[D] ICML Rebuttal Question
Our take
I am currently working on my response on the rebuttal acknowledgments for ICML and I doubting how to handle the strawman argument of that the method is not "novel". We were able to address all other concerns, but the reviewers keep up with this argument.
The issue is that our approach is mostly novel. We are able to outperform all baselines, and even a set of baselines which our method should not have been able to outperform. We achieve this through unexpected means, whereby we exactly could pinpoint the reasons why we could do this. Everyone in our field are surprised with these results, and says they are sort of groundbreaking for the field.
However, we were able to do this by combining existing components, which were never used in our domain. We also introduced novel components, but the reviewers do not care about them. Does someone know the best way to react to this argument?
[link] [comments]
Read on the original site
Open the publisher's page for the full experience
Related Articles
- [R] Best way to tackle this ICML vague response?Going through ICML submission for the first time. I had a reviewer ask for some things and during the rebuttal period I ran more experiments and answered all their questions (they wrote 3 weaknesses). Yesterday started the author-reviewer discussion period which ends on April 7. In their response to my rebuttal the reviewer wrote in one line that my "experiments greatly improved the paper" but "some details remain only partially clarified". That's it... They marked "Acknowledgement: (b) Partially resolved - I have follow-up questions for the authors." The ICML email state that I can "post up to one additional response to any further reviewer comments that are posted, as a reply to your rebuttal". But since the reviewers didn't actually write any follow up questions I have no idea how to tackle this. Any suggestions? submitted by /u/DaBobcat [link] [comments]
- [D] ICML reviewer making up false claim in acknowledgement, what to do?In a rebuttal acknowledgement we received, the reviewer made up a claim that our method performs worse than baselines with some hyperparameter settings. We did do a comprehensive list of hyperparameter comparisons and the reviewer's claim is not supported by what's presented in the paper. In this case what can we do? submitted by /u/dontknowwhattoplay [link] [comments]
- [D] ICML Rebuttle AcknowledgementI've received 3 out of 4 acknowledgements, All of them basically are choosing Option A without changing their scores, because their initial scores were already positive. Meanwhile, the 4th reviewer had already given me a 3 and still hasn’t replied. What frustrates me is that I didn’t just clarify a few points. I ran a lot of additional experiments and wrote proofs to address every request they raised. So is this really how the process is supposed to work? Reviewers can ask for as many edits, experiments, and proofs as they want, and in the end all you get is “thanks for your response” with no score update? I’m trying to understand whether this is normal or if I just got unlucky. submitted by /u/Charming-Fail-772 [link] [comments]