Datasets:

---

spiralworks

/

openreview-structured-forums

like 0

Follow

Spiral Works 3

[ "Junming Wang", "Xingyu Zhang", "Zebin Xing", "songen gu", "Xiaoyang Guo", "Yang Hu", "Ziying Song", "Qian Zhang", "Xiaoxiao Long", "Wei Yin" ]

[ "autonomous driving", "motion planning", "trajectory generation", "diffusion model" ]

{ "note_id": [ "ltfGrOzdgr", "dCde9HkXgH", "NkNYglpXza", "A7BIIQDwUZ", "93HHs05GtX", "8Fjr0u9rfo" ], "note_type": [ "comment", "official_review", "official_review", "official_review", "official_review", "official_review" ], "note_created": [ 1731468881638, 1730086159714, 1730693400913, 1729996638434, 1730645858340, 1730652131673 ], "note_signatures": [ [ "ICLR.cc/2025/Conference/Submission905/Authors" ], [ "ICLR.cc/2025/Conference/Submission905/Reviewer_KyuD" ], [ "ICLR.cc/2025/Conference/Submission905/Reviewer_3RUQ" ], [ "ICLR.cc/2025/Conference/Submission905/Reviewer_in1n" ], [ "ICLR.cc/2025/Conference/Submission905/Reviewer_hvXi" ], [ "ICLR.cc/2025/Conference/Submission905/Reviewer_dysz" ] ], "structured_content_str": [ "{\"withdrawal_confirmation\": \"I have read and agree with the venue's withdrawal policy on behalf of myself and my co-authors.\"}", "{\"summary\": \"HE-Drive presents an end-to-end autonomous driving system, which encompasses a sparse perception module, a diffusion-based motion planner, and a trajectory scorer. The system generates 3D spatial representations via sparse perception and utilizes a diffusion-based motion planner to produce temporally consistent multi-modal trajectories. Subsequently, the trajectory scorer selects the most comfortable trajectory. The experimental findings demonstrate that HE-Drive has attained remarkable performance on multiple datasets, such as reducing the collision rate, enhancing efficiency, and improving comfort, thereby showcasing its potential in the autonomous driving field. However, there are also potential issues like limited scene adaptability. And the whole paper makes me feel very engineering-oriented. It doesn't solve the scientific problems faced by the current system. It simply piles up more modules with better performance. Moreover, the application of the Llama model in this work doesn't have a good comparison and ablation. It seems to be used directly, and there is a large amount of prompt work that needs to be tried and improved.\", \"soundness\": \"1\", \"presentation\": \"2\", \"contribution\": \"1\", \"strengths\": \"1. Put forward the HE - Drive system that integrates multiple modules, combining the advantages of each module, such as sparse perception, diffusion-based motion planning, and trajectory scoring system.\\n2. Carry out comprehensive experimental verification on multiple datasets to demonstrate the performance of the system.\", \"weaknesses\": \"1. The paper is too engineering-oriented and fails to solve the core scientific problems of the autonomous driving system. End-to-end Autonomous driving implementation is not about assembling building blocks or piling up seemingly best modules and models. I am truly concerned about the rationale behind choosing specific models.\\n2. The integration of different modules in the HE - Drive system lacks a comprehensive scientific analysis. While the paper describes how each module functions individually, it fails to explain how they interact and contribute to the overall performance from a scientific perspective.\", \"questions\": \"1. Module Selection Justification\\na. What are the differences between choosing diffusion and other policies like BC?\\nb. Is there any comparison presented?\\nc. Why is Llama used?\\nd. What is the original intention of the scoring model?\\n\\n2. Module Interaction\\na. How does the sparse perception module enhance the performance of the diffusion-based motion planner?\\nb. How do the outputs of different modules combine to produce a more effective driving trajectory?\\n\\n3. Module Combination Motivation\\na. What is the specific motivation for using this module combination?\\nb. Are there any alternative combinations that were considered and why were they rejected?\\n\\n4. Module Role and End-to-End System \\na. What is the authors' perspective on each module's role and significance within the system?\\nb. How is the end - to - end process achieved with the integration of these modules?\", \"most_important\": \"Are there any scientific problems that you attempt to solve in this work? Do you want to do a framework-type of work, or simply want to use these latest works, such as diffusion or Llama?\", \"flag_for_ethics_review\": \"['No ethics review needed.']\", \"details_of_ethics_concerns\": \"None. There is no ethics review needed.\", \"rating\": \"3\", \"confidence\": \"4\", \"code_of_conduct\": \"Yes\"}", "{\"summary\": \"The paper proposes HE-Drive, an end-to-end autonomous driving system designed to tackle the issues of temporal inconsistency and discomfort in trajectories. To address these issues, the system leverages a sparse perception pipeline that generates 3D spatial representations. These representations serve as inputs for a Conditional Denoising Diffusion Probabilistic Model-based motion planner, producing multi-modal trajectories. Additionally, a Vision-Language Model (VLM)-guided trajectory scorer selects the best trajectory.\\n\\nExperiments are conducted on datasets like nuScenes, a real-world dataset, and OpenScene to evaluate the performance and efficiency. Experimental results have been strong, such as achieving a 71% reduction in average collision rate compared to VAD and operating 1.9\\u00d7 faster than SparseDrive.\", \"soundness\": \"2\", \"presentation\": \"1\", \"contribution\": \"2\", \"strengths\": \"1. **Insightful Use of Diffusion Models and VLMs**: The authors\\u2019 recognition that offline expert trajectories suffer from out-of-distribution (OOD) issues and generalization challenges underpins their choice of a diffusion model for trajectory generation. Besides, utilizing Vision-Language Models (VLMs) as a trajectory scorer rather than as a trajectory predictor is a unique approach that diverges from traditional methods. This design decision potentially enhances robustness and aligns with the paper's objective of improving comfort in trajectory planning.\\n\\n2. **Comprehensive Performance Evaluation**: The model demonstrates strong performance and efficiency relative to prior Camera-based and LiDAR-based approaches. The inclusion of well-structured ablation studies is valuable, as it offers a thorough understanding of how individual components contribute to the model\\u2019s overall success.\", \"weaknesses\": \"1. **Overclaim on \\u201cHuman-like\\u201d Design**: The paper repeatedly emphasizes \\u201chuman-like\\u201d characteristics, claiming HE-Drive to be the \\u201cfirst human-like end-to-end driving system.\\u201d However, the term \\u201chuman-like\\u201d lacks clear definition and justification. Human cognitive processes are complex, and many algorithms in autonomous driving draw inspiration from these processes, such as top-ranking methods on CARLA leaderboard [3,7]. Thus, it\\u2019s unclear in what specific ways this work is pioneering in achieving \\u201chuman-like\\u201d behavior, and additional clarity is needed to support this claim. Specifically, authors should provide a clear definition of what they mean by \\\"human-like\\\" in the context of their system, and specify how their approach differs from or improves upon existing methods that also aim for human-like driving behavior.\\n\\n2. **Lack of Novelty and Ambiguous Contribution**: Although the paper frames temporal inconsistency and uncomfortable trajectories as key issues, motion comfort has been well-studied in the motion planning and control community [1,2], and the paper\\u2019s approach\\u2014introducing a comfort metric and incorporating previously predicted trajectories as additional inputs\\u2014feels somewhat basic, trivial, and lacks novelty. The authors should explain what novel aspects their comfort metric and use of previously predicted trajectories bring to the field. Otherwise, the authors would benefit from revisiting the paper and figuring out the true novelty that are unique contributions to these areas.\\n\\n3. **Limited Coverage in Literature Review**: In the introduction, the authors seem to assume that all end-to-end methods use scoring mechanisms for trajectory generation. However, dominant end-to-end methods also generate trajectories through motion optimization [3,4] and network prediction [5,6]. Expanding the discussion to include these approaches would provide a more balanced perspective.\\n\\n4. **Lack of Clarity on Dialogue Mechanism for Hallucination Mitigation**: In line 296, the authors mention that dialogues can mitigate hallucinations, but they do not specify the type of dialogues used or explain why this approach effectively reduces hallucinations. A clearer explanation would be necessary.\\n\\n5. **Insufficient Explanation of Method Choices**: The choice of a diffusion model and VLMs for addressing temporal inconsistency requires further explanation. While in the introduction section, the authors mention that the proposed method aims to address the issue of temporal correlation and generalization, they do not clearly demonstrate how the proposed method tackles these challenges in later sections. Additional reasoning behind this methodological choice would enhance the paper\\u2019s technical soundness.\\n\\n6. **Unexplained Terminology and Method Details:**\\n - Line 74: The term \\u201clifelong evaluation\\u201d lacks clarification, what does it mean?\\n - Line 161: The specifics of the \\u201ccompact 3D representation\\u201d are unclear; is it using 3D voxels, sparse voxels, or tokens?\\n - Line 196 and Figure 2: The term \\u201cobservation\\u201d is used ambiguously. Given that the model already uses 3D representations as an environmental proxy, it\\u2019s unclear what the \\u201cobservation\\u201d specifically refers to.\\n\\n7. **Experimentation Gaps:**\\n - Introduction to Baselines: A brief description of the major compared methods would enhance the reader\\u2019s understanding of their methodologies, strengths, and limitations relative to the proposed method.\\n - Real-world Dataset Information: Three datasets are used (nuScenes, OpenScenes, and a real-world dataset), but the authors did not introduce the real-world dataset in sufficient detail. Specifically, they should provide information on the dataset\\u2019s name, its origin (e.g., collected by a specific institution or organization), and the volume of data it contains. Including these details would give readers a clearer understanding of the data diversity and scope, allowing for a more comprehensive assessment\\n - Evaluation of temporal consistency: In Section 4.2, the authors show some qualitative illustrations to demonstrate the temporal consistency of the model. However, a quantitative evaluation of temporal consistency would be necessary to provide an objective measure of the model\\u2019s performance in this area.\\n - Trajectory Scorer Methodology: The first row of Table 3 suggests that a rule-based and a VLM-based scorer are used simultaneously, which is confusing. Clarification is needed, such as whether these scorers are used simultaneously or in some sequential manner, and how their outputs are combined if both are used.\\n - Another ablation: Adding another ablation, which replaces the diffusion model with a fixed trajectory set could offer additional insights into the benefits and drawbacks of diffusion models for generating trajectory candidates.\\n\\n7. **Presentation Issues**:\\n - Section 3.3 Placement: The paragraph beginning on line 216 may be more appropriately located under Section 3.3 instead of Section 3.2.\\n - Figure Legends: Figures 9 and 10 have legends that are too small to read comfortably.\\n - Demo in Main Text: Including a brief demonstration (as in the appendix) of the proposed method within the main text would assist readers in understanding the workflow and methodology of HE-Drive more effectively.\\n\\n[1] Gu, T., 2017. Improved trajectory planning for on-road self-driving vehicles via combined graph search, optimization & topology analysis (Doctoral dissertation, Carnegie Mellon University).\\n\\n[2] Wang, L., Sun, L., Tomizuka, M. and Zhan, W., 2021. Socially-compatible behavior design of autonomous vehicles with verification on real human data. IEEE Robotics and Automation Letters, 6(2), pp.3421-3428.\\n\\n[3] Shao, H., Wang, L., Chen, R., Li, H. and Liu, Y., 2023, March. Safety-enhanced autonomous driving using interpretable sensor fusion transformer. In Conference on Robot Learning (pp. 726-737). PMLR.\\n\\n[4] Hu, Yihan, et al. \\\"Planning-oriented autonomous driving.\\\" Proceedings of the IEEE/CVF Conference on Computer Vision and Pattern Recognition. 2023.\\n\\n[5] Mao, J., Qian, Y., Ye, J., Zhao, H. and Wang, Y., 2023. Gpt-driver: Learning to drive with gpt. arXiv preprint arXiv:2310.01415.\\n\\n[6] Chitta, K., Prakash, A., Jaeger, B., Yu, Z., Renz, K. and Geiger, A., 2022. Transfuser: Imitation with transformer-based sensor fusion for autonomous driving. IEEE Transactions on Pattern Analysis and Machine Intelligence, 45(11), pp.12878-12895.\\n\\n[7] Shao, H., Wang, L., Chen, R., Waslander, S. L., Li, H., & Liu, Y. (2023). Reasonnet: End-to-end driving with temporal and global reasoning. In Proceedings of the IEEE/CVF conference on computer vision and pattern recognition (pp. 13723-13733).\", \"questions\": \"see the weakness section\", \"flag_for_ethics_review\": \"['No ethics review needed.']\", \"rating\": \"3\", \"confidence\": \"4\", \"code_of_conduct\": \"Yes\"}", "{\"summary\": \"The paper presents an end-to-end autonomous driving system to generate temporal consistent and comfortable trajectories for self-driving vehicles. The system consists of three modules, i.e. a sparse perception module that extracts features from multi-view images, a diffusion model based motion planner that generates multi-modal temporal consistent trajectories, and a VLM enhanced trajectory scorer that chooses the most comfortable trajectory to output. The experimental results conducted on both closed-loop and open-loop benchmarks show the superiority of the proposed system.\", \"soundness\": \"2\", \"presentation\": \"3\", \"contribution\": \"2\", \"strengths\": \"In general, the paper is well-written and easy to understand. The paper shows the novel application of diffusion models and VLMs in autonomous driving domain. The experimental results are quite promising, indicating the effectiveness of the proposed system.\", \"weaknesses\": \"The claimed contributions are not well supported by the experiments. Specifically,\\n1) The authors claim that the diffusion-based motion planner as one of their contributions that can generate temporal consistent trajectories. However, the temporal inconsistency issue is addressed by incorporating the historical predicted trajectories as additional inputs to the motion planner. I don't see the necessity of using a diffusion model. On the other hand, diffusion models are computational intensive especially in the inference time since it requires multiple (hundreds of) iterations for denoising. The authors didn't specify how many iterations they used, but they achieved much higher FPS which is quite counter-intuitive. The authors need to justify the benefits of using a diffusion model as the motion planner.\\n2) It is also unclear to me if it is necessary to use the VLM for trajectory scorer. The VLM is just used to adjust the weights of the different components in rule-based scorer. Though the ablation study shows that VLM helps to improve the performance, it is not clear how the weights are defined without the VLM. Is there any more efficient way such as training a small scenario classifier to determine the weights, rather than using the heavy VLM and initiating multiple QA sessions to get the answers?\\n3) The proposed comfort metric is not sound. The comfort metric is defined by calculating the difference between the predicted trajectory and the ground truth trajectory. In this way, the soundness of the metric heavily depends on the quality and comprehensiveness of the collected trajectories which are difficult to fulfill. There might be lots of comfortable trajectories that are far different from the collected ones.\", \"questions\": \"1) How many iterations are used to denoising the trajectories during the inference time? i.e. What is the parameter k in diffusion-based motion planner? How does the diffusion model meet the latency criteria and achieve the high FPS?\\n2) Is it possible for other motion planners, like transformer-based model, to incorporate the historical predictions and address the temporal consistency issue?\\n3) How does the rule-based scorer determine the weights of different costs? Is there any more efficient way such as training a small scenario classifier to determine the weights?\", \"flag_for_ethics_review\": \"['No ethics review needed.']\", \"rating\": \"5\", \"confidence\": \"4\", \"code_of_conduct\": \"Yes\"}", "{\"summary\": \"The paper proposes an end-to-end driving method based on a diffusion model for trajectory prediction. The diffusion model can learn multi-modal trajectories and is therefore conceptually superior to standard imitation learning which can only model one mode. In addition this diffusion model gets the past predictions as input to increase the temporal consistency of the predictions. The authors propose to sample several trajectories and choose the best one based on a combination of cost functions. A VLM is used to describe the scene and come up with a driving style decision as well as weights for the cost function. The authors claim to get better driving performance as well as smoother behaviour.\", \"soundness\": \"1\", \"presentation\": \"2\", \"contribution\": \"2\", \"strengths\": \"S.1. **Diffusion policy:** Using a diffusion model for trajectory prediction is an interesting idea to model multi-modal trajectories.\\n\\nS.2. **VLM** for interpretable decisions. Using a VLM to obtain decision that can be easy to understand by humans as the interface is natural language. \\n\\nS.3. The writing and figures are clear and easy to understand (however some key information are missing).\", \"weaknesses\": \"**W.1 Evaluations**\\n\\n**W.1.1 NuScenes as planning benchmark**\\n\\n1. As stated by multiple paper open-loop evaluation and therefore also the NuScenes dataset is not a good benchmark to evaluate planning, as shown by: [1, 2, 3, 4]. Using NAVSIM with the OpenScene dataset (which is still open-loop though \\u2192 see W2.2 or using closed-loop simulators like CARLA would be the best to obtain trustworthy results.\\n2. Metrics: As several works [5,6,7] showed, the implementation of the L2 and collision metrics differ for different papers and implementations (especially [7] has a detailed breakdown of the differences). It is not clear which one was used in this paper.\\n\\n**W.1.2 Correctness of Results on OpenScene Dataset**\\n\\n1. Closed-Loop benchmark: The authors states that they use an closed-loop evaluation (line. 099+349+509), but NAVSIM is not fully closed-loop. \\n2. Clearance of description: The authors use the NAVSIM evaluation framework. The description is not clear on the exact setting (it is not mentioned that the NAVSIM framework is used) Would be good to make this clearer. Also since NuScenes planning is not a good benchmark to evaluate planning results (see **W.1.1**) the NAVSIM results would be actually the more trustworthy results. However the implementation of the model and training details are not sufficient. Some open questions: Is the architecture exactly the same as for the NuScenes results? On what data is it trained?\\n3. Efficiency: It is unclear where the numbers in Figure 6 b) are coming from. In my understanding PDM-closed is a rule-based system and therefore has 0h training time but is reported with 62h training time. Also TransFuser reports that they train for 24h on 1 GPU but it is reported as 28h. HE-Drive in comaprison is trained on 8 GPUs, so it would be good to compare GPU hours and not total hours. Also it would be good if the authors could report where the numbers for FPS and training time are coming from.\\n4. Missing comparisons: The actual state of-the art models are missing in Table 5. In the Hydra-MDP paper are better numbers reported than what is stated in Table 5. Also TransFuser has a better score in the official paper and leaderboard than what is stated here. Was there a reason for this? \\n5. Official Leaderboard: It would be good if the authors could submit there model to the official Leaderbaord and report official numbers.\\n\\n**W.1.3 Smoothness and temporal consistency**\\n\\n1. Metric: Since the driving comfort metric is newly proposed by the authors it would be good to have qualitative example to showcase how well the metric aligns with human judgement. It is also hard to tell what score in the comfort metric would be an acceptable score by human judgement (i.e. for which score would a human in a car say that the behaviour is smooth enough?).\\n2. The authors state that it \\u201creduce sharp side-to-side movements, sudden braking\\u201d (line 266) does this affect safety-critical scenarios where sudden braking (i.e., emergency brake) is necessary?\\n3. As this is one of the main motivations in the paper it would be good to have proper ablations on this. The authors claim that \\u201csuch trajectory planners and scorers face the dilemma of generating *temporally inconsistent* and *uncomfortable* trajectories.\\u201d (line 036), and that hey can \\u201cgenerate accurate and temporally consistent trajectories.\\u201d (line 359). How much does the VLM improve the smoothness? Would be a post-processing of the other methods be enough to obtain good comfort performance (e.g. averaging previous predictions?)\\n\\n**W.1.4 Comparison with fixed scoring weights**\\n\\nI was wondering how much the fixed weights are tuned and how much performance gain can be achieved with a better tuned set of weights. \\n\\n\\n**W.2. Related Work**\\n\\n1. Section 2.1 END-TO-END AUTONOMOUS DRIVING is missing some crucial papers for the closed-loop setting [TransFuser, InterFuser, etc.]\\n2. 2.2 DIFFUSION MODELS FOR TRAJECTORY GENERATION: is also missing some crucial related work: [8,9, 10, 11]. Also would be nice to know how the method of this paper compares to the related works.\\n\\n[1] Dauner, Daniel, et al. \\\"Navsim: Data-driven non-reactive autonomous vehicle simulation and benchmarking.\\\"\\u00a0Neurips\\u00a0(2024).\\n\\n[2] Li, Zhiqi, et al. \\\"Is ego status all you need for open-loop end-to-end autonomous driving?.\\\"\\u00a0*Proceedings of the IEEE/CVF Conference on Computer Vision and Pattern Recognition*. 2024.\\n\\n[3] Zhai, Jiang-Tian, et al. \\\"Rethinking the open-loop evaluation of end-to-end autonomous driving in nuscenes.\\\"\\u00a0*arXiv preprint arXiv:2305.10430*\\u00a0(2023).\\n\\n[4] Codevilla, Felipe, et al. \\\"On offline evaluation of vision-based driving models.\\\"\\u00a0*Proceedings of the European Conference on Computer Vision (ECCV)*. 2018.\\n\\n[5] Mao, J., Ye, J., Qian, Y., Pavone, M., & Wang, Y. (2023). A language agent for autonomous driving.\\u00a0*arXiv 2023*\\n\\n[6] Mao, J., Qian, Y., Zhao, H., & Wang, Y. (2023). Gpt-driver: Learning to drive with gpt.\\u00a0*arXiv 2023*\\n\\n[7] Weng, Xinshuo, et al. \\\"PARA-Drive: Parallelized Architecture for Real-time Autonomous Driving.\\\"\\u00a0*Proceedings of the IEEE/CVF Conference on Computer Vision and Pattern Recognition*. 2024.\\n\\n[8] Chi, Cheng, et al. \\\"Diffusion policy: Visuomotor policy learning via action diffusion.\\\"\\u00a0*The International Journal of Robotics Research*\\u00a0(2023)\\n\\n[9] Pearce, Tim, et al. \\\"Imitating Human Behaviour with Diffusion Models.\\\"\\u00a0*The Eleventh International Conference on Learning Representations (ICLR 2023)*. 2023.\\n\\n[10] Reuss, Moritz, et al. \\\"Goal-conditioned imitation learning using score-based diffusion policies.\\\"\\u00a0Robotics: Science and Systems, 2023\\n\\n[11] Janner, Michael, et al. \\\"Planning with Diffusion for Flexible Behavior Synthesis.\\\"\\u00a0*International Conference on Machine Learning*. PMLR, 2022.\", \"questions\": \"1. My biggest concern is the evaluation of the proposed method. Having the ablations on NAVSIM (or even closed-loop results) with a fair comparison with related work would add a lot.\\n\\n2. Having misleading statements about closed-loop evaluation (OpenScene with NAVSIM ist not closed-loop but a non-reactive open-loop simulation), missing state-of-the-art results in Table 5 and unclear origins of the results in Figure 6b) makes it hard to trust the results. It would be highly appreciated if the authors could add the missing descriptions and fix the misleading ones for more clarity.\", \"flag_for_ethics_review\": \"['No ethics review needed.']\", \"rating\": \"3\", \"confidence\": \"4\", \"code_of_conduct\": \"Yes\"}", "{\"summary\": \"This paper has two contributions, a diffusion-based motion planner and a vision language model guided trajectory scorer. The authors build on a previous work called SparseDrive to utilize a sparse representation of the driving scene. This scene representation is then used for conditioning the diffusion model along with the ego status and past trajectories. The sampled trajectories are then scored using a weighted average of safety and comfort scores. The VLM is periodically invoked to adjust the weights. The authors produce comparison of open and closed loop driving performance with other state of the art models.\", \"soundness\": \"3\", \"presentation\": \"3\", \"contribution\": \"3\", \"strengths\": \"The results of the paper are very good, both in terms of driving performance and speed. Especially the comparison in closed loop environment is very competitive.\\nThe diffusion-based trajectory generation is done in a novel way, with consideration to maintaining temporal consistency.\", \"weaknesses\": \"There is relatively less details on the sparse perception part in this paper. It is understood that this work is an extention of the SparseDrive work, however more details on how this sparse scene representation is used in the diffusion model would have been helpful.\\nThe results in the closed loop section (table 5) should have included all the comparisons shown in the graphs as well.\\nThe motivation for VQA task is unclear, it seems the paper only uses the VLM for updating the weights of the trajectory score function in every 5 seconds. However, what happens to the dialog, it's not clear if it is validated or can be used in any way later.\\nThere are quite a few instances of spelling, grammar mistakes and typos.\", \"questions\": \"There are several topics that are unclear in this paper:\\nHow is data curation done for the stage one of the VLM guided trajectory scorer?\\nHow do you initialize the weights of the trajectory scoring metric?\\nWhy do you pick 5 sec as the calling frequency for Llama?\\nHow did you define the aggresive and conservative driving style parameters? Did you validate with human data?\\nIs the VLM also adjusting parameters beyond the profiles of aggresive and conservative driving? Is there fine grained control of speed / comfort weights?\\nHow do you claim these results are better / as good as hyper-parameter optimization of the weights? Did you perform such a study? (table 3?)\\nWhat are HE-Drive-S and HE-Drive-B? They need to be described clearly.\\nWhat do you do with the VQA? How can this conversation be used for driving? Did you perform any quantitative analysis on the results?\", \"flag_for_ethics_review\": \"['No ethics review needed.']\", \"rating\": \"6\", \"confidence\": \"4\", \"code_of_conduct\": \"Yes\"}" ] }

[ "Jifei Luo", "Xiao Cui", "Hantao Yao", "Changsheng Xu" ]

[ "image retrieval", "reranking", "deep clustering", "self-supervised learning" ]

{ "note_id": [ "yipEvotgSB", "pQwPluwYZ9", "p2BdW6VgrO", "cnvDjWFtBW", "auov68dbw0", "FDinWoSjIs", "67P2wT1Rq4", "3T0yThqgGE", "0z4JkluN8w" ], "note_type": [ "official_review", "official_comment", "official_comment", "official_comment", "comment", "official_comment", "official_review", "official_review", "official_review" ], "note_created": [ 1730632872107, 1732466591081, 1732466582143, 1732466587720, 1735365824482, 1732466576705, 1730653359505, 1730294007620, 1730712057284 ], "note_signatures": [ [ "ICLR.cc/2025/Conference/Submission7466/Reviewer_GKEp" ], [ "ICLR.cc/2025/Conference/Submission7466/Authors" ], [ "ICLR.cc/2025/Conference/Submission7466/Authors" ], [ "ICLR.cc/2025/Conference/Submission7466/Authors" ], [ "ICLR.cc/2025/Conference/Submission7466/Authors" ], [ "ICLR.cc/2025/Conference/Submission7466/Authors" ], [ "ICLR.cc/2025/Conference/Submission7466/Reviewer_sbY6" ], [ "ICLR.cc/2025/Conference/Submission7466/Reviewer_6tqL" ], [ "ICLR.cc/2025/Conference/Submission7466/Reviewer_Q2Kc" ] ], "structured_content_str": [ "{\"summary\": \"This paper presents a Neighbor-aware Geodesic Transportation (NGT) strategy for enhancing the performance of deep clustering and image retrieval tasks. The proposed method consists of three main components: Manifold-aware Neighbor Encoding (MNE), Regularized Barycenter Refinery (RBR), and Geodesic Transportation (GT). By integrating these components, NGT aims to improve the robustness of neighbor identification within the data manifold, thus enhancing the feature learning and clustering results. The method is evaluated on several benchmark datasets, demonstrating superior performance compared to baseline and state-of-the-art methods.\", \"soundness\": \"3\", \"presentation\": \"3\", \"contribution\": \"2\", \"strengths\": \"(1) Comprehensive Approach: The paper proposes a comprehensive method that integrates multiple strategies (MNE, RBR, GT) to address the challenging task of identifying robust neighbors within the data manifold.\\n(2) Solid Theoretical Foundation: The method is grounded in solid theoretical principles, with clear explanations of the motivations and methodologies behind each component.\\n(3) Experimental Validation: The proposed method is thoroughly evaluated on multiple benchmark datasets, demonstrating significant improvements in clustering and retrieval performance compared to baseline and state-of-the-art methods.\", \"weaknesses\": \"(1) Lack of Novelty: While the proposed method integrates multiple existing techniques, it lacks significant novelty in the underlying algorithms or methodologies. The components (MNE, RBR, GT) are adaptations or combinations of existing approaches rather than entirely new contributions.\\n(2) Complexity and computational cost: the proposed methodology involves multiple steps and components, which increases the computational complexity and cost compared to simpler baseline methods. Even though the authors performed a time complexity analysis, it still limits its applicability to large-scale datasets or real-time applications.\\n(3) Limited Scope: The method is specifically tailored for deep clustering and image retrieval tasks and may not be directly applicable to other machine learning or computer vision problems. This limits the broader impact and applicability of the proposed work.\\n(4) Incremental Improvement: While the proposed method demonstrates improvements over baseline and state-of-the-art methods, the magnitude of these improvements is incremental rather than transformative. This suggests that the method may not offer sufficient advancements to justify its complexity and computational cost in all cases.\", \"questions\": \"See Weaknesses.\", \"flag_for_ethics_review\": \"['No ethics review needed.']\", \"rating\": \"3\", \"confidence\": \"5\", \"code_of_conduct\": \"Yes\"}", "{\"title\": \"Thank you for your valuable feedbacks.\", \"comment\": \"1. **More Explanation to the MNE Module**\\n\\nManifold learning assumes that high-dimensional data lies on a lower-dimensional manifold. **The goal is to learn this manifold's structure to perform tasks like retrieval while respecting the data's intrinsic geometry**. In machine learning, particularly in manifold learning, graphs are used to represent the manifold. Each node in the graph represents a data point, and edges represent pairwise similarities or affinities between data points. Manifold-aware Neighbor Encoding (MNE) strategy uses this graph representation to capture local neighborhoods and propagates information across the graph to reveal the global structure. Specifically, MNE introduces a novel bidirectional smoothness criterion as a regularization term, ensuring that the learned similarities are smooth across the manifold and helping maintain its local structure in the learned representations. The **visualization** result in Figure 6 highlights that after encoding into the new manifold space, the features exhibit improved manifold properties, which contribute to enhanced retrieval performance.\\n\\n2. **Notation Issues**\\n\\nIn line 258, we aim to define a simple diagonal matrix where each diagonal entry is 1. To formalize this, we utilize the delta function, defined as $\\\\delta(i-j)=1$ when $i=j$, and $\\\\delta(i-j)=0$ when $i\\\\neq j$. These two cost matrices can take the same values, but as mentioned in Section 3.2, designing them separately can yield better results. In the revised manuscript, we have refined this definition to improve clarity and the overall readability.\\n\\n3. **Dataset Information**\\n\\nThanks for your advice. We have provided detailed information about the datasets used and summarized this information in Table 19 of the revised version.\\n\\n4. **Effect of Parameter $k_1$**\\n\\nIn our approach, we involve the parameter $k_1$ to determine the activation item for the manifold-aware encoding. The effect of $k_1$ is exhibit in Figure 4. The peak performance is achieved when $k_1$ is around 50, but the performance does not largely vary when $k_1$ exceed 20. The outliers would unavoidably involved in the encoding procedure when $k_1$ increases, but the bidirectional similarity diffusion strategy successfully mitigate their influence, such that the retrieval performance can exhibit a robustness in a wide range. Moreover, we also compare it with the traditional method using the same value in constructing the affinity graph for diffusion, further validate the effectiveness of our manifold-aware neighbor encoding strategy.\\n\\n5. **Mistake Highlight**\\n\\nSorry for the mistake, we have already corrected it in the revised version.\\n\\n6. **More Explanation on the Influence of Outliers**\\n\\nActually, to prove that our method can effectively reduce the negative influence of outliers, we involve the **purity metric** to observe the accuracy of true samples in the top-k neighborhood shown in Figure 2, the higher purity represents the more outliers being excluded. Moreover, the retrieval performance which is measured by mean average accuracy metric, quantitatively reflect the ability of reducing the negative impact of outliers in neighborhoods. For the **visual explanation**, we select some instances and exhibit the corresponding weight for constructing manifold-aware neighbor encoding in Figure 5 and provide a t-SNE visualization of MNE feature space in Figure 6. The comparison validates the effectiveness of MNE in strengthening clustering performance and mitigating the effect of outliers. Please refer to the revised version in appendix for more details.\"}", "{\"title\": \"Thank you for your valuable feedbacks.\", \"comment\": \"1. **Limited Novelty in Techniques and Mapping to Nonlinear Space**\\n\\nWe would like to clarify that our **Manifold-aware Neighbor Encoding (MNE)** strategy is a **novel and effective** approach in mapping original image feature into a nonlinear space, which can encode the essential global and local relationships within the data manifold. Specifically, the **Gaussian kernel** used in MNE is tailored to capture the global structure of the manifold by leveraging a bidirectional similarity diffusion process. This ensures that pairwise relationships are iteratively refined to reflect the intrinsic data geometry, addressing the shortcomings of standard similarity measures. Additionally, the **k-reciprocal neighbor search** (Eq. 3) is designed to guarantee robust and consistent neighborhood definitions, which are crucial for the refinement process in tasks such as re-ranking and deep clustering. These elements form the foundation of a unique encoding framework that systematically captures both local and global dependencies in a way that directly benefits neighborhood refinery tasks. In Figure 6, we employ a t-SNE **visualization of our MNE feature space**, compare with the original image feature, MNE can achieve better clustering performance and reduce the effect of outliers, resulting in a higher retrieval result.\\n\\n2. **Euclidean Distance and Outliers**\\n\\nThe concern about Euclidean distance\\u2019s sensitivity to outliers in the **Regularized Barycenter Refinement (RBR)** module is valid. However, our choice to include Euclidean distance stems from the following considerations,\\n\\n- **complementarity**: Euclidean distance captures proximity in the original feature space, while the Wasserstein term accounts for distributional alignment. The Euclidean distance demonstrates high accuracy when retrieving close samples. To effectively address the challenges posed by complex practical datasets, it can be retained as a valuable metric. **The dual objectives ensure a balance between locality and distributional robustness**.\\n- **outlier mitigation**: The influence of outliers is mitigated through the **Wasserstein regularization**, which acts as a stabilizing term. Furthermore, our formulation (Eq. 6) includes entropy regularization to facilitate the solution to the optimization problem.\\n\\n3. **Use of Existing Techniques in Geodesic Transportation**\\n\\nWe acknowledge that shortest-path computation is a standard technique, but we would like to clarify that the novelty of the **Geodesic Transportation (GT)** module lies in its integration within the NGT framework:\\n\\n- We choose the geodesic distance to model the **transportation trajectory**. In our NGT framework, it is employed as a cost metric within the optimal transport problem, enabling the incorporation of both global geometric and contextual relationships.\\n- The combination of geodesic paths with manifold-aware distributions enhances the refinement of neighborhood relationships in a way that conventional methods do not achieve.\\n\\nThus, the value of GT lies in how it synergizes with MNE and RBR to improve neighborhood refinery.\\n\\n4. **Visual or Convincing Evidence of Robustness to Outliers**\\n\\nWe appreciate the reviewer\\u2019s request for visual evidence to substantiate the robustness claim. To address this, we introduce **neighborhood purity** metric to empirically demonstrate the robustness improvements achieved by the proposed method. Additionally, we select some instances and exhibit the corresponding weight for constructing manifold-aware neighbor encoding in Figure 5 and provide a t-SNE visualization of MNE feature space in Figure 6. The comparison validates the effectiveness of MNE in strengthening clustering performance and mitigating the effect of outliers. Please refer to the revised version in appendix for more details.\\n\\n5. **Global Relationship Claims and Lack of Visual Evidence**\\n\\nWe understand the concern regarding global relationship claims and the need for further evidence. To strengthen this aspect, we include **t-SNE visualizations** of the feature space before and after applying our proposed MNE in Figure 6, showcasing enhanced global and local structure alignment.\\n\\n6. **Missing Experimental Details**\\n\\nFor more experimental details, we have rerun the experiments across multiple seeds, on CIFAR-10, the impact of random numbers on the results does not exceed 0.2 at most. Moreover, our approach introduces NGT into the BYOL framework to perform deep clustering, which leads to a significant enhancement, e.g., 7.8% improvement in NMI on CIFAR-10. Additionally, we report the convergence analysis in Figures 7 and 8. Both the iterations in MNE and RBR converge quickly within 10 epochs, validating the effectiveness of our method.\"}", "{\"title\": \"Thank you for your valuable feedbacks.\", \"comment\": \"1. **Lack of Novelty**\\n\\nThe **Neighbor-aware Geodesic Transportation (NGT)** introduces unique innovations by systematically combining **Manifold-aware Neighbor Encoding (MNE)**, **Regularized Barycenter Refinery (RBR)**, and **Geodesic Transportation (GT)** to address the challenges of neighborhood refinery. Specifically, **MNE** innovatively encodes global manifold relationships using a bidirectional diffusion process to overcome the limitations of local-only methods. **RBR** incorporates a Wasserstein distance term for robust neighbor integration, mitigating the influence of outliers in a novel way. **GT** introduces geodesic path-based transportation, integrating global geometric and contextual information for refined distance computation. These components represent novel contributions within the context of deep clustering and image retrieval, enabling a systematic framework that advances the state of the art.\\n\\n2. **Complexity and Computational Cost**\\n\\nWe acknowledge the computational complexity associated with our approach. However:\\n\\n- We provide a detailed time complexity analysis (Section 4.3 of the paper), demonstrating that the $\\\\mathcal{O}(n^3)$ complexity of NGT aligns with previously proposed context-based and diffusion-based methods.\\n- Our method is **computationally efficient** in practice due to the adoption of iterative optimization strategies and parallelization (e.g., Sinkhorn-Knopp iterations for GT). As shown in Figure 7 and 8, the iterations involved in our methods converge within a few epochs. \\n- As noted in Table 6, NGT achieves competitive re-ranking latency on large-scale datasets. Moreover, the coarse-to-fine strategy (explained in Section 4.3) further **reduces computational burden for large-scale applications**. Thus, the observed computational cost is a justified trade-off for the significant performance improvements achieved across diverse datasets.\\n\\n3. **Limited Scope**\\n\\nWhile the current work focuses on **image retrieval** and **deep clustering**, the core methodology of NGT\\u2014manifold encoding, robust barycenter computation, and geodesic transportation\\u2014offers generalizable components. Potential applications include: graph-based machine learning tasks, contextual similarity refinement in natural language processing and geometric-aware embedding learning in other domains. We appreciate this feedback and have outlined future work in the conclusion section to explore these broader applications.\\n\\n4. **Incremental Improvement**\\n\\nWe respectfully disagree with this assessment. The improvements achieved by NGT are substantial and consistent across multiple benchmarks. For **deep clustering**, NGT demonstrates a **7.8% improvement in NMI** on CIFAR-10 compared to BYOL and outperforms state-of-the-art contrastive and non-contrastive methods (Table 4). For **image retrieval**, NGT achieves **5.7% and 9.8% higher mAP** on ROxf(M) and ROxf(H) compared to the most related ConAff with image feature extracted by R-GeM, highlighting its transformative impact (Tables 1\\u20133). In the appendix (Table 11, 12), we further incorporate NGT with different image retrieval models. These results validate that the proposed framework offers a significant leap in performance, especially considering its robustness to outliers and enhanced neighbor relationships.\"}", "{\"withdrawal_confirmation\": \"I have read and agree with the venue's withdrawal policy on behalf of myself and my co-authors.\"}", "{\"title\": \"Thank you for your valuable feedbacks.\", \"comment\": \"Thanks for your carefully review. To address your concern, here we provide some further explanations below.\\n\\n1. **Complexity and Computational Cost**\\n\\nIn our proposed NGT, we modularized our neighborhood refinery method into three distinct modules: Manifold-aware Neighbor Encoding, Regularized Barycenter Refinery and Geodesic Transportation. This modular design not only reduces the implementation difficulty, but also facilitates easy adaptation to different tasks. Moreover, the performance of our algorithm is **robust to variations in most parameters**, enabling optimal results with minimal fine-tuning. In terms of **time complexity**, the theoretical complexity $\\\\mathcal{O}(n^3)$ of our method remains consistent with previous approaches. We have also implemented **extensive optimizations**, including parallelization of key processes, which significantly reduce execution time. As a result, our algorithm achieves **lower deployment latency** compared to most existing methods and can seamlessly integrate into self-supervised learning frameworks. For large-scale datasets, our current strategy focuses on refining the top-ranked sequences, which has been proven to be effective in handling real-world scenarios.\\n\\nNevertheless, recalculating the optimal transport distance for each pair of samples leads to substantial computational overhead. To address this, we will focus on developing approximation techniques to further reduce time complexity while maintaining performance in our future work.\\n\\n2. **Overall Description and Presentation Issue**\\n\\nThanks for your valuable advice, we have placed a brief description of the overall algorithm in the beginning of Section 3 and provided some **visual explanations** in appendix. And we will further improve our writing for clear readability.\\n\\n3. **Notation Issue**\\n\\nIn Eq.(6), our initial intention is to present a basic objective function to define the regularized barycenter $a$, with its derivation detailed in Appendix B. To maintain simplicity and consistency with the appendix, we initially omitted subscripts in this definition. While in the subsequent Eq.(7), we modify the formula and introduce subscripts to assign a barycenter $a_i$ to each image. We apologize for any potential confusion caused by the similar notation. In the revised version, **we have consistently included subscripts throughout the main text** to ensure clarity and improve the overall readability.\\n\\n4. **Caption Mistake**\\n\\nThanks! We have already fixed this issue.\\n\\n5. **Analysis of $\\\\theta$ in GT**\\n\\nHere we replace $\\\\theta=0.05$ with $\\\\theta=0$ and introduce additional comparison intervals with a step size of 0.1. When theta recede to 0,performance is evaluated solely based on the optimal transport distance. Conversely, $\\\\theta=1.0$ represents the case where only the Euclidean distance is used. Since our distance calculation is conducted in an unsupervised manner, it may misclassify individual points as samples from different categories, assigning them larger distances. In contrast, the original Euclidean distance exhibits higher accuracy in distinguishing closely related samples. Through linearly combining these two distance metrics, we can further refine the optimal transport distance to achieve superior performance.\\n\\n| $\\\\theta$ | 0 | 0.1 | 0.2 | 0.3 | 0.4 | 0.5 | 0.6 | 0.7 | 0.8 | 0.9 | 1.0 |\\n| :------: | :--: | :--: | :--: | :--: | :--: | :--: | :--: | :--: | ---- | ---- | ---- |\\n| ROxf(M) | 80.6 | 80.8 | 81.0 | 81.1 | 81.4 | 81.6 | 81.9 | 82.0 | 81.9 | 80.8 | 67.3 |\\n| ROxf(H) | 63.3 | 64.2 | 64.6 | 64.5 | 64.5 | 64.3 | 64.1 | 63.5 | 63.2 | 61.9 | 44.2 |\"}", "{\"summary\": \"This paper investigates how to refine neighbor relationships within the data manifold. Unlike traditional methods that overlook global relationships, this work proposes a novel neighbor-aware geodesic transportation method. Specifically, the paper introduces three modules. The first module is Manifold-aware Neighbor Encoding that project the samples into a nolinear space. The second module is Regularized Barycenter Refinery that integrates local neighbors. The third module is Geodesic Transportation that calculates the shortest path in the affinity graph.\", \"soundness\": \"2\", \"presentation\": \"3\", \"contribution\": \"2\", \"strengths\": \"a. This paper presents a solution for neighborhood refinement, capturing global relationships to enhance robustness against outliers.\\n\\nb. The experiments are sufficient and diverse.\", \"weaknesses\": \"a. Many techniques actually have been proposed and the proposed model seems a combinations of existing methods. For instance, in the Manifold-aware Neighbor Encoding, the authors utilize a Gaussian kernel to construct a manifold-aware space, differing from the traditional use of Euclidean distance to create a Euclidean space. This mapping approach to a nonlinear space is actually a typical technique in spectral clustering. Furthermore, both the neighbor search method in Eq. (3) and the bidirectional similarity diffusion in Eq. (4) are common practices in prior research. Thus, the paper presents limited novel insights.\\n\\nb. The authors introduce a Regularized Barycenter Refinement module aimed at enhancing robustness against outliers. However, Eq. (6) combines the Euclidean and Wasserstein distances. It\\u2019s worth noting that Euclidean distance is inherently sensitive to outliers, making this choice potentially questionable for addressing this issue. It seems that this approach is primarily driven by optimization convenience rather than a robust outlier solution.\\n\\nc. The third module, as claimed by the authors, uses an existing technique to compute the shortest path in an affinity graph. Consequently, the three primary modules in this work are largely based on established methods.\\n\\nd. While the authors aim to address robustness to outliers, they do not provide any visual or convincing evidence to support their claims regarding this issue.\\n\\ne. The authors assert that their approach captures global relationships; however, the techniques employed are still grounded in conventional methods that calculate pairwise affinity weights. Additionally, the lack of visual evidence or further analysis undermines this claim, making it unconvincing.\\n\\nf. Key experimental details are missing. Firstly, none of the results include standard deviations, which is crucial given the sensitivity of deep learning models to seed selection. Secondly, despite the model\\u2019s strict analysis and explicit formulation, the authors do not provide convergence analysis and empirical validation, which is an important omission.\", \"questions\": \"My questions are in Weaknesses.\", \"flag_for_ethics_review\": \"['No ethics review needed.']\", \"rating\": \"3\", \"confidence\": \"3\", \"code_of_conduct\": \"Yes\"}", "{\"summary\": \"This paper investigates the topic of neighborhood refinery. To capture global relationships and mitigate the negative impacts of outliers in the neighborhood, a method named NGT is proposed, which consists of three main components, namely Manifold-aware Neighbor Encoding\\n(MNE), Regularized Barycenter Refinery (RBR), and Geodesic Transportation (GT). The effectiveness of the proposed method is demonstrated on re-ranking and deep clustering tasks. However, I have concerns about its novelty and its presentation.\", \"soundness\": \"2\", \"presentation\": \"1\", \"contribution\": \"2\", \"strengths\": \"1. Neighborhood refinery is an important topic that benefits many downstream tasks.\\n2. The proposed method seems to perform well on most tasks, revealing its effectiveness. Yet, the complexity of the proposed method may limit its scalability and practical applications.\", \"weaknesses\": \"1. The novelty of the proposed method is limited. In particular, many concepts are ponderously used, lacking clear explanations. For example, why the similarity matrix F is manifold-aware (line 212)? Rigorous analyses are required.\\n2. The presentation is poor. Many notations are ambiguous or lack specifications. For example, what is $\\\\delta$ in line 258? Is the cost matrix C in line 257 the same as the geodesic distance matrix C in line 318.\\n3. The details of datasets are not provided. Summarize them in a table would be helpful.\\n4. The effect of parameter $k_1$ is not discussed.\\n5. In Table 2, the best result on Hard ROxf is not achieved by your method, which has been mistakenly highlighted in bold.\\n6. The method is claimed to reduce the negative impact of outliers in neighborhoods, but the authors do not provide relevant experimental results to support their claims.\", \"questions\": \"See weaknesses.\", \"flag_for_ethics_review\": \"['No ethics review needed.']\", \"rating\": \"5\", \"confidence\": \"3\", \"code_of_conduct\": \"Yes\"}", "{\"summary\": \"This work proposed a novel Neighbor-aware Geodesic Transportation (NGT) for the neighborhood refinery, which constructs a global-aware distribution for each instance, capturing the intrinsic manifold relationships among all instances.\", \"soundness\": \"3\", \"presentation\": \"3\", \"contribution\": \"3\", \"strengths\": \"The authors proposed a novel approach for neighborhood refinery that addresses two limitations of previous methods, such as the failure to consider global relationships and not taking into account the negative impact of outliers. The proposed modules Regularized Barycenter Refinery and Geodesic Transportation provide theoretical innovations for solving previous problems. At the same time, a large number of experimental results on re-ranking and deep clustering also provide empirical support. Overall, although the idea is simple and clear, it is indeed effective and provides new insights for subsequent research.\", \"weaknesses\": \"1) The algorithm involves three modules, which introduces more hyper-parameters and the complexity of each module is the cube of the number of images n.\\n\\n2) Considering that the proposed method is progressive and contains many steps, an overall algorithm description should be placed in the main text to facilitate the understanding and use of the algorithm.\\n\\n3) The paper's presentation could be further strengthened to improve readability.\\n\\n4) Please check for Ps1=a in Line 251, which is not the same as Ps1=ai in line 267. At the same time, double-check for other possible formula errors.\\n\\n5) In Line 520, Ablations of GT are indicated in Table 4 and is actually shown in Figure 4. \\n\\n6) GT incorporate the original Euclidean distance and the optimal transport-based distance, and \\u03b8 is the balance weight. It is encouraged to set \\u03b8 = 0 to investigate the performance of the method with only the optimal transport-based distance.\", \"questions\": \"see above.\", \"flag_for_ethics_review\": \"['No ethics review needed.']\", \"rating\": \"5\", \"confidence\": \"3\", \"code_of_conduct\": \"Yes\"}" ] }

[ "Andy Zhou", "Kevin Wu", "Yi Zeng", "Yu Yang", "Shuang Yang", "Sanmi Koyejo", "James Zou", "Bo Li" ]

[ "adversarial robustness", "large language models", "jailbreaking", "ai agents" ]

{ "note_id": [ "vWLYefmDhy", "teHCogC7wY", "taQPm8t9kf", "qNoxV1ocze", "qAYWxDE1zx", "lYFlLeyC7C", "cAubCUzSRM", "bQV9G9nUs5", "SyaLQCwg83", "SnOT6RxnNv", "RlrceZnJNz", "MOP008Fxfw", "IFV67iX7hG", "DetPf6fSYo", "4KmMDS8O0o", "0RePtNRRX7" ], "note_type": [ "official_review", "official_comment", "official_comment", "official_comment", "decision", "official_comment", "meta_review", "official_review", "official_comment", "official_comment", "official_review", "official_review", "official_comment", "official_comment", "official_comment", "official_comment" ], "note_created": [ 1730165321422, 1733076071616, 1732309359575, 1732309771265, 1737523977760, 1732673594711, 1734300226119, 1730357275554, 1732314548735, 1732314781845, 1730717749103, 1730374001498, 1732314968293, 1732315498179, 1733075972254, 1733076041796 ], "note_signatures": [ [ "ICLR.cc/2025/Conference/Submission9354/Reviewer_Kor2" ], [ "ICLR.cc/2025/Conference/Submission9354/Authors" ], [ "ICLR.cc/2025/Conference/Submission9354/Authors" ], [ "ICLR.cc/2025/Conference/Submission9354/Authors" ], [ "ICLR.cc/2025/Conference/Program_Chairs" ], [ "ICLR.cc/2025/Conference/Submission9354/Reviewer_o3hZ" ], [ "ICLR.cc/2025/Conference/Submission9354/Area_Chair_T6D3" ], [ "ICLR.cc/2025/Conference/Submission9354/Reviewer_Uu9j" ], [ "ICLR.cc/2025/Conference/Submission9354/Authors" ], [ "ICLR.cc/2025/Conference/Submission9354/Authors" ], [ "ICLR.cc/2025/Conference/Submission9354/Reviewer_o3hZ" ], [ "ICLR.cc/2025/Conference/Submission9354/Reviewer_Uqx7" ], [ "ICLR.cc/2025/Conference/Submission9354/Authors" ], [ "ICLR.cc/2025/Conference/Submission9354/Authors" ], [ "ICLR.cc/2025/Conference/Submission9354/Authors" ], [ "ICLR.cc/2025/Conference/Submission9354/Authors" ] ], "structured_content_str": [ "{\"summary\": \"The paper introduces an automated framework called AutoRedTeamer for red teaming large language models. Unlike existing methods that rely on human intervention, AutoRedTeamer uses an LLM-based agent architecture with five specialized modules and a memory-based attack selection mechanism. This allows for end-to-end automation of seed prompt generation, attack selection, execution, and evaluation. The results show that AutoRedTeamer achieves a 20% higher attack success rate on the HarmBench dataset while reducing computational costs by 46%, and it is able to break defenses and generate test cases comparable to human benchmarks.\", \"soundness\": \"2\", \"presentation\": \"3\", \"contribution\": \"2\", \"strengths\": \"1. This paper focuses on an important research topic and provides valuable contributions to the community.\\n\\n2. The paper is well-written and easy to follow overall.\\n\\n3. The evaluation results demonstrate the potential of the proposed method for effective and efficient automatic red teaming.\", \"weaknesses\": \"1. The technical contribution, as currently presented, is not significant.\\n\\n2. The evaluation lacks a detailed description.\", \"questions\": \"1. The core of the proposed AutoRedTeamer framework is an agent-based ensemble system that dynamically and adaptively selects and refines attack strategies while generating jailbreaking test cases. However, the current text does not elaborate on the technical details of each module in the framework. For instance, when introducing the seed prompt generation module, the authors state that \\\"Each scenario is comprehensively defined, including a unique identifier, detailed description, expected outcome upon target AI failure, and the specific input for the target.\\\" However, it is unclear what specific prompts are used to ensure the correctness of the generated seed prompts. The same lack of detail applies to other modules, such as risk analysis and memory-based attack selection. Without these details, it is difficult to quantify the technical contributions of the proposed framework.\\n\\n2. When evaluating the efficiency of the proposed method, the authors report the total number of queries AutoRedTeamer needs to successfully generate the test cases. However, AutoRedTeamer itself is an LLM-based agent, where each module is an LLM. This means that the overhead cannot simply be measured by the number of queries made to the target model; the time taken by the agent LLM (Mistral-8x22B-Instruct-v0.1) to generate intermediate results should also be considered. Therefore, I suggest that the authors report this overhead (in terms of exact time) and compare it with baseline methods.\\n\\n3. Several recent LLM jailbreaking techniques shall also be considered as baselines, such as [1]\\n\\n[1] Zeng, Yi, et al. \\\"How johnny can persuade llms to jailbreak them: Rethinking persuasion to challenge ai safety by humanizing llms.\\\" arXiv preprint arXiv:2401.06373 (2024).\", \"flag_for_ethics_review\": \"['No ethics review needed.']\", \"rating\": \"5\", \"confidence\": \"3\", \"code_of_conduct\": \"Yes\"}", "{\"title\": \"follow up to reviewer\", \"comment\": \"Dear Reviewer Kor2,\\n\\nThank you for taking the time to review our submission and for providing valuable feedback. Since the discussion period is ending, we wanted to see if our response has adequately addressed the concerns and if there are points we could further clarify.\"}", "{\"title\": \"General response\", \"comment\": \"We thank the reviewers for their valuable feedback and comments. We are glad that the reviewers find our paper well-written (Reviewer o3hZ, Uu9j, Kor2), topic important (Reviewer Uu9j, Kor2), framework design interesting (Reviewer 03hZ), and acknowledge the empirical effectiveness of our method (Reviewer Uqx7, Kor2). We especially appreciate the recognition of our framework's potential for effective and efficient automatic red teaming (Reviewer Uqx7). We provide the summary of our revision content below to further strengthen our paper.\\n\\n1. Our main contribution is providing the first comprehensive, automated red teaming framework. We demonstrate this comprehensiveness in several ways:\\n - Flexibility across domains: Unlike prior work that only evaluates on fixed test cases, we show effectiveness on both existing input prompts from benchmarks (HarmBench) and diverse risk categories (AIR taxonomy)\\n - Automated seed prompt generation: We demonstrate that our framework can match human-level diversity in test case creation while removing potential human biases\\n - Integration of multiple attack vectors: Our framework can incorporate and intelligently combine various attacks, as shown by our successful integration of recent methods like Pliny\\n\\n2. Following reviewers' suggestions, we have conducted additional experiments to strengthen our claims:\\n - Added time efficiency results showing practical runtime despite comprehensive automation\\n - Evaluated on more recent models (Claude-3.5-Sonnet, Llama-2-7B) \\n - Included comparisons to 2024 attacks such as the highly effective adaptive attack [1], showing our framework can match or exceed their performance when incorporated into our toolbox\\n - Added comparison to other end-to-end pipelines such as rainbow teaming [2], demonstrating significant improvements \\n\\n3. We have added more technical details about our modules' implementation and enhanced our discussion of ethical considerations. We will release our code to aid reproducibility and future research.\\n\\nWe believe these revisions address the main concerns raised while reinforcing our paper's key contribution: a flexible, comprehensive framework that advances the state of automated red teaming.\\n\\n[1] Andriushchenko, M., Croce, F., & Flammarion, N. (2024). Jailbreaking Leading Safety-Aligned LLMs with Simple Adaptive Attacks. ArXiv, abs/2404.02151.\\n[2] Samvelyan, M., Raparthy, S.C., Lupu, A., Hambro, E., Markosyan, A.H., Bhatt, M., Mao, Y., Jiang, M., Parker-Holder, J., Foerster, J., Rocktaschel, T., & Raileanu, R. (2024). Rainbow Teaming: Open-Ended Generation of Diverse Adversarial Prompts. ArXiv, abs/2402.16822.\"}", "{\"title\": \"Response to reviewer\", \"comment\": \"We thank the reviewer for the insightful review. We appreciate that the reviewer found the design of the agent interesting and paper well-written. We address the concerns below.\\n\\n*the experimental dataset is somewhat limited, lacking exploration of threats in real-world scenarios\\u2026*\\n\\nOur evaluation is actually quite comprehensive, using multiple datasets that cover a broad range of real-world scenarios:\\n- Standard Evaluation: We evaluate our method on HarmBench, which is a standard benchmark for jailbreaking methods. This allows direct comparison with prior work.\\n- Diverse Risk Categories: We also evaluate on the AIR taxonomy and AIR-Bench, which contain a broader range of risk categories missing from HarmBench, such as Autonomous Operation of Systems and Political Persuasion. This demonstrates the comprehensive design of our framework.\\n- Our coverage of risk categories is derived directly from 2024 government regulations like the EU AI Act, ensuring our evaluation addresses current real-world safety concerns. This comprehensive evaluation distinguishes our work from prior papers [1, 2] that evaluate only a single dataset.\", \"regarding_embodied_scenarios\": \"While these are emerging and interesting, we note that LLM agents are fundamentally extensions of LLMs. Establishing robustness in text-based scenarios is a necessary foundation before moving to more complex embodied contexts. We have expanded the discussion in the revision and identified embodied scenarios as a promising direction for future work.\\n\\n*I am more interested in how long it takes for the end-to-end attack framework to generate an effective attack prompt.*\\n\\nThanks for the suggestion. We provide the results on the time cost of our framework below on Llama-3.1-70B.\\n\\nMethod | Time Cost | Cost per prompt\\n--- | --- | ---\\nAutoRedTeamer (Ours) | 4 hours, 25 minutes | 1.1 min\\nPAIR | 1 hour, 36 minutes | 0.4 min\\nTAP | 6 hours, 14 minutes | 1.6 min\\nFewShot | 56 Minutes | 0.23 min\\n\\nWe find that optimization-based methods, similar to query cost, also have a larger time cost. However, the cost of generating a single prompt takes around a minute for all methods, which is fast. AutoRedTeamer takes longer than PAIR despite being more query-efficient, but is much faster than TAP.\\n\\nWe hope this has resolved the reviewer\\u2019s concerns. We are happy to address further questions.\\n\\n[1] Automated Red Teaming with GOAT: The Generative Offensive Agent Tester https://openreview.net/forum?id=Ly0SQh7Urv\\n\\n[2] Does Refusal Training in LLMs Generalize to the Past Tense? https://openreview.net/forum?id=aJUuere4fM\"}", "{\"title\": \"Paper Decision\", \"decision\": \"Reject\"}", "{\"comment\": \"Thank you to the authors for their response. However, after careful consideration, I have concerns regarding the utility and persuasiveness of the issues discussed in the paper. I will maintain my current rating.\"}", "{\"metareview\": \"The AC and reviewers acknowledge that the authors have addressed some concerns, such as providing additional technical clarifications to enhance the paper. However, significant concerns remain regarding the utility and persuasiveness of the issues discussed. Additionally, both the AC and reviewers question the novelty of the automated red-teaming approach, particularly in light of the substantial body of similar research in the field. The primary contribution of the proposed work\\u2014focused on improving attack capability\\u2014appears aligned with the objectives of many existing studies, which raises further concerns about its novelty from the scope perspective.\", \"additional_comments_on_reviewer_discussion\": \"The reviewer raised concerns about the flexibility, adaptability, and scalability of the proposed attack framework, noting that the authors did not explore real-world security threat scenarios. Specifically, HarmBench was deemed unconvincing as a representation of real-world threats. In their response, the authors emphasized the superiority of HarmBench but did not address the need for more realistic threat scenarios. The AC recommends taking additional steps to explore scenarios that are more complex and meaningful than the questions posed in HarmBench, to better demonstrate the framework's applicability in real-world contexts.\"}", "{\"summary\": \"This paper designs an agent to do the automated red-teaming and shows the improved performance over selected baselines.\", \"soundness\": \"2\", \"presentation\": \"2\", \"contribution\": \"1\", \"strengths\": [\"The paper is easy to follow\", \"The LLM jailbreak topic is trending\"], \"weaknesses\": \"- Marginal novelty\\n- The improvement is not significant\\n- Lack of strong baselines\\n- Need to conduct experiments on more well-aligned models\\n\\nFirst of all, I think the idea of using LLM to generate jailbreak prompts is already well-studied since last year, and I do not see significant novelty in this paper compared with tons of similar papers using LLM to mutate/transform/generate new jailbreak prompts. The paper claims that it is the first paper as fully automated, which I cannot agree. Most published black-box jailbreak work just use a set of collected prompts as seeds or just start with some prompts, and then have LLM automatically do the prompt transformation. For example, [1] just starts with some prompts and have LLM automatically do the jailbreak, with is identical to your setting, and I believe there are too many works liks that without human in the loop. Thus, I do not think it is an accurate claim as the first fully automated jailbreak paper.\\n\\nSecond, I think this paper uses agentic approach and combines existing jailbreak strategies while the improvement is not significant, especially considering that there are many black-box attack papers that have near-perfect attack success rates such as [1,2,3]. I think the paper should compare with some latest and stronger attackers since PAIR is published last year and many stronger jailbreak approaches were found after that.\\n\\nAlthough I appreciate that the authors conduct experiments on the 70B model, I believe some more aligned models can be attacked with, such as Llama-2, and Claude-3. It would make the experiments more comprehensive with more models in the evaluation.\\n\\nLastly, as an attack paper, I think the ethical concern discussion and response disclosure are missing from the manuscript.\\n\\n[1] GPT-4 Jailbreaks Itself with Near-Perfect Success Using Self-Explanation\\n\\n[2] WordGame: Efficient & Effective LLM Jailbreak via Simultaneous Obfuscation in Query and Response\\n\\n[3] Jailbreaking Leading Safety-Aligned LLMs with Simple Adaptive Attacks\", \"questions\": \"See the comments above\", \"flag_for_ethics_review\": \"['Yes, Potentially harmful insights, methodologies and applications']\", \"details_of_ethics_concerns\": \"As an attack paper, I think the ethical concern discussion and response disclosure are missing from the manuscript.\", \"rating\": \"3\", \"confidence\": \"5\", \"code_of_conduct\": \"Yes\"}", "{\"title\": \"response to reviewer\", \"comment\": \"We thank the reviewer for the detailed and insightful review. We appreciate the reviewer agreed the method is empirically effective and supported the flexibility of requiring only initial domains.\\n\\n*Generally, I found the paper to lack detail and technical clarity and the overall paper flow would need improving*\\n\\nWe appreciate the reviewer's concern about insufficient technical descriptions. The paper currently contains key implementation details in the Appendix, including pseudocode (Appendix C.3) and detailed prompts for each module (Appendix F). However, we agree these critical components deserve more prominence in the main paper, so we have moved the pseudocode and added more details to the main body.\\n\\nRegarding the memory component, we agree the paper would benefit from a more detailed description. We have added a subsection detailing the memory in the methodology. In general, the memory store contains three separate databases: a long-term memory containing previous test cases and selected attacks, a long-term memory containing the query cost and running success rate of each attack, and a short-term memory containing the current trajectory.\\n\\n*The authors raise RedAgent and ALI-agent as similar work using agents to automatically red-team, and additionally state that their use of a memory store is novel. However, those two papers are similar to this one in proposing agentic frameworks and additionally utilise memory.*\\n\\nWe appreciate the reviewer's thoughtful points about novelty compared to RedAgent and ALI-agent. While these works also leverage agent frameworks, our work makes several key technical advances that enable more effective and comprehensive red teaming of language models. \\n\\nIndeed, RedAgent and ALI-agent both use agentic frameworks with memory. However, our design is distinguished by the following:\\n- The memory designs explored in prior work are simple due to the lack of tools and attacks in these methods, only storing previous test cases and results. In contrast, AutoRedTeamer is differentiated by the comprehensive attack toolbox and attack memory, where the number of attempts, query cost, and running success rate of each explored attack are stored. This allows for continual learning, where attack strategies can be refined over time.\\n- In RedAgent, the memory contains previously successful prompts and strategies, and the entire memory store is provided in-context. However, this approach is inefficient and not scalable, as there is a limit to the number of examples that can fit in the prompt. In contrast, AutoRedTeamer uses an embedding-based lookup to identify the most similar prompts, reducing token usage. While ALI-Agent also has a similar embedding-based lookup, its memory is only used for generating new test scenarios, and not for selecting attack strategies.\\n\\n*the range of attacks from the other works can be easily extended*\\n\\nWe respectfully disagree that it is straightforward to extend the range of attacks in other works. Our work makes several key technical advances that enable more effective integration of diverse attacks:\\n- Memory Architecture: Prior works lack a memory component designed for comprehensive attack integration, which we found non-trivial to design. A naive approach of adding attacks would face significant limitations, as the planner would lack contextual information about attack effectiveness, relying solely on textual descriptions that are prone to bias. Our ablation studies in Sec. D demonstrate that our attack memory integration is crucial, improving attack success rates by 26% compared to versions that only use the prior knowledge of the LLM to select attacks.\\n- Architectural Limitations: While prior works could theoretically add more attacks, they would require significant architectural changes. RedAgent lacks the necessary modularity and only generates attacks via LLM prompting. They do not demonstrate the ability to incorporate externally defined attacks like those in our toolbox. ALI-agent only uses one attack and would require substantial modifications to support multiple attack types. \\n\\nOur contribution lies not just in supporting multiple attacks, but in designing a comprehensive framework that can effectively orchestrate them through memory-guided selection and combination. This makes our work fundamentally different from simply adding more attacks to existing methods.\"}", "{\"title\": \"response to reviewer (cont)\", \"comment\": \"*Similarly, attacks such as GCG are not compared to because they have fixed test cases\\u2026I feel the authors don\\u2019t fully justify why it is so difficult to generate seed prompts and combine it with other attack pipelines.*\\n\\nWe omit GCG as a baseline as it is a white-box attack, not because it uses fixed test cases. We study a black-box threat model in our paper.\\n\\nWhile combining seed prompt generation with baseline attacks is technically possible, this misses the key benefits of our comprehensive framework. Our automatic seed prompt generation process removes human bias in test case creation, which is particularly crucial for identifying niche risk categories that might be overlooked in manual curation. We validate this on AIR categories, demonstrating that our automatically generated prompts achieve comparable diversity to human-created benchmarks while covering a broader range of potential risks. This automated approach is increasingly important as LLM-based systems scale, where human review of test cases becomes impractical.\\n\\nOur framework's value comes from the synergistic interaction between modules, particularly in seed prompt generation and attack selection. Rather than using a fixed set of test cases, seed prompts are continuously regenerated and refined if previous ones are unsuccessful, leading to a ~0.30 improvement in success rate compared to the one-step generation, shown in Figure 5. This iterative refinement process leverages our memory architecture to guide the generation of new test cases, creating a more adaptive and comprehensive evaluation framework.\\n\\n*Rainbow teaming and wild teaming is not compared to*\\n\\nWe appreciate the reviewer\\u2019s suggestion. We compare rainbow teaming below on a subset of 10 level-3 AIR categories on Llama-3.1-70B for 20 iterations for both methods. For a fair comparison, we use the same risk categories and attack styles/mutations.\\n\\nMethod | ASR\\n--- | ---\\nOurs | 40%\\nRainbow Teaming | 18%\\n\\nOur agent-design significantly outperforms the QD search used in rainbow-teaming. This is primarily due to the ability to combine attack vectors; rainbow-teaming is restricted to a grid of one attack per cell.\\n\\nRegarding comparison to WildTeaming, our approach differs fundamentally in both scope and implementation. While WildTeaming focuses specifically on discovering new attack patterns from in-the-wild user interactions, AutoRedTeamer is a comprehensive framework for automated red teaming that integrates diverse existing jailbreak methods and attack vectors into a unified pipeline. Our toolbox architecture allows us to incorporate any effective attack method, including those from WildTeaming.\\n\\n*How do you ensure that the strategy designer LLM strikes a balance between exploring different attacks and exploiting successful attacks?*\\n\\nUltimately, the goal of the framework is to achieve a high attack success rate at a cheaper cost. To balance exploitation and exploration, our strategy was to emphasize this goal in the instruction of the strategy designer and have it interpret it how it saw fit. This led to exploration where all attacks are tried at least several times (except PAIR, which is generally avoided due to cost) until the agent knows which individual attacks are good and should be selected for future strategies and combinations. When emphasizing exploration in the instruction, this reduced performance.\\n\\n*Is an LLM the best choice for this as opposed to say RL or similar techniques?*\\n\\nWe focus on an LLM for several reasons. \\n* Interpretability. Using an LLM offers interpretability in decision-making, mirroring how humans conduct red teaming. This is especially important for safety-critical settings.\\n* Adaptability. While it is possible to train an RL policy to select tools/attacks, the policy will need to be retrained when there is a new attack added to the toolbox.\\n* Practicality. In general, it is easier to use an LLM than to train an RL policy, which requires extensive hyperparameter selection and tuning. An RL policy may also overfit on particular domains in training, and cannot generate seed prompts.\\n\\nWe hope this answered the reviewers concerns. We are happy to address further questions.\"}", "{\"summary\": \"This paper proposes an agent-based framework for automatically generating attacks on LLMs, featuring an attack memory bank designed to enhance attack efficiency. The framework demonstrates strong attack performance on HarmBench.\", \"soundness\": \"2\", \"presentation\": \"3\", \"contribution\": \"2\", \"strengths\": \"1. The design of the risk analyzer within the agent, and the storage format of each entry in the attack memory bank for retrieval purposes are quite interesting.\\n2. The paper is well-written, with a clear structure. The experiments are extensive.\", \"weaknesses\": \"1. This paper emphasizes an end-to-end automated red teaming framework; however, the experimental dataset is somewhat limited, lacking exploration of threats in real-world scenarios. It would be more meaningful if the authors could discuss threats in practical contexts, such as embodied scenarios, which would also strengthen their claims about flexibility, adaptability, and scalability.\\n2. The claims regarding efficiency need further substantiation, as the current experiments do not provide sufficient support.\", \"questions\": \"1. Why is only HarmBench used in the evaluation? This alone is insufficient to demonstrate the proposed attack framework's flexibility, adaptability, and scalability. Please consider exploring some real-world security threat scenarios, which are more complex and meaningful than the questions in HarmBench.\\n2. While total queries and total tokens provide insights into efficiency, I am more interested in how long it takes for the end-to-end attack framework to generate an effective attack prompt. Since the end-to-end agent consists of multiple modules, there may be delays in communication between these components, which could negatively impact efficiency. This complexity may be a disadvantage compared to previous methods that do not involve such intricate module interactions.\", \"flag_for_ethics_review\": \"['No ethics review needed.']\", \"rating\": \"5\", \"confidence\": \"4\", \"code_of_conduct\": \"Yes\"}", "{\"summary\": \"This paper proposes a framework to automatically generate jailbreaks/harmful prompts, evaluate their effectiveness, and iteratively refine the prompts to improve their performance. This is done via a series of LLMs given specific tasks in the overall pipeline. The method does have good performance, generating jailbreaks in fewer queries compared to other methods.\", \"soundness\": \"3\", \"presentation\": \"2\", \"contribution\": \"2\", \"strengths\": [\"The method is empirically effective - e.g. in Table 1 the ASR is higher (or at least comparable) to the baselines with fewer queries required. Furthermore, from Fig. 8 the fact that many attacks are composed of multiple simple/cheap attack styles does indicate that the method is creating more complex attacks as it iterates over prompts.\", \"The attack is also robust against defences: for example, the perturbations in SmoothLLM don't significantly degrade attack performance.\", \"The method allows fully end-to-end red-teaming with only an initial domain specified (e.g. \\u201ccybersecurity\\u201d). There is scope here to enhance AutoRedTeamer with attacks tailored to particular use cases that a user is concerned for.\"], \"weaknesses\": [\"Generally, I found the paper to lack detail and technical clarity and the overall paper flow would need improving. Some useful information is for example in the appendix (e.g. pesudocode), which given the low level of technical description in the main body of text could be given a more visible position. Some concrete examples which can use more technical description: in Section 3.2 Risk Analyser, the prompting strategy is not described; alternatively how the memory store works can use more detail in the paper given its importance to the results and paper claims. Overall, just based on the content of the paper it would be highly challenging to reproduce the results diminishing the contribution of the work.\", \"The authors raise RedAgent and ALI-agent as similar work using agents to automatically red-team, and additionally state that their use of a memory store is novel. However, those two papers are similar to this one in proposing agentic frameworks and additionally utilise memory. The authors argue that their work is differentiated by the lack of a need for predefined test scenarios and support for a more diverse range of attacks. However, this may not suffice as a compelling degree of novelty - the range of attacks from the other works can be easily extended. Similarly, attacks such as GCG are not compared to because they have fixed test cases: however, in that case, would GCG combined with the seed prompt generation described in the paper be superior to the proposed attack piepline? I feel the authors don\\u2019t fully justify why it is so difficult to generate seed prompts and combine it with other attack pipelines.\", \"Rainbow Teaming is mentioned as the closest work, yet is not evaluated/compared to. Likewise Wildteaming [1] can be considered similar work and could use comparison or at least discussion.\", \"[1] Jiang, Liwei, et al. \\\"WildTeaming at Scale: From In-the-Wild Jailbreaks to (Adversarially) Safer Language Models.\\\" arXiv preprint arXiv:2406.18510 (2024).\"], \"questions\": [\"From the transition matrix it seems like many of the attack methods are rarely used. How do you ensure that the strategy designer LLM strikes a balance between exploring different attacks and exploiting successful attacks? Is an LLM the best choice for this as opposed to say RL or similar techniques?\"], \"flag_for_ethics_review\": \"['No ethics review needed.']\", \"rating\": \"3\", \"confidence\": \"4\", \"code_of_conduct\": \"Yes\"}", "{\"title\": \"response to reviewer\", \"comment\": \"We thank the reviewer for their thoughtful review and for acknowledging that our paper is easy to follow and addresses a trending topic in LLM jailbreaks. We address the concerns below.\\n\\n*Marginal novelty compared to other black-box methods*\\n\\nWe understand the concern regarding the novelty of our work compared to existing black-box attack methods that automate jailbreak prompt generation. While prior works have utilized LLMs to mutate or transform prompts, our contribution lies in the comprehensive, end-to-end automation of the red teaming process with several novel components, rather than proposing a new jailbreaking technique:\\n* Automated Seed Prompt Generation and Replacement: Our framework does not rely on manually collected seed prompts, which can limit the diversity and coverage of potential vulnerabilities. Instead, it automatically generates and refines seed prompts based on specified risk categories, ensuring broader exploration of the threat landscape, including less-studied risk categories that may be missed by manual methods. This is the main reason why we claim this is the first fully automated method, as seed prompt generation is an important aspect of red teaming and missed by prior automated techniques, including [1].\\n* Integration of Multiple Attacks and Tools: We support a wide range of attacks and mutators within a unified framework, including prior black-box automated techniques such as PAIR, enabling the discovery of synergistic attack combinations. This contrasts with prior works that typically focus on a single attack method or lack the flexibility to incorporate new attacks easily. \\n\\nWe believe these contributions offer a significant advancement over existing black-box attack methods by providing a more adaptive, scalable, and comprehensive approach to automated red teaming.\\n\\n*Improvement is not significant*\\n\\nOur framework is designed to be flexible and can easily incorporate new attacks into its toolbox as they are discovered. For instance, we have added the \\\"Pliny\\\" jailbreak [2], a recent and highly effective attack from August 2024, into our evaluation. Our focus is on creating a comprehensive framework that can adapt to and integrate the latest attacks rather than solely achieving higher attack success rates. To illustrate this, we compare our method to individual attacks within the toolbox and show higher performance on red teaming using only weaker attacks.\\n\\nTo further illustrate this idea, we conduct an ablation below where we add the attack on Llama-2-7B from [3] to the toolbox. We find that our framework can also match the 100% success rate by initializing the memory with previously learned success rates. Without this initialized memory, performance is slightly lower as the agent explores less effective strategies before settling on the adaptive attack, which it learns to always select.\\n\\nMethod | ASR\\n--- | ---\\nOurs with adaptive attack + initialized memory | 100%\\nOurs with adaptive attack | 91%\\nOurs | 75%\\nAdaptive Attack | 100%\\n\\n*More models should be evaluated*\\n\\nWe appreciate the suggestion. We evaluate Llama-2-7B and Claude-3.5-Sonnet below on HarmBench. We find that similar to other models, AutoRedTeamer outperforms all baselines, including on the newest Claude model, which is very robust.\\n\\nMethod | ASR (Llama-2) | ASR (Claude)\\n--- | --- | ---\\nOurs | 75% | 28%\\nPAIR | 28% | 4%\\nArtPrompt | 19% | 1%\\nFewShot | 4% | 0%\\n\\n*Ethical concern and disclosure are missing*\\n\\nWe agree that discussing ethical considerations is crucial for an attack paper. In the previous manuscript, we have included a broader impact statement in Section B of the Appendix that addresses ethical concerns. We have separated this into an explicit subsection in the revised uploaded version and added a statement about disclosure.\\n\\nWe hope our response addressed the reviewer\\u2019s concerns. We are happy to answer further questions\\n\\n[1] GPT-4 Jailbreaks Itself with Near-Perfect Success Using Self-Explanation\\n\\n [2] Pliny the Prompter, \\\"L1B3RT45: Jailbreaks for All Flagship AI Models,\\\" 2024.\"}", "{\"title\": \"response to reviewer\", \"comment\": \"We thank the reviewer for their thoughtful feedback and for acknowledging the importance of our research topic, the clarity of our writing, and the potential demonstrated by our evaluation results. We address the concerns below.\\n\\n*Technical contributions unclear*\\n\\nWe appreciate the reviewer's interest in the technical details of each module in our framework. Due to space constraints, we provided the full pseudocode (Appendix C.3) and detailed prompts for each module (Appendix F) in the supplementary material. However, we agree that including more technical details in the main text would enhance the clarity and impact of our work.\\n\\n* For the Risk Analyzer, we now include more information about how it processes user input to define the scope of red teaming. The Risk Analyzer uses a specialized prompt that instructs the LLM to thoroughly analyze the user's input, breaking it down into core components and identifying potential risks and vulnerabilities. It generates a comprehensive scope of highly specific test cases, focusing on edge cases and scenarios that are most likely to expose vulnerabilities.\\n* In the Seed Prompt Generator, we have added details about how it generates diverse test cases covering various aspects such as demographic targets and different scenarios where the risks could manifest. The Seed Prompt Generator uses prompts that instruct the LLM to create test cases that are unique, highly specific, and directly related to the subject matter. It ensures diversity by including different settings, approaches, and targets, and by generating test cases that cover various demographic groups and situations.\\n* Regarding the Memory-Based Attack Selection, we have introduced a new subsection in the manuscript to describe the memory component in detail. Our memory system consists of multiple stores: a long-term memory that keeps track of previous attack strategies, their success rates, and their query costs, a long-term memory for each prompt and its success and selected attack, and a short-term memory that records the current test case trajectory.\\n\\n*Time cost should also be considered*\\n\\nWe agree that evaluating the total computational overhead, including the time taken by the agent LLM modules, is important for a fair assessment of efficiency. \\n\\nFor evaluation on the HarmBench dataset using Llama-3.1-70B as the target model, the results are as follows:\\n\\nMethod | Time Cost | Cost per prompt\\n--- | --- | ---\\nAutoRedTeamer (Ours) | 4 hours, 25 minutes | 1.1 min\\nPAIR | 1 hour, 36 minutes | 0.4 min\\nTAP | 6 hours, 14 minutes | 1.6 min\\nFewShot | 56 Minutes | 0.23 min\\n\\nWhile AutoRedTeamer has a higher per-prompt time compared to PAIR, it achieves higher attack success rates and demonstrates a favorable trade-off between effectiveness and query cost. It is also faster than TAP. Additionally, the per-prompt time remains practical for large-scale evaluations.\\n\\n*Recent jailbreaking techniques should be considered as baselines*\\n\\nWe appreciate the suggestion to include recent jailbreaking techniques. We update our results below on gpt-4o. \\n\\nMethod | ASR (gpt-4o)\\n--- | ---\\nOurs | 69%\\nPAIR | 53%\\nTAP | 66%\\nArtPrompt | 39%\\nFewShot | 3%\\nPliny | 37%\\nPAP | 18%\\n\\nOur method outperforms PAP significantly. As a whole, our design is flexible and can easily incorporate new attacks in the toolbox, which we have demonstrated in a separate ablation below where we add the attack on Llama-2-7B from [1] to the toolbox. We find that our framework can also match the 100% success rate by initializing the memory with previously learned success rates. Without this initialized memory, performance is slightly lower as the agent explores less effective strategies before settling on the adaptive attack, which it learns to always select.\\n\\nMethod | ASR\\n--- | ---\\nOurs with adaptive attack + initialized memory | 100%\\nOurs with adaptive attack | 91%\\nOurs | 75%\\nAdaptive Attack | 100%\\n\\nWe hope our response addressed the reviewer\\u2019s concerns. We are happy to answer further questions.\\n\\n[1] Andriushchenko, M., Croce, F., & Flammarion, N. (2024). Jailbreaking Leading Safety-Aligned LLMs with Simple Adaptive Attacks. ArXiv, abs/2404.02151.\"}", "{\"title\": \"follow up to reviewer\", \"comment\": \"Dear Reviewer Uqx7,\\n\\nThank you for taking the time to review our submission and for providing valuable feedback. Since the discussion period is ending, we wanted to see if our response has adequately addressed the concerns and if there are points we could further clarify.\"}", "{\"title\": \"follow up to reviewer\", \"comment\": \"Dear Reviewer Uu9j,\\n\\nThank you for taking the time to review our submission and for providing valuable feedback. Since the discussion period is ending, we wanted to see if our response has adequately addressed the concerns and if there are points we could further clarify.\"}" ] }

[ "Pierre Marion", "Raphaël Berthier", "Gérard Biau", "Claire Boyer" ]

[ "theory of neural networks", "attention", "Transformer", "statistical learning theory", "optimization", "first-oder optimization", "gradient flow" ]

{ "note_id": [ "qKgMUCNKYy", "mJOu2UnsG7", "kHyQB43duu", "izxAzdXSGE", "iGSetsyq9a", "hneGp5tCkH", "ftDA6MVRpK", "YQNRGbM9PS", "UqtYh9H0tE", "TUd1d9Saih", "RNaxDwS7kd", "PFDbB70K0L", "P06k8VyOlN", "NYNfSyBZ2k", "DNINgfFCNn", "A7RVOGkL0Q", "8DVw7trcoj", "01h2GEgJhR" ], "note_type": [ "official_review", "official_comment", "official_comment", "official_comment", "official_comment", "official_comment", "meta_review", "official_review", "official_comment", "official_comment", "official_comment", "official_review", "official_comment", "decision", "official_comment", "official_comment", "official_review", "official_comment" ], "note_created": [ 1730464417845, 1732118208650, 1732117813914, 1732464617292, 1733106926247, 1732464537378, 1735003328852, 1730711885939, 1732453205948, 1732444629507, 1732454147972, 1731117764908, 1732117562650, 1737523551614, 1732464591321, 1732118060966, 1730307557553, 1732117675267 ], "note_signatures": [ [ "ICLR.cc/2025/Conference/Submission3065/Reviewer_1VPX" ], [ "ICLR.cc/2025/Conference/Submission3065/Authors" ], [ "ICLR.cc/2025/Conference/Submission3065/Authors" ], [ "ICLR.cc/2025/Conference/Submission3065/Authors" ], [ "ICLR.cc/2025/Conference/Submission3065/Reviewer_iaWj" ], [ "ICLR.cc/2025/Conference/Submission3065/Authors" ], [ "ICLR.cc/2025/Conference/Submission3065/Area_Chair_78cX" ], [ "ICLR.cc/2025/Conference/Submission3065/Reviewer_9Wat" ], [ "ICLR.cc/2025/Conference/Submission3065/Reviewer_1VPX" ], [ "ICLR.cc/2025/Conference/Submission3065/Reviewer_9Wat" ], [ "ICLR.cc/2025/Conference/Submission3065/Reviewer_gchu" ], [ "ICLR.cc/2025/Conference/Submission3065/Reviewer_iaWj" ], [ "ICLR.cc/2025/Conference/Submission3065/Authors" ], [ "ICLR.cc/2025/Conference/Program_Chairs" ], [ "ICLR.cc/2025/Conference/Submission3065/Authors" ], [ "ICLR.cc/2025/Conference/Submission3065/Authors" ], [ "ICLR.cc/2025/Conference/Submission3065/Reviewer_gchu" ], [ "ICLR.cc/2025/Conference/Submission3065/Authors" ] ], "structured_content_str": [ "{\"summary\": \"This paper introduces a new task, the single location regression task, showing it is solvable by a predictor resembling an attention layer, when a linear predictor fails. The result is theoretically well grounded and of good significance given the limited theory on attention layers and their striking efficacy. This task relates to key famous NLP problems known in the existing literature, serving as a good testbed for studying Transformers through a theoretical lens. The statistical performance of this attention-like optimal predictor is shown to exceed the one of an optimal linear predictor, under minimal assumptions. (projected) Gradient descent, is demonstrated to reach the optimal solution, wiith experiments provided to support the theory.\", \"soundness\": \"4\", \"presentation\": \"4\", \"contribution\": \"3\", \"strengths\": [\"The paper is extremely well written and very easy and pleasant to read.\", \"The analysis is theoretically strong and rigorous\", \"More generally, this work promotes an approach that is worth being acknowledged and valued: looking into a simpler problem than the ones practitioners can face, yet relevant, and solve it completely and rigorously.\", \"Additionally, the problem is well connected to practical concerns, with the authors made a convincing case for the significance of their analysis.\"], \"weaknesses\": [\"By decreasing order of importance\", \"The present work\\u2019s approach is not so well connected to the existing literature in line 103: \\\"note that our task shares similarities with single-index models (McCulllagh & Nelder, 1983) and mixtures of linear regressions (De Veaux, 1989)\\\". I see the differences between those works and the present one being hightlighted in the following sentence , but the exact nature of these similarities is not clear. Could this connection be elaborated?\", \"Minor: In the caption of figure 2, it may be helpful to add a note about the size of the squares, that presumably indicates the level of alignment.\", \"line 234: \\\"We emphasize that empirically this simplification of softmax using a component-wise nonlinearity has been shown not to degrade performance\\\". The cited paper Wortsman et al, 2023 indeed indicates such behaviour but their experiments include a normalisation.\", \"Broadly speaking, the question of whether softmax is needed in attention layers remains an open and unresolved one in the commuinity. To avoid overstating the case, consider rephrasing to reflect this ongoing debate. Note that I don\\u2019t think having used erf in your analysis diminushes the value of your work in any way.\"], \"questions\": [\"Could you point out (and explain) the steps in your proofs that would break if softmax were considered instead of erf. My guess is that preserving the independence is key (via elementwise application) but could sigmoid or any other nonlinear bounded increasing and differential elementwise activation work as well? It might be helpful to mention early on that the analysis could extend to a broader class of activations if that\\u2019s the case (modulo adjustments of the formulae in theorem 1).\", \"Linear predictors are shown to fail at solving the task and the comparison to them is much appreciated. Do you have a sense of how non linear predictors would in turn perform, thus this could show how attention layers are to be preferred to fully-connected layers for instance in such contexts (an analogue of proposition 3 in this case may not be true and probably non trivial to show, but in any case, interesting to discuss or to investigate).\", \"Are the tokens assumed to be independent (line 74) or independent conditionally on J_0 (line 85)? I did not read the proofs so I couldn\\u2019t figure it out myself but would be good to clarify. More generally, could you explain at which points of your proofs the independence is needed to help readers understand how this assumption could be relaxed for future works concerned with more realistic scenarios.\", \"Minor: line 1832 \\\"Our code is available at [XXX]\\\" in the appendix.\", \"Extra minor: line 469: a space is missing between \\\"Figure 4a\\\" and \\\"(right)\\\"\"], \"flag_for_ethics_review\": \"['No ethics review needed.']\", \"rating\": \"8\", \"confidence\": \"4\", \"code_of_conduct\": \"Yes\"}", "{\"title\": \"Author rebuttal\", \"comment\": \"**Answer to weaknesses:** Even in the setting we consider, which is indeed simpler than practice, the analysis already involves non-convex optimization dynamics, which requires advanced mathematical tools, mainly from dynamical systems theory. We refer to the proof sketch in Appendix A, which details the main technical steps and difficulties of the proof. Regarding softmax, we refer the reviewer to the general rebuttal for a discussion.\\n\\nWe thank the reviewer for the references. The article [2] is already cited in our paper, but we were not aware of [1] and [3], and we will cite them in the next version. While we agree with the reviewer that from a high-level perspective our approach is similar to [1]-[3], we believe that there are significant technical differences between our setting and theirs. In particular, this makes it far from obvious that their proof techniques for handling softmax could be directly borrowed in our case. We will discuss these papers in the next version, and provide some elements at the end of this rebuttal in case the reviewer is interested.\\n\\n**Q1:** Our proof technique relies on the use of the Center-Stable Manifold Theorem, a tool from dynamical systems theory. This tool does not provide quantitative rates of convergence. Obtaining a rate is a tricky matter because it requires quantifying the distance to the saddle points of the risk (since the dynamics is slower near saddle points), which in turn requires other tools of analysis and potentially additional assumptions. We will include this discussion in the next version. More generally, as mentioned above, Appendix A provides a 2-page proof sketch (that unfortunately does not fit within the page limit of the main paper).\\n\\n**Q2:** Informally, by the Central Limit Theorem (CLT), summing $L$ independent and zero-mean random variables with standard deviation $\\\\lambda$ gives a sum of the order of $\\\\lambda \\\\sqrt{L}$. As noted in the paper, the paragraph you refer to gives an informal intuition, while the proof provides a rigorous justification. We will mention in line 334 that the magnitude comes from the CLT.\\n\\n**Q3:** A possible direction to handle a general initialization is discussed in lines 500-505 of the article. In summary, the idea is to show that the manifold is stable in the sense of dynamical systems (i.e., if the dynamics are close to the manifold at a given time, they remain close to the manifold). Our numerical experiments suggest that such a generalization should hold, and that the temperature parameter $\\\\lambda$ should play a key role in this analysis.\\n\\n**Comparison with [1]-[3]:**\\n- Solving the task in [1] requires learning a fixed latent causal graph over the positions of the tokens, making positional encodings a critical element of the analysis. In contrast, our task is invariant under permutations of the tokens. Moreover, in [1], the output is expressed as a function of the last token, with the previous tokens providing the necessary context for this computation. In our setup, however, the output depends on a token whose position varies and must be identified within the context.\\n- In [2], the argument of softmax (i.e., a matrix $A \\\\in \\\\mathbb{R}^{L \\\\times L}$) is directly a parameter of the model, instead of being a product of the data and of some parameters. This is a radically different structure from the usual attention, and from our setup, where the data appear in the nonlinearity $\\\\sigma(X_\\\\ell^\\\\top k)$.\\n- The closest work to our setup is the recent paper [3], which also incorporates a notion of token-wise sparsity: the output is computed as the average of a small subset of tokens, where the subset is identified by comparing the positional encodings of each token with that of the last token. A key difference is that, in our setting, the tokens also encodes an output projection direction ($v^\\\\star$) on top of the information on the position of the informative token ($k^\\\\star$). In other words, our task involves learning a linear regression in addition to identifying the relevant token, which is not the case in [3].\"}", "{\"title\": \"Author rebuttal\", \"comment\": \"We agree with the reviewer that our model is simplified with respect to practical settings, but our goal in this paper is precisely to present and analyze a simplified model in order to understand real-world phenomena in a tractable setting.\\n\\n**W1.** The interesting but more complex case where the information is shared across multiple tokens instead of just one is related to multi-head attention. We have added an additional experiment and discussion on this topic (see the common answer for more details).\\n\\n**W2. and W3.** Simplifying the architecture is a common approach in theoretical studies of Transformers, often involving adjustments such as linear attention, omitting skip connections, or removing normalization, among others. That being said, we also performed an additional experiment demonstrating that our simplifications do not alter the phenomena under investigation (see common answer for more details).\\n\\n**W4.** Our proof technique relies on the use of the Center-Stable Manifold Theorem, a tool from dynamical systems theory. Unfortunately, this tool does not provide quantitative rates of convergence. Obtaining a rate is a challenging task as it would require quantifying the distance of the iterates to the saddle points of the risk (the dynamics is indeed slower near saddle points), which in turn requires other tools of analysis and potentially additional assumptions. We will include this discussion in the next version of the paper.\\n\\n**W5.** We indeed restrict the analysis of the dynamics when initializing on the invariant manifold, as discussed in the paper (lines 468-475). Our numerical experiments suggest that similar convergence behaviors should hold for a more general initialization. A possible direction to extend the proof is discussed in lines 500-505, requiring in particular to show that the invariant manifold is stable in the sense of dynamical systems (i.e., if the dynamics are close to the manifold at a given time, they remain close to the manifold).\\n\\n**W6.** Our approach is to start from the experimental evidence accumulated in the literature and provide a simplified model with similar patterns and tractable analysis. As a result, the reviewer is correct in stating that our contribution is mostly theoretical in nature, and does not consist of adding additional real-world empirical evidence to already well-established phenomena such as sparsity or internal linear representations. Besides, our experiment on linear probing on a pretrained BERT architecture, which is intended to verify the role of the [CLS] token as well as how BERT handles information contained in a single token, is closer to practice, although we acknowledge that the NLP task is synthetic.\"}", "{\"comment\": \"Thank you for acknowledging the rebuttal and your positive assessment of our paper.\"}", "{\"comment\": \"Thanks for your detailed experiment results. I will keep my positive score\"}", "{\"comment\": \"Thank you for acknowledging the rebuttal and increasing the score!\"}", "{\"metareview\": \"All reviewers find the paper written well presenting analysis of attention learning a rather simple problem. Authors argue that such thorough analysis is missing for Attention; even though done for a simpler setting, involves non-trivial complexities in the analysis. Other concerns were around model simplification such as removing softmax in attention for analysis. Overall I think this is a borderline paper\", \"additional_comments_on_reviewer_discussion\": \"Reviewers expressed concerns around simpler problem setting considered in the paper. Authors highlight non-trivialities in the analysis techniques.\"}", "{\"summary\": \"This paper studies the ability of attention mechanisms to deal with token-wise sparsity and internal linear representations. In order to demonstrate the capability, the paper proposes a simplified version of a self-attention layer to solve the single-location regression task, showing an asymptotic Bayes optimality and analyzing training dynamics.\", \"soundness\": \"3\", \"presentation\": \"3\", \"contribution\": \"2\", \"strengths\": \"The paper is well-written and easy to follow. A novel task called \\\"single-location regression task\\\" is introduced to satisfy the sparsity of the token and model real-world tasks to some extent. Despite the non-convexity and non-linearity, the paper is able to analyze the training dynamics and show the asymptotic Bayes optimality.\", \"weaknesses\": \"1. The proposed task may be over-simplified and lack generality. For instance, it assumes that the tokens other than $X_{J_0}$ have zero mean and only one token contains information.\\n2. The paper shows the connection to a single self-attention layer by using the assumption that $p=1$. Although the low-rank property may come true after the training process, it is so strong to make this assumption directly.\\n3. It is uncommon to use the function $erf$ to replace the softmax function. To demonstrate the feasibility of this simplification, more explanations or theoretical backups should be provided.\\n4. The paper shows the asymptotic results of $k_t, v_t$, while a non-asymptotic result is needed to investigate the convergence rates of these two parameters.\\n5. The initialization is limited to the specific manifold, which is better to extend to a more general one.\\n6. The current experiments only validate the theoretical results on synthetic datasets. It is recommended that the authors consider adding some experiments on real datasets to test the effects.\", \"questions\": \"See weaknesses.\", \"flag_for_ethics_review\": \"['No ethics review needed.']\", \"rating\": \"6\", \"confidence\": \"4\", \"code_of_conduct\": \"Yes\"}", "{\"comment\": \"I thank the authors for their responses and maintain my positive recommendation for their work, which I believe to be a good addition to ICLR. I hope this research inspires some conference attendees to delve deeper into Q2.\"}", "{\"comment\": \"I appreciate the detailed response given by the authors. As my concerns have been addressed to some extent, I will increase the rating from 5 to 6.\"}", "{\"comment\": \"Thank you for the author's efforts in their response. I have no further concerns and will maintain my score.\"}", "{\"summary\": \"This paper introduces a new theoretical approach to understand attention mechanisms by considering a task called single-location regression. The authors consider a simplified model that's related to self-attention layer and shows that the model can achieves asymptotic Bayes optimality, while linear regressors fail. The authors also use PGD to show that the non-convex loss function still converge.\", \"soundness\": \"3\", \"presentation\": \"4\", \"contribution\": \"3\", \"strengths\": \"1. The paper is well-written and easy to follow. For example, the step-by-step illustration of how to connect the construction to the attention mechanism in Section 3 is helpful for understanding.\\n2. The choice of model is good, like using [CLS] property which is observed in empirical study in (5) is natural and reasonable, and using erf as nonlinear weight function is also reasonable. In general, the theoretical result is solid.\\n3. Also contain some empirical result for showing the convergence of constructed model\", \"weaknesses\": \"1. The setting is restricted to single position token, although it focus on the sparse attention settings and it's already difficult to analyze, it's still far from the real-world case. Besides, the authors haven't done experiments on real-world experiments (like sentimental tasks as shown in Figure 1) to support some claims in the paper, this may kind of reduce the impact of the theoretical analysis. But in general it's already good as a theoretical-centric paper.\", \"questions\": \"1. What's the function of input in Figure 1 (a)? It seems that the Y label just depends on the output and the input is not related to the sentimental label?\", \"flag_for_ethics_review\": \"['No ethics review needed.']\", \"rating\": \"6\", \"confidence\": \"3\", \"code_of_conduct\": \"Yes\"}", "{\"title\": \"General rebuttal\", \"comment\": \"Dear Reviewers,\\n\\nWe sincerely thank you for your time and feedback on our paper, which will help us improve our work, and we appreciate your overall positive assessment. Thank you! \\n\\nWe emphasize that we are fully aware of the simplifications in our model with respect to practical settings. However, our goal in the present paper is precisely to present and analyze a simplified model in order to understand real-world phenomena in a tractable setting. It turns out that, even in this simpler setting, the analysis involves advanced mathematical tools, mainly from dynamical systems theory.\\n\\nBelow we answer two (related) questions raised by several reviewers: (1) the connection to practical models, and (2) the replacement of softmax by an element-wise nonlinearity.\\n\\n(1) **Connection to practical models:** Following the reviewers\\u2019 comments, **we performed additional experiments** that demonstrate the relevance of our simplified architecture as a model of Transformer layers. Specifically, we train a full Transformer layer (consisting of a standard single-head attention layer and a token-wise MLP, with skip connections and layer normalization) on single-location regression. We find that **this Transformer layer is able to solve single-location regression**. Furthermore, **the underlying structure of the problem** (namely the parameters $k^\\\\star$ and $v^\\\\star$) **is encoded in the weights of the trained Transformer, as is the case in our simplified architecture.** We also investigate the more complex variant of multiple-location regression, where the output depends on multiple input tokens (with multiple $k^\\\\star$ and $v^\\\\star$), and the associated case of multihead attention.\\n\\nWe have uploaded a revised version of the paper with the new experimental results at the end of the appendix (and will move some of these results into the main text in the camera-ready version, if accepted). Of course, if the paper is accepted, we will also incorporate content related to the other comments of the reviewers.\\n\\n(2) **Replacing softmax:** The role of softmax in attention is an active topic of discussion in the community, as reviewer 1VPX points out. On the practical side, many papers investigate other nonlinearities [1]-[3]. On the theoretical side, simplifying softmax to a linear activation, for example, is fairly standard [4]-[6]. In our mathematical analysis, the choice of an elementwise nonlinearity is key for the mathematical derivations. For example, we are able to compute a closed-form formula for the risk (Lemma 6), which relies on computing expectations of functions of Gaussian random variables (Lemma 18), which is specific to the erf activation. Nevertheless, as highlighted above, **we observe numerically that a standard attention layer with softmax exhibits similar behavior to our simplified model**. This suggests that softmax does not play a significant role in our context, and thus it is reasonable to consider the simpler case of elementwise nonlinearity. We will include this discussion in the next version of the paper.\\n\\nWith our thanks,\\n\\nThe authors.\\n\\n[1] cosFormer: Rethinking Softmax in Attention, Qin, Sun, Deng, Li, Wei, Lv, Yan, Kong, Zhong, ICLR 2022\\n\\n[2] A Study on ReLU and Softmax in Transformer, Shen, Guo, Tan, Tang, Wang, Bian, arXiv 2023\\n\\n[3] Replacing softmax with ReLU in Vision Transformers, Wortsman, Lee, Gilmer, Kornblith, arXiv 2023\\n\\n[4] Transformers learn to implement preconditioned gradient descent for in-context learning, Ahn, Cheng, Daneshmand, Sra, NeurIPS 2023\\n\\n[5] Trained Transformers Learn Linear Models In-Context, Zhang, Frei, Bartlett, JMLR 2024\\n\\n[6] How do Transformers perform In-Context Autoregressive Learning?, Sander, Giryes, Suzuki, Blondel, Peyr\\u00e9, ICML 2024\"}", "{\"title\": \"Paper Decision\", \"decision\": \"Accept (Poster)\"}", "{\"comment\": \"Thank you for acknowledging the rebuttal and your positive assessment of our paper.\"}", "{\"title\": \"Author rebuttal\", \"comment\": \"**W1:** This is a good point, and we agree with the reviewer that there is no direct connection. However, we felt it was important to mention these models because they have some similarities to our approach.\\n\\n1. In De Veaux (1989), the conditional distribution of output $Y$ given input $X$ follows a mixture model, expressed as $Y|X \\\\sim \\\\lambda*N(\\\\alpha_1+ \\\\beta_1 X, \\\\sigma^2) + (1-\\\\lambda)*N(\\\\alpha_2+\\\\beta_2 X, \\\\sigma^2)$. The connection to our model lies in the marginal distribution of each token, which in our case follows a Gaussian mixture $N(0, I)$ and $N(\\\\sqrt{\\\\frac{d}{2}} k^\\\\star, \\\\gamma^2 I)$.\\n\\n2. In McCullagh & Nelder (1983), single-index models correspond to generalized linear models, represented as $Y = g(\\\\beta^\\\\top X) + \\\\mathrm{noise}$, where $g$ is an unknown regression function learned with a nonparametric model (e.g., a neural network). A slight generalization is the multi-index model, where $\\\\beta$ is a matrix rather than a vector. In our case, the input is not a vector but a sequence of vectors. Nevertheless, the output $Y$ is computed as a nonlinear function of the projection of $X$ onto the directions $k^\\\\star$ and $v^\\\\star$. Thus, our model can be expressed as a specific instance of a multi-index model, where all tokens are stacked into a single large vector $X \\\\in \\\\mathbb{R}^{dL}$, $\\\\beta = ((k^\\\\star, \\\\dots, k^\\\\star), (v^\\\\star, \\\\dots, v^\\\\star))$, and with a specific link function $g$.\\n\\n**W2 and W3:** Thank you for pointing this out. We agree that the role of softmax remains an open question and will reformulate our discussion to avoid overstating its importance. We also acknowledge the critical role of normalization (even in the presence of softmax) and will emphasize this aspect more thoroughly, especially when referring to Wortsman et al. (2023). The importance of normalization is also evident in our experiments when the initialization is outside the manifold: the normalization parameter $\\\\lambda$ plays a central role in learning the parameters $k^\\\\star$ and $v^\\\\star$.\\n\\n**Q1:** The entire structure of the proof would break if softmax were used; see the common rebuttal for a specific example. The reviewer is correct in pointing out that the choice of erf over another nonlinear, bounded, increasing, equal to 0 at 0, and differentiable function is primarily for technical reasons. Specifically, erf is used because closed-form formulas exist for the expectation of erf and its derivatives applied to Gaussian random variables (see, e.g., Lemma 18). In principle, however, the behavior should remain similar for any such nonlinearity. We will include a discussion of this point in the next version.\\n\\n**Q2:** You raise an interesting point. Indeed, one could imagine an MLP designed specifically for this task, where the weights have a diagonal structure with respect to the sequence index. In such a setup, the first layer could learn the projections along $k^\\\\star$ and $v^\\\\star$, while subsequent layers could learn the link function $g$ (see above). However, this architecture is far from resembling those used in practice (and arguably halfway between attention and a standard MLP). If we do not assume a diagonal structure and instead use traditional MLPs, the number of parameters must scale at least linearly with the sequence length, which is highly suboptimal and may lead to very slow training. This highlights the efficiency of attention layers, which perform single-location regression with a fixed number of learnable parameters, independent of the input length. We will add a discussion on this matter.\\n\\n**Q3:** The tokens are indeed independent conditionally on $J_0$; thank you for pointing this out. This independence is mainly used to simplify the cross-token interaction terms in the risk evaluation, especially in the proof of Lemma 6 (see e.g. line 994). We will include a mention of this in the next version of the paper.\\n\\n**Q4 and Q5:** Thank you for the minor remarks. We will include the link to the code in the de-anonymized version of the paper.\"}", "{\"summary\": \"This work examines the transformer mechanism for solving the single-location regression task within a simplified non-linear self-attention setting. It provides a Bayes optimality guarantee for the oracle network predictor and demonstrates how the training dynamics allow the network to converge to this solution using projected gradient descent.\", \"soundness\": \"3\", \"presentation\": \"3\", \"contribution\": \"2\", \"strengths\": \"1. The mathematical analysis from both statistical and optimization perspectives is insightful, offering a comprehensive theoretical guarantee.\\n\\n2. The paper is well-written and easy to follow.\\n\\n3. Experiements are provided to support the theoretical findings.\", \"weaknesses\": \"My main concern lies in the motivation for studying this specific setting, characterized by token-wise sparsity and internal linear representations. While these features are relevant to real-world NLP scenarios, the essential mechanism for transformers to succeed in this setting is, first, to identify the underlying structure (the latent sparse pattern in this work) and then to perform a task-specific operation on this structure (linear transformations here). This intrinsic mechanism has been extensively explored across various settings (e.g., [1-3]), even with more realistic softmax attention. Thus, the technical significance of studying a simplified attention model in such a specific setting remains unclear. Could the authors elaborate on the specific technical difficulties encountered in this setting? What are the key technical challenges in extending the analysis to more realistic softmax attention?\\n\\n\\n\\n[1] How Transformers Learn Causal Structure with Gradient Descent. Nichani et al., 2024\\n\\n[2] Vision Transformers provably learn spatial structure. Jelassi et al, 2022\\n\\n[3] Transformers Provably Learn Sparse Token Selection While Fully-Connected Nets Cannot. Wang et al., 2024\", \"questions\": \"1. What is the specific convergence rate in Theorem 5? Since this forms a key part of the contribution in characterizing the training dynamics, a more detailed presentation in the main paper would be beneficial.\\n\\n2. In line 334, why is the entire sum on the order of $\\\\Theta(\\\\lambda \\\\sqrt{L})$?\\n\\n3. The PGD analysis relies on a relatively strong assumption that the initialization lies on the manifold. Could the authors discuss any possibilities for generalizing the current analysis to accommodate a broader range of initializations?\", \"flag_for_ethics_review\": \"['No ethics review needed.']\", \"rating\": \"6\", \"confidence\": \"4\", \"code_of_conduct\": \"Yes\"}", "{\"title\": \"Author rebuttal\", \"comment\": \"**W1.** Our approach is to start from the experimental evidence accumulated in the literature and provide a simplified model with similar patterns and tractable analysis. As a result, the reviewer is correct in stating that our contribution is mostly theoretical in nature, and does not consist of adding real-world empirical evidence to already well-established phenomena.\\n\\nFor example, with respect to sparsity, multiple papers (some of which we cite in lines 141-142) show that a wide range of NLP tasks exhibit token-wise sparsity, meaning that the relevant information is concentrated in $s \\\\ll L$ tokens. It is true that in our paper we consider the limiting case $s=1$ and provide an explanation of how attention layers deal with sparsity in this case. Studying the case $s > 1$ is a very interesting next step, and we provide additional preliminary experiments in the revised version of the paper (see the common rebuttal for more details). \\n\\nIn addition, our experiment on linear probing on a pretrained BERT architecture, to verify the role of the [CLS] token as well as how BERT handles information contained in a single token, is closer to practice, although we acknowledge that the NLP task is synthetic.\\n\\n**Q1.** Regarding Figure 1, the synthetic data is described in detail in Appendix E.1. To summarize, the label $Y = \\\\pm 1$ is indeed related to the input sentence, since we set the label to $1$ when a positive sentiment adjective (such as nice, cute, etc.) appears in the sentence, and to $-1$ in the case of a negative sentiment adjective. The color shading in Figure 1(a) was intended solely for visual illustration, but we acknowledge that the current figure and caption may be confusing (especially because we use both \\\"output\\\" and \\\"label\\\" in the caption to refer to the same quantity $Y = \\\\pm 1$). This will be clarified in the next version.\"}" ] }

[ "Wenhao Li", "Mingbao Lin", "Yunshan Zhong", "Shuicheng YAN", "Rongrong Ji" ]

[ "Long-Context LLMs; Context Compression; Sparse Optimization" ]

{ "note_id": [ "wUz9yeEFkb", "nZKQugdnr1", "eeVbMfpw0r", "QFMVTa216K", "EUdvfodG8q", "9uteC3IUwV" ], "note_type": [ "meta_review", "official_review", "official_review", "decision", "official_review", "official_review" ], "note_created": [ 1734932210974, 1730589483017, 1731417159457, 1737523447793, 1730188785397, 1730477563930 ], "note_signatures": [ [ "ICLR.cc/2025/Conference/Submission1330/Area_Chair_G3uP" ], [ "ICLR.cc/2025/Conference/Submission1330/Reviewer_gxfu" ], [ "ICLR.cc/2025/Conference/Submission1330/Reviewer_o2QR" ], [ "ICLR.cc/2025/Conference/Program_Chairs" ], [ "ICLR.cc/2025/Conference/Submission1330/Reviewer_dvE7" ], [ "ICLR.cc/2025/Conference/Submission1330/Reviewer_R53E" ] ], "structured_content_str": [ "{\"metareview\": \"SOLOS presents a method for training long-sequence LLMs with limited computational resources, enabling training on sequences up to 100K tokens using an 8x RTX3090 machine. The paper's strengths lie in addressing a critical practical problem in LLM deployment, demonstrating efficiency gains, and showing promising performance in specific metrics. However, significant weaknesses include limited novelty (with core ideas appearing in existing work like activation beacon and gist), insufficient experimental validation (primarily testing on LLaMA2-7B with few comparative baselines), technical concerns (including Flash Attention compatibility issues and unclear benefits of the complex architecture), and presentation issues (shallow treatment of related work and unclear positioning). The paper received low scores (3, 5, 5, 6) placing it in the bottom quartile of submissions. These factors, combined with multiple unaddressed technical concerns and unclear justification for architectural complexity, lead to a reject recommendation. The decision is particularly supported by the insufficient experimental validation and limited novelty relative to existing methods.\", \"additional_comments_on_reviewer_discussion\": \"Regarding the rebuttal period, notably there appears to be no author response or rebuttal discussion in the provided review thread, despite significant concerns raised by all reviewers. Reviewer o2QR questioned novelty and requested additional baseline comparisons, Reviewer R53E raised concerns about token eviction in multi-turn conversations and similarities to H2O, Reviewer dvE7 highlighted limited experimental coverage, and Reviewer gxfu questioned performance degradation at higher compression ratios. The absence of author responses to these substantial technical questions and requests for clarification is concerning and weighs negatively in the final decision. This lack of engagement during the rebuttal period, combined with the relatively low scores and consistent concerns across all reviews about novelty, experimental validation, and technical clarity, strongly supports the reject recommendation as these important issues remain unaddressed.\"}", "{\"summary\": \"The paper proposes SOLOS, a novel approach to training long-context LLMs and addresses the computational challenges of handling long sequences. The method uses a context compression framework with an encoder-decoder architecture, where the context is divided into segments and appended with special tokens. The key innovation lies in its efficient training methodology that combines incremental computation on the decoder side with reservoir sampling-based sparse optimization for the encoder, allowing training on sequences up to 100K tokens using modest computational resources (8\\u00d7 RTX3090).\", \"soundness\": \"3\", \"presentation\": \"3\", \"contribution\": \"3\", \"strengths\": \"1. The approach tackles an important real-world problem, the computational overhead of deploying long-context LLMs.\\n2. The combination of incremental computation and reservoir sampling is novel to me.\\n3. SOLOS matches or exceeds the performance of mainstream long-context LLMs while requiring significantly less computational resources.\", \"weaknesses\": \"1. Although SOLOS extends the context length to 100K with a ratio of 32, its perplexity often increases compared to using a ratio of 8. This suggests SOLOS may not fully leverage the 100K context length.\\n2. SOLOS appears to be significantly slower than regular LLMs when operating under a 4K context length.\\n3. The evaluation mainly focuses on LLaMA2-7B as the base model, which raises questions about its generalizability to other configurations, such as larger or more recent models.\", \"questions\": \"1. Have you tried using RULER to validate the context length of the trained model under different ratios?\", \"flag_for_ethics_review\": \"['No ethics review needed.']\", \"rating\": \"6\", \"confidence\": \"3\", \"code_of_conduct\": \"Yes\"}", "{\"summary\": \"This paper presents a method that first chunks input into segments and then attaches special tokens at each segment. There are two LLMs at play, with the first one taking the activation of the special tokens, going through a projector, and becoming some additional KV cache in the second LLM, which is responsible for the actual output generation. The first LLM and the projector are LoRA-tuned.\", \"soundness\": \"3\", \"presentation\": \"2\", \"contribution\": \"2\", \"strengths\": \"Advancing prefill compression techniques is a vital part of LLM efficiency, as long-context problems often come in this manner.\\n\\nPerformance demoed in Figure 7 is very impressive.\", \"weaknesses\": \"1. The idea of chunk processing a long input and using some special tokens per chunk to register context information is well explored. We have activation beacon (as mentioned by the authors), gist [1], ultragist [2] (both are not mentioned.), and maybe many other methods I don't know about have gone through this route. This limits the novelty of this work.\\n\\n2. Following #1, I am not sure if the more complicated design of the proposed method (2 LLMs in parallel, a projector, etc.) is worthwhile. There is virtually no efficiency comparison outside Figure 1(a), which only compares against the vanilla full attention baseline. \\n\\n3. The performance evaluation of this paper really only features 1 comparative method (activation beacon), as all other baselines are long context-tuned LLMs with full attention. This coverage is too thin.\\n\\n4. Following #3. The evaluation also really only applies the proposed method to one model (llama2-7b) and is mainly tested on one real long context dataset (longbench), which is, again, thin on coverage and a very dated model choice. I am interested in discussion/comparison wrt gist/ultragist, TOVA [3], DMC [4], and maybe even inference-only sparsity methods like MInference [5] and SnapKV [6]. As well as results on Rulers and InfiniteBench.\\n\\n5. The position of the paper is a bit vague. The experiment layout of this paper is akin to a long-context compression method that requires finetuning, but the paper heavily focuses on how it enables better long-context training. However, it looks like the support for the training claim comes down to being able to compress prefill and using LoRA for weight update. Which are 1) not something unique to the proposed method and 2) vastly underexplored compared to works studying efficient long-context training, such as [7].\\n\\n6. The paper has significant delivery issues, mostly revolving around having a rather shallow capture of existing works. For example, the authors mentioned their architectural similarity with activation beacon around line 162, but without diving into any details. The authors introduced reservoir sampling (a general randomized sampling technique) around line 300, but again did not provide much information regarding its adaptation in LLM nor how it solves the \\\"cache recover\\\" problem of pure random sampling (which is also an under-explained challenge).\\n\\nOverall, I think the method has good potential, mainly because of the performance demonstrated in Figure 7. It is rare to see methods doing compression at the token level able to recover the original text in natural language this well. However, I am afraid the delivery and evaluation coverage of the current work require much improvement.\\n\\n[1] Learning to Compress Prompts with Gist Tokens \\n[2] Compressing Lengthy Context With UltraGist \\n[3] Transformers are Multi-State RNNs \\n[4] Dynamic Memory Compression \\n[5] MInference 1.0: Accelerating Pre-filling for Long-Context LLMs via Dynamic Sparse Attention \\n[6] SnapKV: LLM Knows What You are Looking for Before Generation \\n[7] How to Train Long-Context Language Models (Effectively)\\n\\n---\", \"update\": \"I recently came to realize that ultragist is the same as activation beacon per https://github.com/namespace-Pt/UltraGist/issues/4. Given the authors have already compared with activation beacon, please ignore my requests regarding ultragist above. Sorry for the overlook.\", \"questions\": \"1. What's the background filler for your needle task? If it is the reputation of the same task, please consider rerunning it with a noisy background (or just do a full Ruler).\\n\\n2. Did you truncate the longbench input for different models/baselines?\", \"flag_for_ethics_review\": \"['No ethics review needed.']\", \"rating\": \"3\", \"confidence\": \"3\", \"code_of_conduct\": \"Yes\"}", "{\"title\": \"Paper Decision\", \"decision\": \"Reject\"}", "{\"summary\": \"This paper introduces SOLOS, a method aimed at reducing resource consumption in long-context scenarios. The approach utilizes an intra-layer parallel encoder-decoder structure to compress context and employs sparse optimization to reduce memory usage during training.\", \"soundness\": \"2\", \"presentation\": \"2\", \"contribution\": \"2\", \"strengths\": \"By compressing the context, the proposed approach lowers memory usage and improves generation speed for long-context models.\\n\\n1. Efficient Architecture\\n\\nThe model compresses context at a fixed rate, utilizing an encoder-decoder structure within each layer. The encoder compresses fixed-length segments into shorter special tokens, with shared encoder-decoder parameters adapted using LoRA.\\n\\n2. Memory-Efficient Training\\n\\nThe training process maintains fixed memory usage by applying recomputation and sparse optimization based on Reservoir Sampling.\", \"weaknesses\": \"The primary issue with this paper is the lack of experimental coverage.\\n\\n1. The experiments only compare the model with ICAE on auto-encoding tasks, lacking comparisons on other tasks. The Activation Beacon is also not evaluated on auto-encoding tasks.\\n\\n2. Other key-value (KV) cache compression methods, besides the Q-former-like approach, need to be considered in comparisons.\\n\\n3. Comparison of memory and speed with other methods is absent; only full-attention is compared, without evaluating other context compression techniques.\", \"minor_issues\": \"Citation for the baseline method Activation Beacon appears to be incorrect.\", \"questions\": \"Why is LoRA not applied to $W_k$ in the encoder?\", \"flag_for_ethics_review\": \"['No ethics review needed.']\", \"rating\": \"5\", \"confidence\": \"3\", \"code_of_conduct\": \"Yes\"}", "{\"summary\": \"This papper proposes SOLOS, which uses limited computational resources for efficiently training long-context LLMs. Standard attention mechanisms in LLMs have quadratic computational complexity, making them computationally expensive for long sequences. Previous approaches, like Q-former architectures that compress input sequences, reduce inference costs but often underperform with longer contexts compared to mainstream LLMs. SOLOS addresses these challenges by significantly reducing training overhead, enabling the training of long-sequence datasets\\u2014up to 100,000 tokens\\u2014for instruction tuning.\", \"soundness\": \"3\", \"presentation\": \"3\", \"contribution\": \"2\", \"strengths\": \"The problem focused in this paper is very important\", \"weaknesses\": \"First of all, many important long contex tasks are very sensitive to token eviction based compression. For example:\\n\\nGiven a long piece of material and then engages in a multi-turn conversation about it. Since questions are asked sequentially and depend on previous answers, it's impossible to predict which parts of the material will be important for all possible questions at the beginning. Unfortunately, multi-turn conversations are the most common use case for chatbots.\\n\\nSecond, the reservoir pattern in this paper is very similar to the heavy hitter in H2O [1]. However, there is no discussion on this.\\n\\nThird, distilling the context into special tokens have been already proposed in LongT5 [2]. There is no discussion or compairison.\\n\\nAlso, reservoir pattern is hard to be compatible with Flash Attention, which is a must-use in long context scenario. Can the author explain how you implement it in practice?\\n\\nFinally, please clearly state your setting of Needle test. Needle test is very sensitive to the prompt given to the model.\\n\\n\\n[1] H2O: Heavy-Hitter Oracle for Efficient Generative Inference of Large Language Models\\n\\n[2] LongT5: Efficient Text-To-Text Transformer for Long Sequences\", \"questions\": \"See Weaknesses\", \"flag_for_ethics_review\": \"['No ethics review needed.']\", \"rating\": \"5\", \"confidence\": \"4\", \"code_of_conduct\": \"Yes\"}" ] }

[ "Hamid Kalantari", "Mohammad Hossein Roohi", "Pouria Ramazi" ]

[ "Bayesian networks", "Causality", "Structure learning", "Distributed learning" ]

{ "note_id": [ "oAONIXA1i2", "lLxykcBDyp", "c2JxcqXFES", "N7hWdjdnVR", "6MWtjE0IFi", "3K3CkiFKyi" ], "note_type": [ "official_review", "official_review", "official_review", "decision", "meta_review", "official_review" ], "note_created": [ 1730228867581, 1730650736732, 1730019621469, 1737524196732, 1734917400819, 1730265576054 ], "note_signatures": [ [ "ICLR.cc/2025/Conference/Submission12513/Reviewer_uhxa" ], [ "ICLR.cc/2025/Conference/Submission12513/Reviewer_Lzgk" ], [ "ICLR.cc/2025/Conference/Submission12513/Reviewer_skzp" ], [ "ICLR.cc/2025/Conference/Program_Chairs" ], [ "ICLR.cc/2025/Conference/Submission12513/Area_Chair_yGKR" ], [ "ICLR.cc/2025/Conference/Submission12513/Reviewer_nUZE" ] ], "structured_content_str": [ "{\"summary\": \"The paper tackles the problem of structure learning of Bayesian networks with many variables. Structure learning is currently only done for a limited number of variables and is usually an approximation of the true graph. The authors present an exact distributed structure-learning algorithm to solve this by splitting the problem into several smaller parts as follows. The variables are divided into overlapping subsets (this division is called a \\\"cover\\\"). The division is done by using conditional independence such that edges can be correctly identified by learning a graph on each subset separately. The separated parts are joined using further conditional independence tests. Empirically, the proposed algorithm is found to improve the PC algorithm.\", \"soundness\": \"2\", \"presentation\": \"1\", \"contribution\": \"2\", \"strengths\": \"The presentation in sections 1 and 2 is nicely to-the-point. The examples in section 3 help to get an intuitive feeling. Distributed algorithms for structure learning are going to be an important step in tackling the computational hardness of the problem; compared to existing work, the exactness of the algorithm proposed here is a significant advantage.\", \"weaknesses\": \"**Problematic explanation** Section 3 was overall very unclear, to such an extent that I can't evaluate its correctness. It starts (in section 3.1) with an intuitive sketch of how the algorithms will work, and already provides some formal definitions, before the algorithms are given in section 3.2 and the proof of correctness in section 3.3. However, the intuitions and definitions given in section 3.1 do not align with how things actually work in the later sections. In particular, definition 3.1 (P-map reduction) gives conditions that a cover can satisfy; according to the paragraph below the definition, for such covers we can learn a graph on each subset, take their union (as defined just above definition 3.1), and this union will be the graph we are looking for (a P-map). This is incorrect, as demonstrated by these two counterexamples:\\n\\n- The distribution has P-map A -> B <- C, and the cover is {{A,B}, {B,C}}. This is a P-map reduction, but the union will not have directed arrows.\\n- The distribution has P-map with the three arrows A->B, A->C and A->D, and the cover is {{A,B},{A,C},{D}}. Again this is a P-map, but the union won't have a edge between A and D.\\n\\nIt might be the case that the actual proof of correctness later in the paper is not affected by these counterexamples (though I note that both counterexamples also meet definition 3.3: Conditional P-map reduction). But even if that is the case, the explanation in section 3.1 is not helpful but actually harms the reader's understanding of why the algorithms work and what the role of these definitions is. The actual conditions necessary on the cover aren't specified anywhere that I could see, so that I don't know how to review the correctness of Algorithm 4. (There are also problems with the clarify of the algorithms themselves; I list several questions about these below.)\\n\\n**Experiments** While the algorithm can be combined with any structure-learning algorithm, the empirical results only use the classical PC algorithm. The PC algorithm is also the only baseline algorithm that is compared against. A convincing empirical evaluation would consider a wider range of algorithms beyond just this one. In particular, an algorithm should be included that does not make the restrictive faithfulness assumption. (Contrary to what is stated on line 035, more recent algorithms use weaker assumptions instead of faithfulness.) Another limitation is that the experiments use $W=1$. (I didn't see this explained in the text, but from reading Algorithm 2, $W$ is apparently the maximum number of nodes in the separator.) So only the most simple setting of the algorithm seems to have been evaluated.\\n\\n**Relation to tree decomposition** The work seems related to treewidth-based structure learning algorithms, but no such methods are referenced. See for instance the relevant section in the survey by Scanagatta, Salmer\\u00f3n and Stella (2019). The decompositions considered in the paper under review seem to be of a very specific form: all components must consist of a subset of nodes unique to that component, and a subset that is shared by *all* components (Definition 3.4). The notion of the tree decomposition that underlies the definition of treewidth provides a substantial generalization of what decompositions are allowed. In view of this, I find this paper's concept of decomposition limits its significance.\", \"questions\": [\"Regarding related work, (Xie et al., 2006) and (Liu et al., 2017) are competing approaches for which it is mentioned that they require impractically large conditioning sets, and something similar is said about (Zhang et al., 2020). Can you demonstrate that your algorithm improves over those in this regard?\", \"Experimental results: What is the motivation for choosing these values of $W$ and $d$? Can you say why the Structural Hamming Distance of HEPAR2 is 7 points lower for Algorithm 1 than for PC? And why the running time on WIN95PTS is higher?\", \"In algorithms 2 and 3: What is $N_p$? What is the \\\"intersection method\\\"? What exactly is line 8 in algorithm 2 iterating over?\", \"In algorithm 4:\", \"in line 1, the $i$ isn't quantified over. Should this say that this line iterates over all $X,Y$ that occur *together* in some cover set's boundary?\", \"in line 2, what is the role of $i$? Should this be: for $(X,i)$ s.t. $X \\\\in bd(\\\\mathcal{X}_i)$?\", \"in line 4, I think you mean that both unions range over all $k$ such that ..., correct? (If so, write \\\"$k:$\\\" at the start of the subscript.)\", \"**Other remarks:**\", \"\\\"Concatenate\\\" and \\\"append\\\" are used in many places when talking about graphs. These are well-defined as operations on sequences, but it is unclear what they mean when applied to graphs.\", \"The paper frequently uses the word \\\"adjacent\\\" to describe a relation between nodes and edges; this relation is called \\\"incidence\\\"/\\\"incident\\\".\", \"\\\"without mediator variables\\\" (line 036) is probably not what you meant to say.\", \"Score-based approached do not require an exhaustive (i.e. brute-force) search (line 053)!\", \"Figure 1 has no subfigure (b), only (a) and (c). (Yet (b) is referenced somewhere.)\", \"An underspecified definition of \\\"cover separated by W\\\" is given before definition 3.1, but this term isn't used until after the actual definition (3.4) is given.\", \"Below definition 3.4, I find the story about the permutation matrix not very helpful. I'd recommend removing it and going straight to the explanation in terms of connected components.\", \"Lemma 3.8 doesn't seem to be proved nor used anywhere.\", \"Please don't position Table 1 in the middle of the proof.\", \"Reference Chen et al. (2019) is duplicated.\", \"line 650: I think Definition 2 should be Problem 2.\"], \"flag_for_ethics_review\": \"['No ethics review needed.']\", \"rating\": \"3\", \"confidence\": \"4\", \"code_of_conduct\": \"Yes\"}", "{\"summary\": \"The authors study the Bayesian network learning problem and propose an algorithm that first divides the original problem into several smaller subproblems, solves each subproblem using either a score- or constraint-based method, and then combines the solved subproblems to form the final p-map. They provide theoretical guarantees and empirical evaluations.\", \"soundness\": \"3\", \"presentation\": \"3\", \"contribution\": \"2\", \"strengths\": \"This problem is relevant to the causal inference literature.\\n The paper is well-written, with necessary concepts clearly explained. \\nThe proposed method is particularly interesting as it breaks the problem into smaller subproblems, potentially leading to more efficient learning algorithms for large networks. \\nThe theoretical results are valuable and could contribute to future developments.\", \"weaknesses\": \"Although the proposed learning algorithm is novel and theoretically sound, its efficiency and scalability are not analyzed. The first part of the proposed method relies on a crucial hyperparameter, d, which determines both the efficiency and the soundness of the algorithm. How is this parameter selected? Is it possible to estimate it from data?\\n\\nThe authors claim that the proposed method is suitable for learning large networks. However, since there are no theoretical results comparing the number of conditional independence (CI) tests performed by this algorithm to those performed by other relevant algorithms, this claim is not well supported. Additionally, the empirical evidence is too limited to demonstrate the superiority of the proposed algorithm; it is only compared against the PC algorithm. How does it perform against other constraint- and score-based algorithms?\", \"questions\": \"Please see the above comments.\", \"flag_for_ethics_review\": \"['No ethics review needed.']\", \"rating\": \"5\", \"confidence\": \"4\", \"code_of_conduct\": \"Yes\"}", "{\"summary\": \"This paper proposes an exact distributed structure learning method. The proposed method first divides the variables into a set of groups of variables by using conditional independence tests in order to make sure that the edges connecting interior variables in each group can be solely identified without accessing the variables in other groups. The authors provide theoretical proof of their theory and evaluate their method on some datasets. The results show that the proposed algorithm outperforms the classic PC algorithm in some of the tested datasets.\", \"soundness\": \"2\", \"presentation\": \"3\", \"contribution\": \"3\", \"strengths\": \"The work is well written, and the motivation is clear and sufficient. The paper proposes a novel exact structure learning algorithm with solid theoretical guarantees. Compared with other exact learning algorithms, the proposed method requires less computational time.\", \"weaknesses\": \"1. Although the authors claim in the abstract that \\\"This approach allows for a significant reduction in computation time, and opens the door for structure learning for a \\u201cgiant\\u201d number of variables.\\\". No BN with a \\\"giant\\\" number of variables was tested in the experiment. It would be more convincing if the author could evaluate the proposed method in larger BNs.\\n2. There is a lack of comparison with other score-based algorithms, especially other exact score-based algorithms that also guarantee the return of the true PDAG, such as GOBNILP.\\n3. The experimental results in Table 2 show that there is merely a slight difference between the performance of ALG. 1 and PC, which is insufficient to prove the effectiveness of the proposed algorithm.\", \"questions\": \"1. In the second example (Figure 2 on page 4), if we separate the variables as {X1, X2, X3}, {X1, X13, X2}, and a series of consecutive two nodes groups, for example {X3, X4}, {X4, X5}, {X5, X6}, etc. Isn't this separation a valid P-map reduction? Does it violate any of the three criteria in Definition 3.1?\\n2. Does the conditional P-map reduction exist for every DAG?\", \"flag_for_ethics_review\": \"['No ethics review needed.']\", \"rating\": \"5\", \"confidence\": \"4\", \"code_of_conduct\": \"Yes\"}", "{\"title\": \"Paper Decision\", \"decision\": \"Reject\"}", "{\"metareview\": \"The authors present an exact distributed algorithm for structure learning by divide and conquer. The variables are divided into overlapping subsets called covers such that edges can be identified by learning a graph on each subset separately and then joined in the end. Several reviewers raised concerns, with one expert reviewer flagging significant issues with the evaluation as well as concerns over correctness. Without a response from the authors, this paper needs to be reviewed after a significant revision.\", \"additional_comments_on_reviewer_discussion\": \"There is no response from authors.\"}", "{\"summary\": \"This paper studies structure learning for faithful DAG models under distributed learning setup. It proposes an distributed algorithm to recover the P-map of the underlying distribution exactly, which has three steps: decompose the whole set of variables into subsets of variables (covers) via so-called conditional P-map reduction; perform structure learning for each of the cover in a parallel manner; concatenate the learned P-maps for the covers together and further figure out the edges between the nodes on the boundary of the covers. The proposed algorithm is shown to recover the P-map consistently. Experiemnts are conducted compared with classic PC algorithm.\", \"soundness\": \"3\", \"presentation\": \"3\", \"contribution\": \"3\", \"strengths\": [\"The paper is well written with illustrating examples, helpful pause and summary of goals.\", \"Modern structure learning is restricted when huge number of nodes is present. This paper explores distributed learning as a way out, and rigorously provides an approach to effectively conduct distributed learning for structure learning by decomposing the problem into more tractable subproblems.\", \"Experiments on several datasets show competitive accuracy compared to PC algorithm, and faster runtime, demonstrating the promising performance of distributed learning.\"], \"weaknesses\": [\"Algorithms 2 and 3 are dense in notations, which are hard to parse and understand the intuition. While several sentences are available to describe the algorithms, more details are desired to clearly convey the message. Maybe a running example is helpful to understand the algorithms.\", \"The theoretical results in Section 3.3 are stated without further explanation. The detailed proof can be moved to appendix, and replaced by the implication of each lemma and a proof outline of the Theorem 3.10.\", \"More benchmarks should be added in the experiments, at least GES.\"], \"questions\": [\"The step to find the separating covers seems to be time consuming. In Algorithm 2, at the beginning when $\\\\mathcal{U}=\\\\mathcal{X}$, we need to consider the power set of all variables as candidates, which is also exponential in number of total variables, which is comparable to PC algorithm. How do we understand the tradeoff?\", \"Is there any time complexity result? e.g. dependence on number of variables, maximum degree, input parameters $d,W$.\", \"The improvement in runtime in Table 1 is not significant compared to PC. They seem to be on the same order. Any explanation on that?\", \"What is $\\\\mathcal{X}_k$ in Algorithm 4?\"], \"flag_for_ethics_review\": \"['No ethics review needed.']\", \"rating\": \"8\", \"confidence\": \"2\", \"code_of_conduct\": \"Yes\"}" ] }

[ "Hyunji Jung", "Hanseul Cho", "Chulhee Yun" ]

[ "Continual Learning", "Sequential Learning", "Gradient Descent", "Linear Classification", "Convergence", "Implicit Bias" ]

{ "note_id": [ "y9uek4u14l", "t64dQ35ni5", "o0CWRVVrPw", "nCMR1IhzYx", "gp5KY4dLfb", "eUS7BrHdFz", "adiMcuU8nc", "WtWP2GweJI", "Vakopi44pB", "St2jwy4Rkh", "PV2x8pVus2", "KK7Xrgbajq", "KGCV5Sr92a", "J0Lzvvpwak", "F9FlnaZvOA", "EQh4V4o1BV", "ARd3nOYPnU", "7YX7FWTrNY", "2b1uNrB63g", "0rcmwVIY1o", "0BMFr3l5Q3", "02iRyAGstr" ], "note_type": [ "official_comment", "official_comment", "official_comment", "official_review", "official_review", "official_comment", "official_comment", "official_comment", "official_comment", "official_comment", "official_review", "official_comment", "official_comment", "decision", "official_comment", "official_comment", "official_comment", "official_review", "official_comment", "official_comment", "official_comment", "meta_review" ], "note_created": [ 1732535338980, 1732262545131, 1732554570868, 1730650505818, 1730702009011, 1732262537930, 1732791012003, 1732263062175, 1732263013560, 1732262614593, 1730700975575, 1732262817930, 1732262433177, 1737524279266, 1732661916556, 1732262842754, 1732662395987, 1730671866701, 1732556964187, 1732262867792, 1732262377253, 1734956305984 ], "note_signatures": [ [ "ICLR.cc/2025/Conference/Submission13745/Authors" ], [ "ICLR.cc/2025/Conference/Submission13745/Authors" ], [ "ICLR.cc/2025/Conference/Submission13745/Reviewer_a4PQ" ], [ "ICLR.cc/2025/Conference/Submission13745/Reviewer_a4PQ" ], [ "ICLR.cc/2025/Conference/Submission13745/Reviewer_sGag" ], [ "ICLR.cc/2025/Conference/Submission13745/Authors" ], [ "ICLR.cc/2025/Conference/Submission13745/Authors" ], [ "ICLR.cc/2025/Conference/Submission13745/Authors" ], [ "ICLR.cc/2025/Conference/Submission13745/Authors" ], [ "ICLR.cc/2025/Conference/Submission13745/Authors" ], [ "ICLR.cc/2025/Conference/Submission13745/Reviewer_1DCj" ], [ "ICLR.cc/2025/Conference/Submission13745/Authors" ], [ "ICLR.cc/2025/Conference/Submission13745/Authors" ], [ "ICLR.cc/2025/Conference/Program_Chairs" ], [ "ICLR.cc/2025/Conference/Submission13745/Reviewer_1DCj" ], [ "ICLR.cc/2025/Conference/Submission13745/Authors" ], [ "ICLR.cc/2025/Conference/Submission13745/Reviewer_uaBW" ], [ "ICLR.cc/2025/Conference/Submission13745/Reviewer_uaBW" ], [ "ICLR.cc/2025/Conference/Submission13745/Authors" ], [ "ICLR.cc/2025/Conference/Submission13745/Authors" ], [ "ICLR.cc/2025/Conference/Submission13745/Authors" ], [ "ICLR.cc/2025/Conference/Submission13745/Area_Chair_6dAy" ] ], "structured_content_str": [ "{\"title\": \"General Response about Experiments (3/3) (New!)\", \"comment\": [\"Dear all reviewers,\", \"**We just made an additional revision to our experiments and the paper, as we promised before. The updates in the paper are marked in green. Before describing the updates, please recall that the end of the discussion period is only a few days away. Since we have responded to all reviewers' concerns and incorporated corresponding changes in our revised paper, please look into our responses and the new manuscript. If these address your concerns, it would be appreciated if this could be reflected via updated assessments. If you have any remaining concerns or questions, we would be grateful to hear them and will do our best to address them as soon as possible.**\", \"For the rest of this official comment, we briefly summarize the key updates in our paper. Note that we also updated the codes provided in the supplementary material.\", \"### **Overall changes throughout the paper**\", \"We modified a bit misleading term \\\"task similarity\\\" into \\\"task alignment\\\" to capture the meaning of the terms $N\\\\_{p,q}$ and $\\\\bar{N}\\\\_{p,q}$ in essence. For a detailed context on it, please refer to our response to the reviewer 1DCj's Q3.\", \"### **Section 1: Introduction**\", \"When describing a previous work (Evron et al., 2023), we toned down our previous criticism on it in the fourth paragraph, as per the reviewer a4PQ's suggestion.\", \"We slightly changed the visualization in Figure 1, which originally contained too many points and thus slowed down opening the paper. Instead of tracking every gradient update, we drew only the end-of-stage iterates in order to capture the stage-wise evolutions in each trajectory, which is enough to showcase the implicit bias of sequential GD in our toy example. The code for generating Figure 1 is modified as well, which can be found in our supplementary material.\", \"### **Section 2: Problem setup**\", \"As per the reviewer sGag's suggestion (Weakness 5), we cited explicit examples of cyclic and random task orderings.\", \"### **Section 3: Cyclic Learning of Jointly Separable Tasks**\", \"**Figure 2:** We conduct an experiment on a more sophisticated two-dimensional dataset and provide a clear visualization of the parameter trajectories, clearly exhibiting the expected implicit bias toward the joint max-margin in direction.\", \"Below Figure 2, we left comments about:\", \"The experimental results on a more general continual learning setup where the total dataset is no longer fixed over time.\", \"The experimental results with shallow (two-layer) ReLU networks.\", \"**Figure 3:** We provide a better visual description of the cases where the cycle-averaged forgetting is small (\\\"aligned\\\") and large (\\\"contradict\\\").\", \"### **Section 5: Beyond Jointly Separable Tasks**\", \"The original version of Lemma 5.1 misses the dependency on a parameter $G$ (introduced in Assumption 5.2): we corrected it.\", \"Below Theorem 5.2, We added a discussion on the loss convergence rate, naturally derived from the iterate convergence rate in the theorem.\", \"After that, we left a comment on a real-world dataset experiment (with CIFAR-10).\", \"### **Appendix A: Other Related Works**\", \"Due to the space limit, we moved this section to the very first appendix.\", \"### **Appendix B: Brief Overview of Evron et al. (2023) and Comparisons**\", \"We now provide a better description & discussion on Sequential Max-Margin (SMM) algorithm, especially in the last two paragraphs.\", \"We moved the plot about SMM (not converging to the joint max-margin in direction) to the next appendix (Appendix C).\", \"### **Appendix C: Experiment Details & Omitted Experimental Results**\", \"***We put almost all experimental results produced during the discussion period in this appendix!***\", \"All codes for generating every figure are now available in our supplementary material.\", \"Here is a list of experiments added during the discussion period:\", \"More realistic synthetic 2D datasets + linear classifier, under cyclic and random task ordering. (Appendices C.2.1 - C.2.3, see #1 in our general response above.)\", \"Constantly changing 2D datasets + linear classifier, under cyclic and random task ordering. (Appendix C.2.4, see #2 in our general response above.)\", \"2D dataset + two-layer **ReLU** nets. (Appendix C.4, see #4 in our general response above.) **(NEW!)**\", \"Although we only present the cyclic ordering case in our paper, we had almost identical observations for random ordering and even under constantly changing datasets. You can find the plots in our supplementary material.\", \"**CIFAR-10** + linear classifier. (Appendix C.5, see #3 in our general response above.)\", \"Again, we thank all the reviewers for their time and effort in reviewing our work. We hope these revisions address your concerns. Please do not hesitate to leave more comments and questions if you have any.\", \"Warm regards,\", \"Authors\"]}", "{\"title\": \"Author's Response (1)\", \"comment\": \"We highly appreciate the reviewer for their constructive feedback. Below, let us provide our response to the comments and questions raised by the reviewer:\\n\\n**W1. Misalignment with practical settings, e.g., cyclic ordering of tasks**\\n\\nThank you for the insightful question. Indeed, our setting does not fully align with the practice of continual learning. However, we believe that our theoretical analyses are useful because 1) the insights can carry over to more general setups, 2) they offer a theoretical basis for a simple baseline algorithm, and 3) they can serve as a stepping stone for more sophisticated analyses on continual learning techniques.\\n\\n1. Indeed, if there are all training data for all tasks given a priori, one can combine them and run SGD. However, we note that there can be scenarios where utilizing the combined training dataset becomes **impossible**, e.g., when the datasets for different tasks are stored in distributed data silos and communication of data points is expensive or prohibited. Moreover, we believe that our theoretical findings can be extended to a more general **online** continual learning setup, beyond the current setup that uses the same data points over and over again. Consider a finite number of tasks\\u2019 data distributions (with bounded supports) which are jointly separable, and let them be cyclically/randomly chosen one by one at each stage. Suppose a finite-size training dataset from each data distribution is sampled every time we encounter a task. Even in this case, we expect that the story would be the same: the continually trained linear classifier will eventually converge to the max-margin direction that jointly classify every task\\u2019s data distribution support. In our revised paper, we empirically demonstrate this in Appendix C.2.4.\\n2. Our theoretical analyses may not immediately offer any guidelines or suggestions for practitioners interested in general continual learning problems. However, we believe that our work provides a theoretical basis for a concrete **baseline**: \\u201cyou should do better than this.\\u201d Our theory reveals that when the same (or similar) tasks appear repeatedly, a naive algorithm without any techniques (e.g., regularization or replay) specialized for continual learning will eventually \\u201cwork,\\u201d in terms of convergence to a desirable offline solution and vanishing forgetting. Thus, we expect that such a naive algorithm does not always fail in more practical scenarios, and any new approach for continual learning should be able to outperform this simple baseline.\\n3. Furthermore, we believe our analysis can serve as a stepping stone to more advanced theoretical analyses on more practical approaches such as regularization- and replay-based methods.\\n\\n**W2. Empirical results to validate the theoretical findings**\\n\\n- Thank you for pointing this out. As all reviewers raised similar concerns, we posted a **General Response** specifically about experiments; please have a look. To be a bit more specific, we performed several experiments on synthetic 2D datasets in order to validate our theoretical results under cyclic/random task ordering. Also, we provide an experiments on a more realistic dataset (CIFAR10). Besides, we also plan to conduct deep learning experiments and will put the results in our paper.\"}", "{\"title\": \"Raising my score\", \"comment\": \"I have read the other reviews and (most of) the author responses.\\nI also skimmed over the revised paper.\\n\\nI believe the reviewing process has improved the paper, which is a good paper and, in my humble opinion, is now ready for publication. \\nTherefore, I raise my score to 8.\\n\\n----\", \"final_remarks\": \"1. I encourage the authors to include some general proof/appendix sketches like they said they will add in the next version.\\n2. I believe that the revised part in Line 204 should be $\\\\phi=1/\\\\Vert \\\\hat{w} \\\\Vert$.\"}", "{\"summary\": \"The paper analyses continual learning in a linear classification setting.\\nThe analysis focuses on a simple unregularized setting with a fixed number of gradient steps per task (in contrast to a previous paper that studied the regularized setting when learnt to convergence).\\nBoth asymptotic and non-asymptotic results are derived, showing that when task recur cyclically or randomly, the iterates converge to the global offline max-margin solution across all tasks. \\nThis paper advances the theoretical CL field by clearly showing a different behavior than the one of the weakly regularized case studied in a previous paper.\", \"soundness\": \"3\", \"presentation\": \"4\", \"contribution\": \"3\", \"strengths\": [\"**The paper is well written**.\", \"**The contributions are clear and significant to the theoretical CL field**.\", \"The main results show the implicit bias of continual linear classification when learned in a practical setup with a fixed number of gradient steps, given that tasks recur in the sequence. Consequently, they show a separation between that setup and a previously-studied weakly-regularized setup which can be considered as less practical.\"], \"weaknesses\": \"- **Results are not especially insightful**.\\nThe previous paper by Evron et al. (ICML 2023) proved a clear projection-like behavior (\\\"SMM\\\") under the weakly-regularized continual linear classification setup. Their results showed an iterative behavior that is somewhat insightful even for \\\"arbitrary\\\" task sequences. \\nHowever, the paper reviewed here proves a behavior that is only informative in the presence of task repetitions. \\n(This is not strictly a weakness since it might be the only behavior that one could possibly prove; but still it is only insightful given task recurrence.)\\n\\n- **The appendices are hard to follow and verify.** Many steps are insufficiently explained (e.g., it's not very clear how Eq. (20) stems from (19); the steps in Eq. (26) are also unclear). \\nThis prevented me from quickly validating a random subset of the proofs.\", \"questions\": [\"I have no questions but rather some minor remarks that I suggest that the authors address in their revisioned version. I do not expect an author response on these bullets.\", \"Line 62: I wouldn't say SMM *\\\"cannot be shown to converge to the offline max-margin solution\\\"*, but rather that it *does not always* converge to that solution (as shown in Figure 1c of Evron et al. 2023). Also, I'm not sure that it should be considered a *\\\"limitation\\\"* of SMM, since this is merely the behavior of the weakly-regularized setup. I wouldn't even say that it's an advantage of the unregularized setup on the weakly-regularized setup, but rather that we see here two different behaviors that can describe continual classification to some extent.\", \"Figure 1 could be clearer. Maybe a 2d example would be more suitable for a paper?\", \"Line 105: the sentence negates the forgetting and the loss but at this point it's still unclear what the difference is.\", \"Line 112: is \\\"symptotic\\\" a word? That part of the sentence might need to be rephrased.\", \"Line 143: \\\"be a set of\\\" => \\\"be the set of\\\"?\", \"Line 212: not sure \\\"generic\\\" is a good choice here.\", \"Theorems 3.1 & 4.1:\", \"In the second result, *\\\"Every data point is classified correctly\\\"*; perhaps say \\\".. is **eventually** classified correctly\\\"?\", \"The third result seems like an auxiliary result (proposition?) that is not of any practical interest (unlike the first two). I would reconsider its current location in the main results.\", \"Figure 2: not very clear. Maybe add a subfigure with the actual 2d parameter space?\", \"Line 432: do you really need to span the *whole* space? In linear regression we can usually ignore unused directions due to the rotation invariance. Maybe I am missing something, but please reverify this.\", \"Line 434: strictly or strongly?\", \"Line 436: *\\\"faster rate\\\"*, faster than what?\", \"Theorem 5.2: authors should explain the differences from the separable case. And also explicitly explain how the bound on the iterate gap yields a bound on the loss and forgetting.\", \"Line 506: \\\"implicit bias on\\\" => \\\"of\\\"?\", \"Line 523 say *\\\"are no solution\\\"* instead of \\\"is\\\".\", \"Many formulas in the Appendices exceed the page margins (e.g., Pages 19-20).\", \"Some citations are incomplete or inaccurate. For instance, *\\\"Stochastic gradient descent on separable data: Exact convergence with a fixed learning rate\\\"* was published at AISTATS 2019; and *\\\"Continual Learning with Tiny Episodic Memories\\\"* was published at ICML 2019.\", \"Line 806-809: Evron et al. (2023) already showed it (see their aforementioned Figure 1c).\", \"Line 828: might need rephrasing.\", \"Line 831 say *\\\"contrained\\\"*.\", \"Line 918: *\\\"proposed by indicates\\\"*, rephrase?\", \"Line 1152: Missing whitespace.\", \"Equations (74,75): It's not common to use the $O(\\\\cdot)$ notation for negative quantities. I think the authors need instead $\\\\log(t)-\\\\log(t-1)=O(t^{-1})$.\"], \"flag_for_ethics_review\": \"['No ethics review needed.']\", \"rating\": \"8\", \"confidence\": \"4\", \"code_of_conduct\": \"Yes\"}", "{\"summary\": \"The paper considers continual learning setting in which a linear classifier is trained for a fixed number of iterations on tasks (either cyclic or random). In the separable case, the papers shows (directional) convergence to the offline (i.e., combined) max-margin classifier for cyclic and randomised ordering of tasks. In the separable, the paper also characterises (i) forgetting and (ii) backward transfer (for aligned tasks). The paper also shows convergence to overall minimum in the non-separable case.\", \"soundness\": \"The theorems are stated clearly with proofs.\", \"presentation\": \"4\", \"contribution\": \"2\", \"strengths\": \"Clarity : The paper is clearly written.\", \"originality\": \"Shows results under fixed budget of iterations at every stage. This is an improvement over the Sequential Max-Margin.\", \"weaknesses\": \"The main weakness is in the novelty and significance.\\n\\n1) No experiment with real world dataset.\\n\\n2) No experiments with realistic synthetic dataset : The paper presents only one experiment on a synthetic dataset with 6 points. Experiments should be detailed in such a way to bring out all the important results.\\n\\n3) Setting may not be novel: Given that there is an overall linear classifier, the protocols of cycling training or randomised training seem superfluous. To elaborate, we are not in the online learning setting, so we have all the training data of all the tasks apriori. We also know that there is a single linear classifier. So what is wrong if we combine the datasets of all the tasks into one and train using SGD with batches of data (batches either cycled or random) as it is done always? \\n\\n4) Are batches Tasks? : It is a standard practice to use SGD with batches of data (either cyclic or random). And it is not surprising/novel to know that SGD with batch converges. Is the paper just fancily calling batches as tasks?\\n\\n5) No Connection to realistic/standard settings : The paper mentions that \\\"cyclic task ordering covers search engines influenced by periodic events. Random task ordering bears resemblance to Autonomous driving in randomly recurring environments\\\". These instances do convey meaning of cyclic, and randomised tasks for a reader who is looking at these the first time. However, the paper has to be specific in terms of specific set of standard datasets and standard real world scenarios. \\n\\n6) No recommendations for practice : Theoretical results are very important and sometimes can be obtained under even restrictive assumptions. However, the results should also give rise to some recommendation in realistic scenarios. This paper fails in this aspect.\", \"questions\": \"Please see the weaknesses.\", \"flag_for_ethics_review\": \"['No ethics review needed.']\", \"rating\": \"5\", \"confidence\": \"3\", \"code_of_conduct\": \"Yes\"}", "{\"comment\": [\"We appreciate the reviewer for their insightful and positive review. Below, we address the reviewer\\u2019s concern and answer the raised questions.\", \"**W1. Limited setting: logistic loss and linear model.**\", \"We remind the reviewer that logistic loss is a special case of cross-entropy loss for binary classification. Since cross-entropy loss shares the same shape as logistic loss, we should be able to extend our analysis to general multi-class classification as Soudry et al. (2018) did. We only considered the binary classification case just for simplicity of presentation.\", \"Due to its non-convexity, non-linearity, and the existence of local minima, theoretical understanding of deeper models is much more involved. In our work, we consider linear classifiers as a starting point of our theoretical analysis since they are more amenable to study. However, we believe some insights from our results can be extended to a larger model; for instance, when tasks are given repeatedly in a neural network setup, we expect that the total loss would eventually decrease even with the naive and problem-agnostic sequential GD algorithm. We plan to add an empirical verification of our claim later by the end of the discussion period.\", \"**W2. Lack of experiments, e.g., deep learning.**\", \"Thank you for pointing this out. We plan to add some deep learning experiments later in our revisions. However, due to time constraint and computational burden, we will attach some of the results before the end of the discussion period, and will attach some other results later. Please check out our **General Response** handling all reviewer\\u2019s concerns about lack of experiments.\", \"**Q1. Intuition behind \\u201cTight Exponential Tail\\u201d Assumption**\", \"The tight exponential tail assumption means the loss gradient exponentially decreases as the prediction becomes more confident in the accurate direction. Loss functions such as logistic loss and cross-entropy loss satisfy this condition. Since those functions are practically used in classification, it is a standard assumption.\", \"Also, we would like to mention that the assumption is crucial in proving the desired directional convergence to the max-margin direction. If the loss function does not meet the tight exponential tail assumption, then it can induce a totally different implicit bias of the optimization algorithm (Ji et al., 2020).\", \"**Q2. Figure 1: Why all data have labels +1?**\", \"In binary linear classification, a dataset $\\\\\\\\\\\\{(x_i, y_i)\\\\\\\\\\\\}$ which has labels $y_i\\\\in \\\\\\\\\\\\{-1,1\\\\\\\\\\\\}$ is equivalent to a dataset $\\\\\\\\\\\\{(y_i x_i, 1)\\\\\\\\\\\\}$. That is, the two datasets result in exactly the same loss function, optimization trajectory, max-margin direction, etc. Thus, we choose all data to have labels +1 without loss of generality.\"], \"title\": \"Author's Response (1)\"}", "{\"title\": \"Kind reminder regarding review process\", \"comment\": \"Dear reviewer sGag\\n\\nThank you for your important questions and insightful comments in the first review. We uploaded our developed manuscript which provides clearer real-world scenarios and supplementary experiments. As the discussion period is almost over, please check out our revised paper and our response if you haven\\u2019t done so. We hope that our revision and the rebuttal resolve your initial concerns. If you feel the same, we would appreciate if this could be reflected through an updated score. Also, please do not hesitate to let us know if you have any remaining questions. We appreciate your contribution to the reviewing process.\\n\\nSincerely,\\nAuthors\"}", "{\"title\": \"General Response about Experiments (2/3)\", \"comment\": [\"## **4. Deeper model: synthetic 2D data with ReLU nets**\", \"Some reviewers including 1DCj pointed out that there are no deep learning experiments. To address the concern, we plan to train ReLU networks on our synthetic 2D datasets with sequential GD and see what will happen.\", \"For simple (e.g., 2D) datasets, in particular, there is a method for visualization of decision boundary of a neural network (Pezeshki et al., 2021). Observe that monitoring the trajectory of the parameter vector of a linear classifier is semantically equivalent to monitoring the evolution of decision boundary the model. Interpreting our implicit bias result as the convergence between decision boundaries of the continually learned model and a jointly trained model, we can also verify our theoretical insight through ReLU net experiments on 2D data by monitoring the decision boundary.\", \"Due to the time constraint, we are still running the experiments. We will update our manuscript before the discussion period finishes.\", \"**(Update: 2024.11.25)** Our new revision contains the experimental results with ReLU nets! Please check out our paper and an additional response below.\", \"## **5. Large-scale experiments with even deeper models and more realistic datasets**\", \"Continuing from the previous response (#4), we initially planned to conduct more experiments on various deep network architectures and more (high-dimensional) datasets other than synthetic ones. However, due to our constraints in time and computational resources, there was not enough time to build up a code base for these experiments.\", \"More importantly, as far as we know, it is not very straightforward which statement we should verify by these experiments. Considering a comparison between continually learned vs. jointly trained models (in terms of implicit bias), it is not really straightforward to judge whether two neural networks are close or not; for instance, simple L2 distance between parameter values is not enough for this because there can be many different model parameter configurations representing exactly the same mapping from input to output.\", \"Still, we believe we might be able to assess the (cycle-averaged) forgetting and loss convergence speeds for these realistic settings. We plan to include these results in a later revision.\", \"We hope this general response will handle most reviewer\\u2019s concerns about lack of experiments. Thank you again for your time and effort in reviewing our work.\", \"Best,\", \"Authors\", \"---\", \"**References**\", \"Krizhevsky. \\u201cLearning Multiple Layers of Features from Tiny Images.\\u201d 2009.\", \"Pezeshki et al. \\u201cGradient Starvation: A Learning Proclivity in Neural Networks.\\u201d NeurIPS 2021.\"]}", "{\"title\": \"General Response about Experiments (1/3)\", \"comment\": \"Dear all reviewers,\\n\\nWe genuinely appreciate your insightful reviews and valuable comments. We are happy about the reviews being mostly positive, providing constructive and insightful feedback.\\n\\nWe find that one of the most common comments on our work is the lack of experimental results. Being a theoretical work based on mathematical equations and proofs, we acknowledge that we did not provide sufficient empirical demonstrations. Thus, here, we present new experiments we conducted and finalized during the discussion period and our plans about additional experiments.\\n\\n## **1. Synthetic (but more realistic) 2D datasets**\\n\\n- Reviewers sGag & uaBW raised a question that the toy experimental setting in our original submission (involving less than 10 data points) is too artificial. To address their concern, we conduct experiments on a set of more realistic synthetic 2D datasets and put the results in our revised manuscript.\\n- We carefully constructed a data generation process (Appendix C.2.1) and randomly generated three jointly separable classification tasks. Given that the tasks are revealed in a cyclic order, we visually observe the directional convergence of sequential GD\\u2019s iterates towards the joint max-margin classifier of all tasks (Figure 2) and the loss convergence (Figure 5). We also observe a similar behavior of sequential GD under random task ordering (Appendix C.2.3).\\n- We hope that the visualization of our data points and the trajectory of sequential GD iterates shown in Figure 2 will be able to handle the concerns about clearer visualization in 2D (raised by reviewer a4BQ) and about geometric interpretation of our theoretical findings (raised by reviewer uaBW) as well.\\n\\n## **2. Beyond batch repetition: synthetic 2D data \\u201cdistributions\\u201d**\\n\\n- Reviewers sGag, uaBW, and a4BQ raised a question about the generality of problem setting for our theoretical analysis, especially about repeatedly used identical batches of data.\\n- To demonstrate that our theoretical insight still holds beyond the batch repetition setup we theoretically analyzed, we further extend our experiments on synthetic 2D data to non-repeating dataset cases. Instead, we consider three data \\u201cdistributions\\u201d (with jointly separable and bounded support) each corresponding to a task, but we draw a totally new dataset from a given task\\u2019s distribution at the beginning of every stage when we encounter it. Again, in both cyclic ordering and random ordering of task\\u2019s distributions, we still observe that a similar implicit bias and convergence behavior appear in dataset repetition cases (Appendix C.2.4).\\n\\n## **3. Realistic data: CIFAR-10 experiment with linear models**\\n\\n- Reviewer sGag raised a concern that there are no experiments on more realistic data. To address this, we conduct additional experiments by switching the dataset to CIFAR-10 (Krizhevsky, 2009).\\n- We conducted an experiment on CIFAR-10 and discussed the result in Appendix C.5 of the updated manuscript. Our theoretical result on linearly non-separable data such as CIFAR-10 shows that sequential GD iterates should not diverge and instead converge to the global minimum under the properly chosen learning rate. To corroborate our theoretical finding, we train a linear model using joint task data to get a proxy $\\\\hat w$ of the global minimum solution of the joint training loss, and then measure the distance between the jointly trained model parameter $\\\\hat w$ and iterates of sequential GD at the end of every stage. As a result, we observe that the distance diminishes to near zero, even when we do not adopt a small learning rate as our theorem requires.\\n\\n(continued in the next official comment)\"}", "{\"title\": \"Author's Response (2)\", \"comment\": [\"**W3+Q2. Proof sketches and High-level technical overviews.**\", \"Thank you for your comment, and we agree with your point. Unfortunately, since our long proofs operate with a bunch of highly technical lemmas and calculations, it is not an easy task to provide a high-level idea of the proof structure and to highlight the technical novelties without any backgrounds: it will take too much time. We plan to do so after the discussion period.\", \"Improvement upon Evron et al. (2023)\", \"The major distinction from Evron et al. (2023) in terms of proof techniques comes from the difference in the analyzed setting. Evron et al. (2023) use regularized continual learning. Linearly separable classification with a regularized objective function yields a unique minimum in a finite position. Hence, within finite iterations, regularized continual learning can converge to its minimum. They prove that the iterates at the end of every stage behave like a projection method as the regularizer converges to zero. On the other hand, we use sequential continual learning without a regularizer. This means that there is no minimum at any finite location. Thus we can\\u2019t learn one task until it converges to its minimum as Evron et al. (2023) did.\", \"This yields technical challenges to analyze implicit bias. First of all, while one task is being trained, the model tends to diverge in the task\\u2019s own max-margin direction. Thus each task fights other tasks to train the model in their own max-margin direction. Second, Evron et al. (2023) use the projection method and obtain the exact trajectory of every stage. in our sequential GD setting, it is very difficult to keep track of the exact location of the iterate after one task is trained. The uncertainty accumulates and grows larger as training goes on. To handle this issue, we focus on \\u201cwhere the iterate eventually converges to as the cycle increases\\u201d, not \\u201cwhere the iterate is after each stage\\u201d. Based on our experimental observation, we set the proxy $\\\\log t\\\\cdot \\\\hat{w}$ and show the distance between the proxy and iterate is bounded by some constant value. Since the proxy diverges to infinity, the boundedness implies implicit bias in the direction of iteration.\", \"**Q1. Geometric Interpretation or intuition of the theoretical results.**\", \"Unlike the results of [Goldfarb et al. (2024)](https://arxiv.org/pdf/2401.12617), [Evron et al. (2023)](https://arxiv.org/pdf/2306.03534), and [Evron et al. (2022)](https://arxiv.org/pdf/2205.09588), which use projection methods to learn a new task from the current task, our method uses gradient descent for fixed iterations. This technical difference makes it challenging to pinpoint where the model arrives after training on a certain task. Even when we know at which point we start learning, it is hard to pinpoint where we will end up at after one cycle. However, our result shows that after many cycles, the direction of the model will close to the joint max-margin direction. We provide this geometric interpretation in Figure 1 as 3D plot. We also include 2D visualization of our result in the updated manuscript (see Figure 2).\"]}", "{\"summary\": \"This paper investigates how gradient descent (GD) converges to the joint max-margin solution for multiple tasks that are jointly linearly separable. The authors present loss and forgetting bounds under both cyclic and random task presentation orders. Theoretical results are provided for both asymptotic and non-asymptotic settings. Overall, this is a highly novel and interesting paper that offers promising insights for continual learning.\", \"soundness\": \"3\", \"presentation\": \"3\", \"contribution\": \"3\", \"strengths\": \"1. Novel analysis of continual learning: The paper contributes to the understanding of continual learning by offering new insights into the convergence behavior of gradient descent on multiple tasks.\\n\\n2. The presentation is clear and easy to follow.\", \"weaknesses\": \"This is a very novel and interesting paper, but I have the following concerns,\\n\\n1. The logistic loss function and linear model are somehow limited. We usually use large foundation model and cross entropy loss nowadays. So can this theorem be generalized to more practical cases. \\n\\n2. No convincing experiments and compared baselines are provided, such as deep learning experiments for continual learning.\", \"questions\": \"I have the following questions:\\n1. Can you provide the intuition about Assumption 3.4 Tight Exponential Tail?\\n\\n2. Figure 1 present a toy example to help us to understand the motivation, but all the tasks with labels 1. It seems not realistic, so I am curious whether this setting is necessary, can you make it more general. \\n\\n3. What is the definition of task similarity in continual learning? Do $N_{p, q}$ and $\\\\bar{N}_{p, q}$ in Theorem 3.4 measure the task similarity? I hope the author can give the clear definition of task similarity. Intuitively, task similarity will affect the forgetting as well as training loss. For example, there are two tasks with significant different optimized directions and a model is trained to learn two tasks, I think it's usually harder than learning two similar tasks, so it probably has larger training loss. So it is reasonable that task similarity would affect the training loss either, do author agree with me?\\n\\n4. This paper gives a new definition about cycle-averaged forgetting $\\\\mathcal{CF}(J)$, and also show the upper and lower bound of $\\\\mathcal{CF}(J)$ in Theorem 3.4. I think this definition somehow restricts the forgetting measure within the current cycle. The problem is that can you guarantee the model performs better on task $m$ in the current cycle $J$ than before? If not, even if $\\\\mathcal{CF}(J) \\\\rightarrow 0$, we can not say the forgetting performance is good. Is it possible to change the baseline as $\\\\min_j\\\\mathcal{L}_{m}(w_K^{Mj+m})$, which considers the best performance of model on task $m$. Then the cycle-averaged forgetting $\\\\mathcal{CF}(J) = \\\\frac{1}{M}\\\\sum\\\\_{m=1}^{M-1}\\\\mathcal{L}\\\\_{m}(w_0^{MJ+M}) - \\\\mathcal{L}\\\\_{m}(w_K^{Mj+m})$\\nwhich is consistent with conventional definition of forgetting.\\n\\n5. Line 412: $\\\\lim_{t\\\\rightarrow \\\\infty} x_i^T w_k^{(t)}=\\\\infty$?\", \"flag_for_ethics_review\": \"['No ethics review needed.']\", \"rating\": \"6\", \"confidence\": \"3\", \"code_of_conduct\": \"Yes\"}", "{\"title\": \"Author's Response (1)\", \"comment\": [\"We sincerely appreciate the reviewer for taking the time and efforts to read and examine our paper closely. Your dedication helped us improve the paper significantly. Below, let us address your comments and questions:\", \"**W1. The results are only informative under certain task repetitions; cannot handle arbitrary task sequences.**\", \"Thanks to the connection between weakly-regularized continual learning and SMM, Evron et al. (2023) obtain the exact trajectory of iterates over different stages obtained by sequential projections. On the other hand, in our sequential GD setting, it is very difficult to keep track of the exact location of the iterates, since the iterates are updated multiple times but training stops before convergence. To overcome this issue, we use different proof techniques motivated from (Soudry et al. 2018; Nacson et al. 2019) to analyze the direction in which sequential GD eventually converges to. We are not sure if any conclusions we draw from our analysis can extend to arbitrary sequences.\", \"Nonetheless, we believe that our theoretical results provide some useful insights to more general continual classification scenarios. Specifically, we believe that our theoretical findings can be extended to a more general **online** continual learning setup, beyond the current setup that uses the same data points over and over again. Consider a finite number of tasks\\u2019 data distributions (with bounded supports) which are jointly separable, and let them be cyclically/randomly chosen one by one at each stage. Suppose a finite-size training dataset from each data distribution is sampled every time we encounter a task. Even in this case, we expect that the story would be the same: the continually trained linear classifier will eventually converge to the max-margin direction that jointly classify every task\\u2019s data distribution support. In our revised paper, we empirically demonstrate this in Appendix C.2.4.\", \"**W2. Readability issues of appendices**\", \"We are sorry for any confusion caused by our proofs. We have supplemented our explanations with more explanations for the involved steps. We aim to supplement appendices with proof sketches carefully delivering key technical challenges and insights, but due to the length/complexity of proofs and lack of time we were not able to finish this in time. We plan to do so after the discussion period.\", \"From Eq. (19) to Eq. (20): We found there was a missing factor inside Eq. (19). We corrected it by adding the gradient norm factor to (19).\", \"Eq. (26): we add a supplementary explanation. The third inequality comes from the property of the largest singular value, and the last equality holds by the definition of the gradient update rule.\", \"**Q. A collection of suggestions for improving the writing**\", \"We greatly appreciate for the reviewer\\u2019s careful reading and insightful comments on improving our manuscript. Although the reviewer do not expect responses about these comments, we provide answers to some of them.\", \"Line 62: Thank you for an insightful comment. As per the reviewer\\u2019s suggestion, we toned down our claims about the existing work Evron et al. (2023); we realize we were overly critical as we try to motivate our setting. Please check out our updated introduction (Section 1).\", \"Figure 1: The reason why we opt for 3D visualization in Figure 1 is to represent the irrelevance between the directions of individual tasks\\u2019 max-margin and the joint max-margin classifiers. We also conducted 2D experiments and made a cleaner visualization of directional convergence to joint max-margin direction (e.g., Figure 2). For more details about experiments, please take a look at our **General Response** and the updated manuscript.\", \"Line 432: we assumed the data spanning whole space without loss of generality. This is because, as we mentioned in the same paragraph, every gradient update happens in the span of data points. In other words, the dynamics orthogonal to the data span is constant, so we simply neglect these components. We made it more clear in our updated manuscript by adding \\u201cwithout loss of generality\\u201d.\", \"Line 434: the original \\u201cstrictly\\u201d is correct. The empirical risk function based on logistic function cannot be *globally* strongly convex (i.e., bounded below by positive-definite quadratic functions everywhere). In particular in the strictly non-separable case, however, the training loss becomes *locally* strongly convex near the optimum, which we prove to eventually obtain our convergence result for non-separable case.\", \"Theorem 5.2: since the total loss $\\\\mathcal{L}(w)$ is $B$-smooth (where $B=\\\\sum_{m=0}^{M-1} \\\\beta_m$), it satisfies that $\\\\mathcal{L}(w) - \\\\mathcal{L}(w_\\\\star) \\\\le \\\\langle \\\\nabla \\\\mathcal{L}(w_\\\\star), w-w_\\\\star \\\\rangle + \\\\tfrac{B}{2}\\\\\\\\|w-w_\\\\star\\\\\\\\|^2 = \\\\tfrac{B}{2}\\\\\\\\|w-w_\\\\star\\\\\\\\|^2$. Thus, the iterate convergence naturally implies the loss convergence with an exactly the same rate. We made this clearer in the updated manuscript.\"]}", "{\"title\": \"Author's Response (2)\", \"comment\": [\"**W6. Practical insights**\", \"Our theoretical analyses may not immediately offer any guidelines or suggestions for practitioners interested in general continual learning problems. However, we believe that our work provides a theoretical basis for a concrete **baseline**: \\u201cyou should do better than this.\\u201d (A paper with similar high-level idea: Prabhu et al. (2020)) Our theory reveals that when the same (or similar) tasks appear repeatedly, a naive algorithm without any techniques (e.g., regularization or replay) specialized for continual learning will eventually \\u201cwork,\\u201d in terms of convergence to a desirable offline solution and vanishing forgetting. Thus, we expect that such a naive algorithm does not always fail in more practical scenarios, and any new approach for continual learning should be able to outperform this simple baseline.\", \"Furthermore, we believe our analysis can serve as a stepping stone to more advanced theoretical analyses on more practical approaches such as regularization- and replay-based methods.\", \"---\", \"**References**\", \"Prabhu et al., GDumb: A Simple Approach that Questions Our Progress in Continual Learning. ECCV 2020.\", \"Verwimp et al., CLAD: A realistic Continual Learning benchmark for Autonomous Driving, Neural Networks, Vol. 161, 2023.\", \"Yang et al., Fourier Learning with Cyclical Data, ICML 2022.\"]}", "{\"title\": \"Paper Decision\", \"decision\": \"Accept (Poster)\"}", "{\"comment\": \"Thank you for the responses. It has addressed most of my concerns. Based on my overall assessment of the paper, I prefer to maintain my current rating.\"}", "{\"title\": \"Author's Response (2)\", \"comment\": [\"**References**\", \"Evron et al., Continual learning in linear classification on separable data. ICML 2023.\", \"Soudry et al., The implicit bias of gradient descent on separable data. JMLR 2018.\", \"Nacson et al., Stochastic gradient descent on separable data: Exact convergence with a fixed learning rate. AISTATS 2019.\", \"Chaudhry et al., On tiny episodic memories in continual learning. arXiv preprint. 2019.\"]}", "{\"comment\": \"I thank the authors for their rebuttal. It addresses my concerns, and I suggest including the proof sketches in the final version. I will keep my score.\"}", "{\"summary\": \"This paper studies continual linear classification tasks by sequentially running gradient descent (GD) on the unregularized (logistic) loss for a fixed budget of iterations per each given task. When all tasks are jointly linearly separable and are presented in a cyclic/random order, the full training loss asymptotically converges to zero and the trained linear classifier converges to the joint (offline) max-margin solution (i.e., directional convergence). Additionally, when tasks are given in a cyclic order, non-asymptotic analysis on cycle-averaged forgetting and loss convergence at cycle $J$ are provided, which are $O(\\\\frac{\\\\ln^4J}{J^2})$ and $O(\\\\frac{\\\\ln^2J}{J})$ respectively. Lastly, when the tasks are no longer jointly separable and presented cyclically, a fast non-asymptotic convergence rate of $\\\\tilde{O}(J^{-2})$ towards the global minimum of the joint training loss is established.\", \"soundness\": \"3\", \"presentation\": \"3\", \"contribution\": \"3\", \"strengths\": \"1. The paper is easy to follow and clearly demonstrates the contribution of the theoretical results.\\n\\n2. When all tasks are jointly linearly separable, standard GD without any regularization not only learns every task but also converges to the joint max-margin direction eventually. The implicit bias happens on both cyclic/random task ordering, which is new to my knowledge.\\n\\n3. When tasks are presented in a cyclic order, non-asymptotic convergence rates are established: $O\\\\left(\\\\frac{\\\\ln^4 J}{J^2}\\\\right)$ if the tasks are jointly linearly separable, and $\\\\tilde{O}(J^{-2})$ if they are not.\", \"weaknesses\": \"1. The theoretical framework for continual learning in this paper does not fully align with practical settings in deep learning; for example, tasks are assumed to follow a cyclic order, although this is a common setup in theoretical studies on continual learning.\\n\\n2. The experimental setup of the paper is quite limited. While the toy example in Figure 1 effectively illustrates the motivation, additional empirical results under more practical continual learning scenarios\\u2014or at least beyond the simplest toy example\\u2014are necessary to validate the theoretical findings, e.g., the implicit bias phenomenon for both cyclic/random order, cycled average forgetting converges faster than the joint training loss.\\n\\n3. The proofs in the Appendix are involved. Although the remark paragraphs following each theorem provide brief explanations, proof sketches or high-level technical overviews for all of the theoretical results are lacking. Specifically, it is unclear what technical novelties are introduced from a high-level perspective and how the current analysis improves upon [Evron et al. (2023)](https://arxiv.org/pdf/2306.03534).\", \"questions\": \"1. Could you provide a geometric interpretation or intuition of the theoretical results, just as what [Goldfarb et al. (2024)](https://arxiv.org/pdf/2401.12617), [Evron et al. (2023)](https://arxiv.org/pdf/2306.03534) and [Evron et al. (2022)](https://arxiv.org/pdf/2205.09588) did?\\n\\n2. Could you provide proof sketches and a technical overview of the theoretical analysis? In particular, it would be helpful to understand more about the connections and distinctions from prior works, such as [Evron et al. (2023)](https://arxiv.org/pdf/2306.03534) and [Evron et al. (2022)](https://arxiv.org/pdf/2205.09588), as well as what new technical contributions this work presents. Appendix A.1 provides a brief overview and comparisons with [Evron et al. (2023)](https://arxiv.org/pdf/2306.03534), but it lacks an in-depth discussion of the technical and theoretical challenges and contributions.\", \"flag_for_ethics_review\": \"['No ethics review needed.']\", \"details_of_ethics_concerns\": \"No ethics concerns.\", \"rating\": \"6\", \"confidence\": \"3\", \"code_of_conduct\": \"Yes\"}", "{\"title\": \"Thank you very much\", \"comment\": \"Thank you very much for reading our rebuttal and raising the score! We are currently working on the proof sketches and will definitely put them in our final manuscript. Also, thank you for correcting the typo. We contained this correction in the currently revised version of our paper.\"}", "{\"comment\": [\"**Q3. Regarding the definition of task similarity**\", \"To the best of our knowledge, there is no single widely accepted definition of task similarity. In the well-studied continual linear **regression** setting, various notions of task similarity have been proposed by several previous works (Doan et al., 2021; Evron et al., 2022; Lin et al., 2023). The task similarity is of great interest in this line of work because it is often closely connected to the continual learning performance (e.g., catastrophic forgetting or knowledge transfer). In continual **classification** setup like ours, we do not know much of works studying the relevance between task similarity and forgetting.\", \"In our paper, we theoretically characterize the connection between the amount of forgetting per cycle and a form of \\u201calignment\\u201d between different tasks. The term $N_{p,q}$ ($\\\\bar {N}\\\\_{p,q}$, resp.) captures positive (negative, resp.) alignment of the data pairs between tasks $p$ and $q$. We view these terms as positive/negative alignments, because they are sums of positive/negative inner products between data points in two tasks. We originally explained $N_{p,q}$ and $\\\\bar{N}\\\\_{p,q}$ as \\u201ctask similarities\\u201d for simplicity because, similar to the previous works revealing connection between task similarity and forgetting, we figure out they are closely related to the amount of forgetting: high $N_{p,q}$ and low $\\\\bar{N}\\\\_{p,q}$ yield low forgetting (and thus high knowledge transfer), while low $N_{p,q}$ and high $\\\\bar{N}\\\\_{p,q}$ yield high forgetting. However, we realized that the terminology \\u201ctask similarity\\u201d may be slightly misleading, because even two identical tasks (say $p$) may have negative $\\\\bar{N}\\\\_{p,p}$. We revised the writing in our manuscript.\", \"Lastly, we comment on the reviewer\\u2019s intuition on the relationship between task similarity and loss convergence. We totally agree with the reviewer\\u2019s intuition on the connection between the task similarity (or our specific notion of task alignments) and loss convergence. However, we remark that our loss convergence analysis in Theorem 3.3 does not quite capture that intuition. The non-asymptotic convergence upper bound we presented only captures the **worst-case** scenario (which is due to the nature of upper bounds), where the model experiences the largest possible forgetting during each cycle. This would correspond to the case of significantly dissimilar but jointly separable tasks, as we illustrate in Appendix C.3 through a toy example.\", \"**Q4. Regarding the definition of cycle-averaged forgetting**\", \"As you correctly pointed out, the convergence of $\\\\mathcal{C}\\\\mathcal{F}(J)$ to zero may not imply the convergence of the \\u201cconventional forgetting\\u201d to zero. There can be cases where $\\\\mathcal{C}\\\\mathcal{F}(J)$ decays to zero but the overall loss increases over cycles, hence resulting in larger and larger conventional forgetting. For the question \\u201ccan you guarantee the model performs better on task $m$\\u00a0in the current cycle\\u00a0$J$ than before?\\u201d, the answer is \\u201cnot always.\\u201d We presented an example in Appendix C.3 where the loss on a certain task increases over some early stages of training. In Figure 9(a), one can see that the loss for Task 1 (green line) initially increases during early cycles.\", \"However, we can see from the Figure 9(b) that the loss eventually decreases, as predicted by our Theorem 3.3. Indeed, Theorem 3.3 guarantees that the total loss will eventually converge to zero, which also implies that the individual task losses will also converge to zero. From this, we expected that the model will eventually enter a stage where the individual task losses will monotonically decrease over cycles, in which case the cycle-averaged forgetting coincides with the conventional forgetting. Also, convergence of individual losses to zero already implies that the conventional forgetting will also eventually converge to zero. For these reasons, we chose to focus on the analysis of cycle-averaged forgetting.\", \"It is possible to extend our analysis of cycle-averaged forgetting to conventional forgetting. However, due to limitations of our proof techniques, the upper and lower bounds become looser as we have to accumulate the task alignment terms over multiple cycles.\", \"**Q5. Typo in Line 412**\", \"Thank you for your careful reading. We reflected your suggestion to our updated manuscript.\", \"---\", \"**References**\", \"Doan et al., A Theoretical Analysis of Catastrophic Forgetting through the NTK Overlap Matrix, AISTATS 2021.\", \"Evron et al., How catastrophic can catastrophic forgetting be in linear regression?, COLT 2022.\", \"Ji et al., Gradient descent follows the regularization path for general losses, COLT 2020.\", \"Lin et al., Theory on Forgetting and Generalization of Continual Learning, ICML 2023.\"], \"title\": \"Author's Response (2)\"}", "{\"title\": \"Author's Response (1)\", \"comment\": [\"We thank the reviewer for their detailed and insightful comments on our work. Below, we address the concerns raised by the reviewer.\", \"**W1+W2. Experiments with real-world datasets & realistic synthetic datasets.**\", \"Thank you for pointing these out. Please check out our **General Response** handling all questions and concerns about experiments raised by all reviewers. For your specific concerns, please refer to #1 and #2.\", \"**W3. We know all training data in advance; why don\\u2019t we combine them and use SGD?**\", \"Thank you for the insightful question. Indeed, if there are all training data for all tasks given a priori, one can combine them and run SGD. However, there can be scenarios where utilizing the combined training dataset becomes **impossible**, e.g., when the datasets for different tasks are stored in distributed data silos and communication of data points is expensive or prohibited.\", \"Moreover, we believe that our theoretical findings can be extended to a more general **online** continual learning setup, beyond the current setup that uses the same data points over and over again. Consider a finite number of tasks\\u2019 data distributions (with bounded supports) which are jointly separable, and let them be cyclically/randomly chosen one by one at each stage. Suppose a finite-size training dataset from each data distribution is sampled every time we encounter a task. Even in this case, we expect that the story would be the same: the continually trained linear classifier will eventually converge to the max-margin direction that jointly classify every task\\u2019s data distribution support. In our revised paper, we empirically demonstrate this in Appendix C.2.4.\", \"This example demonstrates that the intuitions gained from our analysis can extend to more realistic and complex scenarios. In our paper, however, we focus only on our data repetition setting so that precise theoretical guarantees are attainable; rigorous extensions to more general settings would be much more challenging.\", \"**W4. Batch = Task? It\\u2019s not surprising that SGD converges.**\", \"As the reviewer pointed out, the algorithm we analyzed (sequential GD) and the usual online SGD share several properties. At every time step, they use some part of the dataset (called \\\"batch\\\") to update the model iteratively. Hence, both can be used when we cannot access the full dataset at every update.\", \"However, the critical difference between these two is in **repetition**. When we theoretically analyze (online) SGD, the most common assumption is that every stochastic gradient is independently sampled. Thus, if we collect many gradients, the overall update can eventually approximate the full-batch gradient update. When we run sequential GD in the continual learning setup, however, there must be certain dependencies between updates since we repeatedly use the same batch of data points for $K$ consecutive updates during each stage. Thus, if we do many updates for a single task (i.e., large $K$), the total update over each stage is significantly biased toward a specific task, not the joint/offline solution. These dependencies made it difficult to apply the usual convergence analysis of optimization algorithms, which was the main obstacle we had to overcome. Thus, we claim that our theoretical result is not a direct result of SGD convergence analysis.\", \"We also note that our theoretical analysis covers not only the convergence (in loss and the iterate direction) but also a non-asymptotic characterization of forgetting, which is one of the most important quantities in the literature on continual learning.\", \"**W5. It has to be specific in terms of standard datasets and real-world scenarios.**\", \"Thank you for a great suggestion. Here we provide more precise references and citations about the cyclic/random task ordering. We also attached the corresponding references/citations in revised paper.\", \"Cyclic task ordering:\", \"Number of hits for certain keywords (e.g., \\u2018dinner\\u2019) in search engine ([trends.google.com/trends/](https://trends.google.com/trends/explore?date=now%207-d&q=dinner))\", \"Hourly revenue of a recommender system (Yang et al., 2022)\", \"Random task ordering:\", \"Autonomous driving (Verwimp et al., 2023)\"]}", "{\"metareview\": \"This work investigates continual learning for multiple linear classification tasks using gradient descent (GD) with a fixed iteration budget per task. For tasks that are jointly linearly separable and presented in a cyclic or random order, the trained linear classifier is shown to converge directionally to the joint offline max-margin solution. This is a clean and novel theoretical result, and the paper is well-written. While the empirical component is not extensive, the authors have made a good effort to include experiments that support their findings. Overall, the strength of the theoretical results justifies acceptance of this work.\", \"additional_comments_on_reviewer_discussion\": \"3 out of the 4 reviewers leaned toward acceptance. Reviewer sGag gave a score of 5 and had questions about the technical details in the setting as well as the practical relevance of the work. The AC thinks that these questions were addressed satisfactorily in the author rebuttal.\"}" ] }

[ "Eoin M. Kenny", "Allan Anzagira", "Tom Bewley", "Freddy Lecue", "Manuela Veloso" ]

[ "algorithmic recourse", "large language models", "cost functions", "interpretable ml", "user study" ]

