Don't the new results simply make your paper more impactful?

Is your paper on arxiv aswell?

If theirs came out on arXiv just 2 days ago then isn't your preprint still first? If so, you can email to ask the well known research group to cite your preprint in the intro of their work when it comes out (even if their reviewed version comes out before your reviewed version). Nice way to make a connection, too: 'great minds think alike' and all.

As with any startup ideas, there are usually multiple teams working on it at the same time. I always through my ideas were unique - well, they aren't.

I am in a different field and don't use arXiv, but since you submitted your paper prior to the other paper being "published" in arXiv I don't see the problem.

If it gets accepted, you may have to cite the arXiv paper. Assuming people actually cite those papers? I have no idea if that is common practice in your field.

If it gets rejected, just move forward with a lower tier journal. Although, I am not sure how editors evaluate non-peer reviewed self-published papers in terms of "prior art". If you submitted to arXiv prior to submitting it to CVPR, this obviously won't be an issue.

I'm going to try watching this. Will big co take all the credit? Very interesting

Why not give us links to the papers?

I understand the deflation feeling, but put your papers up on arxiv asap if it's not already there, and publicize it. Tell your friends, tweet, etc. Comment how it's similar to the big labs and how you are excited about the field moving to this idea, etc.

Great minds think alike and all that!

You don't have to be worried. At worst, your will be considered as a parallel advancement. Plus, you don't have to be worried about the reviewers for this. Seriously, don't worry.

One thing you can do is that you can upload it to arxiv and mention that this paper was submitted to CVPR in the comments. Best of luck, man. I'm happy that you found a novel method with good results.

Didn’t realise I could do that! Would I just email them with a copy of the preprint, explain I had submitted it back in November, and see would they be able to cite it?

Is that still possible even if my paper gets rejected?

Sorry if these are dumb questions haha, I’m just not sure what best practices are in this type of situation.

Edit: I should add I never initially uploaded my preprint to Arxiv. Only sent it to cvpr. Just uploaded it today though instead.

They do indeed. They prove that the method scales up well with lots of training, which I couldn’t demonstrate in the preprint paper.

I just submitted it to Arxiv today once I saw theirs

Is that ok given it’s still in the review stage?

Oh I know and I agree, still slightly deflating when it happens though haha!

Yeah see my problem is that I submitted to cvpr and that’s it. I never put up the preprint on Arxiv which was a mistake in hindsight. I thought if something is in the review cycle, I should keep it there till that finished at least.

Look at the CVPR policy on publicizing: https://cvpr.thecvf.com/Conferences/2023/AuthorGuidelines

apparently nowadays you can't do PR on it (so don't tweet, I take it back) but surely you can tell your friends and colleagues about the preprint. Once the paper gets accepted or rejected you can start talking about the preprint more publically

Why did you not initially upload to arXiv? Just curious

Will do so! Thank you :)

My supervisor advised me against it. She’s not a big fan of putting papers there before they’re published.

these are concurrent works, the first to put on arxiv by a few days is not the one that gets bragging rights :) One thing you could do is send them your arxiv link, tell them it's concurrent work, and in the next arxiv iteration or whatever you should each cite eachother as concurrent work.

arxiv is really planting your flag on the topic. I dont trust it because its not peer reviewed, but its definitely a good way to call dibbs

You could ask very politely to discuss this with your editor and just point out that the new work validates and demonstrates the importance of your idea. You can acknowledge the preprint in your revision making it clear it came after your original submission.

Will do that!

I see, and would this be done after the reviewed are released or should I reach out to the editor now?

I edit and would not mind if an author reached out as it’s my job. I would do it as soon as possible. But tread lightly and ask your advisor her opinion.

Got it. Thanks a million for the advice!

If both paper have similar results that's acually good IMO. That mean approach is actually works and not some hyperparameters fiddling.

Since it would technically be advertising as per cvpr rules. If you’re interested I can send you some after the review process finishes.

Thanks man! I appreciate the words of encouragement.

you might want to mention how excited you are that a fancy lab like theirs is working on similar stuff ... maybe you can give them a talk or something :)

I think this is called 'syncronous serendipity'

I disagree with your supervisor and your post pretty much illustrates why!

Remember--you're unique just like everyone else!

I can definitely imagine Newton posting this, "that fucker Leibiniz gets his name on the notation it's not fair!"

I think that your supervisor is using arxiv wrong, and giving you bad advice on how to use arxiv.

I wouldn't make a big deal of when it was submitted (especially since you didn't upload it to arXiv like you should have). You can mention in passing that your paper is under review at CVPR. The important thing to note is that you spotted their work because it is similar to what you were working on and would be eager to cite each other as concurrent and talk to them about the work and future directions.

