学术会议 Rebuttal 模板

这篇文本是关于撰写学术会议NIPS的 rebuttal 模板，详细介绍了如何撰写 rebuttal 的结构和内容。主要包括以下几个方面：
感谢评审并强调贡献，具体提到论文的创新性和对审稿人的感谢。
解答评审的公共问题和特有问题，通过修改论文结构和内容来回应评审意见。
提供具体的修改建议，如改进写作结构、修正小错误、反驳关键问题等。
和改进论文。
整篇文本强调了 rebuttal 在学术会议中的重要性，以及如何在有限的言辞中有效回应评审意见，提升论文的接受率。

在学术会议上，我们提出了针对该问题的反驳意见，该意见通过详细的分析和论证，为解决问题提供了有效的解决方案。该模板作为会议的反驳意见方案，提供了清晰的指导和操作指南，确保讨论的顺利进行。

Note that the author rebuttal is optional, and serves to provide you with an opportunity to rebut factual errors in the reviews, or to supply additional information requested by the reviewers.

The rebuttal is limited to 4000 characters. Please be concise and polite. Comments that are not to the point or offensive will make rejection of your paper more likely. Make sure to preserve anonymity in your rebuttal. Links to websites that reveal the authors’identities are not allowed and will be considered a violation of the double-blind policy. Links to websites with new figures, tables, videos or other materials are not allowed.

撰写原则

• 简洁明了（避免冗长表述，突出重点，用最少的文字说服反方或中立的评审意见）
• 条理清晰，语法无误（版式安排）
• 实事求是（如实反映事实）
• 必须避免思想政治错误
• 失礼
• 注意审稿人文字问题
• 违反双盲评审规定，添加链接等可能暴露身份信息

阅读之前，你需要清楚以下几点：

NIPS会议会把往年已接收的论文的 Rebuttal 贴出来，参见 http://papers.nips.cc/ （只给出了持正面意见的reviewer的意见）NIPS2013 NIPS2014 NIPS2015

该内容源自NIPS会议公开的反驳意见，适用于计算机学术领域。具体而言，NIPS会议会将往届已接收论文的反驳意见发布，参考链接为：http://papers.nips.cc/（仅展示持正面意见的审稿人的意见）NIPS2013、NIPS2014、NIPS2015

在论文处于接收边缘的情况下，rebuttal的作用才会显现出来。如果reviewers的意见普遍严厉，那么rebuttal的作用可以忽略不计。另一方面，如果reviewers的意见普遍很好且没有提出问题，那么无需撰写rebuttal。

Rebuttal旨在供审稿人和Area Chair查阅。通常用于举报审稿人（仅Area Chair可见），无需填写。

内容组织

说明： 带有星号*的部分为重点内容，其余为可选内容。

首句表达感谢*

即使有人反对，审稿人花费了大量时间审阅你的论文，因此作为作者，学会感恩显得尤为重要。

• We thank the reviewers for acknowledging the strong performance of this work and the quality of the presentation. We address the comments as follows.
• 感谢好评 We thank the reviewers for their positive and constructive feedbacks.
• We thank all the reviewers for helpful comments.
• Thanks for all your feedback and suggestions. We will carefully incorporate them into our paper.
• Thanks for the helpful comments!
• Thank you for the feedback and suggestions, we will add clarification where needed and include suggestions as space permits.
• We thank the reviewers for their careful consideration. We greatly appreciate the positive comments and address major concerns below.
• 框架 We thank all the reviewers for their efforts. We start this rebuttal by reiterating our contributions, and then address specific concerns, especially those from AR6 where there has clearly been some misunderstanding leading to a serious error in his/her review. We kindly ask that AR6 revisits his/her review in light of our clarifications below.
• We thank all the reviewers. And we apologize for typos, grammar mistakes, unclear notations and missing citations. They will be corrected such that the overall writing meet NIPS standards. The below clarifications will be added in the paper or supplement either in form of texts or figures.
• Thanks to all the reviewers for their time and feedback. We provide some specific responses and clarifications.
• We'd like to thank the reviewers for their careful readings and valuable comments. We believe the constructive feedback will improve the paper and increase its potential impact to the community.

第二句再次强调贡献

Firstly, we would like to highlight the significance of our work:

解答公共问题

为了确保所有与会审稿人能见到内容，这几句话应放置于最前端。原因也很直接，审稿人几乎不可能逐字阅读整篇rebuttal，但前几句内容通常都会引起关注。

Rearranging the paper will enhance its readability. Additionally, we will provide more information (including an example, if space allows) to better explain our contributions, which are detailed in Section 4.4. Finally, we will correct any minor typographical errors.

解答特有问题*

Then we address major concerns below.

• 排版参考 nips28/reviews/72.html

对于支持者的感谢

We thank the reviewer for the encouraging comments.