{ "note_id": [ "yK47HONIDM", "sLK44Njlu8", "sKGwxQz5a9", "qRbxkBZwXC", "h0Ay94c9aM", "f3bZLqb8Tw", "eXBG85XtOI", "bPHAE868EN", "Zgl0KzKfYl", "WK6lyVYZcz", "RaiFNFEdRi", "RZu1lAngos", "RQ3CPIOypR", "PF4JJ7m3Cc", "P8NzYqGnzF", "N27NJnefgT", "MzOCjPBFF6", "JcftIm0hch", "Hon5JTSnoq", "HjRYSH0QLv", "FUAkJm77cG", "AScicJ9Ale", "ARWMGNTnlc", "9YXXnJxsva", "6rQLOY86Y3", "3guxzrzziQ", "0Y0yFJvHjL" ], "note_type": [ "official_review", "official_comment", "official_comment", "official_comment", "official_comment", "official_comment", "official_review", "official_comment", "official_comment", "official_comment", "official_comment", "official_comment", "decision", "official_comment", "official_comment", "official_comment", "official_review", "official_comment", "official_comment", "official_comment", "official_review", "meta_review", "official_comment", "official_comment", "official_comment", "official_comment", "official_comment" ], "note_created": [ 1730718128567, 1732198652503, 1732813432527, 1733094058065, 1732704562972, 1732281898667, 1730568619669, 1732197490641, 1732478000644, 1732272256261, 1732708645580, 1732466846601, 1737523874584, 1732717903254, 1732195181139, 1733093619248, 1730663012676, 1733094126475, 1732707187955, 1732202259240, 1730372279503, 1734758417899, 1732200868218, 1733092964588, 1732705108731, 1732708367750, 1732706299671 ], "note_signatures": [ [ "ICLR.cc/2025/Conference/Submission7915/Reviewer_xrVn" ], [ "ICLR.cc/2025/Conference/Submission7915/Authors" ], [ "ICLR.cc/2025/Conference/Submission7915/Reviewer_umaS" ], [ "ICLR.cc/2025/Conference/Submission7915/Authors" ], [ "ICLR.cc/2025/Conference/Submission7915/Authors" ], [ "ICLR.cc/2025/Conference/Submission7915/Reviewer_umaS" ], [ "ICLR.cc/2025/Conference/Submission7915/Reviewer_umaS" ], [ "ICLR.cc/2025/Conference/Submission7915/Authors" ], [ "ICLR.cc/2025/Conference/Submission7915/Reviewer_N4gt" ], [ "ICLR.cc/2025/Conference/Submission7915/Reviewer_8sk6" ], [ "ICLR.cc/2025/Conference/Submission7915/Authors" ], [ "ICLR.cc/2025/Conference/Submission7915/Reviewer_xrVn" ], [ "ICLR.cc/2025/Conference/Program_Chairs" ], [ "ICLR.cc/2025/Conference/Submission7915/Reviewer_N4gt" ], [ "ICLR.cc/2025/Conference/Submission7915/Authors" ], [ "ICLR.cc/2025/Conference/Submission7915/Authors" ], [ "ICLR.cc/2025/Conference/Submission7915/Reviewer_N4gt" ], [ "ICLR.cc/2025/Conference/Submission7915/Authors" ], [ "ICLR.cc/2025/Conference/Submission7915/Authors" ], [ "ICLR.cc/2025/Conference/Submission7915/Authors" ], [ "ICLR.cc/2025/Conference/Submission7915/Reviewer_8sk6" ], [ "ICLR.cc/2025/Conference/Submission7915/Area_Chair_MwPF" ], [ "ICLR.cc/2025/Conference/Submission7915/Authors" ], [ "ICLR.cc/2025/Conference/Submission7915/Authors" ], [ "ICLR.cc/2025/Conference/Submission7915/Authors" ], [ "ICLR.cc/2025/Conference/Submission7915/Authors" ], [ "ICLR.cc/2025/Conference/Submission7915/Authors" ] ], "structured_content_str": [ "{\"summary\": \"This paper proposes a novel approach for obtaining a cost function for recourse. In the first step, an LLM (GPT-4o in this study) is queried to decide which recourse actions are low-cost. In the second step, a cost function is learned based on the LLM responses. The points at which the LLM is queried are selected to obtain good coverage of possible recourse actions.\\n\\nThe paper considers four desirable criteria (feature cost, relative cost, dependant cost, and fair cost) along which the final cost function is evaluated. \\n\\nThe paper uses chain-of-thought prompting and finds that instructing the LLM with the desired cost function criteria improves the LLM responses.\\n\\nThe paper also compares human and LLM judgements of cost in a study with human participants, finding that there is often alignment, but not always.\", \"soundness\": \"3\", \"presentation\": \"3\", \"contribution\": \"2\", \"strengths\": \"The research question studied in this paper is interesting and of practical relevance.\\n\\nThe proposed methodology is interesting and could prove helpful in designing cost functions in practice. \\n\\nThe paper is well-written (apart from some minor hiccups), and the experiments are reasonably well-documented.\", \"weaknesses\": \"**Missing Baselines:** I find it hard to judge how \\\"high-performing\\\" the final cost functions actually are, and also how much the proposed approach improves upon alternative approaches, because there is only very limited comparison against alternative approaches. In Section 4.3, the paper compares the recommended recourse on Adult with the recourse proposed by the L1-norm, but this is a rather limited comparison and a weak baseline. As a matter of fact, I wonder how difficult the problem of designing a recourse functions actually is. For the small datasets that are considered in this study, it seems to me that it should be possible to design relatively good recourse functions \\\"by hand\\\", that is, with a limited amount of human labelling after taking into account the restrictions imposed by the four desiderata. Of course, and LLM might again help, but by how much does the LLM actually help here?\\n\\n**Limited Evaluation:** While the newly proposed approach is well-described in the paper, it is much less discussed how a cost function should be evaluated. Indeed, this seems to be a fairly tricky question, and I suspect that the authors are well aware of this (For example: Who decides what are \\\"relevant dependencies\\\" in Desiderata 3). However, without clearly specifying how a cost function should be evaluated, the key claim of the paper that the obtained cost functions are \\\"high-performing\\\" remains subjective. \\n\\nI do understand, of course, that there are evaluations in Table 1 and Figure 3 of the paper. However, these evaluations seem relatively ad-hoc to me and are not motivated in any earlier sections of the paper. \\n\\nAs a bit of a side note, if we were to specify very clearly how a cost function should be evaluated, should this not give rise to fairly explicit constraints on the cost function that could then be used as restrictions on the cost function during learning?\\n\\n**Usage of highly popular datasets without discussion of data contamination:** This paper uses the Adult, German Credit and HELOC datasets. While these datasets are historically popular in the literature relevant to this paper, their usage with GPT-4o is problematic because of data contamination. Quite likely, GPT-4o has seen a lot of information about these highly popular datasets during pre-training. The Adult dataset, for example, is known to be partly memorized in GPT-4 (see https://arxiv.org/abs/2404.06209). \\n\\nWhile the precise consequences of pre-training contamination on the results in this paper are very hard to judge, using (only) highly popular datasets in an evaluation with GPT-4o is not state-of-the-art. High-impact work on LLMs and tabular data (see literature references below) always attempts to include datasets that are either very recent (for example, derived from recent US census data) or datasets that have not been publicly released on the internet. \\n\\n**Missing References (minor):** In the last two years, LLMs have been broadly applied to various tasks with tabular datasets other than recourse. Here are some examples:\", \"feature_engineering\": \"https://proceedings.neurips.cc/paper_files/paper/2023/hash/8c2df4c35cdbee764ebb9e9d0acd5197-Abstract-Conference.html\", \"classification\": \"https://proceedings.mlr.press/v206/hegselmann23a.html\", \"generation\": \"https://arxiv.org/abs/2210.06280\\n\\nNone of this is cited in the paper. The authors should examine this literature and include it in their relative works section.\", \"questions\": [\"Why do you use the Adult dataset? There are better alternatives, see https://arxiv.org/abs/2108.04884 and https://github.com/socialfoundations/folktables\", \"Why do you choose to use latin in the paper? for example *\\\"ad libitum\\\"* I don't think that this terminology really helps. Also when you write *\\\"To enforce Desideratum 2\\\"* I would find it more helpful to write *\\\"To enforce the relative cost criterion\\\"*\"], \"flag_for_ethics_review\": \"['No ethics review needed.']\", \"rating\": \"5\", \"confidence\": \"4\", \"code_of_conduct\": \"Yes\"}", "{\"title\": \"Author(s) Response\", \"comment\": \"We thank the reviewer for vouching for the acceptance of our work, and for your suggestions which have improved the paper, we now respond to all your questions and concerns.\\n\\n***\\n\\n**High uncertainty in LLM Human Study Responses:** Thanks, we purposefully chose very difficult questions for the user study which were hard to evaluate, which is why the uncertainty is high. In our main computational experiments (now Section 4.4), the LLM is unsure about the answer (i.e., gives equal cost) 15%, 23%, and 20%, of the time (using the standard prompting scheme) on adult, HELOC, and German Credit, respectively, which is much lower than the user study uncertainty, illustrating this point for us. As an aside, this dropped further to 10%, 5%, and 11% when fine-tuning using the custom prompt schemes. We explicitly mention this in Footnote 4 now, and add additional analyis about the uncertainity between LLM and humans in Appendix F.\\n\\n***\\n\\n*...the use of a \\u201ccustom prompt\\u201d seems unrealistic as it assumes an oracle can encode information about recourse costs apriori... beginning with existing cost functions only to later recover them may not be particularly meaningful...*\\n\\nAllow us to clarify, there has been a large misunderstanding. The purpose of the custom prompt in Section 4.2 is not to hard-code the cost function (this would be pointless as you point out). It is to show how the original cost function could be \\u201cfine-tuned\\u201d with small prompt additions. For example, to reorder feature importance, add/exaggerate a single dependency, or manipulate a continuous feature\\u2019s cost spectrum, or fairness attributes (how you define them). \\n\\n**Revision:** We have re-written some of Section 4 (the evaluation) to be clearer about all this by e.g. titling Section 4.4 \\u201cFine Tuning Experiments\\u201d. Moreover, we added additional experiments showing how the LLM naturally picks up feature dependencies, which is a significant advancement over prior work. \\n\\n ***\\n\\n*Similarly, the accuracy comparison in Table 1 - showing how well LLM responses are modeled by either a tree-based model or an MLP - is difficult to interpret in terms of the paper\\u2019s objective... the choice of model here should be agnostic to the objective of the paper. The experiments show that pairwise comparisons can be learned with reasonable accuracy, which I think is enough to justify the paper\\u2019s merit, but the relative accuracy comparisons confused me - perhaps I missed the underlying point?* \\n\\nWe considered two model classes because they have distinct practical advantages. Only MLPs are differentiable (which is needed by many recourse methods), and the tree models have more ability to be transparent, which is important in domains such as medicine or finance where interpretability is a strong requirement, so the comparison is quite important. We are using accuracy to verify how well they are imitating the original LLM labeling process, which is important as we are essentially trying to distill the LLM\\u2019s knowledge into smaller cost functions. \\n\\n**Revision:** We explain why we compared MLP and tree model accuracy better (ln 303 and Section 4.5). \\n\\n ***\\n\\n*I'm unable to understand the comparisons between the standard and custom prompts, and the bearing they have on the use of LLMs to learn recourse cost functions. Perhaps a search over LLM prompts (without including the desired answer directly) to best match human intuition would be more valuable. Similarly, the accuracy comparison reported in table 1 needs better justification: what does the comparison indicate - are we just checking to ensure that LLM output labels can indeed be learned by the models?* \\n\\nApologies for the confusion, the standard prompt was used in the human study, and this showed strong results (15/18 mostly aligned). However, there was room for improvement, so the custom prompt is there to fine-tune the LLM responses to match preferences in a specific domain (with minimal instructions). We did not see the need to iterate more LLM prompt variations as we risk overfitting to our human study results, and the standard prompt (i.e., no bias injected in the prompt from us) already did quite well, and we anticipate this will just get better with later LLM models. See above response for accuracy concerns in Table 1. \\n\\n**Revision:** We titled Section 4.4. \\u201cFine Tuning Experiments\\u201d and made the purpose of the custom prompt clear in Section 4.2 (ln 296).\"}", "{\"comment\": \"**[Correlation between LLMs and users & Appendix F]** Given the few data points coming from the user's study, I would not trust any statistical results coming from such an analysis. Moreover, even if the reported correlation is high, the data might exhibit very different patterns (e.g., see Anscombe's quartet examples). Thus, I am still very sceptical about the relevance of Figure 7 in the Appendix. Moreover, by comparing the correlation graphs in Appendix F, before and after the current revision, it occurs to me that it seems the only thing that changed is the human uncertainty (e.g., the points are \\\"squashed\\\" at the top of the graph). Since the authors should have only changed the LLM's uncertainty data, how is it possible such behaviour?\\n\\nLastly, I do not doubt that LLMs might exhibit some form of alignment, but there must be reasonable experimental evidence, e.g., in [2] the dataset consists of 731 participants, more than 20x the ones used by this study and the authors in [2] do claim the LLMs might align well just because it might have seen the data during training.\\n\\nThe last point is also a critique reviewer xrVn raised, but I do not think the additional experiment in Appendix K satisfactorily addresses it. Indeed, if the generative process is based on _[...] scientifically known causal dependencies in medicine [...]_ I am very sure the LLMs did see these dependencies during training, and it should be more interesting to study _why_ is not able to model such dependencies (unless it is explicitly prompted for them). \\n\\n**[Single or multiple feature mutations]** Thank you for the clarification. I am still not sure that by considering a single feature mutation we can derive any conclusion related to LLMs mimicking human response in recourse. Recourses can be composed of multiple feature changes, and the cost function might exhibit non-linear relationships between components (e.g., changing A or B in isolation is hard, but A and B together are very cheap). Thus, it feels very synthetic considering only single mutations. In Appendix C, it does seem to me that you consider how much the MLP and tree-based model recover the LLM judgments over multiple feature permutations, but such an experiment does not tell anything about human-LLM alignment over multiple feature recourses. \\n\\nI thank the authors for the exchange and the various answers, but my main issue with this work remains the relatively small sample size of the human judgments dataset. Unfortunately, I believe this issue hinders most of the results and statistical analysis, and I do not think it can be improved during the rebuttal period. For example, besides the uncertainty quantification (Appendix F) issue, as far as I know, the Chi-square test is reliable only with _large_ sample sizes (and this complements a question of the reviewer 8sk6). I do believe the problem and the idea are interesting, but I stand by my previous assessment. \\n\\nTo strengthen the results, I would imagine doing the following (it is just a rough idea, so it might have other issues):\\n 1. Given a dataset (e.g., Adult), compute a set of potential recourse options for given users by using any recourse methods (e.g., Wachter et al.,). Thus, we can focus on predicting the cost for \\\"recourse\\\" options and not for synthetic random permuted examples.\\n 2. Perform a _large_ human study by making participants rate these recourse options in a pairwise fashion.\\n3. Once we have such data, execute again the analysis with the LLMs to understand the efficacy of the various prompt strategies.\\n4. If you repeat Steps 1 and 2 with another recourse method, you could evaluate your trained cost functions (MLP and tree-based) on potentially different recourses looking at OOD generalization, since the second recourse method might provide solutions qualitatively different from the first one.\"}", "{\"comment\": \"Dear Reviewer xrVn,\\n\\nWe appreciate you are busy, but as we are approaching the final day of the discussion period, we hope we have adequately addressed your remaining concerns. Please let us know if there are any further clarifications or additional points you would like us to discuss, or if we have adequately addressed your remaining concerns.\\n\\nBest wishes,\\n\\nThe Authors\"}", "{\"title\": \"Dear Reviewers & AC (note, this is the second revision of manuscript)\", \"comment\": \"First and foremost, we want to sincerely thank the reviewers for taking the time to give their first round of responses, which have dramatically improved the paper. As before, we have taken seriously all your concerns and directly addressed them. All changes are again highlighted in red in the revised manuscript for your ease of reading.\\n\\n**Main Change:** To summarize the main change, taking to the challenge of most reviewers, we experimented with more creative prompting schemes to resolve the uncertainty concern in our human study (which was the main concern across reviews). Our discovery was that by adding a high-level description of our desiderata in Section 2 to the standard prompting scheme, **this had the effect of lowering the uncertainty of the LLM in our human study** (and improved its ability to reason about casual dependencies). Note this change to the standard prompt is general, it can be applied to any dataset without modification. Specifically, this is the addition we made to the standard prompt (corresponding to our 4 desiderata), which you can also see in Appendix D:\\n\\n> Remember the following 4 rules and use them in your decision:\\n> \\n> 1. Some features are naturally harder to change than others, use this logic.\\n> 2. For numerical features, the difficulty of changing them can often depend on their starting values.\\n> 3. Apart from the mutated features, consider the other features which are different between Alex and Jaden, and how this may affect difficulty.\\n> 4. Do not ever use demographic features when considering the difficulty of mutating other features.\", \"to_summarize_the_main_changes\": \"1. In response to the concerns of **reviewers 8sk6, umaS, and xrVn**, we modified the standard prompting scheme to have a general description of the desiderata in Section 2 (see above or Appendix D). **We found this dropped the uncertainty of the LLM in the human study from 49% \\u2192 13.8%, with NO questions being 100% uncertain**. Moreover, it is now aligned with humans in 17/18 questions, higher than the 15/18 before. We have the full results in Table 2 and have updated Figure 7 and Figure 2 accordingly. Please note this is a general modification to the standard prompting scheme, it still can be applied to any dataset without alterations.\\n2. In response to **Reviewer xrVn**, we have extended the case study to consider all three datasets, results are in Appendix J.\\n3. In response to **Reviewer xrVn**, we have added another experiment on synthetic data in Section 4.3 (which does not exist anywhere on the internet, and hence not in the LLM\\u2019s pre-training data). The data shows that the LLM can model known scientific causal dependencies on unseen data with > 90% accuracy, helping to verify that the LLM\\u2019s ability to model dependencies is not limited to popular counterfactual/recourse generation datasets online.\\n\\nWe have updated the paper accordingly. Thanks again for all your help to improve this paper, we would be very excited to share these results with the community.\\n\\nBest wishes, \\n\\nThe Authors\"}", "{\"comment\": \"I would like to thank the reviewers for their rebuttal and revised PDF. However, after reading the other reviews and answers, I am still not convinced regarding the reliability of the conducted human-LLM evaluation study. Some general points below:\\n\\n- **[Relevance of the comparisons]** I believe the recourse options are too few to constitute a reasonable benchmark to measure human-LLMs alignment. For example, assume each dataset has 3 features and assume each of them can take only 2 values. The potential recourses I can suggest to the users are 2^3*2=16. If we compute the potential questions you can make (e.g., pairs of two recourses), we get 256. If that would be the case, you would need to sample at least ~84 questions to reach your 33%.\\n- **[LLMs correlated with users]** I disagree with the authors claim. There have been studies showing also how **LLMs do not correlate with user responses** ([1-3] and many others). I would be careful to argue LLMs match human preference in general, especially in sensitive contexts like recourse. Moreover, as the authors underline in the rebuttal, the claim is in general true for \\\"large user study\\\", which is not the case for this paper. Lastly, given that all participants are _\\\"thirty AI researchers\\\"_ (line 237), the rebuttal answer _\\\"it is reasonable to infer they are generally representative of the population\\\"_ is not convincing (even though authors acknowledge they have a biased sample in footnote 3). \\n- **[LLMs unsure 49% of the times]** Out of the 18 questions, almost half have random answers, since the authors replace them (line 270). Again, this makes the analysis weaker given the limited sample size. \\n- **[Appendix F]** I believe the plot in Figure 7 does not show **any** uncertainty correlation between humans and LLMs (I would have expected points to **align** on the red line), strengthening the points made in the previous two comments. \\n\\nThe other reviews outlined similar concerns regarding the limited evaluation, and unclear results. Thus, I will be keeping my recommendation. \\n\\n\\n[1] Zheng et al., Judging LLM-as-a-Judge with MT-Bench and Chatbot Arena. NeurIPS (2023).\\n\\n[2] Li et al., PRD: Peer Rank and Discussion Improve Large Language Model Based Evaluations. TMLR (2024)\\n\\n[3] Boubdir et al., Elo Uncovered: Robustness and Best Practices in Language Model Evaluation. Proceedings of the Third Workshop on Natural Language Generation, Evaluation, and Metrics (GEM) (2023)\"}", "{\"summary\": \"The authors study empirically the problem of learning a cost function for algorithmic recourse by replicating a Bradley-Terry model from LLM-generated data. The authors provide a framework to generate a suitable dataset, by asking an LLM to judge pairs of recourse options. Lastly, the authors evaluate their approach by training and MLP and a tree-based model to replicate the LLM-generated comparison data on three different datasets taken from the literature.\", \"soundness\": \"2\", \"presentation\": \"2\", \"contribution\": \"2\", \"strengths\": \"The problem studied by the authors is interesting and timely. The lack of suitable cost functions for recourse is a long-standing problem in the community, and the lack of reasonable data limits immensely the evaluation of recourse techniques. Exploiting LLMs to generate recourse-specific data is an interesting and novel application.\", \"weaknesses\": \"While the topic is interesting, the main issue of the present work lies in the not convincing experimental evaluation. Given that learning the cost function using a Bradley-Terry model is standard, and given that there were examples of (I believe) more realistic interactive approaches where they propose to query directly the users to elicit their cost function [1,2], I would like the evaluation of the LLM contribution to be rock solid.\\n\\n**[Human-LLM Comparison]** The empirical comparison the authors presented in Section 4.1 is not enough to claim LLMs can decide as humans in the context of recourse. The analysis has mainly two issues:\\n- The authors ask only 6 questions for each dataset which is too few compared to the potential number of pairs $(x_i, x_i\\u2019)$ available. The number of participants is limited and might not be representative of the population (e.g., all of them are AI researchers). Lastly, the six questions might have been unintentionally cherry-picked to show this correlation. \\n- The LLM was unsure 49% of the time, meaning that of those 18 questions, 9 were randomly answered. The authors claimed it is fine since humans randomly select if they are unsure, however, the authors must prove this has been the case for their experiments (e.g., 49% of the answers are also given randomly by the users).\\n\\nI would suggest the authors perform a more thorough experimental analysis by increasing their sample size and the number of comparisons and evaluating how many times users answer randomly to their questions. Right now, the claim that LLMs can generate the same answers given to users is not convincingly confirmed.\\n\\n**[Cost function evaluation]** In Section 4.2, the authors evaluate two different prompts by taking a standard and custom one (with additional information about the constraints of the cost function). However, the research questions and the description of the experiment results (Table 1 and Section 4.2) are hard to understand. For example, it is not clear what ground truth the authors compare against in all the experiments (e.g., from the text, it is generated by the LLMs, but using which prompt?). Moreover, it would have been interesting to generate a ground truth _from_ user comparison which would have yielded a more attractive comparison. Please see below also a question regarding Section 4.3). \\n\\nI would suggest the authors state more clearly the research question in Section 4.2, the evaluation procedure and better describe their results in Section 4.2.2, considering also the desiderata described in Section 2.\\n\\n[1] Wang, Zijie J., et al. \\\"Gam coach: Towards interactive and user-centered algorithmic recourse.\\\" Proceedings of the 2023 CHI Conference on Human Factors in Computing Systems. 2023.\\n\\n[2] Esfahani, Seyedehdelaram, et al. \\\"Preference Elicitation in Interactive and User-centered Algorithmic Recourse: an Initial Exploration.\\\" Proceedings of the 32nd ACM Conference on User Modeling, Adaptation and Personalization. 2024.\", \"questions\": [\"Why did you not use a specific algorithm to find recourses while you relied simply on permutations?\", \"What is the point of pairing the recourses in a graph (Section 3.2)?\", \"What is the baseline used to evaluate the approaches in Section 4.2? Do you have some ground truth evaluation/cost function?\", \"Why do you pick only different recourses to compare against the $L_1$ norm and the trained MLP (Section 4.3)? Are you not forcing them to have a different cost? (e.g., consider three recourses A, B and C. A and B have minimal cost for the MLP, while B and C have minimal cost for the $L_1$. By picking C and A, you might say that the MLP finds cheaper options than the $L_1$ norm).\"], \"flag_for_ethics_review\": \"['No ethics review needed.']\", \"rating\": \"3\", \"confidence\": \"4\", \"code_of_conduct\": \"Yes\"}", "{\"title\": \"Author(s) Response\", \"comment\": \"We thank the reviewer for noting the practical relevance of our work and for your suggestions which have improved the paper, we now respond to all your questions and concerns.\\n\\n***\\n\\n**Missing Baselines:** We did not compare against published baselines because our models already achieved high performance on all of the 4 desiderata (Section 2), including the one about feature dependencies. Hence, because no published baseline considers feature dependencies, it would be a trivial comparison, in which our method would win easily. We make this clearer in what is now Section 4.3. \\n\\n ***\\n\\n**Weak Case-Study:** Agreed. We have included two published recourse methods in Section 4.6, and shown how our cost function helps them achieve better recourse. \\n\\n ***\\n\\n**Can you hard-code the cost function, how much does LLM help?** You suggestion to use a limited amount of labeled data and hard-coding the function may provide a good cost function, but it could still be quite costly as the problem of defining functions with expert knowledge is quite difficult, can take years, and needs to be constantly updated year-on-year (e.g., see [1]). This is likely why no one has proposed this in recourse, and since LLMs can largely automate the process, it is of enormous practical benefit. \\n\\n ***\\n\\n**Limited Evaluation:** Please note we outlined clearly the dimensions along which a cost function should be evaluated as high-performing in Section 2 (which was defined by other researchers) and used it in all of Section 4 pages 4-9 showing positive results (over half the paper is dedicated to evaluation). In direct response to your concern about dependencies, we asked Claude Sonnet 3.5 to define a list of relevant dependencies in each dataset and evaluated this in Section 4.3. as a new addition to the paper.\\n\\n ***\\n\\n**Experiments not motivated in any earlier sections of the paper:** We regret the motivation for these experiments were lost in the writing. Allow us to explain. The human study showed positive results, but that there are occasionally discrepancies between LLM and human judgment of cost. The purpose of the custom prompt and Table 1 and Figure 3 (now Fig 4/5) is to show how we can fine-tune it to fix this. For example, we saw the LLM judged certain feature-weightings to be different to humans in Figure 2 (left: Desideratum 1), so our custom prompt showed that this could be fine-tuned to correct it (see Figure 4 (middle) in revised paper). Similar results were shown for Desideratum 2-4. We re-wrote all of Section 4. to make this clearer by e.g. titling Section 4.4 \\u201cFine Tuning Experiments\\u201d. \\n\\n***\\n\\n**Can we specifiy constraints during learning?** We could, but this goes back to the problem of hand-defining models [1] discussed above. Our constraints are not so rigid, we mostly use the LLM\\u2019s natural labels and only occasionally modify it in our custom prompt to fine-tune the cost function, not define it from scratch, that would not scale well. \\n\\n ***\\n\\n**Adult Data Contamination:** This is an interesting point. First, because the recourse points are synthetically generated by us, the LLM will not have seen them during its training. Second, asking the LLM to compare recourse costs is a very different problem from predicting labels (i.e. the typical use of the datasets), and we wouldn\\u2019t expect memorization of the latter task to provide any benefit for the former. It is therefore unlikely that pre-training contamination is an issue. We point this out in the main paper and cite the work above (ln 214). \\n\\n ***\\n\\n**Missing References:** Thanks for the suggestion, we have done as you ask (ln 504) \\n\\n ***\\n\\n**Why do you use the Adult dataset?** We opted to use canonical datasets from the recourse literature to maximize readers\\u2019 intuition about the contexts and associated recourse cost considerations. Since the Folktables dataset you suggested is a superset of the data in Adult (drawn from the same underlying census information), we expect the results of our recourse experiments would have been virtually identical. \\n\\n ***\\n\\n**Use of Latin and Phrasing Suggestions:** We have replaced \\u201cad libitum\\u201d with \\u201cat liberty\\u201d, and rephrased as you illustrated, thanks for the suggestion. \\n\\n ***\\n\\n[1] Ruelle E, Hennessy D, Delaby L. Development of the Moorepark St Gilles grass growth model (MoSt GG model): A predictive model for grass growth for pasture based systems. European journal of agronomy. 2018 Sep 1;99:80-91.\"}", "{\"comment\": \"High uncertainty in LLM Human Study Responses - Upon clarification, it is interesting that the human uncertainties align with the LLM uncertainties. I also see more clearly the intentions behind the use of the MLP and the decision trees.\\n\\nMy question about the unrealistic custom prompt remains. There seems to be a misunderstanding here, as per the authors, but I am still unsure my concerns have been addressed. I think I follow this statement: *The purpose of the custom prompt in Section 4.2 is not to hard-code the cost function (this would be pointless as you point out).*. However the following, to me, seems to contradict it: *the original cost function could be \\u201cfine-tuned\\u201d with small prompt additions. For example, to reorder feature importance, add/exaggerate a single dependency, or manipulate a continuous feature\\u2019s cost spectrum, or fairness attributes (how you define them).* Isn't this description doing exactly what my initial question was about - inserting the \\\"answer\\\" in the prompt, and having the LLM recover it in the form of pairwise comparisons used to fit the cost function?\\n\\nTo me, the \\\"fine-tuning\\\" of the prompt by modifying it apriori with properties desired in the cost function, and then observing that the cost function is better attuned to those properties, seems counterproductive. This may not be \\\"hard-coding\\\", but is still essentially leaking information about the cost function to the LLM via the prompt, when the point of the paper (as I understand it) is to elicit the cost function from the internal knowledge of the LLM. If the authors could help clarify if/what i am misunderstanding, I would be like to update my score. Like I mentioned, I think this is a valuable contribution and a unique approach that needs to be shared with the community, but this particular experiment seems to indicate that perhaps LLMs are not indeed a reliable way to learn high-performing cost functions for recourse. If they were, why would we need to include desirable properties about the cost function, known apriori from external domain knowledge, in the prompt?\"}", "{\"title\": \"Response\", \"comment\": [\"Thank you for your reply which has clarified the following of my points:\", \"**Cohen's Kappa**: Yes, the classical kappa only works for 2 raters, but there are extensions to multiple dimensions, e.g., https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fleiss%27_kappa (but that is a minor point for me).\", \"**Chi2-test** I understand the type of test that was performed now which should be fine. Maybe mention more explicitly that you use the independence test not for independence testing but for testing a if two samples are from the same distribution. That was what confused me, when reading the draft.\", \"**Selection of non-obvious examples.** Thanks for providing the plot in Appendix F which shows that the examples selected were non-trivial.\", \"**Modeling dependencies.** I am still a bit confuesed about the selection of dependencies for which some of them are picked up and some are not, but I like the new experiment in Section 4.3. I definitely strengthens this aspect of the work. Some discussion about how the dependencies in Table 1 were chosen and which dependencies the LLM usually does not pick up would be appreciated.\", \"**Baselines.** The results in the Case study show that the new cost function can be used with some recourse techniques (of course simple ones), but this is an improvement.\"], \"my_following_concerns_remain\": \"* **LLM Uncertainty rate in the study is too high.** I agree with the other reviewers, that the high uncertainty rate is problematic. As the authors point out it reduces the small number of 18 examples further to 12 samples for which there is an actual signal. \\n\\nI thank the authors for their thorough rebuttal, which has addressed most of my concerns. I have updated my score from 5->6.\"}", "{\"title\": \"Author(s) second response (part 2)\", \"comment\": \"*[Relevance of the comparisons] I believe the recourse options are too few to constitute a reasonable benchmark to measure human-LLMs alignment. For example, assume each dataset has 3 features and assume each of them can take only 2 values. The potential recourses I can suggest to the users are 2^3*2=16. If we compute the potential questions you can make (e.g., pairs of two recourses), we get 256. If that would be the case, you would need to sample at least ~84 questions to reach your 33%.*\\n\\nWe kindly point out that our paper focused on single feature mutations (we originally pointed this out in Section 3.1), so within that scope we did actually sample a reasonable number of permutations. Note however we did also experiment with multiple mutations, and found our method did generalize well there too (Appendix C). Apologies if that wasn\\u2019t clear initially.\\n\\n***\\n\\n*[LLMs correlated with users] I disagree with the authors claim. There have been studies showing also how LLMs do not correlate with user responses ([1-3] and many others). I would be careful to argue LLMs match human preference in general, especially in sensitive contexts like recourse. Moreover, as the authors underline in the rebuttal, the claim is in general true for \\\"large user study\\\", which is not the case for this paper. Lastly, given that all participants are \\\"thirty AI researchers\\\" (line 237), the rebuttal answer \\\"it is reasonable to infer they are generally representative of the population\\\" is not convincing (even though authors acknowledge they have a biased sample in footnote 3).*\\n\\nThank you for acknowledging our scientific integrity. We are well aware of the mixed results comparing LLMs and users in testing (we talk about it in the last paragraph of our Related Work), so we were careful to run a human study before making *any* claims about alignment in judgement of cost, so we have always been aligned on this with the reviewer. As an aside, the papers the reviewer referenced all had their original versions published in June/July/Nov 2023, and much progress has been made since then (see Oct 2024 [2]).\\n\\nWe pointed out \\u201clarge\\u201d user studies before because it demonstrates higher probability the conclusion is true, but this does not mean that smaller user studies cannot show the same thing, that is part of what our statistical tests are for. For instance, the probability that 17/18 questions are aligned (as they are) in our user study, by chance, is highly unlikely. So again, even though the sample is relatively modest in size, the statistical significance of the results are so strong, that it mitigates this concern.\\n\\nEvery user study has some sampling bias (e.g., only U.S. participants, only Amazon Turk/Prolific Users which by definition biases towards users with internet access and some tech ability). While all participants were data scientists, there was a balance of male/female, non-native/native English speakers, nationality, and age, we disclosed all this information in the paper so readers may interpret it as they wish to contextualize it with other research results, as we did in all our user testing previously.\\n\\n***\\n\\n*The other reviews outlined similar concerns regarding the limited evaluation, and unclear results. Thus, I will be keeping my recommendation.*\\n\\nOur evaluation is over 60% of the paper, covers human studies, dependency evaluation (on real and synthetic data now), fine-tuning experiments across all desiderata, fidelity between the cost function/LLM, and case-studies across all datasets. In addition, we have re-written the unclear parts with the suggestions from all four reviewers. We hope the reviewer is slightly more convinced now. If not, let us know, we are happy to clarify more.\\n\\n***\\n\\n[1] Hopkins, A.K. and Renda, A., 2023, October. Can llms generate random numbers? evaluating llm sampling in controlled domains. Sampling and Optimization in Discrete Space (SODS) ICML 2023 Workshop.\\n\\n[2] De Bona, F.B., Dominici, G., Miller, T., Langheinrich, M. and Gjoreski, M., Evaluating Explanations Through LLMs: Beyond Traditional User Studies. In GenAI for Health: Potential, Trust and Policy Compliance. (2024)\"}", "{\"title\": \"Thanks for the author response\", \"comment\": \"I thank the authors for their detailed response and the revised PDF. After reading the other reviews and the author's response, I stick to my original assessment of the work.\\n\\nMost of the reviewers seem to agree that there are problems with the evaluation in this paper, and I don't believe this is due to misunderstandings. In their response, the authors have already taken steps to improve the evaluation, specifically Table 1 and the revised Sections 4.3 and 4.6. I appreciate this. Table 1 goes into a good direction, I would like to see this evaluation for all the datasets. However, I also tend to agree with Reviewer umaS that there are still gaps in the evaluation: Figure 7 in Supplement F is not convincing at all.\\n\\nWith regard to the point of data contamination, I appreciate that the authors are willing to incorporate this into their paper. To clarify the point from my review, it is not only about the fact that the raw datasets are memorized. It is also about the fact that hundreds of research papers are written about counterfactual explanations on these highly popular datasets, and these are very likely in the training data of the LLM. As such, while it is very hard to say how precisely the LLM becomes able to \\\"naturally model dependencies\\\", it does not seem absurd to believe that dependency modelling is much better for datasets and problems that the model has been heavily exposed to during pre-training (see, for example, https://arxiv.org/abs/2309.13638). This is while it is important to at least make some attempts to study the performance of the LLM for problems that are unlikely to be part of the pre-training data. \\n\\nOverall, I still believe that this paper proposes an interesting method that could be of interest to the community. In my view, the evaluation would need to be somewhat more rigorous for a venue like ICLR.\"}", "{\"title\": \"Paper Decision\", \"decision\": \"Reject\"}", "{\"comment\": \"This was a very useful clarification, thank you. All the concerns I had initially raised seem to now be addressed. I am updating my score accordingly, and I look forward to the community building upon this preliminary work to further \\\"tune\\\" cost functions in different domains.\"}", "{\"title\": \"Dear Reviewers & AC\", \"comment\": \"We would like to thank the reviewers for taking the time to read our paper and give constructive feedback. We have taken seriously the suggestions of all reviewers and either amended the manuscript accordingly to address the concern (**now uploaded, all important changes in red**), or discussed it here in our responses.\\n\\nFirst, we thank the reviewers for their positive comments. Reviewer N4gt stated *\\u201cThis is a good paper and I would like to see it accepted. It presents a refreshingly original method to tackle a real-world problem that has been persistent in the literature...\\u201d*, Reviewer xrVn noted *\\u201cThe research question studied in this paper is interesting and of practical relevance.\\u201d*, Reviewer umaS pointed out that the problem is *\\u201cinteresting and timely\\u2026 a long-standing problem in the community\\u2026 [and] an interesting and novel application\\u201d*, and lastly Reviewer 8sk6 said *\\u201cI think it is important to have more realistic cost functions for recourse and the problem of obtaining them is under-explored in the literature. This work contributes to this goal.\\u201d*\\n\\nWe are grateful for these (and other) encouraging comments made. \\n\\nThe main concern reviewers had was with Section 4 (i.e., the evaluation). **There were two major misunderstandings:** (1) First, we did not properly communicate that **the LLM does naturally model dependencies**, which shows a large advantage of our approach over prior methods. (2) Second, **the point of our custom prompt was not to hard-code the cost function a-priori, but just to fine-tune the final cost function**. To address these points (and others), we have re-written Section 4 and added additional experiments. To summarize: \\n\\n* **LLM Dependencies (Sec 4.3):** Due to misunderstandings, all reviewers were unconvinced by our evaluation and wanted a solid advantage of the LLM compared to prior work. To explain, no prior approaches can naturally label cost dependencies, we showed in our user study that we could do this (Fig. 2 Desideratum-3), but it could have been clearer. Hence, we have added another computational experiment in Sec 4.3 about dependencies to make this explicit, where we show the LLM does model dependencies reliably, and has clear advantages over prior approaches. \\n\\n* **Custom Prompt (Sec 4.4):** All reviewers were confused what the point of our method is if we are hard coding the cost function into the prompt. This was a big misunderstanding, the custom prompt was just to fine-tune the cost function, not write it from scratch. We have re-written this in Section 4.4. and titled it \\u201cFine-Tuning Experiments\\u201d to make explicit. \\n\\n* **Baselines (Sec 4.5):** In response to Reviewer xrVn, umaS, and 8sk6 we have added two published recourse methods to run our cost function with, showing that our method makes current recourse methods better in practice. \\n\\n* **Human Study (Sec 4.1):** In response to Reviewer N4gt, umaS, and 8sk6, we have conducted additional analysis (see Appendix F & Sec 4.1) to show that humans were correlated in their uncertainty with the LLM, so even though the LLM was uncertain 49% of the time, this was paralleled in the humans **and shows even greater alignment than we previously thought.** \\n\\nOverall, we feel our paper is now considerably stronger thanks to your feedback, and that this new version addresses all concerns by reviewers. We look forward to your feedback. Sorry about the misunderstandings, and thanks for your help in assisting us to communicate these results better. \\n\\n\\n\\nMany thanks, \\n\\nThe Author(s)\"}", "{\"title\": \"Author(s) third response (part 2)\", \"comment\": \"## Other Secondary Concerns:\\n\\n*..the Chi-square test is reliable only with large sample sizes* \\n\\nThe Chi-squared test of independence has no hard assumptions about the sample size, it is just generally suggested that the expected values in cells are > 5 for 80% of the cells [4], for us, 87% of the cells have an expected value > 5.\\n\\n***\\n\\n*\\u2026 the authors in [\\u2026] do claim the LLMs might align well just because it might have seen the data during training.* \\n\\nWe have shown in our new experiments (thanks to Reviewer xrVn\\u2019s suggestions) that the LLM can reason about datasets with 90% + accuracy which do not exist in its training data (we addressed your sample size concern in part 1). \\n\\n***\\n\\n*The last point \\u2026 reviewer xrVn raised\\u2026 if the generative process is based on [...] scientifically known causal dependencies in medicine [...] I am very sure the LLMs did see these dependencies during training, and it should be more interesting to study why is not able to model such dependencies (unless it is explicitly prompted for them).*\\n\\nWe agree it would be interesting to study why you need the desiderata and chain-of-thought for accurate dependency labeling, but that is a question for the mechanistic interpretability community, not the recourse one. \\n\\nRegarding Reviewer xrVn, our interpretation was they seemed concerned about counterfactual data existing for popular datasets online, not general learned causal dependencies, which we are, in actual fact, hoping to purposefully exploit. So, we addressed that specifically by making a synthetic dataset.\\n\\n***\\n\\n*Recourses can be composed of multiple feature changes\\u2026 Appendix C\\u2026 does not tell anything about human-LLM alignment over multiple feature recourses.*\\n\\n16.6% of our user study questions actually did do multiple feature mutations (see supplement), all of which showed statistical agreement with humans. This was to reflect our permutation function (Appendix B), which was 80% focused on single mutations, and 20% on multiple. \\n\\nImportantly, we primarily considered single feature mutations because our finetuning experiments require this. E.g., we can\\u2019t mutate two features when trying to evaluate Desideratum 1/2. Most researchers and psychological evidence point towards recourse needing to be sparse (1-2 features max [5, 6]), so it makes sense to focus on this initially. Again, we also have computational evidence our method works fine for multiple mutations (Appendix C).\\n\\n***\\n\\n*To strengthen the results, I would imagine doing the following\\u2026*\\n\\nThanks for this, but if we did as you suggest, we would need to cherry pick examples to focus on a diverse set of features, as certain recourse methods will be biased towards certain suggestions (see our case studies, Table 2 in particular), and the reviewer was rightfully against such cherry picking previously. Also, defining a \\u201clarge\\u201d user study is subjective, no matter how many we sample, the criticism of \\u201cthis is too small\\u201d is always possible, which is why we need power analysis. Lastly, by perturbing many prompt variations we run the risk of overfitting to our 3 datasets. In contrast, it is more convincing that we just use the high-level desiderata other researchers defined previously (which we did, and works well already).\\n\\n***\", \"figure_7_data\": \"We mixed up the axis labelling, thanks for pointing that out.\\n\\n***\\n\\nWe sincerely thank the reviewer once again, we have worked diligently to address all concerns raised. While we recognize there is always room for further exploration, we are confident that our study offers valuable insights and a strong foundation for future research in this area. \\n\\nThank you for considering our rebuttal.\\n\\n\\n***\\n\\n[1] Faber J, Fonseca LM. How sample size influences research outcomes. Dental Press J Orthod. 2014 Jul-Aug;19(4):27-9. doi: 10.1590/2176-9451.19.4.027-029.ebo. PMID: 25279518; PMCID: PMC4296634.\\n\\n[2] Ribeiro, M.T., Singh, S. and Guestrin, C., 2016, August. \\\" Why should i trust you?\\\" Explaining the predictions of any classifier. In Proceedings of the 22nd ACM SIGKDD international conference on knowledge discovery and data mining (pp. 1135-1144).\\n\\n[3] Scott, M. and Su-In, L., 2017. A unified approach to interpreting model predictions. Advances in neural information processing systems, 30, pp.4765-4774.\\n\\n[4] https://libguides.library.kent.edu/spss/chisquare\\n\\n[5] Keane, M.T. and Smyth, B., 2020. Good counterfactuals and where to find them\\n\\n[6] Medin, D.L., Wattenmaker, W.D. and Hampson, S.E.: Family resemblance, conceptual cohesiveness, and category construction. Cognitive psychology, 19(2), pp.242-279 (1987).\"}", "{\"summary\": \"The paper presents a method to learn cost-functions for recourse using LLMs. It uses LLMs to label pairwise comparisons comparing the ease-of-modification costs for recourse, and then fits models on this labelled data. A user study is conducted to show that LLM labels match human labels. In order to improve the LLM labelling capability, information about the desired cost functions is included in the LLM prompts. Spearman's correlation coefficient is used to determine whether the LLM output labels match this apriori information from the prompt, and additional model accuracy is reported upon being fit to the LLM label data.\", \"soundness\": \"2\", \"presentation\": \"4\", \"contribution\": \"4\", \"strengths\": \"This is a good paper and I would like to see it accepted. It presents a refreshingly original method to tackle a real-world problem that has been persistent in the literature. The use of LLMs to learn recourse costs is promising.\", \"weaknesses\": \"My primary concerns with this paper lie in the evaluation strategies employed. In the first experiment, the LLM is reportedly unsure of the answer 49% of the time, which suggests that more creative approaches may be needed to reliably elicit cost judgments from LLMs. I would recommend that the authors explicitly address this high level of uncertainty, including a discussion of its impact on the overall feasibility and reliability of their proposed method.\\n\\nIn the following experiments, the conclusions are challenging to interpret. Including information about the desired cost behavior in the prompt improves Spearman correlation coefficients, and models trained on these labels show higher accuracy. However, the use of a \\u201ccustom prompt\\u201d seems unrealistic as it assumes an oracle can encode information about recourse costs apriori. The paper\\u2019s stated goal is to learn cost functions for recourse, so beginning with existing cost functions only to later recover them may not be particularly meaningful. While including the answer in an LLM prompt naturally brings its output closer to the target values, I don\\u2019t see the value in aiming to recover an answer that was effectively already embedded in the prompt. I would suggest the authors clarify how these results add practical value, beyond simply reproducing known information within the prompt. Demonstrating how their method might perform in more realistic scenarios would strengthen this section.\\n\\nSimilarly, the accuracy comparison in Table 1 - showing how well LLM responses are modeled by either a tree-based model or an MLP - is difficult to interpret in terms of the paper\\u2019s objective. I recommend the authors expand on the significance of these comparisons, particularly in light of their goal to develop effective recourse cost functions. Further clarification on the insights this offers for their method\\u2019s performance would make this section more impactful. It seems to me that the choice of model here should be agnostic to the objective of the paper. The experiments show that pairwise comparisons can be learned with reasonable accuracy, which I think is enough to justify the paper\\u2019s merit, but the relative accuracy comparisons confused me - perhaps I missed the underlying point?\", \"questions\": \"I'm unable to understand the comparisons between the standard and custom prompts, and the bearing they have on the use of LLMs to learn recourse cost functions. Perhaps a search over LLM prompts (without including the desired answer directly) to best match human intuition would be more valuable. Similarly, the accuracy comparison reported in table 1 needs better justification: what does the comparison indicate - are we just checking to ensure that LLM output labels can indeed be learned by the models?\", \"flag_for_ethics_review\": \"['No ethics review needed.']\", \"rating\": \"8\", \"confidence\": \"4\", \"code_of_conduct\": \"Yes\"}", "{\"comment\": \"Dear Reviewer 8sk6,\\n\\nWe appreciate you are busy, but as we are approaching the final day of the discussion period, we hope we have adequately addressed your remaining concerns. Please let us know if there are any further clarifications or additional points you would like us to discuss, or if we have adequately addressed your remaining concerns.\\n\\nBest wishes,\\n\\nThe Authors\"}", "{\"title\": \"Author(s) second response\", \"comment\": \"Many thanks for reconsidering your score, here we address your remaining concerns.\\n\\n***\\n\\n*Chi2-test... Maybe mention more explicitly that you use the independence test not for independence testing but for testing a if two samples are from the same distribution.*\\n\\nWe have updated Figure 2's caption to mention this explicity.\\n\\n***\\n\\n*Modeling dependencies. I am still a bit confused about the selection of dependencies for which some of them are picked up and some are not. Some discussion about how the dependencies in Table 1 were chosen and which dependencies the LLM usually does not pick up would be appreciated.*\\n\\nTo answer your first question, we chose ground truth dependencies for Section 4.3 using Claude Sonnet 3.5 by prompting it 10 times and took the most common three (see Appendix G). These were then evaluated in our pipeline, and found 6/9 were modelled with the \\u201ccorrect\\u201d polarity in our MLP cost functions. \\n\\nFor your second point, the dependencies in (what was) Table 1 were chosen to be the worst performing ones in our previous test, we want to see if we can fine-tune the LLM prompt, and hence the final cost function, to model these \\u201ccorrectly\\u201d. The dependencies we fine-tuned are in Appendix H.\\n\\nPlease note the reason some \\u201cfailed\\u201d is because some of these dependencies listed by Claude were somewhat subjective, such as e.g. \\u201cIt is hard to get divorced if you are older\\u201d. So, to make this evaluation more convincing, we added an additional test which accounts for this by only considering known scientific causal dependencies. Specifically, we have added additional tests to Section 4.3 on synthetic personal medical data, these show that the LLM successfully models the cost of known scientific causal dependencies with > 90% accuracy (note, we used synthetic medical data to be as sure as possible no similar counterfactual data is in the pre-training LLM data). \\n\\nWe have re-written Section 4.3 to add some more discussion about this as you ask (red highlighted text).\\n\\n***\\n\\n*Baselines. The results in the Case study show that the new cost function can be used with some recourse techniques (of course simple ones), but this is an improvement.*\\n\\nThank you, we have now also added the two other datasets to the case study in Appendix J. We focused on Adult Census initially because it has the most objectively inactionable features (e.g., native country U.S.).\\n\\n***\\n\\n*LLM Uncertainty rate in the study is too high. I agree with the other reviewers, that the high uncertainty rate is problematic. As the authors point out it reduces the small number of 18 examples further to 12 samples for which there is an actual signal.*\\n\\nWe appreciate your concern (and that of other reviewers), and have experimented with new prompting approaches. We updated our standard prompt to include a high-level overview of the Desiderata in Section 2, which generalizes across all datasets (see our new general response to all reviewers or Appendix D, standard prompt, red highlighted text). **This has brought the LLM uncertainty from 49% \\u2192 13.8% on average in the human study (with NO questions being 100% random)**. The alignment results are now even better (17/18 have *p* > 0.05 or the same mode), here are the full results for your convenience. We hope this alleviates your remaining concern. We have updated the paper and more details about this in Appendix F and Table 2.\\n \\n| Question | P-value | Same Most Common Response | LLM Uncertainty (%) |\\n|----------|---------|----------------------------|---------------------|\\n| 1 | 0.27 | True | 0.00 |\\n| 2 | 0.00 | True | 0.00 |\\n| 3 | 0.26 | True | 7.14 |\\n| 4 | 0.18 | False | 42.86 |\\n| 5 | 1.00 | True | 28.57 |\\n| 6 | 1.00 | True | 46.43 |\\n| 7 | 1.00 | True | 0.00 |\\n| 8 | 0.53 | True | 0.00 |\\n| 9 | 0.35 | True | 0.00 |\\n| 10 | 0.53 | True | 3.57 |\\n| 11 | 0.47 | True | 0.00 |\\n| 12 | 0.59 | False | 71.43 |\\n| 13 | 0.00 | False | 0.00 |\\n| 14 | 0.03 | True | 0.00 |\\n| 15 | 0.06 | True | 0.00 |\\n| 16 | 0.56 | True | 32.14 |\\n| 17 | 0.12 | True | 0.00 |\\n| 18 | 0.24 | True | 17.86 |\\n\\n\\n***\\n\\nWe hope the reviewer\\u2019s remaining concerns are now fully addressed.\\n\\nBest wishes\\n\\nThe Author(s)\"}", "{\"title\": \"Author(s) Response\", \"comment\": \"We thank the reviewer for noting our work is contributing to an important goal under-explored in the literature, and for your suggestions which have improved the paper, we now respond to all your questions and concerns.\\n\\n***\\n\\n**Why not use Cohan\\u2019s kappa:** Thank you for the suggestion, but Cohen\\u2019s Kappa would not work here, it is used for assessing agreement between 2 raters. Here we have 30 Human raters (and \\u201c30 LLM raters\\u201d) and are comparing two groups representing two distributions, so the Chi-Squared test of independence was an appropriate choice. \\n\\n***\\n\\n**What exact test was used and how to interpret p values?** We used the Chi-square test of independence (i.e., scipy.stats.chi2_contingency), which is used to compare 2 or more groups. Apologies for the lack of clarity, we are hoping that the p value will be > 0.05, because we want to demonstrate that the distributions of LLM and human are not significantly different. We state this clearly in Figure 2\\u2019s caption now. (ln 264) \\n\\n***\\n\\n**How would the results change if scores where only the accepted pairs by the LLM are used were obtained?** If we remove all instances where the LLM was uncertain we would lose 6 questions where the LLM was 100% uncertain. The remaining 12 would have some with uncertain LLM responses. Of these, 8/12 have statistically similar distributions, which is proportionally similar to the 13/18 reported in the paper. \\n\\n***\\n\\n**Selection of examples:** The samples were selected according to their mean values in the dataset and perturbed by standard deviations. This guaranteed they would be reasonable feature values. The questions were purposefully chosen to be very difficult, which is evidenced by the uncertainty shared in the LLM and humans (49% uncertain ln 270). To illustrate this we added additional analysis in Appendix F showing the uncertainty in users and LLM were both equally high and strongly correlated between questions. This shows the questions were not obvious. In total we are evaluating three desiderata across 18 questions, which is not low by the standards of recent recourse publications which sometimes just evaluate as low as six questions with humans [1]. We added the uncertainty results in Appendix F and mention them in Section 4.1 \\n\\n***\\n\\n**What is the advantage of using the LLM:** Our LLM method is the only method which can model feature dependencies naturally, this is a significant advantage on all prior work. If we compare it to other methods like Ustun et al. (2019) they will fail on this by definition, so it would be a trivial comparison. Note we already showed this in the human study when the LLM correlated with human judgement on Desideratum 3, and we have added additional computational test in Section 4.3 to show this now more explicitly. \\n\\n ***\\n\\n**The LLM seems to fail to inherently model dependencies.** Please see above response. The LLM does naturally model these dependencies, the original results in Table 1 were us purposefully choosing dependencies which were not modelled to show we could fine-tune them into the cost function. We have added computational dependency tests in Section 4.3, and shown how dependencies can be fine-tuned in Section 4.4. with our custom prompting scheme. \\n\\n ***\\n\\n**Apply the cost function in popular recourse frameworks:** We have replaced our L1 baseline in Section 4.3 with (1) an SGD-based method by Watchter et al. [3] and (2) a data driven method by Smyth & Keane [2] to test our models, both highly cited and contrasting methods. \\n\\n ***\\n\\n**Can the authors specify more details about the independence test used?** We used the Chi-square test of independence for each question to determine if there is a significant difference in the proportion of each choice between the two groups (30 LLM responses and 30 human responses in 18 questions, 540 per group). \\n\\n ***\\n\\n**What are the user study scores without the undecisive cases?** See above responses. \\n\\n ***\\n\\n**Why doesn't the LLM seem to have implicit knowledge about feature dependencies in Table 1** \\n\\nWe purposefully chose dependencies which did not perform well to illustrate how fine-tuning can help in Table 1. Please note the human studied showed how the LLM picked up on natural dependencies in Desideratum 3 (6/6 had statistically similar distributions or same mode). We have added Section 4.3 which is a new dependency experiment to show where the model can reason about dependencies. \\n\\n ***\\n\\n**I would appreciate additional discussion on how the learned cost function can be integrated in recourse frameworks** \\n\\nWe have shown an example in our case study now for two published methods [2,3], thanks for the suggestion. \\n \\n***\\n\\n[1] Kenny E, Huang W. The Utility of \\u201cEven if\\u201d semifactual explanation to optimise positive outcomes\\n\\n[2] Keane MT, Smyth B. Good counterfactuals and where to find them. \\n\\n[3] Wachter S, Mittelstadt B, Russell C. Counterfactual explanations without opening the black box\"}", "{\"summary\": \"This paper proposes to learn more realistic cost functions for algorithmic recourse (than commonly used L1/L2 costs) with the help of large language models (LLMs). The LLM's role is to assess pairs of two recourses and to decide which one is harder to implement. The ordering is then used to train an explicit cost function using learnable function approximators (e.g., trees, neural networks). The authors show that LLMs align with human judgements and background knowledge and that constraints the costs of feature manipulation can be explicitly added through the prompt.\", \"soundness\": \"3\", \"presentation\": \"4\", \"contribution\": \"2\", \"strengths\": [\"Strengths:\", \"I think it is important to have more realistic cost functions for recourse and the problem of obtaining them is under-explored in the literature. This work contributes to this goal.\", \"Overall, the write-up is good to follow\", \"I do not have major concerns regarding soundness and see no major technical flaws in the described method\"], \"weaknesses\": [\"Weaknesses\", \"**User Study (Section 4.1.).** I have some concerns regarding the study:\", \"I am not sure whether the independence test is a good measure of agreement. Independence would also not be obtained if the LLM responses and human responses are inversely correlated. In the social sciences, agreement measures such as Cohan\\u2019s kappa are established, and could be a suitable alternative to assess how high agreement beyond chance is between humans and the LLM. This scale also allows for a better interpretation of the values.\", \"What exact test was used? The classical Chi2 test (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pearson%27s_chi-squared_test) uses the null hypothesis of the observations being independent. Thus, rejecting the null hypothesis means we have sufficient evidence that they are dependent and small p values would imply dependency. However, in the Figure, it seems that large p values indicate dependency. This remains unclear to me and makes it hard to interpret the p-values. Please provide more details.\", \"I am also not sure how the rejected pairs (where the LLM is uncertain) influence the score. How would the results change if scores where only the accepted pairs by the LLM are used were obtained?\", \"Selection of examples: how exactly were the samples selected, how was made sure that they were realistic examples and of sufficient complexity (for straight-forward examples agreement would be obvious)? The number of two examples per dataset/desiderata seems rather low\", \"**Usefulness of incorporating constraints (Section 4.2).**\", \"I am not sure what the advantage of using the LLM to incorporate constraints is over explicit methods like Ustun et al. (2019). Optimization-based procedures like this one allow to directly incorporate them and also come with guarantees. However, while the LLM seems to follow the constraints given, there are no guarantees. Thus, while it is interesting to see that we can incorporate these kinds of constraints it is not a unique advantage of this method and should potentially be compared with explicit recourse models that can handle constraints.\", \"**The LLM seems to fail to inherently model dependencies.** To me, the most important question is whether we can leverage implicit knowledge available in LLMs to speed up modeling of feature dependencies. Specification of all these causal relationships and mutual feature dependencies is what requires most effort when specifying cost functions, because (as mentioned) the effort for these grows exponentially with the number of features. Adding non-linear cost functions for a single feature (e.g., assigning a higher general weight to it, or making changes harder in certain ranges) is still feasible and already done in many works, for instance through quantile normalization and weighting (as mentioned, see Ustun et al., 2019 and Karimi et al., 2020). It would be much more interesting to test if the LLM can help model common causal relations, e.g., (adult dataset) it is extremely hard to increase the education from bachelors to PhD in 2 years or that marital status might be related to hours worked, when children have to be taken care of etc. This is the task where I think the LLM can save most manual effort. Unfortunately, the results regarding Desideratum 3 in Table 1 show that the LLM does not automatically take care of such dependencies when not explicitly specified. Therefore, I am unsure if the current approach does really reduce the effort, as manual specification of all dependencies seems to be required still.\", \"**The application of the cost function in popular recourse frameworks is missing.** I wonder how the more complex cost function affects the efficiency of recourse frameworks and how easy it is to integrate. It seems in the case study, a brute-force approach to recourse was chosen. This makes me question if the new cost function works efficiently with other recourse frameworks, e.g. through SGD, or manifold based (e.g., FACE, Poyiadzi et al., 2019) or latent space methods (e.g., Pawelczyk et al., 2020).\", \"**Summary:** This work tackles the relevant problem of learning better cost functions for recourse. However, the results are not unexpected and it seems that for the most challenging issue of modeling mutual feature dependencies, manual specification is still necessary. This makes it hard for me to see why this approach would be substantially better and less time-consuming than directly specifying constrains in an optimization-based recourse framework, which on the other hand come with guarantees that the constraints will be obeyed. In conclusion, while this work is technically sound and the write-up good to follow, I remain a bit doubtful that the proposed method has substantial advantages in practice.\", \"----------------\", \"**References**\", \"Ustun, B., Spangher, A., & Liu, Y. (2019, January). Actionable recourse in linear classification. In Proceedings of the conference on fairness, accountability, and transparency (pp. 10-19).\", \"Amir-Hossein Karimi, Gilles Barthe, Borja Balle,and Isabel Valera. Model-agnostic counterfactual explanations for consequential decisions. In International conference on artificial intelligence and statistics ,pp.895\\u2013905.PMLR,2020.\", \"Rafael Poyiadzi, Kacper Sokol, Raul Santos-Rodriguez, Tijl De Bie, and Peter Flach. 2020. FACE: Feasible and Actionable\", \"Martin Pawelczyk, Klaus Broelemann, and Gjergji Kasneci. 2020. Learning model-agnostic counterfactual explanations for tabular data. In Proceedings of The Web Conference. Association for Computing Machinery, New York, NY, USA.\"], \"questions\": [\"Can the authors specify more details about the independence test used?\", \"What are the user study scores without the undecisive cases?\", \"Why doesn't the LLM seem to have implicit knowledge about feature dependencies in Table 1? Can the authors think of an example where the model uses its background knowledge to reason about dependencies?\", \"I would appreciate additional discussion on how the learned cost function can be integrated in recourse frameworks\"], \"flag_for_ethics_review\": \"['No ethics review needed.']\", \"rating\": \"6\", \"confidence\": \"4\", \"code_of_conduct\": \"Yes\"}", "{\"metareview\": \"The paper studies the problem of learning good cost functions for algorithmic recourse (so as to recommend actions to affected individuals).\\nThe paper proposes using LLM-as-judge to label data and thereby train cost function models.\\nExperiments by the authors indicate that LLM judgements correlate well with human judgements,\\nand that LLMs are able to model feature dependencies in the cost function, unlike SOTA approaches to learning cost functions through constrained optimization.\\nMoreover, the authors also showed that the LLMs can be nudged effectively (in cases where their priors do not align with the required desiderata in a given domain)\\nsimply through prompting with appropriate desiderata.\\n\\nThe reviewers agreed that the problem of learning recourse cost functions is well motivated and timely,\\nthough there was significant disagreement about whether the paper's contributions are above the bar for publication at ICLR.\\nAfter a vigorous discussion among the reviewers after the rebuttal period, the main weakness identified in the paper\\nis that the claims in the paper are not adequately backed up by the experiment evidence.\\n\\n1. \\\"LLM is capable of reasoning about causal dependencies without being exposed to similar training data\\\" (Appendix K). The authors created a synthetic dataset, but did not test whether LLM can answer the 3 known dependencies that they used out-of-the-box. So claiming that LLMs were not exposed to similar training data for their Appendix K experiment is an over-claim. And for the original experiments, there remain concerns around data contamination due to several papers describing the dependencies in those popular datasets such that they may be in the training data of LLMs. Overall, this issue is important because all of the domains that a practitioner may apply algorithmic recourse, we do not know that LLMs can be relied on to be a good judge.\\n\\n2. The confusion around mislabeled axis in Figure 7 raised broader questions around empirical rigor -- on sufficient sample sizes, whether prompts were tuned on the test set so as to achieve significantly different results, etc. This discussion thread may well be just be an unfortunate misunderstanding sparked by an incorrect figure, so to give the authors the benefit of the doubt I did not place any weight on this point for the overall decision. \\n\\nOverall, problem motivation is excellent; significance is good; clarity of exposition is poor (given how all of the reviewers shared common misunderstandings that the authors painstakingly tried to resolve during the rebuttal); soundness is below the bar (given the highly sensitive topic of algorithmic recourse, arguments that LLMs match human judgements must be done in a bulletproof evaluation).\", \"additional_comments_on_reviewer_discussion\": \"The authors substantially improved the manuscript during the rebuttal period, thanks to the constructive feedback from the reviewers.\\nThe main remaining weakness remains in establishing the alignment of LLM-as-judge across various algorithmic recourse tasks; the update that the authors did in Appendix K did not adequately address the weakness (although it is a promising step in the right direction).\"}", "{\"title\": \"Author(s) Response\", \"comment\": \"We thank the reviewer for noting our work is interesting and timely, and for your suggestions which have improved the paper, we now respond to all your questions and concerns.\\n\\n***\\n\\n**Make the LLM contribution rock solid:** We regret not communicating this well. The LLM is necessary to automate the labelling of pairwise comparisons at scale and model feature dependencies automatically. No prior approach can do this. Note that our human study already demonstrated this as all six Desideratum 3 (i.e., the feature dependency questions) materials achieved either statistically similar distributions or the same modal response, but we added more computational evaluation in Section 4.3 to make this even stronger.\\n\\n ***\\n\\n**Human-LLM Comparison Issues:** First, in total there are 16 possible feature permutations per dataset, or 48 in total across three, and an additional 2 per dataset when considering mutating the same numerical feature at different ranges as a comparison. We sampled 18, which is 33% of all possible permutations and quite reasonable. Second, our number of participants is double what is observed in some recent recourse studies [1]. Third, LLMs are shown to correlate with large user studies [2], and as our group did correlate with the LLM here, it is reasonable to infer they are generally representative of the population. The six questions were intentionally chosen to use mean values in the dataset, mutate by standard deviations, and be non-trivial, which is evidenced by the uncertainty of the humans and LLMs (see new Appendix F), our questions were all selected before we saw any results, and were not cherry picked from a larger pool. \\n\\n ***\\n\\n**Prove that 49% of the answers are also given randomly by the users:** As an aside, this does not mean 9 questions were randomly answered, it means that 49% of the responses were random, which were spread out among questions. We have included extra results on the human responses when they gauged how \\u201cfar apart\\u201d recourse pairs are (i.e., the second question in Figure 6), which represents their uncertainty. We took the mean responses across these questions and the uncertainty of the LLM which was quantified by what percentage of responses were uncertain for each question. Both were then plotted in Appendix F and Figure 7. They show a strong correlation (Person r > 0.5; p < 0.02), providing evidence that not only are close to 49% of human responses also random, but **they are equivalently random for the exact same questions**. We mention this in Section 4.1 results paragraph (ln 271). \\n\\n ***\\n\\n**Evaluation is hard to understand, what is the ground truth, why not generate human ground truth?** The human study showed our standard prompt (i.e., B in Figure 1) did well at approximating human labels (15/18). However there was misalignments, the point of the custom prompt (and our previous computational tests - now Section 4.4) was to fine-tune the labeling process to e.g. reorder feature weightings to fix minor issues in the cost function. We have added the ground truths to the paper in Appendix H. We agree it\\u2019s important to compare to a human ground truth, but we did this in the human study, so this is not a valid concern. \\n\\n ***\\n\\n**Redo Section 4 with the desiderata:** Agreed, we have written Section 4.4 (Fine Tuning Experiments) to do this, and iterate the desiderata 1-4 to do this as you suggest. \\n\\n ***\\n\\n**Why did you not use a specific algorithm to find recourses:** We have replaced this section to use two diverse, highly cited algorithms, thanks for the suggestion. \\n\\n ***\\n\\n**What is the point of pairing the recourses in a graph (Section 3.2)?** Having a connected graph improves the reliability of our cost estimates, because it ensures the costs of all recourses can be estimated on a common scale. \\n\\n ***\\n\\n**What is the baseline used to evaluate the approaches in Section 4.2?** Yes, we defined the ground truth in our code previously, but neglected to add it to the paper, apologies for this, we have added it to Appendix H. \\n\\n ***\\n\\n*Why do you pick only different recourses to compare against the\\u202fL1\\u202fnorm and the trained MLP (Section 4.3)? ...By picking C and A, you might say that the MLP finds cheaper options than the\\u202fL1\\u202fnorm).* \\n\\nWe have updated this experiment with 6000 comparisons between methods, all validated and compared on exactly the same data. Note we are not concerned with the actual cost in this test, only the recourse ultimately chosen and the actions it results in. \\n\\n ***\\n\\n[1] Kenny E, Huang W. The Utility of \\u201cEven if\\u201d semifactual explanation to optimise positive outcomes. Advances in Neural Information Processing Systems. 2024 Feb 13;36. \\n\\n[2] De Bona FB, Dominici G, Miller T, Langheinrich M, Gjoreski M. Evaluating Explanations Through LLMs: Beyond Traditional User Studies. arXiv preprint arXiv:2410.17781. 2024 Oct 23.\"}", "{\"title\": \"Author(s) third response (part 1)\", \"comment\": \"## Summary and preamble\\nWe thank the reviewer for their continued engagement, and we truly appreciate the chance to address their last main concern of our human study sample size (and the other smaller points). \\n\\nFirst however, we summarize the reviewer\\u2019s main concerns to date and how we addressed them:\\n\\n1.\\tThe reviewer was extremely concerned about the LLM being uncertain 49% of the time in the human study, **we addressed this and brought it down to 13.8% (a significant improvement).**\\n2.\\tThe reviewer wanted the contribution of the LLM to be \\u201crock solid\\u201d \\u2013 We clarified this by showing how only our LLM-based method can label feature dependencies with 90% + accuracy and even added additional experiments to strengthen this.\\n3.\\tThe reviewer was worried about the unclear motivation for Section 4\\u2019s experiments, we rewrote it using the suggestions of all reviewers (most of which are now satisfied).\\n4.\\tThe reviewer was worried we didn\\u2019t evaluate on real recourse algorithms, we fixed this and evaluated on two diverse highly cited ones across all datasets.\\n5.\\tThe reviewer had three additional questions about recourse pairings, ground truths, and the case study. We trust that our clarifications on these points addressed the reviewer\\u2019s concerns, as no further clarifications were requested\\n\\nIf our following rebuttal does not fully address the reviewer\\u2019s remaining concerns, we hope the extensive revisions and rigorous responses we have already provided demonstrate the value of our work and warrant a positive reconsideration of the score.\\n\\n***\\n\\n## Main concern: sample size in human study\\nThe reviewer\\u2019s remaining concerns (e.g., Fig. 7 and human alignment) primarily stem from their perception that our human study (N=30) involves an insufficient sample size (*\\u201c\\u2026my main issue with this work remains the relatively small sample size of the human judgments\\u2026\\u201d*). However, they do acknowledge the significance of our results (*\\u201c\\u2026the reported correlation is high\\u2026\\u201d*).\\n\\nWhile we acknowledge that larger sample sizes can sometimes provide more confidence, we must balance this with statistical justification. Many papers are rejected for oversampling because it can be used to *p*-hack [1] (indeed, we were almost rejected before for having \\u201ctoo many\\u201d users in a study).\\n\\nIf we do a statistical power analysis to determine the sample required for a chi-squared test of independence in a 2x2 contingency table (as ours is). Assuming a large effect -- Cramer's V=0.5 (because as the reviewer rightly notes we should be very skeptical that LLMs and humans correlate), an alpha $\\\\alpha$=0.05, and a power $(1-\\\\beta)$=0.8 (i.e., their standard values), the analysis indicates that a total sample size of 32 participants would be sufficient to detect the effect. Our actual sample size is 30, which provides a reasonable level of power, minimizing the risk of Type II error. Given the strength and significance of our results, increasing the sample size further would not meaningfully impact the conclusions.\\n\\nFurthermore, two impactful XAI papers (i.e., [2,3] -- cited together nearly 50,000 times) conducted human studies with 30 and 27 participants, demonstrating that even modestly sized studies can yield influential findings when thoughtfully designed and rigorously analyzed.\\n\\nWe believe our study provides a strong foundation for future work to build upon. Larger-scale studies could explore broader applications or refine specific insights, but increasing the sample size in our case would not substantively alter our conclusions.\"}", "{\"title\": \"Author second response\", \"comment\": \"We thank the reviewer for their response, and address their remaining concerns now.\\n\\n*Most of the reviewers seem to agree that there are problems with the evaluation in this paper, and I don't believe this is due to misunderstandings. In their response, the authors have already taken steps to improve the evaluation, specifically Table 1 and the revised Sections 4.3 and 4.6. I appreciate this. Table 1 goes into a good direction, I would like to see this evaluation for all the datasets. However, I also tend to agree with Reviewer umaS that there are still gaps in the evaluation: Figure 7 in Supplement F is not convincing at all.*\\n\\nThanks for the kind words. To address your requests, we have run the case-study on all datasets now, with the extra results now in Appendix J. \\n\\nWe have also addressed the evaluation concerns of Reviewer umasS you referenced by altering our standard prompt to include a high-level overview of the desiderata (see our general response to all reviewers above, or Appendix D, standard prompt, red highlighted text), the uncertainty in **the human study has dropped from 49% \\u2192 13.8%**. Figure 7 has changed now also in accordance with this, and we feel it now looks more convincing (although now it is perhaps less relevant since the uncertainty in the LLM has dropped so much). Table 2 and Appendix F describe all the results in more detail, again, the objective statistical measurements showed a significant correlation.\\n\\n***\\n\\n*With regard to the point of data contamination, I appreciate that the authors are willing to incorporate this into their paper. To clarify the point from my review, it is not only about the fact that the raw datasets are memorized. It is also about the fact that hundreds of research papers are written about counterfactual explanations on these highly popular datasets, and these are very likely in the training data of the LLM. As such, while it is very hard to say how precisely the LLM becomes able to \\\"naturally model dependencies\\\", it does not seem absurd to believe that dependency modelling is much better for datasets and problems that the model has been heavily exposed to during pre-training (see, for example, https://arxiv.org/abs/2309.13638). This is while it is important to at least make some attempts to study the performance of the LLM for problems that are unlikely to be part of the pre-training data.*\\n\\nThanks for the further clarification, we understand now. To sincerely address this, we have generated a dataset from scratch which does not exist on the internet with scientifically known causal dependencies in medicine and added this to Section 4.3 (details in Appendix K). Running our standard prompting scheme on this we found that **the LLM does model dependencies here with 90% + accuracy**. Interestingly, we found that in order to model the causal dependencies correctly, the LLM had to be prompted with (1) chain-of-thought, and (2) our high-level desiderata (detailed in the general response to all reviewers). Thank you a lot for this suggestion, we feel it has massively strengthened the paper.\\n\\n***\\n\\n*Overall, I still believe that this paper proposes an interesting method that could be of interest to the community. In my view, the evaluation would need to be somewhat more rigorous for a venue like ICLR.*\\n\\nHopefully our new evaluations are now rigorous enough for the reviewer.\\n\\n\\nAll the best,\\n\\nThe Authors\"}", "{\"title\": \"Author(s) second response (part 1)\", \"comment\": \"Many thanks for your response, we have addressed the evaluation and presentation concerns of other reviewers as you mention, and now we address your remaining concerns about the human study. Please note that in order to respond adequately to your concerns, we had to split this into two parts (this is part 1).\\n\\n***\\n\\n*[LLMs unsure 49% of the times] Out of the 18 questions, almost half have random answers, since the authors replace them (line 270). Again, this makes the analysis weaker given the limited sample size.*\\n\\nWe appreciate your concern, and have experimented with new prompting approaches. We updated our standard prompt to include a high-level overview of the Desiderata in Section 2, which generalizes across all datasets (see above general response to all reviewers, or Appendix D, standard prompt, red highlight). **This has brought the LLM uncertainty from 49% \\u219213.8% on average in the human study., with no questions being 100% random**. The alignment results are now even better (17/18 have *p* > 0.05 or the same mode), here are the full results for your convenience.\\n\\n| Question | P-value | Same Most Common Response | LLM Uncertainty (%) |\\n|----------|---------|----------------------------|---------------------|\\n| 1 | 0.27 | True | 0.00 |\\n| 2 | 0.00 | True | 0.00 |\\n| 3 | 0.26 | True | 7.14 |\\n| 4 | 0.18 | False | 42.86 |\\n| 5 | 1.00 | True | 28.57 |\\n| 6 | 1.00 | True | 46.43 |\\n| 7 | 1.00 | True | 0.00 |\\n| 8 | 0.53 | True | 0.00 |\\n| 9 | 0.35 | True | 0.00 |\\n| 10 | 0.53 | True | 3.57 |\\n| 11 | 0.47 | True | 0.00 |\\n| 12 | 0.59 | False | 71.43 |\\n| 13 | 0.00 | False | 0.00 |\\n| 14 | 0.03 | True | 0.00 |\\n| 15 | 0.06 | True | 0.00 |\\n| 16 | 0.56 | True | 32.14 |\\n| 17 | 0.12 | True | 0.00 |\\n| 18 | 0.24 | True | 17.86 |\\n\\n***\\n\\n*[Appendix F] I believe the plot in Figure 7 does not show any uncertainty correlation between humans and LLMs (I would have expected points to align on the red line), strengthening the points made in the previous two comments.*\\n\\nGiven the amount of variability and noise in real-world data (and the space of possible values), it is often the case that points will not align on the red line for modest samples as we have (18 questions). Please note the objective statistical test Person *r* was 0.55 (*p* < 0.02) \\u2013 [now updated to *r*=0.48 and *p*=0.04 with the new data collected from the LLM], which is considered a strong-moderate correlation. In either case, we have updated this plot now with the new data, and we feel it is a stronger visual correlation (as the objective statistical measurements again verify), one point even lies directly on the red line as the reviewer wished to see to be more convinced (although now it is perhaps less relevant since the uncertainty in the LLM has dropped so much).\"}", "{\"title\": \"Author(s) second response\", \"comment\": \"Please accept our sincere apologies for the confusion, we understand now and appreciate your clarifications greatly. Yes, it is true that the LLM largely correlates with human intuition of cost (now 17/18 of our human study questions show positive results with our updated version of the standard prompt discussed in the general response to reviewers and AC), but it is also true that it will need to be fine-tuned sometimes, we will give you a few examples.\\n\\nFirstly, the definition of fairness in machine learning is currently domain specific [1]. It will be true that legally, in certain domains, we must have zero demographic bias when mutating features for recourse. However, it will also be conversely true, that in other domains, we must acknowledge systemic barriers that exist for certain groups, in which case we must add bias (or leave the current bias alone). We showed in our fine-tuning experiments that we can \\u201cleave alone/add/remove\\u201d similar dependencies in Desideratum 3 and 4. \\n\\nAs another example, in finance, during an economic downturn, a bank may need to adjust recourse algorithms to prioritize different features for lending criteria, in such case the cost of certain features needs to be changed relative to others, which our fine-tuning experiments showed within our Desideratum 1 evaluation was possible. \\n\\nIn healthcare, often patent safety may need to be prioritized over cost, so instructing the LLM in its prompt to consider specific feature weightings for cost is necessary also to help guarantee this happens, which we showed was possible in Desideratum 1 when we re-ordered the feature costs relative to each other.\\n\\nBy putting these into the prompt, it gives us a ground truth for our experiments to verify if the final cost function was fine-tuned correctly.\\n\\nThank you for the question, this is important, we have added a few sentences to the start of Section 4.4 to make this explicit and improve the clarity and presentation (highlighted in red). Again, thanks a lot for pointing this out.\\n\\n***\\n\\n[1] Mehrabi, N., Morstatter, F., Saxena, N., Lerman, K. and Galstyan, A., 2021. A survey on bias and fairness in machine learning. ACM computing surveys (CSUR), 54(6), pp.1-35.\"}" ] }

[ "Yuchen Zhu", "Tianrong Chen", "Lingkai Kong", "Evangelos Theodorou", "Molei Tao" ]

[ "non-Euclidean generative modeling", "denoising diffusion", "Lie group" ]

{ "note_id": [ "ot3XzNlhF7", "gSFSJKKvaN", "f9gyfndsXz", "f0XHwZbMOD", "bBZNDzECP6", "Zi7biPjDpF", "ZelwZeBsfm", "RzzttD02Pz", "KaZ6EnLLyh", "JB3KpP6uZV", "IqvbnTdLNb", "GVp2KezcjO", "FNUiZmMLhb", "FJOoUQAH0x", "BH16BicPIo", "9eL46SLOEb", "7uRGFdKkfv", "5qPQmO7bjw", "5B0COboNJx", "2fOkzbFGBV", "1FyfIoVh2X", "0eafHU0W3c" ], "note_type": [ "official_comment", "official_comment", "official_comment", "official_comment", "official_review", "official_review", "official_comment", "official_comment", "official_comment", "official_comment", "official_review", "meta_review", "decision", "official_comment", "official_comment", "official_comment", "official_comment", "official_comment", "official_review", "official_comment", "official_comment", "official_comment" ], "note_created": [ 1732627707566, 1732073669420, 1732073232664, 1732768123323, 1730407290345, 1730675097620, 1732784967288, 1732647081369, 1732073038727, 1732583001514, 1730714219015, 1734667245446, 1737524145320, 1732661552112, 1732768080230, 1732071646996, 1732553218514, 1732785122863, 1730659786464, 1732072584116, 1732072767971, 1732767601690 ], "note_signatures": [ [ "ICLR.cc/2025/Conference/Submission11776/Reviewer_25XD" ], [ "ICLR.cc/2025/Conference/Submission11776/Authors" ], [ "ICLR.cc/2025/Conference/Submission11776/Authors" ], [ "ICLR.cc/2025/Conference/Submission11776/Authors" ], [ "ICLR.cc/2025/Conference/Submission11776/Reviewer_dYfk" ], [ "ICLR.cc/2025/Conference/Submission11776/Reviewer_AGbj" ], [ "ICLR.cc/2025/Conference/Submission11776/Reviewer_25XD" ], [ "ICLR.cc/2025/Conference/Submission11776/Reviewer_dYfk" ], [ "ICLR.cc/2025/Conference/Submission11776/Authors" ], [ "ICLR.cc/2025/Conference/Submission11776/Authors" ], [ "ICLR.cc/2025/Conference/Submission11776/Reviewer_25XD" ], [ "ICLR.cc/2025/Conference/Submission11776/Area_Chair_gj5x" ], [ "ICLR.cc/2025/Conference/Program_Chairs" ], [ "ICLR.cc/2025/Conference/Submission11776/Reviewer_AGbj" ], [ "ICLR.cc/2025/Conference/Submission11776/Authors" ], [ "ICLR.cc/2025/Conference/Submission11776/Authors" ], [ "ICLR.cc/2025/Conference/Submission11776/Reviewer_N41G" ], [ "ICLR.cc/2025/Conference/Submission11776/Reviewer_25XD" ], [ "ICLR.cc/2025/Conference/Submission11776/Reviewer_N41G" ], [ "ICLR.cc/2025/Conference/Submission11776/Authors" ], [ "ICLR.cc/2025/Conference/Submission11776/Authors" ], [ "ICLR.cc/2025/Conference/Submission11776/Authors" ] ], "structured_content_str": [ "{\"comment\": \"I thank the authors for their response.\\n\\nIn Riemannian geometry a projection map is a map $P$ between $P:TM\\\\rightarrow M$, where $M$ is a Riemannian manifold. In case the Riemannian manifold is a Lie group we have $P:TG\\\\rightarrow G$, where $TG=\\\\mathfrak{g}$ is the Lie algebra. The exponential map is exactly one of such maps. I did not claim that there do not exist other projection maps possible, but merely that the exponential map is one of them. \\n\\nIf the authors want to make the case that other curved space methods necessitate a different kind of projection, they should make the specific case of why their projection is more advantageous, but the statement that the method does not need a projection is not correct.\"}", "{\"title\": \"Response to Reviewer dYfk\", \"comment\": \"We thank the reviewer for the supportive review. We are glad the reviewer can appreciate our work, and highlight TDM as well-motivated and the paper as well-structured with clearly displayed mathematics and comprehensive numerical experiments. We provide the detailed response below to your comments and questions.\\n\\n**Weakness 1 (Grammar & Explanations)** \\n> I feel that for the introduction, there are some mistakes in terms of English grammar\\n> Some parts could have been explained in more detail, but given the page limit restrictions it is natural that the authors aimed to be as concise as possible\\n\\nWe thank the reviewer for the efforts to improve the readability of this paper. We have improved the introduction section by doing grammar checks and also addressing the typos you have spotted in the revision. We also thank the reviewer for understanding that we couldn't explain everything in full detail due to page limit constraints. However, we are happy to help clarify any part of the paper here if you find that helpful.\\n\\n**Question 1 (Numerical Integration Errors)** \\n> p.2 l.59: the authors bring up numerical integration errors. It would be helpful to the reader to specify this a bit more. I assume this is because mappings like the exponential mapping can be expensive. Is this only the case in high dimensions or even on low-dimensional Lie groups? a bit more nuance would improve the paper a lot as it would make the actual challenge even clearer, which would highlight your contributions even more\\n\\nThanks for a great question. Without our trivialized momentum technique, the ODE to integrate is in general of the form $\\\\dot{g} = f(g)$ for some $f$. Even if one uses the exponential map, namely $g_{k+1}=\\\\exp_{g_k}(h f(g_k))$, it is still an approximation of the actual solution. On the other hand, our approach only needs the solution to $\\\\dot{g}=g\\\\xi$, where $\\\\xi$ is a constant, and therefore the solution $g_{k+1}=g_k \\\\text{expm}(h\\\\xi)$ is not only staying on the manifold but also an exact update for the position variable $g$.\\n\\n**Question 2 (Approximation and Curvature)** \\n> p.2 l.78: the authors write ``while still encapsulating the curved geometry without any approximation.\\u2019\\u2019 There is an approximation error if there is curvature right? It would be great if the authors are a bit more nuanced here as well as it should be clear that this method might introduce new errors.\\n\\nThanks for the question. In our framework, there is no approximation error even though the Lie group is curved. This is because the curvature is already taken care of by the exponential map, which can be computed exactly by matrix exponential in our situation. We will make sure this is better clarified.\\n\\n\\n**Question 3 (Wrapped Distribution)** \\n> Section 3: In the Lie algebra, the learned distribution wraps around. So ideally, the score should be periodic or should become zero if this cannot be enforced. Is there some mechanism that enforces this? If not, I would recommend adding this explicitly to let the reader know that there is possibility for error here.\\n\\nIn our framework, the distribution does not wrap around on Lie algebra since the Lie algebra is essentially an Euclidean space and the $\\\\xi$ marginal of the probability distribution is simply Gaussian for any time $t$. The score function associated with the Lie algebra element $\\\\xi$ is not periodic, and we do not need to enforce it, and therefore there is no extra source of approximation errors.\\n\\n**Question 4 (Sampling in ISM)**\\n> p.6 l.337: In the implicit score matching paragraph, it is not very clear to me how one would go about sampling here (does one have to do a forward simulation for this?). Would the authors clarify this?\\n\\nThanks for another great question. To evaluate the implicit score matching objective, one indeed needs to simulate the forward dynamics to generate samples approximately distributed as $p_t$. In practice, this is performed with Forward Operator-Splitting Integrator, which is explained in Algorithm 2 in Appendix D.1.\\n\\n**Question 5 (Relation to Flow Matching)** \\n> Section 5: It feels natural to also mention something about flow matching in the outlook. Do the authors have any ideas on this they would like to disclose in the conclusions?\\n\\nThanks for the good suggestion. We re-emphasized the comparison with RFM in the conclusion section of the revised version. As we have discussed and compared with Riemannian Flow Matching in both the literature review and experiments section, this makes the paper more coherent.\\n\\n**Other Questions (Typos)** We have fixed grammar errors and typos and revised the paper according to your suggestions to improve paper readability and clarity. Thank you for spending the effort to help us improve the paper!\\n\\n----\\nHoping we clarified the misunderstandings and addressed the concerns, we thank you again for helping us improve the clarity of our writing. Please do kindly let us know if anything is still not clear.\"}", "{\"title\": \"Response to Reviewer N41G (Part II)\", \"comment\": \"**Weakness 2 (Approximation in $\\\\mathsf{SO}(2)$):**\\n> Secondly, it wasn\\u2019t clear me to what approximations one has to make when doing RFM in the torus settings, especially since going from the Lie algebra to the Lie group element is essentially trivial in that case. Could the authors clarify what approximations are required in RFM for SO(2)^n experiments?\\n> It would be very helpful if the authors provided a more detailed discussion on the approximations made in RFM and RDM which the authors attribute to the worse performance of these models in the torus settings.\\n\\nWe thank the reviewer for bringing this question up and allowing us to further clarify. When we attribute the worse performances of RFM/RSGM to approximations, we mean it under the general Lie group setting. Indeed for $\\\\mathsf{SO}(2)$, depending on the parameterization of this manifold, some special treatment can be employed to mitigate errors induced by approximations due to the curved geometry, but this could potentially lead to other issues. In the following, we will discuss the pros and cons of different parameterizations, and explain why some sources of errors remain in RFM/RSGM.\\n\\n1. Parameterizating $\\\\mathsf{SO}(2)$ as real 2x2 matrices. In such case, RFM/RSGM learns a score/vector field with outputs in $\\\\mathbb{R}^{2\\\\times2}$ and not guaranteed to be in $T\\\\mathsf{SO}(2)$. Projection onto the tangent space is needed during inference to obtain a valid velocity, which incurs some approximation errors. Moreover, RFM adopts an Euler sampler, which moves samples along the tangent direction and causes the trajectory to leave the manifold. This necessitates the projection onto the manifold $\\\\mathsf{SO}(2)$ after each discretization steps, which produce additional errors. \\n2. Parameterizating $\\\\mathsf{SO}(2)$ as interval $[0, 2\\\\pi]$, with periodic boundary condition. In such a case, indeed approximation errors originate from tangent space, and Euler integration as discussed in point 1 above no longer exists. However, this leads to new issues as neural networks cannot easily learn periodicity and the learned score/velocity tends to be inconsistent near the interval boundary. This issue prevents these approaches from effectively capturing complicated patterns when adopting such a manifold parameterization. Similar observations have also been made in [Lou et al. 2023] (See Fig 2, 3 in [Lou et al. 2023] for demonstration).\\n\\n**Weakness 3 (Comparison on $\\\\mathsf{SO}(3)$):** \\n> The paper also provides experiments for the SO(3) setting, however it doesn\\u2019t provide a comparison with SE(3) generative models that rely on IGSO(3) distribution. As mentioned in the paper, the special structure of SO(3) can be leveraged, which makes applying TDM in that setting less motivated.\\n\\nWe agree with the reviewer that $\\\\mathsf{SO}(3)$ may not be the best scenario that demonstrates the full capability of TDM, because indeed there is a simulation-free training approach for $\\\\mathsf{SO}(3)$ due to its special structure and based on IGSO(3) distribution. But what we compared to in this example (RSGM) is already trained with denoising score-matching loss based on IGSO(3), and TDM still shows competitive performance. In addition, we want to comment that we included this example ($\\\\mathsf{SO}(3)$) because we'd like to provide fair, comprehensive numerical experiments. We also included other examples such as $\\\\mathsf{U}(n)$ where there is no denoising score matching-based diffusion model available.\\n\\n----\\n\\nHoping we clarified the misunderstandings and addressed the concerns, we thank you again for helping us improve the clarity of our writing. Please do kindly let us know if anything is still not clear.\\n\\n----\", \"references\": \"Lou, Aaron, et al. Scaling Riemannian diffusion models. (2023)\"}", "{\"comment\": \"Dear Reviewer dYfk,\\n\\nThank you for your comments and support of our work! We deeply appreciate your efforts in improving our manuscript.\\n\\nBest,\\n\\nAuthors\"}", "{\"summary\": [\"The paper is concerned with tackling the challenge of incorporating diffusion models into a manifold setting\", \"Their key takeaway is that on Lie groups for both training and sampling diffusion can take place in the Lie algebra\", \"They show that their method performs well on various Lie groups of various dimensions that arise in different applications\"], \"soundness\": \"4\", \"presentation\": \"3\", \"contribution\": \"4\", \"strengths\": [\"The authors provide a very nice motivation for the problem and highlight the key challenges that current manifold-valued models are dealing with.\", \"The mathematics is displayed in a very clear way and adequately addresses the challenge discussed in the motivation, i.e., how to set up manifold diffusion models on the Lie algebra. They also address different types of Lie groups well. In particular, it is nice that they highlight the special case of Abelian Lie groups learning, where training becomes easier than on non-Abelian ones\", \"The numerical experiments nicely display that the method performs well on high-dimensional Lie groups (which is where one would expect issues due to numerical inaccuracies from projections and manifold mappings), but also showcase that for low-dimensional Lie groups performance is superior to baselines.\"], \"weaknesses\": [\"I feel that for the introduction, there are some mistakes in terms of English grammar\", \"Some parts could have been explained in more detail, but given the page limit restrictions it is natural that the authors aimed to be as concise as possible\"], \"questions\": [\"Questions for clarification\", \"p.2 l.59: the authors bring up numerical integration errors. It would be helpful to the reader to specify this a bit more. I assume this is because mappings like the exponential mapping can be expensive. Is this only the case in high dimensions or even on low-dimensional Lie groups?\", \"a bit more nuance would improve the paper a lot as it would make the actual challenge even clearer, which would highlight your contributions even more\", \"p.2 l.78: the authors write ``while still encapsulating the curved geometry without any approximation.\\u2019\\u2019 There is an approximation error if there is curvature right?\", \"It would be great if the authors are a bit more nuanced here as well as it should be clear that this method might introduce new errors.\", \"Section 3: In the Lie algebra, the learned distribution wraps around. So ideally, the score should be periodic or should become zero if this cannot be enforced. Is there some mechanism that enforces this?\", \"If not, I would recommend adding this explicitly to let the reader know that there is possibility for error here.\", \"p.6 l.337: In the implicit score matching paragraph, it is not very clear to me how one would go about sampling here (does one have to do a forward simulation for this?). Would the authors clarify this?\", \"Section 5:\", \"It feels natural to also mention something about flow matching in the outlook. Do the authors have any ideas on this they would like to disclose in the conclusions?\", \"Additional feedback\", \"Section 1: please do a grammar check. A couple of small things that I noticed:\", \"p.1 l.43: change ''manifold\\u2019\\u2019 in \\u2026 Neural ODE to manifold with maximum \\u2026 to ''manifolds\\u2019\\u2019. This reads better\", \"p.1 l.44: change ''algorithm\\u2019\\u2019 in Rozen; Ben-Hamu develop simulation free algorithm but\\u2026 to ''algorithms for the same reason as above\", \"p.1 l.94: add ''a'' right before ''trivialized\\u2019\\u2019 in \\u2026through learning trivialized score function\\u2026\", \"Section 2: It looks a bit odd that section 2 is just one line. Consider integrating this line in section 3 instead.\", \"Section 3:\", \"p.3 l.133: replace ''sequal'' with ''following''. It sounds like this will be discussed in your next paper rather than further down in this one.\", \"p.3 l.147: the authors consider the tangent map. I believe that this is the differential? For the reader who is used to other nomenclature and/or notation, I would suggest to also mention that this is often referred to as the differential.\", \"In equation 8, shouldn\\u2019t there be a superscript i for the xi in the dt term?\", \"p.7 l.373: the authors write ``do not admit a closed form.\\u2019\\u2019 A closed form what?\"], \"flag_for_ethics_review\": \"['No ethics review needed.']\", \"rating\": \"8\", \"confidence\": \"4\", \"code_of_conduct\": \"Yes\"}", "{\"summary\": \"The paper introduces a new framework for constructing diffusion models on manifold-structured data in the particular case where the manifold is a Lie group. This is achieved through the use of a forward noising process defined by kinetic Langevin dynamics on the Lie group and its tangent space jointly. The authors demonstrate that the group structure of this class of manifolds allows for the corresponding reverse process to rely solely on a Euclidean score function, as well as allowing for the manifold-preserving and projection-free sampling of the forward and reverse processes, circumventing the complexities and multiple approximations required in previous work. The authors then apply this to various tasks presenting convincing results.\", \"soundness\": \"4\", \"presentation\": \"3\", \"contribution\": \"3\", \"strengths\": \"The authors present a novel and clever way to address the computational limitations of previous approaches to manifold-valued diffusion models, by exploiting the group structure of Lie groups through the use of Kinetic Langevin dynamics. This allows for learning a score function in a fixed Euclidean space which reduces the numerical errors associated with the approximations arising from scores defined directly on curved manifolds. This approach is well-fleshed out by the authors who provide a detailed methodology for the application of this for generative modelling, for example, by providing an integration scheme which is manifold-preserving and projection-free, and training objectives for both Abelian Lie groups and non-Abelian Lie groups. This framework is further validated by experiments demonstrating the novel scaling of manifold-valued diffusion models to SO(N), N>3.\", \"weaknesses\": \"The framework can only provide simulation-free training for the manifold SO(2) and its product space which is less flexible than Riemannian Flow Matching. However, this setting is still important for applications.\", \"questions\": [\"Some possible typos in the text:\", \"line 155, missing brackets for g_t, \\\\xi_t?\", \"line 325, should be \\\"\\\\sigma_t evaluated at\\\"?\", \"line 1022, the A_\\\\xi^\\\\F should be A_\\\\xi^\\\\B?\"], \"flag_for_ethics_review\": \"['No ethics review needed.']\", \"rating\": \"8\", \"confidence\": \"3\", \"code_of_conduct\": \"Yes\"}", "{\"comment\": \"I thank the authors for their detailed answer.\\n\\nFor clarification, here is why I mean that the exponential map in this context can be considered a projection. Given a point $x\\\\in G$, then we perform an update by shifting $x$ by an element of a Lie algebra $\\\\xi \\\\in \\\\mathfrak{g}$. This does not make sense on $G$ since we cannot simply add $g + \\\\xi$. We can however think of the embedding $G\\\\subseteq \\\\mathbb{R}^n$ (this can be done by thinking of $G$ as a manifold). Then, in the ambient space, we can formally perform the operation $g + \\\\xi$ (by abuse of notation I use the same symbols even though I would need to define the lift to the ambient space coordinates). However, the new point $g+\\\\xi \\\\notin G$ anymore, so we need a projection to go back to $G$. Thus specifically this is a projection very similar to your second case, that is (thinking in terms of ambient space) $\\\\exp : \\\\mathbb{R}^n \\\\rightarrow G, g + \\\\xi \\\\mapsto g' = \\\\exp_g(\\\\xi)$. The function to minimise is not the $L_2$ distance in the ambient space, but it nonetheless has a cost (unlike the natural projection). \\n\\nIn summary, I would encourage the authors to clarify in the main text exactly what they need by projection (I understand that [1] makes the same claim but taking over claims from other sources is not always a good practice.)\\n\\n[1] Kong at at., \\\"Convergence of Kinetic Langevin Monte Carlo on Lie groups\\\"\"}", "{\"title\": \"Response to author\", \"comment\": \"Many thanks to the authors for the detailed responses. Based on the replies and the updates in the revised manuscript, I feel that my initial grade is still a good reflection of the paper.\"}", "{\"title\": \"Response to Reviewer N41G (Part I)\", \"comment\": \"We thank the reviewer for the comments. We are glad the reviewer can recognize our contribution, highlighting our work as clearly structured, grounded in well-explained, solid mathematics, and our approach as novel and interesting. We provide a detailed response below to your comments. If further clarifications are needed, please feel free to engage in the discussion.\\n\\n**Weakness 1 (Lack of Experiment details):** \\n> The main weakness of the paper is the lack of rigorous experiments to demonstrate the effectiveness of the model in comparison with existing approaches.\\n> First, the authors didn\\u2019t clarify how the experimental setup and training procedures vary across the different benchmarks. The experimental results would be more convincing if details on the setup were clearly provided.\\n> Although the results on the SO(n) and U(n) experiments are interesting and show promise, more rigorous experiments are required to show the scalability of the implicit score-matching loss (as it generally doesn\\u2019t perform as well). I think the paper could be strengthened if the authors clearly show better performance compared to RFM and RDM on the higher-dimensional SO(n) and U(n) tasks.\\n\\nWe thank the reviewer for bringing this point up. To provide more details on the training procedures and make the numerical results more convincing, we expand the paragraph **\\\"Architectural Framework\\\"** and **\\\"Training Hyperparameters\\\"** in Appendix G.1 and include a detailed training configuration in the revision. We include the choice of all the important training hyperparameters and a more detailed explanation of the neural architectures employed in our experiments. We will also soon make the code implementation public, which contains full hyperparameter configurations for different experiments. \\n\\nTo better present the advantage of our approach compared with existing approaches, we also include additional numerical results in Appendix H in the revision. We additionary compare TDM with RFM on two types of distribution on Unitary groups ranging from $\\\\mathsf{U}(4)$ to $\\\\mathsf{U}(8)$, namely the time evolution operator of Quantum oscillator and Random Transverse Field Ising Models. As is evident from the plots, TDM captures the complicated patterns of distribution more accurately compared with RFM. While in general RFM also well captured the global shape of the data distribution, the details near the distribution boundary tend to be noisier than the ones produced by TDM. This potentially originates from the approximations adopted by RFM, suggesting again the advantage of our proposed method.\"}", "{\"comment\": \"Dear Reviewer N41G,\\n\\nWe deeply appreciate your response and your willingness to consider raising your score! Your specific suggestions have been instrumental in improving our manuscript.\\n\\nThank you again for your valuable review and support of our work.\\n\\nBest regards,\\nAuthors\"}", "{\"summary\": \"The authors present a method for diffusion on Lie groups. The method is based on the recently published idea of trivialized momentum, that is, diffusion (i.e. noising) is performed on the Lie algebra of the group, and not on the Lie group itself. The advantage of this approach is that the Lie algebra is a vector space isomorphic to $\\\\mathbb{R}^n$, and therefore it simplifies the problem since all the curvature terms pretty much drop out. This diffusion is brought back into the actual Lie Group G by using the map connecting two tangent spaces of G at different point, which is the tangent of the left multiplication map.\\n\\nThe authors show that this noising dynamics has an inverse dynamics as well, in very familiar fashion as the usual diffusion dynamics, in which a score function appear, which it is possible to learn with neural networks. \\n\\nThe authors further argue that it is possible to have a dynamics that is exaclty on the curved manifold at all steps without the need of a projection (I do not agree with this statement, please refer below in the \\\"Questions\\\" section). This is done by separating each step into two contributions, i.e., the update of the Lie algebra element $d\\\\xi$ and the update of the lie group element $dg = g \\\\xi$. Note that also this procedure is already known in the literature. \\n\\nThey provide an explicit formula for the Abelian case, while they point out that for the general case, it is necessary to learn the score with implicit score matching, which unfortunately involves the divergence term.\", \"soundness\": \"3\", \"presentation\": \"3\", \"contribution\": \"2\", \"strengths\": \"The topic is very relevant, as diffusion-based models achieved quite successful results in many applications, but very little has been explored in terms how inductive bias can be incorporate into them, and diffusion on manifold is surely an important field.\\n\\nThe notation is fairly consistent and the math is, to the extend that I checked, correct (I did not carefully checked the proofs in the appendix).\", \"weaknesses\": \"My two main concerns regard the originality of the work and its practical relevance:\\n\\n- **Originality**: As far as I can see, the idea and the theory behind trivialized momentum has been developed in previous works, as well as the splitting discretization technique to exactly integrate the SDEs. The authors prove a theorem for the inverse SDE of the system, but given that the non-trivial equation (about the variation of the Lie algebra) is essentially in flat space, it reduces pretty much to the flat-space formula.\\n- **Practical Relevance**: The main drawback is in the non-Abelian case, which is the most interesting since the Abelian case is essentially SO(2) (or copies of it). For non-Abelian groups, there's no conditional transition probability available, requiring implicit score matching. This involves computing the divergence with respect to the data space (more precisely, the Lie algebra space, but as dim data = dim $G$ = dim $\\\\mathfrak{g}$ its computationally as expensive). This limitation significantly reduces the method's practicality and makes it unlikely to be widely adopted. \\n\\nI think the paper would be significantly more relevant if it provided an analogue of Theorem 2 for non-Abelian groups.\", \"questions\": [\"280-283: The sentence \\u201cSince the Brownian motion\\u2026\\u201d does not seem to be grammatically correct.\", \"292: \\u201cUnfortunately, note [that] even though\\u201d. Missing \\u201cthat\\u201d.\", \"382: $A_g^B$ used twice, probably copy-paste error.\", \"The authors make several times the claim that the formalism on which they based their work does not required projection on the manifold. I think this statement, as is, is false. Group equation is $dg = g_0 \\\\xi$, which is an equation on the tangent space of the group. Its solution is (neglecting the variation of $\\\\xi$), $g=\\\\exp(g_0 \\\\xi)$. But the exponential map is precisely the projection function on Lie groups, $\\\\exp: TG \\u2014> G$. So to stay on the manifold the authors are performing a projection exactly as all other methods too.\"], \"flag_for_ethics_review\": \"['No ethics review needed.']\", \"rating\": \"5\", \"confidence\": \"4\", \"code_of_conduct\": \"Yes\"}", "{\"metareview\": \"The paper studies diffusion processes on Lie groups by introducing the diffusion process on corresponding Lie algebra. This allows introducing the diffusion processes and training corresponding generative models on SO(n) and U(n) manifolds. All the reviewers have recognized the theoretical contribution of the paper. Given the high interest in generative modelling, the paper will be of high interest to the ICLR audience.\", \"additional_comments_on_reviewer_discussion\": \"Several reviewers raised concerns regarding the proposed approach's scalability and practical evaluation. However, the merit of the proposed theoretical developments outweighed the issues of the empirical study.\"}", "{\"title\": \"Paper Decision\", \"decision\": \"Accept (Poster)\"}", "{\"title\": \"Response to rebuttal\", \"comment\": \"Thanks to the authors for the response. I will maintain my score.\"}", "{\"comment\": \"Dear Reviewer AGbj,\\n\\nThank you for your comments and support of our work! We deeply appreciate your efforts in improving our manuscript.\\n\\nBest,\\n\\nAuthors\"}", "{\"title\": \"Response to Reviewer 25XD (Part I)\", \"comment\": \"We thank the reviewer for the comments. We are glad the reviewer can recognize our contribution to manifold diffusion models. We provide the detailed response below. If further clarifications are needed, please feel free to engage in the discussion.\\n\\n**Weakness 1 (Originality):** \\n> As far as I can see, the idea and the theory behind trivialized momentum have been developed in previous works, as well as the splitting discretization technique to exactly integrate the SDEs.\\n\\nPrevious works employed trivialized momentum for optimization and sampling, and our work is the first that uses it in generative modeling. We're unsure if the novelty of generative modeling algorithm should be criticized for gaining inspiration from existing sampling/stochastic analysis literature. For example, score-based generative model (SGM) [e.g., Yang et al. 2020] turned Ornstein\\u2013Uhlenbeck process into a generative model, Critically-damped Langevin Diffusion (CLD) [Dockhorn et al. 2021] turned kinetic langevin dynamics into a generative model. We think they had significant originality and impact, and our case is the same: TDM turned trivialized Lie-group sampling dynamics into a generative model.\\n\\nRegarding splitting discretization, similarly, while this technique has been studied in the literature of numerical analysis, we are the first to use it for Lie group generative modeling. We also do not claim any credit over its convergence analysis, and present it in the paper just for self-consistency.\\n\\n\\n> The authors prove a theorem for the inverse SDE of the system, but given that the non-trivial equation (about the variation of the Lie algebra) is essentially in flat space, it reduces pretty much to the flat-space formula.\\n\\nRegarding Theorem 1 in the paper (which is about the reverse process of TDM), we agree that the result itself is not surprising. That is why our approach is good -- it just gives results like in the Euclidean case, which is the intention of our design. However, the proof of Theorem 1 (see Appendix B) is not straightforward due to the curved geometry. In addition, we also presented many other novel and non-trivial theoretical results such as Theorem 2 and Theorem 5.\\n\\n**Weakness 2 (Practical Relevance):** \\n> The main drawback is in the non-Abelian case, which is the most interesting since the Abelian case is essentially SO(2) (or copies of it). For non-Abelian groups, there's no conditional transition probability available, requiring implicit score matching. This involves computing the divergence with respect to the data space (more precisely, the Lie algebra space, but as dim data = dim $G$ = dim $\\\\mathfrak{g}$ its computationally as expensive). This limitation significantly reduces the method's practicality and makes it unlikely to be widely adopted.\\n\\nWe thank the reviewer for pointing it out. We agree with the reviewer that the extension of denoising score matching (DSM) to general non-Abelian Lie groups would be exciting. However, we also note that existing Riemannian Diffusion Models, such as RSGM [De Bortoli et al. 2022] and RDM [Huang et al. 2022], also heavily rely on implicit score matching when dealing with general Lie groups. In fact, the success on simulation-free training of manifold diffusion models has been very limited in the literature, and we're unaware of any denoising score-matching result for **general** non-Abelian groups.\"}", "{\"comment\": \"Thank you for your response.\\nRegarding the approximation errors in SO(2), even though I\\u2019m not sure how much of an issue it would be in practice for the network to learn the periodicity, I believe these arguments should be included in the paper to make it clearer. I am willing to increase my score from a 5 to a 6. However, I still believe that more rigorous experiments (and not just visualizations of toy tasks would be beneficial to make the results more convincing and showcase the benefits of the proposed method.\"}", "{\"comment\": \"I thank the authors for their clarifications. My concerns about the novelty and the practical relevance still remain at large, but I acknowledge that the previous works did not have a focus on generative modeling. For this reason I will increase my score.\"}", "{\"summary\": \"This paper provides a new framework for performing generative modelling on Lie groups which doesn\\u2019t require any geometry-specific projections or approximations, utilizing the notion of \\u201ctrivialized momentum.\\u201d The authors provide the denoising score matching loss which can be used for SO(2)^n, as the conditional transition probabilities are tractable and an implicit score matching loss for other connected compact Lie groups. They also provide an integration scheme for the forward and backward dynamics.\", \"soundness\": \"2\", \"presentation\": \"3\", \"contribution\": \"2\", \"strengths\": [\"The paper is overall well-written and easy to follow. The problem the authors tackle is interesting and important.\", \"The proposed technique is interesting and avoids some of the problems mentioned with other existing approaches, such as projections, requiring specific architectures, etc.\", \"The mathematical details are explained cohesively and clearly.\", \"The results on the torus datasets, as well as the toy tasks for the SO(n) and U(n) groups seem promising.\"], \"weaknesses\": [\"The main weakness of the paper is the lack of rigorous experiments to demonstrate the effectiveness of the model in comparison with existing approaches.\", \"First, the authors didn\\u2019t clarify how the experimental setup and training procedures vary across the different benchmarks. The experimental results would be more convincing if details on the setup are clearly provided.\", \"Secondly, it wasn\\u2019t clear me to what approximations one has to make when doing RFM in the torus settings, especially since going from the Lie algebra to the Lie group element is essentially trivial in that case. Could the authors clarify what approximations are required in RFM for SO(2)^n experiments?\", \"Lastly, although the results on the SO(n) and U(n) experiments are interesting and show promise, more rigorous experiments are required to show the scalability of the implicit score-matching loss (as it generally doesn\\u2019t perform as well). I think the paper could be strengthened if the authors clearly show better performance compared to RFM and RDM on the higher-dimensional SO(n) and U(n) tasks.\", \"It would be very helpful if the authors provided a more detailed discussion on the approximations made in RFM and RDM which the authors attribute to the worse performance of these models in the torus settings.\", \"The paper also provides experiments for the SO(3) setting, however it doesn\\u2019t provide a comparison with SE(3) generative models that rely on IGSO(3) distribution. As mentioned in the paper, the special structure of SO(3) can be leveraged, which makes applying TDM in that setting less motivated.\"], \"questions\": \"See above.\", \"flag_for_ethics_review\": \"['No ethics review needed.']\", \"rating\": \"6\", \"confidence\": \"3\", \"code_of_conduct\": \"Yes\"}", "{\"title\": \"Response to Reviewer 25XD (Part II)\", \"comment\": \"**Question 4 (Projection):**\\n> The authors make several times the claim that the formalism on which they based their work does not require projection on the manifold. I think this statement, as is, is false. The group equation is $dg = g_0 \\\\xi$, which is an equation on the tangent space of the group. Its solution is (neglecting the variation of $\\\\xi$), $g = \\\\exp(g_0 \\\\xi)$ But the exponential map is precisely the projection function on Lie groups, $\\\\exp: TG \\\\rightarrow G$. So to stay on the manifold the authors are performing a projection exactly as all other methods too.\\n\\nWe thank the reviewer for bringing it up and allowing us to further clarify. **Projection onto the manifold** in our setting means an operator $P: \\\\mathbb{R}^{n} \\\\rightarrow G$ that projects a point outside the Lie group $G$ to the Lie group. This notion is deployed in the literature to address the numerical errors led by inexact numerical integration of dynamics that cause the trajectory to leave the manifold. For example, given dynamics $\\\\dot{g}=g\\\\xi$ with constant $\\\\xi$ in the Lie algebra, standard Euler scheme $g \\\\mapsto g+h g \\\\xi$ will no longer be on the manifold, and it is common to use $\\\\hat{g_h}=P(g_0+h g_0\\\\xi)$, i.e. an extra projection operation to put it back on the manifold. Here $\\\\hat{g_h}$ would be an approximation of the exact solution $g_h=g_0 \\\\text{expm}(h\\\\xi)$, and the way it is obtained is an example of a retraction operation enabled by a projection. Projection by itself however does not simulate the dynamics. On the contrary, the exponential map $\\\\exp_g: T_gG \\\\rightarrow G$ is the operator that generalizes the notion of \\\"moving in a straight line\\\" to Lie groups, thus is different from the projection operator. In the case of $\\\\dot{g}=g\\\\xi$ with constant $\\\\xi$, $g_h=g_0 \\\\text{expm}(h\\\\xi)=\\\\exp_{g_0}(hg_0\\\\xi)$ is the exact solution, where $\\\\exp$ is the exponential map and $\\\\text{expm}$ is standard matrix exponential that implements the exponential map, and no projection is involved.\\n\\n**Other questions (Typos):** We have fixed grammar errors and typos you spotted and updated in the revision. Thank you for spending this effort in improving the paper!\\n\\n----\\n\\nHoping we clarified the misunderstandings and addressed the concerns, we thank you again for helping us improve the clarity of our writing. Please do kindly let us know if anything is still not clear.\\n\\n----\\n**Reference:**\\n\\nSong, Yang, et al. Score-based generative modeling through stochastic differential equations (2020)\\n\\nDockhorn, Tim, Arash Vahdat, and Karsten Kreis. Score-based generative modeling with critically-damped langevin diffusion (2021)\\n\\nDe Bortoli, Valentin, et al. Riemannian score-based generative modelling (2022)\\n\\nHuang, Chin-Wei, et al. Riemannian diffusion models (2022)\"}", "{\"title\": \"Response to Reviewer AGbj\", \"comment\": \"We sincerely thank the reviewer for the supportive review, recognizing our work as novel, convincing, and well-validated with comprehensive numerical experiments. We provide a detailed response to your comments below.\\n\\n**Weakness 1 (Training flexibility)** \\n> The framework can only provide simulation-free training for the manifold SO(2) and its product space which is less flexible than Riemannian Flow Matching. However, this setting is still important for applications.\\n\\nThank you very much for acknowledging that $\\\\mathsf{SO}(2)$ and its product space are still important for applications. Regarding Riemannian Flow Matching, we would like to additionally comment that while it potentially enjoys simulation-free training in many cases, it comes with the cost of the need to compute the logarithm map for defining the conditional flow. Unlike the exponential map, the logarithm map as its inverse is much more numerically unstable and harder to compute. TDM does not require the computation of the logarithm map during training, so it is better in this regard, but it is indeed not always simulation-free. Therefore, which one is theoretically better is not yet completely clear to us.\\n\\n**Questions (Typos)** \\n\\nWe have fixed grammar errors and typos and revised the paper according to your suggestions to improve paper readability and clarity. Thank you for spending this effort in improving the paper!\"}", "{\"comment\": \"Dear Reviewer 25XD,\\n\\nThanks very much for your response!\\n\\n> In Riemannian geometry a projection map is a map $P$ between $P: TM \\\\rightarrow M$, where $M$ is a Riemannian manifold.\\n\\nWe feel like the reviewer's confusion may have arisen from the fact that there are **multiple notions of projections** and we have not been on the same page regarding it throughout the discussion. Therefore, please allow us to clarify these notions below:\\n\\n1. One of them, sometimes called \\\"natural projection\\\", is indeed a common operation in differential geometry (note: this operation is not specialized to Riemannian geometry as no Riemannian structure is needed). This operation is the following mapping\\n$\\\\pi: TM\\\\to M$, $(x, v)\\\\mapsto x$ for $x\\\\in M$ and $v\\\\in T_x M$ \\n(see e.g., [1] page 382). \\nHere $TM$ is the tangent bundle, defined as $TM = \\\\underset{x \\\\in M}{\\\\cup} \\\\{x\\\\} \\\\times T_{x} M$ and $T_{x}M$ is the tangent space of M at $x$. \\nThis operation bears no computational cost and is not what we have been discussing throughout the manuscript.\\n\\n2. Another version is what we have been referring to: when $M$ is embedded in $\\\\mathbb{R}^n$, the mapping \\n$P: \\\\mathbb{R}^n\\\\to M$: $P(x)=\\\\arg\\\\min_{y\\\\in M} ||x-y||$\\nis also known as a projection. It is standard and widely adopted in the literature of, e.g., manifold optimization, sampling theory, and generative modeling, and therefore we did not expand on details in the manuscript. In fact, the defining formula above is quoted from a celebrated manifold generative modeling work ([2], Eq. 27; more references include other milestones in manifold optimization [3] and sampling [4]). Just in case more mathematical rigor is needed, a more formal definition is: given an embedding $i$ of $M$ in $\\\\mathbb{R}^n$, the map $P: \\\\mathcal{B}(i(M)) \\\\to M$ from a neighborhood of the manifold to itself, defined as $P(x)=\\\\arg\\\\min_{y\\\\in M} || x-i(y) ||$, is a projection.\\nThis version of projection, however, often bears a computational cost, and it is what we try to reduce.\\n\\n[1] JM Lee. Introduction to Riemannian Manifolds. Springer 2018\\n\\n[2] RT Chen and Y Lipman. Flow matching on general geometries. ICLR 2024.\\n\\n[3] H Zhang, SJ Reddi, S Sra. Riemannian SVRG: Fast Stochastic Optimization on Riemannian Manifolds. NIPS 2016\\n\\n[4] S Bubeck, R Eldan, and J Lehec. Sampling from a log-concave distribution with projected Langevin Monte Carlo. Discrete & Computational Geometry, 2018\\n\\n> The exponential map is exactly one of such maps. I did not claim that there do not exist other projection maps possible, but merely that the exponential map is one of them.\\n\\nAssuming that the reviewer was thinking that the exponential map is the projection of the first kind due to his notation used, may we point out that **while natural projection is a $TM \\\\to M$ mapping, not all $TM \\\\to M$ mappings are natural projections**? In order to be a valid projection of the first kind, the operation must preserve the based point $x$ (see again, e.g., [1] page 382). While the exponential map is also a $TM \\\\to M$ mapping, it does not preserve this base point and thus does not suit this definition of projection.\\n\\nIf there is still a belief that the exponential map is a projection, maybe there is a third type of projection that we are unaware of. In this case, we would deeply appreciate some popular references.\\n\\n> In case the Riemannian manifold is a Lie group we have $P:TG\\\\to G$, where $TG=\\\\mathfrak{g}$ is the Lie algebra. \\n\\n$TG$ is the tangent bundle of $G$, which collects all tangent spaces along with their base points. $T_g G$ for any $g\\\\in G$ is a tangent space at point $g$. $T_e G$ (not the tangent bundle $TG$) is the Lie algebra $\\\\mathfrak{g}$, where $e$ is one special element of the group $G$, namely the identity element. These three are very different things, and our key contribution is to leverage the Lie algebra $T_e G$ instead of a standard treatment based on $TG$. We're not completely sure if this discussion is still relevant, but if there is something the reviewer would like us to do, we are happy to, but we'd appreciate it if the reviewer could further clarify the inconsistent notations so that we know our task.\\n\\n---\\nIn summary, we will be more than happy to clarify the different definitions of projections in our manuscript if that's what the reviewer is suggesting (thank you for pointing out). However, we are uncertain if this solely contributes to the reviewer's evaluation of our work as only worth a score of 3. \\n\\nThe reviewer's initial review included two weaknesses, three questions on typos, and one question on projection, which we greatly appreciated and carefully explained/addressed in our first-round responses. Since the second round of comments was only about projection and we absolutely would like to make sure our paper and explanations make sense, may we ask if we managed to address the other concerns?\\n\\nThank you again for engaging in the discussion and we are looking forward to your response!\\n\\nBest regards\"}" ] }

[ "Gueter Josmy Faure", "Jia-Fong Yeh", "Min-Hung Chen", "Hung-Ting Su", "Shang-Hong Lai", "Winston H. Hsu" ]

[ "Long-form video understanding", "episodic memory", "semantics extraction" ]

{ "note_id": [ "rkobw4EYCA", "VYERMNRqm4", "UISW0K3jMC", "U7zXNRAUa9", "S40BHohUVo", "R2AcixVqQe", "P9DV0JqzXr", "P0wnQNLC8n", "JvRHBvNDB0", "IxewDMbslt", "CACK35g8Ix", "9Zt0jjreNM", "89Z6buPbKi", "5bDtHbfece", "04CBqCx6VE" ], "note_type": [ "comment", "official_comment", "official_review", "official_comment", "official_comment", "official_review", "official_comment", "official_comment", "official_review", "official_comment", "official_comment", "official_comment", "official_comment", "official_comment", "official_review" ], "note_created": [ 1732946474524, 1732805535178, 1730130684927, 1732540195908, 1732369067789, 1730606446419, 1732787356832, 1732365403032, 1730268440105, 1732366102072, 1732539060444, 1732539698788, 1732538286686, 1732354692521, 1730730077387 ], "note_signatures": [ [ "ICLR.cc/2025/Conference/Submission4587/Authors" ], [ "ICLR.cc/2025/Conference/Submission4587/Reviewer_2hiE" ], [ "ICLR.cc/2025/Conference/Submission4587/Reviewer_2hiE" ], [ "ICLR.cc/2025/Conference/Submission4587/Authors" ], [ "ICLR.cc/2025/Conference/Submission4587/Authors" ], [ "ICLR.cc/2025/Conference/Submission4587/Reviewer_R1mv" ], [ "ICLR.cc/2025/Conference/Submission4587/Reviewer_Rtjc" ], [ "ICLR.cc/2025/Conference/Submission4587/Authors" ], [ "ICLR.cc/2025/Conference/Submission4587/Reviewer_Rtjc" ], [ "ICLR.cc/2025/Conference/Submission4587/Authors" ], [ "ICLR.cc/2025/Conference/Submission4587/Authors" ], [ "ICLR.cc/2025/Conference/Submission4587/Authors" ], [ "ICLR.cc/2025/Conference/Submission4587/Authors" ], [ "ICLR.cc/2025/Conference/Submission4587/Authors" ], [ "ICLR.cc/2025/Conference/Submission4587/Reviewer_BVft" ] ], "structured_content_str": [ "{\"withdrawal_confirmation\": \"I have read and agree with the venue's withdrawal policy on behalf of myself and my co-authors.\", \"comment\": \"We are grateful for the reviewers' constructive feedback on our paper and ideas for improvement.\"}", "{\"comment\": \"Thank you for your detailed clarification.\\n\\nRegarding ToMe, while I acknowledge that the practical implementation may differ slightly, my concern remains that the core idea centers on token merging. I believe that employing explicit grounding supervision would more effectively achieve the paper's goal of extracting two distinct and orthogonal memory types, rather than relying on implicit methods, which may not be convincing.\\n\\nConcerning the benchmarks, I encourage you to conduct evaluations using the strongest backbones available, such as LLaVA-OneVision or Qwen2-VL. Given that VideoLLM is a rapidly evolving field, presenting results on the most up-to-date benchmarks will better demonstrate the model's effectiveness. The current experiments appear insufficient in this regard.\\n\\nThank you for your efforts, and I look forward to further developments.\"}", "{\"summary\": \"The paper introduces a vision encoder that integrates both micro-level and macro-level details before inputting the data into large language models (LLMs) for comprehensive long-form video analysis. The Episodic COmpressor (ECO) is responsible for consolidating video frames into a memory buffer, while the Semantics ReTRiever (SeTR) combines video tokens using a dot product mean approach, which is then followed by a Q-former model. In practical applications, employing a vicuna-7B model, this method has demonstrated significant performance improvements on benchmarks designed to assess long-video understanding capabilities.\", \"soundness\": \"2\", \"presentation\": \"3\", \"contribution\": \"2\", \"strengths\": \"1. The writing in the paper is clear. I strongly resonate with the introduction regarding episodes and semantics.\\n2. The ablation study is particularly thorough, with tables 4 and 5 highlighting the significant impact of ECO and SeTR on the model's performance.\", \"weaknesses\": \"1. Figure 1 is misleading and somewhat overstated. From my perspective, the paper primarily focuses on token merging and compression. However, Figure 1 gives the impression that this work can develop an understanding of semantics and episodes at the language level.\\n\\n2. The distinction between ToMe and the discussed approach is unclear. In fact, Section 3.4 closely resembles ToMe, where ToMe is executed just once.\\n\\n3. The comparisons made are somewhat outdated. There have been several recent developments in video LLMs and benchmarks [1, 2, 3], yet the author does not address or report their performance.\\n\\n\\n[1] Video-MME: The First-Ever Comprehensive Evaluation Benchmark of Multi-modal LLMs in Video Analysis.\\n\\n[2] LongVideoBench: A Benchmark for Long-context Interleaved Video-Language Understanding\\n\\n[3] Streaming Long Video Understanding with Large Language Models.\", \"questions\": \"See weaknesses.\", \"flag_for_ethics_review\": \"['No ethics review needed.']\", \"rating\": \"3\", \"confidence\": \"4\", \"code_of_conduct\": \"Yes\"}", "{\"comment\": [\"We are deeply grateful for your rigorous and detailed review. In light of our responses addressing your specific concerns, we respectfully request:\", \"A reconsideration of the initial score, given our substantive improvements:\", \"Concrete visualizations demonstrating semantic and episodic understanding\", \"Detailed distinctions from existing token merging approaches\", \"Clear methodology for benchmark expansion\", \"Transparent analysis of model limitations\", \"Key Differentiators We've Addressed:\", \"**Token Merging Nuances**:\", \"Frame-level semantic grouping\", \"80% frame compression vs. standard 50%\", \"Flexible semantic preservation strategy\", \"**Benchmark Strategy**:\", \"Commitment to newer model integrations (suitable for newer benchmarks such as VideoMME)\", \"Our primary goal remains to advance video understanding research through innovative, resource-efficient approaches to do good research without being constrained by computational resources.\"], \"we_are_prepared_to\": [\"Provide additional clarifications\", \"Conduct supplementary experiments\", \"Discuss any technical aspects requiring further elaboration\"]}", "{\"comment\": \"We appreciate the reviewer's careful reading and constructive feedback. We address each concern below:\\n\\n### Reply to: Figure 1 Misleading/Overstated\\n\\nWe understand your concern about Figure 1, as we know any attempt to directly map neural networks to human's understanding of episodes and semantics is bound to be flawed. Our focus is on semantics and episodes mainly at the video level. To demonstrate this, we've prepared visualizations showing how our model develops meaningful semantic and episodic understanding. These demonstrations are not far from what we present in Figure 1 but we will revise the figure to better reflect this concrete evidence.\", \"sample_video\": [\"https://gifyu.com/image/SGhZw\", \"Our episodic representations capture coherent temporal narratives:\", \"Sequential bird flight patterns: https://gifyu.com/image/SGhY4\", \"Landscape evolution over time: https://gifyu.com/image/SGhY6\", \"Our semantic representations extract persistent themes:\", \"Consistent scene elements: Land (https://gifyu.com/image/SGhrs)\", \"Recurring object patterns: Birds (https://gifyu.com/image/SGhrp), Lizard (https://gifyu.com/image/SGhrL)\", \"### Reply to: Distinction from ToMe\", \"We acknowledge that our semantic retriever shares some implementation-level similarities with ToMe (such as the use of cosine similarity as basis for frame/token reduction). However, there are three key differences:\", \"**SeTR and ToMe operate at different levels.** SeTR merge frames in video sequences, while ToMe merges tokens within individual frames.\", \"**Grouping Strategy.** We partition tokens into k-sized groups and merge k-1 tokens with a target token. This contrasts with ToMe's matching between two equal sets, which always splits tokens into even/odd pairs.\", \"**Merging.** ToMe performs pairwise merging with a maximum reduction of 50% of tokens, while we allow for variable-sized group merging for greater flexibility in controlling the granularity of semantic preservation (we compress 80% of the frames in our implementation)\", \"### Reply to: Recent Benchmarks\", \"We appreciate the pointer to recent benchmarks. Our current implementation focuses on training-free improvements through ECO and SeTR modules, making them accessible to researchers with limited computational resources. Our approach shows:\", \"Strong performance on MovieChat-1k (non-MCQ format), and three other traditional long-form video recognition benchmarks\", \"Significant improvements when integrated with existing models (Table 7)\", \"Potential for integration with newer backbones\", \"The current benchmark selection reflects our use of an image-only pretrained backbone (BLIP-2) which did not undergo the many pretraining stages of recent video models. For a fair comparison, we will:\", \"1. Port ECO and SeTR to newer models\", \"2. Report performance on suggested benchmarks (VideoMME, MLVU, LongVideoBench...)\", \"[3] uses an 8.3B LLM making it not fairly comparable with our model. Also, they perform video pretraining on much larger datasets.\", \"Thank you for helping us improve the paper. we would value any additional thoughts or feedback.\"]}", "{\"summary\": \"This paper aims to address long video understanding from the perspective of episodic and semantic memory. The authors provide an insightful analysis into the two memory mechanisms that motivate the architecture design, where multiple QFormers are employed to compress tokens at different granularities and token merging is applied to consolidate semantic-level memory. The experiments validate the effectiveness of the architecture.\", \"soundness\": \"2\", \"presentation\": \"3\", \"contribution\": \"2\", \"strengths\": \"1. The analysis of episodic and semantic memory makes sense and is a promising way to address long video understanding.\\n2. The problem definition is clear and easy to follow.\\n3. The architecture shows significant improvement in inference speed compared to existing memory-augmented video LLM.\", \"weaknesses\": \"1. The architecture design cannot reflect the authors' analysis of episodic and semantic memory. Simply using QFormer or token merging strategies can compress video tokens, but is not sufficient to construct the structural memory.\\n2. Also, the authors are expected to show some visualizations of the token merging in semantic retrieval to show the structure of the semantic memory compression.\\n3. The results on more recent long video benchmarks, e.g., VideoMME, MLVU, LVBench, etc, are desired.\", \"questions\": \"See weakness\", \"flag_for_ethics_review\": \"['No ethics review needed.']\", \"rating\": \"3\", \"confidence\": \"5\", \"code_of_conduct\": \"Yes\"}", "{\"comment\": \"Thanks for the detailed explanation.\"}", "{\"comment\": [\"Thank you for your thoughtful review and insightful questions. We appreciate the opportunity to clarify HERMES's architecture choice, provide more visualizations, and better position our work.\", \"### Reply to: *The architecture design cannot reflect the authors' analysis of episodic and semantic memory. Simply using QFormer or token merging strategies can compress video tokens, but is not sufficient to construct the structural memory.*\", \"We agree that any attempt to map the human cognitive processes to neural network design or frameworks are bound to be a simplification of how the former really works, and our work is not exempt. However we want to argue that our modules are close-enough abstractions of what we know about how humans understand the surrounding world or specific scenes (Please refer to the Appendix A.7 for more on our take on that). Specifically:\", \"The ECO module implements an abstraction of episodic memory by aggregating temporally-related scenes while preserving their sequential relationships - mimicking how human episodic memory consolidates sequential experiences. ECO module identifies and groups related temporal segments while maintaining their chronological structure.\", \"SeTR implements semantic memory by extracting high-level concepts that persist throughout the video, similar to how humans abstract general themes from specific experiences.\", \"These two components work in tandem, just as human episodic and semantic systems interact, with ECO handling event sequences and SeTR managing thematic understanding.\", \"### Reply to: *Also, the authors are expected to show some visualizations of the token merging in semantic retrieval to show the structure of the semantic memory compression.*\", \"We appreciate the suggestion regarding visualizations of semantics and episodes.\", \"We provide visualizations of episodes and semantics extracted by ECO and SeTR, respectively, from a sample video (https://gifyu.com/image/SGhZw)\", \"Episode capturing the flies: https://gifyu.com/image/SGhYV\", \"Episode capturing the landscape: https://gifyu.com/image/SGhY6\", \"Episode capturing flying birds: https://gifyu.com/image/SGhY4\", \"Semantic representation of the land: https://gifyu.com/image/SGhrs\", \"Semantic representation of the lizard: https://gifyu.com/image/SGhrL\", \"Semantic representation of the birds: https://gifyu.com/image/SGhrp\", \"We will add these visualizations in the revised version of our paper to help the reader better understand how HERMES maintains coherent episodic and semantic representations while reducing dimensionality.\", \"### Reply to: *The results on more recent long video benchmarks, e.g., VideoMME, MLVU, LVBench, etc, are desired.*\", \"We appreciate the reviewers' suggestions regarding newer benchmarks. We want to clarify important context about our work's positioning and contributions:\", \"1. Focus on Resource Efficiency:\", \"Our work mainly targets training-free improvements through ECO and SeTR modules\", \"These modules provide significant gains without requiring expensive pretraining or massive compute resources (which we don't have)\", \"This approach makes our contribution accessible to broader research community as they can be used as inexpensive plug-ins\", \"Table 7 demonstrates this: substantial improvements to MA-LMM through plug-and-play integration\", \"2. Benchmark Selection Rationale:\", \"Our current backbone (BLIP-2) was pretrained on images only and on much smaller datasets than the most recent video-language models. This makes HERMES more suitable for traditional video benchmarks (LVU, Breakfast, COIN), especially for fully-supervised tasks\", \"We have strong results (zero-shot and fully-supervised) on MovieChat-1k which shows our modules' effectiveness even with a simpler backbone. Datasets such as VideoMME, MLVU and LVBench are mostly MCQs and zero-shot only, therefore our backbone is not suitable for them. We recognize that this is a weakness of our model, and we are working on addressing it.\", \"3. How do we address it?\", \"We designed ECO and SeTR to be model-agnostic (we showed a glimpse of that in Table 7)\", \"For camera-ready, we will demonstrate portability to newer models and test them on VideoMME, MLVU and LVBench. Such integration will address the backbone weakness we talked about earlier and showcase our modules' value as universal improvements to video-language models.\", \"We look forward to your feedback and are happy to provide any additional information or analyses that would be helpful in your evaluation. Thank you.\"]}", "{\"summary\": \"The paper proposes a new multi-modal language model (LLM) for the video question-answering problem. It follows a divide-and-conquer paradigm, which involves the following steps: First, extracting the episodic-level representation, Meanwhile, retrieving the key semantics, Finally, using this information to query the LLM.The figures in the paper help quickly understand the proposed approach. The experimental results are state-of-the-art (SOTA), and the ablation study and model analysis sections are also robust.\", \"soundness\": \"4\", \"presentation\": \"4\", \"contribution\": \"4\", \"strengths\": \"-The idea of using \\\"Episodes and Semantics\\\" for understanding videos is novel.\\n\\n-The technical contribution of a new multi-modal LLM for video understanding is solid.\\n\\n-The experimental results are convincing and state-of-the-art (SOTA).\", \"weaknesses\": \"-In Section 3, the authors claim that \\\"the core ideas of episodic memory compression (ECO) and semantic knowledge retrieval (SeTR) can be applied to other models,\\\" but they do not conduct experiments to support this claim.\\n\\n-Figure 6 only shows the good cases, while I am curious about the failure cases that cannot be handled by the ECO+SeTR approach.\\n\\n-Some recent works on video understanding are missing. For example, the paradigm of 2D CNN + temporal modeling was popular between 2019-2022, and some representative approaches [1][2] should be mentioned. Additionally, video semantic compression approaches are highly related to the \\\"semantic condensing\\\" idea proposed in the paper.\\n[1]Wang L, Tong Z, Ji B, et al. Tdn: Temporal difference networks for efficient action recognition[C]//Proceedings of the IEEE/CVF conference on computer vision and pattern recognition. 2021: 1895-1904.\\n[2]Tian Y, Yan Y, Zhai G, et al. Ean: event adaptive network for enhanced action recognition[J]. International Journal of Computer Vision, 2022, 130(10): 2453-2471.\\n[3]Tian Y, Lu G, Yan Y, et al. A coding framework and benchmark towards low-bitrate video understanding[J]. IEEE Transactions on Pattern Analysis and Machine Intelligence, 2024.\", \"questions\": [\"How to apply the idea to other models.\", \"Report the failure cases.\", \"-Adding recent related works.\"], \"flag_for_ethics_review\": \"['No ethics review needed.']\", \"rating\": \"8\", \"confidence\": \"5\", \"code_of_conduct\": \"Yes\"}", "{\"comment\": \"We sincerely thank the reviewer for their thorough assessment and constructive feedback. We are pleased that you recognize the novelty and technical merit of our approach. We address your specific points below:\\n\\n### Generalizability to Other Models\\n\\nYou raise an excellent point about demonstrating ECO and SeTR's broader applicability. While Table 7 shows initial evidence of successful integration with MA-LMM (improving its performance by 3.8% and reducing latency by 43%), we acknowledge this could be more comprehensive. For the camera-ready version, we will:\\n- Demonstrate integration with 2-3 additional video-language models\\n- Provide implementation guidelines for adapting ECO+SeTR to different architectures\\n- Include computational overhead analysis across different integrations\\n\\n### Failure Cases Analysis\\n\\nThank you for this valuable suggestion. We have already added failure case analysis of our model in the Appendix (A.6 and Figure 12). We will add further analysis with more granular cases such as:\\n1. Complex temporal reasoning where episodic compression loses critical details\\n2. Cases where semantic retrieval focuses on irrelevant themes\\n3. Scenarios requiring fine-grained visual understanding\\n\\nFor example, we observed performance degradation in:\\n- Videos with rapid scene changes where ECO struggles to maintain temporal coherence\\n- Cases requiring detailed spatial relationship understanding\\n- Situations with subtle but important background context\\n\\n### Related Work Integration\\n\\nWe appreciate the pointer to these significant works. We have expanded our related work section to include:\\n- TDN's temporal difference networks approach and how it relates to our episodic compression\\n- EAN's event adaptation strategy and its connection to our semantic retrieval mechanism\\n- The relationship between our semantic condensing and the low-bitrate understanding framework from [3]\\n\\nWe are grateful for your detailed review and look forward to incorporating these improvements in the next version. Given your expertise in this area, we would value any additional thoughts or feedback on our work. Thank you.\"}", "{\"comment\": \"We deeply appreciate your thoughtful and constructive review, which has been instrumental in refining HERMES's conceptual and technical foundations.\", \"your_feedback_on_our_architectural_design_has_prompted_us_to\": [\"Provide more nuanced visualizations of episodic and semantic memory extraction\", \"Clarify our cognitive-inspired approach to video understanding\", \"Demonstrate the model-agnostic nature of our ECO and SeTR modules\", \"Better position our work as an efficient way to gain training-free improvement (making it more accessible to researchers with limited computational budget)\"], \"commitment\": [\"Demonstrate portability across different video-language models to address the limitations of our current image-pretrained backbone\"], \"we_respectfully_request\": [\"A reconsideration of the initial score in light of these substantive improvements\", \"An opportunity to provide any additional clarifications during the remaining discussion period\"]}", "{\"comment\": \"We deeply appreciate your thoughtful and constructive review, which has been instrumental in refining our paper:\", \"your_feedback_has_prompted_us_to\": [\"Expand our related-work section to include more relevant research\", \"Pinpoint more examples where our model fail and gain insights on how to improve it going forward\", \"Consider plugging our modules to more existing models (ongoing)\", \"Please let us know if we addressed your comments and/or if any further information or experiments would be helpful. We would be happy to provide them.\"]}", "{\"comment\": [\"In light of our response addressing your specific concerns and demonstrated commitment to improving the work, we respectfully request a reconsideration of the initial score, given the following improvements:\", \"Demonstrated performance gains and efficiency improvements\", \"Demonstrated Distinctions from Existing Works\", \"Our clarifications about the methodology\", \"Changes to the manuscript addressing the notation inconsistency\", \"If any remaining uncertainties persist, we are prepared to:\", \"Provide additional clarifications\", \"Conduct supplementary experiments\", \"Discuss any nuanced technical aspects you find intriguing or require further elaboration\", \"We appreciate your time, thoroughness, and the opportunity to improve our work through this discussion.\"]}", "{\"comment\": [\"Thank you for your thoughtful review and insightful questions. We appreciate the opportunity to clarify HERMES's unique contributions and address your concerns.\", \"## Memory Management Differences between HERMES, MA-LMM and MovieChat\", \"HERMES versus MA-LMM: For each incoming frame, MA-LMM adds it to the memory bank by computing the similarities with adjacent frames and merging the incoming frame with its most similar in the memory bank. Below are our main differences.\", \"**HERMES takes a distributed approach**. Our ECO, distributes the frames of the incoming window to the most appropriate episode. This approach is more intuitive and better mirrors human memory formation:\", \"Frames can be grouped into episodes regardless of temporal adjacency\", \"This naturally handles scene transitions, flashbacks, and non-linear narratives\", \"**HERMES is vastly more efficient and accurate**. As shown in Table 7 in the paper, our memory management system almost halves the inference time (-43%) when plugged into MA-LMM while being 3.4% more accurate.\", \"**HERMES also captures semantics**. Our Semantics Retriever (SeTR) complements the episodic memory and is shown (in Table 7) to increase the accuracy of MA-LMM by almost 4% with only a negligible increase in latency.\", \"HERMES versus MovieChat: Moviechat's short-term memory uses a FIFO mechanism. Its long-term memory uses ToMe. Below are the main differences\", \"**HERMES has episodes** instead of a short term memory, and our update approach is based on similarity to a certain existing episode instead of FIFO. As shown in Table 4 of the paper, FIFO's performance is inferior to ECO.\", \"**HERMES's long-term memory is implicitly encoded** in ECO. We consider SeTR as a semantics scanner that retrieves scattered semantics from the video.\", \"**22 FPS processing speed** compared to MovieChat's ~0.01 FPS (1 day vs. 13 minutes on MovieChat-1k) using a V100 GPU (32 GB).\", \"Uses only 100 frames vs MovieChat's 2048 frames (detailed analysis as to why in Appendix A.4.1)\", \"## Evaluation Methodology Clarification\"], \"we_follow_standard_evaluation_protocols_for_each_dataset\": [\"LVU, Breakfast, COIN: Top-1 accuracy\", \"MovieChat-1k: GPT-assisted scores\", \"## Symbol Clarification\", \"We thank you for catching the \\\\(F_w\\\\) inconsistency. We have revised the notation:\", \"Line 208: \\\"Upon receiving a window of frame features, \\\\(F_w\\\\), ...\\\"\", \"Line 222: \\\"\\\\(F_w\\\\) represents the incoming window of frame features...\\\"\", \"## (Extra) Visualizing Episodes and Semantics\", \"We provide visualizations of episodes and semantics extracted by ECO and SeTR respectively from a sample video (https://gifyu.com/image/SGhZw)\", \"Episode capturing the flies: https://gifyu.com/image/SGhYV\", \"Episode capturing the landscape: https://gifyu.com/image/SGhY6\", \"Episode capturing flying birds: https://gifyu.com/image/SGhY4\", \"Semantic representation of the land: https://gifyu.com/image/SGhrs\", \"Semantic representation of the lizard: https://gifyu.com/image/SGhrL\", \"Semantic representation of the birds: https://gifyu.com/image/SGhrp\", \"Given HERMES's significant efficiency gains and novel architectural approach, we believe it represents more than an incremental advancement. We look forward to your feedback and are happy to provide any additional information or analyses that would be helpful in your evaluation. Thank you.\"]}", "{\"summary\": \"The paper presents HERMES, a framework designed for long-form video understanding that leverages episodic memory and semantic knowledge. The authors propose two main components: the Episodic COmpressor (ECO), which aggregates temporal information, and the Semantics reTRiever (SeTR), which extracts high-level semantic cues. The model claims to outperform existing methods on multiple benchmarks, showcasing its effectiveness in handling long videos.\", \"soundness\": \"2\", \"presentation\": \"3\", \"contribution\": \"2\", \"strengths\": [\"The authors enhance Q-former-based models, such as MA-LMM, by integrating episodic and semantic information. The architecture is clearly defined and appears to be replicable.\", \"The paper reports impressive performance metrics across various long-video benchmarks, indicating that HERMES effectively addresses the complexities inherent in long-form video content.\"], \"weaknesses\": [\"While the use of memory mechanisms and temporal information compression is valuable, the approach does not significantly advance the current state of the art. The paper primarily builds on the MA-LMM framework, with its main innovations centered around the memory components. The concepts introduced in the Episodic COmpressor and Semantics reTRiever share similarities with the memory bank and mechanisms used in MA-LMM. Furthermore, comparable memory structures are present in MovieChat, which differentiates between long-term and short-term memory\\u2014concepts that correspond to the SeTR and ECO, respectively. The authors are encouraged to discuss these distinctions in detail to better highlight the unique contributions of HERMES.\", \"The methods used for comparison across different datasets are inconsistent, making it difficult to draw clear conclusions about HERMES's overall performance. A standardized evaluation framework would enhance the reliability of the results.\", \"There are inconsistencies in the use of symbols throughout the paper. For instance, in Line 208, \\\\( F_w \\\\) refers to the number of frame features, while in Line 222, \\\\( F_w \\\\) denotes the window, with \\\\( w \\\\) indicating the number of frame features. This inconsistency could lead to confusion and should be clarified.\"], \"questions\": \"Can the authors provide a more detailed discussion on how HERMES distinguishes itself from existing models like MA-LMM and MovieChat? Specifically, what unique contributions do the Episodic COmpressor (ECO) and Semantics reTRiever (SeTR) offer compared to similar mechanisms in these models?\", \"flag_for_ethics_review\": \"['No ethics review needed.']\", \"rating\": \"3\", \"confidence\": \"4\", \"code_of_conduct\": \"Yes\"}" ] }

[ "Calarina Muslimani", "Matthew E. Taylor" ]

[ "Reinforcement Learning", "Human-in-the-loop", "Preference learning", "Learning from scalar feedback" ]

{ "note_id": [ "zo61cWO8Hv", "q6K4TwfAyh", "pLoW6I7qmY", "nxmTOSwxUE", "dYG4iBJQp6", "bdASc2zpfX", "SjcDoZsgqK", "Opj3YmjLYE", "K5ISju1ydm", "JsolpgtoUz", "IrQjVXAxED", "GCoUeEOn0z", "FcWLEeVgm9", "F0yDIQ1cQx", "5UdkyBdRhj" ], "note_type": [ "official_comment", "official_comment", "official_review", "official_review", "official_comment", "official_comment", "official_review", "official_comment", "official_comment", "decision", "official_comment", "official_comment", "official_review", "official_comment", "meta_review" ], "note_created": [ 1732125540928, 1732557294713, 1730706293497, 1730706680292, 1732126336765, 1732685752388, 1730668564443, 1732126080770, 1732125187601, 1737523430339, 1732126292116, 1732125024887, 1730673316691, 1732573808678, 1734680456956 ], "note_signatures": [ [ "ICLR.cc/2025/Conference/Submission990/Authors" ], [ "ICLR.cc/2025/Conference/Submission990/Reviewer_xKys" ], [ "ICLR.cc/2025/Conference/Submission990/Reviewer_xKys" ], [ "ICLR.cc/2025/Conference/Submission990/Reviewer_RKAm" ], [ "ICLR.cc/2025/Conference/Submission990/Authors" ], [ "ICLR.cc/2025/Conference/Submission990/Reviewer_85xh" ], [ "ICLR.cc/2025/Conference/Submission990/Reviewer_TrDy" ], [ "ICLR.cc/2025/Conference/Submission990/Authors" ], [ "ICLR.cc/2025/Conference/Submission990/Authors" ], [ "ICLR.cc/2025/Conference/Program_Chairs" ], [ "ICLR.cc/2025/Conference/Submission990/Authors" ], [ "ICLR.cc/2025/Conference/Submission990/Authors" ], [ "ICLR.cc/2025/Conference/Submission990/Reviewer_85xh" ], [ "ICLR.cc/2025/Conference/Submission990/Reviewer_RKAm" ], [ "ICLR.cc/2025/Conference/Submission990/Area_Chair_3poJ" ] ], "structured_content_str": [ "{\"title\": \"Author Response #1 to Reviewer xKys\", \"comment\": \"Weakness # 2:\\n- One of the key strengths of SDP is its simplicity, which offers several advantages. Simpler algorithms are often easier to implement, debug, and maintain which can facilitate broader adoption.\\n- In addition, the use of sub-optimal data has been explored in the offline RL literature [1]. However, we note that in Appendix D.5, we included an experiment where we directly adapted this technique to the preference learning setting in the Walker-walk environment. Our results showed that the average final performance achieved using this adapted approach was nearly 4 times lower than the final performance of SDP. In addition, in Section 5.2, Figure 6 we performed an ablation of the components of SDP, the reward model pre-training phase, and the agent update phase. This study demonstrated that neither component, when used individually, leads to improved performance. Together, these experiments highlight that naively incorporating suboptimal data does not yield performance gains in the human-in-the-loop RL setting. \\n\\nWeakness # 3:\\n- We conducted an experiment in the Cartpole-Swingup environment where we replaced the pseudo-labels of r_min\\u200b with the labels generated by the preference-learned reward model. However, this ablation significantly underperformed compared to SDP. The primary issue with this ablation is that SDP relies on the reward model pre-training phase, which occurs before any human feedback is provided. In this ablation, however, the suboptimal data used to pre-train the reward model are pseudo-labeled with random rewards. These rewards are random because the preference-learned reward model has not yet been updated with human feedback. As a result, its outputs are random and fail to produce meaningful pseudo-labels, negating the usual benefits of the reward model pre-training phase.\\n| Method | AUC | \\n|---------------------|------------------------|\\n| SDP | 21519.9 \\u00b1 2435.02 | \\n| SDP without r_min | 7179.41 \\u00b1 505.97 | \\n\\nWeakness # 4:\\n- While we agree that evaluating against methods utilizing suboptimal data could be interesting, we believe that comparing to an offline RL algorithm would not be appropriate due to the vastly different problem settings and assumptions. Our work focuses on human-in-the-loop algorithms, where reward models are learned in real time through scalar or preference feedback, requiring both human input and online interaction with the environment. In contrast, offline RL assumes access to a pre-collected dataset of transitions spanning from low- to high-quality policies and may not allow for additional online interaction with the environment. These fundamental differences make direct comparisons between the two approaches challenging and less meaningful.\\n- For an upper bound comparison, we argue that a better alternative is to consider the online RL algorithm SAC which learns directly from the ground truth reward function. This is a more appropriate benchmark for several reasons: (1) in our experiments in Section 5.2, the human-in-the-loop algorithms aim to approximate the ground truth reward function using preference or scalar feedback; (2) the human-in-the-loop algorithms we evaluate, including ours, use SAC as the base algorithm, ensuring consistency in comparison; and (3) as an online RL algorithm, SAC is expected to achieve higher performance than offline RL methods, which are inherently limited by the quality and diversity of the data they rely on. \\n- We have included the performance of SAC in all environments to provide a clear upper bound for evaluating our approach and the baselines. That said, if all reviewers agree that this would be an important benchmark, we are open to adding such results to our revised submission.\\n\\nWeakness # 5:\\n- We agree that investigating more complex domains would be valuable for illustrating the efficacy of our method in more realistic and challenging environments, and we plan to explore this in future work. However, in this submission, we specifically chose Cartpole-Swingup and Pendulum-Swingup to ensure that we could gather a larger sample size of participants. This decision allowed us to conduct a more robust evaluation of SDP in a controlled setting, where we could assess its performance across a broader range of users.\", \"references\": [\"[1] https://arxiv.org/abs/2202.01741\"]}", "{\"title\": \"Response to Authors\", \"comment\": \"I appreciate the new experiments and I believe the paper is improved, though many of the limitations remain. I believe the paper should be accepted and will maintain my score\"}", "{\"summary\": \"Use reward-free sub-optimal data for pretraining human in the loop RL by adding a reward. The reward is trained by assigning the minimum environment reward to all states in the reward free suboptimal data, and iteratively adding interactions. The online interactions can be labeled either with preference-based RL or with scalar rewards. This suboptimal-data aware method is then evaluated over several experiments against other human in the loop algorithms.\", \"soundness\": \"3\", \"presentation\": \"4\", \"contribution\": \"2\", \"strengths\": \"The algorithm is straighforward.\\n\\nThe method is well explained and clear.\\n\\nThe empirical analysis is good.\\n\\nRunning human in the loop with human participants is admirable.\", \"weaknesses\": \"The assumption made in Equation 4 is quite restritive, since this states that the per-state reward must be low for every state in a suboptimal trajectory. There are many tasks for which a sub-optimal trajectory may receive significant non-trivial reward, suhc as achieving an intermediate goal, while still being significantly suboptimal. In addition, knowledge of the minimum environment reward can also be a limiting assumption, though less so.\\n\\nThe method may be a little bit too straightforward, as the concept of applying a small, fixed, low reward given to unlabeled interaction data has been explored in the offline/off-policy RL literature, which has a lot of overlap with human in the loop RL. Since the method proposes very little to convert this interaction data into the context of human in the loop, this makes the algorithm itself of low novelty. It seems like knowledge about the scale or type of human in the loop data (preference or scalar) would provide some insight into a better method for assigning the suboptimal data.\\n\\nHow does relabeling the suboptimal data with the preference learned rewards through training compare? This seems like a logical experiment that could provide insight into how much the suboptimality assumption can be relaxed.\\n\\nWhile the baseline evaluation is extensive, it seems like a missing area are methods that utilize suboptimal data. As a comparison, pretraining with an offline RL method that can leverage suboptimal data smoothly would be preferred, at least as an upper bound on performance.\\n\\nWhile user load is a serious concern, a participant study that investigated more complex domains, and experiments in more complex domains such as Franka Kitchen or 2D minecraft would illustrate the efficacy of this method. In these control tasks it is not particularly realistic to have a large amount of entirely reward-free data, whereas in a robotic kitchen this is more plasible. Since this method is fundamental, an experiment along this line would make sense.\", \"questions\": \"See Weaknesses\", \"flag_for_ethics_review\": \"['No ethics review needed.']\", \"rating\": \"6\", \"confidence\": \"3\", \"code_of_conduct\": \"Yes\"}", "{\"summary\": \"The submission proposed a simple framework, namely Sub-optimal Data Pre-training (SDP), that leverages reward-free, suboptimal data to warm-start the reward model as well as the RL agent replay buffer. Through simulation experiments with both simulated teacher policy and real human subjects, the authors claim that the proposed SDP can significantly improves the efficiency of human feedbacks under Human-in-the-loop (HitL) reinforcement learning setting.\", \"soundness\": \"3\", \"presentation\": \"4\", \"contribution\": \"1\", \"strengths\": [\"The main idea of this submission is straightforward and intuitive. Utilizing sub-optimal data is a popular way to improve sample efficiency.\", \"The submission is well-written and easy to follow. Visualizations are clear and helpful.\", \"The demonstrated experiments are reasonably comprehensive, invluding robotic locomotion and manipulation tasks.\", \"The submission includes a 16-people human subject study.\", \"The result analysis is well-formulated with multiple seeds and significant tests.\"], \"weaknesses\": [\"My main concern about the submission is that the contribution is incremental without significant advance. Leveraging a set of sub-optimal data generated with randomly initialized policy as a warm-start for the reward model is straight forward, and seems to me the only major contribution. The authors follow the standard RLHF framework such as Bradley-Terry model, etc. This work failed to address any of the existing challenges, such as the assumption of linear reward feature combinations, the assumption of Boltzmann rationality of the human demonstrator, etc.\", \"I remain somewhat unconvinced in the claim made in line 205 - line 210. Pseudo-labeling all low-quality transitions with the same minimum environmental rewards indeed introduces bias into the reward model, and will further lead to reward ambiguity. The empirical results in the DMControl suite is not sufficient to claim that the bias for using an incorrect reward is low. In fact, I doubt the effectiveness in pseudo-labeling low-quality samples in more complex real-world robotic tasks with higher dimensions. It would be helpful if the authors can include additional experiments on higher-dimensional simulation or real-world experiments to showcase the effectiveness.\", \"The authors took a great effort to include a well-formulated human subject study. I don't think it deserves any extra credits as the human subjects are only asked to compare two clips and provide preference labels, instead of provide direct interventions (learning from human intervention). I think the user study with diverse human subjects will be mostly useful if they can provide direct intervention and correction trajectories. A single preference label over two trajectory pairs might not fully reflect human's intention.\"], \"questions\": [\"Can authors provide more thorough explanation on why introduced bias into the reward model will not affect the performance?\", \"Can authors explain why Deep Tamer is not learning at all in Figure 3?\", \"In Figure 6 Phase Ablation, what is the difference between SDP Agent Update Only and R-PEBBLE? Why SDP Reward Pre-train Only has better performance over SDP Agent Update Only? A more detailed explanation on the difference between these baselines will be helpful.\"], \"flag_for_ethics_review\": \"['No ethics review needed.']\", \"rating\": \"6\", \"confidence\": \"4\", \"code_of_conduct\": \"Yes\"}", "{\"comment\": \"We thank all reviewers for their comprehensive and thoughtful reviews. We have uploaded a revised version of the submission based on the reviewer's suggestions. All changes in the manuscript are highlighted in blue.\"}", "{\"comment\": \"Appreciate the rebuttal. I think the changes made improve the paper.\"}", "{\"summary\": \"This paper presents a method to initialize a reward network for RL with human feedback. Their method centers around using random exploration to then label sub-optimal trajectories with low rewards and therefore filter those state action pairs from exploration once the human preference phase begins. Their results show that this method is able to improve results in baselines and is agnostic to which human preference algorithm used.\", \"soundness\": \"3\", \"presentation\": \"4\", \"contribution\": \"3\", \"strengths\": \"Research Problem. The research problem is at a high level \\u201chow to use unlabeled data to warm start RL with human preferences\\u201d. Since human preferences (or even AI preferences) are a reasonable and increasingly common method for learning reward models as opposed to hand coding them improving such algorithms with cheap data is a good research problem.\\n\\nNovelty. The novelty seems reasonable from the related work section.\\n\\nSignificance/Contribution. The significance of this paper is solid. It has a high practicality in many empirical applications and I am of the opinion that works that improve data efficiency are critical in RL research.\\n\\nAlgorithm Details. The algorithm itself isn\\u2019t extremely complex but the authors do a good job explaining it.\\n\\nExperimental Selection. The experiments ran emphasize the point of the paper well. \\n\\nPresentation of Results. All figures are very well done and very clear.\\n\\nAblation Studies. Sensitivity study is done with hyperparams and shows relative robustness. \\n\\nEmpirical Results. Good, results indicate this is a successful method and general strategy for improving preferences.\\n\\nFailure Analysis. There is no failure analysis in this paper. I wish for the Rune + SDP baseline you would talk about why it doesn\\u2019t help in this case. Is there a particular part of rune that makes it work worse? In what future algorithms would this strategy not work.\\n\\nClarity is generally good. See weakness for improvements.\", \"weaknesses\": \"I think the related work section could be improved. I understand that this work is human in the loop RL but I feel the human in the loop RL section is lacking. None of this section is actually compared to this work and doesn\\u2019t emphasize what makes this work novel. I understand that it isn\\u2019t directly related to most of these, but then I believe you should choose papers that this work relates more directly to (improving reward models for RL). I would recommend you shorten the Human in the loop section and add a section based on improving reward models.\\n\\nI have a few issues with the experimental section. You say over 5 seeds. Does that mean each bar is only the average/CI of 5 runs? If I just missed the number let me know, if I didn\\u2019t miss it and that is correct, I\\u2019d recommend running these many more times (I realize it might take a while but 5 isn\\u2019t enough). You say the that the addition of SDP never huts performance. Your plots in Figure 2 suggests otherwise. It generally improves performance but for rune SDP hurts performance in a few of the tasks. If you mean never hurts performance by a statistically significant margin this is fine but I would prefer you say this explicitly as this is slightly misleading in my opinion. \\n\\nIs it possible to hypothesize why not only does this improve sample efficiency but from Figure 4 seems to also improve finals results?\", \"clarity\": [\"I wish the authors would more explicitly/intuitively define some of the terms. I was able to figure it out eventually but helping the reader would be great. Specifically:\", \"\\u201cLow quality transitions\\u201d\", \"\\u201cMinimum environment reward\\u201d\", \"\\u201cFeedback efficiency\\u201d\", \"I wish the authors didn\\u2019t use the term \\u201cRQ\\u201d. Instead, if it possible, redefine them in the paragraph where you discuss them. No reason to make the reader jump around.\"], \"questions\": \"There are no baseline comparison here. Is this the only work that you could augment the reward function with? I know there are other methods which do data augmentation possibly for the reward function, is there no such reasonable comparisons? If no that is fine but I would imagine there is (maybe not limit yourself to only pre-trained options if needed?).\\n\\nHow do we determine r_min?\\n\\nWhat future work is there?\", \"flag_for_ethics_review\": \"['No ethics review needed.']\", \"rating\": \"8\", \"confidence\": \"4\", \"code_of_conduct\": \"Yes\"}", "{\"title\": \"Author Response #1 to Reviewer 85xh\", \"comment\": \"Weakness # 2:\\n- We have included a comparison of the effectiveness of SDP for users with and without a computer science background and found that there was no significant difference (Table 7, Appendix C). \\n- We have performed additional statistical testing comparing the effectiveness of SDP across the following demographic conditions: gender, age, and educational background. We found no significant differences across these dimensions. We have updated the manuscript with this result in Table 8, Appendix C. \\n| Task | Feedback | Demographic | AUC | P Value |\\n|--------------------|----------|----------------------------------|---------------------|---------|\\n| Cartpole-swingup | 48 | Female | 8720.03 \\u00b1 3185.4 | 0.085 |\\n| Cartpole-swingup | 48 | Male | 11770.22 \\u00b1 1669.96 | \\n|Pendulum-swingup | 40 | Female | 8587.13 \\u00b1 2772.96 | 0.331\\n|Pendulum-swingup | 40 | Male | 10134.67 \\u00b1 4822.22 | | \\n| Cartpole-swingup | 48 | Age 18-30 | 10109.54 \\u00b1 2370.61 | 0.313 |\\n| Cartpole-swingup | 48 |Age 50-70 | 10923.05 \\u00b1 1292.83 | |\\n| Pendulum-swingup | 48 | Age 18-30 | 8619.07 \\u00b1 3381.48 | 0.318 |\\n| Pendulum-swingup | 48 |Age 50-70 | 10607.93 \\u00b1 5249.72 | |\\n| Cartpole-swingup | 48 | Education: Bachelors or higher | 11044.55 \\u00b1 1783.25 | 0.794 |\\n| Cartpole-swingup | 48 |Education: High school diploma | 6247.99 \\u00b1 5186.47 | |\\n| Pendulum-swingup | 48 | Education: Bachelors or higher | 10188.88 \\u00b1 3858.95 | 0.742 |\\n| Pendulum-swingup | 48 |Education: High school diploma | 7677.85 \\u00b1 3540.7| |\\n\\nQuestion # 1:\\n- Yes, SDP can be more effective than traditional RL methods that learn from sparse rewards. Importantly, SDP learns a dense reward function from human feedback. RL algorithms historically have more difficulty learning in sparse reward settings for a variety of reasons: (1) credit assignment problem \\u2013 when the agent receives a reward, it must figure out which states and actions it should credit for the reward, (2) slower training \\u2013 the agent can only update its actor/critic when it receives a reward which infrequently occurs in the sparse setting. SDP, by contrast, can provide an intermediate reward, helping the agent learn more effectively.\\n\\nQuestion # 2:\\n- In our experiments, we found that more complex environments (e.g., Quadruped-walk) performed well with the same amount of prior data as less complex environments (e.g., Cartpole-swingup). However, it is likely the case that in even higher dimensional environments, more sub-optimal data would be useful in order to achieve a better coverage of the sub-optimal state and action space. \\n\\nQuestion # 3:\\n- We have evaluated SDP on both Quadruped-walk (main result \\u2013 Figure 2) and Quadruped-run (ablation \\u2013 Figure 4), each of which has an observation size of 78, whereas Humanoid from the DMControl suite has an observation size of 67. We observed that in Quadruped-walk, the addition of SDP was able to statistically outperform MRN and PEBBLE, and achieved comparable performance to SURF and RUNE. Similarly, in Figure 4, we found that SDP achieved greater learning efficiency than PEBBLE in Quadruped-run. \\n\\nQuestion # 4:\\n- For any preference learning method, it is crucial that human teachers understand the objective of the task. To facilitate this, we provided detailed instructions outlining the task\\u2019s goal in our human-subject study. Additionally, we included video clips illustrating both task success and failure to ensure clarity. Familiarity with the preference collection interface also plays an important role in reducing errors. To address this, participants were given a practice round of providing preferences. These measures help ensure that the collected preferences are accurate and reliable. In Appendix B.1, we outlined in detail the protocol of our human-subject study.\"}", "{\"title\": \"Author Response #2 to Reviewer RKAm\", \"comment\": \"Question # 2:\\n\\n- Deep Tamer uses scalar feedback to directly learn an action-value function through regression. This approach has a limitation: it only allows updates to the (state, action) pairs where feedback is provided. In other words, the model can only adjust its value estimates for those specific state-action pairs that receive scalar feedback during training. This can be restrictive because many (state, action) pairs may never receive feedback, as the amount of human feedback is limited. This can leave large portions of the model's (state, action) space under-updated. However, in settings where the feedback budget is not limited, Deep TAMER can be effective. We performed an additional experiment where we increased the feedback budget to 500000. Therefore, the Deep TAMER agent would receive feedback at every time step. In this setting, the performance of Deep TAMER improved. \\n\\n| Method | AUC | \\n|---------------------|------------------------|\\n| Deep TAMER, budget = 5000 |1823.42 \\u00b1 578.48 | \\n| Deep TAMER budget = 500000 | 35488.42 \\u00b1 412.16 | \\n\\n- In contrast, SDP and R-PEBBLE learn a reward function from scalar feedback. The key advantage is that once the reward function is learned, it can be used to update any (state, action) pair the agent encounters, not just those with direct feedback.\\n- Additionally, the original Deep TAMER paper evaluated the algorithm on a single Atari game, demonstrating its ability to learn effectively in that context. This means that the evaluation may not have sufficiently tested the scalability or generalization of Deep TAMER\\u2019s approach across a broader set of tasks. Nonetheless, we emphasize that a comprehensive exploration of Deep TAMER\\u2019s use cases is beyond the scope of this paper\\n\\nQuestion # 3: \\n- SDP Agent Update Only is an ablation of the full SDP method in which the reward model is not pre-trained on the sub-optimal transitions. In this ablation, the sub-optimal transitions are stored only in the RL agent\\u2019s replay buffer. Afterward, the agent interacts with the environment and makes some number of learning updates before human feedback is queried. The purpose of the agent update phase is to allow the agent to generate new behaviors that a teacher can provide feedback on, specifically in comparison to the sub-optimal trajectories. This helps ensure that the teacher does not provide redundant feedback on the same sub-optimal transitions. However, this benefit is lost if the reward model pre-training phase is skipped. Without pre-training on sub-optimal transitions, the reward model lacks prior knowledge of these trajectories, therefore the teacher must provide feedback on these sub-optimal trajectories. This may explain why the SDP Agent Update Only variant underperforms the SDP Reward Model Pre-train Only variant. In the latter, the reward model still benefits from prior knowledge of the sub-optimal transitions, enabling it to have a useful reward initialization without requiring any human feedback.\\n- The primary difference between SDP Agent Update Only and R-PEBBLE is that in SDP Agent Update Only the RL agent\\u2019s replay buffer is initialized with the sub-optimal transitions with pseudo-labelled rewards. This may explain why the performance differences between SDP Agent Update Only and R-PEBBLE were not statistically different.\"}", "{\"title\": \"Paper Decision\", \"decision\": \"Accept (Poster)\"}", "{\"comment\": [\"Weakness # 1:\", \"In the Human-in-the-Loop section of the Related Work, we briefly describe the five baselines used in our Experiments section, which include the preference learning algorithms: PEBBLE, SURF, RUNE, MRN, and the scalar feedback algorithm, Deep TAMER. To improve clarity, we will refer to these algorithms by name throughout this section. Additionally, we will emphasize that, like our method SDP, all the preference learning algorithms also learn a reward model, making this aspect more explicit in the revised section.\", \"We would also be happy to include additional relevant related work if you were able to make some suggestions? We think we have covered the most relevant works but are always interested in identifying things we\\u2019ve missed.\", \"Weakness # 2:\", \"We will revise the submission to make it explicit that SDP never hurts performance by a statistically significant margin.\", \"Question # 1:\", \"We augmented SDP with four preference learning algorithms: PEBBLE, RUNE, SURF, and MRN. Of these, SURF incorporates data augmentation within its algorithm. We compared the performance of the baseline algorithm both with and without the addition of SDP. These algorithms were chosen as baselines for two reasons: (1) they are popular preference learning methods in the literature, and (2) both these baselines and our work aim to improve the feedback efficiency of preference learning. In other words, the goal is to develop a preference learning algorithm that can learn an accurate reward model with fewer human queries.\", \"Question # 2:\", \"SDP does assume access to the minimum environment reward (r_min). However, we note that this assumption is commonly made in previous works [1,2]. However, future work can consider ways to relax this assumption. For example, one possibility is to use the lower bound of the reward model\\u2019s output as r_min.\", \"Question #3:\", \"In future work, we plan to provide a theoretical analysis of SDP. Specifically, in the context of learning from scalar feedback, where a reward model is learned through regression. We intend to demonstrate that the reward bias introduced by SDP does not outweigh the reduction in model variance. Additionally, we intend to evaluate the efficacy of SDP with human teachers in more complex environments, such as a real robot performing a pick-and-place task. This is crucial for further validating the applicability of SDP to real-world scenarios. These points will be added to Section 6 of our submission.\"], \"references\": [\"[1] https://arxiv.org/abs/2202.01741\", \"[2] https://arxiv.org/abs/2010.14500\"], \"title\": \"Response # 1 to Reviewer TrDy\"}", "{\"title\": \"Author Response #1 to Reviewer RKAm\", \"comment\": \"Weakness # 1:\\n\\n- The primary focus of this work is on improving the feedback efficiency of human-in-the-loop reinforcement learning (HitL RL algorithms). While it is true that the work builds on established techniques, such as the Bradley-Terry model, our approach addresses the specific challenge of how to make more efficient use of limited human feedback (scalar ratings or preferences over trajectories). This is an open problem in the HitL literature and has significant practical implications, as common HitL RL techniques often require a large number (up to tens of thousands) of human queries, making it costly and labor-intensive. \\n\\nQuestion #1 / Weakness # 2:\\n\\n- It is important to emphasize that the effectiveness of SDP relies on the transitions being pseudo-labeled to be sub-optimal. In Equation (4), we define sub-optimal transitions as those for which the difference between the true reward and the minimum reward is smaller than a small threshold, epsilon. If this assumption holds, the bias introduced by using an incorrect reward label will be minimal, and the reward model will benefit from the larger dataset, leading to a reduction in model variance. However, if this assumption does not hold, SDP can negatively impact performance. In Appendix D.7 (Figure 16), we presented an experiment where we replaced sub-optimal transitions with those from an expert policy. In this experiment, we observed a performance degradation, highlighting that when the reward bias is large\\u2014such as when using expert policy transitions\\u2014SDP fails to improve performance.\\n\\n- Moreover, we evaluated the efficacy of SDP on two widely used testbeds for preference learning: the DMControl Suite and Metaworld, which are standard benchmarks in this domain [1-5]. Notably, 7 out of the 9 tested environments featured observation spaces exceeding 20 dimensions. In particular, we tested SDP on Quadruped-walk (main results) and Quadruped-run (ablation study), both of which have observation dimensions of 78. Future work could explore higher-dimensional settings, such as learning directly from pixel inputs.\\n\\n| Task | Observation Space Size | Action Space Size |\\n|---------------------|------------------------|-------------------|\\n| Quadruped-walk | 78 | 12 |\\n| Quadruped-run | 78 | 12 |\\n| All Metaworld environments | 39 | 4 |\\n| Walker-walk | 24 | 6 |\\n| Cheetah-run | 17 | 6 |\\n| Cartpole-swingup | 5 | 1 |\\n\\n\\nWeakness # 3:\\n\\n- We thank the reviewer for recognizing the effort we put into the human subject study. We appreciate your suggestion regarding the potential benefits of including direct interventions and corrections in the user study. We agree that learning from human interventions, such as trajectory corrections, can provide more detailed insights into human intentions. However, this research focused on learning from feedback (scalar signals or preferences). Therefore, to test the efficacy of our method with real human teachers, requires us to perform a human-subject study where participants are providing preference-based feedback. \\n\\n- In general, preference-based feedback can be a more scalable and less labor-intensive method compared to direct interventions [6], and it has been shown to be effective in many real-world applications such as the rise of large language models. That said, we agree that future work should explore combining preference-based feedback with direct human interventions, which would allow for a richer understanding of human intent and could further improve the performance of preference learning algorithms.\", \"references\": [\"[1] PEBBLE: https://arxiv.org/abs/2106.05091\", \"[2] SURF https://arxiv.org/abs/2203.10050\", \"[3] RUNE https://openreview.net/forum?id=OWZVD-l-ZrC\", \"[4] MRN https://openreview.net/forum?id=OZKBReUF-wX\", \"[5] Few shot: https://arxiv.org/abs/2212.03363\", \"[6] https://users.cs.utah.edu/~dsbrown/readings/assist_teleop.pdf\"]}", "{\"summary\": \"The paper introduces Sub-optimal Data Pre-training (SDP), a method for improving human-in-the-loop reinforcement learning by pre-training reward models with sub-optimal, reward-free data to enhance feedback efficiency and performance.\", \"soundness\": \"3\", \"presentation\": \"3\", \"contribution\": \"3\", \"strengths\": \"1. This SDP approch is novel\\n2. This paper has some real world validation (human study)\", \"weaknesses\": \"1. The performance of the SDP method is highly dependent on the quality and representativeness of the sub-optimal data used for pre-training. Limited data availability or random policies generated from the same initial seeds can negatively impact SDP performance.\\n2. The human study in this paper did not account for human variance. For instance, would differences in education levels affect the quality of the labels?\", \"questions\": \"1. Is learning with the SDP method more effective than learning with sparse rewards?\\n2. Does SDP require more data for more complex environment?\\n3. How well does the SDP approach perform when applied to high-dimensional action or state spaces, such as humanoid?\\n4. Does the human teacher need to undergo training?\", \"flag_for_ethics_review\": \"['No ethics review needed.']\", \"rating\": \"6\", \"confidence\": \"4\", \"code_of_conduct\": \"Yes\"}", "{\"title\": \"Response to Authors\", \"comment\": \"I appreciate the additional experiments and that has address many of my concerns. I'll increase my score though there are still quite a bunch of limitations\"}", "{\"metareview\": \"This paper presents a method for learning reward model from human by leveraging suboptimal data to warm-start the learning process. Minimal environmental rewards are assigned to reward free data and then the reward function is learned through scalar or preference feedback from human. Experiments in simulated domains with both oracle and human feedback show that the proposed method outperforms prior human-in-the-loop RL methods.\\n\\nReviewers find the proposed idea simple but novel, and appreciate the clarity of the presentation. Major concerns include 1) the assumptions made by the proposed algorithm can be limiting, 2) the complexity of current evaluation domains is relatively simple, and 3) the selection of baseline methods does not include offline RL algorithms. \\n\\nReviewers have reached a consensus to recommend acceptance after the discussion period.\", \"additional_comments_on_reviewer_discussion\": \"The authors ran additional experiments during the discussion phase to help addressing concerns from the reviewers.\"}" ] }

[ "Liqiang Jing", "Zhehui Huang", "Xiaoyang Wang", "Wenlin Yao", "Wenhao Yu", "Kaixin Ma", "Hongming Zhang", "Xinya Du", "Dong Yu" ]

[ "data science", "agent", "benchmark", "llm" ]

