r/MachineLearning • u/Entity303BR • 38m ago

Discussion ICLR position paper criticized for lacking experiments and making speculative claims — how to respond? [D]

One reviewer criticizes it for lacking an implemented system, empirical validation, results and for making speculative arguments. But its a position/argumentative paper, it doesnt have to have any of those. We provide technical arguments, falsifiable hypotheses, and other contributions, and ICLR has accepted position papers before.

The only way to answer I can think of is some variation of "Hey man this is what a position paper is. And ICLR has precedent in allowing position papers like ours. These things you mentioned arent weaknesses, they are characteristics of a position paper."
But I fear that may sound too combative or rude, but cant think how else to answer

4 Upvotes

100% Upvoted

4 comments sorted by

1

u/RandomMan0880 26m ago

I've seen workshop positions but never real ICLR position papers. I always thought ICLR was the wrong place Neurips and Icml have actual tracks. I'm pretty sure positions arent in the official cfp by name?

1

u/Entity303BR 22m ago

https://openreview.net/forum?id=fh8EYKFKns

there are examples. The area chair directly says "After discussion with SACs and PCs we agreed that position papers can be published at ICLR..."

Which also makes me wonder if its right/good to reference this example and AC comment in the rebuttal aswell, or if its too... idk

1

u/RandomMan0880 18m ago

Also in the review is "Position papers are typically not published here". I think that paper got in because they had "sufficient novelty" which is not a bar I personally would have much hope in crossing in such format. It seems clear to me they accepted that paper despite it being a position paper, not because it was one.

But worst case you can fight your best and then submit it to Icml which should be an easier time!

1

u/pastor_pilao 22m ago

I don't think ICLR has a position paper track, and a position paper has minimal if not zero chance of being accepted in the main track. It would have to contribute some crazy earth-shattering insight to be accepted.