对于反对者的反驳*

通常来说，对于area chair，评分会较低的那些作品更容易引起他的眼球，这些作品在整体评价中占据优势位置（这些内容属于area chair的个人见解）。因此，rebuttal的策略就是在有限的表达范围内重点回应这些reviewer的评论。

小毛病可以承认

写作架构的批评认怂就行

R2指出该文章的结构和写作存在不足。我们完全同意这一观点。我们已就该问题进行了改进，具体体现在arXiv版本中，其中结构和写作质量均有显著提升，特别是相关工作部分得到了进一步优化。

关于论述不清的回复

B. 对于论文中某些部分表述不够清晰的问题，我们针对具体问题已经做出了回应，并将在完整版本中提供更详细的说明。

小错误

\4. A list of minor typos.
Corrected.

关键问题必须反驳*

Section 2.3 raises some concerns. The reviewer correctly points out that a straightforward alternative is to apply MAP to the latent variables and then fix the latent variables S and apply the Bayesian melding method to the model variables. However, this approach is computationally intensive and fails to scale to high dimensions, as the preceding Bayesian melding method necessitates density estimation for the distribution tau. Instead, we propose an approximate joint prior in Section 3, enabling us to infer both the latent variables and model parameters simultaneously. Consequently, our algorithm demonstrates improved scalability over the original Bayesian melding algorithm.

关于缺失引用的回复

Note that we引用了[17]并讨论了Parks等人在L090-100页的研究。我们进一步明确这些差异。在下一个版本中，我们将包含Demirkus等人的工作，并深入探讨头姿态估计。

Thank you for the references, which are now included in the current draft.

然而，未能拉回这一票。显然，这个评委（Reviewer_7）的意见较大。

感谢您指出了这些有重要价值的相关工作。前两篇研究并未考虑任何特征，而是聚焦于观测中的噪声问题。第三篇研究则更注重应用，采用度量学习方法。尽管我们在类似的应用上展示了我们的模型，即半监督聚类，但我们的目标是提供一个更通用的处理噪声特征的方法用于矩阵完成。值得注意的是，他们所考虑的"不确定的侧向信息"实际上对应于半监督聚类中物品间的相似/不相似信息，这意味着他们所关注的不确定性本质上也是与观测相关的，而我们则将噪声关注点放在了特征上。我们很高兴能在最终提交中包含这些相关工作。

To Reviewer 8, we have noticed that this paper is missing references to some recent related works, such as [1, Nesterov 2015] and [2, Lan 2014]. We have incorporated the reference to Lan's conditional gradient sliding paper in [14], which we consider more relevant than [2]. We plan to incorporate [1] into the final version of the paper.

We appreciate the insightful comments from the reviewers regarding our paper, particularly the works by Burer and Monteiro (2005) and Lee and Bresler (2009). These papers represent highly relevant related work, and their contributions deserve attention. The Burer and Monteiro (B&M) paper, which we had previously encountered but chose not to cite, holds significant importance. It provides a valuable historical perspective on the factorization and nonconvex optimization techniques within the optimization literature. While these works share some related themes, our algorithm and analysis introduce notable differences. Specifically, B&M focuses on the broader semidefinite programming problem and employs complex first-order methods like BFGS and augmented Lagrangian techniques. These elements make a direct numerical comparison challenging, though we expect our methods to perform comparably. In contrast, our approach is characterized by simplicity and targets a more constrained class of problems, which allows us to establish a robust theoretical convergence analysis (despite the presence of the rank factor). As noted by Burer and Monteiro (2003), "Although we are able to provide some level of theoretical justification for [global convergence], our belief that the method is not significantly affected by the inherent nonconvexity [of the objective function] remains largely empirical." We hope that our research will contribute to and further develop this important area of optimization techniques.

尾句模板

We express regret for failing to address all questions due to the limited space and numerous reviews. We will correct all typos and include missing references in the next revision.

We will address all remaining minor suggestions in the final revision

We will conduct a detailed review and correction of grammatical errors within the final submission.

完整案例

• 评委是如何进行review NIPS2013 审稿指南
• 非常好的评价，没必要rebuttal了，比如 这个
• 该页面给出的接收论文的rebuttal列表是按照id号排列的，不是比分
• Rebuttal 成功的案例 (支持者/总评委数)
• npis28/reviews/1909 （2/6）
• nips28/reviews/1881 （4/9）
• nips28/reviews/1914 （3/6）
• nips28/reviews/1941 （2/3）
• nips28/reviews/1922 （4/7）
• nips28/reviews/1932 （4/7）
• nips28/reviews/1958 （4/6）
• nips28/reviews/1897 （4/6）
• nips28/reviews/1949 （4/6）
• nips28/reviews/1937 （3/4）
• nips28/reviews/1955 （5/7）
• nips28/reviews/1985 （6/7）
• nips28/reviews/1980 （5/5）
• 一些reviewer的补充说明
• nips28/reviews/1914
• nips28/reviews/1881
• nips28/reviews/70

其他资料 See Also

以下为笔者撰写本文时参考的资料，感兴趣的可以继续阅读。

• How to craft an effective rebuttal letter
• How to write a rebuttal letter for a computer conference
• Provide a concise explanation of what a rebuttal entails
• ICME 2014 official response documentation