{ "note_id": [ "zGql1ZjQUX", "z5n8wiJgrO", "wFK9ECoP0X", "uTcAlohhby", "sP9XUZ97WN", "pZ0254Odx7", "nX8J0jmThs", "lfMDlVWHKY", "kcEzkrJcWH", "iJZ5zbPM7E", "ffJLgUw67W", "dGPPCp54oJ", "ZU5NJWJnD0", "WjABvATHuU", "VUHZTlyGv7", "R8gHoWEq7v", "PV4DCBK7PH", "MzRD8gwYUZ", "KRk1bEM7Vz", "KCCJvxBjrN", "Ei1rmhAWqx", "E3PjablTB3", "AKdyrwQp7i", "6GklfxkZyC", "5cYtet2OY9", "1nWr1PWl96", "14i5BmZhaT" ], "note_type": [ "official_comment", "official_comment", "official_comment", "official_comment", "official_comment", "official_review", "official_comment", "official_comment", "official_review", "official_comment", "official_review", "official_comment", "official_comment", "official_review", "official_comment", "official_review", "meta_review", "official_comment", "official_comment", "official_comment", "official_comment", "official_comment", "official_comment", "official_comment", "official_comment", "decision", "official_comment" ], "note_created": [ 1732076315642, 1732076256441, 1732221402110, 1732221439499, 1732221453588, 1730026061861, 1732516750844, 1732076224280, 1730540742082, 1732284910605, 1731049792436, 1732076357053, 1732076388464, 1730365554756, 1732285319437, 1730713396524, 1734332854253, 1732308660202, 1732294248210, 1732248244240, 1732290395340, 1732132446236, 1732241325442, 1732269496821, 1732076302172, 1737523833023, 1732259364009 ], "note_signatures": [ [ "ICLR.cc/2025/Conference/Submission7343/Authors" ], [ "ICLR.cc/2025/Conference/Submission7343/Authors" ], [ "ICLR.cc/2025/Conference/Submission7343/Authors" ], [ "ICLR.cc/2025/Conference/Submission7343/Authors" ], [ "ICLR.cc/2025/Conference/Submission7343/Authors" ], [ "ICLR.cc/2025/Conference/Submission7343/Reviewer_XL8J" ], [ "ICLR.cc/2025/Conference/Submission7343/Area_Chair_6jR1" ], [ "ICLR.cc/2025/Conference/Submission7343/Authors" ], [ "ICLR.cc/2025/Conference/Submission7343/Reviewer_EZxL" ], [ "ICLR.cc/2025/Conference/Submission7343/Authors" ], [ "ICLR.cc/2025/Conference/Submission7343/Reviewer_cMgg" ], [ "ICLR.cc/2025/Conference/Submission7343/Authors" ], [ "ICLR.cc/2025/Conference/Submission7343/Authors" ], [ "ICLR.cc/2025/Conference/Submission7343/Reviewer_TVnT" ], [ "ICLR.cc/2025/Conference/Submission7343/Authors" ], [ "ICLR.cc/2025/Conference/Submission7343/Reviewer_2rKh" ], [ "ICLR.cc/2025/Conference/Submission7343/Area_Chair_6jR1" ], [ "ICLR.cc/2025/Conference/Submission7343/Authors" ], [ "ICLR.cc/2025/Conference/Submission7343/Reviewer_EZxL" ], [ "ICLR.cc/2025/Conference/Submission7343/Authors" ], [ "ICLR.cc/2025/Conference/Submission7343/Authors" ], [ "ICLR.cc/2025/Conference/Submission7343/Reviewer_2rKh" ], [ "ICLR.cc/2025/Conference/Submission7343/Reviewer_EZxL" ], [ "ICLR.cc/2025/Conference/Submission7343/Reviewer_EZxL" ], [ "ICLR.cc/2025/Conference/Submission7343/Authors" ], [ "ICLR.cc/2025/Conference/Program_Chairs" ], [ "ICLR.cc/2025/Conference/Submission7343/Reviewer_XL8J" ] ], "structured_content_str": [ "{\"comment\": \"> **Q6: Please define the versions of the model used in the main paper instead of relegating it in the Appendix.**\\n- Thanks for your suggestion. We will remove the version of model into Section 3.3 of the main paper.\\n\\n> **Q7: What are the settings for the models (e.g., temperature)? Are the experiments conducted multiple times? If so, how are they aggregated?** \\n- Thank you for your question. In all experiments, we use greedy decoding for all models, with the temperature set to 0 and top_p set to 1. This configuration minimizes randomness in the output and ensures reproducibility. Additionally, we perform inference only once for all models. This decision not only aligns with our parameter settings to mitigate randomness but also helps reduce computational costs. We will clarify this in the revised manuscript.\\n\\n> **Q8: For the analyses (e.g., L404 -- L421), it would be nice to state if they have been corroborated by prior research. For example, Qian et al. has also observed that ML agents perform better on older Kaggle challenges and hypothesize that older challenges have more data leakage into pretraining data.** \\n- Thanks for your advice. We will add more analysis in L404 -- L421. 1) We found that the performance of agents declines as the total context length increases. This observation aligns with findings in other tasks for agents, such as SWEBench, which reports that model performance drops considerably for bug-fixing tasks as the total context length increases. 2) We also observe that the difficulty of challenges increases over the years. This observation is consistent with existing research. For example, Qian et al. has also observed that ML agents perform better on older data science challenges.\\n\\n> **Q9: Can you provide a unified script to download the datasets, perhaps using an API, process the downloaded data and run the experiments? It would help for readers to verify the results.** \\n- Thanks for your advice. We will add a unified script for data dowloading and experiment running.\\n\\n> **Q10: L406-L409: Figure 4 shows only GPT-4o, AutoGen and Gemini, but your text references Llama3-8B and GPT 3.5.?** \\n- Thanks for your question. We only show the performance of GPT-4o, AutoGen, and Gemini in Figure 4 due to space constraints in the figure. However, we observed similar trends across other models, such as Llama3-8B and GPT-3.5. We will include this observation in the appendix to provide a more comprehensive discussion.\\n\\n> **Q11: How do I interpret the RPG of human? Doesn't 'human' represent the best human generated answer and RPG compares against the best human?** \\n- Thank you for your comment. You are correct that the RPG metric compares performance against the best possible result. Since it is difficult to obtain solutions from the top-performing individuals for every competition, we instead use the maximum achievable score for each competition's evaluation metric (i.e., the perfect score) as the benchmark. In this context, the best result corresponds to an RPG of 100%. This approach ensures consistency and provides a clear standard for comparison across all tasks. We will clarify this in the revised manuscript.\"}", "{\"comment\": [\"> **Novelty techniques or ideas.**\", \"We sincerely thank you for your time, effort, and thoughtful comments in reviewing our work. We greatly appreciate the detailed feedback, which has helped us better articulate the contributions of our paper. While DSBench does build upon existing resources like ModelOff and Kaggle, we want to emphasize that it is more than a collection of existing tasks. Our work introduces a realistic and comprehensive benchmark framework, incorporating multimodal tasks, long-context reasoning, and end-to-end evaluations to better reflect real-world data science challenges. Additionally, we propose the Relative Performance Gap metric, a novel method for normalizing diverse evaluation metrics, enabling fair and consistent comparisons. We believe these elements represent meaningful innovations that go beyond engineering contributions and provide valuable insights for advancing data science agents. Thank you again for your thoughtful review and constructive feedback.\", \"> **Different with the existing work.**\", \"Thank you for your thoughtful feedback and for sharing your perspective on our work. We understand the difficulty in assessing overlap in a rapidly evolving field like automated data science. To clarify, DSBench is distinct from existing benchmarks due to its focus on **realistic, multimodal, long-context, and end-to-end tasks** that closely mirror real-world challenges, setting it apart from prior work that often emphasizes **simplified tasks like code generation**. Additionally, our introduction of the Relative Performance Gap metric addresses a critical gap in **evaluating diverse tasks by enabling fair and consistent comparisons**. By leveraging tasks from ModelOff and Kaggle, DSBench provides a practical and challenging benchmark that highlights the current limitations of state-of-the-art agents. We hope this clarification underscores DSBench\\u2019s significance and unique contributions to the field, and we greatly appreciate your time and consideration in reviewing our work.\", \"> **The only relatively minor issue I'd like to point out concerns Section 3.3, which promises discussing the errors made by LLMs, but does not provide any details, really. I think this should be amended.**\", \"Thank you for the suggestion. We show in-depth analysis with case study in Appendix H. In particular, we show 7 testing examples for in-depth analysis. For example, in Figure 9, we show the introduction of the challenge, the question, a screenshot of a portion of the data file, and the generation text from GPT-4o. Based on the generation from GPT-4o, we found that the model misunderstood the meaning of the introduction and misinterpreted the district code as the voter identity code, leading to the wrong answer. We conducted comprehensive error analysis, we will add a reference in Section 3.3 to the appendix.\", \"If you have other suggestions pls let us know. If it's the only concern, could you consider increasing the contributions/ratings.\"]}", "{\"comment\": \"Thank you for your valuable feedback. As the ICLR public discussion phase will be ending in a few days, I wanted to check if my previous response has addressed your concerns. If it has, I would greatly appreciate it if you could consider updating your score accordingly. Thank you again for your time and insights!\"}", "{\"comment\": \"Thank you for your valuable feedback. As the ICLR public discussion phase will be ending in a few days, I wanted to check if my previous response has addressed your concerns. If it has, I would greatly appreciate it if you could consider updating your score accordingly. Thank you again for your time and insights!\"}", "{\"comment\": \"Thank you for your valuable feedback. As the ICLR public discussion phase will be ending in a few days, I wanted to check if my previous response has addressed your concerns. If it has, I would greatly appreciate it if you could consider updating your score accordingly. Thank you again for your time and insights!\"}", "{\"summary\": \"The paper constructs DSBench, a benchmark focused on evaluating LM-based data science agents through realistic tasks sourced from ModelOff and Kaggle competitions.\", \"soundness\": \"3\", \"presentation\": \"2\", \"contribution\": \"3\", \"strengths\": \"1. I believe the dataset provided by the authors can, to some extent, reflect a model's ability to tackle data science tasks, and even today, it remains quite challenging, serving as a non-trivial evaluation benchmark.\\n2. The authors conducted some interesting analyses across various dimensions for different models and different data science tasks (e.g., examining task completion rates relative to task release time, the correlation between task difficulty and context length, etc.), offering potential insights into the development of LM as agents.\", \"weaknesses\": \"1. **Data Source:**\\n- All the data analysis tasks mentioned by the authors at line 106 are related to finance. I would appreciate it if the authors could clarify this point in the paper and explain why other types of analysis tasks are not as suitable. This concern arises because ModelOff is actually a global financial modeling competition.\\n- Similarly, for data modeling, it seems this is also influenced by the fact that there are numerous modeling task competitions on Kaggle.\\n\\nI wonder if the authors have explored more platforms or data sources and could explain why they were not suitable for evaluating data science agents?\\nAdditionally, in my opinion, competitions are not always the closest representation of the real world. For example, as far as I know, Spider2-V[1] incorporates a lot of tools and software from industrial data pipelines. Could this be a more realistic measure of real-world scenarios?\\n\\n2. **Evaluation Metrics:**\\n- I fully understand that collecting and building complex evaluation environments is a considerable engineering task. However, if the evaluation is based solely on competition platforms and existing output-only metrics, it seems that it may not fully capture the comprehensive capabilities of data science agents. This is similar to what the authors mentioned in lines 153 and 154, such as extracting insights, proper data handling, etc.\\n\\n3. **Need better presentation, especially for some tables and figures:**\\n- I noticed in Figure 4, some of the models do not have the reported accuracy (does this mean zero accuracy?); while the width of the bars are not set as the same. However, I do not find clear explanation to these.\\n- I believe transforming Table 5 into a line chart with corresponding accuracy values would clearly illustrate the trend in accuracy over time.\\n\\n[1] Spider2-V: How Far Are Multimodal Agents From Automating Data Science and Engineering Workflows?, NeurIPS 2024.\", \"questions\": \"1. As highlighted in Table 1, What is the purpose of distinguishing tables from data files? What is the difference between tables and data files? I would like the authors to clarify how they treat these two types of data samples during evaluation.\\n\\n2. I also find the taxonomy somewhat difficult to understand. For example, \\\"tables\\\" and \\\"excels\\\" are categorized separately, and I hope the author can clarify the distinctions between these categories more clearly.\", \"flag_for_ethics_review\": \"['No ethics review needed.']\", \"rating\": \"6\", \"confidence\": \"4\", \"code_of_conduct\": \"Yes\"}", "{\"comment\": \"Dear reviewers,\\n\\nAs the deadline for discussion is ending soon. Please respond to the authors to indicate you have read their rebuttal. If you have more questions, now is the time to ask. \\n\\nAC\"}", "{\"comment\": [\"> **Diversity of Kaggle Tasks.**\", \"Thank you for raising this concern. While it is true that many Kaggle competitions focus on domains like retail and finance, the platform also hosts challenges from a wide range of other fields, as reflected in the dataset we collected. For instance: 1) Healthcare and Life Sciences: Competitions like Ventilator Pressure Prediction and COVID-19 Global Forecasting provide tasks directly related to healthcare and pandemic modeling. 2) Education and Natural Language Processing: Examples include CommonLit Readability Prize and Learning Agency Lab Automated Essay Scoring, which focus on NLP and educational challenges. 3) Environment and Urban Planning: Tasks like See Click Predict Fix address urban planning and environmental issues. 4) Gaming and Simulations: The Conway's Reverse Game of Life challenge explores complex systems and algorithms. 5) Miscellaneous Domains: Competitions such as TMDB Box Office Prediction and Spaceship Titanic cover unique topics, including entertainment and hypothetical scenarios. This indicates that our dataset include a diverse domains. The diverse kaggle competition metrics shown in Figure 3 of our paper also show the diversity of our tasks\", \"Besides, the user can further collect because our dataset can be continually updatable for the newly released competition and othter data competition platforms, which can further enhance the diversity of the Kaggle data.\", \"We will revise the manuscript to emphasize the breadth of domains represented in our dataset.\", \"> **Explain why RPG can reflect actual performance across tasks.**\", \"Thank you for your comment. The Relative Performance Gap (RPG) metric is designed to provide a **normalized measure of model performance across various data types and task complexities**, allowing for a consistent evaluation framework within DSBench. Unlike raw metrics in the kaggle tasks such as accuracy and RUC, RPG accounts for performance differences by comparing the model's results against both a baseline and the best-known human expert performance for each task. This approach enables RPG to highlight how closely a model approaches expert-level proficiency, regardless of the specific data domain or task difficulty.\", \"RPG is particularly valuable in DSBench's diverse setting, where tasks vary widely in complexity and metric requirements (e.g., ROC AUC for classification tasks versus Root Mean Squared Error for regression tasks). By normalizing performance relative to the best achievable score and adjusting for task-specific baselines, RPG captures nuanced differences in model efficacy. This makes RPG a robust metric for assessing agents\\u2019 ability to generalize across the wide range of challenges that data science tasks present, from data analysis to end-to-end modeling.\", \"[1] MLAgentBench: Evaluating Language Agents on Machine Learning Experimentation.\"]}", "{\"summary\": \"DSBench introduces a benchmark to test the performances of LLM or VLM agents. It contains data analysis and modeling tasks sourced from Kaggle and ModelOff competitions. Compared to other similar benchmarks, the benchmark is more realistic in that it contains data files, tables, and images and provides executable evaluation functions to validate the answers. The paper tests various models and agent systems and found them to pale in comparison to human data scientists.\", \"soundness\": \"3\", \"presentation\": \"3\", \"contribution\": \"3\", \"strengths\": \"The paper collects a set of data science challenges from Kaggle and ModelOff. By releasing the code and data, the community can use it to measure the performances of their agent tools. The paper demonstrates through experiments that there exists huge gaps between data science agents and humans, demonstrating that the benchmark is not saturated.\", \"weaknesses\": \"In general, the paper is well written. The only concerns relate to the sustainability of the benchmark; by releasing the dataset, there is a high chance that it will be, either intentionally or unintentionally, incorporated into the training data for LLMs or VLMs. It seems like this possibility has not been considered by the authors and their explanation for the correlation between accuracy and year of release (Table 5, L416-L421) is weak. Some critical information is missing and it affects my judgement. I would be happy to change my score if the authors can clear my potential misunderstandings.\", \"questions\": \"1. In Table 3, what does \\\"context length\\\" refer to? Is it the number of English words, characters, or tokens?\\n2. The paper assumes that the LLMs should be able to generate the answers from the data files. Is it possible for the LLMs to know the answers to the questions from pretraining? For example, the answers to the challenge may be discussed in a Reddit forum that has been scraped in pretraining.\\n3. In Figure 2(b), what are A-F, A-I, and A-D?\\n4. L265: what is N in \\\\hat{F} = \\\\mathcal{G}(E,N,S,M)?\\n5. Figure 3: Can you define m0, m1, ..., m17, perhaps as a separate table in the Appendix?\\n6. Please define the versions of the model used in the main paper instead of relegating it in the Appendix.\\n7. What are the settings for the models (e.g., temperature)? Are the experiments conducted multiple times? If so, how are they aggregated?\\n8. For the analyses (e.g., L404 -- L421), it would be nice to state if they have been corroborated by prior research. For example, Qian et al. has also observed that ML agents perform better on older Kaggle challenges and hypothesize that older challenges have more data leakage into pretraining data.\\n9. Can you provide a unified script to download the datasets, perhaps using an API, process the downloaded data and run the experiments? It would help for readers to verify the results.\\n10. L406-L409: Figure 4 shows only GPT-4o, AutoGen and Gemini, but your text references Llama3-8B and GPT 3.5.\\n11. How do I interpret the RPG of human? Doesn't 'human' represent the best human generated answer and RPG compares against the best human?\", \"flag_for_ethics_review\": \"['No ethics review needed.']\", \"rating\": \"8\", \"confidence\": \"4\", \"code_of_conduct\": \"Yes\"}", "{\"comment\": \"Thank you for your thoughtful feedback. For the human expert performance in our study, we collected and evaluated the top-3 performing codes from the Kaggle website for each competition (e.g., https://www.kaggle.com/competitions/santa-2024/code). The human expert performance on our split dataset is then calculated as the average performance of these top-3 codes.\\nRegarding the \\\"best performance\\\" metric, this is not derived from a human evaluator. Instead, we use the maximum achievable score based on the competition's evaluation metric as the \\\"best performance.\\\" This represents the theoretical upper bound for the competition. As a result, the human expert performance is naturally lower than this best performance value since it is practically impossible to consistently achieve the maximum score across all competitions.\\n\\nWe appreciate your suggestion to include more information about the human expert evaluations in the paper, and we will incorporate these clarifications in the revised version. Thank you again for your detailed review and for supporting efforts in benchmarking DS agents.\\n\\nIf you have no further questions, **we kindly ask if you could consider adjusting the score** in light of our responses. Thank you again for your detailed review and for supporting efforts in benchmarking DS agents.\"}", "{\"summary\": \"This paper introduces DSBench, a comprehensive data science benchmark designed to assess the performance of data science agents on real-world tasks. DSBench integrates the challenges from ModelOff and Kaggle competitions, creating a realistic environment that covers 466 data analysis and 74 data modeling tasks. To enable fair comparison, the paper proposes the Relative Performance Gap metric, which normalizes various evaluation metrics for data modeling tasks. Evaluation of state-of-the-art models, including GPT-4o, Claude, and Gemini, reveals that DSBench remains challenging, with significant performance gaps between these models and human capabilities.\", \"soundness\": \"3\", \"presentation\": \"3\", \"contribution\": \"2\", \"strengths\": \"**Novelty**\\n- This paper offers a fresh contribution to data science by introducing DSBench, a new benchmark that evaluates data science agents under realistic task conditions derived from ModelOff and Kaggle competitions. It pushes the boundaries of traditional benchmarking.\\n\\n**Quality** \\n- The design of DSBench, with its comprehensive task types and Relative Performance Gap (RPG) metric, demonstrates rigor in addressing evaluation inconsistencies across various modeling tasks. \\n\\n**Clarity** \\n- Task designs, methods, and performance comparisons are clear and well-organized. They contain many details but are not hard to follow.\\n\\n**Significance**\\n- DSBench sets a new standard in evaluating data science agents, driving advancements in realistic, end-to-end task performance. Its contributions are useful to future advancements of intelligent, autonomous data science agents.\", \"weaknesses\": [\"I'm bit unsure of the robustness and persuasiveness of the RPG metric is valid. It could be beneficial to further assess how well the RPG reflects actual performance across varying data types and task complexities.\", \"Although Kaggle tasks are highly relevant, they often focus on a narrow subset of domains (e.g., retail, finance).\"], \"questions\": \"1. Can authors please explain if the metric and dataset are sufficient to cover the real-world diversity that the benchmark aims to address?\\n2. Explain why RPG is able to reflect actual performance across varying data types and task complexities.\", \"flag_for_ethics_review\": \"['No ethics review needed.']\", \"rating\": \"6\", \"confidence\": \"3\", \"code_of_conduct\": \"Yes\"}", "{\"comment\": [\"> **Statistical Rigor in Dataset Scale**\", \"Thank you for this insightful comment. We appreciate the suggestion to enhance the statistical rigor of our analysis. Regarding the sample size, 540 tasks was determined based on the availability of high-quality competitions from ModelOff and Kaggle and the evaluation cost of evaluated models, offering realistic and diverse data science challenges.\", \"To ensure the reliability of our current results, we specifically designed the inference phase to minimize randomness. For all experiments, we use greedy decoding with the temperature set to 0 and top_p set to 1, which reduces variability and ensures consistent results across tasks.\", \"We acknowledge that incorporating confidence intervals, bootstrap analysis, and power analysis could further enhance the robustness of our findings. In future work, we plan to conduct multiple experimental runs and report confidence intervals for performance metrics.\", \"> **Evaluation Methodology**\", \"Thank you for your insightful question. We agree that the human baseline performance could be further strengthened by incorporating more expert evaluators for each task. However, since expert annotation is both time-consuming and expensive, we sampled ten tasks for human evaluation, with each task being annotated by a single expert. The experts were selected based on their qualifications, specifically being either master's graduates in the data science track within computer science or current PhD students specializing in data science. In the future, we will recruit more volunteers to work on annotation.\", \"Regarding the evaluation process, we recognize the value of discussing potential biases in task selection and analyzing the distribution of task difficulty. We present the difficulty distribution in Sections 3.2.1 and 3.2.2. In the revised manuscript, we will add a more detailed discussion on these aspects, such the task sucess rate of the human for each task.\", \"> **Suggest reversing the criteria for \\\"Exec. Eval.\\\", \\\"Code only\\\", and \\\"Env. Fix.\\\" to negative statements.**\", \"Thank you for your valuable comments. We will include this comment into our paper.\"]}", "{\"comment\": [\"> **Data Source and Evaluation.**\", \"Thank you for your comments. To clarify, the majority of tasks in ModelOff are finance-related and financial analysis constitutes a substantial portion of real-world data analysis tasks. Financial modeling tasks often serve as representative benchmarks due to their complexity, requiring sophisticated reasoning, integration of multimodal data (e.g., spreadsheets, textual descriptions), and precise quantitative analysis. These characteristics make financial analysis a particularly suitable domain for evaluating the capabilities of data science agents. Additionally, while ModelOff primarily focuses on finance, **it also includes tasks from other areas, such as election statistics, adding some diversity to the benchmark**. We will revise the manuscript to explicitly highlight this rationale.\", \"For data modeling, Kaggle was selected due to its status as the most popular platform for data science competitions, covering a broad range of domains such as healthcare, retail, and environmental science. While other platforms and data sources can indeed be utilized, Kaggle's extensive task diversity and established reputation make it a robust choice for constructing our benchmark.\", \"Regarding the use of industrial pipelines, such as those incorporated in Spider2-V, we agree that these represent realistic workflows. However, our benchmark deliberately avoids restricting the tools or systems that can be used. This design decision provides greater freedom for participants and encourages creative approaches to problem-solving. In contrast, benchmarks like Spider2-V emphasize LLM's tool-specific capabilities in controlled environments, which are excellent for evaluating system-specific proficiencies but differ from our goal of focusing on evaluating performance of different systems.\", \"We will clarify these points in the revised manuscript and appreciate your feedback in helping us improve the paper\\u2019s scope and explanation.\", \"> **Better Presentation.**\", \"Thank you for your valuable suggestions. Regarding Figure 4, the absence of reported accuracy for some models indeed indicates zero accuracy. The varying widths of the bars have no special significance, and I will add explanations to clarify this in the paper.\", \"As for Table 5, we agree that transforming it into a line chart with corresponding accuracy values would better illustrate the trend in accuracy over time. I will make this adjustment to enhance the clarity and visual presentation of the data.\", \"> **Difference between tables and data files in Table 1.**\", \"We apologize for any misunderstanding caused. In our context, \\\"table\\\" typically refers to data presented directly in the task instruction in textual form. These tables are generally simpler and contain smaller amounts of data. In contrast, \\\"data files\\\" refer to larger datasets provided in formats such as CSV or Excel. For evaluation, small tables in textual form can be directly concatenated into the prompt for processing. On the other hand, data files may either be concatenated into the prompt (if feasible) or require the agent to write code to interact with and process the file. We will clarify these points in our paper.\", \"> **I also find the taxonomy somewhat difficult to understand. For example, \\\"tables\\\" and \\\"excels\\\" are categorized separately, and I hope the author can clarify the distinctions between these categories more clearly.**\", \"Thank you for pointing this out. We understand that the distinction in our taxonomy may not be immediately clear and will revise the manuscript to provide better clarification. \\\"Tables\\\" refer to structured data presented directly within the task instruction in textual format. These are typically smaller datasets and can be processed directly within the prompt. \\\"Excels\\\" refer to larger, external data files provided in formats like xlsx file, which may require agents to write code for processing due to their size and complexity. We will update the manuscript to ensure this distinction is explicitly stated.\"]}", "{\"summary\": \"This paper introduces DSBench, a comprehensive data science benchmark containing 466 data analysis tasks and 74 data modeling tasks sourced from ModelOff and Kaggle competitions. Compared to existing benchmarks, DSBench provides a more realistic evaluation environment, encompassing long-context understanding, multimodal task backgrounds, large data file processing, and multi-table structure reasoning. Through evaluation of state-of-the-art LLMs, LVLMs, and agents, the study finds that they still struggle with most tasks, with the best agent achieving only 34.12% accuracy in data analysis tasks and a 34.74% Relative Performance Gap (RPG) in data modeling tasks.\", \"soundness\": \"4\", \"presentation\": \"3\", \"contribution\": \"4\", \"strengths\": [\"### 1. Originality & Vision\", \"Pioneering creation of a comprehensive real-world data science benchmark, analogous to SWE-bench in software engineering, marking a significant step toward AGI evaluation\", \"First benchmark to integrate both data analysis and modeling tasks in realistic settings with complex data structures and multimodal contexts\", \"Novel introduction of RPG (Relative Performance Gap) metric that effectively normalizes performance across diverse modeling tasks\", \"Innovative approach to testing both pure language understanding and tool utilization capabilities\", \"Make consideration of not only the performance but also the cost\", \"### 2. Technical Robustness\", \"Rigorous task collection methodology, carefully curated from established platforms (ModelOff and Kaggle) ensuring real-world applicability\", \"Comprehensive coverage of data science tasks: 466 analysis tasks + 74 modeling tasks, spanning different complexity levels and domains\", \"Sophisticated evaluation framework that considers:\", \"Multi-table reasoning capabilities\", \"Long-context understanding\", \"End-to-end solution generation\", \"Tool integration and utilization\", \"Multiple modalities processing\", \"### 3. Practical Significance\", \"Direct application to real-world data science scenarios, bridging the gap between academic benchmarks and practical challenges\", \"Clear identification of current AI systems' limitations in data science tasks:\", \"Understanding complex data relationships\", \"Handling multi-step reasoning\", \"Managing tool interactions\", \"Provides valuable insights for developing more capable data science agents by revealing specific areas where current models fall short\", \"Sets a new standard for evaluating AI systems' practical data science capabilities, essential for progressing toward AGI\", \"### 4. Research Impact\", \"Creates a foundation for systematic evaluation of data science capabilities in AI systems\", \"Enables quantitative comparison of different AI approaches in real-world data science scenarios\", \"Provides a roadmap for developing more capable AI systems that can handle complex, real-world data science tasks\", \"Serves as a crucial benchmark for measuring progress toward AGI in the domain of data science\"], \"weaknesses\": [\"### 1. Statistical Rigor in Dataset Scale\", \"While 540 samples is reasonable given the scarcity of high-quality ModelOff & Kaggle competitions, the paper could benefit from:\", \"Reporting confidence intervals through multiple experimental runs\", \"Conducting bootstrap analysis to estimate the robustness of performance metrics\", \"Providing power analysis to justify the sample size\", \"The paper could discuss how the current sample size was determined and what would be an ideal size for future extensions\", \"### 2. Evaluation Methodology\", \"Human baseline performance (22 competitions) could be strengthened by:\", \"Including more expert evaluators per task\", \"Reporting inter-rater agreement scores\", \"Documenting the selection criteria for human experts\", \"The evaluation process could benefit from:\", \"Explicit discussion of potential biases in task selection\", \"Analysis of task difficulty distribution\", \"More detailed failure case studies with expert annotations\"], \"questions\": \"In Table 1's comparison section, I suggest reversing the criteria for \\\"Exec. Eval.\\\", \\\"Code only\\\", and \\\"Env. Fix.\\\" to negative statements. This way, checkmarks would indicate DSBench's unique advantages where other benchmarks fall short, making it easier for readers to quickly grasp DSBench's contributions. This would better highlight how DSBench addresses limitations in existing benchmarks and make the comparison more intuitive.\", \"flag_for_ethics_review\": \"['No ethics review needed.']\", \"rating\": \"8\", \"confidence\": \"4\", \"code_of_conduct\": \"Yes\"}", "{\"comment\": \"Thank you for your thoughtful feedback. We appreciate your acknowledgment that some of your concerns regarding visualizations and the differences between tables and Excel have been addressed. We agree with your point, which includes a discussion of the limitations of current evaluation metrics. We will add a limitation section in our paper to discuss these.\\n\\nThank you again for your feedback and encouragement in making these necessary revisions. Although you have decided to keep your original score, we greatly value your suggestions and will incorporate them into the revised version. Your comments have been invaluable in improving the clarity and robustness of our work.\"}", "{\"summary\": \"The paper introduces a new benchmark for automated data science, DSBench. This\\nencompasses both excel exercises from ModelOff and kaggle competitions. DSBench\\nalso includes metrics for evaluating success in both kinds of tasks. The paper\\nevaluates several open and closed source LLMs/VLMs. The key take away is that\\nSOTA architectures are still far away from achieving human-level performance.\", \"soundness\": \"3\", \"presentation\": \"3\", \"contribution\": \"2\", \"strengths\": \"**Originality**: This is chiefly an engineering paper, it introduces no novel techniques or ideas. DSBench collates existing resources.\\n\\n**Quality**: The key contribution is DSBench, which I am confident took quite some effort to set up. All in all, this contribution seems to be of good quality: it encompasses a large number of relevant tasks which go beyond what the literature currently offers. It also comes with some rather natural metrics. The interesting bit is the evaluation, which on the one hand shows that DSBench can indeed be used as intended, and on the other points out a performance gap for existing architectures. The findings are otherwise quite intuitive: newer models perform better, more complex tasks are harder to solve. The real contribution is the research that DSBench will enable.\\n\\nUnfortunately, as a non-expert (my work on automating data science predates LLMs), I cannot assess the overlap between DSBench and recent works in this area.\\n\\n**Clarity**: The text is generally readable, with a few linguistic quirks here and there. The figures are easy to understand.\\n\\n**Significance**: Automated data science is a central topic nowadays. It is not impossible that DSBench will provide a significant boost to auto-DS. But again, this depends on overlap with existing work, which I am not overly familiar with. As a result, I have decided to grade conservatively the contribution aspect of the paper.\", \"weaknesses\": \"**Quality**: The only relatively minor issue I'd like to point out concerns Section 3.3, which promises discussing the errors made by LLMs, but does not provide any details, really. I think this should be amended.\", \"questions\": \"Plase see weaknesses.\", \"flag_for_ethics_review\": \"['No ethics review needed.']\", \"rating\": \"6\", \"confidence\": \"2\", \"code_of_conduct\": \"Yes\"}", "{\"metareview\": \"The paper introduces DSBench, a comprehensive benchmark for evaluating data science agents through 540 tasks sourced from ModelOff and Kaggle competitions, offering a significant contribution to the field of AI-driven data science evaluation (Reviewers TVnT and EZxL). The benchmark's key strengths include its realistic task environment, covering 466 data analysis and 74 data modeling tasks, and the novel Relative Performance Gap (RPG) metric (Reviewer cMgg). Reviewers consistently highlighted the benchmark's importance in revealing substantial performance gaps between current AI models and human data scientists, with the best agent achieving only 34.12% accuracy in data analysis tasks (Reviewer TVnT). The benchmark's originality lies in its comprehensive approach, integrating multi-table reasoning, long-context understanding, and multimodal task backgrounds, making it a pioneering effort in systematically evaluating AI's data science capabilities (Reviewer TVnT).\\n\\nDespite the overall positive reception, several weaknesses were identified. Reviewers raised concerns about the benchmark's limited data diversity, noting that the tasks are primarily finance-focused (Reviewer XL8J), and questioned the robustness of the evaluation methodology (Reviewer EZxL). The potential for data leakage through model pre-training was a significant concern, with one reviewer highlighting the risk of benchmark tasks being inadvertently incorporated into future model training data (Reviewer EZxL). Additionally, reviewers suggested improvements in statistical rigor, such as reporting confidence intervals, conducting bootstrap analysis, and providing more detailed explanation of the evaluation process (Reviewer TVnT). The paper also received critiques about its presentation, with some reviewers noting difficulties in understanding the taxonomy and requesting clearer explanations of data categorization and evaluation metrics (Reviewer XL8J). Despite these limitations, the majority of reviewers rated the paper as marginally above or at the acceptance threshold, recognizing its potential to drive advancements in automated data science research.\", \"additional_comments_on_reviewer_discussion\": \"Authors have sufficiently addressed the comments in a point-by-point manner. All reviewers indicated that they were satisfied.\"}", "{\"comment\": \"Thank you for your thoughtful and constructive feedback. We greatly appreciate your recognition of the relevance and impact of our work, as well as your acknowledgment of our responsiveness during the discussion phase.\\n\\nRegarding your concern about the benchmark's resistance to data leakage, we utilized specific strategies to mitigate this issue for both data modeling and data analysis tasks. For kaggle competitions, we re-split the dataset, keep test set labels only for evaluation, and replace them with dummy values, which is similar to the existing strategy [1]. This prevents agents from directly using memorized solutions or labels. In addition, for all tasks, we prompt the model to output reasoning and interpretation beyond simply recalling memorized responses. This design discourages agents from relying on shortcuts or rote memorization. \\n\\nWe hope our response addresses all your concerns.\\n\\n[1] ScienceAgentBench: Toward Rigorous Assessment of Language Agents for Data-Driven Scientific Discovery\"}", "{\"comment\": \"After much consideration, I will maintain my score.\\n\\nThis work is relevant and will be helpful to the community. The experiments make sense from a high level and the findings are consistent with prior work. The authors have been responsive over the course of the public discussion phase. I would have given this paper a 7 if I have the option to.\\n\\nHowever, I can't recommend an 8 (clear accept) as I am still not convinced about the benchmark's resistance to data leakage, which affects the reliability of the results and the durability of the benchmark.\"}", "{\"title\": \"Thanks for your further valuable feedback\", \"comment\": \"Thanks for your further valuable feedback. We answer your question as follows.\\n> **Steps of how RPG is calculated** \\n- Thank you for your comment. We compute RPG of human as follows, $1/N \\\\sum_{i=1}^N \\\\times max((h_i-b_i)/(g_i-b_i))$, where $N$ is the total number of competitions. $b_i$ is the performance of the baseline. $h_i$ is the human performance. $g_i$ is the highest performance value for the $i$-th competition. For example, $g_i$ is 1 when the metric of the competition is accuracy, $g_i$ is 0 when the metric of the competition is MSE (Mean Squared Error).\\n\\n> **Possible data leakage.** \\n- This is a good question since all existing benchmarks suffer the same quesiton. As noted in Table 5 of our paper, we observe a clear trend where tasks from older challenges yield different performance compared to newer ones, potentially supporting the hypothesis of varying exposure. We will explicitly discuss this in the revision to make the possible effects of leakage clearer. \\n- In addition, we are exploring the inclusion of entirely new data challenges in future iterations of DSBench to evaluate models without the risk of prior exposure. While we understand that a license alone may not completely prevent misuse, it sets a clear legal framework against incorporating DSBench into training datasets. \\n\\nThanks again for your good questions.\"}", "{\"comment\": \"Thank you for your thoughtful feedback and clarifications. We truly appreciate your understanding and constructive comments.\\n\\nAs for the overall reception, Reviewer TVnT believes our paper is strong and should be accepted, and Reviewer EZxL acknowledges that we have addressed their concerns. In light of this, we kindly ask if you could consider raising your score to reflect the clarifications and additional efforts we\\u2019ve provided. Thank you again for your time and consideration!\"}", "{\"comment\": \"Thank you for your reply.\\n\\n> **it is more than a collection of existing tasks**\\n\\nsorry, I did not mean to be dismissive of your work. what I meant is that dsbench collects existing resources and packages them neatly by introducing useful additions. this was not meant to be a negative comment.\\n\\n> **difference wrt existing work**\\n\\nas I mentioned, I am not expert enough to really judge the novelty wrt existing works. I am interested in knowing what other reviewers have to say on the subject.\\n\\n> **appendix H**\\n\\nthank you for pointing this out.\\n\\nRest assured that I will take these clarifications into consideration when submitting the updated score.\"}", "{\"comment\": \"Thank you for your responses to my questions. I believe that most of the major concerns have been addressed. However, I remain confused about the definition of \\\"RPG of humans\\\" in Table 6. Can you explain the steps of how it is calculated?\\n\\nI also feel that there is insufficient awareness of the possibility of data leakage into pretraining. Data leakage can occur in many ways beyond just having the full description and solution being part of the pretraining; it can also occur when partial questions and answers are discussed on online forums or when the original problems are reframed and the solutions are posted (as is typical on stackoverflow). Older data challenges should have more discussion threads and have established methods (at the current point in time) whereas newer ones have less discussion threads and may require more novel approaches. At the very least, this should be pointed out as a possible explanation for some of your observations. I would also encourage the authors to think more deeply about how it may limit the utility of the benchmark and discuss how to mitigate this issue beyond putting a disclaimer or an easily ignored license.\"}", "{\"comment\": \"Thank you for your responses. There seems to be a minor mistake in the equation, but I think I figured it out. Who are the human expert(s) mentioned in the paper and how are they recruited? Why do they score much worse than the best performance value for the competitions (who presumely are also humans)? Please consider adding information about the human expert.\\n\\nI do not have further questions. Thanks for taking the lead on benchmarking DS agents.\"}", "{\"comment\": \"> **Concern of sustainability of the benchmark and more explanation for Table 5.**\\n- Thank you for your comment. We agree that there is a chance that our benchmark could be incorporated into the training data for LLMs or VLMs, either intentionally or unintentionally. To address this, we plan to implement strict licensing (as shown in the following) prohibiting its use in training. Additionally, these data analysis tasks were released before the era of large-scale LLMs (models with over 7 billion parameters), so the low accuracy may indicate that current models do not yet contain these tasks in their training data. (Because if they had been trained on these data, their performance might be significantly higher.)\\n- DSBench Usage Terms\\nThe use of DSBench is strictly limited to research and evaluation purposes. Any use of the benchmark or its data for training machine learning models, including large language models (LLMs) and vision-language models (VLMs), is strictly prohibited. Redistribution for non-commercial research is permitted with proper attribution. Unauthorized use, including for model training, may result in legal action.\\nFor inquiries or permissions, please contact: xxxxx.\\n\\n> **More explanation for Table 5.** \\n- In Table 5, we observe that the difficulty of the challenges increases over the years. This trend can be attributed to the evolution of data technology and the escalating complexity of the questions. To verify this, we further show the human performance over different years, which demonstrates a similar trend with GPT-4o, i.e., the accuracy decreases as the years progress.\\n- We will add these explanations in our paper. If you still have confusion, please tell us.\\n\\n> **Q1: In Table 3, what does \\\"context length\\\" refer to? Is it the number of English words, characters, or tokens?** \\n- Thanks for your question. It's number of English words of the problem.\\n\\n> **Q2: Is it possible for the LLMs to know the answers to the questions from pretraining? For example, the answers to the challenge may be discussed in a Reddit forum that has been scraped in pretraining.** \\n- Thanks for your valuable comment. Because of the low performane of the existing models, we believe that these tasks are unlikely to be included in existing pre-training data. In addition, the data collection strategy is general and can be used to collect new data modeling tasks.\\n\\n> **Q3:In Figure 2(b), what are A-F, A-I, and A-D?** \\n- Thank you for your question regarding Figure 2(b). To clarify, in the figure, \\\"A-F\\\" indicates that the question contains five answer options, labeled as A, B, C, D, and F. Similarly, \\\"A-I\\\" represents questions with nine options, ranging from A to I, and \\\"A-D\\\" corresponds to questions with four options, labeled as A, B, C, and D. We will add this clarification to the manuscript.\\n\\n> **Q4: L265: what is N in \\\\hat{F} = \\\\mathcal{G}(E,N,S,M)?** \\n- Thank you for catching this typo. We confirm that in \\n\\\\hat{F} = \\\\mathcal{G}(E,N,S,M), \\\"N\\\" should indeed be \\\"A\\\". We will correct this in the revised manuscript.\\n\\n> **Q5: Figure 3: Can you define m0, m1, ..., m17, perhaps as a separate table in the Appendix?** \\n- Thanks for your advice. Of course, we will add a Table in the Appedx for the defination of m0, m1, ..., m17 as follows.\\n- \\n| Metric Code | Metric Name |\\n|-------------|----------------------------------------------|\\n| m0 | Accuracy |\\n| m1 | ROC |\\n| m2 | Normalized Gini Coefficient |\\n| m3 | Root Mean Squared Logarithmic Error |\\n| m4 | Root Mean Squared Error |\\n| m5 | R2 Score |\\n| m6 | Mean Columnwise Root Mean Squared Error |\\n| m7 | Macro F1 |\\n| m8 | Micro-averaged F1 |\\n| m9 | Mean Absolute Error |\\n| m10 | Word-level Jaccard Score |\\n| m11 | Quadratic Weighted Kappa |\\n| m12 | Pearson Correlation Coefficient |\\n| m13 | Median Absolute Error |\\n| m14 | Symmetric Mean Absolute Percentage Error |\\n| m15 | Mean Column-wise Spearman\\u2019s Correlation Coefficient |\\n| m16 | MPA@3 |\\n| m17 | Logarithmic Loss |\"}", "{\"title\": \"Paper Decision\", \"decision\": \"Accept (Poster)\"}", "{\"title\": \"Official Comment by Reviewer XL8J\", \"comment\": \"Thanks for the response:\\n\\n1. Regarding the differences between tables and Excel, as well as clarifications on other visualizations, I believe the authors have addressed some of my concerns.\\n\\n2. However, I still have reservations about the choice of source data and the evaluation metrics. I hope the authors can specifically address the issues related to **Weakness 2**.\\n\\n**Specifically:**\\nIf you believe the overall score fully reflects what you mentioned about \\\"extracting insights\\\" and \\\"proper data handling,\\\" could you provide relevant examples and analysis to support this? If not, I strongly recommend that the authors include a discussion of the limitations for current evaluation metrics.\\nOverall, I have seen the authors provide a series of explanations, but they have not yet made adjustments in the paper or included necessary discussions and explanations about the aforementioned limitations.\\n\\nI will still hold my original score as I think this paper is right on the edge of being acceptable, and I do not think I will raise my score further since it is high enough.\\nBut I really hope the authors could make the necessary revisions, as I believe these adjustments are not particularly difficult to implement.\"}" ] }

[ "David Wendt", "Seungwoo Kim", "Rahul Mysore Venkatesh", "Stefan Stojanov", "Jiajun Wu", "Daniel LK Yamins" ]

[ "self-supervised learning", "motion estimation", "world modeling", "counterfactual prompting", "visual prompting" ]

{ "note_id": [ "wZ8S3g64tq", "oeFPP83x2M", "jL1IM7p5xr", "caH3UAkH4F", "TmqLi8l10z", "SytZKKnFz0", "9vbilssuXt", "3hOXeahBxl", "0gOfjCIiaR" ], "note_type": [ "comment", "comment", "official_review", "official_review", "official_review", "official_review", "official_comment", "official_review", "comment" ], "note_created": [ 1733147460886, 1733162750727, 1730681428642, 1730096819967, 1731183820741, 1730869876444, 1733153812752, 1730831026251, 1731609843281 ], "note_signatures": [ [ "ICLR.cc/2025/Conference/Program_Chairs" ], [ "ICLR.cc/2025/Conference/Submission8316/Authors" ], [ "ICLR.cc/2025/Conference/Submission8316/Reviewer_YKwK" ], [ "ICLR.cc/2025/Conference/Submission8316/Reviewer_sthF" ], [ "ICLR.cc/2025/Conference/Submission8316/Reviewer_fMDP" ], [ "ICLR.cc/2025/Conference/Submission8316/Reviewer_XJqk" ], [ "ICLR.cc/2025/Conference/Submission8316/Authors" ], [ "ICLR.cc/2025/Conference/Submission8316/Reviewer_HK1k" ], [ "ICLR.cc/2025/Conference/Submission8316/Authors" ] ], "structured_content_str": [ "{\"revert_withdrawal_confirmation\": \"We approve the reversion of withdrawn submission.\", \"comment\": \"Withdrawal reversed temporarily.\"}", "{\"withdrawal_confirmation\": \"I have read and agree with the venue's withdrawal policy on behalf of myself and my co-authors.\", \"comment\": \"Requested by authors.\"}", "{\"summary\": \"The authors propose to extend the counterfactual world models (CWM) by addressing the limitations in the hand-designed interventions. Specifically, hand-designed perturbations that are not found in the training distribution can cause spurious predictions and inconsistent motion estimates. To resolve this, the authors propose a paradigm to learn the interventions without using any additional supervisions. Quantitative results demonstrate superior performance against baselines.\", \"soundness\": \"3\", \"presentation\": \"2\", \"contribution\": \"1\", \"strengths\": \"[+] The work is well motivated by the limitation in hand-designed perturbation, since the model would intuitively struggle to predict something that it has never seen before.\\n\\n[+] Figure 1 is clear and helps in illustrating what is CWM and how hand-designed perturbation may be limited.\\n\\n[+] The proposed multi-mask inference approach is intuitive and effective according to the ablation study.\\n\\n[+] Empirical evaluation shows superior performance on tracking across large temporal gaps.\", \"weaknesses\": \"[-] The contribution appears to be rather incremental. The counterfactual paradigm was established in previous works and remained mostly the same. The proposed architecture mainly served for learning a better \\\"learned\\\" intervention for probing motion information (tracking).\\n\\n[-] Although the proposed auxiliary task for learning diffFLOW without supervision is interesting, I am not certain it is necessary and appears overly complicated. Would it be possible to use an off-the-shelf self-supervised model to produce correspondences for learning perturbations? This should improve training efficiency, reduce memory constraints, and provide a more explicit form of supervision.\\n\\n[-] Figure 3 overlaps extensively with Figure 1 and Figure 2. Some separation / focus on particular parts would be more helpful.\\n\\n[-] SMURF is an optical flow method and the comparison in Table 1 may not be entirely fair. As the authors acknowledged as well (L420), \\\"this is more challenging than optical flow estimation..\\\" Some discussion / additional baselines would be helpful.\\n\\n[-] Minor errors - (L97): \\\"showed that initially promising with this approach\\\"\", \"questions\": \"Beyond the question that I raised in the weakness section, I am curious how well hand-crafted perturbations could work if these are not bright color patches that are obviously OOD, but something more in-distribution to the training data (e.g. randomly sampling spherical gaussians of jittered colors). High-level discussions (without experiments) would be sufficient here.\", \"flag_for_ethics_review\": \"['No ethics review needed.']\", \"rating\": \"5\", \"confidence\": \"3\", \"code_of_conduct\": \"Yes\"}", "{\"summary\": \"The paper explores a method to improve motion estimation in videos using a self-supervised approach. The authors address challenges in extracting usable information from visual representations without labeled data. They build on the Counterfactual World Modeling (CWM) paradigm, which uses a masked next-frame predictor to extract scene properties like optical flow.\", \"soundness\": \"2\", \"presentation\": \"3\", \"contribution\": \"2\", \"strengths\": \"1. The paper is well written and the approach is sound.\\n2. The method demonstrates performance improvements compared to the previous state-of-the-art.\\n3. The paper includes quantitative and qualitative comparisons, illustrating the strengths of the proposed method in various scenarios and frame gaps.\", \"weaknesses\": \"1. It seems to lack novelty, using a diffusion model to predict the next frame is too common. Firstly, the method proposed by the authors closely resembles the existing Counterfactual World Model. The counterfactual interventions proposed by the authors appear to utilize an alternative predictor to generate counterfactual predictions.\\n2. The overall amount of work appears too minimal.\", \"questions\": \"See weaknesses above. Authors can explain their core contributions to the task in the rebuttal. In determining the final score, I will take into consideration the opinions of the other reviewers.\", \"flag_for_ethics_review\": \"['No ethics review needed.']\", \"rating\": \"3\", \"confidence\": \"2\", \"code_of_conduct\": \"Yes\"}", "{\"summary\": \"This paper proposes a self-supervised estimation of optical flow by learning counterfactual interventions instead of hand-designed counterfactual interventions. Specifically, It re-formulates the motion extraction procedure to make it a parameterized differentiable function and introduces the functional form of a sum of colored Gaussians as a natural intervention class. It claims that the proposed method achieve state-of-the-art performance on TAP-Vid DAVIS\\u2014VFG and TAP-Vid DAVIS\\u2014CFG. Generally, the idea makes sense to me.\", \"soundness\": \"2\", \"presentation\": \"2\", \"contribution\": \"3\", \"strengths\": \"1. The idea of learning counterfactual Interventions instead of hand-design counterfactual interventions is interesting and novel.\\n2. Jointly learning counterfactual Interventions and a counterfactual motion prediction to make the system end-to-end is a good design.\", \"weaknesses\": \"1. Related wok is quite rough and lack comparisons to the proposed method. Especially, the second paragraph of the related work is less details.\\n2. The propose method lack details and further explanation:\\n1) In L214, it is not clear why the predicted pixel location p\\u02c62 can be retrieved by finding the peak in the difference image?\\n2) In L239, \\\"While sometimes effective, a bright colored patch is out of domain for the base predictor.\\\" Is there any reference or analysis to support this statement?\\n3) In Figure 3, I did not find p1 and \\u03a8flow which makes it difficult for me to understand.\\n4) Does diffFLOW : (I1 , I2 , p1 ) generate flow vector for each pixel? It processed pixel by pixel for the image? \\n5) In L306, \\\" the first frame RGB input I and predicts the next frame I\\u02c6 , conditioned on the flow input F\\u02c6.\\\" Specifically, how the model utilizes the Flow F' as condition?\\n6) Why The final MM prediction is the peak in the average delta image? Any theory analysis?\\n7) Section 3.4 lack of details for how to distill it into an architecture purpose-built for optical flow estimation.\\n\\n3. Experiment:\\n1) It claims that the performance is state-of-the-art on TAP-Vid DAVIS CFG in Table 2 but actually it does not beat SMURF for all metrics.\\n2) From Table 1 and Table 2, the distilled results are not good enough as MM.\\n3) As stated in the paper, MM-40 has good results but makes inference expensive. Any comparisons to other SOTA methods on the computation cost?\", \"questions\": \"See the weakness.\", \"flag_for_ethics_review\": \"['No ethics review needed.']\", \"rating\": \"5\", \"confidence\": \"3\", \"code_of_conduct\": \"Yes\"}", "{\"summary\": \"This paper tackles a key issue in self-supervised learning from visual data: effectively extracting useful information from the representations learned during pretraining, such as motion estimation. The authors build on the counterfactual world modelling paradigm, which uses a masked next-frame predictor to facilitate the extraction of key visual features, such as optical flow, segments, and depth. They specifically target motion estimation for real-world videos, providing a promising step forward in unsupervised visual feature extraction. The key novelty of this paper lies in enhancing self-supervised motion estimation through optimized counterfactual interventions within the Counterfactual World Modeling (CWM) paradigm. Traditional CWM methods use fixed interventions, such as colored patches, which can be inconsistent and noisy in their predictions. This paper introduces a differentiable, learned counterfactual function, termed \\\"diffFLOW,\\\" that leverages Gaussian interventions for improved optical flow extraction.\", \"soundness\": \"3\", \"presentation\": \"3\", \"contribution\": \"3\", \"strengths\": [\"The paper is easy to follow and well-presented\", \"The use of a learned counterfactual intervention function is unique and provides a tighter, more effective alignment between pretext tasks and motion estimation.\", \"The method outperforms current unsupervised motion estimation benchmarks, especially on datasets with challenging frame gaps and motion dynamics.\", \"By reducing reliance on labeled data, this approach has high potential for scalability across large video datasets.\"], \"weaknesses\": \"- The multi-mask inference technique, while improving accuracy, increases inference time, potentially limiting real-time applications.\\n- The paper primarily focuses on optical flow and does not extensively demonstrate results for other visual properties like depth and segmentation, which are mentioned as future directions.\\n\\n\\n---\\n\\nTypo\\nL083 from from\", \"questions\": [\"How does the model perform under different types of motion, such as fast-moving objects, complex rotations, or occlusions? Are there particular types of motion where diffFLOW struggles?\", \"How does this method compare with other state-of-the-art models, such as SMURF and SEA-RAFT, regarding accuracy and efficiency across varying frame gaps?\", \"L288 to L293 Have you done the ablation with solid-coloured squares?\"], \"flag_for_ethics_review\": \"['No ethics review needed.']\", \"rating\": \"6\", \"confidence\": \"4\", \"code_of_conduct\": \"Yes\"}", "{\"title\": \"General Response\", \"comment\": \"We thank the reviewers for their feedback, which we will use to improve the paper and resubmit to a future venue. We offer some brief clarifications to re-emphasize the main points of our work.\\n\\nOur main goal is to investigate how far we can push the performance of the counterfactual world modeling (CWM) paradigm by leveraging its core design principle: the tight coupling between the pretext task (sparse-RGB conditioned next frame prediction) and the counterfactual structure extraction procedures that allow for zero-shot extraction of optical flow or object segments. The key idea is to take advantage of this tight coupling and improve the quality of extractions (in our case optical flow) by parameterizing and optimizing the counterfactual procedures without any supervision from human labels or heuristics like off-the-shelf model pseudo-labels that are inherently limited. This is why we use another next frame prediction task, but conditioned on sparse flow, to obtain gradients for optimizing the counterfactual procedure for extracting flow.\\n\\nTo properly test the potential of this paradigm, we train on large-scale diverse videos from Kinetics and use generic ViT-based architectures, rather than synthetic datasets or small-scale real data and highly specialized architectures with complex loss formulations. The point of our baseline comparisons is to show that it is possible for a generic approach like CWM, from which multiple visual structures can be extracted, to outperform the specialized self-supervised baselines, which has not been demonstrated before. Regarding inference speed and real-time applications, we have already shown the potential for distilling the representation from CWM into a smaller and faster model, and further engineering efforts (quantity and density of labels used for distillation) will yield improved distilled models.\"}", "{\"summary\": \"This paper introduces a Counterfactual World Modeling framework that employs masked next-frame prediction to extract dynamic visual information in a counterfactual manner. A novel approach is proposed, where instead of relying on traditional fixed counterfactuals, the model learns to predict counterfactual interventions. To achieve this, the authors extend the conventional framework by parameterizing and optimizing optical flow extraction using a differentiable program called diffFLOW. By linking the outputs of diffFLOW to a flow-conditioned next-frame predictor and optimizing both jointly, the method ensures that the learned parameters of diffFLOW generate meaningful gradients for training counterfactual interventions. Extensive experiments demonstrate the effectiveness of this method in estimating optical flow.\", \"soundness\": \"3\", \"presentation\": \"3\", \"contribution\": \"3\", \"strengths\": \"1. The proposed framework enhances the generic CWM model by learning to predict counterfactual interventions, marking an advancement in the field.\\n2. The proposed method achieves state-of-the-art performance in motion estimation on real-world videos, demonstrating the approach's effectiveness even when applied to datasets without annotations.\\n3. The paper is well written, and it is easy to follow its main idea.\", \"weaknesses\": \"1. Some technique details and the motivation for the specific design are still unclear. According to Figure 3, the model requires an initial counterfactual p, which is then used to further learn the counterfactual intervention through the optimized MLP. If I understand correctly, the training process requires an initial $p$. How does the initial position of p affect the final motion estimation results? How should $p$ be chosen for different datasets? Does the initial color of p have any impact on the optimization results? These kinds of questions introduce significant uncertainty in how to obtain good results using the existing framework. It would be beneficial to include some ablation studies on this aspect.\\n\\n2. In the table1 and table2, different models are optimized using different datasets. Why not standardize the datasets used across the different methods? This seems to be a more reasonable and fair setup for comparing the performance of different methods.\", \"questions\": \"1. It would be beneficial to include some ablation studies about the choice of the initial $p$.\\n2. It would be beneficial to provide results for different methods trained on the same dataset, whether in a supervised or unsupervised manner. Alternatively, at the very least, a reasonable justification for the current experimental setup should be given.\", \"flag_for_ethics_review\": \"['No ethics review needed.']\", \"details_of_ethics_concerns\": \"This paper introduces a novel counterfactual world modeling paradigm for self-supervised motion estimation. All of the experiments focus on computer vision tasks; therefore, I believe no ethical review is required.\", \"rating\": \"6\", \"confidence\": \"3\", \"code_of_conduct\": \"Yes\"}", "{\"withdrawal_confirmation\": \"I have read and agree with the venue's withdrawal policy on behalf of myself and my co-authors.\"}" ] }

[ "Felix den Breejen", "Se-Young Yun" ]

[ "tabular classification", "tabular in-context learning transformers", "architecture" ]

{ "note_id": [ "xPhDYIG3hS", "vsF9iAUCFR", "vEDO5LFXsY", "tB9qpUtplJ", "se1FphzPlp", "krUa0taCtv", "hrM8RG14MA", "h3bun4KXbh", "ehI5uz72vm", "OPdpNxFUem", "NCvBWHcyy3", "N2ni5PJWEF", "F0t0INJU0I", "EtxpjwJ2cH", "EYUiQz1yzr", "CvN4vUSMjk", "8BnqQjt5jk", "85DgmloZP0", "4fC8XmhJj1" ], "note_type": [ "official_comment", "official_comment", "official_review", "official_review", "official_review", "official_comment", "official_comment", "official_comment", "meta_review", "official_comment", "official_comment", "official_comment", "official_comment", "official_comment", "official_comment", "official_review", "official_comment", "official_comment", "decision" ], "note_created": [ 1732563923225, 1732643304443, 1730492959885, 1730485484743, 1730492836190, 1732634381906, 1732782330833, 1732644721937, 1734828400483, 1732030388111, 1732645944655, 1733288302843, 1732645410601, 1732030801032, 1732030817826, 1730834725389, 1732030201008, 1732030639043, 1737523602084 ], "note_signatures": [ [ "ICLR.cc/2025/Conference/Submission3842/Reviewer_56pB" ], [ "ICLR.cc/2025/Conference/Submission3842/Reviewer_QP5E" ], [ "ICLR.cc/2025/Conference/Submission3842/Reviewer_QP5E" ], [ "ICLR.cc/2025/Conference/Submission3842/Reviewer_FvnR" ], [ "ICLR.cc/2025/Conference/Submission3842/Reviewer_56pB" ], [ "ICLR.cc/2025/Conference/Submission3842/Reviewer_FvnR" ], [ "ICLR.cc/2025/Conference/Submission3842/Reviewer_m8oc" ], [ "ICLR.cc/2025/Conference/Submission3842/Authors" ], [ "ICLR.cc/2025/Conference/Submission3842/Area_Chair_Zgam" ], [ "ICLR.cc/2025/Conference/Submission3842/Authors" ], [ "ICLR.cc/2025/Conference/Submission3842/Authors" ], [ "ICLR.cc/2025/Conference/Submission3842/Authors" ], [ "ICLR.cc/2025/Conference/Submission3842/Authors" ], [ "ICLR.cc/2025/Conference/Submission3842/Authors" ], [ "ICLR.cc/2025/Conference/Submission3842/Authors" ], [ "ICLR.cc/2025/Conference/Submission3842/Reviewer_m8oc" ], [ "ICLR.cc/2025/Conference/Submission3842/Authors" ], [ "ICLR.cc/2025/Conference/Submission3842/Authors" ], [ "ICLR.cc/2025/Conference/Program_Chairs" ] ], "structured_content_str": [ "{\"comment\": \"Thank you for your reply.\\n\\nYes, the improvements are not that 'marginal' on its own. I actually meant it mostly in the context of the additional computational cost relatively to TabForestPFN. And maybe pulling a small summary/discussion of this cost information from the appendix into the main paper might be useful.\\n\\nFor the hyper-parameter optimization, please do make it more explicit in the paper. One would assume that HPO is performed on train/validation and then the HP settings are applied on test data evaluations, but it is not unusual for mistakes being made there. And sometimes related issues such as data leakage are not that obvious.\", \"dependency_on_feature_order\": \"probably updating the sentences in the paper using your explanation from the rebuttal might help.\", \"tabzilla_benchmark\": \"For future work the discussion in the following paper might also be a useful reference in terms of what datasets to choose etc. https://arxiv.org/pdf/2406.19380\"}", "{\"title\": \"Thank you for your response.\", \"comment\": \"Thank you for your rebuttal! I maintain that the rough runtime is an important metric to report. Even if it is not good, you could mention it in the Limitations section, along with TabPFN's feature count limitations. I maintain my score based on my original review and ATTIC's impressive performance results.\"}", "{\"summary\": \"The authors propose a new tabular in-context learning algorithm. They introduce a new dimension in the model input by modeling each feature as one token rather than each sample. This allows for feature order invariance at the cost of extra computation. The proposed model, ATTIC, makes substantial performance gains.\", \"soundness\": \"2\", \"presentation\": \"3\", \"contribution\": \"3\", \"strengths\": [\"The experimental results of the method is really exciting. As someone very familiar with the baselines, ATTIC seems to address a major performance bottleneck in tabular in-context learning.\", \"The authors provide an simple intuitive approach, encode each feature seperately to overcome feature order invariance instead of using ensembling, which provides large performance improvements.\", \"The authors provide results on several hard benchmarks and achieve performance with no hyperparameter tuning. The decision boundaries results provide further evidence for ATTIC's efficacy.\", \"The authors provide a detailed comparison of Attic compared to TabForestPFN for easy reproducibility.\"], \"weaknesses\": [\"Overall, I think some more in-depth analysis into the runtime and memory tradeoffs Attic makes to achieve its superior performance can greatly benefit the paper.\", \"Because Attic introduces a new dimension over the feature counts, I imagine the runtime costs greatly increase. How much does this increase with respect to the number of features?\", \"Similar to the previous question. How does the memory costs of Attic rise with respect tothe number of features?\", \"My understanding is TabPFN overcomes feature order invariance through ensembling across multiple feature shufflings. Could you discuss the tradeoff between using larger TabPFN ensembles and Attic, as both incur additional runtime costs?\", \"Intuitively, I feel larger feature count datasets would benefit the most from Attic. Empirically, are there trends on what specific datasets Attic most improves upon baseline algorithms?\"], \"questions\": \"See Weaknesses.\\n\\nWill you open-source your code?\", \"flag_for_ethics_review\": \"['No ethics review needed.']\", \"details_of_ethics_concerns\": \"N/A\", \"rating\": \"6\", \"confidence\": \"3\", \"code_of_conduct\": \"Yes\"}", "{\"summary\": \"Traditional ICL transformers like TabPFN and TabForestPFN use observation tokens, which can be influenced by the order of these features. To overcome these challenges, this paper introduces Attic, which employs cell tokens to represent individual observations x features, allowing the model to handle features without being affected by their order. As a result, the authors claim that Attic significantly outperforms traditional methods like XGBoost, CatBoost, and TabPFN in benchmark tests from WhyTables and Tabzilla. These findings suggest that Attic is a strong candidate, given its superior accuracy on various datasets.\", \"soundness\": \"3\", \"presentation\": \"3\", \"contribution\": \"3\", \"strengths\": [\"The motivation is clear and well-founded. I like the idea of removing the feature order importance that is placed on classic ICL transformers. This is a nice thing to focus on and is a strength of this paper.\", \"I appreciate the author\\u2019s writing style and delivery of the material. The paper reads well and the authors provide a nice, logical flow for their arguments. (See below for some suggestions for additional details which will improve the paper even more!)\", \"The authors\\u2019 results are promising and they certainly show their motivation and technical solution (observation x feature tokens) is a promising research direction!\", \"Evaluating their method against existing benchmarks (Tabzilla and WhyTables) is a very important and necessary step for any new method in the tabular data space. I appreciate the authors' care and consideration here.\"], \"weaknesses\": [\"More details are needed throughout the paper. For example, can the authors provide values instead of variables for architecture details:\", \"Token dictionary size, what is the value of $L$, dimension sizes, what values of $k$ did you test?etc\", \"How is the tokenization performed for each observation x feature?\", \"What are the model sizes for the -M and -L versions of TabForestPFN?\", \"You claim in L153: \\u201cWe changed this because we believe this formulation is more natural, but performance-wise, it has little impact.\\u201d Please provide an ablation describing and proving this claim.\", \"The authors need to highlight more clearly for the reader that this work and its findings are limited to datasets with 10 or fewer classes.\", \"Do the authors re-run TabPFN for the Tabzilla benchmark? or do they take the TabPFN results from the Tabzilla paper/results?\", \"What model is being reported in Tables 6 and 7 for TabForestPFN when you describe at least 3 different versions you use in your main paper? This actually is an important question/distinction the authors need to make through the paper. It is very hard to evaluate the paper without knowing this since the 3 versions of TabForestPFN are so different and the evaluation of the paper rests on understanding which version is being discussed in each results section. With further clarity, I\\u2019ll be able to update my score accordingly.\", \"Can the authors confirm the train/val/test splits they use are consistent with what the authors used in WhyTress and Tabzilla? My concern here is that tabular data use cases are not limited in the ways the authors may have selected their subset of Tabzilla. Tabzilla, which quickly has become a gold-standard benchmark in tabular data evaluations, is vast and captures a lot of nuance in the tabular community and use cases. I\\u2019m concerned the author\\u2019s down-selecting is increasing hiding some flaws of the approach.\", \"Can the authors please describe why they omit about half of the Tabzilla benchmark?\", \"Can the authors provide details on the computation resources? They provide comparisons to TabForestPFN primarily, but they should also provide comparisons to TabPFN and CatBoost at least \\u2014 preferably more. Computational complexity is one of the main downsides of this approach, so the authors need to provide more care here for us to evaluate the work appropriately.\"], \"questions\": \"See Weaknesses. I am certain that with satisfying clarifications on the questions above, I will happily raise my score.\\n\\nAlso, a minor typos:\\n- L221: \\u201cAdditionally, pretraining Attic on smaller datasets than TabForestPFN favors TabForestPFN\\u201d. This typo makes the entirely of the paragraph of L219 hard to comprehend.\", \"flag_for_ethics_review\": \"['No ethics review needed.']\", \"rating\": \"5\", \"confidence\": \"3\", \"code_of_conduct\": \"Yes\"}", "{\"summary\": \"The paper is on in context learning (ICL) for tabular prediction problems.\\nEssentially the complete tabular training data is placed in context and predictions are performed on test data. The main difference to existing work is that in the proposed approach each cell value is represented individually as compared to an entire row.\\nThe approach is evaluated on both classification and regression problems and compared to existing ICL approaches as well as standard ML models such as gradient boosted trees.\", \"soundness\": \"2\", \"presentation\": \"3\", \"contribution\": \"3\", \"strengths\": \"In theory the idea of representing feature values individually seems very reasonable to me since it is allows a richer representation of the data. They also show that extending the existing architectures (TabPFN/TabForestPFN) accordingly can be performed pretty smoothly (Figure 1).\\n\\nThe evaluation is performed on more than 100 benchmarks and the authors consider both classification and regression problems.\\n\\nThe performance on classification problems (see Table 2 and Table3) seems to outperform a wide range of existing approaches.\\n\\nSection 4.6 and 4.7 provide interesting insights into the decision boundaries obtained by the proposed models as well as some indication on which kind of benchmarks the approach does not work so well.\", \"weaknesses\": \"First, to me there are the following limitations of the proposed approach:\\n1. Representing each value is sensible, but it does come at a substantial computational cost. The growth is in the number of columns and there are data sets with more than a thousand columns. Now, one can argue that for the ICL setting there will always be limitations (e.g., 1 billion rows and 1k columns is unlikely to happen). However, when looking at Table 2 TabForestPFN is only marginally worse than Attic (ZeroShot) but much more cost effective due to the more abstract representation. \\n2. On regression tasks (Figure 6) the performance is by far not as good. And that is actually interesting and not necessarily something negative about this approach. While in theory classification and regression are the same, it does seem to pose issues especially for DL approaches in general and not just the approach presented here.\\n\\n\\nMoreover, there are some points in the paper that are unclear to me.\\nFor instance, in Section 4.2 it states that 94 out of 176 benchmarks are used from TabZilla.\\nOne question is how those were selected, but to me the more important question is how they are split up into classification and regression tasks (this is explained for the WhyTrees benchmarks but not TabZilla).\\nLooking at Table 2, it seems that there only 28 classification tasks.This number of benchmarks weakens the results in my opinion - especially given that on regression it is known not to work as well.\\n\\nIn terms of hyper-parameter optimization - what was the experimental setup? For instance, was there a split of train/validation to perform HPO and then the evaluation on test? To me this is not stated clearly in the paper.\\nOne could also pick a bit more sophisticated HPO approach (e.g., https://github.com/hyperopt/hyperopt-sklearn ), but at least random search is used (and not grid search).\", \"at_the_end_of_section_3_it_is_stated\": \"\\\"We believe that this dependency on feature order leads to training inefficiencies. The cell-token\\nICL-transformer treats each feature the same and learns how to construct relationships between features.\\\"\\nAnd while I agree with this intuition, why not perform an ablation study on it (e.g., shuffling columns and see if it impacts the performance)?\\n\\nSimilarly, it would be useful to try to explain the results in Table 3 a bit more - is it that the model needs the fine-tuning to embed the categorical values appropriately? The gap between fine-tuned and zero-shot is very large and it would be great to understand the reason for it better.\", \"questions\": \"In addition to the above questions:\\n\\nIs it possible to show if the differences in performances shown in Table 2 are statistically significant?\\n\\nFigure 4 is interesting - but isn't it the case that as the decision boundaries become more and more detailed, the generalization capability of the approach is reduced at the same time?\\n\\nIn terms of computational complexity is there a way to show computational cost (e.g., as a new column in Table 2)?\\nThe question here is of course what the metric in this context could be - maybe the combination of runtime/memory usage/GPU requirement (for GPU use: number of input/output tokens) would already be insightful.\", \"flag_for_ethics_review\": \"['No ethics review needed.']\", \"rating\": \"6\", \"confidence\": \"4\", \"code_of_conduct\": \"Yes\"}", "{\"title\": \"Thank you\", \"comment\": \"I'd like to thank the authors for their response to my and the other reviewer's questions and concerns. A few comments:\\n- I wish the authors had updated the paper with the work that they promised. I particularly was hoping to see the statistical analyses and reproduction of TabZilla Figure 2; but I was discouraged that the authors didn't show their work in this assertion.\\n- All the reviewers thought the lack of runtime / complexity analysis and comparison was a significant weakness. I totally understand and agree with the author's point that the purpose of new research isn't to make an algorithm the most efficient it can be. That barrier is too high and I don\\u2019t think is what I and the reviewers are looking for. I think it is entirely a reasonable expectations for authors who propose a new method that is more computationally complex to provide more details on this in the main paper. \\n\\nI have raised my score and hope the authors put serious effort into re-writing major portions of the paper to more effectively communicate their ideas in line with the concerns and confusion of the reviewers.\"}", "{\"comment\": \"Thank you for your detailed response. Overall, your responses have addressed many of my concerns, though I believe further investigation of failure cases would strengthen the work.\"}", "{\"title\": \"Thank you\", \"comment\": \"Dear Reviewer,\\n\\nThank you for your response.\\n\\nWe were waiting for the responses from all reviewers before updating the paper. We thought it would be best to first confirm that we understood all the reviews correctly and then update the paper accordingly. Unfortunately, since the responses came at the last possible moment, we were unable to update the majority of the writing before the editing deadline. Rest assured, all sections of the paper will be updated to ensure any confusion or missing information is addressed.\\n\\nRegarding the statistical analysis of Table 2 (TabZilla results), reviewer 56pB asked for the significance tests between Attic and TabForestPFN. We addressed the key points in the rebuttal text. However, we were unaware that you, as a reviewer, also wanted to see more details of the statistical analysis. We have just uploaded a new version of the paper; please refer to the very last page (Appendix A.8) for the full statistical analysis. Other than the last page, no significant changes have been made. With the extended deadline, there is still time to discuss this new analysis in case it raises any questions.\"}", "{\"metareview\": \"This paper introduces Attic, a new architecture for in-context learning on tabular data, replacing the embedding per data point that Tab(Forest)PFN uses by an embedding for every data point and feature. The reviewers agree that the modification makes intuitive sense; the main strength is that results are strong compared to established baselines, on common benchmarks. The reviewers criticize the lack of theoretical justification, complexity (memory and runtime), unresolved instabilities in mixed-precision training, and fairness of evaluation due to the longer training time of Attic. Due to a combination of these issues, I am leaning towards rejection of the current version. The authors have improved the paper over the course of the rebuttal, and I encourage them to resubmit their work to the next venue.\", \"additional_comments_on_reviewer_discussion\": \"The discussions focussed on the criticisms above, especially complexity (memory and runtime), unresolved instabilities in mixed-precision training, and fairness of evaluation due to the longer training time of Attic. The authors addressed questions about the experimental setup with TabZilla and added runtime numbers to the appendix, but they did not provide an apples-to-apples comparisons where all baselines get the same compute time, and could not resolve the stability issues in mixed-precision training question.\"}", "{\"title\": \"Rebuttal\", \"comment\": \"Dear Reviewer,\\n\\nThank you for your review. To address your last question, yes, all the code will be open-source. This includes everything: preprocessing scripts, exact training settings, loss curves, and figure-drawing scripts.\\n\\n&nbsp;\\n\\n### Weaknesses\\n\\n> Overall, I think some more in-depth analysis into the runtime and memory tradeoffs Attic makes to achieve its superior performance can greatly benefit the paper.\\n> \\n\\nWhile we do agree that efficiency is an interesting and relevant direction, we believe that high focus on maximum attainable accuracy is more important. In the development of large language models, the first objective was to make a model that achieves high quality, and after researchers were sufficiently pleased with the performance, the field largely shifted to efficiency. \\n\\nWe believe we should approach tabular neural networks in the same way. First focus on achieving maximum accuracy, and after we as a field are satisfied with the accuracy, we can use classical tools like quantization, pruning, distillation and efficient attention mechanisms to improve the fine-tuning and inference run time metrics. \\n\\n> Because Attic introduces a new dimension over the feature counts, I imagine the runtime costs greatly increase. How much does this increase with respect to the number of features?\\n> \\n\\nFor $n$ observations, $k$ features and model dimension $d$, the computation complexity of Attic is given by $O(n^2kd + nk^2d + nkd^2)$ due to the observation attention, feature attention and linear layers respectively. As often $n > k$, we expect the term $n^2kd$ to dominate. In contrast, the computation TabForestPFN scales $O(n^2d + nd^2)$. However, TabForestPFN is limited to a 100 features. If we want to pretrain TabForestPFN for 200 features for example, we likely need more model dimension space $d$ to encompass all features, so the complexity still indirectly depends on the number of features. \\n\\nIn Appendix A.4, we show the runtime for every single dataset in the benchmark for both Attic and TabForestPFN to provide a clearer picture of how the number of features affects runtime.\\n\\n> Similar to the previous question. How does the memory costs of Attic rise with respect to the number of features?\\n> \\n\\nFor the TabForestPFN, the attention mechanism has a memory footprint of $O(n^2d)$ and the activations have complexity $O(nd)$. As Attic switches to FlashAttention, which has linear memory cost scaling, the complexity of the activations and attention mechanisms are both $O(nkd)$. As often $n > k$, we argue the memory costs scaling of Attic is not inferior to that of TabForestPFN.\\n\\n> My understanding is TabPFN overcomes feature order invariance through ensembling across multiple feature shufflings. Could you discuss the tradeoff between using larger TabPFN ensembles and Attic, as both incur additional runtime costs?\\n> \\n\\nEnsembling is a technique used in the zero-shot inference of TabPFN. Because the zero-shot inference of Tab(Forest)PFN is lightweight, ensembling is indeed a cost-effective way to mitigate feature order variance. However, this ensembling technique is less advantageous during fine-tuning. During fine-tuning, we keep the feature order fixed, so after fine-tuning, the model can only use the feature order it was trained with. Ensembling cannot be applied without re-fine-tuning the model for each ensemble member. Since fine-tuned Attic is, on average, 2\\u00d7 slower than fine-tuned TabPFN, creating large ensembles of fine-tuned TabPFN would be significantly slower than using Attic.\\n\\n> Intuitively, I feel larger feature count datasets would benefit the most from Attic. Empirically, are there trends on what specific datasets Attic most improves upon baseline algorithms?\\n> \\n\\nWe agree with this intuition, but the empirical trend is slightly different. Based on Figure 5, which plots the TabZilla benchmark datasets, the number of observations is actually more important than the number of features. Fine-tuned Attic outperforms fine-tuned TabForestPFN on all datasets with more than a thousand observations, even those with relatively low feature counts.\\n\\n&nbsp;\\n\\nIf there are any more questions, please don\\u2019t hesitate to ask.\"}", "{\"title\": \"Thank you\", \"comment\": \"Dear Reviewer,\\n\\nThank you for your response. We will make adjustments to the text regarding the computational cost, HPO and feature order. The data leakage issue is interesting, thank you for sharing this paper. It seems that this affects the commonly used tabular benchmarks; we will keep an eye out for future tabular benchmarks published.\"}", "{\"title\": \"Final Statement\", \"comment\": \"Dear Reviewers,\\n\\nAs the rebuttal period comes to a close, we would like to express our gratitude for the valuable reviews and feedback we received.\\n\\nOur paper introduces a new architecture for tabular in-context learning, with the primary modification being a switch from an observation-token representation to a cell-token representation. This change resulted in a significant performance increase under the same pretraining compute budget. Based on the reviews and our subsequent discussions during the rebuttal, we would like to summarize the strengths and weaknesses highlighted by multiple reviewers.\\n\\n**Strengths**\\n\\nAll reviewers agreed on the strengths of the paper. They praised the clear motivation of the method as well as the logical flow of the work. The token modification was described as intuitive and interesting. Additionally, the reviewers were impressed by the performance and appreciated our use of existing benchmarks in literature.\\n\\n**Weaknesses** \\n\\nOne commonly noted weakness is the increased finetuning runtime of our proposed architecture, Attic. We acknowledge this concern. In our rebuttal, we argued that achieving higher accuracy should be the primary focus initially, as future work can address runtime optimizations using the numerous efficiency techniques developed for large language models. Applying these techniques is more effective after establishing a high-performing model, which is why we believe our Attic architecture is an important contribution.\\n\\nThe second point raised was the lack of certain implementation details in the paper. Specifically, two reviewers requested more information on how we implemented the TabZilla benchmark, including details on the train/validation/test splits, hyperparameter settings, and dataset selection from the benchmark. We provided all these details during the rebuttal, which seemed to resolve the concerns.\\n\\nOnce again, we appreciate your time and feedback. Your insights have been invaluable in refining our work.\"}", "{\"title\": \"Thank you\", \"comment\": \"Dear Reviewer,\\n\\nThank you for your response. We will add an extra paragraph with limitations to the conclusion section to highlight run time, memory consumption and feature count limitations.\"}", "{\"title\": \"Rebuttal - Part 1\", \"comment\": \"Dear Reviewer,\\n\\nThank you for your review. In general, we followed the experimental setup of TabForestPFN and only reported differences in our setup, which might have lead to a lack of details in some parts of our paper. We would like to clarify any remaining points here.\\n\\n> Can the authors provide values instead of variables for architecture details: Token dictionary size L, what is the value of\\u00a0k, dimension sizes, what values of\\u00a0did you test?\\n> \\n\\nAll architectural details are presented in Table 1. The model has 12 layers, each with a dimension of 512. We kept the same dimensions as Tab(Forest)PFN and did not test other values.\\n\\n> How is the tokenization performed for each observation x feature?\\n> \\n\\nEach observation \\u00d7 feature passes through the same linear layer, which has dimension 1x512. \\n\\n> What are the model sizes for the -M and -L versions of TabForestPFN?\\n> \\n\\nThese details are also presented in Table 1. The -M version has 12 layers with a dimension of 512, and the -L version has 24 layers with a dimension of 2048.\\n\\n> You claim in L153: \\u201cWe changed this because we believe this formulation is more natural, but performance-wise, it has little impact.\\u201d Please provide an ablation describing and proving this claim.\\n> \\n\\nWhen digging through the embedding of TabPFN, we found two unfamiliar design choices. First of all, TabPFN embeds the target label $y \\\\in \\\\cal{N}$ with a linear layer, as if it were numerical. Secondly, TabPFN uses feature count scaling: it multiplies all $x$ values with $\\\\frac{100}{k}$, where $k$ is the number of features in $x$. In contrast, Attic does not feature count scale and embeds $y$ with a natural embedding layer for each class as is done in large language models.\\n\\nAs requested, below is the ablation. The table corresponds to Table 3 in our paper. We change the embedding of TabForestPFN to the Attic embedding without feature count scaling. Due to the inclusion of the new model, the normalized accuracies for the original TabForestPFN and Attic are slightly different from Table 3. All in all, we consider the change of embedding insignificant.\\n\\n| | Whytrees Mixed | WhyTrees Numerical |\\n| --- | --- | --- |\\n| **Zero-Shot** | - | - |\\n| TabForestPFN (original embedding) | 0.416 | 0.597 |\\n| TabForestPFN (Attic embedding) | 0.428 | 0.592 |\\n| Attic | **0.444** | **0.610** |\\n| **Fine-Tuned** | - | - |\\n| TabForestPFN (original embedding) | 0.651 | 0.734 |\\n| TabForestPFN (Attic embedding) | 0.641 | 0.754 |\\n| Attic | **0.829** | **0.890** |\\n\\n> The authors need to highlight more clearly for the reader that this work and its findings are limited to datasets with 10 or fewer classes.\\n> \\n\\nWe will explicitly add this information to Table 1.\\n\\n> Do the authors re-run TabPFN for the Tabzilla benchmark? or do they take the TabPFN results from the Tabzilla paper/results?\\n> \\n\\nWe re-ran TabPFN for the TabZilla benchmark. The TabZilla authors ran TabPFN on only 57 out of 94 datasets (those with fewer than 1,250 observations). In contrast, we ran TabPFN on all 94 datasets, including those with more than 1,250 observations.\"}", "{\"title\": \"Rebuttal - Part 2\", \"comment\": \"> What model is being reported in Tables 6 and 7 for TabForestPFN when you describe at least 3 different versions you use in your main paper?\\n>\", \"we_describe_three_versions_of_tabforestpfn\": \"\\u201cTabForestPFN,\\u201d \\u201cTabForestPFN BF16 M,\\u201d and \\u201cTabForestPFN BF16 L.\\u201d Whenever \\u201cBF16 M\\u201d and \\u201cBF16 L\\u201d are not explicitly mentioned, the results refer to the original \\u201cTabForestPFN.\\u201d Tables 6 and 7, therefore, refer to the original TabForestPFN. Only Tables 2 and 3 include results for the BF16 M/L versions.\\n\\nThe BF16 M version was excluded from further analysis due to extremely poor performance, while the BF16 L version was excluded because it showed worse performance and slower pretraining/inference times compared to the original. Therefore, we report results only for the original TabForestPFN to focus on the best-performing version\\n\\n> Can the authors confirm the train/val/test splits they use are consistent with what the authors used in WhyTrees and Tabzilla?\\n> \\n\\nWe confirm that the splits are consistent. We generated the datasets using the original code from the WhyTrees and TabZilla authors and saved the train/validation/test splits as generated, which in case of TabZilla, includes ten different cross-validation splits. These exact splits where used throughout our whole research process. We also tested several algorithms to confirm the accuracies matched the public results.\\n\\n> Can the authors please describe why they omit about half of the Tabzilla benchmark?\\n> \\n\\nThe short answer is that the TabZilla authors also omitted about half of their benchmark. In their paper, they used 98 out of 176 datasets because some datasets were too large for certain algorithms to complete training. All tables and figures in the main body of the original TabZilla paper are based on these 98 datasets. We used 94 datasets because 4 of the 98 datasets involved multiclass classification with more than 10 classes, which ICL-transformers do not currently support.\\n\\n> Can the authors provide details on the computation resources? They provide comparisons to TabForestPFN primarily, but they should also provide comparisons to TabPFN and CatBoost at least \\u2014 preferably more.\\n> \\n\\nTabForestPFN and TabPFN differ only in their pretraining datasets, so they have identical runtime and computational requirements. For CatBoost and XGBoost, a fair comparison to ICL-transformers is difficult because CatBoost and XGBoost use CPUs, while ICL-transformers use GPUs. Hardware differences could lead to discrepancies of over one or two orders of magnitude, depending on the hardware model and the number of used cores/gpus, making a direct comparison unreliable. We decided not to provide comparisons that are so highly hardware-dependent. \\n\\nAlso, further runtime reductions could be achieved using standard AI techniques such as quantization, pruning, distillation to smaller networks, or caching the query-context on the GPU to avoid redundant computation. We consider these techniques to be out of scope for our paper; however, applying these technique would also reduce the run time and affect the comparison between Attic and CPU methods.\\n\\nWe will incorporate all extra information in the final version of the paper and the appendix. If there are any additional questions or clarifications required, please do not hesitate to ask.\"}", "{\"summary\": \"This paper presents Attic, a novel transformer architecture for tabular in-context learning that uses cell tokens instead of observation tokens. The work demonstrates significant empirical improvements over existing methods and makes a meaningful contribution to the field.\", \"soundness\": \"3\", \"presentation\": \"3\", \"contribution\": \"3\", \"strengths\": [\"The architectural modification from observation tokens to cell tokens is simple yet effective, showing substantial performance gains across multiple benchmarks\", \"Thorough empirical evaluation on two major benchmarks (WhyTrees and TabZilla) with comprehensive comparisons against state-of-the-art methods\", \"Technical contribution backed by clear motivation and intuitive explanations for why cell tokens may work better than observation tokens\", \"Impressive results showing Attic outperforming tree-based methods and ensemble approaches like AutoGluon on several datasets\", \"Detailed ablation studies and analysis of computational requirements and decision boundaries\"], \"weaknesses\": \"1. Limited theoretical analysis or formal justification for why cell tokens perform better.\\n2. The authors note that Attic is significantly slower and more memory-intensive than TabForestPFN for datasets with many features. This scalability issue could limit Attic's practical applicability to large, high-dimensional datasets.\\n3. Mixed precision training issues are not fully resolved, with float16 training instability remaining unexplained.\\n4. Initial regression results feel preliminary and could be expanded. \\n5. More detailed analysis of failure cases where tree-based methods outperform Attic. Why, in datasets with less than 500 observations, does Attic underperform?\\n6. The paper does not thoroughly explore potential limitations or failure cases of Attic, which would provide a more balanced view of the method's capabilities.\", \"questions\": \"1. Any potential approaches to reduce memory and computational requirements of Attic?\\n2. How does Attic handle missing data or categorical variables? Are there any special preprocessing steps required?\\n3. Can you elaborate on Attic's performance in regression tasks compared to classification?\", \"flag_for_ethics_review\": \"['No ethics review needed.']\", \"rating\": \"6\", \"confidence\": \"4\", \"code_of_conduct\": \"Yes\"}", "{\"title\": \"Rebuttal\", \"comment\": \"Dear Reviewer, thank you for you review. We generally agree with the strengths and weaknesses outlined by the reviewer. Below, we address a few specific weaknesses and respond to the questions raised.\\n\\n&nbsp;\\n\\n### Weaknesses\\n\\n> 2. The authors note that Attic is significantly slower and more memory-intensive than TabForestPFN for datasets with many features. This scalability issue could limit Attic's practical applicability to large, high-dimensional datasets.\\n> \\n\\nIt is true that Attic\\u2019s scalability is limited with respect to high-dimensional datasets. However, we would like to point out that TabPFN and TabForestPFN are also significantly limited in handling high-dimensional datasets due to their acceptance of a fixed maximum number of features (maximum of 100). If we want to pretrain Tab(Forest)PFN from scratch to be able to use a larger number of features, we likely need a larger model dimension to properly represent a larger number of features. Therefore, Tab(Forest)PFN has a similar scalability issue.\\n\\n> 5. More detailed analysis of failure cases where tree-based methods outperform Attic. Why, in datasets with less than 500 observations, does Attic underperform?\\n6. The paper does not thoroughly explore potential limitations or failure cases of Attic, which would provide a more balanced view of the method's capabilities.\\n> \\n\\nWhile analyzing the failure cases of Attic would indeed be very interesting, it is also a challenging task. In Figures 5, 7 and 8 we can identify on which datasets Attic fails, but it is hard to analyse why it fails. With language and vision models, the output can be visualized or read for qualitative analysis, but with tabular data, it is hard to do any meaningful qualitative analysis due to the high dimensionality of the feature space. Many techniques like PCA or other statistical techniques often give limited insightful information, due to their dependence on linearity or other assumptions. If the reviewer has suggestions for suitable approaches or knows of relevant literature from tabular neural network papers that provide such analyses, we would greatly appreciate the guidance.\\n\\n&nbsp;\\n\\n### Questions\\n\\n> 1. Any potential approaches to reduce memory and computational requirements of Attic?\\n> \\n\\nWe believe this will be an active area of future research. The answer also depends on which stage of the pipeline we aim to optimize for memory and computational efficiency. Pretraining will inherently have a high computational cost, but fine-tuning and inference could be improved using classic techniques such as quantization, pruning, distillation into a smaller network, or using more efficient attention mechanism. Additionally, caching the query-set observations for successive inferences could help reduce runtime.\\n\\n> 2. How does Attic handle missing data or categorical variables? Are there any special preprocessing steps required?\\n> \\n\\nCurrently, there is no special handling of missing values implemented. If preprocessing encounters a missing value, it fills the value with the column mean. Since the benchmark datasets used in this study do not contain missing values, this approach does not affect the reported performance metrics. However, handling missing values could be implemented relatively straightforwardly by pretraining Attic with a special missing-value mask. Due to the lack of established tabular missing-value benchmarks, we leave this direction open for future work.\\n\\nCategorical variables are not subject to any special preprocessing steps. Attic treats categorical variables as numerical variables, without applying one-hot encoding.\\n\\n> 3. Can you elaborate on Attic's performance in regression tasks compared to classification?\\n> \\n\\nWe observed that pretraining is less stable during regression tasks compared to classification tasks. While pretraining under the cross-entropy loss behaves similarly to training large language models, pretraining under the mean-squared error loss occasionally exhibits extreme outliers, where the loss sometimes spikes to values is high as 10^8 and crashes regularly. We are uncertain why the mean-squared error loss behaves differently from the cross-entropy loss, but we included these regression results to remain transparent about the issue.\\n\\n&nbsp;\\n\\nIf there are any more questions, please don\\u2019t hesitate to ask.\"}", "{\"title\": \"Rebuttal\", \"comment\": \"Dear Reviewer,\\n\\nThank you for your review. We agree with the strengths you presented and will address the questions raised below.\\n\\n&nbsp;\\n\\n### Weaknesses\\n\\n> However, when looking at Table 2 TabForestPFN is only marginally worse than Attic (ZeroShot) but much more cost effective due to the more abstract representation.\\n> \\n\\nWe do not believe the performance difference is marginal. The median rank improves from 10.0 to 6.2, and the average accuracy improves from 80.9% to 83.4% across 94 datasets. This difference is significant; see the answer to the question about significance scores.\\n\\n> Moreover, there are some points in the paper that are unclear to me. (Regarding TabZilla benchmark)\\n> \\n\\nThe TabZilla dataset is a benchmark consisting of 176 classification datasets; there are no regression datasets included. However, the authors of TabZilla use only 98 datasets because many algorithms take too long to run on larger datasets, leaving incomplete results. Therefore, although TabZilla presents 176 datasets, it is more accurate to say the benchmark effectively includes 98 datasets. Since all ICL-transformers are limited to multiclass classification with a maximum of 10 classes, we remove 4 additional datasets, resulting in 94 datasets in total. The number 28 in the table refers to the number of methods tested, not the number of datasets.\\n\\n> In terms of hyper-parameter optimization - what was the experimental setup?\\n> \\n\\nWe followed the experimental setups described in the benchmark papers (TabZilla and WhyTrees). For non-ICL transformers, training was performed on the training dataset, with early-stopping/validation on the validation dataset. The reported test accuracy corresponds to the test accuracy of the best validation run. For ICL-transformers, early-stopping for fine-tuning was performed on the validation set without hyperparamer search.\\n\\n> At the end of Section 3 it is stated: \\\"We believe that this dependency on feature order leads to training inefficiencies. The cell-token ICL-transformer treats each feature the same and learns how to construct relationships between features.\\\" And while I agree with this intuition, why not perform an ablation study on it (e.g., shuffling columns and see if it impacts the performance)?\\n> \\n\\nWe do not believe an ablation study can effectively demonstrate this inefficiency. For inference, shuffling the features does indeed lead to different predictions for feature-variant models. However, the focus of our argument in section 3 is about pretraining. Both Tab(Forest)PFN and Attic are pretrained on synthetic data generators. Shuffling the features during pretraining would make no difference because the synthetic data generator already outputs an infinite stream of datasets with randomly ordered features. To show that the pretraining of Tab(Forest)PFN is inefficient due to the feature-variance, one approach is to switch the feature-variant module for a feature-invariant module and compare the performance. This approach effectively boils down to creating Attic. \\n\\n&nbsp;\\n\\n### Questions\\n\\n> Is it possible to show if the differences in performances shown in Table 2 are statistically significant?\\n> \\n\\nWe will add the critical difference diagram as done by Tabzilla to the appendix. Just like the Tabzilla authors, we use multiple Wilcoxon signed-rank tests with a Holm-Bonferroni correction on the log loss values. As a result, Finetuned Attic is significantly different from Finetuned TabForestPFN and Zero-Shot Attic is significantly different from Zero-Shot TabForestPFN.\\n\\n> Figure 4 is interesting - but isn't it the case that as the decision boundaries become more and more detailed, the generalization capability of the approach is reduced at the same time?\\n> \\n\\nThis is a great question, the answer is: not necessarily. If the decision boundaries of the model are more detailed than the \\u201cground truth\\u201d decision boundaries, it indicates overfitting and harms the generalization performance. However, in Figure 4, the \\u201cground truth\\u201d decision boundaries are inherently complex, so a good model should match that complexity. Figure 4 demonstrates that fine-tuned Attic is capable of creating complex decision boundaries when a specific dataset requires them, which in turn leads to better generalization (higher test accuracy). We want to show this figure because standard neural networks seem to struggle to create these complex decision boundaries.\\n\\n> In terms of computational complexity is there a way to show computational cost (e.g., as a new column in Table 2)?\\n> \\n\\nWe report run times in Appendix A.4, which we consider the appropriate metric for computational cost. Using FLOPS would be unfair, as some models use FlashAttention while others do not. Similarly, memory costs and token counts are incomplete metrics because datasets that do not fit into memory can still be processed using a limited context size.\\n\\n&nbsp;\\n\\nIf there is anything else that remains unclear, please do not hesitate to ask further.\"}", "{\"title\": \"Paper Decision\", \"decision\": \"Reject\"}" ] }

[ "Francesco Insulla", "Shuo Huang", "Lorenzo Rosasco" ]

[ "learning theory", "representation learning", "model stitching", "representation alignment" ]

{ "note_id": [ "zLugTmTih8", "n2YHYbIKDf", "mqAzkVTWp0", "jdjbibPmzh", "ipIKbVXXWi", "gKRqcbBD78", "V1twdt26Di", "NLA0x5uH2m", "LpudCcdj4z", "KSEMzYcDmi", "7Wz3xgzkts", "7OUOKU7HcI", "1s5dgKPhXs", "0HDdL7MnYQ" ], "note_type": [ "official_comment", "meta_review", "official_comment", "official_review", "official_comment", "official_comment", "official_comment", "official_review", "official_review", "decision", "official_review", "official_comment", "official_comment", "official_comment" ], "note_created": [ 1733141388150, 1735009002346, 1732712625358, 1730657980855, 1732712628591, 1733132279743, 1733105054070, 1730829946410, 1730346045157, 1737524164193, 1730627983039, 1733311251038, 1732712630698, 1732712619977 ], "note_signatures": [ [ "ICLR.cc/2025/Conference/Submission12067/Reviewer_YJw7" ], [ "ICLR.cc/2025/Conference/Submission12067/Area_Chair_nbrh" ], [ "ICLR.cc/2025/Conference/Submission12067/Authors" ], [ "ICLR.cc/2025/Conference/Submission12067/Reviewer_smSY" ], [ "ICLR.cc/2025/Conference/Submission12067/Authors" ], [ "ICLR.cc/2025/Conference/Submission12067/Reviewer_smSY" ], [ "ICLR.cc/2025/Conference/Submission12067/Reviewer_EzC8" ], [ "ICLR.cc/2025/Conference/Submission12067/Reviewer_embS" ], [ "ICLR.cc/2025/Conference/Submission12067/Reviewer_EzC8" ], [ "ICLR.cc/2025/Conference/Program_Chairs" ], [ "ICLR.cc/2025/Conference/Submission12067/Reviewer_YJw7" ], [ "ICLR.cc/2025/Conference/Submission12067/Authors" ], [ "ICLR.cc/2025/Conference/Submission12067/Authors" ], [ "ICLR.cc/2025/Conference/Submission12067/Authors" ] ], "structured_content_str": [ "{\"comment\": \"I appreciate the authors' clarifications and improvements to the written sections.\\n\\nUnfortunately, as the other reviewers also point out, I am still missing a concise experiment or at least more insight on how the proposed theory is useful or how it could be implemented to study current algorithms. While the authors added a paragraph in the paper regarding this issue, it reads more like related work than an actual analysis into existing methods. \\n\\nI therefore for now will be keeping my score.\"}", "{\"metareview\": \"The paper reviews existing representation alignment techniques and provides a theoretical analysis of representation \\\"stitching\\\" for different modalities. The strengths of the paper are the nice survey of representation alignment techniques and novel theory regarding stitching. The main weakness is the absence of any experiments. Nevertheless, the contributed theory is interesting and worthwhile. Hence this represents a valuable contribution to the understanding of representation alignment.\", \"additional_comments_on_reviewer_discussion\": \"The reviewers discussed whether the paper should include experiments. While there wasn't a consensus, ICLR does welcome theory papers.\"}", "{\"comment\": \"We thank the reviewer for the careful reading and thoughtful feedback and reply to the comments below.\\n\\n> I appreciate the first section of the paper, but it would be nice to have the last paragraph where authors could summarize and make a brief overview of everything in one place.\\n\\nWe now include a sentence to highlight the purpose of the section and provide and overview, as follows: \\n- In summary, we've introduced several popular measures for alignment between two representations and related them via spectral decompositions to a central notion of kernel alignment generalized for RKHS. \\nSimilar notions can be used to measure alignment between a model and a task to estimate generalization error.\\n\\n> While it being a solid theoretical work, I think it is great that the settings in questions are still relevant for practice. Having a couple of sentences summarizing practical implication of the results in conclusion might be helpful for broader audience.\\n\\nWe now include a discussion of practical implications of the stitching bound at the end of Section 4, connecting to the introduction and empirical works in the revised manuscript:\\n \\n- First, we can build on the experiments from Huh et al. (2024) which show evidence for the alignment of deep networks at large scale using alignment measures similar to kernel alignment. By connecting kernel alignment to stitching, our work supports building universal models sharing architecture across modalities as scale increases as stitching error could be bounded by the misalignment.\\n\\n- Second, we provide support to the experiments from Bansal et al. (2021) which suggest that typical SGD minima have low stitching costs (stitching connectivity) through works that argue feature learning under SGD can be understood via adaptive kernels (Radhakrishnan et al., 2022; Atanasov et al., 2021).\\n\\n> It is little confusing about significance of 'task defined representation' and 'modality specific representation' in stitching setting.\\n\\nStitching involves finding a transformation to align two representations. These representations are often task-dependent, meaning they are shaped by the training process for specific tasks (classifying object from different modalities). When stitching aligns these representations, it is implicitly evaluating how compatible the task-relevant features are. When we say ``task aware representation,\\\" it means the outputs (task) $y$ are incorporated into measuring the alignment and it usually relates to generalization error. In particular, it is interesting to consider the similarity between two representations for different modalities trained for the same task. \\n\\nWe also reorganized the end of Section 3 and the start of Section 4 so the significance should be more explicit. \\n\\n> little confused by term 'representation $\\\\mathcal{H}_q$' online 4 as I thought it's entire input-output mapping\\n\\nFixed. It should be ``model $\\\\mathcal{H}_q$\\\" instead of ''representation $\\\\mathcal{H}_q$\\\"\\n\\n> I think there are some indexing, sqrt typos on \\\"Spectral interpreation of KA\\\" section; what is $\\\\rho$?\\n\\nFixed. There were typos in the indices, but not in powers/sqrt.\\n\\n> Typo on line 494\\n\\nFixed\\n\\n> In theorem 3, why does swapping the index 1,2 require $\\\\mathcal G_1 = \\\\mathcal G_2$ up to linear?\\n\\nThis is due to the $\\\\mathcal S_{1,2} \\\\circ \\\\mathcal G_2 \\\\subseteq \\\\mathcal G_1$ condition.\\n\\n> On remark 3, could you elaborate little more on the regularization of $\\\\mathcal S_{1,2}$?\\n\\nRegularization as mentioned in remark 3 is analogous to regularization in linear regression, which is now made more explicit in the manuscript.\\n\\n> It looks like the stitching setting is quite relevant to transfer learning. Could the current result tell anything about kernel alignment and its relevance on transfer learning perspective?\\n\\nWhile stitching and transfer learning both involve blending two models, the two differ since stitching only learns the stitching layer while transfer learning requires more learning (for example fine-tuning typically involves training at least the second model). Yet, for a simple connection, we can consider measuring kernel alignment between the representation of model 1 and the task of model 2. Then the misalignment works as an upper bound for the risk of the fine-tuned model. Investigating stronger relationship between stitching, kernel alignment, and transfer learning is an interesting potential direction for future exploration.\\n\\n**References:**\\n\\n[1] Atanasov et al., (2021): Neural networks as kernel learners:\\nThe silent alignment effect. \\n\\n[2] Bansal et al. (2021): Revisiting model stitching to compare\\nneural representations. \\n\\n[3] Huh et al. (2024): Position: The platonic representation hypothesis. \\n\\n[4] Radhakrishnan et al., (2022): Mechanism of feature learning in deep fully connected networks and kernel machines that recursively learn features.\"}", "{\"summary\": \"The authors compiled broad notions of representational alignment metrics and provide connected interpretation. Next, they mathematically formulate stitching method, which is used to evaluate similarity of representations between different models given a task by plugging representation from one model to another. They provide the generalization error bound of linearly stitched model based on kernel alignment.\", \"soundness\": \"3\", \"presentation\": \"3\", \"contribution\": \"3\", \"strengths\": \"While I am not familiar with all the references,the first section of the paper where the authors make a overview of different formulation of representation alignment and provide connected interpretation from different community seems to be a nice contribution.\\n\\nThe theoretical formulation of stitching method that is used frequently in practice is relevant point and the results can give valuable insights to use of stitching method in practice\\n\\nIn general the paper is well-written and well structured.\", \"weaknesses\": [\"I appreciate the first section of the paper, but it would be nice to have the last paragraph where authors could summarize and make a brief overview of everything in one place.\", \"While it being a solid theoretical work, I think it is great that the settings in questions are still relevant for practice. Having a couple of sentences summarizing practical implication of the results in conclusion might be helpful for broader audience.\", \"It is little confusing about significance of 'task defined representation' and 'modality specific representation' in stitching setting.\", \"Minor comments on the manuscript\", \"little confused by term 'representation $\\\\mathcal{H}_q$' online 4 as I thought it's entire input-output mapping\", \"I think there are some indexing, sqrt typos on \\\"Spectral interpreation of KA\\\" section; what is $\\\\rho$?\", \"Typo on line 494\"], \"questions\": [\"In theorem 3, why does swapping the index 1,2 require $\\\\mathcal{G}_1 = \\\\mathcal{G}_2$ up to linear?\", \"On remark 3, could you elaborate little more on the regularization of $S_{1,2}$?\", \"It looks like the stitching setting is quite relevant to transfer learning. Could the current result tell anything about kernel alighment and its relevance on transfer learning perspective?\"], \"flag_for_ethics_review\": \"['No ethics review needed.']\", \"rating\": \"6\", \"confidence\": \"2\", \"code_of_conduct\": \"Yes\"}", "{\"comment\": \"We thank the reviewer for the thoughtful feedback and reply below.\\n\\n>It is unclear to me from Section 4 how the stitching error and stitching error bound can be used. Since the paper makes reference to existing empirical work, I would like to see a more concrete example or a reference to where the derived theory fits in existing empirical work.\\n\\nWe now include a discussion of practical implications of the stitching bound at the end of Section 4, connecting to the introduction and empirical works in the revised manuscript:\\n \\n- First, we can build on the experiments from Huh et al. (2024) which show evidence for the alignment of deep networks at large scale using alignment measures similar to kernel alignment. By connecting kernel alignment to stitching, our work supports building universal models sharing architecture across modalities as scale increases as stitching error could be bounded by the misalignment.\\n\\n- Second, we provide support to the experiments from Bansal et al. (2021) which suggest that typical SGD minima have low stitching costs (stitching connectivity) through works that argue feature learning under SGD can be understood via adaptive kernels (Radhakrishnan et al., 2022; Atanasov et al., 2021).\\n\\n> For instance how does the proposed theory quantify the stitching error in current approaches (e.g., can different layers be compared equivalently, does normalisation, regularisation play a role?).\\n\\nIn our work, we use the stitching error to measure the alignment of learned representations at two given layers in two models via spectral decompositions of the kernel alignment. Our primary objective is not to learn representations but to assess how well-aligned the existing representations are.\\n\\nThat said, exploring how different layers or approaches (normalization, regularization, etc.) influence feature alignment and affect the stitching error is a fascinating direction of research, though it is not our main focus here. Lenc & Vedaldi (2015) demonstrated that the early layers of convolutional networks tend to be more compatible compared to later layers, which are increasingly task-specific. Investigating the stitching error across various \\u201cstitching points\\u201d could offer valuable insights to get better feature spaces and presents an interesting direction for future studies.\\n\\n>I feel there is a slight disconnect between sections 3 and 4. While in section 3 a comprehensive listing of ways to measure representation alignment is presented, the introduced notation is not really used in Section 4. This makes it a bit difficult to follow what parts of Section 3 inspired Section 4. Perhaps you could write a small paragraph at the beginning of Section 4 stating how Section 3 serves as building blocks for deriving the stitching error and stitching error bound in Section 4.\\n\\nWe reorganized the end of Section 3 and start of Section 4 to make the connection more explicit.\\n\\n> Would it be possible to design a small experiment with, e.g., MNIST where the stitching error (bound) is used to quantify the possible generalisation error?\\n\\nThe primary objective of this paper is to establish a theoretical framework for studying and comparing learned representations across models and tasks. We agree that exploratory experiments could yield insights into when kernel alignment and stitching error correlate or diverge and we will add the experiments in the final revision.\\n\\n> Alternatively you could add a small discussion on how your theory fits in with current stitching methods or how it could be applied to learn more better representations.\\n\\nFor fitting in with empirical works, please refer to the response provided for the first question above.\", \"for_better_representations_learning\": \"We want to emphasize that stitching is not to learn further representations. But future exploratory experiments could yield insights into when kernel alignment and stitching error correlate or diverge. A possible extension of this idea could involve designing training objectives that explicitly promote feature alignment or incorporating stitching-based evaluation metrics to iteratively refine representations.\\n\\n**References:**\\n\\n[1] Atanasov et al., (2021): Neural networks as kernel learners: The silent alignment effect.\\n\\n[2] Bansal et al. (2021): Revisiting model stitching to compare neural representations.\\n\\n[3] Huh et al. (2024): Position: The platonic representation hypothesis.\\n\\n[4] Lenc & Vedaldi (2015): Understanding image representations by measuring their equivariance and equivalence.\\n\\n[5] Radhakrishnan et al., (2022): Mechanism of feature learning in deep fully connected networks and kernel machines that recursively learn features.\"}", "{\"comment\": \"Thank you for the clarification, I am convinced that the paper tackles interesting question providing a theoretical framework to understand the topic. Given the response of the authors, I think there are literature which provides empirical findings in line with the theory, although having more direct exhibition of the theory via additional experiment might strengthen the paper.\\n\\nI will keep my score, but this is mostly because I cannot award 7.\"}", "{\"title\": \"response to official comment by authors\", \"comment\": \"Thank you for adding some discussions to the revised paper.\\nUnfortunately, the authors did not provide any experiments in the final revision of their paper.\"}", "{\"summary\": \"In this manuscript the authors first give a review of various measures of representation alignment, with a particular focus on showing how they relate. They show that many different approaches can be straightforwardly related to kernel alignment.\\n\\nThe authors then formalise the stitching approach to measuring task-relevant representation alignment. They demonstrate that bounds on stitching error can be derived and related to the alignment metrics that they reviewed in the first section.\", \"soundness\": \"4\", \"presentation\": \"3\", \"contribution\": \"3\", \"strengths\": \"The manuscript is clear and well-written.\\n\\nAlthough perhaps a little dense, the first section does a good job of introducing various notions of representation alignment and elucidating their relationships. I found this precise and succinct presentation to be useful and digestible.\\n\\nThe formalisation of stitching methods is also clear and straightforward. While the assumption of linear stichers is quite restrictive, it does lead to some nice proofs.\", \"weaknesses\": \"I don\\u2019t think the manuscript has any significant weaknesses.\\n\\nI do think that at the end of section 3 it might be helpful to give a few sentence summary of the relationships between the various measures of alignment. While the preceding material is complete, it would help readers who perhaps have not digested all of that material on a first pass to more easily comprehend the manuscript.\\n\\nAs mentioned above, the restriction to linear stitching functions is potentially quite limiting. It might be nice to comment more on the impact of this assumption on the analysis.\\n\\nIt should be noted that I am not very familiar with the field of representation alignment, so I am not in a position to comment on this work relative to the existing literature. I will have to leave that to the other reviewers. My score reflects this uncertainty, but it should be understood that this is not a comment on the manuscript, but rather my uncertainty about its impact, novelty, and relevance.\", \"questions\": \"Just a few nits:\", \"figure_1\": \"it would nice to note for the reader that these symbols will be defined in section 2.\", \"l130\": \"I\\u2019m not familiar with the notation using the #. Perhaps add a note or reference, or a an explanatory word or two in the sentence where it is first used?\", \"l188\": \"I didn\\u2019t understand why H_q had codomain \\\\mathbb{R}. This seems to be assuming something about Y_q that up until this point hasn\\u2019t been assumed. Could you clarify?\\n\\nL241 & L670: McDiarmin -> McDiarmid!\", \"l351\": \"modals -> models?\", \"flag_for_ethics_review\": \"['No ethics review needed.']\", \"rating\": \"6\", \"confidence\": \"2\", \"code_of_conduct\": \"Yes\"}", "{\"summary\": \"This work proposes a theoretical foundation for understanding representations alignment, especially the alignments for multimodal models.\\nThe main contribution is in the idea of connecting different representations through a so-called \\\"stitching\\\" mechanism.\", \"soundness\": \"2\", \"presentation\": \"3\", \"contribution\": \"2\", \"strengths\": \"The paper is generally well-written. The authors gave an excellent review of measures of representation alignment, which is a nice entry point for understanding the paper.\\nThis paper is also supported by a thorough mathematical argument about the stitching error between models.\", \"weaknesses\": \"1. The paper provides no empirical experiment demonstrating the proposed theory's correctness.\\n2. Only one type of stitching, Linear Stitching, is argued. It would be helpful if the authors could briefly explain other stitching types, as this will help to familiarize the readers to this idea.\", \"questions\": \"1. The reviewer understands that the authors try to avoid complexity by only arguing about linear stitching. But how is the generality of the linear stitching? And what is its limitation? Do different types of representations require different stitching? Please add this argument in the discussion part of the paper.\\n\\n2. Please provide at least one experiment to demonstrate the correctness of the proposed theory, for example, through transfer learning.\", \"flag_for_ethics_review\": \"['No ethics review needed.']\", \"rating\": \"5\", \"confidence\": \"2\", \"code_of_conduct\": \"Yes\"}", "{\"title\": \"Paper Decision\", \"decision\": \"Accept (Poster)\"}", "{\"summary\": \"The paper proposes a theoretical perspective on representation alignment of AI models.\\nThe authors state that while there is empirical work that supports the idea of representation alignment for bigger models, there is little theoretical perspective on the idea of representational alignment. The authors focus on the practice of (model) stitching as a device to study representational alignment. More specifically, \\nthey first present different ways to measure representation alignment and then focus on stitching as task to contextualise a theory for representational alignment. \\nThe contribution of this paper is showing that a stitching error and stitching error bound can be derived based on the kernel alignment of the underlying representations.\\n\\nOverall, I think this is a good paper attempting to provide a theoretical framework to representational alignment which is usually an empirical field of research. The derived stitching error and stitching error bound seem important in order to quantify generalisation error of different models. To improve the submission I would suggest making Section 4 more coherent with Section 3, since at the moment they seem a bit disconnected to me notation wise. I would also suggest either adding a small experiment showing the usefulness of the derived theory or contextualising it within current empirical methods.\", \"soundness\": \"2\", \"presentation\": \"3\", \"contribution\": \"3\", \"strengths\": [\"The authors do a good job of introducing the different concepts of kernel alignment and independence testing needed for their theory.\", \"Using Kernel Alignment to provide a generalisation error bound for stitching seems novel and useful given the rise of representation learning.\", \"I think the paper is generally well written making it accessible for readers that are not that familiar with a learning theoretic perspective on this problem.\"], \"weaknesses\": [\"It is unclear to me from Section 4 how the stitching error and stitching error bound can be used. Since the paper makes reference to existing empirical work, I would like to see a more concrete example or a reference to where the derived theory fits in existing empirical work.\", \"For instance how does the proposed theory quantify the stitching error in current approaches (e.g., can different layers be compared equivalently, does normalisation, regularisation play a role?).\", \"I feel there is a slight disconnect between sections 3 and 4. While in section 3 a comprehensive listing of ways to measure representation alignment is presented, the introduced notation is not really used in Section 4. This makes it a bit difficult to follow what parts of Section 3 inspired Section 4. Perhaps you could write a small paragraph at the beginning of Section 4 stating how Section 3 serves as building blocks for deriving the stitching error and stitching error bound in Section 4.\"], \"questions\": [\"Would it be possible to design a small experiment with, e.g., MNIST where the stitching error (bound) is used to quantify the possible generalisation error?\", \"Alternatively you could add a small discussion on how your theory fits in with current stitching methods or how it could be applied to learn more better representations.\"], \"flag_for_ethics_review\": \"['No ethics review needed.']\", \"rating\": \"6\", \"confidence\": \"3\", \"code_of_conduct\": \"Yes\"}", "{\"comment\": \"We thank the reviewer for the additional feedback and comment further on an experiment and on transfer learning.\\n\\nConsider the following setup. For $q=1,2$, let $h_q(x) = \\\\tanh\\\\left( \\\\sqrt{\\\\frac{2}{k_q}} f_q(x)\\\\cdot a_q\\\\right)$, where $f_{q,i}(x) = \\\\cos(w_{q,i}^T x/\\\\lambda_q + \\\\phi_{q,i})$, $k_q$ is the number of random features, and $w_{q,i}\\\\sim \\\\mathcal N(0,1)$, $\\\\phi_{q,i}\\\\sim U[0,2\\\\pi]$. $f_{q,i}$ represent random Fourier features which approximate a Gaussian kernel with bandwidth $\\\\lambda_q$, and $g_q$ is the composition of linear transformation and $\\\\tanh$ function. Additionally, we can assume gaussian input data $x\\\\sim \\\\mathcal N(0, I_d)$. \\n\\nSuppose we fix the second model, which we'll consider as the target ($y=h_2(x)$), and vary the first by selecting different bandwidths $\\\\lambda_1$. We can then compute and compare different measures of alignment including empirical alignment between $K_q = \\\\frac{2}{k_q}f_q f_q^T$, excess stitching risk $\\\\min_{S\\\\in\\\\mathbb R^{k_2\\\\times k_1}}\\\\hat {\\\\mathbb{E}}[(y - g_2(S f_1(x))^2]$, as well as the modified notion of alignment emerging from our results $\\\\min_{S\\\\in\\\\mathbb R^{k_2\\\\times k_1}}\\\\hat {\\\\mathbb{E}}[||f_2 - S f_1(x)||^2]$. \\n\\nThe experiment has been run for $d=1$ and shows correlation between kernel misalignment and stitching error. We will conduct further analyses, varying the sources of misalignment and considering datasets like MNIST, and will report results.\\n \\nFinally, regarding transfer learning, we note that when stitching to the output layer, the excess stitching risk is the same as \\\"linear transferability\\\" (up to sign).\"}", "{\"comment\": \"We thank the reviewer for the thoughtful feedback and reply to the comments below.\\n\\n> Only one type of stitching, Linear Stitching, is argued. It would be helpful if the authors could briefly explain other stitching types, as this will help to familiarize the readers to this idea.The reviewer understands that the authors try to avoid complexity by only arguing about linear stitching. But how is the generality of the linear stitching? And what is its limitation? Do different types of representations require different stitching? Please add this argument in the discussion part of the paper.\\n\\nWe now include a discussion of the linearity assumptions and more motivation for simple stitching maps in general, as follows:\\n\\n- The functions in $S_{1,2}$ are typically simple maps such as linear layers or convolutions of size one, to avoid introducing any learning, as emphasized in Bansal et al. (2021). The aim is to measure the compatibility of two given representations without fitting a representation to another. One perspective inspired by Lenc & Vedaldi (2015) is that we should not penalize certain symmetries, such as rotations, scaling, or translations, which do not alter the information content of the representations. Furthermore, the amount of unwanted learning may be quantified by stitching from a randomly initialized network.\\n\\n- In arguing that kernel alignment bounds stitching error for Theorem 1, we made several simplifying assumptions, which we now assess. Firstly, we restricted the stitching $S_{1,2}$ to linear maps, based on the transformations used in practice (Bansal et al., 2021; Csisz\\u00b4 arik et al., 2021), and to preserve the significance of the original representations. If we relax the assumption, we note that we would get a similar result, with $\\\\tilde A_2 = \\\\inf_{s_{1,2} \\\\in \\\\mathcal S_{1,2}} E[\\\\| s_{1,2}(f_1(x))\\u2212f_2(x)\\\\|^2]$. Interestingly, for $s_{1,2}$ to use only information about the covariance of $f_1,f_2$, similarly to kernel alignment, $s_{1,2}$ must be linear. Furthermore, we note that for stitching classes that include all linear maps, the linear result holds.\\n\\n>The paper provides no empirical experiment demonstrating the proposed theory's correctness. Please provide at least one experiment to demonstrate the correctness of the proposed theory, for example, through transfer learning.\\n\\n The primary objective of this paper is to establish a theoretical framework for studying and comparing learned representations across models and tasks. We agree that exploratory experiments could yield insights into when kernel alignment and stitching error correlate or diverge and we will add the experiments in the final revision. \\n\\nWhile stitching and transfer learning both involve blending two models, the two differ since stitching only learns the stitching layer while transfer learning requires more learning (for example fine-tuning typically involves training at least the second model). Yet, for a simple connection, we can consider measuring kernel alignment between the representation of model 1 and the task of model 2. Then the misalignment works as a upper bound for the risk of the fine-tuned model. Investigating stronger relationship between stitching, kernel alignment, and transfer learning is a interesting potential direction for future exploration.\\n\\n**References:**\\n\\n[1] Yamini Bansal, Preetum Nakkiran, and Boaz Barak. Revisiting model stitching to compare\\nneural representations. Advances in Neural Information Processing Systems, 34:225\\u2013236, 2021.\\n\\n[2] Karel Lenc and Andrea Vedaldi. Understanding image representations by measuring their equivariance and equivalence. In Proceedings of the IEEE Conference on Computer Vision and Pattern\\nRecognition, pp. 991\\u2013999, 2015.\"}", "{\"comment\": \"We thank the reviewer for the thoughtful feedback and reply to the comments below.\\n\\n> I do think that at the end of section 3 it might be helpful to give a few sentence summary of the relationships between the various measures of alignment. While the preceding material is complete, it would help readers who perhaps have not digested all of that material on a first pass to more easily comprehend the manuscript.\", \"we_include_a_sentence_to_highlight_the_purpose_of_this_section_at_the_end_of_section_3_in_the_revised_draft\": \"- In summary, we've introduced several popular measures for alignment between two representations and related them via spectral decompositions to a central notion of kernel alignment generalized for RKHS. \\nSimilar notions can be used to measure alignment between a model and a task to estimate generalization error.\\n\\n> As mentioned above, the restriction to linear stitching functions is potentially quite limiting. It\\nmight be nice to comment more on the impact of this assumption on the analysis.\\n\\nWe include a discussion on the linearity assumption and more motivation for simple stitching maps in general in the revised manuscript, as follows:\\n\\n- The functions in $S_{1,2}$ are typically simple maps such as linear layers or convolutions of size one, to avoid introducing any further representation learning, as emphasized in Bansal et al. (2021). The goal is to measure the compatibility of two given representations without \\\"fitting\\\" a representation to the other. Another perspective, inspired by Lenc & Vedaldi (2015), is that we should not penalize certain symmetries, such as rotations, scaling, or translations, which do not alter the information content of the representations. Further, the amount of unwanted learning may be quantified by stitching from a randomly initialized network.\\n\\n- In arguing that kernel alignment provide a bound on the stitching error (Theorem 1), we made several simplifying assumptions, which we assess next. Firstly, we restricted the stitching $S_{1,2}$ to linear maps, based on the transformations used in practice (Bansal et al., 2021; Csisz\\u00b4 arik et al., 2021), and to preserve the significance of the original representations. If we relax this assumption, we note that we would get a similar result, with $\\\\tilde A_2 = \\\\inf_{s_{1,2} \\\\in \\\\mathcal S_{1,2}} E[\\\\| s_{1,2}(f_1(x))\\u2212f_2(x)\\\\|^2]$. Interestingly, for $s_{1,2}$ to use only information about the covariance of $f_1,f_2$, similarly to kernel alignment, $s_{1,2}$ must be linear. Further, we note that for stitching approaches that include all linear maps, the linear result holds.\\n\\n\\n\\n\\n>Q1 Figure 1: it would nice to note for the reader that these symbols will be defined in section 2.\\n\\nWe've added one sentence to improve the readability in the new draft.\\n\\n> Q2 L130: I\\u2019m not familiar with the notation using the #. Perhaps add a note or reference, or a an explanatory word or two in the sentence where it is first used?\\n\\nWe now include a footnote describing the \\\"pushforward\\\" map # on page 3.\\n\\n> Q3 L188: I didn\\u2019t understand why H_q had codomain \\\\mathbb{R}. This seems to be assuming something about Y_q that up until this point hasn\\u2019t been assumed. Could you clarify?\", \"we_clarify_this_point_in_the_revision_as_follows\": \"- After introducing the definition for Empirical Kernel Alignment, in this paragraph we wanted to draw a connection to RKHS theory. To get a consistent definition, it suffices to consider outputs in one dimension. We can then generalize the definition to higher dimensions considering each output component separately (separable matrix-valued RKHS). \\n\\n\\n>Q4 L241 & L670: McDiarmin -> McDiarmid!\\n\\n> Q5 L351: modals -> models?\\n\\nWe've fixed these typos in the draft. Thanks for careful reading!\\n\\n\\n**References:**\\n\\n[1] Yamini Bansal, Preetum Nakkiran, and Boaz Barak. Revisiting model stitching to compare neural\\nrepresentations. Advances in Neural Information Processing Systems, 34:225\\u2013236, 2021.\\n\\n[2] Karel Lenc and Andrea Vedaldi. Understanding image representations by measuring their equivariance and equivalence. In Proceedings of the IEEE Conference on Computer Vision and Pattern Recognition, pp. 991\\u2013999, 2015.\\n\\n[3] Adri\\u00b4an Csisz\\u00b4arik, P\\u00b4eter K\\u02ddor\\u00a8osi-Szab\\u00b4o, Akos Matszangosz, Gergely Papp, and D\\u00b4aniel Varga. Similarity and matching of neural network representations. Advances in Neural Information Processing\\nSystems, 34:5656\\u20135668, 2021.\"}" ] }

[ "Zihuan Qiu", "Fanman Meng", "Yi Xu", "Linfeng Xu", "Qingbo Wu", "Hongliang Li" ]

[ "Class incremental learning" ]

{ "note_id": [ "sv0CRKg4uX", "qiQFB0l3yZ", "q342Dg36dk", "UjI1iuex5o", "5UxTdI2u41" ], "note_type": [ "official_review", "official_review", "official_review", "comment", "official_review" ], "note_created": [ 1730171207171, 1730713099771, 1730169853061, 1731552747901, 1730449284046 ], "note_signatures": [ [ "ICLR.cc/2025/Conference/Submission11206/Reviewer_AeMD" ], [ "ICLR.cc/2025/Conference/Submission11206/Reviewer_qTv6" ], [ "ICLR.cc/2025/Conference/Submission11206/Reviewer_Yw8m" ], [ "ICLR.cc/2025/Conference/Submission11206/Authors" ], [ "ICLR.cc/2025/Conference/Submission11206/Reviewer_9Bxp" ] ], "structured_content_str": [ "{\"summary\": \"This paper introduces Increment Vector Transformation (IVT) as a method for Class Incremental Learning (CIL) to reduce catastrophic forgetting. By utilizing Linear Mode Connectivity (LMC), the authors propose IVT as a plug-in solution that identifies low-loss linear paths, allowing models to retain performance on previous tasks. The method approximates a Hessian-based transformation using the diagonal of the Fisher Information Matrix, which keeps computational costs low. Experiments on CIFAR-100, ImageNet-Subset, and ImageNet-Full demonstrate the effectiveness of IVT.\", \"soundness\": \"3\", \"presentation\": \"3\", \"contribution\": \"2\", \"strengths\": [\"The paper is well-written and organized, making it easy to follow.\", \"The exploration of Linear Mode Connectivity within CIL is thought-provoking and provides valuable insights.\", \"Extensive experiments on various datasets validate the method\\u2019s effectiveness.\"], \"weaknesses\": [\"The novelty of the proposed approach could be questioned, as similar formulations to the core result (Eq. 11) have appeared in prior works [1, 2, 3]. While the author\\u2019s starting point and implementation differ, it would be helpful to clarify essential distinctions between this work and related approaches.\", \"The performance gains of IVT seem modest, particularly when applied to AFC.\", \"The paper lacks direct comparisons with related methods, at least the classic baseline method [1].\", \"The term \\\"oracle\\\" could benefit from a clearer definition. While readers may infer the meaning, it could cause some confusion. Maybe referring to it as the global optimum across all tasks, as suggested in footnote 1, might enhance clarity.\", \"[1] Lee S W, Kim J H, Jun J, et al. Overcoming catastrophic forgetting by incremental moment matching[J]. Advances in neural information processing systems, 2017, 30.\", \"[2] Sun W, Li Q, Zhang S, et al. Incremental Learning via Robust Parameter Posterior Fusion[C]//ACM Multimedia 2024.\", \"[3] Matena M S, Raffel C A. Merging models with fisher-weighted averaging[J]. Advances in Neural Information Processing Systems, 2022, 35: 17703-17716.\"], \"questions\": \"See weakness.\", \"flag_for_ethics_review\": \"['No ethics review needed.']\", \"rating\": \"3\", \"confidence\": \"4\", \"code_of_conduct\": \"Yes\"}", "{\"summary\": \"This paper presents an in-depth experimental analysis of Linear Mode Connectivity in Class Incremental Learning (CIL) oracles and unveils a novel Increment Vector Transformation (IVT) module designed for plug-and-play integration. The methodology used to illustrate how models can retain proficiency in previously learned tasks by navigating low-loss linear paths between modes is both original and thoughtfully executed. Additionally, the application of the IVT module across established CIL methods like PODNet and AFC, leading to consistent performance enhancements, is noteworthy. However, the validation of IVT's effectiveness being limited to just two methods casts some uncertainty on its universal applicability.\", \"soundness\": \"3\", \"presentation\": \"4\", \"contribution\": \"3\", \"strengths\": \"The exploration of Linear Mode Connectivity within CIL oracles is a captivating and intellectually stimulating subject.\\n\\nThe document is well-crafted, with its clarity and rigorousness making it both comprehensible and educational.\\n\\nThe IVT module, with its flexible plug-and-play design, shows potential for broad adaptation across various CIL strategies.\", \"weaknesses\": \"The experimental focus solely on the diagonal elements of the Hessian matrix, neglecting the inter-parameter correlations, might limit the thoroughness of the theoretical analysis.\\n\\nThe verification of the IVT module's impact on only two distinct CIL methods leaves its widespread effectiveness as a plug-and-play solution unverified, raising questions about its general utility.\", \"questions\": \"The formulation of equation (4) appears to complicate the connection between lambda and the magnitude of (\\\\theta_t-\\\\theta_i^). Would a simpler expression like (1-\\\\lambda)\\\\theta_i^ + \\\\lambda\\\\theta_t not more directly illustrate the linear path as lambda varies from 0 to 1? Such a change could provide more straightforward insights into IVT's workings.\\n\\nThe choice to integrate IVT with PODNet and AFC specifically prompts curiosity regarding the module's broader suitability. What aspects of these methods make them particularly amenable to IVT? Additionally, extending IVT's evaluation to encompass a wider array of, possibly more sophisticated, CIL methods would greatly strengthen the argument for IVT's adaptability and broad relevance.\", \"flag_for_ethics_review\": \"['No ethics review needed.']\", \"rating\": \"5\", \"confidence\": \"3\", \"code_of_conduct\": \"Yes\"}", "{\"summary\": \"The paper explores the Linear Mode Connectivity (LMC) for CIL tasks. This LMC usually does not hold in CIL tasks in previous works, and is revealed in this paper. The empirical results confirm the presence of LMC in the CIL oracle. Hence, a simple manipulation of Increment\\nVector Transformation (IVT) can help largely reduce the catastrophic forgetting. This method leverages the diagonal of the Fisher Information Matrix to approximate Hessian-based transformation (though not lossless), uncovering low-loss linear paths for incremental updates, and achieves workable results by inserting the IVT into several methods as a plug-in.\", \"soundness\": \"3\", \"presentation\": \"3\", \"contribution\": \"3\", \"strengths\": \"1. The way of delivering the paper is very good.\\n2. The motivation in this paper is very clear and sound.\\n3. The proposed method is simple and easy to follow.\", \"weaknesses\": \"1. Baselines are quite old (though 2023 ones are just about 1 years old). Please include more works in 2024, and there should be enough candidates.\\n2. Please indicates clearly if this is a training from scratch or training from half scenario.\\n3. Literature is weak. Quite a few number of recent works are not mentioned. For instance, \\\"Online Hyperparameter Optimization for Class-Incremental Learning\\\" and its series of works, and \\\"DS-AL: A dual-stream analytic learning for exemplar-free class-incremental learning\\\" and its series of works.\\n4. To be honest, the definition of \\\"oracle\\\" is not clear to everyone in the area of CIL. There is no clear explanation in the manuscript. Looks like a jargon.\\n5. My largest concern: the performance improvement is not very handsome or consistent across various embeded methods. For instance, the improvement upon AFC is trivial in many cases. And this is the one the authors put on paper.\", \"questions\": \"See weaknesses.\", \"flag_for_ethics_review\": \"['No ethics review needed.']\", \"rating\": \"5\", \"confidence\": \"4\", \"code_of_conduct\": \"Yes\"}", "{\"withdrawal_confirmation\": \"I have read and agree with the venue's withdrawal policy on behalf of myself and my co-authors.\"}", "{\"summary\": \"The authors introduce a method called Increment Vector Transformation (IVT) for Class Incremental Learning (CIL), which leverages Linear Mode Connectivity (LMC) to find low-loss paths for CIL models. IVT approximates the Hessian using the diagonal of the Fisher Information Matrix, balancing computational efficiency with the preservation of essential curvature information. The authors give an analysis based on the experimental results and theoretical analysis and introduce the IVT approach. Experimental results on benchmark datasets (CIFAR-100, ImageNet-Subset, and ImageNet-Full) demonstrate that integrating IVT with existing CIL methods leads to significant performance improvements.\", \"soundness\": \"3\", \"presentation\": \"2\", \"contribution\": \"2\", \"strengths\": [\"The motivation that follows a low-loss linear path to update the model seems interesting and effective.\", \"The IVT can identify low-loss paths without any exemplars, which is an advantage over EOPC.\"], \"weaknesses\": [\"The image seems confusing, and I didn't understand what Fig. 2 meant at all until I read the discussion about Fig. 4, which gave me a rough idea of what the figure is trying to convey. However, I still don't fully understand why the $\\\\lambda$ value is so large here, and what the decrease in accuracy in the middle signifies, and the Fig.3 and Fig.5 also suffer this. The LT in the captions of Fig.3 and Fig.5 should be LF.\", \"The performance seems not so competitive compared with EOPC, although the AA and LA outperform EOPC, the FM is obviously higher than EOPC as shown in Tab.1 and Tab.3.\", \"There should be more recent approaches for comparison. It's better to utilize IVT based on more approaches besides PODNet and AFC to show the robustness of the IVT.\"], \"questions\": [\"Can there be a clearer explanation about the figures?\", \"Can IVT be utilized based on more other approaches?\"], \"flag_for_ethics_review\": \"['No ethics review needed.']\", \"rating\": \"5\", \"confidence\": \"5\", \"code_of_conduct\": \"Yes\"}" ] }

[ "Eliot Xing", "Vernon Luk", "Jean Oh" ]

[ "reinforcement learning", "differentiable simulation" ]

{ "note_id": [ "ucaenuh5yX", "qYbFfwbous", "lTecfE220K", "lJQH8uKzKM", "kXUuHgQuHQ", "fO1jLR2WKw", "fDGPq7ngRU", "Z3gcFO53yq", "YHagw1eRsp", "SqHKbR5nnC", "PdFGk7A9fa", "MRoQ48LwwA", "MCOi7k0meX", "L3j6r4KpiJ", "Fvh73IVz3N", "EFumQKZwqH", "DWFXDDF2yZ", "AffoM4J05g", "85tQ3VUWVn", "6JSf1fIb9K", "5Wl5KRkIwa", "5L3W1Qic1i", "4z6h7dKtRW", "112nnqCwYa" ], "note_type": [ "official_comment", "official_comment", "meta_review", "official_comment", "official_review", "official_comment", "official_comment", "official_comment", "official_comment", "official_comment", "official_review", "official_comment", "official_comment", "official_comment", "official_review", "official_comment", "official_comment", "official_comment", "official_review", "decision", "official_comment", "official_comment", "official_comment", "official_comment" ], "note_created": [ 1732541906448, 1732246970572, 1734808475850, 1732247113279, 1730703849742, 1732247024669, 1732748021317, 1732246920625, 1732559853425, 1732247062852, 1730887037724, 1732246646425, 1732715604745, 1732592766807, 1729926570400, 1732779391045, 1732246865440, 1732246799389, 1730789155584, 1737523683608, 1732621097499, 1732778585664, 1732909896575, 1732715433744 ], "note_signatures": [ [ "ICLR.cc/2025/Conference/Submission5094/Reviewer_cLkG" ], [ "ICLR.cc/2025/Conference/Submission5094/Authors" ], [ "ICLR.cc/2025/Conference/Submission5094/Area_Chair_xatb" ], [ "ICLR.cc/2025/Conference/Submission5094/Authors" ], [ "ICLR.cc/2025/Conference/Submission5094/Reviewer_W9i4" ], [ "ICLR.cc/2025/Conference/Submission5094/Authors" ], [ "ICLR.cc/2025/Conference/Submission5094/Reviewer_wHaW" ], [ "ICLR.cc/2025/Conference/Submission5094/Authors" ], [ "ICLR.cc/2025/Conference/Submission5094/Authors" ], [ "ICLR.cc/2025/Conference/Submission5094/Authors" ], [ "ICLR.cc/2025/Conference/Submission5094/Reviewer_WBQk" ], [ "ICLR.cc/2025/Conference/Submission5094/Authors" ], [ "ICLR.cc/2025/Conference/Submission5094/Authors" ], [ "ICLR.cc/2025/Conference/Submission5094/Reviewer_W9i4" ], [ "ICLR.cc/2025/Conference/Submission5094/Reviewer_cLkG" ], [ "ICLR.cc/2025/Conference/Submission5094/Authors" ], [ "ICLR.cc/2025/Conference/Submission5094/Authors" ], [ "ICLR.cc/2025/Conference/Submission5094/Authors" ], [ "ICLR.cc/2025/Conference/Submission5094/Reviewer_wHaW" ], [ "ICLR.cc/2025/Conference/Program_Chairs" ], [ "ICLR.cc/2025/Conference/Submission5094/Reviewer_cLkG" ], [ "ICLR.cc/2025/Conference/Submission5094/Reviewer_WBQk" ], [ "ICLR.cc/2025/Conference/Submission5094/Authors" ], [ "ICLR.cc/2025/Conference/Submission5094/Authors" ] ], "structured_content_str": [ "{\"title\": \"Thank you for the response\", \"comment\": \"Thank you for the clarification.\", \"w1\": \"thank you for adding the new sections in Appendix that detail the simulation environment setup. Looking at the statistics in Appendix E, it looks like the simulation instances typically consist of < 3000 particles (reading from the N_x number in the tables). For a 3D deformable-body/fluid scene, this is a pretty small size and 10x smaller than what DiffTaichi demonstrated (Fig. 6 in Sec. E1 of DiffTaichi reported a 30K-particle scene). I suggest the main paper remind readers of this difference in particle numbers.\", \"w2\": \"based on W1, my feeling is that if only one GPU is available, the implementation in this paper is better at parallelizing multiple small-sized simulation problem instances whereas DiffTaichi is better suited for parallelizing the computation in simulating one large scene. It will be great if the authors can confirm or correct my understanding. Is there an \\\"upper-limit\\\" of particle/grid numbers in one simulation scene that makes your simulator struggle when parallelizing multiple instances of such scenes?\"}", "{\"title\": \"Authors' Response for Reviewer wHaW [2/2]\", \"comment\": \"\\u2026\\n\\n> [Q1] A comprehensive ablation study would provide valuable insights into the effectiveness of different design choices. For instance, comparing the performance of SAPO with different activation functions (e.g., ELU vs. SiLU).\\n\\nWe have added a **new subsection** (Appendix F.4) which provides results for individual ablations on design choices {III, IV, V}. Recall these design choices:\\n\\n- III: state-dependent variance for policy\\n- IV: dual critic, no target networks\\n- V: SiLU, AdamW\\n\\nFrom our experience with early SAPO experiments, (AdamW + SiLU) > (Adam + SiLU) > (Adam + ELU) > (AdamW + ELU), so we opted to combine these modifications in design choice V. If the reviewer thinks it would be crucial, we can include further ablations on the activation function or optimizer alone for camera ready.\\n\\nFrom these new ablations, we observe that all three design choices impact the performance of SAPO on the HandFlip task. We find that, ordering in terms of impact on performance, III > IV > V, which agrees with our original motivation regarding these design choices in Section 4.2.\\n\\n> [Q2] I am curious about the improvements brought by the paralleled MPM. how much acceleration can be achieved with the paralleled MPM, compared with the version in DexDeform? How much GPU memory is required?\\n\\nWe achieve 20x total speedup with Rewarped compared to DexDeform, using a single RTX 4090 GPU: \\n- Rewarped: 32 envs, ~1400 FPS total, 80000 particles total\\n- DexDeform (non-parallel simulator): 1 env, ~70 FPS, 2500 particles\\n- Rewarped: 1 env, ~210 FPS, 2500 particles\", \"regarding_gpu_memory_usage\": [\"Rewarped: 0.19 GB per env, 6.16 GB total over 32 envs\", \"DexDeform: 3.51 GB over 1 env\", \"Further results are available in Appendix F.5 (new subsection).\", \"- -\", \"**Overall**, we believe the changes we\\u2019ve made should resolve the reviewer\\u2019s remaining concerns, and hope the reviewer may choose to increase their scores accordingly. We are happy to discuss further if the reviewer has any additional questions.\"]}", "{\"metareview\": \"The paper proposes a new algorithm that combines max-entropy RL and differentiable physics simulators. All reviewers feel very positive about the paper. The paper is clearly written, well organized and presenting strong results. The paper gives good background information, motivation. The proposed design mitigates the complexity of offline policy gradient evaluation while still benefiting from the simulator\\u2019s analytical gradients, and the paper gives informative design decisions for practitioners too. In addition to the algorithm, the paper presents a new differentiable simulator of soft body dynamics with good visualization. which would be beneficial to the robotics community going forward. Overall, this is a strong, well-written paper with applauding contributions in both algorithm and simulator design.\", \"additional_comments_on_reviewer_discussion\": \"Reviewer WBQk raises questions about missing details, and writing clarity; reviewer wHaW raises concerns on novelty, generality, and missing details; Reviewer W9i4 raises concerns on novelty; Reviewer cLkG raises questions about missing details, and missing related work. All these are addressed in the discussion.\"}", "{\"title\": \"Authors' Response to Reviewer cLkG [1/1]\", \"comment\": \"We thank the reviewer for their time and kind words regarding our work on Rewarped and SAPO, as well as on the presentation of the paper. We proceed to address each of the reviewer\\u2019s comments and questions.\\n\\n- - -\\n\\n> [W1] \\u2026 \\u201cdetailed specifications of the environments\\u201d \\u2026\\n\\nWe added **two new sections** to the appendix, which should resolve the reviewer\\u2019s questions. Appendix D discusses the underlying physics-based simulation methods used in Rewarped. Appendix E describes the implementation details for every task, e.g. relevant physics hyperparameters (like grid size, num particles, time step), observation/action/reward definitions.\\n\\n> [W2] Table 1 and the related work should also discuss DiffTaichi, which I believe supports GPU parallelization, deformable solids and fluids, and gradient computation.\\n\\nWe use Table 1 and Section 2 to review *parallel* (differentiable) simulators that are capable of running many environments together, like in [[IsaacGym](https://arxiv.org/abs/2108.10470)]. To the best of our knowledge, DiffTaichi focuses on GPU parallelization for efficient kernel computation (ie. parallelizing operations across the MPM grid) **in a single environment instance**. These prior works [[DiffTaichi](https://arxiv.org/abs/1910.00935), [PlasticineLab](https://arxiv.org/abs/2104.03311), [DexDeform](https://arxiv.org/abs/2304.03223), [FluidLab](https://arxiv.org/abs/2303.02346)] do not support parallel simulation natively. \\n\\nWe have also added a **new section** (Appendix A) that extends discussion of related work to non-parallel differentiable simulators, including DiffTaichi.\\n\\n> [W3] \\u201cWhile I highly appreciate the engineering effort behind Rewarped, I don\\u2019t see much technical/algorithmic novelty in Sec. 5\\u201d \\u2026\\n\\nThe main contribution within Section 5 is the introduction of our simulation platform that enables scaling RL on tasks involving rigid and soft body interaction, such as SAPO, the novel FO-MBRL algorithm we propose in Section 4.\\n\\nAbsolutely, Rewarped would not be possible without the amazing work that has already been done by the physics-based simulation, graphics, ML, RL, or robotics communities. However, to the best of our knowledge, no existing simulation platform satisfies all these desiderata--parallel environments, differentiability, multiphysics (for interaction between rigid bodies and deformables). Rewarped aims to close this gap. Table 1 and the related work section on parallel differentiable simulation contextualizes Rewarped to explain these desiderata and motivation behind why we built Rewarped, rather than using an existing solution (it did not exist). We believe that readers will also benefit from these comparisons. Rewarped is a major contribution of this paper and without it, we would not be able to easily demonstrate SAPO across a variety of tasks.\\n\\nTo further clarify, while Warp supports kernel-level GPU parallelization, we made substantial effort developing Rewarped to support (a) parallel simulation of multiple environments (as shown in Figure 1), as well as the other two criteria: (b) efficient batched computation of simulation gradients, for use with analytic policy optimization in a scalable RL pipeline; (c) multiphysics support for a variety of different material types. We have tried to make this clearer within Section 5, by now referring to \\u201cparallel simulation\\u201d for many environments vs. \\u201cnon-parallel simulation\\u201d for a single environment.\\n\\nWe hope the research community will appreciate our efforts in building Rewarped, and that Rewarped can enable future research on learning with parallel differentiable simulation or scaling RL for rigid & soft body tasks.\\n\\n> [Q1] I am under the impression that there should have been a log function in Eqn. 4 (somewhat similar to Eqn. 2 in Georgiev 24). Could you confirm your Eqn. 4 is correct?\\n\\nThanks for catching this typo! Yes, it should be $\\\\nabla_{\\\\theta} \\\\log \\\\pi$, we have updated the paper to correct this.\\n\\n> [Q2] Eqn 12: where is (sl, al) in the inner expectation sampled from? Does this notation miss a probability distribution?\\n\\nYes, we omitted the distribution for the inner expectation, and have corrected this. Thanks for pointing this out!\\n\\n> [Q3] How is your simulation gradient backprogagated through the stochastic policy tanh (line 332) exactly?\\n\\nWe do this by applying the reparameterization trick, as done in SAC [[Haarnoja et al., 2018]](https://arxiv.org/abs/1812.05905). \\n\\n- - -\\n\\n**Overall**, we think these changes & clarifications should resolve all of the reviewer\\u2019s concerns. We hope that the reviewer will decide to raise their confidence and scores accordingly. If there are any additional questions, we are happy to discuss further!\"}", "{\"summary\": \"This paper releases a new algorithm called SAPO which acts better on Soft rigid body dynamics and also a simulator, with the main contribution being sample efficient RL on these kinds of problems. SAPO is a model-based, actor-critic method that leverages analytic gradients from a differentiable simulator to optimize a stochastic policy with entropy maximization. Rewarped is the simulator, a differentiable multi-physics simulation platform capable of simulating soft bodies which usually have slow simulation times. They demonstrate that SAPO with Rewarped achieves superior performance on manipulation and locomotion tasks that require handling interactions between rigid structures and deformables outperforming baseline\\u00a0approaches.\", \"soundness\": \"3\", \"presentation\": \"3\", \"contribution\": \"3\", \"strengths\": \"1. The paper is well motivated. The authors take inspiration from max entropy model free RL and extend this to SOTA first order model based RL.\\n2. The contribution of a accelerated differentiable simulator for soft body dynamics is welcome.\\n3. The paper is comprehensive in providing an ablation over components of their method and also provides explanations for their design choices.\", \"weaknesses\": \"1. Since this work is inspired by model-based reinforcement learning (MBRL) and maximum entropy RL, and the authors present a first-order MBRL algorithm based on the max-entropy RL framework, they should clearly distinguish their approach from prior work, such as this paper(https://arxiv.org/abs/2112.01195) and this one (https://ieeexplore.ieee.org/document/9892381). While it can be argued that these works use a world model rather than a differentiable simulation, this distinction should be explicitly discussed. A brief discussion on the potential inter-applicability of world model and gradient simulator-based methods could open up promising directions for future research. A comparison of the novelty, applications, and results of these works would strengthen the contribution of the paper.\\n2. It is not directly intuitive as to why the review of Zeroth Order Batched Gradient is necessary in the main manuscript in Section 3 Equation 4. It is my understanding that the paper builds on top of first order model based RL methods instead. If this section is indeed required please elaborate on it's importance.\", \"questions\": \"1. How does the simulation speed scale with number of particles in the soft body simulation ? A discussion on this can greatly help in understanding the applicability of Rewarped. A potential experiment of interest can be simulation speed vs number of particles.\\n2. Similarly, what is the effect of number of parallel environments on the simulation speed ? Similar to the above experiment, a table/plot showing simulation speed vs num of parallel environments on a standard consumer grade GPU (eg. 4090)\", \"flag_for_ethics_review\": \"['No ethics review needed.']\", \"rating\": \"8\", \"confidence\": \"3\", \"code_of_conduct\": \"Yes\"}", "{\"title\": \"Authors' Response for Reviewer W9i4 [1/2]\", \"comment\": \"We thank the reviewer for their time, and positive comments on the strengths of SAPO and Rewarped. Based on the reviewers\\u2019 feedback, we have updated the paper to include results on the runtime performance / scalability of Rewarped and extended the discussion of related work.\\n\\n- - -\\n\\n> [Q1] How does the simulation speed scale with number of particles in the soft body simulation ? A discussion on this can greatly help in understanding the applicability of Rewarped. A potential experiment of interest can be simulation speed vs number of particles.\\n\\nand\\n\\n> [Q2] Similarly, what is the effect of number of parallel environments on the simulation speed ? Similar to the above experiment, a table/plot showing simulation speed vs num of parallel environments on a standard consumer grade GPU (eg. 4090)\\n\\nWe have added a **new subsection** (Appendix F.5) with results on the runtime performance and scalability of Rewarped. \\n\\nWe achieve 20x total speedup with Rewarped compared to DexDeform, using a single RTX 4090 GPU: \\n- Rewarped: 32 envs, ~1400 FPS total, 80000 particles total\\n- DexDeform (non-parallel simulator): 1 env, ~70 FPS, 2500 particles\\n- Rewarped: 1 env, ~210 FPS, 2500 particles\", \"regarding_gpu_memory_usage\": \"- Rewarped: 0.19 GB per env, 6.16 GB total over 32 envs\\n- DexDeform: 3.51 GB over 1 env\\n\\nFurther results are available in Appendix F.5. \\n\\n\\u2026 (continue in response 2/2)\"}", "{\"comment\": \"Thanks for your explanation and I don't have further questions. This is a good paper and I will keep my score.\"}", "{\"title\": \"Authors' Response for Reviewer wHaW [1/2]\", \"comment\": \"We thank the reviewer for their time and kind words regarding the notable advances presented by Rewarped and SAPO, as well as on the presentation clarity of the paper. We remain committed to releasing all code after publication for the benefit of the community. We proceed to address each of the reviewer\\u2019s comments and questions.\\n\\n- - -\\n\\n> [W1] While combining maximum entropy with differentiable physics is a promising approach, it may appear incremental, as similar techniques have been explored in prior RL literature.\\n\\nTo better situate SAPO against prior literature in model-based RL, we added a **new section** in Appendix A that extends discussion of related work. \\n\\nWe respectfully disagree with the reviewer\\u2019s perspective. We believe SAPO, which integrates maximum entropy RL with analytic policy gradients from differentiable simulation, is a major novel contribution of this work. Although maximum entropy RL is a topic of interest within vanilla RL literature, our work is the first formulation of maximum entropy RL using analytic gradients from differentiable simulation for FO-MBRL.\\n\\nTo the best of our knowledge, our work is the first to demonstrate that entropy regularization by maximum entropy RL can stabilize policy optimization over analytic gradients from differentiable simulation. Moreover, this is the first work to show that FO-MBRL can learn a range of locomotion & manipulation tasks involving rigid & soft bodies. Prior work [[Brax](https://arxiv.org/abs/2106.13281), [SHAC](https://arxiv.org/abs/2204.07137)] has only successfully demonstrated FO-MBRL on rigid-body locomotion tasks, and in fact, FO-MBRL previously was shown to have limited or no advantage over model-free RL on deformable tasks [[DaXBench]](https://arxiv.org/abs/2210.13066).\\n\\n> [W2] If I understand correctly, only one-way coupling is considered in MPM simulator. It would be nice if two way coupling could be added to allow impact back on the rigid body as in Maniskill2.\\n\\nYes, we use one-way coupling similar to [[PlasticineLab](https://arxiv.org/abs/2104.03311), [DexDeform](https://arxiv.org/abs/2304.03223)]. Prior work [[RoboCraft](https://arxiv.org/abs/2205.02909), [DP3](https://arxiv.org/abs/2403.03954)] has shown that models trained on one-way coupled MPM simulation data can transfer to the real world, so the utility of two-way coupling may depend on the action parameterization. For instance, position control with one-way coupling may sufficiently model real-world dynamics. Depending on the control frequency, the robot\\u2019s underlying motor controllers could compensate for forces applied by soft bodies onto the robot\\u2019s rigid end effector. Whereas torque control may require two-way coupling for more accurate dynamics.\\n\\nWe do not believe that this is a major weakness of our work. End-users of Rewarped may also choose to modify the MPM simulation code to incorporate two-way coupling depending on their use cases. \\n\\n> [W3] The paper lacks a discussion of the efficiency gains from the parallelized MPM implementation. Including an analysis of wall-time efficiency or runtime comparisons would provide valuable insight\\n\\nWe have added a **new subsection** (Appendix F.5) with results on the runtime performance and scalability of Rewarped. Also see comment for [Q2] below.\\n\\n\\u2026 (continue in response 2/2)\"}", "{\"title\": \"Additional scaling results on scenes with more particles\", \"comment\": \"> W2: based on W1, my feeling is that if only one GPU is available, the implementation in this paper is better at parallelizing multiple small-sized simulation problem instances whereas DiffTaichi is better suited for parallelizing the computation in simulating one large scene. It will be great if the authors can confirm or correct my understanding. Is there an \\\"upper-limit\\\" of particle/grid numbers in one simulation scene that makes your simulator struggle when parallelizing multiple instances of such scenes?\\n\\n(Aside: These settings can be adjusted depending on the end-user\\u2019s use cases. In this work, we focused on parallel differentiable simulation, so we used $N_x = 2500$ per env, which corresponds to 80000 total particles over 32 environments.)\\n\\nHere are new scaling results simulating the HandFlip task with $N_x = 30000$. We can forward simulate **960000 total particles at ~180 total FPS, using 30000 particles per env * 32 envs**. For DexDeform, simulating *one* environment using $N_x=30000$ runs at 26.55 FPS using 10.97 GB of GPU memory (they do not use gradient checkpointing).\\n\\n| # of Envs. | Total FPS | GPU Memory (GB) |\\n| :- | :-: | :-: |\\n| 1 | 85 | 1.50 |\\n| 2 | 118 | 2.20 |\\n| 4 | 150 | 3.12 |\\n| 8 | 169 | 5.37 |\\n| 16 | 172 | 10.22 |\\n| 32 | 179 | 18.71 |\\n\\nWe did not use this setting for the main results in the paper, as it would slow down parallel simulation and decrease available memory for training RL, given the limited compute budget we have access to.\\n\\nWe would like to point out that prior work [[RoboCraft](https://arxiv.org/abs/2205.02909), [DP3](https://arxiv.org/abs/2403.03954)] has shown that models that take as observations ~300 particles subsampled from MPM simulation can transfer to the real world and perform complex deformable object manipulation tasks. In particular, simulation settings for robotic manipulation tasks (the domain we aim for in this work) may differ from high-fidelity simulation for computer graphics (which DiffTaichi targets).\\n\\nRegarding upper limits, we note that larger scenes and more environments can be simulated using more powerful GPUs (with more CUDA cores and available memory). As of now, we only have access to RTX 4090s which have 24 GB of GPU memory. We can share scaling results with more powerful GPUs in camera ready if the reviewer deems it necessary. \\n\\n> W1: thank you for adding the new sections in Appendix that detail the simulation environment setup. Looking at the statistics in Appendix E, it looks like the simulation instances typically consist of < 3000 particles (reading from the N_x number in the tables). For a 3D deformable-body/fluid scene, this is a pretty small size and 10x smaller than what DiffTaichi demonstrated (Fig. 6 in Sec. E1 of DiffTaichi reported a 30K-particle scene). I suggest the main paper remind readers of this difference in particle numbers.\\n\\nPer the reviewer\\u2019s request, we have added a comment on the number of simulation particles to Section 6 (L417). Note that the scales we use are more similar to [SoftGym, PlasticineLab, DexDeform], which use particle-based simulation / MPM for a range of sequential decision making tasks, while DiffTaichi is focused on simulation itself. We keep particle sizes similar across tasks in Rewarped for fairer comparison between tasks.\\n\\n- - -\\n\\n**Overall**, we believe these results should further resolve the reviewer\\u2019s concerns, and hope that the reviewer will increase their score accordingly.\"}", "{\"title\": \"Authors' Response for Reviewer W9i4 [2/2]\", \"comment\": \"\\u2026\\n\\n> [W1] \\u2026 \\u201cclearly distinguish their approach from prior work\\u201d \\u2026 \\n\\nTo better situate SAPO against prior literature in model-based RL, we added a **new section** in Appendix A to extend discussion of related work. We also note that our list of references is already very long for a paper that is not a literature review. We have tried our best to include relevant literature spanned across multiple fields, given the nature of this work.\\n\\nWe have added discussion of SAC-SVG [[Amos et al., 2021](https://arxiv.org/abs/2008.12775)] to Section 4.1, which we found was the earliest & closest comparison for SAPO from the model-based RL literature. SAC-SVG incorporates entropy regularization, soft $Q$-value estimates, and short-horizon stochastic value gradients using a learned deterministic world model. As the reviewer points out, our work uses analytic policy gradients from differentiable simulation instead of backpropagating through a learned world model. We also discuss the challenges of world modeling approaches for deformable tasks in Section 1: Introduction, to motivate why we use a FO-MBRL approach in our work, instead of learning to predict dynamics.\\n\\nFor [[Svidchenko and Shpilman, 2021](https://arxiv.org/abs/2112.01195)], based on our understanding, they combine state entropy-based exploration [[Hazan et al., 2019](https://arxiv.org/abs/1812.02690)] with Dreamer [[Hafner et al., 2020](https://arxiv.org/abs/1912.01603)], which explicitly learns a world model, and only evaluate on rigid-body locomotion tasks. By contrast, SAPO considers policy entropy regularization and learns locomotion & manipulation tasks involving rigid & soft body interaction.\\n\\nWhereas [[Ma et al., 2022](https://ieeexplore.ieee.org/document/9892381)] incorporate policy entropy regularization and soft $Q$-values into Dreamer (compared to SAC-SVG which does the same for SAC), they also only evaluate on rigid-body continuous control tasks. From [Algorithm 1 & Section IV of Ma et al., 2022], it is unclear to us whether they apply automatic temperature tuning like in SAC, SAC-SVG, or SAPO (ours). Furthermore, we introduce several design choices in Section 4.2, such as eliminating target networks, to further improve stable training of SAPO (also see **new subsection** Appendix F.4 for further ablations). In comparison, [Ma et al., 2022] require target networks for both the critic and actor to train their world model. \\n\\nIn summary, SAPO is a novel FO-MBRL algorithm which does maximum entropy RL by analytic policy optimization using gradients from differentiable simulation. As the reviewer points out, one promising area to consider for future directions is whether differentiable simulation can inform learned world models, and we have added this to Section 7.\\n\\n> [W2] It is not directly intuitive as to why the review of Zeroth Order Batched Gradient is necessary in the main manuscript in Section 3 Equation 4. It is my understanding that the paper builds on top of first order model based RL methods instead. If this section is indeed required please elaborate on it's importance.\\n\\nWe provide a review of the ZOBG (Equation 4) in Section 3: Background, in order to frame the introduction of the FOBG (Equation 5) used in FO-MBRL which immediately follows it. It is common to use the ZOBG to estimate policy gradients within vanilla RL. The reviewer is correct that SAPO is a FO-MBRL algorithm which uses the FOBG to compute the analytic policy gradient. We believe the discussion of the ZOBG (including how policy gradient algorithms attempt to reduce its variance) is useful to better understand the FOBG through differentiable simulation, as it is not a common paradigm in RL currently. \\n\\n- - -\\n\\n**Overall**, we believe these changes and clarifications should resolve the reviewer\\u2019s concerns, and hope that the reviewer will increase their score accordingly. We are happy to discuss additional questions regarding our work.\"}", "{\"summary\": \"This manuscript introduces Soft Analytic Policy Optimization (SAPO), a learning framework for sequential policy optimization that combines reinforcement learning, particularly maximum entropy reinforcement learning, and differentiable simulation. The authors differentiate the soft state value function estimator and make a set of hyper-parameter and architecture modifications for a better and more stable algorithm with practical implementation. To demonstrate the effectiveness of their method, the authors implement six different simulated environments with highly heterogeneous physics, including elastic bodies, articulated bodies, and fluids. These environments are used for both locomotion and manipulation tasks with a highly efficient GPU-based implementation using Warp.\", \"soundness\": \"2\", \"presentation\": \"2\", \"contribution\": \"3\", \"strengths\": \"1. The paper is well-written. I did not find any mathematical mistakes or factual errors.\\n2. The approach of differentiating the maximum entropy reinforcement learning is valid and I personally found it interesting.\\n3. The results look promising with good visualizations.\\n4. The release of nicely implemented simulation environments can be useful for the robotics community.\", \"weaknesses\": \"1. The implementation details of the simulated environments are missing. How is the robotic ant simulated and actuated? What are the Young's modulus and Poisson's ratio of the elastic body? And fluid? What about the reward function for each environment?\\n2. I found the visual encoder part to be extremely confusing. Why a PointNet is used for visual encoder? Does the word \\\"visual\\\" mean point cloud instead of images here? Since the title of appendix A.1 is \\\"Learning Visual Encoders in Differentiable Simulation\\\", I would assume the visual encoder is learned from scratch. Why not use a pre-trained model?\", \"minor_typo\": \"\", \"line_50\": \"scaling -> scale\", \"questions\": \"1. The authors declare that the design choices have larger impact to SAPO than to SHAC: what is the reason behind it? Could the authors provide some insights?\\n2. I am confused by the TrajOpt baseline. I would guess that the environments are randomly initialized, which makes the trajectory optimization statistically impossible to work since it only replays the mean of learned actions. However, I found it better than some of the baselines. I might need more explanation here.\\n3. APG baseline also looks weird to me. Typically my experience with APG gives me impression that it instantly improves in a very short time and plateaus. However, the figures show it constantly improves. Is there a reason behind it? Or my impression is wrong?\", \"flag_for_ethics_review\": \"['No ethics review needed.']\", \"rating\": \"6\", \"confidence\": \"4\", \"code_of_conduct\": \"Yes\"}", "{\"title\": \"Overview Response for Discussion Phase\", \"comment\": [\"We thank the reviewers for their time and feedback on our work. We are encouraged to see that all reviewers acknowledge both our contribution on parallel differentiable simulation (Rewarped) and our contribution on first-order model-based RL (SAPO), as strengths of our work.\", \"We briefly summarize the changes we\\u2019ve made since the initial submission for the discussion period, taking into consideration all the reviewers\\u2019 feedback.\", \"- -\", \"New section (Appendix A) that extends the related work section, to additionally cover model-based RL and to include prior work on *non-parallel* differentiable simulation that did not fit in the main body of the paper. **[cLkG, W9i4]**\", \"New section (Appendix D) that reviews the underlying physics-based simulation techniques used in Rewarped. **[WBQk, cLkG]**\", \"New section (Appendix E) with details on Rewarped tasks, including observation space, action space, reward definitions, physics settings, etc. **[WBQk, cLkG]**\", \"New subsection (Appendix F.5) with results on the runtime performance and scalability of Rewarped. **[W9i4, wHaW]**\", \"Expanded ablation studies (Appendix F.4) with new results for individual ablations on design choices {III, IV, V}. **[wHaW]**\", \"Updated experimental results for Rewarped tasks with 10 random seeds. (We observe the same trends as with the results in the initial submission with 6 random seeds, so our analysis is the same.)\", \"- -\", \"We also respond to the reviewers individually to address their feedback. We believe these changes should resolve all of the reviewers\\u2019 notes, and hope the reviewers will consider raising their scores accordingly.\"]}", "{\"comment\": \"Dear Reviewer wHaW,\\n\\nWe thank you again for your time and valuable feedback to help us improve our paper. After today we can no longer upload paper revisions for discussion, so we kindly ask if our responses have addressed your concerns. We look forward to hearing back from you and are happy to answer any further questions.\"}", "{\"comment\": \"Dear authors, thanks for the clarifications with the detailed explanation. I'll be updating the score to make it an accept with a score of 8 :)\"}", "{\"summary\": \"This work proposes a first-order model-based reinforcement learning (FO-MBRL) method that combines differentiable simulation and entropy maximization. It also provides a new parallel differentiable simulator that supports various physical systems. The paper demonstrates the efficacy of its proposed FO-MBRL on typical test environments implemented in the new differentiable simulator and reports its performance gain over several representative baselines from reinforcement learning and differentiable simulation.\", \"soundness\": \"3\", \"presentation\": \"4\", \"contribution\": \"3\", \"strengths\": [\"The paper is well-organized and nicely written. In particular, I like the way the paper organizes the background section and the preamble in the experiment section;\", \"The discussion on the design decisions (Sec. 4.2) is informative for practitioners. The paper is upfront with these specific choices in the framework, which I really appreciate;\", \"The quality of the simulation environments seems respectable, and the rendering is well-polished (Fig. 1). I am inclined to believe this differentiable simulator has the potential to be a major player in the future, but I\\u2019d like to check a few more details (See weaknesses).\", \"The experimental results and the ablation study look convincing to me.\"], \"weaknesses\": [\"One contribution claimed by this work is the new differentiable simulator that simultaneously accommodates GPU parallelization, multiphysics, and differentiability.\", \"I didn\\u2019t find detailed specifications of the environments, or maybe I missed them. The claim of this simulator is quite ambitious, and verifying this claim requires scrutinizing many technical details. In particular, I am looking for at least the following information: 1) the simulation problem size, including grid and particle numbers in MPM and the time step sizes; 2) the treatment of multiphysics coupling and their gradients, e.g., rigid-soft contact and solid-fluid coupling as shown in Fig. 1.\", \"Table 1 and the related work should also discuss DiffTaichi, which I believe supports GPU parallelization, deformable solids and fluids, and gradient computation.\", \"While I highly appreciate the engineering effort behind Rewarped, I don\\u2019t see much technical/algorithmic novelty in Sec. 5: the core simulation algorithms behind rigid/soft/fluids are from existing (differentiable-)MPM papers and GPU parallelization is offered by Warp. Grinding existing differentiable simulators in Table 1 and the related work section is a bit unnecessary :)\"], \"questions\": [\"I am generally happy with this work, and my major concern has been listed in the weakness section. Several very minor questions:\", \"I am under the impression that there should have been a log function in Eqn. 4 (somewhat similar to Eqn. 2 in Georgiev 24). Could you confirm your Eqn. 4 is correct?\", \"Eqn 12: where is (sl, al) in the inner expectation sampled from? Does this notation miss a probability distribution?\", \"How is your simulation gradient backprogagated through the stochastic policy tanh (line 332) exactly?\"], \"flag_for_ethics_review\": \"['No ethics review needed.']\", \"rating\": \"8\", \"confidence\": \"4\", \"code_of_conduct\": \"Yes\"}", "{\"comment\": \"Dear Reviewer WBQk,\\n\\nThank you for considering our responses, and we are happy to hear those concerns have been resolved. Per the reproducibility statement in the paper, we remain committed to releasing all code after publication for the benefit of the community. We are encouraged to hear that the reviewer believes this work will be valuable to the differentiable simulation and learning communities.\\n\\n**Overall**, if you have any remaining questions or concerns that stand between us and a higher score, we are happy to answer further questions given the extended discussion period.\\n\\n---\\n\\n**Edit**: As [W1, Q2, Q3] were resolved according to the reviewer's last reply, if there are still lingering concerns on the remaining two points: [see below].\"}", "{\"title\": \"Authors' Response for Reviewer WBQk [2/2]\", \"comment\": \"\\u2026\\n\\n> [Q1] The authors declare that the design choices have larger impact to SAPO than to SHAC: what is the reason behind it? Could the authors provide some insights?\\n\\nTo clarify for ablation (c) in Section 6.2, which corresponds to applying design choices {III, IV, V} onto SHAC, we observe that performance improves. We find that these changes result in a 69.7% improvement over SHAC on the HandFlip task (although these changes only yield a 0.5% improvement over SHAC on the DFlex locomotion tasks, see Appendix F.3).\\n\\nAfter incorporating policy entropy regularization and soft values on top of these design choices, our full algorithm SAPO achieves 172.7% improvement over SHAC on the HandFlip task. To better understand the effects of design choices {III, IV, V}, we also added a new set of experimental results to provide individual ablations for design choices {III, IV, V}, see Appendix F.4. \\n\\n(Note: We updated experimental results in Section 6.1 and Section 6.2 from 6 seeds to 10 seeds, so exact values are different than the original submission. Still, we observe the same trends and improvements with SAPO.)\\n\\n> [Q2] I am confused by the TrajOpt baseline. I would guess that the environments are randomly initialized, which makes the trajectory optimization statistically impossible to work since it only replays the mean of learned actions. However, I found it better than some of the baselines. I might need more explanation here.\\n\\nOur aim for TrajOpt is to provide a simple baseline to illustrate task difficulty, that is stronger than a baseline that just takes random actions. Table 2 shows that TrajOpt outperforms model-free RL baselines on soft body tasks, while model-free RL baselines outperform TrajOpt on rigid-body tasks. This indicates that on soft-body tasks with sufficient randomization over initial state distribution $\\\\rho_0$ and a budget of 4M/6M environment steps, model-free RL is no better than taking some mean trajectory over $\\\\rho_0$ or even a random action baseline. \\n\\n> [Q3] APG baseline also looks weird to me. Typically my experience with APG gives me impression that it instantly improves in a very short time and plateaus. However, the figures show it constantly improves. Is there a reason behind it? Or my impression is wrong?\\n\\nIn contrast to prior work [[SoftGym](https://arxiv.org/abs/2011.07215), [PlasticineLab](https://arxiv.org/abs/2104.03311), [DexDeform](https://arxiv.org/abs/2304.03223)] on soft-body manipulation with either (a) no randomization of the initial state or (b) $\\\\rho_0$ is a discrete distribution with finite support (ie. there is some finite set of initial state configurations used across all random seeds), instead (c) $\\\\rho_0$ is a *continuous* distribution in all our tasks. This means that performance can continue to improve over training, as new initial states can be sampled which the agent has not seen yet.\\n\\nFurthermore, based on our experience, what the reviewer describes may occur when using a longer horizon with APG. In this paper, for APG we do *not* use $H=T$, where $H$ is the rollout horizon and $T$ is the full episode length. Using $H=T$ (this may also be referred to as BPTT) induces a highly nonconvex optimization landscape that can cause methods to get stuck in local optima [[Xu et al., 2022](https://arxiv.org/abs/2204.07137)]. Instead, we use the same rollout horizon $H=32$ across all baselines for fair comparison. Combining APG with the short-horizon idea (from SHAC and, more broadly, truncated BPTT) has also been shown to work better on tasks in Brax as well (see [here](https://github.com/google/brax/pull/476)). \\n\\nHowever, we have found that SHAC can still get stuck in local optima, see Appendix F.1. In this paper, we propose to mitigate these issues with maximum entropy RL and thus formulate SAPO.\\n\\n- - -\\n\\n**Overall**, we believe the changes should resolve all of the reviewer\\u2019s concerns, and hope the reviewer will increase their scores accordingly. If there are additional questions, we would be happy to discuss them further, please let us know!\"}", "{\"title\": \"Authors' Response for Reviewer WBQk [1/2]\", \"comment\": \"We thank the reviewer for their time and positive comments on SAPO, Rewarped, and the overall presentation of our work. Based on the reviewer\\u2019s feedback, we have made changes to the paper to address each of the reviewer\\u2019s points below.\\n\\n- - -\\n\\n> [W1] The implementation details of the simulated environments are missing. How is the robotic ant simulated and actuated? What are the Young's modulus and Poisson's ratio of the elastic body? And fluid? What about the reward function for each environment?\\n\\nWe added **two new sections** to the appendix, which should answer the reviewer\\u2019s questions. Appendix D describes the physics-based simulation techniques used in Rewarped. Appendix E describes the implementation details for every task, e.g. relevant physics hyperparameters (like Young\\u2019s modulus, Poisson\\u2019s ratio), observation/action/reward definitions.\\n\\n> [W2a] I found the visual encoder part to be extremely confusing. Why a PointNet is used for visual encoder? Does the word \\\"visual\\\" mean point cloud instead of images here?\\n\\nIn the paper, we use \\u201cvisual encoder\\u201d to refer to a network that processes some kind of visual information (e.g., point clouds, RGB/D images, LiDAR). Whereas \\u201cimage encoder\\u201d or \\u201cpoint cloud encoder\\u201d may refer to networks which directly take images or point clouds, respectively, as inputs. As described in Appendix B.1, we subsample the particle state from simulation to use as observations. Since these observations are represented as point clouds, we use a PointNet-style network for the visual encoder. \\n\\nIn this work, we consider SAPO with point cloud encoders only. We think SAPO should also work with image encoders, similar to other methods in model-free visual RL [[Ling et al., 2023](https://arxiv.org/abs/2306.06799)]. In that setting, using SAPO with image encoders may require a differentiable renderer in order to apply end-to-end gradient-based optimization, although differentiating through the renderer may not be necessary [[Zhang et al., 2024](https://arxiv.org/abs/2407.10648), [Luo et al., 2024](https://arxiv.org/abs/2410.03076)]. We leave this for future work, as discussed in Section 7. \\n\\n> [W2b] Since the title of appendix A.1 is \\\"Learning Visual Encoders in Differentiable Simulation\\\", I would assume the visual encoder is learned from scratch. Why not use a pre-trained model?\\n\\nIndeed, the visual encoder is initialized with random weights and learned from scratch. In this paper, we aim to implement the simplest version of SAPO that can solve rigid & soft body tasks. The baselines also use visual encoders with randomly initialized weights, for fair comparison. We agree with the reviewer that initializing the visual encoder with pretrained weights is a promising direction, which we leave for future work to consider.\\n\\n\\u2026 (continue in response 2/2)\"}", "{\"summary\": \"This paper introduces Rewarped, a differentiable multiphysics simulator, and SAPO (Soft Analytic Policy Optimization), a maximum entropy RL method designed to leverage differentiable simulation for efficient policy learning. SAPO uses Rewarped\\u2019s capabilities to compute on-policy, first-order policy gradients, maximizing a maximum entropy RL objective. Built on NVIDIA's Warp, Rewarped includes a parallelized Material Point Method (MPM)-based soft body simulator with two-way coupling, providing an advanced simulation environment that supports a variety of rigid and soft body manipulation tasks. Benchmark results show that SAPO outperforms current state-of-the-art methods across challenging locomotion and manipulation environments.\", \"soundness\": \"3\", \"presentation\": \"3\", \"contribution\": \"3\", \"strengths\": \"1. The paper is well-written and the ideas are presented clearly, making it accessible and easy to follow.\\n2. The parallelized soft body simulator in Rewarped is a notable advancement. Integrating soft body manipulation environments within a unified Warp-based framework provides an excellent foundation for further research on differentiable physics and soft body RL.\\n3. SAPO's combination of on-policy soft policy learning with an off-policy critic is an effective method for differentiable physics-based RL. This design mitigates the complexity of offline policy gradient evaluation while still benefiting from the simulator\\u2019s analytical gradients.\\n4. SAPO demonstrates strong performance on complex soft body manipulation tasks, such as dexterous hand manipulation, consistently outperforming baseline methods.\\n5. The authors\\u2019 commitment to releasing the dataset and simulation code enhances the reproducibility and accessibility of their work.\", \"weaknesses\": \"1. While combining maximum entropy with differentiable physics is a promising approach, it may appear incremental, as similar techniques have been explored in prior RL literature.\\n2. If I understand correctly, only one-way coupling is considered in MPM simulator. It would be nice if two way coupling could be added to allow impact back on the rigid body as in Maniskill2.\\n3. The paper lacks a discussion of the efficiency gains from the parallelized MPM implementation. Including an analysis of wall-time efficiency or runtime comparisons would provide valuable insight\", \"questions\": \"1. A comprehensive ablation study would provide valuable insights into the effectiveness of different design choices. For instance, comparing the performance of SAPO with different activation functions (e.g., ELU vs. SiLU).\\n2. I am curious about the improvements brought by the paralleled MPM. how much acceleration can be achieved with the paralleled MPM, compared with the version in DexDeform? How much GPU memory is required?\", \"flag_for_ethics_review\": \"['No ethics review needed.']\", \"rating\": \"8\", \"confidence\": \"4\", \"code_of_conduct\": \"Yes\"}", "{\"title\": \"Paper Decision\", \"decision\": \"Accept (Spotlight)\"}", "{\"title\": \"Thank you for the new result\", \"comment\": \"I appreciate the new results, and I am now more confident with this work. I will update my confidence score (3 -> 4) to show my support for your work.\"}", "{\"comment\": \"I appreciate the time and effort that went into the rebuttal. The authors\\u2019 responses resolved my concern about TrajOpt and APG. The implementation details of the environments are also helpful to the community. I will raise my score to 6 to reflect this. I believe this work is valuable to the differentiable simulation and learning audiences and would appreciate if the authors could open-source the work after the acceptance.\"}", "{\"comment\": \"Dear Reviewer WBQk,\\n\\nWe are thankful for your time and valuable feedback to help us improve our paper. We are encouraged by your comments that our paper is \\\"well-written\\\" with \\\"good visualizations\\\", our approach is \\\"valid\\\" and \\\"interesting\\\", and that our work is \\\"valuable to the differentiable simulation and learning audiences\\\".\\n\\nGiven the remaining discussion period and the reviewer's latest reply, we would greatly appreciate if the reviewer could please clarify any remaining concerns they have that stand between us and a higher score. If anything was missed, we aim to resolve them and further improve our work.\\n\\n---\\n\\n> ... \\\"would appreciate if the authors could open-source the work after the acceptance.\\\"\\n\\nAs stated in the reproducibility statement in the paper, we remain committed to releasing of all code, including algorithms and simulation tasks, upon publication. \\n\\n> [W2]\\n\\nWe edited the phrasing in Appendix B.1 regarding visual encoders. We also added a **new Figure 4** in the appendix (on page 17), which illustrates the computational graph of SAPO (including the encoders). If the reviewer believes their concerns with [W2] were not resolved, we are happy to take suggestions to further improve clarity.\\n\\n> [Q1]\\n\\nTo reiterate, in Section 6.2 we\\u00a0*do not declare*\\u00a0that the design choices have larger impact to SAPO than to SHAC. With ablation (c), we observe that SHAC also benefits from design choices {III, IV, V}. In Appendix F.4, we provide additional ablations to show that each design choice benefits SAPO. From Table III, we find that SAPO outperforms SHAC. This is because SAPO benefits from its maximum entropy RL formulation using policy entropy regularization and soft values, in contrast to SHAC. Section 4.2 provides insight for why we use design choices {III, IV, V}. Design choices {I, II} are specific to maximum entropy RL, and thus do not apply to SHAC.\\n\\n---\\n\\n**Overall**, we believe this should further resolve any of the reviewer's remaining concerns, and hope the reviewer will increase their scores accordingly. We are happy to discuss additional questions given the extended discussion period.\"}", "{\"comment\": \"Dear Reviewer WBQk,\\n\\nThank you again for your time and valuable feedback to help us improve our paper. After today we can no longer upload paper revisions for discussion, so we kindly ask if our rebuttal has addressed your concerns. Thus far, two out of four reviewers have engaged with us and updated their scores during the discussion period.\\n\\nWe look forward to hearing back from you and are happy to answer any further questions.\"}" ] }

[ "Bingqing Liu", "Wei Liu", "Jun Wang", "Ruixuan Li" ]

[ "temporal point process", "interpretability", "event sequence modeling" ]

