学术套模式，，的死胡同？

Dear professor XX，
     I am a college student fromXXX in China and I am willing to apply for PHD program in XXX.  I saw the paper :"XXXXXXXX" and I found your group. Because in numerous papers,  ground truth used to evaluate trackers are somehow biased, the paper about comparison contributes a lot in this way.  And I really want to know how this paper deals with the parameters of every tracker,  because the parameters can affect the result heavily according to my own experiments.
      In the last two years, my research mainly focused on visual tracking, especially sparse representation and particle filter. Until now,  I already have one publication in XXX and am writing another paper for a higher standard Journal.  In my paper in XXXX, I proposed a new mathematical model with adaptive weight and proved that it is more accurate and efficient than most popular models.
     The attached document is my resume and I sincerely hope you can give me a chance to study in your research group.
     Thank you for your time to read this letter and look forward for your reply .
然后教授转给了一个phd同学
Would either of you like to send a response to this student? He wants us to clarify how we selected the tracker parameters.
然后真的跟我只讨论了学术。。。。我应该怎么办

这是好事啊。
学术套好了，他的学生推荐你，这岂不是更好。

我给有的prof的学生发信问学术问题，都是不鸟的。

教授不可能没看到你的最后那几句。。。估计就是找了个他的学生来试一下你的水平。继续跟他聊。

感觉哈，问参数的话，教授不可能知道这样的细节，问题可以多想想再拔高点，这样才是更合理的学术套，加油~~~与楼主同cv方向，tracking我看过没做过，咱可多交流