Dear All,
\nAs the competition deadline has already passed, I would like to thank you for your submissions. We believe that you have utilized various interesting approaches based on your submission description. Thus, we look forward to reviewing your working-note papers describing your method/approach.
\nBut first, let me talk about TROLLS.
\nAs you might know, we were targeted by, let's say, \"trolls\" that did not respect competition rules and used publicly available labels to submit the nearly perfect submission. I was very disappointed seeing that there still exists - excuse my language - such scumbags that do not value publicly available data. In our eyes, publicly available data are important asset for the community and should not be exploited under any circumstances.
BASED ON THIS EXPERIENCE, WE HAVE STARTED AN INVESTIGATION.
\nWe will review every submission, WN papers and Code, and everyone who will be identified as a potential fraud will have to defend his behaviour. If you behaved on the line, do not hesitate to contact us first. You might avoid disqualification.
NEXT STEPS:
\nAs you might know, this competition takes part in two workshops [FGVC + LifeCLEF] / conferences [CVPR + CLEF], and it is expected that:
IMPORTANT: This competition is not about exploiting the leaderboard but about presenting/evaluating new bright ideas in the area of Fine-Grained Recognition.
\nFinal Leaderboard and Post competition evaluation
\nAs some concerns about the Kaggle Metric were raised, we plan to export your selected submissions and validate the results on our back-end.
\nFurthermore, any team caught cheating will be disqualified.
\nWe are very sorry about that, but we have no other choice but to wait for the first version of the WN papers before publishing the final standing.
The final standing might change a bit and will be published on the https://www.imageclef.org page.
\nFor a more straightforward evaluation of your methods or \"ablation studies, we will keep the post-competition submissions active.
\nAppendix
\nFor the best paper/papers, we planned to award prices sponsored by Microsoft. Sadly, Microsoft discontinued their grant and won't provide any credits as a price for the selected publications. Thus, we plan to offer different prices based on the team's preference. What we currently have in mind:
Official ranking of LifeCLEF - FungiCLEF 2022
\nIn order to be part of the official ranking of FungiCLEF 2022 lab which will be published and used in scientific communication, the teams are required to submit a working note paper to LifeCLEF workshop describing the methods implemented which will be peer reviewed.
\nThis working note must provide sufficient details to allow to reproduce all final submissions.
\nAny run that could not be reproduced thanks to its description in the working notes might be removed from the official publication of the results.
\nWorking notes are published within CEUR-WS proceedings, resulting in an assignment of an individual DOI (URN) and an indexing by many bibliography systems including DBLP.
\nAccording to the CEUR-WS policies, a single-blind, two stage review of the working notes will be conducted by LifeCLEF organizing committee and external reviewers to ensure quality. As an illustration, LifeCLEF 2021 working notes (task overviews and participant working notes) can be found within CLEF 2021 CEUR-WS proceedings.
Below the link gives more information about the templates (latex, doc) to use, the mandatory information to report (about the names, affiliations, etc):
\n\nIN CASE ANYTHING IS UNCLEAR, DO NOT HESITATE TO CONTACT ME.
\nLukas
Dear All,
\nAs the competition deadline has already passed, I would like to thank you for your submissions. We believe that you have utilized various interesting approaches based on your submission description. Thus, we look forward to reviewing your working-note papers describing your method/approach.
\nBut first, let me talk about TROLLS.
\nAs you might know, we were targeted by, let's say, \"trolls\" that did not respect competition rules and used publicly available labels to submit the nearly perfect submission. I was very disappointed seeing that there still exists - excuse my language - such scumbags that do not value publicly available data. In our eyes, publicly available data are important asset for the community and should not be exploited under any circumstances.
BASED ON THIS EXPERIENCE, WE HAVE STARTED AN INVESTIGATION.
\nWe will review every submission, WN papers and Code, and everyone who will be identified as a potential fraud will have to defend his behaviour. If you behaved on the line, do not hesitate to contact us first. You might avoid disqualification.
NEXT STEPS:
\nAs you might know, this competition takes part in two workshops [FGVC + LifeCLEF] / conferences [CVPR + CLEF], and it is expected that:
IMPORTANT: This competition is not about exploiting the leaderboard but about presenting/evaluating new bright ideas in the area of Fine-Grained Recognition.
\nFinal Leaderboard and Post competition evaluation
\nAs some concerns about the Kaggle Metric were raised, we plan to export your selected submissions and validate the results on our back-end.
\nFurthermore, any team caught cheating will be disqualified.
\nWe are very sorry about that, but we have no other choice but to wait for the first version of the WN papers before publishing the final standing.
The final standing might change a bit and will be published on the https://www.imageclef.org page.
\nFor a more straightforward evaluation of your methods or \"ablation studies, we will keep the post-competition submissions active.
\nAppendix
\nFor the best paper/papers, we planned to award prices sponsored by Microsoft. Sadly, Microsoft discontinued their grant and won't provide any credits as a price for the selected publications. Thus, we plan to offer different prices based on the team's preference. What we currently have in mind:
Official ranking of LifeCLEF - FungiCLEF 2022
\nIn order to be part of the official ranking of FungiCLEF 2022 lab which will be published and used in scientific communication, the teams are required to submit a working note paper to LifeCLEF workshop describing the methods implemented which will be peer reviewed.
\nThis working note must provide sufficient details to allow to reproduce all final submissions.
\nAny run that could not be reproduced thanks to its description in the working notes might be removed from the official publication of the results.
\nWorking notes are published within CEUR-WS proceedings, resulting in an assignment of an individual DOI (URN) and an indexing by many bibliography systems including DBLP.
\nAccording to the CEUR-WS policies, a single-blind, two stage review of the working notes will be conducted by LifeCLEF organizing committee and external reviewers to ensure quality. As an illustration, LifeCLEF 2021 working notes (task overviews and participant working notes) can be found within CLEF 2021 CEUR-WS proceedings.
Below the link gives more information about the templates (latex, doc) to use, the mandatory information to report (about the names, affiliations, etc):
\n\nIN CASE ANYTHING IS UNCLEAR, DO NOT HESITATE TO CONTACT ME.
\nLukas