{ "note_id": [ "zjJjFt6sVb", "zGtbmMrrhI", "ySmmEJI0XS", "wzKCuFw41H", "vRZdsCSsHC", "trZ35NzFyW", "rhve3LCSBM", "qvX4Iv6Jy4", "kwr4vVUSmA", "fEgujBsiFn", "R9rinLRvnL", "KHuTPOBJay", "JyZgyAeqrc", "FAxv6Wi9Wr", "BkqreP8sqn", "Ajx1xbdGRh", "7fWAFjGbfU", "75IreHAtXR", "53QVF6sM4G", "2F1yJ893KQ" ], "note_type": [ "meta_review", "official_comment", "official_review", "official_review", "official_comment", "official_comment", "official_review", "official_comment", "official_review", "official_comment", "official_comment", "official_comment", "decision", "official_comment", "official_comment", "official_comment", "official_comment", "official_comment", "official_comment", "official_comment" ], "note_created": [ 1734922648099, 1732181579157, 1730714868824, 1730691468843, 1732699140118, 1732681348493, 1730750200240, 1732766374458, 1730421229068, 1732179596891, 1732730406781, 1732585910870, 1737524226454, 1732187357103, 1732181296184, 1732180548914, 1732695931406, 1732564605766, 1732655001446, 1732188509947 ], "note_signatures": [ [ "ICLR.cc/2025/Conference/Submission12957/Area_Chair_HAk6" ], [ "ICLR.cc/2025/Conference/Submission12957/Authors" ], [ "ICLR.cc/2025/Conference/Submission12957/Reviewer_2wWq" ], [ "ICLR.cc/2025/Conference/Submission12957/Reviewer_CSLN" ], [ "ICLR.cc/2025/Conference/Submission12957/Authors" ], [ "ICLR.cc/2025/Conference/Submission12957/Authors" ], [ "ICLR.cc/2025/Conference/Submission12957/Reviewer_Aaqp" ], [ "ICLR.cc/2025/Conference/Submission12957/Authors" ], [ "ICLR.cc/2025/Conference/Submission12957/Reviewer_iKTe" ], [ "ICLR.cc/2025/Conference/Submission12957/Authors" ], [ "ICLR.cc/2025/Conference/Submission12957/Reviewer_Aaqp" ], [ "ICLR.cc/2025/Conference/Submission12957/Authors" ], [ "ICLR.cc/2025/Conference/Program_Chairs" ], [ "ICLR.cc/2025/Conference/Submission12957/Authors" ], [ "ICLR.cc/2025/Conference/Submission12957/Authors" ], [ "ICLR.cc/2025/Conference/Submission12957/Authors" ], [ "ICLR.cc/2025/Conference/Submission12957/Reviewer_CSLN" ], [ "ICLR.cc/2025/Conference/Submission12957/Reviewer_2wWq" ], [ "ICLR.cc/2025/Conference/Submission12957/Reviewer_iKTe" ], [ "ICLR.cc/2025/Conference/Submission12957/Authors" ] ], "structured_content_str": [ "{\"metareview\": \"This paper proposes a decoupled learning framework for neural marked temporal point processes (MTPPs) to address frequency bias in event type modeling. The authors claim their approach mitigates underrepresentation of rare event types, enables asynchronous parallel training, and improves interpretability. The framework independently models each event type using a separate Embedding-Encoder-History vector-Decoder (EEHD) architecture. The authors report improved performance on several datasets compared to standard MTPP models, along with significant training speedups.\\n\\nThe paper addresses the important issue of frequency bias in MTPP modeling and demonstrates faster training through asynchronous parallelization. The authors attempt to improve interpretability via event-specific embeddings and show some performance improvements on multiple datasets.\\n\\nHowever, the paper suffers from limited technical novelty, as the approach primarily decouples existing architectures. The benefits of complete decoupling versus parameter sharing are questionable, and the increased complexity in hyperparameter tuning and model selection is a concern. Moreover, the improvements for rare event types are inconsistent across datasets, undermining a key claim of the paper.\\n\\nThe most important reasons for rejecting this paper are its limited technical novelty and contribution to the field, inconsistent improvements for rare event types, and lack of convincing evidence that the proposed approach significantly outperforms existing methods across a wide range of scenarios.\", \"additional_comments_on_reviewer_discussion\": \"During the rebuttal period, reviewers expressed concerns about the limited novelty of the decoupling approach, questionable benefits for rare event types, increased complexity in hyperparameter tuning, and the theoretical equivalence to standard models conflicting with empirical improvements. The lack of comprehensive comparisons with other methods was also noted.\\n\\nThe authors responded by arguing that decoupling allows for tailored modeling of each event type's dynamics and provided additional results showing improvements for some rare event types. They demonstrated results with both equal and tailored hyperparameters across event types and explained that practical improvements arise from training dynamics despite theoretical equivalence. The authors also included comparisons with additional baseline methods.\\n\\nDespite these efforts, the reviewers maintained their scores, indicating that the paper remains marginally below the acceptance threshold. The Area Chair's comment suggests that the concerns raised by the reviewers have not been adequately addressed, and the paper is likely to be rejected.\"}", "{\"comment\": \"Q9: There is no additional operation to compute the influence matrix, instead, it is simply the local embedding itself. We have provided a detailed introduction to Figure 3 in our reply to reviewer Aaqp (\\\"Q1\\\"). If we still miss some details, don't hesitate to let us know.\", \"q10\": \"The total parameter counts of our model is the number of event types multiplies the parameter counts of one single EEHD model. For example, Dec-IFL has 22 $\\\\times$ 1K= 22K parameters over dataset SOflow and Dec-THP has 22 $\\\\times$ 6K = 0.132M parameters. What if traditional models use as many parameters as that used in our individual EEHD model and vice versa? Table A4 and A5 answers this. Please note that each individual EEHD model in our framework can have smaller parameter scales because of decoupled dynamics for each event type. For the EEHD model of event type $k$, it only needs to encode the historical events that have influences on $k$ and ignore others. (For historical events, some of them have influences on event type $i$, some of them have influences on event type $j$, some of them have influences on event type $k$, and so forth.)\\n\\nQ4&Q8&Q11: Thank you for your suggestion, we will do that for readers' convenience. We are not very understanding Q8, can you kindly provide more details?\"}", "{\"summary\": \"The paper proposes a decoupled learning framework for neural marked temporal point process, where separate EEHD architecture is used for each event type, including learning multiple event embeddings corresponding to modeling different event types. The proposed approach is reported to have improvements in terms of performance, training time and interpretability.\", \"soundness\": \"2\", \"presentation\": \"3\", \"contribution\": \"2\", \"strengths\": \"1. The paper proposes to address the problem of applying the standard neural marked temporal point process to real-world data sets where event types are unbalanced. This seems to be an important and novel problem to address.\\n2. The paper is well written and easy to follow, though some modification in presentation would improve the readability. The experimental results are neatly presented. The Figures clearly demonstrate the proposed approach and the ingenuity of the result presentation (for instance ICLR in Figure 3) is appreciable.\", \"weaknesses\": \"1. The fundamental idea of decoupling and learning independently across the event types itself seems to be a major weakness.\\n2. The approach results in linear growth in number of EEHD architecture parameters with respect to event types. This may not be scalable. \\n3. The approach itself can be a drawback in addressing the performance issue in event types with limited data. Due to decoupling, as separate model parameters are used for each event type, the proposed approach may not be able to learn well from an event type with limited data. The standard neural marked point process architecture may not suffer much from this as it shares parameters across event types, consequently allowing knowledge across the event types. \\n4. The approach might be useful for a specific application or data set, but proposing it as a general approach to solve an unbalanced data set case might be a bit far-fetched. \\n5. The experimental results do not convincingly demonstrate the improved performance of the proposed approach, and perform poorly in some data sets and cases. \\n6. Not having ablation studies with some variants of the proposed model (event specific embedding but common encoder-decoder, common embedding but event specific encoder-decoder etc. ) makes it difficult to understand what aspect of the decoupling helped in improving the performance. \\n7. Experimental results does not follow a consistent pattern. The results with baslines are better at mimic 2, and in several places in Table 3, the proposed method didnt bring any improvements on event types with small number of events. The same is teh case with Figure 3 comparing learnt influence matrix with ground truth. There are mismatches in expected outcomes at several places.\", \"questions\": \"1. Discuss applications where the event types are unablanced, and provide motivation from the application perspective\\n2. Any reference to support the statement that standard EEHD methods fail in the data with unbalanced event type\\n3. How is the performance when variants of the proposed model are used, event specific embedding but common encoder-decoder, common embedding but event specific encoder-decoder, common embedding and encoder but event specific decoder etc.\\n4. Kindly provide sampling procedure as an algorithm, to make it more comprehensible. \\n5. In the discussion section, connection between standard Hawkes process and the proposed approach is established. But note that, standard Hawkess process has global shared components while the proposed architecture has no shared components. Sharing of components helps in knowledge transfer and leads to an improved performance. \\n6. Kindly provide more details on data set creation, is the 60/20/20 split followed per event or across all events, and how exactly each split is obtained from the event sequence. \\n7. Why is small sequence length of MIMIC 2 a problem specifically for the proposed method ? \\n8. For experimental comparison, a baseline considering only events of the same type can be considered to see if the proposed method is able to capture the inter-event influences and improve the predictions. \\n9. Kindly provide an explanation (or equation) detailing computation of values in the learnt influence matrix.\\n10. Kindly report in Table 4, the total parameter counts of DEC-IFL and DEC-THP across all the event types. \\n11. On paper presentation, I think it would be better to provide a separate background section discussing previous works and then discuss the proposed methodology.\", \"flag_for_ethics_review\": \"['No ethics review needed.']\", \"rating\": \"3\", \"confidence\": \"4\", \"code_of_conduct\": \"Yes\"}", "{\"summary\": \"This paper proposed a novel decoupled learning framework for neural marked temporal point processes that effectively mitigates the issue of frequency bias. Each of the types has a vector representation in each latent space. These are used to model the influence of one event type on the same or another event type. Each event type has its own encoder and decoder. By modeling each event type separately within a complete EEHD architecture, this approprach also enables asynchronous parallel training, improving the training speed, but also allows the embeddings to capture the intricate dependencies between event types.\", \"soundness\": \"2\", \"presentation\": \"3\", \"contribution\": \"2\", \"strengths\": \"(1) The proposed framework disentangles traditional monolithic modeling with event-type-specific individual modeling, which mitigates the issue of frequency bias while also providing more interpretability than neural TPPs.\\n\\n(2) The experiment results demonstrate a significant enhancement in training speed and better interpretability on both real-world and synthetic datasets.\\n\\n(3) The authors show that the proposed framework is general enough by proving that the proposed decoupled learning framework is theoretically equivalent to the standard learning framework.\", \"weaknesses\": \"(1) In the proof of the equivalence of the proposed decoupled learning framework and the standard learning framework, the statement could be more clear: when proving the proposed framework is no weaker in expressive power than the standard learning framework, verify \\\"let NNk in Equation 6 equal to that in Equation 5\\\" more specifically; when proving the standard learning framework is no weaker in expressive power than the proposed framework, verify \\\"let NNk in Equation 5 equal to that in Equation 6\\\" more specifically.\\n\\n(2) Based on the Theorem 2 of the paper, the expressive power of the proposed framework is equivalent to the standard learning framework, then it would be equally useful when using these two frameworks with enough parameters and appropriate training in principle. The authors should have a clearer discussion about which model is more advantageous to use in which specific situations. One of the motivations of the proposed framework is to mitigate the issue of frequency bias, it would be better to also compare the performance of this issue within these two frameworks under different settings.\\n\\n(3) When adopting the decoupled learning framework, the required effort for hyperparameter selection is nearly k-fold as for the standard learning framework, especially for highly unbalanced type case and personalized EEHD architecture tailored to each type. Though the hyperparameter can be set equally, the effects of this issue on the model performance should be discussed carefully and also verified by experiments.\", \"questions\": \"See the Weaknesses.\", \"flag_for_ethics_review\": \"['No ethics review needed.']\", \"details_of_ethics_concerns\": \"No\", \"rating\": \"5\", \"confidence\": \"4\", \"code_of_conduct\": \"Yes\"}", "{\"comment\": \"Thank you for your reply, we hope our further clarification on the novelty and performance can help sort out your concerns.\\n\\n(Regarding the novelty) As you have recognized, we proposed a decoupled framework, which decouples the learning of standard EEHD models by decoupling the embedding-encoder-history vector-decoder. We think our work is novel for two reasons. First, we observe that the training loss is dominated by the common event types while the loss from other event types may not have been converged (Figure 4). (So we use asynchronous (decoupled) training (learning) for each event type.) Second and interestingly, the embedding in the EEHD model of event type $k$ can reflect the influences of other event types on event type $k$. We illustrate this in Figure 3, Figure A6 and Figure A7. This is very like \\u201cinfluence2vec\\u201d, which we believe will have profound impacts on data mining and knowledge discovery. \\n\\n(Regarding the performance) We show in Theorem 2 that the expressive power of the decoupled model is equivalent to that of the standard model. But in practice, we show that the training loss is dominated by the common event types while the loss from other event types may not have been converged (Figure 4). In Table 3, Dec-IFL outperforms IFL for 10 event types on dataset SOflow, whereas IFL surpasses Dec-IFL for only 4 event types; Dec-THP outperforms THP for 12 event types on dataset SOflow, whereas THP surpasses Dec-THP for only 5 event types. As we can see, our method can \\u201cinvoke\\u201d more event types than the standard model, the reviewer please kindly refer to Figure A1, Figure A2, Figure A3, and Figure A4 in the appendix for the comparison of type-specific prediction results on datasets MOOC (97 event types) and ICEWS (201 event types). One may doubt that why our decoupled model doesn\\u2019t outperform the standard model for every event type. This is because when predicting the next event, all intensity functions are racing to see which has the maximum intensity at a specific time. The event type that has the maximum intensity will be predicted. The standard model outputs large intensity functions for several event types that are easy for prediction (usually but not necessarily, these frequent event types). For these event types, our decoupled model may underperform because our model doesn\\u2019t have this bias. (We treat different event types equally (regardless of their frequency) with different EEHD models.) The imbalance problem for event types is very serious in real-world datasets (Figure A5); as far as we know, we are the first to make efforts on this issue.\"}", "{\"comment\": \"Thank you for your reply, we hope the further clarification can help.\\n\\n(Regarding the novelty) As you have recognized, we proposed a decoupled framework, which decouples the learning of standard EEHD models by decoupling the embedding-encoder-history vector-decoder. We think our work is novel for two reasons. First, we observe that the training loss is dominated by the common event types while the loss from other event types may not have been converged (Figure 4). (So we use asynchronous (decoupled) training (learning) for each event type.) Second and interestingly, the embedding in the EEHD model of event type $k$ can reflect the influences of other event types on event type $k$. We illustrate this in Figure 3, Figure A6 and Figure A7. This is very like \\u201cinfluence2vec\\u201d, which we believe will have profound impacts on data mining and knowledge discovery. \\n\\n(Regarding the performance) We show in Theorem 2 that the expressive power of the decoupled model is equivalent to that of the standard model. But in practice, we show that the training loss is dominated by the common event types while the loss from other event types may not have been converged (Figure 4). In Table 3, Dec-IFL outperforms IFL for 10 event types on dataset SOflow, whereas IFL surpasses Dec-IFL for only 4 event types; Dec-THP outperforms THP for 12 event types on dataset SOflow, whereas THP surpasses Dec-THP for only 5 event types. As we can see, our method can \\u201cinvoke\\u201d more event types than the standard model, the reviewer please kindly refer to Figure A1, Figure A2, Figure A3, and Figure A4 in the appendix for the comparison of type-specific prediction results on datasets MOOC (97 event types) and ICEWS (201 event types). One may doubt that why our decoupled model doesn\\u2019t outperform the standard model for every event type. This is because when predicting the next event, all intensity functions are racing to see which has the maximum intensity at a specific time. The event type that has the maximum intensity will be predicted. The standard model outputs large intensity functions for several event types that are easy for prediction (usually but not necessarily, these frequent event types). For these event types, our decoupled model may underperform because our model doesn\\u2019t have this bias. (We treat different event types equally (regardless of their frequency) with different EEHD models.) The imbalance problem for event types is very serious in real-world datasets (Figure A5); as far as we know, we are the first to make efforts on this issue.\"}", "{\"summary\": \"The authors propose to model event types in a marked point process individually to alleviate issues associated with (heavy) event sitribution imbalance. Specifically, each event is modeled via a embedding-encoder-history vector-decoder (EEHD), thus models for each event type can be learned in parallel. Experiments on real-world and synthetic datasets demonstrate that the proposed approach achieves state-of-the-art performance in prediction tasks while significantly increasing training speed by a factor of 12 relative to the monolitic EEHD architecture.\", \"soundness\": \"2\", \"presentation\": \"3\", \"contribution\": \"2\", \"strengths\": \"The proposed approach has two advantages: i) it is very simple by essentially treating the modeling of intensity functions completely separately; and ii) requiring model specification with less parameters thus making the training process faster.\", \"weaknesses\": \"The authors show in Theorem 2 that the proposed and standard learning frameworks are equivalent, which then implies that there is not a reason for the proposed model to perform better (in general) than the standard model. One may argue that the proposed model is easier to train, but the theorem basically guarantees that one can always find a parameterization of the standard model that matches that of the proposed model and vice versa.\", \"the_experiments_presented_by_the_authors_have_several_issues\": [\"The choice of the hyperparameters for the models compared in Table 2 is not clear, especially for IFL, Dec-IFL, THP and Dec-THP. For instance, embedding sizes are too different between the standard and the proposed approach, and though there are ablation results in Tables A3 and A4, they consider a very limited range for d. Also, there is no language about learning parameters and regularization strategies.\", \"The results in Table 4 also need additional explanation. For instance, the text reads that for the proposed approach training speed is \\\"the lowest for K decoupled models\\\", however, how were models trained, serially or in parallel, and how it is guaranteed that training speeds across models are comparable?\", \"The experiments in Table 2 (and presumably Table 3) are averages over 10 runs but their variation is not reported, which will be important to understand the significance of the performance differences.\", \"The authors emphasize that the proposed model is advantageous in situation where event incidence is imbalanced, however comparisons with approaches that address imbalance (some of which are mentioned in the related work) are not considered.\"], \"questions\": \"It will be useful to further explain Figure 3 because as is, the point the authors are trying to make is not very clear. Also, how do these compare with the standard model?\\n\\nHow is the NLL calculated in the experiments? Further, one wonders why NLLs do not seem to be consistent in Table 2, Figure 4 and Table A3?\", \"flag_for_ethics_review\": \"['No ethics review needed.']\", \"rating\": \"6\", \"confidence\": \"4\", \"code_of_conduct\": \"Yes\"}", "{\"comment\": \"Thank you for your reply! We hope our responses above have addressed your concerns and questions. If we have still missed something about Theorem 2 (\\u201cW\\u201d) and Figure 3 (\\u201cQ1\\u201d), don\\u2019t hesitate to let us know and we are looking forward to further discussion with you.\"}", "{\"summary\": \"The paper introduces a neural modeling approach that independently handles event-specific intensity functions by decoupling the training of event-specific encoder-decoder architectures. This method is designed for time series data, focusing on event times and types, and allows for parallel training. Experimental results on four real-world datasets demonstrate that applying this approach to two previously proposed neural marked temporal process models improves their performance. These models originally relied on a joint intensity function with shared encoder-decoder architectures. The proposed decoupling approach enhances the accuracy of event time and type predictions for these models, speeds up training, and reduces the number of parameters needed.\", \"soundness\": \"2\", \"presentation\": \"2\", \"contribution\": \"2\", \"strengths\": [\"The paper focuses on the important and impactful problem of modeling event time/type prediction given irregularly sampled time-series data.\", \"The paper is relatively well-written and easy to follow.\", \"The proposed decoupling approach seems easy to implement and yields performance improvements over two previously proposed neural marked temporal point process models in terms of event type/time prediction, training speed, and reduced model parameters.\"], \"weaknesses\": [\"The proposed approach seems quite limited in novelty, as it essentially boils down to decoupling the encoder-decoder of previously proposed neural marked temporal process modeling approaches.\", \"The paper's central claim that models focusing on joint-likelihood estimation of marked temporal point process data fail to account for rare event times compared to the proposed decoupled independent likelihood estimation does not seem substantiated, both in terms of theory and experimental results. Experimental results show general performance improvements (Table 2), but predictions for less frequent events do not seem to improve in general (Table 3). Furthermore, it is unclear if the proposed approach results in statistically significant improvements, as no error bars are provided and only two previously proposed methods are considered for decoupling.\", \"The proposed independent likelihood approach makes a strong conditional independence assumption, which could be violated in practice; that is, given the past event times and types and the parameters of each specific intensity function, the occurrence of an event is assumed to be independent of other events. This approach may fail to capture the complex dependencies and interactions between different event types that a joint likelihood model could naturally represent.\", \"The paper does not benchmark against approaches that explicitly model event-specific triggering kernels (unlike RNN or transformer-based approaches) within a joint likelihood, including [1, 2]. Without such comparisons, it is difficult to ascertain the significance of this work.\", \"**Minor**\", \"Table 1: Add definitions of the hyperparameters to the caption. What is $d_h$?\", \"Lines 281\\u2013292: Make $z$ bold symbol since these are vectors, for consistency.\", \"Lines 122\\u2013133: Define $m$.\", \"**References**\", \"[1] Yamac et al. (2023), \\\"Hawkes Process with Flexible Triggering Kernels\\\", MLHC.\", \"[2] Pan et al. (2021), \\\"Self-adaptable point processes with nonparametric time decays\\\", NeurIPS.\"], \"questions\": [\"Table 4: Could you clarify why decoupled encoder-decoder models result in fewer parameters compared to their counterparts? Could you provide the experimental results when the encoder-decoder parameters of the decoupled networks are equivalent to those of the shared networks?\", \"Figure 3: It's difficult to compare the provided matrices. Given that the data is generated from a known Hawkes process, could you provide plots for the predicted triggering kernels $\\\\phi_k(k_i, t_i)$ versus the ground truth for all the models?\", \"Table 2: Could you provide results of the decoupling approach applied to all the baselines instead of just to IFL and THP, along with the corresponding error bars?\", \"Could you benchmark against alternative flexible approaches for modeling triggering kernels, including [1, 2]?\", \"Theorem 2: I don't think the joint likelihood approach is equivalent to the independent likelihood unless the conditional independence assumption holds; i.e., given the past event times and types and the parameters of each specific intensity function, the occurrence of an event is independent of other events. Could you clarify the equivalence of the decoupled versus shared learning approaches? Also, if the theoretical equivalence holds, why do the empirical results indicate improved performance of the decoupling approach?\"], \"flag_for_ethics_review\": \"['No ethics review needed.']\", \"rating\": \"5\", \"confidence\": \"4\", \"code_of_conduct\": \"Yes\"}", "{\"comment\": \"We greatly appreciate the valuable feedback you have provided. We hope that our following response will adequately address your concerns and answer your questions.\", \"w\": \"As you said, the theorem basically guarantees that one can always find a parameterization of the standard model that matches that of the proposed model and vice versa. In the proof, we see that the proposed model only needs to copy the embedding, encoder and decoder to match the standard model, which is very easy to realize. Conversely, it requires the universal approximation theory for the standard model to produce the same outputs as that of our proposed model. In this process, the standard model should carefully encode and decode all historical events as any of them could be of significance for one specific event type. Practically, however, the training tends to favor those most common events as they dominate the loss. Moreover, by joint training, we see the component loss of the standard model usually cannot be converged, as shown in Figure 4. RNNs vs. Transformers present a similar case to us. Although theoretically, there exists an RNN that can achieve the same performance as a given Transformer (both of them are universal approximators for sequence), it is always hard for the RNN to find the desired parameters in practice.\", \"w1\": \"We utilize a very small embedding dimension as well as a history vector dimension because each individual model in our framework only needs to process one event type. Doing so, it accelerates the training speed (Table 4), which is one of the contributions of our study. Of course, if you prefer, you can set a very large embedding dimension, history vector dimension, encoder, and decoder. However, this may not improve the model's performance because the performance has already been saturated, as demonstrated in Tables A4 and A5 of the updated submission. In these two tables, we see the decoupled models work well with small dimensions and increasing $d$ does not provide significant gains. We use the Adam optimizer to update the model parameters, with the weight_decay set to 1e-5 and the learning rate set to 0.001.\", \"w2\": \"As mentioned in Section 2.4 of our paper, the $K$ decoupled models are trained in parallel. Specifically, we have 4 machines equipped with 8 GPUs (24GB) and 80 CPU cores. And for the four real-world and four synthetic datasets we used in our work, one machine is already enough as it occupies very little GPU memory for one single EEHD model (Table 4). For each EEHD model, we calculate the average training time per epoch, i.e., the time elapsed from the first epoch to the last epoch divided by the number of epochs. We report the slowest training time per epoch among the $K$ individual EEHD models as the training time (per epoch) of the entire model.\\n\\nW3&W4: We have provided the error bars in Table A3 of the updated version of our submission. In Line 466 of our paper, we stated that to our knowledge, we are the first to address the issue of frequency bias. If we have overlooked anything, we would greatly appreciate it if you could kindly inform us.\"}", "{\"comment\": \"Many thanks for the detailed response. Though the authors basically confirmed my points about Theorem 2 and Q1, the answers to W1, W3, W4 and Q2 are satisfactory, thus I am modifying my score accordingly.\"}", "{\"comment\": \"Thank you for your reply. We decouple the learning of the standard method mainly for two reasons. First, we observe that the training loss is dominated by the common event types while the loss from other event types may not have been converged (Figure 4). (So we use asynchronous (decoupled) training for each event type.) Second and interestingly, the embedding in the EEHD model of event type $k$ can reflect the influences of other event types on event type $k$. We illustrate this in Figure 3, Figure A6 and Figure A7. This is very like \\u201cinfluence2vec\\u201d, which we believe will have profound impacts on data mining and knowledge discovery. In Table 3, Dec-IFL outperforms IFL for 10 event types on dataset SOflow (22 event types), whereas IFL surpasses Dec-IFL for only 4 event types; Dec-THP outperforms THP for 12 event types on dataset SOflow, whereas THP surpasses Dec-THP for only 5 event types. As we can see, our method can \\u201cinvoke\\u201d more event types than the standard model, the reviewer please kindly refer to Figure A1, Figure A2, Figure A3, and Figure A4 in the appendix for the comparison of type-specific prediction results on datasets MOOC (97 event types) and ICEWS (201 event types). The imbalance problem is very serious in real-world datasets (Figure A5); as far as we know, we are the first to make efforts on this issue.\"}", "{\"title\": \"Paper Decision\", \"decision\": \"Reject\"}", "{\"comment\": \"Thank you for your valuable feedback, we are hopeful that our upcoming response will effectively tackle your concerns.\", \"q1\": \"Thank you for your suggestion. When proving the proposed framework is no weaker in expressive power than the standard learning framework, our idea is to construct a decoupled model that can produce the same output with the given standard model. That\\u2019s why we said \\u201clet $NN_k$ in Equation 6 equal to that in Equation 5\\u201d, where $NN_k$ in Equation 6 is the decoder of our framework and $NN_k$ in Equation 5 is the decoder of the standard framework. ($ NN_k$ is the decoder to decode the future dynamics of event type $k$.)\", \"q2\": \"For the first question in Q2, the reviewer please refer to our reply to reviewer Aaqp (\\u201cW\\u201d). For the second question about \\u201cwhich model is more advantageous to use in which specific situations\\u201d, we have additionally conducted ablation study to see if it is necessary to let the embedding, encoder and decoder be type-specific like we do in our framework. Table A6 of the updated submission givens positive answers in most datasets. In our framework, each event type is treated by a tailored EEHD model, which can therefore invoke more event types that may be under-represented in the standard model, as shown in Figure A1, A2, A3, and A4. For the third question, we here introduce two commonly used techniques we can think about to mitigate the issue of frequency bias of the standard framework.\\n\\nOne method is to normalize the loss. Specifically, we first count the frequency of each event type in the training data, denoted as $\\\\alpha_i$, where $i$ is a specific event type and $\\\\sum_{i=1}^{K} \\\\alpha_i=1$. Then we multiply their reciprocals with the training objective, i.e.,\\n$\\\\log \\\\mathcal{L}(\\\\mathrm{S})=\\\\sum_{l=1}^{L} \\\\log \\\\frac{1}{\\\\alpha_{k_l}} \\\\lambda_{k_l}(t_l) - \\\\int_{0}^{T} \\\\sum_{k=1}^{K} \\\\frac{1}{\\\\alpha_{k}} \\\\lambda_{k}(t) dt$. We retrain the model using this objective and report the performance below. (the number in the bracket is the entropy of the frequency distribution of event types and the frequency distribution is reported in Figure A5 of the updated submission.)\\n\\n||SOflow(2.7) | MIMIC(3.5) | MOOC(5.9) | ICEWS(4.9) |\\n| -------- | -------- | -------- | -------- |-------- |\\n| Norm-IFL | 226.6/30.2/2.38|6.1/65.7/0.30|183.8/40.2/4.46|-201.4/27.7/0.88|\\n| Norm-THP| 237.3/30.9/3.64|7.0/65.3/0.38|192.9/40.7/5.51|-186.6/29.6/0.93|\\n\\nAnother method is to directly normalize the outputs. We don\\u2019t retrain the model and directly do the normalization during the inference stage based on IFL and THP. That is, we consider the learned intensity function $\\\\lambda_i(t)$ as $\\\\frac{1}{\\\\alpha_{i}}\\\\lambda_i(t)$. The results of this variant are summarized below.\\n\\n||SOflow | MIMIC | MOOC | ICEWS |\\n| -------- | -------- | -------- | -------- |-------- |\\n| Norm-IFL | 234.6/29.8/3.85|7.3/63.2/0.48|186.8/40.0/5.80|-151.4/26.7/0.98|\\n| Norm-THP| 243.3/30.1/4.43|7.8/64.0/0.61|234.2/39.8/6.41|-132.6/28.2/0.97|\\n\\nWe see the two normalization methods both work not very well. For the first method, the main reason is that there always exists several event types that dominate the training loss and the training of other event types is actually not converged, as shown in Figure 4. For the second method that needn't retrain, the reason for the failure mainly comes from the propagation of errors: the normalization factor may don\\u2019t fit in the learned intensity function.\", \"q3\": \"We have ever considered this issue when preparing this submission, though we still set the hyperparameters equally in our work (Line 352). As you said, it's actually for simplicity. Otherwise, we have to list a lot of hyperparameter settings in our paper (ICEWS has 201 event types). Setting tailored hyperparameters could improve performance in principle and the optimal hyperparameters can be automatically searched by program. Intuitively, if there are more event types that have influences on event type $i$, then the size of the EEHD model of event type $i$ should be bigger to capture its dynamics. We mainly search the size of the embedding vector, layers of encoder, size of hidden vector, and the learning rate. For Dec-IFL, their ranges to seach are {1,2,3,4,8}, {1,2}, {4,8,16,32}, and {0.0005,0.001,005,0.01}, respectively; For Dec-THP, their ranges to seach are {4,8,16,32}, {3,4,5,6}, {4,8,16,32}, and {0.0005,0.001,005,0.01}, respectively. The optimal results are reported below.\\n\\n||SOflow | MIMIC | MOOC | ICEWS |\\n| -------- | -------- | -------- | -------- |-------- |\\n| Dec-IFL | 218.2/32.5/ 2.00 |6.0/ 65.8/ 0.27 |180.3 /40.8 /4.02 |-260.9 /29.4/ 0.50 |\\n| Dec-THP| 223.7/ 32.8 /2.62 |6.6 /65.9 /0.37 | 184.4 /41.7 /4.71 |-232.3 /30.9 /0.64|\\n\\nAlmost surely, employing tailored hyperparameters can make the performance better as using unified hyperparameters is just a special case.\"}", "{\"comment\": \"We deeply value the feedback you have given, which is extremely useful. We anticipate that our subsequent response will satisfactorily address your concerns and provide the answers you seek.\", \"q1_and_q2\": \"To see the imbalance of event types and failure of the standard model, the reviewer please refer to Table 3, Figure A1, A2, A3, A4 and A5 (Figure A5 is newly added in the updated submission), where we see some event types occur less than 100 times while some event types occur more than 20000 times, and our method can invoke more event types than the standard model. In Table 3, Dec-IFL outperforms IFL for 10 event types on dataset SOflow, whereas IFL surpasses Dec-IFL for only 4 event types; Dec-THP outperforms THP for 12 event types on dataset SOflow, whereas THP surpasses Dec-THP for only 5 event types. Similar conclusions can be drawn over datasets MOOC (97 event types) and ICEWS (201 event types) as shown in Figure A1-A4.\", \"q3\": \"Thank you for your suggestion. Firstly, it should be noted that \\u201ccommon embedding and encoder but event specific decoder\\u201d is exactly the standard model. That is, both the standard method and our method use event specific decoder (see $NN_k$ in Equation 5 and 6). Secondly, kindly note that there is no such model that use common embedding, encoder and decoder as it could not output different intensity functions for different event types. Hence, except for the standard model and our model, there are a total of five kinds of variants, as shown in Table A6. The results show that it performs better to let the encoder be type-specific to encode the unique dynamics of the corresponding event type and that it performs worse to let the decoder be shared across event types.\", \"q5\": \"From our understanding, the standard Hawkes process (Equation 11) has no global shared component. $\\\\alpha_{i,j}$ is dedicated to build the intensity function of event type $i$, encoded by encoder $\\\\phi_i$, which is the same as our case: the local embedding $z_m^i(j)$ is dedicated to build the intensity function of event type $i$, encoded by encoder $Encoder_i$. We are not very understanding your point \\u201cglobal shared\\u201d as $\\\\alpha_{i,j}$ is only used in encoder $\\\\phi_i$ to produce $\\\\lambda_i(t)$ and is not used (shared) in other encoders. If we have overlooked anything, we would greatly appreciate it if you could kindly inform us.\", \"q6\": \"As shown in Line 312 of our paper, each dataset is split into training/validation/testing set according the number of event sequences, with each part accounting for 60%/20%/20%, respectively. Taking dataset SOflow, which has 6633 event sequences (see Table 1), as an example, we randomly select 6633\\\\*0.6=3979 event sequences as the training data, 6633\\\\*0.2=1327 event sequences as the validation data, and 6633\\\\*0.2=1327 event sequences as the testing data.\", \"q7\": \"The proposed method shows no advantage over the standard model when the sequence length is very short, but this doesn\\u2019t mean small sequence length is a problem for our proposed method. (The results of our method and the standard one in this case are similar.) Our method shows no improvement when the sequence length is very short because the hidden vector in standard model can well summarize the very short historical events. Of course, our method can also summarize the historical events well. Another finding on dataset MIMIC, which has 715 sequences in total (Table 1), is that there are 564 sequences that repeat the same event type. That is, in these sequences, the event type of the next event is always the same as the event type of historical events. In the remaining 151 sequences, there are 128 sequences looking like this (ignoring the event times): (sequence 1) [1, 0, 0, 0], (sequence 2) [13, 1, 1, 1, 1], (sequence 3) [11, 1, 1, 1, 1], etc. As you can see, there are only 2 event types in each sequence and one of them tends to repeat. These kind of simple patterns, together with the too short length to provide enough information about the dynamics, makes our method show no advantage.\"}", "{\"comment\": \"We here answer the questions you raised.\", \"q1\": \"To clarify this, let\\u2019s start with some important background (they can also be found in Line 110 of our paper). In standard neural MTPPs, the embedding layer assigns each event type a vector representation and the learned representations can naturally group similar event types according to the spirit of Word2vec. However, this kind of embedding can not reflect the dependencies between different event types. For example, which event types have similar influences on the given event type $k$? Their embedding layer has size $K\\\\times d$, where $K$ is the number of event types and $d$ is the embedding dimension.\\n\\nAs a comparison, we create $K$ vector spaces and in each, an event type will have a vector representation, which we call local embedding. That is, we have $K$ EEHD models and in each model, the embedding layer has size $ K \\\\times d$. If we consider the $K$ EEHD models as a system, then the embedding layer of this system has size $ K \\\\times K \\\\times d$. (Note that our embedding dimension $d$ can be very small because of the decoupled dynamics for each event type, see our response for W1.) Using our method, an event type can have different vector representations (embeddings) in different EEHD models, indicating that it can have different influences on different event types. In EEHD models of event type $k$, if event type $a$ and event type $b$ have close embeddings, then event type $a$ and event type $b$ have similar influences on event type $k$ according to the spirit of Word2vec. We illustrate an example in Figure 2, where the embedding of event type 2, event type 5, event type $K-2$ and event type $K$ are close (all painted yellow) in the EEHD model of event type $a$, indicating that these four event types have similar influences on event type $a$. But in the EEHD model of event type $b$, it is event type 1, event type 5 and event type $K-1$ that have similar influences on event type $b$. \\n\\nBy now, we can start talking about Figure 3, which illustrates the relationships between different event types, just like Figure 2. Specifically, we conduct experiments on four datasets generated by Hawkes Process (Equation 11), namely Haw1, Haw2, Haw3, and Haw4, where the ground truth influences among event types are known. In Figure 4, the upper four matrices present the configurations of parameters $\\\\alpha_{i,j}$ for the four Hawkes datasets. The parameters $\\\\beta_{i,j}$ are uniformly set to 2.5 across all instances and all datasets. The parameter $\\\\alpha_{i,j}$ quantifies the magnitude of influence that event type $j$ exerts on event type $i$, analogous to the embedding of event type $j$ in the EEHD model of event type $i$. Recall that the embedding dimension for Dec-IFL is set to 1 (see the caption and Table A1), thus the embedding of our whole system has size $K\\\\times K\\\\times d$=$K\\\\times K \\\\times 1$=$K\\\\times K$. We present them by the lower four matrices in Figure 3 (rounded to one decimal place), where each row corresponds to an EEHD model. The element in the $i^{th}$ row and $j^{th}$ is the embedding of event type $j$ in the EEHD model of event type $i$. \\n\\nNext, we provide an example to analyze the results. For dataset Haw4, according to the ground truth influence parameters $\\\\alpha_{1,2}=1.5$, $ \\\\alpha_{1,3}=1.5$ and $ \\\\alpha_{1,4}=1.5$, event type 2, event type 3, and event type 4 all exert influences on event type 1. This kind of relationship is well reflected by their embeddings in the EEHD model of event type 1. The embedding of event type 2, event type 3 and event type 4 in the EEHD model of event type 1 are -0.4, -0.8, and -0.8, respectively. They have close embeddings! Conversely, event types that have no influence on event type 1 are also clustered together. The embeddings of event type 1 and event type 5 in the EEHD model of event type 1 are 0.2 and 0.3. For more results, the reviewer can kindly refer to Figure A6 and A7 in the appendix, where we illustrate the embeddings learned by Dec-THP on dataset ICEWS.\\n\\nQ2; NLL is the negative log-likelihood, and the log-likelihood of one sequence is calculated in Equation 7. In testing data, we have multiple sequences and we report the averaged NLL per sequence. In Table 2, Table A4 and Table A5, we report the results on the testing data as we are reporting the predictive performance. (We have updated Table A4 and Table A5 in the updated submission.) In Figure 4, we show the training (convergence) process as the epoch increases, and thus we are reporting the NLL results on the validation data.\"}", "{\"comment\": \"Thanks for the rebuttal and for providing additional experiment results, which are helpful and make the claims of this paper clearer. However, the novelty of the proposed approach (decoupling in parameter sharing over the existing method), the increased complexity for computation, and the derivative inefficiency for the case of rare events (Table 3) are still limited. Therefore, I will maintain my score.\"}", "{\"title\": \"Response to Authors\", \"comment\": \"Thank you for the response and clarifications. The newly added baseline results in Table A.6 are helpful to get a better picture of the proposed method. However, the limited technical novelty of the proposed approach (trivial modification of an existing method), the contentious philosophy of complete decoupling over parameter sharing, and the inability to convincingly demonstrate the effectiveness on events with low frequency (Table 3) are still some drawbacks associated with the paper.\"}", "{\"title\": \"Response by Reviewer\", \"comment\": \"Thank you for the rebuttal and for providing additional results. However, most of my concerns have not been addressed, namely:\\n\\n- The proposed approach seems quite limited in novelty, as it essentially boils down to decoupling the encoder-decoder of previously proposed neural marked temporal process modeling approaches.\\n- The paper's central claim that models focusing on joint-likelihood estimation of marked temporal point process data fail to account for rare event times compared to the proposed decoupled independent likelihood estimation does not seem substantiated, both in terms of theory and experimental results. Although experimental results show general performance improvements (Table 2), predictions for less frequent events do not seem to improve overall (Table 3).\\n\\nFor these reasons, I am maintaining my score.\"}", "{\"comment\": \"We really appreciate all the valuable feedback you've given us. We hope our response below can help sort out your concerns.\", \"q1\": \"The decoupled model can have fewer parameters because each single model is only responsible for one event type. For historical events, some of them have influences on event type $i$, some of them have influences on event type $j$, some of them have influences on event type $k$, and so forth. In our decoupled framework, we have a complete EEHD model for each event type $i$. And in each dedicated model, the encoder only needs to encode the historical events that have influences on event type $i$ and ignore other historical events. While for the standard model, all dynamics of historical events are encoded into one single hidden vector. As a result, larger hidden vector, encoder and decoder are required. We have provided the experimental results when the encoder-decoder parameters of the decoupled networks are equivalent to those of the shared networks in Table A4 and A5 of the updated submission.\", \"q2\": \"Maybe there exists a misunderstanding. In Figure 3, we are showing the clustering effects of our decoupled framework. That is, if two event types have similar influences on event type $i$, then their embedding in the EEHD model of event type $i$ should be close. We have a detailed explanation for the meaning of Figure 3 in our reply to reviewer Aaqp (\\u201cQ1\\u201d). If we still miss some details, don't hesitate to let us know.\\n\\nWe know you are expecting us to draw plots like Figure 3 in reference [1]. We understand how to plot the kernels for their model, i.e., kernel $q$ in Equation 8 of their paper, but to be honest, we don\\u2019t know how the authors plot these kernels for other models like THP (Figure 3 of their paper) as the authors provided inadequate details in Section 7 of their paper. THP (or SAHP, etc.) doesn't model the triggering kernel of pairs of event types, but the model in reference [1] does, i.e., the $q$ in Equation 8 of their paper. Since THP doesn't model that, neither does our decoupled model Dec-THP. (Our framework only decouple the learning of THP but doesn't alter the architecture of the original model.)\", \"q3\": \"Beyond IFL and THP, I have provided more results in Table A3 in the appendix of the updated submission.\", \"q4\": \"Like our method, the two models in reference [1] and [2] are also generalized Hawkes process and are not standard EEHD models. The difference is that our proposed method is a framework and not limited to a specific encoder and decoder while these two benchmarks both specifically use a kernel followed by a summation as the Encoder (Equation 6 in reference [1] and Equation 4 in reference [2]), like the standard Hawkes process. Actually, we have benchmarked this kind of method (ODETPP in Table 2 of our paper). Here's the performance of the two models in reference [1] and [2].\\n\\n||SOflow | MIMIC | MOOC | ICEWS |\\n| -------- | -------- | -------- | -------- |-------- |\\n| GSHP[1]| 230.7/31.2/2.91|6.3/65.2/0.33|190.8/39.5/4.56|-198.4/28.4/0.69|\\n| SPRITE[2]| 232.3/30.9/3.34|6.6/64.3/0.33|194.9/38.2/5.01|-193.6/27.9/0.73|\\n\\nGSHP is better than SPRITE as SPRITE captures only time decaying effects while GSHP further captures local effects (see Figure 2 in reference [1]). Both of them underperform our model because of their less expressive encoder. (To obtain the total influence of historical events, they simply add up the influence of each historical event like the standard Hawkes process.)\", \"q5\": \"Maybe there exists a misunderstanding. Actually, we have no assumptions. In our framework, the occurrence of an event is dependent rather than independent of other events. As shown in Figure 2, when predicting event type $a$, we will evaluate which kind of historical events have influences on event type $a$, i.e., events painted with yellow color $(k_2=2,t_2)$ and $(k_4=K,t_4)$, and use a tailored encoder to encode them into the hidden vector. Finally, we use a tailored decoder to decode the future dynamism of event type $a$. For the discussion regarding Theorem 2, kindly refer to our reply to reviewer Aaqp (\\u201cW\\u201d).\\n\\n[1] Yamac et al. (2023), \\\"Hawkes Process with Flexible Triggering Kernels\\\", MLHC.\\n\\n[2] Pan et al. (2021), \\\"Self-adaptable point processes with nonparametric time decays\\\", NeurIPS.\"}" ] }

[ "Konstantin Yakovlev" ]

[ "bilevel optimization", "meta-learning", "hyperparameter optimization" ]

{ "note_id": [ "mKvQXjgW1F", "W0HUFsyIQg", "QAFlhARMad", "Ci3OcgqwKm", "0Suhz4C9Jd" ], "note_type": [ "official_review", "meta_review", "official_review", "official_review", "decision" ], "note_created": [ 1731222469364, 1734659880481, 1730752814928, 1730203895639, 1737523760116 ], "note_signatures": [ [ "ICLR.cc/2025/Conference/Submission6297/Reviewer_q9MC" ], [ "ICLR.cc/2025/Conference/Submission6297/Area_Chair_XGrU" ], [ "ICLR.cc/2025/Conference/Submission6297/Reviewer_ZrSS" ], [ "ICLR.cc/2025/Conference/Submission6297/Reviewer_iGrL" ], [ "ICLR.cc/2025/Conference/Program_Chairs" ] ], "structured_content_str": [ "{\"summary\": \"This paper introduces an innovative bilevel optimization approach that aims to enhance computational efficiency by approximating the sequential multiplication of core matrices from step k to T. This process incorporates the Lipschitz smooth parameter to ensure stability and convergence within the optimization. The proposed method is designed to handle the inherent challenges of bilevel optimization, which often involve nested structures where the solution to one optimization problem depends on another. By focusing on approximating matrix products efficiently, the method reduces computational overhead and improves scalability for large-scale applications.\\n\\nAdditionally, the authors provide a comprehensive theoretical analysis that substantiates the convergence properties and robustness of their approach. The analysis includes mathematical proofs that outline the conditions under which the method guarantees convergence and maintains the Lipschitz continuity required for smooth optimization landscapes.\\n\\nTo validate their theoretical findings, the paper also presents extensive empirical results. These experiments demonstrate the practical effectiveness of the method across various optimization scenarios, showcasing improvements in solution quality and computational performance compared to existing approaches. The results confirm that the new method achieves a favorable balance between accuracy and efficiency, making it a promising tool for applications involving complex bilevel optimization problems.\", \"soundness\": \"2\", \"presentation\": \"3\", \"contribution\": \"2\", \"strengths\": \"The paper under review demonstrates several strengths that make it a notable contribution to the field of optimization and machine learning:\", \"significance_of_the_problem\": \"The paper addresses a highly significant problem in optimization, specifically in the realm of bilevel optimization, which has broad implications for various applications such as hyperparameter tuning, meta-learning, and reinforcement learning. Tackling the challenge of approximating matrix multiplication with a focus on maintaining Lipschitz smoothness is vital for ensuring stability and efficiency in complex, nested optimization scenarios. This makes the research both relevant and impactful, adding value to the community seeking practical solutions to computationally intensive optimization problems.\", \"originality_of_the_idea\": \"The proposed approach showcases originality through its novel approximation strategy. By introducing a method that approximates the multiplication of core matrices across a sequence of steps with consideration of the Lipschitz smooth parameter, the authors present a unique solution that bridges gaps left by previous methods. This concept is particularly innovative as it leverages mathematical structures to enhance the efficiency of bilevel optimization, setting the paper apart from standard approaches.\", \"theoretical_rigor_and_quality\": \"The paper includes rigorous theoretical analysis to support its claims. The authors have detailed proofs that establish the convergence properties and ensure that the Lipschitz continuity is preserved throughout the optimization process. The quality of the theoretical work is underscored by its depth, covering necessary and sufficient conditions for convergence. This enhances the credibility of the proposed method and demonstrates the authors\\u2019 thorough understanding of the underlying mathematical principles.\", \"empirical_validation\": \"The empirical results provided in the paper further strengthen its contributions by verifying the practical effectiveness of the proposed method. The authors have conducted a comprehensive set of experiments that illustrate the method's superior performance compared to existing techniques. These experiments cover a variety of scenarios, showcasing improvements in accuracy and computational efficiency. The clarity of the empirical section is commendable, as it transparently presents metrics, comparisons, and insights that validate the theoretical expectations. The empirical findings support the claim that the proposed method is a viable and competitive option for tackling bilevel optimization problems in real-world applications.\", \"weaknesses\": \"Approximation Quality of Core Matrices' Multiplication: One primary concern is the quality of the approximation when performing sequential multiplication of core matrices from step kk to TT while maintaining the Lipschitz smooth parameter. It is crucial to ensure that this approximation does not compromise the integrity and stability of the results, particularly in more complex or high-dimensional scenarios where the error might accumulate significantly. The paper should provide more detailed analysis or bounds on how this approximation impacts overall optimization performance, as this would strengthen the confidence in the method\\u2019s robustness and applicability. Without this, readers may question the method's reliability, especially in comparison to more established algorithms.\", \"moderate_level_of_novelty\": \"Although the idea behind the proposed method is interesting, the degree of novelty appears moderate. While it does introduce an innovative approximation strategy, some aspects of the method align closely with existing work in the field. The connection between this approach and previous methods may need clearer delineation to highlight what aspects are genuinely new. This would involve not only positioning the paper within the broader research landscape but also elaborating on what sets it apart. A more thorough discussion of related work and how this method extends, diverges from, or improves upon them would add to the paper's originality.\", \"theoretical_results_compared_to_previous_work\": \"Theoretical results presented in the paper, while comprehensive, appear somewhat hesitant or less robust when compared to those in earlier influential publications. While the authors provide proofs that support the proposed approach, there seems to be an opportunity to strengthen these results by either deepening the mathematical analysis or comparing them more directly to well-established theories. Doing so would enhance the perceived contribution of the paper, making it clearer how these results build upon or surpass the theoretical guarantees of prior studies. This comparative aspect is essential for demonstrating the added value of the new method beyond incremental improvements.\", \"lack_of_comprehensive_reporting_on_running_time\": \"Although the paper provides empirical results that compare performance in terms of optimization quality over iterations, it falls short in reporting the actual running time of the proposed method. Including detailed runtime analysis is essential for practitioners who need to balance performance with computational cost, particularly for large-scale problems where running time can be a critical constraint. Without such data, it is challenging to assess the practical feasibility of the method. To address this, a section dedicated to computational efficiency, including comparisons with baseline methods, would be valuable. This would provide readers with a clearer picture of the trade-offs involved and support claims regarding the method\\u2019s efficiency.\", \"questions\": \"as mentioned above\", \"flag_for_ethics_review\": \"['No ethics review needed.']\", \"details_of_ethics_concerns\": \"none\", \"rating\": \"3\", \"confidence\": \"3\", \"code_of_conduct\": \"Yes\"}", "{\"metareview\": \"This paper presents a novel gradient-based method for hyperparameter optimization within bilevel optimization frameworks. It aims to address the challenges of existing methods, particularly regarding memory requirements and convergence dependencies. The idea is relevant and could potentially streamline hyperparameter optimization in machine learning applications, contributing to the field.\\n\\nThe reviews received were varied, with one reviewer rating the paper as marginally below acceptance threshold, while the others expressed stronger concerns, leading to a unanimous sentiment leaning towards rejection. Key weaknesses highlighted include the computational efficiency, the lack of detailed runtime analysis, and an insufficient secondary assessment comparing the proposed method to existing approaches, particularly newer datasets and methods.\\n\\nDespite the authors' rebuttal attempting to address these concerns, significant issues remained unresolved. Reviewers noted that the proposed method still exhibits scalability limitations and may not be practical for larger tasks, which could hinder its applicability. Moreover, the rebuttals did not sufficiently clarify the approximation errors or commit to substantial improvements in the methodology.\\nIn conclusion, the reviewers collectively expressed reservations about the paper's contributions and practicality, leading to a final recommendation for rejection. The concerns outlined, including the lack of comprehensive runtime data and clarity in contributions, have not been adequately addressed in the authors' responses. Given this situation, the final decision is to reject the submission.\", \"additional_comments_on_reviewer_discussion\": \"The reviews received were varied, with one reviewer rating the paper as marginally below acceptance threshold, while the others expressed stronger concerns, leading to a unanimous sentiment leaning towards rejection. Key weaknesses highlighted include the computational efficiency, the lack of detailed runtime analysis, and an insufficient secondary assessment comparing the proposed method to existing approaches, particularly newer datasets and methods.\\n\\nDespite the authors' rebuttal attempting to address these concerns, significant issues remained unresolved. Reviewers noted that the proposed method still exhibits scalability limitations and may not be practical for larger tasks, which could hinder its applicability.\"}", "{\"summary\": \"The paper introduces a novel gradient-based method for hyperparameter optimization within bilevel optimization frameworks. It addresses the limitations of existing approaches, such as high memory requirements in reverse-mode differentiation and the convergence dependency in implicit differentiation methods. The proposed method accumulates short-horizon approximations from each step of the inner optimization trajectory, aiming to provide a more efficient and effective hypergradient computation.\", \"soundness\": \"2\", \"presentation\": \"3\", \"contribution\": \"2\", \"strengths\": \"The paper leverages aggregations of the greedy gradients calculated at each iteration to improve the efficiency of gradient-based hyperparameter optimization methods. It also shows by using the proposed method, a sufficient descent condition holds.\", \"weaknesses\": \"1. The proposed algorithm still requires T Jacobian-vector products, and it scales up with the number of steps. This means that the proposed method probably cannot be scaled to large-scale tasks. Is there any numeric comparison of the time costs or memory costs between the proposed method, Eq.5, and T1-T2?\\n2. Eq.6 is an approximation of Eq.5. However, no approximation error is given. Only a rough bound of L_train is given: 0 \\u2aaf \\u22072\\nw_k\\u22121 L_train(w_k\\u22121, \\u03b1) \\u2aaf LI. Is it possible to give a more precise approximation error?\\n3. The comparison baselines and tasks are old and of smaller scales. The comparison baselines come mostly before 2020. The tasks are also not on a large scale, and the largest dataset it uses is FashionMNIST.\", \"questions\": \"Please see the weakness.\", \"flag_for_ethics_review\": \"['No ethics review needed.']\", \"rating\": \"5\", \"confidence\": \"3\", \"code_of_conduct\": \"Yes\"}", "{\"summary\": \"This paper introduces a novel gradient-based approach for bilevel optimization (BLO), specifically targeting hyperparameter optimization in machine learning tasks. Traditional gradient-based methods face challenges due to memory constraints, dependency on convergence, and short-horizon biases. To address these, the authors propose an approximation that accumulates short-horizon gradients at each step of the inner optimization loop. This method aims to balance memory efficiency and accuracy, ensuring the computed hypergradients remain robust without requiring convergence of the inner loop.\", \"soundness\": \"2\", \"presentation\": \"2\", \"contribution\": \"2\", \"strengths\": \"1. This method shows a new method to solve the hyperparameter optimization. The authors offer a practical and efficient alternative that balances memory requirements and performance accuracy by accumulating short-horizon gradients from each inner optimization step.\\n2. The author shows that theoretically, the hypergradient used in this paper is a sufficient descent direction.\\n3. Numerical experiments validate the effectiveness and efficiency of the proposed approach.\", \"weaknesses\": \"1. The presentation is not good. Authors should check the format of citations. Eqn (1) seems not correct. It should be $\\\\alpha^*=...$ not $\\\\alpha^*-$. In line 200, the number of figure is missing.\\n2. The contribution of this paper is limited. To me, the main contribution of this paper is it proposed a new method to approximate the Hessian in hyperparagradient. However, this method is used in Lee et al.(2021) . Can authors show the approximation error bound between the proposed gradient (6) and the exact gradient (5)? \\n3. The assumptions used are highly restrictive. For example, the author assumes the upper-level objective is strongly convex. In most cases, the upper-level objective is assumed to be nonconvex and the lower-level objective is strongly convex or satisfies the PL condition.\\n4. The authors claim the proposed method can solve large-scale problems. However, only small datasets are used in experiments. This is not enough to show the ability to solve large-scale problems and more large-scale datasets are required. In addition, more experiments of different T are required to show the choice of $\\\\gamma$.\\n5. It is better to compare more recent methods, such as SOBA[1], FDS[2].\\n[1] Dagr\\u00e9ou M, Ablin P, Vaiter S, et al. A framework for bilevel optimization that enables stochastic and global variance reduction algorithms[J]. Advances in Neural Information Processing Systems, 2022, 35: 26698-26710.\\n[2] Micaelli P, Storkey A J. Gradient-based hyperparameter optimization over long horizons[J]. Advances in Neural Information Processing Systems, 2021, 34: 10798-10809.\", \"questions\": \"See weakness\", \"flag_for_ethics_review\": \"['No ethics review needed.']\", \"details_of_ethics_concerns\": \"None\", \"rating\": \"5\", \"confidence\": \"4\", \"code_of_conduct\": \"Yes\"}", "{\"title\": \"Paper Decision\", \"decision\": \"Reject\"}" ] }

[ "Sambhav Khurana", "Xiner Li", "Shurui Gui", "Shuiwang Ji" ]

[ "Language models", "Interpretability", "Graph reasoning" ]

{ "note_id": [ "yvxn3c5Kgo", "jyBvruwl9V", "UDJlfFQ5CB", "T0GnyiXnJT", "LeKnfTwlPc", "LdGhBcwvJk" ], "note_type": [ "decision", "official_review", "official_review", "official_review", "meta_review", "official_review" ], "note_created": [ 1737524119189, 1730200535996, 1730661211257, 1730710780111, 1734683225909, 1730355307147 ], "note_signatures": [ [ "ICLR.cc/2025/Conference/Program_Chairs" ], [ "ICLR.cc/2025/Conference/Submission11355/Reviewer_ju28" ], [ "ICLR.cc/2025/Conference/Submission11355/Reviewer_Ac8p" ], [ "ICLR.cc/2025/Conference/Submission11355/Reviewer_SCB1" ], [ "ICLR.cc/2025/Conference/Submission11355/Area_Chair_FazU" ], [ "ICLR.cc/2025/Conference/Submission11355/Reviewer_aRpH" ] ], "structured_content_str": [ "{\"title\": \"Paper Decision\", \"decision\": \"Reject\"}", "{\"summary\": \"The paper proposes HLM-G to enhance the graph structure understanding of a language model. Specifically, HLM-G introduces two blocks: the local block and the global block to capture information from node-specific structures and features, as well as global graph level, respectively. A pooling layer is also adopted between the two blocks to integrate structural and feature-based information extracted from the graph. Extensive experimental results show the effectiveness of the proposed model.\", \"soundness\": \"2\", \"presentation\": \"3\", \"contribution\": \"2\", \"strengths\": \"1.\\tThe paper is overall well-structured, and the logic of the paper is easy to follow.\\n2.\\tThe templates/examples the authors gave such as the node feature/structure annotations are reader-friendly, and are effective to help readers have a direct understanding how graphs are described in natural language.\\n3.\\tThe hierarchical design of the model looks very straightforward to the readers and the demonstration of the model in figure 1 is very clear.\\n4.\\tAs the authors turn the graphs into natural language description, it somehow enhances the interpretability of the model in human language aspect.\", \"weaknesses\": \"1.\\tThe design of natural language descriptions of graphs is very rigid. Personally, I don\\u2019t buy in this kind of language descriptions of the graphs according to my own experience.\\n2.\\tAs the authors mention that \\u201cthe node feature annotation for a node is a natural language sequence that describes the attributes over a predefined vocabulary\\u201d, which indicates that the model can only be applied to text-attributed graphs, but no other kinds of the graph, which narrows the use of the model.\\n3.\\tLack key ablation studies on the blocks. The ablation experiments in the appendix actually don\\u2019t answer the questions of how each of the component in your framework contribute to the final performance. I\\u2019d like to see the experimental results with local block or global block only to see if these designs are really helpful.\\n4.\\tTo be honest, the synthetic graph datasets with up to 40 nodes and 700+ edges in graph reasoning are too small, and the experimental results are not persuasive. Although it is mentioned in the appendix that currently available datasets (e.g., NLGraph and GraphQA Benchmark) suffer from category imbalance and low number of nodes (around 10-20), these random synthetic graphs are still unconvincing. It is not possible to adequately demonstrate the performance of the model on real-world graph data.\\n5.\\tIncomplete experimental comparison. In the experiments on real world datasets, the model is mainly compared with the zero/few samples setting of traditional GNN and LLM, and the coverage of the experiments is not comprehensive enough. For example, lacking LLaGA as mentioned in the existing work, OFA is only demonstrated in the link prediction task, lacking a broader comparison. This makes it difficult to fully assess the competitiveness of the model against state-of-the-art techniques.\\n6.\\tI am doubt about the interpretability, and the approach of reflecting the interpretability of the model through the distribution of attentional weights is somewhat controversial. Whether the attentional weights can truly reflect the model's understanding of the graph structure is still an open question, as high weights do not always imply the importance of the features to the final decision.\\n7.\\tWhen dealing with graphs with larger size, nodes are divided into different batches, each of which contains only 40 nodes in the paper, which make information difficult to flow over different batches, especially for the global block. (Actually there is even no interaction between different batches!)\", \"questions\": \"1.\\tIn the abstract, you mention that \\u201cwe introduce a Hierarchical Language Model Design\\u201d, but I don\\u2019t think it is a language model design, instead it is more likely a framework where you can use different LLMs as the backbone model, isn\\u2019t it?\\n2.\\tIs the word \\u201chierarchical\\u201d appropriate? According to my understanding, the main role of Local block is to process the textual features and neighbor connectivity of a node through Transformer and encode it into a node vector through pooling operation. The Global block, on the other hand, after integrating these node vectors, is further processed by the Transformer to capture the entire subgraph representation. Such a processing flow I think is not consistent with what we often say about considering the local structure of nodes and the global structure of remote nodes.\\n3.\\tHow can the model be applied to those non-text-attributed graphs?\\n4.\\tHow can the model have a global understanding of the graph since you separate nodes into many batches? What is the specific design when dealing with large graphs?\\n5.\\tHow to deal with the length difference of the feature and structure annotations of different nodes?\", \"flag_for_ethics_review\": \"['No ethics review needed.']\", \"rating\": \"3\", \"confidence\": \"4\", \"code_of_conduct\": \"Yes\"}", "{\"summary\": \"The paper introduces a text-based graph encoder designed to handle both node and edge features. The proposed architecture consists of two primary components: initially, each node is processed individually, resulting in two embedding vectors per node. These vectors are then combined through a weighted average, after which an attention-based mechanism is used to propagate information across nodes. Finally, an MLP predicts the label associated with a given query (e.g., node count or cycle existence).\", \"soundness\": \"4\", \"presentation\": \"4\", \"contribution\": \"3\", \"strengths\": \"The manuscript is highly detailed and well-structured. The appendix, in particular, offers extensive supplementary information, which will likely be valuable to researchers in this domain.\\n\\nThe authors validate their approach on a wide array of both real and synthetic datasets and provide a robust baseline comparison, including traditional graph neural networks (GNNs) and models based on LLMs. Notably, the model presents a degree of interpretability, a compelling feature given the typically opaque nature of black-box models.\", \"weaknesses\": \"1. **Relation of HLM-G to LLMs.** The paper associates HLM-G with large language models (LLMs). However, based on the text, it appears that HLM-G is trained separately and from scratch on each task without any apparent connection to pre-trained LLMs (unlike, for instance, GraphToken). This association could be misleading, as there is also no indication that HLM-G inherits the capabilities typically attributed to LLMs. Given HLM-G\\u2019s merits as a graph encoding method, it stands as a valuable contribution on its own independent of the LLM association, and this should be reflected in the manuscript too.\\n\\n2. **Performance on Baseline Comparisons.** While HLM-G demonstrates impressive performance on synthetic datasets (Table 1), this superiority does not extend as clearly to real-world datasets (Tables 3-5), where its performance closely aligns with simpler models like GCN. Insights from the authors on this discrepancy could shed light on the strengths and limitations of HLM-G in practical settings.\", \"questions\": \"1. **Parameter Count.** While HLM-G performs strongly across Tables 1-5, the number of trainable and frozen parameters for each baseline model is not specified. Including this information would facilitate a more balanced and fair comparison.\\n\\n2. **GPU Usage and Computational Requirements** The authors note the use of A6000 GPUs but do not specify the number required to replicate the experiments in Tables 12 and 13. Additionally, these tables feature only the LLM-based models, potentially creating an incomplete picture of computational needs. Adding a comparison with GNN-based models would offer readers a clearer perspective on resource demands.\\n\\n3. **Formulating Queries for GNN Encoders.** Given that GNNs are not text-based encoders, clarification on how queries (e.g., for node degree) are formulated for these models would help contextualize the comparative results and better explain the huge performance difference.\", \"flag_for_ethics_review\": \"['No ethics review needed.']\", \"rating\": \"6\", \"confidence\": \"4\", \"code_of_conduct\": \"Yes\"}", "{\"summary\": \"This work presents the Hierarchical Language Model (HLM-G) Design, which employs a two-block architecture to enhance graph structure understanding. The model achieves state-of-the-art performance, outperforming both GNN and LLM baselines, and shows robustness to variations in graph prompts. Its interpretability is demonstrated through attention weights and established explainers. Evaluations across diverse real-world datasets highlight the model\\u2019s superior generalization capabilities, marking a significant advancement in applying LLMs to graph-centric tasks.\", \"soundness\": \"3\", \"presentation\": \"2\", \"contribution\": \"2\", \"strengths\": \"The structure is simple and easy to understand. It considers improving the reasoning capabilities of LLMs from the perspective of computational efficiency, which is a promising aspect.\", \"weaknesses\": \"1. The lines 040-058 of the article introduce two important challenges: the first is the challenge of obtaining structural information, and the second is the challenge of scalability. However, regarding challenge two, the strategy proposed in lines 060-072 does not provide me with a clear understanding of how this challenge is addressed.\\n2. From the design of the article, it is not clear how the ability of LLMs to understand graph structures is enhanced, as referenced in challenge 1. Moreover, according to Figure 1, I cannot even identify the role played by LLMs within it.\\n3. In the comparative analysis of interpretability performance, the article uses tasks such as shortest distance, reachability, edge existence, and node degree. However, the main downstream tasks used for comparison are graph classification and node classification tasks.\\n4. On page 20, in the Task 1 section for Shortest Distance, the range is only 0-5, and experiments with path graphs are missing. Clearly, the paths in path graphs are longer.\\n5. On page 19, the first line states, \\\"In comparison, our method is inherently task-agnostic and demonstrates high interpretability.\\\" Honestly, I do not find this model to be particularly model-agnostic, and there is a lack of stronger experimental evidence to support its interpretability claims.\\n6. In the last sentence of the final paragraph on page 30, it states, \\\"This indicates that HLM-G can effectively encode 1-hop neighborhood information, assigning higher similarity to nodes that are similar in position or structure.\\\" However, there is no explanation of the impact of 2-hop encoding on the nodes.\\n7. On page 30, the first line states, \\\"This discrepancy arises because node 0, consistently presented at the beginning during training, is permuted during testing, causing BERT to misidentify its position.\\\" This suggests that node 0's position in the training set is always first, leading to poor performance when its order is changed in the test set. However, Figure 6 does not reflect this issue in BERT's test results.\", \"questions\": \"1. Line 179 states, \\\"Since language models cannot inherently understand graphs in their natural structure.\\\" What is the basis for this statement?\\n2. What is the design intuition behind separately handling structural information and feature information of nodes? It is well known that GNNs process both aspects of information simultaneously.\\n3. Further supplement the experiments on interpretability performance comparison to include both graph classification and node classification tasks.\", \"flag_for_ethics_review\": \"['No ethics review needed.']\", \"rating\": \"5\", \"confidence\": \"4\", \"code_of_conduct\": \"Yes\"}", "{\"metareview\": \"This paper presents a text-based graph encoder capable of processing both node and edge features. The architecture is built around two main components: first, each node is independently encoded to produce two embedding vectors per node. These embeddings are subsequently merged using a weighted average. Next, an attention-based mechanism facilitates information propagation between nodes. Finally, a multi-layer perceptron (MLP) predicts the label corresponding to a specific query, such as node count or the presence of a cycle.\\n\\nAlthough the reviewers found the paper interesting and easy to follow, there are several major concerns regarding the clarity of the motivation, completeness of the experimental comparison, and sufficiency of the analysis. The authors didn't provide a response, and thus I am recommending rejection of this work.\", \"additional_comments_on_reviewer_discussion\": \"There is no rebuttal from the authors.\"}", "{\"summary\": \"This paper proposes a Hierarchical Language Model for Graphs (HLM-G) to enhance the graph structure comprehension capabilities of LLMs. Specifically, HLM-G employs a two-block architecture, comprising a local block and a global block to capture graph features and structures, which not only enhances the model\\u2019s understanding of graph tasks but significantly reduces computational costs. Experiments show HLM-G achieves the better performance compared to existing baselines.\", \"soundness\": \"2\", \"presentation\": \"3\", \"contribution\": \"2\", \"strengths\": \"Advantages\\n1. The proposed method is technically sound, and it has some novelty.\\n2. The paper is easy to follow and well organized.\\n3. The experiments are comprehensive, including overall performance, robustness assessment, interpretation comparison and efficiency analysis.\", \"weaknesses\": \"Disadvantages\\n\\n1. The motivation behind the paper is not clearly explained. \\n2. Section 3.1 presents the reformulation of graph-level task, describing the graph structure associated with each node. However, this approach may contain redundant information. \\n3. The ablation studies does not seem to explore the effect of local and global blocks on model performance, respectively. \\n4. Section 4.2 employs ground truth ranking to evaluate the model's interpretability; however, this approach seems imprecise. The ranking more accurately reflects the model's effectiveness rather than its interpretability. \\n5. The paper is not rigorously expressed. For example, the variable subscripts are inconsistent, and the variables \\u201cN\\u201d and \\u201cn\\u201d are used confusingly in Section 3.\", \"questions\": \"Existing methods faces two challenges: handling graph structures and addressing scalability issues. It is unclear how HLM-G addresses these challenges using local and global blocks.\", \"flag_for_ethics_review\": \"['No ethics review needed.']\", \"rating\": \"5\", \"confidence\": \"4\", \"code_of_conduct\": \"Yes\"}" ] }

[ "Philip Zmushko", "Marat Mansurov", "Ruslan Svirschevski", "Denis Kuznedelev", "Max Ryabinin", "Aleksandr Beznosikov" ]

[ "Split Learning", "Vertical Federated Learning", "Federated Learning", "Parameter Efficient Fine-tuning", "Privacy", "Large Language Models" ]

{ "note_id": [ "zEx1Y139zZ", "yENDI1S0rV", "v1bcMrbOf8", "oMyaHeEsIq", "mFNszxVJzL", "j0TfSayp7G", "g8wxfrmgLI", "cZg3pNNxQg", "YU2FzOhPm9", "SRYW6uBRHO", "PhVnHdtYB9", "PfjwiW1TQB", "Nr9p0SsaiQ", "MZFzfiKUqV", "MQKM2Effsh", "FNxqgmVSl7", "DynPG5BxDb", "Dp40Nfmenq", "BQWIST1PtN", "BENf9YcuIP", "A036W9Ofik", "6ZM0UWVexx" ], "note_type": [ "official_comment", "official_comment", "official_comment", "official_comment", "official_comment", "meta_review", "official_review", "official_comment", "official_comment", "official_comment", "official_comment", "official_comment", "official_review", "official_review", "official_comment", "official_comment", "official_review", "official_comment", "decision", "official_comment", "official_comment", "official_comment" ], "note_created": [ 1732286028581, 1732369760528, 1732285557130, 1732285788624, 1732542797259, 1734653734620, 1730180596199, 1732369417264, 1732731321459, 1732369308753, 1732542749167, 1732853287721, 1730778477743, 1730734124657, 1732542868300, 1732835508517, 1730498432556, 1732853362857, 1737523884893, 1732512432277, 1732285773576, 1732285515390 ], "note_signatures": [ [ "ICLR.cc/2025/Conference/Submission8052/Authors" ], [ "ICLR.cc/2025/Conference/Submission8052/Authors" ], [ "ICLR.cc/2025/Conference/Submission8052/Authors" ], [ "ICLR.cc/2025/Conference/Submission8052/Authors" ], [ "ICLR.cc/2025/Conference/Submission8052/Authors" ], [ "ICLR.cc/2025/Conference/Submission8052/Area_Chair_XKTK" ], [ "ICLR.cc/2025/Conference/Submission8052/Reviewer_UNtp" ], [ "ICLR.cc/2025/Conference/Submission8052/Authors" ], [ "ICLR.cc/2025/Conference/Submission8052/Reviewer_88W1" ], [ "ICLR.cc/2025/Conference/Submission8052/Authors" ], [ "ICLR.cc/2025/Conference/Submission8052/Authors" ], [ "ICLR.cc/2025/Conference/Submission8052/Authors" ], [ "ICLR.cc/2025/Conference/Submission8052/Reviewer_88W1" ], [ "ICLR.cc/2025/Conference/Submission8052/Reviewer_ESUj" ], [ "ICLR.cc/2025/Conference/Submission8052/Authors" ], [ "ICLR.cc/2025/Conference/Submission8052/Reviewer_SHmL" ], [ "ICLR.cc/2025/Conference/Submission8052/Reviewer_SHmL" ], [ "ICLR.cc/2025/Conference/Submission8052/Authors" ], [ "ICLR.cc/2025/Conference/Program_Chairs" ], [ "ICLR.cc/2025/Conference/Submission8052/Reviewer_UNtp" ], [ "ICLR.cc/2025/Conference/Submission8052/Authors" ], [ "ICLR.cc/2025/Conference/Submission8052/Authors" ] ], "structured_content_str": [ "{\"title\": \"Rebuttal\", \"comment\": \"We thank the reviewer for their feedback and address their concerns and question below.\\n\\n>For example, the last sentence in the abstract is hard to understand.\\n\\nWe thank the reviewer for their careful attention to our paper's writing. We agree that the original phrasing contained a logical contradiction. Our intention was to convey that P$^3$EFT successfully competes with existing methods and outperforms them.\\n\\nTo address this ambiguity, we propose the following reformulation: \\\"We find that P$^3$EFT outperforms existing privacy-preserving methods in multi-party and two-party setups.\\\" We would welcome the reviewer's thoughts on this revised phrasing.\\n\\nAdditionally, we are open to any further specific suggestions the reviewer might have regarding the paper's writing quality and clarity.\\n\\n>Only classification datasets are used although generation task is also mentioned in the paper.\\n\\nIndeed, while we mention generation in line 043, it specifically refers to image generation. But we acknowledge that the current phrasing might be ambiguous, and we will revise this statement in the updated version to provide better clarity.\\n\\nRegarding text generation specifically, we agree that ensuring label privacy in such setups is of significant importance. However, this particular scenario presents its own unique challenges. For instance, text generation tasks utilize the same tokens for both inputs and labels, creating potential information leakage in both directions. Adapting our method to address these challenges would require additional approaches --- such as integration with input privacy methods --- which would extend beyond the scope of this paper. We believe these considerations require separate, focused study.\\n\\nWe've chosen to focus on classification as a specific, but important setup. This focus allows us to thoroughly examine key aspects of privacy-preserving techniques in split learning. We believe this provides valuable insights that can serve as a foundation for future research.\\n\\n>Aside from label privacy, I believe sample input privacy is also important.\\n\\nWe share the reviewer's emphasis on the critical nature of input privacy. In our work, however, we specifically explore label privacy as one significant component of private learning [1,2,3,4], while recognizing it is not the only one. Since our approach is orthogonal to most feature privacy methods, it can be effectively combined with these methods to provide comprehensive protection for both inputs and labels.\\n\\n>I expect that the authors chould provide a proper real-world setting in which only label information but not input features are sensitive and should be protected.\\n\\nWe provide a potential real-world example of such a scenario in lines 060-064. Specifically, we consider the case of social media user pages, where the data is publicly available, while the labels --- such as user behavior and click information --- are accessible only to the social network.\\n\\n>As I know, some closed-source model training API requires uploading the whole training dataset to the server. Is the proposed method able to preserve the privacy of label under this setting? If not, what might can be done to address this case?\\n\\nNot in the exact setting you describe. Specifically, requiring clients to provide their exact dataset to the server would result in complete exposure of private data. Traditional approaches to address this privacy concern primarily rely on anonymization techniques, which include either the systematic removal of sensitive components from the training data [5] or the generation of synthetic data that approximates the original distribution while avoiding exact private records [6]. However, these methods have notable limitations, as both approaches typically lead to diminished model accuracy and cannot guarantee complete privacy preservation.\\n\\nTo overcome these limitations, we explicitly design the API protocol in Section 3 in such a way that does *not* require the client to share their training labels with the server.\\n\\n[1] Li et al., Label leakage and protection in two-party split learning. ICLR 2022.\\n\\n[2] Sun et al., Label leakage and protection from forward embedding in vertical federated learning. arXiv:2203.01451, 2022.\\n\\n[3] Liu and Lyu., Clustering label inference attack against practical split learning. arXiv:2203.05222, 2022.\\n\\n[4] Zou et al., Defending batch-level label inference and replacement attacks in vertical federated learning. IEEE Transactions on Big Data, 2022.\\n\\n[5] Gardiner et al., Data Anonymization for Privacy-Preserving Large Language Model Fine-Tuning on Call Transcripts, Proceedings of the Workshop on Computational Approaches to Language Data Pseudonymization. 2024\\n\\n[6] Xie et al., Differentially Private Synthetic Data via Foundation Model APIs 2: Text. arXiv:2403.01749, 2024.\"}", "{\"title\": \"General response\", \"comment\": \"We thank the reviewers for their time and useful feedback.\", \"we_are_grateful_that_the_reviewers_appreciated_several_key_strengths_of_our_work\": \"1. **Problem Importance.** Paper addresses critical and practical privacy concerns in increasingly popular fine-tuning APIs and client-server settings. (by reviewers 88W1, ESUj, UNtp)\\n2. **Technical Performance.** P$^3$EFT shows strong empirical results with superior label privacy compared to existing methods while maintaining good accuracy. (by reviewers ESUj, SHmL)\\n3. **Method Generalizability.** `private_backprop` algorithm can be extended to other Split Learning and Vertical Federated Learning settings. Also, full algorithm P$^3$EFT can be used with any PEFT method. (by reviewer SHmL)\\n4. **Paper presentation.** Well-written paper with effective visualizations and thorough empirical evaluation. (by reviewers ESUj and UNtp)\", \"we_have_also_enhanced_the_paper_with_additional_experiments_and_incorporated_the_revisions_suggested_by_the_reviewers\": [\"**Major revisions:**\", \"Added experiments with $n=\\\\{1,3,4\\\\}$ adapter sets (asked by reviewer ESUj).\", \"Moved a part of the PSLF method results and Algorithm 2 to the main body of the paper (by reviewer ESUj).\", \"Added theoretical analysis of the `private_backprop` algorithm (by reviewer SHmL).\", \"Added a detailed explanation of what $\\\\varepsilon=0$ means in PSLF experiments (by reviewer ESUj).\", \"**Minor revisions:**\", \"Clarified several references in the paper (by reviewer SHmL).\", \"Fixed formulation errors (by reviewer SHmL).\", \"Added explicit mention of adapter ranks used in experiments with DeBERTa and T5 (by reviewer ESUj).\", \"Corrected typos (by reviewers ESUj and SHmL).\", \"For convenience, all new additions to the paper are highlighted in blue.\"]}", "{\"title\": \"Rebuttal part 2\", \"comment\": \">If this is correct, with prediction accuracy over 60%, it doesn\\u2019t seem that label privacy is effectively preserved.\\n\\nWe kindly disagree with the reviewer on this matter. We would like to note that for an $n$-class classification task, a leak value of $1/n$ corresponds to a random guess. Thus, theoretically, the minimum leakage value for binary classification (as in SST-2 and QNLI) is 50\\\\%. Moreover, the pre-existing representations learned during pre-training contribute to an increase of this lower bound --- we measured this baseline in the \\\"Without LoRAs\\\" column. Therefore, we believe that a leakage value slightly above 60% represents a very minor degradation compared to the lower bound baseline (for instance, T5 on QNLI shows only a minimal increase from 58.7 to 63.0).\\n\\nWe would also like to specifically emphasize that our method offers **better empirical guarantees than the baselines**. Specifically:\\n\\n1. As shown in Table 6, for PSLF we struggled to find a suitable hyperparameter $\\\\varepsilon$ that would maintain both reasonable performance and privacy\\n\\n2. DC performs noticeably better than PSLF but operates less stably than our P\\u00b3EFT method, as evidenced in Table 1, where DC exhibits significantly higher leakage.\\n\\n> Can you provide some definitions to describe the metrics used to evaluate the approach?\\n\\nAs stated in line 472, to evaluate utility, we standardly measured accuracy on the target task. To assess privacy leakage, as described in lines 472-485, we measured vulnerability to 3 different attacks. The two main attacks --- Spectral Attack AUC and Norm Attack AUC --- were adopted from prior works [3],[4] correspondingly.\\n\\nTo make the description of our experimental setup more comprehensive and detailed, we will add a separate section in the appendix with a thorough description of these attacks.\\n\\n[1] https://platform.openai.com/docs/guides/embeddings/\\n\\n[2] https://petals.dev/\\n\\n[3] Sun et al. (2022), Label leakage and protection from forward embedding in vertical federated learning. arXiv preprint arXiv:2203.01451, 2022.\\n\\n[4] Li et al. (2022), Label leakage and protection in two-party split learning. In International Conference on Learning Representations, 2022\"}", "{\"title\": \"Rebuttal part 2\", \"comment\": \">It could help to move Algorithm 2 (or a more concise version of it) into the main text from the Appendix to help make the final\\u00a0P$^3$EFT\\u00a0method clear.\\n\\nWe agree with the reviewer that including Algorithm 2 in the main paper would be beneficial for the coherence of the paper's presentation. We had originally omitted it due to space limitations. We have now moved Algorithm 2 along with its description from the Appendix to Section 3.4 (see lines 352-372 and 411-414).\\n\\n>The abstract mentions that\\u00a0P$^3$EFT\\u00a0is competitive to methods in both a multi-party and 2-party setting. As far as I can tell, the experiments in Section 4 are focused only on a 2-party setting? How does this process change or scale to a multi-party setting?\\n\\nWe thank the reviewer for this important clarification question. When we mentioned \\\"multi-party\\\" in the abstract, we were referring to scenarios discussed in Section 3.3 where either:\\n1. a client interacts with multiple servers at different stages of training through their APIs, or\\u00a0\\n2. there is a single server but with multiple trusted execution environments required.\\n\\nWhile our experiments in Section 4 focus on the basic two-party setting, our method naturally extends to these setups. However, we acknowledge that we should be more careful with the terminology, and we welcome the reviewer's suggestions on how to better characterize these scenarios. \\n\\n>Minor: Typo L485 algorothm \\u2192 algorithm\\n\\nWe thank the reviewer for their attention to detail. We have corrected this typo.\\n\\n[1] Hu et al. (2022), Lora: Low-rank adaptation of large language models. ICLR 2022.\\n\\n[2] Wan et al. (2023), PSLF: Defending against label leakage in split learning. In Proceedings of the 32nd ACM International Conference on Information and Knowledge Management, 2023.\"}", "{\"title\": \"Official Comment by Authors\", \"comment\": \"We thank the reviewer for acknowledging our response. However, as we have provided detailed explanations addressing each concern, we would appreciate clarification on what specific issues remain that justify maintaining the original score. We would be happy to further engage in discussion if there are some unresolved concerns.\"}", "{\"metareview\": \"The paper proposes a novel approach (P3 EFT) to protect label privacy during fine-tuning of LLMs, showing strong empirical results and outperforming existing baselines. However, the concerns remain regarding scalability to multi-party settings, theoretical analysis of privacy guarantees, and feasibility of the required API in real-world scenarios.\\n\\nThe reviewers were ultimately not excited about the paper.\", \"additional_comments_on_reviewer_discussion\": \"These were the additional comments.\", \"scalability_to_multi_party_settings\": \"One reviewer raised concerns about the scalability of the approach to multi-party settings, where multiple parties may be involved in the fine-tuning process. The authors clarified that the method can be extended to such settings, but did not provide detailed explanations or empirical evaluations. This aspect of the approach needs further investigation.\", \"theoretical_analysis_of_privacy_guarantees\": \"Another reviewer pointed out the lack of theoretical analysis of the privacy guarantees provided by the method. The authors responded by providing some theoretical analysis, but did not establish formal privacy guarantees, such as differential privacy. The theoretical foundations of the approach need to be further strengthened.\", \"feasibility_of_api_in_real_world_scenarios\": \"One reviewer questioned the feasibility of implementing the required API in real-world scenarios, as no existing LLM provider offers such an API. The authors argued that the required API is feasible and could be implemented by LLM providers, but did not provide concrete examples or evidence to support this claim. This aspect of the approach needs further clarification.\"}", "{\"summary\": \"This work analyzes privacy-preserving fine-tuning of LLMs in the context of parameter-efficient fine-tuning and the two-party split learning setting. The authors show empirically that ordinary fine-tuning reveals sensitive label and successfully alleviates this privacy risk by obfuscating the back propagated gradient using forward and backward API. Experiments on 3 datasets are done.\", \"soundness\": \"3\", \"presentation\": \"2\", \"contribution\": \"2\", \"strengths\": \"This paper focuses on a very practical scenario and attempts to address an importance and realistic privacy issue. Also, I like the visualization of the of top-2 principal components of gradients and activations from different fine-tuning steps before and after the defense is applied which directly demonstrated the effectiveness of the proposed method.\", \"weaknesses\": \"1. The writing of the paper needs to be improved. For example, the last sentence in the abstract is hard to understand. \\\"We find that P3EFT is competitive with existing privacy-preserving methods in multi-party and two-party setups while having higher accuracy.\\\" What is competitive when higher accuracy is achieved.\\n2. Experimental datasets are inadequate. Only classification datasets are used although generation task is also mentioned in the paper.\\n3. Aside from label privacy, I believe sample input privacy is also important. However, this work exposed the input samples completely to the LLM. I expect that the authors chould provide a proper real-world setting in which only label information but not input features are sensitive and should be protected.\", \"questions\": \"1. As I know, some closed-source model training API requires uploading the whole training dataset to the server. Is the proposed method able to preserve the privacy of label under this setting? If not, what might can be done to address this case?\", \"flag_for_ethics_review\": \"['No ethics review needed.', 'Yes, Discrimination / bias / fairness concerns']\", \"rating\": \"5\", \"confidence\": \"4\", \"code_of_conduct\": \"Yes\"}", "{\"title\": \"Rebuttal part 2\", \"comment\": \">In line 237, it is stated that leaving gradients, activations, or parameters unprotected would compromise label privacy. While P$^3$EFT obfuscates gradients and activations, it is unclear why parameters do not require similar privacy measures in the context of this paper.\\n\\nWe appreciate this insightful observation about the role of parameters in privacy preservation. Indeed, in general settings, model parameters can leak private information, as they essentially represent compressed information about the training dataset - this is precisely why approaches like DP-SGD [1] are used in standard privacy-preserving training scenarios. This aligns with the well-established understanding from membership inference attacks literature [6], where it's known that parameter-based privacy leakage typically obtained through model activations and predictions.\\n\\nHowever, in our specific setup of label privacy, the situation is somewhat different. The server already has access to the input data and computes the activations through the forward pass. Intuitively, any information contained in the parameters that could be used to compromise label privacy would be manifest through activations after the forward pass. Therefore, by protecting activations, we indirectly address potential privacy leaks through parameters.\\n\\nWe acknowledge that this explanation, while intuitive, lacks formal theoretical foundation. For clarity, we have removed the reference to \\\"parameters\\\" from this sentence to maintain consistency with the rest of the paper's exposition (line 236). However, if the reviewer thinks it would be valuable, we would be happy to include this discussion about the relationship between parameters, activations, and label privacy in the paper.\\n\\n>Regarding Algorithm 1, did you study the effects of different noise levels in the private backpropagation algorithm? Does this imply that P3EFT would yield the same utility across various noise levels?\\n\\nWhile different magnitudes of the obfuscated gradients in Algorithm 1 are mathematically equivalent, using values at the boundaries of the corresponding floating point data type could indeed affect the computation of the final gradient in Algorithm 1. However, within the range we investigated (up to 1e3, see line 448), everything worked correctly.\\n\\n>In line 479, it is mentioned that P3EFT achieves the same accuracy at a given privacy level. However, it is unclear what \\u201csame level of privacy\\u201d specifically means, given that the privacy metrics in Tables 1 and 2 differ for DC and P3EFT.\\n\\nWe thank the reviewer for this feedback. The statement in line 479 refers specifically to DeBERTa. Our comment was intended only for Table 1, not Table 2. The results in Table 2 were described in lines 513-516 (of the new revision), where we state that both our algorithm and DC consistently solve all three tasks. \\n\\nWe made a mistake in the writing; what we meant was \\\"outperforming in terms of the privacy given the same accuracy level.\\\" By \\\"the same accuracy level\\\", we mean that accuracy values for both DC and P\\u00b3EFT are very close to the non-private upper bound, and from a practical application perspective, the difference in accuracy is not significant. We have corrected this oversight in the paper (line 510). If the reviewer has additional questions or suggestions regarding the formal formulation, we would be happy to address them.\\n\\n>Finally, in line 503, how is the privacy-accuracy trade-off precisely defined? It would be helpful to clarify this term\\u2014if it refers to an average measure of privacy and utility, please specify, as the term \\u201ctrade-off\\u201d here is ambiguous without further explanation.\\n\\nWe agree that our terminology was not entirely precise. What we meant was that our method maintains good accuracy on QNLI --- still suitable for practical applications of the model --- while achieving better privacy guarantees. We acknowledge that the term \\\"trade-off\\\" might not be the most appropriate here, and we have revised the paper to provide a more detailed explanation (lines 522-523), similar to what we've outlined in this response.\\n\\n>Here are some minor spelling errors\\n\\nWe thank the reviewer for their attention to detail. We have fixed these typos in the revised version.\\n\\n[1] Abadi et al. Deep learning with differential privacy. Proceedings of the 2016 ACM SIGSAC conference on computer and communications security, 2016.\\n\\n[2] Ghazi et al. Deep learning with label differential privacy. Advances in NeurIPS, 2021.\\n\\n[3] Li et al. Label leakage and protection in two-party split learning. ICLR 2022.\\n\\n[4] Sun et al. Label leakage and protection from forward embedding in vertical federated learning. arXiv:2203.01451, 2022.\\n\\n[5] Wan et al. PSLF: Defending against label leakage in split learning. In Proceedings of the 32nd ACM International Conference on Information and Knowledge Management, 2023.\\n\\n[6] Shokri et al. Membership inference attacks against machine learning models. IEEE symposium on security and privacy, 2017.\"}", "{\"title\": \"Thanks for your response and I have no further questions.\", \"comment\": \"Thanks for your response and I have no further questions.\"}", "{\"title\": \"Rebuttal part 1\", \"comment\": \"We appreciate the reviewer's detailed feedback and address each weakness and question below.\\n\\n>establishing a theoretical privacy guarantee for P$^3$EFT would enhance understanding of privacy leakage and offer a more solid theoretical basis for fair comparisons with other label privacy-focused algorithms.\\n\\nWe appreciate the reviewer's emphasis on the importance of theoretical privacy guarantees. While we agree that such guarantees would strengthen our work, developing them for P\\u00b3EFT presents unique challenges. Traditional differential privacy approaches typically rely on introducing randomness through noise addition to gradients [1] or label flipping [2], which serves as the foundation for their theoretical analysis. \\n\\nIn contrast, our method preserves privacy of the activations through a deterministic regularization approach. The absence of explicit randomization makes it challenging to apply standard differential privacy analysis techniques, which typically rely on comparing outcomes between neighboring datasets through probabilistic bounds.\\n\\nNevertheless, recognizing the importance of theoretical foundations, we have provided a theoretical analysis of a key component of P\\u00b3EFT --- the `private_backprop` algorithm --- in Appendix C. While this analysis operates under slightly different assumptions, we believe it represents a meaningful first step toward building a theoretical framework for our approach.\\n\\nWe welcome suggestions from the reviewer on potential approaches to establishing theoretical privacy guarantees for regularization-based privacy mechanisms, as this could be a valuable direction for future research.\\n\\n>This paper addresses label privacy in PEFT over an API within an \\\"honest but curious\\\" attacker model, making it a unique but somewhat limited scenario in terms of generality. Analyzing cases where the server is not \\\"honest\\\" would provide a broader perspective, especially given the emphasis on worst-case privacy scenarios in the paper.\\n\\nWe appreciate the reviewer's suggestion about considering scenarios beyond the \\\"honest but curious\\\" server model. However, in our specific Split Learning setup, where the client computes the final loss using their private labels after receiving intermediate results from the server, we believe the \\\"honest but curious\\\" model is both practical and sufficient. This is because any deviation from honest behavior by the server would be immediately detectable by the client through observable training dynamics (e.g., unexpected increases in training loss).\\n\\nOur focus on the \\\"honest but curious\\\" model aligns with the established literature in this domain [3,4,5], where this threat model has proven to be both realistic and meaningful for analyzing privacy concerns in split learning scenarios. To the best of our knowledge, there are no existing works analyzing \\\"not honest\\\" server behavior in our specific setup, likely due to the client's ability to detect such behavior through the training process. However, if the reviewer is aware of any relevant work in this direction, we would be very interested in considering it for future research.\\n\\n>Additionally, extending the framework to protect both input and label privacy would be a natural generalization, though it appears challenging to adapt P$^3$EFT for this purpose.\\n\\nWe fully agree with the reviewer that protecting inputs is also incredibly important. We plan to extend our framework to protect inputs in future work. Meanwhile, to protect both inputs and labels, P$^3$EFT can be combined with an existing input protection algorithm.\\n\\n>For instance, line 52 refers to private multi-party fine-tuning methods that support a narrow class of fine-tuning algorithms but does not specify which algorithms fall within this scope and which do not.\\n\\nWe agree with the reviewer that specifying the particular class of algorithms will improve the quality of the paper. Here we are referring to prompt-tuning, and we have clarified this in the revision.\\n\\n>Similarly, line 132 states that differential privacy upper bounds are loose and do not align with practical observations on real models, but it lacks a reference or supporting argument, leaving some statements unclear.\\n\\nWe acknowledge that statements like the one on line 132 should be better supported with appropriate references. This particular statement was primarily motivated by our empirical findings presented later in Section 4.2, but we agree that this connection should have been made more explicit in the text.\\n\\nWe have revised the formulation of this statement to make it clearer and better connected to our experimental results. If the reviewer has identified other parts of the paper that would benefit from similar clarification or additional references, we would greatly appreciate their suggestions.\\n\\n>Question 2\\n\\nWe thank the reviewer for their attention to detail. Indeed, there should be $\\\\frac{1}{2}$. We have corrected the formula in the revision (line 264).\"}", "{\"title\": \"Follow-up to Author Rebuttal\", \"comment\": \"Dear Reviewer SHmL,\\n\\nThe discussion period is about to end and we would kindly like to hear from you regarding our rebuttal. We have addressed all concerns raised in the review and have further strengthened our submission with a theoretical analysis of the `private_backprop` algorithm. \\n\\nGiven your positive comments about the flexibility and empirical results of our framework, we respectfully request that you consider revising your score.\"}", "{\"comment\": \"We appreciate your acknowledgment of our response. Since we've provided comprehensive explanations for each weakness and question, we'd value understanding which specific concerns still support the initial score. We're open to discussing any outstanding issues.\"}", "{\"summary\": \"This paper proposes a privacy-preserving approach to safeguard label privacy during the fine-tuning of large language models (LLMs) using Parameter-Efficient Fine-Tuning (PEFT) techniques. It addresses a two-party learning scenario, where users can access forward and backward APIs to update the model. Experiments are conducted to evaluate the approach across various language models.\", \"soundness\": \"2\", \"presentation\": \"3\", \"contribution\": \"2\", \"strengths\": \"The paper addresses a critical question of how to protect privacy in client-server fine-tuning settings. The author proposes a privacy-preserving approach to safeguard label privacy in vertical learning and evaluates this method across various models and NLP tasks.\", \"weaknesses\": \"The paper claims that backpropagation is conditionally linear in output gradients and attempts to decompose gradients to enhance privacy. However, based on my understanding, if decomposed gradients are backpropagated through earlier layers, how can this linearity be maintained?\\n\\nThe proposed approach requires the user to decompose gradients into separate parts and make multiple API calls. What is the associated computation and communication overhead? Additionally, to my knowledge, I am not aware of any LLM companies that offer APIs for forward and backward passes in this way. Could the authors provide examples of such an application if available?\\n\\nIf the client is involved in parameter updates and can observe the training process, how is it ensured that the client cannot access private information during training?\\n\\nRegarding the experimental results, I don\\u2019t see a clear definition of what \\\"leak\\\" represents in the tables. My assumption is that it refers to the client\\u2019s prediction accuracy. If this is correct, with prediction accuracy over 60%, it doesn\\u2019t seem that label privacy is effectively preserved.\", \"questions\": \"Can you provide some definitions to describe the metrics used to evaluate the approach?\", \"flag_for_ethics_review\": \"['No ethics review needed.']\", \"rating\": \"3\", \"confidence\": \"4\", \"code_of_conduct\": \"Yes\"}", "{\"summary\": \"This paper proposes $P^3EFT$, based on PEFT for fine-tuning models in a 2-party setting common to fine-tuning APIs in practice. The focus is on guaranteeing a form of empirical label-privacy. Their approach utilises a private backpropagation approach inspired by secure-aggregation to prevent the server from inferring label information and further trains a mixture of multiple adapters to improve privacy.\", \"soundness\": \"3\", \"presentation\": \"3\", \"contribution\": \"3\", \"strengths\": [\"The paper focuses on an interesting and relevant privacy problem related to fine-tuning APIs which are increasingly popular.\", \"Strong empirical results which show that the proposed method can maintain both accuracy and empirical label-privacy.\", \"The presentation of the paper is clear and well-written.\"], \"weaknesses\": [\"More could be done to compare with existing baseline methods in the experiments section (see below).\", \"Some experimental results are unclear (see below).\"], \"questions\": \"1. It is implied that training multiple adapters is a way to prevent label-leakage, yet in the experiments only n=2 adapters are used. Did you run any experiments varying the number of adapters and what effect did this have on utility and privacy? Further to this, how small are the adapters that are used? It would be useful to include some information about the overhead that is required for clients.\\n2. I think some of the Appendix results with the PSLF method could be added into the main paper tables to show there is a clear utility loss when utilising a label DP approach and that there are advantages to using a more empirical method like $P^3EFT$. \\n3. What does it mean in Table 6 to train with an $\\\\varepsilon = 0$ with PSLF?\\n4. How many times are the experiments repeated over? There is often a large amount of variance in the privacy leakage e.g., on QNLI in Table 1 and Table 3 which can make DC and $P^3EFT$ seem quite comparable.\\n5. It could help to move Algorithm 2 (or a more concise version of it) into the main text from the Appendix to help make the final $P^3EFT$ method clear.\\n6. The abstract mentions that $P^3EFT$ is competitive to methods in both a multi-party and 2-party setting. As far as I can tell, the experiments in Section 4 are focused only on a 2-party setting? How does this process change or scale to a multi-party setting?\\n7. Minor: Typo L485 algorothm \\u2192 algorithm\", \"flag_for_ethics_review\": \"['No ethics review needed.']\", \"rating\": \"6\", \"confidence\": \"2\", \"code_of_conduct\": \"Yes\"}", "{\"title\": \"Follow-up to Author Rebuttal\", \"comment\": \"Dear Reviewer ESUj,\\n\\nWith the discussion deadline approaching, we are writing to kindly request your feedback on our rebuttal response. We have carefully addressed all concerns raised in your review, and we have further strengthened the empirical results the reviewer highlighted by conducting additional experiments with different numbers of adapter sets.\\n\\nGiven these improvements and clarifications, we would kindly request the reviewer to reconsider their score.\"}", "{\"comment\": \"Thanks for your response! I have no further questions.\"}", "{\"summary\": \"This paper addresses the problem of parameter-efficient fine-tuning (PEFT) over an API, focusing on preserving the privacy of training labels. It starts by analyzing the label privacy implications of API fine-tuning with LoRA, a commonly used PEFT algorithm. Empirical results demonstrate that in a split learning setup, LoRA may leak the client\\u2019s training labels. Specifically, the unprotected transmission of gradients, model parameters, and activations in split learning can expose training labels to privacy attacks. To address this vulnerability, the paper introduces the $\\\\text{P}^3\\\\text{EFT}$ (privacy-preserving parameter-efficient fine-tuning) framework. $\\\\text{P}^3\\\\text{EFT}$ employs private backpropagation and obfuscates learned activations to protect label privacy by securing activations and gradients during communication between client and server. In their PEFT experiments, the paper shows that $\\\\text{P}^3\\\\text{EFT}$ achieves better label privacy with a small reduction in utility compared to previous split learning methods. Privacy leakage is measured using metrics such as Spectral attack AUC, Norm attack AUC, and k-means accuracy.\", \"soundness\": \"2\", \"presentation\": \"2\", \"contribution\": \"2\", \"strengths\": \"1) Although $\\\\text{P}^3\\\\text{EFT}$ is based on the analysis of LoRA, its approach can be applied to any PEFT method aiming to address label privacy in split learning during PEFT over an API.\\n\\n2) The concept of private backpropagation leverages the conditional linearity of the backpropagation operator, which, while conceptually similar to the secure aggregation protocol used in horizontal federated learning, is well-suited for the vertical FL setting of this problem. This approach can also extend to other vertical FL or split learning scenarios requiring gradient propagation through an untrusted party and is adaptable for future algorithms.\\n\\n3) $\\\\text{P}^3\\\\text{EFT}$ performs significantly better than existing PEFT methods in preserving label privacy, with only a minor drop in accuracy. Moreover, compared to the distance correlation defense (DC), another privacy-aware algorithm, $\\\\text{P}^3\\\\text{EFT}$ achieves superior label privacy, making it a strong choice for API-based PEFT scenarios.\", \"weaknesses\": \"1) While label privacy in $\\\\text{P}^3\\\\text{EFT}$ is evaluated using metrics such as Spectral attack AUC, Norm attack AUC, and k-means accuracy, demonstrating strong performance on these measures, it lacks a formal theoretical guarantee (e.g., differential privacy). Although differential privacy is mentioned as providing loose upper bounds on potential privacy leakage, establishing a theoretical privacy guarantee for $\\\\text{P}^3\\\\text{EFT}$ would enhance understanding of privacy leakage and offer a more solid theoretical basis for fair comparisons with other label privacy-focused algorithms.\\n\\n2) This paper addresses label privacy in PEFT over an API within an \\\"honest but curious\\\" attacker model, making it a unique but somewhat limited scenario in terms of generality. Analyzing cases where the server is not \\\"honest\\\" would provide a broader perspective, especially given the emphasis on worst-case privacy scenarios in the paper. Additionally, extending the framework to protect both input and label privacy would be a natural generalization, though it appears challenging to adapt $\\\\text{P}^3\\\\text{EFT}$ for this purpose.\\n\\n3) Some references in the paper would benefit from clarification. For instance, line 52 refers to private multi-party fine-tuning methods that support a narrow class of fine-tuning algorithms but does not specify which algorithms fall within this scope and which do not. Similarly, line 132 states that differential privacy upper bounds are loose and do not align with practical observations on real models, but it lacks a reference or supporting argument, leaving some statements unclear.\\n\\n4) There are a few minor writing issues, including a formulation error, which I have included in the question section for reference.\", \"questions\": \"1) In line 237, it is stated that leaving gradients, activations, or parameters unprotected would compromise label privacy. While $\\\\text{P}^3\\\\text{EFT}$ obfuscates gradients and activations, it is unclear why parameters do not require similar privacy measures in the context of this paper.\\n\\n2) In line 266, it appears that the expression $\\\\text{backprop}(x, \\\\theta, g_h)$ should be written as $\\\\frac{1}{2} \\\\Bigl( \\\\text{backprop}(x, \\\\theta, g_h + z) + \\\\text{backprop}(x, \\\\theta, g_h - z) \\\\Bigr)$ instead of $\\\\Bigl( \\\\text{backprop}(x, \\\\theta, g_h + z) + \\\\text{backprop}(x, \\\\theta, g_h - z) \\\\Bigr)$. Could you confirm if this is correct?\\n\\n3) Regarding Algorithm 1, did you study the effects of different noise levels in the private backpropagation algorithm? Does this imply that $\\\\text{P}^3\\\\text{EFT}$ would yield the same utility across various noise levels?\\n\\n4) In line 479, it is mentioned that $\\\\text{P}^3\\\\text{EFT}$ achieves the same accuracy at a given privacy level. However, it is unclear what \\u201csame level of privacy\\u201d specifically means, given that the privacy metrics in Tables 1 and 2 differ for DC and $\\\\text{P}^3\\\\text{EFT}$.\\n\\n5) Finally, in line 503, how is the privacy-accuracy trade-off precisely defined? It would be helpful to clarify this term\\u2014if it refers to an average measure of privacy and utility, please specify, as the term \\u201ctrade-off\\u201d here is ambiguous without further explanation.\\n\\n6) Here are some minor spelling errors:\", \"line_326\": \"it's\", \"line_478\": \"$\\\\text{P}^3\\\\text{FT}$\", \"line_484\": \"both both our algorithm\", \"flag_for_ethics_review\": \"['No ethics review needed.']\", \"rating\": \"5\", \"confidence\": \"3\", \"code_of_conduct\": \"Yes\"}", "{\"comment\": \"We thank the reviewer for acknowledging our response. As we've provided comprehensive answers to each weakness, we'd like to understand which specific concerns still warrant the unchanged score. We're ready to address any remaining issues.\"}", "{\"title\": \"Paper Decision\", \"decision\": \"Reject\"}", "{\"comment\": \"Thanks for your response. I have no futher question.\"}", "{\"title\": \"Rebuttal part 1\", \"comment\": \"We are grateful for the reviewer's insightful feedback. We address their concerns and questions below.\\n\\n>Did you run any experiments varying the number of adapters and what effect did this have on utility and privacy?\\n\\nWe thank the reviewer for this question. We agree that understanding the effect of varying the number of adapters on utility and privacy is indeed important for better comprehension of the method's potential. To address this, we conducted additional experiments on SST2 and QNLI using DeBERTa. The results are presented in Table 8.\\n\\nThe results generally demonstrate, that increasing the number of adapters has minimal influence on the resulting privacy and accuracy. We have also evaluated the efficacy of our setup when utilizing a single set of adapters. Despite slightly reduced stability concerning the $\\\\alpha$ (reguralization weight hyperparameter), this setup proved highly competitive, which opens promising direction for further research.\\n\\n>Further to this, how small are the adapters that are used? It would be useful to include some information about the overhead that is required for clients.\\n\\nAs specified in lines 504-505 for DeBERTa, we followed the setup from the original LoRA paper [1]. This setup used rank $r=8$. The same value was used for T5 (see lines 513-514). For LLaMA, as indicated in line 521, we used adapters with rank 16. \\n\\nOverall, the total number of these parameters is less than 1% of all model parameters, so the overhead for clients is negligible. \\n\\nTo improve readability of the paper, we have added clarification about the DeBERTa adapter rank in line 505.\\n\\n>I think some of the Appendix results with the PSLF method could be added into the main paper\\n\\nWe agree with the reviewer that including PSLF results in the main paper would be beneficial for a clearer comparison between label DP approaches and P$^3$EFT. We have incorporated some of these results \\u2014 specifically DeBERTa and Flan-T5 on SST2 \\u2014 into the main paper in Table 4.\\n\\n>What does it mean in Table 6 to train with an $\\\\varepsilon=0$ with PSLF?\\n\\nWhile we acknowledge that from the formal definition of differential privacy, setting $\\\\varepsilon=0$ might not be entirely rigorous (as some definitions require the privacy budget $\\\\varepsilon$ to be a positive real number), it carries meaningful practical implications. Specifically, if we consider Randomized Response (equation (3) in the original PSLF Paper [2]), which forms the foundation of the PSLF framework, setting $\\\\varepsilon=0$ means that for each training sample, the flipped label $\\\\tilde{y}$ has an equal probability of belonging to any class.\\n\\nConsequently, training with $\\\\varepsilon=0$ is equivalent to training with random labels, corresponding to the setup with theoretical lower bound for privacy. We included these entries in the table to better illustrate the trend of results across the hyperparameter grid. We have added this explanation of the $\\\\varepsilon=0$ case in Appendix B. We welcome any further questions or suggestions from the reviewer regarding this matter.\\n\\n>How many times are the experiments repeated over?\\n\\nAs stated in the main paper (line 499 of the revised version), we repeated the training procedure with 3 random seeds.\\n\\n>There is often a large amount of variance in the privacy leakage e.g., on QNLI in Table 1 and Table 3 which can make DC and\\u00a0P$^3$EFT\\u00a0seem quite comparable.\\n\\nWe acknowledge that the standard deviation for QNLI in Table 1 is indeed high. This occurred because training DeBERTa on QNLI proved to be somewhat unstable, with one of the three seeds showing a significant spike in privacy leakage at one point during training. However, regarding QNLI in Table 3, we respectfully disagree with the reviewer's assessment, as the standard deviation there is relatively small.\\n\\nWe would also like to note that while P$^3$EFT and DC might be comparable in some tasks, P$^3$EFT significantly surpasses DC in many cases. For instance, when training DeBERTa on MNLI using DC, we were unable to find hyperparameters that would allow the model to learn effectively without complete (~100%) privacy leakage. Similarly, when training DeBERTa on SST2 with DC, the privacy leakage exceeded 90, indicating that the adversary recovered almost all labels.\\n\\nFurthermore, we would like to emphasize that, unlike DC, our P$^3$EFT method provides protection beyond just activation-based attacks. One of our work's main contributions is the `private_backprop` algorithm, which preserves gradient privacy. To maintain bidirectional privacy when using DC, it would need to be combined with another algorithm to prevent privacy leakage from gradients --- such as our `private_backprop`.\"}", "{\"title\": \"Rebuttal part 1\", \"comment\": \"We thank the reviewer for their feedback and provide responses to their concerns hereafter.\\n\\n>The paper claims that backpropagation is conditionally linear in output gradients and attempts to decompose gradients to enhance privacy. However, based on my understanding, if decomposed gradients are backpropagated through earlier layers, how can this linearity be maintained?\", \"we_believe_there_has_been_a_misunderstanding\": \"the\\u00a0`backprop`\\u00a0API method\\u00a0**does not update\\u00a0$\\\\theta$, it only computes the gradients with respect to $\\\\theta$**\\u00a0and returns them to the client (see lines 180-181). Instead, the\\u00a0**client updates\\u00a0$\\\\theta$,**\\u00a0which is possible because\\u00a0$\\\\theta$\\u00a0are parameter-efficient adapters. Since parameters $\\\\theta$ remain the same, the computational graph on the server --- which represents Jacobian --- also remains unchanged, which allows to backpropagate through it again (see lines 256-268).\\n\\nThe detailed sequence of gradient computation and parameter updates is described in Algorithm 2. Specifically, line 14 executes the\\u00a0`private_backprop`\\u00a0algorithm (during which the\\u00a0`backprop`\\u00a0API method is called multiple times).\\u00a0**After the gradients are computed**\\u00a0(and only then), the client updates the adapter set.\\n\\nIf\\u00a0$\\\\theta$\\u00a0were updated during each\\u00a0`backprop`\\u00a0call , linearity would indeed be violated. For this reason,\\u00a0**we deliberately design\\u00a0`backprop`\\u00a0to be stateless**, i.e. it merely computes gradients with respect to adapter parameters based on given gradients with respect to activations, without changing either the adapter weights or the weights of the original model.\\n\\n>The proposed approach requires the user to decompose gradients into separate parts and make multiple API calls. What is the associated computation and communication overhead?\\n\\nAs specified in Algorithm 1, a single `private_backprop` requires $m$ API calls, where $m$ is a hyperparameter chosen by the client. Each API call requires the same amount of computation (to compute backward) and communication (for the client to send obfuscated gradients to the server, and for the server to send gradients w.r.t. adapter weights to the client). To preserve label privacy, the value of $m$ must be at least $2$, meaning that one forward pass requires two backward passes. In this case, `private_backprop` introduces a computational overhead of approximately 1.5x compared to a regular training step (forward and 2 backwards instead of forward-backward).\\n\\n>Additionally, to my knowledge, I am not aware of any LLM companies that offer APIs for forward and backward passes in this way. Could the authors provide examples of such an application if available?\\n\\nThis is correct that no *company* specifically offers this exact interface for forward *and* backward. However:\\n1. companies do offer forward pass API (without the backward), e.g. see [1].\\n2. some experimental open-source API frameworks [2], offer both forward and backward pass API as described in line 154.\\n\\nIn summary, while we agree that companies currently typically don\\u2019t offer this exact API, we use a setup that is close to what they offer and they can, should they choose to, adjust their API to support our method efficiently \\u2014 as demonstrated by the referenced libraries.\\n\\n>If the client is involved in parameter updates and can observe the training process, how is it ensured that the client cannot access private information during training?\\n\\nWe believe there has been some misunderstanding. In the setup discussed in the paper, we emphasize the privacy of labels, as indicated in lines 018-019, lines 060-061, etc. In this setup, the **client** is the only training participant who **has access to private labels**, as seen in lines 060-061, line 075, line 161, line 196, etc. Conversely, it is **the server that does not have access** to the labels.\\n\\nIf the reviewer has additional questions, we would be happy to provide clarification.\\n\\n>I don\\u2019t see a clear definition of what \\\"leak\\\" represents in the tables. My assumption is that it refers to the client\\u2019s prediction accuracy.\\n\\nThe notation \\\"leak\\\" represents a measure of privacy leakage, which is measured across 3 potential attacks that can be conducted by the server. A detailed description can be found in lines 472-485. We would also like to note that privacy leakage is not always measured in accuracy; for two main attacks --- Spectral attack and Norm attack --- following prior works, we measure classifier ROC AUC.\\n\\nAdditionally, to improve and facilitate the paper's readability, we will add a clear definition of what we label as \\\"acc\\\" and \\\"leak\\\" in the Tables.\"}" ] }

[ "Sophia Hager", "Aleem Khan", "Andrew Wang", "Nicholas Andrews" ]

[ "Large language model", "Markov chain Monte Carlo" ]

{ "note_id": [ "sw4A2mwHQC", "kOa6jMU6p8", "bxYoyJzbbF", "VrsDDUF3Rx", "EvoB76pBJJ", "81YrDHiwB2" ], "note_type": [ "meta_review", "decision", "official_review", "official_review", "official_review", "official_review" ], "note_created": [ 1734673265902, 1737524149290, 1730729101397, 1730713847814, 1730543358055, 1730390111748 ], "note_signatures": [ [ "ICLR.cc/2025/Conference/Submission11835/Area_Chair_c8LU" ], [ "ICLR.cc/2025/Conference/Program_Chairs" ], [ "ICLR.cc/2025/Conference/Submission11835/Reviewer_iCrL" ], [ "ICLR.cc/2025/Conference/Submission11835/Reviewer_dU2W" ], [ "ICLR.cc/2025/Conference/Submission11835/Reviewer_8bYp" ], [ "ICLR.cc/2025/Conference/Submission11835/Reviewer_jQ93" ] ], "structured_content_str": [ "{\"metareview\": \"The paper proposes a method for controlled generation focused on extrapolating conditioning variables outside of the training distribution in the setting where a (possibly expensive) oracle scoring function exists. The work trains an AR model on chosen subsequence from MCMC chains with desired properties (such as increasing score). Experiments on protein sequence design, text sentiment control, and text anonymization and given. The authors claim their method achieves comparable to or better generalization than MCMC while being more sample efficient.\\n\\nThis is an important, and relevant problem. The method is interesting and while I've seen many works in the past which amortize MCMC though distillation into tractable models, this application is new and seems to be worth studying. The method can be applied to many domains and many types of target variable.\\n\\nReviewers believe that the method lacks theoretical justification for its extrapolation capabilities. When can is extrapolation like this possible? When is it now? The reviewers also found multiple issues with the paper's writing and experiments. As well they believed the method's limitations and failure cases were not discussed enough and many key experimental details were left out of the main paper. \\n\\nWhile I find this to be an interesting problem and method, I will agree with the general consensus of the reviewers and recommend rejection.\", \"additional_comments_on_reviewer_discussion\": \"The discussion period focused on a few key issues; the theoretical foundation of the approach, baseline comparisons, and the paper's presentation. They questioned if a method like this is capable of working in settings where traditional approaches cannot and felt that the paper left these important questions unanswered.\\n\\nIn response the authors added new baselines such as fudge but reviewers were not thoroughly convinced. They also had concerns about the validity of these new experiments for data access reasons. Authors clarified the setups should be comparable. \\n\\nStill reviewers felt many of their largest questions were still unanswered and were not inclined to raise their scores.\"}", "{\"title\": \"Paper Decision\", \"decision\": \"Reject\"}", "{\"summary\": \"This paper proposes a method for learning sample-efficient extrapolative sequence transformations by first using Markov Chain Monte Carlo (MCMC) sampling to explore the solution space, then training a separate inference network on selected states from these chains. The authors demonstrate their approach on three tasks: protein sequence design, text sentiment control, and text anonymization. The key innovation is sub-sampling informative state transitions from MCMC chains to train a more efficient model that can achieve similar or better performance with significantly fewer inference steps.\", \"soundness\": \"2\", \"presentation\": \"3\", \"contribution\": \"2\", \"strengths\": [\"Tackles an important problem (extrapolative generation) with a novel approach\", \"Impressive empirical results, especially on protein engineering\", \"Thorough ablation studies examining different components\", \"Clear practical benefits in terms of sample efficiency\"], \"weaknesses\": \"1. The validation methodology for protein engineering is fundamentally flawed. Without a separate validation set, there's no reliable way to assess generalization ability. While the authors acknowledge this and attempt some mitigation strategies, they don't address the core issue of potential overfitting to the test set through architecture and hyperparameter choices.\\n\\n2. The theoretical justification for extrapolation capabilities is weak. Although they discuss how their approach captures dependencies between hidden states, they fail to provide a compelling explanation for why this enables better extrapolation. The paper lacks formal analysis of extrapolation capabilities or theoretical bounds on performance.\\n\\n3. The baseline comparisons are inadequate, particularly in protein engineering where they only compare against two baselines from a single paper. This omits numerous recent protein design methods and alternative approaches. While sentiment and anonymization tasks include more baselines, they still miss obvious comparisons with state-of-the-art methods.\\n\\n4. Several key ablation studies are missing. There's no exploration of different MCMC sampling strategies, limited analysis of energy function designs, and no investigation of how performance scales with sequence length. These missing analyses make it harder to understand which components are crucial for success.\\n\\n5. The energy function design choices feel arbitrary and aren't well justified. The weighting between different terms lacks thorough explanation, and there's no meaningful discussion of how to design effective energy functions for new tasks, limiting the method's applicability to other domains.\\n\\n6. Memory consumption issues are acknowledged but not adequately addressed. The authors note their models use significantly more memory than alternatives but offer no solutions. The analysis lacks discussion of how usage scales with sequence length or batch size, and fails to analyze memory-computation tradeoffs.\\n\\n7. Reproducibility and practical concerns are significant. Many implementation details are buried in appendices, hyperparameter sensitivity isn't thoroughly analyzed, and there's limited discussion of failure cases or scalability to longer sequences. These omissions make it difficult for others to build upon their work or apply it to real-world problems.\", \"questions\": [\"Why not include more baselines, especially recent work in protein engineering?\", \"How sensitive is the method to the choice of energy function?\", \"Have you explored using curriculum learning approaches for training?\", \"How does performance scale with sequence length?\", \"What are the key factors limiting memory efficiency?\"], \"flag_for_ethics_review\": \"['No ethics review needed.']\", \"rating\": \"5\", \"confidence\": \"4\", \"code_of_conduct\": \"Yes\"}", "{\"summary\": \"This paper studies the problem of intractable inference in sequence models. It is proposed to sample MCMC chains using an infilling LM as a proposal, to create subchains using various procedures (e.g., selecting the points where the target energy decreases), and to train an autoregressive model on these subchains. This model can then be used to sample modes of the target distribution more efficiently. This method is evaluated on a protein design task and two language generation (editing) tasks and shows somewhat promising results.\", \"soundness\": \"2\", \"presentation\": \"1\", \"contribution\": \"3\", \"strengths\": [\"The procedure of amortising subchains of MCMC chains by a non-Markovian sequence model is interesting and could be applicable to structured sampling problems well beyond the protein and language tasks studied here.\", \"For example, chain-of-thought reasoning, among other intractable inference problems in language, has been interpreted as latent variable inference and addressed using MCMC ([Phan et al., NeurIPS'23](https://arxiv.org/abs/2312.02179), [Lew et al.](https://arxiv.org/abs/2306.03081)), amortisation ([Hu et al., ICLR'24](https://arxiv.org/abs/2310.04363)), hybrid methods ([Zhao et al., ICML'24](https://arxiv.org/abs/2404.17546)), and distillation into tractable models ([Zhang et al., 2024](https://arxiv.org/abs/2406.13892)).\", \"The inclusion of both LM and biological sequence design tasks is a good way to show the generality (although toy experiments on something synthetic and *very* simple, where the target is well-understood, would also be helpful).\", \"Results generally comparable with prior work in each task with (possibly -- see questions below) higher efficiency of inference.\"], \"weaknesses\": [\"Overall, both the writing and the experiments need substantial improvement. It is quite difficult to understand the algorithm and the experiment setup, nor are the results particularly strong.\", \"The writing in the first two pages is imprecise and does not set up the problem well.\", \"The first sentence of the abstract does not make sense to me. (Doesn't \\\"desired outputs\\\" already presuppose we are talking about generative modelling -- so what is the meaning of saying generative models are \\\"appealing\\\"? \\\"Sequence-level\\\" as opposed to what?)\", \"In general, the abstract does not explain well the problem setting and does not prime the reader to expect what is to come. The reader is left wondering: Are we talking about generative modelling from data or sampling given a density? Are we training a new model or constraining an existing one?\", \"The introduction does not set up the problem to be solved in a clear way.\", \"The first 2.5 paragraphs or so of the introduction seem to be saying approximately \\\"generalisation is important\\\".\", \"However, the **main objects** involved in the problem setting are not introduced. Thus it is not clear what is being talked about when \\\"original\\\" and \\\"sampled\\\" sequences are mentioned, what the EBM has to do with infilling, etc.\", \"Second paragraph: Lu et al. and Holtzman et al. are inaccurately described. The latter studies strategies to clip the tail of the next-token distributions, while Lu et al. studies MCTS as proposed by reference [59] in that paper, which seems to have no connection to such clipping.\", \"In the last paragraph of the intro, $q_\\\\theta$ appears, but it is never defined.\", \"Section 2: Please define all symbols when they are first used. As far as I could infer:\", \"$\\\\cal X$: space of sequences\", \"$\\\\cal Y$: set of \\\"properties\\\"\", \"$o:{\\\\cal X}\\\\to{\\\\cal Y}$: oracle assigning a property to every sequence\", \"${\\\\cal X}^{\\\\rm train}$: training set\", \"${\\\\cal Y}^{\\\\rm train}$: unclear; is it $\\\\{o(x):x\\\\in{\\\\cal X}^{\\\\rm train}\\\\}$? That is, we wish to generate sequences whose properties, as computed by an oracle, were not observed in the training set?\", \"Section 3:\", \"Is the score giving the density or the log-density? Contradiction between \\\"probability proportional to sequence-level score $s(x)$\\\" (L144) and the equation in L149.\", \"The following does not make sense to me (LL156-158): \\\"masked language modeling objectives implicitly define EBM with the masked-infilling objective serving as a proposal distribution\\\".\", \"How can a [training] **objective** define a distribution? Do you mean that the trained model defines a distribution? Same in LL162-163: the self-supervised pre-training process seems to have nothing to do with the use of the trained infilling model (so how can we say that MH sampling is based on the self-supervised training?).\", \"An EBM is defined by an energy function, not by a proposal distribution used to perform MH on it. Do you mean that the infilling model approximates a collapsed Gibbs sampler for a certain EBM? Or do you mean that the infilling model is an effective proposal for MH sampling of EBMs that happened to be trained on similar data?\", \"Even in the former case, things are somewhat more subtle than this. The conditional distributions given by infilling may not be compatible with any joint distribution, see, for example, [Henningen and Kim, ACL'23](https://arxiv.org/abs/2305.15501) and [Wang and Cho, NeuralGen@NAACL'19](https://arxiv.org/abs/1902.04094).\", \"In the end, I am left confused about the setting: the infilling model defines a EBM (L157) and is also a proposal distribution that is used to propose transitions (L160), but the proposals are accepted/rejected using the MH criterion on a EBM (L161), which seems to require an explicit energy model to compute the acceptance probability.\", \"A little diagram would help to understand the different ways of forming trajectories for training $q_\\\\theta$. (It is also confusing that $q$ (proposal) and $q_\\\\theta$ (amortised sampler) are denoted by the same letter.)\", \"Experiments:\", \"Missing details:\", \"In each experiment, please specify exactly, in an equation, what the target energy model is. I found some notes on this in Appendix D, but they left me with more questions. In general, I would suggest to move some experiment details to the appendix, but state as directly as possible what sampling problem is being solved.\", \"It is not stated which version of training data for $q_\\\\theta$ is used. It can be inferred from the ablation study in Section 5, but would be good to make explicit.\", \"I am not convinced by evaluations in 4.1:\", \"The fluency is not reported for ICE.\", \"Extrapolation metric: why should we expect that \\\"make this negative\\\" would lead necessarily to 1-star and not to 2-star reviews? It would be more informative to compare the full distributions of the base model and with editing, for each editing method.\", \"How to understand that the second and third columns in Table 2 sum to more than 1, if they are the proportions of reviews with (in the example of negative sentiment) 2 and 1 stars, respectively?\", \"In fact, generating **too many** 1-star reviews, together with the high fluency, could actually indicate mode collapse. There is no diversity metric to show that this is not happening.\", \"The comment on diversity also applies to Section 4.2. Why was ICE not considered in this problem?\", \"How do the methods compare in execution wall time (both for training and drawing a single sample)?\"], \"questions\": \"Please see above.\", \"flag_for_ethics_review\": \"['No ethics review needed.']\", \"rating\": \"3\", \"confidence\": \"4\", \"code_of_conduct\": \"Yes\"}", "{\"summary\": \"The paper proposes a method for enhancing sequence generation in models that need to extrapolate beyond training data that aims to extend beyond Padmakumar et al. (2023). It aims to be comparable with sampling-based methods such as MCMC in performance while being computationally efficient as existing works. To this end, it introduces an inference network trained on selected states from Markov chains. This approach is tested on protein sequence design, text sentiment control, and text anonymization tasks.\", \"soundness\": \"3\", \"presentation\": \"2\", \"contribution\": \"3\", \"strengths\": \"Overall, despite the fact that the paper is not well-written and easily understood, I admit that the paper conveys the problem background, the motivation, as well as their method relatively clearly. From my understanding, the problem of conditional sequence generation with extrapolated target properties is undoubtedly important, and I encourage the authors to conduct in-depth study of the problem. In addition, the goal of trying to find a method with (1) good performance, such as sampling-based methods, and (2) efficiency, such as existing iteration-based methods, is well-motivated and acute.\", \"weaknesses\": [\"In my opinion, there are several major concerns that prevent current paper from being accepted. Specifically,\", \"In the first place, instead of trying to improve on the existing ICE strategy, the authors should analyze whether and why current autoregressive (AR) models are unable to extrapolate, given their belief that iterative transformations are an alternative. Current LLMs have undoubtedly demonstrated their capacities to generalize beyond training data, especially in data-abundant areas. As a result, various conditional generation methods have proven effective, even when the conditions are highly user-crafted and unlikely seen in the training set. To well motivate the paper, the authors should explicitly analyze, (better) both theoretically and empirically, that current conditional generation methods such as prompts-based techniques or classifier guidance techniques, are insufficient for extrapolation.\", \"Since the authors, unlike ICE, are training an additional model to directly \\\"predict\\\" minor transformations that improve a target property, it becomes unclear to me why the original AR models equipped with additional data cannot do this. I do not see the incentive to train an additional model (as a surrogate) for this. Specifically, if you consider each transformed \\\"sequence\\\" as a \\\"token\\\" (that actually is a sequence) of an \\\"AR\\\" model and train on this \\\"token sequence\\\", I believe the model is, by nature, designed to generate sequences with better target property iteratively. In this case, what is the reason to have two models in the first place?\", \"Following the second point, I think the current comparison is unfair because the proposed method requires a large amount of preference data pairs to train. However, this data needs to be generated via standard MCMC-based methods and is unlikely to be generated computationally efficiently. As a result, the fact that the proposed method outperforms existing methods can be a natural fact that it is just leveraging more information, which again makes me confused about whether some alternatives can leverage these data more effectively. A more fair comparison should be made. For instance, when comparing efficiency, data generation & training time should be presented; when comparing performance, you should also show that existing methods with the dataset you generate are still inferior to your method.\", \"Finally but minorly, I think the presence of tables is far from clear. For instance, in Table 1, $q_\\\\theta$ has lower $-1$ and $-2.5$ scores, and I am not sure whether this can be referred to as \\\"outperform\\\". There might be a misunderstanding, but the authors should make it clear what we are expected to read from each table.\"], \"questions\": \"No additional questions beyond the weaknesses above.\", \"flag_for_ethics_review\": \"['No ethics review needed.']\", \"rating\": \"5\", \"confidence\": \"4\", \"code_of_conduct\": \"Yes\"}", "{\"summary\": [\"This paper addresses the challenge of **efficient extrapolation in sequence modeling**. The problem setup is as follows: Given a scoring oracle (or a function approximating it) that evaluates sequences\\u2014such as protein stability or sentiment of review comments\\u2014and training data limited to a specific score range, $\\\\mathcal{I}$, the objective is to generate sequences that achieve scores outside this range. This extrapolation aims to transform sequences beyond the initial constraints imposed by the training dataset.\", \"To me, the proposed solution can be framed as a reinforcement learning (RL) approach with the following key steps:\", \"Sample sequences from an initial model (policy).\", \"Randomly mask parts of each sequence.\", \"Predict and fill masked sections using a masked language model (MLM).\", \"Evaluate the transformed sequence via the scoring function.\", \"Retain transformations that yield improved scores.\", \"Additional heuristics are employed to enhance training efficiency, such as optimizing inference by selectively dropping intermediate reasoning steps when appropriate.\"], \"soundness\": \"2\", \"presentation\": \"2\", \"contribution\": \"2\", \"strengths\": [\"The experimental results on sentiment extrapolation and stable protein sequences indicate improvements on the proposed metrics, supporting the method\\u2019s effectiveness in generating high-scoring sequences beyond the training data\\u2019s score range while maintaining the chosen reference quality measures.\", \"The work provides insights into the limitations of MCMC, and demonstrates how a structured RL approach can offer improvements in extrapolative tasks.\"], \"weaknesses\": \"1. **Lack of context**:\\n Although some works on RL for controlled generation are discussed in the appendix, presenting the approach as an RL-based sequence generation technique in the main text would better contextualize the work. The core steps\\u2014sampling, masking, scoring, and retaining high-reward samples\\u2014closely resemble an RL framework and have been studied in the context of language modeling. For instance I can think of the following:\\n\\n - The MLM and scoring function could be interpreted as critics, similar to those used in RL formulations for text generation [1,2]. I think both works have similar criteria of retaining only if the rollout is correct (0-1 rewards), which is similar to your formalization.\\n - The approach of appending scored sequences mirrors reward conditioning or goal-conditioned policy training in RL [3,4].\\n\\n It would be easier to understand, compare, and extend this work if it is framed within an established framework. \\n\\n2. **Comparisons with RL Baselines**:\\n Given the alignment with RL methodologies, comparisons to baseline RL approaches would strengthen the empirical analysis. For example, on tasks like protein engineering, including a simple reward-conditioning baseline that takes ddG values as input or similar methods referenced in the appendix would provide a more complete evaluation. For instance, the protein sequence experiments are only compared with Padmakumar et al. (2023). Comparing with simple/basic RL methods would also work also as an ablation, justifying the more complex steps of the proposed method.\\n\\n3. **Clarity and Editorial Suggestions**:\\n Certain sections of the paper could benefit from additional clarity. For instance, the sentence on line 365 is incomplete, and some overly long sentences could be simplified for readability. Introducing mathematical notation earlier (e.g., at the end of page 2) would also improve consistency and clarify the problem setup throughout the paper.\", \"questions\": \"To improve the interpretability of the evaluation, it would be beneficial to include example (text) sequences alongside quantitative metrics, such as fluency or Sentence-BERT similarity scores. While these metrics offer quantitative insights, they are difficult to interpret without sample outputs to contextualize them. For instance, it is vert vague for me what the impact of a 0.13% improvement in fluency or a BERT similarity of 0.1 would be. It would be clearer if these metrics are accompanied by representative examples, e.g. showcasing semantic similarity, etc. I wonder how the actual output texts compare to baselines.\\n\\n**References**\\n\\n1. Zelikman et al., *STaR: Bootstrapping Reasoning With Reasoning*\\n2. Zelikman et al., *Quiet-STaR: Language Models Can Teach Themselves to Think Before Speaking*\\n3. Lynch and Semanet, *Language Conditioned Imitation Learning over Unstructured Data*\\n4. Shypula, Madaan, et al., *Learning Performance-Improving Code Edits*\", \"flag_for_ethics_review\": \"['No ethics review needed.']\", \"rating\": \"6\", \"confidence\": \"3\", \"code_of_conduct\": \"Yes\"}" ] }

[ "Abdolmehdi Behroozi", "Chaopeng Shen", "Daniel Kifer" ]

[ "Fourier Neural Operator", "Sensitivity Analysis", "Parametric Differential Equations", "Surrogate Modes", "Differentiable Numerical Solvers", "Inverse Problems" ]

{ "note_id": [ "xdAN611wrY", "x3aBeTMdRL", "veiqBpDh8L", "u9HZYbwTGy", "twYjxEmiUv", "saAol7DYZq", "r7T8jc7dja", "qWtJjvs4HA", "pR2hgfWalH", "oIEFWKbAEE", "lZ4xmzjViC", "gh9oFAeeJ4", "elSCRpuvfc", "eKs07FnLk3", "crR4lWJg4S", "bawwPGfEky", "YIN73OyWsF", "VrGv5H5JEM", "V70POJbAi5", "TfNksJcark", "TQRxcIcsNj", "Rayerxpo9n", "QrrnaXTz5S", "OcjWD1ObfQ", "Mv18bgPyyS", "K5CS5ygD6j", "IXdOlrpoct", "GsnRF7GRkU", "GPvetwcNSf", "9lNG6jvWVM", "8wWnIG7wl7", "5bF5dPWfxb", "3yzYxl9NAh", "2x5aQptEdi", "2dsO5ktT8Q", "295PP3Q38z" ], "note_type": [ "official_review", "official_review", "official_review", "official_comment", "official_comment", "official_comment", "official_comment", "official_comment", "official_comment", "official_comment", "official_comment", "decision", "official_comment", "official_comment", "official_comment", "official_comment", "official_comment", "official_review", "official_comment", "official_comment", "official_comment", "official_comment", "official_comment", "official_comment", "official_comment", "meta_review", "official_comment", "official_comment", "official_comment", "official_comment", "official_comment", "official_comment", "official_comment", "official_comment", "official_comment", "official_comment" ], "note_created": [ 1730607092715, 1729393420886, 1730836438832, 1732461343663, 1732725104236, 1732209056817, 1732061238573, 1732163466484, 1732600701836, 1732410532942, 1732048049195, 1737524055908, 1732077874509, 1732046910691, 1732190790075, 1732600827602, 1732050211112, 1730715887107, 1732060944541, 1732061174462, 1733166890446, 1732600861253, 1732667765229, 1732125799532, 1732048001265, 1734726735281, 1733162178882, 1732047106787, 1733312061628, 1732163804375, 1732600845754, 1732163407876, 1732046437701, 1732209069896, 1732162939076, 1733141084509 ], "note_signatures": [ [ "ICLR.cc/2025/Conference/Submission10470/Reviewer_KLdr" ], [ "ICLR.cc/2025/Conference/Submission10470/Reviewer_WFXg" ], [ "ICLR.cc/2025/Conference/Submission10470/Reviewer_a6GH" ], [ "ICLR.cc/2025/Conference/Submission10470/Authors" ], [ "ICLR.cc/2025/Conference/Submission10470/Authors" ], [ "ICLR.cc/2025/Conference/Submission10470/Authors" ], [ "ICLR.cc/2025/Conference/Submission10470/Authors" ], [ "ICLR.cc/2025/Conference/Submission10470/Authors" ], [ "ICLR.cc/2025/Conference/Submission10470/Authors" ], [ "ICLR.cc/2025/Conference/Submission10470/Reviewer_WFXg" ], [ "ICLR.cc/2025/Conference/Submission10470/Authors" ], [ "ICLR.cc/2025/Conference/Program_Chairs" ], [ "ICLR.cc/2025/Conference/Submission10470/Reviewer_WFXg" ], [ "ICLR.cc/2025/Conference/Submission10470/Authors" ], [ "ICLR.cc/2025/Conference/Submission10470/Reviewer_WFXg" ], [ "ICLR.cc/2025/Conference/Submission10470/Authors" ], [ "ICLR.cc/2025/Conference/Submission10470/Reviewer_a6GH" ], [ "ICLR.cc/2025/Conference/Submission10470/Reviewer_DfuF" ], [ "ICLR.cc/2025/Conference/Submission10470/Authors" ], [ "ICLR.cc/2025/Conference/Submission10470/Authors" ], [ "ICLR.cc/2025/Conference/Submission10470/Authors" ], [ "ICLR.cc/2025/Conference/Submission10470/Authors" ], [ "ICLR.cc/2025/Conference/Submission10470/Reviewer_a6GH" ], [ "ICLR.cc/2025/Conference/Submission10470/Reviewer_a6GH" ], [ "ICLR.cc/2025/Conference/Submission10470/Authors" ], [ "ICLR.cc/2025/Conference/Submission10470/Area_Chair_hkKN" ], [ "ICLR.cc/2025/Conference/Submission10470/Authors" ], [ "ICLR.cc/2025/Conference/Submission10470/Authors" ], [ "ICLR.cc/2025/Conference/Submission10470/Authors" ], [ "ICLR.cc/2025/Conference/Submission10470/Authors" ], [ "ICLR.cc/2025/Conference/Submission10470/Authors" ], [ "ICLR.cc/2025/Conference/Submission10470/Authors" ], [ "ICLR.cc/2025/Conference/Submission10470/Authors" ], [ "ICLR.cc/2025/Conference/Submission10470/Authors" ], [ "ICLR.cc/2025/Conference/Submission10470/Authors" ], [ "ICLR.cc/2025/Conference/Submission10470/Reviewer_DfuF" ] ], "structured_content_str": [ "{\"summary\": \"This paper introduces a sensitivity loss regularizer for neural operators, specifically applying it to the Fourier Neural Operator (FNO) framework, resulting in Sensitivity-Constrained Fourier Neural Operators (SC-FNO). SC-FNO improves accuracy in solution paths, inverse problem-solving, and sensitivity calculations, even under sparse data and concept drift. It outperforms both standard FNO and FNO with PINN regularization in parameter inversion tasks, achieving high accuracy without large computational or memory costs. These enhancements extend the applicability and reliability of neural operators in modeling complex physical systems.\", \"soundness\": \"3\", \"presentation\": \"3\", \"contribution\": \"3\", \"strengths\": \"1. The paper's proposed Sensitivity-Constrained approach is applicable to various neural operators, offering high research value.\\n2. The paper is clearly written, with no redundant mathematical derivations, and offers excellent readability.\\n3. In modeling PDEs, this approach not only enables accurate approximation of the target variable but also effectively models its derivatives.\", \"weaknesses\": \"1. There is no enough discussion on the memory overhead introduced by AD (Automatic Differentiation) and FD (Finite Differences).\\n2. The experiments are limited. It is not sure whether this method remains effective in complicated and high-resolution PDE scenarios.\", \"questions\": \"In above part.\", \"flag_for_ethics_review\": \"['No ethics review needed.']\", \"rating\": \"6\", \"confidence\": \"4\", \"code_of_conduct\": \"Yes\"}", "{\"summary\": \"This paper proposes a sensitivity-constrained loss in the original FNO model, making it suitable for ODE/PDE inversion problems. Definitely this loss can make the prediction more stable with respect to the physical system parameters. This loss works with a wide range of neural operators and other supervising sensitivity tasks. The paper is well-written. The method is effective compared to the original FNO and FNO-PINN. The experiments on five ODE/PDE problems are impressive.\", \"soundness\": \"2\", \"presentation\": \"2\", \"contribution\": \"3\", \"strengths\": \"1.The paper focus on the sensitivity prediction to physical ODE/PDE systems, which is important.\\n\\n2.The paper\\u2019s contribution is clear, and the paper is easy to follow.\\n\\n3.The experiments are diverse.\\n\\n4.The paper\\u2019s improvements help enhancing the reliability and applicability of neural operators in complex physical systems modeling and engineering analysis.\", \"weaknesses\": \"1.The idea of using gradient loss to guarantee sensitivity is not new, such as the gradient PINN and others.\\n\\n2.The sensitivity loss is supervised, which means additional labeled data {\\\\partial u}/{\\\\partial p} are needed compared to original FNO. On the other hand , if we have additional labeled data, it is directly to add the supervised loss in the total loss, which is SC-FNO exactly, so I think the novelty is rather limited. Although the {\\\\partial u}/{\\\\partial p} can also be approximately computed from the original data, the numerical error influence is not analyzed. On the contrary, the PINN loss is unsupervised.\\n\\n3.The SC-FNO loss is hybrid, the training process should be reflected in the main text or appendix. SC-FNO should be hard to train compared to FNO, but the author didn\\u2019t mention the difference.\\n\\n4.Since the PINN-FNO also add the PINN loss as the regularizer to guarantee the prediction of physical parameters, I wonder why it behaves bad to SC-FNO. Maybe the training difficulty is different. The author use a learnable coefficients combination of the hybrid loss Liebel & K\\u00f6rner (2018) in Algorithm 3, but FNO-PINN may be trained well for adaptive hybrid loss as in Wang S, Wang H, Perdikaris P. Improved architectures and training algorithms for deep operator networks[J]. Journal of Scientific Computing, 2022, 92(2): 35.\\n\\n5. SC-FNO architecture, as well as the Algorithm, should be exhibited in the main text, not the appendix.\", \"questions\": \"See in the weaknesses 2-4.\\n\\nWhy use R^2 as metric, why not the relatively L^2 norm as in the original FNO paper\\uff1fThe metric should be comparable to existing works.\", \"flag_for_ethics_review\": \"['No ethics review needed.']\", \"rating\": \"6\", \"confidence\": \"4\", \"code_of_conduct\": \"Yes\"}", "{\"summary\": \"In this paper, the author proposes a sensitivity loss as a regularizer for Fourier neural operator, called SC-FNO. Specifially, the sensitivity is measured by the derivative (jacobian) du/dp, where p is the physical parameter. The jacobian du/dp is computed via auto differentiation. Experiments are conducted on 2 ODEs and 2 PDEs. It shows that SC-FNO outperforms previous FNO and Pinn-FNO.\", \"soundness\": \"3\", \"presentation\": \"2\", \"contribution\": \"2\", \"strengths\": [\"This paper examines a notable case involving the system parameter $P$, where $ \\\\frac{du}{dp} $ is computed as a sensitivity loss to regularize the model.\", \"The results indicate that SC-FNO achieves greater accuracy in $ \\\\frac{du}{dp} $ and demonstrates enhanced robustness against perturbations in $p$.\", \"This approach aids inverse modeling in identifying the system parameters more effectively.\"], \"weaknesses\": [\"### Writing\", \"The overall writing quality could be enhanced, with several important details suggested to be moved from the appendix into the main text.\", \"The physical parameter $P$ is central to the study and should be introduced more thoroughly. Currently, it is presented in a general form, but it\\u2019s important to clarify whether $P$ is a scalar in $\\\\mathbb{R}$, a vector in $\\\\mathbb{R}^d$, or a function in $L(\\\\mathbb{R})$.\", \"Starting with a concrete example in the introduction would improve clarity and reader engagement.\", \"On Page 5, while introducing the ODEs and PDEs, the nature of the parameter $P$ remains ambiguous. Explicitly writing out the equation would help clarify its role.\", \"### Methods\", \"It is unclear how $P$ is incorporated into the FNO model. If $P$ is a scalar, is it treated as a constant function and added as an additional channel?\", \"Computing the derivative requires additional runtime and memory, which should be discussed in detail.\", \"### Experiments\", \"SC-FNO appears to achieve higher accuracy primarily on $\\\\frac{du}{dp}$ but not significantly on the solution $u$ itself.\", \"Runtime and memory usage should be addressed, especially in comparison to alternative approaches.\"], \"questions\": [\"What are the runtime and memory consumption, and which is the primary factor to consider?\", \"Can the model handle functional input such as $ \\\\frac{du}{du_0} $? In this case, the Jacobian could be huge.\", \"Can the model account for parameters like the Reynolds number or viscosity as $P$?\", \"Can the model work on chaotic system such as the lorenz system, where the underlying parameter is very sensitive?\", \"---\"], \"updates\": \"the rebuttal addressed most of my questions. I am happy to raise my score to 8.\", \"flag_for_ethics_review\": \"['No ethics review needed.']\", \"rating\": \"8\", \"confidence\": \"4\", \"code_of_conduct\": \"Yes\"}", "{\"comment\": \"Thank you for your feedback. We believe your insights will greatly enhance the quality of our work.\\n\\nWe look forward to addressing your points clearly in our revised manuscript.\"}", "{\"comment\": \"**Many thanks** for your thoughtful feedback and for raising your score. Your concerns about scalability and flexibility highlight important considerations for the method's practical applications.\\n\\n Please trust us that SC-FNO can scale up to handle high-dimensional parameter spaces - we have preliminarily tested it with 2500 parameters with promising results. However, properly validating and presenting these findings requires additional time and rigorous analysis to meet publication standards. Given the current paper's focus on establishing the fundamental benefits of sensitivity supervision for parameter inversion, **whose importance is showcased even with as few as one or a handful of parameters**, we felt including preliminary high-dimensional results might dilute this core message. **Meanwhile, the 82-parameter case has already been included in the revised manuscript**. \\n\\nFurthermore, we should highlight two key features of our framework:\\n\\n - Neural operators have resolution-independent capabilities - FNO can be trained on lower resolution grids (e.g., 32\\u00d732) yet make predictions on much finer resolutions (128\\u00d7128 or higher). This means parameter dimensionality can be managed efficiently without sacrificing accuracy at inference time (Please, see Figure 1, Page 2 at https://arxiv.org/pdf/2010.08895 ).\\n - Our training procedure employs strategic sampling - instead of computing gradients at all points, we randomly select a subset of spatial-temporal points in each epoch (n < N spatial points \\u00d7 t < T time points) where n < N and t < T. The neural operator's predicted gradients at these points are computed using AD and compared with the pre-computed true gradients. This sampling varies between epochs to eventually cover the full solution space. **We explained this implementation in our revised manuscript.**\\n\\n\\n We are committed to demonstrating these strong capabilities comprehensively in our next paper. This is a solemn promise. Given the time constraints and scope, we cannot include such results in the current work. We appreciate your understanding of the need to progress methodically in establishing this new approach. We also want to thank you again for your constructive comments that helped us shape the manuscript.\"}", "{\"comment\": \"Dear reviewer,\\n\\n\\nThank you for your reply and insightful feedback.\\n\\nIf we understand your question correctly, of course, p is used as input to both FNO and SC-FNO and it's a fair comparison. Their input data are identical. We wouldn't make a mistake like not providing p to the default FNO. FNO has access to the same input information but it does not seem to fully understand how to use it like SC-FNO does.\\n\\n**The SC-FNO architecture processes parameters (P) alongside spatial coordinates and initial conditions through the lifting layer (fc0) (possibly as function inputs). This layer reshapes and repeats parameters to match the problem's spatial-temporal dimensions, then concatenates them with other inputs before neural network processing.**\\n\\n\\n\\nData preparation time for SC-FNO was previously in Table D.9. We now amend it with the time for FNO without gradients as shown in the table below for **PDE2 (Burger's equation)** and **PDE3 (Navier-Stokes equation)**, **measured per 10 samples using 1 GPU Tesla P100-PCIE-12GB**. \\n\\n**This represents a one-time cost per equation, and since input impacts are resolved upfront, no repeated preparation is needed for different parameters.** Furthermore, when considering the supervision of high-dimensional inputs, where default FNO requires far more than 5x more data (and thus more preparation time), we argue this additional computational cost is well justified. Based on simple logic, the data preparation time of the default FNO will grow exponentially more to achieve similar accuracy as the input dimension grows.\\n\\n\\n| Case | Number of input parameter (P) | Computation time (s) ||\\n|-|-|-|-|\\n| | | With jacobian | Without jacobian |\\n|PDE2| 4 | 1.387 | 0.796 |\\n|PDE3 (Navier stocks)| 2 | 6.205 | 2.762 |\\n\\nWe hope by now we have presented something truly unique and powerful here. If there is anything else we can do to convince you that is doable within the remaining time and reasonable scope, please let us know.\"}", "{\"comment\": \"## Part 2\\n\\n**Question 2 (Assessing Effectiveness in Complex PDE Scenarios: Additional Equations):**\\nIn our manuscript, we investigated our framework across a variety of differential equations, from simple ODEs to complex PDEs like Navier-Stokes equations. To further demonstrate SC-FNO's capabilities, we conducted two new challenging experiments:\\n\\n* First, we tested Burger's equation (PDE2) with zoned parameters - dividing the spatial domain into M=40 segments with different advection \\u03b1 and forcing amplitude \\u03b4 in each zone, along with global parameters viscosity \\u03b3 and forcing frequency \\u03c9 (total 2M+2=82 parameters). The results demonstrate SC-FNO's clear advantages over FNO (Table below):\\n\\n\\n|Number of training samples | N=500 | | N=100 | |\\n|---------------------------------|---------------------|--------------|---------------------|--------------|\\n| Model | SC-FNO | FNO | SC-FNO | FNO |\\n| **Average training time per epoch (s)** | 11.23 | 8.09 | 7.23 | 5.37 |\\n| **State Value Metrics** | | | | |\\n| RMSE | 0.01006 | 0.03894 | 0.01199 | 0.05354 |\\n| Relative L2 | 0.00729 | 0.02822 | 0.00867 | 0.03873 |\\n| Maximum Absolute Error | 0.05425 | 0.30564 | 0.05679 | 0.28312 |\\n| **Mean Jacobian Metrics** | | | | |\\n| RMSE | 0.00508 | 0.05181 | 0.00660 | 0.06076 |\\n| Relative L2 | 0.17698 | 1.96270 | 0.21342 | 2.46226 |\\n| Maximum Absolute Error | 0.05576 | 0.20075 | 0.06531 | 0.22079 |\\n\\n\\n\\n* Second, we examined Navier-Stokes equations with specifics introduced in the manuscripts and initial condition *w\\u2080(x)* is generated according to *w\\u2080 ~ \\u03bc* where *\\u03bc = N(0, 7^(3/2) (-\\u2206+49I)^(-2.5))* with periodic boundary conditions (according Li, Zongyi, et al. \\\"Fourier neural operator for parametric partial differential equations.\\\" *arXiv preprint arXiv:2010.08895* (2020).) and also varied Reynolds number in range of [250 to 1000] corresponding to kinematic viscosity [0.004 to 0.001] and constrain SC-FNO with jacobian of solution path (vorticity) with respect to the Reynolds number with different training sample points. Results show SC-FNO's performance (Table below):\\n\\n| Number of training samples | | N=200 | | N=100 | |\\n|---------------------------------------|-------------|---------------|--------------|---------------|-------------|\\n| Model | **FNO** | **SC-FNO** | **FNO** | **SC-FNO** |\\n| **Average training time per epoch (s)** | 4.46 | 11.27 | 2.51 | 6.13 |\\n| **State Value Metrics** | | | | |\\n| vorticity R2 Score | 0.844 | 0.996 | 0.804 | 0.986 |\\n| vorticity L2 Mean Error (RMSE) | 1.36e-01 | 2.28e-02 | 1.53e-01 | 4.12e-02 |\\n| vorticity L1 Relative Error | 0.389 | 0.066 | 0.452 | 0.120 |\\n| vorticity L2 Relative Error | 0.390 | 0.066 | 0.442 | 0.119 |\\n| vorticity Max Absolute Error | 0.747 | 0.153 | 0.728 | 0.216 |\\n| **Mean Jacobian Metrics** | | | | |\\n| Jacobian R2 Score | 0.170 | 0.996 | 0.181 | 0.990 |\\n| Jacobian Mean L2 Error (RMSE) | 2.32e-03 | 1.65e-04 | 2.31e-03 | 2.53e-04 |\\n| Jacobian L1 Relative Error | 1.510 | 0.105 | 1.416 | 0.157 |\\n| Jacobian L2 Relative Error | 0.877 | 0.062 | 0.872 | 0.096 |\\n| Jacobian Max Absolute Error | 0.122 | 0.005 | 0.259 | 0.012 |\\n\\nThese additional results further confirm our method's effectiveness in both high-dimensional and complex physical systems.\\n\\nWe nonetheless apologize for the oversight of not providing computational time and relative L2 error information. In fact, when you look at the relative L2 error in the last two tables, SC-FNO\\u2019s errors even for the state variables are several times smaller than that of FNO, with only a modest increase in training time in this case. It is data-efficient --- N=100 gives us a much better model than N=500 for the default FNO. It extrapolates much more robustly (original Figure 4). Furthermore, the advantages over FNO grow much more significantly as the dimension grows -- while its training time understandably will increase, the data demand for FNO will increase exponentially. We mention these factors for the reviewers\\u2019 kind consideration. All these results point to an enormous elevation of neural operators\\u2019 performance ceiling.\"}", "{\"comment\": \"# Part 3\\n\\n**Question 5 (Parameter Dimensionality and Computational Cost):**\\nThanks for pushing the envelope. We believe the Tables above partially confirm that we can handle distributed parameters. The computational cost indeed increases with parameter dimensionality. **However, this challenge must be viewed in context: standard neural operators face an exponential increase in required training data & thus training time to maintain accuracy as parameter dimensions grow.** This is a fundamental challenge in high-dimensional learning that our method helps address.\\nOur results with the Ginzburg-Landau equation (122 parameters from 40 spatial zones) demonstrate this clearly. SC-FNO maintains high accuracy (relative L2: 0.007) with just 100 training samples, while FNO's error increases significantly (0.025) even with 5x more training data and more training time. We actually believe there is something fundamental to this phenomenon that begs to be studied but we feel that it needs a specific next paper. These results show that while computational costs increase with dimensionality, SC-FNO's better parameter-solution mapping provides a favorable trade-off by requiring substantially less training data to achieve and maintain accuracy. We are glad that, at the reviewers\\u2019 nudge, we demonstrate these amazing results. Please let us know if you have more questions.\"}", "{\"comment\": \"Dear reviewer,\\n\\nWe greatly appreciate your thorough review, which has helped improve the quality of our manuscript. We have carefully considered all your comments and have updated our manuscript accordingly to address your concerns. \\n\\nWe would be most grateful for your input if any additional revisions are needed during the remaining time of the discussion period.\"}", "{\"comment\": \"Thank you for your careful reply. Now I know that the SC-FNO's additional supervised loss isn't a 'typical' supervised loss. Identically it has the same data requirement as FNO (input: function a(x), parameter p, coordinates (t,x); output: u(x)).\\nThe additional 'supervised' data \\u2202u/\\u2202p can be computed from the original output data numerically, and the prediction can be computed by automatic differentiation. I agree with the author that \\\"SC-FNO is a novel variant of PINN\\\".\\n\\nAll of my concerns have been clarified. I'd like to increase the score to a positive score and hope the authors clarify well in a revised version of the paper.\"}", "{\"comment\": \"## **Part 2**\\n\\n---\\n\\n**3. Handling Physical Parameters (Re, \\u03bd)**:\\nGreat question again! Yes! We ran another experiment to demonstrate if the model can account for parameters like Reynolds number. As you can see, the accuracy of the default FNO for even the state variables (u) is no longer sufficient as the input dimension increases, while SC-FNO remains highly accurate. Here we consider NSE (PDE3) with specifics introduced in the manuscripts and initial condition w0(x) is generated according to w0 \\u223c \\u00b5 where \\u00b5 = N(0, 7^(3/2) (\\u2212\\u2206+49I)^(-2.5)) with periodic boundary conditions (according Li, Zongyi, et al. \\\"Fourier neural operator for parametric partial differential equations.\\\" arXiv preprint arXiv:2010.08895 (2020).) and also varied Reynolds number in range of [250 to 1000] corresponding to kinematic viscosity [0.004 to 0.001] and constrain SC-FNO with jacobian of solution path (vorticity) with respect to the Reynolds number with different training sample points. We include some experiment results here in the rebuttal, however, we will add the results in our revised manuscripts if the dear reviewer tends.\\n\\n| Number of training samples | | N=200 | | N=100 | |\\n|---------------------------------------|-------------|---------------|--------------|---------------|-------------|\\n| Model | **FNO** | **SC-FNO** | **FNO** | **SC-FNO** |\\n| **State Value Metrics** | | | | |\\n| vorticity R2 Score | 0.844 | 0.996 | 0.804 | 0.986 |\\n| vorticity L2 Mean Error (RMSE) | 1.36e-01 | 2.28e-02 | 1.53e-01 | 4.12e-02 |\\n| vorticity L1 Relative Error | 0.389 | 0.066 | 0.452 | 0.120 |\\n| vorticity L2 Relative Error | 0.390 | 0.066 | 0.442 | 0.119 |\\n| vorticity Max Absolute Error | 0.747 | 0.153 | 0.728 | 0.216 |\\n| **Mean Jacobian Metrics** | | | | |\\n| Jacobian R2 Score | 0.170 | 0.996 | 0.181 | 0.990 |\\n| Jacobian Mean L2 Error (RMSE) | 2.32e-03 | 1.65e-04 | 2.31e-03 | 2.53e-04 |\\n| Jacobian L1 Relative Error | 1.510 | 0.105 | 1.416 | 0.157 |\\n| Jacobian L2 Relative Error | 0.877 | 0.062 | 0.872 | 0.096 |\\n| Jacobian Max Absolute Error | 0.122 | 0.005 | 0.259 | 0.012 |\\n\\n\\nAs reported in the manuscript previously, SC-FNO maintains high performance even with limited training data.\\n\\n\\n---\\n\\n**4. Handling Chaotic Systems:**\\nWhile we haven't experimented with the Lorenz system, exploring such semi-chaotic systems could be an interesting direction for future work. We will be clear in the revision that such chaotic systems are not tested and the current design may not work for them. Our current results with complex PDEs exhibiting semi-chaotic behavior, such as Navier-Stokes equations and Burger's equation, demonstrate SC-FNO's capability to handle challenging dynamics.\\n\\nIn summary, we wish the reviewer sees the immense potential of this method, the limited resource requirements and the core challenges it solves. Let us know if you have more questions or requests. In fact, currently, there seems no upper bound of how many parameters we can include in the Jacobian loss when memory allows (other than memory which is also modest). We continue to be surprised by the capability of the scheme.\"}", "{\"title\": \"Paper Decision\", \"decision\": \"Accept (Poster)\"}", "{\"comment\": \"Thanks for the detailed reply and additional experiments.\\n\\nI agree with your explanation on the training and the experiments, although the improvements are mainly on \\u2202u/\\u2202p(rel.l2 from 0.21 to 0.013) rather than on u itself(from 0.003 to 0.0016).\\n\\nMy major concern (maybe personally) about the novelty is that, SC-FNO need additional supervised data \\u2202u/\\u2202p compared to FNO, while FNO-PINN do not need additional supervised data but the known equation. From FNO to FNO-PINN is innovative since we can generalize well without additional labelled data, but from FNO to SC-FNO we need additional labelled data to achieve better performance. The data is in a typical supervised form and can be added directly to the loss, so SC-FNO is very straightforward. In this case I think SC-FNO has less contribution to the neural network architecture or the loss design.\"}", "{\"comment\": \"## Part 2\\n\\n---\\n\\n**Weakness 4. PINN + FNO vs. PINN + DeepOnet:**\\nThe paper you referenced (Wang et al., 2022) specifically demonstrates successful PINN integration with DeepONet architecture, not FNO. The contrasting performance may stem from fundamental architectural differences in how these neural operators handle derivatives. DeepONet directly operates in function spaces through its branch and trunk networks, making PINN's differential operators naturally compatible. **In contrast, FNO transforms data to Fourier space where derivatives become multiplication operations, making spatial/temporal derivative supervision less effective.**\\nThis architectural distinction explains why PINN regularization works better with DeepONet than FNO, despite both being neural operators. While both approaches map between function spaces, their internal operations are fundamentally different. This core difference in handling derivatives suggests why SC-FNO's direct parameter sensitivity supervision proves more effective for FNO-based architectures.\\n\\n---\\n\\n**Question 1. Use of R\\u00b2:**\\nWe will include additional error metrics such as relative L2 error in the revised manuscript.\\nBelow is a sample calculation of additional error metrics for PDE2 (Burger's equation):\\n| Metric | SC-FNO | FNO |\\n|-----------------|-------------|-----------|\\n| **State Value Metrics** | | |\\n| RMSE | 0.00221 | 0.00411 |\\n| L2 | 0.85780 | 1.59028 |\\n| Rel L2 | 0.00161 | 0.00299 |\\n| Max L1 | 0.01363 | 0.05133 |\\n| **Mean Jacobian Metrics** | | |\\n| RMSE | 0.01376 | 0.24827 |\\n| L2 | 5.32954 | 96.15426 |\\n| Rel L2 | 0.01349 | 0.20916 |\\n| Max L1 | 0.20029 | 1.53333 |\\n\\n---\"}", "{\"comment\": \"I'm also curious about whether the improvement comes from the parameter inputs or the supervised sensitivity loss. For original FNO, the inputs only include the function a(x), but SC-FNO extend the inputs to the parameter p and coordinates (x,y,t).\"}", "{\"comment\": \"Dear reviewer,\\n\\nWe greatly appreciate your thorough review, which has helped improve the quality of our manuscript. We have carefully considered all your comments and have updated our manuscript accordingly to address your concerns. \\n\\nWe would be most grateful for your input if any additional revisions are needed during the remaining time of the discussion period.\"}", "{\"comment\": \"Thanks for the authors for adding the experiments. The results look impressive. Just to clarify, when compared to FNO, does FNO also have parameters $P$ as part of the inputs?\\n\\nRegarding the writing, again I genuinely encourage the authors to move critical details from the appendix to the main text. Especially how $P$ is input to the SC-FNO model. As a Machine learning conference, the methodology abd model design is the key. \\n\\n1. Technically, it is also less clear how the Jacobian $\\\\partial u/\\\\partial p$ is computed (Section 2.3). It will be very helpful to discuss why the gradient computation is efficient and does not cost much.\\n\\n2. During training, do you compute the full Jacobian $\\\\partial u/\\\\partial p$, do you do sample a direction of pertubation $p_i$ and compute directional derivatives $\\\\partial u/\\\\partial p_i$, or do we need the full Jacobian?\\n\\n3. When comparing the runtime, it sounds SC-FNO need to run the solver multiple times to get the ground true data for Jacobian $\\\\partial u/\\\\partial p$. For the Burgers example where P is 82-dim vector, we need to run the solver 82 times to get the full Jacobian. With the data, we can generate a dataset 82 times larger. Am I missing anything?\"}", "{\"summary\": \"In this paper, the authors propose a regularization technique that examines the gradient of the solution function with respect to parameters in differential equations. To the best of my knowledge, this approach to sensitivity regularizer, aimed at enhancing the generalization ability of neural operators, is unique. The paper is well structured, with clear motivation and objectives.\", \"soundness\": \"2\", \"presentation\": \"3\", \"contribution\": \"2\", \"strengths\": \"The study addresses the limitations observed when Fourier neural operators, combined with a physics-informed loss function, may yield suboptimal performance. The proposed regularization method appears to mitigate these challenges effectively.\", \"weaknesses\": \"The proposed approach requires additional information and computational resources, as it leverages direct solution-based information, such as a precomputed Jacobian in the differentiable numerical solver (Eq, (6)).\\n\\nAnother concern is the regularizer\\u2019s potential weakness to noise in practical settings. Derivative-based techniques are typically vulnerable to data noise, which could affect prediction accuracy, especially in applications beyond simulation, such as parameter inversion. In real-world applications, obtaining accurate derivative information can be challenging. While the finite difference methods employed in this paper are an option, they may perform poorly under noisy conditions.\", \"questions\": \"1. Could the authors elaborate on the approach to ensure fair comparisons between the standard Fourier neural operator and the proposed method in Tables 1, 2, and 3? Including details on training times, model complexity, and the number of learnable parameters would enhance the rigor of the paper.\\n\\n2. Higher-order derivatives might be utilized in constructing the loss function (as in Equation (6)). It would be beneficial if the authors discussed the potential advantages or limitations of incorporating these higher-order terms. \\n\\n3. Although Fourier neural operators are generally applicable to rectangular domains, other neural operators are available even for non-rectangular domains. Given that the authors provided results using DeepONet in D.6, could they consider including experiments across various domain shapes or grid resolutions to further validate the robustness of the proposed approach?\\n \\n4. Has the proposed method been tested in scenarios involving bifurcation, where small parameter changes induce rapid solution changes (e.g. the exponential model y\\u2019=py with p near zero)? \\n\\n5. The computational cost associated with this model may increase significantly as the number of parameters grows, or if parameters are represented as functions rather than scalars. While results are presented for a four-parameter case in Table 1, could authors consider examining more complex cases \\u2013 such as those with over ten parameters, function-based parameters, or parameters with probability density function across a range?\", \"flag_for_ethics_review\": \"['No ethics review needed.']\", \"rating\": \"5\", \"confidence\": \"3\", \"code_of_conduct\": \"Yes\"}", "{\"comment\": \"Thank you for your prompt reply. To address your concerns, we begin by explaining how parameters (P) are incorporated into the FNO model.\\n\\n---\\n\\n### Parameter Integration in SC-FNO\\nThe SC-FNO architecture processes parameters (P) as input channels alongside spatial coordinates and initial conditions through the lifting layer (fc0). Specifically, parameters are first reshaped and repeated to match spatial and temporal dimensions, then concatenated with other inputs before processing through neural network layers. This design ensures the operator's predictions naturally depend on and are sensitive to parameter variations, as illustrated in Figure A.7.\\n\\n---\\n\\n### Computation of du/dp\\n**True gradients** of solution paths with respect to parameters are computed and stored only once during the dataset preparation phase. \\nImportantly, the computations of du/dp are performed only once during the initial data preparation phase. Our primary method utilizes a differentiable solver we developed based on the `torchdiffeq` package. This solver reformulates PDEs in the form **du/dt = RHS(x), where RHS(x)** encapsulates spatial derivative terms. By leveraging PyTorch's automatic differentiation capabilities, we can efficiently compute exact gradients of solution paths with respect to parameters after the forward solve. Thus only one forward run is needed for each data sample. No perturbation is needed no matter how many parameters are involved.\\n\\nAs an alternative, only for existing non-differentiable solvers, we implement finite differences. This method approximates gradients by solving the PDE multiple times with slightly perturbed parameter values. While accurate, the FD Solver approach is computationally more expensive than our differentiable solver, as it requires multiple solver runs. However, these are all parallelizable runs. The gradients computed by either method are stored in the dataset and reused throughout the training process, thus eliminating the need for additional solver runs during training.\\n\\n---\\n\\n### Computational Efficiency During Training\\nDuring training, we compute gradients of predicted solutions using automatic differentiation of the neural operator's outputs. Instead of computing gradients at all points, we randomly select a subset of spatial-temporal points in each epoch (e.g., `n` spatial of total `N` spatial points \\u00d7 `t` temporal of total `T` time points, where `n < N` and `t < T`. These predicted gradients are then compared with the pre-computed true gradients at the same locations. This sampling varies between epochs to eventually cover the full solution space.\", \"this_approach_is_efficient_in_computation_and_data_for_several_key_reasons\": \"- We never need to rerun the differential equation solver during training since true gradients were pre-computed.\\n- We only compute neural operator gradients at selected points, significantly reducing computation.\\n- For each minibatch during training, we run the model only once forward and then apply AD. Notice that backpropagating through FNO is fast and adds only modestly to the training time as detailed above.\\n- The advantages over FNO grow significantly as the dimension grows -- while SC-FNO\\u2019s training time understandably will increase, the data demand and thus training time for FNO should increase exponentially.\\n\\nThe framework maintains efficiency because we prepare the dataset with true gradients only once. Since our differentiable solver based on `torchdiffeq` works through automatic differentiation, all gradients with respect to parameters are already stored in the computational graph. This implementation ensures sensitivity constraints without significant computational burden.\\n\\n---\\n\\n### Conference Publication Constraints\\nWe respectfully acknowledge that due to conference page limits, some technical details were relegated to the appendix. The extra one page for revision will allow us to include more details in our main text.\"}", "{\"comment\": \"We sincerely appreciate the thoughtful and detailed feedback provided in your review. Your comments have identified key areas where further clarification could significantly strengthen our manuscript.\\n\\n---\\n## Part 1\\n\\n**Question 1 (Discussion on Memory Overhead in AD and FD):**\\nOur discussion in Section 3.4 primarily focuses on demonstrating the feasibility of computing Jacobians using both traditional finite difference methods and automatic differentiation approaches.\\nThe experimental results show that both methods are practical, with AD being more efficient. As detailed in Table D.9, generating 2000 samples with gradients takes 252.54 seconds using AD versus 1907.32 seconds using finite differences, while achieving comparable accuracy (R\\u00b2 > 0.96). The memory overhead remains modest - training FNO on PDE1 used 722MB while SC-FNO required 764MB, representing only a 5.8% increase. We would be happy to provide a more detailed profiling of memory usage in the revised manuscript for other cases, but generally, the requirements are quite modest. \\n\\n---\"}", "{\"comment\": \"Dear Reviewer,\\n\\nAs today marks the closing date of our discussion period, we wish to ensure that all your queries have been addressed. Should you have any further questions or require additional clarification on any aspects of our discussion, please know that we are available tomorrow to assist with any necessary answers or information you might need.\\n\\nBest regards,\"}", "{\"comment\": \"Dear reviewer,\\n\\nWe greatly appreciate your thorough review, which has helped improve the quality of our manuscript. We have carefully considered all your comments and have updated our manuscript accordingly to address your concerns. \\n\\nWe would be most grateful for your input if any additional revisions are needed during the remaining time of the discussion period.\"}", "{\"comment\": \"Thanks the reviewer for the response and the additional experiments. My concerns are partially addressed. Therefore I raise my score from 5 to 6.\\n\\nOverall, I still have some general concerns on \\n- scalability: it seems very hard to apply on functions input like128x128 parameters.\\n- fexibility: it requires modifing the solver to generate additional dataset.\"}", "{\"comment\": [\"Thanks the author for clarification. It is very helpful. I get that the ground truth Jacobian datasets are prepared during data generation phase.\", \"Could the author further clarify how much time it takes to (a) generate the datasets with gradient/jacobian compared to (b) generate the data without gradients, especially in Burgers and Navier-Stokes example?\", \"Besides, when comparing against baseline FNO, does FNO also have the parameters $p$ as part of the inputs? It is to understand whether the improvement comes from the parameter inputs or the sensitivity loss.\"]}", "{\"comment\": \"We greatly appreciate the reviewers' detailed examination of our work. Despite the constraints of the word limit, we have addressed all feedback thoroughly. Additionally, we have responded separately to the points you identified as weaknesses in our work.\\n\\n## **Part 1**\\n---\\n\\n**Question 1. Runtime & Memory Requirements:**\\nWe apologize for this oversight. The overhead is small compared to the benefits. Our experiments with PDE1 show that using 500 training points with gradients achieves similar accuracy to 2000 points without gradients while the gradient computation added an acceptable amount of time. As shown in Table D.9, in the original manuscript Appendix, generating 2000 samples with gradients takes just 252.54 seconds using our AD solver. Training SC-FNO in this case, on the other hand, required 20%-40 more time compared to the original FNO depending on the case. In terms of memory consumption, the difference is also modest\\u2014training FNO on PDE1 used 722 MB, while SC-FNO required 764 MB. This modest computational and memory overhead is justified by the significant improvements in model performance and generalization capabilities, demonstrating how sensitivity regularisation and time-step-free methods like FNO complement each other exceptionally well. In the next response, you will further see a new experiment that contains 84 parameters where FNO\\u2019s accuracy even for u dropped noticeably while SC-FNO maintained accuracy. For this case (to be added to the revised version), the added training time was ~35% extra, but the errors were reduced by 4 times.\\n\\n---\\n\\n**Question 2. Handling Functional Inputs (du/du0):**\\nGreat question. Yes! We ran a new experiment with PDE2 (Burger's equation) using zoned parameters - dividing the spatial domain into M=40 segments with different advection \\u03b1 and forcing amplitude \\u03b4 in each zone, along with global parameters viscosity \\u03b3 and forcing frequency \\u03c9 (total 2M+2=82 parameters). \\n\\nThe results demonstrate SC-FNO's clear advantages over FNO (Table below):\\n- With N=100 samples, SC-FNO got less than 1/3 of the relative L2 error as N=500 for FNO (L2=2.8e-2) in less computational time.\\n- With 100 training samples, SC-FNO achieves ~4x less error in state prediction (relative L2: 0.00729 vs 0.02822) and 11x better Jacobian accuracy (relative L2: 0.17698 vs 1.96270)\\n- Even with only 50 training samples, SC-FNO maintains high accuracy while FNO degrades significantly. \\n- This dramatic improvement comes with only a modest runtime increase (11.23s vs 8.09s per epoch for N=100)\\n\\nThese results clearly demonstrate SC-FNO's superior capability in handling high-dimensional functional parameters while maintaining accuracy and stability, even with limited training data. In fact, we see clearly we can allow much larger amounts of inputs, but we believe that would require careful benchmarking in a future paper.\\n\\n|Number of training samples | N=500 | | N=100 | |\\n|---------------------------------|---------------------|--------------|---------------------|--------------|\\n| Model | SC-FNO | FNO | SC-FNO | FNO |\\n| **Average training time per epoch (s)** | 11.23 | 8.09 | 7.23 | 5.37 |\\n| **State Value Metrics** | | | | |\\n| RMSE | 0.01006 | 0.03894 | 0.01199 | 0.05354 |\\n| Relative L2 | 0.00729 | 0.02822 | 0.00867 | 0.03873 |\\n| Maximum Absolute Error | 0.05425 | 0.30564 | 0.05679 | 0.28312 |\\n| **Mean Jacobian Metrics** | | | | |\\n| RMSE | 0.00508 | 0.05181 | 0.00660 | 0.06076 |\\n| Relative L2 | 0.17698 | 1.96270 | 0.21342 | 2.46226 |\\n| Maximum Absolute Error | 0.05576 | 0.20075 | 0.06531 | 0.22079 |\\n\\n---\"}", "{\"metareview\": \"The work proposes imposing a new loss when learning physical systems which is based on the derivative of the system with respect to the parameter considered. Numerical experiments show greater stability of the learned model, making it more performant especially for applications to inverse problems.\", \"additional_comments_on_reviewer_discussion\": \"The authors have appropriately addressed reviewers' concerns about the memory overhead of the proposed approach and included numerous new experiments to support their claims. The results show a significant improvement over standard training. I do, however, feel that the authors should include more relevant literature since training with derivative losses has seen significant use in deep learning. In the context of scientific machine learning, the following references are relevant:\\n\\n(1) Liu, W., & Batill, S. (2000). Gradient-enhanced neural network response surface approximations. In 8th Symposium on Multidisciplinary Analysis and Optimization (p. 4923).\\n\\n(2) Czarnecki, W. M., Osindero, S., Jaderberg, M., Swirszcz, G., & Pascanu, R. (2017). Sobolev training for neural networks. Advances in neural information processing systems, 30.\\n\\n(3) O\\u2019Leary-Roseberry, T., Chen, P., Villa, U., & Ghattas, O. (2024). Derivative-informed neural operator: an efficient framework for high-dimensional parametric derivative learning. Journal of Computational Physics, 496, 112555.\\n\\n(4) Qiu, Y., Bridges, N., & Chen, P. (2024). Derivative-enhanced Deep Operator Network. Neural information processing systems, 38.\"}", "{\"comment\": [\"Thank you, for your thoughtful questions and the attention you've dedicated to our work. Your inquiries greatly contribute to the depth and clarity of our discussion.\", \"---\", \"**Question1 (Parameter generation for bifurcation PDEs):**\", \"We performed two additional experiments to demonstrate SC-FNO's capabilities with bifurcation-rich PDEs:\", \"**a. The Allen-Cahn equation (\\u2202u/\\u2202t = \\u03f5\\u2202\\u00b2u/\\u2202x\\u00b2 + \\u03b1u - \\u03b2u\\u00b3)** with Initial condition **u(x,0) = ctanh(\\u03c9x)** represents bifurcation behavior and is fully integrated into our revised manuscript as PDE4 in **section 3** and **Appendix B**. We randomly and uniformly sample parameters from the following parameter range (this information is indeed included in **revised Table B.6 (Appendix B)**). Some parameter sets were used in training, and some were reserved for test. Most of the parameter sets in the testing data are never used in training. The sampled parameters are then used by the numerical solver to produce the solution for training and testing datasets:\", \"Diffusion term: \\u03f5 \\u2208 [0.01,0.1]\", \"Linear term: \\u03b1 \\u2208 [0.01,1.0]\", \"Cubic term: \\u03b2 \\u2208 [0.01,1.0]\", \"c \\u2208 [0.1,0.9]\", \"\\u03c9 \\u2208 [5.0,10.0]\", \"**b. The Ginzburg-Landau equation (\\u2202u/\\u2202t = \\u03b1u + \\u03b2\\u2202\\u00b2u/\\u2202x\\u00b2 + \\u03b3u\\u00b3 + \\u03b4u\\u2075)** with initial condition **u(x,0) = Acos(2\\u03c0x/L)** was presented in our rebuttal to demonstrate additional capabilities. In the Ginzburg-Landau equation, we divided the spatial domain [0,1] into M=40 equal segments. Within each segment, coefficients \\u03b1, \\u03b2, and \\u03b3 take unique, uniform random values from their respective ranges. This creates 120 local parameters [3 parameters (\\u03b1, \\u03b2, and \\u03b3) \\u00d7 40 zones], plus two global parameters (\\u03b4 and A), totaling (3*40 + 2)=122 parameters. The zoning approach allows us to model spatially varying material properties while maintaining the equation's structure. (Each zone's parameters affect the equation's behavior in that spatial region). we used the following ranges for the parameters:\", \"\\u03b1(x) \\u2208 [0.05,0.5] per zone (linear term)\", \"\\u03b2(x) \\u2208 [0.01,0.2] per zone (diffusion)\", \"\\u03b3(x) \\u2208 [-1.0,-0.5] per zone (cubic term)\"], \"plus_global_parameters\": \"- \\u03b4 \\u2208 [0.001,0.01] (quintic term)\\n - A \\u2208 [0.01,0.05] (initial amplitude)\\n\\n**Just as in Allen-Cahn, all Ginzburg-Landau equation parameters are sampled uniformly within their specified ranges during the training and testing phases and many parameters in the test were not used in training.**\\n\\nWe chose not to include Ginzburg-Landau in the manuscript since its key features - bifurcation behavior and high-dimensional parameters - are already demonstrated by Allen-Cahn (PDE4) and zoned Burger's equation (PDE2) respectively. \\n\\n---\\n\\n**Question2 (Computing derivatives for high-dimensional parameters):**\\n\\nGreat question\\u2014thank you for asking! It appears there might be a slight confusion regarding our definition of \\\"functional parameters.\\\" In our research, we use this term to describe parameters that vary spatially across different zones, contrasting with the single scalar parameters in our previous experiments, rather than as continuous functions. \\nFor both equations, \\u2202u/\\u2202p computation is straightforward - we compute sensitivities with respect to each zoned parameter value. For example, in the Ginzburg-Landau equation with 40 spatial zones:\\n- Each zone has its own \\u03b1, \\u03b2, and \\u03b3 values\\n- We compute \\u2202u/\\u2202\\u03b1_i, \\u2202u/\\u2202\\u03b2_i, and \\u2202u/\\u2202\\u03b3_i for each zone i (i=1...40)\\n- Plus sensitivities for global parameters \\u2202u/\\u2202\\u03b4 and \\u2202u/\\u2202A\\n\\nThis results in 122 distinct sensitivity values (3\\u00d740 + 2) for each point of u, all computed using automatic differentiation (AD) through our solver. The computation remains manageable since each parameter, though spatially varying, is still a scalar value within its zone. \\n\\n\\nThe computation of the gradients is not indeed nontrivial. We have developed efficient code to manage this. We dedicated the revised Section \\\"2.3 Gradient Computation Methods for Differential Equations\\\" to explain how we computed the solution path and the gradients of the solution path with respect to parameters using both a differentiable solver based on automatic differentiation and the finite difference method as a traditional approach. Jacobian computation during training was also handled using AD. We included some benchmarking of computational times for different approaches used in preparing datasets, including the solution path and gradients, in Tables D.12 and D.13 (Appendix D). As you can see from these tables, the extra time is acceptable. In fact, we can say that in our preliminary test, much higher-dimensional parameters are possible, although such expansion requires much more validation effort that is beyond the scope of this paper.\\n\\n---\\n\\nWe hope the clarifications above help. We are also committed to providing further clarifications during the remaining discussion period should you have more questions.\"}", "{\"comment\": \"Thank you for your thoughtful review. Below, you will find our detailed responses to the points identified as weaknesses.\\n\\n----\\n\\n**Writing Clarity and Parameter Definitions:**\\nThe comprehensive parameter definitions, ranges, and equations that the reviewer notes are missing are detailed in Appendix B (Table B.4) and Section 2. For example, Table B.4 explicitly lists parameter ranges for all cases: ODE1 (\\u03b1,\\u03b2 \\u2208 [1,3], \\u03b3 \\u2208 [0,1]), PDE1 (c \\u2208 [0,0.25], \\u03b1,\\u03b2,\\u03b3,\\u03c9 \\u2208 [0,0.25]), etc. Due to page limitations, we focused the main text on key findings and methodology while preserving technical details in appendices.\\n\\n---\\n**Response to Parameter Implementation in FNO:**\\n\\nAs shown in Figure A.7, parameters (P) are incorporated through the lifting layer along with spatial coordinates (X) and initial conditions (a(x)). The architecture processes parameters as additional input channels that are combined with other inputs through neural network layers. Full parameter definitions and ranges are provided in Table B.4. Computational considerations regarding this implementation are addressed in our main rebuttal under memory and runtime discussions.\\n\\n---\\n**Response to Accuracy and Performance Analysis (Methodology):**\\n\\nWe began our study acknowledging FNO's strong accuracy with large training samples, deliberately starting from conditions where original FNO excels. This approach allowed us to demonstrate SC-FNO's significant advantages in both state values **(u)** and sensitivities **(\\u2202u/\\u2202p)** under more challenging, real-world conditions. For parameter perturbations up to 40% beyond training ranges, SC-FNO maintains R\\u00b2 > 0.91 while FNO drops to 0.53 (Table 1). With limited data (500 samples), SC-FNO achieves R\\u00b2 > 0.9 while FNO falls to 0.8 (Figure 6). These results underscore our method's practical value, showing improved robustness and efficiency precisely where standard FNO struggles most.\"}", "{\"title\": \"Summary of the discussion and revision\", \"comment\": [\"We sincerely thank all the reviewers for their thoughtful and constructive feedback, which has significantly improved the quality of our manuscript. Throughout the discussion period, we carefully addressed all identified concerns and incorporated additional experiments and clarifications into the revised version. Below is a summary of our key updates:\", \"### 1. Improved Metrics and Enhanced Clarity\", \"The revised manuscript added L2 errors as a metric, clearly showing SC-FNO\\u2019s substantial advantage, particularly during inversion tasks, where it achieves errors as low as 1/5 or 1/6 of FNO\\u2019s inversion errors in even low-dimensional problems.\", \"We provided a detailed explanation of how sensitivity supervision (\\\\(\\\\partial u / \\\\partial p\\\\)) is integrated into the SC-FNO framework and clarified its distinction from existing approaches like FNO and FNO-PINN. Our selective sampling strategy and efficient training procedures are now thoroughly detailed.\", \"We clarified that both FNO and SC-FNO use identical neural network architectures, differing only in loss configurations. This ensures a fair comparison. Additionally, we included a section detailing how parameters are processed through the lifting layer alongside spatial coordinates and initial conditions.\", \"### 2. Additional Experiments\", \"New experiments on bifurcation-rich systems (e.g., the Allen-Cahn equation in the revised manuscript and the Ginzburg-Landau equation in the rebuttal) validate SC-FNO's robustness.\", \"An 82-parameter case (Burger\\u2019s equation) was added to the revised manuscript, demonstrating SC-FNO\\u2019s significantly smaller errors for both the state variable and sensitivities. Even with only 100 training samples and less training time, SC-FNO achieves less than 1/3 of the error of FNO trained with 500 samples.\", \"We also conducted experiments on Navier-Stokes equations, using varying Reynolds numbers to demonstrate SC-FNO's strong performance even with limited training data.\", \"Collectively, these results highlight SC-FNO\\u2019s ability to maintain superior performance, especially under limited data, high-dimensional parameter and perturbed parameter scenarios.\", \"### 3. Computational Feasibility\", \"We conducted detailed runtime and memory analyses, showing that SC-FNO introduces only modest computational overhead while significantly improving accuracy and robustness.\", \"SC-FNO can reduce data requirements (and thus training time), making it a practical and efficient tool for sensitivity supervision and generalization.\", \"### 4. Broader Context\", \"We emphasized SC-FNO's novelty as a sensitivity-supervised variant of neural operators, showcasing its unique strengths in addressing parameter-sensitive tasks.\", \"We emphasize that SC-FNO's accuracy during inversion and robustness under perturbations directly address critical limitations of existing neural operators and overcome longstanding challenges in their practical applications. SC-FNO's demonstrated ability to capture sensitivities for \\\\(10^2\\\\) parameters represents a noteworthy advancement, improving both state variable predictions and parameter inversion tasks. Additionally, we are actively investigating its application to very high-dimensional inputs and are highly confident in its potential based on preliminary findings.\", \"We are deeply grateful for the reviewers' engagement, which has helped refine our work and articulate its broader impact. We believe our contribution offers a unique perspective and a noteworthy advancement in neural operator methodologies, with far-reaching implications for parameter-sensitive modeling tasks.\"]}", "{\"comment\": \"Thank you for the interesting observation.\\n\\nAnother way to view this conversation about novelty is the following. The SC-FNO term does not fit into the standard loss framework because the loss term supervises the gradient of the network (whereas the standard loss framework supervises the output of the network). In a sense, SC-FNO is a novel variant of PINN. Roughly, PINNs are loss terms to enforce **f(network derivatives)=0**, while SC-FNO adds a loss term to enforce **f(network derivatives)=data - dependent**. Aside from this, the preparation of new information in the data is also an important novel contribution that should not be overlooked.\"}", "{\"comment\": \"Dear reviewer,\\n\\nWe greatly appreciate your thorough review, which has helped improve the quality of our manuscript. We have carefully considered all your comments and have updated our manuscript accordingly to address your concerns. \\n\\nWe would be most grateful for your input if any additional revisions are needed during the remaining time of the discussion period.\"}", "{\"comment\": \"# Part 2\\n\\n**Question4 (Assessing SC-FNO's Performance Under Bifurcation-Rich Systems):**\\n\\nExcellent question and thanks for asking! While our original submission included cases with bifurcation characteristics like Navier-Stokes, we've conducted additional experiments with two well-known bifurcation-rich systems with varying input dimensions:\\nFirst is the Allen-Cahn equation with five parameters, represented as *\\u2202u/\\u2202t = \\u03f5(x)\\u2202\\u00b2u/\\u2202x\\u00b2 + \\u03b1(x)u - \\u03b2(x)u\\u00b3*, with initial condition *u(x,0) = Atanh(kx)*. Parameters include diffusion coefficient *\\u03f5*, linear term *\\u03b1*, cubic term *\\u03b2*, and initial condition parameters *A*, *k*, with ranges: *\\u03f5 \\u2208 [0.01,0.1]*, *\\u03b1 \\u2208 [0.01,1.0]*, *\\u03b2 \\u2208 [0.01,1.0]*, *A \\u2208 [0.1,0.9]*, *k \\u2208 [5.0,10.0]*. This equation exhibits phase transitions with sharp solution changes near critical parameter values. With 100 training samples, SC-FNO has **relative L2: 0.015 vs FNO\\u2019s 0.021**, only a noticeable benefit for u (however, keep watching as the second case gets more interesting), while also showing much improved Jacobian accuracy **(relative L2: 0.049 vs 0.583)**. \\n\\n| Metrics | SC-FNO | FNO |\\n|--------------------------|---------------------------|------------------------|\\n| *Average training time per epoch (s)* | 19.12 | 11.54 |\\n| **State Value Metrics** | | |\\n| RMSE | 0.00777 | 0.01055 |\\n| Relative L2 | 0.01513 | 0.02056 |\\n| Max L1 | 0.21255 | 0.03611 |\\n| **Mean Jacobian Metrics**| | |\\n| RMSE | 0.01560 | 0.34707 |\\n| Relative L2 | 0.04860 | 0.58305 |\\n| Max L1 | 0.41201 | 2.82265 |\", \"the_second_case_is_the_ginzburg_landau_equation\": \"*\\u2202u/\\u2202t = \\u03b1(x)u + \\u03b2(x)\\u2202\\u00b2u/\\u2202x\\u00b2 + \\u03b3(x)u\\u00b3 + \\u03b4u\\u2075*, with initial condition *u(x,0) = Acos(2\\u03c0x/L)*. Here, *\\u03b1(x)*, *\\u03b2(x)*, *\\u03b3(x)* are divided into M=40 zones, plus global parameters \\u03b4 and A, resulting in 122 parameters *(3M + 2)*.\", \"we_used_the_following_ranges_for_the_parameters\": [\"\\u03b1(x) \\u2208 [0.05,0.5] per zone (linear term)\", \"\\u03b2(x) \\u2208 [0.01,0.2] per zone (diffusion)\", \"\\u03b3(x) \\u2208 [-1.0,-0.5] per zone (cubic term)\"], \"plus_global_parameters\": \"- \\u03b4 \\u2208 [0.001,0.01] (quintic term)\\n- A \\u2208 [0.01,0.05] (initial amplitude)\\n\\nTraining with both N=500 and N=100 samples shows SC-FNO maintains excellent state prediction even with small data. With N=100, it achieves nearly 4x better state prediction accuracy **(relative L2: 0.007 vs FNO\\u2019s 0.025)** and even 3 times smaller error than FNO with N=500 and more training time. It also shows improved Jacobian accuracy **(relative L2: 0.162 vs 1.132)**, demonstrating robustness for high-dimensional parameters with limited data.\\n\\n|mber of training samples | *N=500* | | *N=100* | |\\n|---------------------------------|---------------------|--------------|---------------------|--------------|\\n| *Model* | *SC-FNO* | *FNO* | *SC-FNO* | *FNO* |\\n| *Average training time per epoch (s)* | 32.52 | 22.54 | 17.25 | 12.80 |\\n| **State Value Metrics** | | | | |\\n| RMSE | 0.00908 | 0.02588 | 0.00923 | 0.03720 |\\n| Relative L2 | 0.00663 | 0.01873 | 0.00670 | 0.02540 |\\n| Max L1 | 0.05400 | 0.12286 | 0.05450 | 0.14034 |\\n| **Mean Jacobian Metrics** | | | | |\\n| RMSE | 0.01014 | 0.07325 | 0.01020 | 0.08500 |\\n| Relative L2 | 0.15567 | 0.83926 | 0.16207 | 1.13200 |\\n| Max L1 | 0.09881 | 0.33532 | 0.11235 | 0.43205 |\\n\\nThese highly nonlinear, bifurcation-rich cases demonstrate our method's ability to handle these challenges. This, to our knowledge, maybe the only known surrogate model scheme that can handle these many input parameters, and actually, we do not see the limit anywhere in sight! Future papers will explore much higher degrees of input..\\n\\n---\"}", "{\"comment\": \"Thank you for your comments which have provided an opportunity to clarify key aspects of our work and the critical difference.\\n\\n---- \\n## Part 1\\n\\n**Weakness 1. Novelty and Fundamental Differences from PINNs:** **SC-FNO uniquely adds time-integrated parameter sensitivities (\\u2202u/\\u2202p) as a supervisory signal** (Lines 368-372). PINNs do not have access to this information, as usual PDEs do not contain \\u2202u/\\u2202p, leaving it unconstrained. \\nProcedurally, SC-FNO and PINNs differ entirely: SC-FNO utilizes a forward numerical model with differentiable solvers (or finite difference, or adjoint) to prepare data to supervise \\u2202u/\\u2202p, whereas PINNs rely on collocation points for equation-based loss optimization to supervise (\\u2202u/\\u2202x, \\u2202u/\\u2202t), but not \\u2202u/\\u2202p.\\n\\nThe experimental benefits of \\u2202u/\\u2202p are clear:\\n - SC-FNO consistently achieves R\\u00b2 > 0.94 for all parameters in PDE1, surpassing FNO and FNO-PINN which remain below 0.82.\\n - In parameter inversion tasks, SC-FNO reaches near-perfect recovery (R\\u00b2 = 0.998), significantly outperforming FNO (R\\u00b2 = 0.905).\\n - For complex systems like Navier-Stokes equations, SC-FNO enhances solution accuracy (R\\u00b2 from 0.883 to 0.994) and sensitivity estimation (R\\u00b2 from 0.246 to 0.997).\\n\\nGiven these profound differences in theory, procedure, and performance, the critique of lacking novelty is surprising. **Is it fair to dismiss the differentiated outcomes in Figure 1? Does using gradient terms in the loss truly negate novelty?**\\n\\n---\\n\\n**Weakness 2. Data Efficiency and Computational Considerations:** Our experiments confirm that leveraging sensitivity information via our SC-FNO model enhances both efficiency and robustness. Specifically:\\n\\n- **Computational Efficiency:** Gradient information, a byproduct of our differentiable solver, increases computation time only moderately. Memory overhead remains low (722MB for SC-FNO vs. 764MB for FNO). Dataset preparation time was in the original Table D.9. For PDE2 (with 1300 training samples), training time per epoch increased only from 21 to 28 seconds. Also, see the new example below for training time and L2 error. We will add training time info to all Tables.\\n\\n- **Reduced Data Requirements:** SC-FNO matches the accuracy of FNO with four times fewer data points (500 vs. 2000, original Figure 6). Under limited data conditions (500 samples), SC-FNO (R\\u00b2>0.9) is significantly better than FNO\\u2019s (R\\u00b2=0.8). \\n\\n- **Robust Generalization:** SC-FNO sustains accuracy with parameter perturbations up to 40% beyond the training range and excels in parameter inversion tasks, boosting R\\u00b2 from 0.642 to 0.986 for PDE1 (original Figure 1).\\n\\nIn summary, SC-FNO's sensitivity supervision not only minimizes data needs but also ensures greater generalization, more than offsetting the slight increase in computational demands.\\n\\nWe also refined our experiment with PDE2 (Burger's equation), segmenting the spatial domain into 40 zones. Each zone had specific advection (\\u03b1) and forcing amplitude (\\u03b4), alongside global parameters viscosity (\\u03b3) and frequency (\\u03c9), totaling 82 parameters (2*M+2). The results are: \\n\\n|Number of training samples | N=500 | | N=100 | |\\n|---------------------------------|---------------------|--------------|---------------------|--------------|\\n| Model | SC-FNO | FNO | SC-FNO | FNO |\\n| *Average training time per epoch (s)* | 11.23 | 8.09 | 7.23 | 5.37 |\\n| *State Value Metrics* | | | | |\\n| Relative L2 | 0.0073 | 0.0282 | 0.0087 | 0.0387 |\\n| Maximum Absolute Error | 0.0543 | 0.3056 | 0.0568 | 0.2831 |\\n| *Mean Jacobian Metrics* | | | | |\\n| Relative L2 | 0.1770 | 1.9627 | 0.2134 | 2.4623 |\\n| Maximum Absolute Error | 0.0558 | 0.2008 | 0.0653 | 0.2208 |\\n\\nThese new results (to be included in revision) show that, with higher input dimensions, the default FNO had a much larger error for the state variable while FNO stayed highly accurate.\\n\\n---\\n\\n\\n**Weakness 3. \\u201cSC-FNO Should Be Harder to Train\\u201d:**\\n\\nThe FNO's direct work in Fourier space actually helps with SC-FNO training, not hinders it. Our experiments show this: training remains stable with learnable loss coefficients and adds minimal overhead (only 10% computation time, 5.8% memory increase from 722MB to 764MB). Instead of making training harder, the sensitivity information actually helps guide the model to better solutions - that's why we see such improved performance across different equations. The complete process detailed in Algorithms 1-3 shows how this straightforward approach brings major benefits without significant complexity.\"}", "{\"comment\": \"Dear reviewer,\\n\\n\\nThank you for your reply and insightful feedback.\\n\\nIf we understand your question correctly, of course, p is used as input to both FNO and SC-FNO and it's a fair comparison. Their input data are identical. We wouldn't make a mistake like not providing p to the default FNO. FNO has access to the same input information but it does not seem to fully understand how to use it like SC-FNO does.\\n\\n**The SC-FNO architecture processes parameters (P) alongside spatial coordinates and initial conditions through the lifting layer (fc0) (possibly as function inputs). This layer reshapes and repeats parameters to match the problem's spatial-temporal dimensions, then concatenates them with other inputs before neural network processing.**\\n\\n\\n\\nData preparation time for SC-FNO was previously in Table D.9. We now amend it with the time for FNO without gradients as shown in the table below for **PDE2 (Burger's equation)** and **PDE3 (Navier-Stokes equation)**, **measured per 10 samples using 1 GPU Tesla P100-PCIE-12GB**. \\n\\n**This represents a one-time cost per equation, and since input impacts are resolved upfront, no repeated preparation is needed for different parameters.** Furthermore, when considering the supervision of high-dimensional inputs, where default FNO requires far more than 5x more data (and thus more preparation time), we argue this additional computational cost is well justified. Based on simple logic, the data preparation time of the default FNO will grow exponentially more to achieve similar accuracy as the input dimension grows.\\n\\n\\n| Case | Number of input parameter (P) | Computation time (s) ||\\n|-|-|-|-|\\n| | | With jacobian | Without jacobian |\\n|PDE2| 4 | 1.387 | 0.796 |\\n|PDE3 (Navier stocks)| 2 | 6.205 | 2.762 |\\n\\nWe hope by now we have presented something truly unique and powerful here. If there is anything else we can do to convince you that is doable within the remaining time and reasonable scope, please let us know.\"}", "{\"comment\": \"We greatly appreciate the reviewers' thorough examination. Our apologies for posting the reply to you later than to others, as we were diligently running the requested bifurcation cases, which was a great suggestion.\\n\\n---\\n# Part 1\\n\\n**Questions 1 (Model Comparisons and Computational Details):**\\nYes! In all FNO models (FNO, SC-FNO, FNO-PINN, SC-FNO-PINN), we used identical FNO architectures for each case, with differences only in loss configurations. We have updated Table C.5 to include the requested information and added a new Table C.6 showing computational times across all models and cases reported in Tables 1-3.\\n| Case | Mode for t | Mode for x | Mode for y | Width | Number of Fourier Layers | Learning Rate | Number of Epochs | Number of Learnable Parameters |\\n|------|------------|------------|------------|-------|--------------------------|---------------|------------------|-------------------------------|\\n| ODE 1| 8 | 8 | - | 20 | 4 | 0.001 | 500 | 17921 |\\n| ODE 2| 8 | 8 | - | 20 | 4 | 0.001 | 500 | 17921 |\\n| PDE 1| 8 | 8 | - | 20 | 4 | 0.001 | 500 | 107897 |\\n| PDE 2| 8 | 8 | 8 | 20 | 4 | 0.001 | 500 | 107897 |\\n| PDE 3| - | 8 | 8 | 20 | 4 | 0.001 | 500 | 209397 |\\n\\n\\n\\n| Case | Batch size | Number of parameters (P) | Number of learnable parameters in FNO | Number of training samples | Average training time per epoch (s) |||| \\n|------|------------|--------------------------|--------------------------------------|----------------------------|------|--------|-----------|--------------|\\n| | | | | | FNO | SC-FNO | FNO-PI NN | SC-FNO-PI NN |\\n| ODE1 | 16 | 3 | 17921 | 2000 | 1.10 | 1.94 | 1.53 | 2.46 |\\n| ODE2 | 16 | 7 | 17921 | 2000 | 1.58 | 2.13 | 1.76 | 2.86 |\\n| PDE1 | 2 | 5 | 107897 | 2000 | 35.24| 53.32 | 52.13 | 82.13 |\\n| PDE2 | 2 | 4 | 107897 | 2000 | 32.66| 44.92 | 39.11 | 73.06 |\\n| PDE3 | 2 | 2 | 209397 | 1000 | 47.16| 109.43 | - | - |\\n\\nThese additions will provide complete transparency regarding model complexity and computational requirements across all comparisons.\\n\\n---\\n\\n**Question 2 (Potential advantages or limitations of including higher order terms):**\\nThanks for the chance to clarify. Rather than incorporating higher-order derivatives in our loss function, we focus specifically on first-order parameter sensitivities (du/dp). This choice is motivated by our goal of improving parameter-dependent tasks, and our results demonstrate that these first-order sensitivities alone provide significant improvements in accuracy and robustness without the need for higher-order terms. This leads to significant improvements in accuracy and robustness particularly for out-of-sample predictions and parameter inference and reduced training data demand. In terms of disadvantages, we note the moderately larger effort in data preparation, the need for either a differentiable solver, finite difference, or adjoint, and one might be tempted to think of unstable gradients (although we saw this in none of the test cases). Paying an acceptance cost to substantially raise the performance ceiling should be worth it in many cases, especially when the input dimension gets higher, as we show below.\\n\\n---\\n\\n**Question 3 (Extension to Complex Geometries):**\\nIndeed an interesting direction would be to handle complex geometries beyond rectangular domains. This will take more time (for many other methods in the literature, irregular geometry is tackled in the 2nd or 3rd papers). Since our parameter-solution Jacobian supervision is fundamentally geometry-independent, such integration should be natural and could indeed be highly valuable for complex engineering applications. For example, architectures like the *Geometry-Informed Neural Operator (Li et al., 2024)* seems plausible; There is also no fundamental barriers to using traditional irregular geometry methods to solve for stencil weights as a nondifferentiable operations. We will write this as a future direction.\"}", "{\"title\": \"Official Comment by Reviewer DfuF\", \"comment\": \"Thank you for your detailed and thoughtful response, particularly regarding the mode, number of learnable parameters, training time, and other aspects of FNO training. Your clarifications have been highly informative and are sincerely appreciated.\\n\\nI fully understand that addressing my earlier questions about incorporating a loss function involving higher derivatives (Question 2) and conducting simulations on complex domains (Question 3) would require substantial time and effort. It is entirely reasonable that these issues are not addressed in the current version of the manuscript.\\n\\nAt this stage, I would like to kindly request clarification on the following two points:\\n\\n1. Could you provide further details on how $\\\\alpha(x)$ and $\\\\beta(x)$ were generated for the Allen-Cahn equation or Ginzburg-Landau equations? I was unable to find this information in the appendix. While I understand that further revisions may no longer be feasible at this stage, any clarification on how the parameter set was constructed would be greatly appreciated.\\n\\n2. Could you elaborate on the computation of $\\\\partial \\\\mathbf{u} / \\\\partial\\\\mathbf{p}$ in equation (6) for high-dimensional parameter cases? Given that $\\\\mathbf{p}$ represents a function in the context of the Allen Cahn equation and Ginzburg-Landau equation, computing this derivative appears to be nontrivial. Any additional explanation regarding this computation would be extremely helpful.\\n\\nI would be deeply grateful if the authors could provide clarifications, should it still be possible at this stage. Thank you again for your time and effort in addressing these inquiries.\"}" ] }

[ "Shaoxiong Ji", "Zihao Li", "Indraneil Paul", "Jaakko Paavola", "Peiqin Lin", "Pinzhen Chen", "Dayyán O'Brien", "Hengyu Luo", "Hinrich Schuetze", "Jörg Tiedemann", "Barry Haddow" ]

[ "multilingual adaptation", "large language model." ]

