CVPR 2020评审结果，旷视专家浅谈学术论文rebuttal
|
Rebuttal 时需要揣摩审稿人倾向，「一切可以团结的力量都要团结，不中立的可以争取为中立，反动的也可以分化和利用」。有的审稿人会在意见中明确表示，「如果解决了 xxx，我就会提升评分」，对此一定要充分争取；对于某些审稿人提出的不足（如 novelty），可能刚巧是另一位审稿人提出的优点（「This paper is interesting and novel」），一定要为我所用，让两位审稿人在 paper discussion 中「短兵相接」；对于 borderline 的审稿人，一定要充分「拉拢腐蚀」；对于初审给了 positive 分数的审稿人，一定要巩固基础；对于初审给了 negative 分数的审稿人，一定要放绝大多数的精力和 rebuttal 篇幅来解释澄清，争取「冰释前嫌」； Rebuttal 是「一盘棋」，整篇 rebuttal 需要统筹协调，与正文、review 配合的相得益彰，同时还需注意 rebuttal 篇幅资源的分配和优化。哪位审稿人应多分配笔墨、哪个问题应多着力回应都需要根据整体审稿意见情况深入思考、统筹安排； Rebuttal 中能缩写的尽量缩写，如约定俗成的 PCA、CNN 等不必展开，从而节省空间，将资源留给更需要的回应； Rebuttal 时若发现审稿人的 factual error，如 ta 提出的某个观点有显然错误、提出需要对比的数据集显然不是该领域常用的数据等，作者可在 rebuttal 回应此人时首先指出其错误，先下一城，赢得主动。要知道 rebuttal 除了该审稿人之外，其他审稿人以及 AC 都会看到。此外，这一问题还可以在 AC message（见下文）中指出，降低该审稿人意见在 AC 心中的置信度； …… AC Message 还记得上文中提到的只喷 novelty 而没有其他细节问题的审稿人吗？还记得在审稿意见中暴露 factual error 的审稿人吗？……针对这些情况，作者手中仍有一件利器应对，即 AC message（或 Confidential comments to AC）。 Rebuttal 时除了作者提交的 rebuttal file 之外，多数会议和期刊还为作者提供了一个直接与 senior reviewer（如 AC 和 AE）对话的渠道，在 AI 会议中通常被称为「AC message」，这部分内容对普通 reviewers 是不可见的。作者如果在审稿意见中发现了审稿人的「问题」，如不专业、对文章涉及领域不熟悉、自我矛盾等，均可指出，从而引起 AC 注意。在期刊审稿过程中，遇到类似的问题还可通过 AC message 来尝试更换审稿人。 以下列举一些可能的 AC message 的写法： Please note that Assigned Reviewer #id has made some statements that are either against the common-sense in our field or self-contradictory (ironically his/her own confidence rating is "very confident"). blabla We want to bring to your attention the very flawed review #id. This reviewer is self-contradictory, cf. Comment #id1, Comment #id2, and Response #id. blabla We would like to raise attention to AC that unfortunately Reviewer #id holds a very biased view towards the contributions of our paper. blabla 常用句式 以下列举一些 rebuttal 中的常用句式，供大家选择使用： 开头 Thank you for your suggestion. Thank you for the positive/detailed/constructive comments. We sincerely thank all reviewers and ACs for their time and efforts. Below please find the responses to some specific comments. We thank the reviewers for their useful comments. The common questions are first answered, then we clarify questions from every individual review. We thank the useful suggestions from the reviewers. Some important or common questions are first addressed, followed by answers to individual reviews. 表达同意 We thank the reviewer for pointing out this issue. We agree with you and have incorporated this suggestion throughout our paper. We have reflected this comment by … We can/will add/compare/revise/correct ... in our revised manuscript/our final version. Due to the rebuttal policy,「authors should not include new experimental results in the rebuttal」, additional results may not be included. However, we will add these mentioned experiments and discussions in our final version. Thank you for the constructive comment.（对于 CVPR/ICCV/ECCV rebuttal 不能提供新结果的政策） 表达不同意 We respectfully disagree with Reviewer #id that ... The reviewer might have overlooked Table #id ... We can compare ... but it is not quite related to our work ... We have to emphasize that ... The reviewer raises an interesting concern. However, our work ... Thank you for the comment, but we cannot fully agree with the comment. As stated/emphasized ... You have raised an important point; however, we believe that ... would be outside the scope of our paper because … This is a valid assessment of …; however, we believe that ... would be more appropriate because ... 解释澄清 We have indeed stated/included/discussed/compared/reported/clarified/elaborated ... in our original paper ... (cf. Line #id). As we stated in Line #id, ... We have rewritten ... to be more in line with your comments. We hope that the edited section clarifies … 额外信息与解释 We have included a new figure/table (cf. Figure/Table #id) to further illustrate… We have supplemented the xxx section with explanations of ... Thank you for the comment. We will explore this in future work. Does rebuttal matter? 废了好大功夫写好了 rebuttal，大家一定很忐忑这玩意儿到底能否奏效？ 下图是 CVPR 2019总计超过15000条 review 在 rebuttal 前后的状态对比统计。
很显然： 「逆天改命」：首轮 Strong Reject 改为 positive 评分的仅占所有 review 的0.8%； 「强势逆转」：首轮 Weak Reject 改为 positive 评分的占所有 review 的6.9%； 「力挽狂澜」：首轮 Borderline 改为 positive 评分的有33.6%； 「错失良机」：首轮 Borderline 改为 negative 评分的约56%； 「画蛇添足」：首轮 Weak Accept 改为 negative 评分的有15.5%； 「弄巧成拙」：首轮 Strong Accept 改为 negative 评分的有5.2%； 可见，rebuttal 也乃尽人事听天命之谓也。但小概率事情（如「逆天改命」）发生在自己身上那就是100% 的奖赏，因此，下次拿到 review 后还是一门心思的想着怎么好好 rebuttal 吧:) 后记 （编辑：52刷机网） 【声明】本站内容均来自网络，其相关言论仅代表作者个人观点，不代表本站立场。若无意侵犯到您的权利，请及时与联系站长删除相关内容! |
