notion on what supervised learning is, as opposed to unsupervised.

Some of the typos I found by section:

2. Motivation, Idea; instead OF, neighbros, soley Ablation study, Pretext tasks; invaraince Conclusion; iamge

[geon0325]

Thank you everyone for the concrete comments.

[geon0325]

@EsYoon7 좋은 리뷰 감사합니다!

[geon0325]

@wala-nias Thank you for the comments! I addressed your issues in the following manner:

• For consistency, I tried to explain the figures in the main text instead of making captions.
• I added the motivation of unsupervised learning in Section 2.
• I added an extra explanation of experimental settings.
• I modified the section title from Experiment & Results to Experimental Results.

[geon0325]

@KelaJussi Thank you for the comments!

I corrected all the typos you found in the draft.