{ "note_id": [ "xb0UukLAus", "wtTCp9j3bA", "qepfFH8F2c", "oS0jyycFmu", "ftCBurMsFU", "drlSCeuUtV", "bmF6bgS7Gh", "aVLg0JT2Pz", "ZujtQSzWnm", "VU5tNUKNi7", "MTzjES3Z5D", "Kt6VLhybx6", "IrnHDmKDmt", "IFmRDmkcWS", "EeGCULon6N", "8JNViBTWgu", "7iXr3bLShP", "7ZyDdF1Gyi", "7JhCuqcORs", "0apohiKJOi" ], "note_type": [ "official_comment", "official_comment", "official_comment", "official_comment", "official_comment", "official_comment", "official_review", "official_comment", "official_comment", "official_comment", "official_comment", "meta_review", "official_comment", "official_comment", "official_review", "decision", "official_review", "official_comment", "official_comment", "official_comment" ], "note_created": [ 1731946410190, 1732621098421, 1731946344947, 1732504134899, 1732214567067, 1732632020549, 1730144756575, 1731954304270, 1732302570140, 1731946173372, 1732208805914, 1734604301056, 1731946369173, 1732049316482, 1729927556129, 1737524004646, 1730504923467, 1732527789221, 1732629423168, 1732301347695 ], "note_signatures": [ [ "ICLR.cc/2025/Conference/Submission9771/Authors" ], [ "ICLR.cc/2025/Conference/Submission9771/Reviewer_YEQS" ], [ "ICLR.cc/2025/Conference/Submission9771/Authors" ], [ "ICLR.cc/2025/Conference/Submission9771/Reviewer_Bad1" ], [ "ICLR.cc/2025/Conference/Submission9771/Reviewer_iDTk" ], [ "ICLR.cc/2025/Conference/Submission9771/Authors" ], [ "ICLR.cc/2025/Conference/Submission9771/Reviewer_iDTk" ], [ "ICLR.cc/2025/Conference/Submission9771/Reviewer_iDTk" ], [ "ICLR.cc/2025/Conference/Submission9771/Authors" ], [ "ICLR.cc/2025/Conference/Submission9771/Authors" ], [ "ICLR.cc/2025/Conference/Submission9771/Reviewer_iDTk" ], [ "ICLR.cc/2025/Conference/Submission9771/Area_Chair_gU9K" ], [ "ICLR.cc/2025/Conference/Submission9771/Authors" ], [ "ICLR.cc/2025/Conference/Submission9771/Authors" ], [ "ICLR.cc/2025/Conference/Submission9771/Reviewer_YEQS" ], [ "ICLR.cc/2025/Conference/Program_Chairs" ], [ "ICLR.cc/2025/Conference/Submission9771/Reviewer_Bad1" ], [ "ICLR.cc/2025/Conference/Submission9771/Authors" ], [ "ICLR.cc/2025/Conference/Submission9771/Reviewer_iDTk" ], [ "ICLR.cc/2025/Conference/Submission9771/Authors" ] ], "structured_content_str": [ "{\"comment\": \"**Q:** Regarding novelty\\n**A:** While it's true that the corpus is constructed by merging and cleaning existing datasets, and the approach to creating a multilingual benchmark is not groundbreaking in itself, the contribution of this work should not be understated. The **scale and diversity of the MaLA corpus**, along with the strategic focus on low-resource languages, represent a significant advancement over prior efforts. Additionally, **the integration of different text types**, including code, scientific papers, and instructions, offers a more comprehensive and effective foundation for continual pre-training. The enhanced MaLA corpus **significantly boosts the multilingual capabilities of models**, particularly in low-resource languages, leading to measurable improvements in tasks like machine translation, text classification, and more. This work has the potential to drive substantial improvements in multilingual NLP, especially for underrepresented languages, which makes it highly relevant and impactful within the field.\\n\\n**Q:** Baselines like ALMA and Bayling \\n**A:** ALMA and Bayling are heavily optimized for translation only, similar to the Tower model, for which we offered a comparison on MT. According to the Tower paper, Tower is slightly better than ALMA, so we omitted ALMA and Bayling. Further, the primary contribution of this work is the MaLA corpus and its impact on multilingual continued pre-training which yielded a massive multilingual base model beyond just the translation task.\\n\\n**Q:** Will this corpus, model weight, benchmark and processing scripts be public? \\n**A:** Yes. \\n\\n**Q:** Line 121-122: \\\"This issue is resolved ...\\\", Which issue has been resolved? \\n**A:** The issue involves text records consisting solely of date and timestamp information in the dataset for the Languages of Russia. \\n\\n**Q:** Line 310-311: Why is the global batch size set to 16M, rather than the commonly used 4M tokens like LLaMA-2? \\n**A:** This is a technical choice that allows us to efficiently use our computing. We note that increasing batch size during training is seen in LLM pre-training now, e.g. Llama-3 doubled their batch size twice from 4M to 16M during training.\"}", "{\"title\": \"Response to Authors\", \"comment\": \"Thanks for your response! It addresses my concerns, and my reviews have been updated correspondingly.\"}", "{\"comment\": \"**Q:** related work and data sources\\n**A:** Thank you for your comments. The related work and data sources are provided in Appendix A1 and F.\\n\\n**Q:** what are the main achievements and the scientific novelty? And the main goal \\n**A:** The main goal is to improve multilingual language models by creating a massive, diverse multilingual corpus (MaLA) and applying continual pre-training to enhance linguistic inclusivity and task performance. Our main achievements and scientific novelty are written in the introduction section. \\n\\n**Q:** what does high diversity mean? \\n**A:** High diversity in evaluating open-ended generation refers to assessing a model's ability to produce varied and creative outputs across a wide range of tasks and topics.\\n\\n**Q:** No human evaluation \\n**A:** Human evaluation, while valuable, has limitations such as subjectivity, inconsistency, and scalability. Evaluators may have biases, leading to variability in judgments across individuals and cultures. Additionally, evaluating multilingual and open-ended tasks requires diverse, linguistically skilled annotators, which can be expensive and time-consuming. These challenges make automated metrics a practical complement, even though they may lack nuanced judgment.\\n\\n**Q:** The only benchmark that covers 500+ languages is intrinsic modeling on Glot500-c \\n**A:** This comment is incorrect. Taxi1500 covers 1,507 languages. Additionally, we evaluated two benchmarks with more than 100 languages, three benchmarks with more than 200 languages, and one with more than 300 languages. Together, these should provide our evaluation with good language coverage.\\n\\n**Q:** how reliable is machine-generated benchmark? \\n**A:** Machine-generated benchmarks **have significant value** as they offer scalability, consistency, and objectivity, making it feasible to evaluate models across numerous tasks and languages efficiently. They are particularly useful for comparative analysis and identifying measurable improvements.\", \"there_are_also_limitations\": \"they often miss nuanced qualities like creativity, contextual appropriateness, and cultural sensitivity, especially in open-ended or multilingual tasks. Biases in the generation process or evaluation metrics can also lead to misleading results.\\n\\n**Q:** No safety-related evaluation \\n**A:** We find safety-related evaluation a separate research topic. This work looks at CPT and releases a corpus and a multilingual base model rather than an instruction-tuned model. Also, to our knowledge, no standardized benchmark with many languages exists for benchmarking *base models* on safety. However, we are open to exploring it further and including these; we appreciate the suggestions for relevant benchmarks from reviewers.\\n\\n\\n**Q:** unfair to compare models that do not officially support certain languages \\n**A:** Our evaluation focuses on the performance of models across a broad range of languages, including those that may not be officially supported by some models. This is primarily because *not many other models can support this many languages*. Our comparison represents the *best effort* we can have when comparing to prior works; otherwise, no empirical comparison could be made. For \\\"unseen\\\" languages, many models might have a certain level of transfer, even if they are not specifically optimized for them. Nonetheless, this is the \\\"upper bound\\\" that users can get from these models. There is no widely accepted standard for which models should be used as the \\\"fair\\\" baseline for such comparisons. For example, [reviewer YEQS suggests comparing with ALMA and Bayling](https://openreview.net/forum?id=DPynq6bSHn&noteId=EeGCULon6N), but this may not be a fair comparison given the criteria mentioned. \\n\\n**Q:** What is the relation to the MaLA-500 model/work? What are the key improvements over it? \\n**A:** The key improvements include:\\n- Larger, More Diverse Corpus: our corpus includes 939 languages and 74 billion tokens.\\n- Higher Token Count per Document: our corpus features longer documents (average of 90 tokens per sequence) compared to Glot500-c used by the MaLA-500 model (average of 19 tokens), providing better context and enabling the model to capture long-range dependencies.\\n- More Diverse Data: We also include a wide range of text types, including code, books, and scientific papers.\\n- Better Performance: Evaluated across more benchmarks, MaLA-500 shows improvements in multilingual tasks like translation, commonsense reasoning, and open-ended generation.\\n\\n**Q:** How was the data mix tuned? \\n**A:** The tuning of the data mix is a separate research topic. Our paper focuses on providing a valuable resource through data processing and model training. While we did not conduct specific ablations on the data mix, we carefully curated the corpus to ensure diversity and balance across languages and text types. Further exploration of this topic could be beneficial for future work.\"}", "{\"comment\": \"These are my comments regarding the author's rebuttal.\\n\\n**Regarding Aya-23** -> I think calling it \\\"relatively new\\\" with it being a multilingual-first decoder model coming out in May, while Llama 3.1 coming out much later (in July?) was instead used for evals still seems odd. If Aya-23 was completely omitted, I would understand it being intentionally left out. Again, using it for code generation blindly without including even a single other eval with the model doesn't bode well. Also, doesn't Llama 3.1 only support English, German, French, Italian, Portuguese, Hindi, Spanish, Thai? If there really is a specific reason behind this omittal, I am happy to engage. \\n\\n**Regarding Joshi taxonomy** -> I am disappointed that reviewer *iDTk* had to point out that **I already pasted the link** to the taxonomy. Albeit it doesn't contain the ISO codes, but saying its \\\"not publicly available to us\\\" wasn't particularly encouraging as a rebuttal comment.\"}", "{\"comment\": \"Thanks for your response! I appreciate the release of the outputs and full results, it will be good to have community feedback.\\n\\nQ1 Wouldn't it also make sense to replace self-BLEU with self-ChrF++? It would also give you a larger spread of values that are perhaps a bit more distinctive and fair towards non-whitespace-tokenized languages. \\n\\nQ3 The problem with automatic tools (especially multilingual ones) is that they're usually lower-performing and less reliable in low-resource languages than for higher-resource languages, even for the most \\\"basic\\\" language id (https://arxiv.org/abs/2010.14571). If e.g. language id was imprecise in the data collection pipeline, using the same lang id tool for evaluation won't allow to spot any problems, even if humans were easily be able to do so.\"}", "{\"comment\": \"Thank you for clarifying. While we acknowledge the importance of language taxonomies like Joshi\\u2019s, we choose not to rely on it for this work for several reasons:\\n\\n1. **Focus on Practical Impact:** Our work emphasizes advancing multilingual NLP through **comprehensive corpus creation and improved model performance**, rather than adhering to a specific taxonomy. We focused on covering as many languages as possible, particularly underrepresented ones, using ISO codes for consistency in data processing. \\n\\n2. **Feasibility vs. Contribution:** Manually aligning our language set with Joshi\\u2019s taxonomy, especially given the absence of ISO codes, is a labor-intensive task with limited relevance to the core contributions of this paper. While it is feasible, we believe our efforts are better directed toward demonstrating the utility of the MaLA corpus and models through tangible multilingual improvements. \\n\\nWe appreciate your observation about language mapping challenges and agree that it\\u2019s an integral part of multilingual data preprocessing. However, **grounding our language selection in Joshi\\u2019s taxonomy is not a priority or requirement for this work**, as our contributions lie in practical advancements rather than taxonomy alignment.\"}", "{\"summary\": \"This paper presents a continually-pretrained multilingual LLM that covers 546 languages. The paper focuses on the data mix (MaLA corpus) and the evaluation.\\nThe model is based on Llama2-7B and compared to other Llama derivatives or multilingually pretrained models. It claims comparatively strong performance on commonsense reasoning, machine translation and open-ended generation. \\nThe data combines multiple existing sources and adds preprocessing steps.\\nThe evaluation includes existing benchmarks and new intrinsic benchmarks and a new automated open-generation benchmark that is using BLEU as a metric for comparing generations.\", \"soundness\": \"2\", \"presentation\": \"2\", \"contribution\": \"2\", \"strengths\": [\"Solid effort in including/focusing the data mix on low-resource languages that were excluded in previous works. This is ambitious and showcases that more languages are possibly \\u201cin reach\\u201d for more language-inclusive language modeling.\", \"Good highlight on iso code normalization and writing system treatment, which is often underestimated/undervalued in multilingual modeling but essential.\"], \"weaknesses\": [\"1. No discussion of related work beyond listing models for comparison and data sources that are part of MaLA. It would be important to communicate how this work differs from past efforts beyond covering more languages in continual training. What are the main achievements that have been unlocked? Where is the scientific novelty?\", \"2. Presentation: The result tables are overcrowded with text, and some of the results that are mentioned as main model strengths are hidden away in the appendix. It is hard for the reader to understand which numbers the claims of performance are grounded in. Furthermore, it is not clear what the main goal behind the model is: is it to be good at tail languages or beat other models in their supported languages or both?\", \"3. Evaluation:\", \"Metric: Two of the three main evaluation results are based on BLEU, although it is known that BLEU is (1) not equally suitable for all 500+ languages (see e.g. https://arxiv.org/pdf/2205.03983, Section 4.2) (2) is purely surface-based, e.g. underestimates paraphrases, neglects semantics, etc. The evaluation with self-BLEU is questionable - what does high diversity mean in the absence of a metric of accuracy?\", \"Human: There is no human evaluation of the final model, nor the data pipeline, hence it is not clear how good the generation is especially in the newly covered tail languages.\", \"The only benchmark that covers 500+ languages is intrinsic modeling on Glot500-c, which might be biased as the same corpus was used during pre-training, hence data quality issues won\\u2019t show in evaluation.\", \"The new PolyWrite benchmark is machine-generated and machine-translated, and machine-filtered. How reliable is it? Is there Western-centric bias in the prompts, or are they equally representative for all languages covered?\", \"Safety: No safety-related evaluation. It is known that data quality especially in low-resource languages is often lacking, caused by quality issues in the data pipeline, which in turn can introduce unwanted biases (https://direct.mit.edu/tacl/article/doi/10.1162/tacl_a_00447/109285)\", \"Comparison with other models: It is not fair to compare models that do not officially support certain languages on these specific languages. This distorts averages across languages and makes it impossible to compare where wins are due to covering languages at all vs truly outperforming other models that also include these languages. I would recommend separating these: evaluating against other models on their languages and benchmarks, and then evaluating on the newly covered languages, with a focus on quality of generations (some basic checks can be run: is the generation in the correct language? Does it have expected length?).\", \"I understand that this represents a \\u201cbest effort with limited means\\u201d - building reliable evaluation for 500+ languages is a huge enterprise by itself. However, the paper should at least prominently discuss these shortcomings and be more explicit about evaluation gaps and how to interpret the presented results, and which purpose the model can serve for advancing NLP in these languages. To be concrete, let\\u2019s say I want to use the model for Nogai - what can I expect?\", \"Expanding the set of languages in training without having reliable evaluation metrics for each of them (or at least discussing or being transparent about their shortcomings and evaluation gaps) is not sufficient for responsibly claiming an advance in multilingual modeling. I do believe that the effort put into data preparation and training is worth publishing, but needs to be evaluated and presented in a much more rigorous manner.\"], \"questions\": [\"What is the relation to the MaLA-500 model/work? What are key improvements over it?\", \"How was the data mix tuned? What was the process of setting the weights, based on intuition or prior experience or reports? Were any ablations run? This would be nice to describe in the Appendix (if no space in the main paper) to help others understand the deciding factors in setting up a successful data mix.\", \"Table 4:\", \"Why is tower-instruct performing so poorly (especially since it\\u2019s built for translation)?\", \"How would the model perform with fewer or more shots? Is the number of shots optimized for EMMA-500?\", \"Since whitespace cleaning only applies to whitespace-tokenized languages, are the other languages cleaner per se or need cleaning in other ways?\", \"How were existing datasets and their languages to be included chosen?\", \"Table 6: Are BLEU scores in this low range even reliable? Is the difference between 1- and 2-BLEU outputs significant? This should be supported by at least some evidence, e.g. significance tests or qualitative examples.\", \"How is self-BLEU evaluation influenced by sampling hyperparameters? Please report sampling parameters and discuss how they might affect the self-BLEU.\"], \"flag_for_ethics_review\": \"['No ethics review needed.']\", \"rating\": \"3\", \"confidence\": \"4\", \"code_of_conduct\": \"Yes\"}", "{\"comment\": \"Thanks for the response! I missed the comparison of MaLA-trained LLaMa models and the Taxi dataset - thanks for pointing these out.\", \"while_you_have_addressed_a_subset_of_my_questions_i_would_still_like_to_hear_your_thoughts_on\": \"1) BLEU - why not use ChrF? It's arguably more inclusive and doesn't rely on tokenizers. See https://arxiv.org/pdf/2205.03983 Section 4.2.\\n\\n2) I understand what diversity means - but when diversity is decoupled from accuracy - it can mean that the model is just generating \\\"creative\\\" gibberish.\\n\\n3) Regarding human evaluation: I understand that it can be a resource-intensive enterprise, but there are trade-offs to be explored. For example, I would prefer to see a subset of languages/datasets evaluated where possible (and especially for those languages added that no other work covers). Human evaluation on the most basic (audit) level \\\"is this text/generation written in language x\\\"? does not require linguistic training. In fact, automatic metrics, when entirely relying on automatic pipelines (such as in the generation and evaluation of PolyWrite), lack more than just nuances (https://direct.mit.edu/tacl/article/doi/10.1162/tacl_a_00447/109285).\\n\\n4) Since you include instruction data in the pretraining, and evaluate on other instruction benchmarks - why not evaluate on safety benchmarks? There are several benchmarks that cover at least a few languages, like XSafety (https://github.com/Jarviswang94/Multilingual_safety_benchmark) or Aya Redteaming (https://huggingface.co/datasets/CohereForAI/aya_redteaming?not-for-all-audiences=true).\\n\\n4) For the models where this information is available, can you add which languages they officially support and separate the aggregated metrics for officially supported and unseen languages? It would be great to understand (a) in the languages that other models cover, how is EMMA-500 comparing to them? (there's probably a trade-off), (b) in the languages that other models don't cover, how is EMMA-500 comparing to crosslingual transfer (i.e. what is the benefit of this new corpus/model)?. \\nThis would help to understand if the \\\"curse of multilinguality\\\" is present.\\n\\n5) In your response regarding MaLa500, there must have been a confusion in the last point - you mean EMMA-500?\"}", "{\"comment\": \"**Q1:** Wouldn't it also make sense to replace self-BLEU with self-ChrF++?\\n**A:** You raise a good point. The original paper proposed self-BLEU, which naturally guided our choice to use it for consistency with prior works. However, replacing self-BLEU with self-ChrF++ could provide a good alternative. We will also use self-ChrF++ in the revision.\\n\\n**Q3**: The problem with automatic tools (especially multilingual ones) \\n**A:** You raise an important concern about the limitations of automatic tools, as highlighted in the referenced work. However, we do not fully agree that humans would easily overcome this challenge. Human evaluation might also face significant difficulties when evaluating very low-resource languages; for example, the limitations mentioned in [our previous replies](https://openreview.net/forum?id=DPynq6bSHn&noteId=qepfFH8F2c) like subjectivity, inconsistency, and scalability. Also, finding qualified evaluators for low-resource languages is often impractical and costly. Automatic tools, while not perfect, offer a scalable and consistent method for data collection and evaluation. That said, **addressing the limitations of language identification tools is a broader research topic, and determining whether automatic or human evaluation is better is not the primary focus of this paper**.\"}", "{\"comment\": \"**Q:** Comparing with Aya-23\\n**A:** The Aya evaluation suite originates from Aya-101. We omitted a direct comparison with Aya-101 because our focus is on decoder-only models. Aya-23 is relatively new; we have compared it on code tasks but will include a more comprehensive comparison in the next revision. The current version already compares EMMA-500 with state-of-the-art (SOTA) models, such as Qwen and Llama 3/3.1, which outperform Aya-23. Therefore, the current comparison is sufficient to demonstrate the effectiveness of the EMMA-500 model.\\n\\n**Q:** Joshi et al's categorization of \\u201chigh\\u201d vs \\u201cmid\\u201d vs \\u201clow\\u201d resources \\n**A:** The complete list of languages in Joshi et al.'s categorization is not publicly available to us, unfortunately.\\n\\n**Q:** n-shot / 0-shot evals \\n**A:** The choice of 3-shot evaluation is based on the results of Llama 2 models, which achieve reasonably good scores on high-resource languages with this setup. We did not perform a comprehensive grid search. We can, however, check 0-shot results. However, we are concerned about reviewer iDTk's question regarding the reliability of BLEU scores in the low range, which could affect evaluations, particularly for low-resource languages.\\n\\n**Q:** The contributions section could be rewritten as bullet points and suggestion to edit table \\n**A:** Thank you for the suggestion. We agree that rewriting the contributions section as bullet points would improve clarity. Additionally, we will review the table and incorporate edits to enhance its readability and presentation.\"}", "{\"comment\": \"Joshi's full taxonomy is linked on the website that reviewer Bad1 shared: https://microsoft.github.io/linguisticdiversity/assets/lang2tax.txt - unfortunately without ISO codes.\"}", "{\"metareview\": \"The submission introduces EMMA-500, a multilingual language model trained across 546 languages via continual pre-training on the MaLA corpus, a multilingual dataset compiled from various existing sources. The paper highlight improvements in multilingual performance, particularly for low-resource languages, and propose a new open-ended generation benchmark, PolyWrite, alongside evaluations on multilingual tasks. The claimed contribution lies in improving Llama 2\\u2019s multilingual capacity, especially for underrepresented languages.\\n\\nHowever, the submission falls short of significant novelty. While the compilation of the MaLA corpus and its integration into a training pipeline is valuable, the data cleaning and methodology lack rigorous analysis or clear advancements over existing multilingual approaches. Furthermore, the evaluation framework is incomplete and raises concerns: reliance on automatic metrics like BLEU and self-BLEU, known to be unreliable across diverse languages, is not sufficiently mitigated with human evaluations. PolyWrite, though a novel benchmark, lacks thorough validation, with unclear reliability and concerns about biases inherent in machine-generated prompts. Additionally, comparisons with state-of-the-art multilingual models, including Aya-23, are insufficient, and the justification for their exclusion in certain evaluations is unconvincing. The taxonomy for language categorization deviates from established standards (e.g., Joshi et al.), and the rebuttal failed to adequately address concerns regarding this choice. \\n\\nOverall, despite the considerable effort to create a resource and improve multilingual inclusivity, the work does not present a substantial scientific contribution beyond aggregating and cleaning datasets for continual training. Given these weaknesses, I recommend rejecting the paper.\", \"additional_comments_on_reviewer_discussion\": \"During the rebuttal period, the discussion centered around the novelty, evaluation methodology, baseline comparisons, and taxonomy alignment in the submission.\", \"novelty_and_contributions\": \"Multiple reviewers, including iDTk and YEQS, questioned the novelty of the work, emphasizing that merging and cleaning existing datasets lacks significant scientific innovation. The authors defended the contributions by highlighting the scale and diversity of the MaLA corpus and the resulting EMMA-500 model\\u2019s improved multilingual performance.\", \"evaluation_methodology\": \"Reviewers iDTk and Bad1 raised concerns about the heavy reliance on BLEU and self-BLEU, metrics known to be unreliable for low-resource languages and open-ended generation tasks. The reviewers suggested using ChrF++ and incorporating human evaluation to validate the results. The authors agreed to add ChrF++ but defended the omission of human evaluations due to scalability issues. This response did not fully address concerns about the reliability of automatic metrics, particularly for low-resource languages.\", \"baseline_comparisons\": \"Reviewers Bad1 and YEQS highlighted the omission of key baselines, such as Aya-23, which weakened the empirical comparisons. While the authors provided partial explanations for the exclusion of Aya-23 and argued that ALMA and Bayling focus on translation, the reviewers remained unconvinced. Bad1 specifically noted inconsistencies in the inclusion of models across evaluations.\", \"language_taxonomy_and_diligence\": \"Reviewer Bad1 criticized the authors for not aligning their work with Joshi et al.\\u2019s established taxonomy, questioning the thoroughness of the data preprocessing pipeline. While the authors cited difficulties in mapping languages without ISO codes, iDTk demonstrated that this issue was addressable, further questioning the authors\\u2019 diligence and transparency.\", \"safety_and_reliability\": \"iDTk and Bad1 pointed out the lack of safety-related evaluations and concerns about biases in machine-generated benchmarks like PolyWrite. The authors acknowledged the importance of safety benchmarks but argued it was outside their current scope, proposing to address it in future work. This was seen as a gap, given the potential risks in multilingual data pipelines.\\n\\nIn weighing these points, the lack of novelty and insufficient evaluation emerged as critical weaknesses. The authors\\u2019 rebuttals clarified some points but failed to address key concerns around incomplete baselines, reliance on questionable metrics, and the absence of rigorous validation. While the effort to expand multilingual data coverage is commendable, the reviewers\\u2019 concerns regarding scientific contribution, methodology rigor, and presentation remain unresolved. Consequently, these shortcomings led to the final decision to recommend rejecting the paper.\"}", "{\"comment\": \"**Q:** Why is tower-instruct performing so poorly (especially since it\\u2019s built for translation)?\\n**A:** According to its technical report, Tower is heavily optimized (through CPT and SFT) for only ~10 languages centred on translation-related data. Its language capabilities might not generalize well across low-resource languages or specific language pairs. This is essentially our model's advantage over Tower.\\n\\n**Q:** How would the model perform with fewer or more shots? Is the number of shots optimized for EMMA-500? \\n**A:** The choice of 3-shot was based on results from LLaMA-2 models, where it showed reasonable performance on high-resource languages. The number of shots was not optimized through a grid search for EMMA-500. While fewer or more shots could impact performance, further experimentation would be needed to determine the optimal number for different tasks and languages. However, this is not the primary focus of our work, which is intended as a resource paper. The 3-shot choice already effectively showcases the model's performance across tasks, providing a good balance between data efficiency and task completion.\\n\\n\\n**Q:** Since whitespace cleaning only applies to whitespace-tokenized languages, are the other languages cleaner per se or need cleaning in other ways? \\n**A:** The whitespace cleaning process primarily applies to whitespace-tokenized languages, helping standardize the text for better processing. For languages that do not rely on whitespace tokenization (such as Chinese, Japanese, or Korean), the text may not require this specific cleaning but might need other preprocessing steps, such as character normalization or segmentation. \\n\\n**Q:** How were existing datasets and their languages to be included chosen? \\n**A:** The selection of existing datasets and their languages for inclusion was based on several factors:\\n- Language Coverage: We prioritized datasets that cover a wide range of languages, with a focus on including both high-resource and low-resource languages to ensure broad multilingual representation.\\n- Data Quality: Datasets with high-quality, diverse content, such as books, scientific papers, and code, were selected to ensure the corpus has varied text types, improving model generalization.\\n- Task Relevance: We considered datasets that aligned well with our goals for continual pre-training and multilingual adaptation across tasks like translation, classification, and reasoning.\\n- Availability: Datasets that were publicly available and accessible were preferred, ensuring transparency and reproducibility.\\n\\n**Q:** Table 6: Are BLEU scores in this low range even reliable? \\n**A:** BLEU scores in the low range can provide a general indication of performance, but they are not a perfect evaluation method, especially for open-ended generation. While BLEU helps assess text similarity, it may not capture the full quality or creativity of the generated responses. There is no single evaluation metric that fully reflects the complexity of open-ended generation. In fact, this remains a challenging research direction, especially in a multilingual setting. We have also discussed this from lines 488 to 494.\\n\\n**Q:** How is self-BLEU evaluation influenced by sampling hyperparameters? \\n**A:** Self-BLEU evaluation can be influenced by sampling hyperparameters, but we do not perform a grid search on them. We use the same set of hyperparameters for all models. The parameters used are:\\n\\n- Temperature: 0.6 \\n- Top-p: 0.9 \\n- Max tokens: 512\"}", "{\"comment\": \"**Q1:** BLEU - why not use ChrF?\\n**A:** We used both BLEU and chrF++ (ChrF++ includes word bi-grams in addition to chrF) to evaluate machine translation (Table 4). We also release all the translated text so the public can quantitatively or qualitatively evaluate these.\\n\\n**Q2:** Regarding diversity \\n**A:** While diversity must be balanced with accuracy to ensure outputs are meaningful, it is particularly important for creative tasks like those in PolyEval, which include storytelling, sci-fi, poetry, fantasy, adventure, and mystery. In these contexts, diversity reflects the model's ability to generate varied and engaging content rather than repetitive or formulaic responses. As automatic evaluation serves as an indicative reference, we also release all generated texts for open evaluation, allowing the community to assess the balance between creativity and coherence. \\n\\n\\n**Q3:** Regarding human evaluation \\n**A:** While resource constraints have limited our ability to perform human evaluation for this work, we recognize its importance in complementing automatic metrics. However, we must emphasize the limitations and unsustainability of human evaluation, particularly in a massively multilingual setting. Even evaluating a subset of languages or datasets, most likely low-resource languages, remains prohibitively expensive. For basic (audit-level) evaluation, such as \\\"is this text/generation written in language x?\\\", we advocate using automatic methods, such as language identification tools, to address these challenges more efficiently.\\n\\n**Q4:** Safety evaluation \\n**A:** Thank you for pointing out these benchmarks. While our work focuses on multilingual data expansion and model evaluation across a broad range of languages and tasks, safety evaluation was not a primary focus as the model is not directly developed for end users. We recognize the importance of safety benchmarks like XSafety and Aya Redteaming. As you also acknowledge that they only cover a few languages, it might not fit the evaluation in a massively multilingual setting best. We will discuss incorporating them in future evaluation runs to assess our model's safety and robustness. \\n\\n**Q5:** For the models where this information is available, can you add which languages they officially support and separate the aggregated metrics for officially supported and unseen languages? \\n**A:** We can separate metrics for models that explicitly mention supported languages, but this is not possible for models like LLaMA and GEMMA 2, which do not provide such details. We report per-language performance for some benchmarks in the Appendix, allowing readers to categorize the performance into different groups of languages as they wish. To avoid making the Appendix unnecessarily long, we will also share all results, including models' generation, via GitHub, enabling the community to conduct further analyses with their preferred metrics. \\n\\n**Q:** In your response regarding MaLa500, there must have been a confusion in the last point - you mean EMMA-500? \\n**A:** Apologies for the confusion. It was a typo. The correct statement is, \\\"... EMMA-500 shows improvements in multilingual tasks ...\\\".\\n\\n\\nOverall, we thank you for your feedback. We wish to emphasize the core contributions of this paper: the corpus, the model, and the technical process. Many of the points raised, while important, could be considered \\\"nice-to-haves\\\" but are not the primary focus of our work.\", \"to_summarize_the_key_contributions_of_this_paper\": \"The **MaLA corpus's scale, diversity, and focus on low-resource languages** represent a significant advancement over previous efforts. By integrating a variety of text types\\u2014such as code, scientific papers, and instructions\\u2014this work provides a more comprehensive foundation for multilingual pre-training. These improvements lead to a better multilingual LLM (EMMA-500) that **boosts multilingual capabilities** evaluated on 10 tasks and 17 benchmarks. The **scale and impact** of this work make it a valuable contribution to the field of multilingual NLP, especially for low-resource languages.\"}", "{\"summary\": \"This paper proposes a multilingual dataset named \\\"the MaLA corpus\\\" by augmenting and merging existing datasets, a multilingual model by continue pre-training on the processed dataset using LLaMA-2-7b, and a open-ended multilingual benchmark generated by ChatGPT. The main contents of this paper are used to illustrate the common pipeline of processing data and report results on multilingual benchmark. The only finding in this paper is that the multilingual capacities of LLaMA-2-7b can be improved by continue pre-training on multilingual corpus, which is trivial.\", \"soundness\": \"3\", \"presentation\": \"2\", \"contribution\": \"3\", \"strengths\": [\"The MaLA corpus compiled and PolyWrite multilingual benchmark will be beneficial to multilingual NLP researchers if they are public.\", \"Extensive experiments are conducted to show the effectiveness of EMMA-500.\"], \"weaknesses\": \"- [Addressed] Limited novelty: the corpus are generated by merging and cleaning existing datasets. The method to create multilingual benchmark is not novel, which is commonly adopted in the multilingual NLP community. It is an incremental work on augmenting the multilingual corpus and benchmark.\\n- Lacking baseline: some models of continue pre-training on LLaMA-2-7b are missing like ALMA[1] and Bayling[2].\\n\\n[1]. Xu, H., Kim, Y. J., Sharaf, A., & Awadalla, H. H. A Paradigm Shift in Machine Translation: Boosting Translation Performance of Large Language Models. ICLR 2024.\\n\\n[2]. Zhang, S., Fang, Q., Zhang, Z., Ma, Z., Zhou, Y., Huang, L., ... & Feng, Y. (2023). Bayling: Bridging cross-lingual alignment and instruction following through interactive translation for large language models. arXiv preprint arXiv:2306.10968.\", \"questions\": \"1. Will this corpus, model weight, benchmark and processing scripts be public?\\n2. Line 121-122: \\\"This issue is resolved ...\\\", Which issue has been resolved?\\n3. Line 310-311: Why is the global batch size set to 16M, rather than the commonly used 4M tokens like LLaMA-2?\", \"flag_for_ethics_review\": \"['No ethics review needed.']\", \"rating\": \"5\", \"confidence\": \"4\", \"code_of_conduct\": \"Yes\"}", "{\"title\": \"Paper Decision\", \"decision\": \"Reject\"}", "{\"summary\": [\"EMMA-500 outlines work around three technical contributions:\", \"EMMA-500 -> A multilingual model trained on 546 languages\", \"MaLA Corpus -> A multilingual corpus spanning 939 languages (A subset of which that had >100k tokens were used in the EMMA-500 training)\", \"PolyWrite -> Open Ended generation benchmark\"], \"soundness\": \"3\", \"presentation\": \"2\", \"contribution\": \"3\", \"strengths\": [\"Always great to see work that tackles the challenges in the long tail of languages.\", \"In-depth information for several preprocessing steps. This is really useful and important to allow future work to build on.\", \"Several evaluations performed on a plethora of datasets.\"], \"weaknesses\": [\"I would like to list the following weakness fully ensuring the authors that I am not unreasonable and am completely open to increasing my score if these are addressed/answered satisfactorily.\", \"The contributions section could be rewritten as bullet points and bold headings to emphasize the exact contributions. This was confusing for a first-time reader given that MaLA-500(I assume this is related to previous work) also exists.\", \"Evaluations lack benchmarking the recent Aya-23 model. They are even omitted when using the eval sets from the Aya paper. Surprisingly they are only benchmarked in the code evals without any further explanation.\", \"The categorization of \\u201chigh\\u201d vs \\u201cmid\\u201d vs \\u201clow\\u201d resources is created by measuring token count in this specific training dataset, however there already exists widely accepted standards/taxonomies(like https://microsoft.github.io/linguisticdiversity/ \\u2013 Joshi et al). No reference or explanation is provided as to why the authors deviated from this standard.\", \"For n-shot evals ( like 3-shot on FLORES), it would be useful to also see 0-shot evals to understand how big a role ICL plays in the performance gains.\", \"I would edit the tables to be easier to read( for ex: bold the important numbers; say lower/higher is better; add arrows)\"], \"questions\": [\"Could you please explain why the Aya model was omitted from some evals despite being quite a popular model for multilingual benchmarking?\"], \"flag_for_ethics_review\": \"['No ethics review needed.']\", \"rating\": \"5\", \"confidence\": \"4\", \"code_of_conduct\": \"Yes\"}", "{\"comment\": \"**Q:** Regarding Aya-23\\n**A:** Thank you for pointing this out. There were no specific reasons for the limited use of Aya-23 in our evaluations. The models compared in coding tasks and other benchmarks differed because different authors contributed to the evaluation. For multilingual tasks, baselines such as MaLA-500 and LlamaX, which are continued pre-trained on LLaMA 2, were deemed more critical. While Aya-23 was not the primary focus of our evaluations, we can already find some results for comparison. Below is a summary of performance on three specific benchmarks:\\n\\n| **Benchmark** | **EMMA-500** | **Aya-23** |\\n|------------------|--------------|------------|\\n| **XCOPA** | 63.11 | 59.8 |\\n| **XStoryCloze** | 66.38 | 62.3 |\\n| **XWinograd** | 72.80 | 80.7 |\\n\\nAs seen, EMMA-500 outperforms Aya-23 on XCOPA and XStoryCloze, but lags behind on XWinograd. These results reflect the relative strengths of the models across tasks.\\nThe primary focus of this work is **not on comparing with Aya-23 specifically but rather on advancing the multilingual NLP landscape with the MaLA corpus**, a continued pre-trained model based on LLaMA 2, and evaluations that demonstrate improved performance in many languages. Continue-pretrained models like MaLA-500 and LlamaX, and SOTA models like Qwen 2 and Llama 3//3.1 were prioritized as baselines.\\n\\nWe acknowledge the value of including Aya-23 in a wider range of benchmarks and will consider incorporating it in future updates to provide a more comprehensive evaluation. However, the current version already compares EMMA-500 with state-of-the-art (SOTA) models, such as Qwen and Llama 3/3.1, and advanced continue-pretrained models like MaLA-500 and LlamaX. Therefore, the current comparison is sufficient to demonstrate the effectiveness of the EMMA-500 model.\", \"we_encourage_the_reviewer_to_focus_on_the_key_contributions_of_this_paper\": \"the MaLA corpus, the data mixing, the continued pre-trained model based on LLaMA 2, and evaluations showcasing significant improvements in multilingual tasks.**\\n\\nRegarding Llama 3.1\\u2019s language support, its official documentation mentions the languages you listed, but our evaluation sought to assess its generalization to a broader set of languages, even those not explicitly supported. \\n\\n**Q:** Regarding Joshi taxonomy \\n**A:** Thank you for your comment. Reviewer [iDTk](https://openreview.net/forum?id=DPynq6bSHn&noteId=MTzjES3Z5D) directly shared a different link to a text file that contains the language list and explicitly mentioned the lack of ISO codes. Unfortunately, we were unable to locate the text file from the link you shared earlier, which seems to have led to a misunderstanding.\\nAdditionally, even if we had the file, it seems some languages in our covered set, such as kir_Cyrl (Kyrgyz), are not included in Joshi's list.\"}", "{\"comment\": \"Just to close the Joshi discussion:\\n1) The taxonomy is linked on the website that the reviewer shared.\\n2) The file I shared is found by clicking on that website on \\\"taxonomy\\\".\\n3) Kyrgyz is on the list, it's listed as \\\"Kirghiz\\\". Another oversight? I am doubting the diligence that went into this work. It is common for low-resource languages to be used with various names, language mapping is not fun but part of data preprocessing.\\n4) Iso codes missing is unfortunate, but other works, such as Aya, have overcome this hurdle too. It requires manual resolution of iso codes, but it's feasible if one cares about grounding ones language selection in this taxonomy.\"}", "{\"comment\": \"Thank you for sharing the link. Indeed, the lack of ISO codes (both language codes and writing systems) makes it challenging to directly align it with our dataset.\"}" ] }

[ "Wanqian Yang", "Rajesh Ranganath" ]

[ "robustness", "CLIP", "spurious correlations", "contrastive learning", "multimodality" ]

{ "note_id": [ "zLK6cUaxCv", "vjYzfzhmf0", "vhT69DnX5U", "rVmtPyaHxT", "chDUn0Y8vJ", "aY48TPrUz7", "Ydub9tKKH5", "V4VGA3PXOu", "TOkCx8MmDD", "Qv5LHv8Jc9", "2uY0Nhpfx9" ], "note_type": [ "official_review", "official_review", "official_review", "official_comment", "official_comment", "official_comment", "official_comment", "decision", "official_comment", "official_review", "meta_review" ], "note_created": [ 1730720146223, 1729166503555, 1730671964811, 1733205837332, 1733205745293, 1733205725533, 1733205780484, 1737523877687, 1733205812487, 1730723274810, 1733618978263 ], "note_signatures": [ [ "ICLR.cc/2025/Conference/Submission7958/Reviewer_iubQ" ], [ "ICLR.cc/2025/Conference/Submission7958/Reviewer_Kx98" ], [ "ICLR.cc/2025/Conference/Submission7958/Reviewer_T6Nm" ], [ "ICLR.cc/2025/Conference/Submission7958/Authors" ], [ "ICLR.cc/2025/Conference/Submission7958/Authors" ], [ "ICLR.cc/2025/Conference/Submission7958/Authors" ], [ "ICLR.cc/2025/Conference/Submission7958/Authors" ], [ "ICLR.cc/2025/Conference/Program_Chairs" ], [ "ICLR.cc/2025/Conference/Submission7958/Authors" ], [ "ICLR.cc/2025/Conference/Submission7958/Reviewer_Sz33" ], [ "ICLR.cc/2025/Conference/Submission7958/Area_Chair_fCUi" ] ], "structured_content_str": [ "{\"summary\": \"The paper investigates the robustness of CLIP zero-shot classification to spurious correlations and identifies out-of-distribution class prompts as possible cause. It proposes a mitigation by generating proxy class prompts using an image-to-text model on the downstream training data and performing k-nearest neighbours on the resulting embeddings.\", \"soundness\": \"2\", \"presentation\": \"3\", \"contribution\": \"2\", \"strengths\": \"The sensitivity of CLIP zero-shot classification to the choice of class prompts is a known problem. Improving the performance by choosing more suitable class prompts is computationally very efficient and thus an interesting alternative to methods based on fine-tuning. The lacking coverage of used class prompts in the original training data of the CLIP model seems to be a reasonable explanation for bad performance on downstream classification tasks and is to some extent supported by the experimental evidence. Further, the proposed method is computationally efficient and does not require spurious feature annotations.\", \"weaknesses\": [\"The proposed method improves over zero-shot classification but performs significantly worse compared to other methods using training data of the downstream task.\", \"The initial experiments show that the CLIP models perform much worse on Waterbirds compared to CelebA leading to the conclusion that lacking coverage of the prompts \\u201cwaterbird\\u201d and \\u201clandbird\\u201d in the pertaining data are the cause for this discrepancy. However, for Waterbirds, the spurious labels \\u201cwater\\u201d and \\u201cland\\u201d are contained in these class prompts which might cause a larger CLIP similarity between the corresponding text embeddings and the image embeddings containing \\u201cwater\\u201d/\\u201cland\\u201d backgrounds. This is not the case for CelebA (class attributes: blond/not blond, spurious attributes: male/female). This simple explanation would cause a similar discrepancy but is not considered in the paper. Thus, the experiments on Waterbirds do not seem suitable to properly support the claims regarding lacking coverage.\"], \"minor\": \"Table 2, 3, 4, and 5 are too wide and go over the margin. The plots in Figure 1 are too small, axis labels and legend are not readable. Section 5 mentions the use of Llama-2 in Fig. 2 which contradicts its caption and description in section 4.\", \"questions\": \"As I understand Section 5, all samples from the downstream training set are used for the knn algorithm. How strong is the effect on the results if a smaller subset is used instead?\\n\\nFor the experiments on ImageNet-1K, the training set is used for evaluation. Was the training set further split into train and test data or were the evaluated images also used to create the text-embeddings of the BLIP captions?\", \"flag_for_ethics_review\": \"['No ethics review needed.']\", \"rating\": \"3\", \"confidence\": \"3\", \"code_of_conduct\": \"Yes\"}", "{\"summary\": \"The paper studies the robustness of CLIP models on datasets with spurious correlations (Waterbirds, CelebA).\\n\\nThe authors find that the zero-shot classification performance is highly dependent on the choice of class prompts\\n\\nThey then present a method to improve this, using class prompts generated by an image-to-text model. They show that this works better because the prompts are \\\"ID\\\" w.r.t. CLIP's pretraining data.\", \"soundness\": \"3\", \"presentation\": \"3\", \"contribution\": \"3\", \"strengths\": [\"Clear writing, thorough presentation of the problem, methods, and results. The paper covers particularly well the context of the problem (spurious correlations, shortcut learning) and the current state of knowledge about how CLIP models behave and are currently being used.\", \"Scientific evaluation of a well known problem with CLIP models\", \"Simple mitigation method that appears effective, and also seem practically relevant to many uses since it allows using CLIP as a classifier without manually creating text prompts/class descriptions.\", \"Evaluation of several CLIP variants (OpenCLIP, MetaCLIP)\", \"Preliminary demonstration of usefulness on data without spurious correlations (IN-1k)\"], \"weaknesses\": \"I do not see major flaws in this paper. It has interesting findings that (to my knowledge) are novel, and a simple method that seems practically useful.\\n\\nThe findings are not earth-shattering but I think they will be of interest to the community working on spurious correlations and on the robustness of CLIP models.\", \"questions\": [\"Presentation tips:\", \"\\\"WGA can be arbitrarily improved\\\": In the abstract, this sentence should be rephrased. The current sentence means that it could be improved up to 100%, which is not the case I believe.\", \"Tables 3/4/5 do not fit the width of the page. The tables might also be nicer with the booktabs package (with \\\\toprule, \\\\midrule, and \\\\bottomrule) and possibly fewer vertical lines (?).\"], \"flag_for_ethics_review\": \"['No ethics review needed.']\", \"rating\": \"8\", \"confidence\": \"3\", \"code_of_conduct\": \"Yes\"}", "{\"summary\": \"The paper investigates the performance of CLIP models on datasets containing spurious correlations. First, the paper shows that multiple CLIP models have poor zero-shot performance when predicting the target class or the spurious attribute in the considered datasets (Waterbirds, CelebA). A cause of this is that the class/attribute labels are unusual, out-of-distribution of the training captions. The proposed solution is to not rely on the target name, but instead use an image captioning model (BLIP) to get a caption for each image and then embed it with the CLIP text module. A testing image will be encoded either by: a) the CLIP image encoder or b) captioning the image with BLIP and then using the CLIP text encoder. This embedding will be used in a k-NN fashion together with the previous support set.\", \"soundness\": \"2\", \"presentation\": \"3\", \"contribution\": \"2\", \"strengths\": [\"S1. Investigating the biases of CLIP models is a good direction.\", \"S2. Investigating the frequency of class labels in LAION dataset and looking at the marginal log-probabilities given by MetaCLIP models is interesting and suggests that the class names were not frequent in the training datasets.\"], \"weaknesses\": [\"W1. The message of the paper is not that novel. The community knows that large models are very sensitive to prompts, it is not new or surprising that CLIP performance varies for class templates.\", \"W2. Waterbirds and CelebA are small datasets and having most of the analysis done on them is a big limitation. Fundamental research questions could still be studied on these datasets, but investigating the robustness prompts / templates and proposing complex solutions involving multiple large models to solve these datasets is hard to justify. It\\u2019s hard to say if these investigations can lead to insights and benefits for more realistic settings.\", \"W3. There are simple baselines missing. a) Linear evaluation on CLIP image features b) k-nn directly on CLIP image features c) same for BLIP image features. These are necessary to see if the captioning is important for robustness or if simply using the good features of CLIP / BLIP is enough.\", \"W4. It is common to use image captions and LLMs to solve different tasks (see Blip2 or LLaVA). Using image captions from large models like BLIP to help in CLIP classification via k-NN seems like a step behind such approaches, without giving any additional insights.\", \"W5. Papers like [A] also investigate the non-robustness of CLIP class templates and suggest instead to use detailed descriptions generated by LLM as templates. It will be relevant to discuss the similarities to the proposed solution.\", \"[A] Menon, Sachit, and Carl Vondrick. \\\"Visual classification via description from large language models.\\\"\"], \"questions\": \"How many captions are used for each image? Were there other models than BLIP testesd for captioning?\", \"flag_for_ethics_review\": \"['No ethics review needed.']\", \"rating\": \"3\", \"confidence\": \"4\", \"code_of_conduct\": \"Yes\"}", "{\"title\": \"Response to Reviewer Kx98\", \"comment\": \"We thank you greatly for the positive review and kind support of our work. We invite you to read through our comments to other reviewers. We have taken note of the comments you have made regarding presentation and will clean them up for a future version of the manuscript.\"}", "{\"title\": \"Response to Reviewer Sz33\", \"comment\": \"We thank you for taking the time to read and leave a thoughtful review of our work. We will respond to the Weaknesses and Questions sections below:\\n\\n**W1:** We will fix this in a future version of the manuscript.\\n\\n**W2:** We agree that the insight that CLIP is sensitive prompts itself is not novel. However, we believe our work is the first to highlight the implication of this on studying spurious correlations in CLIP. Here, we want to address why we believe making this connection is important.\\n\\nWaterbirds and CelebA are both benchmark datasets used by the spurious correlation community. They feature prominently in the unimodal vision setting, used in every single one of the works we referenced in our Related Work section.\\n\\nIn contrast, spurious correlations in CLIP models is a relatively new area of research. The few existing works in the literature, such as [1] and [2], also make use of both Waterbirds and CelebA. We believe the value of our work is showing precisely that these datasets are poor benchmarks for multimodal research \\u2014 when minor changes to text prompts can cause as much as 30% changes to WGA, it should be clear that the efficacy of existing methods should be scrutinized.\\n\\nConsidering how heavily Waterbirds and CelebA are used by the community, we believe it is important to stress this point. A dataset whose baseline performance swings by as much as 30% cannot be a valid benchmark. We emphasize that the implications of such research extend beyond performance on these datasets. For example, one key question as we move from the unimodal setting into the multimodal setting is whether large, pretrained vision models suffer just as much from spurious correlations, and consequently, whether scaling does help to mitigate these effects [3]. Research directions like these will be hamstrung if we are using the wrong benchmark datasets. \\n\\n**W3:** We will add this ablation in a future version of the work.\\n\\n**W4:** We chose a subset of ImageNet specifically to highlight the scenario where prompt OOD is an issue on a natural image dataset. We accept the point made here and will add further results on the entire ImageNet dataset in a future version of the work.\\n\\n**Q1:** It is unclear why the ViT architecture for OpenCLIP perform so poorly on CelebA. However, we note in Table 3 that regardless of the pretraining dataset, small changes in prompts can still result in high sensitivity to WGA. This is true on both CLIP and OpenCLIP, albeit in different directions. However, our underlying conclusion is still valid, which is that prompt sensitivity can arbitrarily mitigate or worsen the effects of spurious correlations, and more poignantly, that the results of existing research should be scrutinized.\\n\\n---\\n\\n[1] Michael Zhang and Christopher R\\u00e9. Contrastive adapters for foundation model group robustness. Advances in Neural Information Processing Systems, 35:21682\\u201321697, 2022.\\n\\n[2] Yu Yang, Besmira Nushi, Hamid Palangi, and Baharan Mirzasoleiman. Mitigating spurious correlations in multi-modal models during fine-tuning. arXiv preprint arXiv:2304.03916, 2023.\\n\\n[3] Wang, Qizhou, et al. \\\"A Sober Look at the Robustness of CLIPs to Spurious Features.\\\" The Thirty-eighth Annual Conference on Neural Information Processing Systems.\"}", "{\"title\": \"General Response\", \"comment\": \"We thank all reviewers for their time and effort in reviewing our work and leaving thoughtful comments and suggestions. As noted by all reviewers, there are multiple strengths of the paper:\\n- Investigating biases of large pretrained models, such as CLIP, is important, and our work is well-motivated in studying spurious correlations learnt by such models. \\n- Our work solidly demonstrates, through a combination of methods (feature visualization, analyzing data log-probabilities, and comparing accuracies on different prompts), that CLIP is not only sensitive to class prompts, but also that this sensitivity greatly affects spurious correlations, creating swings in accuracy by as much as 30%.\\n- We propose a computationally efficient alternative to fine-tuning the downstream dataset. Our method is not sensitive to the choice of prompt and reflects a more sober and accurate look at these spurious correlation datasets.\\n\\nWe believe that our work is a timely and important contribution to spurious correlation research, especially so in the intersection of spurious correlation and large pretrained models, which has not been studied extensively. \\n\\nBeyond the method that we have proposed, we believe that the most important contribution of our work is to **acknowledge the flaws in existing benchmark datasets such as Waterbirds and CelebA**. These datasets have been widely studied in past literature. We show that they are increasingly poor benchmarks as we move to larger models like CLIP, and our work is an important step towards more robust analyses in spurious correlation research.\\n\\nWe respond to criticisms individually to each reviewer below.\"}", "{\"title\": \"Response to Reviewer iubQ\", \"comment\": \"We thank you for taking the time to read and leave a thoughtful review of our work. We will respond to the Weaknesses and Questions sections below:\\n\\n**W1:** We agree that experimental results for Waterbirds are not the strongest. However, we stress that the main contribution of the paper should be Section 4. Waterbirds and CelebA are both benchmark datasets used by the spurious correlation community. They feature prominently in the unimodal vision setting, used in every single one of the works we referenced in our Related Work section.\\n\\nIn contrast, spurious correlations in CLIP models is a relatively new area of research. The few existing works in the literature, such as [1] and [2], also make use of both Waterbirds and CelebA. We believe the value of our work is showing precisely that these datasets are poor benchmarks for multimodal research \\u2014 when minor changes to text prompts can cause as much as 30% changes to WGA, it should be clear that the efficacy of existing methods should be scrutinized.\\n\\nConsidering how heavily Waterbirds and CelebA are used by the community, we believe it is important to stress this point. A dataset whose baseline performance swings by as much as 30% cannot be a valid benchmark. We emphasize that the implications of such research extend beyond performance on these datasets. For example, one key question as we move from the unimodal setting into the multimodal setting is whether large, pretrained vision models suffer just as much from spurious correlations, and consequently, whether scaling does help to mitigate these effects [3]. Research directions like these will be hamstrung if we are using the wrong benchmark datasets. \\n\\nIn this light, Section 5, for us, represents one possible alternative that bypasses prompt sensitivity. We don\\u2019t intend for it to be state-of-the-art. Instead, it is a proof-of-concept that methods that are resilient to the choice of prompt can work too. Future research into spurious correlations in CLIP and other large pretrained models can take entirely different approaches besides prompt engineering. For example, future work can simply promote other large natural image datasets with valid spurious correlations that are invariant to the choice of prompts.\\n\\n**W2:** We respectfully disagree that the explanation presented here can adequately address the discrepancy between Waterbirds and CelebA. First, we note that we have already addressed this hypothesis in Table 2 of the paper, where we tried to predict Waterbirds\\u2019 spurious attribute itself. Table 2 shows that CLIP fails even at predicting the *background* itself, which does not lend credence to the idea that having \\u201cwater\\u201d or \\u201cland\\u201d in the prompts cause the model to leverage background features for prediction. As for CelebA, Table 3 also shows that the seemingly good performance of CLIP on CelebA is a myth, with arbitrary changes to prompt reducing WGA by as much as 30%. As such, we disagree with the reviewer\\u2019s alternative explanation here for the discrepancy between Waterbirds and CelebA.\\n\\n**W3:** We will fix these formatting issues in a future version of the manuscript. The reference to Llama-2 is an erroneous leftover from a previous version of the paper that we removed.\\n\\n**Q1:** We can show the ablation over the size of the downstream training dataset used for kNN classification below. We show results for Waterbirfs below:\\n\\n| | **Worst-Group Acc.** | **Average Acc.** |\\n|----------------|----------------------|------------------|\\n| $$\\\\alpha=1.0$$ | 70.7 | 80.4 |\\n| $$\\\\alpha=0.9$$ | 68.8 | 78.8 |\\n| $$\\\\alpha=0.5$$ | 64.3 | 75.2 |\\n\\n**Q2:** We used the validation set as the \\u201ctraining data\\u201d, i.e. to create the embeddings.\\n\\n---\\n\\n[1] Michael Zhang and Christopher R\\u00e9. Contrastive adapters for foundation model group robustness. Advances in Neural Information Processing Systems, 35:21682\\u201321697, 2022.\\n\\n[2] Yu Yang, Besmira Nushi, Hamid Palangi, and Baharan Mirzasoleiman. Mitigating spurious correlations in multi-modal models during fine-tuning. arXiv preprint arXiv:2304.03916, 2023.\\n\\n[3] Wang, Qizhou, et al. \\\"A Sober Look at the Robustness of CLIPs to Spurious Features.\\\" The Thirty-eighth Annual Conference on Neural Information Processing Systems.\"}", "{\"title\": \"Paper Decision\", \"decision\": \"Reject\"}", "{\"title\": \"Response to Reviewer T6Nm\", \"comment\": \"We thank you for taking the time to read and leave a thoughtful review of our work. We will respond to the Weaknesses and Questions sections below:\\n\\n**W1 and W2:** We agree that the insight that \\u201cCLIP is sensitive to the choice of prompts\\u201d itself is not novel, as Reviewer 1 has also pointed out. However, we believe our work is the first to highlight the implication of this on studying spurious correlations in CLIP. Here, we want to address why we believe making this connection is important.\\n\\nWaterbirds and CelebA are both benchmark datasets used by the spurious correlation community. They feature prominently in the unimodal vision setting, used in every single one of the works we referenced in our Related Work section.\\n\\nIn contrast, spurious correlations in CLIP models is a relatively new area of research. The few existing works in the literature, such as [1] and [2], also make use of both Waterbirds and CelebA. We believe the value of our work is showing precisely that these datasets are poor benchmarks for multimodal research \\u2014 when minor changes to text prompts can cause as much as 30% changes to WGA, it should be clear that the efficacy of existing methods should be scrutinized.\\n\\nConsidering how heavily Waterbirds and CelebA are used by the community, we believe it is important to stress this point. A dataset whose baseline performance swings by as much as 30% cannot be a valid benchmark. We emphasize that the implications of such research extend beyond performance on these datasets. For example, one key question as we move from the unimodal setting into the multimodal setting is whether large, pretrained vision models suffer just as much from spurious correlations, and consequently, whether scaling does help to mitigate these effects [3]. Research directions like these will be hamstrung if we are using the wrong benchmark datasets. \\n\\nIn this light, we indeed fully agree with the point you are making in W2, which is that Waterbirds and CelebA are small, non-natural datasets that have become poor benchmarks as we graduate from the unimodal vision setting to large, pretrained multimodal models like CLIP. However, this particular understanding is not at all discussed in the community, and we believe our work is an important step in the correct direction.\\n\\n**W3:** Baseline (a), linear evaluation, can be found in [1]. We fully agree with the need to add Baseline (b) and will add this to a future version of the manuscript.\\n\\n**W4:** We note that the kind of large pretrained models noted in W4 solve a different problem from the one we examine in our work. While we agree that it is possible to combine these models for more sophisticated capabilities, which BLIP-2 and LLaVA do, the solution presented in Section 5 of our work is specifically designed to tackle the problem of zero-shot image classification in CLIP. Even if the problem itself is a \\u201csimple\\u201d one, we note that spurious correlations in CLIP models (and in fact, spurious correlations in general) still remain a challenging and open problem even today.\\n\\n**W5:** We agree with your characterization of [A] in W5. However, we note that the type of distribution shifts in [A] relate to the transfer learning from one dataset to another. Spurious correlations, which we consider in our work, is a very different type of OOD phenomenon arising from inductive biases to learning specific (but erroneous) features that are correlated with the salient feature. We find it gratifying that the authors of [A] came to a similar conclusion on a different kind of OOD problem.\\n\\n**Q1:** We have used the entire dataset for captioning thus far. However, we also present an ablation below for the a smaller dataset size:\\n\\n| | **Worst-Group Acc.** | **Average Acc.** |\\n|----------------|----------------------|------------------|\\n| $$\\\\alpha=1.0$$ | 70.7 | 80.4 |\\n| $$\\\\alpha=0.9$$ | 68.8 | 78.8 |\\n| $$\\\\alpha=0.5$$ | 64.3 | 75.2 |\\n\\n---\\n\\n[1] Michael Zhang and Christopher R\\u00e9. Contrastive adapters for foundation model group robustness. Advances in Neural Information Processing Systems, 35:21682\\u201321697, 2022.\\n\\n[2] Yu Yang, Besmira Nushi, Hamid Palangi, and Baharan Mirzasoleiman. Mitigating spurious correlations in multi-modal models during fine-tuning. arXiv preprint arXiv:2304.03916, 2023.\\n\\n[3] Wang, Qizhou, et al. \\\"A Sober Look at the Robustness of CLIPs to Spurious Features.\\\" The Thirty-eighth Annual Conference on Neural Information Processing Systems.\"}", "{\"summary\": \"This paper demonstrates through experiments that factors such as dataset bias can introduce spurious correlations in pre-trained models. To mitigate these spurious correlations, the paper proposes using captions generated by BLIP as class prompts. Experimental results show that using BLIP-generated class prompts can enhance CLIP\\u2019s robustness to spurious correlations without requiring fine-tuning.\", \"soundness\": \"2\", \"presentation\": \"1\", \"contribution\": \"1\", \"strengths\": \"This paper demonstrates, through performance comparisons, feature visualizations, and dataset statistics, that the choice of prompts has a significant impact on zero-shot performance. The authors also propose a BLIP-CLIP architecture that enhances CLIP\\u2019s zero-shot capability without requiring fine-tuning.\", \"weaknesses\": \"1. First, the author should adjust the layout of the tables in the paper. Some tables exceed the page width. (Tables 2, 3, 4, and 5).\\n\\n2. This paper demonstrates in multiple ways that CLIP is sensitive to prompts. Previous work, such as MaPLE [1], had already presented similar insights.\\n\\n\\n3. Although the method in this paper requires no training, it involves comparing the similarity between each test sample and the captions generated for all training samples during the inference stage. On a large-scale dataset, wouldn\\u2019t this approach introduce a substantial additional time cost? It would be helpful if the authors could provide a comparison of the time cost between this method and direct inference with CLIP. Have you considered optimizing the computational burden on large datasets?\\n\\n4. The experiments in this paper seem to focus more on the classification of spurious correlations. For the experiments on ImageNet, only 13 different cat categories were selected from the 1,000 classes to classify Pantherinae and Felinae. Since the method proposed in this paper does not require retraining, why didn\\u2019t conduct a performance evaluation directly on the entire ImageNet dataset? FD-Align [2] also pointed out that fine-tuning directly on ImageNet can impact model generalization due to spurious correlations, which is consistent with the distribution shift caused by OOD text as proposed in this paper.\\n\\n\\n[1] MaPLe: Multi-modal Prompt Learning\\n\\n[2] FD-Align: Feature Discrimination Alignment for Fine-tuning Pre-Trained Models in Few-Shot Learning\", \"questions\": \"1. In the 4th row of Table 1, OpenCLIP shows high average performance and spurious prediction on CelebA, yet the Worst Group Accuracy is very low. If this is due to dataset bias, how can the high performance in spurious prediction be explained?\", \"flag_for_ethics_review\": \"['No ethics review needed.']\", \"rating\": \"3\", \"confidence\": \"5\", \"code_of_conduct\": \"Yes\"}", "{\"metareview\": \"The paper investigates robustness issues in CLIP models when applied to datasets with spurious correlations (e.g., Waterbirds, CelebA), focusing on sensitivity to prompt design. The authors propose using BLIP-generated prompts combined with a k-NN approach to improve performance without fine-tuning. While the paper raises relevant concerns about dataset biases and spurious correlations, significant weaknesses outweigh its contributions.\", \"strengths\": [\"The paper provides a detailed investigation into the sensitivity of CLIP models to class prompts, showing how minor changes can significantly affect performance, particularly in the context of spurious correlations.\", \"The proposed method using BLIP-generated class prompts to improve robustness without fine-tuning is seen as novel and practically useful by some reviewers.\", \"The work contributes to understanding the limitations of benchmark datasets like Waterbirds and CelebA when applied to multimodal models like CLIP.\"], \"weaknesses\": [\"The novelty of the core findings regarding prompt sensitivity in CLIP is questioned, as this sensitivity has been previously noted in the literature.\", \"The reliance on small, potentially unrepresentative datasets like Waterbirds and CelebA for the majority of the analysis is seen as a significant limitation.\", \"There's a lack of comparison with simple baselines, which could have provided clearer insights into the effectiveness of the proposed method.\", \"Some reviewers noted issues with the presentation, like tables extending beyond page margins and the need for better formatting.\", \"Given the reviews, the paper's contribution to the field, while interesting, does not introduce sufficiently novel insights or methodologies beyond what is already known about CLIP's sensitivity to prompts. The proposed method, although practical, lacks comprehensive benchmarking against simpler alternatives, and the choice of datasets limits the generalization of findings.\"], \"additional_comments_on_reviewer_discussion\": [\"Prompt Sensitivity (R1, R3, R4): Prompt sensitivity in CLIP is well-known; limited novelty in findings. Authors argue their contribution lies in connecting prompt sensitivity to spurious correlation benchmarks.\", \"Dataset Limitations (R1, R3): Heavy reliance on small datasets (Waterbirds, CelebA); concerns about generalizability. Authors agree but stress these datasets\\u2019 widespread use in spurious correlation research.\", \"Baseline Comparisons (R3): Missing simpler baselines like linear evaluation or k-NN on CLIP features. Authors promise to include these in future work.\", \"Computational Overhead (R1, R2): k-NN approach criticized for inefficiency on large datasets. Authors acknowledge and plan further ablations.\", \"Presentation Issues (All): Poor formatting of tables and figures; unclear phrasing in abstract. Authors promise to fix formatting and rephrase unclear statements.\"]}" ] }

[ "Ruben Wiedemann", "Antoine Jacquier", "Lukas Gonon" ]

[ "Financial Engineering", "Neural Operators", "Option Pricing", "Function Interpolation", "Nowcasting" ]

{ "note_id": [ "zQagow4bgW", "n8FOMJS5ct", "haJXhz74HU", "gJpAizv0gO", "e573bOd3rm", "Yd3LOdw7Kz", "Vya6aARvYC", "UGIkBPahsi", "Ld0xdsHGll", "GlERT7RhMq", "CNLeq0lCMp", "65dPrWsCVq", "5RcTKkOoIi", "2qpTwBBaYl" ], "note_type": [ "official_comment", "official_comment", "official_comment", "official_comment", "official_comment", "decision", "official_comment", "official_review", "meta_review", "official_review", "official_comment", "official_comment", "official_comment", "official_review" ], "note_created": [ 1733056061225, 1732547930089, 1732262449370, 1731511292801, 1732155645159, 1737523814142, 1732547545691, 1731170816908, 1734714261565, 1731250481924, 1733055789267, 1732454705737, 1732868860867, 1730715379096 ], "note_signatures": [ [ "ICLR.cc/2025/Conference/Submission7065/Authors" ], [ "ICLR.cc/2025/Conference/Submission7065/Authors" ], [ "ICLR.cc/2025/Conference/Submission7065/Reviewer_Xa1Y" ], [ "ICLR.cc/2025/Conference/Submission7065/Authors" ], [ "ICLR.cc/2025/Conference/Submission7065/Authors" ], [ "ICLR.cc/2025/Conference/Program_Chairs" ], [ "ICLR.cc/2025/Conference/Submission7065/Authors" ], [ "ICLR.cc/2025/Conference/Submission7065/Reviewer_o4xg" ], [ "ICLR.cc/2025/Conference/Submission7065/Area_Chair_rVqL" ], [ "ICLR.cc/2025/Conference/Submission7065/Reviewer_GefV" ], [ "ICLR.cc/2025/Conference/Submission7065/Authors" ], [ "ICLR.cc/2025/Conference/Submission7065/Reviewer_o4xg" ], [ "ICLR.cc/2025/Conference/Submission7065/Reviewer_GefV" ], [ "ICLR.cc/2025/Conference/Submission7065/Reviewer_Xa1Y" ] ], "structured_content_str": [ "{\"title\": \"Comment [2/2]\", \"comment\": \"[Continuing previous comment]\\n\\nFollowing your advice we will include and expand on these considerations in the next revision of our paper (ICLR timelines do not allow to amend the PDF right now).\", \"we_want_to_contextualize_the_breadth_of_these_considerations_as_follows\": [\"We have been approaching the implications of our work from a different angle: We argue that -- at this stage -- the most significant broad impact of our approach for volatility smoothing is that it \\\"lowers the entry-barrier for effective volatility smoothing\\\" (page 2), by moving to the operator level and thereby unlocking the learnings from the entire historical dataset in the smoothing of every single surface. The trained operator could then be \\\"served as a hands-off tool, could provide cheap and accurate surfaces for use in downstream tasks\\\". Most practitioners perform implied volatility smoothing in intervals of a few minutes, if not only a few times during every day, and we believe that our data-focused method, in its current state, could already be highly transformative for these individuals. All performance concerns in this context are dispelled by taking the scalability of compute for granted. In fact, by moving the computations from the CPU to a single GPU, we accelerate our method by a factor of 20 (compare above table).\", \"As indicated by the experiments, our implementation allows for smoothing at a frequency of seconds. This may be sufficient for many applications. On the other hand, we are not in the position to draw robust conclusions on the feasibility for the full range of HFT applications from our current implementation and its complexity analysis. Our implementation has not been prioritizing speed but feasibility (in particular the graph construction is brute-forced and takes around 100 ms). While our method delivers smoothed surfaces on GPUs within a few milliseconds, HFT nowadays operates at sub-millisecond timescales. Scope and resource constraints for this paper forbid us the pursuit of a highly optimized architecture for fast paced algorithms, and find that such would be appropriate for future work. Moreover, such specialization would probably come at the cost of the generalization capabilities of the method, limiting the \\\"foundational-ness\\\" of our method, which we have been prioritizing. However, we would like to emphasize again that for the most common practical applications, smoothing results within a few milliseconds are sufficient.\", \"### Experiments using synthetic data\"], \"the_independence_of_our_method_with_respect_to_the_input_grid_make_the_following_experiment_possible\": \"- We take SSVI as formulated in [5].\\n- We compute implied volatility for some SSVI parameters on two synthetic rectilinear grids for $(\\\\rho_\\\\text{min}, \\\\rho_\\\\text{max}) \\\\times (z_\\\\text{min}, z_\\\\text{max})$: One of size $10 \\\\times 50$ and another of size $100 \\\\times 100$ \\n- We feed the sparse size-$10 \\\\times 50$ data into the graph neural operator, which smooths this data to align with the dense, uniform $100 \\\\times 100$-grid.\\n- We compare the error between the GNO output and the SSVI input on the size-$100 \\\\times 100$ grid\\n\\nFor the average historical SSVI parameters for the S&P500 index as reported in Table 4 of [5], we achieve a mean absolute percentage error of $\\\\delta_\\\\text{abs} = 2.03\\\\%$.\\nWe believe that it is a great display of the generalization capabilities of our method, that it is able to smooth synthetic SSVI data on a synthetic grid with an average relative error of around 2%, without ever having been trained on this data.\\n\\nWe will include an exhaustive description of this experiment into the final revision of our paper.\\n\\n\\n\\nFinally, we want to thank you again for reiterating on your concerns.\\nThey have prompted above discussion, whose inclusion into the paper we believe significantly strengthens and rounds off its presentation.\\n\\n\\n\\n[5] Lind, Peter Pommerg\\u00e5rd, and Jim Gatheral. \\u201cNN De-Americanization: A Fast and Efficient Calibration Method for American-Style Options.\\u201d\"}", "{\"comment\": \"Dear Reviewer GefV,\\n\\nthank you very much for your insightful review, including an exhaustive summary of the strengths of our work.\\nAs for your mentioned weaknesses, they have prompted us to rework portions of our paper and include additional material which we believe has improved and rounded off its presentation.\\nWe address in more detail below.\\n\\n### Abstract Treatment of Discretization-Invariance\", \"you_mention\": \"> Figures 3 and 4 have unclear legends and insu!cient annotations, which reduce their interpretability. Improving their clarity and labeling would make the results more accessible and impactful.\\n\\nThank you for bringing this to our attention.\", \"we_made_adjustments_to_figures_3_and_4\": \"We improved the legends and reworked their captions, hoping to have eased their interpretation.\\n\\n### Analysis of Computation Complexity & Synthetic Benchmark Comparisons\", \"we_thank_you_for_the_detailed_comments_regarding_complexity_and_comparisons_with_other_models\": \"> The paper benchmarks its approach against SVI [1] and Ackerer et al. [2] but does not include comparisons with other key methods, such as SSVI [3] and VAE-based approaches [4]. Incorporating these would provide a more comprehensive evaluation. Additionally, using synthetic data, as in [2], could further strengthen the experimental validation.\\n> While the paper highlights the elimination of instance-by-instance recalibration, it lacks a detailed discussion on computational complexity, including runtime and memory requirements. These metrics are crucial for assessing the method\\u2019s practicality in high-frequency financial contexts\\n\\nRegarding these considerations, we would first like to point out that SSVI is an extension of the SVI parameterisation, by making the SVI parameters functions of time-to-expiry.\\nIn other words, SSVI is a smooth arbitrage-free interpolation scheme for SVI slices that produces an entire surface with fewer parameters. \\nIn this sense, SSVI is in fact a subset of SVI, and any SSVI-benchmark is beaten by the SVI-benchmark, which explains why we focused solely on the more general SVI class.\\n\\nYou rightly point out that our paper lacks the VAE-method as a benchmark.\\nWhile [4] is analogous to our method, it is not applicable for index options data, which includes our S&P 500 data: \\n\\\"Standard [VAE] methods are limited to certain option markets (e.g. FX markets where options spread out on fixed rectilinear grids)\\\" (Section 1, page 2).\\nIt is a unique feature of our method to be able to handle the very high-dimensional and variable-size nature of the S&P 500 input data.\\n[4] uses a fixed input-size of 40, while the input size of our data increased from around 700 in 2012 to over 3000 in 2021 (this development is plotted in newly introduced Figure 10).\\nWe argue that this qualitative comparison is the most impactful and compelling argument in favor of our approach, while resource constraints at this stage forbid us the pursuit of retraining the GNO on synthetic data, which would have made a direct quantitative comparison possible.\\n\\nFinally, we agree that the implementation of a highly optimized variant (our code has prioritized prototyping and feasibility) from which to draw robust statements about HFT feasibility would be an important next step.\"}", "{\"comment\": \"Thank you for the additional ablations. I have increased my score.\"}", "{\"comment\": \"Dear Reviewer o4xg,\\n\\nthank you very much for your review.\\nIt is encouraging that you find our paper well-written and easy to follow, and that you agree with the strengths of our method with respect to input subsampling, no-arbitrage conditions, and elimination of data pre-processing.\\n\\nAs for mentioned weaknesses, however, we believe there might have been an oversight.\", \"you_mention\": \"> 1. The contribution is limited. It is focused on applying the Graph Neural Operator (GNO) architecture to the specific task of nowcasting implied volatility, without modifications to the operator itself.\\n> 2. It's important to discuss various neural operators and clarify why the Graph Neural Operator (GNO) was chosen for this task.\\n\\nHowever, our employed graph neural operator is, in fact, modified compared to the conventional version, and we devote the paragraph \\\"Interpolating Graph Neural Operator\\\" in Section 3.2 to this (as well as Appendix B).\\nMore precisely, our modification consists of dropping the local linear transformation in the first layer and careful construction of the graph structure to enable data interpolation.\", \"we_state\": \"> We therefore propose a new architecture for operator deep smoothing leveraging GNOs\\u2019 unique ability to handle irregular mesh geometries. We use a purely non-local first layer (dropping the pointwise linear transformation), and use it to produce hidden state at all required output locations, enabling subsequent layers to retain their local transformations. (Page 7 of the paper.)\\n\\nWhile our tweak to the classical GNO architecture is subtle, it is crucially important to enable its use for interpolation tasks.\", \"we_explain___and_argue_that_this_moreover_addresses_your_second_mentioned_weakness__\": \"> Various neural operator architectures exist, mostly arising from the kernel integral transform framework of Kovachki et al. (2023). Most prominently, these include Fourier neural operators (FNO), delivering state-of-the-art results on fixed grid data, as well as graph neural operators (GNO), able to handle arbitrary mesh geometries (both reviewed in Appendix A.1). While highly effective with documented universality, these neural operators are not directly applicable for interpolation tasks as their layers include a pointwise-applied linear transformation, which limits the output to the set of the input data locations. (Page 7 of the paper.)\\n\\nFinally, we want to reiterate on your claim that our contribution \\\"is focused on applying the GNO architecture to the specific task of nowcasting implied volatility\\\".\\nHowever, the entire Section 3.2 is kept general and not specific to implied volatility.\\nInstead, we introduce the concept of *operator deep smoothing* as the generally applicable idea of using discretization-invariant neural operators approximating the identity operator to solve irregular interpolation tasks and explain the required modifications necessary to current neural operator architectures.\\nOur practical experiments and much of the rest of the paper then indeed remain limited to implied volatility smoothing, which however is a massively important task in the financial industry, and which we believe benefits dramatically from our foundational, data-focused operator approach and is highly suited to showcase its unique advantages.\\n\\nWe hope the above explanations helped to dispel your doubts regarding our contribution.\\nPlease do let us know if any unclarities or suggestions for improvement remain.\\nFor example, we could expand our review of existing neural operator architectures in Appendix A, to support our argumentation in Section 3.2.\\n\\nThank you very much!\"}", "{\"comment\": \"Dear Reviewer Xa1Y,\\n\\nwe thank you for your review and for the clear suggestions of how to improve the paper.\\nWe reworked the relevant sections and included ablation studies, aiming at improving the explanation of our architectural choices and validating them.\\nPlease have a look at revised PDF and our summary below.\\n\\n\\n### In-Neighborhood Sets\", \"you_mention\": \"> Again, there is little information about all the other model choices and/or instantiations. In particular, the choice of the kernel functions as MLP (as opposed to other choices) would be interesting for the reader. I'm also wondering whether the MLP can output negative values? [...] the choice of a MLP would benefit from further explanation/ablation.\", \"we_use_mlps_for_all_remaining_components_of_the_gno_to_keep_things_simple\": \"The universal approximation theorem for neural operators in Kovachki et al. (2023) is based on using plain MLPs as well, relying on their universality properties as approximators between finite-dimensional spaces.\\nWhile we agree that it would be interesting to investigate the effectiveness of different architectures in this context, it has been our strategy to stick to straightforward GNO-components for this paper.\\nAs for the configuration of the MLPs, we used manual experimentation led by conventional wisdom:\\nFor example, for the kernel-MLP, we chose the number of nodes of the hidden layers at the power of two closest to three times the number of nodes of the input layer, and we picked GELU as hidden activation for its smoothness properties, and use no output activation since the kernel parametrizes a linear transformation and definitely should be able to take negative values (answering your question).\\n\\n\\nThank you very much again for your review which we believe has helped us substantially improve the transparent presentation of our methodology (and it is reassuring to see our model choices validated by the ablation studies you suggested).\"}", "{\"title\": \"Paper Decision\", \"decision\": \"Accept (Poster)\"}", "{\"comment\": \"Thank you very much.\\nWe wanted to mention that we added Figure 5 into the paper, which details the in-neighborhood construction visually.\"}", "{\"summary\": \"This paper proposes a novel approach to nowcast implied volatility using neural operators, advancing the technique of implied volatility smoothing by constructing consistent, smooth surfaces that reflect current option market prices. Unlike traditional machine learning models, which struggle with dynamically changing spatial configurations in option price data, this work leverages a graph neural operator architecture to achieve robust and accurate predictions. Extensive benchmarks showcase that this work achieves superior generalization and accuracy over conventional neural networks and the SVI parametrization.\", \"soundness\": \"3\", \"presentation\": \"2\", \"contribution\": \"2\", \"strengths\": \"1. This paper is well-written and easy to follow.\\n\\n2. This proposed method is resilient to input subsampling, aligns with no-arbitrage conditions, and eliminates the need for extensive data pre-processing.\", \"weaknesses\": \"1. The contribution is limited. It is focused on applying the Graph Neural Operator (GNO) architecture to the specific task of nowcasting implied volatility, without modifications to the operator itself.\\n\\n2. It's important to discuss various neural operators and clarify why the Graph Neural Operator (GNO) was chosen for this task.\", \"questions\": \"please refer to the weaknesses part\", \"flag_for_ethics_review\": \"['No ethics review needed.']\", \"rating\": \"6\", \"confidence\": \"2\", \"code_of_conduct\": \"Yes\"}", "{\"metareview\": \"The authors proposed a neural operator approach for implied volatility surface smoothing, and the trained model can directly map observed data to implied volatility surfaces, eliminating the need for calibration every time. Some reviewers pointed out missing baseline methods, such as the VAE approach, which was a flaw, but not very crucial. I recommended an acceptance as all reviewers left positive feedback in the end.\", \"additional_comments_on_reviewer_discussion\": \"One reviewer raised the score after rebuttal.\"}", "{\"summary\": \"This paper introduces a novel approach to smoothing implied volatility using neural operators, focusing on Graph Neural Operator (GNO) architectures. Unlike traditional parametric models or classical neural networks, the proposed operator deep smoothing method directly maps observed implied volatilities to smooth, arbitrage-free surfaces, eliminating the need for instance-by-instance recalibration. By harnessing the unique capability of neural operators to handle data of varying sizes and spatial arrangements, the model effectively addresses the challenges posed by the dynamic and irregular nature of real-world financial data. Validated on a decade of intraday S&P 500 options data, the method outperforms the SVI benchmark and other machine learning techniques while generalizing effectively to unseen datasets, including end-of-day options for other indices, without retraining.\", \"soundness\": \"3\", \"presentation\": \"3\", \"contribution\": \"2\", \"strengths\": [\"**Novelty:** This paper proposes a novel application of GNO architectures to implied volatility smoothing, a task traditionally reliant on parametric models like SVI. By leveraging the discretization-invariance of neural operators, the method effectively addresses the challenges of dynamic and irregular financial data, marking a significant step forward in financial engineering.\", \"**Practical Significance:** The operator deep smoothing approach eliminates the need for instance-by-instance recalibration, streamlining the online calibration process. This drastically reduces computational overhead, making the method highly practical for real-time applications in trading, risk management, and other financial operations.\", \"**Robust Validation:** The method is extensively validated on a decade of intraday S&P 500 options data, demonstrating superior accuracy compared to the SVI benchmark and other machine learning techniques. Its strong generalization performance on unseen datasets, including end-of-day options for other indices, further highlights its robustness and adaptability.\", \"**Reproducibility:** The authors provide open-source code, model weights, and detailed implementation details, including architecture, loss functions, and training setups. These resources ensure the experiments are easy to replicate and extend.\"], \"weaknesses\": \"- **Limited Benchmark Comparisons:** The paper benchmarks its approach against SVI [1] and Ackerer et al. [2] but does not include comparisons with other key methods, such as SSVI [3] and VAE-based approaches [4]. Incorporating these would provide a more comprehensive evaluation. Additionally, using synthetic data, as in [2], could further strengthen the experimental validation.\\n\\n - **Insufficient Analysis of Computational Efficiency:** While the paper highlights the elimination of instance-by-instance recalibration, it lacks a detailed discussion on computational complexity, including runtime and memory requirements. These metrics are crucial for assessing the method\\u2019s practicality in high-frequency financial contexts.\\n\\n - **Abstract Treatment of Discretization-Invariance:** The explanation of discretization-invariance is largely theoretical. Providing concrete financial scenarios, such as handling abrupt market shifts, would better illustrate its practical significance and strengthen the narrative.\\n\\n- **Clarity of Experimental Figures**: Figures 3 and 4 have unclear legends and insufficient annotations, which reduce their interpretability. Improving their clarity and labeling would make the results more accessible and impactful.\\n\\n[1] A parsimonious arbitrage-free implied volatility parameterization with application to the valuation of volatility derivatives.\\n\\n[2] Deep Smoothing of the Implied Volatility Surface.\\n\\n[3] Arbitrage-free SVI volatility surfaces.\\n\\n[4] Variational Autoencoders: A Hands-Off Approach to Volatility.\", \"questions\": \"See Weaknesses.\", \"flag_for_ethics_review\": \"['No ethics review needed.']\", \"rating\": \"6\", \"confidence\": \"4\", \"code_of_conduct\": \"Yes\"}", "{\"title\": \"Comment [1/2]\", \"comment\": \"Dear Reviewer GefV,\\n\\nwe thank you very much for the engagement, and appreciate your confident assessment of our work and the clear recommendations for improvement.\\nWe understand that we haven't entirely addressed your concerns regarding computation times and benchmarking.\\n\\n### Analysis of Computational Efficiency\", \"our_analysis_of_the_computational_complexity_is_as_follows\": \"- Let $\\\\pi_\\\\text{in}$ be the $(\\\\tau, k)$-positions of the volatility inputs and $\\\\pi_\\\\text{out}$ the points at which the smoothed surface is to be computed. As part of the forward pass, the computation of the kernel integrals in each layer involves for each $y \\\\in \\\\pi_{\\\\text{in}} \\\\cup \\\\pi_{\\\\text{out}}$ the summation of $|\\\\mathcal{N} (y)| \\\\leq K$ many terms. In total, this is the summation of $O((n_\\\\text{in} + n_{\\\\text{out}}) K)$ many vectors, where $n_\\\\text{in} = |\\\\pi_{\\\\text{in}}|$ is the number of input datapoints and $n_{\\\\text{out}} = |\\\\pi_{\\\\text{out}}|$ is the number of queried output points.\\n- The production of each of these vectors involves the evaluation of the kernel FNNs as well as its matrix multiplication with the previous hidden state $\\\\tilde{h}_j(x)$ on the left (in our case a $16 \\\\times 16$ matrix-vector multiplication. We take these as base units of computation and do not decompose its complexity further in terms of e.g. the hidden channel size.\\n- Moreover, each layer has its own lifting network (the last one has a projection as well) and a local linear transformation (the first one hasn't), which involve $O(n_\\\\text{in} + n_\\\\text{out})$ many FNN evaluations/matrix multiplications.\\n\\nThe computational effort therefore is $O(J(n_\\\\text{in} + n_\\\\text{out})K)$ (where $J$ is the number of layers), counted in evaluations of (relatively small) feedforward neural networks.\\nWe derive the following strategies to control the \\\"time-to-smoothed-surface\\\":\\n- Changing the subsample size $K$: We are happy to be able to refer to Appendix C.6, which contains a newly introduced ablation study for $K$, and shows that there is potentially quite a bit of leeway to reduce $K$ below our level of $K = 50$. We want to thank reviewer Xa1Y at this point, who has prompted the inclusion of the ablation study into the paper.\\n- Decreasing the resolution of the output surface: Lower-resolution output can be traded for faster execution speed.\\n- Targeting the constants: It could be motivated to investigate smaller FNN components for kernels, liftings, and projections with faster execution speeds.\\n- Accelerate compute: Since our method is purely compute-based, the use of more and/or faster GPUs will allow to process surfaces more quickly. This is a great advantage over instance-by-instance smoothing, whose fitting routines are sequential in nature and hard to accelerate.\\n\\nWe benchmarked the execution with $n_\\\\text{in} = 897$ and $n_\\\\text{out} = 2500$ (50x50 output grid) on a consumer-grade laptop CPU as well as an Nvidia Quadro RTX 6000 GPU:\\n\\n| $K$ | 10 | 20 | 30 | 40 | 50 |\\n| --- | ------- | ------- | ------- | ------- | ------- |\\n| CPU | 74.6 ms | 149 ms | 215 ms | 273 ms | 336 ms |\\n| GPU | 3.57 ms | 6.93 ms | 10.0 ms | 13.2 ms | 16.7 ms |\\n\\nThese numbers confirm the linear scaling of compute in $K$ and the great accelerability of our method using GPUs.\\nAnd, they show that computation times for typical grid sizes are fast enough for performing smoothing several times per second, which is more than sufficient for most applications (we elaborate on this further below).\\n\\n[Continued in the next comment]\"}", "{\"comment\": \"Dear Authors,\\n\\nThank you for your clarification. I have reconsidered your response and raised my scores accordingly.\"}", "{\"comment\": \"Thank the authors for their response. I strongly recommend that the authors revise the aforementioned issues, particularly by supplementing relevant experimental results, which would significantly enhance the quality of this work. Although my concerns persist, I maintain that this work makes meaningful contributions to the field and, therefore, will retain my current score.\"}", "{\"summary\": \"**Disclaimer**: I have no background on financial engineering so I cannot comment on the originality/significance aspect of this work. I might have missed essential points and only base my review on technical soundness and empirical validation\\n\\nThis paper introduces a method to nowcast implied volatility based on neural operators. This is achieved by a graph neural operator with MLPs as the lifting/projection layers and the kernel functions. The model uses a composite loss function that includes the fitting loss, no-arbitrage constraints, enforcing monotonicity and regularization terms to ensure smoothness. The method improves over the baseline SVI model.\", \"soundness\": \"3\", \"presentation\": \"3\", \"contribution\": \"3\", \"strengths\": \"The proposed method appears to be an interesting approach to model implied volatility surfaces for option pricing. The method through composite loss functions that include constraints such as no-arbitrage allows for direct training of a neural network architecture that directly provides smooth surfaces that directly satisfy these constraints. While I cannot comment directly how difficult/hands-on other alternative approaches are in this domain, the proposed model appears to have the flexibility to introduce other loss terms or vary the graph structure to incorporate other structural properties directly into the model. The model leads to lower errors compared to the SVI method.\", \"weaknesses\": \"The paper gives a good detail on the exact instantiation and implementation of the proposed method. I understand that there might be little prior work to base this paper on. However, it is unclear how the exact choices have been made and what would be their impact if changed. Note that the choices here might be purely made by domain knowledge, which I cannot judge and therefore might miss the specific considerations made here. However, I think the reader would benefit from more detail on the following:\\n\\n**In-Neighborhood sets**: The choice of in-heighborhood sets is arguably key model choice in this work. However, this work lacks detail on how the choice has been made and the subsampling heuristic has been devised. The authors argue that the choice is made because volatility smoothing requires limited global information exchange. I would then expect that the error of this method would go up if larger neighborhood sets are used. This paper would benefit from an additional analysis on changing the $\\\\bar{p}$ and $K$ parameters. \\n\\n**Other model choices**: Again, there is little information about all the other model choices and/or instantiations. In particular, the choice of the kernel functions as MLP (as opposed to other choices) would be interesting for the reader. I'm also wondering whether the MLP can output negative values? I understand that there is a softplus operation in the architecture and ensures positive values but again the choice of a MLP would benefit from further explanation/ablation. \\n\\n**Loss function weighting coefficients:** I would kindly ask the authors to include more detail how the weighting of the loss function has been performed. As it is stated right now, there is no information on how to select/adjust the weightings on a new pr.oblem. It would help the dissemination the method if the authors would share their methodology.\\n\\n**Ablations**: The claims in the paper could be strengthened by providing ablations In particular, different (wider) choices of the graph neighborhood would justify the choice of the authors. Additionally, omitting the no-arbitrage term and any of the other auxiliary terms would give more insight on the effect of the individual chosen components. \\n\\nI would reconsider my score if additional justification on the specific choices are included in the paper and the additional ablations on in-neighborhood and loss function weighting are performed.\", \"questions\": \"See Weaknesses section.\", \"flag_for_ethics_review\": \"['No ethics review needed.']\", \"rating\": \"6\", \"confidence\": \"2\", \"code_of_conduct\": \"Yes\"}" ] }

[ "Site Qu", "Guoqiang Hu" ]

[ "Generative DRL", "Depot Generation", "Routing planning" ]

{ "note_id": [ "zDvUgxTdYV", "w2cWtGUvNc", "oLj5ULSUUc", "n56rt2v7R1", "n4f1euh6R4", "lHdNk0IRHq", "jTYyheBlaX", "hpHuqDjSm4", "byd99dBW5V", "bm6jIsa03A", "bSBGxz0gXl", "ZChsNG22Sr", "WHTEb5lzkm", "UkXTqZ7pWT", "TnoT4yXXbv", "QxZrzzLHLN", "QkQGCIBQO0", "O2LmjoJ9Xc", "Nwt6i4pjV4", "Nlw5QffjzB", "MGB41wAC1a", "L8YYm0yM42", "FxPD147Xyl", "EkOpgO0ojd", "A3dHGBUSwf", "9R0NNZqS3e", "8UDitl84jw", "5kUmKSchNA", "5DyRT8KinI", "5CoCrKzojE", "4I0A4lvAce", "3SYiNVFy3c", "2u3lupzAmd", "18zkPZsYF9" ], "note_type": [ "official_comment", "official_comment", "official_comment", "official_comment", "official_review", "official_comment", "official_comment", "official_comment", "decision", "official_comment", "official_comment", "official_comment", "official_comment", "official_comment", "meta_review", "official_comment", "official_comment", "official_review", "official_comment", "official_comment", "official_comment", "official_comment", "official_comment", "official_comment", "official_comment", "official_comment", "official_comment", "official_comment", "official_comment", "official_comment", "official_review", "official_comment", "official_comment", "official_review" ], "note_created": [ 1731854174409, 1732216532776, 1731852987348, 1731853810661, 1731176434626, 1731852765488, 1731853727743, 1732280744015, 1737523431047, 1732215470051, 1732280662233, 1731853310802, 1731853534977, 1731854002161, 1734687616969, 1732216337066, 1732718968424, 1730252036778, 1732280706062, 1732280626525, 1731853229653, 1732278223531, 1731852836229, 1731853174537, 1732607697431, 1731853608733, 1732670615306, 1732280797402, 1732215931796, 1732719234330, 1730083268175, 1731853903762, 1731852932247, 1730292134140 ], "note_signatures": [ [ "ICLR.cc/2025/Conference/Submission997/Authors" ], [ "ICLR.cc/2025/Conference/Submission997/Reviewer_8oe9" ], [ "ICLR.cc/2025/Conference/Submission997/Authors" ], [ "ICLR.cc/2025/Conference/Submission997/Authors" ], [ "ICLR.cc/2025/Conference/Submission997/Reviewer_B5p6" ], [ "ICLR.cc/2025/Conference/Submission997/Authors" ], [ "ICLR.cc/2025/Conference/Submission997/Authors" ], [ "ICLR.cc/2025/Conference/Submission997/Authors" ], [ "ICLR.cc/2025/Conference/Program_Chairs" ], [ "ICLR.cc/2025/Conference/Submission997/Reviewer_8oe9" ], [ "ICLR.cc/2025/Conference/Submission997/Authors" ], [ "ICLR.cc/2025/Conference/Submission997/Authors" ], [ "ICLR.cc/2025/Conference/Submission997/Authors" ], [ "ICLR.cc/2025/Conference/Submission997/Authors" ], [ "ICLR.cc/2025/Conference/Submission997/Area_Chair_fcPt" ], [ "ICLR.cc/2025/Conference/Submission997/Reviewer_8oe9" ], [ "ICLR.cc/2025/Conference/Submission997/Authors" ], [ "ICLR.cc/2025/Conference/Submission997/Reviewer_hQie" ], [ "ICLR.cc/2025/Conference/Submission997/Authors" ], [ "ICLR.cc/2025/Conference/Submission997/Authors" ], [ "ICLR.cc/2025/Conference/Submission997/Authors" ], [ "ICLR.cc/2025/Conference/Submission997/Reviewer_B5p6" ], [ "ICLR.cc/2025/Conference/Submission997/Authors" ], [ "ICLR.cc/2025/Conference/Submission997/Authors" ], [ "ICLR.cc/2025/Conference/Submission997/Reviewer_U1kY" ], [ "ICLR.cc/2025/Conference/Submission997/Authors" ], [ "ICLR.cc/2025/Conference/Submission997/Reviewer_hQie" ], [ "ICLR.cc/2025/Conference/Submission997/Authors" ], [ "ICLR.cc/2025/Conference/Submission997/Reviewer_8oe9" ], [ "ICLR.cc/2025/Conference/Submission997/Authors" ], [ "ICLR.cc/2025/Conference/Submission997/Reviewer_8oe9" ], [ "ICLR.cc/2025/Conference/Submission997/Authors" ], [ "ICLR.cc/2025/Conference/Submission997/Authors" ], [ "ICLR.cc/2025/Conference/Submission997/Reviewer_U1kY" ] ], "structured_content_str": [ "{\"title\": \"Response to Reviewer U1kY\", \"comment\": [\"Thank you for your positive feedback on our work\\u2019s contribution and providing the constructive suggestions. We are delighted that you find our work valuable, and we appreciate your helpful insights on how to improve both the presentation and content of our paper. Here are the specific actions and corresponding clarifications.\", \"__1. Presentation and Content Improvements:__ We appreciate your understanding of the constraints posed by the page limits and our efforts to present the main details effectively. To enhance the presentation and layout of the paper, we plan to implement the following actions:\", \"__(1) Integrating Limitations and Future Work into the Main Text from Appendix:__ In the revised version, we will integrate a summary of these topics into the conclusion section, while directing readers to the appendix for more detailed discussions.\", \"__(2) Optimizing Table Sizes and Readability:__ Because we aim to present comprehensive analysis for each component while both on real-life dataset and synthetic dataset, the presentation is a somewhat tight. To address this, we will reallocate space within the main text by streamlining some of the experimental setup descriptions and moving additional details to the appendix, thereby allowing more space for tables.\", \"__(3) Enhancing Figure 2:__ We agree that Figure 2, which visually display the training process of two modes, is currently small and may be difficult to read. In the final version, we will simplify the description and enlarge the figure, improving its clarity.\", \"__(4) Including paper structure overview:__ Thanks for noting the need of a paper structure overview in the introduction. We will include a brief outline to guide readers through the organization of content.\", \"__2. Clarification on Table Annotations:__ We apologize for omitting the meaning of boldface and asterisk in Table 1 and Table 3, we will clarify this in the captions to enhance readability. The meaning is also described here for clarification:\", \"__(1) In Table 1:__ Boldface and asterisks highlight the best performance achieved by MDLRAM using the sampling test strategy when evaluated on synthetic datasets. This result outperforms both its greedy test strategy and other heuristic methods.\", \"__(2) In Table 3:__ Boldface and asterisks indicate that, for the corresponding scale and test strategy, whether the DGM (with its two generation modes) achieves better results or random sampling identify better results. Specifically, when the DGM achieves better results, the asterisk denotes which mode of the DGM\\u2014either the exact depot locations or the multivariate Gaussian distribution\\u2014provides the superior performance.\", \"__3. Regarding the Source Code Availability:__ We understand the importance of reproducibility. We are in the process of preparing our code for public release, incorporating improvements based on feedback received during the review process. We will include a link to the repository in the final version of the paper if accepted, enabling related researchers to replicate our results and build upon our work.\", \"We appreciate your thoughtful feedback, which has been significant in improving our paper, enhancing both the readability and the impact. We are committed to addressing all the points you've raised and believe that the revisions will strengthen the paper. Thank you once again for your valuable time and constructive comments.\"]}", "{\"comment\": \"see my above comments regarding why optimal solutions and theoretical proofs are desired for publishing as a rigorous academic work.\"}", "{\"title\": \"Response to Reviewer B5p6 - Part 4\", \"comment\": [\"__[Following Part 3]__\", \"__5. Regarding the Results Comparison of the MDLRAM Component within Our Framework:__ We appreciate your insights regarding the analysis of MDLRAM within our framework. We would like to clarify the role of MDLRAM and the arrangement of our comparisons on real-world datasets.\", \"__(1) Role of MDLRAM as a Critic Model and its target on real-world dataset:__ As mentioned in the \\u201cOverview: Chain-of-Thought\\u201d section, during training, MDLRAM serves as a critic model for batch-wise generation of solution routes, as evaluations for the depots generated by the DGM, facilitating the training of DGM efficiently in a batch-wise manner.\", \"As a critic model within the framework, MDLRAM stands out for its rapidity to plan high-quality solutions in batches, which lays the foundation for depot-generating tasks completed by DGM. Therefore, when testing on real-world dataset, our aim is not to establish new SOTA results, instead, since the DGM is trained based on the feedback from MDLRAM, we aim to demonstrate how MDLRAM consumes significantly less inference time than existing method to derive high-quality solutions comparable to BKS, mitigating the potential bias, thereby ensuring its efficacy and robustness for depot generation.\", \"__(2) Comparison with SOTA Results on real-world dataset:__ While the primary goal of MDLRAM is to serve as a robust critic model for the DGM, rather than achieving SOTA results for the traditional scenario, we performed comparisons on this traditional configuration to demonstrate its robustness and effectiveness.\", \"We compare our method with SOTA results documented in four influential LRP literature acknowledged by the LRP community, using corresponding real-world datasets that are commonly used and typically required for comparison. It is necessary to screen out those less recognized works that arbitrarily add customized constraints to avoid comparing on these real-world datasets, and those works that even not aware the existence of these well-established datasets. This allows us to benchmark our method against recognized standards and provides a fair and comparable assessment of its performance.\", \"Through these comparisons in Table 2, we demonstrate that MDLRAM consumes significantly less inference time than existing methods while deriving high-quality solutions comparable to BKS. This confirms its efficacy for depot generation within our framework.\", \"We hope that our clarifications address your concerns and illustrate the motivation and significance of our work. Our goal is to extend the research area by identifying new application scenarios and providing new insights into critical applications where traditional methods may fall short. We welcome any further questions or suggestions you may have and are eager to engage in a constructive discussion to improve our work. Thank you again for your feedback.\"]}", "{\"title\": \"Response to Reviewer hQie - Part 2\", \"comment\": [\"__[following part 1]__\", \"__(4) Why not dynamically generate depots and plan routing accordingly:__ It is precisely our consideration of this question that motivates our decision to pretrain MDLRAM and set it fixed during training DGM. We\\u2019re delighted to share the same consideration with you on this matter. The framework consists of two components. As mentioned above, the training strategy we choose is pretraining MDLRAM to minimize the routing cost, aiming to facilitate an robust and unbiased evaluation for DGM. Once MDLRAM is fixed, during DGM's training, further reduction in costs is basically contributed by DGM\\u2019s optimized ability on identifying better depots. *However, if directly training these two models in a joint mode, undesirable challenges will be posed in three aspects:*\", \"__(i) Training Instability:__ Joint training could lead to instability due to simultaneous optimization of both DGM and MDLRAM. The MDLRAM generates solution based on Markov Decision Process (MDP), relying on a stable reinforcement learning process. The changes of DGM\\u2019s network parameters could adversely affect MDLRAM\\u2019s convergence and overall training stability.\", \"__(ii) Variable Control:__ Separating the training of DGM and MDLRAM allows us to control variables more effectively. By fixing the well-trained MDLRAM, we aim to attribute the improvements in the total cost during DGM\\u2019s training to better depot generation by the DGM, rather than the intertwined effects from both models\\u2019 simultaneous learning.\", \"__(iii) Flexibility of Individual Components:__ If joint training, the reduction of the total cost is applied to optimize both DGM and MDLRAM, their performance might be tightly coupled, making it difficult to utilize them separately without retraining. Training the models separately enhances the flexibility of the framework. MDLRAM and DGM can be used independently in other contexts if desired.\"]}", "{\"summary\": \"This paper focuses on a DRL framework for location routing problems in which potential depot locations are not fixed a priori but can be freely determined in a continuous plane. The authors propose a generative DRL approach that generates potential depots and subsequently derives an LRP solution.\", \"soundness\": \"2\", \"presentation\": \"1\", \"contribution\": \"1\", \"strengths\": \"see weaknesses\", \"weaknesses\": \"I am afraid to write such a negative review, which will clearly be a disappointment for the authors, but in my opinion this paper should not be published for the reasons outlined below. I hope that my concerns will still help the authors to refine their research in the future.\\n\\n1) As the authors point out in the literature review part of their work, research on solving LRPs without predefined depot locations is very scarce. From my experience in academia and practice, there is a good reason why this research is scarce: solving an LRP without predefined depot locations is a problem that is hardly of interest to the underlying applications.\\nThe depots which are placed when solving an LRP are typically warehouses or logistics hubs. Suitable locations for such buildings are usually sparse, which is why there always exists a predefined discrete set of potential locations, which makes the problem proposed by the authors obsolete. \\nIf one wants to identify suitable regions for depots, one usually solves a facility location problem and uses a cost approximation for routing costs as in such a setting where the problem is solved in a continuous plane, the error made by placing the depot locations at points that are not available as a location is high and outweighs a potential accuracy win on getting accurate routing costs.\\n\\n2) While I believe that utilizing DRL for vehicle routing problems is still in its infancy and holds potential for many promising research contributions, I doubt that aiming to solve strategic planning problems with similar methodologies for two reasons: first, when solving a strategic problem the sunk costs are very high. In this case, one favors solution quality and accuracy, realized in classical combinatorial or robust optimization approaches, over fast decision-making, which is the main advantage of a DRL approach. Second, while one can easily create many training instances for an operational problem by collecting daily or hourly data, this is different for a strategic problem that is solved once every 10 to 20 years. I do not see any reasonable way to create the 1,280,000 instances the authors require for training.\\n\\nIgnoring the unrealistic training process, a superior solution quality could justify the method proposed by the authors from a purely academic perspective. However, the reported solution quality is inferior to that of existing classical approaches. Here it might be worth mentioning that the reference solutions claimed to be the state of the art by the authors are roughly 15 years old. Many papers have improved upon these so that the gap between the proposed methodology and the actual state of the art is much larger.\\n\\nBased on these main concerns, I see neither a pracitcal nor an academic value in the work proposed and recommend to not publish it.\", \"questions\": \"see weaknesses\", \"flag_for_ethics_review\": \"['No ethics review needed.']\", \"rating\": \"1\", \"confidence\": \"5\", \"code_of_conduct\": \"Yes\"}", "{\"title\": \"Response to Reviewer B5p6 - Part 1\", \"comment\": [\"Thank you for taking the time to review our paper. We appreciate the sharing of your experience and would like to discuss the concerns you've raised point-by-point.\", \"__1. Regarding the scarcity of related works:__ Thanks for the experience that the scarce number of related works indicate a problem is hardly of interest. Regarding this, we would like to respectfully raise some points-of-view to discuss why this does not apply to our problem scenario, while also why our research presents significance.\", \"__(1) Scarcity of related works resulting from constraints:__ There may be multiple reasons leading to a scarcity of related works, such as unsolved constraints or unidentified problems, which we will detailedly discuss in following response. We do not totally exclude the reviewer\\u2019s concern, but we also believe this presents an opportunity and motivation for researchers to explore and identify new application scenarios, thereby expanding and contributing to the existing research landscape. Rather than focusing solely on improving state-of-the-art results on the most basic well-studied problems, exploring new and potential problems can yield significant advancements. We believe this also aligns with ICLR's perspective on encouraging novel research directions.\", \"__(2) Significance of LRP without predefined depots through review of existing works:__ In route planning domain, numerous variants integrate various constraints and objectives from customers, fleet owners, and regulators, and are addressed by various types of methods. Each variant corresponds to different application scenarios with specific requirements and operational targets. We believe that potential applications have their own significance, even if they have not yet been identified or extensively studied yet. Identifying and addressing these applications is a crucial task for researchers and practitioners.\", \"As mentioned in the introduction, through investigating existing works (Page3-Line127), we identified that the LRP without predefined depot locations remains a less-explored area with substantial practical relevance, specifically for those scenarios that require rapid depot establishment and adjustment, such as medical rescue and disaster relief operations. Furthermore, through reviewing these existing works, we identify the unsolved efficiency constraints which can be addressed by DRL\\u2019s generative capability. We aim to broaden the scope of LRP research and provide solutions for scenarios that are not adequately addressed by existing methods. Specifically:\", \"__(i) Practical Applications Requiring Rapid Depot Establishment:__ As detailed in the introduction part, there are critical real-world situations where the assumption of predefined depot locations is not feasible. Examples include emergency medical rescue and disaster relief operations, where infrastructure may be compromised or non-existent. In such cases, there is an urgent need to determine or adjust depot locations quickly and efficiently to facilitate effective response efforts.\", \"__(ii) Constraint of Computational Intensity:__ Regarding this extended LRP scenario without predefined depot candidates, the existing methods predominantly employing heuristic strategies for attempting new depots across a planar area. In this situation, if simply expanding the search of the depot candidates across the map and aimlessly attempting new points, then undesired increasing on problem scale will be incurred, thereby leading to excessive time consumption and expensive computation. Therefore, devising a method to proactively generate high-quality depots, satisfying the depot location constraints for LRP scenario without predefined depot candidates, is well-motivated. Our approach addresses this need by efficiently generating depot locations without exhaustive searching.\"]}", "{\"title\": \"Response to Reviewer hQie - Part 1\", \"comment\": [\"Thank you for recognizing the significance, originality, and potential impact of our work, and also providing thoughtful review. We appreciate your insightful questions and constructive feedback, which have helped us identify areas for improvement. We would like to discuss the concerns and questions in detail below.\", \"__1. Rationale of including MDLRAM as a component within framework:__ Thanks for raising the discussion. We will clarify the role and target of MDLRAM, also explain why it is necessary in our framework. Detailed explanations are also provided in Section 2 \\u201cOverview: Chain-of-thought\\u201d of the main pages, where we explain how we stack up the framework and the specific functions of each component.\", \"*To summary, MDLRAM is designed to quickly and batch-wisely generate high-quality solution routes based on these depots to serving the customers, as the evaluations for the depot locations generated by the DGM -- a batch-wise task that traditional methods can only finish case-by-case, incurring undesirable inefficiency. Specifically explained as follows:*\", \"__(1) Necessity of MDLRAM as a Critic Model to evaluates DGM:__ The Depot Generative Model (DGM) aims to generate desirable depot locations based on customer requests. Then training the DGM requires an evaluation mechanism to simultaneously assess the quality of a batch of generated depot sets in each optimization iteration in RL process. This necessitates a model to batch-wisely generating the solution routes based on these depots, with the close-to-the-optimal route cost serving as the evaluations for the depots generated from DGM, thereby facilitating the training of DGM in batch-wise manner. This motivates the introduction of MDLRAM which serves as this critical component by providing fast and batch-wise generation of routing solutions based on the depots produced by the DGM. The routing costs computed by MDLRAM act as feedback (or \\\"scores\\\") to the DGM, facilitating its training in a reinforcement learning framework.\", \"__(2) Why MDLRAM cannot be replaced by existing SOTA method:__ During each training iteration, the DGM generates a batch of depot sets that need to be evaluated by the critic model to generate corresponding routing costs. However, the SOTA methods for LRP with predefine candidates often involve complex heuristics or exact algorithms that are computationally intensive and not designed for batch processing, which typically need to solve instances case-by-case for generating a batch of results, each consuming a non-negligible inference time, significantly slowing down the training process. This computational intensity poses a challenge for integrating them into a reinforcement learning framework that requires rapid and repeated evaluations.\", \"__(3) How to help MDLRAM avoid bias during training DGM:__ We also recognize the concern regarding potential bias since the DGM is trained based on the feedback from MDLRAM. Because MDLRAM serves as a critic model for DGM, it should be robust enough to provide a reliable score for assessing the generated depots from DGM. That means, the score is expected to solely reflect the quality of the generated depots, ruling out the influence of LRP routing solution\\u2019s quality as much as possible. *To address this, we have made following three aspects of efforts:*\", \"__(i) Pretraining MDLRAM:__ We pretrain MDLRAM separately to approximate optimal routing costs as closely as possible. This involves training MDLRAM on a large set of instances to ensure it provides reliable solution routes as evaluations.\", \"__(ii) Fixing MDLRAM During DGM Training:__ Once pretrained, MDLRAM's parameters are fixed during the training of the DGM. This ensures that improvements in routing costs are attributable to better depot locations generated by the DGM, rather than changes in MDLRAM's routing performance, thereby facilitating a robust training process for DGM.\", \"__(iii) Validation Against Benchmarks:__ We validate MDLRAM's outputs against benchmark methods to ensure its reliability as a critic model. By comparing its performance with established methods, we confirm that MDLRAM provides accurate and trustworthy evaluations for the depot sets generated by the DGM.\"]}", "{\"title\": \"Discussion with Review 8oe9 \\u2013 Part 3: Regarding the potential on large-scale instance\", \"comment\": [\"Thank you for your follow-up comments on large-scale instances. While we appreciate your continued engagement, we are concerned that our previous responses on these points may not have been effectively considered. We would like to briefly recap our responses and further clarify our perspective.\", \"__Brief Recap of Our Previous Response regarding dealing large-scale instances:__ In our previous response, we state how existing works can aid DRL method to release the computational ability on large-scale through decomposing and simultaneous computing, supported with specific references [7-8]. We also emphasized that the case-specific nature of exact methods may not always guarantee efficient solution for larger and dynamic problems for all routing scenarios due to their computational demands. In contrast, DRL provides efficient, effective, and generalizable solutions through simultaneously addressing multiple manageable scaled-down cases, which is crucial for dynamic real-world applications.\", \"__Instance Sizes and Benchmarking:__ You commented that our instance sizes (up to 100 demand locations and 20 depots) are not sufficiently large. We would like to point out that the instance sizes we use are consistent with those evaluated in recognized LRP real-world dataset. This consistency ensures that our results are directly comparable to existing methods and that our evaluations are adhering to the established standards of the LRP community.\", \"__Welcome on Benchmark Recommendations:__ If you are aware of benchmarks in the LRP literature involving significantly large instances that align with this specific problem definition (i.e., LRP without predefined depot candidates), we would greatly appreciate your recommendations and references. It\\u2019s worth noting that our focus is on the LRP without predefined depot candidates, not on the Vehicle Routing Problem (VRP) or other related variants. Benchmarks or datasets from VRP studies, while valuable in their context, may not be directly applicable to our specific research focus.\"]}", "{\"title\": \"Paper Decision\", \"decision\": \"Reject\"}", "{\"title\": \"How to evaluate DRL over optimization methods without really comparing with the state of the art?\", \"comment\": \"The response does not address my concerns regarding the contribution of the work. The citations on location-routing problem considered in this work and methods they benchmark with were mostly published in lower-tier journals in the field of Operations Research and Management Science, which has a long tradition of studying vehicle routing, facility location, and combined location routing problems. I am surprised to see that no papers from, e.g., Transportation Science (TS), Operations Research (OR), Transportation Research Part B (TRB), etc., where cited, not in the paper, nor in this new response. This reflected the authors' lack of knowledge in this domain, and if arguing about \\\"cost effectiveness\\\" \\\"batch-wise computing\\\" \\\"solutions patterns\\\" \\\"stable performance\\\" etc., as the hypothetical advantages of DRL, how the authors know that they were not offered in the state-of-the-art optimization literature? There were papers on tackling multistage stochastic/robust VRP, LRP, etc., under the uncertainty of travel time, demand, etc., with or without time window constraints; papers of offline or online algorithms for these problems; papers aiming to final optimal policies or approximations with bounded solution optimality; and so on. For sequential decision making, there were papers using Approximate Dynamic Programming, to address the issue of dimensionality, etc. I list some examples below and some of them are papers already published in the OR literature 15+ years ago, not to mention the more recent ones focusing on understanding both solution optimality and also computational efficiency published in TS, OR, TRB, etc. In fact, the exact approaches can solve much larger size instances than the ones considered in this paper. Without benchmark with these approaches (either theoretically or numerically, beyond just generic branch-and-cut tested in this paper), it lacks rigor to state that DRL outperforms exact methods because they are more stable, or cost effective, etc.\\n\\nDrexl, M., & Schneider, M. (2015). A survey of variants and extensions of the location-routing problem. European journal of operational research, 241(2), 283-308.\\n\\nDesaulniers, G., Errico, F., Irnich, S., & Schneider, M. (2016). Exact algorithms for electric vehicle-routing problems with time windows. Operations Research, 64(6), 1388-1405.\\n\\nUlmer, M. W. (2017). Approximate dynamic programming for dynamic vehicle routing (Vol. 61). Berlin/Heidelberg, Germany: Springer International Publishing.\\n\\nNovoa, C., & Storer, R. (2009). An approximate dynamic programming approach for the vehicle routing problem with stochastic demands. European journal of operational research, 196(2), 509-515.\\n\\nPowell, W. B. (2007). Approximate Dynamic Programming: Solving the curses of dimensionality (Vol. 703). John Wiley & Sons.\\n\\nPowell, W. B., Simao, H. P., & Bouzaiene-Ayari, B. (2012). Approximate dynamic programming in transportation and logistics: a unified framework. EURO Journal on Transportation and Logistics, 1(3), 237-284.\"}", "{\"title\": \"Discussion with Review 8oe9 \\u2013 Part 1- follow up\", \"comment\": \"__4. Acknowledgment of Variants and Methodologies:__\\n\\nWe acknowledge that, in route planning domain, numerous variants integrating various constraints and objectives from customers, fleet owners, and regulators, and are addressed by various types of methods. Each variant corresponds to different application scenarios with specific requirements and operational targets. We believe that potential applications have their own significance and consideration on method selection, even if they have not yet been identified or extensively studied yet.\\nWhile we appreciate the diversity of variants and approaches in this domain, we would like to clarify the scope of our work as follows:\\n\\n- __Problem Configuration:__ Our paper specifically addresses the LRP without predefined depot candidates, focusing on proactive depot generation through learning desirable depot distribution patterns. Many of the references you provided pertain to the Vehicle Routing Problem (VRP) or stochastic problem variants, which, while important, are outside the primary scope of our research.\\n\\n- __Methodology:__ While we appreciate the contributions of approximate dynamic programming and exact optimization methods to related problems, the references you provided do not address the specific constraints and objectives we are investigating. We also value your suggestions on various potential exact solution ideas to provide insights, but these are neither archived as a recognized reference nor within our DRL-based routing research scope.\"}", "{\"title\": \"Response to Reviewer 8oe9 \\u2013 Part 3\", \"comment\": [\"__[Following Part 2]__\", \"__2. Regarding the results comparison analysis of one component MDLRA:__ Thank you for your insightful questions. We address your concerns as below.\", \"__(1) Role of MDLRAM and its target on real-world dataset:__ As a critic model within the framework, MDLRAM is crucial due to its ability to rapidly generate high-quality routing solutions in batches, which lays the foundation for depot-generating tasks completed by DGM. *MDLRAM's strengths over traditional methods lie in:*\", \"__(i) Rapid Batch Processing:__ MDLRAM can generate routing solutions for multiple depot sets simultaneously, which is essential for training the DGM efficiently. This capability allows us to evaluate batches of depot sets quickly \\u2014a process that would be computationally intensive with traditional methods that typically solve each instance individually in case-by-case manner.\", \"__(ii) Competitive Solution Quality:__ While it may not always match the absolute best solutions from SOTA methods, MDLRAM provides high-quality solutions that consumes significantly less inference time than existing method while close to the optimal. This level of performance is sufficient for effectively training the DGM.\", \"Therefore, when testing on real-world dataset, our aim is not to establish new SOTA results, instead, since the DGM is trained based on the feedback from MDLRAM, we aim to demonstrate how MDLRAM consumes significantly less inference time than existing method to derive high-quality solutions comparable to BKS, mitigating the potential bias, thereby ensuring the efficacy and robustness for depot generation.\", \"__(2) Regarding the SOTA Results on real-world dataset:__ we compare our method against four influential LRP literature with benchmark results recognized by the LRP community, using corresponding real-world datasets that are commonly used and typically required for comparison. It is necessary to screen out those less recognized works that arbitrarily add customized constraints to avoid comparing on these real-world datasets, and those works that even not aware the existence of these well-established datasets. This allows us to benchmark our method against well-recognized standards and provides a fair and comparable assessment of its performance.\", \"Through these comparisons in Table 2, we demonstrate that MDLRAM consumes significantly less inference time than existing methods while deriving high-quality solutions comparable to BKS. This confirms its efficacy for depot generation within our framework.\", \"__3. Comparison with Classical Discrete Optimization Solutions:__ Across the four classic LRP real-world datasets in Table 2, some benchmark results are derived from classical discrete optimization methods, such as the result of B&C in Table 2 which provide exact solution, while some others are derived from heuristic methods, such as HBP and GRASP in Table 2. Besides, for all the cases across the 4 classic LRP real-world datasets, if there are any identified best-known-solution is derived from classical discrete optimization, it is affiliated with an asterisk.\", \"__4. Regarding the potential for applying to large-scale instances:__ Empowered by capabilities such as batch computing, favorable inference time-performance balance, and generalization, the DRL methods for routing problem also have the potential for solving large-scale cases.\", \"__(1) Framework Design:__ Our framework is designed to be scalable. The neural network models can handle larger datasets by leveraging parallel computing capabilities and batch processing. This allows the model to process multiple instances simultaneously, reducing overall computation time and making it suitable for large-scale applications.\", \"__(2) Decomposition Techniques:__ We can employ problem decomposition strategies to break down large-scale instances into smaller, more manageable subproblems, which can then be processed in parallel, further enhancing scalability. Previous works have demonstrated the effectiveness of such techniques in improving the scalability of DRL methods (e.g., [7], [8]). By integrating decomposition with our DRL framework, we can extend its applicability to even larger and more complex problem instances.\"]}", "{\"title\": \"Response to Reviewer 8oe9 \\u2013 Part 4\", \"comment\": [\"__[Following Part 3]__\", \"__5. Optimality discussion:__ Thank you for raising this insightful discussion, we acknowledge that DRL method does not provide theoretical optimality guarantees in the same way that exact methods do. However, we would like to explain why our approach offers a valuable trade-off between solution quality and computational efficiency, which is particularly beneficial in practical applications where time and resources are limited. We have also made extensive efforts in experimental validation, adhering to evaluation practices in DRL-based routing as established in existing works. Specifically:\", \"__(1) Justification for the Practical Trade-off between Optimality and Efficiency:__ As discussed earlier regarding the cost-effectiveness balance, when problem scales and complexity continue to increase, exact methods may not offer desirable time efficiency due to its intensive computation and exponential time complexity, even if it has the ability to derive the optimality. In practical environments, such as those with changing demand or real-time constraints, the ability to generate good solutions quickly becomes more important than achieving exact optimality. In such cases, a trade-off between the optimality and efficiency becomes essential, which could be especially significant in the dynamic or uncertain scenarios you kindly mentioned.\", \"__(2) Promising applicability of our method:__ Building on the advantages discussed in first question, DRL methods are well-suited for real-world scenarios where timely decision-making is critical. Their adaptability and efficiency after training enable the DRL method to:\", \"__(i)__ Consume significantly less time to derive high-quality solution comparable to optimality, which is often more valuable in real-world scenarios where timely decisions are crucial.\", \"__(ii)__ Preserve stable performance on both routing cost and inference time across various problem instances. Our DRL-based method may not guarantee optimality, but it consistently produces high-quality solutions that are close to the optimal, with significantly reduced inference time.\", \"Therefore, we believe that accepting a trade-off in optimality is worthwhile, as it makes our method more practical for larger problem instances or time-sensitive applications. This trade-off between theoretical optimality and practical efficiency is also a common consideration in machine learning applications for operations research.\", \"__(3) Adherence to Evaluation Practices in DRL-based routing with extensive experiments:__\", \"__(i) Complexity of Theoretical Analysis:__ Due to the stochastic nature of reinforcement learning, the high-dimensional and discrete action spaces, and the absence of convexity or other properties that facilitate theoretical analysis, theoretical optimality analysis for DRL methods in routing problem is less studied, which is evident in current state of research on DRL applied to routing problem [1-10], where studies concentrate on empirical validation through extensive experiments rather than theoretical proofs.\", \"__(ii) Focus on Empirical Validation:__ This approach is consistent with existing literature[1-10], where researchers demonstrate the effectiveness of their methods by benchmarking against standard datasets and comparing performance metrics such as solution quality and inference time. We have followed this practice by performing extensive experiments to adhere to this focus on experimental validation common in this DRL-based routing area.\", \"__(iii) Our Extensive Experimental Validation:__ Specifically, we have conducted extensive experiments on four real-world datasets to verify that our method approximates optimal routing costs as closely as possible while significantly reducing inference time. Additionally, we conducted experiments on synthetic datasets to assess batch-wise processing capabilities, consistency, stability, and reliability of the solutions. By providing comprehensive experimental evidence, we aim to demonstrate the practical effectiveness and robustness of our approach.\", \"Our evaluation strategy aligns with the commonly accepted practices in DRL research applied to routing problems, prioritizing the demonstration of effectiveness through experimental results over theoretical analysis due to the reasons mentioned above. By following this approach, we ensure that our work is consistent with the current research landscape[1-10].\", \"__(4) Potential for Future Theoretical Exploration:__\", \"We appreciate your thoughtful feedback, which encourages us to explore theoretical aspects in future research. We recognize the significance and aim to keep investigating it. While our method does not offer theoretical optimality, we believe that the extensive experimental validation demonstrates its practical value, offering a worthwhile trade-off between optimality and efficiency, aligning with the current state of research in DRL for routing problems.\"]}", "{\"title\": \"Response to Reviewer hQie - Part 4\", \"comment\": [\"__[following part 3]__\", \"__3. Choice of Baselines for Depot Generation:__ Regarding why choosing Randomly generating the depot locations as a baseline in depot generation comparison, we'd like to clarify our rationale from the following perspectives:\", \"__(1) Constraints to single-depot/up-to-2 depots for existing heuristic methods:__ The heuristics mentioned in related work are still under the constraints of single-depot or up-to-two depots, and may not generalize well in our problem setting, which involves generating multiple depots without predefined candidates. As such, they cannot provide a reliable and comparable results for the comparison analysis.\", \"__(2) Validity of Random Sampling as a Baseline:__ Random depot generation serves as a valid and meaningful baseline for our problem due to several reasons:\", \"__(i) Efficiency in Evaluation:__ Leveraging the batch processing capabilities of the MDLRAM, we can efficiently evaluate a large number of randomly generated depot sets. This provides a robust comparison while keeping computational costs manageable.\", \"__(ii) Benchmarking Improvement:__ Since the quality of depots, whether generated by random sampling or the DGM, is evaluated using the MDLRAM, the random sampling establishes a baseline performance level, allowing us to demonstrate the effectiveness of our DGM in identifying better depot locations.\", \"__(3) Ablation Study:__ Including random generation in our experiments also serves as an ablation study, highlighting the contribution of the DGM in improving routing costs over naive depot selection.\", \"__4. Flexibility Provided by DGM's Gaussian Mode:__ In response to the question about how the DGM-Gaussian mode provides more flexibility compared to the exact mode, we would like to elaborate on following aspects, supplemented by use case example:\", \"__(1) Flexibility Advantage:__ Among the two generation modes for DGM, compared with the exact mode, which generates precise depot locations based on customer requests, the Gaussian mode offers additional benefits from:\", \"__(i) Probabilistic Depot Generation:__ The Gaussian mode allows the DGM to generate a distribution over potential depot locations rather than fixed points. This is particularly useful in scenarios where depot placement is subject to uncertainty or variability, enabling the model to account for fluctuations and adapt to dynamic conditions.\", \"__(ii) Adaptability to Constraints:__ It enables sampling from regions that satisfy specific constraints, such as avoiding restricted areas or adhering to regional regulations. This adaptability ensures that the generated depots remain feasible and practical within the given operational environment.\", \"__(2) Use Case Example with Visualized Comparison in Figure 4:__ Consider disaster relief operations where depot locations must be established rapidly and may need to change due to evolving conditions like accessibility, safety concerns, or shifting demand. The Gaussian distribution enables sampling of depot locations within a probabilistic region, offering the necessary adaptability to respond to such dynamic environments. To illustrate this flexibility, Figure 4 visualizes how the exact depot locations and the Gaussian distributions present over the same set of customer requests. This helps to intuitively demonstrate the flexibility of the Gaussian mode.\", \"We hope that our detailed explanations address your concerns and clarify the motivations and advantages of our framework components. We believe that the MDLRAM is essential for efficiently training the DGM and that the flexibility offered by the Gaussian mode of the DGM enhances the applicability of our method to dynamic and uncertain environments. Thank you again for your valuable time, constructive feedback and consideration, which has helped us enhance the presentation and understanding of the key aspects of our work.\"]}", "{\"metareview\": \"This paper proposed a learning based method to generate candidate depot in the location-routing problem. It can operate in two modes, i.e. direct generation of exact depot locations and the creation of a multivariate Gaussian distribution for flexible depots sampling. Some reviewers found the proposal interesting, but three out of four reviews are negative. The key weaknesses are: 1) lacking a good motivation of generating depots in practical scenarios and using DRL for strategic planning; 2) lacking detailed discussion w.r.t location-routing problems; and 3) lacking thorough evaluation against SOTA operational research methods. I agree that all the three points are valid, and the paper requires substantial improvement to address them. Therefore, I recommend rejection.\", \"additional_comments_on_reviewer_discussion\": \"Authors provided detailed point-to-point respones to reviewers' comments. However, most of their concerns remain. Most of authors' responses are clarification, and no further results are provided. It appears that the authors' responses are not strong enough to address reviewers' concerns.\"}", "{\"comment\": \"See my comments above regarding what are the issues with the benchmark and computational studies in this paper. The instance sizes (up to 100 demand locations and up to 20 depots) are not considered sufficiently large if compared with what have been solved in the state-of-the-art VRP, LRP literature.\"}", "{\"title\": \"Discussion with Reviewer hQie - Part 1\", \"comment\": \"Thank you for your engagement and taking the time to read through our clarifications. We appreciate your recognition of the necessity of MDLRAM during training due to its efficient batch-wise inference capabilities, while also our efforts in verifying MDLRAM as a critic model. We thank you for your follow-up question.\\n\\nYou raise an important point regarding the evaluation phase of the DGM--Why MDLRAM is a better choice than other methods there, providing us the opportunity to further explain the necessity of MDLRAM during evaluation. We will discuss this from following key points in detail.\\n\\n__1. Consistency Between Training and Evaluation__\\n\\n__Alignment of Evaluation Metrics:__ Using MDLRAM during both training and evaluation ensures consistency in how the depot locations/distribution generated by the DGM are assessed. Since the DGM is trained to minimize routing costs as evaluated by MDLRAM, it makes sense to use the same evaluation method during testing to accurately measure the improvements learned during training. \\n\\nThis alignment ensures that the performance improvements learned during training are accurately measured during evaluation, avoiding any discrepancies that might arise from using different downstream routing solvers. Consistent evaluation metrics provide a reliable basis for assessing the DGM's effectiveness.\\n\\n__2. Computational Efficiency Remains Important During Evaluation__\\n \\nEven during evaluation, computational efficiency is still crucial, especially when dealing with large datasets or specific application mode. MDLRAM's ability to rapidly generate close-to-optimal routing solutions for multiple cases simultaneously continues to provide desirable advantages in terms of inference time. \\n\\nLet\\u2019s see what specifically happens during DGM\\u2019s evaluation. The following factors necessitate the use of MDLRAM during evaluation to avoid the case-by-case solving manner of existing methods:\\n\\n- __(1) Handling Large Numbers of Testing Cases:__ Evaluating the DGM involves assessing its performance across a large number of instances. Traditional methods, which operate on a case-by-case basis, become inefficient and impractical in this \\u2014especially considering the fluctuations in inference time for different cases, as reflected in Table 2. MDLRAM's batch-wise processing enables efficient evaluation of multiple cases simultaneously, saving valuable time and computational resources.\\n\\n- __(2) Support for the Gaussian Distribution Mode:__ The Gaussian mode allows the DGM to generate a distribution over potential depot locations rather than fixed points. When evaluating the DGM's Gaussian distribution mode, multiple samples of depots set are drawn to capture the performance of the generated distribution, reporting both the best identified depots solution from the distribution and the average quality of the depots solution from the distribution. Evaluating these samples also requires efficient simultaneous processing. Compared with existing methods case-by-case manner, MDLRAM's ability to handle batch evaluations allows for quick assessment of these samples without incurring high computational costs.\\n\\nTo unlock the full potential of the DGM and fully realize the benefits of its distribution mode\\u2014as well as to evaluate its performance across diverse conditions\\u2014an efficient evaluation method like MDLRAM is necessary. This is especially important in real-life scenarios where rapid assessments are needed to make timely decisions.\\n\\n__3. Providing Robust Solving Performance__\\n\\nMDLRAM consistently delivers robust performance in terms of both inference time and close-to-optimal solution quality across different cases, without the need for parameter adjustments for specific instances. This is a notable advantage over some existing methods. Specifically: \\n\\n- __(1) Avoiding case-specific Parameter Tuning:__ Traditional heuristic methods may achieve the desirable result on individual cases through case-specific parameter tuning. However, parameters optimized for one instance may not generalize well to others, necessitating manual adjustments. In contrast, MDLRAM provides high-quality solutions without the need for such tuning.\\n\\n- __(2) Stable Solving Performance Across Cases:__ MDLRAM demonstrates stable solving performance across different cases. As shown in our experiments, it achieves high-quality solutions comparable to those obtained by existing methods, while notably reducing inference time. More importantly, the stable performance can be maintained across various instances, ensuring that the evaluation results are reliable and reflective of the DGM's true capabilities.\"}", "{\"summary\": \"The paper proposes a deep reinforcement learning framework to address the location-routing problem (LRP) for the situation where there are no predefined depot candidates. The framework includes two models: 1. depot generative model (DGM) that generates depots either deterministically or as a multivariate Gaussian distribution for sampling, and 2. multi-depot location-routing attention model (MDLRAM) that takes the generated depots and the customer requests, and outputs the routing solution to minimize the cost. The authors claim that the main advantage of using the proposed framework lies in the flexibility and the inference speed: the modular framework can be used together or individually, adapted to different scenarios, proactively propose depot placement on the fly, and gives solutions to the routing problem faster.\", \"soundness\": \"1\", \"presentation\": \"3\", \"contribution\": \"2\", \"strengths\": \"1. Originality: the paper solves a novel LRP problem where there are no predefined depot candidates.\\n2. Quality: the paper motivates the methodology pretty well. The experimentation and validation of the method seems to be quite rigorous: the paper contains comprehensive evaluation of the framework across different datasets and problems of different scales. It also compares the proposed method with various baselines including exact method.\\n3. Clarity: the paper provides a clear explanation of the framework. The description of the models is detailed, including structure, objective functions, and training strategy.\\n4. Significance: the paper has the potential for large impact as it studies a less-studied problem, i.e., LRP without predefined depot candidates. for the research community, there could be follow-up works on the problem. for real-world applications, the authors also made the case that for use cases including medical rescue and disaster relief, the ability to proactively generate new depot locations is beneficial.\", \"weaknesses\": \"1. The design of MDLRAM seems to be less supported by the motivation of the paper: the paper stresses the importance of proactively generating depot candidates for flexibility. However, the MDLRAM is a fixed model that takes in a fixed set of customers and depots as input and outputs the routing solution. There is no flexibility provided for changing depots or dynamically planning the routing as the DGM is generating the depots. Considering that the performance of MDLRAM is also inferior to SOTA method, it's unclear what major advantage MDLRAM brings.\\n2. A potential design flaw in the experiments could be that the evaluation of the DGM model depends on the score given on the MDLRAM model. This could potentially introduce bias since the DGM model is trained to score well for the MDLRAM while the MDLRAM does not provide exact solution or SOTA solution.\\n3. Randomly generating the depot locations seems to be too weak of a baseline. The heuristics mentioned in the Related Works seems to better candidates.\", \"questions\": \"1. What is the motivation for MDLRAM? If performance is needed to serve as a good critic model for training DGM, why not use the SOTA method? If flexibility is needed, why not design a more end-to-end framework to connect DGM and MDLRAM and dynamically generate depots and plan routing accordingly.\\n2. For the evaluation of MDLRAM, for the synthetic data and real-world data settings, different sets of baselines seem to be chosen for comparison. Why is that? The description for the baselines for the synthetic data setting also seems to be lacking. What are ALNS, GA, TS referring to?\\n3. How would the DGM-Gaussian mode provide more flexibility when compared with the exact mode? Could the authors provide an example of a use case for the Gaussian mode to motivate it more?\", \"flag_for_ethics_review\": \"['No ethics review needed.']\", \"rating\": \"5\", \"confidence\": \"3\", \"code_of_conduct\": \"Yes\"}", "{\"title\": \"Discussion with Review 8oe9 \\u2013 Part 2: Regarding the potential exact methods ideas you suggested\", \"comment\": \"Thank you for suggesting potential exact methods ideas for addressing the LRP without predefined depot candidates. We appreciate your insights, which could be valuable for future exploration. However, we concern that some of your arguments overlook key aspects of our work's objectives and contributions. Besides, without validation or publication as a recognized literature for LRP without predefined depot candidates, their effectiveness and efficiency remain speculative.\\n\\n__1. Regarding the Suggested Potential Exact Methods__\\n\\nYou proposed that the problem could be addressed by defining a larger set of potential depot locations and associating binary variables with these locations. While this is a valid theoretical direction, we respectfully highlight the following concerns:\\n\\n- __(1) No Explicit Published Literature:__ While you mentioned general strategies such as multistage stochastic integer programming, there is no explicit literature that applies these exact methods to the LRP without predefined depot candidates. Existing methods for this specific problem predominantly utilize metaheuristic approaches, which may indicate inherent challenges or constraints in applying exact methods within this context.\\n\\n- __(2) Scope of Our Work on DRL-based routing:__ We appreciate the potential of these ideas; however, developing and evaluating such potential exact methods would constitute entirely new research papers themselves. This extends beyond the scope of our current work, which focuses on leveraging Deep Reinforcement Learning to address the LRP without predefined depots.\\n\\n__2. Case-Specific vs. Problem-Specific Approaches__\\n\\nYou mentioned that optimization-based methods could handle variants of the LRP and guarantee solution quality and computational efficiency. We would like to emphasize the following:\\n\\n- __(1) Unsubstantiated Assumptions on Efficiency:__ As noted in our paper (Page 2, Lines 58\\u201368), introducing a larger set of potential depot locations significantly increases the problem's dimensionality, leading to scalability challenges. The computational cost of solving such models using exact methods grows exponentially with the problem size, undermining their applicability in scenarios requiring rapid or real-time decision-making. You have suggested several potential solution ideas for LRP without predefined candidates, however, without validation or publication as a recognized literature, their effectiveness and efficiency remain speculative. Demonstrating efficiency in certain VRP variants does not necessarily imply efficiency in the more complex LRP scenarios. Relying on unproven methods does not adequately address the practical limitations we have identified with exact methods for this problem.\\n\\n- __(2) Case-Specific Nature:__ Besides, while exact methods can provide optimal solutions for specific instances, our DRL method aims to achieve a higher level understanding on solution patterns\\u2014specifically, how customer distributions lead to desirable depot placements and distribution. If solely focusing on deriving a specific optimal solution for a case, exact methods can be used. However, it may not be able to capture underlying distribution patterns.\"}", "{\"title\": \"Discussion with Review 8oe9 \\u2013 Part 1\", \"comment\": [\"Thank you for engaging with our response and providing further feedback. We respectfully find that some of your comments reflect misunderstandings or mischaracterizations of our work. We would like to address these concerns with clarity and evidence.\", \"__1. Validity of Citations and Recognized Benchmarks in LRP Research:__\", \"__(1)__ You remarked that our benchmarks and results are from \\\"low-tier\\\" venues. However, the Location-Routing Problem benchmarks and methodologies we cite\\u2014particularly from the European Journal of Operational Research (EJOR) and Computers & Operations Research\\u2014are recognized and used within the LRP research community. These citations are not arbitrarily chosen; they represent real-world benchmark dataset and are foundational to comparative studies in this domain, for instance:\", \"Barreto, S., Ferreira, C., Paix\\u00e3o, J., & Santos, B. S. (2007). \\\"Using clustering analysis in a capacitated location-routing problem.\\\" European Journal of Operational Research, 179(3), 968\\u2013977.\", \"Belenguer, J.-M., Benavent, E., Prins, C., Prodhon, C., & Wolfler Calvo, R. (2011). \\\"A branch-and-cut method for the capacitated location-routing problem.\\\" Computers & Operations Research, 38(6), 931\\u2013941.\", \"__(2)__ You also kindly listed Drexl and Schneider's (2015) survey, which is also from European Journal of Operational Research (EJOR) \\u2013 one venue of our benchmark resource. This survey includes the works and benchmark we have cited, as well as the works which you concern as a publication on low-tier venues. This suggests alignment between our work and the foundational literature in the LRP field, underscoring the validity of our chosen references.\", \"Prins, C., Prodhon, C., & Wolfler Calvo, R. (2006). \\\"Solving the capacitated location-routing problem by a GRASP complemented by a learning process and a path relinking.\\\" 4OR, 4(3), 221\\u2013238.\", \"Akca, Z., Berger, R. T., & Ralphs, T. K. (2009). \\\"A branch-and-price algorithm for combined location and routing problems under capacity restrictions.\\\" In Operations Research and Cyber-Infrastructure (pp. 309\\u2013330). Springer.\", \"__2. Focus on Problem Scope:__\", \"We acknowledge that the journals you listed (TS, OR, TRB) are indeed prestigious, but none of the papers that you listed from these journals appear to address the LRP without predefined depot candidates or provide widely accepted benchmarks for this specific problem. The absence of such works in our citations does not indicate a lack of domain knowledge but rather reflects the specific scope of our work.\", \"Our work specifically targets the LRP without predefined depot candidates, focusing on proactive depot generation by learning desirable depot distribution patterns over customer groups. This is a less-explored area that necessitates referencing the most relevant and recognized literature, which we have done.\", \"We are open to incorporating additional references if you would point us to specific papers from these journals that align with our LRP scope and include recognized benchmarks or datasets relevant to our problem. We would be eager to include them in our validation.\", \"__3. Claims of \\\"Hypothetical Advantages\\\" of DRL and the \\u201cgeneral\\u201d Branch-and-Cut Method:__\", \"__(1) Claims of \\\"Hypothetical Advantages\\\" of DRL :__ You characterized the advantages of DRL presented in our paper\\u2014such as cost-effectiveness, batch-wise computation, and stable performance\\u2014as hypothetical. However, these advantages are substantiated by the extensive experimental results presented in Table 1&2 of our paper, using comparison on real-world datasets to demonstrate its ability to approximate optimal routing costs while achieving significant reductions in inference time, while also incorporating additional synthetic experiments to evaluate batch-wise processing capabilities, consistency, stability, and reliability of the solutions.\", \"__(2) Branch-and-Cut (B&C) Comparisons in Table 2:__ You remarked that the B&C method used in Table-2 as general. However, this B&C method used in our benchmarks is not a generic implementation. Specifically, it is a published and specialized method from Computers & Operations Research tailored to the LRP context. This method is recognized within the LRP community and is also included in the EJOR survey that you cited. We carefully selected this approach for its relevance and recognition in LRP research, ensuring a fair and meaningful comparison with our DRL-based method.\", \"Belenguer, J.-M., Benavent, E., Prins, C., Prodhon, C., & Wolfler Calvo, R. (2011). \\\"A branch-and-cut method for the capacitated location-routing problem.\\\" Computers & Operations Research, 38(6), 931\\u2013941.\"]}", "{\"title\": \"Response to Reviewer 8oe9 \\u2013 Part 2\", \"comment\": [\"__[Following Part 1]__\", \"__(2) Significance of LRP without Predefined Depot Candidates:__ While some current research focuses on dynamic routing and uncertainty, the LRP without predefined depot locations remains a less-explored area with substantial practical relevance. By investigating this problem in literatures (Page3-Line127) where we identify the practical application scenario and the unsolved constraints, we aim to broaden the scope of LRP research and provide solutions for scenarios that are not adequately addressed by existing methods. Specifically:\", \"__(i) Practical Applications Requiring Rapid Depot Establishment:__ As detailed in the introduction part, there are critical real-world situations where the assumption of predefined depot locations is not feasible. Examples include emergency medical rescue and disaster relief operations, where infrastructure may be compromised or non-existent. In such cases, there is an urgent need to determine or adjust depot locations quickly and efficiently to facilitate effective response efforts.\", \"__(ii) Constraint of Computational Intensity:__ Regarding this extended LRP scenario without predefined depot candidates, the existing methods predominantly employing heuristic strategies for attempting new depots across a planar area. In this situation, if simply expanding the search of the depot candidates across the map and aimlessly attempting new points, then undesired increasing on problem scale will be incurred, thereby leading to excessive time consumption and expensive computation. Therefore, devising a method to proactively generate high-quality depots, satisfying the depot location constraints for LRP scenario without predefined depot candidates, is well-motivated. Our approach addresses this need by efficiently generating depot locations without exhaustive searching.\", \"__(3) How DRL method contribute to advance the LRP without predefined depots candidates:__\", \"__(i) Proactive Generation through DRL's Generative Capability, instead of attempting:__ Existing methods predominantly employ heuristic strategies that attempt depot placements across the map. This approach can lead to an undesirable increase in problem scale, resulting in excessive time consumption and computational expense due to the need to evaluate numerous potential depot locations individually. Our approach leverages the generative capabilities of DRL to proactively generate high-quality depot locations. By doing so, we avoid repetitive and aimless searching, reducing computational complexity and improving efficiency. The DGM generates depot locations based on learned representations of customer demand, streamlining the process and focusing on promising areas.\", \"__(ii) Understanding Problem Configuration through representation learning (DGM):__ The DGM understands the problem configuration through representation learning. It encodes customer requests\\u2014including geographic locations and specific demands\\u2014into a global graph embedding. This embedding captures the spatial and demand patterns of customers, enabling the DGM to generate effective depot locations that are well-suited to the distribution of customer needs.\", \"__(iii) Providing Flexibility Generation (DGM):__ To achieve flexibility, we generate depots in two distinct modes: direct generation of exact depot locations or production of a multivariate Gaussian distribution for flexible depots sampling. The exact mode ensures precision, when necessary, while the Gaussian mode introduces sampling variability, enhancing the model\\u2019s generalization and robustness to diverse customer distributions, especially when regional constraints are present.\", \"__(iv) Efficient Evaluation via the Critic Model (MDLRAM):__ To efficiently evaluate the depot sets generated by the DGM, we introduce MDLRAM as a critic model within the DRL framework. MDLRAM provides fast and batch-wise generation of routing solutions based on the depots produced by the DGM. The routing costs computed by MDLRAM act as feedback (or \\\"scores\\\") to the DGM, facilitating its training within a reinforcement learning framework. This feedback loop enables the DGM to iteratively improve depot generation without the need for labeled training data. The objective function, incorporating both depot placement and routing costs, is optimized through this interaction.\", \"__(v) Batch-wise computing ability:__ Both the DGM and MDLRAM are designed to process batches of depot sets and routing solutions simultaneously, enhancing scalability and efficiency. During training iterations, the DGM generates a batch of depot sets, which are then evaluated by MDLRAM to generate corresponding routing costs instantly at the same time. This batch-processing capability cannot be efficiently fulfilled by traditional exact or heuristic methods, which typically need to solve each instance individually in case-by-case manner.\"]}", "{\"comment\": \"thank you for the clarifications, my score though remains unchanged\"}", "{\"title\": \"Response to Reviewer B5p6 - Part 2\", \"comment\": [\"__[Following Part 1]__\", \"__2. How DRL method contributes to addressing the constraints of existing related works:__ Our DRL method consists of DGM and MDLRAM. Adhering to this architecture, we will delineate how our DRL method contributes to advancing LRP without predefined depots candidates from following aspects:\", \"__(1) Reducing Computational intensity with proactive generation:__ Existing methods predominantly employ heuristic strategies that attempt depot placements across the map. This approach can lead to an undesirable increase in problem scale, resulting in excessive time consumption and computational expense due to the need to evaluate numerous potential depot locations individually. Our approach leverages the generative capabilities of DRL to proactively generate high-quality depot locations. By doing so, we avoid repetitive and aimless searching, reducing computational complexity and improving efficiency. The DGM generates depot locations based on learned representations of customer demand, streamlining the process and focusing on promising areas.\", \"__(2) Understanding Problem Configuration through representation learning (DGM):__ The DGM understands the problem configuration through representation learning. It encodes customer requests\\u2014including geographic locations and specific demands\\u2014into a global graph embedding. This embedding captures the spatial and demand patterns of customers, enabling the DGM to generate effective depot locations that are well-suited to the distribution of customer needs\", \"__(3) Providing Flexibility (DGM):__ To achieve flexibility, we generate depots in two distinct modes: direct generation of exact depot locations or production of a multivariate Gaussian distribution for flexible depots sampling. The exact mode ensures precision, when necessary, while the Gaussian mode introduces sampling variability, enhancing the model\\u2019s generalization and robustness to diverse customer distributions, especially when regional constraints are present.\", \"__(4) Efficient Evaluation via the Critic Model (MDLRAM):__ To efficiently evaluate the depot sets generated by the DGM, we introduce MDLRAM as a critic model within the DRL framework. MDLRAM provides fast and batch-wise generation of routing solutions based on the depots produced by the DGM. The routing costs computed by MDLRAM act as feedback (or \\\"scores\\\") to the DGM, facilitating its training within a reinforcement learning framework. This feedback loop enables the DGM to iteratively improve depot generation without the need for labeled training data. The objective function, incorporating both depot placement and routing costs, is optimized through this interaction.\", \"__(5) Batch-wise computing ability:__ Both the DGM and MDLRAM are designed to process batches of depot sets and routing solutions simultaneously, enhancing scalability and efficiency. During training iterations, the DGM generates a batch of depot sets, which are then evaluated by MDLRAM to generate corresponding routing costs instantly at the same time. This batch-processing capability cannot be efficiently fulfilled by traditional exact or heuristic methods, which typically need to solve each instance individually in case-by-case manner\", \"__(6) Additional advantage of Applicability to Traditional Scenarios (MDLRAM):__ For traditional scenarios with predefined candidates, we also demonstrate that the MDLRAM component can be used individually within this configuration to select depots from pre-given candidates, which is an additional advantage of MDLRAM, empowered by its role as a critic model for generating solution routes to evaluate the depots generated by DGM within the entire framework.\", \"__3. Regarding the concern about applying DRL methods to strategic problems:__ we would like to provide a perspective about how our approach can enhance even the traditional scenario with predefined depot candidates.\", \"In traditional scenarios where depot candidates are predefined, how these candidates are initialized is also crucial for the quality of the final solution, yet determining these candidates is not always straightforward. Even if the exact methods may derive the optimal solution, it still hinges on the quality of these initial candidates.\", \"In such cases, our approach addresses this challenge effectively. Even if the exact locations generated by the DGM\\u2019s exact mode are not directly utilized, the DGM\\u2019s Gaussian mode can initialize a more informed and strategic set of depot candidates. Then, if necessary, flexibly using other methods to selected from these candidates can also offer signify a valuable contribution to the overall solution process. This dual functionality is precisely why we set DGM with both exact mode and gaussian distribution mode.\"]}", "{\"title\": \"Response to Reviewer 8oe9 \\u2013 Part 1\", \"comment\": \"Thank you for taking the time to review our paper. We appreciate your insights and would like to address the concerns you've raised point-by-point.\\n\\n__1. Motivation and connection of DRL with location-routing:__ Thanks for the opportunity to clarify the motivation behind using DRL in the context of LRP, we will delineate this from following three aspects: \\n\\n- __(1) Why using DRL in routing problem:__\\n\\n - __(i) Cost-Effectiveness Balance:__ Different methods\\u2014exact algorithms, heuristics, and DRL\\u2014have their own advantages and limitations, which is why we consider the cost-effectiveness balance when comparing methods for routing problem. For different routing variants with diverse complication level, this balance shifts, making new methods come into view. \\n\\n - __(ii) Factors involved in Cost-Effectiveness balance:__ Traditionally, considerations of cost-effectiveness include computational cost, inference time, and routing performance. This was also how the heuristic method initially comes along to complement the intensive computation of exact method. Now, beyond these factors, as problem scales and complexity continue to increase, additional factors like batch-wise computing and generality (i.e., reduced effort required to adapt existing methods to new scenarios) also become important in the cost-effectiveness balance. This is where DRL can offer significant advantages, help alleviating two dilemmas for traditional methods: \\n - __(a) Repetitive Search Processes:__ Traditional methods typically require initiating a new search procedure for each individual case, even with minor alterations, leading to a case-by-case solving approach. This is not desirable in dynamic scenario with large problem scales. \\n - __(b) Adaptability to Variants:__ Expanding a specific VRP variant algorithm to accommodate other specialized variants with different task configurations often lacks adaptability in traditional methods. \\n\\n - __(iii) Key Advantages of DRL:__ We certainly appreciate the strengths of exact and heuristic methods. However, when certain more important advantages are difficult to achieve with traditional methods, DRL becomes a valuable alternative to attain a more desirable cost-effectiveness balance.The key advantages of DRL present in following points: \\n - __(a) Batch-wise Computing:__ DRL models can process multiple instances simultaneously, improving computational efficiency and making them suitable for large-scale problems and dynamic scenario. \\n - __(b) Learning Desirable Solution Patterns through Sequential Decision-Making Framework:__ The Markov Decision Process (MDP) framework enables DRL models to capture problem configurations and sequentially generate solutions, allowing more flexible adaptation to various routing variants. \\n - __(c) Stable Performance After Training:__ Once trained, the model can solve new cases with same task configurations with stable performance, achieving a good balance between inference time and solution quality.\\n\\n - __(iv) Advancements of DRL in recent routing research:__ Building on these advantages, the advancements in learning-based methods have shown promise in addressing routing problems, both in learn-to-construct [1][2], learn-to-generalize [3][4], learn-to-improve [5][6], and learn-to-decompose [7][8]. It also shows good performance and efficiency on various routing problem variants, such as heterogeneous routing [9], drone-aided routing [10], etc.\\n\\n[Reference List]\\n\\n[1] Kool et al. Attention, learn to solve routing problems! ICLR, 2019.\\n\\n[2] Xin et al. Multi-decoder attention model with embedding glimpse for solving vehicle routing problems. AAAI, 2021.\\n\\n[3] Lin et al. Cross-problem learning for solving vehicle routing problems. IJCAI, 2024.\\n\\n[4] Zhou et al. Multi-task vehicle routing solver with mixture-of-experts. ICML, 2024.\\n\\n[5] Lu et al. A learning-based iterative method for solving vehicle routing problems. ICLR, 2020.\\n\\n[6] Ma et al. Learning to iteratively solve routing problems with dual-aspect collaborative transformer. NeurIPS, 2021.\\n\\n[7] Ye et al. Glop: Learning global partition and local construction for solving large-scale routing problems in real-time. AAAI, 2024.\\n\\n[8] Hou et al. Generalize learned heuristics to solve large-scale vehicle routing problems in real-time. ICLR, 2023\\n\\n[9] Li et al. Deep reinforcement learning for solving the heterogeneous capacitated vehicle routing problem. IEEE T-cyber, 2021.\\n\\n[10] Bogyrbayeva et al. A deep reinforcement learning approach for solving the traveling salesman problem with drone. TR-C, 2023\"}", "{\"comment\": \"Thank you very much for your clarifications and for addressing all of my comments and suggestions.\\nSince my score was already accept, I won't change the score.\"}", "{\"title\": \"Response to Reviewer 8oe9 \\u2013 Part 5\", \"comment\": \"__[Following Part 4]__\\n\\nWe hope this detailed explanation addresses your concerns and demonstrates the practical significance of our approach. Our method offers a favorable balance between solution quality and computational efficiency, making it an alternative to classical methods, especially in dynamic and large-scale scenarios. Thank you again for your engagement and feedback.\"}", "{\"comment\": \"Thanks the authors for the clarifications. I see the point that doing training, fast inference is needed so that MDLRAM might be better suited than SOTA methods. What about at evaluation time for the DGM? Why is MDLRAM a better choice than other methods there?\"}", "{\"title\": \"Discussion with Review 8oe9 \\u2013 Part 4: Regarding the theoretical guarantees\", \"comment\": [\"Thank you for your follow-up comments on parts 4. We appreciate your emphasis on theoretical guarantees, but we are concerned that our previous responses may not have been fully considered. We would like to further clarify why theoretical proofs are not the primary focus in DRL-based routing research and how our work aligns with the established evaluation practices in this domain, particularly in top-tier conferences.\", \"__Adhering to the established Evaluation Practices in DRL-based routing:__ Due to the stochastic nature of reinforcement learning, the high-dimensional and discrete action spaces, and the absence of convexity or other properties that facilitate theoretical analysis, theoretical optimality analysis for DRL methods in routing problem is less studied, which is evident in current state of research on DRL-based routing [1-10] from top-tier conferences. These studies concentrate on empirical validation through extensive experiments, demonstrating the effectiveness of their methods by benchmarking against standard datasets and comparing performance metrics such as solution quality and inference time. We have followed this practice by performing extensive experiments to adhere to this focus on experimental validation common in this DRL-based routing area.\", \"__Extensive Experimental Design from multiple dimension:__ Following the established experimental practices in the DRL-based routing domain, we conducted extensive experiments to demonstrate the practical effectiveness of our method. We evaluated our approach against established benchmarks on real-world datasets, demonstrating its ability to approximate optimal routing costs while achieving significant reductions in inference time. Additionally, we conducted experiments on synthetic datasets to assess batch-wise processing capabilities, consistency, stability, and reliability of the solutions. This multifaceted evaluation provides a comprehensive view of the practical effectiveness and robustness of our approach.\"]}", "{\"comment\": \"If using optimization based methods to solve LRP without predefined depot candidates, one can define a larger set of potential locations but associate an additional set of binary variables to these locations, which will take value 1 if we use them as \\\"depot\\\" and 0 if not. This way, it is still possible to use mixed-integer programming models to capture the problem considered in this paper (and if there exist uncertainties, there are literature about how to build two-stage or multistage stochastic integer programming models and how to solve them via branch-and-cut, scenario decomposition, dual decomposition, Bender decomposition methods, etc., to improve the computational results. For sequential decision-making under uncertainty, then you can use Approximate Dynamic Programming, or linear decision rule in a multi-stage stochastic mixed-integer programming models to seek \\\"optimal\\\" policies. So existing optimization based approaches can handle such types of variants of the LRP, and they guarantee solution quality as well as computational efficiency (thanks to the recent advancements in off-the-shelf optimization solvers, such as Gurobi). To make a compelling case that DRL does a better job, benchmark testing and comparison is a must.\"}", "{\"title\": \"Discussion with Reviewer hQie - Part 2\", \"comment\": \"__[Following Discussion with Reviewer hQie - Part 1]__\\n\\n__4. As a Joint Use Case Demonstrating the Framework\\u2019s Flexibility and Adaptability in Practical Usage__\\n\\nAdditionally, we would like to discuss how the involving of MDLRAM in DGM\\u2019s evaluation provides the complete workflow of a use case, showing the framework\\u2019s flexibility and adaptability in practical usage. Beyond serving as a validation, the evaluation process also need to reflect how the framework can be effectively used in potential practical scenarios. The involving of MDLRAM enhances the practicality of our framework in real-world applications, especially those with limited computational resources or strict time constraints.\\n\\n- __(1) Handling Dynamic Scenarios:__ In environments where conditions change rapidly, the seamless integration of MDLRAM with DGM allows for quick re-evaluation of the generated depot configurations. This enables the system to adapt swiftly to new information, which is crucial in dynamic settings.\\n\\n- __(2) Facilitating Iterative Improvements:__ If further adjustments or iterative evolution on the depots set generated from DGM are needed during deployment, MDLRAM enables rapid assessments without significant delays, supporting agile decision-making processes.\\n\\nWe appreciate the opportunity to share these thoughts with you and to further explain the necessity of MDLRAM during the DGM's evaluation phase, from both evaluation and practical usage perspectives. We hope that our detailed explanations address your concerns and provide a clearer understanding of our framework's design choices.\\n\\nThese insightful questions have been helping us enhance the logic and clarity of our work. We are grateful for your continued engagement and constructive feedback, and we are delighted to be part of this informative discussion. Thank you once again for your time and consideration.\"}", "{\"summary\": \"The paper proposes a generative deep reinforcement learning (DRL) method for solving an integrated location-and-routing problem in transportation and logistics. It tests the results using synthetic and real-world datasets.\", \"soundness\": \"2\", \"presentation\": \"2\", \"contribution\": \"2\", \"strengths\": \"The authors try to apply methods from the machine learning and artificial intelligence (ML/AI) domain to provide efficient and intuitive results for classical NP-hard location-and-routing problem in Operations Research. The paper aims to overcome the computational challenges of traditional optimization models and approaches through model-free approaches.\", \"weaknesses\": \"While the paper aims to bridge the ML/AI and traditional optimization via solving a specific classical problem in transportation, the design of the DRL-based method is mainly heuristic driven. The paper is more close to an academic exercise, rather than an in-depth study. It involves a depot generative model that uses demand information to sample depot locations, and a critic model that scores the generated depot locations to further output location-routing solutions. The motivation behind such a two-module design is missing and by having the two separated procedures (i.e., location and then routes), the optimality of the solutions based on the Deep Reinforcement Learning for the integrated location-routing problem does not seem to be guaranteed anymore. The paper also lacks theoretical analysis about the optimality bound guarantee nor the efficiency of the algorithm. The training strategies are also ad hoc and do not have a firm theoretical ground.\\n\\nAt a high level, while location-routing is a class of classical transportation problems, the version considered in this paper is not considered state of the art, and the literature now has been focusing on optimizing location solutions and controlling dynamic routes (in an online fashion) under uncertain demand and route information. Therefore, how the proposed methods add to the existing knowledge is not clear to me.\", \"questions\": \"1.\\tHow the proposed DRL based method compares with classical discrete optimization solutions for location-routing problem? Any theoretical optimality guarantee that one can prove (even under special problem structures or networks)?\\n2.\\tThe numerical studies are comparing with other three approaches from papers using either heuristics or branch and cut published in years 2006, 2009, 2011, for different sizes of networks, but these are not recent work in the related literature and cannot represent the state-of-the-art. Any benchmarks with methods published more recently? \\n3.\\tCan the DRL handle very large-scale instances? What is the solution quality and computational efficiency tradeoff? \\n4.\\tWhy deep reinforcement learning? The motivation and connection of DRL with location-routing are not sufficient nor clear.\", \"flag_for_ethics_review\": \"['No ethics review needed.']\", \"rating\": \"3\", \"confidence\": \"5\", \"code_of_conduct\": \"Yes\"}", "{\"title\": \"Response to Reviewer hQie - Part 3\", \"comment\": [\"__[following part 2]__\", \"__2. Performance of MDLRAM compared to baseline methods on both real-world dataset and synthetic dataset:__\", \"__(1) Role of MDLRAM as a Critic Model and its target on real-world dataset:__ MDLRAM's primary role is to serve as an efficient and reliable critic for the DGM during training, rather than to establish new state-of-the-art results in routing. Its strengths lie in:\", \"__(i) Rapid Batch Processing:__ MDLRAM can generate routing solutions for multiple depot sets simultaneously, which is essential for training the DGM efficiently. This capability allows us to evaluate a batch of depot sets quickly, which would be computationally intensive with traditional methods.\", \"__(ii) Competitive Solution Quality:__ While it may not always match the absolute best solutions from SOTA methods, MDLRAM provides high-quality solutions that consumes significantly less inference time than existing method, which are sufficient for effectively training the DGM.\", \"Therefore, when testing on real-world dataset, our aim is not to establish new SOTA results, instead, since the DGM is trained based on the feedback from MDLRAM, we aim to demonstrate how MDLRAM consumes significantly less inference time than existing method to derive high-quality solutions comparable to BKS, mitigating the potential bias, thereby ensuring the efficacy and robustness for depot generation.\", \"__(2) Comparisons on Real-world datasets and Synthetic Datasets:__ While the primary goal of MDLRAM is to serve as a robust critic model for the DGM, rather than achieving SOTA results for the traditional scenario, we performed comparisons on this traditional configuration to demonstrate its robustness and effectiveness.\", \"__(i) Recognized Benchmarks on Established Real-world Dataset:__ we compare our method with four influential LRP literature with benchmark results recognized by the LRP community, using corresponding real-world datasets that are commonly used and typically required for comparison. It is necessary to screen out those less recognized works that arbitrarily add customized constraints to avoid comparing on these real-world datasets, and those works that even not aware the existence of these well-established datasets. This allows us to benchmark our method against well-recognized standards and provides a fair and comparable assessment of its performance.\", \"__(ii) Rationale for baselines selection:__ The SOTA methods, which only presents results on real-world dataset, do not reveal publicly available source code or detailed parameters setting for reproduction, making it not suitable to yield comparable results on the synthetic dataset, that\\u2019s why we choose to detailedly compare our MDLRAM with SOTA methods on their real-world dataset, which highlights not only the solution quality and less inference time, but also the generalization performance across various customer distribution.\", \"As for the Synthetic Dataset, it is typically used to assess MDLRAM's robustness and stability across a variety of instances across a batch of results through monitoring metrics such as error bars (deviation), to demonstrate how the DRL model can achieve consistent and reliable performance on cases. But to also facilitate a comprehensive comparison and complement the limitations of SOTA methods on synthetic data, we include results from well-known, widely used, and publicly available heuristic methods in routing tasks, including ALNS (Adaptive Large Neighborhood Search), GA (Genetic Algorithm), and TS (Tabu Search), making them standard benchmarks for synthetic data experiments as suitable baselines.\"]}", "{\"title\": \"Response to Reviewer B5p6 - Part 3\", \"comment\": [\"__[Following Part 2]__\", \"__4. A discussion on higher level advantages of using DRL method:__ In our previous response, we discussed how DRL specifically advances the LRP without predefined depots. Here, we would like to delve deeper into our motivation for employing DRL by discussing the cost-effectiveness balance among different methods.\", \"__(1) Balancing Pros and Cons of Different Methods:__ Each type of method\\u2014exact algorithms, heuristics, and DRL\\u2014has its advantages and limitations, which is why we consider the \\\"cost-effectiveness\\\" balance when comparing methods for routing problems. For different routing variants with varying levels of complexity, this cost-effectiveness balance consideration also changes. This motivates new methods like DRL come into view, following the emergence of more complicated routing task.\", \"__(2) Expanding Cost-Effectiveness Considerations:__ Traditionally, considerations of cost-effectiveness include computational cost, inference time, and routing performance. This was also how the heuristic methods emerged to complement the intensive computation of exact methods when dealing with more complex configurations. Now, beyond these factors, as problem scales and complexity continue to increase, factors like batch-wise computing and generality (i.e., reduced effort required to adapt existing methods to new scenarios) also become important in the cost-effectiveness balance. This is where DRL offers significant advantages, help to alleviate two dilemmas faced by traditional methods:\", \"__(i) Repetitive Search Processes:__ Traditional methods typically require initiating a new search procedure for each individual case, even with minor alterations, leading to a case-by-case solving approach. This is not desirable in dynamic scenario with large problem scales.\", \"__(ii) Adaptability to Variants:__ Expanding a specific VRP variant algorithm to accommodate other specialized variants with different task configurations often lacks adaptability in traditional methods.\", \"__(3) Key Benefits of DRL:__ We certainly appreciate the strengths of exact and heuristic methods. However, when certain more important advantages are difficult to achieve with traditional methods, DRL becomes a valuable alternative to attain a more desirable cost-effectiveness balance. The key advantages of DRL present in following points:\", \"__(i) Batch-wise Computing:__ DRL models can process multiple instances simultaneously, improving computational efficiency and making them suitable for large-scale problems and dynamic scenario.\", \"__(ii) Learning Desirable Solution Patterns through Sequential Decision-Making Framework:__ The Markov Decision Process (MDP) framework enables DRL models to capture problem configurations and sequentially generate solutions, allowing more flexible adaptation to various routing variants.\", \"__(iii) Stable Performance After Training:__ Once trained, the model can solve new cases with same task configurations with stable performance, achieving a good balance between inference time and solution quality.\", \"__(4) Addressing \\\"Sunk Costs\\\":__ We understand that the \\\"sunk costs\\\" mentioned may refer to the training costs associated with DRL. However, we believe this is a reasonable trade-off for the benefits outlined above, offering a favorable cost-effectiveness balance compared to traditional methods, especially in complex and dynamic scenarios, which are the targeted application areas we have discussed in introduction section.\", \"Moreover, in dynamic scenarios where we want to achieve simultaneous computing to avoid initiating a new search process for each new case with minor alterations, DRL serves as a strong substitute for traditional methods. In this sense, investing hours of training to achieve instant, high-quality, batch-wise solving, means that the \\\"sunk cost\\\" for DRL may even be lower than that of traditional methods over time.\"]}", "{\"summary\": \"This paper proposes a DLR approach for the Location-Routing Problem that generates possible depot locations either in an exact way (by proposing exact locations for the depots) or in a probabilistic way (by providing a Gaussian probability distribution where depot locations can be efficiently sampled). The DLR approach employs a multi-head attention model as a critic model which is capable of assessing the depots generated by the generative model. The approach is tested extensively on synthetic and real data and compared to other approaches in the literature.\", \"soundness\": \"3\", \"presentation\": \"2\", \"contribution\": \"3\", \"strengths\": \"The paper is very dense (probably conditions by the page limits) but the authors make a rather good job in providing a clear overview and a good discussion. The quality of the paper is high, as the experiments and the results shown are able to capture a wide range of the implications of the approach. The experiments are extensive and all important details and parameters are provided.\\nThe novelty of the presented approach is mainly driven by the generative approach used for generating depot locations alongside the routes for each problem instance. The authors do overall a good job in motivating the novelty of their contributions.\", \"weaknesses\": \"Although the appendix provides the pseudocode for the main components of their approach, source code is missing. This could hinder the ability to reproduce the results obtained.\\nThe authors, probably due to the page limits, seem to be forced to reduce the size of the tables and the figures in the main text considerably, which negatively affects the quality of the exposition.\\nIn general, one cannot dismiss the impression that the authors are not only providing technical details in the appendices, but also including content that would have gone into the main text were it not the page limits. This impression gets reinforced specifically in B.4 where authors address limitations and future work, two topics that typically included into the main text and not in the appendices. In the introduction, there is no overview of the structure of the paper as usual.\", \"questions\": [\"In Table 1 and Table 3 what is the meaning of boldface and asterisk? It cannot be best result so far, as e.g. in Table 3 different results for the same row are marked with asterisk. The authors could better explain this in the caption or in the main text.\", \"Figure 2 is rather small, it would be helpful to increase size if page limits allow for this.\", \"I strongly recommend to include a link to publicly available source code to increase the reproducibility of the study.\"], \"flag_for_ethics_review\": \"['No ethics review needed.']\", \"rating\": \"8\", \"confidence\": \"4\", \"code_of_conduct\": \"Yes\"}" ] }

[ "Xingsi Dong", "Xiangyuan Peng", "Si Wu" ]

[ "Neuroscience", "Prediction", "Energy-based models", "Sampling-based inference", "Local learning rules", "Attractor neural networks" ]

{ "note_id": [ "wVNL0f0laa", "vm9U120nUd", "u9FQRhzCSj", "p99Aeg34PC", "mh3hkrmD8J", "jme486Sy3N", "j9A8n6Z0SQ", "KhxngGSpcF", "CsX5rygfwF", "BPVHhjOmaW", "93T06jRYaP", "6cu6vnvDRW", "2DIvWM2v1j" ], "note_type": [ "official_comment", "official_comment", "decision", "official_comment", "meta_review", "official_review", "official_comment", "official_review", "official_comment", "official_comment", "official_review", "official_comment", "official_review" ], "note_created": [ 1732291089218, 1732125139954, 1737523702555, 1732123204354, 1734744696152, 1729984779138, 1732158752079, 1730612357830, 1732125034839, 1732161574536, 1730886155791, 1732447764419, 1729571953532 ], "note_signatures": [ [ "ICLR.cc/2025/Conference/Submission5380/Reviewer_9CDg" ], [ "ICLR.cc/2025/Conference/Submission5380/Authors" ], [ "ICLR.cc/2025/Conference/Program_Chairs" ], [ "ICLR.cc/2025/Conference/Submission5380/Authors" ], [ "ICLR.cc/2025/Conference/Submission5380/Area_Chair_i3Jn" ], [ "ICLR.cc/2025/Conference/Submission5380/Reviewer_9CDg" ], [ "ICLR.cc/2025/Conference/Submission5380/Authors" ], [ "ICLR.cc/2025/Conference/Submission5380/Reviewer_rQhX" ], [ "ICLR.cc/2025/Conference/Submission5380/Authors" ], [ "ICLR.cc/2025/Conference/Submission5380/Authors" ], [ "ICLR.cc/2025/Conference/Submission5380/Reviewer_EQBX" ], [ "ICLR.cc/2025/Conference/Submission5380/Authors" ], [ "ICLR.cc/2025/Conference/Submission5380/Reviewer_DMCv" ] ], "structured_content_str": [ "{\"title\": \"Vague\", \"comment\": \"The manuscript and responses continue on the same tone of vagueness.\\nStarting at the end, \\\"The shaded regions in Figure 3 represent the error bars.\\\" What kind of error bars? Standard deviations? 95% Confidence intervals? Other? This is but one simple example of the requirement for specificity throughout. \\n\\nIf the goal is not to predict eye movements but rather to \\\"predict the post-saccadic image\\\", what does this mean? Is the idea here that the authors have a model of eccentricity-dependent sampling with receptive field sizes that are progressively larger from one area to another and progressively larger from the fovea to the periphery? Where and how is this implemented? \\n\\n\\\"... the brain uses a predictive learning paradigm ...\\\" \\nWhich brain? C.elegans? Humans? Ants? All? \\nAssuming that the authors are interested in mammalian brains and perhaps even primate brains, which brain areas? The cerebellum? The retina? Prefrontal cortex? All of them? \\nAssuming that the authors are interested in cortex, which cortical layer? All of them? \\nWhich neuronal types? All of them? \\nSuch generic statements as the ones used throughout the paper and in this response are very hard to connect with actual data. \\n\\nI suggest that the authors think about a major rewrite being extremely specific about what the hypothesis are, what hte questions are, which brains and which particular cognitive functions they are interested in modeling.\"}", "{\"title\": \"Part2 ref\", \"comment\": \"[10] Weilnhammer, V., et al. \\\"A predictive coding account of bistable perception.\\\" PLoS Comput. Biol., 2017.\\n\\n[11] Lotter, W., et al. \\\"A neural network trained to predict future video frames mimics biological neuronal responses.\\\" arXiv, 2018.\\n\\n[12] Watanabe, E., et al. \\\"Illusory motion reproduced by deep neural networks.\\\" Front. Psychol., 2018.\\n\\n[13] Samsonovich, A., and McNaughton, B. L. \\\"Path integration and cognitive mapping in a continuous attractor neural network model.\\\" J. Neurosci., 1997.\\n\\n[14] McNaughton, B. L., et al. \\\"Path integration and the neural basis of the cognitive map.\\\" Nat. Rev. Neurosci., 2006.\\n\\n[15] Burak, Y., and Fiete, I. R. \\\"Accurate path integration in continuous attractor network models of grid cells.\\\" PLoS Comput. Biol., 2009.\\n\\n[16] Seung, H. S. \\\"How the brain keeps the eyes still.\\\" Proc. Natl. Acad. Sci. U.S.A., 1996.\\n\\n[17] Zhang, K. \\\"Representation of spatial orientation by the intrinsic dynamics of the head direction cell ensemble.\\\"\\n\\n[18] Georgopoulos, A. P., et al. \\\"Neuronal population coding of movement direction.\\\" Science, 1986.\\n\\n[19] Ben-Yishai, R., et al. \\\"Theory of orientation tuning in visual cortex.\\\" Proc. Natl. Acad. Sci. U.S.A., 1995.\"}", "{\"title\": \"Paper Decision\", \"decision\": \"Reject\"}", "{\"comment\": \"Thank you for recognizing our work as posting a solution an interesting topic on the neural mechanism to perform prediction of future observations, as well as for acknowledging the value of our experimental results. We hope the following responses can address your concerns:\\n\\n**W1.** The unseen images and seen images are chosen from the same dataset to specifically demonstrate the generalization ability of the model. For the experiments on unseen images, the network was trained on different images, not the ones shown in the demonstration. Below is the relationship between the MSE for unseen images and image numbers.\\nHere\\u2019s how you can present the table and its description in English:\\n\\n\\n| **Image Numbers** | 16 | 32 | 64 | 128 | \\n|--------------------|--------|--------|--------|--------| \\n| **MSE** | 0.0682 | 0.0646 | 0.0613 | 0.0589 | \\n\\n\\n**W2.** The computational complexity of our network at each iteration before convergence is $O(n^2 \\\\times L)$, where $L$ represents the number of network layers, and $n$ represents the number of neurons per layer. As a result, the scalability of our network on larger datasets is consistent with that of a typical feedforward network.\\n\\n**W3.** The main contribution of our work lies in leveraging a fully biologically plausible network to achieve prediction tasks that the brain must perform. Specifically, hEBM is used for spatial compression, while CANN enables temporal compression. Removing certain components would render these processes biologically implausible within the neural system. For instance, removing the prediction error neurons would make the local learning rule infeasible. On the other hand, to better understand the model, we conducted several detailed experiments, particularly for the first task. Figures 3c, 4b\\u2013e, and 6b\\u2013d present some of these results.\\n\\n**Q1.** hEBM demonstrates advantages over the forward model when learning discontinuous functions, as shown in ref [1]. Meanwhile, CANN provides an excellent representation for the action transfer task and enables efficient temporal compression.\\n\\n**Q2.** In Table 1, we present a comparison with TransDreamer, and in Table 2, we compare with tPCN. These are recent works published in 2022 and 2023 respectively.\\n\\n**Q3.** The impact of the number of layers on prediction accuracy is illustrated in Figures 3c, 4b\\u2013e, 6b\\u2013c, and 6f.\", \"ref\": \"[1] Florence, Pete, et al. \\\"Implicit behavioral cloning.\\\" *Conference on Robot Learning*. PMLR, 2022.\"}", "{\"metareview\": \"The submission posted a solution an interesting topic on the neural mechanism to perform prediction of future observations given current state and memory. Authors proposed an energy based model to preform prediction, inference, and learning. A hierarchical and continuous attractor network is used to achieve these goals. Experimental results show the model can faithfully generate future observations for the environments the model is trained on and for unseen environments.\\n\\nWhile the overall setup and experimentation in the paper seems interesting, three reviewers were in favor of rejection due to issues concerning presentation of the paper (citations, uncertainty bars, major contribution) as well as experimentation (reviewer 9CDg)\", \"additional_comments_on_reviewer_discussion\": \"Reviewers and authors had a discussion but reviewers remained unconvinced about the merits of the paper\"}", "{\"summary\": \"The authors build a series of predictive neural networks following the energy-based model. What is particularly interesting about the model is the incorporation of several key ingredients: attractor network / memory, predictive coding, and a hierarchical structure. It is difficult to assess what question(s) the authors are trying to address. The abstract and introduction are a little bit all over the map, repeatedly referring to \\u201cbiological plausibility\\u201d, a fashionable term that ends up being rather empty without any anchoring on actual biological data. The work also refers to eye movements, and motion in environments, both of which are only superficially discussed at a very abstract level.\", \"soundness\": \"2\", \"presentation\": \"1\", \"contribution\": \"2\", \"strengths\": \"There are many interesting ideas in here, including: (1) the energy-based models and their relationship to predictive coding, (2) the emphasis on predicting actvitiy after an action is taken, (3) neural network architectures that have a memory component, recurrent dynamics, hierarchies, and prediction.\", \"weaknesses\": \"The work would benefit a lot from being more specific throughout. Take the abstract, which continuously refer to \\u201cthe neural system\\u201d. What does this mean? Is this referring to any arbitrary neural network? A fly? A human? Theories of everything often end up being theories of nothing. What are the authors trying to model here?\\n\\nIt would be very useful to articulate a key question or set of questions or hypotheses. Are the authors trying to build a network that can solve a specific task? \\nIf so, which task, what are the benchmarks, what are other comparison models? \\nIf they are not trying to solve a specific task, is there a concrete hypothesis that the authors are testing? \\n\\nTo the extent that this work attempts to connect with biological brains (it is not clear whether this is the case), a lot of work would be needed to establish those connections. Take the first sentence of the discussion: \\u201cWe consider that the brain employs an EBM as an intrinsic generative model to predict the next observation after action.\\u201d. Is this a hypothesis, a conjecture, a conclusion, or an axiom? If it is a hypothesis, then what kind of *empirical* data would be needed to test the hypothesis? Are there any neuroscientific data that provide support for this hypothesis or evidence that contradicts the hypothesis?\", \"questions\": \"It seems that one of the interests is to model eye movements (curiously referred in the singular as eye movement throughout). There is a whole industry or real neural network models that aim to predict eye movements in images under different circumstances. Here are a few: Zhang et al Nature Communications 2018, Yang et al CVPR 2020 (these are studies during specific actions for visual search), Kummerer et al J Vision 2022 (this is without any task). In the absence of comparisons with actual eye movements, it is not clear how to evaluate the work here. But perhaps the intent is not truly to study eye movements, the actual question or goal was not clear.\\n\\nThe notion of \\u201cimagination\\u201d and being able to predict observations for actions without performing the actions seems quite interesting. It would be quite interesting to actually show experimental data on this. It seems that the experiments in Fig.3 (\\u201ceye movement\\u201d) and Fig. 4 (\\u201chead turning\\u201d) are in this direction. What were the models trained on and how was cross-validation performed? Can the model take a novel image and make inferences about observations for a novel viewpoint never seen before? What is \\u201cture\\u201d in Fig. 4? \\n\\nAs a general note, to interpret results, I always find it very useful to include:\\n-\\tError bars. \\n-\\tChance levels.\\n-\\tUpper bounds (not entirely sure how to define it here, but perhaps an oracle version)\\n-\\tRigorous statistics.\\nThis comment applies to all tables and Figs. 3. and 4.\", \"flag_for_ethics_review\": \"['No ethics review needed.']\", \"rating\": \"3\", \"confidence\": \"4\", \"code_of_conduct\": \"Yes\"}", "{\"comment\": \"Thank you for taking the time to review our manuscript and for providing thoughtful feedback. Below, we address each of the concerns and questions you raised.\\n\\n**Weakness**: \\n\\n1. To clarify, our work assumes that the brain uses a predictive learning paradigm to perceive and interact with the world. Based on this assumption, we propose a biologically plausible network for predictive learning-based representation learning. The brain processes information through different pathways depending on the sensory-motor system involved. Our model aims to simulate these neural pathways. For example, in our saccadic eye movement experiments, hierarchical EBMs model the visual cortical pathway (V1-V4-IT neocortex), while CANNs simulate the collicular pathway for motor control. Similarly, in our movement experiments, EBMs model the visual cortical pathway, and CANNs represent grid cells in the entorhinal cortex. Since our work primarily focuses on the modeling aspects, we did not elaborate on specific cortical correspondences in the manuscript. \\n\\n2. The specific task we address is *predictive learning*. Predictive learning is a form of representation learning aimed at acquiring representations optimized for prediction, making it an inherently valuable and widely researched topic. Many works have focused on predictive learning, such as Mufeng Tang (2023, biologically plausible model algorithms) and Aaron van den Oord (2019, BP-based algorithms). Predictive learning is a general and versatile task for representation learning. In our study, we compared our approach with five other models, presenting results across three benchmark datasets, as shown in Tables 1, 2, and 3. \\n\\n3. Our work is based on the widely adopted Bayesian brain hypothesis, as discussed by Knill & Pouget (2004) and Friston & Price (2001), which posits that the brain understands the world through predictive learning. This hypothesis has inspired a significant body of work, including Gergo Orb\\u00e1n (2016) and Guillaume Hennequin (2014). Furthermore, it is supported by experimental evidence from studies such as Ulrik R. Beierholm (2009), Edward H. Nieh (2021), and Ralf M. Haefner (2016). \\n\\n---\\n\\n**Questions**: \\n\\n1. Thank you for highlighting this point. To clarify, our task is not to predict the saccadic eye movement itself but rather to predict the post-saccadic image based on the known eye movement position. \\n\\n2. In Figure 3a, \\\"unseen\\\" images refer to novel images that were not encountered during training. The models used in this row were trained on datasets that excluded the specific images shown. In Figure 4, \\\"true\\\" refers to the ground truth, i.e., the actual images. \\n\\n3. Thank you for your suggestion. The shaded regions in Figure 3 represent the error bars. \\n\\nWe hope this explanation addresses your concerns and provides clarity regarding our work.\"}", "{\"summary\": \"This paper proposes a hierarchical recurrent state-space model based on an energy-based model (EBM) to simulate the brain's process of predicting observations after actions. By introducing a continuous attractor neural network (CANN) for memory, the paper constructs a biologically plausible neural network model. The model is validated across various tasks, including vision, motion, and head rotation, demonstrating its predictive performance in both trained and novel environments. Based on a bio-inspired framework, this model shows comparability to existing machine learning methods.\", \"soundness\": \"3\", \"presentation\": \"3\", \"contribution\": \"2\", \"strengths\": \"1.Bio-inspired Modeling: The model leverages the EBM framework and CANN to simulate prediction, learning, and inference in the neural system, achieving biological plausibility, which is a unique attempt in machine learning.\\n\\n2.Innovative Prediction and Learning Sequence: Unlike most machine learning models, this model performs learning before inference, resulting in a unique objective function. This sequence is shown to provide greater stability and robustness over traditional methods.\\n\\n3.Memory Mechanism with CANN: The integration of CANN as a memory network allows the model to efficiently compress past experiences, supporting real-time prediction.\", \"weaknesses\": \"1.Biological Interpretability of Experimental Results: Although the model shows good predictive performance, its interpretability in terms of biological neural systems could be strengthened. For instance, explaining how error neurons represent biological neuron behavior or how model layers correspond to cortical structures would enhance understanding.\\n\\n2.Comparison of Baselines: While the paper includes comparisons with models like TransDreamer, it would be beneficial to compare with more bio-inspired models (e.g., more complex PCN frameworks) to further highlight the model's advantages in biological plausibility and performance.\\n\\n3.In-depth Analysis of Model Parameters: Model performance is likely influenced by parameters like network depth and neuron count. However, the paper lacks a detailed discussion of how these parameters impact biological plausibility. Future work could examine the model\\u2019s adherence to biological realism under various parameter settings.\\n\\n4.Impact of Dynamic Environment Changes on CANN: The framework does not fully analyze how dynamic environmental changes affect the CANN structure. Although the paper mentions this as future work, adding preliminary exploration in current experiments could help validate CANN\\u2019s stability in complex environments.\", \"questions\": \"1.Future versions could provide more detail on how the model\\u2019s biological mechanisms correspond to actual neural processes, such as simulating firing patterns and memory representations of biological neurons.\\n\\n2.Consider additional experiments with various parameter settings to analyze the model\\u2019s adaptability and robustness in more complex environments, especially in comparison to traditional bio-inspired models.\\n\\n3.Further discussions could be added regarding the representational role of CANN in brain structures and the correspondence between the model\\u2019s hierarchical layers and cortical structure.\", \"flag_for_ethics_review\": \"['No ethics review needed.']\", \"rating\": \"5\", \"confidence\": \"2\", \"code_of_conduct\": \"Yes\"}", "{\"comment\": [\"Thank you for acknowledging our work on achieving biological plausibility\\uff0cInnovative Prediction and Learning Sequence that bring greater stability and robustness over traditional methods, and validating the effectiveness of our memory mechanism. We hope the following responses can address your concerns:\", \"**W1, Q1, Q3:** We appreciate your recognition of our model's good predictive performance. The error neurons employed in our work are supported by extensive experimental evidence. For example:\", \"[1] successfully explained end-stopping and other extra-classical receptive-field effects in the primary visual cortex by incorporating error neurons.\", \"[2\\u20133] provided evidence for functionally distinct neuronal subpopulations, potentially corresponding to prediction and error neurons.\", \"[4] discussed multi-compartment neurons with a distinct apical dendrite compartment for storing prediction errors separately from the value encoded by the soma.\", \"[5] introduced a central microcircuit model of predictive processing using error neurons.\", \"[6] described predictive processing as a computational framework for cortical function, particularly in sensory processing.\", \"[7] extended formulations of the brain as an inference organ, using error neurons to orchestrate these processes.\", \"[8\\u201312] explained a range of perceptual and neural phenomena, including repetition suppression, error responses, attentional modulations, bistable perception, and motion illusions.\", \"We aim for our model to represent a general mechanism for the brain's predictive functions. For instance, in the context of vision, the hEBM framework in our model aligns with the hierarchical structure of the visual cortex. Similarly, CANN, as the memory module, has robust biological support, particularly in the hippocampus. Examples include place cells [13\\u201315], saccadic movement position cells [16], head direction cells [17], movement direction cells [18], and orientation cells [19].\", \"**W2, Q2:** In Table 2, we compare our model with the recent tPCN framework. To the best of our knowledge, our network is the first biologically plausible model capable of predicting different observations based on different actions. For instance, general PCN frameworks can only handle static tasks, and tPCN extends this to dynamic tasks but only with fixed input sequences. Our network can produce different sequences based on distinct actions.\", \"**W3** Figures 3c, 4b\\u2013e, and 6b\\u2013d in the paper demonstrate how model performance is influenced by network parameters and neuron counts. The question of how these parameters impact biological plausibility is intriguing. In future work, when applying the network to specific cortical regions, we plan to set these parameters based on real biological data.\", \"**W4** As mentioned in the discussion section, this is an interesting question. We intend to explore it in future research, although it is beyond the scope of the current paper.\"], \"ref\": \"[1] Rao, R. and Ballard, D. \\\"Predictive coding in the visual cortex.\\\" Nat. Neurosci., 1999.\\n\\n[2] Bell, A. H., et al. \\\"Encoding of stimulus probability in macaque inferior temporal cortex.\\\" Curr. Biol., 2016.\\n\\n[3] Fiser, A., et al. \\\"Experience-dependent spatial expectations in mouse visual cortex.\\\" Nat. Neurosci., 2016.\\n\\n[4] Takahashi, N., et al. \\\"Active dendritic currents gate descending cortical outputs in perception.\\\" Nat. Neurosci., 2020.\\n\\n[5] Bastos, A. M., et al. \\\"Canonical microcircuits for predictive coding.\\\" Neuron, 2012.\\n\\n[6] Keller, G. B., and Mrsic-Flogel, T. D. \\\"Predictive processing: A canonical cortical computation.\\\" Neuron, 2018.\\n\\n[7] Kanai, R., et al. \\\"Cerebral hierarchies: Predictive processing, precision, and the pulvinar.\\\" Phil. Trans. R. Soc. B, 2015.\\n\\n[8] Auksztulewicz, R., and Friston, K. \\\"Repetition suppression and its contextual determinants in predictive coding.\\\" Cortex, 2016.\\n\\n[9] Feldman, H., and Friston, K. J. \\\"Attention, uncertainty, and free-energy.\\\" Front. Hum. Neurosci., 2010.\"}", "{\"comment\": \"We sincerely thank you for your thorough review and constructive suggestions. Your insights have helped us better articulate our contributions and refine our work. Below, we address your concerns in detail.\\n\\n**Weaknesses:** \\n1. We would like to emphasize that the biological plausibility of our work is a key focus, aiming to explain how the brain performs representation learning. Utilizing biologically plausible networks to interpret brain mechanisms contributes significantly to the community, as demonstrated by works such as Tommaso Salvatori (2021) and Yuhang Song (2023). Moreover, our brain-inspired model achieves performance comparable to BP-based models on several benchmarks used in our experiments. Among non-BP methods, our approach represents one of the best-performing algorithms on similar benchmarks. \\n2. There are differences between our method and BP in terms of implementation. For detailed explanations, please refer to Question 5. \\n3. Predictive learning, as a form of representation learning, is already a mature upstream task. Our focus lies on predictive learning itself, and downstream tasks are beyond the scope of this paper. \\n\\n**Questions:** \\n1. In the revised version, we will use a clearer citation format. \\n\\n2-3. Predictive learning is inherently a type of representation learning, aimed at learning representations that facilitate prediction. This is already a critical area of interest, with many works focusing on predictive learning itself, such as Mufeng Tang (2023) (biologically plausible models), Aaron van den Oord (2019), Tung Nguyen (2021), and Mufeng Tang (2023) (BP-based models). As a general representation learning task, predictive learning supports a variety of downstream applications, including model-based RL and video generation. Our focus is on predictive learning as a representation learning task, and downstream tasks are beyond the scope of this paper. \\n\\n4. One of the focal points of this work is understanding how the brain performs representation learning. By employing a biologically plausible model based on neural dynamics and local learning, we provide a framework to explain this mechanism, which constitutes a major contribution of this study. Additionally, our brain-inspired model achieves performance comparable to BP-based models on several benchmarks. While our algorithm does not yet show significant advantages in memory usage or latency over BP when implemented on von Neumann computers, it is well-suited for in-memory computing chips. These chips significantly reduce data transmission latency and bandwidth issues, offering a promising potential advantage for our algorithm over BP. \\n\\n5. Thank you for thoroughly reviewing the details of our algorithm. While our method shares similarities with BP in terms of hierarchical information transfer, it differs substantially in its derivation and implementation. In our model, each layer contains not only the state neurons ($s$) but also additional error neurons ($e$). The joint operation of $e$and $s$ in each layer facilitates posterior sampling and gradient computation. BP, by contrast, relies solely on \\\\(s\\\\) without involving error neurons. Furthermore, as each layer has error neurons, the synaptic updates in our model adhere to the Hebbian rule. The update rule for the first layer is presented in Eq. 15, while the subsequent layers follow the formula: \\n$\\\\tau_{\\\\theta}\\\\frac{\\\\mathrm{d}\\\\theta^l}{\\\\mathrm{d}t} = -\\\\nabla_{\\\\theta^l}\\\\mathcal{L}^{l}_t = \\\\Lambda^l\\\\hat{e}^l_t f(\\\\hat{s}^{l+1}_t)^T.$\\nWe will include this equation in the revised version. \\n6. Since our algorithm operates online, it cannot initialize the model with all past sequences at once; instead, it processes data sequentially. \\n7. We used MSE as the evaluation metric to facilitate comparison with prior work in this domain, such as tPCN, VPN, and ST-ResNet, all of which also adopted MSE. \\n8. For the CIFAR-10 dataset, we split each image into 16 patches to simulate the receptive field of real eye movements. In future work, we plan to use more realistic images to mimic eye-tracking experiments. \\n9. Thank you for the question. The performance of our model on the test dataset scales with the number of neurons, as shown in Table 1 and Figure 3.e. The observed degradation on seen images (training set) with increased neuron numbers is due to the increased difficulty of initialization. Energy-based models (EBMs) exhibit strong learning capabilities for both continuous and discontinuous functions in representation learning, whereas traditional forward models such as VAE face challenges with discontinuous functions. Please refer to *Implicit Behavioral Cloning* for more details. \\n10. Thank you for the suggestion.\\n\\nWe hope this explanation addresses your concerns and provides clarity regarding our work.\"}", "{\"summary\": \"The submission posted a solution an interesting topic on the neural mechanism to perform prediction of future observations given current state and memory. Authors proposed an energy based model to preform prediction, inference, and learning. A hierarchical and continuous attractor network is used to achieve these goals. Experimental results show the model can faithfully generate future observations for the environments the model is trained on and for unseen environments.\", \"soundness\": \"3\", \"presentation\": \"3\", \"contribution\": \"3\", \"strengths\": \"The introduced energy-based recurrent state space and a continuous attractor network to conceptually mimic the brain mechanism to predict next observations is interesting. The methodology introduction is clear and well organized.\", \"weaknesses\": \"The generalization ability of the proposed method is difficult to evaluate, as in Fig. 3a, the \\\"unseen\\\" images appear very similar to the previously \\\"seen\\\" images. It would be helpful to provide the mean squared error (MSE) between these unseen and seen images to clarify the degree of generalization.\\n\\nWhat is the computation complexity for layered EBM structure and CANN memory integration. For a comprehensive comparison with baseline methods, it would be beneficial to discuss computational efficiency and scalability for larger datasets.\\n\\nAdditionally, the specific contribution of each component should be discussed with ablation studies. The proposed method involves several components\\u2014energy-based modeling, the continuous attractor network, and the hierarchical neural network\\u2014but it remains unclear which components contribute most significantly to prediction accuracy.\", \"questions\": \"1. The motivation for using an energy-based model is biological plausibility. However, it would be beneficial if the authors could discuss how the proposed model architecture improves prediction purely from a methodological/application perspective.\\n\\n2. Table 3. how about comparison with more recent methods.\\n\\n3. How the number of hierarchical layer affects the prediction accuracy.\", \"flag_for_ethics_review\": \"['No ethics review needed.']\", \"rating\": \"6\", \"confidence\": \"2\", \"code_of_conduct\": \"Yes\"}", "{\"comment\": \"Thank you for your review. The \\\"shaded regions\\\" here, as in the conventional usage, refer to standard deviations, similar to the error bars in Fig. 2 of Ref. [1], which are not explicitly labeled. We believe it is generally understood that these represent standard deviations. In any case, we will make sure to clarify this point in the revised version of the paper. Thank you for your suggestion.\\n\\nThe eye movement experiment is designed to demonstrate how predictive learning can be implemented using an eye movement paradigm, where the target of the predictive learning is to \\\"predict the post-saccadic image.\\\"\\n\\nOur research focuses on the nervous systems of vertebrates, including common model organisms such as rats, macaques, mice, and humans. The brain structures in these vertebrates are relatively similar, which is why we did not specify them. For details on the different sensory-motor pathways and their associated brain regions, please refer to the response above. In fact, current studies on brain-inspired networks do not typically specify the model organisms or the corresponding brain regions, as seen in Refs. [1-4].\\n\\nWe hope our responses can address your concerns.\\n\\n[1] Dong, Xingsi, et al. \\\"Adaptation accelerating sampling-based bayesian inference in attractor neural networks.\\\" *Advances in Neural Information Processing Systems* 35 (2022): 21534-21547.\\n\\n[2] Tang, Mufeng, Helen Barron, and Rafal Bogacz. \\\"Sequential memory with temporal predictive coding.\\\" *Advances in neural information processing systems* 36 (2024).\\n\\n[3] Salvatori, Tommaso, et al. \\\"Associative memories via predictive coding.\\\" *Advances in Neural Information Processing Systems* 34 (2021): 3874-3886.\\n\\n[4] Zhang, Wen-Hao, et al. \\\"Sampling-based Bayesian inference in recurrent circuits of stochastic spiking neurons.\\\" *Nature communications* 14.1 (2023): 7074.\"}", "{\"summary\": \"This paper proposes an energy-based neural recurrent state-space model designed to predict world perception following an action. While prior works have introduced world models for predicting observations, they often rely on techniques like Backpropagation Through Time (BPTT), which lack biological plausibility. In contrast, this paper employs an energy-based state-space model, which is known to resemble biological mechanisms such as Hebbian learning and sampling-based inference, to address the sequential prediction task. The model is implemented using a hierarchical neural network for its expressiveness and biological validity, and a continuous attractor network is utilized to model temporal memory, similar to biological neural systems. Evaluation on a few vision-based tasks demonstrates that the model outperforms existing techniques in predicting observations.\", \"soundness\": \"2\", \"presentation\": \"3\", \"contribution\": \"2\", \"strengths\": \"1. The paper provides a detailed formulation of each component and effectively connects them to biological concepts, supporting its claim of biological plausibility.\\n2. The authors successfully integrate several neural network-based components to simulate a biological system plausibly.\\n3. The paper is well-written overall, with clear visualizations that enhance understanding.\", \"weaknesses\": \"1. The main technique does not appear to offer significant practical advantages beyond its biological plausibility.\\n2. While the paper argues that the learning rule is biologically plausible due to its resemblance to the Hebbian rule (as opposed to BP), the formulation and its properties remain quite similar to BP, which diminishes the claimed advantage of biological plausibility.\\n3. The evaluation is limited; the setups simulate abstract and simplistic biological behaviors, without testing the model on more realistic and practical tasks.\", \"questions\": [\"I am open to adjusting my scores if the following comments are addressed:\", \"Please add parentheses around the citations, as the current formatting makes them difficult to read.\", \"While the world/observation prediction task is prevalent in biological systems, what practical applications does this have? Does it improve the performance of sequential decision-making algorithms? A more application-driven empirical evaluation would be necessary.\", \"It would be beneficial to include evaluations on more practical decision-making tasks that could benefit from this model, particularly by solving sub-tasks related to world prediction. Although this is mentioned in the discussion, the practical significance of the technique is unclear without actual end-to-end demonstration.\", \"The paper's practical motivation is not entirely convincing. Using local learning rules or neural dynamics instead of BP is argued to be advantageous, but what practical benefits does it offer? BP is known for its high memory usage and additional latency, but how does the local learning rule address these issues?\", \"The claim that the learning rule differs significantly from BP, or that it fully matches the Hebbian rule, is unclear. In line 281, the paper states, \\\"Each layer will repeat this process and propagate information downward until the last layer.\\\" While it is true that gradients are not propagated backwards through the hierarchical network, latent information $s^l_t$\\u200b is still propagated backwards. This necessitates storing all intermediate activations and backpropagating the latent information, much like conventional BP. The only aspect that aligns with the Hebbian rule is the first layer. Additionally, in Equation 16, the update rule for the sample $s^l_t$ involves the derivative $f'$ and the derivative of the Gaussian reparametrization, and this updated sample is used to update the subsequent layer. This resembles backpropagating gradient information through the sample updates. A dedicated subsection verifying that the suggested formulations are indeed biologically plausible would strengthen the paper. For example, it would be useful to mathematically verify that the learning rules adhere to the Hebbian rule and differ substantially from backpropagation. Since biological plausibility is a key advantage of the proposed technique, a thorough theoretical analysis would be necessary.\", \"In the imagination phase, to predict the outcome of a specific action within the observed world, must all previous sequences of actions and observations be sequentially inputted to form the memory network? Is there a component where one can input the initial observation directly?\", \"Why is image quality compared using MSE when there are several established image quality metrics, such as PSNR or SSIM, that could be used? MSE seems ambiguous in this context, and it would be preferable to employ commonly accepted metrics.\", \"The evaluation setups may need further validation to confirm that they correctly simulate biological behaviors and perceptions. For example, is it valid to simulate eye movement with datasets like CIFAR-10 or FMNIST? I would expect a more complex real-world task beyond 2D image scanning. Is there biological literature that supports the use of such datasets to simulate eye movements?\", \"What are the practical advantages of this energy-based model, aside from its biological plausibility? The performance does not seem to scale with the number of trained images, which raises concerns about its practicality.\", \"Several minor corrections:\", \"Line 154: \\\"decent\\\" should be \\\"descent\\\"\", \"Line 186: \\\"deviation\\\" should be \\\"derivation\\\"\", \"Line 209: \\\"employs\\\" should be \\\"employ\\\"\", \"Line 334: \\\"first is step is\\\" should be \\\"first step is\\\"\"], \"flag_for_ethics_review\": \"['No ethics review needed.']\", \"rating\": \"3\", \"confidence\": \"4\", \"code_of_conduct\": \"Yes\"}" ] }

