UAI 2026 rebuttal [D]
Our take
Hello!
Following the review release Thursday, I just finished working on my rebuttal. I assumed I would be allowed 5,000 characters ( that was the case for ICML), but it turns out the rebuttal at UAI is limited to 2,500 characters.
Also, under each review, you have the choice to leave a rebuttal and a public comment. The public comment has a 5,000-character limit, so I was wondering if it would be okay to use the official comment button rather than the rebuttal button ?
Or perhaps start in the rebuttal and continue in the comment, or is that frowned upon?
I am not sure if this character limit for the rebuttal is like the same thing as the 8-pages limit, and thus writing a longer rebuttal in the comment section and pointing to it can be ground for desk rejection.
If anyone has gone through this before or if there are any ACs or SACs that know the ruling regarding using the public comment section to continue the rebuttal. My idea would be to start the rebuttal in the rebuttal section, then later on leave a public comment titled « continuation of the rebuttal for reviewer x »and then finish my rebuttal there.
Is that allowed, forbidden, or frowned upon?
Thanks
[link] [comments]
Read on the original site
Open the publisher's page for the full experience
Related Articles
- How to deal with rebuttal character limit for long reviews? [D]First time submitting to an AI conference here. How do you deal with the situation where a reviewer gives you a long list of review comments, but you only have a 2.5k character limit in your rebuttal? I think this is very common nowadays because reviewers are dumping papers into LLMs. submitted by /u/d_edge_sword [link] [comments]
- Am I crazy to think that the UAI authors are confusing the discussion deadline with the rebuttal deadline ? [D]Hello everyone. UAI review results were released last Thursday, and the discussion period was clearly stated as April 23 to May 2nd. However, none of the papers I reviewed have yet published their rebuttals. I believe this confusion arises because people are mistakenly equating the discussion deadline with the rebuttal deadline. For example, ICML has a rebuttal deadline followed by a discussion period, but this isn’t the case here. If authors wait until May 2nd to submit their rebuttals, they won’t have the opportunity to address any additional questions or engage in further discussion with the reviewers nor will the reviewers be able to raise any follow up question. As an author, I’ve already submitted my rebuttal, but only one reviewer has responded. Additionally, I’ve noticed that when a reviewer responds to your rebuttal, the other reviewers do not see it. The openreview process for UAI is significantly different from ICML and lacks transparency. All comments from reviewers and authors should be visible to everyone. The discussion between reviewers and authors should be public, but only the rebuttal is visible to everyone the reviewer’s response is not visible to other reviewers. When you respond to a reviewer, the other reviewers also do not see that exchange. I’m genuinely confused about why this process was implemented and why it doesn’t resemble ICML, where transparency and clear deadlines are the norm. It’s unusual that, two days before the discussion period ends, none of the papers I reviewed have any rebuttals and only one of the five reviewers of my paper acknowledged my rebuttal, while the other four remain silent. I would like to reach out to the conference chair to suggest changes that would make the process more similar to other conferences and ensure greater transparency. If anyone has any insights into why authors haven’t published their rebuttals or why reviewers haven’t been active during this discussion period, please let me know. I was expecting a genuine discussion rather than just posting my rebuttal without any response. Rebuttal acknowledgment should be mandatory. submitted by /u/DazzlingPin3965 [link] [comments]