AISTATS 2021 Review Form
Reviewers must submit their reviews through CMT. Below is a copy of the review form for reference.
- *Summary and contributions: Briefly summarize the paper and its contributions.
- *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.
- *Weaknesses: Explain the limitations of this work along the same axes as above.
- *Correctness: Are the claims and method correct? Is the empirical methodology correct?
- *Clarity: Is the paper well written?
- *Relation to prior work: Is it clearly discussed how this work differs from previous contributions?
- *Reproducibility: Are there enough details to reproduce the major results of this work?
- 1: No, the work is not reproducible
- 2: Some aspects of the work are reproducible
- 3: Yes, most aspects are reproducible
- 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.
- 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.