[ "Jung-hun Kim", "Min-hwan Oh" ]

[ "Dynamic Pricing", "Preference Feedback", "Bandits" ]

{ "note_id": [ "yhPdaNlEwj", "tcK2dUtAzn", "plN8FGv3te", "ieUoo6gnIH", "hwQH8cuNMj", "flXFJ25lB5", "ap1XNic6Zs", "O41TvtBiBU", "MijcGiSvkM", "JZrURNaqqN", "EK8KsKwiFg", "EJ6y9ynFUy", "DdLa61sUCJ", "Aau85rJw0y", "7kz3LT4WFp", "4MrmtnkOCD" ], "note_type": [ "official_review", "official_review", "meta_review", "official_comment", "official_comment", "official_review", "official_comment", "official_comment", "official_review", "official_comment", "decision", "official_comment", "official_comment", "official_comment", "official_comment", "official_comment" ], "note_created": [ 1730657218347, 1730561723162, 1734769934372, 1731967581861, 1731969183013, 1729907029661, 1731968550990, 1731967775964, 1730721595080, 1731969272822, 1737523526274, 1731970178036, 1731968415980, 1731969769269, 1732625089098, 1731967712139 ], "note_signatures": [ [ "ICLR.cc/2025/Conference/Submission2716/Reviewer_8pM9" ], [ "ICLR.cc/2025/Conference/Submission2716/Reviewer_GGxS" ], [ "ICLR.cc/2025/Conference/Submission2716/Area_Chair_3ZDN" ], [ "ICLR.cc/2025/Conference/Submission2716/Authors" ], [ "ICLR.cc/2025/Conference/Submission2716/Authors" ], [ "ICLR.cc/2025/Conference/Submission2716/Reviewer_Ues7" ], [ "ICLR.cc/2025/Conference/Submission2716/Authors" ], [ "ICLR.cc/2025/Conference/Submission2716/Authors" ], [ "ICLR.cc/2025/Conference/Submission2716/Reviewer_3kB4" ], [ "ICLR.cc/2025/Conference/Submission2716/Authors" ], [ "ICLR.cc/2025/Conference/Program_Chairs" ], [ "ICLR.cc/2025/Conference/Submission2716/Authors" ], [ "ICLR.cc/2025/Conference/Submission2716/Authors" ], [ "ICLR.cc/2025/Conference/Submission2716/Authors" ], [ "ICLR.cc/2025/Conference/Submission2716/Reviewer_Ues7" ], [ "ICLR.cc/2025/Conference/Submission2716/Authors" ] ], "structured_content_str": [ "{\"summary\": \"This paper studies the problem of online pricing and assortment optimization, where a seller engages in repeated interactions with a buyer over $ T $ discrete time steps. In this setting, the seller offers a selection of products from a set of size $ N $. At each time step $ t $, the seller chooses an assortment $ S_t \\\\subseteq [N] $ of products to present to the buyer, along with a specific price $ p_{i,t} $ for each item $ i \\\\in S_t $.\\n\\nThe buyer is characterized by latent parameters $ \\\\theta_v $ and $ \\\\theta_{\\\\alpha} \\\\in \\\\mathbb{R}^d $, which influence their purchasing decisions but remain unknown the seller. Each product $ i \\\\in S_t $ is associated with known feature vectors $ x_{i,t} $ and $ w_{i,t} \\\\in \\\\mathbb{R}^d $, representing various characteristics of the items. The buyer's valuation of a product is given by $v_{i,t} = x_{i,t}^T \\\\theta_v $, while their price sensitivity is described by the parameter $ \\\\alpha_{i,t} = w_{i,t}^T \\\\theta_{\\\\alpha} $. Consequently, the buyer's utility for a product $ i $ is defined as $ v_{i,t} - \\\\alpha_{i,t} p_{i,t} $. The buyer makes a purchasing decision based on a \\\"censored multinomial logit choice function,\\\" which acts as a sigmoid function applied to all items $ i \\\\in S_t $ for which the price $ p_{i,t} $ does not exceed the buyer\\u2019s value $ v_{i,t} $.\\n\\nThe goal is to minimize regret compared to the optimal assortment and pricing decisions in hindsight. A key challenge is that the seller lacks information on which products are \\\"censored\\\" by the buyer's multinomial logit choice function (i.e., $v_{i,t} < p_{i,t}$). This uncertainty makes it challenging for the seller to glean information from the buyer's purchasing behavior. To address this, the authors employ a combination of algorithms: a Lower Confidence Bound (LCB) approach for setting prices and an Upper Confidence Bound (UCB) method for selecting assortments. By using the LCB algorithm, prices are initially set low, reducing the likelihood that items will be censored in the early stages. This enables the algorithm to gather more accurate data on the buyer's latent parameters, $ \\\\theta_v $ and $ \\\\theta_{\\\\alpha} $. This algorithm obtains a regret bound of $ O(d^{2/3}T^{1/2}) $.\", \"soundness\": \"4\", \"presentation\": \"3\", \"contribution\": \"3\", \"strengths\": [\"The paper offers a natural extension of the multinomial logit (MNL) model, building on previous research that has explored online pricing and assortment optimization for the MNL model without incorporating censorship. Censorship seems natural and adds interesting additional, combinatorial challenges.\", \"Additionally, the proposed approach, which combines the LCB and UCB algorithms, feels intuitive and well-aligned with the problem.\", \"Finally, the paper well written.\"], \"weaknesses\": [\"Including the Thompson Sampling (TS) section should be more thoroughly motivated, especially since the algorithm\\u2019s regret is weaker than that of the LCB/UCB approach. From the paper, it\\u2019s unclear what advantages TS offers over the LCB/UCB algorithm. If none, this section might not be necessary and could be removed to streamline the paper.\", \"Additionally, I would appreciate a more detailed explanation of why the latent price sensitivity parameter $ \\\\alpha_{i,t} $ is essential to the model. It would be helpful to have some real-world examples that illustrate the importance of including $ \\\\alpha_{i,t} $. Moreover, I find it counterintuitive that $ \\\\alpha_{i,t} $ appears in the exponent of the MNL choice function $ \\\\exp(v_{i,t} - \\\\alpha_{i,t} p_{i,t}) $, yet it does not appear in the indicator $ \\\\mathbb{1}(p_{i,t} \\\\leq v_{i,t}) $. Intuitively, it might make more sense if the indicator were formulated as $ \\\\mathbb{1}(\\\\alpha_{i,t} p_{i,t} \\\\leq v_{i,t}) $, as this would more consistently capture the influence of $ \\\\alpha_{i,t} $ on the decision threshold.\"], \"questions\": \"Please address the confusions I highlighted in the Weaknesses section.\", \"flag_for_ethics_review\": \"['No ethics review needed.']\", \"rating\": \"6\", \"confidence\": \"4\", \"code_of_conduct\": \"Yes\"}", "{\"summary\": \"This paper studies the problem of dynamic multi-product selection and pricing. In such a problem, the seller must not only set prices but also determine which products to offer. The authors introduce a LCB-based pricing strategy to set prices, which can promote exploration because buyers would be more likely to purchase, avoiding the censorship issue. As for product assortment selection, they employ two strategies, one based on UCB and the other based on Thompson Sampling. Each strategy corresponds to an algorithm with a guaranteed regret upper bound. Extensive experiments on synthetic datasets validate the performance of the algorithms and demonstrate their superiority over existing approaches.\", \"soundness\": \"4\", \"presentation\": \"3\", \"contribution\": \"3\", \"strengths\": \"1. The problem studied in this paper introduces product assortment selection in a multi-product sale scenario that has not been considered in previous work.\\n\\n2. The theoretical results are very solid and accompanied by experimental validation. I really appreciate the proof sketch in the main text, which shows the authors' very clear proof ideas.\", \"weaknesses\": \"1. According to my understanding, proposing a framework implies proposing a class of solutions. The authors' real contribution is to find a problem - a problem that fits the actual application scenario - and formalize it, so it is inappropriate to describe it as \\\"proposing a novel framework\\\".\\n\\n2. I know it is difficult to find and prove a regret lower bound in such a complicated problem that involves both price setting and product selection, but a complete paper should at least have a discussion about the regret lower bound. Perhaps it is to refer to the magnitude of the upper and lower bounds of other similar problems, or perhaps to propose a conjecture of a tight regret lower bound, so that readers can have a clearer understanding of the difficulty of this problem and the contribution of the authors.\\n\\n3. No experiment on any real-world datsaet.\", \"questions\": \"This paper proposes two product selection strategies, which makes the theoretical results of this paper look more fruitful. Give the regret upper bound of the TS strategy is worse than that of the UCB strategy, is there any more benefit to studying this strategy besides being able to announce that \\\"it is the first work to apply Thompson Sampling\\\"? For example, is the TS strategy more convenient in code implementation? Or is there an advantage in computational complexity? ...\\n\\nPlease compare the two strategies in detail. The rating may be reduced if the answer is insufficient.\", \"flag_for_ethics_review\": \"['No ethics review needed.']\", \"details_of_ethics_concerns\": \"NA\", \"rating\": \"8\", \"confidence\": \"3\", \"code_of_conduct\": \"Yes\"}", "{\"metareview\": \"The paper addresses the dynamic multi-product selection problem and introduces the censored multinomial logit (C-MNL) model, which extends the traditional MNL model by incorporating price-based product censorship to better capture buyer behavior. The authors propose two algorithms that integrate a Lower Confidence Bound (LCB) pricing strategy with either Upper Confidence Bound (UCB) or Thompson Sampling (TS) approaches for assortment optimization. Both algorithms achieve theoretical regret bounds and are validated through simulations. The paper's strengths include a natural extension of the MNL model to address combinatorial challenges introduced by censorship, an intuitive algorithmic approach combining LCB and UCB, and clear and effective writing.\\n\\nConsidering the above novelties, I recommend acceptance of the paper once the authors incorporate all the reviewer's feedback in the final version.\", \"additional_comments_on_reviewer_discussion\": \"See above.\"}", "{\"comment\": \"We sincerely thank you for taking the time to review our paper and for providing thoughtful and valuable feedback. We greatly appreciate your recognition of our work and your constructive comments. Below, we address each of your comments and questions in detail:\\n\\n$\\\\bullet$ **The algorithms involve several input parameters, such as $\\\\lambda$, $\\\\eta$, $C$. However, the paper lacks guidance on how to select appropriate values for these parameters and does not discuss how they impact the regret bounds.**\\n\\n**Response:**\\nWe provide specific settings for $\\\\eta$ and $\\\\lambda$ in Lines 247 and 424, where we set $\\\\eta = (1/2) \\\\log(K+1) + 3$ and $\\\\lambda = \\\\max\\\\\\\\{84d\\\\eta, 192\\\\sqrt{2}\\\\eta\\\\\\\\}$, which are derived from our regret analysis to ensure effective learning performance. For $C$, we consider any constant $C > 1$, as stated on Line 229. Importantly, $C$ influences the regret bound only by a constant factor of $\\\\sqrt{C}$, which does not hurt the regret in order.\\n\\nTo further clarify the role of each parameter. The parameter of $\\\\eta$ serves as a step size in the online mirror descent updates of $\\\\hat{\\\\theta}_t$ (Line 5 in Algorithm 1), helping to control the convergence behavior in each iteration. The parameter of $\\\\lambda$ is used as a regularization parameter in constructing the Gram matrices $H\\\\_t$ and $H\\\\_{v,t}$ (Lines 2-4 in Algorithm 1). $\\\\lambda$ mitigates variance in the estimation of $\\\\hat{\\\\theta}\\\\_t$, especially under high-dimensional settings, ensuring stability in the updates. The parameter of $C$ impacts the frequency of estimator updates, specifically for $\\\\hat{\\\\theta}\\\\_{v,(\\\\tau)}$ in the LCB pricing strategy (Line 6 in Algorithm 1). \\n\\nWe appreciate this opportunity to elaborate and will incorporate the explanation regarding the parameters in our final version.\\n\\n\\n$\\\\bullet$ **There is no lower bound analysis on the dependency $d$, making it uncertain whether the proposed algorithms are optimal.**\\n\\n**Response:** \\nThank you for your feedback. We agree that a discussion of regret lower bounds would offer further insight into the complexity of our problem, which involves both price setting and product selection. \\n\\nWe note that previous UCB algorithms for the MNL bandit (without pricing aspect) achieve a regret bound of $d\\\\sqrt{T}$. \\nHowever, our problem setting extends the MNL bandits to a censored version of MNL integrated with pricing, which introduces additional complexity due to the activation function and hidden censorship feedback. \\nDespite this increased challenge, our approach achieves a regret bound of $d^{3/2}\\\\sqrt{T}$. While we conjecture that the regret lower bound for our problem likely lies between $d\\\\sqrt{T}$ and $d^{3/2}\\\\sqrt{T}$ inclusive, formally establishing this remains an open question.\\nIn our revision, we will include this discussion. We believe this addition will provide readers with a clearer understanding of the difficulty of our problem and the significance of our contributions in achieving this upper bound.\\n\\n\\n$\\\\bullet$ **In the TS-based algorithm, the prior distribution and prior knowledge used (e.g., Gaussian distributions) are not clearly discussed, leaving the assumptions about the prior unclear.**\\n\\n**Response:** \\nTo clarify, our approach does not rely on any explicit prior distribution or prior knowledge, consistent with the methodology outlined by Abeille and Lazaric (2016). As they note, \\u201cThompson Sampling can be defined as a generic randomized algorithm constructed on the Regularized Least Squares estimate rather than as an algorithm sampling from a Bayesian posterior.\\u201d This principle underpins our implementation of the TS algorithm.\\n\\nAdditionally, our regret analysis adopts a frequentist perspective, ensuring robustness in the worst-case setting without dependence on any assumed prior distribution. This frequentist approach provides regret bounds that are independent of specific priors, making them applicable across a broad range of scenarios.\\n\\nWe will incorporate this discussion in the final version of our paper to prevent any potential misunderstandings about prior knowledge or distributional assumptions.\\n\\n\\n\\n\\n$\\\\bullet$ **The experimental setup is relatively limited, with tests conducted only for $K=4$, $d=2$, and approximately 20 arms (products), which does not reflect the scale and complexity of practical applications.**\\n\\n**Response:** \\nTo address this concern, we have expanded the experiments to include larger and more realistic scenarios that better reflect the scale and complexity of practical applications. Specifically, we have conducted additional experiments with the number of products $N=40, 60, 80$ with an increased assortment size $K=5$, and a higher feature dimensionality $d=4$. The results of these experiments are included in Figure 2 in the experiment section of the revised version.\"}", "{\"comment\": \"We sincerely thank you for taking the time to review our paper and for providing thoughtful and valuable feedback. We greatly appreciate your recognition of our work and your constructive comments. Below, we address each of your comments and questions in detail:\\n\\n\\n$\\\\bullet$ **According to my understanding, proposing a framework implies proposing a class of solutions. The authors' real contribution is to find a problem - a problem that fits the actual application scenario - and formalize it, so it is inappropriate to describe it as \\\"proposing a novel framework\\\"**\\n\\n**Response:** Thank you for your feedback. We understand the distinction you are making between proposing a framework and formalizing a new problem. Our intention was to emphasize the structured approach we introduced to address the complexities of dynamic multi-product selection and pricing under preference feedback with censorship (including hidden censorship feedback)\\u2014a scenario that closely aligns with real-world applications.\\n\\n\\nBy using the term \\\"novel framework,\\\" we aimed to convey the structured model we developed to systematically capture these intricacies, including buyer censorship and dynamic learning of valuations and preferences. \\n\\nWe will adjust the terminology to better reflect this in the revised manuscript.\\n\\n\\n$\\\\bullet$ **I know it is difficult to find and prove a regret lower bound in such a complicated problem that involves both price setting and product selection, but a complete paper should at least have a discussion about the regret lower bound. Perhaps it is to refer to the magnitude of the upper and lower bounds of other similar problems, or perhaps to propose a conjecture of a tight regret lower bound, so that readers can have a clearer understanding of the difficulty of this problem and the contribution of the authors.**\\n\\n**Response:** Thank you for this valuable suggestion. We agree that a discussion of regret lower bounds would offer further insight into the complexity of our problem, which involves both price setting and product selection. \\n\\nWe note that previous UCB algorithms for the MNL bandit (without pricing aspect) achieve a regret bound of $d\\\\sqrt{T}$. \\nHowever, our problem setting extends the MNL bandits to a censored version of MNL integrated with pricing, which introduces additional complexity due to the activation function and hidden censorship feedback. \\nDespite this increased challenge, our approach achieves a regret bound of $d^{3/2}\\\\sqrt{T}$. While we conjecture that the regret lower bound for our problem likely lies between $d\\\\sqrt{T}$ and $d^{3/2}\\\\sqrt{T}$ inclusive, formally establishing this remains an open question.\\n\\nIn our revision, we will include this discussion. We believe this addition will provide readers with a clearer understanding of the difficulty of our problem and the significance of our contributions in achieving this upper bound.\\n\\n\\n$\\\\bullet$ **No experiment on any real-world dataset.**\\n\\n**Response:** Conducting experiments in bandit settings using offline datasets is inherently challenging due to the nature of partial feedback in online learning. Bandit algorithms rely on feedback that is contingent upon the actions they take, whereas offline datasets typically lack counterfactual feedback\\u2014i.e., the outcomes of actions not taken during data collection. This fundamental limitation makes it difficult to directly evaluate bandit algorithms on fixed real-world datasets without significant adjustments.\\n\\nIn most cases, offline datasets must be transformed into semi-synthetic datasets, where missing counterfactual feedback is either imputed or simulated based on assumptions. This transformation effectively reduces real-world data to synthetic, potentially limiting its practical interpretability.\\n\\nFor these reasons, we adopted the approach commonly used in the bandit literature, focusing on theoretical results validated with synthetic datasets. This methodology allows for controlled experimentation and ensures that the theoretical properties of the algorithm are demonstrated under well-defined conditions. However, if the reviewer requests, we are open to performing additional experiments using a semi-synthetic approach with a real-world dataset.\"}", "{\"summary\": \"The paper considers both multi-product selection and pricing under censorship. The authors use a new way to find sublinear regret that uses LCB to price items and UCB/TS to select assortment. They achieve optimal regret bounds with respect to $T$ and use some simulations to verify though lacking comparable benchmarks.\", \"soundness\": \"2\", \"presentation\": \"3\", \"contribution\": \"3\", \"strengths\": \"The way of applying LCB to pricing (actually exploration) is inspiring. The extension from MNL to C-MNL is practical in the real world. The usage of TS is quite innovative.\", \"weaknesses\": \"1. My main concern is the statement that $1/\\\\kappa=O(K^2)$. Is it true? If $|S|=K$, since exp>0, we know that $P(i_0)\\\\le1/K$. In the meantime, choosing $i$ with the minimum exp term, it seems that $P(i)\\\\le 1/K$ as well. Therefore, $1/\\\\kappa\\\\gtrsim \\\\Omega(K^2)$. Please let me know if I missed something. Otherwise, the results will become much weaker.\\n\\n2. Since different items have different contexts, it's more reasonable if the buyer can buy more than one item at the same time. It'll be an interesting extension to consider this scenario.\\n\\n3. I'm wondering if it's possible to get the logarithmic problem-dependent regret as literature in both dynamic pricing and MAB. Maybe you can do some experiments on this. For example, use regression to find the actual order of $T$ (regress log(Regret) on log(T)).\", \"questions\": \"For the TS, you use the maximum of m samples. Then, with high probability, $x^T\\\\tilde\\\\theta^{(m)}$ is larger than the mean. It's somewhat another kind of UCB rather than a \\\"true\\\" TS. Do you have any other intuition or motivation to use TS? Can it reduce computational complexity compared with UCB as it still contains a hard-to-compute argmax?\", \"flag_for_ethics_review\": \"['No ethics review needed.']\", \"rating\": \"6\", \"confidence\": \"3\", \"code_of_conduct\": \"Yes\"}", "{\"comment\": \"$\\\\bullet$ **Additionally, I would appreciate a more detailed explanation of why the latent price sensitivity parameter $\\\\alpha_{i,t}$ is essential to the model. It would be helpful to have some real-world examples that illustrate the importance of including $\\\\alpha_{i,t}$. Moreover, I find it counterintuitive that $\\\\alpha_{i,t}$ appears in the exponent of the MNL choice function $\\\\exp(v_{i,t}-\\\\alpha_{i,t}p_{i,t})$, yet it does not appear in the indicator $1(p_{i,t}\\\\le v_{i,t})$. Intuitively, it might make more sense if the indicator were formulated as $1(\\\\alpha_{i,t}p_{i,t}\\\\le v_{i,t})$, as this would more consistently capture the influence of $\\\\alpha_{i,t}$ on the decision threshold.**\\n\\n**Response:** Thank you for this thoughtful question. To clarify, we restate our C-MNL model as follows:\\n\\n$$\\n\\\\mathbb{P}\\\\_{t}(i | S_t, p_t) := \\\\frac{\\\\exp(v\\\\_{i,t} - \\\\alpha\\\\_{i,t} p\\\\_{i,t}) \\\\cdot 1(p\\\\_{i,t} \\\\le v\\\\_{i,t})}{1 + \\\\sum\\\\_{j \\\\in S\\\\_t} \\\\exp(v\\\\_{j,t} - \\\\alpha\\\\_{j,t} p\\\\_{j,t}) \\\\cdot 1(p\\\\_{j,t} \\\\le v\\\\_{j,t})}.\\n$$\\n\\nIn our model, the latent price sensitivity parameter $\\\\alpha_{i,t}(\\\\ge 0)$ is essential because it reflects how sensitive a buyer\\u2019s preference is to changes in price. When prices increase, $\\\\alpha_{i,t}$ plays a role in reducing the perceived utility (preference value) of a product, following the expression $v_{i,t} - \\\\alpha_{i,t} p_{i,t}$. This construction allows us to model refined buyer behavior, as buyers might respond differently to the same price changes depending on the products, which is important for real-world applications such as e-commerce. In online retail, different types of products elicit different levels of price sensitivity. For instance, a luxury item such as a high-end smartphone might have a low $\\\\alpha_{i,t}$, indicating that buyers with a high preference are less deterred by price increases. In contrast, a basic household item like a coffee maker might have a higher $\\\\alpha_{i,t}$, meaning buyers are more sensitive to price changes, and an increase could substantially reduce the likelihood of purchase. This price sensitivity parameter helps capture such differences in behavior across product categories.\\n\\n\\nThe indicator function $1(p_{i,t} \\\\le v_{i,t})$ is included to reflect the threshold of consideration: if the product\\u2019s price $p_{i,t}$ exceeds the buyer\\u2019s valuation $v_{i,t}$, they are unlikely to even consider it. The term $\\\\alpha_{i,t}$ is not included in this threshold because $\\\\alpha_{i,t}$ represents sensitivity in *preference utility* rather than the buyer\\u2019s absolute willingness to consider a product at a certain price. Including $\\\\alpha_{i,t}$ in the exponent captures how sensitive buyers are in their *degree of preference* for the product when it is within a feasible price range, while the threshold $1(p_{i,t} \\\\le v_{i,t})$ simply determines if the product is even a consideration. We believe this formulation better aligns with the intuitive buyer behavior, where the decision threshold is based on valuation and price, and the final preference is modulated by price sensitivity.\\n\\n\\nWe hope this clarifies the role of $\\\\alpha_{i,t}$, and we appreciate the chance to provide additional context. We will add these explanations and examples to the final version to aid reader understanding.\"}", "{\"comment\": \"$\\\\bullet$ **Section 6: Including examples of real-world applications would enhance the discussion on potential extensions.**\\n\\n\\n **Response:** Thank you for this suggestion. As noted on Lines 35\\u201336, our model, which involves recommending multiple items at set prices from which the buyer selects one based on preference, has broad applicability across several real-world domains.\\n\\n(E-commerce) In online retail, platforms commonly present multiple products within a category, often with dynamic pricing that adjusts based on demand patterns, seasonal trends, and buyer behavior. Our model can be extended to improve recommendation and pricing algorithms by dynamically adjusting both assortment and pricing, learning buyer preferences through purchase data.\\n\\n(Hotel Reservations) Online travel agencies and hotel booking platforms typically display a selection of rooms, varying in price and amenities, to meet diverse customer preferences. In this context, our approach could help platforms determine optimal room assortments and price points to maximize revenue by dynamically adjusting for customer preferences over time.\\n\\n(Air Travel) Aggregator platforms for air travel present travelers with a range of flight options varying in price, departure times, airlines, and seating classes. Using our framework, the platforms could optimize the assortment of flights displayed to each user by dynamically adjusting which flights and price points are shown based on observed user preferences. By learning from purchase behavior, the platforms could prioritize flights likely to match user needs while adjusting prices strategically to maximize platform revenue.\\n\\nWe will incorporate this broader discussion into the final version.\"}", "{\"summary\": \"The authors study the dynamic multi-product selection problem. They introduce a new censored multinomial logit (C-MNL) choice model, capturing buyer behavior by filtering products based on price thresholds. They propose two algorithms that leverage a Lower Confidence Bound (LCB) pricing strategy, combined with either an Upper Confidence Bound (UCB) or Thompson Sampling (TS) approach for selecting product assortments. Both algorithms achieve provable regret upper bounds, and their performance is further validated through simulations.\", \"soundness\": \"3\", \"presentation\": \"3\", \"contribution\": \"2\", \"strengths\": \"1) The censored multinomial logit (C-MNL) model is a novel approach that effectively captures buyer behavior by incorporating a price threshold for product selection, reflecting realistic purchasing patterns.\\n2) The authors introduce an innovative Lower Confidence Bound (LCB)-based valuation strategy for pricing, which can be flexibly integrated with various product selection methods to support this new model.\\n3) The authors provide comprehensive theoretical analyses, deriving regret upper bounds for both proposed algorithms. Moreover, these algorithms are computationally more efficient than previous methods\", \"weaknesses\": \"1) The algorithms involve several input parameters, such as $\\\\lambda$, $\\\\eta$, and $C$. However, the paper lacks guidance on how to select appropriate values for these parameters and does not discuss how they impact the regret bounds.\\n2) There is no lower bound analysis on the dependency on $d$, making it uncertain whether the proposed algorithms are optimal.\\n3) In the TS-based algorithm, the prior distribution and prior knowledge used (e.g., Gaussian distributions) are not clearly discussed, leaving the assumptions about the prior unclear.\\n4) The experimental setup is relatively limited, with tests conducted only for $K=4$, $d=2$, and approximately 20 arms (products), which does not reflect the scale and complexity of practical applications.\", \"questions\": \"1) Line 174: \\\"Then we define an oracle policy.\\\" Could you clarify if approximate regret is considered in cases where the oracle is based on an approximation algorithm?\\n2) Line 347: \\\"Additionally, our regret bound does not contain $1/ \\\\kappa$ in the leading term\\\". Could you provide some intuition or high-level explanation as to why the term $1/ \\\\kappa$ is absent in the leading term of our regret bound? This could help readers better understand the underlying reasons for this distinction.\\n3) It could be interesting to explore whether the LCB-based valuation strategy for pricing can be effectively integrated with product selection methods other than UCB and TS.\\n4) Section 6: Including examples of real-world applications would enhance the discussion on potential extensions.\", \"flag_for_ethics_review\": \"['No ethics review needed.']\", \"rating\": \"6\", \"confidence\": \"3\", \"code_of_conduct\": \"Yes\"}", "{\"comment\": \"$\\\\bullet$ **This paper proposes two product selection strategies, which makes the theoretical results of this paper look more fruitful. Give the regret upper bound of the TS strategy is worse than that of the UCB strategy, is there any more benefit to studying this strategy besides being able to announce that \\\"it is the first work to apply Thompson Sampling\\\"? For example, is the TS strategy more convenient in code implementation? Or is there an advantage in computational complexity? ...**\\n\\n\\n**Response:**\\nWe thank the reviewer for their comment and would like to clarify the motivation for including the Thompson Sampling (TS) algorithm in our work. While TS exhibits slightly weaker theoretical regret bounds compared to the UCB-based approach (with an additional $\\\\sqrt{d}$ term, which is consistent with the existing results in other TS algorithms (e.g., Oh \\\\& Iyengar, 2019; Agrawal \\\\& Goyal, 2013; Abeille \\\\& Lazaric, 2017)), our experimental results demonstrate that TS performs comparably to UCB and sometimes even outperforms UCB when the number of products is sufficiently large (shown in Figure 2 of the revised paper). \\n\\n\\nMoreover, it offers computational advantages in assortment selection, especially in high-dimensional settings. Specifically, the computational complexity of the TS-based valuation index for each product, \\n$\\\\tilde{v}\\\\_{i,t} = \\\\arg\\\\max\\\\_{m \\\\in [M]} x\\\\_{i,t}^\\\\top \\\\tilde{\\\\theta}\\\\_{v,t}^{(m)}$,\\nscales as $O(Md) = \\\\tilde{O}(d)$, where $M = O(\\\\log N)$. In contrast, the complexity of the UCB-based valuation index,\\n$\\\\overline{v}\\\\_{i,t} = x_{i,t}^\\\\top \\\\widehat{\\\\theta}\\\\_{v,t} + \\\\beta_\\\\tau ||x\\\\_{i,t}||\\\\_{H\\\\_{v,t}^{-1}}$,\\nscales as $O(d^2)$. This difference makes TS computationally more efficient for calculating an index for valuation for assortment selection, particularly when the dimension is large. This computational advantage also applies to calculating utility indices. \\n\\n\\nBoth UCB and TS are widely recognized as foundational approaches in bandit literature due to their theoretical and empirical efficiency. UCB represents a deterministic approach, while TS leverages randomized exploration. In our novel problem setting, we have adapted both frameworks to incorporate an integrated pricing strategy and provided rigorous regret analyses for each. Analyzing the regret of TS, in particular, is more challenging than UCB because it requires accounting for estimation errors in the sampled values and establishing optimism properties under the algorithm\\u2019s inherent randomness. For these reasons, achieving the regret bound for TS in this context, even after UCB, is widely considered an established contribution in bandit literature (Agrawal \\\\& Goyal, 2013; Abeille \\\\& Lazaric, 2017).\\nThis contribution is particularly significant in our problem setting because extending the analysis from UCB to TS is far less straightforward in our framework. The additional complexities introduced by the integration of pricing strategies and the randomness of TS make this a non-trivial extension, further highlighting the value of our contribution.\\n\\nFurthermore, as noted in Lines 467\\u2013475, this work is the first to apply TS to dynamic pricing under the MNL model, achieving a regret bound without $\\\\kappa$ dependency in the main term and introducing computationally efficient online updates for the estimator. This contribution represents a meaningful step forward for the community, as TS-based algorithms have not been explored in this context before.\\n\\n\\nFor these reasons, we assert that TS is an important contribution to this work. We will include a discussion of these points in the final version of the paper to clarify the motivation and significance of including TS.\"}", "{\"title\": \"Paper Decision\", \"decision\": \"Accept (Poster)\"}", "{\"comment\": \"$\\\\bullet$ **For the TS, you use the maximum of m samples. Then, with high probability, $x^\\\\top\\\\tilde{\\\\theta}^{(m)}$\\n is larger than the mean. It's somewhat another kind of UCB rather than a \\\"true\\\" TS. Do you have any other intuition or motivation to use TS? Can it reduce computational complexity compared with UCB as it still contains a hard-to-compute argmax?**\\n\\n**Response:** The need for multiple $M$ samples in our Thompson Sampling (TS) approach arises from the requirement to select multiple products for the assortment at each time step. Note that the algorithm is still randomized and selects an assortment based on randomly sampled parameters. While the multiple samples are used to make this set of items a little more optimistic than single sample approach, yet they are far from UCB (that is, an assortment of these items does not form a high-probability optimism as done in UCB) Our TS is still a randomized algorithm, even can be pessimistic at times based on random samples. In contrast, UCB is a deterministic approach where upper confidence bound controls the tradeoff. Thus, there exists the fundamental difference between our TS and UCB algorithms. The nature of our TS algorithm aligns with the linear TS (Abeille \\\\& Lazaric, 2017), and prior work on TS for MNL (Oh \\\\& Iyengar, 2019) similarly uses multiple samples as we do.\\n\\n\\n\\nWe also highlight that our experimental results demonstrate that TS performs comparably to UCB and sometimes even outperforms UCB when the number of products is sufficiently large (shown in Figure 2 of the revised paper). \\n\\nMoreover, TS offers computational advantages in assortment selection, especially in high-dimensional settings. Specifically, the computational complexity of the TS-based valuation index for each product, \\n$\\\\tilde{v}\\\\_{i,t} = \\\\arg\\\\max\\\\_{m \\\\in [M]} x\\\\_{i,t}^\\\\top \\\\tilde{\\\\theta}\\\\_{v,t}^{(m)}$,\\nscales as $O(Md) = \\\\tilde{O}(d)$, where $M = O(\\\\log N)$. In contrast, the complexity of the UCB-based valuation index,\\n$\\\\overline{v}\\\\_{i,t} = x_{i,t}^\\\\top \\\\widehat{\\\\theta}\\\\_{v,t} + \\\\beta_\\\\tau ||x\\\\_{i,t}||\\\\_{H\\\\_{v,t}^{-1}}$,\\nscales as $O(d^2)$. This difference makes TS computationally more efficient for calculating an index for valuation (and utility) for assortment selection, particularly when the dimension is large. \\n\\n\\n\\nWe will include this discussion in the final version of the paper.\"}", "{\"comment\": \"We sincerely thank you for taking the time to review our paper and for providing thoughtful and valuable feedback. We greatly appreciate your recognition of our work and your constructive comments. Below, we address each of your comments and questions in detail:\\n\\n$\\\\bullet$ **Including the Thompson Sampling (TS) section should be more thoroughly motivated, especially since the algorithm\\u2019s regret is weaker than that of the LCB/UCB approach. From the paper, it\\u2019s unclear what advantages TS offers over the LCB/UCB algorithm. If none, this section might not be necessary and could be removed to streamline the paper.**\\n\\n**Response:** We thank the reviewer for their comment and would like to clarify the motivation for including the Thompson Sampling (TS) algorithm in our work. While TS exhibits slightly weaker theoretical regret bounds compared to the UCB-based approach (with an additional $\\\\sqrt{d}$ term, which is consistent with the existing results in other TS algorithms (e.g., Oh \\\\& Iyengar, 2019; Agrawal \\\\& Goyal, 2013; Abeille \\\\& Lazaric, 2017)), our experimental results demonstrate that TS performs comparably to UCB and sometimes even outperforms UCB when the number of products is sufficiently large (shown in Figure 2 of the revised paper). \\n\\nMoreover, TS offers computational advantages in assortment selection, especially in high-dimensional settings. Specifically, the computational complexity of the TS-based valuation index for each product, \\n$\\\\tilde{v}\\\\_{i,t} = \\\\arg\\\\max\\\\_{m \\\\in [M]} x\\\\_{i,t}^\\\\top \\\\tilde{\\\\theta}\\\\_{v,t}^{(m)}$,\\nscales as $O(Md) = \\\\tilde{O}(d)$, where $M = O(\\\\log N)$. In contrast, the complexity of the UCB-based valuation index,\\n$\\\\overline{v}\\\\_{i,t} = x_{i,t}^\\\\top \\\\widehat{\\\\theta}\\\\_{v,t} + \\\\beta_\\\\tau ||x\\\\_{i,t}||\\\\_{H\\\\_{v,t}^{-1}}$,\\nscales as $O(d^2)$. This difference makes TS computationally more efficient for calculating an index for valuation for assortment selection, particularly when the dimension is large. This computational advantage also applies to calculating utility indices. \\n\\n\\n\\n\\nBoth UCB and TS are widely recognized as foundational approaches in bandit literature due to their theoretical and empirical efficiency. UCB represents a deterministic approach, while TS leverages randomized exploration. In our novel problem setting, we have adapted both frameworks to incorporate an integrated pricing strategy and provided rigorous regret analyses for each. Analyzing the regret of TS, in particular, is more challenging than UCB because it requires accounting for estimation errors in the sampled values and establishing optimism properties under the algorithm\\u2019s inherent randomness. For these reasons, achieving the regret bound for TS in this context, even after UCB, is widely considered an established contribution in bandit literature (Agrawal \\\\& Goyal, 2013; Abeille \\\\& Lazaric, 2017).\\nThis contribution is particularly significant in our problem setting because extending the analysis from UCB to TS is far less straightforward in our framework. The additional complexities introduced by the integration of pricing strategies and the randomness of TS make this a non-trivial extension, further highlighting the value of our contribution.\\n\\nFurthermore, as noted in Lines 467\\u2013475, this work is the first to apply TS to dynamic pricing under the MNL model, achieving a regret bound without $\\\\kappa$ dependency in the main term and introducing computationally efficient online updates for the estimator. This contribution represents a meaningful step forward for the community, as TS-based algorithms have not been explored in this context before.\\n\\nFor these reasons, we assert that TS is an important contribution to this work. We will include a discussion of these points in the final version of the paper to clarify the motivation and significance of including TS.\"}", "{\"comment\": \"We sincerely thank you for taking the time to review our paper and for providing thoughtful and valuable feedback. We greatly appreciate your recognition of our work and your constructive comments. Below, we address each of your comments and questions in detail:\\n\\n\\n$\\\\bullet$ **My main concern is the statement that $1/\\\\kappa =O(K^2)$. Is it true?** \\n\\n**Response:** Thank you for your question. We confirm that it is indeed correct that $1/\\\\kappa = O(K^2)$ in the worst case. \\nAccording to our definition in Line 258, $\\\\kappa=\\\\inf\\\\_{t,i,S,p,\\\\theta\\\\in \\\\Theta}P\\\\_{t,\\\\theta}(i|S,p)P\\\\_{t,\\\\theta}(i\\\\_0,S,p)$ where $\\\\Theta=\\\\\\\\{\\\\theta\\\\in \\\\mathbb{R}^{2d}:||\\\\theta^{1:d}||\\\\_2\\\\le 1, ||\\\\theta^{d+1:2d}||\\\\_2\\\\le 1\\\\\\\\}$ and $P\\\\_{t,\\\\theta}(i|S,p)=\\\\frac{\\\\exp(z\\\\_{i,t}(p\\\\_{i})^\\\\top \\\\theta))}{1+\\\\sum\\\\_{j\\\\in S}\\\\exp(z\\\\_{j,i}(p\\\\_j)^\\\\top \\\\theta)}$ (Line 191). Under Assumption 1, we observe that $|z\\\\_{i,t}(p\\\\_i)^\\\\top \\\\theta|\\\\le C$ for constant $C>0$. This implies that, under the constraint $|S|\\\\le K$, $P_{t,\\\\theta}(i|S,p)\\\\ge \\\\exp(-C)/(1+K\\\\exp(C))=\\\\Omega(1/K)$, resulting in $\\\\kappa = \\\\Omega(1/K^2)$ from the definition, which in turn implies $1/\\\\kappa = O(K^2)$. We will add this discussion in our final.\\n\\n$\\\\bullet$ **Since different items have different contexts, it's more reasonable if the buyer can buy more than one item at the same time. It'll be an interesting extension to consider this scenario.**\\n\\n**Response:** Thank you for this suggestion. In our current work, we use the multinomial logit (MNL) model for user choice, where the buyer purchases at most one item at each time step. This single-purchase constraint aligns with many real-world applications where buyers make selective decisions among a set of products presented at once, such as choosing one flight or booking one hotel room.\\n\\nA multiple-purchase extension could be approached by adapting the choice model to account for the cumulative utility of a subset of items rather than individual item utility alone. Additionally, this scenario could involve modifying the algorithms and regret analysis to reflect multiple decision points per time step. Extending the model to allow multiple purchases per time step would be an interesting direction for future research.\\n\\n\\n$\\\\bullet$ **I'm wondering if it's possible to get the logarithmic problem-dependent regret as literature in both dynamic pricing and MAB. Maybe you can do some experiments on this. For example, use regression to find the actual order of $T$ (regress log(Regret) on log(T)).**\\n\\n**Response:** To the best of our knowledge, for contextual bandit problems where the mean reward varies due to dynamic feature information, most existing work emphasizes problem-independent regret, as we do in this paper. This approach is widely used because the changing context leads to arbitrarily varying reward distributions over time, making it challenging to define a stable, problem-dependent regret bound. Given this variability, a worst-case regret bound is a reasonable and robust measure, providing guarantees across diverse and potentially unpredictable scenarios.\"}", "{\"comment\": \"Thank you for your answer. I don't have more questions.\"}", "{\"comment\": \"$\\\\bullet$\\n**Line 174: \\\"Then we define an oracle policy.\\\" Could you clarify if approximate regret is considered in cases where the oracle is based on an approximation algorithm?**\\n\\n**Response:** We confirm that our framework considers *exact regret* without use of approximation, as the oracle is defined to maximize the true revenue $R_t(S, p)$ under the assumption of prior knowledge of $\\\\theta^*$. This definition ensures that the regret directly measures the performance gap between our proposed algorithms and the optimal policy.\\n\\nFurthermore, as mentioned in Line 370, the assortment optimization step can be solved by formulating it as a linear program (LP), as outlined in Davis et al. (2013). The LP formulation enables us to compute the exact optimal assortment. Consequently, there is no reliance on approximation algorithms.\\n\\n\\n$\\\\bullet$ **Line 347: \\\"Additionally, our regret bound does not contain $1/\\\\kappa$ in the leading term\\\". Could you provide some intuition or high-level explanation as to why the term $1/\\\\kappa$ is absent in the leading term of our regret bound? This could help readers better understand the underlying reasons for this distinction.**\\n\\n**Response:**\\nThe absence of the $1/\\\\kappa$ term in the leading regret bound arises from our use of an adaptive Gram matrix (Eq. (3)) that incorporates the dynamic probability $ P_{t,\\\\theta}(i | S_t, p_t) $ at each time step $ t $, rather than conservatively relying on the worst-case scenario of $ 1/\\\\kappa $. This approach allows us to construct a tighter confidence bound, specifically $ ||\\\\widehat{\\\\theta}\\\\_t - \\\\theta^*||\\\\_{H_t} \\\\le \\\\beta\\\\_{\\\\tau\\\\_t} $, which effectively excludes the dependence on $ \\\\kappa $ in $ \\\\beta\\\\_{\\\\tau\\\\_t} $.\\n\\nThe intuition here is that by adapting the Gram matrix based on observed data and probabilities, we avoid the need to account for the worst-case $ 1/\\\\kappa $ factor, which represents a highly conservative assumption that is not reflective of typical cases encountered in practice. Instead, our adaptive approach dynamically adjusts to the actual observed probabilities, allowing us to achieve a regret bound that scales more favorably without introducing unnecessary dependence on $ \\\\kappa $. Additionally, our use of the online mirror descent method in updating $ \\\\widehat{\\\\theta}_t $ contributes to the computational efficiency of the algorithm. We will include the explanation in the final version.\\n\\n\\n\\n $\\\\bullet$ **It could be interesting to explore whether the LCB-based valuation strategy for pricing can be effectively integrated with product selection methods other than UCB and TS.**\\n \\n **Response:** Thank you for your suggestion. Our LCB pricing strategy serves to encourage exploration by setting lower prices, which helps mitigate buyer censorship, allowing us to gather valuable information about buyer preferences and product valuations. This pricing approach effectively complements the UCB and TS methods for product selection by creating a synergy with exploration in product selection.\\n\\nIn this work, we utilize UCB and TS-based approaches for product selection, achieving tight regret bounds. These methods are particularly suitable for our framework, as they strike a balance between exploration and exploitation, especially in scenarios where product selection is intertwined with dynamic pricing. However, exploring the integration of LCB-based pricing with alternative product selection strategies is an intriguing direction for future research.\"}" ] }

[ "Hyowon Wi", "Noseong Park" ]

[ "Large Language Models", "LoRA", "Frequency", "Catastrophic Forgetting" ]

{ "note_id": [ "y860sQgmz2", "t9pSIt3NZB", "qC4DmQT1X8", "pYYhMOw5tk", "pKC2cxIffx", "oVoC6xWpaM", "o8u7h2EBLn", "lEFCxyRPEU", "l6BLaq4BVE", "kJqWLQd3yN", "kDj0KWjmbp", "hevqaIYT45", "cS6Z08dZk8", "bAn8uJEEG1", "XfFfcgUS1B", "Uk6kxNYhTQ", "SsbWnZG0Tl", "NjsI4OAkUd", "LhBEO0dnoe", "L2wpnzqyAD", "EPCEphGlKZ", "DppeQS6Ote", "CHXweb8yxo", "9R54TfgRAl", "8fkBg1XLOy", "88EEoGVAXt" ], "note_type": [ "official_comment", "official_comment", "official_comment", "official_comment", "official_comment", "decision", "meta_review", "official_review", "official_comment", "official_comment", "official_comment", "official_comment", "official_comment", "official_comment", "official_comment", "official_comment", "official_comment", "official_review", "official_review", "official_comment", "official_comment", "official_comment", "official_review", "official_comment", "official_comment", "official_comment" ], "note_created": [ 1732190496889, 1733046488815, 1732105822584, 1732512515758, 1732370302359, 1737523587296, 1734625043041, 1729367205059, 1732738503064, 1732351270002, 1733227126533, 1732106677396, 1732716455632, 1732105417031, 1732209361027, 1732714230029, 1732106384858, 1730639456750, 1730705716165, 1732106416106, 1733046572731, 1732106106974, 1730175577743, 1732106157028, 1732105586026, 1732294143435 ], "note_signatures": [ [ "ICLR.cc/2025/Conference/Submission3646/Reviewer_k5bg" ], [ "ICLR.cc/2025/Conference/Submission3646/Authors" ], [ "ICLR.cc/2025/Conference/Submission3646/Authors" ], [ "ICLR.cc/2025/Conference/Submission3646/Authors" ], [ "ICLR.cc/2025/Conference/Submission3646/Reviewer_vQ3k" ], [ "ICLR.cc/2025/Conference/Program_Chairs" ], [ "ICLR.cc/2025/Conference/Submission3646/Area_Chair_UfhB" ], [ "ICLR.cc/2025/Conference/Submission3646/Reviewer_k5bg" ], [ "ICLR.cc/2025/Conference/Submission3646/Reviewer_k5bg" ], [ "ICLR.cc/2025/Conference/Submission3646/Authors" ], [ "ICLR.cc/2025/Conference/Submission3646/Reviewer_vQ3k" ], [ "ICLR.cc/2025/Conference/Submission3646/Authors" ], [ "ICLR.cc/2025/Conference/Submission3646/Authors" ], [ "ICLR.cc/2025/Conference/Submission3646/Authors" ], [ "ICLR.cc/2025/Conference/Submission3646/Reviewer_36is" ], [ "ICLR.cc/2025/Conference/Submission3646/Authors" ], [ "ICLR.cc/2025/Conference/Submission3646/Authors" ], [ "ICLR.cc/2025/Conference/Submission3646/Reviewer_vQ3k" ], [ "ICLR.cc/2025/Conference/Submission3646/Reviewer_36is" ], [ "ICLR.cc/2025/Conference/Submission3646/Authors" ], [ "ICLR.cc/2025/Conference/Submission3646/Authors" ], [ "ICLR.cc/2025/Conference/Submission3646/Authors" ], [ "ICLR.cc/2025/Conference/Submission3646/Reviewer_mcnZ" ], [ "ICLR.cc/2025/Conference/Submission3646/Authors" ], [ "ICLR.cc/2025/Conference/Submission3646/Authors" ], [ "ICLR.cc/2025/Conference/Submission3646/Area_Chair_UfhB" ] ], "structured_content_str": [ "{\"title\": \"Table 1 with DeBERTaV3-base\", \"comment\": \"Thank you for the corrections.\\n\\nMany papers, like PRILoRA, ADALoRA and others, do the 'Table 1' comparison on DeBERTaV3-base. You did it on RoBERTabase.\\nCan you run HiLoRA for GLUE (8 tasks) on DeBERTaV3-base, and copy the results from the corresponding papers of ADALoRA, PRILoRA, LoRA? This would help the readers compare it with other papers. Running it should be simple, as you only need to change the backbone model.\"}", "{\"title\": \"Gentle Reminder\", \"comment\": \"Dear Reviewer vQ3k,\\n\\nWe hope that our response has addressed your concerns adequately. If there are any unresolved issues or additional questions, please feel free to let us know. We would be happy to engage in discussion and address them. Thank you once again for your efforts.\\n\\nBest,\\n\\nAuthors\"}", "{\"comment\": \"We sincerely thank Reviewer vQ3k for the review and feedback. Below, we would like to address each of your questions and concerns:\\n\\n**W1. The connection between frequency, largest singular value, and catastrophic forgetting.**\\n\\nWe apologize for the confusion in our explanation regarding the relationship among the frequency, singular value, and catastrophic forgetting.\\n\\nIn the field of signal processing, \\\"frequency\\\" is closely related to the information contained in a weight $W$. Typically, the low-frequency components of $W$ i) correspond to large singular values of $W$ [1, 2] and ii) are used to capture the global information (or decide the global pattern of $W$). Conversely, high-frequency components are i) associated with small singular values and ii) used to capture remaining fine-grained details [3,4,5]. When the adapter learns mainly for low-frequency components, the model tends to include a significant amount of the global information from the fine-tuning dataset/task. However, if the global information from the fine-tuning dataset/task becomes overly dominant, the information learned during pre-training will be overwhelmed, leading to a degradation in the performance of the pre-training task. \\n\\nWe regard the information from the fine-tuning task is rather fine-grained details in comparison with the pre-trained knowledge, considering their dataset size difference. Therefore, we naturally let our proposed method focus on learning the new task by using only the high-frequency components. As described in Section 5 (Analyses on HiLoRA), our model demonstrates the ability to maintain the pre-training task performance by learning the adapters only in the high-frequency domain, i.e., the small singular value range.\\n\\nIn addition, in the transfer learning where\\u00a0preventing catastrophic forgetting\\u00a0is crucial, a common regularization technique is\\u00a0Elastic Weight Consolidation (EWC) [6,7]. EWC introduces an additional\\u00a0regularization term\\u00a0to the loss function to penalize deviations from the pre-trained weight. In other words, EWC only perfers adjusting high-frequency components since adjusting low-frequency components changes the global pattern of the pre-trained weight, i.e., a large deviation. Our method directly adapts in the singular value domain, i.e, in the frequency domain, which is more effective in achieving the goal.\"}", "{\"comment\": \"| | AdaLoRA | HiLoRA |\\n| -------- | -------- | -------- |\\n| Motivation | Improve parameter efficiency| Mitigate catastrophic forgetting \\\\& Improve parameter efficiency |\\n| Rank of adapter $r$ | Dynamically adjusted with the importance score based on the magnitude of singular values or the sensitivity of the loss w.r.t. the parameter | Fixed as a small pre-defined value | \\n| How to regularize frequencies | None | Restrict the frequencies of the newly added components to a certain threshold |\\n\\nIn recent years, many LoRA-based studies have proposed various distinctions based on the parameterized SVD. **Figure 7 and Equation (8) represent the common framework of all the parameterized SVD-based LoRA.**\\n\\nFor instance, LoRA$^2$ [1] uses the twice-nested parameterized SVD to iteratively project the token representations onto mutually orthogonal planes. SORSA [2], similar to PiSSA, achieves better convergence by initializing the adapter with $r$ principal components from the pre-trained weight and fine-tuning it with orthogonal regularization on the singular vectors. Mo-SARA [3] initializes the singular vectors with those of $r$ principal components, freezes the singular vectors, and fine-tunes the randomly initialized multiple singular values. These singular values are then gated through a learnable vector. Therefore, many studies, which were designed based on the parameterized SVD, i.e., Equation (8), differ in their specific design strategies.\\n\\nIn this context, both AdaLoRA and HiLoRA use the parameterized SVD, but they differ in their motivations, design, and implementation details.\\n\\nAdaLoRA focuses on the parameter efficiency, dynamically adjusting the rank of each layer within a constrained parameter budget to learn the optimal rank. Each singular value is assigned an importance score based on the magnitude of singular values or the sensitivity of the loss w.r.t. the parameter, and less important singular values are dynamically pruned to optimize the parameter usage. Consequently, the final rank for each layer may differ, but the lack of consideration for frequency components can still lead to catastrophic forgetting as shown in our **General Response #2**.\\n\\nIn terms of implementation, **AdaLoRA computes an importance score for each singular value, and keeps singular values whose scores exceed a threshold, and sets the others to zero**.\\n\\nOn the other hand, HiLoRA emphasizes enhancing expressiveness and mitigating catastrophic forgetting at the same time. HiLoRA restricts the frequency domain of the adapter to high frequency within a fixed rank.\\n\\nIts implementation of clipping ensures that **the singular values are restricted below a predefined upper limit using clipping. It ensures that the singular values are learned in the high-frequency domain. Unlike AdaLoRA, HiLoRA does not calculate importance scores or prune the singular values to zero.** These implementation differences may appear insignificant, but they have a profound impact on preventing the catastrophic forgetting. \\n\\nIn summary, although many methods use the parameterized SVD, their motivations and implementation approaches are fundamentally different. Future research could explore combining both methods to dynamically adjust ranks within high-frequency domains, offering a novel approach to fine-tuning.\\n\\n\\n> [1] Zhang et al., \\\"LoRA $^ 2$: Multi-Scale Low-Rank Approximations for Fine-Tuning Large Language Models.\\\" arXiv preprint, 2024.\\n> \\n> [2] Cao et al., \\\"Sorsa: Singular values and orthonormal regularized singular vectors adaptation of large language models.\\\" arXiv preprint, 2024.\\n> \\n> [3] Gu et al., \\\"Sara: Singular-value based adaptive low-rank adaption.\\\" arXiv preprint, 2024.\"}", "{\"comment\": \"I apologize for omitting the term \\\"AdaLoRA\\\" in W2. Allow me to restate my question for clarity.\\n\\nHiLoRA appears to be very similar to AdaLoRA, particularly in the implementation details presented in Figure 7 and Equation (8). The main difference seems to be that the $\\\\Sigma$ matrix in HiLoRA is learnable and clipped according to Equation (7).\"}", "{\"title\": \"Paper Decision\", \"decision\": \"Reject\"}", "{\"metareview\": \"This submission proposes a simple method to address catastrophic forgetting in LoRA fine-tuning. The method focuses on learning adapters with small eigenvalues, with its performance validated across various downstream tasks.\", \"strengths\": \"Simple method, promising performance.\", \"weaknesses\": \"Limited novelty, over-claimed forgetting mitigation.\\n\\nAfter reviewing all the feedback (2 positive and 2 negative reviews) and the rebuttals, the Area Chair concludes that the submission does not meet the ICLR standard (borderline on the reject side) mainly due to its lack of novelty compared to existing LoRA fine-tuning methods.\", \"additional_comments_on_reviewer_discussion\": \"While many concerns were addressed in the rebuttal, one important issue\\u2014the novelty of the proposed method compared to existing LoRA fine-tuning methods\\u2014remains unresolved.\"}", "{\"summary\": \"The paper presents a method to mitigate the catastrophic forgetting of LoRA, by restricting the adaptation matrix to have singular values clamped to an upper bound.\", \"soundness\": \"3\", \"presentation\": \"3\", \"contribution\": \"3\", \"strengths\": [\"The authors tackle an important and meaningful topic that would be of interest to the community. PEFT is gaining more and more attention as the size of language models continues to grow.\", \"The results demonstrate that HiLoRA forgets less than LoRA, and some of its variants.\"], \"weaknesses\": [\"Line 190, authors should explain more why depth of 2 or greater results in a separation of values.\", \"Equation (6), line 244, I believe the shape of U should be d_1xr, Sigma should be rxr and V should be rxd2, unlike what is written.\", \"Tables 1 and 2 better include the model name in the table description. The two tables use a different model.\", \"Table 1 shows that AdaLoRA has a lower average result than LoRA (On Roberta). However, in the original AdaLoRA paper that compared the two models on Deberta, AdaLora got better results. On other papers that compared the two on Roberta, AdaLora got better results. Are the results taken from other papers or calculated by the authors?\", \"Line 354, word Indicating should be with a small letter.\", \"Figure 4: In tables 1 and 2, authors compared 5 variants, and here only 4. AdaLoRA was omitted. The readers are interested to know the \\u2018forgetting\\u2019 property of AdaLoRA.\"], \"questions\": [\"Equation (4), I can\\u2019t find the definition of i. Maybe it should appear as the index of the singular value on the left side, instead of n.\", \"Figure 4: The title says MRPC, however, in line 464 it says STS-B.\"], \"flag_for_ethics_review\": \"['No ethics review needed.']\", \"rating\": \"6\", \"confidence\": \"4\", \"code_of_conduct\": \"Yes\"}", "{\"comment\": \"Thank you. I believe it provides an interesting addition of information for the readers.\\n\\n\\n\\n\\n\\n\\n.\"}", "{\"title\": \"Gentle Reminder\", \"comment\": \"Dear Reviewer vQ3k,\\n\\nWe have made every effort to address all the questions and comments you provided in the review. If there are any follow-up questions or additional concerns, please do not hesitate to let us know. We would be happy to provide further clarification.\\n\\nThank you for your time and consideration.\"}", "{\"comment\": \"Thank you for your reply and the additional experiments you included. After reviewing the feedback from the other reviewers, I have decided to keep my original rating.\"}", "{\"comment\": \"We sincerely thank Reviewer K5bg for the review and feedback. Below, we would like to address each of your questions and concerns:\\n\\n**W1. Explanation of why a depth of 2 or greater results in a separation of singular values.**\\n\\n\\nProposition 3.1 in our paper cites Theorem 1 from the previous work [1], which states that gradient descent in deep networks implicitly drives the solutions towards low-rank. \\n\\nAs revealed in [1], the pre-conditioning matrix $P$ serves as a preconditioning matrix to accelerate optimization by emphasizing an important directions (specific eigenvectors).\\n\\nFor the dynamic optimizers like Adam, the dynamic preconditioning matrix $P_{W,G}$ is used. The eigenvalue of $P_{W,G}$ is derived as $(1 + \\\\eta^2)^{-1/2}_{n,n'}$ and dynamically adjusted based on the magnitude of the gradient and the weight scale. \\n\\nIn the directions with the large singular values, the gradient magnitude is relatively large, resulting in a smaller $\\\\eta^2$, which enhances the contribution of those directions. Conversely, in the directions of the small singular values, $\\\\eta^2$ becomes larger, suppressing learning towards those directions. As depth increases, the weighted combination of the preconditioning matrices across layers accumulates, further emphasizing the directions of the large singular values and the gap among singular values becomes more distinct.\\n\\nWe have revised the paper with updated explanation. \\n\\n---\\n\\n**W2. Typo.**\\n\\nThanks for pointing that out. We have corrected the typo in the revised paper.\\n\\n---\\n\\n**W3. Include model names in Tables 1 and 2.**\\n\\nThank you for your thoughtful suggestion. While the backbone models used in the experiments are mentioned in the main text, we have also included them in Tables 1 and 2 to enhance clarity and understanding.\\n\\n---\\n\\n**W4. Are the results taken from other papers or calculated by the authors?**\\n\\nFor the GLUE task, we experimented with the baselines using four random seeds, following the recommended search range and including the best hyperparameters suggested in the original papers of each baseline. For the QA tasks, the results of the baselines were taken from AdaLoRA.\\n\\n\\n---\\n\\n**W5. Typo.**\\n\\nThanks for pointing that out. We have corrected the typo in the revised paper.\\n\\n---\\n\\n**W6. Catastrophic forgetting for AdaLoRA [2].**\\n\\nFollowing your kind suggestion, we measured the catastrophic forgetting phenomenon in AdaLoRA using MRPC and STS-B datasets for the GLUE task. Please refer the answer in **General Response 2**.\\n\\n---\\n\\n**Q1 & Q2. Typos.**\\n\\nThank you for bringing them to our attention. We have fixed the typo and incorporated the correction into the revised version of the paper.\\n\\n---\\n \\n> [1] Zhao, Dan. \\\"Combining explicit and implicit regularization for efficient learning in deep networks.\\\"\\u00a0*Advances in Neural Information Processing Systems*\\u00a035 (2022): 3024-3038.\\n> \\n> [2] Zhang, Qingru, et al. \\\"AdaLoRA: Adaptive budget allocation for parameter-efficient fine-tuning.\\\" arXiv preprint arXiv:2303.10512 (2023).\"}", "{\"comment\": \"Dear Reviewer 36is,\\n\\nWe thank the reviewer for recognizing the novelty and contributions of HiLoRA to the community. We are glad that we could address your concerns and appreciate your continued positive rating. However, we believe there may still be additional considerations that could further improve the evaluation. We would be grateful for the opportunity to address these considerations.\"}", "{\"title\": \"General Response to Reviewers\", \"comment\": \"We thank all reviewers for their valuable time and insightful comments. We leave key general remarks here and will respond to each review below.\\n\\n**1. Comparison with other state-of-the-art baselines. (Reviewer 36is, vQ3k)**\\n\\nwe have added state-of-the-art baselines on the GLUE task with 4 random seeds. Due to time constraints, we have included these baselines only for the following six datasets, and we plan to continue updating the tables for other two remaining datasets.\\n\\n| Method | SST2 |CoLA | QNLI | RTE | MRPC | STS-B |\\n| --- | --- | --- | --- | --- | --- | --- |\\n| DoRA [1] | 92.32 |64.29 | 92.90 | 81.68 | 89.52 | 90.95 |\\n| LoRA+ [2] | 93.98 |63.63 | 92.72 | 81.23 | 89.03 | 90.87 |\\n| rsLoRA [3] | 95.04 |64.17 | 92.59 | 79.78 | 89.40 | 90.84 |\\n| HiLoRA | **95.10** | **64.66** | **93.12** | **82.85** | **90.20** | **91.16** |\\n\\n**2. Catastrophic forgetting in AdaLoRA. (Reviewer vQ3k, K5bg)**\\n\\nWe measured the catastrophic forgetting phenomenon in AdaLoRA using the MRPC and STS-B datasets in the GLUE task. Specifically, we measured the largest singular value and Frobenius norm of the difference between the pre-trained model and the fine-tuned model. Also, we evaluated the accuracy and the evaluation loss on the pre-trained task. For each dataset, the metrics were measured every 5 epochs during the fine-tuning of AdaLoRA, and the metrics at the point where AdaLoRA and HiLoRA achieved their best accuracy are also reported, respectively. The results are presented in the table below.\\n\\n- MRPC dataset\\n\\n| Epoch | 5 | 10 | 15 | 20 | 25 | 30 | Best (AdaLoRA) | Best (HiLoRA) |\\n| --- | --- | --- | --- | --- | --- | --- | --- | --- |\\n| Largest singular value | 2.0177 | 2.0069 | 2.0016 | 2.0009 | 2.0004 | 2.0001 | 2.0177 | 0.9358 |\\n| Frobenius norm | 2.0201 | 2.0050 | 2.0014 | 2.0011 | 2.0005 | 2.0001 | 2.0201 | 0.9284 |\\n| Accuray on pre-trained task | 25.578 | 14.879 | 8.962 | 16.794 | 10.591 | 11.343 | 25.58 | 32.00 |\\n| Evaluation loss on pre-trained task | 5.231 | 6.696 | 7.617 | 6.178 | 7.103 | 7.007 | 5.2308 | 4.3496 |\\n\\n- STS-B dataset\\n\\n| Epoch | 5 | 10 | 15 | 20 | 25 | Best (AdaLoRA) | Best (HiLoRA) |\\n| --- | --- | --- | --- | --- | --- | --- | --- |\\n| Largest singular value | 2.0064 | 2.0034 | 2.0056 | 2.0021 | 2.0001 | 2.0001 | 0.9351 |\\n| Frobenius norm | 2.0087 | 2.0030 | 2.0065 | 2.0013 | 2.0001 | 2.0001 | 0.9312 |\\n| Accuray on pre-trained task | 33.526 | 34.118 | 29.61 | 28.19 | 28.485 | 28.49 | 43.72 |\\n| Evaluation loss on pre-trained task | 3.984 | 3.951 | 4.426 | 4.566 | 4.525 | 4.5248 | 3.1785 |\\n\\nAccording to the tables, AdaLoRA also experiences catastrophic forgetting as its fine-tuning progresses. The Frobenius norm increases from 0 to 2 in the early fine-tuning phase, with the performance on the pre-trained task decreases. Even at its peak performance during fine-tuning, the model still exhibits low performance on the pre-trained task.\\n\\nThis can be attributed to the lack of consideration for frequency components of adapters, leading to a tendency for learning the low-frequency components while forgetting the pre-trained information. In contrast, the proposed model regularizes the frequency components in the adapter, injecting the new knowledge into high-frequency components during fine-tuning. As a result, the proposed model retains pre-trained information more effectively.\\n\\n**3. Validation of the scalability of the proposed method through large-scale experiments. (Reviewer vQ3k, K5bg)**\\n\\nWe conduct the experiments for the commonsense reasoning task on LLaMA-7B. Following [4], we amalgamate the training datasets from 8 sub-tasks to create the final training dataset, and conduct evaluations on the individual testing dataset for each task. The results are provided in below table.\\n\\n\\n| LLaMA-7B | BoolQ | PIQA | SIQA | HellaSwag | WinoGrande | ARC-e | ARC-c | QBQA | Avg. |\\n|----------|-------|-------|-------|-----------|------------|-------|-------|-------|-------|\\n| LoRA | 68.9 | 80.7 | 77.4 | 78.1 | 78.8 | 77.8 | 61.3 | 74.8 | 74.7 |\\n| HiLoRA | 62.2 | 82.7 | 78.3 | 81.0 | 80.9 | 83.3 | 66.8 | 78.6 | **76.7** |\\n\\nHiLoRA demonstrates improved performance over LoRA on average in large-scale models, highlighting its stability and effectiveness while maintaining strong results across diverse downstream tasks.\\n\\n\\n>[1] Liu, Shih-yang, et al. \\\"DoRA: Weight-Decomposed Low-Rank Adaptation.\\\"\\u00a0Forty-first International Conference on Machine Learning.\\n>\\n>[2] Hayou, Soufiane, Nikhil Ghosh, and Bin Yu. \\\"Lora+: Efficient low rank adaptation of large models.\\\"\\u00a0preprint, 2023.\\n>\\n>[3] Kalajdzievski, Damjan. \\\"A rank stabilization scaling factor for fine-tuning with lora.\\\"\\u00a0\\u00a0preprint, 2023.\\n>\\n>[4] Hu et al. \\\"LLM-adapters: An adapter family for parameter-efficient fine-tuning of large language models.\\\"\\u00a0preprint, 2023.\"}", "{\"comment\": \"Thanks for the response. Most of my main concerns are addressed and thus I'll keep my original positive rating.\"}", "{\"comment\": \"Thank you for reading our response.\\n\\nAccording to your reasonable suggestion, we conducted experiments on the GLUE task based on the DeBERTaV3$_{base}$ model to verify the performance of the proposed model. In accordance with your request, we copied the performance results of the baselines from the original paper of PRILoRA. For HiLoRA, we conducted experiments on 3 random seeds according to PRILoRA. Due to the time constraints, we first reported the results of 4 out of 8 datasets and revised the paper. We will report the results of the datasets that require long time for fine-tuning during the remaining period.\\n\\n\\n| Method | CoLA | RTE | MRPC | STS-B |\\n| --- | --- | --- | --- | --- |\\n| LoRA | 69.82 |85.20| 89.95| 91.60 |88.50|\\n| AdaLoRA | 71.45 | 88.09| 90.69| 91.84| 89.46|\\n| PRILoRA | 72.79| 89.05| 92.49 |91.92| 90.01| \\n| HiLoRA | **72.84** | **89.89** | **92.57** | **92.00** |\"}", "{\"comment\": \"We sincerely thank Reviewer mcnZ for the review and feedback. Below, we would like to address each of your questions and concerns:\\n\\n**W1. Figure 2 is unclear. The implementation details should be included in the main paper.**\\n\\nAs you suggest, we include the implementation details in the main paper. Please refer the revised paper.\\n\\nAdditionally, we would like to emphasize that Figure 2 shows the difference between the existing LoRA and our way of interpreting the adapter. In the existing LoRA, the adapter is interpreted as an adapter that is residual to $W_0$. However, we interpret the adapter as a component augmented with $W_0$, and show in Equation 13 that it is mathematically equivalent to the residual method. \\n\\n---\\n\\n**W2. Lacks of novelty.**\\n\\nTo highlight the novelty of HiLoRA, we present the novelty comparison table below.\\n\\n| | How to interpret $\\\\Delta W$ | How to regularize frequencies | Mitigate catastrophic forgetting |\\n| --- | --- | --- |--- |\\n| LoRA | Low-rank residual adapter | $\\\\times$ | $\\\\times$ |\\n| PiSSA| Low-rank residual adapter | Initialize with the $r$ lowest-frequency components of $W_0$ and no restrictinons during fine-tuning | $\\\\times$ |\\n| MiLoRA | Low-rank residual adapter | Initialize with the $r$ highest-frequency components of $W_0$ and no restrictinons during fine-tuning | $\\\\bigtriangleup$ |\\n| HiLoRA | High-frequency augmented adapter | Restrict the frequencies of the newly added components to a certain threshold | $\\\\bigcirc$ |\\n\\nLoRA and PiSSA primarily focus on improving the performance of fine-tuning tasks. In particular, PiSSA directly modifying the principal components, inducing significant changes to the pre-trained information, which leads to catastrophic forgetting.\\n\\nMiLoRA considers the high-frequency components as noise and directly modifies them. However, as revealed in Figure 1 in the main paper, the high-frequency components are not merely noise. Therefore, directly modifying the high-frequency components results in the loss of valuable information in MiLoRA. Moreover, since the frequency scale of the adapter of MiLoRA is not regularized during the fine-tuning process, the adapter\\u2019s information becomes dominant, causing catastrophic forgetting. Please refer to Section 5 for more details.\\n\\nIn contrast, HiLoRA reinterprets the adapter as new high-frequency components augmented to $W_0$ and restricts their frequency range. Clipping the learnable diagonal-matrix $\\\\Sigma$, which constains singular values, provides a simple yet highly effective method to adjust the frequency scale without additional losses or computational overheads. This approach confines the fine-tuning process to the high-frequency range while preserving the pre-trained information, which not only effectively mitigates catastrophic forgetting during fine-tuning but also achieving strong performance in downstream tasks.\\n\\n\\n---\\n\\n**W3. Initialization Method.**\\n\\nThanks for your valuable feedback. We experimented with both initialization methods and found that there is an initialization method that is suitable for each data. Regardless of which initialization method is used, it eventually works as a singular vector of new components suitable for the down-stream task through orthogonal regularization. We have revised Tables 5 and 7 in Appendix to specify the initialization method used for each experiment.\\n\\n---\\n\\n**W4. Does the forgetting problem still occur if the pre-trained and fine-tuning tasks are similar?**\\n\\nThank you for your insightful comment. \\n\\nGenerally, fine-tuning aims to inject the new knowledge based on the pre-trained information, which often leads to the catastrophic forgetting as a common phenomenon. If the pre-training and fine-tuning datasets are highly similar, the degree of catastrophic forgetting may not be significant. However, if there are differences in detailed information or class distributions between the datasets, catastrophic forgetting can still occur. \\n\\nIn fact, Table 4 in the main paper reports the results of catastrophic forgetting for the proposed model on the GLUE task. Within the GLUE task, MRPC dataset shows significant catastrophic forgetting in LoRA, while the SST-2 dataset exhibits relatively less forgetting. As you pointed out, the degree of catastrophic forgetting can vary depending on the dataset distribution. Nonetheless, to achieve the general capability across diverse scenarios, it is crucial to design a model that can consistently mitigate catastrophic forgetting.\"}", "{\"summary\": \"In this paper, the author proposes a new method to address the problem of catastrophic forgetting in LoRA fine-tuning. They suggest learning the adapter $\\\\Delta W$ with small eigenvalues and validate their method across various downstream tasks.\", \"soundness\": \"1\", \"presentation\": \"2\", \"contribution\": \"1\", \"strengths\": \"1.\\tThis paper describes the problem and method in detail.\\n2.\\tThe authors validate the effectiveness on various downstream datasets.\", \"weaknesses\": \"1.\\tThe definition of \\\"frequency\\\" in the paper is confusing and meaningless; low frequency and high frequency merely refer to the value of the eigenvalues. If the largest eigenvalue corresponds to pre-trained knowledge, why does an increase in the largest singular value during fine-tuning, as shown in Figure 1(a), lead to a decline in performance on the pre-training task? From Figure 1(a), it appears that they are either negatively correlated or unrelated.\\n2.\\tThe novelty is limited. It is very similar to, including the implementation in Figure 7 and Equation (8). The only difference is that the $\\\\Sigma$ matrix is learnable and clipped according to Equation (7). Additionally, in Table 2, HiLoRA performs worse than AdaLoRA, and the authors do not address the issue of forgetting in AdaLoRA.\\n3.\\tThe motivation for investigating catastrophic forgetting in LoRA requires further explanation. When employing LoRA, my primary concern is its performance on specific downstream tasks. If I need to tackle multiple different tasks, I would prefer to use a general LLM or load various LoRA adapters through MultiLoRA.\\n4.\\tMore comparisons are needed. The authors should include the results of PiSSA and MiLoRA in Table 2, and it needs to compare with methods such as DoRA, rsLoRA, and LoRA+. Furthermore, experiments should be conducted on larger LLM models, such as LLaMA.\", \"questions\": \"See Weaknesses.\", \"flag_for_ethics_review\": \"['No ethics review needed.']\", \"rating\": \"3\", \"confidence\": \"4\", \"code_of_conduct\": \"Yes\"}", "{\"summary\": \"In this paper, the authors proposed a new parameter-efficient fine-tuning (PEFT) approach with learnable high-frequency components while constraining singular values to appropriate levels. Multiple experiments and ablation studies were conducted to show the effectiveness of the proposed method.\", \"soundness\": \"3\", \"presentation\": \"3\", \"contribution\": \"3\", \"strengths\": \"1. The motivation and formulation of the proposed HiLoRA makes sense and is technically sound to me.\\n2. The authors conducted extensive experiments on multiple datasets and showed improved performance over several baseline methods.\\n3. Ablation studies and sensitivity analysis were also conducted to show the effectiveness of the proposed approach.\\n4. Writing is good and easy to follow.\", \"weaknesses\": \"1. The performance improvement seems very small as shown in table 1 and 2 and sometimes even worse than baseline methods.\\n2. Are there any principles or rule or thumb for setting those hyper-parameters for different tasks/models?\", \"questions\": \"Overall, I think the HiLoRA proposed in this paper is novel and beneficial to the community. Please refer to the weakness section to prepare rebuttals on the performance and hyper-parameter setting.\", \"flag_for_ethics_review\": \"['No ethics review needed.']\", \"rating\": \"6\", \"confidence\": \"4\", \"code_of_conduct\": \"Yes\"}", "{\"comment\": \"**W5. Scaling-up Experiments.**\\n\\nWe conduct the large-scale experiment experiments for the commonsense reasoning task on LLaMA-7B. Please refer the answer in **General Response 3**.\\n\\n---\\n\\n**W6. Effect of rank on catastrophic forgetting.**\\n\\nTo verify whether HiLoRA maintains its performance and continues to mitigate forgetting as the rank increases, we conduct sensitivity study on the rank $r$ on MRPC and STS-B dataset. Specifically, we measured the largest singular value and Frobenius norm of the difference between the pre-trained model and the fine-tuned model. Also, we evaluated the accuracy and the evaluation loss on the pre-trained task, and accuracy on the fine-tuned task.\\n\\n- MRPC dataset\\n\\n| | 8 | 16 | 64 |\\n| --- | --- | --- | --- |\\n| Largest singular value | 0.9283 | 0.6905 | 0.3583 |\\n| Frobenius norm | 0.9358 | 0.6981 | 0.3626 |\\n| Evaluation loss on pre-trained task | 4.3497 | 4.1798 | 3.1993 |\\n| Accuray on pre-trained task | 32.00 | 33.58 | 41.32 |\\n| Accuracy on fine-tuned task | 90.2 | 88.73 | 88.73 |\\n\\n- STS-B dataset\\n\\n| | 8 | 16 | 64 |\\n| --- | --- | --- | --- |\\n| Largest singular value | 0.9312 | 1.4038 | 1.0831 |\\n| Frobenius norm | 0.9351 | 1.3991 | 1.1234 \\n| Evaluation loss on pre-trainedtask | 3.1785 | 2.4853 | 2.5323 ||\\n| Accuray on pre-trained task | 43.72 | 51.15 | 48.79 |\\n| Accuracy on fine-tuned task | 91.16 | 91.02 | 91.03 |\\n\\nAccording to the table, as $r$ changes, the largest singular value also varies, which, in turn affects the performance on the pre-trained task. The performance on the pre-trained task, however, does not degrade but rather shows an improvement. This indicates that the proposed model retains its ability to effectively mitigate catastrophic forgetting even as the rank increases. \\n\\nWe have included the results in the revised paper.\\n\\n**W7. Equations (6) and (7) should be included within Algorithm 1.**\\n\\nFollowing your kind suggestion, we have incorporated Equations 6 and 7 into Algorithm 1. Please refer the revised paper.\\n\\n---\\n\\n> [1] Hu, Zhiqiang, et al. \\\"Llm-adapters: An adapter family for parameter-efficient fine-tuning of large language models.\\\"\\u00a0*arXiv preprint arXiv:2304.01933*\\u00a0(2023).\"}", "{\"title\": \"Gentle Reminder\", \"comment\": \"Dear Reviewer mcnZ,\\n\\nWe have made much effort to address all the questions and comments you provided in the review. If there are any follow-up questions or additional concerns, please do not hesitate to let us know. We would be happy to provide further clarification.\\n\\nThank you for your time and consideration.\\n\\nBest,\\n\\nAuthors\"}", "{\"comment\": \"**W2. i) Limited Novelty. ii) Comparison with AdaLoRA.**\\n\\ni) To highlight the novelty of HiLoRA, we present the novelty comparison table below.\\n\\n| | How to interpret $\\\\Delta W$ | How to regularize frequencies | Mitigate catastrophic forgetting |\\n| --- | --- | --- |--- |\\n| LoRA | Low-rank residual adapter | $\\\\times$ | $\\\\times$ |\\n| PiSSA| Low-rank residual adapter | Initialize with the $r$ lowest-frequency components of $W_0$ and no restrictinons during fine-tuning | $\\\\times$ |\\n| MiLoRA | Low-rank residual adapter | Initialize with the $r$ highest-frequency components of $W_0$ and no restrictinons during fine-tuning | $\\\\bigtriangleup$ |\\n| HiLoRA | High-frequency augmented adapter | Restrict the frequencies of the newly added components to a certain threshold | $\\\\bigcirc$ |\\n\\nLoRA and PiSSA primarily focus on improving the performance of fine-tuning tasks. In particular, PiSSA directly modifying the principal components, inducing significant changes to the pre-trained information, which leads to catastrophic forgetting.\\n\\nMiLoRA considers the high-frequency components as noise and directly modifies them. However, as revealed in Figure 1 in the main paper, the high-frequency components are not merely noise. Therefore, directly modifying the high-frequency components results in the loss of valuable information in MiLoRA. Moreover, since the frequency scale of the adapter of MiLoRA is not regularized during the fine-tuning process, the adapter\\u2019s information becomes dominant, causing catastrophic forgetting. Please refer to Section 5 for more details.\\n\\nIn contrast, HiLoRA reinterprets the adapter as new high-frequency components augmented to $W_0$ and restricts their frequency range. Clipping the learnable diagonal-matrix $\\\\Sigma$, which constains singular values, provides a simple yet highly effective method to adjust the frequency scale without additional computational overheads. This approach confines the fine-tuning process to the high-frequency range while preserving the pre-trained information, which not only effectively mitigates catastrophic forgetting during fine-tuning but also achieving strong performance in downstream tasks.\\n\\nii) Comparison with AdaLoRA \\n\\nHiLoRA shows improved performance compared to AdaLoRA on the GLUE task and achieved more or less the same performance on average for the QA task. However, as can be seen from the answer in **General Response 2**, AdaLoRA suffers from catastrophic forgetting as fine-tuning progresses, while HiLoRA effectively mitigates this phenomenon. This suggests that HiLoRA not only delivers promising performance but also excels in preserving existing knowledge, which demonstrates the enhanced expressiveness and generalization capabilities.\\n\\n---\\n\\n**W3. Why catastrophic forgetting is important in LoRA?**\\n\\nLLMs are widely used because they are equipped with rich expressiveness and generalization capabilities, achieved by training large-scale models on vast language datasets. In contrast, the datasets used for fine-tuning are relatively much small in size.\\u00a0Catastrophic forgetting\\u00a0after fine-tuning refers to the phenomenon where the model forgets the knowledge acquired during the pre-training phase, resulting in the generalization capability degradation. In other words, the model becomes overfitted to the target fine-tuning dataset/task, losing its generalization capabilities. In real-world environments, however, we cannot foresee future user queries so mainingtaining the generalization capability and achievning a high fune-tuning task accuracy are equally important. Consequently, recent studies, such as those in [8, 9], have focused on addressing catastrophic forgetting in the context of fine-tuning LLMs, particularly with methods like LoRA.\\n\\nTherefore, mitigating catastrophic forgetting is as important as the fine-tuning task accuracy from the perspective of model reliability and scalability. In other words, addressing catastrophic forgetting in LoRA is crucial as it ensures that the strengths of pre-trained models are preserved while efficiently adapting to new tasks and delivering consistent performance.\\n\\nLoRA is designed for modularity, allowing incremental updates for new tasks without retraining the full model. Catastrophic forgetting makes this approach less effective, as the model may fail to retain prior knowledge while learning new tasks, hindering scalability in multi-task or continual learning scenarios.\\n\\nFurthermore, we demonstrated improved performance and effective mitigation of catastrophic forgetting through experiments in Section 4 (Experiments) and Section 5 (Analyses on HiLoRA).\\n\\n---\\n\\n**W4. Experiments on various baselines and large-scale models.**\\n\\nFollowing your kind suggestion, we have added baselines for the models you mentioned on the GLUE task. Please refer the answer in **General Response 1**.\\n\\nFurthermore, we conduct the large-scale experiments for the commonsense reasoning task on LLaMA-7B. Please refer the answer in **General Response 3**.\"}", "{\"summary\": \"This paper addresses an intriguing issue\\u2014mitigating forgetting during fine-tuning of neural networks. It introduces a method focused on the fine-tuning of high-frequency components of pre-trained weights, claiming measurable improvements.\", \"soundness\": \"2\", \"presentation\": \"2\", \"contribution\": \"2\", \"strengths\": \"1.\\tThis paper proposes a new sight for fine-tuning and tries to solve the forget problem in fine-tuning.\\n2.\\tIt does reduce the accuracy loss on the pre-trained task.\", \"weaknesses\": \"1.The architecture diagrams in Figure 2 are unclear. To improve clarity, the implementation details of HiLoRA should be included in the main paper instead of relegated to the appendix.\\n\\n2.The HiLoRA design lacks novelty.\\n\\n3.The paper mentions, \\\"U and V can be initialized with random r singular vectors of W0, or with U initialized to zero and V with a random Gaussian initialization.\\\" What initialization strategy was used in your experiments?\\n\\n4.A deeper analysis of the relationship between the pre-trained task and the fine-tuning task in relation to the forgetting method would be beneficial. If the pre-trained and fine-tuning tasks are similar, does the forgetting problem still occur?\\n\\n5.A scaling-up experiment, such as fine-tuning LLaMA-2-7B with Meta-Math and evaluating it on GSM8K, as in PiSSA, would be insightful.\\n\\n6.Does this method remain effective when the rank increases?\\n\\n7.Equations (6) and (7) should be introduced within Algorithm 1.\", \"questions\": \"see weaknesses\", \"flag_for_ethics_review\": \"['No ethics review needed.']\", \"rating\": \"5\", \"confidence\": \"4\", \"code_of_conduct\": \"Yes\"}", "{\"comment\": \"References\\n\\n> [1] Chen, Yang et al., \\\"Graph fourier transform based on singular value decomposition of the directed laplacian.\\\" Sampling Theory, Signal Processing, and Data Analysis, 2023.\\n>\\n> [2] Maskey, et al., \\\"A fractional graph laplacian approach to oversmoothing.\\\" Advances in NeurIPS, 2024.\\n>\\n> [3] Cooley et al., \\\"The fast Fourier transform and its applications.\\\" IEEE Transactions on Education, 1969.\\n>\\n> [4] Deng et al., \\\"An adaptive Gaussian filter for noise reduction and edge detection.\\\" IEEE conference record nuclear science symposium and medical imaging conference, 1993.\\n>\\n> [5] Pan et al., \\\"Fast vision transformers with hilo attention.\\\" Advances in NeurIPS, 2022.\\n>\\n> [6] Kirkpatrick et al., \\\"Overcoming catastrophic forgetting in neural networks.\\\"\\u00a0Proceedings of the national academy of sciences, 2017.\\n>\\n> [7] Kemker et al., \\\"Measuring catastrophic forgetting in neural networks.\\\"\\u00a0Proceedings of the AAAI conference on artificial intelligence, 2018.\\n>\\n> [8] Fu et al.,\\\"LoFT: LoRA-Based Efficient and Robust Fine-Tuning Framework for Adversarial Training.\\\" International Joint Conference on Neural Networks (IJCNN). IEEE, 2024.\\n>\\n> [9] Chen et al., \\\"Bayesian Parameter-Efficient Fine-Tuning for Overcoming Catastrophic Forgetting.\\\" preprint, 2024.\"}", "{\"comment\": \"We sincerely thank Reviewer 36is for the review and positive feedback. Below, we would like to address each of your questions and concerns:\\n\\n**W1. Performance improvement is marginal.**\\n\\nWhile our model has consistently surpassed various baselines on average, we conduct additional experiments with state-of-the-art baselines for the GLUE task to further validate the effectiveness of our proposed method and report the results in the below table. Due to time constraints, we have included these baselines only for the following six datasets, and we plan to continue updating the tables for other two remaining datasets.\\n\\n| Method | CoLA | QNLI | RTE | MRPC | STS-B |\\n| --- | --- | --- | --- | --- | --- |\\n| DoRA [1] | 64.29 | 92.90 | 81.68 | 89.52 | 90.95 |\\n| LoRA+ [2] | 63.63 | 92.72 | 81.23 | 89.03 | 90.87 |\\n| rsLoRA [3] | 64.17 | 92.59 | 79.78 | 89.40 | 90.84 |\\n| HiLoRA | **64.66** | **93.12** | **82.85** | **90.20** | **91.16** |\\n\\nAcross these diverse baselines, our model still demonstrated improved performance on average. One may consider that our improvements are marginal but in fact, our method provides larger improvements than others.\\n\\nFurthermore, our core contribution is that, by reinterpreting the adapter from a signal processing perspective, we showed that a simple mechanism for controlling singular values allows our model to maintain the expressive power while effectively mitigating catastrophic forgetting compared to the baselines.\\n\\n---\\n\\n**W2. Principle for searching hyperparameters.**\\n\\nWe conducted a grid search primarily around the values commonly used in LoRA-based methods. The range of hyperparameters we explored can be found in Appendix E.1.2 and E.2.2.\\n\\n\\n---\\n\\nIn order to validate the\\u00a0**effectiveness and generalizability**\\u00a0of our model, we conducted the following additional experiments, the results of which can be found in the General Response and the revised paper:\\n\\n1. Catastrophic forgetting in AdaLoRA\\n2. Validation of the scalability of the proposed method through large-scale experiments.\\n\\n\\n\\n>[1] Liu, Shih-yang, et al. \\\"DoRA: Weight-Decomposed Low-Rank Adaptation.\\\"\\u00a0*Forty-first International Conference on Machine Learning*.\\n>\\n>[2] Hayou, Soufiane, Nikhil Ghosh, and Bin Yu. \\\"Lora+: Efficient low rank adaptation of large models.\\\"\\u00a0*arXiv preprint arXiv:2402.12354*\\u00a0(2024).\\n>\\n>[3] Kalajdzievski, Damjan. \\\"A rank stabilization scaling factor for fine-tuning with lora.\\\"\\u00a0*arXiv preprint arXiv:2312.03732*\\u00a0(2023).\"}", "{\"title\": \"Interactive Discussions\", \"comment\": \"Dear Reviewers,\\n\\nThank you for your efforts in reviewing this paper. We highly encourage you to participate in interactive discussions with the authors before November 26, fostering a more dynamic exchange of ideas rather than a one-sided rebuttal.\\n\\nPlease feel free to share your thoughts and engage with the authors at your earliest convenience.\\n\\nThank you for your collaboration.\\n\\nBest regards,\\nICLR 2025 Area Chair\"}" ] }

[ "Yuan Sui", "Bryan Hooi" ]

[ "Large Language Models", "Hallucination", "Open-ended Question Answering" ]

{ "note_id": [ "t9WsZfGbWX", "jktny6Pill", "fqTgF1txHM", "X5OawQObAq", "SuG1QJdRM9", "PG3qGlZUig", "OtENMytw4J", "LmIExErrHh", "K8DlmKMXWk", "Hz5ttPwYdh", "GssKAxKbsS", "Bz009YPOvA", "BFV1PQb23D", "9XHjc2smE4", "69vmgiGybo", "4oSCTdURMA", "3tUmONQUgM", "1TsGT177QM" ], "note_type": [ "official_comment", "official_comment", "comment", "official_comment", "official_review", "official_comment", "official_comment", "official_comment", "official_comment", "official_comment", "official_comment", "official_comment", "official_review", "official_comment", "official_comment", "official_comment", "official_review", "official_review" ], "note_created": [ 1732379427469, 1732777962217, 1733907130902, 1732378906909, 1730738224335, 1732729734863, 1732606226261, 1732671044596, 1732465672019, 1732729762030, 1732522848092, 1732378844810, 1730346598289, 1732378673747, 1732378710593, 1732627608005, 1729086053283, 1730362021628 ], "note_signatures": [ [ "ICLR.cc/2025/Conference/Submission7593/Authors" ], [ "ICLR.cc/2025/Conference/Submission7593/Reviewer_AR6A" ], [ "ICLR.cc/2025/Conference/Submission7593/Authors" ], [ "ICLR.cc/2025/Conference/Submission7593/Authors" ], [ "ICLR.cc/2025/Conference/Submission7593/Reviewer_k7xW" ], [ "ICLR.cc/2025/Conference/Submission7593/Area_Chair_ycwG" ], [ "ICLR.cc/2025/Conference/Submission7593/Reviewer_k7xW" ], [ "ICLR.cc/2025/Conference/Submission7593/Reviewer_7bVY" ], [ "ICLR.cc/2025/Conference/Submission7593/Reviewer_AR6A" ], [ "ICLR.cc/2025/Conference/Submission7593/Area_Chair_ycwG" ], [ "ICLR.cc/2025/Conference/Submission7593/Authors" ], [ "ICLR.cc/2025/Conference/Submission7593/Authors" ], [ "ICLR.cc/2025/Conference/Submission7593/Reviewer_uGAz" ], [ "ICLR.cc/2025/Conference/Submission7593/Authors" ], [ "ICLR.cc/2025/Conference/Submission7593/Authors" ], [ "ICLR.cc/2025/Conference/Submission7593/Authors" ], [ "ICLR.cc/2025/Conference/Submission7593/Reviewer_AR6A" ], [ "ICLR.cc/2025/Conference/Submission7593/Reviewer_7bVY" ] ], "structured_content_str": [ "{\"comment\": \"We sincerely thank the reviewer for the thoughtful comments. Below, we address each concern in detail:\\n\\n### **W1: The reviewer is concerned that the observation (2) that CoT and SC may cause bias and hallucination may not be consistent across different models.**\\n\\nOur findings (from line 460 to 467) show that using internal reasoning strategies like chain-of-thoughts (CoT) and self-consistency (SC) enhances response quality (i.e., correctness, comprehensiveness and empowerment), but **do not consistently improve factuality and can sometimes reduce it**. As the reviewer mentioned the performance over llama-3.1-8b is a case that using cot and sc improve the response quality but diminish the factuality. We appended the pivot table using the llama-3.1-8b model as follows for easier comparison (G-Eval measures to the quality of response, and FactScore measures the factuality).\\n\\n| Method | G-Eval | FactScore |\\n|---|:---:|:---:|\\n| 4-shot prompting | 55.34 | 47.24 |\\n| Cot promting | 57.41 | 46.15 |\\n| Cot + SC prompting | 59.53 | 45.05 |\\n| triplets provided | 58.59 | 62.37 |\\n| paths provided | 62.77 | 65.42 |\\n| subgraphs provided | 64.72 | 65.44 |\\n\\n### **W2: The reviewer is concerned about the statistical details of the human-in-the-loop process, such as evaluators' educational background, and the final score distribution agreement between humans and LLMs.**\\n\\nWe have three evaluators participating in the manual assessment of query quality. All of the evaluators are computer science majors with fluent English skills. As the evaluation centers on various linguistic metrics such as naturalness, relevance, specificity, novelty, and actionability, we only require the evaluators to possess a fundamental understanding of English without restricting their majors.\\nTo maintain confidentiality, we will not reveal the identities of these evaluators during the rebuttal period.\", \"the_pearson_correlation_coefficients_between_human_and_llm_scores_are_as_follows\": \"| Metric | Round 1 | Round 2 | Round 3 | Round 4 |\\n|---|:---:|---|---|---|\\n| naturalness | 0.60 | 0.65 | 0.69 | 0.74 |\\n| relevance | 0.55 | 0.59 | 0.64 | 0.70 |\\n| specificity | 0.46 | 0.54 | 0.60 | 0.65 |\\n| novelty | 0.49 | 0.57 | 0.63 | 0.67 |\\n| actionability | 0.33 | 0.41 | 0.48 | 0.53 |\\n\\nAs the rounds progress, agreement between humans and LLMs increases, suggesting that iterative feedback improves alignment.\\n\\n### **W3: The reviewer is concerned that there still need more kinds of perturbation methods for OKGQA-p setting.** \\n\\nWe have included more perturbation settings to mimic more real-world scenarios, such as (1) **entity addition/removal**: randomly adding or removing entities from KG to simulate incomplete or overpopulated KGs; (2) **entity ambiguity**: introducing misspelling, synonyms, or abbreviations to represent user query errors or inconsistent data entry (which could cause the query cannot be retrieved from the KGs as you mentioned). We have included the new experiments in the revised version.\\n\\n### **W4: The reviewer mentioned several papers that need to be discussed and summarized in the paper.**\\n\\nWe will extend our literature review to include the suggested references.\\n\\n### **Q1: The reviewer want to see more details of the metrics used in Lines 292 to 295.**\\n\\nWe utilize the G-Eval[1] framework with GPT-4o to evaluate metrics such as context relevance, comprehensiveness, correctness, and empowerment. Prompts and scoring rubrics are detailed in Appendix A.3 (Lines 835\\u2013858).\\n\\n[1] G-Eval: NLG Evaluation using GPT-4 with Better Human Alignment (https://arxiv.org/abs/2303.16634)\\n\\n### **Q2: Can FS-SG reduce hallucination in LLMs using highly perturbed KGs, as shown in Figure 4 and 5, specifically at perturbation level=1.0?**\\n\\nFigures 4 and 5 demonstrate that KG-derived information effectively reduces hallucinations at perturbation levels up to **50%**. Beyond this, performance declines due to severe KG contamination and performs worse than the baseline chain-of-thoughts. In practice, platforms like Wikidata undergo regular updates and community-based quality control, making such high perturbation levels less likely.\"}", "{\"comment\": \"I appreciate the author's response. The current statistical information provides a deeper understanding of OKGQA and OKGQA-P. However, I still consider it to be a borderline paper, and **I will maintain my current rating.**\"}", "{\"withdrawal_confirmation\": \"I have read and agree with the venue's withdrawal policy on behalf of myself and my co-authors.\"}", "{\"comment\": \"We sincerely thank the reviewer for the positive comments. Below, we address your concern in weakness in detail:\\n\\n### **W1: The reviewer suggests exploring the generalizability of OKGQA-P\\u2019s findings and providing deeper analysis of method performance and limitations.**\\n\\nOur findings on OKGQA-P (mostly in Figures 4 and 5) illustrate that the effectiveness of KG-derived information diminishes with a perturbation level at 50%, surpassing this level leads to a further decrease in performance. We think that before this perturbation level at 50%, incorporating external knowledge from KGs can mitigate hallucinations in LLMs compared to baseline using CoT. In practical scenarios, platforms like Wikidata are less likely to be severely perturbed than 50% due to ongoing updates and community-based quality control, ensuring the relevance of our findings in real-world applications.\\n\\nIn addition, we find that using subgraphs can consistently outperforms using triplets, and paths, which demonstrates that by adding more structural information (or context), can improve the robustness as the perturbations increase. This aligns with our intuition that even when some links in the KG are disrupted, LLMs can still implicitly acquire knowledge through the graph\\u2019s topology or the shared semantics of neighboring nodes.\"}", "{\"summary\": \"This paper introduces OKGQA, a benchmark designed to assess the trustworthiness of LLMs augmented with KGs in open-ended QA scenarios. It also includes a perturbed version (OKGQA-P) with various KG perturbations to test the resilience of LLMs against\\ninaccuracies in KG knowledge. The proposed methodology expands RAG and integrates two main processes: G-retrieval and G-generator, for utilizing KG knowledge in different forms (like triplets, paths, or subgraphs). The study tests these models across 850 queries spanning 10 categories, utilizing metrics like FActScore and SAFE to gauge the reduction of hallucinations in model outputs.\", \"soundness\": \"3\", \"presentation\": \"2\", \"contribution\": \"3\", \"strengths\": \"1. The introduction of OKGQA as a novel benchmark can address a current research gap in assessing LLMs in open-ended, real-world scenarios.\\n2. The perturbed benchmark, OKGQA-P, allows for the evaluation of LLM robustness in response to inaccuracies or noises in KGs. \\n3. The comprehensive and well-organized experimental results across different forms of information and different types of queries show the effectiveness of the proposed methods and can provide valuable insights for future researchers.\", \"weaknesses\": \"1. The proposed methodology of G-retrieval and G-generator is similar to the existing line of work on RAG and KG-augmented generation [1]. However, there is a lack of comparison to demonstrate how these proposed methods fundamentally differ from previous methods applied to closed-end QA.\\n2. The queries are generated using predefined templates with LLMs, which raises concerns about their ability to authentically represent the distribution and complexity of real-world questions.\\n3. The proposed OKGQA-P supports only four types of perturbation heuristics, which require further explanation on how they sufficiently cover the inaccuracies in knowledge graphs for real-world applications.\\n4. Lack of evaluation on how improvements in reducing hallucination relate to the retrieved KG knowledge.\\n\\n\\n[1] Pan, Shirui, Linhao Luo, Yufei Wang, Chen Chen, Jiapu Wang, and Xindong Wu. \\\"Unifying large language models and knowledge graphs: A roadmap.\\\" IEEE Transactions on Knowledge and Data Engineering (2024).\", \"questions\": \"1. How representative are the synthesized queries of actual real-world questions? What methods were employed to ensure that their complexity and distribution are realistic?\\n\\n2. How many evaluators participated in the manual assessment of query naturalness, and what criteria were used for this human evaluation to ensure a standardized evaluation?\\n\\n3. What is the correlation between the LLM's automatic evaluations and human judgments of query quality? How were discrepancies between the automatic scores (s_auto) and manual scores (s_human) addressed during the evaluation process?\\n\\n4. Were different values of 'k' for hops around question entities considered to test the robustness of model responses in relation to variations in graph size and structure?\\n\\n5. Can the authors provide a more detailed breakdown of performance across the different query types, specifically how various perturbation methods affected certain query types?\\n\\n6. In section 4.2, it is unclear how the retrieved structured knowledge is integrated into the PLM. In particular, what are the differences in final sequence length across different forms of information (this can be essential for managing the LLM inference costs)?\\n\\n7. Please explain why, in certain query categories (such as \\\"evaluation and reflection\\\"), the knowledge-augmented methods result in degraded performance compared to the baseline.\", \"flag_for_ethics_review\": \"['No ethics review needed.']\", \"rating\": \"5\", \"confidence\": \"3\", \"code_of_conduct\": \"Yes\"}", "{\"comment\": \"Dear Reviewer AR6A,\\n\\nThank you for your efforts reviewing this paper. Can you please check the authors' response and see if your concerns have been addressed? Please acknowledge you have read their responses. Thank you!\"}", "{\"comment\": \"Thanks for the response and for revising the paper. Regarding W4, my concern was more about the need to establish a clear link between the reduction in hallucinations and the specific piece of knowledge extracted from the KG during the generation process. This could contribute to the mechanistic interpretability of PLMs, as in [2, 3], though it is beyond the scope of the current work.\\n\\n[2] Unveiling the Black Box of PLMs with Semantic Anchors: Towards Interpretable Neural Semantic Parsing, AAAI 2023\\n\\n[3] Mechanistic Interpretability for AI Safety--A Review\"}", "{\"comment\": \"Thank you for your responses. However, I believe that the areas where the description was unclear were not sufficiently addressed in the paper. Although your answers have improved my understanding, the writing of the paper should be such that the reader does not require additional explanations. Therefore, I still consider the writing of the paper to be somewhat rough.Additionally, regarding your response to W3, I would like to emphasize that the focus should be on the advantages of using Knowledge Graphs (KG) in addressing hallucinations compared to RAG, whereas your answer seems to focus on the relative strengths and weaknesses of KG and RAG, which was not what I was asking.Furthermore, in response to your mention of \\\"the quality and specificity of the retrieved content,\\\" it is worth noting that many excellent works have already alleviated this issue.In conclusion, I maintain my original score.\"}", "{\"comment\": \"I appreciate the authors' response. However, I still have some concerns:\\n\\n1. I am particularly curious about statistical metrics for human agreement, such as Cohen's Kappa coefficient.\\n\\n2. It might also be helpful to update the revised PDF with relevant literature to provide a clearer understanding.\\n\\nBased on these points, **I am inclined to maintain the current score.**\"}", "{\"comment\": \"Dear Reviewer uGAz,\\n\\nThank you for your efforts reviewing this paper. Can you please check the authors' response and see if your concerns have been addressed? Please acknowledge you have read their responses. Thank you!\"}", "{\"comment\": \"Thank you for the follow-up question. We have added the inter-rater reliability measure (Cohen\\u2019s Kappa coefficient) for the three evaluators, as detailed below. **Additionally, we have updated the manuscript to include the additional experiments and literature reviews in the Appendix, with the updates highlighted in blue.** We hope our responses can solve your concerns.\\n\\n| Metric | Evaluator 1 & 2 | Evaluator 1 & 3 | Evaluator 2 & 3 |\\n|---|:---:|:---:|---|\\n| Naturalness | 0.85 | 0.83 | 0.84 |\\n| Relevance | 0.81 | 0.79 | 0.80 |\\n| Specificity | 0.65 | 0.63 | 0.66 |\\n| Novelty | 0.60 | 0.63 | 0.61 |\\n| Actionability | 0.67 | 0.65 | 0.68 |\\n\\nUsing the Landis & Koch (1977)[1] interpretation guidelines, the Cohen\\u2019s Kappa coefficients for Naturalness and Relevance (ranging from 0.79 to 0.85) fall within the \\u201cSubstantial\\u201d to \\u201cAlmost Perfect\\u201d categories, indicating strong inter-rater reliability for these metrics. This reflects a shared understanding of the evaluation criteria, resulting in consistent ratings among evaluators.\\n\\nFor Specificity, Novelty, and Actionability, the coefficients range from 0.58 to 0.68, placing them primarily in the \\u201cModerate\\u201d to \\u201cSubstantial\\u201d categories. These results suggest moderate reliability for these metrics, likely due to subjective interpretation and less clearly defined evaluation guidelines. Novelty, with lower coefficients around 0.61 to 0.63, highlights variability in ratings, suggesting that evaluators may have differing perspectives on what qualifies as novel (but the inter-rater reliability is still be considered \\\"Substantial\\\". Meanwhile, Actionability performs slightly better, nearing the \\u201cSubstantial\\u201d range, indicating moderately consistent criteria.\\n\\n- [1] The measurement of observer agreement for categorical data (https://pubmed-ncbi-nlm-nih-gov.libproxy1.nus.edu.sg/843571/)\"}", "{\"comment\": \"We sincerely thank the reviewer for the thoughtful comments. Below, we address each concern in detail:\\n\\n---\\n### **W1: What are the unique contributions and distinctions of the proposed OKGQA compared to existing benchmarks?**\\n\\nOKGQA is, to the best of our knowledge, the first benchmark specifically designed to evaluate LLMs enhanced with knowledge graphs (KGs) in open-ended KGQA scenarios. It extends traditional closed-ended question-answering benchmarks to an open-ended setting, enabling the assessment of LLM hallucination tendencies.\", \"key_distinctions_of_okgqa_include\": \"- **Focus on open-ended scenarios**: Unlike closed-ended benchmarks (e.g., WebQSP, CWQ), OKGQA evaluates models where responses are not restricted to a predefined set of entities, relations, or logical forms, providing a broader evaluation of hallucination tendencies.\\n- **Integration of hallucination metrics**: Standard metrics such as FActScore (Min et al., 2023) and SAFE (Wei et al., 2024) require open-ended responses, which OKGQA supports by phrasing questions as statements that demand longer, more detailed answers.\\n- **Perturbation-based setup (OKGQA-P)**: OKGQA-P introduces deliberate perturbations to KGs, mimicking real-world scenarios with noisy or inaccurate knowledge graphs, thereby testing model robustness under less-than-ideal conditions.\\n\\nBy addressing the limitations of closed-ended benchmarks, OKGQA provides a more comprehensive evaluation of LLMs+KGs models in real-world, open-ended QA scenarios.\\n\\n---\\n### **W2: Lack of discussion about the limitations and practical implications of referenced closed-ended benchmarks**\\n\\nAs noted in the related work section (Lines 124\\u2013132), existing benchmarks for LLM+KG evaluation predominantly focus on closed-ended scenarios, where responses are restricted to predefined entities, relations, or logical forms. While useful, such benchmarks:\\n- Only test a narrow subset of an LLM\\u2019s tendency to hallucinate.\\n- Fall short in assessing complex, real-world scenarios requiring nuanced, open-ended responses.\\n\\nIn contrast, OKGQA addresses this gap by tailoring its design to open-ended KGQA, enabling the evaluation of hallucination tendencies under realistic conditions. For example, metrics such as FActScore and SAFE, specifically designed to measure hallucinations, require open-ended settings where answers involve richer reasoning and detailed responses.\\n\\nBy bridging this gap, OKGQA not only complements existing benchmarks but also provides a more practical framework for evaluating LLM+KG systems in real-world applications.\\n\\n---\\n### **W3: Can KGs further reduce hallucinations in open-ended scenarios, even beyond RAG techniques?**\\n\\nWhile retrieval-augmented generation (RAG) systems can reduce hallucinations by retrieving unstructured information, their effectiveness is often constrained by the quality and specificity of the retrieved content. In contrast, knowledge graphs offer:\\n\\n- **Structured and explicit facts**: KGs provide precise, disambiguated information, reducing ambiguity and enabling more robust reasoning.\\n- **Logical reasoning capabilities**: KGs excel in tasks requiring path traversal, contextually rich reasoning, and answering highly specific questions\\u2014scenarios where unstructured information retrieval may fail.\\n\\nIn open-ended QA, KGs can significantly enhance LLMs by ensuring factual grounding and logical coherence, surpassing the limitations of RAG-based approaches.\\n\\n---\\n### **Q1: Why does the paper mention that perturbing the KG diminishes human comprehensibility?**\\n\\nWe acknowledge that this phrasing was unclear, and we have revised it in the updated manuscript.\\n\\nOur intention was to illustrate that KGs, typically annotated by humans, are generally accurate and meaningful. When introducing perturbations\\u2014such as mislabeled attributes, incorrect relations, or missing connections\\u2014they can disrupt the KG structure and mimic real-world scenarios where KGs may be noisy or of lower quality. These perturbations challenge the model\\u2019s ability to reason effectively with incomplete or inaccurate information.\"}", "{\"summary\": \"This paper focuses on testing whether the knowledge graph make large language models more trustworthy\\uff0cwhich is an important in KG and LLM area. This paper does a empirical study over open-ended question answering task to evaluate above issues.\", \"the_strength_of_this_paper_are_as_follows\": \"This paper addresses a significant research question of whether knowledge graphs (KGs) can make large language models (LLMs) more reliable in open-ended question answering. This paper designed a new benchmark, OKGQA, specifically for assessing LLMs enhanced with KGs in open-ended, real-world question answering scenarios.\\nBy proposing the OKGQA-P experimental setup, this paper considers scenarios where KGs may have varying levels of errors, further simulating real-world situations where KGs' quality can be inconsistent\\nThis paper conducted a series of experiments on OKGQA and OKGQA-P, analyzing the effectiveness of various retrieval methods and LLMs of different scales.\", \"the_weakness_of_this_paper_are_as_follows\": \"While OKGQA-P considers errors in KGs, further exploration of the generalizability of these findings to a broader range of real-world applications may be necessary.\\nAlthough the authors present experimental results, a more in-depth analysis and discussion on why certain methods outperform others and the potential limitations of these methods could be provided.\", \"soundness\": \"3\", \"presentation\": \"3\", \"contribution\": \"3\", \"strengths\": \"This paper addresses a significant research question of whether knowledge graphs (KGs) can make large language models (LLMs) more reliable in open-ended question answering. This paper designed a new benchmark, OKGQA, specifically for assessing LLMs enhanced with KGs in open-ended, real-world question answering scenarios.\\nBy proposing the OKGQA-P experimental setup, this paper considers scenarios where KGs may have varying levels of errors, further simulating real-world situations where KGs' quality can be inconsistent\\nThis paper conducted a series of experiments on OKGQA and OKGQA-P, analyzing the effectiveness of various retrieval methods and LLMs of different scales.\", \"weaknesses\": \"While OKGQA-P considers errors in KGs, further exploration of the generalizability of these findings to a broader range of real-world applications may be necessary.\\nAlthough the authors present experimental results, a more in-depth analysis and discussion on why certain methods outperform others and the potential limitations of these methods could be provided.\", \"questions\": \"nan\", \"flag_for_ethics_review\": \"['No ethics review needed.']\", \"rating\": \"6\", \"confidence\": \"4\", \"code_of_conduct\": \"Yes\"}", "{\"comment\": \"We sincerely thank the reviewer for the thoughtful comments. Below, we address each concern in detail:\\n\\n---\\n### **W1: How do the proposed G-retrieval and G-generator methods fundamentally differ from existing approaches like RAG and KG-augmented generation.**\\n\\nWe would like to clarify that the primary objective of our work is not to propose state-of-the-art methods for close-ended or open-ended KGQA tasks but to establish a comprehensive benchmark to evaluate how well LLMs+KGs approaches perform under open-ended KGQA scenarios. The G-retrieval and G-generator methods are designed as simple baselines to represent two common workflows: (1) retrieving essential information from knowledge graphs and (2) subsequently leveraging that information to enhance the reasoning capabilities of LLMs during the generation process. We intentionally kept these methods straightforward to ensure clear ablation studies, focusing on whether integrating KGs can make LLMs more trustworthy.\\n\\n---\\n### **W2 & Q1,2,3: How well do the generated queries authentically represent real-world questions, and how robust and reliable is the evaluation process, including the alignment between automatic and human assessments?**\\n\\nAs mentioned in Appendix (Lines 861\\u2013894), we employed a **human-in-the-loop process** to ensure the generated queries authentically reflect real-world scenarios. The queries were refined iteratively based on human feedback, ensuring alignment with real-world use cases such as answering user-specific questions or conducting exploratory queries in knowledge graphs. The human feedback is reflected over multiple metrics, including naturalness, relevance, specificity, novelty, and actionability, to emulate characteristics of practical queries. \\n\\nFor the human evaluation process, three evaluators participated in the manual assessment of query quality. All evaluators are computer science majors with fluent English skills. Since the evaluation focused on linguistic metrics such as naturalness, relevance, specificity, novelty, and actionability, we required only a fundamental understanding of English, without restricting the evaluators by their academic background. To ensure consistency, a detailed rubric and illustrative examples were provided to guide the evaluation process. Each evaluator worked independently to ensure unbiased assessments.\\n\\nFor a sub-question \\u201cwhat is the correlation between the LLM\\u2019s automatic evaluations and human judgements of query quality? And how were discrepancies between the automatic scores ($s_auto$) and manual scores ($s_human$) addressed during the evaluation process?\\n\\nWe reported the score distribution agreement between the people and LLMs (we use pearson correlation coefficient to measure the agreement between human and LLM's labels) as follows:\\n\\n| Metric | Round 1 | Round 2 | Round 3 | Round 4 |\\n|---|:---:|---|---|---|\\n| naturalness | 0.60 | 0.65 | 0.69 | 0.74 |\\n| relevance | 0.55 | 0.59 | 0.64 | 0.70 |\\n| specificity | 0.46 | 0.54 | 0.60 | 0.65 |\\n| novelty | 0.49 | 0.57 | 0.63 | 0.67 |\\n| actionability | 0.33 | 0.41 | 0.48 | 0.53 |\\n\\nIt shows that as the number of human-in-loop rounds increases, the agreement between people and LLMs becomes closer.\\n\\n---\\n### **W3: How do the four perturbation heuristics in OKGQA-P sufficiently represent the range of inaccuracies found in real-world knowledge graphs?**\\n\\nWe appreciate the reviewer\\u2019s concern regarding the scope of perturbation heuristics in OKGQA-p. Identifying inaccuracies in real-world KGs is inherently complex, as they stem from diverse sources like link prediction errors, entity mislinking, and incomplete annotations. To address this, our benchmark focuses on **link errors**, which prior studies identify as the most prevalent and impactful type of KG inaccuracy.\\n\\nThe four perturbation heuristics\\u2014relation swapping, replacement, rewiring, and deletion\\u2014were carefully selected to represent key manifestations of link errors:\\n\\n* **Relation swapping** simulates misclassified or mislabeled relationships.\\n* **Replacement** introduces spurious links to emulate noise.\\n* **Rewiring** reflects structural distortions in graph connectivity.\\n* **Deletion** models missing edges or incomplete knowledge.\\n\\nThese heuristics offer a practical and systematic foundation for studying the robustness of LLMs+KGs systems under common inaccuracies in KGs. While they may not capture every potential error type, they focus on the most statistically significant ones.\"}", "{\"comment\": \"---\\n### **W4: how improvements in reducing hallucination relate to the retrieved KG knowledge?**\\n\\nWe would like to highlight that in the experimental results presented in Table 2, we compare settings that utilize information extracted from KGs with those that do not rely on external knowledge (e.g., zero-shot or 4-shot prompting). The only difference between these settings is whether the prompt includes knowledge from KGs. Our findings indicate that incorporating knowledge from KGs generally improves performance on metrics such as SAFE and FactScore, which assess the hallucination ratio in the LLMs\\u2019 output.\\n\\n---\\n### **Q4: Did the study consider varying the value of \\u2018k\\u2019 (number of hops around question entities) to evaluate the robustness of the model\\u2019s responses against changes in graph size and structure?**\\n\\nWe set K = 2 to balance graph size and computational feasibility, as increasing K leads to exponential growth in the number of edges and nodes, which can introduce excessive noise and make it more challenging to retrieve essential information from the KGs. This choice is also informed by common practices in other benchmarks, such as WebQSP and CWQ, where 2-hop subgraphs are widely used for similar KGQA tasks.\\n\\n---\\n### **Q5: Can the authors provide a more detailed breakdown of performance across the different query types, specifically how various perturbation methods affected certain query types?**\\n\\nSure, we append this new experiment analysis in the revised version of our paper.\\n\\n---\\n### **Q6: How the retrieved structured knowledge is integrated into the PLM. In particular, what are the differences in final sequence length across different forms of information?**\\n\\nFor the prompt construction, we follow the previous work KAPING[1]\\u2019s prompt template to transform different triplets extracted from KGs into a prompt. We provide statistics of the average token usages as follows for using different forms of information per questions of OKGQA.\\n\\n| | triplets | paths | subgraphs |\\n|---|:---:|---|---|\\n| average token usage | 2,781 | 843 | 3,129 |\\n\\n* [1] Knowledge-Augmented Language Model Prompting for Zero-Shot Knowledge Graph Question Answering: https://arxiv.org/pdf/2306.04136\\n\\n---\\n### **Q7: Why in certain query categories (such as evaluation and reflection), the knowledge-augmented methods result in degraded performance compared to baseline?**\\n\\nWe think these queries are in-generally much more complicated and require in-depth analysis. For example, a case in the evaluation & reflection category is \\u201cHow do you evaluate Martin Luther King\\u2019s impact on the civil rights movement? Please explain your viewpoint\\u201d, the question demands not only retrieving relevant information about Martin Luther King and the civil rights movement but also synthesizing and analyzing that information to assess impact, consequences, and broader implications.\\n\\nIn such cases, subgraph retrieval methods, which capture richer structural and relational information from the KG, are generally more effective. However, triplets, or paths retrieval may lack the depth needed to fully support this level of reasoning, leading to performance degradation compared to the baseline.\"}", "{\"comment\": \"Thank you for your insightful feedback and for raising this important point. The question of establishing a clear one-to-one mapping between hallucinations and specific pieces of knowledge is indeed open-ended. If we could achieve such precise mapping, it would signify a major breakthrough in understanding the limitations or knowledge gaps of LLMs (as your mentioned references). However, given the scope of our current work, it is challenging to conclusively determine this type of explicit relationship.\\n\\nWe deeply appreciate you bringing up this question, as it opens up possibilities for extending our research. Specifically, it inspires us to explore whether for certain types of problems, it might be feasible to identify a strongly correlated set of knowledge that could fill the knowledge gaps of LLMs. We will carefully explore this direction in our future work.\\n\\nAdditionally, we are eager to address any other concerns you may have. Since the current rating remains negative, we would appreciate it if you could let us know if there are any other matters or specific expectations that we could address to improve our rating. We are committed to doing our best to respond to your feedback. Thanks.\"}", "{\"summary\": \"This paper proposes OKGQA to evaluate LLMs enhanced with KGs under open-ended, real-world question-answering scenarios. The authors also implement the OKGQA-P experimental setting to assess model performance when KGs are perturbed by real-world contamination. A series of experiments conducted on both OKGQA and OKGQA-P demonstrate that integrating KGs with LLMs can effectively mitigate hallucinations in LLMs, even when KGs are contaminated.\", \"soundness\": \"3\", \"presentation\": \"2\", \"contribution\": \"2\", \"strengths\": \"1. The authors elaborate on the necessity of evaluating LLMs under open-ended QA scenarios in detail.\\n\\n2. The OKGQA-P setting to assess KG-augmented LLMs when KGs are contaminated is intuitive and reasonable.\\n\\n3. The perturbation results in Figures 4 and 5 are very interesting.\", \"weaknesses\": \"1. The observation (2) in line 76 that CoT and SC may cause bias and hallucination is confusing. The results (Llama3.1 8B) in Table 1 show that the integration of CoT and SC helps improve quality and factuality.\\n\\n2. The authors may want to provide more statistical details including the involved people's educational background, and the final score distribution agreement between the people and LLMs in \\\"The human-in-the-loop process in Line 186\\\".\\n\\n3. The authors may need to do more kinds of perturbation methods including node deletion to mimic scenarios when a query cannot be retrieved from a KG.\\n\\n4. The authors may want to discuss and summarize more RAG methods for open-ended QA settings including [A, B, C].\\n\\n[A] Coarse-to-Fine Highlighting: Reducing Knowledge Hallucination in Large Language Models. ICML2024.\\n\\n[B] SuRe: Improving Open-domain Question Answering of LLMs via Summarized Retrieval, ICLR 2024.\\n\\n[C] RECOMP: Improving Retrieval-Augmented LMs with Context Compression and Selective Augmentation, ICLR 2024.\", \"questions\": \"1. The authors may want to provide more details of the metrics used in Lines 292 to 295.\\n\\n2. The results in Figures 4 and 5 are interesting. Does that mean that even incorporating a severely perturbed KG (e.g., perturbation level=1.0 in Figures 5 (a), (b), and (c)), FS-SG can still help LLMs in reducing hallucination?\", \"flag_for_ethics_review\": \"['No ethics review needed.']\", \"rating\": \"5\", \"confidence\": \"4\", \"code_of_conduct\": \"Yes\"}", "{\"summary\": \"The key innovation is the introduction of benchmarks, OKGQA, for evaluating LLMs augmented with KGs in real-world QA scenarios. The second experiment, designated OKGQA-P, is intended to assess the efficacy of the model in the context of a scenario wherein the semantics and structure of the knowledge graph are disrupted and compromised.\", \"soundness\": \"2\", \"presentation\": \"2\", \"contribution\": \"2\", \"strengths\": \"1. The effectiveness of different retrieval methods in conjunction with LLMs is analyzed in experiments that provide insights into the combination of KGs and LLMs.\", \"weaknesses\": \"1. The unique contributions of the OKGQA benchmark are insufficiently defined, and the distinctions between OKGQA and existing benchmarks are not clearly articulated.\\n2. While the paper references several closed-ended elements from related literature, it lacks a thorough discussion of limitations and practical implications.\\n3. The question of whether KGs can reduce hallucinations in LLMs is widely recognized as affirmative, given the effectiveness of RAG techniques in mitigating hallucination issues. However, what is pertinent to this paper is an exploration of whether KGs can further reduce hallucinations in scenarios with open-endedness.\", \"questions\": \"In section 3.2, the paper mentions that ''\\u2026we introduce perturbations to edges in the KG to degrade the quality of the KGs, diminishing human comprehensibility.'', why human comprehensibility is diminished?\", \"flag_for_ethics_review\": \"['No ethics review needed.']\", \"rating\": \"3\", \"confidence\": \"4\", \"code_of_conduct\": \"Yes\"}" ] }

[ "Alex Stein", "Samuel Sharpe", "Doron L Bergman", "Senthil Kumar", "John P Dickerson", "Tom Goldstein", "Micah Goldblum" ]

[ "Event Prediction", "Tabular Data", "Transformers" ]

{ "note_id": [ "lTBqcytq1G", "jekTFfQzc1", "jAT3a5NSXG", "c3yIypcnEl", "VA0wBV0j4b", "UTVqAd9SdX", "POY0neMelk", "M0bZJfgHoK", "4sVAm0mbt4", "2WBwhu9u71" ], "note_type": [ "official_comment", "official_review", "official_comment", "official_comment", "official_comment", "meta_review", "decision", "official_comment", "official_review", "official_review" ], "note_created": [ 1732293473534, 1730766326803, 1732293443373, 1732293460312, 1732293466504, 1733793951776, 1737524170355, 1732390415855, 1730354412066, 1729707125543 ], "note_signatures": [ [ "ICLR.cc/2025/Conference/Submission12165/Authors" ], [ "ICLR.cc/2025/Conference/Submission12165/Reviewer_Lm89" ], [ "ICLR.cc/2025/Conference/Submission12165/Authors" ], [ "ICLR.cc/2025/Conference/Submission12165/Authors" ], [ "ICLR.cc/2025/Conference/Submission12165/Authors" ], [ "ICLR.cc/2025/Conference/Submission12165/Area_Chair_gR9v" ], [ "ICLR.cc/2025/Conference/Program_Chairs" ], [ "ICLR.cc/2025/Conference/Submission12165/Reviewer_XeVZ" ], [ "ICLR.cc/2025/Conference/Submission12165/Reviewer_gxkW" ], [ "ICLR.cc/2025/Conference/Submission12165/Reviewer_XeVZ" ] ], "structured_content_str": [ "{\"title\": \"Response to reviewer gxkW\", \"comment\": \"Thank you for taking the time to review our paper. We have responded to you points below:\", \"in_response_to_your_questions_about_our_experimental_details\": \"Figure 4 shows one of the important variations of our method, namely that the model can handle the label in different positions and with different sequence lengths without additional finetuning. This type of flexibility is the primary contribution of our work.\\n\\nWould you be willing to elaborate more on what you think the experimental section is lacking? In our work we have outlined that there are limited baselines for event prediction tasks and we aim to provide a framework that is more simple than the few existing baselines, but we do compare our method to theirs.\\n\\nAdditionally, we have updated the title of figure 1 for additional clarity.\"}", "{\"summary\": \"This work proposes a method, called STEP, for training decoder-only, LLM-style models for tabular data understanding tasks. The authors design a column-wise tokenization mechanism and use time-based data packing to preprocess rows of events in a table. They train the decoder with event features in arbitrary orders to simulate the masked language model (MLM) training used in other methods. Experiments across multiple datasets show that the proposed approach achieves good performance.\", \"soundness\": \"3\", \"presentation\": \"2\", \"contribution\": \"3\", \"strengths\": \"1. Design of using a decoder-only LLM with a causal language modeling objective to encode and predict tabular data is new.\\n2. The authors conduct experiments on a variety of datasets and tasks, where the method achieves better performance than two tabular transformer baselines.\", \"weaknesses\": \"1. Unclear Motivation: The motivation for using a decoder-only architecture for encoding-style tasks is not well-explained. The authors simulate MLM training with features in arbitrary orders, which raises the question of why an encoder-based architecture and traditional MLM training weren\\u2019t used directly. If performance was the factor, then the results in Table 1, where LLaMa performs the worst, might indicate that a decoder-type transformer isn\\u2019t optimal for these encoding tasks. While STEP performs better than the baselines, baseline performance is quite low. Were the baseline results reported after equivalent fine-tuning on the same amount of training data?\\n\\n2. Vocabulary Use: It is unclear how separate vocabularies are used during training. Why not simply use a single tokenizer and a unified vocabulary by assigning different IDs to identical values from different columns?\\n\\n3. Experiment Details: Key experimental details are missing. For instance, the configuration for the base LLM is not specified \\u2014 is the model a pre-trained LLM or randomly initialized? If pre-trained, an ablation study comparing performance before and after your training would have been necessary. Also, the vocabulary size of 60,000 tokens is ambiguous\\u2014does that mean STEP only has ~60,000 unique numbers?\\n\\n4. Weak Baselines: There are more advanced models for handling tabular or structured data, such as GPT-4o, Claude, TableGPT, and code models like CodeLlama or CodeQwen. A more comprehensive comparison with these stronger baselines would be more convincing. \\n\\n5. The proposed method requires separate training for each task or dataset, which is not general. Details on training time and GPU requirements are missing as well.\", \"questions\": \"Which decoder-only LLM is used for training? Is it a pre-trained LLM or a randomly initialized model? How many layers are in the model?\", \"flag_for_ethics_review\": \"['No ethics review needed.']\", \"rating\": \"5\", \"confidence\": \"3\", \"code_of_conduct\": \"Yes\"}", "{\"title\": \"Response to Reviewer XeVZ\", \"comment\": \"We thank you for your thorough review and address your questions below.\\n\\nThe primary reason for this being described as a \\\"simple baseline\\\" is due to its flexibility and lack of over engineering compared to prior work on event data.\\nThe flexibility of our method is described in 4.3: We show that the label column (i.e. the column that we are predicting) can be in any location in the table and similarly, we can change which column serves as the label (i.e. predicting time_to_event or is_fraud) at runtime without the need for any column specific finetuning\\nWhile we agree that it would be possible to finetune an LLM to perform these tasks, in this work we are primarily demonstrating that you could use a lightweight, autoregressive model to do the same thing. In table 1 we show zero-shot performance using an LLM (Llama3-8B) to show that it is not sufficient to use an out-of-the-box LLM for event prediction tasks.\", \"ultimately_our_primary_contribution_is_this\": \"There have been a limited number of attempts to use transformers for event prediction tasks, but all of them have used convoluted architectures, features, training regimes, etc. Additionally, all of them have used encoders to encode events before using a second model (often a decoder) to predict future events. In our work, we show that by using a simple decoder-only transformer and removing the special event prediction related features we are able to outperform current methods.\\nOur work serves as a baseline in its flexibility across a number of prediction tasks and its simplicity by removing intricate architectural features.\", \"in_response_to_your_questions_about_metrics_and_table_1\": \"Table 1 shows AUC scores and the errors were calculated by averaging over 5 random seeds.\\nWe have added information about both of these things to the caption for Table 1.\\nRandomizing does decrease performance slightly, but does not dramatically increase the error rate (in some cases the error is actually smaller when randomizing).\\n\\nIn terms of decreased performance when masking labels, while it is true that STEP with masking underperforms baselines, it would be better to compare STEP with masking to baselines with masking.\\n\\nAdditionally, given that time-to-event is just another feature it can be predicted in the exact same way as the label feature. Similarly, it can be removed from the table at run time and STEP can make predictions without it (this is true with time-to-event as well as with any other feature).\\nAdditionally, we agree that there should be further research into the correct way to handle numeric values. \\nThe idea to quantize the numeric features was based on the decisions of prior work to do the same. \\nPrior work primarily used 10 buckets, we decided to use 32 (although we tried 64 and saw similar performance). \\nIdeally, numeric values would be embedded directly rather than bucketed but for the purpose of defining a baseline we felt that 32 buckets was sufficient given our comparison to prior work.\\nWe use exactly length 10 sequences as in prior work but we do not use the same train/test split (as those splits are not available). Additionally, in order to remove potentially getting a favorable train test split we use a method similar to 5-fold validation to calculate AUC scores.\\n\\nRegarding your questions about hyperparmeter tuning, we did not hold out a portion of the dataset for validation but rather we choose hyperparameters by running a series of tests on different portions of the data and averaging performance. Specifically, we ran k-fold validation (with $k=5$) to determine the best hyperparameters before actually running all of our training runs.\\nSimilarly, we did not have a designated train/test split that we used for every run, but rather each run took a a unique split of the users into train/test sets to be trained on and then evaluated for that model. The performance was then averaged across 5 seeds to avoid any anomalies that might occur from any specific split of the users.\\n\\nRegarding ESGPT as a potential baseline, while ESGPT is a valuable library, their work primarily focuses on data cleaning and flexibility of the MIMIC-IV dataset rather than focusing on a new method for handling this type of data. Additionally, while they provide some code to train a transformer on this specific domain they specifically consider encoder/decoder models rather than the decoder only models we consider. Further, they use intricate nested attention layers rather than our vanilla causal attention. Our work is differentiated in its simplicity.\"}", "{\"title\": \"Response to Reviewer XeVZ (cont.)\", \"comment\": \"In response to your question about predicting labels based on future events as well as other potential ablations:\\nWhile this is not a use case we considered it would be possible for our framework to handle this. We would move the event in question to the end of the sequence. However this would result in a negative value for the \\\"time since last\\\" variable, which would have unknown effects on the performance of the model.\\nWe are relying on the fact that in general, for event sequences, samples occur in a known ordering according to a temporal feature.\\n\\nThe value of STEP is that it can handle missing information or fewer events in the sequence. The more information it has the better it performs, be it by having more information about the event in question OR having more events in the sequence.\\nIf the previous labels are masked the model still can make predictions based on other features from previous events.\", \"we_have_made_the_following_changes_in_improve_organization_and_presentation\": \"1. moved the prior methods into a separate section\\n2. moved the first paragraph of the Results section into the Experimental Details section (including the Llama baseline)\\n3. Moved the Data preprocessing section (4.2) to the Methodology section (section 3)\\n4. Added more details to the Experiment Variations section\\n5. Added clarifications on how we produced the tokenizer:\\nIn a word-level tokenizer, the size of the vocabulary is set a priori and each field is a token candidate. Then the most common tokens are selected (leaving some tokens as \\\"unknown\\\") until the vocabulary is full.\\nWe have added this information to the experimental setup section.\\n\\nThe goal of our work is to design and validate a simple and effective solution to modeling events using a decoder-only transformer. We agree that theoretically unifying decoder-only transformer approaches with previous methods for NADE or even older statistical methods is an interesting opportunity for future work, but our focus is, as you say, on the applied problem of using a simple decoder-only transformer to model events. We do agree that such works as the ones you brought up are relevant, and we have now updated our draft to mention them.\\n\\nThank you for this clarification about TabGPT generating the synthetic dataset. In the TabGPT paper it says \\\"Specifically, we train a GPT model (referred to throughout as TabGPT) on user-level data from the credit card dataset in order to generate synthetic transactions that mimic a user\\u2019s purchasing behavior. This synthetic data can subsequently be used in downstream tasks without the precautions that would typically be necessary when handling private information.\\\"\\nAnd we took this to mean that the data provided was the result of this synthetic data augmentation. We have adjusted the language in our paper to reflect your correction.\\n\\nLastly, in response to your question about averaging over the ordering of the features: This is exactly what happens in the randomization, the event is fully randomized so each random seed that it is averaged over has a different ordering of prior features.\"}", "{\"title\": \"Response to reviewer Lm89\", \"comment\": \"We thank you for your response and address your questions below.\\n\\nWhile prior work has primarily used encoder-type solutions, that does not mean this task requires the use of encoders. In fact, we believe that our primary contribution is showing that a decoder-only model outperforms the encoder-based baselines. Further, treating event prediction as a generative task gives the model the flexibility to not need to be finetunes on specific targets at runtime.\\n\\nIn response to Llama underperforming in the zero shot setting indicating that decoder-only LLM's arent suited for event prediction: performance is the main factor we consider in our comparison, the Llama column in Table 1 is zero-shot performance and is used as a baseline demonstrating that our method outperforms foundation models.\\nOf course, you could finetune an LLM for each task/dataset, but a primary advantage of STEP is the lightweight nature of the method which includes a smaller model, much less training, and no further finetuning for each task on the given dataset.\\nBaseline results are reported from prior work and we agree that baselines results are limited. We believe the lack of strong baselines is further proof that event prediction needs a more robust set of benchmarks and baselines.\\n\\nIn response to questions about our separate vocabularies, we implement the separate vocabularies using a single tokenizer object. We specifically used the term \\\"vocabularies\\\" instead of \\\"tokenizers\\\" to show that the vocabularies for each column are non overlapping. It would be possible to use separate tokenizers per column but we chose to implement it as you said by having a single tokenizer, where different ID's can be assigned to the same string values.\\nThe difference between these two things is simply an implementation detail. We have updated the paper to make this distinction more clear.\\n\\nAdditionally, a vocab size of 60,000 was chosen by observing performance on a few different vocabulary sizes. We did not observe a material difference in performance when attempting other vocab sizes. It does not mean that there are only 60,000 unique numbers as the numeric values are quantized into 32 different buckets (this process is described in section 4.2 where we discuss data preprocessing). The choice to bucket numeric values rather than using the direct values themselves is in line with prior methods (although we agree that this would be a potential future area of research).\", \"in_response_to_requesting_additional_clarify_on_experimental_details\": \"in section 3.3 we walk through the training setup. Our model is trained from scratch and is not a fine-tuned version of a pre-trained LLM. We have added additional information to this section to make it more clear.\\n\\nRegarding your question about additional LLM's as baselines: We are specifically discussing the event prediction modality, which is a subset of tabular/structured data and has been relatively underexplored. The primary difference between event prediction and general tabular domains is the addition of a temporal feature and a meta-feature (where events are grouped by the meta-feature). We discuss this distinction in section 1, but have added more information there for clarity.\\nWhile we are not able to make a fair comparison to the closed-source models you mentioned (as we have no way of viewing the output logits to evaluate their performance), we do include a comparison to Llama3 as a baseline.\\n\\nAdditionally, this method does not need to be fine-tuned for each task. Because it is generative in nature it learns the joint distribution across the entire dataset and can predict any label at evaluation time.\\nThat being said, our primary goal was not to create a foundation model for event prediction as this would require much more publically available data (we discuss in section 6 that one of the things that makes event prediction difficult is the lack of publicly available training data like there is in time-series or general tabular domains). \\nAdditionally, we include compute and training requirements in Appendix A.3.\\nTraining and model hyperparameters are included in Appendix A.4. Section 3.3 gives our methodology: \\n```\\nWe train STEP in the exact same fashion as GPT-style decoder-only language models (Radford et al., 2019). We employ a standard next token prediction objective via cross-entropy loss and causal masking.\\n```\"}", "{\"metareview\": \"The paper appears to be very straight forward for an ICLR submission though it may hide some nice ideas as pointed out in the discussion with the authors. Nevertheless, there is not enough in it for ICLR. There are also some design choices that need either a much better motivation or need to change in the next version (e.g., hyper parameter tuning).\", \"additional_comments_on_reviewer_discussion\": \"There has been a bit of a discussion with mainly one reviewer which was very insightful. It would have been nice to hear from other reviewers as well though. However, none of the reviewers was excited about the paper in the first place and I think the authors understood from the reviews already that chances to get in will be low.\"}", "{\"title\": \"Paper Decision\", \"decision\": \"Reject\"}", "{\"comment\": \"I thank the authors for their response to the review. Your clarifications make sense. Your discussion for handling sequences out-of-order is interesting to me, and also makes sense. I think the proposed changes to the organization, presentation, and discussion of related work will make the paper stronger. I still question whether you should tune your hyperparameters on the same data as that on which you evaluate (even if they are different random splits).\\n\\nI still feel the overall contribution, significance, and depth of this work is low by ICLR standards. I would consider raising my review score slightly but note the granularity is very low in this range (there is no option for a rating of 4, for example).\"}", "{\"summary\": \"This paper proposes a simple yet flexible baseline model for tabular event data, utilizing standard autoregressive, LLM-style transformers capable of addressing a variety of use cases involving different data types and tasks.\", \"soundness\": \"2\", \"presentation\": \"2\", \"contribution\": \"2\", \"strengths\": \"The authors' intention to create a versatile baseline model tailored for tabular event data is commendable and has the potential to accelerate advancements in this field.\", \"weaknesses\": \"The experimental section is somewhat lacking. Beyond Table 1, the authors should conduct additional experiments to showcase various aspects of the proposed model and provide a more comprehensive comparison with existing models, which I believe is essential for baseline papers. Furthermore, Figure 4 conveys limited information, making it seem unnecessary.\", \"questions\": [\"In line 386, is the caption of Table 1 incorrectly labeled? Why is it titled 'Summary of experimental configurations for different datasets'?\", \"In line 327, there are two occurrences of 'with.'\"], \"flag_for_ethics_review\": \"['No ethics review needed.']\", \"rating\": \"3\", \"confidence\": \"3\", \"code_of_conduct\": \"Yes\"}", "{\"summary\": \"This paper proposes to model event streams using a standard autoregressive, decoder-only Transformer (like the ones used in modern LLMs). Event streams are unique compared to time series data in that the events may occur at arbitrary timestamps. It is also notable that in event stream applications, key covariates/features may be missing within the context window. In this paper, the approach is to \\u201cflatten\\u201d multivariate tabular event data into a single sequence of tokens, where features/fields of individual events (individual \\u201crows\\u201d) occur as a sub-sequence (of tokens) within a larger, ordered-by-time sequence-of-subsequences over all the events. In order to model the arbitrary arrival times of events, this paper proposes encoding the inter-arrival duration as a numeric feature (binned into one of 32 bins for tokenization). To handle specific missing features, this paper proposes to mask all of the target features in the context window during training (or the system could be re-trained from scratch with partially-masked labels, although it does not perform as well on the evaluation tasks if this is done). Finally, to enable predicting arbitrary features/fields of individual events using a single model, the paper proposes creating multiple versions of training sequences, each with the fields in a random order WITHIN each event sub-sequence. A single model can be trained over all the randomized orderings collectively. The proposed method shows competitive accuracy with two prior approaches on a few prior tasks.\", \"soundness\": \"2\", \"presentation\": \"2\", \"contribution\": \"1\", \"strengths\": \"Using vanilla Transformers to model event data is a good idea. LLMs are already being trained on multi-modal data, either implicitly by consuming data of different types (including tabular data) from the web, or explicitly by being fed speech, image, video, and other modalities during training. Prior work has shown LLMs can already be used to predict time series data out-of-the-box without any special fine-tuning. It seems modeling events will be within the capabilities of foundational models in short order. As such, this paper is on the right track.\\n\\nThe writing within each section is fairly clear. Figure 1 is helpful. Figure 4, 6, and 7 are good things to test.\", \"weaknesses\": [\"Overall, it seems like if this approach is being positioned as a simple baseline that nevertheless works quite well on a range of tasks compared to other approaches, then the empirical evaluation needs to be much more extensive and rigorous and convincing. I also feel like it\\u2019s a missed opportunity: since STEP uses its own vocab and whatnot, it doesn\\u2019t seem capable of leveraging *pre-trained* LLMs (e.g., fine-tuning them to work on event stream data). It would have been useful to investigate the possibility of training event predictors using tokenization, etc., that is COMPATIBLE with LLMs, and maybe even use the LLMs directly to do the prediction, along the lines of what Gruver et al. did for time series forecasting.\", \"Experimentally, it was difficult to put the results in context or understand what was done:\", \"What is the random baseline on each task? I assume Table 1 is accuracy? Wouldn\\u2019t precision/recall make more sense for a low-frequency detection task like detecting fraudulent transactions? Especially since no steps were taken to address data imbalance. The results suggest STEP is much, much worse than TabBERT or FATA-Trans on the credit card data (19x the error), but the way the results are presented do not make this very clear, nor suggest what is going on (does STEP predict \\u201cnon-fraudulent\\u201d in all cases? We don\\u2019t know from Table 1).\", \"How are the error bars determined in Table 1?\", \"It seems like STEP is very sensitive to the things that give it unique capabilities. E.g., when randomizing, the error rate on the credit card data increases significantly. Also, Section A.1.1 shows that STEP with partial masking is worse than the baselines across all tasks. This sensitivity isn\\u2019t really explained in the paper. The brittleness of prior work is emphasized in the paper abstract, but STEP also seems hard to recommend for use out-of-the-box.\", \"Also, as this is event stream prediction, it\\u2019s notable there is no evaluation of predicting the inter-arrival times of events:\", \"How accurately can STEP predict time-to-event? How important is time as a feature? What if you removed it entirely?\", \"What do you lose by not knowing the absolute time? (e.g., not knowing whether an event occurs on a weekend or not)\", \"Is 32-bins enough for numeric data? What about 64? Or 16?\"], \"some_other_natural_questions_are_not_considered_or_not_explained_clearly\": [\"\\u201cWe came to these hyperparemeters [sic] through trial and error across multiple runs\\u201d \\u2013 but there\\u2019s no mention of a separate dev/validation set for hyperparameter tuning. Did you tune the HPs on the test data?\", \"You mention \\u201cEvent Stream GPT (ESGPT), an open-source library designed to streamline the end-to-end process for building GPTs for continuous-time event sequences\\u201d \\u2013 but can\\u2019t we just use ESGPT as the baseline for event stream prediction? Why do we need STEP, another baseline? Does STEP work better than ESGPT for some reason?\", \"Transformers are known to be very \\u201cdata-hungry\\u201d. How does accuracy here depend on the amount of training data?\", \"Why does this method improve over the prior art on ELECTRONICS and MOVIES? Are we sure we used the exact same train/test splits? Did they really both use exactly length-10 sequences, the same as in this work? Do we use the same data splits?\", \"How could we handle predicting a label on an event based partly on future *events*? E.g., say someone purchased jewelry with the credit card (maybe fraud?) and then next they purchase a coffee, then got a subway token, etc. Could those future purchases be used to influence our assessment of the jewelry purchase?\", \"The paper is also a bit disorganized. For example, the baseline systems are described in the methodology section, but not in experimental details, except the Llama baseline, which is introduced in \\u201cResults\\u201d. Data preprocessing is mentioned in 3.3 but also the same example is used in 4.2. So I found myself having to jump around a bit to get the details. It took me a long time to go back and find where the paper mentions that it uses \\u201ctime since last event\\u201d rather than the absolute timestamp (it wasn\\u2019t in 3.1 and 3.2, which discuss encoding time, but rather it was in 4.2).\", \"Finally, I find this work lacks an understanding of what an autoregressive generative model is, i.e., a joint model over the data, factorized in a certain manner. Autoregressive transformers are just used here as a tool. So it\\u2019s a very applied solution. A more theoretical understanding could help connect things here to prior generative models. E.g., the idea of being able to impute missing data in different orders has been explored before \\u2013 e.g., it\\u2019s similar to what is done in MADE/NADE \\u2013 See Uria et al., https://arxiv.org/abs/1310.1757 for the re-orderings, also used in MADE, Germain et al., https://proceedings.mlr.press/v37/germain15.html.\"], \"things_that_do_not_affect_the_review_scores\": [\"Normally figures in papers are so small, but here it seems like Figure 4 is *unnecessarily large*\", \"Regarding the synthetic credit card data, in the TabGPT paper it says, \\u201cthe transactions are created using a rule-based generator where values are produced by stochastic sampling techniques, similar to a method followed by [19].\\u201d But in this paper, it suggests this dataset was made via TabGPT itself: \\u201cadditionally, Padhi et al. (2021) produces the widely used synthetic credit card transaction dataset by training a causal decoder on top of TabBERT (appropriately called TabGPT).\\u201d\"], \"typos_start_creeping_up_near_the_end_of_the_paper\": [\"\\u201ctask of predicting if a client with with leave the bank\\u201d\", \"\\u201cThe each record is separated by a token that delineates new events within the sequence.\\u201d\", \"\\u201cwe explore how masking some or all of the prior event label during allows the model\\u201d\"], \"questions\": \"Note quite a few questions are noted above under Weaknesses.\\n\\n\\u201cAdditionally, because we use a word-level tokenizer the maximum vocab size is 60000\\u201d \\u2013 please explain.\\n\\n5.3 \\u2013 if you pass in fewer events (e.g., shorter sequence lengths in Figure 4), I don\\u2019t get why the model would predict a label at all. Like, didn\\u2019t we mask out all the labels for the first 9 events? Wouldn\\u2019t it only predict a label for the 10th event?\\n\\nSince you can randomize the order of the observed features, can you do better by averaging over multiple re-orderings or feature subsets? E.g., say you are predicting column D and you\\u2019ve seen only A, B, C. Can you predict A, C, B, <>, and B, A, C, <>, and C, B, A, <>, etc? This also connects to the MADE/NADE work.\", \"flag_for_ethics_review\": \"['No ethics review needed.']\", \"rating\": \"3\", \"confidence\": \"4\", \"code_of_conduct\": \"Yes\"}" ] }

[ "Kyusu Ahn", "Jisoo Kim", "Sangik Lee", "HyunGyu Lee", "Byeonghyun Ko", "Jaejin Lee" ]

[ "Under-Display Camera", "Dataset", "Benchmark", "Alignment", "Flare" ]

{ "note_id": [ "zEnRDmjHvi", "y0NGdOI5RJ", "uNM5nNE5tX", "jiQpmN81mD", "cTjcUWTbZd", "3dNemya0xr" ], "note_type": [ "decision", "official_review", "official_review", "official_review", "meta_review", "official_review" ], "note_created": [ 1737523972018, 1730721729905, 1730196195541, 1730476240304, 1734710743870, 1730634228228 ], "note_signatures": [ [ "ICLR.cc/2025/Conference/Program_Chairs" ], [ "ICLR.cc/2025/Conference/Submission9264/Reviewer_NXxb" ], [ "ICLR.cc/2025/Conference/Submission9264/Reviewer_NbRS" ], [ "ICLR.cc/2025/Conference/Submission9264/Reviewer_ZDh7" ], [ "ICLR.cc/2025/Conference/Submission9264/Area_Chair_GenH" ], [ "ICLR.cc/2025/Conference/Submission9264/Reviewer_sGyh" ] ], "structured_content_str": [ "{\"title\": \"Paper Decision\", \"decision\": \"Reject\"}", "{\"summary\": \"The paper proposes a video-capturing system that can simultaneously record UDC-degraded and ground-truth videos for the same scene. Applying this system and discrete Fourier transform, the authors collect an aligned real-world UDC video dataset called UDC-VIX that accurately represents real-world UDC video degradations. The paper demonstrates the effectiveness of UDC-VIX by comparing it with an existing synthetic UDC video dataset using six deep-learning restoration models.\", \"soundness\": \"3\", \"presentation\": \"3\", \"contribution\": \"2\", \"strengths\": \"This is the first real-world UDC video dataset that accurately represents real-world UDC video degradations.\\nThe paper proposes a video-capturing system using a beam splitter to minimize discrepancies between paired frames, which is novel in the UDC field.\\nThe paper provides cross-dataset validation experiments and the analysis of limitations of existing datasets such as unrealistic flare occurrences and white artifacts in the supplement.\\nThe presentation of the paper is clear and organized.\", \"weaknesses\": \"The theoretical analysis of the limitations of existing datasets and the strength of the proposed new dataset would be better in the main paper instead of the appendix.\", \"questions\": \"1. This paper is more like a combination of existing techniques, the methods applied in data collection, alignment, and dataset evaluation are all not novel.\\n2. In Table 3, UDC-UNet achieves better SSIM and LPIPS scores on the UDC-VIX dataset while all other models exhibit decreased performance on the UDC-VIX dataset. Can you explain more about this phenomenon?\\n3. Due to the insufficient performance of existing models on your dataset, can you propose a better resolution to handle the real-world degradation in UDC videoes?\", \"flag_for_ethics_review\": \"['No ethics review needed.']\", \"rating\": \"5\", \"confidence\": \"4\", \"code_of_conduct\": \"Yes\"}", "{\"summary\": \"The authors provide a real-world UDC video dataset called UDC-VIX, which accurately reflects actual UDC video degradations. Besides, They compare UDC-VIX with an existing synthetic UDC video dataset using six deeplearning restoration models to demonstrate its effectiveness.\", \"soundness\": \"3\", \"presentation\": \"3\", \"contribution\": \"3\", \"strengths\": \"1. The authors provide a real-world UDC video dataset called UDC-VIX, which accurately reflects actual UDC video degradations.\\n2. The authors compare UDC-VIX with an existing synthetic UDC video dataset using six deep\\u0002learning restoration models to demonstrate its effectiveness.\", \"weaknesses\": \"1. In section 5.2 FACE RECOGNITION, the description of the experimental setup for face recognition is difficult to understand, but in theory, it should be well understood, so the author needs to sort out this part.\\n2. Even if it is not UDC, it will produce exaggerated flares under strong light. Another question is, does the rear camera of the iPhone belong to UDC?\\n3. Regarding the data distribution problem generated by specific devices mentioned in LIMITATIONS, since this problem exists, did the author solve it to some extent when proposing the data set, such as collecting data based on mobile phone brands with larger market share?\\n4. Does face recognition under UDC have practical application significance? Does UDC currently limit the performance of the face recognition algorithm? Are there any other problems?\", \"questions\": \"See Weaknesses for details.\", \"flag_for_ethics_review\": \"['No ethics review needed.']\", \"rating\": \"8\", \"confidence\": \"4\", \"code_of_conduct\": \"Yes\"}", "{\"summary\": \"This work proposes a UDC video dataset UDC-VIX that contains realistic UDC degradations (e.g., low transmittance, blur, noise, and glare). Specifically, this work proposes an efficient video capture system to acquire a pair of matched UDC-degraded videos and ground truth videos through precise synchronization of two cameras. In addition, this work uses DFT to align UDC-VIX frame by frame, showing the highest alignment accuracy, which is sufficient for training deep learning models. Through comparative experiments, this work demonstrates the effectiveness of UDC-VIX.\", \"soundness\": \"2\", \"presentation\": \"3\", \"contribution\": \"1\", \"strengths\": \"1\\u3001This paper introduces the data set collection and processing process in detail, and the content is clear and concise.\\n2\\u3001This paper analyzes and compares the differences between existing data sets and the collected data sets, highlighting the necessity of creating new data sets.\\n3\\u3001This paper shows the results of the collected data sets in video reconstruction and face recognition, reflecting the effectiveness of this paper's data set.\", \"weaknesses\": \"1\\u3001There are some unclear introductions in this paper, such as the corresponding English abbreviations in Figure 1 are not introduced.\\n2\\u3001This paper focuses on describing the implementation details and does not reflect the innovation.\\n3\\u3001The experimental data in this paper is not sufficient to fully demonstrate the advantages of the dataset.\", \"questions\": \"1\\u3001This paper mentions that capturing paired videos through a beam splitter is an innovation of this work, but the method of capturing paired videos based on a beam splitter is not new, and there have been some works in other fields. In addition, capturing GT videos through a beam splitter will degrade because the amount of light is halved. Did the author consider this problem?\\n\\n2\\u3001Fast-moving objects are excluded from the dataset, which has an impact on handling such situations. Compared with other datasets, does this dataset have a disadvantage in handling such videos, and how big is the disadvantage?\\n\\n3\\u3001When visually comparing different datasets, different video frames are used for comparison, which is not convincing. It is recommended to use the same video frames for comparison.\\n\\n4\\u3001This article emphasizes the superiority of the dataset, but lacks specific experimental results. For example, will the results of training on a new dataset be better when tested on other datasets?\\n\\n5\\u3001This paper introduces the methods used in the data collection and processing process, but these methods are existing technologies and do not reflect the innovation of this paper.\\n\\n6\\u3001This paper is more like an engineering implementation, and the innovation is not sufficient. Please rethink the innovation of this paper.\", \"flag_for_ethics_review\": \"['No ethics review needed.']\", \"rating\": \"5\", \"confidence\": \"4\", \"code_of_conduct\": \"Yes\"}", "{\"metareview\": \"Metareview: The paper presents a novel dataset, UDC-VIX, which is the first real-world video dataset associated with under-display cameras (UDC). The authors propose a video-capturing system that simultaneously acquires non-degraded and UDC-degraded videos of the same scene, aligning them frame by frame using discrete Fourier transform (DFT). The dataset is compared with existing synthetic UDC video datasets using six deep learning-based models, demonstrating the ineffectiveness of models trained on synthetic data in handling real-world UDC degradations.\\nThis paper receives dispersed scores among the reviews. Reviewer NbRS and sGyh praised the dataset's effectiveness but suggested clarifying the experimental setup, addressing the data distribution problem, and adding cross-datasets validation. Reviewer NXxb appreciated the novelty of the dataset but noted the lack of theoretical contributions and suggested including more theoretical analysis in the main paper. Reviewer ZDh7 raised concerns about the innovation of the data collection methods and suggested further experiments to demonstrate the dataset's advantages.\", \"additional_comments_on_reviewer_discussion\": \"The authors provided detailed responses to the reviewers' comments, including revisions to the paper to address the concerns. They added cross-dataset validation experiments, clarified the experimental setup for face recognition, and provided more detailed explanations of the dataset's limitations and strengths. Overall, the paper makes a valuable contribution to the field but the theoretical contributions and the novelty concerns are not addressed. Therefore, I recommend reject the paper.\"}", "{\"summary\": \"Differing from unrealistic or synthetic UDC degradation in previous works, in this paper, the authors construct a video-capturing system to simultaneously acquire non-degraded and UDC-degraded videos of the same scene. The real-world UDC video dataset is collected and then aligned using DFT. Six representative methods are trained and tested on the dataset. Based on the UDC-VIX, the authors evaluate the image quality and face recognition accuracy of UDC restoration.\", \"soundness\": \"3\", \"presentation\": \"3\", \"contribution\": \"2\", \"strengths\": \"The objective of the paper is clear, the overall narrative is fairly complete, and the amount of work is substantial. According to the description in the paper, the collected dataset is more diverse in scenarios compared to previous datasets in the UDC field, and the types of degradation are also closer to real-world conditions.\", \"weaknesses\": \"1. The comparison of Table 3 shows the results of different methods trained and tested on two separate datasets and no cross-testing was conducted. This makes it difficult to assess the impact of different datasets on restoration methods.\\n2. As mentioned in LIMITATION, UDC degradations vary with the display pixel design, so which types of degradation will be affected? This requires more detailed explanation and analysis.\", \"questions\": \"Refer to Weaknesses.\", \"flag_for_ethics_review\": \"['No ethics review needed.']\", \"rating\": \"6\", \"confidence\": \"3\", \"code_of_conduct\": \"Yes\"}" ] }

[ "Fabian Paischer", "Lukas Hauzenberger", "Thomas Schmied", "Benedikt Alkin", "Marc Peter Deisenroth", "Sepp Hochreiter" ]

[ "Foundation Models", "LoRA", "Fine-tuning" ]

