The chart is mixing things that are very minor at scale (such as choosing Gaussian versus Student-T versus cross-entropy losses) and things that are major (such as representation). I'd say it is more like the notes one prepares for one's self when surveying things than a "periodic table" that explains which elements are similar and predicts missing elements.
That was my initial reaction as well, but I think that isn't fair upon looking more closely. Equation 1 of their paper is a unifying equation such that different choices for the terms result in the various classical and new algorithms.
I still wouldn't call it a periodic table, though.
This always bothers me. I have never seen a “periodic table of _” that wasn’t just a funny shaped table. If there were actual patterns and multiple different things happening as you go down or to the right, etc it would be very well done.
The chart is mixing things that are very minor at scale (such as choosing Gaussian versus Student-T versus cross-entropy losses) and things that are major (such as representation). I'd say it is more like the notes one prepares for one's self when surveying things than a "periodic table" that explains which elements are similar and predicts missing elements.
That was my initial reaction as well, but I think that isn't fair upon looking more closely. Equation 1 of their paper is a unifying equation such that different choices for the terms result in the various classical and new algorithms.
I still wouldn't call it a periodic table, though.
is this not just a table? What makes it periodic?
This always bothers me. I have never seen a “periodic table of _” that wasn’t just a funny shaped table. If there were actual patterns and multiple different things happening as you go down or to the right, etc it would be very well done.