•1 min read•from Machine Learning
[R] Best way to tackle this ICML vague response?
Our take
Navigating the ICML review process can be challenging, especially when feedback feels vague. In your case, the reviewer acknowledged improvements but indicated that some details remain unclear. Since they haven’t provided specific follow-up questions, consider addressing the areas you believe might still need clarification. You could summarize your key findings and highlight the experiments that strengthened your paper. This proactive approach not only demonstrates your commitment to improving your work but also invites constructive dialogue, ensuring that you maximize the author-reviewer discussion period effectively.
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?
[link] [comments]
Read on the original site
Open the publisher's page for the full experience
Related Articles
- [D] ICML 26 - What to do with the zero follow-up questionsHello everyone. I submitted my work to ICML 26 this year, and it got somewhat above average reviews. Now, in the rebuttal acknowledgment, three of the four reviewers said they have some follow-up questions. But they haven't asked any yet. As I have less than 48 hours remaining, what should I do here. p.s: I don't have any supervisors to ask in this case. This is an independent project with some of my friends. submitted by /u/DifficultyHeavy [link] [comments]
- [D] ICML Rebuttal QuestionI 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? submitted by /u/Derpirium [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]
- [D] How are reviewers able to get away without providing acknowledgement in ICML 2026?Today officially marks the end of the author-reviewer discussion period. The acknowledgement deadline has already passed by over 3 days and our submission still hasn't got 1/3 acknowledgement. One of the other acknowledgements picked the option A (fully resolved) for all the weaknesses they pointed out and just commented "I intend to keep the score unchanged". What's happening here? We were sitting at 3/3/3 and after the rebuttal, one of the reviewers flipped to a score of 4 with confidence 5. We dropped an AC confidential message after the acknowledgement deadline but did not receive any response. I believe this has lead to a disadvantage for us since that reviewer may only interact during the AC-reviewer discussion and there wont be any input from us to influence the decision at all. With a 4/3/3 in this specific scenario where one reviewer accepted we resolved all their concerns but did not bump the score and the other did not acknowledge the rebuttal, did our chances get worse than before? submitted by /u/ChaosAdm [link] [comments]