{ "note_id": [ "yQFoUIi0ve", "y6uLPttgnB", "wE21wSd9Yd", "vzL2NmQnuE", "t5iJKaQqY8", "s6npNE6fz1", "qR3lfAGAaU", "p9zv4rdq8Z", "nprhK6Wuph", "jV6traE6Oa", "ifeCEye59r", "iRH4RmynaM", "gfddInCT3Z", "fK6qFvMJ9x", "f5wJHjLnOC", "f50OV23IqU", "bPFkxljzPp", "bCPFYA6PHN", "ZO75oNgfj1", "XGn8BzduGm", "WeKkixTGaj", "WOZEM4Irha", "SljU6Nbhgc", "SMmEtVlgtM", "OgHBymeuPb", "KWEi3yJLVL", "K26Wt35hiX", "FmVdOlObwk", "EdTfgPsvr7", "DtcgAjHwNh", "DnSiJiDr1v", "9kkCm2zuS4", "6gssTK9Lpd", "6HU68RfvLY", "1osJDDMK8p", "1GkPDtTsDo", "0VUiZK9cYv", "08e1qnGyPy" ], "note_type": [ "official_comment", "official_review", "official_comment", "official_comment", "official_comment", "official_comment", "official_comment", "official_comment", "official_comment", "official_comment", "official_comment", "official_comment", "meta_review", "official_comment", "official_review", "official_comment", "official_comment", "official_review", "official_review", "official_comment", "official_comment", "official_comment", "official_comment", "official_comment", "official_comment", "official_comment", "official_comment", "official_comment", "official_comment", "official_comment", "official_comment", "decision", "official_comment", "official_comment", "official_comment", "official_comment", "official_comment", "official_comment" ], "note_created": [ 1733123814773, 1730579461079, 1732295371068, 1732392108579, 1733123796554, 1733137114025, 1732391397472, 1731764545332, 1732785863001, 1732294263965, 1732980319019, 1732295255939, 1734620802764, 1731764420834, 1729765135859, 1732332482655, 1732584118815, 1730384456210, 1730563293962, 1732980283920, 1733229819355, 1733123773881, 1733123755148, 1731763999093, 1731764404147, 1732787570042, 1732295501933, 1732374502971, 1732638263481, 1733133333179, 1733226626808, 1737523997864, 1731762978057, 1732295589157, 1733132055790, 1732980115406, 1731764823721, 1732540625501 ], "note_signatures": [ [ "ICLR.cc/2025/Conference/Submission9658/Authors" ], [ "ICLR.cc/2025/Conference/Submission9658/Reviewer_Qji4" ], [ "ICLR.cc/2025/Conference/Submission9658/Authors" ], [ "ICLR.cc/2025/Conference/Submission9658/Authors" ], [ "ICLR.cc/2025/Conference/Submission9658/Authors" ], [ "ICLR.cc/2025/Conference/Submission9658/Reviewer_Qji4" ], [ "ICLR.cc/2025/Conference/Submission9658/Authors" ], [ "ICLR.cc/2025/Conference/Submission9658/Authors" ], [ "ICLR.cc/2025/Conference/Submission9658/Reviewer_EQQt" ], [ "ICLR.cc/2025/Conference/Submission9658/Area_Chair_TLAf" ], [ "ICLR.cc/2025/Conference/Submission9658/Authors" ], [ "ICLR.cc/2025/Conference/Submission9658/Authors" ], [ "ICLR.cc/2025/Conference/Submission9658/Area_Chair_TLAf" ], [ "ICLR.cc/2025/Conference/Submission9658/Authors" ], [ "ICLR.cc/2025/Conference/Submission9658/Reviewer_EQQt" ], [ "ICLR.cc/2025/Conference/Submission9658/Reviewer_EQQt" ], [ "ICLR.cc/2025/Conference/Submission9658/Reviewer_iw7g" ], [ "ICLR.cc/2025/Conference/Submission9658/Reviewer_iw7g" ], [ "ICLR.cc/2025/Conference/Submission9658/Reviewer_nwRB" ], [ "ICLR.cc/2025/Conference/Submission9658/Authors" ], [ "ICLR.cc/2025/Conference/Submission9658/Authors" ], [ "ICLR.cc/2025/Conference/Submission9658/Authors" ], [ "ICLR.cc/2025/Conference/Submission9658/Authors" ], [ "ICLR.cc/2025/Conference/Submission9658/Authors" ], [ "ICLR.cc/2025/Conference/Submission9658/Authors" ], [ "ICLR.cc/2025/Conference/Submission9658/Authors" ], [ "ICLR.cc/2025/Conference/Submission9658/Authors" ], [ "ICLR.cc/2025/Conference/Submission9658/Reviewer_iw7g" ], [ "ICLR.cc/2025/Conference/Submission9658/Authors" ], [ "ICLR.cc/2025/Conference/Submission9658/Authors" ], [ "ICLR.cc/2025/Conference/Submission9658/Reviewer_nwRB" ], [ "ICLR.cc/2025/Conference/Program_Chairs" ], [ "ICLR.cc/2025/Conference/Submission9658/Authors" ], [ "ICLR.cc/2025/Conference/Submission9658/Authors" ], [ "ICLR.cc/2025/Conference/Submission9658/Reviewer_Qji4" ], [ "ICLR.cc/2025/Conference/Submission9658/Authors" ], [ "ICLR.cc/2025/Conference/Submission9658/Authors" ], [ "ICLR.cc/2025/Conference/Submission9658/Authors" ] ], "structured_content_str": [ "{\"comment\": \"Dear reviewer nwRB,\\n\\nWe thank you again for taking the time and effort to help improve our paper.\\n\\nSince we are at the end of the extended author-reviewer discussion period, we are reaching out to ask if our response have addressed your remaining concerns.\\n\\nPlease let us know if you have lingering questions and whether we can provide any additional clarifications today to improve your rating of our paper.\\n\\nThank you,\\nAuthors\"}", "{\"summary\": \"This paper introduces an enhancement to LoRA by initializing new weights through a data-driven approach. It computes singular value decomposition on mini-batches of activation vectors, using the resulting right-singular vectors to initialize the LoRA matrices. Additionally, ranks are re-distributed among weight matrices to maximize explained variance across layers, followed by standard LoRA fine-tuning. This new method, called Explained Variance Adaptation (EVA), is tested across various fine-tuning tasks, including language generation, understanding, image classification, and reinforcement learning. EVA demonstrates faster convergence and achieves the highest average performance across a range of tasks in each domain.\", \"soundness\": \"2\", \"presentation\": \"2\", \"contribution\": \"2\", \"strengths\": \"1.\\tThe proposed idea is quite straightforward, which I consider a strength rather than a limitation.\", \"weaknesses\": \"1.\\tIt's unclear why performing SVD on activation vectors for the initial mini-batches is beneficial for initializing the LoRA matrix. This could be explained further.\\n2.\\tThe visualizations in the paper could be improved for professionalism, for instance, the text in Figure 1 is too large, while in the left part of Figure 2, it is too small.\\n3.\\tThe improvement achieved by the proposed method is minimal in most of the tables, which raises doubts about its true effectiveness.\", \"questions\": \"1. Why is performing SVD on activation vectors for the initial mini-batches beneficial for initializing the LoRA matrix? This could be explained further, either from a theoretical or experimental perspective.\\n\\n2. In most experiments, the improvement achieved by the proposed method is minimal. How can it be demonstrated that the proposed initialization is indeed effective? From my perspective, given the limited parameters in the LoRA adapter, the influence of different initializations on the final performance should be relatively small.\\n\\n3. Computing the SVD introduces additional computational overhead, which diminishes the efficiency advantage of vanilla LoRA.\", \"flag_for_ethics_review\": \"['No ethics review needed.']\", \"rating\": \"3\", \"confidence\": \"4\", \"code_of_conduct\": \"Yes\"}", "{\"comment\": \"Dear reviewer nwRB,\\n\\nWe thank you again for taking the time and effort to help improve our paper and believe we have addressed all your concerns by properly motivating EVA, demonstrating that EVA actually reduces the number of trainable parameters compared to LoRA,\\n and by providing comparisons to works such as rsLoRA, LoRA+, LoRA-GA and different values for $\\\\alpha$.\\n\\nWe would be grateful for an opportunity to discuss wether there are any pending concerns you can point us to.\\n\\nThank you,\\nAuthors\"}", "{\"comment\": \"Thank you for taking the time to respond to our rebuttal!\\n\\nTo clarify, we did not claim that Appendix H addresses any rationale about EVA, but it addresses concerns raised by reviewer EQQt that the claim about explained variance is unsupported - it is not, it is proven in Appendix H. We explicitly give a more intuitive rationale on EVA below.\\n\\n**Rationale behind EVA:**\\n\\nDepending on the downstream data, each layer\\u2019s activation will exhibit different patterns as they are sensitive to the task and triggered to highlight different aspects of the pre-trained weight. Therefore, the activations capture task context. Our aim is to leverage this context for adapting the FM. In fact, we hypothesize that the more information we can leverage from this context, the better the downstream performance, i.e. we require a projection that propagates the maximum amount of information, which can be obtained by a projection onto the principal components via SVD. We verified empirically in our experiments that EVA consistently leads to lower loss and improved performance. \\n\\n**Faster convergence:**\\n\\nWe provided evidence for faster convergence for three different models on three different downstream tasks.\\nCan the reviewer elaborate on how many more loss curves it takes to be convincing?\\n\\n**Effect on initialization:**\\n\\nThere is plenty of evidence in the literature that initialization of LoRA significantly impacts downstream performance, may it be of empirical [1,2,3] or analytical nature [4]. Even the original work on LoRA [5] conducted pre-training on different tasks as initialization for certain other downstream tasks as it improved performance. Can the reviewer provide any references that provide evidence that initialization methods have \\\"minor impact\\\"?\\n\\n**References:**\\n\\n[1] Pissa: Principal singular values and singular vectors adaptation of large language models., Meng, et al. NeurIPS 2024\\n\\n[2] LoRA-GA: Low-Rank Adaptation with Gradient Approximation, Wang et al., NeurIPS 2024\\n\\n[3] OLoRA: Orthonormal Low-Rank Adaptation of Large Language Models, B\\u00fcy\\u00fckaky\\u00fcz et al., arXiv:2406.01775\\n\\n[4] The Impact of Initialization on LoRA Finetuning Dynamics, Hayou et al., NeurIPS 2024\\n\\n[5] LoRA: Low-Rank Adaptation of Large Language Models, Hu et al., ICLR 2022\"}", "{\"comment\": \"Dear reviewer EQQt,\\n\\nWe thank you again for taking the time and effort to help improve our paper.\\n\\nSince we are at the end of the extended author-reviewer discussion period, we are reaching out to ask if our response have addressed your remaining concerns.\\n\\nPlease let us know if you have lingering questions and whether we can provide any additional clarifications today to improve your rating of our paper.\\n\\nThank you,\\nAuthors\"}", "{\"comment\": \"Hi, I personally feel that the method lacks significance, justification and necessity. This concern seems to be echoed by other reviewers who have also raised similar points in the post-rebuttal stage.\"}", "{\"comment\": \"Thank you for taking the time to clarify your concerns.\\n\\n**Novelty:**\\n\\nFirstly, we would like to emphasize that the novel idea of our work is to make initialization data-driven. This has not been considered in prior work. To achieve such an initialization, we perform incremental SVD on activations. **Using SVD as a tool on activations is just the means to achieve the data-driven initialization and does not diminish the idea of data-driven initialization.** It is not an extension to [1] as the core idea of using the downstream data is fundamentally different to using information from the pre-trained weights. We would also like to stress again that **[2] does not use SVD**. Finally, we do not just use SVD, but incremental SVD, which brings its own set of challenges, such as dealing with incremental updates and distributing them across the entire large model in an efficient manner. \\nTo clarify, our contributions are as follows:\\n- We propose a novel data-driven initialization scheme for LoRA by leveraging incremental SVD on minibatches of activation vectors.\\n- We propose a data-driven heuristic for adaptive rank allocation based on explained variance.\\n- We demonstrate the effectiveness of EVA across a variety of different domains.\\n\\n**Rationale behind EVA:**\\n\\nDepending on the downstream data, each layer\\u2019s activation will exhibit different patterns as they are sensitive to the task and triggered to highlight different aspects of the pre-trained weight. Therefore, the activations capture task context. Our aim is to leverage this context for adapting the FM. In fact, we hypothesize that the more information we can leverage from this context, the better the downstream performance, i.e. we require a projection that propagates the maximum amount of information, which can be obtained by a projection onto the principal components, i.e. via SVD. We verified empirically in our experiments that EVA consistently leads to lower loss and improved performance. We are currently also running another experiment where we use the components that capture the least amount of variance and will post the performances as soon as they are finished. This experiment should verify that the directions capturing the most variance should be used for initialization. \\n\\n\\n**References:**\\n\\n[1] Pissa: Principal singular values and singular vectors adaptation of large language models., Meng, et al. NeurIPS 2024\\n\\n[2] AdaLoRA: Adaptive Budget Allocation for Parameter-Efficient Fine-Tuning, Zhang et al., ICLR 2023\"}", "{\"comment\": \"We would like to thank the reviewer for their constructive feedback and address the raised weaknesses and questions as follows.\\n\\n**Presentation:**\\n\\nWe agree that Figure 1 did not accurately reflect the procedure conducted by EVA and would like to thank the reviewer for bringing this to our attention. We updated Figure 1 in the revised manuscript. We also added the mathematical formulation of the incremental update in Section 3.2 along with pseudocode in Algorithm 2 and references to proofs plus a supporting proof in Appendix H that the components obtained via incremental SVD are projections onto the principal components that explain the most amount of variance in the linear subspace spanned by EVA. The changes are highlighted in red color in the revised version. If the reviewer has any further suggestions to enhance clarity, we will gladly update our manuscript.\\n\\n**Training Convergence:**\\n\\nThank you for the suggestion to add more training curves to our manuscript. We added additional loss curves for Gemma-2, Llama-3.1, and Llama-2 in Figure 4 in the Appendix. They verify the results shown in Figure 2. We will add further loss curves for the different domains as well, but need to re-train some models for that. In Figure 2 on the right, we show the gradient norm at the very first logging step, which demonstrates that EVA receives the strongest gradient signal at the beginning of training.\\n\\n**Naming of the method:**\\n\\nThe reason why we name our method \\u201cExplained Variance Adaptation\\u201d is because the projection onto the linear subspace which we use to initialize the matrix A explains the most variance of the input to each weight matrix. This is supported by the proof in Appendix H that we added which shows that the right singular values after SVD are a projection onto the principal components, i.e. they explain the most variance. Further, by adaptively allocating ranks we can maximize the explained variance throughout the model. The reason why this results in better performance is that EVA projects the input to a weight matrix into a lower dimensional subspace while preserving the most amount of information possible. Therefore, EVA propagates more information of the downstream data through the model compared to random or a weight-driven initialization.\\n\\n**Ablation Studies:**\\n\\nThis is indeed an interesting question and the motivation to perform these experiments on the VTAB-1K dataset was to gain a better intuition on what factors are crucial for performance on in vs out-of-distribution data. We found that by varying the scale and the directions of our initialization there is variation in the downstream behavior. For example, using whitening (changing the scale) leads to improvements on structured images. Therefore, this setting may be especially useful when dealing with out-of-distribution data. Further, EVA is particularly effective on natural images. Therefore, by changing the scale in a controlled manner we can make EVA more suitable for out of distribution data. Furthermore, varying the directions of the projection matrices deteriorates performance on out-of-distribution data. Therefore, we can conclude that the combination of both scale and direction of the projection matrix are crucial for good performance of EVA. We moved this section to appendix to accommodate a more in-depth description of EVA in Section 3, however still added another paragraph to make this more explicit.\"}", "{\"comment\": \"Thank you for your response, which partially addressed my concerns. I have raised my score to 5 as a result. However, the paper shows only marginal improvement and lack strong motivation, so I am still unable to recommend acceptance of this paper.\"}", "{\"title\": \"Interactive Discussions\", \"comment\": \"Dear Reviewers,\\n\\nThank you for your efforts in reviewing this paper. We highly encourage you to participate in interactive discussions with the authors before November 26, fostering a more dynamic exchange of ideas rather than a one-sided rebuttal.\\n\\nPlease feel free to share your thoughts and engage with the authors at your earliest convenience.\\n\\nThank you for your collaboration.\\n\\nBest regards,\\nICLR 2025 Area Chair\"}", "{\"comment\": \"Dear reviewer EQQt,\\n\\nAs there were previously doubts on the effect of initialization, we now also provide empirical evidence complementary to the references we provided. Those verify that the effect of initialization is substantial. To this end, we measured the distance between learned adapters with EVA and LoRA via cosine similarity and spectral norm. The average distances (cosine/spectral) across three seeds for the different weight matrices in Llama-2 and LLama-3.1-8B are shown below. This result verifies that given a different initalization, the adapters converge to substantially different solutions as there is absolutely no overlap in cosine similarity and a large deviaton in the spectral norm.\\n\\n| Model | Query | Key | Value | Gate | Up | Down |\\n| --- | --- | --- | --- | --- | --- | --- |\\n| LLama-2 | -0.01/4.98 | 0.00/5.00 | 0.01/4.00 | 0.00/4.05 | 0.00/6.64 | -0.00/3.67 | -0.00/ 4.02|\\n| LLama-3.1-8B | -0.00/4.05 | -0.01/5.25 | -0.00/3.83 | -0.01/3.53 | -0.00/6.98 | 0.01/3.37 | -0.00/3.73 | \\n\\nMoreover, to verify that EVA provides more information at the beginning of training, we quantify how much has been learned by measuring the distance between the initial adapters and the final ones after training LoRA and EVA for Llama-2 and Llama-3.1. We again average across three seeds and show distances (cosine/spectral) below. As evident below, EVA's initialization is consistently closer to the final adapters after training than LoRA's. This demonstrates that less information is learned for EVA as it already captures the most possible amount of information in the subspace. We will add both tables in the final version in case of acceptance.\\n\\n| Method | Model | Query | Key | Value | Gate | Up | Down |\\n| --- | --- | --- | --- | --- | --- | --- | --- |\\n| LoRA | LLama-2 |0.51/3.85 | 0.48/4.08 | 0.60/3.10 | 0.59/3.09 | 0.44/5.27 | 0.62/2.83 | 0.61/ 3.13 |\\n| EVA | Llama-2 | **0.62/3.48** | **0.59/3.59** | **0.62/2.90** | **0.62/2.78** | **0.42/4.92** | **0.66/2.61** | **0.67/2.84** |\\n| LoRA | Llama-3.1-8B | 0.51/3.46 | 0.47/3.96 | 0.59/2.93 | 0.61/2.73 | 0.35/5.88 | 0.60/2.58 | 0.59/2.98 |\\n| EVA | LLama-3.1-8B | **0.64/2.93** | **0.61/3.62** | **0.63/2.46** | **0.64/2.27** | **0.41/5.12** | **0.67/2.46** | **0.67/2.71** |\"}", "{\"comment\": \"Dear reviewer Qji4,\\n\\nWe thank you again for taking the time and effort to help improve our paper and believe we have addressed all your concerns by properly motivating EVA, updating Figure 1, and clearing any doubts of significance of results, since EVA reduces the number of trainable parameters, and providing evidence that overhead induces from EVA is negligible.\\n\\nWe would be grateful for an opportunity to discuss wether there are any pending concerns you can point us to.\\n\\nThank you,\\nAuthors\"}", "{\"metareview\": \"This submission proposes an enhancement to LoRA by initializing new weights through a data-driven approach. Specifically, it computes singular value decomposition (SVD) on mini-batches of activation vectors and uses the resulting right-singular vectors for initialization. Additionally, ranks are re-distributed among weight matrices to maximize explained variance across layers. Various benchmarks are used in the experiments to evaluate the effectiveness of the proposed initialization method.\\n\\nIn the rebuttal, a common concern raised is the motivation behind the proposed method and its marginal performance compared to existing approaches. After reviewing the discussion, the Area Chair aligns with most reviewers and leans towards rejection. However, the authors are encouraged to address these concerns and improve the submission for a future resubmission.\", \"additional_comments_on_reviewer_discussion\": \"As mentioned above, the primary concern raised by the reviewers is the motivation and rationale behind the proposed method, which the rebuttal fails to adequately address. Additionally, several reviewers found the experimental results to be marginal, and this issue remains unresolved in the rebuttal.\"}", "{\"comment\": \"**Lack of baselines:**\\n\\nThank you for making us aware of the concurrent work on LoRA-GA, we incorporated it into our experiments and added results for it in Table 2 and 3. We find that EVA mostly outperforms LoRA-GA, see reduced table below.\\n\\n| Model | Method | #Trainable | Common sense reasoning | GSM8K | MATH |\\n| --- | --- | --- | --- | --- | --- |\\n| LLama-2-7B | LoRA-GA | 18.3M | **83.4** | 60.2 | 11.7 |\\n| LLama-2-7B| EVA | **17.3M** | **83.4** | **61.9** | **13.1** |\\n| LLama-3.1-8B | LoRA-GA | 20M | 89.0 | **78.8** | 30.0 |\\n| LLama-3.1-8B | EVA | **18.9M** | **89.5** | **78.8** | **31.2** |\\n| Gemma-2-9B | LoRA-GA | 24.5M | 91.8 | 82.8 | 40.4 |\\n| Gemma-2-9B | EVA | **23.1M** | **92.5** | **83.6** | **41.5** |\\n\\n\\nFurthermore, we analyzed the efficiency of LoRA-GA in Table 22 in Appendix F4 and show that initialization with EVA is approximately 12 times faster for Llama-2-7B on MetaMath. We again show a reduced version of this table below.\\n\\n| Method | Initialization Time | Training Time | % of Training |\\n| -------- | ------- |----| --- |\\n| PiSSA | 7.43 | 482.67 | 1.5 |\\n| OLoRA | 0.3 | 482.67 | 0.1 |\\n| LoRA-GA | 11.7 | 482.67 | 2.4 |\\n| EVA | 1.17 | 482.67 | 0.2 | \\n\\nrsLoRA and LoRA+ are orthogonal approaches as they focus on rank-stabilized scaling and learning rate optimization. Suggested modifications by either one of them can be applied to **ALL methods** including EVA. To investigate their effect, we added an experiment where we compare rsLoRA and LoRA+ with EVA under the same conditions to fine-tuning LLama-2-7B on the common sense reasoning tasks. We find that (1) alpha=1 performs better in our experiment setup than alpha=32 (**83.4 vs 82.7 avg perfomance**, respectively), (2) rsLoRA improves LoRA as well as EVA, (3) LoRA+ does not lead to any gains in our setup, (4) EVA consistently outperforms LoRA across all these settings. We provide the table below.\\n\\n| Adaptation | Method | BoolQ | PIQA | SIQA| HellaSwag | Winogrande | ARC-e | ARC-c | OBQA | Avg |\\n| --- | --- | --- | --- | --- | --- | --- | --- | --- | --- | --- |\\n| LoRA+ | LoRA | 64.5 | 84.7 | **81.6** | **94.4** | 83.8 | 87.3 | **73.9** | **85.5** | 82.0 |\\n| LoRA+ | EVA | **68.6** | **85.0** | 81.2 | 94.2 | **84.7** | **87.4** | 73.5 | 84.1 | **82.3** |\\n| rsLoRA | LoRA | 71.5 | 85.3 | 82.5 | 95.2 | 84.5 | 89.0 | 75.8 | **86.8** | 83.8 |\\n| rsEVA | EVA | **75.5** | **86.1** | **82.7** | **95.4** | **86.1** | **89.3** | **76.3** | 86.3 | **84.7** |\\n| $\\\\alpha=32$ | LoRA | **77.9** | 82.1 | 80.1 | 93.2 | 79.8 | 86.3 | 71.5 | 79.3 | 81.3 |\\n| $\\\\alpha=32$ | EVA | 68.6 | **84.9** | **82.2** | **94.6** | **84.1** | **87.8** | **74.7** | **84.4** | **82.7**|\\n| $\\\\alpha=1$ | LoRA | 67.2 | 83.9 | 82.0 | 94.7 | 84.0 | 87.8 | 74.1 | 84.0 | 82.2 |\\n| $\\\\alpha=1$ | EVA | **68.3** | **85.3** | **82.9** | **95.2** | **85.2** | **88.6** | **75.8** | **86.3** | **83.4** |\"}", "{\"summary\": \"The paper proposes a novel method, Explained Variance Adaptation (EVA), to improve the fine-tuning process of foundation models. EVA builds upon LoRA (Low-Rank Adaptation) by introducing a data-driven initialization strategy that leverages the singular value decomposition (SVD) of activation vectors during training. This method aims to optimize the initialization of LoRA weights based on the explained variance of activation patterns in the downstream task data. EVA also incorporates adaptive rank allocation, allowing ranks to be distributed across layers in a way that maximizes the variance explained by the model. The paper demonstrates that EVA consistently outperforms existing methods across various tasks, including language generation, image classification, and reinforcement learning, by improving convergence speed and overall performance.\", \"soundness\": \"2\", \"presentation\": \"2\", \"contribution\": \"2\", \"strengths\": \"1. The proposed pipeline is easy to understand.\\n2. Comprehensive experiments are done, including language generation and understanding, image classification, and reinforcement learning.\\n3. Additional computational burden is clearly stated in the paper.\", \"weaknesses\": \"1. The paper's novelty is limited, as it applies SVD for LoRA initialization and rank distribution\\u2014approaches already explored in previous works. Specifically, SVD has been used for initialization in PiSSA [1] and for rank distribution in AdaLoRA [2]. The only incremental contribution appears to be applying SVD to activations, a technique previously examined in the pruning [3] and quantization [4] literature.\\n\\n2. I question the motivation for initializing matrix A with right-singular vectors, despite the authors' claim that they capture the directions of variance. More analytical evidence is needed to substantiate this conjecture (i.e., why the direction of variance results in better fine-tuning performance?).\\n\\n[1] Meng, Fanxu, Zhaohui Wang, and Muhan Zhang. \\\"Pissa: Principal singular values and singular vectors adaptation of large language models.\\\" arXiv preprint arXiv:2404.02948 (2024).\\n\\n[2] Zhang, Qingru, et al. \\\"AdaLoRA: Adaptive budget allocation for parameter-efficient fine-tuning.\\\" arXiv preprint arXiv:2303.10512 (2023). \\n\\n[3] Sun, Mingjie, et al. \\\"A simple and effective pruning approach for large language models.\\\" arXiv preprint arXiv:2306.11695 (2023).\\n\\n[4] Lin, Ji, et al. \\\"AWQ: Activation-aware Weight Quantization for On-Device LLM Compression and Acceleration.\\\" Proceedings of Machine Learning and Systems 6 (2024): 87-100.\", \"questions\": \"Please refer to the weakness part.\", \"flag_for_ethics_review\": \"['No ethics review needed.']\", \"rating\": \"5\", \"confidence\": \"4\", \"code_of_conduct\": \"Yes\"}", "{\"comment\": \"Thank you for your response.\\n\\nFirstly, I apologize for any confusion caused earlier. To clarify, I did not mean to imply that [3] or [4] implemented SVD with activations. Rather, my understanding is that this paper borrows the idea from them to **consider activations** when initializing the parameters of LoRA. While the use of SVD itself is not new (as demonstrated in [1] and [2]), the incorporation of activations in this context might be an extension. However, I believe this approach does not offer substantial novelty.\\n\\nSecondly, after reviewing Appendix H, I still have reservations about the rationale behind initializing $A$ using **directions that capture the most variance of the data**. I would like the authors to elaborate further on why focusing on **directions of maximum variance** leads to **better optimization** or **improved downstream performance**. Understanding the underlying logic here would help clarify the benefits of this initialization approach.\"}", "{\"comment\": \"**Faster convergence:**\\n\\nThank you for the additional loss curves (Appendix Fig. 4) regarding \\\"faster convergence\\\" in the new version. I've noted these while writing my previous response. I would like to clarify that my unconvinced stance does not stem from any concern about the quantity of results. On the contrary, multiple current results suggest that the random perturbations in loss appear to be larger than the \\\"faster convergence\\\" of \\\"EVA\\\" compared to \\\"Random\\\" that the authors aim to demonstrate (For a good example of \\\"faster convergence\\\", please refer to the results in Fig 1 of LoRA-GA [1]). In my assessment, the subtle \\\"fast convergence\\\" shown in the curves is potentially consistent with the modest performance gains mentioned in reviewer Qji4's Question 2, both observations suggesting that the proposed initialization method fails to demonstrate substantial impact.\\n\\nFurthermore, the authors state in Figure 2 that \\\"EVA exhibits significantly larger gradient norm leading to faster convergence\\\". It would be helpful if the authors could provide some references to support this causal relationship. I notice a contradicting example within Figure 2 itself, where \\\"PiSSA\\\" displays a larger gradient norm (as shown in Figure 2 Right) yet fails to demonstrate faster convergence compared to \\\"Random\\\", as evidenced by the loss curve.\\n\\n**Rationale behind EVA:**\\n\\nI agree that \\\"data-driven\\\" initialization potentially offers better adaptability to different downstream tasks than random initialization. The proposed EVA represents one implementation for this idea. However, current rationale behind EVA remains insufficient. I share the same concerns as reviewer EQQt regarding \\\"why focusing on directions of maximum variance leads to better optimization or improved downstream performance\\\". Could the authors further validate their viewpoint through mathematical formulations or analytical experiments? Additionally, Based on the current explanation of EVA, how to explain the poor performance of EVA on Spec. and Struct. (previous Table 7 in the main paper) ? The authors are encouraged to offer deeper insights about these results instead of simply describing the observed phenomena.\\n\\n\\n\\n[1] LoRA-GA: Low-Rank Adaptation with Gradient Approximation, Wang et al., NeurIPS 2024\"}", "{\"summary\": \"This paper focuses on the parameter-efficient fine-tuning of foundation models (FMs). Based on the commonly used low-rank adaptation (LoRA), the authors propose a new method called Explained Variance Adaptation (EVA) to fine-tuning FMs faster and better. Specifically, they emphasize the data-driven initialization and the adaptive ranks within EVA. The former is implemented via computing singular value decomposition on minibatches of activation vectors. The latter is based on explained variance. Extensive empirical results across various fine-tuning tasks have shown the effectiveness of their approaches.\", \"soundness\": \"2\", \"presentation\": \"3\", \"contribution\": \"2\", \"strengths\": \"1.The experiments in this paper are comprehensive, spanning multiple fields and validating the generalizability of the method sufficiently.\\n\\n2.The method in this paper seems to be straightforward and easy to reproduce.\\n\\n3.The data-driven manner proposed in this paper appears to be promising.\", \"weaknesses\": \"1.The clarity of the figures and formulas need further improvement. Figure 1 seems rough, failing to clearly illustrate the method presented in this paper. The authors can illustrate the following details in Figure 1: constructing matrix A from right singular vectors obtained through SVD decomposition; the incremental update process; and the procedure of adaptive rank allocation. Additionally, the mathematical formulation of \\\"incrementally update\\\" in sec 3.2 is necessary.\\n\\n2.The \\\"faster convergence\\\" claimed by the authors in the Abstract and Figure 2 seems not sufficiently significant. Adding experiments with other models and tasks could enhance the persuasiveness, not only Llama-3.1-8B on the MetaMathQA dataset. Similar to validating the method's effectiveness on language generation, language understanding, image classification, and decision making, the author can evaluate the \\\"faster convergence\\\" by selecting one dataset from these tasks.\\nAdditionally, regarding the relationship between gradient norm and convergence speed, more references should be included.\\n\\n3.This paper provides extensive experiments but lacks sufficient theoretical analysis or intuitive explanations. What makes this work is more interesting to the community. A thorough analytical discussion and interpretation of the initialization technique presented in Section 3.2 is needed, along with relevant supporting references when appropriate. This will be further discussed in \\u201cQuestions\\u201d.\", \"questions\": \"1.The proposed method is named \\u201cExplained Variance Adaptation\\u201d that also be included in the title. However, what is the relationship between \\\"Data-driven Initialization\\\" in sec 3.2 and \\u201cExplained Variance\\u201d? The key point of the proposed method seems to be about mining and utilizing downstream data information. \\u201cExplained Variance\\u201d appears to be just one part of it.\\nFurthermore, the authors should provide more detailed explanations for the operations in sec 3.2 - How does using right singular vectors for initialization affect fine-tuning? Why does it lead to better performance?\\n\\n2.The author points out the performance of different variants of EVA on various types of data (natural, specialized, and structured) in Table 7. However, there is a lack of in-depth analysis. For example, what makes the differences in EVA's performance across natural, specialized, and structured data? Could an appropriate explanation for this result be provided based on the analysis about sec 3.2?\", \"flag_for_ethics_review\": \"['No ethics review needed.']\", \"rating\": \"5\", \"confidence\": \"4\", \"code_of_conduct\": \"Yes\"}", "{\"summary\": \"This paper presents a novel initialization method called EVA for Low-Rank Adaptation (LoRA), which combines a weight-driven SVD with rank redistribution. The authors initialize matrix A by applying SVD to the input data X and then utilize a pruning method to implement rank redistribution. They further demonstrate the effectiveness of the EVA method through experiments on a variety of downstream tasks.\", \"soundness\": \"2\", \"presentation\": \"2\", \"contribution\": \"2\", \"strengths\": \"1.\\tThis paper is well-written.\\n2.\\tThe authors evaluate the method from multiple aspects, including language understanding, language generation, and image classification.\", \"weaknesses\": \"1.\\tAlthough the authors validate the effectiveness of EVA in various aspects, they do not provide insights into the reasoning behind their method. Specifically, they explain the process of initializing via SVD decomposition of activation values but fail to elaborate on the underlying principles. I would like the authors to clarify the rationale behind the EVA method.\\n2.\\tUsing rank redistribution within the same budget may lead to unfair comparisons; the effects of increasing the rank in small matrices versus large matrices differ significantly. For instance, adjusting (16, 512) to (17, 512) versus (16, 4096) to (17, 4096) increases the rank by one, but the latter clearly introduces more parameters. Additionally, the authors perform hyperparameter searches for $\\\\rho$ at {1, 2}, and results with $\\\\rho=1$ (uniform rank) sometimes yield better outcomes, suggesting that rank redistribution may not be as effective.\\n3.\\tThere is a lack of comparisons with related works, such as rsLoRA[1], LoRA+[2], and LoRA-GA[3] (also a data-driven initialization).\\n4. The experimental setting of $\\\\alpha=1$ seems unusual; for a rank of 16, a more common setting would be $\\\\alpha=32$. A specific comparison of their results would be beneficial.\\n\\n[1] Kalajdzievski, Damjan. \\\"A rank stabilization scaling factor for fine-tuning with lora.\\\", arXiv preprint, 2023.\\n\\n[2] Hayou, Soufiane, et al. \\\"Lora+: Efficient low rank adaptation of large models.\\\" arXiv preprint, 2024.\\n\\n[3] Wang, Shaowen, et al. \\\"LoRA-GA: Low-Rank Adaptation with Gradient Approximation.\\\" NeurIPS, 2024.\", \"questions\": \"See Weaknesses.\", \"flag_for_ethics_review\": \"['No ethics review needed.']\", \"rating\": \"6\", \"confidence\": \"3\", \"code_of_conduct\": \"Yes\"}", "{\"comment\": \"Dear reviewer iw7g,\\n\\nAs there were previously doubts on the effect of initialization, we now also provide empirical evidence complementary to the references we provided. Those verify that the effect of initialization is substantial. To this end, we measured the distance between learned adapters with EVA and LoRA via cosine similarity and spectral norm. The average distances (cosine/spectral) across three seeds for the different weight matrices in Llama-2 and LLama-3.1-8B are shown below. This result verifies that given a different initalization, the adapters converge to substantially different solutions as there is absolutely no overlap in cosine similarity and a large deviaton in the spectral norm.\\n\\n| Model | Query | Key | Value | Gate | Up | Down |\\n| --- | --- | --- | --- | --- | --- | --- |\\n| LLama-2 | -0.01/4.98 | 0.00/5.00 | 0.01/4.00 | 0.00/4.05 | 0.00/6.64 | -0.00/3.67 | -0.00/ 4.02|\\n| LLama-3.1-8B | -0.00/4.05 | -0.01/5.25 | -0.00/3.83 | -0.01/3.53 | -0.00/6.98 | 0.01/3.37 | -0.00/3.73 | \\n\\nMoreover, to verify that EVA provides more information at the beginning of training, we quantify how much has been learned by measuring the distance between the initial adapters and the final ones after training LoRA and EVA for Llama-2 and Llama-3.1. We again average across three seeds and show distances (cosine/spectral) below. As evident below, EVA's initialization is consistently closer to the final adapters after training than LoRA's. This demonstrates that less information is learned for EVA as it already captures the most possible amount of information in the subspace. We will add both tables in the final version in case of acceptance.\\n\\n| Method | Model | Query | Key | Value | Gate | Up | Down |\\n| --- | --- | --- | --- | --- | --- | --- | --- |\\n| LoRA | LLama-2 |0.51/3.85 | 0.48/4.08 | 0.60/3.10 | 0.59/3.09 | 0.44/5.27 | 0.62/2.83 | 0.61/ 3.13 |\\n| EVA | Llama-2 | **0.62/3.48** | **0.59/3.59** | **0.62/2.90** | **0.62/2.78** | **0.42/4.92** | **0.66/2.61** | **0.67/2.84** |\\n| LoRA | Llama-3.1-8B | 0.51/3.46 | 0.47/3.96 | 0.59/2.93 | 0.61/2.73 | 0.35/5.88 | 0.60/2.58 | 0.59/2.98 |\\n| EVA | LLama-3.1-8B | **0.64/2.93** | **0.61/3.62** | **0.63/2.46** | **0.64/2.27** | **0.41/5.12** | **0.67/2.46** | **0.67/2.71** |\"}", "{\"comment\": \"Thank you for engaging in the discussion and for raising your score!\\n\\nWe have now further clarified the motivation in a more formal manner and related the effect of our initilization to the fine-tuning performance in the revised version. Let $X = U \\\\Sigma V^\\\\top$ be the SVD decomposition on activations $X$. Then initializing $A = V_{:r}$ and $B=V_{:r}^\\\\top $ minimizes the reconstruction error $\\\\lVert X - XV_{:r}V_{:r}^\\\\top \\\\rVert $. This fact is given by the Eckart-young theorem [1] as $U_{:r} \\\\Sigma_{:r} V_{:r}^\\\\top$ is the best reconstruction of $X$. Now by choosing $A=V_{:r}$ the downprojection $XA$ must contain the most information about $X$ according to the data processing inequality [2], as the maximum amount of information $B$ can contribute is $B=V_{:r}^\\\\top$. Now the gradient w.r.t. $B$ is $\\\\frac{\\\\partial \\\\mathcal{L}}{ \\\\partial B} = \\\\frac{\\\\partial \\\\mathcal{L}}{\\\\partial W}A^\\\\top$. The fine-tuning process is concerned with storing information about the data in the weights. By choosing $A = V_{:r}$ we guarantee that the maximum amount of information is available at the beginning of training, such that it only needs to be learned what information to keep, i.e. what parts of $XA$ are relevant for the downstream task.\\n\\nOr put differently, during the fine-tuning process information about the downstream data is stored in the newly introduced LoRA adapters. Our motivation is to initialize these adapters such that they already provably contain the most information of the downstream data. This way, it only needs to be learned what information to maintain or discard. We can obtain such an initialization by applying SVD to the inputs of the weight matrices, as it provides us with the projection onto the principal components, i.e. we perform PCA on activations to obtain our initialization. This initialization provably stores the most information of the downstream data in the adapter weights. We updated our motivation in the uploaded version.\\n\\n[1] The approximation of one matrix by another of lower rank. Eckart et al., Psychometrika 1936\\n\\n[2] An intuitive proof of the data processing inequality, Beaudry et al., Quantum Information & Computation 2012\"}", "{\"comment\": \"Dear reviewer iw7g,\\n\\nWe thank you again for taking the time and effort to help improve our paper.\\n\\nSince we are at the end of the extended author-reviewer discussion period, we are reaching out to ask if our response have addressed your remaining concerns.\\n\\nPlease let us know if you have lingering questions and whether we can provide any additional clarifications today to improve your rating of our paper.\\n\\nThank you,\\nAuthors\"}", "{\"comment\": \"Dear reviewer Qji4,\\n\\nWe thank you again for taking the time and effort to help improve our paper.\\n\\nSince we are at the end of the extended author-reviewer discussion period, we are reaching out to ask if our response have addressed your remaining concerns.\\n\\nPlease let us know if you have lingering questions and whether we can provide any additional clarifications today to improve your rating of our paper.\\n\\nThank you,\\nAuthors\"}", "{\"comment\": \"**Motivation behind EVA:**\\n\\nLoRA initializes the matrix B with zeros and matrix A at random. This has beneficial properties (such as performing well under high learning rates [1]), but leads to a weak and noisy gradient signal at the initial training stage [2]. To obtain a better training signal we initialize the matrix A with the projection onto the principal components, i.e. the directions that explain the most variance. This has the effect that the most information possible is propagated through the linear subspace. The projection can be obtained by performing SVD on inputs to weight matrices (we refer to them as activation vectors for simplicity). Since we need to handle arbitrarily large datasets it is not a good solution to collect and store activations and perform SVD on the full datamatrix. Therefore, we perform SVD incrementally and stop after we do not observe any change in the projection onto the principal components anymore. We clarified this point in the revised version and added the relation to PCA (proof in Appendix H) along with formulation of the incremental SVD (Section 3.2) accompanied by pseudocode (Algorithm 2) and references to supplementary proofs.\\n\\n**Presentation:**\\n\\nThank you for pointing out the inconsistency in the figures. We updated the fontsize of the left part of Figure 2. Furthermore, we updated Figure 1 to clarify the initialization procedure performed by EVA. It should be a lot more clear now. If the reviewer has any further suggestions for enhancing clarity we will gladly include them into our manuscript.\\n\\n**Significance of results:**\\n\\nThere is compelling evidence in the literature that proper initialization of the LoRA subspace results in significant improvements [2,3,4]. While the differences may appear small at first glance, it is important to keep in mind that a small difference in average performance requires improvement in several single tasks. As EVA consistently improves upon its competitors on average across all domains, our reported results suggest statistical significance. Furthermore, we added a table that shows that after rank redistribution EVA actually **reduces** the number of trainable parameters while simultaneously improving performance. In the table below we illustrate that EVA improves upon LoRA for the same rank budget while reducing the parameter count.\\n\\n| Model | Method | #Trainable | Common sense reasoning | GSM8K | MATH |\\n| --- | --- | --- | --- | --- | --- |\\n| LLama-2-7B | LoRA | 18.3M | 82.2 | 59.7 | 10.9 |\\n| LLama-2-7B| EVA | **17.3M** | **83.4** | **61.9** | **13.1** |\\n| LLama-3.1-8B | LoRA | 20M | 89.2 | 78.3 | 30.1 |\\n| LLama-3.1-8B | EVA | **18.9M** | **89.5** | **78.8** | **31.2** |\\n| Gemma-2-9B | LoRA | 24.5M | 92.2 | 83.4 | 40.7 |\\n| Gemma-2-9B | EVA | **23.1M** | **92.5** | **83.6** | **41.5** |\\n\\n**Computational Overhead of EVA:**\\n\\nWe disagree that the additional computational overhead diminishes the effect of LoRA fine-tuning. In fact, we added Table 22 in the appendix that demonstrates that initialization with EVA merely constitutes 0.2% of the total training time (in minutes), i.e. initialization takes approx. 70 seconds compared to 8 hours of training for Llama-2-7B on the common sense reasoning tasks. We also show a reduced form of the table below for convenience.\\n\\n| Method | Initialization Time | Training Time | % of Training |\\n| -------- | ------- |----| --- |\\n| PiSSA | 7.43 | 482.67 | 1.5 |\\n| OLoRA | 0.3 | 482.67 | 0.1 |\\n| LoRA-GA | 11.7 | 482.67 | 2.4 |\\n| EVA | 1.17 | 482.67 | 0.2 | \\n\\nIn this table LoRA-GA is concurrent work on data-driven initialization which we added to our experiments in Table 2 and 3 in the revised version of our manuscript. The only other initialization method that is faster than EVA is OLoRA which is weight-driven and performs worse in our experiments. Therefore, EVA attains a better performance vs complexity trade-off. Finally, as demonstrated above, EVA additionally reduces the parameter count via rank redistribution which further reduces computational complexity. Considering these facts, we believe EVA provides significant contributions to the community. \\n\\n**References:**\\n\\n[1] The Impact of Initialization on LoRA Finetuning Dynamics, Hayou et al., NeurIPS 2024\\n\\n[2] Pissa: Principal singular values and singular vectors adaptation of large language models., Meng, et al. NeurIPS 2024\\n\\n[3] LoRA-GA: Low-Rank Adaptation with Gradient Approximation, Wang et al., NeurIPS 2024\\n\\n[4] OLoRA: Orthonormal Low-Rank Adaptation of Large Language Models, B\\u00fcy\\u00fckaky\\u00fcz et al., arXiv:2406.01775\"}", "{\"comment\": \"We would like to thank the reviewer for the time spent to provide constructive feedback that helps us significantly improve our manuscript. We adress all raised weaknesses as follows.\\n\\n**Rationale behind EVA:**\\n\\nThank you for pointing out the lack of clarity! The rationale behind EVA is that we would like to initialize the matrix A in a way such that the most information of the downstream task is being propagated through the model. The reasoning behind this is that random initialization introduces wasteful update steps especially in the beginning of training [1]. We can remediate this by initializing A with a projection onto the principal components, because those explain the most amount of variance in the data. In our case the data is the input to each weight matrix, which we refer to as activation vectors for simplicity. An efficient way of obtaining this projection is via SVD (we added a proof in Appendix H for equivalence between right-singular vectors and projection onto principal components). A naive way would be to collect activations for the entire dataset and perform SVD on the stacked matrix. However since the dataset can be arbitrarily large and we want to avoid any overhead in memory we leverage incremental SVD [2]. We added the mathematical formulation of the incremental procedure and references to proofs in Section 3.2 along with pseudocode for the incremental update in Algorithm 2 in the Appendix. Now, to maximize the amount of variance that is explained throughout the model , we perform rank redistribution by sorting and assigning ranks according to their explained variance. To enhance clarity, we also updated Figure 1 such that it comprises all parts of EVA.\\n\\n**Parameter budget and adaptive ranks:**\\n\\nThank you for raising this issue! For $\\\\rho=1$ the parameter count is exactly the same as for LoRA, however this changes for $\\\\rho=2$. We added a table containing the number of trainable parameters and performance for the larger models (Table 11 in Appendix B.3) which demonstrates that **EVA with rank redistribution actually reduces the number of trainable parameters** while improving performance. We added a reduced version of this table below for convenience.\\n\\n| Model | Method | #Trainable | Common sense reasoning | GSM8K | MATH |\\n| --- | --- | --- | --- | --- | --- |\\n| LLama-2-7B | LoRA | 18.3M | 82.2 | 59.7 | 10.9 |\\n| LLama-2-7B| EVA | **17.3M** | **83.4** | **61.9** | **13.1** |\\n| LLama-3.1-8B | LoRA | 20M | 89.2 | 78.3 | 30.1 |\\n| LLama-3.1-8B | EVA | **18.9M** | **89.5** | **78.8** | **31.2** |\\n| Gemma-2-9B | LoRA | 24.5M | 92.2 | 83.4 | 40.7 |\\n| Gemma-2-9B | EVA | **23.1M** | **92.5** | **83.6** | **41.5** |\\n\\nThe reason for this is that ranks are often transferred from the higher dimensional feed-forward weights to lower dimensional attention weights. Furthermore, the reviewer is correct in highlighting that adaptive rank allocation is not always the best performing method and this heavily depends on the downstream task, i.e. on common sense reasoning $\\\\rho=2$ performs better and on math tasks $\\\\rho=1$ performs slightly better. Further, for the image classification experiments and the language understanding experiments we used adaptive ranks, while for the RL tasks uniform ranks performed better. We have made this more explicit in our revised version. We also added an additional paragraph in the discussion section where we elaborate on the effect of rank redistribution in more detail. We would like to stress that there is no one method that performs best across all tasks, i.e. no free lunch, but rank redistribution can improve EVA while simultaneously reducing the parameter count. Therefore we believe it is a valuable contribution.\\n\\n**References:**\\n\\n[1] Pissa: Principal singular values and singular vectors adaptation of large language models., Meng, et al. NeurIPS 2024\\n\\n[2] Incremental learning for robust visual tracking., Ross et al., NeurIPS 2004\\n\\nSee next response for remaining points.\"}", "{\"comment\": \"Thank you for your further engagement and the increase in score.\\n\\nWe have now further clarified the motivation in a more formal manner and related the effect of our initilization to the fine-tuning performance in the revised version. Let $X = U \\\\Sigma V^\\\\top$ be the SVD decomposition on activations $X$. Then initializing $A = V_{:r}$ and $B=V_{:r}^\\\\top $ minimizes the reconstruction error $\\\\lVert X - XV_{:r}V_{:r}^\\\\top \\\\rVert $. This fact is given by the Eckart-young theorem [1] as $U_{:r} \\\\Sigma_{:r} V_{:r}^\\\\top$ is the best reconstruction of $X$. Now by choosing $A=V_{:r}$ the downprojection $XA$ must contain the most information about $X$ according to the data processing inequality [2], as the maximum amount of information $B$ can contribute is $B=V_{:r}^\\\\top$. Now the gradient w.r.t. $B$ is $\\\\frac{\\\\partial \\\\mathcal{L}}{ \\\\partial B} = \\\\frac{\\\\partial \\\\mathcal{L}}{\\\\partial W}A^\\\\top$. The fine-tuning process is concerned with storing information about the data in the weights. By choosing $A = V_{:r}$ we guarantee that the maximum amount of information is available at the beginning of training, such that it only needs to be learned what information to keep, i.e. what parts of $XA$ are relevant for the downstream task.\\n\\n[1] The approximation of one matrix by another of lower rank. Eckart et al., Psychometrika 1936\\n\\n[2] An intuitive proof of the data processing inequality, Beaudry et al., Quantum Information & Computation 2012\\n\\nFinally, we would like to recite our presented table from our previous answer, where it is clearly visible that while improvements are marginal for some tasks, EVA also reduces the amount of trainable parameters (see Table 11 in Appendix B3). The reason for this is that more ranks are transferred from the higher dimensional feedforward weights (non-attention weights) to the attention weights. We again present this table below. It clearly shows that EVA is pareto-dominant compared to all competitors.\\n\\n| Model | Method | #Trainable | Common sense reasoning | GSM8K | MATH |\\n| --- | --- | --- | --- | --- | --- |\\n| LLama-2-7B | LoRA | 18.3M | 82.2 | 59.7 | 10.9 |\\n| LLama-2-7B| EVA | **17.3M** | **83.4** | **61.9** | **13.1** |\\n| LLama-3.1-8B | LoRA | 20M | 89.2 | 78.3 | 30.1 |\\n| LLama-3.1-8B | EVA | **18.9M** | **89.5** | **78.8** | **31.2** |\\n| Gemma-2-9B | LoRA | 24.5M | 92.2 | 83.4 | 40.7 |\\n| Gemma-2-9B | EVA | **23.1M** | **92.5** | **83.6** | **41.5** |\"}", "{\"comment\": \"Dear reviewer iw7g,\\n\\nWe thank you again for taking the time and effort to help improve our paper and believe we have addressed all your concerns by properly motivating EVA, updating Figure 1 and extending the methodology section, supplementary proofs and additional pseudocode, adding additional loss curves, and clearing up any confusion about the ablation studies.\\n\\nWe would be grateful for an opportunity to discuss wether there are any pending concerns you can point us to.\\n\\nThank you, Authors\"}", "{\"comment\": \"Thank you for your response and the revisions to the paper.\\n\\nRegarding my Question 1, this has raised consistent concerns among all four reviewers. The authors claim that has been addressed in Appendix H. However, I agree with reviewer EQQt that the proof fails to provide the underlying rationale for how the proposed initialization method\\u00a0leads to better downstream performance.\\nMoreover, I remain unconvinced by the evidence presented for \\u201cfast convergence\\u201d. After reading reviewer Qji4's comments, I believe this may be related to Qji4's Question 2, which suggests that different initialization methods have relatively minor impacts.\\n\\nWith these considerations, I decide to keep my original rating.\"}", "{\"comment\": \"Thank you for your further engagement in this discussion, we greatly appreciate it!\\n\\n**Faster convergence:**\\n\\nThank you for pointing out the inconsistency around the relationship between gradient norm and loss. Indeed, we admit that this was an overclaim on our side and we now removed every claim that it is the gradient norm that results in faster convergence. Figure 1 in [1] is a single loss curve for a single seed which does not properly account for random effects. In contrast, our loss curves are averaged across multiple seeds. Averaging across more than one seed is a very important in our opinion to determine whether the faster convergence holds and is not due to some random factor. This is indeed the case for EVA as we demonstrated in multiple loss curves.\\n\\n**Performance of EVA:**\\n\\nThank you for raising this point, we added an additional paragraph in the discussion section that addresses this point. We would like to clarify a few things in this regard.\\n\\n> Based on the current explanation of EVA, how to explain the poor performance of EVA on Spec. and Struct. (previous Table 7 in the main paper) ? \\n\\nFirst of all, we never claimed that EVA is better on each and every task, our claims are always with respect to average performance. Neither our motivation, nor our claims suggests that EVA outperforms every other method on every task.\\n\\n> how to explain the poor performance of EVA on Spec. and Struct. ?\\n\\nThe claim that results are poor is very subjective and the higher average accuracy of EVA compared to all other methods highlights that other methods perform worse on different tasks, leading to a better average score of EVA. We believe the fact that we observed these results is simply because there is no free lunch, i.e. there is no one algorithm that performs the best across all tasks and we believe that the community should be made aware of this. Our empirical evidence verifies this observation. Finally, EVA is pareto-dominant compared to all competitors as it decreases the number of trainable parameters via rank redistribution, while attaining better average scores (evidenced in Table 11 in Appendix B3).\\n\\n> why focusing on directions of maximum variance leads to better optimization or improved downstream performance?\\n\\nLet $X = U \\\\Sigma V^\\\\top$ be the SVD decomposition on activations $X$. Then initializing $A = V_{:r}$ and $B=V_{:r}^\\\\top $ minimizes the reconstruction error $\\\\lVert X - XV_{:r}V_{:r}^\\\\top \\\\rVert $. This fact is given by the Eckart-young theorem [2] as $U_{:r} \\\\Sigma_{:r} V_{:r}^\\\\top$ is the best reconstruction of $X$. Now by choosing $A=V_{:r}$ the downprojection $XA$ must contain the most information about $X$ according to the data processing inequality [3], as the maximum amount of information $B$ can contribute is $B=V_{:r}^\\\\top$. Now the gradient w.r.t. $B$ is $\\\\frac{\\\\partial \\\\mathcal{L}}{ \\\\partial B} = \\\\frac{\\\\partial \\\\mathcal{L}}{\\\\partial W}A^\\\\top$. The fine-tuning process is concerned with storing information about the data in the weights. By choosing $A = V_{:r}$ we guarantee that the maximum amount of information is available at the beginning of training, such that it only needs to be learned what information to keep, i.e. what parts of $XA$ are relevant for the downstream task.\\n\\nTo empirically verify that it should be the components that propoagate the most information, we conduct an experiment, where we fine-tune Llama-2 on the common sense reasoning tasks and use the components that propoagate the least amount of information, i.e. $A = V_{-r:}$. We call this method EVA-minor and report results below and in Table 12 in Appendix B3. EVA-minor performs significantly worse on 5/8 common sense reasoning tasks, while performance on the remaining three is on-par. This result further verifies our intuition on the benefits of initialization according to EVA.\\n \\n| Method | BoolQ | PIQA | SIQA | HellaSwag | Winogrande | ARC-e | ARC-c | OBQA | Avg. |\\n| --- | --- | --- | --- | --- | --- | --- | --- | --- | --- |\\n| EVA | 68.6 | 85.0 | 81.2 | 94.2 | 84.7 | 87.4 | 73.5 | 84.1 | 82.3 |\\n| EVA-minor | 64.0 | 83.4 | 81.5 | 94.3 | 82.0 | 87.3 | 73.0 | 81.6 | 80.9 |\\n\\n**References:**\\n\\n[1] LoRA-GA: Low-Rank Adaptation with Gradient Approximation, Wang et al., NeurIPS 2024\\n\\n[2] The approximation of one matrix by another of lower rank. Eckart et al., Psychometrika 1936\\n\\n[3] An intuitive proof of the data processing inequality, Beaudry et al., Quantum Information & Computation 2012\"}", "{\"comment\": \"Der reviewer Qji4,\\n\\nThank you for your repsponse and investing time in reading our response.\\n\\nTo the best of our knowledge we have addressed all the concerns of the initial review.\\nIn particular, we have addressed the motivation on EVA, showed that EVA improves performance while reducing the number of trainable parameters, demonstrated the effect of initialzation and also verified that EVA contains a larger constituent of informaion compared to the final solution, making it a better initialzation for LoRA.\\nFinally, we showed that initalization with EVA merely amounts to 0.2% of actual training time, diminishing any doubts about efficiency.\\n\\nWe kindly ask the reviewer be more specific about the remaining concerns, as this helps us to improve our manuscript.\"}", "{\"comment\": \"Thank you for your response and the additional experiments. Like the other reviewers, I still find the rationale behind using SVD of activation for weight initialization unclear. However, I have decided to raise my score to encourage the author to explore this issue further in future work.\"}", "{\"title\": \"Paper Decision\", \"decision\": \"Reject\"}", "{\"comment\": \"Thank you for your feedback. We address the raised weaknesses as follows.\\n\\n**Novelty:**\\n\\nWe respectfully disagree with the reviewer on the novelty aspect. Incremental SVD has not been used on activations before which brings its own sets of problems. PiSSA [1] applies SVD to pre-trained weights and AdaLoRA [2] does not use SVD, but merely SVD-like re-formulation of LoRA, which is not the same. Furthermore, **neither [3] nor [4] actually apply SVD to activations**. [3] applies a dot product between activations and weights to obtain importance scores and [4] relies on scaling salient activation regions. In fact, neither of [3,4] have a single mention of SVD in their work. \\n\\nApplying SVD to inputs to weight matrices (we refer to them as activation vectors for simplicity) requires dealing with growing memory as the data matrix increases with each batch, therefore we employ incremental SVD to keep memory costs constant. We clarified this in our updated method section and also explicitly mention our contributions which are as follows:\\nWe propose a novel data-driven initialization scheme for LoRA by leveraging incremental SVD on minibatches of activation vectors.\\nWe propose a data-driven heuristic for adaptive rank allocation based on explained variance.\\nWe demonstrate EVA's effectiveness across a variety of different domains and tasks.\\n\\nWe also added this list of contributions in our introduction in the revised version\\n\\n**Right-singular vectors capture directions of most variance:**\\n\\nWe provide a proof in Appendix H which demonstrates that the right-singular values obtained via SVD are equivalent to the projection onto the principal components which is usually obtained via PCA. In fact, practical implementations of PCA (pytorch, scikit-learn, etc.) usually employ SVD under the hood to obtain the projection onto the principal components.\\nThe intuition for leveraging this projection as initialization for the matrix A in LoRA is that the projection onto the principal components capture the most variance, i.e. they preserve the most information of the downstream task in a linear lower dimensional subspace. By redistributing the ranks we can maximize the amount of variance that is explained throughout the model. This leads to improved performance while even reducing the amount of trainable parameters (see Table 11 in Appendix B3). For convenience we also added this table below.\\n\\n| Model | Method | #Trainable | Common sense reasoning | GSM8K | MATH |\\n| --- | --- | --- | --- | --- | --- |\\n| LLama-2-7B | LoRA | 18.3M | 82.2 | 59.7 | 10.9 |\\n| LLama-2-7B| EVA | **17.3M** | **83.4** | **61.9** | **13.1** |\\n| LLama-3.1-8B | LoRA | 20M | 89.2 | 78.3 | 30.1 |\\n| LLama-3.1-8B | EVA | **18.9M** | **89.5** | **78.8** | **31.2** |\\n| Gemma-2-9B | LoRA | 24.5M | 92.2 | 83.4 | 40.7 |\\n| Gemma-2-9B | EVA | **23.1M** | **92.5** | **83.6** | **41.5** |\\n\\n\\n**References:**\\n\\n[1] Pissa: Principal singular values and singular vectors adaptation of large language models., Meng, et al. NeurIPS 2024\\n\\n[2] AdaLoRA: Adaptive Budget Allocation for Parameter-Efficient Fine-Tuning, Zhang et al., ICLR 2023\\n\\n[3] A simple and effective pruning approach for large language models., Sun et al., arXiv preprint arXiv:2306.11695 (2023).\\n\\n[4] AWQ: Activation-aware Weight Quantization for On-Device LLM Compression and Acceleration., Lin et al., PMLR 2024\"}", "{\"comment\": \"Dear reviewer EQQt,\\n\\nWe thank you again for taking the time and effort to help improve our paper and believe we have addressed all your concerns by clarifying our contributions, improving clarity and adding supplementary proofs and more mathematical formulations.\\n\\nWe would be grateful for an opportunity to discuss wether there are any pending concerns you can point us to.\\n\\nThank you, Authors\"}", "{\"comment\": \"I have read the authors' responses and the comments from other reviewers. I appreciate the authors' efforts to improve the quality of the paper, however, I still have concerns about the motivation of the proposed method, paper writing and especially the experiments. As such, I tend to maintain my original rating and cannot recommend accepting this paper.\"}", "{\"comment\": \"Dear reviewer Qji4,\\n\\nIn addition to the provided references on initialization of LoRA adapters, we empirically verified that the effect of initialization is substantial. To this end, we measured the distance between learned adapters with EVA and LoRA via cosine similarity and spectral norm. The average distances (cosine/spectral) across three seeds for the different weight matrices in Llama-2 and LLama-3.1-8B are shown below. This result verifies that given a different initalization, the adapters converge to substantially different solutions as there is absolutely no overlap in cosine similarity and a large deviaton in the spectral norm.\\n\\n| Model | Query | Key | Value | Gate | Up | Down |\\n| --- | --- | --- | --- | --- | --- | --- |\\n| LLama-2 | -0.01/4.98 | 0.00/5.00 | 0.01/4.00 | 0.00/4.05 | 0.00/6.64 | -0.00/3.67 | -0.00/ 4.02|\\n| LLama-3.1-8B | -0.00/4.05 | -0.01/5.25 | -0.00/3.83 | -0.01/3.53 | -0.00/6.98 | 0.01/3.37 | -0.00/3.73 | \\n\\nMoreover, to verify that EVA provides more information at the beginning of training, we quantify how much has been learned by measuring the distance between the initial adapters and the final ones after training LoRA and EVA for Llama-2 and Llama-3.1. We again average across three seeds and show distances (cosine/spectral) below. As evident below, EVA's initialization is consistently closer to the final adapters after training than LoRA's. This demonstrates that less information is learned for EVA as it already captures the most possible amount of information in the subspace. We will add both tables in the final version in case of acceptance.\\n\\n| Method | Model | Query | Key | Value | Gate | Up | Down |\\n| --- | --- | --- | --- | --- | --- | --- | --- |\\n| LoRA | LLama-2 |0.51/3.85 | 0.48/4.08 | 0.60/3.10 | 0.59/3.09 | 0.44/5.27 | 0.62/2.83 | 0.61/ 3.13 |\\n| EVA | Llama-2 | **0.62/3.48** | **0.59/3.59** | **0.62/2.90** | **0.62/2.78** | **0.42/4.92** | **0.66/2.61** | **0.67/2.84** |\\n| LoRA | Llama-3.1-8B | 0.51/3.46 | 0.47/3.96 | 0.59/2.93 | 0.61/2.73 | 0.35/5.88 | 0.60/2.58 | 0.59/2.98 |\\n| EVA | LLama-3.1-8B | **0.64/2.93** | **0.61/3.62** | **0.63/2.46** | **0.64/2.27** | **0.41/5.12** | **0.67/2.46** | **0.67/2.71** |\"}", "{\"comment\": \"We would like to thank all reviewers for their constructive feedback that helps us to significantly improve our manuscript.\", \"we_addressed_all_points_raised_by_the_reviewers_and_added_the_following_changes_in_the_revised_manuscript\": [\"We updated Figure 1 and extended the Introduction to give a better motivation for EVA.\", \"We extended Section 3 with mathematical formulations of the incremental SVD update plus pseudocode in Algorithm 2 in Appendix F. We furthermore add an additional proof in Appendix H that the right-singular values are the projection onto the principal components that explain the most variance of the data.\", \"We added additional results for LoRA-GA (Table 2 and 3), which is concurrent work on data-driven initialization, for common sense reasoning and math tasks. EVA mostly outperforms LoRA-GA on all three model classes..\", \"We added a comparison of EVA to LoRA in the rsLorA and LoRA+ settings, where EVA consistently outperforms LoRA (Table 9 in Appendix B3).\", \"We added a more elaborate discussion on performance for $\\\\rho=1$ vs $\\\\rho=2$ (Section 5), along with Table 10 in Appendix B3 which compares performance of both setups on common sense reasoning and math tasks. Further, we added Table 11 in Appendix B3 on trainable parameters showing that **rank-redistribution consistently reduces the number of trainable parameters while improving performance compared to LoRA.**\", \"We added Table 22 in Appendix F4 on efficiency of obtaining the data-driven initialization. EVA is significantly faster than LoRA-GA and only slightly slower than OLoRA (which is not a data-driven initialization) while exhibiting better performance and reducing the number of trainable parameters.\", \"We added additional training loss curves (Figure 4) showing the same trend as Figure 2, that EVA leads to faster convergence.\", \"All changes are highlighted in red in the updated manuscript. We are looking forward to an engaging discussion and further feedback from the reviewers to improve our manuscript.\"]}", "{\"comment\": \"Dear reviewer EQQt,\\n\\nTo verify our hypothesis that $A$ should be initialized with a projection that explains the most variance in the data, we conducted an experiment where we compare the standard EVA with EVA-minor, which leverages the minor components that explain the least variance. We report results in Table 12 in Appendix B3 in the updated manuscript as well as below for convenienve. EVA-minor performs significantly worse on 5/8 common sense reasoning tasks, while performance on the remaining three is on-par. This provides compelling evidence for initializing according to the projection onto the principal components that explain the most variance. Finally, we would like to stress that the SVD computation for EVA-minor is impractical as it takes a few hours compared to a few seconds for EVA. This is because we need to compute all components and not just the first few as we do for EVA. \\n\\n| Method | BoolQ | PIQA | SIQA | HellaSwag | Winogrande | ARC-e | ARC-c | OBQA | Avg. |\\n| --- | --- | --- | --- | --- | --- | --- | --- | --- | --- |\\n| EVA | 68.6 | 85.0 | 81.2 | 94.2 | 84.7 | 87.4 | 73.5 | 84.1 | 82.3 |\\n| EVA-minor | 64.0 | 83.4 | 81.5 | 94.3 | 82.0 | 87.3 | 73.0 | 81.6 | 80.9 |\"}" ] }

[ "Johnny Jingze Li", "Vivek Kurien George", "Gabriel A. Silva" ]

[ "Emergence", "Initialization", "cascade effect" ]

{ "note_id": [ "u4MjdljeeE", "okwVO1LvCl", "aw8IDkmKbw", "ZQ1f8ThA2m", "7Ol71uegrD" ], "note_type": [ "official_review", "official_review", "meta_review", "decision", "official_review" ], "note_created": [ 1730288778331, 1730788923910, 1734963998968, 1737523720100, 1730564816644 ], "note_signatures": [ [ "ICLR.cc/2025/Conference/Submission5693/Reviewer_PoKs" ], [ "ICLR.cc/2025/Conference/Submission5693/Reviewer_bKVQ" ], [ "ICLR.cc/2025/Conference/Submission5693/Area_Chair_H2Vs" ], [ "ICLR.cc/2025/Conference/Program_Chairs" ], [ "ICLR.cc/2025/Conference/Submission5693/Reviewer_KAq8" ] ], "structured_content_str": [ "{\"summary\": \"This paper explores emergence property of neural network and introduce a NN initialization scheme that aims at achieving better potential for emergence. The authors conduct experiments on MLP and convolutional architectures for image recognition, and transformers for machine translation to evaluate the proposed approach.\", \"soundness\": \"2\", \"presentation\": \"2\", \"contribution\": \"2\", \"strengths\": \"1. Searching for a network initialization method that can promote the emergence phenomenon is meaningful, which helps to accelerate model convergence and improve generalization performance.\\n\\n2. The proposed method achieves better performance in initial training phase across several tasks.\", \"weaknesses\": \"1.The experimental results can not support the claims made in the paper. As we know, In the field of machine learning, particularly in deep learning and large neural networks, the phenomenon of emergence describes how models exhibit abilities or characteristics they did not originally possess or that were not anticipated, after scaling up in size, increasing data volume, or extending training time.\\nHowever, from the experimental results presented, the only information I can get is that the method proposed in this paper converges faster in small models or datasets during the initial phase (the first epoch) of training compared to Xavier or Kaiming initialization. However, it does not demonstrate stronger emergent properties or scaling capabilities. I suggest that the authors train on larger datasets and models for longer durations to support the claims made in the paper.\\n\\n2.There are many metrics and experiments that can measure emergent phenomena, such as capturing performance jumps in zero-shot and few-shot learning and conducting scaling laws analysis. However, this paper only presents training loss and test accuracy. I suggest that the authors provide a more comprehensive evaluation of their proposed method.\", \"minor_typo\": \"\", \"l274\": \"\\u2018nods\\u2019 should be \\u2018nodes\\u2019.\", \"questions\": \"What is the meaning of operations $\\\\bigoplus$ and $\\\\otimes$\\uff1f I think this paper should illustrate them.\", \"flag_for_ethics_review\": \"['No ethics review needed.']\", \"details_of_ethics_concerns\": \"NA\", \"rating\": \"3\", \"confidence\": \"4\", \"code_of_conduct\": \"Yes\"}", "{\"summary\": \"From the perspective of emergence-promoting, the paper presents a method to initialize the neural networks for training. Starting from abstract definition of emergence, the authors view a neural network as a graph, and derive the definition of emergence in a neural network based on the number of paths from inactive nodes in lower layers to active nodes in higher layers. It turns out that the number of inactive nodels determine the emergence of a neural network. Then the authors propose a simple method to initialize the neural network by decreasing the magnitude of weights in the first half layers and increasing the magnitude of weights in the second half layers. Experiments were conducted on CIFAR-10, ImageNet and IWSLT-14 De-En.\", \"soundness\": \"2\", \"presentation\": \"1\", \"contribution\": \"1\", \"strengths\": \"The perspective of emergence for neural network initialization is interesting. The derived result, say, decreasing the magnitude of weights in the first half layers and increasing the magnitude of weights in the second half layers, is easy to implement. Experiments showed that the neural networks initialized with this strategy had some advantage.\", \"weaknesses\": \"1. The transition from the Theorem (L200) to equation (3) is hard to understand. In other words, how eqn (3) which describing a concrete example, is derived from eqn (2) which describes an abstract system, is unclear. More explanation is needed.\\n\\n2. The contents after eqn (3), say, L231-241, are inconsistent with this eqn. In this eqn, H belongs to G, but in L231-241, G and H denote two different sets of nodes. So, I cannot understand these contents. \\n\\n3. How eqn (4) is derived from eqn (3) is also unclear. The authors are suggested to make it clear what G, H, N_H(x) are in eqn (4). \\n\\n4. Experiments only showed that during the initial training epochs, e.g., the first epoch in Table 1 and Table 2, the proposed method performed well. But in most applications, people want the final training result to be good. Table 3 shows the result after 80 epochs but the result is only slightly better than Xavier (35.13 versus 34.85). \\n\\n5. The presentation of the paper is poor. Section 4 is not written in a logical manner. The figures and tables are not cited in appropriate places. Readers even don't know what results correspond to these figures and tables. Table 2 is not cited in the main text. In L344-355, what are the subscripts -n and -(n-1)? In eqn (2) what are the special symbols of plus and multiplication?\", \"questions\": \"All of above weakness points are important for improving the paper.\", \"flag_for_ethics_review\": \"['No ethics review needed.']\", \"rating\": \"3\", \"confidence\": \"3\", \"code_of_conduct\": \"Yes\"}", "{\"metareview\": \"This paper proposes a neural network initialization scheme by adjusting the layer-wise weight scaling factors to improve the conventional methods Xavier and Kaiming initialization. Experiments on various architectures are conducted. However, multiple reviewers raise concerns regarding the poor presentation and the unconvincing experimental results. The authors did not provide response in the rebuttal so the concerns are not resolved. The AC recommends reject.\", \"additional_comments_on_reviewer_discussion\": \"no response from the authors, and no discussion during the rebuttal period.\"}", "{\"title\": \"Paper Decision\", \"decision\": \"Reject\"}", "{\"summary\": \"The paper introduces a straightforward neural network initialisation scheme to enhance the network's potential for emergent behaviours. Specifically, it adjusts the weight initialisation by reducing the weight magnitudes in the first half of the layers while increasing them in the second half.\", \"soundness\": \"2\", \"presentation\": \"2\", \"contribution\": \"2\", \"strengths\": \"1- Investigating the emergent behaviour of neural networks, particularly in deep models, opens new avenues for advancement and shows promising potential.\\n\\n2- The proposed method seems straightforward and convenient to implement.\", \"weaknesses\": \"1-The paper can be improved by improving the writing and presentation of the work. Some figures, like Fig 1 and Fig 2(a), are less informative regarding technical and professionalism. The figures' quality should be improved. They are too small and hard to read.\\n\\n2-The evaluation and analysis provided are limited. A more in-depth ablation study on the choice of the turning point for decreasing and increasing weight magnitudes is essential.\\n\\n3-The primary evaluation focuses on image classification during the first epoch of training. However, a good initialisation is also crucial for guiding the model toward improved final performance.\\n\\n4- How the proposed method affects the convergence speed is unclear. \\n\\n5 How can changing the learning rate influence the proposed initialisation schema?\", \"questions\": \"Please refer to weaknesses.\", \"flag_for_ethics_review\": \"['No ethics review needed.']\", \"details_of_ethics_concerns\": \"NA\", \"rating\": \"3\", \"confidence\": \"4\", \"code_of_conduct\": \"Yes\"}" ] }

[ "Stephen Zhang", "Vardan Papyan" ]

[ "network pruning", "low-rank", "compression", "sparsification", "large language models", "outlier features" ]

{ "note_id": [ "zkZFk8wnHw", "xCXex9A1h4", "wFl2QaJKDI", "q2n0Qn9wd3", "neU1UP1gnz", "mu1IfVoDop", "m3w7j7ul3z", "fTrzh79Ne0", "eJAa9l4Ac7", "WZ1OPgLkto", "WQaVYR7DMO", "RO6RE5vfN2", "QlFxt7e8xb", "OiJ62CSML2", "OZk7kckhdo", "L343EBkCyf", "L0BUKLF8tn", "KHnWpA8TLM", "JSfChjWjj3", "GxmBLA6xL5", "E04mAhdT9T", "9kVF5Gumie", "9SN4ePazwF", "9PzCoyS3cY", "8czRDs6c9A", "7NlqAKKtnA", "6ncygGdGoT", "5bRpsy662w", "1lDbd62yTE", "07JUbOIdDt" ], "note_type": [ "official_comment", "official_comment", "official_comment", "official_comment", "official_review", "official_comment", "official_comment", "official_comment", "official_comment", "official_comment", "official_comment", "official_comment", "official_comment", "official_comment", "meta_review", "comment", "official_comment", "official_review", "official_review", "official_comment", "official_comment", "decision", "official_comment", "official_comment", "official_comment", "official_comment", "official_comment", "official_comment", "official_review", "official_comment" ], "note_created": [ 1731851194747, 1731853305474, 1731852572724, 1731849908671, 1730489797913, 1733284723203, 1732652066320, 1733284778371, 1732292310906, 1731850733560, 1731849417626, 1731852959080, 1732219905149, 1731851419939, 1734713386054, 1731485616480, 1732632285859, 1730229291734, 1730236853193, 1731848136179, 1732212193328, 1737523557911, 1733284816677, 1731853546821, 1732907202165, 1732293288141, 1731852444858, 1732212356301, 1730775805331, 1731922732248 ], "note_signatures": [ [ "ICLR.cc/2025/Conference/Submission3132/Authors" ], [ "ICLR.cc/2025/Conference/Submission3132/Authors" ], [ "ICLR.cc/2025/Conference/Submission3132/Authors" ], [ "ICLR.cc/2025/Conference/Submission3132/Authors" ], [ "ICLR.cc/2025/Conference/Submission3132/Reviewer_BUra" ], [ "ICLR.cc/2025/Conference/Submission3132/Authors" ], [ "ICLR.cc/2025/Conference/Submission3132/Reviewer_Gg5U" ], [ "ICLR.cc/2025/Conference/Submission3132/Authors" ], [ "ICLR.cc/2025/Conference/Submission3132/Authors" ], [ "ICLR.cc/2025/Conference/Submission3132/Authors" ], [ "ICLR.cc/2025/Conference/Submission3132/Authors" ], [ "ICLR.cc/2025/Conference/Submission3132/Authors" ], [ "ICLR.cc/2025/Conference/Submission3132/Reviewer_rXxS" ], [ "ICLR.cc/2025/Conference/Submission3132/Authors" ], [ "ICLR.cc/2025/Conference/Submission3132/Area_Chair_APzu" ], [ "~徐天宇1" ], [ "ICLR.cc/2025/Conference/Submission3132/Authors" ], [ "ICLR.cc/2025/Conference/Submission3132/Reviewer_rXxS" ], [ "ICLR.cc/2025/Conference/Submission3132/Reviewer_PLVG" ], [ "ICLR.cc/2025/Conference/Submission3132/Authors" ], [ "ICLR.cc/2025/Conference/Submission3132/Authors" ], [ "ICLR.cc/2025/Conference/Program_Chairs" ], [ "ICLR.cc/2025/Conference/Submission3132/Authors" ], [ "ICLR.cc/2025/Conference/Submission3132/Authors" ], [ "ICLR.cc/2025/Conference/Submission3132/Authors" ], [ "ICLR.cc/2025/Conference/Submission3132/Authors" ], [ "ICLR.cc/2025/Conference/Submission3132/Authors" ], [ "ICLR.cc/2025/Conference/Submission3132/Authors" ], [ "ICLR.cc/2025/Conference/Submission3132/Reviewer_Gg5U" ], [ "ICLR.cc/2025/Conference/Submission3132/Reviewer_PLVG" ] ], "structured_content_str": [ "{\"comment\": \"## **Additional Ablations for the OATS Algorithm (Part 2/5)** ##\\n\\n> **[Reviewer Comment]: It is unknown how to decide the rank and number of zeroes.**\\n\\nAll Llama-3 experiments use a rank ratio of 0.3, and all Phi-3 experiments use a rank ratio of 0.25, demonstrating the robustness of OATS to the rank ratio parameter.\\n\\nA related and valid question is why the same rank ratio can be applied across different layers of the model. **We hypothesize that the weight matrices possess meaningful low-rank subspaces of roughly similar dimensions across layers. While we are actively pursuing a theoretical investigation to better understand this phenomenon, we believe that such an analysis falls outside the scope of the current paper. Evidence for the existence of a meaningful low-rank subspace is presented in a concurrent submission to the ICLR conference [1],** which examines the spectral properties of weight matrices through the lens of Random Matrix Theory. Specifically, the study demonstrates that the spectrum includes a small number of outlier eigenvalues, whose removal significantly degrades performance.\\n\\n> **[Reviewer Comment]: Besides, the order of applying SVD and thresholding has a significant impact on the approximation errors.** \\n\\nWe thank the reviewer for providing a thought-provoking remark about whether the order utilized by OATS is the optimal order to be used. To address this question, we have run additional experiments and added the following subsection in Appendix A.4 titled \\u201cSwitching the Order of Thresholding\\u201d:\\n\\n**[New Section | Page 20]:** _OATS opts to perform the singular-value thresholding first followed by the hard thresholding similar to [2]. However, one might consider whether the alternative order could lead to faster convergence or a better approximation. Presented in the table below is an extension of the ablation studies presented in Section 3.3, reporting the performance of OATS where the hard-thresholding is performed first:_\\n\\n| First Thresholding Operation | MMLU (\\u2191) | Zero-shot (\\u2191) | Perplexity (\\u2193) |\\n|--------------------------------------|----------|---------------|----------------|\\n| Hard-Thresholding | 65.51 | 70.54 | 11.72 |\\n| Singular Value Thresholding (OATS) | **65.84** | **70.71** | **11.50** |\\n\\n_**While the performance still remains competitive, across all performance metrics, the switched order falls short of matching the original order presented in the Algorithm.**_\\n\\n> **[Reviewer Comment]: This paper claims \\\"outlier information\\\" in this paper. However, I have not seen any analysis or explanation for the \\\"outlier information,\\\" and the proposed solution is not related to the \\\"outlier information\\\" \\u2026 The authors are encouraged to provide explanations of why the diagonal matrix is related to \\\"outlier information\\\" and why it is good for compression.\\\"**\\n\\nWe would like to thank the reviewer for this wonderful inquiry. In response, we have included a new subsection titled \\u201cUsing a Robust Scaling Matrix\\u201d to Appendix A.3, which includes additional experiments exploring whether the matrix $D$ is truly capturing the outlier information, and if that is the reason why it is good for compression:\\n\\n**[New Section | Page 20]:** _To explore whether the scaling matrix $D$ is truly related to the outlier information, we run the following two experiments:_\\n1. _scaling by the square root of the features' second moments, as is currently done in OATS._\\n2. _scaling by the median of the features' absolute values (computed along batch and sequence dimensions):_\\n\\n$\\\\qquad \\\\qquad \\\\qquad \\\\qquad \\\\qquad D\\\\_{robust} =$median$(|X|) $\\n\\n_The second experiment estimates the square root of the second moment of features in a manner that is **robust (insensitive) to outliers** akin to the Median Absolute Deviation estimator from the robust statistics literature [3]. The results of the two experiments are presented in the table below:_\\n\\n| Scaling Matrix | MMLU (\\u2191) | Zero-shot (\\u2191) | Perplexity (\\u2193) |\\n|------------------|----------|---------------|----------------|\\n| $D_{robust}$ | 55.54 | 65.77 | 18.59 |\\n| $D$ | **59.99** | **68.41** | **15.18** |\\n\\n_**The findings show that using the robust scaling method results in significantly worse performance. Hence, the scaling matrix $D$ that is sensitive to the outlier features and captures their scale leads to better compression.**_\\n\\nThe reason why the scaling is good for compression has also been touched on in prior works like DSNoT and Wanda. Both papers utilize the same scaling matrix as OATS and both reasoned that the scaling is needed to steer the algorithm away from pruning weights that are in an outlier channel. \\n\\n[1] https://openreview.net/forum?id=MmWkNmeDNE\\n\\n[2] Zhou, T., & Tao, D. (2011). GoDec: randomized low-rank & sparse matrix decomposition in noisy case.\\n\\n[3] Huber, P. J. (1981). Robust statistics.\", \"title\": \"Additional Ablations for the OATS Algorithm\"}", "{\"comment\": \"> The baseline for models are all originally designed for LLMs. It would be valuable to compare against pruning metrics specifically designed for ViTs. This would present a stronger baseline to effectively showcase the proposed method\\u2019s advantages.\\n\\nWe appreciate the reviewer\\u2019s suggestion and we have added the following paragraph to Appendix A.1 directly addressing this issue:\\n\\n_There are a number of pruning approaches that have been specifically catered towards pruning vision transformers [1,2,3,4,5,6]. However, as much of the pruning literature developed on vision transformers involved models of much smaller scale than the large language models employed in this study, almost all of the prominent pruning algorithms require some form of training on the model parameters. As OATS was designed to require no training, OATS and the aforementioned pruning algorithms would not be comparable._\\n\\n> The motivation behind the choice of outlier information for the sparse term S is not entirely clear. Given that there are various methods for selecting the sparse components, such as using magnitude-based or gradient-based criteria, it would be helpful to know if the authors experimented with these or other selection methods.\\n\\nWe share the same concerns as the reviewer that the choice of using the matrix $D$ may not be the optimal metric when determining the sparse term. We avoided utilizing gradient-based approaches as methods like OATS, DSNOT, SparseGPT, and Wanda can prune the layers through effectively a single forward pass. By requiring gradient information, it would increase the computational requirements of the pruning algorithm. In response to the reviewer, we have, however, extended our ablation studies in Section 3.3 to include experiments where the sparse term $S$ is determined via magnitude pruning instead. These results are presented in a new section Appendix A.5 titled \\u201cMagnitude-Based Pruning for the Sparse Component\\u201d which are included in the table below for the reviewer\\u2019s convenience:\\n\\n| Outlier Scaling | MMLU (\\u2191) | Zero-shot (\\u2191) | Perplexity (\\u2193) |\\n|------------------------|----------|---------------|----------------|\\n| Low-Rank Term Only | 65.22 | **71.01** | 12.49 |\\n| Both Terms (OATS) | **65.84** | 70.71 | **11.50** |\\n\\nWe have also included experiments in a new subsection Appendix A.3 titled \\u201cUsing a Robust Scaling Matrix\\u201d where the scaling matrix $D$ utilizes a robust measurement of the second moments instead. We have included the new subsection below for the reviewer\\u2019s convenience: \\n\\n_To explore whether the scaling matrix $D$ is truly related to the outlier information, we run the following two experiments:_\\n1. _scaling by the square root of the features' second moments, as is currently done in OATS._\\n2. _scaling by the median of the features' absolute values (computed along batch and sequence dimensions):_\\n\\n$\\\\qquad \\\\qquad \\\\qquad \\\\qquad \\\\qquad D_{robust} =$median$(|X|) $\\n\\n_The second experiment estimates the square root of the second moment of features in a manner that is robust (insensitive) to outliers akin to the Median Absolute Deviation estimator from the robust statistics literature [7]. The results of the two experiments are presented in the table below:_\\n\\n| Scaling Matrix | MMLU (\\u2191) | Zero-shot (\\u2191) | Perplexity (\\u2193) |\\n|------------------|----------|---------------|----------------|\\n| $D_{robust}$ | 55.54 | 65.77 | 18.59 |\\n| $D$ | **59.99** | **68.41** | **15.18** |\\n\\n_The findings show that using the robust scaling method results in significantly worse performance. Hence, the scaling matrix $D$ that is sensitive to the outlier features and captures their scale leads to better compression._\\n\\n[1] Chen, T., Cheng, Y., Gan, Z., Yuan, L., Zhang, L., & Wang, Z. (2021). Chasing Sparsity in Vision Transformers: An End-to-End Exploration.\\n\\n[2] Yu, S., Chen, T., Shen, J., Yuan, H., Tan, J., Yang, S., Liu, J., & Wang, Z. (2022). Unified Visual Transformer Compression. \\n\\n[3] Yu, F., Huang, K., Wang, M., Cheng, Y., Chu, W., & Cui, L. (2022). Width and Depth Pruning for Vision Transformers.\\n\\n[4] Yu, L., & Xiang, W. (2023). X-Pruner: eXplainable Pruning for Vision Transformers.\\n\\n[5] Zhu, M., Han, K., Tang, Y., & Wang, Y. (2021). Visual Transformer Pruning.\\n\\n[6] Chavan, A., Shen, Z., Liu, Z., Liu, Z., Cheng, K.-T., & Xing, E. (2022). Vision Transformer Slimming: Multi-Dimension Searching in Continuous Optimization Space.\\n\\n[7] Huber, P. J. (1981). Robust statistics.\"}", "{\"comment\": \"## **N:M Speed-Up (Part 5/5)** ##\\n\\n> **[Reviewer's Comment]: What is the actual speedup when using N:M sparsity on GPUs.**\\n\\nThe experiments conducted in Section 3.4 with N:M sparsity were designed as exploratory investigations to compare pruning algorithms with 2:4 sparsity against OATS under the same compression rate (but sparser N:M). Unfortunately, current NVIDIA GPUs only support 2:4 sparsity patterns, preventing us from benchmarking speed-ups on a GPU. However, consistent with prior works like [1, 2], which also explore sparser N:M patterns, our goal is to demonstrate that models can achieve higher sparsity while maintaining performance. Through our results, we hope to incentivize companies to support sparser N:M patterns paving the way for greater speed-ups in the future.\\n\\n[1] Yin, L., Wu, Y., Zhang, Z., Hsieh, C.-Y., Wang, Y., Jia, Y., Pechenizkiy, M., Liang, Y., Wang, Z., & Liu, S. (2024). Outlier Weighed Layerwise Sparsity (OWL): A Missing Secret Sauce for Pruning LLMs to High Sparsity.\\n\\n[2] Sun, W., Zhou, A., Stuijk, S., Wijnhoven, R., Nelson, A. O., Li, H., & Corporaal, H. (2021). DominoSearch: Find layer-wise fine-grained N sparse schemes from dense neural networks.\\n\\n> \\n\\nWe would like to again thank the reviewer for deeply engaging with our paper and for providing numerous valuable comments that have allowed us to improve the paper. Given the comments and additions to the paper, should the reviewer find it appropriate, we would be grateful for any potential reconsideration of our score.\", \"title\": \"N:M Speed-Up\"}", "{\"comment\": \"> By scaling the weight matrix with a diagonal rescaling matrix , OATS emphasizes outliers, enabling outlier-aware compression that avoids performance degradation.\\n\\nWe thank the reviewer for highlighting a strength with our work and we wanted to mention that we have further elaborated on this strength with a new section Appendix A.3 titled \\u201cUsing a Robust Scaling Matrix\\u201d, included below, that empirically shows that the sensitivity to outliers is needed for good compression:\\n\\n_To explore whether the scaling matrix $D$ is truly related to the outlier information, we run the following two experiments:_\\n1. _scaling by the square root of the features' second moments, as is currently done in OATS._\\n2. _scaling by the median of the features' absolute values (computed along batch and sequence dimensions):_\\n\\n$\\\\qquad \\\\qquad \\\\qquad \\\\qquad \\\\qquad D_{robust} =$median$(|X|) $\\n\\n_The second experiment estimates the square root of the second moment of features in a manner that is robust (insensitive) to outliers akin to the Median Absolute Deviation estimator from the robust statistics literature [1]. The results of the two experiments are presented in the table below:_\\n\\n| Scaling Matrix | MMLU (\\u2191) | Zero-shot (\\u2191) | Perplexity (\\u2193) |\\n|------------------|----------|---------------|----------------|\\n| $D\\\\_{robust}$ | 55.54 | 65.77 | 18.59 |\\n| $D $ | **59.99** | **68.41** | **15.18** |\\n\\n_The findings show that using the robust scaling method results in significantly worse performance. Hence, the scaling matrix $D$ that is sensitive to the outlier features and captures their scale leads to better compression._\\n\\n[1] Huber, P. J. (1981). Robust statistics.\\n\\n>\\n\\nWe would like to give thanks to the reviewer for their detailed comments, careful inspection of our work, and foresight in extending OATS to quantization. Should the reviewer find it appropriate, the authors would always be appreciative of any additional reconsideration of the score.\"}", "{\"summary\": \"This paper introduces OATS, a novel compression technique for large-scale transformers that combines sparse and low-rank approximations to reduce memory and compute costs without requiring costly retraining. OATS scales model weights by the second moment of input embeddings to preserve essential outlier features in transformers, ensuring model performance is maintained during compression. This approach addresses the typical performance degradation seen with increasing compression in existing pruning methods.\", \"soundness\": \"2\", \"presentation\": \"2\", \"contribution\": \"1\", \"strengths\": [\"Low-rankness plus sparsity is a good fit for compressing LLMs without retraining.\", \"By separating the model into a sparse and a low-rank part, the approximation error can be theoretically reduced as the two parts can compensate for each other.\", \"This paper provides measurements for practical speedups on CPUs with existing sparse computation frameworks.\"], \"weaknesses\": \"- The novelty is limited. The combination of low-rankness and sparsity is an old topic that has been explored for many years [R1, R2]. Applying the well-established approximation techniques to decompose/compress the large matrices in LLMs has little technical contribution. Besides, compressing DNN models using low-rank and sparse decomposition has already been well explored in [R3]. This paper just scales it to larger models and matrices. Authors are encouraged to specify the unique difference from existing approaches and why this difference is also unique for LLMs.\\n- The proposed Truncated SVD and Threshold strategies to achieve low-rankness and sparsity are too trivial. It is unknown how to decide the rank and number of zeroes. Besides, the order of applying SVD and thresholding has a significant impact on the approximation errors. Authors are encouraged to clearly explain why using such decomposition strategies.\\n- This paper claims \\\"outlier information\\\" in this paper. However, I have not seen any analysis or explanation for the \\\"outlier information,\\\" and the proposed solution is not related to the \\\"outlier information.\\\" Instead, this paper seems to directly apply the pruning approaches proposed in Wanda. The authors are encouraged to provide explanations of why the diagonal matrix is related to \\\"outlier information\\\" and why it is good for compression.\\n- Many works have been proposed to compress LLMs with low-rankness and sparsity [R4-R6]. The authors have not presented the main differences among them and the unique contributions that stand out from those works.\\n- Even though theoretical analysis may not have a practical guarantee of accuracy, the authors are encouraged to provide.\\n- The paper presentation could be improved, especially the math equations. \\n\\n[R1] Sparse and Low-Rank Matrix Decompositions, Forty-Seventh Annual Allerton Conference, 2009.\\n\\n[R2] Godec: Randomized low-rank & sparse matrix decomposition in noisy case. ICML 2011.\\n\\n[R3] On compressing deep models by low rank and sparse decomposition, CVPR 2017.\\n\\n[R4] Slope: Double-pruned sparse plus lazy low-rank adapter pretraining of llms\\n\\n[R5] LoSparse: Structured Compression of Large Language Models based on Low-Rank and Sparse Approximation\\n\\n[R6] SLiM - One-shot Quantized Sparse Plus Low-rank Approximation of LLMs\", \"questions\": \"See the Weakness. Additionally, why use inverse transformation to reach the compressed weight? What is the actual speedup when using N:M sparsity on GPUs.\", \"flag_for_ethics_review\": \"['No ethics review needed.']\", \"details_of_ethics_concerns\": \"N/A\", \"rating\": \"3\", \"confidence\": \"5\", \"code_of_conduct\": \"Yes\"}", "{\"title\": \"Thank You\", \"comment\": \"Dear Reviewer Gg5U,\\n\\nAs the discussion period comes to a close, we would like to express our sincere gratitude to the reviewer for engaging with us during the discussion period, for the reviewer\\u2019s recognition of OATS as an interesting contribution to the community with many promising directions for future research, and for advocating for the acceptance of our work into the conference. Thank you.\\n\\nBest,\\n\\nThe Authors.\"}", "{\"comment\": \"I appreciate the authors' thorough explanations and efforts to address the questions and concerns raised. I believe OATS presents an interesting contribution to the community, with many promising directions for future research stemming from it. I will maintain my score and advocate for the acceptance of this paper.\"}", "{\"title\": \"Thank You\", \"comment\": \"Dear Reviewer PLVG,\\n\\nAs the discussion period wraps up, we would like to offer our final thanks to the reviewer for responding to our comments, for providing additional suggestions beyond their initial review, and for their positive evaluation of our work.\\n\\nBest,\\n\\nThe Authors.\"}", "{\"comment\": \"Dear reviewer, we would greatly appreciate it if you could take a moment to read our rebuttal and provide any further feedback to the improvements made in response to your comments. This would give us enough time to respond should there be any further changes that the reviewer thinks are needed to improve the paper and its score. We understand the demanding nature of the review process and appreciate the time and effort that the reviewer is dedicating to this task.\"}", "{\"comment\": \"## **OATS Novelty and Differences (Part 1/5)** ##\\n\\nWe appreciate the reviewer\\u2019s critical assessment of our paper and we will attempt to address each of the reviewer\\u2019s concerns. \\n\\n>**[Reviewer Comment]: The combination of low-rankness and sparsity is an old topic that has been explored for many years [R1, R2].**\\n\\nWe apologize for having missed seminal work [1,2] during our literature search and have fixed the manuscript appropriately to include citing the former when Robust PCA is presented in the paper, and the latter when presenting the alternating thresholding algorithm. **We want to clarify that the novelty associated with our work is the effectiveness of Robust PCA for compressing large transformer models once an outlier scaling is applied -- not the Robust PCA problem itself.** When introducing the Robust PCA problem, we did cite two seminal works on the problem, a more widely cited work by the same authors of [1] titled _Rank-Sparsity Incoherence for Matrix Decomposition_ and a work by Candes et al. titled _Robust principal component analysis?_ (2009). \\n\\n> **[Reviewer Comment]: Besides, compressing DNN models using low-rank and sparse decomposition has already been well explored in [R3]. This paper just scales it to larger models and matrices. Authors are encouraged to specify the unique difference from existing approaches and why this difference is also unique for LLMs.**\\n\\nWe again apologize for not having cited this important and relevant work and we thank the reviewer for pointing it out. To rectify our mistake, we have now added the following paragraph to Appendix A.1, providing an in-depth explanation of the differences between the two algorithms and why such differences are unique to LLMs:\\n\\n**[New Section | Page 18 ]:** _[3] introduced a method for sparse and low-rank decomposition of CNNs, including AlexNet and GoogLeNet, by solving the following optimization problem:_\\n\\n$$ \\\\min_{S, L \\\\in \\\\mathbb{R}^{d_{out}\\\\times d_{in}}} ||Y - (S+L)X||_2^{2} \\\\\\\\; \\\\text{s.t.} \\\\\\\\; ||W - (S + L) ||_F^2\\\\leq \\\\gamma, \\\\text{Rank}(L)\\\\leq r, ||S||_0 \\\\leq k $$\\n\\n_where $Y = W X$. In contrast, OATS employs a different approach, solving:_\\n\\n$$\\\\min_{S, L \\\\in \\\\mathbb{R}^{d_{out} \\\\times d_{in}}} || W - S - L ||_F^2 \\\\\\\\; \\\\text{ s.t. } \\\\\\\\; \\\\text{Rank}(L) \\\\leq r, \\\\\\\\; ||S||_0 \\\\leq k. $$\\n\\n_**A key distinction between these methods lies in their objectives: the former directly minimizes reconstruction error, while OATS adopts a simpler formulation.** One might question why not follow the approach of minimizing reconstruction error. **As noted in DSNoT [4], pruning methods that prioritize minimizing reconstruction error can degrade model performance in large transformers, particularly in the presence of outlier features.** Their findings highlight the importance of avoiding pruning weights within outlier channels. **Since feature outliers are a phenomenon unique to large transformer models [5], this issue would not have been relevant to the work of [3], which predates the transformer era.**_\\n\\n> **[Reviewer Comment]: The proposed Truncated SVD and Threshold strategies to achieve low-rankness and sparsity are too trivial.**\\n\\nWe acknowledge the reviewer's point that OATS is a simple algorithm. However, this simplicity is precisely what makes OATS appealing. **It demonstrates that a conceptually simple approach, which has not been widely applied to large-scale transformer models, can outperform more complex pruning methods.** \\n\\n[1] Chandrasekaran, V., Sanghavi, S., Parrilo, P. A., & Willsky, A. S. (2009). Sparse and Low-Rank Matrix Decompositions.\\n\\n[2] Zhou, T., & Tao, D. (2011). GoDec: randomized low-rank & sparse matrix decomposition in noisy case.\\n\\n[3] Yu, X., Liu, T., Wang, X., & Tao, D. (2017). On Compressing Deep Models by Low Rank and Sparse Decomposition.\\n\\n[4] Zhang, Y., Zhao, L., Lin, M., Yunyun, S., Yao, Y., Han, X., Tanner, J., Liu, S., & Ji, R. (2024). Dynamic Sparse No Training: Training-Free Fine-tuning for Sparse LLMs.\\n\\n[5] Dettmers, T., Lewis, M., Belkada, Y., & Zettlemoyer, L. (2024). LLM.int8(): 8-bit matrix multiplication for transformers at scale.\", \"title\": \"OATS Novelty and Differences\"}", "{\"comment\": \"The authors would like to extend their gratitude to the reviewer for highlighting the strengths of our paper, raising valid concerns about the runtime of OATS, and inquiring about follow-ups in regards to extending the algorithm to the quantization setting.\\n\\n>Given that compression speed is a significant factor for practical applications, it would be helpful if the authors could clarify the time complexity and wall-clock time spent on the compression process of the overall algorithm. This would offer a more concrete understanding of its practicality.\\n\\nWe thank the reviewer for the suggestion and in response have included a new section Appendix A.2 titled \\u201dTime Complexity and Wall-Clock Time for OATS\\u201d which we have included below for the reviewer\\u2019s convenience:\\n\\n_The time complexity for OATS is $\\\\mathcal{O}(LN\\\\alpha)$ where $L$ is the number of transformer blocks, $N$ is number of iterations, and_\\n\\n$\\\\alpha =$ max$\\\\_W d^{W}\\\\_{out} \\\\cdot d^{W}\\\\_{in} \\\\cdot r^{W}$\\n\\n_where the max is taken over the weight matrices, $W \\\\in \\\\mathbb{R}^{d^{W}\\\\_{out} \\\\times d^{W}\\\\_{in}}$, in a transformer block and $r^{W}$ is the rank of the low-rank term for that weight matrix. The value $\\\\alpha$ represents the time complexity needed to perform the singular value thresholding in OATS._\\n\\n_The table below reports the wall-clock time (in seconds) needed to perform a single iteration of the alternating threshold algorithm for a single transformer block for the different models that were compressed. All experiments utilized a single NVIDIA A40 with 48GB of GPU memory._\\n\\n| Phi-3 Mini (3.8B) | Phi-3 Medium (14B) | Llama-3 8B | Llama-3 70B |\\n|--------------------|--------------------|------------|-------------|\\n| 8.85 | 26.02 | 17.10 | 152.80 |\\n\\n_While OATS does require more wall-clock time than prior pruning algorithms, in practice, model compression would only need to be performed once before deployment. This trade-off is therefore worthwhile given the substantial performance improvements, particularly on more challenging tasks like MMLU. Furthermore, like prior pruning algorithms, compressing the layers within a single transformer block can be done in parallel. For example, the time needed per transformer block of Llama-3 70B can be reduced to 71.10 seconds by compressing in parallel across four NVIDIA A40 GPUs._\\n\\n_The total wall-clock time can also be reduced by lowering the number of OATS iterations. Presented in the Table below is an exploratory experiment compressing Llama-3 70B by 50\\\\% with a rank ratio of 0.3 with only 20 iterations. Even with only a quarter of the iterations, OATS is still able to outperform all prior pruning algorithms across all performance metrics._\\n\\n| MMLU (\\u2191) | Zero-shot (\\u2191) | Perplexity (\\u2193) |\\n|----------|---------------|----------------|\\n| 74.02 | 73.41 | 4.95 |\\n\\n\\n> One potential extension of this work could involve incorporating quantization into the proposed framework. Although this addition may be a long shot, integrating quantization could make the model a unified approach to transformer compression. Could the authors provide insights on whether quantization can be integrated with their current framework, or if not, what are the main challenges?\\n\\nWe share the same interest as the reviewer in integrating quantization with OATS. The formulation proposed in our work is flexible and can indeed accommodate that. However, one of the associated challenges is deciding which terms in the sparse and low-rank decomposition should be quantized. Depending on that decision, one would obtain one of the following three optimization problems:\\n\\n1. min$\\\\_{S\\\\_Q, L\\\\_Q} ||S\\\\_Q + L\\\\_Q - W|| \\\\text{ s.t. } ||S\\\\_Q||\\\\_0 \\\\leq k, S\\\\_Q$ is quantized, rank$(L\\\\_Q)\\\\leq r, L\\\\_Q$ is quantized\\n\\n2. min$\\\\_{S\\\\_Q, L} \\\\\\\\; \\\\\\\\; ||S\\\\_Q + L - W|| \\\\\\\\; \\\\\\\\; \\\\text{ s.t. } ||S\\\\_Q||\\\\_0 \\\\leq k, S\\\\_Q$ is quantized, rank$(L)\\\\leq r$\\n\\n3. min$_{S, L\\\\_Q} \\\\\\\\; \\\\\\\\; ||S + L\\\\_Q - W|| \\\\\\\\; \\\\\\\\; \\\\text{ s.t. } ||S||\\\\_0 \\\\leq k$, rank$(L\\\\_Q)\\\\leq r, L\\\\_Q$ is quantized\\n\\nWe are currently investigating the three different approaches to determine which would ultimately lead to the best-unified compression approach.\"}", "{\"comment\": \"We would like to first thank the reviewer for spending the time to provide feedback, and engaging with the authors through several questions.\\n\\n>The author has clarified the differences between Wanda and OATS. However, an ablation study would further illustrate the impact of the low-rank term on performance. How much does the low-rank term contribute to the performance boost compared to Wanda alone?\\n\\nWe thank the reviewer for the suggestion and we have added Appendix A.7 titled \\u201cGap Between OATS and Wanda\\u201d highlighting the exact gaps for each performance metric between Wanda and OATS. This addition aims to quantify the impact of the low-rank term on performance. For the reviewer\\u2019s convenience, we have also included the relevant table below.\\n\\n| Model | Compression | MMLU (\\u2191) | Zero-Shot (\\u2191) | Perplexity (\\u2193) |\\n|------------------|-------------|----------|---------------|----------------|\\n| Phi-3 Mini | 30% | +1.21% | +0.82% | -0.44 |\\n| | 40% | +1.60% | +1.24% | -1.06 |\\n| | 50% | +5.42% | +3.38% | -2.05 |\\n| Phi-3 Medium | 30% | +0.97% | -0.01% | -0.43 |\\n| | 40% | +1.65% | +1.45% | -0.79 |\\n| | 50% | +2.52% | +2.43% | -1.07 |\\n| Llama-3 8B | 30% | +1.55% | +0.71% | +0.20 |\\n| | 40% | +2.13% | +1.64% | -0.50 |\\n| | 50% | +6.63% | +2.44% | -1.49 |\\n| Llama-3 70B | 30% | -0.68% | +0.05% | -0.17 |\\n| | 40% | +0.73% | +0.78% | -0.40 |\\n| | 50% | +2.74% | +0.45% | -0.60 |\\n\\n> The hardware speedup on GPU with N:M sparsity patterns can be shown and discussed in Section3.4.\\n\\nThe experiments conducted in Section 3.4 with N:M sparsity were designed as exploratory investigations to compare pruning algorithms with 2:4 sparsity against OATS under the same compression rate (but sparser N:M). Unfortunately, current NVIDIA GPUs only support 2:4 sparsity patterns, preventing us from benchmarking speed-ups on a GPU. However, consistent with prior works like [1,2], which also explore sparser N:M patterns, our goal is to demonstrate that models can achieve higher sparsity while maintaining performance. Through our results, we hope to incentivize companies to support sparser N:M patterns paving the way for greater speed-ups in the future.\\n\\n> The paper lacks details on how the sparsity pattern is defined for a matrix composed of a sparse matrix S plus a dense matrix LLL, especially within the context of N:M sparsity and structured pruning. Providing more detailed explanations would enhance clarity.\\n\\nWe thank the author for highlighting a point of unclarity in our paper. Once we have the sparse plus low-rank decomposition, we are storing the compressed weight matrix as three separate matrices, a sparse matrix coinciding with the sparse term, and two matrices coinciding with the low-rank factorization of the low-rank term $LD^{-1}$. We have included the following sentence at the end of Section 2.3 of the manuscript to improve clarity: \\n\\n_The original weight matrix is replaced with three matrices: the sparse matrix $S D^{-1}$, and two matrices coinciding with the low-rank factorization of $LD^{-1}$._ \\n\\n[1] Yin, L., Wu, Y., Zhang, Z., Hsieh, C.-Y., Wang, Y., Jia, Y., Pechenizkiy, M., Liang, Y., Wang, Z., & Liu, S. (2024). Outlier Weighed Layerwise Sparsity (OWL): A Missing Secret Sauce for Pruning LLMs to High Sparsity.\\n\\n[2] Sun, W., Zhou, A., Stuijk, S., Wijnhoven, R., Nelson, A. O., Li, H., & Corporaal, H. (2021). DominoSearch: Find layer-wise fine-grained N sparse schemes from dense neural networks.\"}", "{\"comment\": \"Dear authors,\\n\\nThank you for considering my comments and for the well-prepared rebuttal. I will keep my original positive score.\\n\\nBest wishes,\"}", "{\"comment\": \"## **Similarity with Wanda (Part 3/5)** ##\\n\\n> **[Reviewer Comment]: Instead, this paper seems to directly apply the pruning approaches proposed in Wanda.**\\n\\nThank you for this comment. **We wish to clarify that the Wanda algorithm is strictly for pruning dense weight matrices into sparse matrices. Unlike OATS, there is no sparse and low-rank decomposition or alternating thresholding being done.** Throughout the paper, we have emphasized that the scaling done by OATS is inspired by Wanda, with an additional paragraph in the Related Works section specifically dedicated to highlighting that OATS would reduce to Wanda, in the specific case where the rank ratio is 0. \\n\\nTo further illustrate the differences between OATS and Wanda, we have included a new section Appendix A.7 titled \\u201cPerformance Gap Between OATS and Wanda\\u201d, that highlights the exact gap between the two compression approaches for each performance metric. We have included the table below for the reviewer\\u2019s convenience:\\n\\n| Model | Compression | MMLU (\\u2191) | Zero-Shot (\\u2191) | Perplexity (\\u2193) |\\n|------------------|-------------|----------|---------------|----------------|\\n| Phi-3 Mini | 30% | +1.21% | +0.82% | -0.44 |\\n| | 40% | +1.60% | +1.24% | -1.06 |\\n| | 50% | +5.42% | +3.38% | -2.05 |\\n| Phi-3 Medium | 30% | +0.97% | -0.01% | -0.43 |\\n| | 40% | +1.65% | +1.45% | -0.79 |\\n| | 50% | +2.52% | +2.43% | -1.07 |\\n| Llama-3 8B | 30% | +1.55% | +0.71% | +0.20 |\\n| | 40% | +2.13% | +1.64% | -0.50 |\\n| | 50% | +6.63% | +2.44% | -1.49 |\\n| Llama-3 70B | 30% | -0.68% | +0.05% | -0.17 |\\n| | 40% | +0.73% | +0.78% | -0.40 |\\n| | 50% | +2.74% | +0.45% | -0.60 |\", \"title\": \"Similarity with Wanda\"}", "{\"metareview\": \"**Summary**\\n\\nThe paper presents OATS (Outlier-Aware Pruning Through Sparse and Low-Rank Decomposition), a technique developed to compress large transformer models and reduce memory and compute costs without requiring costly retraining. This method is based on decomposing the weight matrices into a combination of a sparse matrix and a low-rank matrix. OATS enhances model compression by scaling the weights of transformer models according to the second moment of input embeddings, a strategy designed to retain crucial outlier features. This method effectively maintains model performance, addressing the common issue of performance degradation observed with higher compression levels in conventional pruning techniques. The authors demonstrate that OATS effectively compresses transformer models for both language and vision tasks, surpassing the performance of other pruning methods across various tasks and compression levels. Additionally, OATS provides notable speed enhancements when deployed on CPUs.\\n\\n**Strengths**\", \"the_reviewers_unanimously_highlighted_several_strengths_of_the_proposed_framework\": [\"OATS eliminates the need for retraining, which is essential for practical scenarios where even a single backpropagation pass can be computationally expensive.\", \"The method has been evaluated on cutting-edge architectures such as Llama and ViT on a large range of model sizes, solidly demonstrating that it can compete with recent benchmarks in terms of performance.\", \"The paper includes data on practical speed improvements on CPUs when using current frameworks for sparse computation.\", \"**Weaknesses**\"], \"the_reviewers_brought_up_several_core_weaknesses\": [\"Some very relevant prior works are missing, some of which are conceptually identical to the proposed work, e.g., Yu et al., \\\"On compressing deep models by low rank and sparse decomposition,\\\" CVPR 2017.\", \"The choice of rank ratio parameter and why it should be fixed across different layers, as opposed to considering dynamic ranks across different layers, e.g., as done in the concurrent work [1].\", \"The lack of computational analysis for OATs\", \"Poor placement of the paper in the landscape of current literature.\", \"[1] \\\"Dynamic Low-Rank Sparse Adaptation for Large Language Models,\\\" in Proc. Thirteenth Int. Conf. Learning Representations, 2024, under review. [Online]. Available: https://openreview.net/forum?id=oXh0939Zzq\", \"**Conclusion**\", \"The majority of the reviewers evaluated this paper positively. However, Reviewer BUra (Rating: 3, Confidence: 5) raised several critical issues about the submitted work, with which I largely agree, particularly the omission of critical prior works that are conceptually similar to the current submission. The authors have addressed most of the concerns raised by Reviewer BUra, which unfortunately, Reviewer BUra did not acknowledge. While I share some of Reviewer BUra's reservations, I believe that in light of the authors' rebuttal, the paper's strengths outweigh its weaknesses. Considering this, I view the paper as marginally above the acceptance threshold and recommend acceptance.\"], \"additional_comments_on_reviewer_discussion\": \"Despite my efforts to engage the reviewers in a discussion during the review period to reach a consensus on the paper\\u2019s merits and shortcomings, there was no participation in any discussion.\\n\\nReviewer BUra raised significant concerns about the paper, to which the authors responded adequately. In my view, their responses partially address the issues highlighted by Reviewer BUra. Unfortunately, the reviewer did not acknowledge the authors' rebuttal. While I agree with some of Reviewer BUra's criticisms, considering the authors' rebuttal and aligning with the majority of the reviewers, I believe the strengths of the paper outweigh its shortcomings. Furthermore, given the significance and relevance of the research topic, I assess the paper to be above the acceptance threshold and vote for its acceptance.\"}", "{\"title\": \"Question about CPU throughput tests presented in Section 3.4\", \"comment\": \"I hope this message finds you well.\\n\\nI have a question regarding the CPU throughput tests presented in Section 3.4 of your paper. Specifically, I was wondering if any hardware acceleration techniques, such as compression or other methods, were used during these tests. If not, in scenarios where the total data volume (SUV matrix > Weight matrix) is larger, what strategies would you suggest for improving throughput?\\n\\nThank you for your time, and I look forward to your insights.\\n\\nBest regards\"}", "{\"comment\": \"Dear reviewer, we apologize for the repeated emails, however, as the deadline for editing the manuscript is tomorrow, we wanted to ensure that all the reviewer\\u2019s concerns have been addressed, especially given that their initial review was quite critical compared to the others. We would greatly appreciate it if the reviewer could provide us with some feedback so that we could take further action should the reviewer have any more concerns prior to the deadline. We want to thank the reviewer again for their in-depth review and reiterate that we do very much appreciate the comments and suggestions that were made in the original review.\"}", "{\"summary\": \"In this paper, the author presents a novel approach to compressing large transformers, coined OATS, that utilizes the second moment information in the input embeddings to decompose the model weights into a sum of sparse and low-rank matrices. The author also conducts a lot of experiments showing that OATS is able to consistently outperform prior state-of-the-art across multiple benchmarks and compression rates while also improving on speed-up.\", \"soundness\": \"3\", \"presentation\": \"2\", \"contribution\": \"3\", \"strengths\": \"1.This paper propose a novel method for large transformers compression that utilizes the second moment of the input embeddings to approximate the model\\u2019s weight matrices as a sum of a sparse matrix and a low-rank matrix.\\n\\n2.Extensive experiments on recent large language models demonstrate the effectiveness of the proposed method, which also generalizes well to vision Transformers.\", \"weaknesses\": \"Please see the questions.\", \"questions\": \"1. The author has clarified the differences between Wanda and OATS. However, an ablation study would further illustrate the impact of the low-rank term on performance. How much does the low-rank term contribute to the performance boost compared to Wanda alone?\\n2. The hardware speedup on GPU with N:M sparsity patterns can be shown and discussed in Section3.4.\\n3. The paper lacks details on how the sparsity pattern is defined for a matrix composed of a sparse matrix S plus a dense matrix LLL, especially within the context of N:M sparsity and structured pruning. Providing more detailed explanations would enhance clarity. \\n4. The baseline for models are all originally designed for LLMs. It would be valuable to compare against pruning metrics specifically designed for ViTs. This would present a stronger baseline to effectively showcase the proposed method\\u2019s advantages.\\n5. The motivation behind the choice of outlier information for the sparse term S is not entirely clear. Given that there are various methods for selecting the sparse components, such as using magnitude-based or gradient-based criteria, it would be helpful to know if the authors experimented with these or other selection methods.\\n6. Given that most pruning studies report results on 70B-parameter models, has the author tested their method on larger language models, such as Llama2-70B or the newer Llama3-70B?\", \"flag_for_ethics_review\": \"['No ethics review needed.']\", \"rating\": \"6\", \"confidence\": \"4\", \"code_of_conduct\": \"Yes\"}", "{\"summary\": \"This paper proposes a relatively novel model compression technique aimed at Transformer architectures, in which weight matrices are approximated as a sum of a sparse and a low-rank matrix. To control for the (previously documented) outlier feature problem, weights are also scaled by the second moment of their input.\", \"soundness\": \"4\", \"presentation\": \"4\", \"contribution\": \"3\", \"strengths\": \"The method proposed by this paper is well-explained and well-justified. The actual practical algorithm is easy to follow.\\n\\nReal-time speedup is shown in the CPU setting.\\n\\nThe experiments cover a range of model sizes (3.8-14B parameters). I especially liked seeing results on fairly small models, since those may be harder to compress. \\n\\nSection 5 is an interesting way to look at the problem, which I think can lead to interesting further work in the direction of interpretability.\", \"weaknesses\": \"The choice of the rank ratio parameter could have been better explored (in particular, looking at multiple architectures/tasks).\", \"typos\": \"\", \"line_18\": \"\\u201capproximating each weight\\u201d -> \\u201capproximating each weight matrix\\u201d\", \"line_142\": \"\\u201cthe activations are calculated through a calibration set that is propagated through the compressed layers\\u201d - should be uncompressed?\", \"questions\": \"It would be nice to see a bigger hyperparameter selection section with more architerctures considered.\", \"flag_for_ethics_review\": \"['No ethics review needed.']\", \"rating\": \"8\", \"confidence\": \"4\", \"code_of_conduct\": \"Yes\"}", "{\"comment\": \"We would first like to thank the reviewer for providing us with valuable feedback and for highlighting concerns with regard to typos:\\n\\n> Line 18: \\u201capproximating each weight\\u201d -> \\u201capproximating each weight matrix\\u201d\\n\\nThank you for pointing this out, we have since updated the abstract to correct this typo.\\n\\n>Line 142: \\u201cthe activations are calculated through a calibration set that is propagated through the compressed layers\\u201d - should be uncompressed?\\n\\nThis is actually not a typo and the choice of calculating the input activations through the compressed layers was a deliberate decision based on prior pruning algorithms that did the same (SparseGPT, Wanda, and DSNOT). \\n\\n> It would be nice to see a bigger hyperparameter selection section\\u2026\\n\\nTo provide a better picture of how the hyperparameters impact OATS, we have included the results for additional configurations for the Llama-3 8B model and the Phi-3 Mini model in Appendix A.6 titled \\u201cAdditional Hyperparameter Tests for OATS\\u201d. We have included the table below for the reviewer\\u2019s convenience:\\n\\n| Model | Compression | Rank Ratio | MMLU (\\u2191) | Zero-Shot (\\u2191) | Perplexity (\\u2193) |\\n|----------------|-------------|------------|----------|---------------|----------------|\\n| Phi-3 Mini | 30% | 0.1 | 68.70 | 71.65 | 10.24 |\\n| | | 0.2 | 68.02 | 71.81 | 10.21 |\\n| | | 0.3 | 69.28 | 72.07 | 10.28 |\\n| | 40% | 0.1 | 65.75 | 69.94 | 11.57 |\\n| | | 0.2 | 65.84 | 70.71 | 11.50 |\\n| | | 0.3 | 66.81 | 70.54 | 11.60 |\\n| | 50% | 0.1 | 57.96 | 67.37 | 15.48 |\\n| | | 0.2 | 59.12 | 68.02 | 15.13 |\\n| | | 0.3 | 58.68 | 68.63 | 15.47 |\\n| Llama-3 8B | 30% | 0.1 | 63.62 | 68.99 | 9.35 |\\n| | | 0.2 | 63.09 | 69.54 | 9.09 |\\n| | 40% | 0.1 | 61.44 | 68.23 | 9.23 |\\n| | | 0.2 | 61.97 | 68.43 | 9.09 |\\n| | 50% | 0.1 | 56.46 | 65.33 | 10.85 |\\n| | | 0.2 | 56.07 | 65.51 | 10.70 |\\n\\nUnfortunately, due to computational constraints, we were unable to perform a more extensive grid search over the hyperparameters for each model. However, given that all Phi-3 experiments utilized a rank ratio of 0.25 and all Llama-3 experiments utilized a rank ratio of 0.3, we believe that this is a testament to the robustness of OATS' performance to its hyperparameters. \\n\\n> with more architerctures considered.\\n\\nWe agree with the reviewer and we also believe that our experiments would benefit from including larger models. Thus, we have run experiments on Llama-3 70B for OATS and its pruning benchmarks, which we have included in the manuscript and below for the reviewer\\u2019s convenience:\\n\\n| Compression | Method | MMLU (\\u2191) | Zero-Shot (\\u2191) | Perplexity (\\u2193) |\\n|-------------|-------------|----------------|----------------------|-----------------------|\\n| 0% | Dense | 79.63 | 75.27 | 2.68 |\\n| 30% | SparseGPT | 78.28 | 75.07 | 3.24 |\\n| | Wanda | **79.15** | 75.19 | 3.28 |\\n| | DSNoT | 79.00 | **75.54** | 3.27 |\\n| | OATS | 78.47 | 75.24 | **3.07** |\\n| 40% | SparseGPT | 76.29 | 74.63 | 3.99 |\\n| | Wanda | 77.16 | 74.10 | 4.08 |\\n| | DSNoT | 77.70 | 74.29 | 4.10 |\\n| | OATS | **77.89** | **74.88** | **3.68** |\\n| 50% | SparseGPT | 72.47 | 73.17 | 5.27 |\\n| | Wanda | 72.04 | 72.85 | 5.38 |\\n| | DSNoT | 72.76 | 72.91 | 5.58 |\\n| | OATS | **74.79** | **73.30** | **4.78** |\\n\\n>\\n\\nWe again would like to sincerely thank the reviewer for their comments and we remain available for discussion should the reviewer have any more inquiries prior to the discussion deadline. If the reviewer finds appropriate, the authors would be appreciative of any further reconsiderations of the score.\"}", "{\"comment\": \"Thank you for showing interest in our work. Beyond compressing the weights according to OATS, we did not perform any other compression techniques. However, we did utilize Neural Magic's Deepsparse Engine to benchmark the throughput through the sparse model which utilizes additional techniques to leverage sparsity for speed-up [1]. Two simple solutions to further reduce the memory footprint associated with the unstructured sparse matrix is to either induce more (unstructured) sparsity or to replace unstructured with structured sparsity \\u2013 both of which OATS is able to do over prior unstructured pruning techniques. However, beyond OATS, another option would be to incorporate quantization which is a direction that we are actively exploring.\\n\\n[1] https://github.com/neuralmagic/deepsparse\"}", "{\"title\": \"Paper Decision\", \"decision\": \"Accept (Poster)\"}", "{\"title\": \"Thank You\", \"comment\": \"Dear Reviewer rXsS,\\n\\nAs the discussion period draws to a close, we would like to sincerely thank the reviewer for their participation during the discussion, for complimenting on the preparedness of our rebuttal, and for their overall positive assessment of our work.\\n\\nBest,\\n\\nThe Authors.\"}", "{\"comment\": \"> Given that most pruning studies report results on 70B-parameter models, has the author tested their method on larger language models, such as Llama2-70B or the newer Llama3-70B?\\n\\nThank you for this great suggestion. In response, we have run Llama-3 70B experiments for OATS and the pruning benchmarks and have updated the manuscript to include those experiments. These results are included in the table below for your convenience:\\n\\n| Compression | Method | MMLU (\\u2191) | Zero-Shot (\\u2191) | Perplexity (\\u2193) |\\n|-------------|-------------|----------------|----------------------|-----------------------|\\n| 0% | Dense | 79.63 | 75.27 | 2.68 |\\n| 30% | SparseGPT | 78.28 | 75.07 | 3.24 |\\n| | Wanda | **79.15** | 75.19 | 3.28 |\\n| | DSNoT | 79.00 | **75.54** | 3.27 |\\n| | OATS | 78.47 | 75.24 | **3.07** |\\n| 40% | SparseGPT | 76.29 | 74.63 | 3.99 |\\n| | Wanda | 77.16 | 74.10 | 4.08 |\\n| | DSNoT | 77.70 | 74.29 | 4.10 |\\n| | OATS | **77.89** | **74.88** | **3.68** |\\n| 50% | SparseGPT | 72.47 | 73.17 | 5.27 |\\n| | Wanda | 72.04 | 72.85 | 5.38 |\\n| | DSNoT | 72.76 | 72.91 | 5.58 |\\n| | OATS | **74.79** | **73.30** | **4.78** |\\n\\n>\\n\\nWe would like to thank the reviewer again for asking many insightful questions that have led to the improvement of our work. Should the reviewer find it fitting, we would be appreciative of any potential reconsideration of the score.\"}", "{\"comment\": \"Dear reviewer BUra, as we await your reply, we would like to bring to your attention that we have re-formatted, added a few clarifying sentences, and bolded key sentences in our replies addressing the reviewer\\u2019s comments. We hope that these changes make our responses easier to read for the reviewer. Please do not hesitate to reach out on the discussion page if there is anything that we, the authors, can do to ameliorate the reviewer\\u2019s process of reading/replying to our comments. We thank the reviewer and look forward to hopefully hearing back from them before the discussion deadline.\"}", "{\"comment\": \"Dear reviewer, we would greatly appreciate it if you could take a moment to read our rebuttal before the deadline as it would give us enough time to construct a detailed response should there be any lingering concerns or issues that could be resolved to improve our work and its score. We are grateful of all the time and energy that the reviewer has dedicated to the demanding nature of the review process and we would like to reiterate our thanks to the reviewer.\"}", "{\"comment\": \"## **Additional Related Works and Overall Presentation (Part 4/5)** ##\\n> **[Reviewer's Comment]: Many works have been proposed to compress LLMs with low-rankness and sparsity [R4-R6]. The authors have not presented the main differences among them and the unique contributions that stand out from those works.**\\n\\nWe sincerely apologize for the oversight in not citing important and relevant works [R4, R6], and we greatly appreciate the reviewer for bringing these to our attention. We have corrected this error, and the following paragraphs outline the additions and adjustments made to address it.\\n\\nTo highlight and compare [R4] with OATS, we have included the following paragraph in Appendix A.1:\\n\\n**[New Section | Page 19]:** _In [1], the authors propose SLOPE, a novel method for accelerating the pre-training phase of LLMs by incorporating N:M sparsity and adding low-rank components to the model weights to enhance model capacity. Similar to OATS, SLOPE leads to a sparse plus low-rank structure in the model\\u2019s weight matrices, **however, the low-rank terms are introduced during the final phase of pre-training and are actively trained on the model loss function.** In contrast, **OATS is designed as a lightweight method to accelerate inference. OATS does not require any training or fine-tuning**, but instead approximates pre-trained weight matrices by solving the Robust PCA problem._\\n\\nFor [R6], we thank the reviewers for bringing this concurrent work to our attention. We were, unfortunately, unable to cite the paper since it was posted publicly on ArXiV only after the submission deadline for ICLR. We have now included the following paragraph in Appendix A.1 to highlight its differences with OATS:\\n\\n**[New Section | Page 19]:** _An independent and concurrent work with OATS proposes SLIM [2], a novel pipeline that combines pruning and quantization. To restore lost performance from compression, SLIM derives a low-rank term using singular-value thresholding and adopts a scaling technique akin to OATS. However, instead of the $L^2$ norm, SLIM utilizes the average absolute value across the batch and sequence dimensions. As a further deviation from OATS, **SLIM is also not performing an alternating thresholding algorithm. Instead, they perform a single quantization and pruning step to initialize the quantized and sparse term, followed by a single singular value thresholding step to establish the low-rank term.**_\\n\\nRegarding [R5], **we previously cited it under the \\u201cStructured Pruning and Low-Rank Adaptation\\u201d paragraph in the Related Works section**. We have included the paragraph below for the reviewer\\u2019s convenience: \\n\\n**[Page 10]:** _Recent works, such as **LoSparse**, LoRAPrune, and APT, propose variations of applying structured pruning on the weights while incorporating a low-rank adapter that is trained via gradient descent. These are markedly different than OATS, which does not employ any fine-tuning with low-rank adapters, nor does it perform structured pruning (but rather a sparse plus low-rank decomposition which can be thought of as a combination of structured and unstructured pruning)._ \\n\\n>**[Reviewer's Comment]: The paper presentation could be improved, especially the math equations.**\\n\\nWe thank the reviewer for raising their concerns and we have provided an additional annotation to the following equation in Section 2.4 when defining the rank-ratio, $\\\\kappa = \\\\frac{r(d_{out} + d_{in})}{(1-\\\\rho)d_{out} \\\\cdot d_{in}}$, clarifying that the numerator represents the number of parameters in the low-rank term and that the denominator represents the total number of nonzero parameters in the compressed layer. \\n\\n> **[Reviewer's Comment]: Additionally, why use inverse transformation to reach the compressed weight?**\\n\\nWe thank the reviewer for raising a potential point of unclarity in our work. In OATS, the alternating thresholding algorithm returns a sparse plus low-rank decomposition that approximates $L+S \\\\approx W D$. From this equation, if one wanted a sparse plus low-rank approximation of the original weight matrix, they would need to multiply by $D^{-1}$ on the right. To improve clarity, we have edited lines 136-137 to instead read:\\n\\n_\\u2026which gives a sparse plus low-rank approximation of $WD \\\\approx S+ L$. OATS then applies the inverse transformation to reach the final compressed weight:_\\n\\n$$ W_{compressed} := (L + S) D^{-1}.$$\\n\\n[1] Mozaffari, M., Yazdanbakhsh, A., Zhang, Z., & Mehri Dehnavi, M. (2024). SLoPe: Double-Pruned Sparse Plus Lazy Low-Rank Adapter Pretraining of LLMs.\\n\\n[2] Mozaffari, M., & Mehri Dehnavi, M. (2024). SLiM: One-shot Quantized Sparse Plus Low-rank Approximation of LLMs.\", \"title\": \"Additional Related Works and Overall Presentation\"}", "{\"comment\": \"Thank you for the additional suggestion of editing the Algorithm 2 bubble. We have now added *Layer Inputs Propagated through Prior Compressed Layers* to the algorithm bubble when describing the layer inputs that are used to calculate the scaling matrix $D$.\\n\\n> I especially liked seeing results on fairly small models, since those may be harder to compress\\u2026It would be nice to see\\u2026 more architerctures considered.\\n\\nWe wanted to add that we have since run additional experiments on the Qwen 2.5 3B Instruct model to provide an even better understanding of how OATS performs on a wide range of different LLM architectures. We have included the results in a new section, Appendix A.8, titled *Qwen 2.5 Experiments* and included the table below for the reviewer\\u2019s convenience:\\n\\n| Compression | Method | MMLU (\\u2191) | Zero-Shot (\\u2191) | Perplexity (\\u2193) |\\n|-------------|-------------|----------------|----------------------|-----------------------|\\n| 0% | Dense | 65.99 | 68.49 | 11.02 |\\n| 30% | SparseGPT | **65.65** | 67.91 | 11.55 |\\n| | Wanda | 65.46 | 68.08 | 11.66 |\\n| | DSNoT | 65.65 | 68.21 | 11.67 |\\n| | OATS | 65.36 | **68.74** | **11.45** |\\n| 40% | SparseGPT | 63.04 | 67.64 | 12.56 |\\n| | Wanda | 61.88 | 67.14 | 12.89 |\\n| | DSNoT | 62.26 | 67.42 | 12.91 |\\n| | OATS | **64.30** | **68.76** | **12.31** |\\n| 50% | SparseGPT | 57.43 | 64.36 | 14.92 |\\n| | Wanda | 55.39 | 64.10 | 16.27 |\\n| | DSNoT | 55.78 | 64.77 | 16.43 |\\n| | OATS | **58.78** | **65.74** | **14.91** |\\n\\nWe thank the reviewer again for their continued engagement with us. We remain available for discussion should the reviewer have any other suggestions that would lead to improvements for our work and its score.\"}", "{\"summary\": \"The paper introduces OATS (Outlier-Aware Pruning Through Sparse and Low-Rank Decomposition), a method designed to compress large transformer models without the need for retraining. The central concept involves representing weight matrices as the sum of a sparse and low-rank matrix.\\n\\nThe authors propose an iterative alternating thresholding technique to compute the joint sparse and low-rank decomposition of a matrix. They also focus on preserving outliers by scaling weights according to input embeddings prior to decomposition. The results indicate that OATS performs effectively on both language and vision tasks, outperforming other pruning methods proposed for transformers across various compression levels and tasks. Additionally, OATS offers speed improvements on the CPU.\", \"soundness\": \"3\", \"presentation\": \"4\", \"contribution\": \"3\", \"strengths\": [\"The concept of compressing a model as a sum of a sparse and low-rank matrix is very promising. Unlike most prior methods, which focus on one approach, OATS leverages both to potentially enhance performance.\", \"OATS is retraining-free, which is crucial for practical applications where even a single backpropagation pass can be computationally prohibitive.\", \"The framework has been tested on state-of-the-art models like Llama and ViT, demonstrating competitive performance.\", \"The Alternating Thresholding technique in OATS heuristically finds an effective combination of low-rank and sparse components and accommodates different sparsity patterns.\", \"By scaling the weight matrix $W$ with a diagonal rescaling matrix $D$, OATS emphasizes outliers, enabling outlier-aware compression that avoids performance degradation.\"], \"weaknesses\": \"One concern is that the method relies on multiple calls to truncated SVD, which can be computationally intensive. Specifically, finding the top-$r$ singular values of an $m \\\\times n$ matrix has a time complexity of $O(mnr)$. Given that compression speed is a significant factor for practical applications, it would be helpful if the authors could clarify the time complexity and wall-clock time spent on the compression process of the overall algorithm. This would offer a more concrete understanding of its practicality.\", \"questions\": \"One potential extension of this work could involve incorporating quantization into the proposed framework. Although this addition may be a long shot, integrating quantization could make the model a unified approach to transformer compression. Could the authors provide insights on whether quantization can be integrated with their current framework, or if not, what are the main challenges?\", \"flag_for_ethics_review\": \"['No ethics review needed.']\", \"rating\": \"8\", \"confidence\": \"3\", \"code_of_conduct\": \"Yes\"}", "{\"title\": \"Thank you for the response.\", \"comment\": \"I thank the reviewers for the clarification and additional experiments, and agree with the analysis that the hyperparameter search results provide evidence for the method's robustness.\\n\\nRegarding Line 142 (compressed vs uncompressed weights in computing inputs). Then it would be helpful to clarify this in Algorithm 2.\"}" ] }

[ "Binxu Wang", "Jiaqi Shang", "Haim Sompolinsky" ]

[ "Generative model", "Reasoning", "Raven’s Progressive Matrix", "Diffusion", "Scaling law", "Stochastic interpolant" ]

{ "note_id": [ "zIosoINsSP", "sZwOSBHD46", "rGRWUnGq4x", "pq9QW9uzlM", "otAdwySQtt", "i7Gd735t0a", "doqFkJAqEa", "dSBeM0OTnj", "bAoMThIGi5", "UfQrnj33c8", "Oq7xzikUbJ", "OUeokDyk6k", "Mjh15ckXFB", "KCeLxxlhFN", "EThDVNbHxn", "CXbsn7OSmC", "5EBop2Aup5", "3piSAhCXHd", "0wMFhTwlqB" ], "note_type": [ "official_comment", "official_comment", "official_review", "official_comment", "official_review", "official_comment", "official_comment", "meta_review", "official_comment", "official_comment", "official_review", "official_comment", "official_comment", "official_review", "official_comment", "official_review", "decision", "official_comment", "official_review" ], "note_created": [ 1732547204009, 1731910963739, 1730431476276, 1732545815454, 1730052062027, 1732511081204, 1731910605404, 1734597962693, 1732546257711, 1732511203531, 1730510810878, 1731910538179, 1731910715393, 1730007838695, 1732545634253, 1730717279133, 1737524136517, 1732545672532, 1730410041341 ], "note_signatures": [ [ "ICLR.cc/2025/Conference/Submission11638/Reviewer_Cqnf" ], [ "ICLR.cc/2025/Conference/Submission11638/Authors" ], [ "ICLR.cc/2025/Conference/Submission11638/Reviewer_PNoL" ], [ "ICLR.cc/2025/Conference/Submission11638/Reviewer_Cqnf" ], [ "ICLR.cc/2025/Conference/Submission11638/Reviewer_nFii" ], [ "ICLR.cc/2025/Conference/Submission11638/Authors" ], [ "ICLR.cc/2025/Conference/Submission11638/Authors" ], [ "ICLR.cc/2025/Conference/Submission11638/Area_Chair_U6vB" ], [ "ICLR.cc/2025/Conference/Submission11638/Reviewer_Cqnf" ], [ "ICLR.cc/2025/Conference/Submission11638/Authors" ], [ "ICLR.cc/2025/Conference/Submission11638/Reviewer_CZnK" ], [ "ICLR.cc/2025/Conference/Submission11638/Authors" ], [ "ICLR.cc/2025/Conference/Submission11638/Authors" ], [ "ICLR.cc/2025/Conference/Submission11638/Reviewer_8V8a" ], [ "ICLR.cc/2025/Conference/Submission11638/Reviewer_Cqnf" ], [ "ICLR.cc/2025/Conference/Submission11638/Reviewer_Cqnf" ], [ "ICLR.cc/2025/Conference/Program_Chairs" ], [ "ICLR.cc/2025/Conference/Submission11638/Reviewer_Cqnf" ], [ "ICLR.cc/2025/Conference/Submission11638/Reviewer_QARN" ] ], "structured_content_str": [ "{\"comment\": \">On the other hand, we think the conditional generation / panel completion experiment can be framed as reasoning, since it potentially involves inferring the underlying rules from observed samples and applying it to the occluded row. (which is also the underlying assumption for the corresponding task in human.) One could argue that the sampling steps in the diffusion or autoregressive model could be analogous to reasoning steps. Further previous works also frame RAVEN's task as abstract visual reasoning [^1][^2], so we think it\\u2019s justified to call the task reasoning task.\\n\\nI would only agree with this if there is strong evidence of _abstraction_ as well as multi-step stability. For the review, the non-linear training dynamics make me somewhat comfortable with accepting the argument if phrased more precisely ( e.g. \\\"compositional reasoning\\\" as in your reference [1] ). But in general, I think as we get more and more capable systems, I think it becomes more important to define our terms: what this paper has shown is\\n\\n1. diffusion models are very good at picking up representations from which classifiers can generalizably learn to classify rules and atributes (compositional modeling)\\n2. they are able to generate _internally consistent_ rows based of these (compositionally consistency recall)\\n3. they struggle with _consistently conditioning_ on a given input\\n\\nIn your reference, the authors talk about\\n\\n>attacking visual systems\\u2019 major weaknesses in short-term memory and compositional reasoning [22]. \\n\\nwhich, if we break this down, we can call 1+2 compositional reasoning in the sense of learning some fixed rules and 3 the \\\"short term memory\\\" or \\\"grounding\\\". Thus I'd also be somewhat comfortable if the authors choose to frame what is learned as \\\"ungrounded reasoning\\\" or \\\"rule consistent hallucinations\\\" or something along the lines.\\n\\nOn all of these, i would find it important to note that this tests the ability on a relatively \\\"simple\\\" task which is \\\"leave one out\\\" generalization. Not a request for this paper, but something for the limitations and future work section, it would be interesting to construct a dataset which has ambiguous completions (due to hints being left out), and see whether the model can learn to generate roughly 50/50 completions (or 1/3 or whatever mulitplicity is constructed). This would further separate the task from \\\"compositional image generation, without the strict need to learn abstract rules since visual similarity might be enough\\\", since the modes of the muliplicity might be visually distinct.\"}", "{\"title\": \"Thanks for the review. Results from New Training Experiments addressing increasing heldout rules, reproducibility across runs and factorized readouts [Part4]\", \"comment\": \"**Table 3. Sample level consistency and reproducibility of DiT models. S1-3 denotes DiT-S repeat 1-3, B1-3 denotes DiT-B repeats 1-3. We show pairwise comparison of 10240 samples from two models with the same noise seed.**\", \"entry_match\": \"Fraction of attribute match across all 2488320 attribute entries.\", \"exact_sample_match\": \"Fraction of samples that match on every attribute, out of 10240 samples.\", \"sample_c3_match\": \"Fraction of samples with matching C3 rules.\", \"row_rule_match\": \"Fraction of rows with matching rule set (or invalid), out of 30720 rows.\\n\\n| | entry_match | exact_sample_match | sample_C3_match | row_rule_match |\\n| --- | --- | --- | --- | --- |\\n| S1 vs S2 | 0.765 | 0.00 | 0.805 | 0.706 |\\n| S2 vs S3 | 0.767 | 0.00 | 0.817 | 0.719 |\\n| S1 vs S3 | 0.767 | 0.00 | 0.808 | 0.713 |\\n| B1 vs B2 | 1.000 | 1.00 | 1.000 | 1.000 |\\n| B2 vs B3 | 1.000 | 1.00 | 1.000 | 1.000 |\\n| B1 vs B3 | 1.000 | 1.00 | 1.000 | 1.000 |\\n| S1 vs B1 | 0.708 | 0.00 | 0.750 | 0.633 |\\n| S2 vs B2 | 0.698 | 0.00 | 0.756 | 0.635 |\\n| S3 vs B3 | 0.701 | 0.00 | 0.754 | 0.633 |\\n| Total num | 2488320 | 10240 | 10240 | 30720 |\\n\\n\\n**Questions:**\\n\\n> can you **factorize the readout with a dimensionality constraint and retain the performance**?\\n> \\n\\nWe are not exactly sure about the set up the reviewer is asking for, so we ask for clarification. Do you mean, we should use a 10-way classifier for the relationship and a 4-way classifier for attributes and see if we can get the same performance? \\n\\nWe ran the experiment of using a 10-way linear classifier to classify relations and 4-way classifier to classify attributes and make a factorized prediction of the rule. (which is dimension constrained readout, 14d vs 40d) \\nWe found that at the last layer, representation can linearly classify this information in a factorized fashion: at block11, full 40-way linear readout had accuracy 99.8%, while attribute x relation factorized readout had accuracy 97.6%. So it can retain most of its performance, though not perfect. \\nFurther, it seems at deeper layers, the gap between 40-way classification accuracy and factorized classification accuracy is smaller, showing that the representation of rules becomes more factorized throughout the layers. \\n\\n**Tab. 4 Comparison of Full readout accuracy and factorized readout accuracy.** DiT-S/1 model, 4000 samples per rule, 5 heldout. Representation was recorded at 1M steps, t=25.0 with token averaging. Attribute Acc was 4-way attribute classification accuracy, relation acc was 10-way relation classification accuracy. \\n\\n| | Full 40-way Readout Rule Acc | Factorized Readout Rule Acc | Attribute Acc | Relation Acc |\\n| --- | --- | --- | --- | --- |\\n| blocks0 | 0.274 | 0.114 | 0.388 | 0.292 |\\n| blocks2 | 0.622 | 0.220 | 0.478 | 0.428 |\\n| blocks5 | 0.953 | 0.723 | 0.930 | 0.764 |\\n| blocks8 | 0.996 | 0.961 | 0.997 | 0.963 |\\n| blocks11 | 0.998 | 0.976 | 0.999 | 0.977 |\\n> How do you perform scoring? manually or an automated evaluation pipeline?\\n> \\n\\nWe used an automated pipeline. We have code to evaluate whether each row is consistent with any of the 40 rules, so as to extract the set of rules each row is conforming to, and then find rules that are shared among 2-3 rows (i.e. C2, C3).\"}", "{\"summary\": \"This paper evaluates the abilities of diffusion models in contrast to autoregressive models on the problem of Raven\\u2019s progression matrix. It proposes a dataset based on 40 relational rules and performs various types of experiments to evaluate the learning procedures and abilities of the trained models. It concludes that diffusion models has certain advantages over autoregressive models while in \\u201crule consistent panel completion\\u201d, diffusion models happen to be weaker.\", \"soundness\": \"3\", \"presentation\": \"3\", \"contribution\": \"2\", \"strengths\": \"Paper is well written.\\n\\nExperiments on the RPM are detailed and insightful.\\n\\nIt proposes a new dataset that may be useful for the community.\", \"weaknesses\": \"Literature review misses relevant prior work.\\n\\n[1] Lachapelle, S., Mahajan, D., Mitliagkas, I. and Lacoste-Julien, S., 2023. Additive decoders for latent variables identification and cartesian-product extrapolation. Advances in Neural Information Processing Systems, 36.\\n\\n[2] Bansal, A., Schwarzschild, A., Borgnia, E., Emam, Z., Huang, F., Goldblum, M. and Goldstein, T., 2022. End-to-end algorithm synthesis with recurrent networks: Extrapolation without overthinking. Advances in Neural Information Processing Systems, 35, pp.20232-20242.\\n\\n\\nBoth of these papers consider a setting that has certain similarities to the problem that this paper studies. [1] also considers attributes such as location and color.\\n\\n\\n\\n-----\\n\\n\\nThe experiments of the paper are rather limited as it only evaluates the diffusion models on one specific dataset that is proposed for the first time in the paper. The dataset itself is not large (40 relational rules and 3x3 matrix of panels), and the achieved accuracy is rather high (99.8%) indicating that it is not very challenging. In my view, to draw conclusions about the learning abilities and learning procedures of diffusion models one would need to see more convincing experimental results on a broader set of related tasks. \\n\\n\\n------\\n\\nWhile the paper contrasts the abilities of diffusion models against that of autoregressive models, and provides some useful empirical evidence about the cases where one performs better than the other, it is hard to be sure that these would generalize beyond the specific task of Raven\\u2019s progression matrix. In its current form, I think it would be more appropriate for the paper to change its title and conclusions to reflect that it is only about the Raven\\u2019s progression matrix and not the broader topic of abstract reasoning. But, this makes the scope of the paper rather limited. So, I would suggest that the paper expands its experiments to other reasoning tasks, and try to make broader conclusions beyond the RPM task, perhaps for a certain class of reasoning tasks.\", \"questions\": \"Please see weaknesses. Would love to hear any clarifications or additional experiments that authors might want to share.\\n\\nIf authors manage to extend their experiments to some existing reasoning tasks in the literature, for example, one of the papers mentioned above (or any other existing reasoning task that they find appropriate), it would make their results more convincing and more connected to the existing literature.\", \"flag_for_ethics_review\": \"['No ethics review needed.']\", \"rating\": \"5\", \"confidence\": \"4\", \"code_of_conduct\": \"Yes\"}", "{\"comment\": \"> We totally agree with reviewer, that we shall improve the statistical rigor in machine learning research. Since there are many analysis and results through the paper, is there a particular claim or test that you think we should focus on? (See also the response to next concern.)\\n\\nthe easy answer would be \\\"all of them\\\", but the most important one I find the central claim: how many rules must there be in total and held out for an apparent generalization to be unlikely enough to be implausible (I think you have the sample size sufficient for this based on other results, but formalizing the claim would be helpful imo)\"}", "{\"summary\": \"In this study, the authors assess the capabilities of existing diffusion and language models in the context of abstract reasoning. They represent Raven's Progressive Matrices (RPM) puzzles in a numeric format, mapping each visual attribute to an integer value. The authors conduct several ablation studies on the trained models to evaluate their abstract reasoning abilities.\", \"soundness\": \"2\", \"presentation\": \"2\", \"contribution\": \"2\", \"strengths\": \"In this work, the following strengths can be found:\\n1. They conduct experiments on various state-of-the-art diffusion models as well as GPT-2. These models are trained on a proposed simplified version of Raven's Progressive Matrices, which is suitable for models that lack visual modalities, such as GPT-2.\\n2. In addition to training existing models on the proposed dataset, the authors provide extensive evaluations and ablation studies to explore the advantages of diffusion-based models compared to language models or better sequence generators, like GPT-2, in this context.\", \"weaknesses\": \"Some of the weaknesses of this work are:\\n\\n### The submitted document needs to be completed.\\n1. The paper is incomplete. The supplementary material includes sections that are missing content (B.1, B.3, B.4). Some sections are only partially completed, such as B.2.3, which is missing figures and explanations that cannot be linked to experimental results, along with 'XXXXX' entries. Additionally, in section A.2.2, line 748, the authors failed to provide the hyperparameter values. Although these issues are present in the supplementary material, the reviewer believes that the authors should have been more diligent and submitted a complete version of their work.\\n\\n\\n### Clarity and Presentation\\nThe reviewer suggests that the authors revisit their work, as improvements can be made in the presentation of the paper. The figures should be organized more effectively; currently, Figures 2, 3, and others appear to be placeholders with individual images stacked. Additionally, there are other issues with the presentation of the results: \\n1. In Figure 5.D, not all versions are visible. The label \\\"scale\\\" is unclear in the legend, and it seems different models are referenced. What does \\\"model_class\\\" refer to?\\n2. In Fig. 2.D, what does the individual held-out rule color correspond to? There are five different cases, but the authors do not mention what each of them represents.\\n\\n### Missing References to Prior Work \\nPrevious research has explored ways to represent Raven's Progressive Matrices (RPMs) in a format suitable for language models. The reviewer suggests that the authors should reference these studies and compare their RPM representation with existing works. It is possible that the proposed representation may not be appropriate for language models. Here are some relevant references: [1], [2], [3]. Additionally, this work introduces a simplified RPM dataset [4], which appears to be quite similar to the proposed representation.\\n\\n### Dataset Concerns \\n1. The reviewer expresses skepticism regarding the validity and difficulty level of the tested out-of-distribution (OOD) and held-out scenarios. In the proposed simplified dataset, all data is numeric. Therefore, if a model is trained to learn the constancy relation between the numbers on the second channel of the RPM, it may not be very challenging to identify this type of relationship on the first channel. This scenario differs from visual puzzles, where constancy in color is present during training, but testing introduces puzzles with constancy in shape for the first time.\\n\\n\\n### Contribution Concerns\\n1. The contribution of this work seems to be limited. The reasons are that the authors do not seem to propose a novel component but rather re-train existing models for a different reasoning dataset. \\n\\n[1] Zhang, Chengru, and Liuyun Wang. \\\"Evaluating Abstract Reasoning and Problem-Solving Abilities of Large Language Models Using Raven's Progressive Matrices.\\\" (2024).\\n\\n[2] Webb, Taylor, Keith J. Holyoak, and Hongjing Lu. \\\"Emergent analogical reasoning in large language models.\\\" Nature Human Behaviour 7.9 (2023): 1526-1541.\\n\\n[3] Ahrabian, K., Sourati, Z., Sun, K., Zhang, J., Jiang, Y., Morstatter, F., & Pujara, J. (2024). The curious case of nonverbal abstract reasoning with multi-modal large language models. arXiv preprint arXiv:2401.12117.\\n\\n[4] Schug, S., Kobayashi, S., Akram, Y., Sacramento, J., & Pascanu, R. (2024). Attention as a Hypernetwork. arXiv preprint arXiv:2406.05816.\", \"questions\": \"1. For the ablations, the authors seem to use it as their reference model. However, SiT seems to perform better than DiT. Why did the authors not include SiT in the performed ablations?\\n2. How do the authors ensure that the training and testing set puzzles do not overlap? The dataset seems huge: 1,200,000 row samples per rule, with 40 rules in total.\", \"flag_for_ethics_review\": \"['No ethics review needed.']\", \"rating\": \"3\", \"confidence\": \"4\", \"code_of_conduct\": \"Yes\"}", "{\"title\": \"Responses to the weaknesses of the paper and new experimental results regarding the generalization of rule representation\", \"comment\": \"> \\\"diffusion models can synthesize novel samples\\\": this seems not so surprising, because we already know that diffusion models can synthesize novel images (like flying monkeys) not existed before.\\n\\nIn unconditional diffusion modeling set up, they can synthesize non-existing faces that looks convincing. In conditional modelling set up (e.g. text2image), they can synthesize image corresponding to prompt combinations that are unlikely to occur in the corpus. \\n\\nIndeed, we know diffusion models can synthesize non existing natural looking images (e.g. unconditional novel face generation, conditional text 2 novel image generation), but to synthesize novel samples that are consistent with certain \\u201cunderlying rules\\u201d, it\\u2019s not known yet. For natural images, such \\u201crules\\u201d kind of exist in the form of natural statistics of object and patterns, but it\\u2019s hard to evaluate whether the samples are \\u201crule\\u201d consistent or not. For single sample evaluation, people usually resort to Visual Question Answering (VQA) by human or machine for rough evaluations of sample quality. Our discrete setting allows precise evaluation of samples about the extent to which they are rule consistent.\", \"the_other_surprising_aspect_arise_from_the_contrast_to_the_theory_of_diffusion_model\": \"if we optimize the denoising score matching loss to the global minimum with arbitrary score function approximators, it will result in the memorization of training data, i.e. delta measure over the data points, so no novel sample will be generated.\", \"so_our_result_is_significant_regarding_the_generalization_of_diffusion_models\": \"i.e. they not just generalize but also do so \\u201cintelligently\\u201d and obeys the unobserved rules of data generation, which pushes the \\u201climit\\u201d of what they could generalize to and how.\\n\\n> \\\"memorized and recombined local parts of the training samples\\\": **this is an interesting point, because previously we did not know how diffusion models can learn the structure.** However, in this paper, they have this claim mainly because of Figure 7, which is a plot showing the model first learns local part, then global parts. It would be better if the authors can provide deeper discussions on this point.\\n> \\n\\nWe agree with the reviewer. We observed and validated this intriguing phenomenon in our setup. We have also been searching for an deeper understanding of it, which will be part of our future work. \\n\\n> \\\"advanced sampling techniques were needed for inpainting\\\": this is also an interesting point, but it seems that here the authors simply mean that Sequential Monte Carlo will give better performance, but did not provide any deep analysis.\\n> \\n\\nWe have performed ablation analysis for the hyper parameters for the Sequential Monte Carlo method (i.e. Twisted Diffusion Sampler) as in Fig. 9 in the supplementary of the paper. Basically we can see there is some gain in adding to the population size of particles and there is more gain in adding to the number of steps of the sampler. Generally, since the TDS was asymptotically exact, a larger step number and population size should result in a better approximation of the conditional probability, which lead to better panel completion accuracy. In contrast, Repaint or DDNM methods are heuristic method, so they may not enjoy the same properties as TDS did [^1]. \\n\\n[^1] Conditional sampling within generative diffusion models https://arxiv.org/abs/2409.09650v1 \\n\\n> \\\"pattern completion capability can generalize to rules unseen\\\": this is an interesting point, but it seems that the authors mainly provide some unseen examples in test set, and show that diffusion models can work well on these examples. The fact that models can generalize to unseen cases has been observed by many previous studies, **and it would be great if the authors can use Raven's task to provide better intuitions and explanations.**\\n\\nGenerally, we think it could be framed as a form of \\u201cin context learning\\u201d of diffusion models, which is usually described in term of \\u201cinferring\\u201d the latent rule and sampling missing part accordingly. The exact circuit mechanism of which is currently still not well understood, and could be better dissected in future work.\"}", "{\"title\": \"Thanks for the review. Results from New Training Experiment addressing increasing heldout rules and reproducibility across runs [Part2]\", \"comment\": \"Tab 1. **Rule classification accuracy of diffusion models trained with increasing fraction of held out rules**.\\n***Test Acc, Train Acc***: the train and test accuracy of linear probe (averaged across 40 rules) at 1M steps, at block.11, average token representation, t=25.0 . \\n***Test Acc*, Train Acc*, step****: the best test accuracy achieved through training (at step*) and their corresponding train accuracy. All best test accuracy happened to be achieved at final layer (block.11), and with avg token representation. \\n\\n| ExpNote | heldout_num | heldout_rules | Test Acc | Train Acc | Test Acc* | Train Acc* | step* |\\n| --- | --- | --- | --- | --- | --- | --- | --- |\\n| BalSetx1 | 5 | (1, 16, 20, 34, 37) | 0.997 | 1.000 | 0.997 | 1.000 | 1000000 |\\n| BalSetx2 | 10 | (1, 8, 12, 16, 20, 24, 34, 36, 37, 39) | 0.997 | 1.000 | 0.997 | 1.000 | 1000000 |\\n| BalSetx3 | 15 | (1, 5, 8, 12, 16, 17, 20, 21, 24, 33, 34, 36, 37, 38, 39) | 0.991 | 1.000 | 0.991 | 1.000 | 1000000 |\\n| BalSetx4 | 19 | (1, 3, 5, 8, 10, 12, 16, 17, 20, 21, 24, 29, 31, 33, 34, 36, 37, 38, 39) | 0.986 | 1.000 | 0.991 | 1.000 | 700000 |\\n| BalSetx5 | 23 | (0, 1, 3, 5, 8, 10, 12, 14, 16, 17, 20, 21, 24, 27, 29, 31, 33, 34, 35, 36, 37, 38, 39) | 0.976 | 0.995 | 0.986 | 0.998 | 500000 |\\n| BalSetx6 | 27 | (0, 1, 3, 4, 5, 8, 10, 12, 14, 16, 17, 19, 20, 21, 24, 26, 27, 29, 30, 31, 33, 34, 35, 36, 37, 38, 39) | 0.880 | 0.922 | 0.976 | 0.994 | 500000 |\\n| Attr0 | 10 | (0, 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9) | 0.978 | 0.988 | 0.979 | 0.987 | 700000 |\\n| Attr3 | 10 | (30, 31, 32, 33, 34, 35, 36, 37, 38, 39) | 0.991 | 0.999 | 0.994 | 1.000 | 700000 |\\n| Rel0 | 4 | (0, 10, 20, 30) | 0.996 | 1.000 | 0.996 | 1.000 | 1000000 |\\n| Rel3 | 4 | (3, 13, 23, 33) | 0.998 | 1.000 | 0.998 | 1.000 | 1000000 |\\n| Rel5 | 4 | (5, 15, 25, 35) | 0.996 | 1.000 | 0.996 | 1.000 | 700000 |\\n| Rel8 | 4 | (8, 18, 28, 38) | 0.994 | 0.999 | 0.994 | 0.999 | 1000000 |\\n| Rel012 | 12 | (0, 1, 2, 10, 11, 12, 20, 21, 22, 30, 31, 32) | 0.997 | 1.000 | 0.997 | 1.000 | 1000000 |\\n| Rel014 | 12 | (0, 1, 4, 10, 11, 14, 20, 21, 24, 30, 31, 34) | 0.998 | 1.000 | 0.998 | 1.000 | 1000000 |\\n| Rel023 | 12 | (0, 2, 3, 10, 12, 13, 20, 22, 23, 30, 32, 33) | 0.996 | 1.000 | 0.996 | 1.000 | 700000 |\\n| Rel034 | 12 | (0, 3, 4, 10, 13, 14, 20, 23, 24, 30, 33, 34) | 0.997 | 1.000 | 0.997 | 1.000 | 1000000 |\\n| Rel123 | 12 | (1, 2, 3, 11, 12, 13, 21, 22, 23, 31, 32, 33) | 0.997 | 1.000 | 0.997 | 1.000 | 1000000 |\\n| Rel234 | 12 | (2, 3, 4, 12, 13, 14, 22, 23, 24, 32, 33, 34) | 0.996 | 1.000 | 0.996 | 1.000 | 1000000 |\\n| Rel56 | 8 | (5, 6, 15, 16, 25, 26, 35, 36) | 0.992 | 1.000 | 0.992 | 1.000 | 1000000 |\\n| Rel01234 | 20 | (0, 1, 2, 3, 4, 10, 11, 12, 13, 14, 20, 21, 22, 23, 24, 30, 31, 32, 33, 34) | 0.991 | 1.000 | 0.993 | 1.000 | 700000 |\\n| Rel789 | 12 | (7, 8, 9, 17, 18, 19, 27, 28, 29, 37, 38, 39) | 0.950 | 0.968 | 0.954 | 0.970 | 700000 |\\n| Rel1234 | 16 | (1, 2, 3, 4, 11, 12, 13, 14, 21, 22, 23, 24, 31, 32, 33, 34) | 0.997 | 1.000 | 0.997 | 1.000 | 700000 |\\n| Rel0123456 | 28 | (0, 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 10, 11, 12, 13, 14, 15, 16, 20, 21, 22, 23, 24, 25, 26, 30, 31, 32, 33, 34, 35, 36) | 0.766 | 0.808 | 0.963 | 0.991 | 200000 |\\n\\n> I am unsure about the sample sizes chosen being meaningful, please use something like\\u00a0https://cran.r-project.org/web/packages/effectsize/index.html\\u00a0to justify experimental design. Where appropriate, statistical tests should be used to justify claims against a concrete null hypothesis\\n> \\n\\nWe totally agree with reviewer, that we shall improve the statistical rigor in machine learning research. Since there are many analysis and results through the paper, is there a particular claim or test that you think we should focus on? (See also the response to next concern.)\"}", "{\"metareview\": \"The paper studies how generative diffusion models learn hidden rules for reasoning/compositional generalization. In the private discussion, the reviewers argued that they would have leaned in favor of accepting had the authors engaged in the discussion. Overall, the reviewers thought that the experiments in the current version do not match the broad claims of the paper (concrete suggestion: either do more experiments or tune down the title and conclusions). However, I want to note that the reviewers liked the direction of the paper and they encourage a resubmission with their feedback taken into consideration.\", \"additional_comments_on_reviewer_discussion\": \"The authors did not reply to the reviewers to their satisfaction, only replying to some reviewers and not finishing the discussion with the reviewers they engaged with.\"}", "{\"comment\": \">To our delight, the diffusion model\\u2019s learned representations are very robust to holding out rules during training: even with 23 held-out rules (BalSetx5) the final layer representation after training has test accuracy 97.6%, during training the best test accuracy was achieved at 0.5M steps at 98.6%. Further, we also found non-monotonic learning dynamics for these representations, i.e. when there are too many held-out rules, the latent representation will initially be able to accurately classify rules, while over-training will lead to the deterioration of representations. With 27 heldout rules, the representation quality broke down quit a bit: test accuracy peaked at 97.6% at 0.5M step, and dereased to 88% after 1M step training.\\n\\n> All in all, these additional experiments further showed that diffusion models are capable of constructing strong generalizing representation for underlying factor (e.g. rules), even when only have seen a limited portion of data.\\n\\nthank you for performing these experiments and getting these interesting results.\", \"to_interpret_a_bit\": \"1. there is compositional generalization going on, and it goes beyond leave one t\\n2. from the name, I assume you did balanced subsampling? did you get any insight on how the model performs if a given factor is only visible 2 or 3 times vs others being much more presnet?\\n3. the nonlinear learning dynamic could mean that the model finds the \\\"correct\\\" representation early on, but cannot use it for the task of memorizing the dataset?\"}", "{\"title\": \"Responses to the weaknesses of the paper and new experimental results regarding the generalization of rule representation [Cont'd]\", \"comment\": \"> \\\"rule representation\\\": this is not in particular surprising, because people previously already observe that deep networks can learn semantic features, or self-supervised learning framework can learn very strong features.\\n> \\n\\nYeah indeed, as we have mentioned in the paper, in the natural image domain, people have found diffusion models can learn object classification features via unconditional generative modeling task. Our current result is one step further, showing diffusion models can also learn strong features for abstract rules via generative modeling, not just visual semantic categories. \\n\\nThe more surprising aspect of this result is that we show the representation is very **generalizable**, even to rules unseen during diffusion training. \\nPer the request of the reviewer `Cqnf`, we have conducted a new set of experiments focusing on the generalization of representation. We trained unconditional diffusion (DiT-S) with more held out rules from the 40 rules and then use the same linear probe procedure to classify rules from the emerged hidden representation. \\nWe found, that even with 23 rules held out during generative training, the emerged representation can still linearly classify 40 rules at 98% test accuracy (seen rules, 99%, unseen rules 96%). Full results are shown in following Tab. 1. This indicates that, even without seeing many rules, the diffusion model can learn general representations for all the rules in that domain. \\n\\nTab 1. **Rule classification accuracy of diffusion models trained with increasing fraction of held out rules**. \\n***Test Acc, Train Acc***: the train and test accuracy of linear probe (averaged across 40 rules) at 1M steps, at block.11, average token representation, t=25.0 . \\n***Test Acc*, Train Acc*, step****: the best test accuracy achieved through training (at step*) and their corresponding train accuracy. All best test accuracy happened to be achieved at final layer (block.11), and with avg token representation. \\n\\n| ExpNote | heldout_num | heldout_rules | Test Acc | Train Acc | Test Acc* | Train Acc* | step* |\\n| --- | --- | --- | --- | --- | --- | --- | --- |\\n| BalSetx1 | 5 | (1, 16, 20, 34, 37) | 0.997 | 1.000 | 0.997 | 1.000 | 1000000 |\\n| BalSetx2 | 10 | (1, 8, 12, 16, 20, 24, 34, 36, 37, 39) | 0.997 | 1.000 | 0.997 | 1.000 | 1000000 |\\n| BalSetx3 | 15 | (1, 5, 8, 12, 16, 17, 20, 21, 24, 33, 34, 36, 37, 38, 39) | 0.991 | 1.000 | 0.991 | 1.000 | 1000000 |\\n| BalSetx4 | 19 | (1, 3, 5, 8, 10, 12, 16, 17, 20, 21, 24, 29, 31, 33, 34, 36, 37, 38, 39) | 0.986 | 1.000 | 0.991 | 1.000 | 700000 |\\n| BalSetx5 | 23 | (0, 1, 3, 5, 8, 10, 12, 14, 16, 17, 20, 21, 24, 27, 29, 31, 33, 34, 35, 36, 37, 38, 39) | 0.976 | 0.995 | 0.986 | 0.998 | 500000 |\\n| BalSetx6 | 27 | (0, 1, 3, 4, 5, 8, 10, 12, 14, 16, 17, 19, 20, 21, 24, 26, 27, 29, 30, 31, 33, 34, 35, 36, 37, 38, 39) | 0.880 | 0.922 | 0.976 | 0.994 | 500000 |\\n| Attr0 | 10 | (0, 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9) | 0.978 | 0.988 | 0.979 | 0.987 | 700000 |\\n| Attr3 | 10 | (30, 31, 32, 33, 34, 35, 36, 37, 38, 39) | 0.991 | 0.999 | 0.994 | 1.000 | 700000 |\\n| Rel0 | 4 | (0, 10, 20, 30) | 0.996 | 1.000 | 0.996 | 1.000 | 1000000 |\\n| Rel3 | 4 | (3, 13, 23, 33) | 0.998 | 1.000 | 0.998 | 1.000 | 1000000 |\\n| Rel5 | 4 | (5, 15, 25, 35) | 0.996 | 1.000 | 0.996 | 1.000 | 700000 |\\n| Rel8 | 4 | (8, 18, 28, 38) | 0.994 | 0.999 | 0.994 | 0.999 | 1000000 |\\n| Rel012 | 12 | (0, 1, 2, 10, 11, 12, 20, 21, 22, 30, 31, 32) | 0.997 | 1.000 | 0.997 | 1.000 | 1000000 |\\n| Rel014 | 12 | (0, 1, 4, 10, 11, 14, 20, 21, 24, 30, 31, 34) | 0.998 | 1.000 | 0.998 | 1.000 | 1000000 |\\n| Rel023 | 12 | (0, 2, 3, 10, 12, 13, 20, 22, 23, 30, 32, 33) | 0.996 | 1.000 | 0.996 | 1.000 | 700000 |\\n| Rel034 | 12 | (0, 3, 4, 10, 13, 14, 20, 23, 24, 30, 33, 34) | 0.997 | 1.000 | 0.997 | 1.000 | 1000000 |\\n| Rel123 | 12 | (1, 2, 3, 11, 12, 13, 21, 22, 23, 31, 32, 33) | 0.997 | 1.000 | 0.997 | 1.000 | 1000000 |\\n| Rel234 | 12 | (2, 3, 4, 12, 13, 14, 22, 23, 24, 32, 33, 34) | 0.996 | 1.000 | 0.996 | 1.000 | 1000000 |\\n| Rel56 | 8 | (5, 6, 15, 16, 25, 26, 35, 36) | 0.992 | 1.000 | 0.992 | 1.000 | 1000000 |\\n| Rel01234 | 20 | (0, 1, 2, 3, 4, 10, 11, 12, 13, 14, 20, 21, 22, 23, 24, 30, 31, 32, 33, 34) | 0.991 | 1.000 | 0.993 | 1.000 | 700000 |\\n| Rel789 | 12 | (7, 8, 9, 17, 18, 19, 27, 28, 29, 37, 38, 39) | 0.950 | 0.968 | 0.954 | 0.970 | 700000 |\\n| Rel1234 | 16 | (1, 2, 3, 4, 11, 12, 13, 14, 21, 22, 23, 24, 31, 32, 33, 34) | 0.997 | 1.000 | 0.997 | 1.000 | 700000 |\\n| Rel0123456 | 28 | (0, 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 10, 11, 12, 13, 14, 15, 16, 20, 21, 22, 23, 24, 25, 26, 30, 31, 32, 33, 34, 35, 36) | 0.766 | 0.808 | 0.963 | 0.991 | 200000 |\"}", "{\"summary\": \"The paper investigates how diffusion models learn abstract rules using synthetic data from the Raven's Progressive Matrices (RPM) task, offering a detailed comparison with autoregressive models. The core contributions are as follows:\\n\\n1. Demonstrating that diffusion models exhibit significantly less memorization than autoregressive models when trained on RPM data.\\n2. Showing that diffusion models generate outputs hierarchically, learning to recombine elements at a local scale before forming broader structures.\\n3. Revealing that the intermediate representations within diffusion models align closely with the underlying rules of the provided samples.\\n4. Observing that diffusion models only start to effectively learn abstract rules when a certain data scale is reached.\", \"soundness\": \"2\", \"presentation\": \"3\", \"contribution\": \"3\", \"strengths\": \"1. Comprehensive and well-designed experiments, particularly the use of synthetic RPM data, which introduces a new perspective on studying diffusion models. This controlled approach contrasts with natural object generation, which often lacks experimental control, allowing a more precise investigation of rule learning.\\n\\n2. The experiments are rigorous, with careful comparisons between diffusion and autoregressive models, examining factors like memorization and hierarchical generation. This provides strong support for the paper\\u2019s findings.\\n\\n3. The paper is well-organized, presenting methods and results in clearly.\\n\\nThis work broadens our understanding of diffusion models, suggesting their applicability beyond visual generation to reasoning tasks, and providing a framework for controlled abstract rule learning studies.\", \"weaknesses\": \"Object Tokenization: The study focuses solely on the learning of abstract rules, assuming idealized perception of object features. While this approach isolates rule learning effectively, the paper could benefit from a comparison between pixel tokenization and object/panel tokenization, showing how different tokenization strategies might impact results.\", \"autoregressive_model_setup\": \"In Section A.3, the authors apply object tokenization in autoregressive modeling by simply combining object features. This factorized approach assumes independence among features within the same object, differing from the diffusion model\\u2019s approach which models the joint strictly. It would strengthen the study to model the joint probability of object attributes directly.\", \"rpm_for_transfer_learning\": \"The Raven's Progressive Matrices (RPM) test is typically a transfer learning process for humans, where test-takers encounter the task without prior exposure or practice. In contrast, diffusion models in this study train on RPM with extensive sample exposure. It would be valuable to explore how diffusion models trained on natural images could transfer to this task and perform zero-shot rule discovery, likely revealing contrasts with the training approach described in the paper.\", \"contribution_framing\": \"Some contributions could be framed more effectively. For instance, \\u201cshowing that unconditional diffusion models can be used for conditional inference, i.e., completing missing panels consistent with the rule\\u201d may be perceived as a weaker contribution since converting unconditional diffusion models for inpainting is already well-known. A revised framing of contributions could clarify the study\\u2019s unique insights.\", \"questions\": \"I was surprised to see that autoregressive models performed worse than diffusion models. In human visual reasoning, saccadic movements often create a dynamic, sequential prediction process resembling autoregressive models. Could the authors provide some intuition as to why autoregressive models underperform in this context? It would be interesting to understand potential limitations or factors influencing these results within the framework of this paper.\", \"flag_for_ethics_review\": \"['No ethics review needed.']\", \"rating\": \"6\", \"confidence\": \"4\", \"code_of_conduct\": \"Yes\"}", "{\"title\": \"Thanks for the review. Results from New Training Experiment addressing increasing heldout rules and reproducibility across runs [Part1]\", \"comment\": \"> I don't think reasoning is the appropriate term to use, instead, the authors have found a wonderful way to study\\u00a0*compositional generalization*\\u00a0https://arxiv.org/abs/2307.05596\\u00a0\\u2026\\u2026\\n> \\n\\nWe agree with the reviewer, that our task is indeed a nice setting to study compositional generalization. Specifically, the unconditional and conditional generation performance on held-out rules can be well framed as a test for compositional generalization, e.g. constant shape + progression size \\u21d2 constant size. Indeed we observed intriguing non-monotonic learning dynamics for these held-out rules. \\n\\nOn the other hand, we think the conditional generation / panel completion experiment can be framed as reasoning, since it potentially involves inferring the underlying rules from observed samples and applying it to the occluded row. (which is also the underlying assumption for the corresponding task in human.) \\nOne could argue that the sampling steps in the diffusion or autoregressive model could be analogous to reasoning steps. Further previous works also frame RAVEN's task as abstract visual reasoning [^1][^2], so we think it\\u2019s justified to call the task reasoning task. \\n\\n[1] Chi Zhang*, Feng Gao*, Baoxiong Jia, Yixin Zhu, Song-Chun Zhu [RAVEN: A Dataset for Relational and Analogical Visual rEasoNing](http://wellyzhang.github.io/attach/cvpr19zhang.pdf) \\n\\n[2] Ma\\u0142ki\\u0144ski M, Ma\\u0144dziuk J. Deep learning methods for abstract visual reasoning: A survey on raven's progressive matrices. arXiv preprint arXiv:2201.12382. 2022 Jan 28.\\n\\n> the paper should repeat **the strongest results with increasing subsets of held out rule to see whether the breakdown follows the expectations set in the current interpretation as a sanity check -science is about \\\"kill your babies\\\". this is in particular interesting for the linear probe (how many times must a factor appeat to be visible?**)\\n> \\n\\nWe totally agree with the reviewer, and we conducted two sets of new experiments, and trained 24 new DiT models to address this with increasingly many held-out rules. \\n\\nIn the first set of experiments, we held out an increasing number of rules from 5, 10, 15, 19, 23, 27 rules. Given the combinatorial nature of selecting held out rules, we cannot exhaust all combinations, so we tried our best to balance the number of held out rules within each rule types at each held out number. We call them balanced set held out (`BalSetx1` - `BalSetx6`)\\nIn the second set of experiments, we held out whole row or column in the rule matrix, either all the relations for one attributes (shape, number / pos, 10 rules held out, denoted as `attr0`- `attr3`) or all the attributes for one or several relations (denoted as `rel0`, `rel01234` \\u2026 4,8,12,..28 rules held out). The specifics of held out rules and the total number are listed in the attached Table 1. \\n\\nSpecifically, we trained unconditional diffusion model (DiT-S/1) on the remaining rules with 4000 RPMs per rule. Then we used the same protocol to fit linear probes for 40 rules to evaluate rule classifying representations emerged in the model. \\n\\nTo our delight, the diffusion model\\u2019s learned representations are very robust to holding out rules during training: even with 23 held-out rules (`BalSetx5`) the final layer representation after training has test accuracy 97.6%, during training the best test accuracy was achieved at 0.5M steps at 98.6%. \\nFurther, we also found non-monotonic learning dynamics for these representations, i.e. when there are too many held-out rules, the latent representation will initially be able to accurately classify rules, while over-training will lead to the deterioration of representations. \\nWith 27 heldout rules, the representation quality broke down quit a bit: test accuracy peaked at 97.6% at 0.5M step, and dereased to 88% after 1M step training. \\n\\nAll in all, these additional experiments further showed that diffusion models are capable of constructing strong generalizing representation for underlying factor (e.g. rules), even when only have seen a limited portion of data.\"}", "{\"title\": \"Thanks for the review. Results from New Training Experiment addressing increasing heldout rules and reproducibility across runs [Part3]\", \"comment\": \"> was only a single seed run for everything (in particular, training the model)? if yes, please rerun/retrain, do a statistical significance test and report uncertainties (I only see this on evaluation right now)\\n\\nThanks for the suggestion for statistical testing. In the paper, we majorly reported results on one run, because we have conducted pilot experiments which shows the training of diffusion model is fairly consistent and reproducible across initial seeds of optimization. \\nThis is consistent with others\\u2019 previous finding in literature [^3]. Note that this reproducibility is even stronger than the statistical level, but actually it\\u2019s at sample level! Different diffusion models trained on the same / similar data will learn almost the same mapping from initial noise to sample with deterministic sampler (which is what we majorly used). \\nBecause of this, we infer, the uncertainty of evaluation metric is majorly attributable to the uncertainty in sampling. Namely, C3, valid row, or memorization fraction are all estimation of probability through fraction in a finite sample size. So they will naturally have uncertainty estimates associated with fractions (i.e. beta distributions). \\nWe have added the confidence interval of C3 and valid rows in our main table also as following. \\n\\nIt would be infeasible to re-run all the training experiments. (On a H100, DiT-S would take 20hrs to train, and DiT-B would take 40 hrs to train, and the computational resource is currently limited.) \\nHowever, to prove our point, upon reviewer\\u2019s request, we re-run the training of DiT-S and DiT-B models three times with the same configuration on same data (5 heldout rules), with different random seeds. We examined the previously mentioned reproducibility on the sample level. i.e. using the ***same noise seed to generate the initial noise*** image, and then sample through the two diffusion models trained separately with different random seeds during training, using DDIM with 100 steps. \\n\\nAt DiT-S model scale, within 10240 samples, DiT-S model 1 has 6505 C3 samples (63.5%, 95% CI [62.6%, 64.5%]), while DiT-S model 2 has 6564 C3 samples (64.1%, 95% CI [63.2%, 65.0%]). We can see the C3 ratio estimated for the two models fall into the confidence interval of the other one. Further, this consistency and reproducibility is stronger than the marginal statistical level. When we examined the 10240 samples from model 1 and model 2 with the matching initial noise: 8309 samples (81%) has the same C3 rule (or none). 22037 out of 30720 rows (72%) have the same rule set applied. 73% of the sample attribute entries have the same value. Though these ratios are not 100%, it shows that even separately trained Diffusion model on the same data will have largely reproducible samples when using the same noise seed. \\n\\nFurther, at DiT-B model scale, the 10240 samples generated by the three DiT-B models are exactly the same at the **attribute** **entry level and every level**, showing full sample reproducibility. This fully justifies that for larger scale diffusion model (\\u2265 DiT-B) the we do not need to train multiple runs, since they will yield the same sample after training. Thus, we should focus more on the uncertainty associated with noise sampling instead of training. \\n\\n**Table 2. Statistical consistency of performance of DiT models across repetition in training. 10240 total samples, with the same initial noise for all 6 models.** \\n\\n| | C3 count | C3 frac | C3 ci L | C3 ci U | valid count | valid frac | valid ci L | valid ci U |\\n| --- | --- | --- | --- | --- | --- | --- | --- | --- |\\n| DiT-S_rep1 | 6627 | 0.647 | 0.638 | 0.656 | 24229 | 0.789 | 0.784 | 0.793 |\\n| DiT-S_rep2 | 6556 | 0.640 | 0.631 | 0.649 | 23925 | 0.779 | 0.774 | 0.783 |\\n| DiT-S_rep3 | 6629 | 0.647 | 0.638 | 0.657 | 24107 | 0.785 | 0.780 | 0.789 |\\n| DiT-B_rep1 | 6542 | 0.639 | 0.630 | 0.648 | 24143 | 0.786 | 0.781 | 0.790 |\\n| DiT-B_rep2 | 6542 | 0.639 | 0.630 | 0.648 | 24143 | 0.786 | 0.781 | 0.790 |\\n| DiT-B_rep3 | 6542 | 0.639 | 0.630 | 0.648 | 24143 | 0.786 | 0.781 | 0.790 |\\n\\n[^3] Zhang H, Zhou J, Lu Y, Guo M, Wang P, Shen L, Qu Q. The emergence of reproducibility and consistency in diffusion models. InForty-first International Conference on Machine Learning 2023.\"}", "{\"summary\": \"This is experimental paper on evaluating diffusion models on a specific puzzle, named Raven\\u2019s progression matrix task. This task contains 3*9*9 features, and has 40 relational rules. The task is figure out the underlying relational rule based on the observation of two rows, and complete the third row based on the observation. This paper generates many data points for this task, and tried different variants of diffusion models, then gets some interesting observations, including the diffusion models can synthesize novel samples, learn from local parts of training samples, and can do pattern completion task for unseen rules. Moreover, the feature layer of the models contains semantic meanings of the rules.\", \"soundness\": \"2\", \"presentation\": \"3\", \"contribution\": \"2\", \"strengths\": \"I think the strength of the paper mainly comes from the small and concrete experimental setting. Indeed, in the Raven's task, there are limited number of parameters and rules, and one can easily control the data distribution and observe the performance of the diffusion models.\", \"originality\": \"I think the main originality arise from the concrete experimental setting, which also contains logic inference as well. I think this can be treated as one of the simplest settings for reasoning.\", \"quality\": \"the paper did careful investigation on various aspects of the task, with detailed discussions.\", \"clarity\": \"the paper is easy to follow.\", \"significance\": \"the paper is significant in the sense that it is the first paper that tries to investigate the reasoning ability of diffusion models using a small and concrete task.\", \"weaknesses\": \"I think the main weakness of the paper is lack of an interesting and useful conclusion that we previously do not know about diffusion models. The main body of the paper is about experimental results, but I personlly did not find the results particularly surprising. I will follow the abstract to discuss one by one:\\n\\n1. \\\"diffusion models can synthesize novel samples\\\": this seems not so surprising, because we already know that diffusion models can synthesize novel images (like flying monkeys) not existed before. \\n2. \\\"memorized and recombined local parts of the training samples\\\": this is an interesting point, because previously we did not know how diffusion models can learn the structure. However, in this paper, they have this claim mainly because of Figure 7, which is a plot showing the model first learns local part, then global parts. It would be better if the authors can provide deeper discussions on this point. \\n3. \\\"advanced sampling techniques were needed for inpainting\\\": this is also an interesting point, but it seems that here the authors simply mean that Sequential Monte Carlo will give better performance, but did not provide any deep analysis. \\n4. \\\"pattern completion capability can generalize to rules unseen\\\": this is an interesting point, but it seems that the authors mainly provide some unseen examples in test set, and show that diffusion models can work well on these examples. The fact that models can generalize to unseen cases has been observed by many previous studies, and it would be great if the authors can use Raven's task to provide better intuitions and explanations. \\n5. \\\"rule representation\\\": this is not in particular surprising, because people previously already observe that deep networks can learn semantic features, or self-supervised learning framework can learn very strong features.\", \"questions\": \"I do not have additional questions, as I listed my questions in the weakness section.\", \"flag_for_ethics_review\": \"['No ethics review needed.']\", \"rating\": \"5\", \"confidence\": \"4\", \"code_of_conduct\": \"Yes\"}", "{\"comment\": \">We used an automated pipeline. We have code to evaluate whether each row is consistent with any of the 40 rules, so as to extract the set of rules each row is conforming to, and then find rules that are shared among 2-3 rows (i.e. C2, C3).\\n\\ncould you go into more detail of this pipeline, or point me to the section of the paper that does this evaluation?\\n\\n >We are not exactly sure about the set up the reviewer is asking for, so we ask for clarification. Do you mean, we should use a 10-way classifier for the relationship and a 4-way classifier for attributes and see if we can get the same performance?\\n\\nwhat I mean is that if you enforce two separate bottlenecks (input to 10 dimensions, input to 4 dimensions, possibly some MLP layers before to help with the transformation) and then train a minimal model on these two (either by directly training to predict the factors, like you described, or by constructing an architecture which will be able to use the \\\"latent features\\\" which you bias to represent the 10/4 dimensional real features via the dimensionality constraint), is the model able to deliver on this?\\n\\nif yes, then there is indeed latent disentangling and generalization happening. if not, it is not a clear negative, but a failure to confirm a prediction\"}", "{\"summary\": \"The paper presents a study of text-free diffusion models performance on a task derived from the Ravens Matrices \\\"GeNRaven\\\", using 5 held out rules as well as per-rule training and test sets to assess whether the diffusion model can\\n\\n1. unconditionally generate valid rows following a single rule (C3) \\n2. conditionally infill a valid square when presented a ravens matrix.\\n\\nAuthors find that C3 performance generally exceeds infill performance (except for held out rules) and that linear probes can extract classifiers of _all_ rules (including held out rules) from latent representations. The performance is highly sensitive to training parameters and sampling methods used.\", \"soundness\": \"2\", \"presentation\": \"2\", \"contribution\": \"2\", \"strengths\": [\"the papers approach is very original and well designed (good comparisons, good ablations, mainly well done experiments, most relevant literature cited)\", \"quality-clarity: exposition is well done, quality of the paper is good except for the weaknesses below\", \"significance: I think the questions raised with the preset experiments and potential followups make this a meaningful benchmark to understand compositional generalization in diffusion models\"], \"weaknesses\": [\"I don't think reasoning is the appropriate term to use, instead, the authors have found a wonderful way to study _compositional generalization_ https://arxiv.org/abs/2307.05596 this has been found to allow diffusion models to even _interpolate_ latent variables https://arxiv.org/abs/2405.19201 and in the specific holdout setting the authors studied (leave-one-out holdout rules), everything is explained by compositional generalization (the semantic debate whether or not this is \\\"true reasoning\\\" is uninteresting to me here). Reasoning might include comp. generalization, but also includes things like multi planning (see e.g. https://www.arxiv.org/abs/2409.13373) so the paper should change its framing of what is being studied\", \"the paper should repeat the strongest results with increasing subsets of held out rule to see whether the breakdown follows the expectations set in the current interpretation as a sanity check -science is about \\\"kill your babies\\\". this is in particular interesting for the linear probe (how many times must a factor appeat to be visible?)\", \"I am unsure about the sample sizes chosen being meaningful, please use something like https://cran.r-project.org/web/packages/effectsize/index.html to justify experimental design. where appropriate, statistical tests should be used to justify claims against a concrete null hypothesis\", \"was only a single seed run for everything (in particular, training the model)? if yes, please rerun/retrain, do a statistical significance test and report uncertainties (I only see this on evaluation right now)\"], \"questions\": \"1. What happens if you condition on completely unseen shapes, bust consistent rules or vice versa?\\n2. can you factorize the readout with a dimensionality constraint and retain the performance?\\n3. How do you perform scoring ? manually or an automated evaluation pipeline?\", \"flag_for_ethics_review\": \"['No ethics review needed.']\", \"rating\": \"5\", \"confidence\": \"4\", \"code_of_conduct\": \"Yes\"}", "{\"title\": \"Paper Decision\", \"decision\": \"Reject\"}", "{\"comment\": \"thank you for providing strong evidence for omitting the per-seed level, as well as justifying the use of single seed\"}", "{\"summary\": \"This work studies the ability of diffusion models to learn abstract rules and apply them during the generation of missing parts. Several families of diffusion models with different backbones (UNet and Diffusion Transformer) are trained and tested on the Raven's Progressive Matrices, a well-known reasoning task.\\nThe authors show that in the unconditional generation task, diffusion models are able to generate consistent samples, which demonstrates their success in learning hidden rules. In the conditional generation task where the objective is to generate a missing panel, it is noted that the accuracy of the completion critically depends on the sampling algorithm. In addition, the authors illustrate that the diffusion models have some internal representations that distinguish the learned rules, evidenced by the high classification accuracy of a linear model trained on the hidden states of the diffusion models. This work provides a detailed discussion on the observed behaviour of diffusion models during training and testing, concluding that diffusion models are capable of performing rule-learning given a large data scale.\", \"soundness\": \"3\", \"presentation\": \"1\", \"contribution\": \"2\", \"strengths\": [\"This work is one of the first to evaluate a wide range of diffusion models' capability in rule-learning, targeting the task of Raven's Progressive Matrices.\", \"Problem description and formulation is well illustrated in the overview diagram.\", \"Most of the claims are supported by solid results.\", \"This work provides detailed insights on diffusion models' behaviour in the task of rule-learning and reasoning, discussing potential explanations of those behaviours.\"], \"weaknesses\": [\"Formal writing: the authors should carefully check all typos and grammar issues in this paper. Examples include but are not limited to: incorrect openings of quotation marks, incomplete sentences (Section 3.3, around line 180), informal use of abbreviations (\\\"esp.\\\"), inconsistent naming (Raven's progressive matrix and Raven's progression matrix).\", \"Organization and presentation of results: this work includes several crowded figures, when they are referenced in the main text, it is often hard to follow since the text and the reference figure are far away from each other. For example, Section 4.3 involves discussions on Figure 4, Figure 10 and Figure 11, where Figure 10 and 11 are only found in the appendix. These results can potentially be summarized into one or two high-level figures that present the major outcomes, with detailed diagrams or tables included in the appendix. This would help readers locate relevant information easily.\", \"The claim on comparisons to auto-regressive models: the auto-regressive models used for comparison are GPT2 models, which might be out-dated given that there exist much stronger models. Out-performing GPT2 models does not support the claims on out-performing auto-regressive models.\"], \"questions\": [\"How is GenRAVEN different from other RPM datasets in the literature? Is the encoding introduced in this work a novel transformation of RPM images to numerical data?\", \"In Section 4.1, it is mentioned that Logic-Attribute rules are hard to learn and will be discussed in Section 6, where there is only a brief observation on the correlation between panel overlapping rate and the performance per rule type. Can you elaborate more on why does that make the Logic-Attribute type different from other types?\", \"As mentioned in weaknesses, is it possible to include evaluations of more recent auto-regressive models for comparisons? For example, Llama 3.\"], \"flag_for_ethics_review\": \"['No ethics review needed.']\", \"rating\": \"3\", \"confidence\": \"3\", \"code_of_conduct\": \"Yes\"}" ] }

[ "Anish Abhijit Diwan", "Julen Urain", "Jens Kober", "Jan Peters" ]

[ "imitation learning", "energy based generative models", "reinforcement learning", "imitation from observation" ]

