[Artificial Intelligence and Statistics Logo] Artificial Intelligence and Statistics 2021

Review Form

Reviewers must submit their reviews through CMT. Below is a copy of the review form for reference.

  1. *Summary and contributions: Briefly summarize the paper and its contributions.

    2. Type: Comment

  2. *Strengths: Describe the strengths of the work. Typical criteria include: soundness of the claims (theoretical grounding, empirical evaluation), significance and novelty of the contribution, and relevance to the AISTATS community.

    3. Type: Comment

  3. *Weaknesses: Explain the limitations of this work along the same axes as above.

    4. Type: Comment

  4. *Correctness: Are the claims and method correct? Is the empirical methodology correct?

    5. Type: Comment

  5. *Clarity: Is the paper well written?

    6. Type: Comment

  6. *Relation to prior work: Is it clearly discussed how this work differs from previous contributions?

    7. Type: Comment

  7. *Reproducibility: Are there enough details to reproduce the major results of this work?

    8. Type: Options

    • 1: No, the work is not reproducible
    • 2: Some aspects of the work are reproducible
    • 3: Yes, most aspects are reproducible
  8. Additional feedback, comments, suggestions for improvement and questions for the authors:

    9. Type: Comment

  9. *Please provide an "overall score" for this submission.

    10. Type: Options

    • 1: Trivial or wrong or already known.
    • 2: I'm surprised this work was submitted to AISTATS; a strong reject.
    • 3: A clear reject.
    • 4: An okay submission, but not good enough; a reject.
    • 5: Marginally below the acceptance threshold.
    • 6: Marginally above the acceptance threshold.
    • 7: A good submission; an accept.
    • 8: Top 50% of accepted AISTATS papers. A very good submission; a clear accept.
    • 9: Top 15% of accepted AISTATS papers. An excellent submission; a strong accept.
    • 10: Top 5% of accepted AISTATS papers. Truly groundbreaking work.
  10. *Please provide a "confidence score" for your assessment of this submission.

    11. Type: Options

    • 1: Your assessment is an educated guess.
    • 2: You are willing to defend your assessment, but it is quite likely that you did not understand central parts of the submission or that you are unfamiliar with some pieces of related work. Math/other details were not carefully checked.
    • 3: You are fairly confident in your assessment.
    • 4: You are confident in your assessment, but not absolutely certain.
    • 5: You are absolutely certain about your assessment.
  11. *Does the submission raise potential ethical concerns? This includes methods, applications, or data that create or reinforce unfair bias or that have a primary purpose of harm or injury.

    12. Type: Options

    • Yes
    • No
  12. If you said 'Yes' in 11, please briefly explain the potential ethical concerns.

    13. Type: Comment

  13. *While performing my duties as a reviewer (including writing reviews and participating in discussions), I have and will continue to abide by the AISTATS Code of Conduct.

    14. Type: Agreement

  14. If you have any confidential comments for the Area Chair, please provide them here.

    15. Type: Comment

This site last compiled Sun, 05 Feb 2023 12:54:46 +0000
Github Account Copyright © AISTATS 2023. All rights reserved.