Join GitHub today
GitHub is home to over 28 million developers working together to host and review code, manage projects, and build software together.Sign up
Review #3 (review by editor) #159
The third review for this article for the Distill review process may be delayed. To facilitate timely peer review, one of Distill's editors, Chris Olah, has written a review. Chris will continue shepherding the paper, but a different Distill editor will make the final decision on article publication.
Conflicts of Interest: Chris knows some of the co-authors but doesn't have the kind of significant relationship that he would see as giving rise to a substantive conflict of interest. Chris may have some biases from working with the article as an editor.
This review was written using a working draft of the Distill Reviewer Worksheet. We do not expect present ratings to necessarily be comparable to ratings under the final version.
Advancing the Dialogue
(Distill articles only need succeed at one of the following)
Does the article contain interesting novel results? [1-5, n/a]
Does the article provide a different way of thinking about a topic? [1-5, n/a]
Does the article provide a different or significantly better explanation of something? [1-5, n/a]
Is this article worth drawing attention to? [1-5]
Scientific Correctness & Integrity
Are claims in the article well supported? To the extent relevant, are experiments in the article well designed, and interpreted fairly? [1-5]
How easy would it be to replicate (or falsify) the results? [1-5]
Does the article cite relevant work? [1-5]
Considered as a whole, does the article exhibit strong intellectual honesty and scientific hygiene? [1-5]
More generally, it might be nice to talk about any cases where the authors have observed FILM not working.
Basic expectations: Does the article make its topic and scope clear? Is the article well-organized? Does it avoid rambling?
Does the article follow good design practices? Do diagrams comply with the Distill style guide, or have reasons not to?
Does the article provide useful new “tools for thinking” about the topic? (eg. visual way of thinking, new abstraction, better notation, analogy, etc)
Does the article include interfaces that surfaces qualitatively new insights?
How readable is the paper, accounting for the difficulty of the topic? [1-5]
The FILM framework is conceptually helpful and the authors experiment with how to visually present it, but for the most part this article is effective use of relatively standard visual tools for thinking about neural network architecture, rather than novel abstractions and interfaces.