Computational Vision Journal Club

Summer Term 2025

Day, time & location:

Mondays from 14:45 till 15:45 (please note we will start at 14:45 – no academic quarter or c.t.)
Location: seminar room on the 1st floor of Maria-von-Linden-Str. 6

If you are a Master student at the University of Tübingen and are interested in joining the journal club please register for the course on ILIAS on 28.03.2025, 12:00. You will be placed on a waiting list and receive an email a few days later whether you can be admitted to the journal club.

Vorlesungsverzeichnis

Students can obtain 3 ECTS for the active participation in the Journal Club (non graded, only pass or fail). The number of participants at the Journal Club is strictly limited to 10, and members of the NIP lab take precedence over external students. Thus in practice there is a limit of 2, 3 or maximally 4 external students per term, depending on the number of current NIP lab members.

1. The Journal Club will be run informally. Every participant is expected to read all the papers and we discuss them together. Still, for every paper one person will be in charge presenting the paper and is expected to lead the discussion (with or without slides; up to the person presenting). The presentation should, however, never exceed 25 minutes. This implies that it may well be necessary to limit ones presentation to the key or central issue(s), skipping details or supplementary experiments and information.
2. In every NIP JC a second person acts as the devil's advocate: The devil's advocate is tasked to criticise i.) the paper and ii.) the presentation given by the presenter! The devil's advocate should under no circumstance provide a second summary of the paper or be like a second presenter—this would be failure! The devil's advocate should be maximally critical and criticise everything, from poor figures, insufficiently clear explanations, errors and typos in the text, to the presenter focusing on aspects of the paper the devil's advocate finds are not essential or the main aspect. Being the devil's advocate is taking on a role potentially (or even likely) different from your own opinion and belief—even if you like the paper and love the presenter your duty is to criticise whatever you find! No need for the devil's advocate to dwell on positive aspects of the paper—that is the duty of the presenter! Being maximally critical does not mean being rude—it is important to learn to be both maximally critical but at the same time friendly and, ideally, constructive. The devil's advocate should limit her or his plea to maximally 10 minutes. No slides, handouts, nothing written.
3. After the presentations by the presenter and the devil's advocate we are left with (minimally) 25 minutes of open discussion—discussion should flow easily given we have received two very likely different expositions of the paper by the presenter and the devil's advocate.