[R] Best way to tackle this ICML vague response?

Reddit r/MachineLearning / 4/2/2026

💬 OpinionIdeas & Deep AnalysisTools & Practical Usage

共有:

Key Points

A first-time ICML author is in the author–reviewer discussion period after submitting a rebuttal and running additional experiments, but received only a vague follow-up evaluation from a reviewer.
The reviewer states the experiments improved the paper yet leaves “some details” only partially clarified, indicating “partially resolved” with follow-up questions that were not actually provided.
The author is unsure how to use the option to post one additional response because no further reviewer comments/questions were posted.
The core request is for practical guidance on how to respond in a situation where the remaining critique is unspecified, likely by proactively clarifying likely ambiguities and strengthening the final evidence narrative.

Going through ICML submission for the first time. I had a reviewer ask for some things and during the rebuttal period I ran more experiments and answered all their questions (they wrote 3 weaknesses). Yesterday started the author-reviewer discussion period which ends on April 7.

In their response to my rebuttal the reviewer wrote in one line that my "experiments greatly improved the paper" but "some details remain only partially clarified". That's it... They marked "Acknowledgement: (b) Partially resolved - I have follow-up questions for the authors."

The ICML email state that I can "post up to one additional response to any further reviewer comments that are posted, as a reply to your rebuttal". But since the reviewers didn't actually write any follow up questions I have no idea how to tackle this.

Any suggestions?

submitted by /u/DaBobcat
[link] [comments]