That sentence doesn't make any sense to me as a native English speaker either.

I think they meant "correspond" but I don't now about primitives in CUDA DNN library (cuDNN) so I'm not sure.

Edit: Also maybe they meant something along the lines of (emphasis mine) "(...) primitives in/of cuDNN."

That means the reviewers didn't read the papers with attention, the authors either don't know their own level of competency(because they didn't proof read or ask someone to proofread) or don't care. I'm sorry if the paper is interesting but it is probably not very good either.

It means to be consistent with, essentially they designed their system to be compatible with cuDNN. That usage is grammatically correct, but it'd be very uncommon for a modern native English speaker to phrase it that way.

Can you point me to a source, a dictionary maybe, that shows the phrase?

I'm trying to compose the ideas in the area so it's good enough for me at least.

https://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/consist 4th verb definition

I think you are not reading academic papers correctly. It's not useful to get obsessed with every turn of phrase.

In this particular instance, they most likely wanted to say "scheduling units to be consistent with the layer-wise computations enforced in ..." .You can easily realize this by checking section 3.1 of the paper.

The introduction of any paper is generally the least useful and most vague component, it is useful for context and when you are writing a paper but not for understanding the contents of the paper itself.

Thanks!

>Thanks!

You're welcome!

I admit my reading skills are sub-par. I tend to re-read sentences multiple times because it doesn't stick to my memory. So I try to fully comprehend before moving on otherwise I tend to get lost due to snowballing.

I'm trying to follow this to decide which papers I should fully read so I'm doing only the first pass (abstract+intro+conclusion).

Huh, native english speaker here (American). I was completely unaware of the 4th usage in your link - I can't say I've ever heard it used that way. Learned something new!

I think it is also true that this sentence is very poorly phrased, and that this can be a barrier to comprehension.

The mutiple pass approach is good, but it would help to dynamically switch between passes when you get stuck somewhere or just mark where you are stuck till the next pass.

The first pass will leave you with more questions than answers, your job is to judge whether the questions are interesting enough for the next pass.

This is true, but also we can't expect papers to adapt to us, we have to adapt to them and build practices that will help parse them quickly.

This is definitely an error but blaming the author doesn't get you anywhere so might as well learn how to mitigate the issues.

Fair enough, but as a reviewer, I would point out those errors and expect them to be corrected.

>"It utilizes tensors as the fundamental scheduling units to consist with

The editor and reviewers missed this error.

I just reviewed a paper from an Asian speaker and ignored odd turns of phrase and noted the errors. Most University reading isn't done to contemplate every word and errors in papers exist.

oh yeah, same. This should have been caught.

Yeah non-native speakers can expose you to some fun quirks of English, either because they learned it more formally or because it's analogous to something in their first language. 'Obtain' as an intransitive verb is another one that non-native speaker academics like and native speakers never use.

>dynamically switch

Do you mean to move on to second pass if I get stuck on first?

yep

That would take too much of my time tho. For example I don't need to know the specifics of the papers I'm reading currently.. Broad ideas are enough for me.

It's not an error, it's grammatically correct. It's unusual phrasing, which can be confusing, but it's not wrong and the meaning is pretty clear from context anyway.

Then you have to make peace with not understanding all the phrases but only the gist of the problem the paper is tackling.

If you are interested enough in a question to ask on a forum, it might be a better idea to go through the paper in the second pass first.

Reading papers, at least initially is slow and hard, but you will pick up pace and learn to navigate it with enough effort.

Fair enough. Although my past experiences contributed to that too.

>primitives cuDNN

That is not grammatical

https://www.encyclopedia.com/literature-and-arts/language-linguistics-and-literary-terms/english-vocabulary-d/consist

This site claims that it's an archaic form of "be consistent with".

C999 level English.

I would say though the intro is the most important part. People with little time will read only the intro, especially the last paragraph of it, to get an idea of what the authors wanted to do and why, and read the rest only if really interested. This meaning it should be the part written with most care and clarity.

I disagree, once you are in the field, you look at abstract->figures->conclusions.

Introductions are useful if you are reading a paper outside your field or if you are hunting for citations to write your own paper related to the topic.

So as far as getting citations is concerned, introductions are pretty low priority

This reminds me of one time, I was halfway through reading a very important paper and in the model architecture part, they had used certain references to some data preprocessing steps from earlier. But, the 'subtrees' being referred to in this section were not the same as the 'subtrees' from the preprocessing part. Usually i don't feel satisfied until i understand every step in a paper that's imp to my work. I was staring at the same paragraph for an entire day. That day was an L.

Next day, my senior had one look at it and asked me if the authors were Chinese and they were. He said it's common to have such unclear statements in Chinese papers but most of the times, the maths also checks out, so not to worry.

Right if you know what it's going to be about, abstract and figures on top, agreed (and titles in the ML domain go a long way it seems). We often read papers in a very wide range of domains and applications and well-written intros are a very good parameter to decide what will be read or not, I suppose for people writing overarching reviews it tends to be the case too.