Paper Discussion

Class Format

  • Each session includes two main presenters and several small roles (see below).
  • Everyone is expected to read the assigned papers and complete a pre-lecture question form (will be linked in the schedule). The form includes both comprehension and open-ended questions to encourage critical thinking. Responses won’t be graded for correctness, but you are expected to submit thoughtful and complete answers.

Roles

  • Main Presenters [2 people] will give a 25-min joint presentation, assuming everyone has already read the papers.
    • Suggested structure (can be flexible):
      • 5 min: Background & context. What was the state of the field before these papers? What motivated this line of work? Mention key prior research that shaped these papers.
      • 10 min: Presentation of the first paper.
      • 10 min: Presentation of the second paper.
    • For each paper:
      • Focus on the core problem, motivation, key contributions, and new findings.
      • Don’t walk through the paper linearly – synthesize!
      • Deep dive into one important aspect (e.g., methodology, ablations).
      • As this is a data-focused class, you’re required to present at least two samples from the data used in the papers if applicable. Ideally, sample them yourself from the released dataset; if not feasible, examples from the paper are fine.
      • Integrate pre-lecture questions.
      • Raise potential discussion points, e.g., debate topics or follow up questions prompted by these papers.
    • After the presentation, you’ll moderate the discussion for the rest of the class.
      • Facilitate Q&A, give your classmates opportunities to share their perspectives.
      • Don’t feel pressured to resolve debates - many will remain open.
  • Panelists [2 critics and 2 proponents] will have a debate after the main presentation, centered on a major claim or stance of the papers being presented. The critic team will raise thoughtful concerns or weaknesses, and the proponent team will respond by defending the papers’ contributions. Each team has 5 minutes for initial remarks (both members should speak), followed by a moderated back-and-forth discussion led by the main presenters. The debate topic will be posted in the schedule. You are expected to
    • Closely scrutinize the paper’s claims and supporting evidence. Examine experimental and evaluation setups for possible confounding factors.
    • Read related work and bring up their experiments to support or challenge the paper’s arguments.
    • Keep an open, analytical mindset. The goal is to surface insight, not to “win” the debate.
  • Follow-up Researcher [1 person] will give a 5-min presentation, choosing one of the following:
    • Present a relevant follow up paper (or papers). Feel free to use the suggested readings. It could be on either or both of the main papers.
    • Propose a new research project inspired by the readings/discussion. If you’ve done related work, present your real follow up!
  • Auditors [2 people] do no have a formal presentation, but instead, each independently:
    • Evaluates the main presentation in real time.
    • Speaks up to complement the main presentation or to point out anything that’s missing or unclear.
    • This means you should also read the papers being presented in detail and think about what broader context, debate topics, or follow up questions could have been presented.
    • After class, submits a short written review (around 200 words), summarizing what worked well and what could be improved.

Deliverables

  • Throughout the semester, you are expected to take 1–2 main presenter roles and 7 small roles (roles other than main presenter). These numbers may vary depending on final enrollment.

  • For each lecture, there will be a slack channel for the main presenters, panelists, and follow-up researchers. In the channel:
    • Main presenters share slides 48 hours before class. You may continue editing your slides afterward. The instructor may give feedback; no feedback likely means you’re good to go.
    • Panelists and follow-up researchers share their slides 24 hours before class. Panelists can see each other’s slides to prepare responses in advance.
    • Before class, all presentors merge their slides into a single Google Slides deck. At least one main presentor arrives by 12:30pm on the day of class to set up their slides.

  • Auditors submit after-class reviews by 24 hours before the next class via the Google Form.

  • All other students submit responses to the pre-lecture questions via the Google Form 24 hours before class.

Discussion Etiquette

In this class, you will develop not only the skills to read, present, and critically evaluate research papers, but also the ability to engage in thoughtful, respectful academic discussion. Professionalism in discourse is just as important as analytical rigor.

Here are a few key expectations:

  • Be candid, but professional. Honest critique is essential for academic growth, but it must always be delivered respectfully.
  • Talk about the paper, not the authors. Focus your comments on the ideas, methods, and evidence, not on the authors themselves. Imagine the authors are present in the room (they well might be) and you’re giving honest feedback on a paper draft.
  • Foster a safe discussion environment. Everyone should feel comfortable sharing their views, even if they are still forming their opinions. Outside of class, you’re welcome to continue the substance of the discussion, but do not attribute specific comments or critiques to individual classmates. This norm helps ensure open, exploratory discussions without fear of being misquoted or taken out of context.