> mention that this paper was submitted to CVPR in the comments

I think that publicly mentioning the arXiv preprint was submitted to CVPR is explicitly against CVPR policy. So I wouldn't do this second part of your advice.

Yup! At least I know for the future now.

I wish my intuitions were so good that I could find research papers where someone did it and it kicked butt. You should take some time to appreciate your brain.

A good reviewer will know that parallel invention is not grounds for rejecting your paper. Neither is the amount of experimentation. If anything, it strengthens the paper because now we have two days points from independent sources. This is also an opportunity to collaborate with the other group

The same with TV: Baird, Zworkyin and Farnsworth.

Publish also in ArXiv

We are all individuals!

We are all individuals!

Haha good call. I’ve started a discourse with them now and they said that they’ll decide whether to cite my paper once both have been accepted somewhere and whether they like some of the video results I can show them. Promising stuff at least!

Whats the right way to use arXiv?

>Haha good call. I’ve started a discourse with them now and they said that they’ll decide whether to cite my paper once both have been accepted somewhere and whether they like some of the video results I can show them. Promising stuff at least!

yup! Academia and research is really about the collaborations that get formed rather than one project. This might be more helpful to you than if it had not happened. Good luck!

Indeed! I’ve asked the main author if he’d like to meet up with me and discuss our research so hopefully it goes somewhere :)

I work in Astronomy, not in ML, but review first and arxiv later is how most people work in Europe. I typically don't find european arxiv papers that are not accepted for publication already. It's different for US papers. US groups are much more aggressive at pushing their work out, but that also means more people getting wrong information when the paper changes significantly in the review process.

I don't think that's a problem at all. Parallel publications happen all the time. What can happen is that you might have to cite them in the revision (if their work is already peer reviewed) or that they'll have to cite you in their revision (if their work is not yet peer reviewed).

I'm gonna be a little brusque, and say it sounds like they're strong arming you here to take some more credit, if you truly had your work in preprint before theirs it'd stay pretty firm in asking them to cite your work when theirs comes out since yours was in preprint first.

Can you share your arXiv link?

I can totally relate. I basically also invented the U-Net architecture and had the paper on the review process when I learned about the Ronneberg paper. Plus he had a website and shared the code while my group was still debating how to license the code. Fast forward to today, U-Net as something like 50k citations and my paper about 500, which is still great and much more what I expected starting as a PhD student. But in hindsight also a bit disappointing knowing what I did and how much credit I got.

One way to look at this is serious validation for your approach. Now, I'm not an academic myself – I know how it works, and that "first" is important, in that realm.

As others have said, acknowledging the concurrent research and mutual citations seems a reasonable approach forward.

I hope he does. If I were the other I would be surprised than we had the same idea. And maybe you could working together on a improvement of it. Good luck!!

Breathe. This happens a lot. You still achieved what you achieved. It validates that your approach was smart. Science is not about being first, it's about rigor. Two independent studies that show similar results is a good thing.

I feel like everyone in the new generation has this happen once, learns from it, and has started pre-printing everything...

While this may feel shitty at first it shouldn't be a bad thing. You got lucky that you submitted (albeit still in review) before theirs came out. This wasn't a flag plant and it didn't come out while your research was in progress. Theirs existing on arxiv shouldn't stop yours being accepted (if the reviewers are fair).

If I were you I'd focus more on the fact that there's an entire research team in a large well funded industry lab that came up with the same thing as you. This means that you on your own did the same intellectual work as them... AND they'd probably want to hire you! If you're not interested in that, then they may consider collaboration given that they publish.

If contacting them I'd put it in a positive light and don't ask for anything (i.e. don't ask them to cite you!) Mention that you saw that they came out with the same thing and say they may be interested to see you've done exactly the same method and submitted to CVPR. You could suggest that you both may benefit from a meeting to chat about the topic/method :)

> I work in Astronomy, not in ML, but review first and arxiv later is how most people work in Europe. I typically don't find european arxiv papers that are not accepted for publication already.

I did work in an Astronomy adjacent field, and European researchers in our area all submitted to arxiv first, just like US groups.

Please do, post after review process!

If the preprint appeared after the CVPR submission deadline your paper cannot be rejected based on lack of novelty. For review purposes the other paper basically doesn’t exist.

Oh, snap. Yeah. Thanks for pointing this out.

It happens, great ideas are often thought of at the same time, my advice is connect with the other research group and setup a research collaboration, clearly you are both interested in the same things.

[deleted]

We can't afford that in Machine Learning by the time your paper has passed the review process it's going to be outdated.

It's a preprint server, meant to publish preprints.

Also, you might want to tell them that you thought their paper was really well executed and if they would be willing to chat and if there are internship opportunities on their team (if you are interested in that).

That begs the question, what are good ways to use a preprint server to further your academic career