mirror of
https://github.com/harvard-edge/cs249r_book.git
synced 2026-07-16 23:24:55 -05:00
[GH-ISSUE #1926] [Bug] #35286
No Assignees
Notifications
Due Date
No due date set.
Dependencies
No dependencies set.
Reference: github-starred/cs249r_book#35286
Reference in New Issue
Block a user
Delete Branch "%!s()"
Deleting a branch is permanent. Although the deleted branch may continue to exist for a short time before it actually gets removed, it CANNOT be undone in most cases. Continue?
Originally created by @earun0907 on GitHub (Jul 3, 2026).
Original GitHub issue: https://github.com/harvard-edge/cs249r_book/issues/1926
Area
Book — Volume I
Location
Issue Report going to Resolve
Description
L1 missed. L2 missed. L3 missed. DRAM missed. The page is in another castle.
Reviewer 2 rejected this URL for insufficient novelty.
We pruned this URL. Statistically, you didn't need it.
Examples that don't:
❌ DNS said go here. The server disagreed. (generic networking)
❌ This page is a transformer that broke down. (weak pun, ML term as window dressing)
Expected Behavior
No response
Environment (TinyTorch bugs only)
No response
@earun0907 commented on GitHub (Jul 3, 2026):
Step 1: Revise your draft to explicitly cover cache/memory hierarchy.
Step 2: Add a novelty section comparing your approach with at least 2–3 recent papers.
Step 3: Replace weak references with authoritative sources.
Step 4: Remove playful analogies unless they clarify a concept.
Step 5: Submit the revised version with a short note to the editor highlighting the changes.
@earun0907 commented on GitHub (Jul 3, 2026):
Steps to Address the Rejection
Clarify the Missing Elements
L1, L2, L3, DRAM → These are cache/memory hierarchy levels. The reviewer is pointing out that your work doesn’t adequately cover or integrate them.
Action: Add explicit discussion, diagrams, or experiments that show how your approach interacts with these memory levels.
Strengthen Novelty
“Insufficient novelty” means your contribution looks too similar to existing work.
Action: Highlight what’s new — unique methodology, dataset, optimization, or application. Compare against prior work and show measurable improvements.
Fix the URL/Reference Issue
“We pruned this URL. Statistically, you didn’t need it.” → This suggests a weak or irrelevant citation.
Action: Replace with stronger references that directly support your claims. Ensure citations are authoritative and recent.
Avoid Weak Analogies/Puns
Examples like “DNS said go here…” or “transformer broke down” were flagged as generic or gimmicky.
Action: Stick to precise technical language. Avoid filler metaphors unless they add clarity.
Resubmit with Clearer Framing
Rewrite the abstract/introduction to emphasize novelty.
Add missing technical depth (cache hierarchy, DRAM).
Ensure references are relevant and strengthen your argument.
@profvjreddi commented on GitHub (Jul 3, 2026):
Closing this out. As written, there isn't an actionable bug here — no specific page or section, no broken link, no reproduction steps, and no expected behavior, so there's nothing concrete for us to act on.
If you did hit a real problem (for example a dead link or an error on a particular page), please open a fresh issue that points to the exact page/section and describes what you saw versus what you expected, and we'll be glad to take a look. Thanks!