{ "note_id": [ "xeU5WAFZEW", "tZ879SUkFO", "stc8fBQ8QM", "sLwh2RqDwK", "qVWO5k7k98", "lddP92W8PJ", "kU93xSXqHN", "kBtU6XuYZr", "jUcSTgB5t1", "iD9H3W089n", "gH1fhYKhZW", "fY8hA1KaQM", "eFAWoXniK7", "XubCi0Z0rV", "TtQoaPSmnC", "SxmFHazHo7", "RTdqAg5AwP", "L8LYnQWdGA", "IJdZkI8Wxy", "HN3uV1mHbf", "Fj4ik2fr3R", "FOtWoziL3q", "FFC4hf42zf", "EBkTjgbkbR", "CcMRD1A8vH", "ADqWhRtRAY", "7GEoWZl5KC", "78lkmSsQPQ", "3XEDcZlmkt", "0sWzHluyUl", "03VJorI2Ke" ], "note_type": [ "official_comment", "official_comment", "official_comment", "official_review", "official_comment", "official_comment", "official_comment", "official_comment", "official_review", "official_comment", "official_comment", "official_comment", "official_comment", "meta_review", "official_comment", "official_comment", "official_review", "official_comment", "official_comment", "official_review", "official_comment", "official_comment", "official_comment", "official_comment", "decision", "official_comment", "official_comment", "official_comment", "official_comment", "official_comment", "official_comment" ], "note_created": [ 1731763640670, 1731889966378, 1731766440210, 1730648010853, 1731764413111, 1732032714918, 1731766633996, 1731818467492, 1729346045084, 1732029973822, 1731978939637, 1731819776979, 1731766169954, 1734812039163, 1731819357290, 1732557441751, 1730567873553, 1731879025635, 1731764454583, 1730681590672, 1731763374217, 1731952966797, 1732565192234, 1731768681233, 1737524041853, 1732581509370, 1731768638691, 1731763692436, 1731952434571, 1732547058892, 1732032024474 ], "note_signatures": [ [ "ICLR.cc/2025/Conference/Submission10326/Authors" ], [ "ICLR.cc/2025/Conference/Submission10326/Reviewer_Tb6J" ], [ "ICLR.cc/2025/Conference/Submission10326/Authors" ], [ "ICLR.cc/2025/Conference/Submission10326/Reviewer_PK39" ], [ "ICLR.cc/2025/Conference/Submission10326/Authors" ], [ "ICLR.cc/2025/Conference/Submission10326/Authors" ], [ "ICLR.cc/2025/Conference/Submission10326/Authors" ], [ "ICLR.cc/2025/Conference/Submission10326/Reviewer_Tb6J" ], [ "ICLR.cc/2025/Conference/Submission10326/Reviewer_hjSn" ], [ "ICLR.cc/2025/Conference/Submission10326/Authors" ], [ "ICLR.cc/2025/Conference/Submission10326/Reviewer_Tb6J" ], [ "ICLR.cc/2025/Conference/Submission10326/Reviewer_Tb6J" ], [ "ICLR.cc/2025/Conference/Submission10326/Authors" ], [ "ICLR.cc/2025/Conference/Submission10326/Area_Chair_qxNb" ], [ "ICLR.cc/2025/Conference/Submission10326/Reviewer_Tb6J" ], [ "ICLR.cc/2025/Conference/Submission10326/Authors" ], [ "ICLR.cc/2025/Conference/Submission10326/Reviewer_Tb6J" ], [ "ICLR.cc/2025/Conference/Submission10326/Reviewer_hjSn" ], [ "ICLR.cc/2025/Conference/Submission10326/Authors" ], [ "ICLR.cc/2025/Conference/Submission10326/Reviewer_Xdsd" ], [ "ICLR.cc/2025/Conference/Submission10326/Authors" ], [ "ICLR.cc/2025/Conference/Submission10326/Authors" ], [ "ICLR.cc/2025/Conference/Submission10326/Authors" ], [ "ICLR.cc/2025/Conference/Submission10326/Authors" ], [ "ICLR.cc/2025/Conference/Program_Chairs" ], [ "ICLR.cc/2025/Conference/Submission10326/Reviewer_Tb6J" ], [ "ICLR.cc/2025/Conference/Submission10326/Authors" ], [ "ICLR.cc/2025/Conference/Submission10326/Authors" ], [ "ICLR.cc/2025/Conference/Submission10326/Authors" ], [ "ICLR.cc/2025/Conference/Submission10326/Reviewer_Xdsd" ], [ "ICLR.cc/2025/Conference/Submission10326/Reviewer_Tb6J" ] ], "structured_content_str": [ "{\"title\": \"Review responses continuation\", \"comment\": [\"> As well, I don\\u2019t feel the figures are helpful at all. I don\\u2019t understand what figure 1 is trying to convey nor do I understand even what it means. As well figure 3 also doesn\\u2019t make sense to me.\", \"Thank you for pointing out the clarity issues with the figures. We feel that the figures are an important part of this paper and have made several changes to make sure that the reader understands their message. We have also revised the Figure 1 and Figure 3 captions to be more intuitive and clear to the reader. Additionally, we have now included another appendix section (B.3 MAZE DOMAIN DETAILS) that details the procedure to generate Figure 1. We have briefly explained both figures in the following lines and request the reviewer to provide feedback on the clarity of the revised figures.\", \"Figures 1 and 3 are a 2-dimensional running example that we use to illustrate the advantages of energy-based rewards (fig 1) and the annealing mechanism (fig 3). In this 2D domain (see fig 1 leftmost image), there is a red circular agent that aims to reach a yellow goal position (bottom right in the image). All expert demonstration trajectories (shown as a probability density $p_D$) pass through an L-shaped maze. It is expected that the learnt reward functions encourage the agent to pass through the maze.\", \"Figure 1 compares the reward functions learnt via energy-based and adversarial models. The energy based reward function is smooth and accurately captures the expert data density. In contrast, since the adversarial reward function is the output of a classifier, it is non-smooth and non-stationary. The adversarial reward's dependence on the agent's generated motions is shown by the low rewards in the distribution of policy-generated motions $p_G$.\", \"Figure 3 then explains the annealing mechanism using the same 2D domain. Here, again, $p_D$ is the expert's data distribution while $supp(\\\\pi_{\\\\theta_G})$ is the support of the distribution of states induced by rolling out policy $\\\\pi_{\\\\theta_G}$. Our energy-based model learns several perturbed versions of $p_D$. These are shown by the increasingly wide L-shaped boundaries (each L-shaped boundary is an energy function $e_{\\\\theta}(., \\\\sigma_{k})$). Between the two sub-figures in figure 3, the policy has improved from left-to-right (meaning $supp(\\\\pi_{\\\\theta_G})$ is closer to $p_D$). Annealing is shown by the change from $e_{\\\\theta}(., \\\\sigma_{k})$ to $e_{\\\\theta}(., \\\\sigma_{k+1})$. The annealed energy function provides better rewards to the agent.\", \"> Is there a reason you only compare to one baseline? Is that the only state of the art method and nothing can generally do better than it? I see line 364 says that it achieves superior results but is there truly no other baseline that even comes close? If so then that is fine. Is this the only/first work that uses energy-based diffusion models? If it is I would appreciate you explicitly saying so.\", \"To the best of our knowledge, AMP is the only comparable baseline for imitation learning from observation in such high-dimensional physics-based problems. It is an improved formulation of previous state-only methods like GAiFO [1] and is the strongest state-of-the-art baseline in this field (it is still a prominent algorithm used for learning such complex policies [5]). Below we briefly summarize the literature:\", \"There are other score-based IL algorithms like [2] and its variants. However, these are not observation-based and require actions in their training data.\", \"There are a few other algorithms that do state-only IL [3, 4]. However, none of these are directly comparable to either AMP or NEAR. For example CALM [3] can be thought of as a larger use case of the AMP idea and learns both high level (task level) and low level (motor level) policies by jointly training an ecoder and a conditional policy (it is mainly used for holistic character control). FAIL [4] learns policies via regret minimisation and decomposes the imitation problem into several independent min-max games (not comparable to the inverse RL formulation of NEAR).\", \"Neither of these can be used to compare the effects of energy-based reward learning compared to adversarial reward learning.\"]}", "{\"title\": \"Data availability AMP vs NEAR\", \"comment\": \"With my comment I was referring to this paragraph:\\n\\n*Finally we notice that NEAR performs poorly in single-clip imitation tasks, highlighting the challenges of accurately capturing the expert\\u2019s data distribution in data-limited conditions. Conversely, AMP is less affected by data unavailability since the discriminator in AMP is simply a classifier and does not explicitly capture the expert\\u2019s distribution.*\", \"with_your_further_clarification\": \"*However, we believe that at the scale of the datasets used in this paper, data unavailability does not pose any realistic problems to AMP. A perfect discriminator can be achieved just as easily with a fairly large amount of data (please refer to [2]). Hence, AMP is prone to the same issues of perfect discrimination even with multi-clip imitation data. This is why we state that AMP performs more or less the same under single-clip settings.*\\n\\nyou seem to suggest that AMP can learn a perfect discriminator both with a single clip and with the full dataset. But you also write:\\n\\n\\\" a perfect discriminator would nearly always provide zero rewards to the agent (unless it exactly reproduces the demonstration data).\\\"\\n\\nAs it is unlikely that the agent reproduces the expert data exactly, why do you think AMP works? While the conclusion of your experiments is that AMP works more or less fine both with single clip and for the full dataset, the conclusion I would draw from your arguments is that AMP should not work in either case, as a perfect discriminator is a critical problem for the algorithm.\"}", "{\"title\": \"Review responses continuation\", \"comment\": [\">However, another possibility for imitation learning would be, e.g., to just provide a reward signal in the form of the L2 distance between the states visited by the policy and the ones to imitate. NEAR seems, in fact, a more sophisticated version of this simple method.\", \"Yes, it is indeed possible to use the L2 distance between the states in the expert demonstrations and the states visited by the policy. This has been explored in previous works like DeepMimic [3]. However, there are several practical reasons for learning an energy function instead of just using the L2 distance. First, it is not unclear as to which reference state the L2 norm must be computed with. Any given state in the policy-generated motion can be mapped to a wide range of expert states. Mapping to a few specific states is only possible if the goal is to replicate a specific expert trajectory. This already limits the generalisation capabilities of the algorithm.\", \"An alternative approach could be to compute the average L2 distance to the whole expert demonstration manifold. This is also what the energy function implicitly captures. Doing this manually during RL would lead to practical issues and slow computation. Further, sampling from the dataset at every step might lead to unstable reward functions as the target of the L2 distance would be changing every time.\", \"Having said that, we agree that it is important to compare again such simple baselines. We also plan to add this as a baseline in our future work on NEAR.\", \">The authors should motivate why NEAR is better or at least a good alternative to AMP, e.g., proving lower sensitivity to the hyperparameter choice, faster learning, less variance, more sample efficiency ... I encourage the authors to also compare the learning curves of the two methods, possibly including the number of interactions with the environment and the wall time necessary for convergence.\", \"Thank you for this suggestion. While the motive for this paper was to introduce a new idea for energy-based reward learning, we also realise that a quantitative comparison of benefits is necessary to establish our contribution. We have now included the following additional details to better compare NEAR and AMP.\", \"We have included additional experiments (in Appendix E CHALLENGES OF ADVERSARIAL IL & EXPERIMENTS ON THE AMP DISCRIMINATOR ) on the AMP discriminator to highlight its issues like high reward function variance, and non stationarity. These experiments highlight the core problems with adversarial IL that our paper hopes to address.\", \"We have included Table 5 which shows the number of training iterations and environment interactions of both algorithms. Both AMP and NEAR are ultimately trained for the same number of RL interactions. All results in this paper compare both algorithms at the same point in training.\", \"We have included Table 7 which shows the wall time of both algorithms. While NEAR has a slightly larger overall wall time (considering NCSN), it has a lower RL wall time than AMP. We believe that while the wall time of NEAR is slightly higher, it is not a large difference to discount the use of NEAR as an alternative to AMP. We would also like to point out that our research mainly aims to show better and more stable alternatives to adversarial reward learning.\", \"Finally, we also plan to include additional experiments on the hyperparameter sensitivity of AMP. However, given the tight time window of rebuttals, we are not certain that we can conduct these experiments in time. We assure the reviewer that these will be included in the arxiv submission.\", \">You mention that AMP is less affected by data availability than NEAR. Shouldn't it also be a problem for AMP when data is scarce, since the task of the discriminator might become too easy when it can perfectly remember all the ground truth trajectories?\", \"Yes, it is true that a perfect discriminator (one that can perfectly distinguish between $p_D$ and $p_G$) is indeed an issue for AMP. This is because a perfect discriminator would nearly always provide zero rewards to the agent (unless it exactly reproduces the demonstration data).\", \"However, we believe that at the scale of the datasets used in this paper, data unavailability does not pose any realistic problems to AMP. A perfect discriminator can be achieved just as easily with a fairly large amount of data (please refer to [2]). Hence, AMP is prone to the same issues of perfect discrimination even with multi-clip imitation data. This is why we state that AMP performs more or less the same under single-clip settings.\"]}", "{\"summary\": \"This paper introduces Noise-Conditioned Energy-based Annealed Rewards (NEAR), a novel framework for imitation learning from observation using energy-based generative models. NEAR leverages denoising score matching to learn smooth representations of the expert's motion distribution and uses these energy functions as rewards. Unlike adversarial imitation learning approaches, NEAR avoids unstable min-max optimization, achieving smoother and more stable reward signals. Additionally, an annealing strategy progressively transitions between energy functions to provide more refined guidance for the agent\\u2019s policy. NEAR is evaluated on complex humanoid tasks, showing promising results when compared to state-only adversarial imitation learning baselines like Adversarial Motion Priors (AMP) in terms of motion quality, stability, and imitation accuracy.\", \"soundness\": \"2\", \"presentation\": \"2\", \"contribution\": \"2\", \"strengths\": \"1. NEAR performs well on a range of complex motion tasks, including stylized walking, running, and martial arts. The results demonstrate competitive imitation accuracy and smoothness compared to AMP, particularly in complex tasks where AMP struggles with stability.\\n2. The paper includes ablation studies to explore the impact of key components.\", \"weaknesses\": \"1. NEAR\\u2019s effectiveness is primarily evaluated in humanoid tasks, which are continuous and physics-driven. The framework\\u2019s applicability in other types of imitation learning tasks, especially those with discrete actions or diverse goal-oriented, is not fully explored.\\n2. NEAR requires training a noise-conditioned energy model, which can be computationally intensive. A detailed comparison of training costs relative to other methods, particularly in terms of time and resources, would be beneficial.\\n3. NEAR is only compared against one baseline - AMP and it doesn't seem to always be the winner (but has higher variance in most cases) despite the additional complexity of learning an energy network.\", \"questions\": \"Could you provide a comparison of NEAR\\u2019s computational requirements (e.g., training time, GPU hours) relative to other baselines like AMP?\", \"flag_for_ethics_review\": \"['No ethics review needed.']\", \"rating\": \"6\", \"confidence\": \"4\", \"code_of_conduct\": \"Yes\"}", "{\"title\": \"Review responses & paper revisions\", \"comment\": [\"Dear reviewer, thank you for your feedback. We have revised the paper. Please find clarifications below. We hope these sufficiently establish the contribution of the paper and its place within the IL from the observation field. Note: some lines in the text are coloured to indicate suggested modifications to other reviewers. These will be turned back to normal after the rebuttals.\", \"> Comparison with DiffAIL [1]: [1] also applies inverse reinforcement learning using diffusion models. Could the authors explain NEAR's major advantages compared with other works that integrate diffusion models into IRL?\", \"Thank you for pointing out the DiffAIL [1] paper. This is indeed an interesting paper. There are two main differences between NEAR and DiffAIL. First, DiffAIL is a combination of diffusion and adversarial techniques. It relies on the same objective as older adversarial methods like GAIL (please refer to METHOD: DIFFUSION ADVERSARIAL IMITATION LEARNING in [1]) and adds the diffusion loss within this term (eq. 17 in [1]). Hence, it might still be prone to the challenges of adversarial optimisation that we try to eliminate in our paper.\", \"Further, the use of the diffusion mechanism in DiffAIL is different to the use of score-based models in NEAR. In NEAR, we use score-based models to learn an energy function **prior** to learning the policy. We then use this fixed energy function to train the policy. Instead, DiffAIL trains the diffusion models simultaneously in hopes that it provides a more accurate reward than the simple adversarial classifier. Hence, while both algorithms use score-based models, their purpose in our opinion is quite different.\", \"Finally, DiffAIL has significantly higher computational costs because of the added load of learning the diffusion-based classifier (Table 4 in [1]). In comparison NEAR only has a fraction of the computation load (Table 7 in our paper).\", \"Having said that, we agree that it is important to mention this paper in ours. We have now added DiffAIL to our related work (line 72). We also plan to add this as a baseline in our future work on NEAR.\", \"> For instance, as the authors mention that GAIL can work well with single-clip data, how does NEAR compare in such settings, especially regarding data efficiency and performance? Further justification or empirical evaluation would be appreciated.\", \"Thank you for pointing out the single-clip performance of NEAR. We also trained NEAR in data-limited single-clip settings. These results are provided in Table 1 and Figure 4 in the paper (mummy-style walking and spin-kick are single-clip tasks). From our experiments, we found that NEAR performs poorly in single-clip settings while AMP is less affected by data unavailability. We believe that this is because of the added challenge of accurately learning an energy function via score-based modelling in limited data.\", \"We have now also provided additional information on the training resources (Table 5) and computational efficiency (Table 7) of NEAR. We find that in most cases (including single-clip settings), NEAR has better RL computational efficiency than AMP. Although, overall, it still requires slightly more training time.\", \"We hope that this explanation and additional results clarify NEAR\\u2019s performance under limited data.\", \">Comparison with SMILING [2]: [2] introduces a non-adversarial framework using diffusion models for imitation from observation and provides theoretical analysis. Could the authors elaborate on the differences and advantages of NEAR compared with [2]? Including further empirical results comparing NEAR with [2] would strengthen the paper and clarify NEAR's contributions relative to existing methods.\", \"While SMILING [2] is indeed very interesting research, it is a recently proposed algorithm (submitted on ArXiV on 17 Oct 2024 which is after the ICLR 2025 submission date) and is currently also under peer review at ICLR. Hence, unfortunately, we could not include this in our literature search or empirical analysis.\", \"> A significant concern is the absence of direct comparison with other works that apply diffusion models to imitation learning from observation.\", \"To the best of our knowledge, NEAR is novel in its use of score-based models and energy-based rewards for imitation learning from observation (excluding SMILING [2]).\", \"When considering other adversarial techniques, we chose AMP as a baseline because it is an improved formulation of previous state-only methods like GAiFO [4] and is the strongest state-of-the-art baseline in this field (it is still a prominent algorithm used for learning such complex policies [5]).\"]}", "{\"comment\": \"Dear reviewer, thank you for taking the time to discuss this with us. We're glad we could help clarify things.\\n\\n**Upcoming changes**\\n- Minor tweaks to Figure 1 to highlight that the energy function rewards states in front of the agent higher than ones behind the agent\\n- We have some theories for why AMP is less affected by data unavailability and why the perfect discriminator problem does not just result in completely bad performance. We are conducting some experiments on perfect discrimination at the moment and will try to answer this via an added section in the appendix. \\n- We plan to also conduct some hyperparameter sensitivity analysis on AMP and NEAR. This will be added to the paper if we can obtain results by the rebuttal deadline. In the future, we would also conduct experiments with other baselines (like the L2 distance reward idea you suggested). \\n\\nThanks again.\"}", "{\"title\": \"Review responses continuation\", \"comment\": \">The authors mention that they use 20 test episodes to obtain the average performance, which sounds low compared to other RL papers. How large is the variability in performance across episodes? The confidence levels are provided across random seeds, so the variability of the performance within a seed is not evident.\\n- In this paper, performance metrics are computed by rolling out the learnt policies deterministically across several (4096) independent parallel environments. Each individual environment is initialized at some random point in the expert's motion trajectories (please refer to Appendix B.2.3 EVALUATION METRICS).\\n- We find that the performance across independent episodes with the same initialisation is nearly identical. However, the performance varies depending on initialisation. This can greatly bias the results against either algorithm. For example, performance measured only from the initial point in the expert's motions couldn't provide any insights on imitation capabilities from some intermediate state.\\n- Hence, we record the average performance of the top 20 rollouts (across several randomly initialized episodes). This gives an overall indication of the \\\"best\\\" performance of a learnt policy regardless of initialisation. That being said, towards the end of training, the performance across multiple random initial states is also nearly identical for both algorithms.\\n\\n>I did not fully understand why the energy function works well as a reward signal. If the energy is high when a sample is likely to be generated by the probability distribution of the ground truth data, why does the policy follow a trajectory instead of just reaching a high probability state? I thought that one reason can be that the energy function depends on the current state, so it will assign high energy only to the states that, according to the dataset, follow the current one with high probability. While this concepts are likely trivial for the authors, they should be more clearly explained in the paper for the less familiar reader to fully understand why the algorithm works. I would propose to use the example from Figure 1 to qualitatively describe why the displayed energy function is a good reward signal, if the energy changes as the agent moves, and other high-level considerations.\\n- Thank you for this insight. We would like to clarify that in our algorithm, we learn an energy function over the expert's state transitions. Hence, the policy is highly rewarded for producing state transitions that are similar to the experts' (the same is also done in AMP). Indeed, if the energy function was learnt over individual states (as opposed to state transitions), then the policy would probably just reach a high energy state and stop.\\n- While we mention the use of state transitions at several points in the paper, we have now clarified this explicitly on line 351. \\n- In the maze domain, the actual reward functions are in the 4-dimensional space of state transitions. In Figure 1, we show these 4D reward functions as 2D representations. To obtain this 2D representation, we compute the average reward in the agent\\u2019s reachable set at every point in a discretised grid on the maze domain. We have added an additional explanation of the procedures to generate the figures (Appendix B.3 MAZE DOMAIN DETAILS). We have also mentioned this 2D projection in the caption of Figure 1 (line 125) and have pointed to the appendix section. We hope this sufficiently clarifies the idea of using state transitions in our paper. \\n\\n[1] Peng XB, Ma Z, Abbeel P, Levine S, Kanazawa A. Amp: Adversarial motion priors for stylized physics-based character control. ACM Transactions on Graphics (ToG). 2021 Jul 19;40(4):1-20. \\n\\n[2] Arjovsky M, Bottou L. Towards principled methods for training generative adversarial networks. arXiv preprint arXiv:1701.04862. 2017 Jan 17.\\n\\n[3] Peng XB, Abbeel P, Levine S, Van de Panne M. Deepmimic: Example-guided deep reinforcement learning of physics-based character skills. ACM Transactions On Graphics (TOG). 2018 Jul 30;37(4):1-4.\\n\\n[4] Chi C, Xu Z, Feng S, Cousineau E, Du Y, Burchfiel B, Tedrake R, Song S. Diffusion policy: Visuomotor policy learning via action diffusion. The International Journal of Robotics Research. 2023:02783649241273668.\"}", "{\"title\": \"Additional clarifications\", \"comment\": \"I quickly respond to the first comment so that you have time to further refine the first figure before the end of the discussion period.\\n\\nI think the main source of confusion about figure 1 is the fact that the energy function is not just a function of the 2D position in the maze, but of the state transition (as you correctly point out in another answer). As you understood from my doubts about whether the energy function is a good reward signal, I was mislead by this figure, which shows the energy as a function of the position in the maze. But it should also be a function of the position of the ant (please correct me if I am wrong, but this time my understanding should be correct). Then what is the sense of showing the energy function when the agent is in the top-left corner, and the adversarial reward when the agent is in the bottom-left corner? The two functions are hardly comparable. I think it would be much more helpful to show, e.g., how the energy function and the adversarial reward change with the position of the agent (stacking some frames one after the other), also highlighting where the goal is (the goal should also be part of the state, and therefore influence the shape of the function). Neglecting these important variables when visualizing the energy and the adversarial reward, in my opinion, does not help clarifying their features. Most importantly, the comparison must be in equal conditions (agents at the same place, same goal, ...), as there are many variables to think about and the visualization should focus on a single one (in this case: left->energy, right->adversarial).\"}", "{\"summary\": \"This paper introduces Noise-conditioned Energy-based Annealed Rewards, a new framework for inverse reinforcement learning that leverages diffusion models. Instead of using unstable and non-smooth adversarial learning to approximate reward functions, NEAR learns an energy function via score matching. NEAR provides smooth and accurate reward signals for training policies through reinforcement learning.\", \"soundness\": \"3\", \"presentation\": \"3\", \"contribution\": \"3\", \"strengths\": \"NEAR replaces adversarial learning with energy-based modeling using diffusion models and score matching. This results in a stable and smooth reward representation, addressing issues of instability and non-smooth reward landscapes inherent in adversarial methods.\", \"weaknesses\": \"**Lack of Comparison with Related Work:** While the paper acknowledges limitations like stability with large noise levels and data requirements, a significant concern is the absence of direct comparison with other works that apply diffusion models to imitation learning from observation. Specifically, works like [1] and [2] also leverage diffusion models in inverse reinforcement learning. Since the authors claim that their work is the first to apply diffusion models for reward learning, providing further clarification (for instance, [2] is a general diffusion-based IRL algorithm, it could be helpful if the author could highlight the difference in the paper) and direct comparisons in the experiment section with these methods would greatly enhance the paper's quality and situate it within the existing literature.\\n\\n[1] B. Wang, G. Wu, T. Pang, Y. Zhang, and Y. Yin, \\u201cDiffAIL: Diffusion Adversarial Imitation Learning,\\u201d Dec. 12, 2023, arXiv: arXiv:2312.06348. Accessed: Oct. 19, 2024. [Online]. Available: http://arxiv.org/abs/2312.06348\\n\\n[2] R. Wu, Y. Chen, G. Swamy, K. Brantley, and W. Sun, \\u201cDiffusing States and Matching Scores: A New Framework for Imitation Learning,\\u201d Oct. 17, 2024, arXiv: arXiv:2410.13855. Accessed: Oct. 19, 2024. [Online]. Available: http://arxiv.org/abs/2410.138\", \"questions\": \"1. **Comparison with DiffAIL [1]:** [1] also applies inverse reinforcement learning using diffusion models. Could the authors explain NEAR's major advantages compared with other works that integrate diffusion models into IRL? For instance, as the authors mention that GAIL can work well with single-clip data, how does NEAR compare in such settings, especially regarding data efficiency and performance? Further justification or emperial evaluation would be appreciated.\\n \\n2. **Comparison with SMILING [2]:** [2] introduces a non-adversarial framework using diffusion models for imitation from observation and provides theoretical analysis. Could the authors elaborate on the differences and advantages of NEAR compared with [2]? Including further empirical results comparing NEAR with [2] would strengthen the paper and clarify NEAR's contributions relative to existing methods.\\n \\n\\n[1] B. Wang, G. Wu, T. Pang, Y. Zhang, and Y. Yin, \\u201cDiffAIL: Diffusion Adversarial Imitation Learning,\\u201d Dec. 12, 2023, arXiv: arXiv:2312.06348. Accessed: Oct. 19, 2024. [Online]. Available: http://arxiv.org/abs/2312.06348\\n\\n[2] R. Wu, Y. Chen, G. Swamy, K. Brantley, and W. Sun, \\u201cDiffusing States and Matching Scores: A New Framework for Imitation Learning,\\u201d Oct. 17, 2024, arXiv: arXiv:2410.13855. Accessed: Oct. 19, 2024. [Online]. Available: http://arxiv.org/abs/2410.138\", \"flag_for_ethics_review\": \"['No ethics review needed.']\", \"rating\": \"6\", \"confidence\": \"4\", \"code_of_conduct\": \"Yes\"}", "{\"comment\": \"Dear reviewer, thanks again for the fast response. We appreciate the continuous feedback.\\n\\n> I don't know the details about the state, but I believe it includes the position of the agent in the 2D maze \\n- Yes, the agent's state is a vector of its 2D coordinates in the maze.\\n\\n> I believe that to plot the energy function you fixed s and plotted r(s,s') where in s' you modify the 2D position in the maze\\n- Yes, you are correct. We fixed $s$ (green circle in the figure) and plotted $r(s'|s)$ in a small window around s. This is meant to show the possible reward the agent would get when transitioning to another state $s'$ from $s$.\\n\\n> In the previous figure, you plotted r(s, s') for the energy function, but you used a different s for the adversarial reward (the agent was in a different location)\\n- This might be the reason for the misunderstanding. In the previous figure (which is now the subfigure on the right side), we plot $\\\\sum_{\\\\text{all } s' \\\\text{reachable from } s} r(s'|s)$. This means that it represents the overall reward landscape and not a reward from any single state. In the previous illustration, we confusingly showed different agent locations for the two rewards, although both were computed for all states in the domain. We have now fixed this by removing the states in the right subfigure.\\n- To summarise, in the new figure, each frame of the middle plot shows $r(s'|s)$ for a **fixed** state for both reward functions (we believe that this is what you requested in your comment). You can notice that the energy reward is higher for states below the green state, meaning that the agent is positively rewarded for going forward. \\n\\n> I proposed that you could take s within a trajectory and show how the \\\"heatmap\\\" of r: s' -> r(s,s') changes as a function of s (you could stack frames one after the other)\\n- Our motivation for Figure 1 was to (i) illustrate that the adversarial reward is non-stationary and (ii) illustrate that the adversarial reward is non-smooth. We believe that showing heatmaps of the reward functions for different states in a trajectory would indeed intuitively show how the reward motivates the agent to move forward. However, showing this would not help with highlighting these two points. \\n- Instead, we are happy to add this (illustration of rewards for different states in a trajectory) to the appendix. We will also tweak the energy-based reward in the current figure to better highlight that it rewards $s'$ states in front of the agent higher than ones behind the agent. We will include these revisions in the next few days.\\n\\nWe hope you understand our motivations behind Figure 1. We are happy to clarify any questions further.\"}", "{\"comment\": \"I apologize if I sound pedantic, but I still have a few doubts after your last answer.\\n\\nFirst of all, thanks for updating the figure, I find that the new one nicely shows an important property of your algorithm and a benefit of removing the adversarial component from the training process. However, this was not really what I meant with my comment, but I am still happy it lead to an improvement.\\n\\nMy misunderstanding was not about r(s, s') changing throughout the training, I understand that the function is learnt from a static dataset and not updated. My question is simpler than that. I don't know the details about the state, but I believe it includes the position of the agent in the 2D maze (or some representation of it). So I believe that to plot the energy function you fixed s and plotted r(s,s') where in s' you modify the 2D position in the maze. Please correct me if I am wrong.\\n\\nNow, s depends on the current position of the agent in the maze. In the previous figure, you plotted r(s, s') for the energy function, but you used a different s for the adversarial reward (the agent was in a different location). That's why I said it would be more useful if you plotted r: s' -> r(s,s') keeping the same s, but using first r=energy and then r=adversarial reward. And then I proposed that you could take s within a trajectory and show how the \\\"heatmap\\\" of r: s' -> r(s,s') changes as a function of s (you could stack frames one after the other). I assume it would show some interpretable pattern, e.g., that the states behind the agent become lower reward states as it moves, as the reward should promote the agent to go forward and not backward. I believe this would immediately convince the reader that the energy of a transition is a good reward function.\"}", "{\"title\": \"NEAR better than AMP in most cases\", \"comment\": \"*We disagree with the claim that motions generated by AMP are closer to the ground truth. We believe that NEAR is closer to the ground truth in most cases. The provided supplementary videos show qualitatively that our approach generates closer-to-ground truth motions. We have now also included additional videos of the ground truth motions. Please, indicate to us if the supplementary videos helped.*\\n\\nI do not understand this comment as AMP has lower pose error in all but one task (and in one it's the same as NEAR), according to table 1. Also in the text you write:\\n\\n*In most experiments, NEAR is closer to the expert in terms of the spectral arc length while AMP has a better pose error.*\\n\\nThese metrics are more reliable than qualitative inspection of the videos, where small differences in pose error cannot be detected.\"}", "{\"title\": \"Review responses & paper revisions\", \"comment\": [\"Dear reviewer, thank you for your feedback, we appreciate the positive comments and the clearly explained questions/limitations. We have now uploaded a revised paper and supplementary material. Please find clarifications and paper changes below (revisions based on your feedback are coloured red). We hope these sufficiently establish the contribution of the paper.\", \">It is unclear how Figure 1 has been generated. It is used for illustration purposes, however, some more information about the energy function and the adversarial reward are necessary. I also do not understand the choice of using different scales for the two rewards, and why the energy is high around the agent's trajectory while the adversarial reward is low. I would ask the authors to detail how the energy function and the adversarial reward have been learnt (also in the supplementary material if it does not fit the main text).\", \"**Figure 1 Clarity:**\", \"Thank you for pointing out the clarity issues with Figure 1. This was also pointed out by another reviewer and we have taken several steps to ensure that the figures are clear to the reader.\", \"We have now added an additional explanation of the maze domain in the Figure 1 caption. We have also added another appendix section (Appendix B.3 MAZE DOMAIN DETAILS) detailing the procedures to generate Figure 1.\", \"We explain these briefly here. The energy-based reward function in Figure 1 was learnt using the energy-based NCSN model described in this paper. We trained the model with $\\\\sigma=20.0$ on expert trajectories in the maze domain. The adversarial reward function was obtained by training AMP in the maze domain and saving the checkpoints at a comparable point in training.\", \"We request the reviewer to kindly provide feedback on the revised figure clarity.\", \"**Scaling Differences:**\", \"The scale difference between the energy-based and adversarial rewards is a result of the way in which the energy-based model and discriminator are defined.\", \"In AMP, the discriminator is a least-squares regression classifier (please refer to Section 5.2 in [1]) and returns a value between [-1,1]. We chose to keep the same scale in the illustration to maintain correctness with the original AMP paper.\", \"The energy function in score-based models is typically un-normalised. However, we chose to illustrate it on a scale of [0,1] to avoid unnecessary complications in the illustration.\", \"We agree that this results in a somewhat confusing comparison between the two reward functions. We are happy to remove the scaling details altogether as they are not integral to the figure\\u2019s meaning.\", \"**Energy/Discriminator Value Clarifications:**\", \"Typically, low energies indicate closeness to the data distribution. However, for simpler downstream RL, we chose to invert the sign of the learnt energy function such that maximising the energy reward means closeness to the expert (please refer to 4.1 LEARNING ENERGY FUNCTIONS)\", \"The adversarial reward around the data distribution is low because of the fluctuating nature of the discriminator's decision boundary. In this case, $p_G$ has a high intersection with $p_D$. The decision boundary is shown such that the discriminator prediction is low (close to -1) near $p_G$ and gradually changes to be higher towards the remaining (non-intersecting) portion of $p_D$. In our experiments, we recorded highly fluctuating adversarial rewards for AMP. We have now also included a new appendix section (Appendix E) providing additional empirical evidence of the instability and non-smoothness in AMP. We hope this inclusion clarifies the ideas behind Figure 1.\", \">It would be important to explain why other non-adversarial imitation learning methods are excluded from the evaluation and their differences and similarities with NEAR.\", \"To the best of our knowledge, NEAR is novel in its use of score-based models and energy-based rewards for imitation learning from observation. Other non-adversarial techniques for imitation learning (like [4] and its variants) primarily operate in a behaviour-cloning fashion. They hence require the actions executed by the expert. In contrast, NEAR operates in a state-only fashion.\", \">While the evaluation metric \\\"spectral arc length\\\" seems to favor NEAR, motions generated with AMP are generally closer to the ground truth.\", \"We disagree with the claim that motions generated by AMP are closer to the ground truth. We believe that NEAR is closer to the ground truth in most cases. The provided supplementary videos show qualitatively that our approach generates closer-to-ground truth motions. We have now also included additional videos of the ground truth motions. Please, indicate to us if the supplementary videos helped.\"]}", "{\"metareview\": \"The paper proposes an observation-only imitation learning which avoids the use of adversarial training for stability. The reviewers unanimously recommend weak acceptance. After the discussion, the main concern remains is the lack of baselines in the experiments. The paper only compares with AMP, but lacks simpler baselines like DeepMimic based on L2 distance which is also not based on adversarial training.\\n\\nSome experimental results are also inconclusive (e.g. in Table NEAR and AMP have close win rates) potentially because the experimental results are based on 5 seeds only leaving high stdev. Despite the authors's arguments, I still think we need more baselines and seeds to establish the effectiveness of the proposed method. There're also recent work (like DIFO form \\\"Diffusion Imitation from Observation\\\" by Huang et al. 2024) which is also non-adversarial and fits into the setup here, though they show results on lower-dim problems. IL-flOW (\\\"IL-flOw: Imitation Learning from Observation using Normalizing Flows\\\" by Chang et al. 2022) proposed also a similar idea to this paper (learning a likelihood model on expert transitions and use it as reward for RL, which should also be discussed.\\n\\nWhile I recommend acceptance at this point, I strongly encourage the authors to take reviewers' feedback, especially the points on baselines, expansion of related work discussion, adding more experimental results.\", \"additional_comments_on_reviewer_discussion\": \"Reviewer Xdsd raises concerns on novelty, writing clarity, and choice of baseline. The concerns are addressed. Reviewer PK39 raises concerns on missing experiments on discrete and goal-oriented domains, training cost details, and choice of baseline. The main concerns are addressed. Reviewer Tb6J raise issues on writing clarity, choice of baseline, and unclear experimental results. Most concerns are addressed. Reviewer hjSn raises concerns on the lack of comparison with related work and novelty. The concerns are addressed.\\n\\nIn discussion, Reviewer Tb6J raises concern that Figure 1 might be misrepresenting the reward landscape of AMP, AMP actually uses the probability that a trajectory belongs to the dataset, rather than a 0/1 classification.\"}", "{\"comment\": \"*To the best of our knowledge, NEAR is novel in its use of score-based models and energy-based rewards for imitation learning from observation. Other non-adversarial techniques for imitation learning (like [4] and its variants) primarily operate in a behaviour-cloning fashion. They hence require the actions executed by the expert. In contrast, NEAR operates in a state-only fashion.*\\n\\nWhen actions are not part of the dataset, one can still train the agent to track the state trajectories in the dataset (see, e.g., [1]). You write:\\n\\n*First, it is not unclear as to which reference state the L2 norm must be computed with.*\\n\\nHere the task would be to track expert trajectories, so you would sample a trajectory and just provide a reward proportional to $||s_t - s^*_t||^2$.\\n\\n*Any given state in the policy-generated motion can be mapped to a wide range of expert states.*\\n\\nIndeed you would have to sample a trajectory per episode. These other approach you propose\\n\\n*An alternative approach could be to compute the average L2 distance to the whole expert demonstration manifold*\\n\\nseems indeed impractical. However, I only partially agree with\\n\\n*This already limits the generalisation capabilities of the algorithm.*\\n\\nI can imagine that using an energy function is better when the expert trajectories are not too many, but if the dataset is large enough, direct imitation of expert trajectories leads to (maybe surprisingly) very good generalization to unseen trajectories (I refer again to [1] but there are surely other papers showing this). So it would have been a valuable addition showing when replacing direct expert imitation with an energy-based reward is better and when it is worse.\\n\\n[1] Luo, Zhengyi, et al. \\\"Perpetual humanoid control for real-time simulated avatars.\\\" Proceedings of the IEEE/CVF International Conference on Computer Vision. 2023.\"}", "{\"title\": \"Thank you for the response (and additional clarifications)\", \"comment\": [\"Dear reviewer, thank you for the response. Here are some additional clarifications.\", \"> It would be nice if the paper gets accepted and you have more time to maybe double it to 10.\", \"Thank you for pointing this out. We agree and will soon set up the additional trials. These at the very least will be added to the arXiv submission (and hopefully also to the main paper if obtained on time).\", \"> My initial interpretation was the reward function should be increasing as it gets closer to the goal (as that is generally how it will work) so the constant energy reward made it seem like the agent won't learn as the reward is simply high everywhere.\", \"By constant energy reward, we mean to imply that the energy function is pre-trained and does not change during training. This is why in the updated Figure 1, the energy-based reward stays the same throughout training, while the adversarial reward changes through training time (we refer to this as non-stationarity in the adversarial reward).\", \"To clarify your initial interpretation, yes the energy-based reward of course encourages the agent to get closer to the goal. We have now slightly modified the energy reward shown in Figure 1 (middle) to show that the reward conditioned on any state in the domain indeed encourages the agent to progress further in the maze.\", \"> I think the current caption may be benefited by saying something in text like \\\"The energy-based reward is a smooth (each state has the same reward magnitude), accurate representation of...\\\". Likely this is because I missed a definition of smooth in your text somewhere ..\", \"Thank you for pointing this out, we agree that Figure 1 is indeed quite important for the paper. By smooth, we mean that the reward function is continuous and provides informative gradients which are beneficial for reinforcement learning. In contrast, the adversarial reward is non-smooth, which means that its value (and gradients) can suddenly shift drastically. We believe that this non-smoothness in adversarial imitation learning would hinder RL.\", \"We have now updated the caption to clarify what we mean by smooth. We have also updated the right subfigure in Figure 1 to better illustrate this smoothness/non-smoothness.\", \"> I'm still confused on Figure 3. So the idea is that you are decreasing the amount of noise in k+1, k+2... with the GAN right? Is that the idea? I thought it was more complex of a figure than that but if that is it then that makes sense. In the caption you say \\\"the policy has improved from left to right\\\" how is that known? The policy isn't being trained right the reward model is? Is that a typo?\", \"Yes, you are correct to understand that the amount of noise decreases with $k$, $k+1$, $k+2$ ... (this is not related to the GAN and instead is the amount of noise added to the expert dataset when learning our score-based model). This essentially means that the energy function associated with $k+1$ is less dilated than the one associated with $k$ (as can be seen in the figure).\", \"The idea of Figure 3 is to then illustrate annealing. Annealing is simply the process of changing the energy function (reward) from level $k$ to $k+1$ ... on based on the agent's improvement during RL. This isn't a typo and annealing instead happens during RL (given a set of pre-trained energy functions).\", \"In Figure 3, the agent has improved from left to right since it is now generating motions that are closer to the expert distribution (notice that $supp(\\\\pi_{\\\\theta_G})$ is closer to $p_D$ on the right side). Given such an improvement, annealing means simply switching from the energy function (reward) of level $k$ to the one of level $k+1$.\", \"We have now updated Figure 3 with additional headings and some changes to the caption.\", \"We hope this sufficiently clarifies the idea of our figures. We are happy to further clarify any questions and to make any suggested modifications.\"]}", "{\"summary\": \"This paper proposes a method to perform imitation learning in absence of the expert's actions (i.e., only having access to the state trajectories). The proposed algorithm, NEAR, uses noise-conditioned score networks to model the probability distribution of the trajectories in the dataset. In this way, NEAR obtains a reward signal for imitation learning that does not depend on an adversarial network, as it is the case in current state of the art methods like AMP. In this way, known issues with learning in an adversarial setting are avoided. NEAR successfully learns to imitate reference trajectories, with similar performance to AMP and with smooth motion.\", \"soundness\": \"4\", \"presentation\": \"4\", \"contribution\": \"2\", \"strengths\": \"The paper is very well written. The algorithm presented in this paper (NEAR) is explained in detail. The authors clearly explain how this work is positioned within the field of motion imitation, providing helpful context information about adversarial imitation learning and noise-conditioned score networks.\", \"weaknesses\": \"It is unclear how Figure 1 has been generated. It is used for illustration purpose, however some more information about the energy function and the adversarial reward are necessary. I also do not understand the choice of using different scales for the two rewards, and why the energy is high around the agent's trajectory while the advesarial reward is low. I would ask the authors to detail how the energy function and the adversarial reward have been learnt (also in the supplementary material if it does not fit the main text).\\n\\nThe comparison with adversarial imitation learning methods is clear and well done. However, another possibility for imitation learning would be, e.g., to just provide a reward signal in the form of the L2 distance between the states visited by the policy and the ones to imitate. NEAR seems, in fact, a more sophisticated version of this simple method. It would be important to explain why other non-adversarial imitation learning methods are excluded from the evaluation, and their differences and similarities with NEAR.\\n\\nThe algorithm presented in this paper does not seem to be a clear improvement over the baseline method (AMP). While the evaluation metric \\\"spectral arc length\\\" seems to favor NEAR, motions generated with AMP are generally closer to the ground truth. The authors should motivate why NEAR is better or at least a good alternative to AMP, e.g., proving lower sensitivity to the hyperparamenter choice, faster learning, less variance, more sample efficiency ... I encourage the authors to also compare the learning curves of the two methods, possibly including the number of interactions with the environment and the wall time necessary for convergence.\", \"questions\": [\"The authors mention that they use 20 test episodes to obtain the average performance, which sounds low compared to other RL papers. How large is the variability in performance across episodes? The confidence levels are provided across random seeds, so the variability of the performance within a seed is not evident.\", \"You mention that AMP is less affected by data availability than NEAR. Shouldn't it also be a problem for AMP when data is scarce, since the task of the discriminator might become too easy when it can perfectly remember all the ground truth trajectories?\", \"I did not fully understand why the energy function works well as a reward signal. If the energy is high when a sample is likely to be generated by the probability distribution of the ground truth data, why does the policy follow a trajectory instead of just reaching a high probability state? I thought that one reason can be that the energy function depends on the current state, so it will assign high energy only to the states that, according to the dataset, follow the current one with high probability. While this concepts are likely trivial for the authors, they should be more clearly explained in the paper for the less familiar reader to fully understand why the algorithm works. I would propose to use the example from Figure 1 to qualitatively describe why the displayed energy function is a good reward signal, if the energy changes as the agent moves, and other high-level considerations.\", \"I commit to increase the score if my questions and doubts highlighted in the \\\"weaknesses\\\" section are carefully addressed.\"], \"flag_for_ethics_review\": \"['No ethics review needed.']\", \"rating\": \"6\", \"confidence\": \"4\", \"code_of_conduct\": \"Yes\"}", "{\"title\": \"Thanks for the response\", \"comment\": \"I appreciate the author's effort in clarifying the relationship with existing diffusion-based LfO work. DiffAIL still uses adversarial training, and since SMILING is not published, it is not fair to ask the author to compare their method with it. Overall, my concerns about the originality of NEAR have been addressed.\"}", "{\"title\": \"References used in our response\", \"comment\": \"[1] Wang B, Wu G, Pang T, Zhang Y, Yin Y. DiffAIL: Diffusion Adversarial Imitation Learning. InProceedings of the AAAI Conference on Artificial Intelligence 2024 Mar 24 (Vol. 38, No. 14, pp. 15447-15455).\\n\\n[2] R. Wu, Y. Chen, G. Swamy, K. Brantley, and W. Sun, \\u201cDiffusing States and Matching Scores: A New Framework for Imitation Learning,\\u201d Oct. 17, 2024, arXiv: arXiv:2410.13855. Accessed: Oct. 19, 2024. [Online]. Available: http://arxiv.org/abs/2410.138 \\n\\n[3] Ho J, Ermon S. Generative adversarial imitation learning. Advances in neural information processing systems. 2016;29.\\n\\n[4] Torabi F, Warnell G, Stone P. Generative adversarial imitation from observation. arXiv preprint arXiv:1807.06158. 2018 Jul 17. \\n\\n[5] L'Erario G, Hanover D, Romero A, Song Y, Nava G, Viceconte PM, Pucci D, Scaramuzza D. Learning to Walk and Fly with Adversarial Motion Priors. arXiv preprint arXiv:2309.12784. 2023 Sep 22.\"}", "{\"summary\": \"This paper presents a method to use generative adversarial networks in an imitation learning framework. The general idea is to create a reward function using the concept of energy from a generative network which is a metric for how close a sample is to being from a distribution. They directly optimize on this energy metric as a reward and perform experiments in high dimensional locomotion settings. They find their method is able to outperform baselines in some situations but ends up struggling in situations with data scarcity.\", \"soundness\": \"3\", \"presentation\": \"2\", \"contribution\": \"3\", \"strengths\": \"The research problem for this work is good. Imitation learning is a reasonable method for many control tasks where reward is difficult to specify and expert data is available. Aiming to improve the imitation policy from samples is an interesting a relevant problem.\\n\\nThe novelty of this work seems good but it is slightly difficult to tell (see weaknesses).\\n\\nThe algorithm details seem good. It is unclear to me what \\u201cuntil horizon\\u201d means in line 230 and 231. Other than that the algorithm description is clear.\\n\\nAt a high level the experimental section is good. I think the presentation could be improved slightly and have questions about the baselines and statistical rigor. The discussion is interesting and provides insight into the method.\\n\\nAblation Studies are good. The discussion on the importance of annealing is interesting and relevant.\\n\\nFailure Analysis is great. I really like the analysis and discussion of the reasons for failure. I think that leads to better future work and adds to the significance of this work.\\n\\nConclusion is good. I wish there was a future work section. Maybe more work into your annealing strategy?\", \"weaknesses\": \"I feel like as well the sentences from 71-77 are pretty vague and I would appreciate you explicitly stating the challenges clearly and then comparing your work even if is just \\u201cour method has smooth distributions and\\u2026\\u201d. The related work also seems to be wrapped in the intro which is fine but I would appreciate a more explicit comparison of other methods. Currently it simply says \\u201cthis is what other methods do\\u201d instead of \\u201chere is how ours is different\\u201d which would make it easier to tell novelty.\\n\\nThe significance of this work seems good but it would be nice if the contribution was more explicitly stated. My interpretation was that the contribution is the use of energy based diffusion to train imitation learning but it would be better not to leave it up to the reader.\\n\\nBaseline comparisons are ok (see questions).\\n\\nThe presentation of results is ok but I wish the tables were bigger sized, I\\u2019m pretty sure the page limit is 10 so you should be able to simply increase the size.\\n\\nThe statistical rigor is ok. You say each is trained 5 times and it is the results are averaged across 20 trials. 5 seems low to me here. Especially since the confidence intervals seem to be sort of wide and overlapping. Doing maybe 20 or 30 would be much better unless this is prohibitively expensive.\\n\\nThe clarity is ok. I didn\\u2019t find this paper very easy to read. Generally, I think more intuition could have been used in the paragraphs that starts at 167, 189 and 154. I\\u2019m admittedly not extremely versed in GANs but I think it should be written to provide more intuition to non GAN experts and more RL experts (as that is the target audience in my opinion). As well, I don\\u2019t feel the figures are helpful at all. I don\\u2019t understand what figure 1 is trying to convey nor do I understand even what it means. As well figure 3 also doesn\\u2019t make sense to me.\", \"questions\": \"iI there a reason you only compare to one baseline? Is that the only state of the art method and nothing can generally do better than it? I see line 364 says that it achieves superior results but is there truly no other baseline that even comes close? If so then that is fine.\\n\\nIs this the only/first work that uses energy-based diffusion models? If it is I would appreciate you explicitly saying so.\", \"flag_for_ethics_review\": \"['No ethics review needed.']\", \"rating\": \"6\", \"confidence\": \"2\", \"code_of_conduct\": \"Yes\"}", "{\"title\": \"Review responses & paper revisions\", \"comment\": [\"Dear reviewer, thank you for your feedback. We have revised the paper accordingly. Please find clarifications and paper changes below (text revisions based on your feedback are coloured blue). We hope these sufficiently establish the contribution and presentation of the paper.\", \"> It is unclear to me what \\u201cuntil horizon\\u201d means in line 230 and 231\", \"Thank you for pointing this out. The horizon here refers to the rollout horizon used during policy training. The policy is rolled out for a horizon of 16 steps, then the collected transitions and rewards are added to the replay buffer to update the policy network weights. We have also explained this in detail in Appendix B.2.2 REINFORCEMENT LEARNING.\", \"We realized the term \\u201cuntil horizon\\u201d might be unclear in the algorithm. To improve clarity, we have now explicitly mentioned this in the algorithm\\u2019s setup (line 219) and have pointed to the appendix for additional details.\", \"> I wish there was a future work section\", \"Thank you for this suggestion. We agree that NEAR can be extended via several interesting ideas. We have now added a short future work paragraph on lines 498-511.\", \"> I feel like as well the sentences from 71-77 are pretty vague and I would appreciate you explicitly stating the challenges clearly and then comparing your work. The related work also seems to be wrapped in the intro which is fine but I would appreciate a more explicit comparison of other methods\", \"We realize that lines 71-77 (in the old manuscript) could indeed be improved.\", \"We have rewritten the introduction section (71 - 85) to clearly establish our contributions. We would appreciate it if the reviewer informs us if the revised one is clearer.\", \"Related works relevant to NEAR rely on adversarial reward learning. This mechanism has been briefly explained in lines 62-71. We have rewritten lines 79-85 to clearly establish our contribution and differentiate it from the mechanism used in prior works. We would appreciate it if the reviewer could provide feedback on the updated lines.\", \"> The significance of this work seems good but it would be nice if the contribution was more explicitly stated. My interpretation was that the contribution is the use of energy-based diffusion to train imitation learning but it would be better not to leave it up to the reader.\", \"Yes, the reviewer is correct in understanding that our contribution is to use energy-based models as reward functions to train imitation learning policies. Our approach allows us to learn this energy model offline and use it as a reward in the RL part in contrast with adversarial approaches that require an online update of the discriminator during the RL phase and lead to unstable min-max problems. We have modified lines 84-85 to state this explicitly.\", \"> I wish the tables were bigger sized, I\\u2019m pretty sure the page limit is 10 so you should be able to simply increase the size.\", \"Yes, we agree that the results tables could be enlarged. In light of other reviews, we might have to add a few more details to the paper. For the moment we have not increased the table size but are happy to do so if there is space available after adding other suggested modifications. We hope the reviewer understands our prioritisation of clarifying content in the revised paper.\", \"> The statistical rigor is ok. You say each is trained 5 times and it is the results are averaged across 20 trials. 5 seems low to me here. Especially since the confidence intervals seem to be sort of wide and overlapping. Doing maybe 20 or 30 would be much better unless this is prohibitively expensive.\", \"Yes, we understand that more trials would be beneficial. While running additional trials is not an unrealistic expectation, we chose to do 5 trials for the following reasons.\", \"In our preliminary experiments on a subset of imitation tasks, we did not find a significant difference in results when using more trials.\", \"While the computational requirements of a single trial are not too expensive, they grow to be significantly expensive for 20+ trials (across all 10 tasks in the paper). Unfortunately, being on a university-level computational budget, we are limited in terms of the available compute hours and GPU resources.\", \"> Generally, I think more intuition could have been used in the paragraphs that starts at 167, 189 and 154.\", \"We have now included additional intuition behind score-based models and NCSN on lines 169, 182, 190. We hope this also sufficiently clarifies the idea of the DIST() function mentioned on line 208.\"]}", "{\"comment\": \">I do not understand this comment as AMP has lower pose error in all but one task (and in one it's the same as NEAR), according to table 1. These metrics are more reliable than qualitative inspection of the videos, where small differences in pose error cannot be detected.\\n- We agree that AMP is indeed usually quantitatively better in terms of pose error. However, NEAR performs better in terms of spectral arc length. We think that qualitative results are also a valid complement to these quantitative ones and that perhaps the metrics don't perfectly capture the smaller nuances of \\u201cnatural\\u201d imitation. We chose these metrics because of their use in prior works like AMP. In any case, to address your original comment:\\n> The authors should motivate why NEAR is better or at least a good alternative to AMP\\u2026\\n- We have now provided additional results (on the challenges of AMP) that we explained in one of our previous answers. We are also planning to add a few more experiments on hyperparameter sensitivity and perfect discrimination (under varying dataset sizes).\"}", "{\"title\": \"Additional empirical results on perfect discrimination\", \"comment\": [\"Dear reviewer, apologies for the delay in responding to this comment. We took some time to analyse this theoretically and empirically.\", \"> You seem to suggest that AMP can learn a perfect discriminator both with a single clip and with the full dataset\", \"Yes, we believe that given the relatively small datasets used in our paper, AMP can indeed learn a perfect discriminator even in multi-clip settings. This has been analysed in rigorous theoretical detail in [2].\", \"We have now replicated the perfect discriminator experiments from [2] (refer to Figure 1 in [2]) on AMP. We observe nearly the same results/patterns as described in [2]. These results are available in Appendix E.1.3 in the revised paper (with theoretical reasoning in lines 1052-1069). A summary of these experiments is below.\", \"We train AMP on the walking dataset (largest motion dataset in this paper) for varying training times. In each trial, policy training was paused after a certain cut-off point (say 5 e6 RL interactions) and a discriminator was retrained to distinguish between $p_G$ and $p_D$. We observe that in all cases, the discriminator very quickly learns to perfectly distinguish between the two distributions. This means that $supp(p_G)$ and $supp(p_D)$ might be non-continuous and disjoint.\", \"With a perfect discriminator, the rewards received by the agent also rapidly become either zero or constant (depending on how the classifier predictions are used as a reward function). This would lead to poor RL.\", \"> As it is unlikely that the agent reproduces the expert data exactly, why do you think AMP works?\", \"Our experiments show that the perfect discrimination issue indeed exists for multi-clip settings. However, as rightly pointed out by the reviewer, it does not really explain why AMP works in the first place.\", \"Unfortunately, at the moment we are not sure about this. Why standard GANs work despite perfect discrimination also seems to be unanswered in [2]. This is indeed a very interesting research direction that must be further explored via a dedicated analysis. We believe that for the purposes of our current paper, showing empirical evidence of perfect discrimination strengthens the argument that energy-based rewards are better than adversarial ones (i.e. even in the best case for AMP, perfect discrimination is still not nice to have).\", \"We hope this analysis clarifies your concerns and are happy to explain anything in further detail.\", \"[2] Arjovsky M, Bottou L. Towards principled methods for training generative adversarial networks. arXiv preprint arXiv:1701.04862. 2017 Jan 17.\"]}", "{\"title\": \"References used in our response\", \"comment\": \"[1] Torabi F, Warnell G, Stone P. Generative adversarial imitation from observation. arXiv preprint arXiv:1807.06158. 2018 Jul 17.\\n\\n[2] L'Erario G, Hanover D, Romero A, Song Y, Nava G, Viceconte PM, Pucci D, Scaramuzza D. Learning to Walk and Fly with Adversarial Motion Priors. arXiv preprint arXiv:2309.12784. 2023 Sep 22.\\n\\n[3] Peng XB, Abbeel P, Levine S, Van de Panne M. Deepmimic: Example-guided deep reinforcement learning of physics-based character skills. ACM Transactions On Graphics (TOG). 2018 Jul 30;37(4):1-4.\\n\\n[4] Ho J, Ermon S. Generative adversarial imitation learning. Advances in neural information processing systems. 2016;29.\\n\\n[5] Peng XB, Ma Z, Abbeel P, Levine S, Kanazawa A. Amp: Adversarial motion priors for stylized physics-based character control. ACM Transactions on Graphics (ToG). 2021 Jul 19;40(4):1-20.\\n\\n[6] Tessler C, Kasten Y, Guo Y, Mannor S, Chechik G, Peng XB. Calm: Conditional adversarial latent models for directable virtual characters. InACM SIGGRAPH 2023 Conference Proceedings 2023 Jul 23 (pp. 1-9).\\n\\n[7] Prasad A, Lin K, Wu J, Zhou L, Bohg J. Consistency policy: Accelerated visuomotor policies via consistency distillation. arXiv preprint arXiv:2405.07503. 2024 May 13.\\n\\n[8] Chi C, Xu Z, Feng S, Cousineau E, Du Y, Burchfiel B, Tedrake R, Song S. Diffusion policy: Visuomotor policy learning via action diffusion. The International Journal of Robotics Research. 2023:02783649241273668.\"}", "{\"title\": \"Paper Decision\", \"decision\": \"Accept (Poster)\"}", "{\"comment\": \"Thank you for the further experiments. I have briefly checked the AMP paper and they use a probability measure to decide whether the transition (s,s') is part of the dataset. Therefore, even if almost 0 for all generated transitions, there might still be a relative ranking (more similar to the dataset -> higher probability) which makes the whole process work. I agree that if the discriminator outputs exactly 0 for all generated transitions then AMP will stop working, but it seems not to be the case in practice.\"}", "{\"title\": \"Review responses & paper revision\", \"comment\": [\"Dear reviewer, thank you for your feedback. We have now submitted a revised paper. Please find clarifications and paper changes below. The text in some parts is coloured to indicate which revisions are associated with which reviewer (this will be reverted after rebuttals). We hope these clarifications help explain the contribution of our paper and request you to reconsider your score.\", \">NEAR requires training a noise-conditioned energy model, which can be computationally intensive. A detailed comparison of training costs relative to other methods, particularly in terms of time and resources, would be beneficial.\", \"Thank you for highlighting this. In their typical use case (very high dimensional image/video generation) score-based generative models are indeed computationally intensive. However, we believe that the typical use case of score-based models is not comparable to their use in NEAR (relatively low dimensional state-transition pairs). We train the energy-based reward function for less than 150k training iterations in all cases. This is more than sufficient to learn the energy-based reward functions that are used in NEAR.\", \"We have now included two additional tables providing information on the training costs. Table 5 in Appendix B.2.4 provides more information on the training iterations and environment interactions of both NEAR and AMP in our experiments. Both algorithms' RL policies are trained for the same number of environment interactions. Table 7 in Appendix C compares the wall-clock training times of NEAR and AMP. We find that overall NEAR requires slightly more training time than AMP. Across all tasks, NCSN contributes to less than 30% of the total computational time of NEAR, with RL accounting for the majority of the computation load and wall-clock time. Interestingly, AMP always has a larger reinforcement learning computational load. This is expected as AMP is learning both the policy and the reward function simultaneously.\", \">Could you provide a comparison of NEAR\\u2019s computational requirements (e.g., training time, GPU hours) relative to other baselines like AMP?\", \"Please see the previous answer and the newly included Table 5 and Table 7.\", \">NEAR is only compared against one baseline - AMP and it doesn't seem to always be the winner (but has higher variance in most cases) despite the additional complexity of learning an energy network.\", \"To the best of our knowledge, AMP is the only comparable baseline for imitation learning from observation in such high-dimensional physics-based problems. It is an improved formulation of previous state-only methods like GAiFO [1] and is the strongest state-of-the-art baseline in this field (it is still a prominent algorithm used for learning such complex policies [2]).\", \"We agree that NEAR does have a slightly higher overall computational load than AMP (please also see the answer above and Tables 5 and 7). However, we would also like to point out that our research mainly aims to provide a better and more stable alternative to adversarial imitation learning. To that end, we believe that NEAR has a better mechanism for learning reward functions that is not prone to instability, non-stationarity and learning non-smooth rewards. While NEAR does have more variance in some tasks, this is mainly due to the limitations of annealing. We believe that the underlying reward learning mechanism of NEAR is still superior to that of AMP.\", \"To better highlight these limitations of AMP, we have now added another appendix section with additional explanations and empirical analysis (Appendix E) on the AMP discriminator. We hope that this additional information helps situate NEAR as a better alternative for reward learning in imitation learning from observation problems.\", \">NEAR\\u2019s effectiveness is primarily evaluated in humanoid tasks, which are continuous and physics-driven. The framework\\u2019s applicability in other types of imitation learning tasks, especially those with discrete actions or diverse goal-oriented, is not fully explored.\", \"We believe that the scope of our paper aligns well with the experimental analyses from related works like [1,3,4,5,6,7,8]. All these prior works in the field of generative imitation learning also only conduct experiments in continuous domains. We believe that NEAR is situated amongst these works and our experiments are comparable to these related works.\"]}", "{\"title\": \"References used in our response\", \"comment\": \"[1] Torabi F, Warnell G, Stone P. Generative adversarial imitation from observation. arXiv preprint arXiv:1807.06158. 2018 Jul 17.\\n\\n[2] Chi C, Xu Z, Feng S, Cousineau E, Du Y, Burchfiel B, Tedrake R, Song S. Diffusion policy: Visuomotor policy learning via action diffusion. The International Journal of Robotics Research. 2023:02783649241273668. \\n\\n[3] Tessler C, Kasten Y, Guo Y, Mannor S, Chechik G, Peng XB. Calm: Conditional adversarial latent models for directable virtual characters. InACM SIGGRAPH 2023 Conference Proceedings 2023 Jul 23 (pp. 1-9). \\n\\n[4] Sun W, Vemula A, Boots B, Bagnell D. Provably efficient imitation learning from observation alone. InInternational conference on machine learning 2019 May 24 (pp. 6036-6045). PMLR.\\n\\n[5] L'Erario G, Hanover D, Romero A, Song Y, Nava G, Viceconte PM, Pucci D, Scaramuzza D. Learning to Walk and Fly with Adversarial Motion Priors. arXiv preprint arXiv:2309.12784. 2023 Sep 22.\"}", "{\"title\": \"Updated figure 1 & requesting feedback\", \"comment\": [\"Dear Reviewer, we appreciate the quick response! We agree that the way we illustrated it previously did indeed lead to misunderstandings and confusion for the reader. We thank you for pointing this out and for helping us improve the illustrations. The revised illustration compares both reward functions under the same conditions. We request you to please provide feedback on the updated figure.\", \">I think the main source of confusion about figure 1 is the fact that the energy function is not just a function of the 2D position in the maze, but of the state transition (as you correctly point out in another answer). As you understood from my doubts about whether the energy function is a good reward signal, I was mislead by this figure, which shows the energy as a function of the position in the maze. But it should also be a function of the position of the ant (please correct me if I am wrong, but this time my understanding should be correct).\", \"Apologies for the confusion. To clarify, in NEAR, the energy function is constant throughout training. This means that $r(s\\u2019 | s)$ (we use $r()$ to mean reward function) is stationary for any state $s$. It does not depend on the distribution of policy visited states($p_G$) and is illustrated with different $p_G$'s to highlight this point.\", \"In AMP, because of the discriminator's min-max nature, the reward is also indirectly dependent on the distribution of policy visited states (2D positions in the maze domain).\", \"We have updated Figure 1 to clarify this point. Now, figure 1 shows the energy-based and adversarial rewards evaluated around a single zoomed-in state at various points in training (thanks for the suggestion). The energy-based reward stays the same because it is not updated after pre-training the energy function. The adversarial reward keeps changing throughout training (meaning that $r(s\\u2019 | s)$ keeps changing through time even for a fixed $s$).\", \"In the new figure, we also illustrate the non-smooth nature of the adversarial reward and contrast it with the smooth nature of the energy-based one. To do this, we maintain parts of the previous figure and plot the sum over all rewards in the agent\\u2019s reachable set at every state in the domain. This is meant to compare the rewards globally. Even in this case, everything else about the two functions remains the same (i.e they are evaluated at every state and illustrated without showing the agent\\u2019s position).\", \">Then what is the sense of showing the energy function when the agent is in the top-left corner, and the adversarial reward when the agent is in the bottom-left corner?\", \"As clarified above, the agent\\u2019s position is irrelevant to the energy-based reward. However, we understand that illustrating the agent in the energy function plot would lead to confusion. We have now removed the agent from both plots and have instead highlighted the fact that the energy-based reward does not depend on $p_G$.\", \">also highlighting where the goal is (the goal should also be part of the state, and therefore influence the shape of the function).\", \"In this task, the goal was not part of the agent\\u2019s state. Again, it was added to the illustration only for the benefit of the reader. However, we understand how it would be misleading. We have also removed the goal from the plots in the illustration.\", \"In general, the maze domain could be converted to a goal-conditioned RL problem (as we did in some main experiments on humanoid goal reaching). However, we believe that adding the goal feature to the states in the maze domain does not provide additional comparisons between the two reward function\", \"Hope the revised figure is easier to understand. We are of course happy to made any other suggested modifications!\"]}", "{\"comment\": \"Thank you for your detailed response.\\n\\nUntil horizon and future works is resolved for me.\\n\\nI appreciate the updated paragraph near like 75. It seems good enough to me and thank you for adding the contribution sentence. \\n\\nI see that you're now at the page limit. This means increasing the size of figures is difficult so it makes sense to leave it.\\n\\nI understand that you are limited on compute so it would be infeasible to add more experiments now. It would be nice if the paper gets accepted and you have more time to maybe double it to 10 just since 5 still seems extremely low and I'd imagine more trials would narrow the CIs at least a little bit.\\n\\nFor Figure 1, I think I understand it but I think it still could be improved slightly. My initial interpretation was the reward function should be increasing as it gets closer to the goal (as that is generally how it will work) so the constant energy reward made it seem like the agent won't learn as the reward is simply high everywhere. I think the current caption may be benefited by saying something in text like \\\"The energy-based reward is a smooth (each state has the same reward magnitude), accurate representation of...\\\". Likely this is because I missed a definition of smooth in your text somewhere and I see that you have the \\\"sum of rewards\\\" notation in the caption but I would just like to have it super explicitly stated as this is a pretty important figure in my opinion.\\n\\nI'm still confused on Figure 3. So the idea is that you are decreasing the amount of noise in k+1, k+2... with the GAN right? Is that the idea? I thought it was more complex of a figure than that but if that is it then that makes sense. In the caption you say \\\"the policy has improved from left to right\\\" how is that known? The policy isn't being trained right the reward model is? Is that a typo?\\n\\nFor baselines that is a reasonable response.\"}", "{\"title\": \"Thank you for the clarifications\", \"comment\": \"I want to thank the authors for the detailed responses, I am now more confident in recommending acceptance of the paper.\"}" ] }

[ "Jinlong Pang", "Jiaheng Wei", "Ankit Shah", "Zhaowei Zhu", "Yaxuan Wang", "Chen Qian", "Yang Liu", "Yujia Bao", "Wei Wei" ]

[ "Data Selection", "LLM", "Instruction Tuning" ]

{ "note_id": [ "zNTFk9uusb", "zC53ONEq67", "ylmDt01nW9", "wCHiaJn5dO", "veE6U9vTAR", "qkcCNABwrB", "pc3bkHFcIx", "oy3XNAzj73", "mvFG8DegN9", "ixUphszrAt", "i6kh8AMLRN", "i0zjeW0Icn", "gjPVE9sebc", "YvP2GcRgQl", "XOG6w38wpd", "WxZaMAYCAs", "TEbzJnJ3iq", "SmJ0bm2xKn", "Rt9JjtK8ZJ", "HD7pj5nYOx", "G4WkNubhBa", "CtyuiNwhHi", "BLYywnlQP4", "9YpjOIwsOT", "8nEGwcddBz", "7Z3FOFH4pU", "2Pa3U3c96Z", "0N3Z2hwtfM" ], "note_type": [ "official_comment", "official_comment", "official_comment", "official_comment", "official_comment", "official_review", "official_comment", "official_comment", "official_comment", "official_comment", "official_comment", "official_comment", "official_comment", "official_comment", "official_comment", "official_review", "official_review", "meta_review", "official_comment", "official_comment", "official_comment", "decision", "official_comment", "official_comment", "official_review", "official_comment", "official_comment", "official_comment" ], "note_created": [ 1732238010612, 1732564773097, 1732596733894, 1732603894598, 1732529046864, 1729243155769, 1732163659535, 1733185887299, 1732163322658, 1732183906918, 1732162742892, 1732162714719, 1732159943939, 1732596334716, 1732486958265, 1730765364335, 1730676792437, 1734660346206, 1732163956082, 1732595393865, 1732163785833, 1737523505619, 1732161563641, 1732562577481, 1730686657392, 1732160554228, 1732595621080, 1732161757409 ], "note_signatures": [ [ "ICLR.cc/2025/Conference/Submission2467/Authors" ], [ "ICLR.cc/2025/Conference/Submission2467/Reviewer_ZhKe" ], [ "ICLR.cc/2025/Conference/Submission2467/Reviewer_ZhKe" ], [ "ICLR.cc/2025/Conference/Submission2467/Authors" ], [ "ICLR.cc/2025/Conference/Submission2467/Authors" ], [ "ICLR.cc/2025/Conference/Submission2467/Reviewer_gzew" ], [ "ICLR.cc/2025/Conference/Submission2467/Authors" ], [ "ICLR.cc/2025/Conference/Submission2467/Authors" ], [ "ICLR.cc/2025/Conference/Submission2467/Authors" ], [ "ICLR.cc/2025/Conference/Submission2467/Authors" ], [ "ICLR.cc/2025/Conference/Submission2467/Authors" ], [ "ICLR.cc/2025/Conference/Submission2467/Authors" ], [ "ICLR.cc/2025/Conference/Submission2467/Authors" ], [ "ICLR.cc/2025/Conference/Submission2467/Authors" ], [ "ICLR.cc/2025/Conference/Submission2467/Reviewer_XKFp" ], [ "ICLR.cc/2025/Conference/Submission2467/Reviewer_ZhKe" ], [ "ICLR.cc/2025/Conference/Submission2467/Reviewer_XKFp" ], [ "ICLR.cc/2025/Conference/Submission2467/Area_Chair_aQpC" ], [ "ICLR.cc/2025/Conference/Submission2467/Authors" ], [ "ICLR.cc/2025/Conference/Submission2467/Authors" ], [ "ICLR.cc/2025/Conference/Submission2467/Authors" ], [ "ICLR.cc/2025/Conference/Program_Chairs" ], [ "ICLR.cc/2025/Conference/Submission2467/Authors" ], [ "ICLR.cc/2025/Conference/Submission2467/Reviewer_ZhKe" ], [ "ICLR.cc/2025/Conference/Submission2467/Reviewer_81Qt" ], [ "ICLR.cc/2025/Conference/Submission2467/Authors" ], [ "ICLR.cc/2025/Conference/Submission2467/Authors" ], [ "ICLR.cc/2025/Conference/Submission2467/Authors" ] ], "structured_content_str": [ "{\"title\": \"General Response to Reviewers and Revision Submitted\", \"comment\": \"Dear Reviewers and Area Chairs,\\n\\nWe sincerely appreciate all your time and efforts in reviewing our submitted work! ! We have revised the paper to address the reviewers\\u2019 concerns. Below we summarize the major revisions (**the main revisions are marked with blue text**), while we reply to the comments of each reviewer separately.\", \"the_major_revisions_are\": [\"**Limitations** In Appendix A, we discussed the limitations of this work, highlighting aspects such as the sample-level independence assumption, k-NN clusterability, base model scale, and rating models. (**Reviewer 81Qt, gzew**)\", \"**Warm-up binary example to illustrate how derive the score transition matrix** In Appendix C.1, we supplemented a warm-up binary example to illustrate how to use the scores of samples to derive the score transition matrix. (**Reviewer ZhKe, 81Qt**)\", \"**Practicality of k-NN clusterability hypothesis** In Appendix C.3, we provided detailed k-NN clusterability analysis to evaluate why this definition holds in our work. Besides, randomly selected examples along with their 2-NN samples are added to demonstrate the validity of k-NN clusterability in our data pool. (**Reviewer ZhKe, XKFp, gzew**)\", \"**Comparative analysis of the computational complexity** In Appendix H, we reported a comparative analysis of the computational complexity and runtime for gradient-based methods (LESS) and LLM rating-based approaches such as AlpaGasus and DEITA. (**Reviewer XKFp**)\", \"**The separate impact of diversity scores** In Appendix I, we provided case studies to explore the separate impact of diversity scores in data selection under varying data distributions or complexities. The subsets used to simulate different distributions include Flan_v2, Wizardlm, and Alpaca. (**Reviewer gzew**)\", \"Thank you again for your reviews!\", \"Best,\", \"Authors\"]}", "{\"title\": \"Performance comparison with AlpaGasus\", \"comment\": \"Thanks to the authors for going at length to address my comments.\\n\\nCan the authors please add and highlight this new result to the main paper? As previously stated, this exact experiment (W4's Table) is by far the most apples-to-apples comparison to AlpaGasus, and I believe this one of the key pieces of evidence to demonstrate the effectiveness of DS^2.\\n\\nI have only one remaining request, regarding assuming k-NN score clusterability in practice. I completely agree with the authors, such a quantity does not need to *judiciously* hold in practice. But a demonstration of some *general* holding of this property is required. Can the authors please condense the argument above and forward reference from the main text to an appendix section? I would also argue in favor a quick two (to three, max) sentences of the practicality of this property in the main text (including the info from the last paragraph of W3 in Response 1/3).\"}", "{\"title\": \"Main concerns addressed, raising score\", \"comment\": \"I thank the authors again for additional experiments, discussion, clarifications, and addressing my main concerns, I am raising my score.\"}", "{\"title\": \"Thank you for your positive feedback\", \"comment\": \"Thank you for taking the time to carefully consider our responses and for your thoughtful suggestions. We are grateful for your positive impression and support for our work. Your encouraging comments mean a lot to us, and we deeply appreciate your recognition of our efforts.\"}", "{\"title\": \"More systematic analysis about k-NN clusterability definition\", \"comment\": \"Dear Reviewer XFFp,\\n\\nIt is great to hear that some of your concerns have been addressed! Thank you for your thoughtful follow-up comments! We would like to provide more systematic analysis here to address your concerns.\\n\\n **Systematic analysis about the k-NN clusterability definition** Due to the unavailability of samples\\u2019 ground truth scores, we evaluate k-NN clusterability by examining the distribution of **average score gaps**, which measures the score difference within one k-NN cluster.\\nThe average score gap for a target sample is defined as the mean absolute difference between the target sample's score and the scores of its k nearest neighbors, i.e., $\\\\texttt{average score gap} = \\\\texttt{Mean}(|\\\\texttt{target sample\\u2019s score - kNN sample\\u2019s score}|)$. In our work, we focus on **2-NN clusterability** and frame our analysis within this context. Specifically, for each 2-NN cluster, we consider a target sample and its two nearest neighbors. For example, given a 2-NN cluster with the score tuple: (target sample: 1, kNN sample 1: 2, kNN sample 2: 3), the score gap is calculated as:\\n$\\n\\\\text{Average score gap} = \\\\frac{|1 - 2| + |1 - 3|}{2} = 1.5.\\n$\\nThe following Table 1 below summarizes the statistical distribution of score gaps across all 2-NN clusters.\\n\\nTable 1. Average score gap statistical information of all 2-NN clusters from our data pool.\\n| Curation | Model | Score Gap (0.0-1.0) (%) | Score Gap 1.5 (%) | Score Gap 2.0 (%) | Score Gap >2.0 (%) |\\n|------------------|------------------------------|----------------------|-------------------|-------------------|---------------------|\\n| w/o Curation | GPT | 81.0 | 12.0 | 4.9 | 2.1 |\\n| w/o Curation | LLaMA | 58.3 | 18.0 | 12.2 | 11.5 |\\n| w/o Curation | Mistral | 70.2 | 16.5 | 8.1 | 5.4 |\\n| w/ Curation | GPT | 82.5 | 10.9 | 4.5 | 1.7 |\\n| w/ Curation | LLaMA | 78.8 | 9.4 | 7.3 | 4.1 |\\n| w/ Curation | Mistral | 80.5 | 10.8 | 5.6 | 4.3 |\\n\\n\\n\\n\\nFrom Table 1, we observe that **without score curation**, GPT has a higher proportion of samples in the 0.0\\u20131.0 score gap range (81.0%) compared to Mistral (70.2%) and LLaMA (58.3%). This reveals that more powerful rating models, such as GPT, tend to exhibit smaller average score gaps, which aligns more closely with the concept of **k-NN clusterability** and contributes to improved performance.\\n\\n\\nMoreover, when comparing the settings **with and without score curation**, we observe that all three rating models show an increased proportion of samples in the 0.0\\u20131.0 score gap range after score curation. From Table 2, this shift in the score gap distribution correlates strongly with the performance improvements observed on LLM leaderboard tasks (as detailed in Table 3 of the manuscript).\\n\\n\\nTable 2. The proportion of samples in the 0.0\\u20131.0 score gap range both with and without score curation for each rating model. For comparison, the corresponding average performance on LLM Leaderboard tasks is included in parentheses.\\n\\n\\n| Rating Model | 0.0-1.0 score gap w/o Curation (Average Performance) | 0.0-1.0 score gap w/ Curation (Average Performance)|\\n|--------------|------------------|---------------|\\n| GPT | 81.0% (60.2) | 82.5% (61.4) |\\n| LLaMA | 58.3% (59.2) | 78.8% (60.2) |\\n| Mistral | 70.2% (60.7) | 80.5% (61.1) |\\n\\n\\nTherefore, these results demonstrate the validity of the **k-NN clusterability** definition proposed in our paper. For a clearer visualization of score gap proportions before and after score curation, we encourage the reviewer to refer to the newly added **Figure 8**. For your reference, the average embedding distance distribution across all 2-NN clusters from our data pool is also provided in the newly added **Figure 9** in the revised manuscript.\\n\\nFinally, we would really appreciate it if Reviewer XFFp can provide any suggestions about the systematic analysis.\"}", "{\"summary\": \"The paper presents DS2, a method for improving data efficiency in instruction tuning for LLMs. DS2 corrects inaccuracies and biases in LLM-generated data quality scores using a score transition matrix and promotes diversity in the data selection process. The authors demonstrate that using a curated subset can outperform larger datasets, challenging traditional data scaling laws and achieving better results than human-curated datasets like LIMA. Key contributions include modeling score errors across various LLMs, developing a novel data curation pipeline, and conducting extensive experiments to validate DS2's effectiveness against multiple baselines.\", \"soundness\": \"3\", \"presentation\": \"3\", \"contribution\": \"3\", \"strengths\": \"1. The paper argue that a smaller, high-quality dataset can outperform larger datasets. The introduction of a score transition matrix to model LLM-based errors adds a novel approach to data curation, combining insights from label noise reduction and LLM evaluation.\\n2. The experimental section is substantial and persuasive, featuring a rich number of comparative experiments that cover various scenarios and conditions, effectively demonstrating the robustness and efficacy of the proposed algorithm. Furthermore, the experimental results indicate significant performance improvements, further validating the superiority of the proposed approach.\", \"weaknesses\": \"1. While the score transition matrix is central to DS2, the paper lacks an in-depth analysis of its limitations or conditions under which it may not be effective. For instance, the independence assumption (that the transition matrix is not sample-specific) might limit its ability to model certain data-specific errors.\\n2. The paper heavily relies on the capabilities of pre-trained LLMs to generate initial quality ratings and the transition matrix to correct the final quality score.\\n3. If there is a strong LLM evaluator (eg, GPT-4o or o1), the score error correction process seems unnecessary.\", \"questions\": \"1. Can the authors provide more examples of typical errors in LLM-rated scores and explain how DS2 specifically addresses these? This would clarify the practical benefits of the score transition matrix.\\n2. Could the authors discuss how the diversity score metric performs in datasets with different distributions or in tasks with varying levels of data complexity? Providing case studies or examples would help demonstrate the versatility of this metric.\\n3. How sensitive is DS2's performance to the choice of embedding model used for the k-NN agreement score? Exploring different embeddings beyond the BGE model may provide insights into the robustness of the approach.\\n4. In an open-ended question, the responses may not be similar at all (resulting in very different embedding vectors), but they could all be equally excellent answers. In this method, I believe the two responses may be curated into completely different scores, leading to errors. \\u201dIntuitively, a lower cosine similarity score indicates a higher likelihood of a rating error\\u201d, This assumption does not adequately explain the examples above.\\n5. \\\"please tell me the answer of below math question '1+1=?' answer:2\\\"\\n\\\"please tell me the answer of below math question '1+1=?' answer:3\\\"\\nThe two questions have similar embedding vectors, but they should have completely different scores. This seems to contradict the notion that samples with high embedding vector similarity are more likely to have the same labels.\", \"flag_for_ethics_review\": \"['No ethics review needed.']\", \"rating\": \"5\", \"confidence\": \"4\", \"code_of_conduct\": \"Yes\"}", "{\"title\": \"Response 2/4\", \"comment\": \"**W3: The score error correction process seems unnecessary if using a strong LLM evaluator**\\n\\nThank you for pointing out this. We agree that a strong LLM evaluator could be beneficial for generating accurate ratings. However, due to the **higher cost** of using a strong LLM evaluator, current open-sourced LLMs (such as LLaMA-3.1 and Mistral) offer a cost-effective and efficient alternative. The score error correction process plays a crucial role in bridging the performance gap between GPT-based and open-sourced LLMs. Our experimental results further highlight the necessity and effectiveness of this score error correction process, particularly for GPT-4o-mini. From the experimental results of GPT-4o-mini, we believe that the phenomenon of score errors is widespread and unavoidable, even for strong LLM evaluators. \\n\\nBesides, we would like to clarify that **GPT may not evaluate perfectly across all tasks**. For instance, in certain domain-specific tasks, GPT may lack the necessary knowledge to provide accurate evaluations due to the privacy and restricted access to such specialized data. In such cases, GPT might produce inaccurate evaluations, leading to potential scoring errors. Therefore, implementing a score curation mechanism to mitigate potential score errors remains crucial for ensuring more reliable and accurate evaluations.\\n\\n**Q1: Examples of Typical Errors in LLM-Rated Scores and How DS2 Addresses Them**\\n\\n\\nThank you for your comment. Here, we present a target sample from our data pool along with its 2NN samples to illustrate this. By analyzing these samples manually, it becomes evident that the target sample is likely misrated and should have a score of 3. \\n\\n- Target Example(Score: 1): User: 'You need to complete the following task: Calculate 15\\\\% of the following number: 100\\u2019, Assistant: '15\\\\% of 100 is 15.'\\n- KNN Example 1 (Score: 3): User: \\u2018Calculate 15\\\\% of 500\\u2019. Assistant: \\u201875\\u2019\\n- KNN Example 2 (Score: 3): User: 'Calculate 50\\\\% of 300.\\u201d, Assistant: ' 50\\\\% of 300 is 150.'\\n\\n\\n\\nFirst, DS2 derives the score transition matrix based on the concept of $k$-NN clusterability. Specifically, it aggregates the score information from all $2$-NN clusters and calculates the average score proportion probability, which serves as the consensus information for constructing the score transition matrix [Section 3.2]. \\n\\nThe score transition matrix provides statistical transition probabilities but does not identify specific samples that are likely to be misrated. To address this, DS2 computes the $k$-NN agreement score for each sample [Section 4.1, Line 282]. Intuitively, if a sample\\u2019s $k$-NN agreement score is low\\u2014indicating its score significantly differs from the scores of its $k$-NN neighbors\\u2014it is likely to have been misrated. Samples are then ranked by their $k$-NN agreement scores, and the bottom $M$ samples are flagged as misrated, where $M$ is determined based on the error threshold derived from the statistical transition matrix. [Section 4.1, Line 291]. \\n\\nTo address imbalances in LLM-based scores, a confidence probability is introduced to adjust the size of the identified misrated sample set. Finally, DS2 curates (replaces) the scores of these misrated samples with candidate scores suggested by the $k$-NN agreement (majority vote) [Section 4.1, Line 306].\\n\\n Therefore, in the above example, the score for the target sample will be curated to 3 by DS2, consistent with its 2NN neighbors.\"}", "{\"title\": \"Looking forward to following up\", \"comment\": \"Dear Reviewer XKFp,\\n\\nWe have revised the paper and added many additional systematic analysis about the kNN clusterability hypothesis to address your comments. Since the rebuttal period is closing very soon, can you please check the response to see whether it mitigates your concerns? We would greatly appreciate that!\\n\\nThank you,\\n\\nThe authors\"}", "{\"title\": \"Response 1/4\", \"comment\": \"We want to thank the reviewer for their positive feedback and comments. We will address individual comments below.\\n\\n\\n\\n**W1: In-depth analysis of the limitations**\\n\\nThank you for raising this concern. This independence assumption is a mathematical simplification that allows us to develop our statistical approach to perform estimation work. Our assumption follows the learning with noisy label literature settings [1, 2, 3]. As it is also studied in the literature, when making no assumption of the transition matrix's dependence on the sample-level features, it becomes extremely hard to identify the correct noise structure of this noisy rating problem [4] and therefore disables the development of corresponding detection approaches. Besides, this assumption can also be viewed as the \\\"average case\\\" estimation of the amount of errors for samples with the same true rating (though we agree with the reviewer that it can imperfect and non-ideal)\\nEmpirically, our final experimental results demonstrate the efficacy of our method under this assumption. There could be a valuable future research direction to enhance performance under weaker assumptions, such as group-dependent or sample-dependent.\\nWe have included the limitations in the revised manuscript (Appendix A):\\n\\n- **Sample-independent assumption**: The sample-independent assumption is critical for deriving the transition matrix $T$ and the true score probability distribution $p$. However, this assumption may be somewhat strong and could inevitably introduce certain data-specific errors. Exploring weaker assumptions, such as group-dependent approaches, could be a valuable direction for future research.\\n- **Base model scale**: Our experiments are primarily conducted on pre-trained models at the 7B/8B scale. It remains uncertain how well the method would perform on larger-scale pre-trained models.\\n- **Rating models**: Due to cost considerations, we use the more affordable GPT-4o-mini to generate GPT-level scores. It is unclear whether the score curation mechanism works for more powerful GPT models (e.g., GPT-4 or GPT-o1).\\n- **k-NN clusterability**. The k-NN clusterability definition implies that similar embedding vectors should correspond to the same rating score or class, a characteristic commonly leveraged in image classification tasks. However, in text-related tasks, highly similar text can convey opposite semantic meanings due to subtle differences, such as a single word change. To address this challenge, powerful embedding models are essential to accurately distinguish these subtle differences and effectively capture the underlying semantic meaning.\\n\\n[1] Learning with noisy labels, NeurIPS 2013.\\n\\n[2] Classification with noisy labels by importance reweighting, TPAMI 2015.\\n\\n[3] Peer loss functions: Learning from noisy labels without knowing noise rates, ICML 2020.\\n\\n[4] Identifiability of Label Noise Transition Matrix, ICML 2023.\\n\\n\\n**W2: This paper heavily rely on the capabilities of pre-trained LLMs**\\n\\nThank you for pointing out this concern. We would like to clarify that the characterization of this work is not a weakness. LLM-based data selection procedures have been demonstrated to be both efficient and widely adopted in practice. This is evident from several newly published works, including AlpaGasus (ICLR 2024), DEITA (ICLR 2024), Qurating (ICLR 2024), InsTag (ICLR 2023), LESS (ICML 2024), and Tree-instruct (ACL 2024), to name a few. More details regarding these methods are discussed in Section 2 (Related Work). Beyond academic research, LLM-based ratings are also extensively used in industry for data selection tasks, serving as a cost-effective alternative to manual annotations.\\n\\nFurthermore, even though the embeddings used are extracted from the newly released model BGE, our transition matrix does not heavily depend on its performance. In Appendix D, we investigate the impact of using SentenceBert as the embedding model. When compared to Figure 3 (BGE), the transition matrix shown in Figure 8 (SentenceBert) exhibits a striking similarity, demonstrating that our transition matrix is largely independent of the specific embedding model used.\"}", "{\"title\": \"Response 3/3\", \"comment\": \"**W4: Performance comparison with AlpaGasus**\\n\\n\\u200bWe would like to clarify that to ensure consistency and manage costs, the raw scores used in this study were generated with our prompt template. However, our prompt template largely follows the format and criteria of Alpagasus (as the first one rating prompt template), maintaining alignment with established standards. A significant improvement in our approach is the use of JSON format to return evaluation scores, allowing us to capture the scores accurately. This JSON formatting approach is inspired by the official LLama-3.1 chat template, as detailed in LLama-3.1 model documentation.\\nFor your concern, we conducted experiments to compare our method with AlpaGasus under the same 4-bit quantization and LoRA settings, adhering closely to the same experimental configurations. The AlpaGasus-2-7B-QLoRA model originates from a related repository highlighted in the official AlpaGasus repository, with LLaMA-2-7B as the base model. The rating scores used in our method were generated from GPT-4o-mini, which is much weaker than GPT-4 used in AlpaGasus. The table below demonstrates DS2 totally outperforms AlpaGasus even using a weaker rating model GPT-4o-mini.\\n\\nTable. Performance comparison between AlpaGasus and Ours (DS2) using Alpaca dataset.\\n\\n| Model | MMLU | TruthfulQA | GSM | BBH | TyDiQA | Average |\\n|----------------------|-------|------------|------|------|--------|---------|\\n| Valllia-LLaMA-2-7B | 41.9 | 28.4 | 6.0 | 38.3 | 35.7 | 30.1 |\\n| AlpaGasus-2-7B-QLoRA | 37.8 | 39.0 | 3.0 | 36.1 | 35.9 | 30.4 |\\n| Ours(DS2, 9k Alpaca samples) | **44.1**|**40.2**|**10.5**|**37.2**|**40.6**|**34.5**|\\n\\n\\n**Q1: Concerns about k-NN agreement score**\\n\\nThank you for raising this thoughtful question. Please note that the k-NN clusterability focuses on the unknown true rating but the k-NN agreement score is calculated on the observed \\\"noisy\\\" ratings. Therefore, the observed ratings of similar embeddings can be different, and the k-NN agreement score can reflect the difference. The aim of k-NN agreement score is to capture the information of LLM ratings, so using embedding feature-vectors rather than rated scores does not contain this information.\\n\\n**Q2: Further clarification for ground truth score**\\n\\nThank you for highlighting this. In the revised manuscript (Line 292), we have further emphasized that the transition matrix and ground truth probability vector are derived from the LP solution.\\n\\n**Q3: Clarification about the calculation of $\\\\overline{p}_n$**\\n\\nPlease refer to the response to W2.\\n\\n**Q4, Q5, Q6: Reference for Completion Length baseline and Table 3's presentation**\\n\\nThank you for your detailed comments. We have updated in the revised manuscript.\"}", "{\"title\": \"Response 2/2\", \"comment\": \"**Q1: Concerns about the KNN clusterability definition that similar embeddings should belong to the same category**\\n\\nThank you for your insightful comment! \\nWe agree with the reviewer that the proposed method depends on the quality of embeddings. In some tasks, if we use a general embedding model, e.g., using a general textural embedding model for math problems, may not be the best choice since changing a single number can easily destroy the correctness of the answer, thereby resulting in a different LLM rating score. And the correctness would be the most important factor in changing LLM rating scores of samples. This warns us to get or use an appropriate embedding model for specific tasks, i.e., a domain-specific embedding model [1].\\nThe statement (a.k.a, k-NN clusterability definition) is based on the assumption that embeddings capture semantic and contextual similarity for textual data, which often correlates with quality and correctness. Similar to image classification tasks, these high-dimensional representations map semantically similar texts to nearby points in the vector space while positioning dissimilar texts farther apart, enabling clustering that aligns with classification categories. We acknowledge that samples with subtle token-level differences can yield different scores due to variations in correctness (the most important factor leading to distinct rating scores), our scoring approach considers not just correctness but also overall quality metrics such as rarity and informativeness, as outlined in our prompt template. This helps mitigate the influence of correctness alone on the final score. To evaluate this, we generate the scores from the below two simple but extreme examples (Example 1 and Example 2) in the same paper setting. \\n- **Example 1**: please tell me the answer of below math question '1+1=?' answer:2\\\" \\n- **Example 2** \\\"please tell me the answer of below math question '1+1=?' answer:3\\\"\\n- **Example 3** \\\"please tell me the answer of below math question '10+10=?' answer:20\\\"\\n- **Example 4** \\u201cCalculate 15% of 500.\\\\n\\\\n answer: 75\\u201d\\n- **Example 5** \\u201cCalculate 50% of 300. answer: '50% of 300 is 150.\\u201d\\n\\nTable 1. LLM rating scores comparison between Example 1 and Example 2. \\n| Metric | LLaMA Example1 | LLaMA Example2 | Mistral Example1 | Mistral Example2 | Gemma Example1 | Gemma Example2 | GPT Example1 | GPT Example2 |\\n|--------------------|-----------------|-----------------|-------------------|-------------------|-----------------|-----------------|------------------------|------------------------|\\n| Rarity | 2 | 1 | 2 | 1 | 3 | 2 | 2 | 1 |\\n| Complexity | 1 | 1 | 1 | 1 | 1 | 1 | 1 | 1 |\\n| Informativeness | 1 | 4 | 5 | 4 | 3 | 3 | 1 | 2 |\\n| Overall Rating | 3 | 3 | 4 | 3 | 4 | 3 | 2 | 1 |\\n\\nFurthermore, in practice, using a powerful embedding model is essential for capturing the semantic information under subtle token-level differences. We estimate the embedding vectors using several embedding models, including GPTs. Here, Examples 4 and 5 are taken from the data pool, while Example 3 is a revised version of Example 1. We observe that even small differences result in much larger embedding cosine similarity distances, effectively capturing the additional semantic information.\\n\\nTable 2. Cosine similarity distances between any two examples. \\n| Embedding Model | Example 1 & 2 | Example 2 & 3 | Example 4 & 5 |\\n|-------------------------|---------------|---------------|---------------|\\n| GPT text-embedding-3-small | 0.0208| 0.1380 | 0.1415|\\n| GPT text-embedding-3-large | 0.0490 | 0.2043| 0.2464|\\n| GPT text-embedding-ada-002 | 0.0050 | 0.0487 | 0.0697|\\n|bge-large-en-v1.5 | 0.00772| 0.04975 | 0.09283 |\\n\\nIn our revised manuscript, we include some 2-NN examples from our data pool in **Table 10** (Page 21) to evaluate k-NN clusterability. From these randomly selected examples, we find that our concept holds true for the data pool, and these extreme questions are generally unlikely to occur. For this point, the issue is significantly mitigated. Besides, from our observation, the data samples from our data pool (Flan_v2, WizardLM, Oasst1, Alpaca and Dolly) are almost correct but vary in quality level. Therefore, correctness is not our main goal (we fail to evaluate the data sample using the correctness), and then the above problem resulting from the correctness problem should be fine in our paper. \\n\\n[1] Do We Need Domain-Specific Embedding Models? An Empirical Investigation, arxiv 2024.\"}", "{\"title\": \"Response 1/2\", \"comment\": \"We want to thank the reviewer for their positive feedback and comments. We will address individual comments below.\\n\\n\\n\\n**W1: The efficiency of the proposed method and the efficiency comparison with other baseline methods**\\n\\nThank you for your insightful suggestion. We have summarized the storage and runtime of our approach alongside three baselines below. The wall-clock time was measured on a Microsoft Azure cluster with 8 A100 (80GB) GPUs. Note that our score curation mechanism relies primarily on linear programming (LP), which runs exclusively on the CPU. As shown in the table, LLM rating systems are advantageous over the gradient-based method LESS in terms of both storage and runtime. Notably, compared to AlpaGasus and DEITA, our method avoids any significant computation costs on the GPU. \\n\\nTable 1. Comparison of storage and running time over baselines.\\n\\n| Method | Storage | Running Time || | | Base Model Free | Validation Set |\\n|------------|----------|------------------|---|----|----------------------|-----------------|----------------|\\n| | | Rating/Gradient | Diversity Score | CPU-only Curation | Data Selection | | |\\n| LESS | 20GB | 66 hours | - | - | <1min | No | Required |\\n| AlpaGasus | <10MB | 6 hours | - | - | <1min | Yes | Not Required |\\n| DEITA | <10MB | 6 hours | 10 mins | - | <1min | Yes | Not Required |\\n| Ours | <10MB | 6 hours | - | 15 mins | <1min | Yes | Not Required |\\n\\n**W2: Baselines by modifying the score ratings**\\n\\nThank you for your thoughtful suggestion. We would like to clarify that to our best knowledge, our work is the first one to incorporate the score curation mechanism into the rating-based LLM data selection procedures. Although the development of LLMs has been progressing rapidly, the application of LLM ratings remains a relatively new area of research. Starting from AlpaGasus [1] (ICLR 2024), existing works that study LLM ratings both directly apply the raw scores generated from LLMs to do data selection. DEITA [2] (ICLR 2024) is a follow-up work by jointly considering data diversity. We will really appreciate it if the reviewer could provide any reference about modifying the score ratings.\\n\\n[1] AlpaGasus: Training a Better Alpaca with Fewer Data, ICLR 2024.\\n\\n[2] What Makes Good Data for Alignment? A Comprehensive Study of Automatic Data Selection in Instruction Tuning, ICLR 2024.\"}", "{\"title\": \"Response 1/3\", \"comment\": \"We want to thank reviewer ZhKe for the positive feedback and comments. We will address individual comments below.\\n\\n\\n**W1: missing algorithmic details and the lack clarify for important concepts** \\n\\nThank you for highlighting this. To clarify, \\\"confidenceProbs\\\" are not the curated scores used in this paper. The \\\"CuratedScores\\\" are those raw rating scores which may be curated by our score curation mechanism. These confidence probes are only used to identify misrated samples, where raw scores were then replaced by the majority of KNN scores. We realized that one line of code was missing at the end of the score curation procedure, shown as $ \\\\texttt{CuratedScores} = \\\\texttt{ScoreCuration}(\\\\texttt{MisratedSamples}, \\\\texttt{ConfidenceProbs})$.\\nBesides, in Appendix C of the revised manuscript, we add one intuitive binary example to describe the derivation of the score transition matrix in detail. \\n\\n**W2: the practical calculation of $\\\\overline{p}_n$** \\n\\nThank you for pointing this out. There seems to be a misunderstanding. In Line 314, $\\\\overline{p}_n$, which represents the average likelihood of identifying sample $n$ as misrated over multiple epochs, is used to calculate the confidence probability. We would like to clarify that the sample index $n$ is used purely for identification purposes and not for ordering. This means that the value of $\\\\overline{p}_n$ for individual samples remains unchanged regardless of the calculation sequence between any two examples, such as (5th example, 6th example) or (6th example, 5th example). In practice, we determine whether a sample is misrated over multiple cleaning epochs by assigning a value of 1 if the sample is identified as misrated and 0 otherwise. Specifically, the value of $\\\\overline{p}_n$ is calculated as the average of the misrated labels (values of 0 or 1) across multiple epochs, effectively reflecting the proportion of times the sample is identified as misrated, thereby making the detection process more robust against noise. For example, suppose the misrated labels of one example over five epochs are {0, 1, 0, 1, 1}. Then $\\\\overline{p}_n$ will be $0.6$.\\n\\n\\n**W3: Concerns on k-NN score clusterability and its impact on transition tatrix estimation** \\n\\nWe would like to clarify that the score distribution in Figure 2 solely represents the statistical characteristics of rating scores and is not influenced by the embeddings of the samples. As a result, the score distribution alone cannot capture k-NN score clusterability, which is inherently linked to the samples\\u2019 embeddings.\\nIn fact, the k-NN clusterability ensures that k-NN information is meaningful and captures the relationship between embedding vectors and quality rating scores, such as potential score errors or score transition probabilities. \\n\\n- **Target Example (Score: 1)**: User: 'You need to complete the following task: Calculate 15\\\\% of the following number: 100\\u2019, Assistant: '15\\\\% of 100 is 15.'\\n- **KNN Example 1 (Score: 3)**: User: \\u2018Calculate 15\\\\% of 500\\u2019. Assistant: \\u201875\\u2019\\n- **KNN Example 2 (Score: 3)**: User: 'Calculate 50\\\\% of 300.\\u201d, Assistant: ' 50\\\\% of 300 is 150.'\\n\\n For instance, consider an example selected from our data pool where a target sample is rated as 1, while its two nearest neighbors are both rated as 3. Intuitively, the quality of these three samples is similar. Therefore, the target sample would be expected to be rated as 3 instead.\\n\\n\\n\\nStatistical probability information from k-NN clusters for each sample i.e., the prior probability constants ($v^{[1]}$, $v^{[2]}\\\\_{l}$, $v^{[3]}_{r,s}$) shown on the left-hand side of Eq. (1), is used to construct the consensus vectors. Violations of the k-NN clusterability assumption can affect the accuracy of k-NN information for individual samples, leading to overestimation or underestimation of the transition probabilities as well as the true score probability distribution.\\nWe acknowledge that the k-NN clusterability assumption may be violated in practice. However, the consensus vectors rely on the **average probabilities** across all 2-NN clusters, allowing statistical information from the remaining samples to mitigate corruption caused by a small number of violations. As a result, our method can tolerate a proportion of k-NN violations. Intuitively, prior work [1] has demonstrated that even in image classification tasks (e.g., CIFAR-10, Table 3), where 20% of data samples violate the k-NN clusterability assumption, the method still outperforms other baselines. Empirically, our experimental results support this claim. Furthermore, due to the absence of ground-truth scores, it is infeasible to conduct experiments to explicitly detect such violations. \\n\\n[1] Clusterability as an Alternative to Anchor Points When Learning with Noisy Labels, ICML 2021.\"}", "{\"title\": \"Follow-up response about the k-NN clusterability hypothesis (Q5)\", \"comment\": \"Based on Reviewer XKFp\\u2019s recommendation, we have conducted a more systematic analysis instead of several examples to further validate and demonstrate the practicality of k-NN clusterability, as outlined below.\\n\\n **Systematic analysis about the k-NN clusterability definition** Due to the unavailability of samples\\u2019 ground truth scores, we evaluate k-NN clusterability by examining the distribution of **average score gaps**, which measures the score difference within one k-NN cluster.\\nThe average score gap for a target sample is defined as the mean absolute difference between the target sample's score and the scores of its k nearest neighbors, i.e., $\\\\texttt{average score gap} = \\\\texttt{Mean}(|\\\\texttt{target sample\\u2019s score - kNN sample\\u2019s score}|)$. In our work, we focus on **2-NN clusterability** and frame our analysis within this context. Specifically, for each 2-NN cluster, we consider a target sample and its two nearest neighbors. For example, given a 2-NN cluster with the score tuple: (target sample: 1, kNN sample 1: 2, kNN sample 2: 3), the score gap is calculated as:\\n$\\n\\\\text{Average score gap} = \\\\frac{|1 - 2| + |1 - 3|}{2} = 1.5.\\n$\\nThe following Table 1 below summarizes the statistical distribution of score gaps across all 2-NN clusters.\\n\\nTable 1. Average score gap statistical information of all 2-NN clusters from our data pool.\\n| Curation | Model | Score Gap (0.0-1.0) (%) | Score Gap 1.5 (%) | Score Gap 2.0 (%) | Score Gap >2.0 (%) |\\n|------------------|------------------------------|----------------------|-------------------|-------------------|---------------------|\\n| w/o Curation | GPT | 81.0 | 12.0 | 4.9 | 2.1 |\\n| w/o Curation | LLaMA | 58.3 | 18.0 | 12.2 | 11.5 |\\n| w/o Curation | Mistral | 70.2 | 16.5 | 8.1 | 5.4 |\\n| w/ Curation | GPT | 82.5 | 10.9 | 4.5 | 1.7 |\\n| w/ Curation | LLaMA | 78.8 | 9.4 | 7.3 | 4.1 |\\n| w/ Curation | Mistral | 80.5 | 10.8 | 5.6 | 4.3 |\\n\\n\\n\\n\\nFrom Table 1, we observe that **without score curation**, GPT has a higher proportion of samples in the 0.0\\u20131.0 score gap range (81.0%) compared to Mistral (70.2%) and LLaMA (58.3%). This reveals that more powerful rating models, such as GPT, tend to exhibit smaller average score gaps, which aligns more closely with the concept of **k-NN clusterability** and contributes to improved performance.\\n\\n\\nMoreover, when comparing the settings **with and without score curation**, we observe that all three rating models show an increased proportion of samples in the 0.0\\u20131.0 score gap range after score curation. From Table 2, this shift in the score gap distribution correlates strongly with the performance improvements observed on LLM leaderboard tasks (as detailed in Table 3 of the manuscript).\\n\\n\\nTable 2. The proportion of samples in the 0.0\\u20131.0 score gap range both with and without score curation for each rating model. For comparison, the corresponding average performance on LLM Leaderboard tasks is included in parentheses.\\n\\n\\n| Rating Model | 0.0-1.0 score gap w/o Curation (Average Performance) | 0.0-1.0 score gap w/ Curation (Average Performance)|\\n|--------------|------------------|---------------|\\n| GPT | 81.0% (60.2) | 82.5% (61.4) |\\n| LLaMA | 58.3% (59.2) | 78.8% (60.2) |\\n| Mistral | 70.2% (60.7) | 80.5% (61.1) |\\n\\n\\nTherefore, these results demonstrate the validity of the **k-NN clusterability** definition proposed in our paper. For a clearer visualization of score gap proportions before and after score curation, we encourage the reviewer to refer to the newly added **Figure 8**. For your reference, the average embedding distance distribution across all 2-NN clusters from our data pool is also provided in the newly added **Figure 9** in the revised manuscript.\"}", "{\"comment\": \"Thanks to the authors for the responses. To address my concern, more systematic analysis might be needed instead of a few extreme examples. Thus the responses address my concerns only to a very limited extent. I will maintain my original score.\"}", "{\"summary\": \"The authors introduce a data curation algorithm, DS^2, to correct inaccuracies in LLM-based data quality evaluation strategies. The authors first show how, leveraging recent work in noisy label estimation given k-NN clusterability, both the Transition matrix and true probability distribution of LLM scores may be estimated by solving a linear program. Under this k-NN clusterability assumption, the authors demonstrate that widely used LLM scorers (GPT-4o-mini, Llama-3.1 8B, and Mistral 7B) provide incorrect scores. Using both Transition matrix and (true score) probability distribution, the layout the steps of their DS^2 algorithm and calculation of critical quantities: the error threshold for classifying samples as misrated, the confidence probability for mitigating imbalances in LLM scores, and the long-tail diversity score.\\n\\nThe authors then compare several data selection experiments leveraging the DS^2 algorithm over a large data pool (300k) containing several widely used datasets (i.e., Alpaca, Dolly, Flan V2, etc.). Compared to several data selection heuristics and competitor LLM-based data selection algorithms (i.e., AlpaGasus and Deita), the authors show that their methods outperforms competitors per-LLM-judge and averaged over common natural language benchmarks (MMLU, TruthfulQA, GSM, BBH, and TydiQA) at a data selection size of 10k samples. Representative experiments than compare the performance of DS^2 selecting 1k samples (over the 300k data pool) compared to the LIMA dataset (which was heavily vetted and selected using human feedback), once again outperforms finetuning LLama-3.1-8B and Mistral 7B models using the LIMA dataset. Scaling law experiments as well as hybrid data selection schemes (e.g., AlpaGasus leveraging DS^2's data curation scores) further show the efficacy of the presented methods.\\n\\n# Post-rebuttal update\\nThe authors have posted additional experiments to address my major concerns. Particularly, an apples to apples comparison to AlpaGasus demonstrating DS^2's superiority and a discussion/experiments tackling the practical aspects of k-NN clusterability for this use case. I am raising my score from 5 to 6.\", \"soundness\": \"3\", \"presentation\": \"2\", \"contribution\": \"3\", \"strengths\": \"The procedure to estimate the transition matrix from LLM scores is intuitive. The beginning of the paper is also well written, and the examples showing the deficiencies in LLM-based scores is compelling. The subsequent probability quantities leveraged throughout the DS^2 algorithm also largely make sense. The large number of experiments demonstrating the effectiveness of the approach is also compelling.\", \"weaknesses\": \"Firstly, I would like to congratulate the authors on the DS^2 algorithm and the idea of leveraging k-NN clusterability to correct LLM-based scores. Such a line of work seems promising. With that said, I have several concerns that I am hoping can be addressed (I am greatly looking forward to the authors feedback).\\n\\nWhile the beginning of the paper is well written, there seemed to be either missing details or a lack clarity for important concepts. In particular, Algorithm 1 is difficult to follow; \\\"CuratedScores\\\" is not defined in Algorithm 1. Are \\\"ConfidenceProbs\\\" the curated scores? Furthermore:\\n> the average likelihood of identifying the sample n as misrated over multiple epochs.\\n\\nHow is this calculated in practice? Given a dataset with an arbitrary ordering of samples, how can a statistic dealing with the arbitrary index $n$ be meaningful? Put another way, this calculates the statistics at the sample index, but the data pool samples (line 172) are not stated as being ordered in any specific way. Thus, how can a statistic calculated over the sample index be anything other than arbitrary?\\n\\nFurthermore, while the notion of k-NN score clusterability (as defined in Definition 3.2) is assumed, this notion is never actually demonstrated for the LLM judges and datasets considered. Do the score distributions depicted in FIgure 2 abide by k-NN score clusterability? If not, could the authors speak to how this affects the Transition matrix and (true score) probability distribution calculations from the concensus vectors (Equation 1)? If k-NN score clusterability is violated in practice, it does not seem possible to guarantee the correctness of estimating the Transition matrix and (true score) probability distribution in this case.\", \"there_were_some_concerns_regarding_the_evaluations_of_alpagesus\": \"> AlpaGasus (Chen et al., 2023) utilizes ChatGPT to rate\\ndata samples and solely select high-rated samples\\\"\\n\\nOne of the major innovations of AlpaGasus was the prompt template. Was this used for the AlpaGasus results in Table 3? Note that they also showed the training data size is a very important hyperparameter for Alpaca; thus, a fairer/more apples-to-apples comparison would have been DS^2 applied to Alpaca with a budget of 9k samples and compared to fine-tuning performance (Table 3) of the AlpaGasus dataset.\", \"questions\": \"For the k-NN agreement score, assuming the k-NN clusterability characteristic, isn't the similarity score just always unity? I.e., due to clusterability, the frequency will only occur in the same index as the one-hot encoding vector, and thus the numerator and denominator turn out to be the same. Also, have the authors empirically explored whether using the embedding feature-vector or the one-hot encoding rated score vector work better in practice?\\n\\nOn the initial read through the paper, there was some initial confusion between: the avoidance of relying on the ground truth scores for DS^2, yet the appearance of the ground truth per-class probability in Section 4. However, after careful rereading, we have the following: assuming k-NN score clusterability, we are thus able to leverage the concensus vectors and solve the LP for \\\\mathbf{T} and \\\\mathbf{p} (I understand this is stated, but it is easy to miss this simple statement buried in lines 231-241). I would recommend either reiterating that solving the LP formed from Equation 1 provides both the transition matrix and ground truth probability vector, or breaking up the paragraph on lines 231-241 and emphasizing this.\\n\\n\\\"the average likelihood of identifying the sample n as misrated over multiple epochs.\\\" <- How is this calculated in practice?\\n\\nFor Completion Length, please cite the following:\\nZhao, Hao, et al. \\\"Long is more for alignment: A simple but tough-to-beat baseline for instruction fine-tuning.\\\" arXiv preprint arXiv:2402.04833 (2024).\\n\\nFor Table 3, please specify the data pool is listed in Table 2, e.g., \\\" Performance comparison on OpenLLM leaderboard, using the data pool listed in Table 2.\\\"\\n\\nCould the authors please bold the winners of each column (per grouping) in Table 3?\", \"flag_for_ethics_review\": \"['No ethics review needed.']\", \"rating\": \"6\", \"confidence\": \"4\", \"code_of_conduct\": \"Yes\"}", "{\"summary\": \"The paper proposed the data selection pipeline named \\u201cDS^2\\u201d, which utilizes the kNN statistical information based on the rating scores to curate ratings, and then achieve better data selection. The authors validated their methods by conducting experiments with various rating models and benchmark tasks.\", \"soundness\": \"3\", \"presentation\": \"3\", \"contribution\": \"2\", \"strengths\": \"Originality: The paper proposed a novel method to utilize the score transition matrix to detect scoring errors. Although the score transition matrix is proposed by previous works, the application of that into LLM data selection is novel.\", \"quality\": \"The paper provides detailed explanations of their methods and validates the results using thorough experiments, in which they include three models (GPT-4o-mini, Llama-3.1-8B-Instruct, Mistral-7B-Instruct-v0.3) and various benchmarking tasks (MMLU, TruthfulQA, etc). Moreover, they also evaluated the alignment performance. All these greatly improve the quality of the paper.\", \"clarity\": \"The paper demonstrated great clarity when exhibiting the error patterns of LLM scores, as well as when explaining the experiment setup and results.\", \"significance\": \"The significance is validated with the experiment results and the ablation studies.\", \"weaknesses\": \"The paper does not include discussions about the efficiency of the proposed method and the efficiency comparison with other baseline methods. Part of the computation relies on estimating the score transition matrix, but the details about this estimation are lacking. Although the score transition matrix is proposed and discussed in previous works, it is still necessary to analyze their cost within the current framework. Moreover, the paper does not include any baselines that also improve data quality by modifying the score ratings of the data. The current framework essentially proposed a method to modify the rating scores and then conduct data selection based on new scores. It would be helpful to further validate the method by comparing other methods that also study LLM ratings.\", \"questions\": \"I find the discussion around line 200, saying that similar embeddings should belong to the same category, not very convincing. Because here each class is the rating score, in my opinion, two samples could have similar textual embeddings but completely different correctness or quality, which lead to distinct rating scores. I think it is crucial to better explain this intuition behind the proposed method.\", \"flag_for_ethics_review\": \"['No ethics review needed.']\", \"rating\": \"6\", \"confidence\": \"3\", \"code_of_conduct\": \"Yes\"}", "{\"metareview\": \"The paper introduces a curation method for finetuning data that selects data samples and demonstrates that a model finetuned on a small dataset curated with the method can outperform a model trained on the larger full-scale dataset.\\n\\nAll reviewers find the proposed approach interesting and clever (Reviewer ZhKe find leveraging the k-NN clusterability interesting, Reviewers 81Qt and gzew find the idea to detect error patterns novel, and Reviewer XKFq the method original). The paper also provides relatively comprehensive experiments and demonstrates that the method performs well. \\n\\nThe reviewers raised a variety of concerns (such as a comparison to AlpaGauss required, and many clarity issues), and the authors addressed them sufficiently.\\n\\nLike the reviewers, I find the idea introduced clever and the result that a relatively small finetuning dataset curated with the proposed method can outperform the full dataset very interesting. Therefore I recommend acceptance.\", \"additional_comments_on_reviewer_discussion\": \"see meta review\"}", "{\"title\": \"Response 4/4\", \"comment\": \"**Q5: Contradiction in Embedding Similarity and Label Consistency for Math Questions**\\n\\n\\nThank you for bringing up this important point! We partially agree with the claim that these two questions might conflict with our notion. The scores of samples are influenced not just by correctness but also by broader quality metrics, such as rarity, complexity, and informativeness, as emphasized in our prompt template. \\nFocusing solely on correctness with binary scores (0 or 1) treats correct and incorrect answers distinctly. However, when assessing overall quality on a granular scale (e.g., [0\\u201310], later compressed to [0\\u20135]), both questions could score 0 for simplicity and low informativeness. Thus, considering overall quality reduces the direct emphasis on correctness while reinforcing the evaluation framework. To evaluate this, we generate the scores from the above two questions (Example 1 \\\\& Example 2) in the same paper setting. \\n\\n- **Example 1**: please tell me the answer of below math question '1+1=?' answer:2\\\" \\n- **Example 2** \\\"please tell me the answer of below math question '1+1=?' answer:3\\\"\\n- **Example 3** \\\"please tell me the answer of below math question '10+10=?' answer:20\\\"\\n- **Example 4** \\u201cCalculate 15% of 500.\\\\n\\\\n answer: 75\\u201d\\n- **Example 5** \\u201cCalculate 50% of 300. answer: '50% of 300 is 150.\\u201d\\n\\nTable 2. LLM rating scores comparison between Example 1 and Example 2. \\n\\n| Metric | LLaMA Example1 | LLaMA Example2 | Mistral Example1 | Mistral Example2 | Gemma Example1 | Gemma Example2 | GPT Example1 | GPT Example2 |\\n|--------------------|-----------------|-----------------|-------------------|-------------------|-----------------|-----------------|------------------------|------------------------|\\n| Rarity | 2 | 1 | 2 | 1 | 3 | 2 | 2 | 1 |\\n| Complexity | 1 | 1 | 1 | 1 | 1 | 1 | 1 | 1 |\\n| Informativeness | 1 | 4 | 5 | 4 | 3 | 3 | 1 | 2 |\\n| Overall Rating | 3 | 3 | 4 | 3 | 4 | 3 | 2 | 1 |\\n\\n\\nFurthermore, in practice, the embedding models are able to capture the semantic similarities and dissimilarities instead of accumulating the similarities at the token level.\\nWe generate the embedding vectors of several examples using four embedding models, including GPTs. Here, Examples 4 and 5 are taken from the data pool, while Example 3 is a revised version of Example 1. We observe that even small differences result in much larger embedding cosine similarity distances, effectively capturing the additional semantic information.\\n\\nTable 3. Cosine similarity distances between any two examples. \\n| Embedding Model | Example 1 & 2 | Example 2 & 3 | Example 4 & 5 |\\n|-------------------------|---------------|---------------|---------------|\\n| GPT text-embedding-3-small | 0.0208 | 0.1380 | 0.1415 |\\n| GPT text-embedding-3-large | 0.0490 | 0.2043 | 0.2464 |\\n| GPT text-embedding-ada-002 | 0.0050 | 0.0487 | 0.0697 |\\n|bge-large-en-v1.5 | 0.00772 | 0.04975 | 0.09283 |\\n\\nIn our revised manuscript, we include some target samples with their 2-NN examples from our data pool in **Table 10** (Page 21) to evaluate k-NN clusterability. For simplicity of illustration, we filter out too long samples. From these randomly selected examples, we find that our concept holds true for the data pool, and these extreme questions are generally unlikely to occur. For this point, the issue is significantly mitigated. Besides, from our observation, the data samples from our data pool (Flan_v2, WizardLM, Oasst1, Alpaca and Dolly) are almost correct but vary in quality level. Therefore, correctness is not our main goal (we fail to evaluate the data sample using the correctness), and then the above problem resulting from the correctness problem should be fine in our paper.\"}", "{\"title\": \"Follow-up response 1/2\", \"comment\": \"Dear Reviewer ZhKe,\\n\\nIt is great to hear that most of your concerns have been addressed! Thank you for your thoughtful follow-up suggestions! \\n\\n**The calculation of kNN agreement score**\\n\\nWe apologize for our misunderstanding and we sincerely appreciate your clarification! \\nOne of the vectors (e.g., $v_1$) is a one-hot encoded score vector, while the other vector, $v_2$, represents the soft $k$-NN scores of the $n$-th sample, denoted as $\\\\\\\\tilde{\\\\boldsymbol{y}}\\\\_{n}^{\\\\text{$k$-NN}}$. This vector $\\\\tilde{\\\\boldsymbol{y}}_{n}^{\\\\text{$k$-NN}}$ is calculated by counting the score agreements among the $k$ nearest neighbors. \\nFor better understanding, we provide a simple example here. Suppose the one-hot encoded vector $v_1$ is (1,0,0,0,0,0). To construct the soft score vector $v_2$ , we count the number of k-NN samples for each score category, with k=50 in this case. For example, in a k-NN cluster, if there are 30 samples with a score of 0, 10 samples with a score of 1, and 10 samples with a score of 2, the resulting soft k-NN score vector $v_2$ would be (30,10,10,0,0,0). Then, we have $\\\\texttt{kNN agreement score} = \\\\frac{v_1^T v_2}{||v_1||_2 ||v_2||_2} = \\\\frac{30}{1*33.17} \\\\approx 0.90$.\\n\\n**Apples-to-apples performance comparison with AlpaGasus**\\n\\nWe sincerely appreciate your suggestion and the idea of conducting this apples-to-apples comparison! We fully agree that this comparison serves as additional strong evidence to demonstrate the superiority of DS^2. Due to the page limit and the substantial space occupied by W4\\u2019s table (along with its explanations), we have included a brief statement (two sentences) in the revised manuscript (Lines 425\\u2013428) directing readers to Appendix G.6, where a comprehensive analysis and detailed empirical results (including W4\\u2019s table) are provided. After the discussion period concludes, and following your suggestion, we will reorganize the main content and move this performance comparison with AlpaGasus to the main body of the paper.\"}", "{\"title\": \"Response 3/4\", \"comment\": \"**Q2: Explore the impact of diversity score in datasets with different distributions using case studies**\\n\\nThe importance of diversity on LLM data selection has been extensively explored by previous work [1, 2,3]. Note that our data pool is composed of five distinct subsets, each characterized by varying levels of complexity and diversity. The statistical analysis of diversity scores across subsets, as illustrated in Figure 14, confirms this. More details could be found in Appendix I of the revised version. To evaluate the versatility of diversity score, we further conduct additional contrast experiments here. In particular, we solely rank the samples of subsets based on the diversity score. Then, we select the Top-k and Bottom-k samples independently to construct datasets for LLM instruction finetuning, where k =10000 here. The corresponding performance results are presented in the following table. For cost considerations, we employ LLaMA-3.2-3B as the base model. The experimental settings are consistent with those outlined in our paper. From the table, it is evident that the diversity score is not universally effective across all datasets. To achieve better results, it should be complemented with other specific metrics, such as LLM rating scores. \\n\\nTable 1. Performance comparison across different subsets. Bottom-k (Top-k) refers to the samples with the lowest (highest) diversity scores, where $k$ is fixed at 10,000.\\n| Model | MMLU | BBH | GSM8K | TruthfulQA(MC2) | Tydiqa | Average |\\n|----------------------|-------|-------|-------|------------------|--------|----------|\\n| flan_v2 (Bottom-k) | 55.56 | 44.91 | 24.5 | 38.63 | 55.9 | 43.900 |\\n| flan_v2 (Top-k) | 54.84 | 45.00 | 29.5 | 41.69 | 60.5 | 46.306 |\\n| wizardlm(Bottom-k) | 56.68 | 45.83 | 30.5 | 46.64 | 37.7 | 43.470 |\\n| wizardlm(Top-k) | 56.60 | 47.69 | 28.5 | 48.15 | 31.2 | 42.428 |\\n| Alpaca (Bottom-k) | 56.50 | 46.30 | 28.5 | 40.19 | 48.4 | 43.978 |\\n| Alpaca(Top-k) | 55.13 | 47.13 | 26.0 | 40.58 | 39.5 | 41.668 |\\n\\n[1] How Far Can Camels Go? Exploring the State of Instruction Tuning on Open Resources, NeurIPS 2023.\\n\\n[2] What makes good data for alignment? a comprehensive study of automatic data selection in instruction tuning, ICLR 2024.\\n\\n[3] Self-Instruct: Aligning Language Models with Self-Generated Instructions, ACL 2023.\\n\\n**Q3: Explore the impact of embedding models**\\n\\nThank you for your insightful comment. In the Appendix D (line 1036), we utilize the typical SentenceBERT Model to extract the embeddings of data samples. The corresponding score transition matrix as well as the score pattern shown in Figure 8 is similar to the matrix using the BGE model (Figure 3). Therefore, one reasonably claim that the impact of embedding space is limited, the choice of embedding model does not significantly affect the error patterns produced by LLMs, which also highlight the robustness of our approach.\\n\\n\\n**Q4: Concerns Regarding Cosine Similarity Assumptions and Potential Errors in Open-Ended Questions**\\n\\nWe would like to clarify that the k-NN agreement score is defined as the average cosine similarity LLM score distance among k-NN samples. The intuition is that when samples with similar embedding vectors have significantly different scores, resulting in a lower k-NN agreement score, the uncertainty of the LLM rating for this example increases. Consequently, such samples are more likely to require curation. Whether a sample needs curation and whether a curated score should be assigned finally is determined jointly by an error threshold and confidence probability.\\n\\nWhen the embedding vectors of two responses to the same open-ended question differ significantly, these two samples can be considered independent, as their k-NN samples may not include each other. In such cases, their cosine similarity scores are calculated based on their respective k-NN samples independently.\"}", "{\"title\": \"Paper Decision\", \"decision\": \"Accept (Poster)\"}", "{\"comment\": \"We would like to thank Reviewer 81Qt for the time and effort invested in reviewing this work. We will address individual comments below.\\n\\n**W1: Improving the Explanation of Score Transition Matrix Derivation with Examples**\\n\\nThank you for your insight comment! In Appendix C.1 of the revised manuscript, we add one intuitive binary example to describe the derivation of the score transition matrix in detail. In particular, we introduce more descriptions about the consensus equations. For more details, we refer the reviewer to Appendix C.1 (Lines 858-900). For reproduction, we will release the code as well as the generated dataset. \\n\\n**W2: Concerns about the impact of sample-level independent assumption for score transition matrix**\\n\\nThank you for raising this insightful concern. We acknowledge that the assumption could be a limitation of this work and may potentially lead to data-specific errors. However, we would like to clarify that this assumption is a mathematical simplification that allows us to develop our statistical approach to perform estimation work. Our assumption follows the learning with noisy label literature settings [1, 2, 3]. As it is also studied in the literature, when making no assumption of the transition matrix's dependence on the sample-level features, it becomes extremely hard to identify the correct noise structure of this noisy rating problem [4] and therefore disables the development of corresponding detection approaches. \\n\\n Besides, this assumption can also be viewed as the \\\"average case\\\" estimation of the amount of errors for samples with the same true rating (though we agree with the reviewer that it can imperfect and non-ideal).\\nEmpirically, our final experimental results demonstrate the efficacy of our method under this assumption. There could be a valuable future research direction to enhance performance under weaker assumptions, such as group-dependent or sample-dependent. In Appendix A of the revised manuscript, we highlight some potential limitations including the sample-level independent assumption.\\n\\n\\n[1] Learning with noisy labels, NeurIPS 2013.\\n\\n[2] Classification with noisy labels by importance reweighting, TPAMI 2015.\\n\\n[3] Peer loss functions: Learning from noisy labels without knowing noise rates, ICML 2020.\\n\\n[4] Identifiability of Label Noise Transition Matrix, ICML 2023.\\n\\n\\n**W3: Limited performance improvement**\\n\\nWe would like to clarify that in Figure 7, we analyze the data scaling effects of baselines across various rating models under three random seeds. The results clearly show that our method consistently outperforms the baselines. Moreover, the improvements are significantly larger than the variance observed across different runs.\\n\\n**W4: Discussions about the limitations**\\n\\nThank you for raising this concern. While our proposed method demonstrates competitive performance compared to other baselines, we acknowledge that there are still potential limitations. We have included these limitations in the revised manuscript (Appendix A):\\n\\n- **Sample-level independent assumption**: The sample-independent assumption is critical for deriving the transition matrix $T$ and the true score probability distribution $p$. However, this assumption may be somewhat strong and could inevitably introduce certain data-specific errors. Exploring weaker assumptions, such as group-dependent approaches, could be a valuable direction for future research.\\n- **Base model scale**: Our experiments are primarily conducted on pre-trained models at the 7B/8B scale. It remains uncertain how well the method would perform on larger-scale pre-trained models.\\n- **Rating models**: Due to cost considerations, we use the more affordable GPT-4o-mini to generate GPT-level scores. It is unclear whether the score curation mechanism works for more powerful GPT models (e.g., GPT-4 or GPT-o1).\\n\\nFor your interest, we add more discussion about the K-NN clusterability definition in Appendix A.\\n\\n\\n**Q1: How to obtain embeddings from proprietary LLMs**\\n\\n In practice, leveraging more powerful LLMs (e.g., GPT-4o-mini) can offer the advantage of reducing score errors. In our work, we consistently use a newly open-sourced BGE embedding model (as mentioned in line 173) to extract data sample embeddings for implementing the score curation mechanism. Besides, in the Appendix, we also utilize SentenceBert as the embedding model to explore the impact of embedding models, as shown in Figure 8. We observe that the impact of embedding space is limited, the choice of embedding model does not significantly affect the error patterns produced by LLMs.\", \"title\": \"Response 1/2\"}", "{\"title\": \"k-NN agreement score\", \"comment\": \"Firstly, I thank the authors for their extensive reply to my questions.\\n\\nThe question regarding the k-NN agreement score seems to be misunderstood. Consider two one-hot encoded vectors, v_1 and v_2. v_1^T v_2 is only one if the two vectors are the same, and zero equal. Thus, my original question was asking what vectors are actually used to calculate the agreement scores in practice.\\n\\n> the k-NN agreement score is defined as the average cosine similarity LLM score distance among k-NN samples\\n\\nCan the authors please clarify what this quantity is (given lines 282-285)? Are the vector one-hot encoded LLM scores?\"}", "{\"summary\": \"This study tackles the problem of rating samples using LLM, more specifically, how to improve the accuracy of LLM-based rating methods. To this end, DS2 (Diversity-Aware Score Curation for Data Selection) is proposed to model rating error pattens using a score transition matrix. Experiments on machine-alignment benchmarks show that strong results can be achieved by using just 3.3% of the original dataset.\", \"soundness\": \"3\", \"presentation\": \"2\", \"contribution\": \"2\", \"strengths\": [\"The idea of detecting error pattern is novel. Its implementation using score transition matrix was validated experimentally.\"], \"weaknesses\": [\"The description of \\\"deriving the score transition matrix\\\" can be improved. Not sure I can reproduce it based on the given explanation. Some examples can help, which can be included in appendix.\", \"It is assumed that \\\"the transition matrix is independent of sample-level features\\\". This can be a limitation as each LLM have its own strengths and weakness (i.e., better/worse at some samples).\", \"Sometimes, the improvement is small, within the variance of different runs.\", \"Some discussions about limitations would be appreciated.\"], \"questions\": [\"It looks like that there is an advantage of using GPT-40 mini. How to obtain embeddings from proprietary LLMs?\", \"Figure 1 reads like ratings of multiple LLMs are combined. The experimental results say otherwise.\", \"The proposed approach sometimes perform much worse (e.g., in Table 2). Is it possible to decide the appropriate conditions for using the proposed approach (and which LLM)?\"], \"flag_for_ethics_review\": \"['No ethics review needed.']\", \"rating\": \"6\", \"confidence\": \"4\", \"code_of_conduct\": \"Yes\"}", "{\"title\": \"Response 2/3\", \"comment\": \"**W3: Concerns on k-NN score clusterability and its impact on transition matrix estimation**\\n\\nFurthermore, we would like to analyze more about why the k-NN clusterability definition holds in our paper via the following examples. Intuitively, even though the similarity of embeddings, the scores of two examples (e.g., Example 1 \\\\& Example 2) may be different because of the correctness, which is the easiest factor to affect the score.\\n\\n- **Example 1**: please tell me the answer of below math question '1+1=?' answer:2\\\" \\n- **Example 2** \\\"please tell me the answer of below math question '1+1=?' answer:3\\\"\\n- **Example 3** \\\"please tell me the answer of below math question '10+10=?' answer:20\\\"\\n- **Example 4** \\u201cCalculate 15% of 500.\\\\n\\\\n answer: 75\\u201d\\n- **Example 5** \\u201cCalculate 50% of 300. answer: '50% of 300 is 150.\\u201d\\n\\nHowever, in our paper, the scores of samples are influenced not just by correctness but also by broader quality metrics, such as rarity, complexity, and informativeness, as emphasized in our prompt template. \\nFocusing solely on correctness with binary scores (0 or 1) treats correct and incorrect answers distinctly. However, when assessing overall quality on a granular scale (e.g., [0\\u201310], later compressed to [0\\u20135]), both questions could score 0 for simplicity and low informativeness. Thus, considering overall quality reduces the direct emphasis on correctness while reinforcing the evaluation framework. To evaluate this, we generate the scores from the above two questions (Example 1 \\\\& Example 2) in the same paper setting. \\n\\nTable 1. LLM rating scores comparison between Example 1 and Example 2. \\n\\n| Metric | LLaMA Example1 | LLaMA Example2 | Mistral Example1 | Mistral Example2 | Gemma Example1 | Gemma Example2 | GPT Example1 | GPT Example2 |\\n|--------------------|-----------------|-----------------|-------------------|-------------------|-----------------|-----------------|------------------------|------------------------|\\n| Rarity | 2 | 1 | 2 | 1 | 3 | 2 | 2 | 1 |\\n| Complexity | 1 | 1 | 1 | 1 | 1 | 1 | 1 | 1 |\\n| Informativeness | 1 | 4 | 5 | 4 | 3 | 3 | 1 | 2 |\\n| Overall Rating | 3 | 3 | 4 | 3 | 4 | 3 | 2 | 1 |\\n\\n\\nIn practice, the embedding models are able to capture the semantic similarities and dissimilarities instead of accumulating the similarities at the token level.\\nWe generate the embedding vectors of several examples using four embedding models, including GPTs. Here, Examples 4 and 5 are taken from the data pool, while Example 3 is a slightly revised version of Example 1. We observe that even small differences result in much larger embedding cosine similarity distances, effectively capturing the additional semantic information.\\n\\nTable 2. Cosine similarity distances between any two examples. \\n| Embedding Model | Example 1 & 2 | Example 2 & 3 | Example 4 & 5 |\\n|-------------------------|---------------|---------------|---------------|\\n| GPT text-embedding-3-small | 0.0208 | 0.1380 | 0.1415 |\\n| GPT text-embedding-3-large | 0.0490 | 0.2043 | 0.2464 |\\n| GPT text-embedding-ada-002 | 0.0050 | 0.0487 | 0.0697 |\\n|bge-large-en-v1.5 | 0.00772 | 0.04975 | 0.09283 |\\n\\nBesides, in our revised manuscript, we include some target samples with their 2-NN examples from our data pool in **Table 10** (Page 21) to evaluate k-NN clusterability. For simplicity of illustration, we filter out too long samples. From these randomly selected examples, we find that our concept holds true for the data pool, and these extreme questions are generally unlikely to occur. For this point, the issue is significantly mitigated. Then, from our observation, the data samples from our data pool (Flan_v2, WizardLM, Oasst1, Alpaca and Dolly) are almost correct but vary in quality level. Therefore, correctness is not our main goal, and then the above problem resulting from the correctness problem should be fine in our paper.\"}", "{\"title\": \"Follow-up response 2/2\", \"comment\": \"**Condense the argument of k-NN clusterability to the appendix**\\n\\nWe sincerely appreciate your supporting for our agrument. Ragarding your insightful follow-up suggestions w.r.t $k$-NN clusterability, in the revised manuscript, we have included three sentences, as suggested, to briefly discuss the practicality of $k$-NN clusterability (Lines 249\\u2013253). Furthermore, we provide more detailed explanations in Appendix C.3.\\n\\u00a0We fully agree on the importance of demonstrating general evidence for this practicality property. Additionally, based on Reviewer XKFp\\u2019s recommendation, we have conducted a more systematic analysis to further validate and demonstrate the practicality of $k$-NN clusterability, as outlined below.\\n\\n**A demonstration of some general holding of this property** Due to the unavailability of samples\\u2019 ground truth scores, we evaluate k-NN clusterability by examining the distribution of **average score gaps**, which measures the score difference within one k-NN cluster.\\nThe average score gap for a target sample is defined as the mean absolute difference between the target sample's score and the scores of its k nearest neighbors, i.e., $\\\\texttt{average score gap} = \\\\texttt{Mean}(|\\\\texttt{target sample\\u2019s score - kNN sample\\u2019s score}|)$. In our work, we focus on **2-NN clusterability** and frame our analysis within this context. Specifically, for each 2-NN cluster, we consider a target sample and its two nearest neighbors.\\u00a0 For example, given a 2-NN cluster with the score tuple: (target sample: 1, kNN sample 1: 2, kNN sample 2: 3), the score gap is calculated as:\\n$\\n\\\\text{Average score gap} = \\\\frac{|1 - 2| + |1 - 3|}{2} = 1.5.\\n$\\nThe following Table 1 below summarizes the statistical distribution of score gaps across all 2-NN clusters.\\n\\nTable 1. Average score gap statistical information of all 2-NN clusters from our data pool.\\n| Curation\\u00a0 \\u00a0 \\u00a0 \\u00a0 | Model\\u00a0 \\u00a0 \\u00a0 \\u00a0 \\u00a0 \\u00a0 \\u00a0 \\u00a0 \\u00a0 \\u00a0 \\u00a0 \\u00a0 | Score Gap (0.0-1.0) (%) | Score Gap 1.5 (%) | Score Gap 2.0 (%) | Score Gap >2.0 (%) |\\n|------------------|------------------------------|----------------------|-------------------|-------------------|---------------------|\\n| w/o Curation\\u00a0 \\u00a0 | GPT \\u00a0 \\u00a0 \\u00a0 \\u00a0 \\u00a0 \\u00a0 \\u00a0 \\u00a0 | 81.0 \\u00a0 \\u00a0 \\u00a0 \\u00a0 \\u00a0 \\u00a0 \\u00a0 \\u00a0 | 12.0\\u00a0 \\u00a0 \\u00a0 \\u00a0 \\u00a0 \\u00a0 \\u00a0 | 4.9 \\u00a0 \\u00a0 \\u00a0 \\u00a0 \\u00a0 \\u00a0 \\u00a0 | 2.1 \\u00a0 \\u00a0 \\u00a0 \\u00a0 \\u00a0 \\u00a0 \\u00a0 \\u00a0 |\\n| w/o Curation\\u00a0 \\u00a0 | LLaMA\\u00a0 | 58.3 \\u00a0 \\u00a0 \\u00a0 \\u00a0 \\u00a0 \\u00a0 \\u00a0 \\u00a0 | 18.0\\u00a0 \\u00a0 \\u00a0 \\u00a0 \\u00a0 \\u00a0 \\u00a0 | 12.2\\u00a0 \\u00a0 \\u00a0 \\u00a0 \\u00a0 \\u00a0 \\u00a0 | 11.5\\u00a0 \\u00a0 \\u00a0 \\u00a0 \\u00a0 \\u00a0 \\u00a0 \\u00a0 |\\n| w/o Curation\\u00a0 \\u00a0 | Mistral\\u00a0 \\u00a0 | 70.2 \\u00a0 \\u00a0 \\u00a0 \\u00a0 \\u00a0 \\u00a0 \\u00a0 \\u00a0 | 16.5\\u00a0 \\u00a0 \\u00a0 \\u00a0 \\u00a0 \\u00a0 \\u00a0 | 8.1 \\u00a0 \\u00a0 \\u00a0 \\u00a0 \\u00a0 \\u00a0 \\u00a0 | 5.4 \\u00a0 \\u00a0 \\u00a0 \\u00a0 \\u00a0 \\u00a0 \\u00a0 \\u00a0 |\\n| w/ Curation \\u00a0 \\u00a0 | GPT \\u00a0 \\u00a0 \\u00a0 \\u00a0 \\u00a0 \\u00a0 \\u00a0 \\u00a0 | 82.5 \\u00a0 \\u00a0 \\u00a0 \\u00a0 \\u00a0 \\u00a0 \\u00a0 \\u00a0 | 10.9\\u00a0 \\u00a0 \\u00a0 \\u00a0 \\u00a0 \\u00a0 \\u00a0 | 4.5 \\u00a0 \\u00a0 \\u00a0 \\u00a0 \\u00a0 \\u00a0 \\u00a0 | 1.7 \\u00a0 \\u00a0 \\u00a0 \\u00a0 \\u00a0 \\u00a0 \\u00a0 \\u00a0 |\\n| w/ Curation \\u00a0 \\u00a0 | LLaMA\\u00a0 | 78.8 \\u00a0 \\u00a0 \\u00a0 \\u00a0 \\u00a0 \\u00a0 \\u00a0 \\u00a0 | 9.4 \\u00a0 \\u00a0 \\u00a0 \\u00a0 \\u00a0 \\u00a0 \\u00a0 | 7.3 \\u00a0 \\u00a0 \\u00a0 \\u00a0 \\u00a0 \\u00a0 \\u00a0 | 4.1 \\u00a0 \\u00a0 \\u00a0 \\u00a0 \\u00a0 \\u00a0 \\u00a0 \\u00a0 |\\n| w/ Curation \\u00a0 \\u00a0 | Mistral\\u00a0 \\u00a0 | 80.5 \\u00a0 \\u00a0 \\u00a0 \\u00a0 \\u00a0 \\u00a0 \\u00a0 \\u00a0 | 10.8\\u00a0 \\u00a0 \\u00a0 \\u00a0 \\u00a0 \\u00a0 \\u00a0 | 5.6 \\u00a0 \\u00a0 \\u00a0 \\u00a0 \\u00a0 \\u00a0 \\u00a0 | 4.3 \\u00a0 \\u00a0 \\u00a0 \\u00a0 \\u00a0 \\u00a0 \\u00a0 \\u00a0 |\\n\\n\\nFrom Table 1, we observe that **without score curation**, GPT has a higher proportion of samples in the 0.0\\u20131.0 score gap range (81.0%) compared to Mistral (70.2%) and LLaMA (58.3%). This reveals that more powerful rating models, such as GPT, tend to exhibit smaller average score gaps, which aligns more closely with the concept of **k-NN clusterability** and contributes to improved performance.\\n\\n\\nMoreover, when comparing the settings **with and without score curation**, we observe that all three rating models show an increased proportion of samples in the 0.0\\u20131.0 score gap range after score curation. From Table 2, this shift in the score gap distribution correlates strongly with the performance improvements observed on LLM leaderboard tasks (as detailed in Table 3 of the manuscript).\\n\\n\\nTable 2. The proportion of samples in the 0.0\\u20131.0 score gap range both with and without score curation for each rating model. For comparison, the corresponding average performance on LLM Leaderboard tasks is included in parentheses.\\n\\n\\n| Rating Model | 0.0-1.0 score gap w/o Curation (Average Performance) | 0.0-1.0 score gap w/ Curation (Average Performance)|\\n|--------------|------------------|---------------|\\n| GPT\\u00a0 \\u00a0 \\u00a0 \\u00a0 \\u00a0 | 81.0% (60.2)\\u00a0 \\u00a0 \\u00a0 \\u00a0 \\u00a0 | 82.5% \\u00a0 (61.4)\\u00a0 \\u00a0 \\u00a0 |\\n| LLaMA\\u00a0 \\u00a0 \\u00a0 \\u00a0 | 58.3% (59.2)\\u00a0 \\u00a0 \\u00a0 \\u00a0 \\u00a0 | 78.8% (60.2)\\u00a0 \\u00a0 \\u00a0 \\u00a0 |\\n| Mistral\\u00a0 \\u00a0 \\u00a0 | 70.2%\\u00a0 (60.7) \\u00a0 \\u00a0 \\u00a0 \\u00a0 | 80.5%\\u00a0 (61.1) \\u00a0 \\u00a0 \\u00a0 |\\n\\n\\nTherefore, these results demonstrate the validity and practicality of the proposed **k-NN clusterability** hypothesis. For a clearer visualization of score gap proportions before and after score curation, we encourage the reviewer to refer to the newly added **Figure 8**.\"}", "{\"title\": \"Response 2/2\", \"comment\": \"**Q2: Concerns about Figure 1**\\n\\nThank you for bringing this to our attention. To clarify, in our paper, the three LLMs are used to independently generate raw scores for data samples, as reflected in the experimental results. To avoid misunderstanding, we have updated Figure 1 in the revised version. Additionally, in Appendix G.5 (Table 17, Line 1491), out of interest, we explore a new baseline, where ratings from multiple LLMs are combined. \\n\\n**Q3: Concerns about the performance of our proposed method**\\n\\nThank you for your comment. For clarification, in the revised manuscript, we highlight the best results in boldface and the second-best results with underlining for different settings in our main results (Table 3). From this updated Table 3, it is evident that, in most cases, our proposed method achieves either the best or the second-best performance across various evaluation tasks. Notably, for the MMLU dataset, which emphasizes factual knowledge, prior studies have already underscored the difficulty of achieving significant performance improvements [1, 2, 3]. Thus, it is reasonable to expect that the performance gains on the MMLU task may be relatively modest.\\n\\n[1] Measuring Massive Multitask Language Understanding, ICLR 2021.\\n\\n[2] GPT-4 Technical Report, arxiv 2023.\\n\\n[3] Language Models are Few-Shot Learners, arxiv 2020.\"}" ] }

[ "Minkyoung Cho", "Yulong Cao", "Jiachen Sun", "Qingzhao Zhang", "Marco Pavone", "Jeong Joon Park", "Heng Yang", "Zhuoqing Mao" ]

[ "Multi-modal perception; Sensor fusion; Robustness; Uncertainty quantification" ]

{ "note_id": [ "yZZ8x1JQil", "y2bRyGvhqI", "xYnCkHVfaZ", "xTydy8Mkzi", "nJh3mGxPCB", "ktMKUxgyEK", "cJGqCWQihD", "bubAB0ihn8", "UYMGg6Pc51", "Td5kfIYpzC", "TFHx1nIoSU", "Quet9a6SH2", "QZ5p3bZb56", "QXwsSrk6lF", "KfnmidSEqV", "GZYEHUOkFC", "Ed79u46jYe", "ANTFKdJj7r", "64C8NY1OUM", "51RZsQGcWP", "3hlyFVzjdC" ], "note_type": [ "decision", "official_review", "official_comment", "official_comment", "official_comment", "meta_review", "official_comment", "official_comment", "official_comment", "official_comment", "official_comment", "official_review", "official_comment", "official_comment", "official_review", "official_comment", "official_comment", "official_comment", "official_comment", "official_comment", "official_comment" ], "note_created": [ 1737524165466, 1730649936812, 1732763585920, 1731884861807, 1732381218877, 1734770367573, 1732502009799, 1731885105349, 1731884788811, 1732950214873, 1732381506839, 1730308512256, 1732692762228, 1732228241395, 1730644805982, 1731885755016, 1732660727454, 1732549536650, 1731884913292, 1731885123105, 1732733678513 ], "note_signatures": [ [ "ICLR.cc/2025/Conference/Program_Chairs" ], [ "ICLR.cc/2025/Conference/Submission12089/Reviewer_XHYu" ], [ "ICLR.cc/2025/Conference/Submission12089/Reviewer_9JUv" ], [ "ICLR.cc/2025/Conference/Submission12089/Authors" ], [ "ICLR.cc/2025/Conference/Submission12089/Authors" ], [ "ICLR.cc/2025/Conference/Submission12089/Area_Chair_UvwH" ], [ "ICLR.cc/2025/Conference/Submission12089/Reviewer_38S7" ], [ "ICLR.cc/2025/Conference/Submission12089/Authors" ], [ "ICLR.cc/2025/Conference/Submission12089/Authors" ], [ "ICLR.cc/2025/Conference/Submission12089/Area_Chair_UvwH" ], [ "ICLR.cc/2025/Conference/Submission12089/Authors" ], [ "ICLR.cc/2025/Conference/Submission12089/Reviewer_38S7" ], [ "ICLR.cc/2025/Conference/Submission12089/Reviewer_9JUv" ], [ "ICLR.cc/2025/Conference/Submission12089/Authors" ], [ "ICLR.cc/2025/Conference/Submission12089/Reviewer_9JUv" ], [ "ICLR.cc/2025/Conference/Submission12089/Authors" ], [ "ICLR.cc/2025/Conference/Submission12089/Authors" ], [ "ICLR.cc/2025/Conference/Submission12089/Authors" ], [ "ICLR.cc/2025/Conference/Submission12089/Authors" ], [ "ICLR.cc/2025/Conference/Submission12089/Authors" ], [ "ICLR.cc/2025/Conference/Submission12089/Authors" ] ], "structured_content_str": [ "{\"title\": \"Paper Decision\", \"decision\": \"Accept (Poster)\"}", "{\"summary\": \"This paper introduces an object- and feature-level uncertainty-aware fusion framework for robust multi-modal sensor fusion in 3D detection scene of autonomous driving. It designs a valid uncertainty estimator for heterogeneous representations, and then dynamically fuses multi-modal sensor features. Experiments indicate the effectiveness of fusing heterogeneous features in several unrobust scene.\", \"soundness\": \"3\", \"presentation\": \"2\", \"contribution\": \"3\", \"strengths\": \"(1) It provides a very intuitive feature fusion analysis to derive the motivation of this paper\\n(2) All the designs that underpin the motivation of this article are very valid and reasonable.\\n(3) The results are rich and convincing.\", \"weaknesses\": \"Although the writing logic and thinking are clear, the explanation of the method is too complicated, which will bring inconvenience to the reader.\", \"questions\": \"No.\", \"flag_for_ethics_review\": \"['No ethics review needed.']\", \"rating\": \"6\", \"confidence\": \"4\", \"code_of_conduct\": \"Yes\"}", "{\"comment\": \"Thank you for your positive response. Your understanding is correct.\"}", "{\"title\": \"Authors' Response (2/2): Clarification\", \"comment\": \"**Q3:** At the end of Section 5.1, the value of the hyperparameter is set, but Table 4 directly assigns to 0.1. And Limitations mentions that the change of alpha will bring about a significant change in the algorithm effect. Is COCOON too dependent on hyperparameters?\\n\\n**A3:** I apologize for any confusion caused by the repeated use of the symbol alpha ($\\\\alpha$) and appreciate you pointing this out. Each $\\\\alpha$ previously had a distinct meaning, which we have clarified in the revised PDF (with modified text marked in blue). In the updated version, $\\\\alpha$ exclusively represents the weight of one modality\\u2019s features, as shown in Fig. 3, while $\\\\beta$ represents the weight of the other modality\\u2019s features. **Importantly, our $\\\\alpha$ is automatically determined without relying on hyperparameters.**\", \"below_is_the_meaning_of_each_alpha\": \"> 1. At the end of Section 5.1, the value of the hyperparameter alpha is set (==> Eq. 3 and Line 462) \\n\\n>> This $\\\\alpha$ represents the coefficient of the first term in our training loss function (Equation 3). To avoid confusion, we changed this symbol to $\\\\delta$ (and also replaced previous $\\\\beta$ and $\\\\gamma$ with $\\\\zeta$ and $\\\\eta$, respectively) in Eq. 3 and Line 462. The derivation of how this value is obtained is shown in Appendix D.\\n\\n> 2. but Table 4 directly assigns alpha to 0.1 (==> Section 4.1, Line 518, and Table 4)\\n\\n>> This $\\\\alpha$ is the significance level used in conformal prediction, introduced in Section 4.1. We have changed all occurrences of this $\\\\alpha$ to $\\\\Lambda$. This parameter is not directly related to Cocoon but is used to explain and validate conformal prediction. In Section 4.1, this significance level is used to explain conformal prediction; in Section 5.3, it validates the reliability of our uncertainty quantification (absolute difference calculation).\\n\\n> 3. And Limitations mentions that the change of alpha will bring about a significant change in the algorithm effect. (==> all other sections)\\n\\n>> This $\\\\alpha$ denotes the weight of one modality determined through uncertainty quantification, as shown in Fig. 3. We retain the $\\\\alpha$ and $\\\\beta$ notation to indicate each modality\\u2019s weight, which is automatically determined by the Cocoon.\"}", "{\"comment\": \"Dear Reviewer 38S7,\\n\\nWe hope our responses have adequately addressed your concerns about computational overhead and clarified any other points. If you have additional questions or concerns, please let us know, and we would be happy to provide further clarification. We truly appreciate your feedback and look forward to hearing from you soon.\\n\\nBest regards,\\nAuthors\"}", "{\"metareview\": \"This paper proposes a new object- and feature-level uncertainty-aware multimodal fusion framework for 3D object detection tasks. The proposed framework adopts a feature aligner and a feature impression strategy to achieve uncertainty quantification for heterogeneous representations. The proposed approach is novel and effective and consistently outperforms existing static and adaptive methods. Reviewer concerns are about the complicated writing, increased computational latency, and some missing experiments and analysis. After rebuttal, most of these concerns were addressed, and two reviewers improved their score from 5 to 6. Finally, all reviewers achieve a consistent opinion of acceptance. After reading the paper and all the discussions, the AC confirmed the recommendation.\", \"additional_comments_on_reviewer_discussion\": \"This paper received three reviews.\\nReviewer XHYu initially provided a score of 6 and raised some minor concerns about the writing. After rebuttal, the reviewer did not provide further comments. The other two reviewers both initially suggested a score of 5. After rebuttal, they thought the concerns were well addressed and improved the score to 6. Therefore, all reviews are consistent that the paper is marginally above the acceptance threshold. The AC did not find new evidence to overturn the opinions and suggested to accept.\"}", "{\"title\": \"Authors' Response Reply\", \"comment\": \"The author's response answered my questions about the paper well.\\n***\\nThe symbolic issues in this paper are confusing, and I hope the author will check them further.\"}", "{\"title\": \"Authors' Response (1/2): Computational Overhead, Ablation Study, and Generalizability\", \"comment\": \"Dear reviewer 9JUv, we greatly appreciate you bringing up the issues regarding feasibility (in terms of computational overhead), lack of ablation study, and generalizability. Please find our responses and additional experimental results addressing these concerns.\\n\\n---\\n**Q1:** Computational Overhead\\n\\n**A1:** First, regarding the use of fewer decoder layers for uncertainty quantification, please refer to General Response 2, where we present the results as an ablation study. However, we found that this approach might be too model-specific to generalize across other potential base models.\\n\\nInstead, we developed a fine-tuning-based solution that significantly reduces computational overhead while improving accuracy. **Please see General Response 1 for further details.**\\n\\n---\\n**Q2:** Lack of Ablation Study\\n\\n**A2:** see General Response 2\\n\\n---\\n**Q3:** The method provides marginal gains and performs worse than previous methods such as CMT, BEVFusion, and DeepInteraction.\\n\\n**A3:** There are two reasons for the lower accuracy:\\n\\nThe first reason lies in the difference in the training set. As noted in Appendix A, we trained the detector on a partial training set and used the remaining frames for the calibration stage. If we had separately obtained calibration instances (approximately 100 samples) without splitting the training set, we could have utilized the entire training set to train the detector. When CMT is trained on the same partial training set, it achieves 66.83%, demonstrating that Cocoon enables our base model, FUTR3D, to outperform CMT, as shown below.\\n\\n\\n| | No Corruption | Rainy Day | Clear Night | Rainy Night | Point Sampling (L) |Random Noise (C) |\\n|---------------|-------------|----------|-------------|------------|-------------|-----------|\\n| **CMT [1]** | 66.83 | 68.44 | 44.63 | 27.31 | 65.08 | 60.35 |\\n| FUTR3D (basemodel) | 66.16 | 68.34 | 44.51 | 27.26 | 65.17 | 60.39 |\\n| FUTR3D + Cocoon (original) | 66.80 | 68.89 | 45.68 | 27.98 | 65.89 | 60.56 |\\n| FUTR3D + Cocoon (fine-tuning) | 67.13 | 69.12 | 45.70 | 28.07 | 66.02 | 61.99 |\\n\\nSecond, please note that our algorithm focuses on fusion rather than building the entire perception model. Since the different components of each model hinder direct comparison, we implemented various fusion methods on FUTR3D and TransFusion to isolate and evaluate the effectiveness of the fusion method. When compared with other fusion methods\\u2014Concatenation (used by CMT [1] and BEVFusion [2]) and Attention (used by DeepInteraction [3])\\u2014Cocoon achieves the highest accuracy, as shown in Table 2.\\n\\n---\\n**Q4:** Only evaluates camera and LiDAR fusion, missing other important sensors like radar and ultrasonic. \\n\\n**A4:** Thank you for raising this issue. In this work, we primarily focus on the most representative modalities (lidar and camera). Given the similar data types of LiDAR and radar (both being point clouds), Cocoon can be easily applied to camera-radar fusion. As noted in Sec. 6, we are currently extending our research to include additional modalities, particularly for VLM.\"}", "{\"title\": \"Authors' Response (1/2): Computational Overhead and Clarification\", \"comment\": \"Dear reviewer 38S7, we genuinely thank you for highlighting the issues regarding feasibility (in terms of computational overhead), the confusing presentation in the previous version, and areas requiring further clarification. Please find our responses addressing these concerns.\\n\\n---\\n**Q1: I think they cannot be implemented quickly if the real-time performance cannot be guaranteed. The advantages can only be reflected at the numerical level of the paper.**\\n\\n**A1:** Please refer to General Response 1.\\n\\nTo summarize, the overhead of our uncertainty quantification primarily arises from the feature alignment process. In this process, features pass through a pretrained simple MLP (8 layers), without requiring the iterative search used in the reference work Feature CP [1]. This approach significantly reduces the time overhead, enabling us to complete uncertainty quantification with merely 50 ms overhead on an NVIDIA GeForce RTX 2080 (11 TOPS). Given the computational capability of current AV systems (254 TOPS), this overhead is negligible, with total latency within the 100 ms threshold for real-time guarantees. More details on overhead analysis are provided in General Response 1.\\n\\n---\\n**Q2: If there are large differences in the quality or sampling frequency of the features of each modality, it will be difficult for the feature aligner to effectively align the data distribution, will this in turn affect the overall fusion effect?**\\n\\n**A2:** With the feature aligner and the entire detector trained on the same training set, the feature aligner provides a clue about which modality is more beneficial for the detector to maximize its decoding capability. Thanks to this clue, Cocoon\\u2019s adaptive fusion outperforms static fusion, achieving higher accuracy in scenarios with large disparity in feature quality across modalities. Below is how Cocoon operates under significant quality differences across modalities.\\n\\nThe disparity in feature quality can usually be attributed to (1) environmental noise (e.g., a scenario like nighttime where one modality\\u2019s data quality is significantly reduced) or (2) sensor corruption (e.g., a situation where one sensor fails). Both cases belong to the long-tail category, the key focus in this work. Thus, Cocoon handles these situations more effectively than standard fusion techniques.\\n\\n- For (1) environmental noise, please see the results of natural corruptions in Table 2.\\n- For (2) sensor corruption, please see the results of artificial corruptions in Table 2.\\n\\nTo summarize, when there is a disparity in feature quality, Cocoon assigns higher weights to high-quality features, thus leading to better perception performance. This is achieved through the feature aligner\\u2019s clue, which helps determine the optimal fusion ratio by identifying the degree of long-tail characteristics (relative to the training data) at the fusion point, prior to the detector\\u2019s decoding process.\\n\\nFor clarity, we have included additional visualizations in ***Appendix K***, showing feature alignment outcomes (Fig. 11) and nonconformity scores (Fig. 12) under these conditions. As illustrated, low-quality data points are positioned farther from the learned surrogate ground truth (i.e., Feature Impression), leading them to receive lower weights. \\n\\nIn the meantime, the difference in sampling frequency actually falls outside our scope. Like most 3D sensor fusion studies, we assume pre-processed (synchronized) data pairs (e.g., camera and LiDAR) as input. Although the camera and LiDAR may operate at different native frequencies (e.g., camera captured at 12 FPS and lidar 20 FPS in nuScenes dataset [2]), pre-processing ensures synchronization. Therefore, our focus is on the perception module with synchronization assumed, which is consistent with other recent multimodal 3D detection works [3-7].\\n\\n---\\n***Reference***\\n\\n[1] Teng, Jiaye, et al. \\\"Predictive inference with feature conformal prediction.\\\" ICLR 2023.\\n\\n[2] https://www.nuscenes.org/nuscenes?tutorial=maps\\n\\n[3] Xie, Yichen, et al. \\\"Sparsefusion: Fusing multi-modal sparse representations for multi-sensor 3d object detection.\\\" ICCV. 2023.\\n\\n[4] Chen, Xuanyao, et al. \\\"Futr3d: A unified sensor fusion framework for 3d detection.\\\" CVPRW. 2023.\\n\\n[5] Li, Yanwei, et al. \\\"Unifying voxel-based representation with transformer for 3d object detection.\\\" NeurIPS 2022\\n\\n[6] Yang, Zeyu, et al. \\\"Deepinteraction: 3d object detection via modality interaction.\\\" NeurIPS 2022.\\n\\n[7] Chen, Zehui, et al. \\\"Deformable feature aggregation for dynamic multi-modal 3D object detection.\\\" ECCV 2022\"}", "{\"comment\": \"Dear Reviewer,\\n\\nThank you again for your efforts in reviewing this submission. It has been some time since the authors provided their feedback. We kindly encourage you to review their responses and other reviews, verify whether they address your concerns, and submit your final ratings. If you have additional comments, please initiate a discussion promptly. Your timely input is essential for progressing the review process.\\n\\nBest regards,\\n\\nAC\"}", "{\"comment\": \"Dear Reviewer 9JUv,\\n\\nWe hope that our responses have adequately addressed your concerns regarding computational overhead, the lack of an ablation study, and Cocoon\\u2019s generalizability. If you have additional questions or concerns, please let us know, and we would be happy to provide further clarification. We truly appreciate your feedback and look forward to hearing from you soon.\\n\\nBest regards,\\nAuthors\"}", "{\"summary\": \"T\\u200bthis paper propose a multimodal fusion framework called Cocoon for 3D object detection. The core innovation of Cocoon is to achieve object and feature level fusion through uncertainty quantification. The framework introduces a feature aligner and a learnable alternative truth value (called \\\"Feature Impression\\\") to fairly compare uncertainties between multimodalities and dynamically adjust the weight of each mode. Experimental results show that Cocoon outperforms existing static and adaptive fusion methods under standard and challenging conditions, and performs more robustly under natural and artificial perturbations.\", \"soundness\": \"3\", \"presentation\": \"4\", \"contribution\": \"3\", \"strengths\": \"1. The paper is clearly presented and easy to understand.\\n2. The innovation of uncertainty quantification mechanism is feasible from the principles and experiments in Section 4.\\n3. What I care about more is that the Cocoon framework has good scalability and can be further applied to more types of modal fusion, such as combining camera, LiDAR and radar data for autonomous driving, or combining visual and language modalities for visual language models (VLM).\", \"weaknesses\": \"1. The entire COCOON process, especially the structural comparison shown in Figure 1, and the \\\"FEATURE IMPRESSION-BASED FEATURE ALIGNER\\\" and \\\"UNCERTAINTY QUANTIFICATION\\\" parts in Sec 4.2 and 4.3, made me feel the huge computational overhead. Whether it is based on RGB, LiDAR, or multi-modal fusion target detection methods, I think they cannot be implemented quickly if the real-time performance cannot be guaranteed. The advantages can only be reflected at the numerical level of the paper.\\n2. Does COCOON rely too much on the quality of feature alignment and calibration in the data? Section 4.2 mentioned that since data from different modalities need to be projected into the same feature space for comparison, the accuracy of this part of the alignment directly affects the reliability of uncertainty quantification. If there are large differences in the quality or sampling frequency of the features of each modality, it will be difficult for the feature aligner to effectively align the data distribution, will this in turn affect the overall fusion effect?\\n3. At the end of Section 5.1, the value of the hyperparameter $ \\\\alpha $ is set, but Table 4 directly assigns $ \\\\alpha $ to 0.1. And Limitations mentions that the change of alpha will bring about a significant change in the algorithm effect. Is COCOON too dependent on hyperparameters?\", \"questions\": \"See Weaknesses.\", \"flag_for_ethics_review\": \"['No ethics review needed.']\", \"rating\": \"6\", \"confidence\": \"3\", \"code_of_conduct\": \"Yes\"}", "{\"title\": \"Accuracy\", \"comment\": \"Thank you for your detailed response. While we appreciate Cocoon's improvement in handling complex scenarios, we hope it maintains its base performance as well. For the nuScenes dataset, could you provide a table showing performance under the official setting, particularly focusing on the nuScenes Detection Score (NDS), as it is a key metric?\"}", "{\"title\": \"Authors' Response (2/2): Generalizability\", \"comment\": \"---\\n**Q5:** The lack of validation on other datasets raises concerns about the generalizability of the method. Validation can be performed on the Waymo and Argoverse 2 datasets.\\n\\n**A5:** nuScenes is widely recognized as a comprehensive real-world driving dataset. It covers diverse cities, times, and weather conditions, providing sufficient diversity to prove Cocoon\\u2019s generality. In fact, most recent works [4\\u20138] exclusively demonstrate their impact using the nuScenes dataset. Building on this, we also focus on the nuScenes dataset, integrating various types of artificial and natural noise. We are producing results on the Waymo dataset to be included in future versions.\\n\\nGiven that the most remarkable distinction between the Waymo dataset and Argoverse2 is the LiDAR beam density\\u2014nuScenes uses a 32-beam LiDAR, Waymo uses a 64-beam LiDAR, and Argoverse2 uses a 128-beam LiDAR\\u2014point cloud data exhibits different levels of sparsity. Based on this, for an additional generalizability check, we experiment with different LiDAR beam densities. The results below demonstrate that Cocoon outperforms static fusion across varying LiDAR data sparsity levels.\\n\\n\\n| Beam Type | Fusion | No Corrupt | Point Sampling (L) | Random Noise (C) | Sensor Misalignment |\\n|-----------|---------|------------|--------------------|-------------------|---------------------|\\n| 32-beam | Static | 66.16 | 65.17 | 60.39 | 53.16 |\\n| | Cocoon | 66.80 | 65.89 | 61.83 | 55.61 |\\n| 16-beam | Static | 60.20 | 59.17 | 54.50 | 47.17 |\\n| | Cocoon | 60.87 | 59.97 | 55.91 | 49.59 |\\n| 4-beam | Static | 55.80 | 54.74 | 50.01 | 42.34 |\\n| | Cocoon | 56.62 | 55.69 | 51.63 | 45.32 |\\n\\n---\\n\\n***Reference***\\n\\n[1] Yan, Junjie, et al. \\\"Cross modal transformer: Towards fast and robust 3d object detection.\\\" Proceedings of the IEEE/CVF International Conference on Computer Vision. 2023.\\n\\n[2] Liu, Zhijian, et al. \\\"Bevfusion: Multi-task multi-sensor fusion with unified bird's-eye view representation.\\\" 2023 IEEE international conference on robotics and automation (ICRA). IEEE, 2023.\\n\\n[3] Yang, Zeyu, et al. \\\"Deepinteraction: 3d object detection via modality interaction.\\\" Advances in Neural Information Processing Systems 35 (2022): 1992-2005.\\n\\n[4] Xie, Yichen, et al. \\\"Sparsefusion: Fusing multi-modal sparse representations for multi-sensor 3d object detection.\\\" ICCV. 2023.\\n\\n[5] Chen, Xuanyao, et al. \\\"Futr3d: A unified sensor fusion framework for 3d detection.\\\" proceedings of the IEEE/CVF conference on computer vision and pattern recognition. 2023.\\n\\n[6] Li, Yanwei, et al. \\\"Unifying voxel-based representation with transformer for 3d object detection.\\\" Advances in Neural Information Processing Systems 35 (2022): 18442-18455.\\n\\n[7] Yang, Zeyu, et al. \\\"Deepinteraction: 3d object detection via modality interaction.\\\" Advances in Neural Information Processing Systems 35 (2022): 1992-2005.\\n\\n[8] Chen, Zehui, et al. \\\"Deformable feature aggregation for dynamic multi-modal 3D object detection.\\\" European conference on computer vision. Cham: Springer Nature Switzerland, 2022.\"}", "{\"summary\": \"The paper introduces Cocoon, a novel framework that addresses the challenge of multi-modal fusion in 3D object detection. The paper proposes a novel uncertainty-aware fusion framework that operates at both object and feature levels through the introduction of Feature Impression and a feature alignment mechanism. This approach leverages conformal prediction theory to quantify uncertainties in heterogeneous sensor data, enabling dynamic weight adjustment between different modalities such as cameras and LiDAR.\", \"soundness\": \"3\", \"presentation\": \"3\", \"contribution\": \"2\", \"strengths\": \"1.Proposes a novel framework (Cocoon) that uniquely combines object-level and feature-level uncertainty awareness in multi-modal fusion, addressing a significant gap in existing approaches.\\n2.Thoroughly evaluates the model under diverse corruption scenarios, including both natural corruptions.\\n3.Provides solid mathematical foundation for the uncertainty quantification method, with clear derivations and validations across multiple datasets.\", \"weaknesses\": \"1.The paper shows a substantial increase in computational latency - from 1.1s to 1.6s when integrating Cocoon with FUTR3D.\\n2.While the paper demonstrates consistent improvements over baselines, the actual gains are relatively modest in many scenarios.\\n3.Only evaluates camera and LiDAR fusion, missing other important sensors like radar and ultrasonic.\\n4. The lack of validation on other datasets raises concerns about the generalizability of the method. Validation can be performed on the Waymo and Argoverse 2 datasets.\\n5. The method provides marginal gains and performs worse than previous methods such as CMT, BEVFusion, and DeepInteraction.\", \"questions\": \"1.While you propose using fewer decoder layers or queries to reduce latency: How does this affect the accuracy-speed tradeoff specifically?\\n2.Could you provide ablation studies on the importance of different components in your framework? Such as, how much does each component (feature aligner, Feature Impression, uncertainty quantification) contribute to the final performance?\", \"flag_for_ethics_review\": \"['No ethics review needed.']\", \"rating\": \"6\", \"confidence\": \"4\", \"code_of_conduct\": \"Yes\"}", "{\"title\": \"General Response (2-2): Ablation Study & Our Message\", \"comment\": \"### [2-2] Within uncertainty quantification\\n\\n- Impact of feature aligner (FA) layer count \\n\\n| FA layer count | FI dimension | No Corruption | Rainy Day | Clear Night | Rainy Night | Cam Blackout | Avg. Latency (sec) |\\n| -------------- | ------------------- | ------------- | --------- | ----------- | ----------- | ------------ | ------------------ |\\n| 2 | 128 | 66.01 | 68.18 | 44.39 | 26.99 | 43.89 | 1.16 $\\\\pm$ 0.05 |\\n| 4 | 128 | 66.67 | 68.56 | 45.53 | 27.41 | 50.99 | 1.19 $\\\\pm$ 0.04 |\\n| 6 | 128 | 66.82 | 68.9 | 45.55 | 27.56 | 51.45 | 1.24 $\\\\pm$ 0.05 |\\n| 8 | 128 | 66.8 | 68.89 | 45.68 | 27.98 | 51.87 | 1.27 $\\\\pm$ 0.04 |\\n\\n- Impact of feature impression (FI) vector dimension\\n\\n| FA layer count | FI dimension | No Corruption | Rainy Day | Clear Night | Rainy Night | Cam Blackout | Avg. Latency (sec) |\\n| -------------- | ------------ | ------------- | --------- | ----------- | ----------- | ------------ | ------------------ |\\n| 8 | 32 | 66.73 | 68.91 | 45.62 | 27.91 | 51.81 | 1.16 $\\\\pm$ 0.03 |\\n| 8 | 64 | 66.72 | 68.96 | 45.64 | 27.85 | 51.79 | 1.21 $\\\\pm$ 0.04 |\\n| 8 | 128 | 66.8 | 68.89 | 45.68 | 27.98 | 51.87 | 1.27 $\\\\pm$ 0.04 |\\n\\n- Impact of the portion of decoder layers involved in UQ\\n\\n| UQ Decoder Count | FA Layer Count | FI Dimension | No Corruption | Rainy Day | Clear Night | Rainy Night | Cam Blackout | Avg. Latency (sec) |\\n|------------------|----------------|--------------|---------------|-----------|-------------|-------------|--------------|--------------|\\n| 3 | 8 | 128 | 66.28 | 68.17 | 45.11 | 27.32 | 51.3 | 1.13 \\u00b1 0.03 |\\n| 6 | 8 | 128 | 66.8 | 68.89 | 45.68 | 27.98 | 51.87 | 1.27 \\u00b1 0.04 |\\n\\n- Best Configuration Combination\\n\\n| UQ decoder count| FA layer count | FI dimension | No Corruption | Rainy Day | Clear Night | Rainy Night | Cam Blackout | Avg. Latency (sec) |\\n| --------| -------- | ------------ | ------------- | --------- | ----------- | ----------- | ------------ | ---------------------- |\\n| 6 | 4 | 32 | 66.59 | 68.21 | 45.17 | 27.08 | 50.45 | 1.15 $\\\\pm$ 0.03 |\", \"conclusion\": [\"Based on the above experiments, we identified the optimal configuration to balance accuracy and latency. Applying this configuration to all decoder layers reduces the overhead to 0.24 seconds, while achieving a 0.58% improvement in accuracy over static fusion.\", \"---\", \"## Our Message\", \"We sincerely thank the reviewers for their insightful feedback and valuable suggestions. We have highlighted the improvements made based on their comments and emphasized our key strengths as recognized in their feedback.\", \"We have updated our paper by reflecting all the comments from reviewers. The main points are as follows:\", \"Presentation that may confuse readers (see blue-colored text in the updated PDF).\", \"Computational overhead and improvements to reduce it (see General Response 1).\", \"Lack of ablation study (see General Response 2).\", \"Below are the key strengths of our work as highlighted by reviewers:\", \"Motivation\", \"Obvious analysis driving the motivation (**Reviewer XHYu**)\", \"Very valid and reasonable progression from motivation to solution design (**Reviewer XHYu**)\", \"Methodology\", \"Reasonableness (**Reviewer XHYu**), novelty (**Reviewer 9JUv**), feasibility, and scalability (**Reviewer 38S7**) of the uncertainty-aware sensor fusion solution design\", \"Solid mathematical foundation for the uncertainty quantification method, with clear derivations (**Reviewers 9JUv, 38S7**)\", \"Evaluation\", \"Rich and convincing results (**Reviewer XHYu**)\", \"Thorough evaluation of Cocoon on diverse corruption scenarios, including both natural and artificial corruptions (**Reviewer 9JUv**)\", \"Soundness of Cocoon's uncertainty quantification method, validated across multiple datasets (**Reviewers 9JUv, 38S7**)\", \"Presentation\", \"Clear thinking and logical writing (**Reviewers XHYu, 38S7**) & Easy to understand (**Reviewer 38S7**)\", \"These invaluable comments and suggestions will greatly contribute to enhancing the quality of Cocoon. Thank you once again for your time and thoughtful input!\"]}", "{\"comment\": \"Dear Reviewer,\\n\\nWe have uploaded a revised version to alleviate any inconvenience for readers. Below are the modifications made in the revision:\\n\\n* Added Table 2 to summarize the symbols presented in our paper. Since our paper introduces many symbols, this table helps readers easily look up their meanings and purposes.\\n\\n* Revised Section 4.1 through 4.4 to make sentences clearer and more concise, improving readability.\\n\\n* Updated Section 4.3 with additional justification for the uncertainty quantification formula, along with reference.\\n\\n* Included Appendix K to clarify how our feature aligner operates and how the nonconformity function values change in the presence of noise or corruption in the data.\\n\\nWhile we received feedback from another reviewer that our paper is \\u201ceasy to understand,\\u201d we acknowledge that some inconvenience may arise due to the complexity of the Cocoon mechanism, which involves multiple algorithms (e.g., conformal prediction, 3D object detection, Weiszfeld\\u2019s algorithm). We sincerely hope these revisions address any potential confusion and make the paper easier to understand.\\n\\nSince the revision upload period ends tomorrow, we kindly request you to review the updated version and further results in the General Response. Your attention to our modifications and responses is greatly appreciated. Thank you once again for the time and effort you've put into reviewing our work.\"}", "{\"title\": \"Response to Reviewer 38S7\", \"comment\": \"First of all, we sincerely appreciate your reply and thank you for raising the score to the positive side!\\n\\nRegarding your comment, \\\"_The symbolic issues in this paper are confusing, and I hope the author will check them further_,\\\" we acknowledge that our paper introduces many symbols, which may affect readability. We apologize for the confusion caused in the first version, where most of these were referred to as $\\\\alpha$. To improve clarity, we included a symbol summary table (shown below) in Section 4 of the paper.\\n\\n| Symbol | Meaning | Purpose | Section Containing This Symbol |\\n|----------------|-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------|--------------------------|----------------------------------------|\\n| $\\\\alpha$, $\\\\beta$ | Key symbols; $\\\\alpha$ represents the weight of one modality (e.g., camera), and $\\\\beta$ represents the weight of another (e.g., LiDAR). These weights are dynamically determined by the Cocoon mechanism through uncertainty quantification. | Uncertainty-based weights (Dynamic) | Fig. 3, Fig. 6, Fig. 7, Sec. 4.3, Sec. 5.2 |\\n| $\\\\delta$, $\\\\zeta$, $\\\\eta$ | Coefficients in the training loss function (Equation 3). | Hyperparameter (Fixed) | Sec. 5.1, Eq. 3 |\\n| $\\\\Lambda$ | Significance value used solely to explain the concept of conformal prediction. | Analysis (Fixed) | Sec. 4.1, Sec. 5.3, Table 4 |\\n\\n== Below is added ==\\n\\nWe have uploaded a revised version to alleviate any inconvenience for readers. Below are the modifications made in the revision:\\n\\n* Added Table 2 to summarize the symbols presented in our paper. Since our paper introduces many symbols, this table helps readers easily look up their meanings and purposes.\\n\\n* Revised Section 4.1 through 4.4 to make sentences clearer and more concise, improving readability.\\n\\n* Updated Section 4.3 with additional justification for the uncertainty quantification formula, along with reference.\\n\\n* Included Appendix K to clarify how our feature aligner operates and how the nonconformity function values change in the presence of noise or corruption in the data.\\n\\nWe hope these revisions address any potential confusion and make the paper easier to understand. Thank you again for the time and effort you\\u2019ve put into reviewing our work!\"}", "{\"title\": \"Authors' Response: Method Presentation\", \"comment\": \"Dear reviewer XHYu, we truly appreciate you bringing up the issues in our algorithm presentation.\\n\\nWe identified one factor that hinders readers\\u2019 understanding: the repetitive use of the same symbol ($\\\\alpha$) caused some inconvenience, so we revised it to improve clarity and eliminate potential ambiguity. Please refer to the blue-colored text in the updated PDF.\\n\\nAdditionally, we plan to add a video showing the overall mechanism (Figures 2 and 3) on our project website to minimize any potential confusion. \\n\\nIf there are any specific parts you find overly complicated, we will revise them and share the updated version within this discussion session.\\n\\nAlong with this, please refer to the general response for details on our further improvements and ablation study.\"}", "{\"title\": \"General Response (1 & 2-1): Computational Overhead Mitigation & Ablation Study\", \"comment\": \"## [1] Computational Overhead Mitigation\\n\\nFirst of all, we reduced inference latency through code refactoring: static fusion from 1.1 to 0.91 seconds and Cocoon from 1.6 to 1.27 seconds.\\n\\nFrom the ablation study (described in next response), we found that adjusting the MLP layer count and the vector dimension of Feature Impression (FI) can reduce the overhead of 120 ms while maintaining higher accuracy than static fusion.\\n\\nTo further reduce the overhead, we devised a fine-tuning approach: dynamic fusion is applied only to the last decoder layer, and we fine-tune only the components in the later stages of the fusion process (the earlier parts must remain unchanged to preserve the validity of nonconformity score). \\n\\nUsing this fine-tuning approach, we reduced Cocoon\\u2019s additional overhead (excluding the base model) to 50 ms\\u2014**a significant reduction of 86% from the previous overhead value of 360 ms**\\u2014while achieving the final accuracy shown below on an NVIDIA GeForce RTX 2080 (11 TOPS [1]). **Given the computational capability of current AV systems (254 TOPS) [2], this overhead is negligible, with total latency within the 100 ms threshold for real-time guarantees [3].**\\n\\n| Fusion | No Corruption | Rainy Day | Clear Night | Rainy Night | Point Sampling (L) | Random Noise (C) | Avg. Latency (sec) |\\n|----------------------------|---------------|-----------|-------------|------------|---------------------|------------------|--------------------|\\n| Static | 66.16 | 68.34 | 44.51 | 27.26 | 65.17 | 60.39 | 0.91 \\u00b1 0.02 |\\n| Cocoon (original) | 66.80 | 68.89 | 45.68 | 27.98 | 65.89 | 61.83 | 1.27 \\u00b1 0.04 |\\n| Cocoon (fine-tuning) | 67.13 | 69.12 | 45.70 | 28.07 | 66.02 | 61.99 | 0.96 \\u00b1 0.03 |\\n\\n***Reference***\\n\\n\\n[1] https://www.nvidia.com/en-us/geforce/news/geforce-rtx-20-series-super-gpus/\\n\\n[2] https://www.nvidia.com/en-us/self-driving-cars/in-vehicle-computing/\\n\\n[3] Lin, Shih-Chieh, et al. \\\"The architectural implications of autonomous driving: Constraints and acceleration.\\\" Proceedings of the Twenty-Third International Conference on Architectural Support for Programming Languages and Operating Systems. 2018.\\n\\n---\\n## [2] Ablation Study\\n\\nGiven that feature aligner (FA) and feature impression (FI) are designed for uncertainty quantification (based on conformal prediction), we conducted the following experiments to evaluate each component's impact.\\n\\n### [2-1] Uncertainty quantification (UQ) vs. Object-level dynamic weighting \\n\\n- When both are disabled, static fusion is performed via concatenation.\\n- When conformal prediction is disabled, a simple MLP model is used to output a weight value for each query.\\n- When dynamic weighting is disabled, the nonconformity (NC) score in UQ is measured for the entire input feature.\\n\\n| Conformal Prediction-based UQ | Dynamic Weighting | No Corruption | Rainy Day | Clear Night | Rainy Night | Cam Blackout | Avg. Latency (sec) |\\n| -------------------- | ----------------- | ----------- | -------- | ----------- | ---------- | -------- | ------------- |\\n| | | 66.16 | 68.34 | 44.51 | 27.26 | 45.13 | 0.91 \\u00b1 0.02 |\\n| | V | 63.01 | 63.51 | 42.01 | 21.91 | 37.01 | 0.91 $\\\\pm$ 0.03 |\\n| V | | 66.2 | 68.37 | 44.52 | 27.3 | 45.21 | 1.26 $\\\\pm$ 0.04 |\\n| V | V | 66.8 | 68.89 | 45.68 | 27.98 | 51.87 | 1.27 $\\\\pm$ 0.04 |\", \"conclusion\": \"Dynamic weighting cannot function without UQ, and UQ is ineffective without dynamic weighting, making them both essential to each other.\"}", "{\"title\": \"Response to Reviewer 9JUv\", \"comment\": \"Thank you for your comments and for raising your score to the positive side!\\n\\nRegarding your additional questions, we would like to seek clarification on your comments, particularly concerning `base performance` and `official setting`.\\n\\n**[1] While we appreciate Cocoon's improvement in handling complex scenarios, we hope it maintains its `base performance` as well.**\\n\\n>By `base performance`, we assume you are referring to performance on the standard nuScenes dataset without artificial or natural noise. As shown in the `No Corruption` column of our Table 2, Cocoon outperforms the baseline methods in all normal and challenging scenarios. Additionally, the accuracy breakdown (in Table 3) demonstrates that Cocoon surpasses the baseline in normal setups, regardless of object configuration (distance & size). Could you clarify which aspect of the base performance you believe was not adequately maintained?\\n\\n---\\n\\n**[2] For the nuScenes dataset, could you provide a table showing performance under the `official setting`, particularly focusing on the nuScenes Detection Score (NDS), as it is a key metric?**\\n\\n> If we understand correctly, by `official setting`, you are referring to the evaluation results (e.g., NDS, class-wise AP, Errors) obtained using the nuScenes-devkit API.\\nIf this is correct, pease find the table below ($\\\\uparrow$: higher is better, $\\\\downarrow$: lower is better). \\n\\n| Scenario | Fusion Method | mAP $\\\\uparrow$ | mATE $\\\\downarrow$ | mASE $\\\\downarrow$ | mAOE $\\\\downarrow$ | mAVE $\\\\downarrow$ | mAAE $\\\\downarrow$ | NDS $\\\\uparrow$ | Car_AP $\\\\uparrow$ | Bike_AP $\\\\uparrow$ | Motorcycle_AP $\\\\uparrow$ | Truck_AP $\\\\uparrow$ |\\n|-------------------|---------------|---------|----------|----------|----------|----------|----------|---------|------------|---------|------|-------|\\n| No Corruption | Static | 66.16 | 33.10 | 26.13 | 26.60 | 30.92 | 19.09 | 69.49 | 86.4 | 63.5 | 74.9 | 61.8 |\\n| | Cal-DETR | 66.24 | 32.83 | 26.07 | 26.56 | 30.43 | 19.10 | 69.62 | 86.4 | 63.5 | 74.6 | 62.0 |\\n| | **Cocoon** | **66.80** | 32.94 | 25.92 | 26.40 | 29.87 | 19.20 | **69.97** | 86.8 | 65.1 | 75.9 | 62.0 |\\n| Rainy Day | Static | 68.34 | 31.68 | 27.56 | 21.56 | 21.51 | 13.43 | 72.59 | 88.6 | 65.6 | 80.6 | 64.3 |\\n| | Cal-DETR | 68.37 | 31.50 | 27.41 | 21.70 | 21.31 | 13.85 | 72.64 | 88.6 | 65.8 | 80.9 | 64.3 |\\n| | **Cocoon** | **68.89** | 31.53 | 27.23 | 21.68 | 21.00 | 13.88 | **72.92** | 88.9 | 66.1 | 82.1 | 64.3 |\\n| Clear Night | Static | 44.51 | 50.09 | 46.37 | 43.59 | 63.29 | 58.24 | 46.10 | 87.7 | 54.3 | 72.5 | 80.4 |\\n| | Cal-DETR | 44.38 | 50.02 | 46.50 | 44.18 | 62.78 | 57.78 | 46.21 | 87.8 | 54.5 | 71.9 | 80.1 |\\n| | **Cocoon** | **45.68** | 50.03 | 46.45 | 44.15 | 61.62 | 57.76 | **46.84** | 88.4 | 59.9 | 75.5 | 82.0 |\\n| Rainy Night | Static | 27.26 | 67.34 | 67.01 | 86.07 | 120.10 | 59.28 | **25.66** | 88.5 | 0.0 | 71.7 | 81.8 |\\n| | Cal-DETR | 26.29 | 67.32 | 67.02 | 85.99 | 127.01 | 66.01 | 25.01 | 87.6 | 0.0 | 70.9 | 81.5 |\\n| | **Cocoon** | **27.98** | 67.34 | 66.77 | 85.86 | 126.27 | 66.28 | 25.36 | 89.4 | 0.0 | 78.4 | 81.8 |\\n| Point Sampling (L)| Static | 65.17 | 33.58 | 26.17 | 27.40 | 31.67 | 19.08 | 68.80 | 85.6 | 61.8 | 72.2 | 61.2 |\\n| | Cal-DETR | 65.29 | 33.35 | 26.12 | 27.18 | 30.95 | 19.09 | 68.98 | 85.6 | 61.6 | 72.4 | 61.3 |\\n| | **Cocoon** | **65.89** | 33.45 | 25.98 | 26.92 | 30.59 | 19.12 | **69.34** | 86.0 | 63.3 | 73.4 | 61.5 |\\n| Random Noise (C) | Static | 60.39 | 33.73 | 26.92 | 26.09 | 32.37 | 19.43 | 66.34 | 84.9 | 51.6 | 67.9 | 56.0 |\\n| | Cal-DETR | 60.40 | 33.37 | 26.76 | 25.66 | 31.86 | 19.42 | 66.50 | 84.9 | 51.7 | 68.0 | 56.2 |\\n| | **Cocoon** | **61.83** | 33.42 | 26.58 | 25.38 | 31.12 | 19.47 | **67.32** | 85.5 | 54.2 | 70.0 | 57.2 |\\n\\n\\nPlease let us know if our understanding is incorrect or if further clarification is needed. Thank you again for your comments!\"}" ] }

[ "Gus Kristiansen", "Mark Sandler", "Andrey Zhmoginov", "Nolan Andrew Miller", "Anirudh Goyal", "Jihwan Lee", "Max Vladymyrov" ]

[ "Learned optimizers", "Meta-optimization", "Fine-tuning", "Image classification" ]

{ "note_id": [ "mPO1VmGRvz", "foqfIa6tMH", "dL8oDz565c", "b1VmINkfBr", "T6vhWuer6L", "RDLu1PTcI6", "R6QOht1BHU", "Og876LTEoh", "MR8Dng4uWd", "KagguxjteU", "FpoLis1rf7", "FcNNL8ucmV", "AysXXPUZhQ", "7JMpnCIncZ", "5v3AJsYGNq", "5KCMotdO0c" ], "note_type": [ "official_comment", "official_review", "official_comment", "official_comment", "official_review", "decision", "official_comment", "official_review", "official_review", "official_comment", "official_comment", "meta_review", "official_comment", "official_comment", "official_comment", "official_comment" ], "note_created": [ 1732774311849, 1731019132771, 1732774305456, 1732774327928, 1730096824326, 1737523567824, 1732630070134, 1730551029982, 1730675525678, 1733200968152, 1732630016251, 1734912736836, 1732630183118, 1732681732902, 1732686911835, 1732630440888 ], "note_signatures": [ [ "ICLR.cc/2025/Conference/Submission3290/Authors" ], [ "ICLR.cc/2025/Conference/Submission3290/Reviewer_76HK" ], [ "ICLR.cc/2025/Conference/Submission3290/Authors" ], [ "ICLR.cc/2025/Conference/Submission3290/Authors" ], [ "ICLR.cc/2025/Conference/Submission3290/Reviewer_wxWf" ], [ "ICLR.cc/2025/Conference/Program_Chairs" ], [ "ICLR.cc/2025/Conference/Submission3290/Authors" ], [ "ICLR.cc/2025/Conference/Submission3290/Reviewer_qsSB" ], [ "ICLR.cc/2025/Conference/Submission3290/Reviewer_Gurv" ], [ "ICLR.cc/2025/Conference/Submission3290/Reviewer_Gurv" ], [ "ICLR.cc/2025/Conference/Submission3290/Authors" ], [ "ICLR.cc/2025/Conference/Submission3290/Area_Chair_GKJo" ], [ "ICLR.cc/2025/Conference/Submission3290/Authors" ], [ "ICLR.cc/2025/Conference/Submission3290/Reviewer_qsSB" ], [ "ICLR.cc/2025/Conference/Submission3290/Reviewer_wxWf" ], [ "ICLR.cc/2025/Conference/Submission3290/Authors" ] ], "structured_content_str": [ "{\"comment\": \"We are happy to hear that this discussion has been beneficial and has answered some of your questions. We are also sincerely thankful for the suggestions made. We have updated our paper with experiments on ResNet-18 and Vision Transformers. By demonstrating the method across three architectures, we believe the paper is stronger.\\n\\n> ...would that mean that the specific targeted problem here would be very short horizon + few-shot or continual learning?\\n\\nThese certainly are settings where this method is useful. On-device model tuning is also a scenario where this method could prove practical. The optimizer could be meta-trained ahead of time using more computational resources than would be available on the device. Our method would be especially useful if a single learning rate schedule did not perform consistently across tasks. Our method may be able to dynamically adjust to the training dynamics online, whereas traditional optimizers would need to be tuned by retraining.\\n\\nWe look forward to continuing this discussion and we hope that you would consider updating the score in light of the new experiments.\"}", "{\"summary\": \"This work introduces L3RS, a learned learning rate scheduler that ensembles updates from base optimizers like Adam and SGD.\\n\\nL3RS is parameterized as a shared MLP and layer-wise trainable embeddings. For each layer, L3RS takes its embedding and training status statistics (training time, exponential moving average of loss/gradient norm/weight norm) as input, and predicts coefficients of base optimizer updates. L3RS is trained with natural evolution strategies. In various settings with ImageNet and PLACES dataset, L3RS shows higher classification accuracy and training efficiency on ResNet34 finetuning.\", \"soundness\": \"3\", \"presentation\": \"2\", \"contribution\": \"2\", \"strengths\": \"1. The presentation is clear and easy to understand; The experiments are comprehensive and well-explained.\\n2. The proposed method is novel and useful: it eliminates the need for learning rate schedule tuning.\\n3. The proposed method demonstrates faster convergence and improved performance.\", \"weaknesses\": \"1. L3RS is not generalized and needs to be trained independently for each model architecture, which limits its application. From ImageNet <-> PLACES experiments it seems a trained L3RS can generalize to other data distributions, and it would be more beneficial to include more benchmarks to showcase that.\\n2. Experiments are only conducted on ResNet34, while including evaluation on other architectures and more diverse benchmarks (e.g. [VeLO](https://arxiv.org/abs/2211.09760)) would make the results more convincing. \\n3. Finetuning for only 1000 steps may not well represent the practical finetuning setting.\\n4. Lack of a deeper analysis on how SGD/Adam update directions are favored by different layers/learning stages.\\n5. For practical use of L3RS, there needs to be a L3RS training recipe generalized across different model architectures, or pretrained L3RS checkpoints tuned for popular architectures.\", \"questions\": \"See weaknesses\", \"flag_for_ethics_review\": \"['No ethics review needed.']\", \"details_of_ethics_concerns\": \"N/A\", \"rating\": \"5\", \"confidence\": \"4\", \"code_of_conduct\": \"Yes\"}", "{\"comment\": \"We appreciate the reviewers taking the time to provide such detailed and helpful feedback. We have revised the paper to address your comments. We feel these changes have made our paper stronger and are truly thankful for the suggestions.\\n\\nSpecifically, we:\\n\\n**Added experiments on ResNet-18 and Vision Transformer models.** A shared theme in the feedback was the concern about the limited range of model architectures in the initial submission. We hope these new results demonstrate the effectiveness of our approach beyond just ResNet-34.\\n\\n**Included AdaBelief as a baseline.** We agree that AdaBelief is a relevant and important baseline, and we have now incorporated it into our experiments.\\n\\n**Added a more thorough analysis of the SGD/Adam direction choices made by L3RS.** We believe that interpretability is a valuable quality for a learned optimizer. While we had some light analysis into the behavior of the optimizer, we agree that a more thorough analysis was needed. We hope that the new analysis is more clear and insightful.\\n\\nWe hope you agree and will consider raising your score to reflect these improvements. We are confident that our work makes a valuable contribution to the field of learned optimizers and would be a good fit for ICLR 2025.\\n\\nThank you again for your constructive feedback. We are grateful for the opportunity to improve our work based on your suggestions.\"}", "{\"comment\": \"> It is understandable to skip Shampoo this time.\\n\\nWe appreciate the understanding, but would like to make it clear that we agree Shampoo is a very reasonable baseline. Time and engineering resources were the main constraints that prevented us from adding Shampoo as a baseline during this review process, but we agree it would be ideal to add and thank the reviewer for the suggestion.\\n\\n> Accuracy might makes sense in the selection application, it might be very misleading...\\n\\nWe agree that accuracy would be a misleading metric in many other applications. One of the reasons we chose ImageNet as a dataset is that its a popular benchmark for image classification and there is a main interpretable metric, accuracy. Many researchers are familiar with ImageNet and what various accuracies mean with respect to the model performance. It is true that accuracy is not the full story, which is why we include loss as well. We are more than happy to discuss this further if this wasn't a satisfactory answer or if we misunderstood, and would like to understand what metrics you might prefer to see.\\n\\n> By back envelope estimation, i would like to encourage authors to list the estimation of the computational costs and other costs associated with applying the proposed optimizers in the real application.\\n\\nIs the suggestion here that we provide specific computational costs and resources required to practically apply this method? If so, the difficulty with doing so is that its extremely dependent on the application. Model size and inference/gradient cost are the largest factors in the actual cost of practical application of the method. The optimizer itself is extremely lightweight relative to many models used in practice today. Our intention in the previous response was to give some rules of thumb to determine when the method would be practical in application. Due to the cost of meta-training it certainly is not always worthwhile, but we believe the scenarios we described where it is worthwhile cover a large breadth of practical settings.\\n\\nWe thank the reviewer for their time and feedback look forward to continuing this discussion.\"}", "{\"summary\": \"Typical model training requires an optimizer such as SGD, or ADAM and tune the hyper parameters such as learning rate. One alternative direction is to have meta-learning, where a general-purpose optimizer is trained from multiple tasks and then apply to the specific problem. This meta-learning approach such as VELO is computational expensive. This paper tries a different direction which is to learn a specialized learned optimizer namely L3RS to focus on improving the pre-trained model fine-tuning. Different from the VELO approach, the proposed L3RS uses smaller MLP networks for per-layer operations and relies on base optimizers. This design choice leads to two to three orders magnitude fewer parameters compared to the VELO. The proposed L3RS shows 50% speed up over VELO and 100% speedup over the best hand-designed optimizer on ImageNet benchmark.\", \"soundness\": \"3\", \"presentation\": \"2\", \"contribution\": \"3\", \"strengths\": \"1. L3RS is a unique learning-to-learn optimizer approach that focuses on the fine-tuning cases. This is different from the standard fine-tuning optimizer such as SGD or ADAM, and it is also very different from the general learning-to-learn optimizer such as VELO.\\n2. The proposed approach is evaluated on various experimental settings such as ImageNet and PLACES datasets. The proposed experimental setting seems to be typical for learning-to-learn related papers.\\n3. L3RS shows a significantly speed up than the VELO and baseline in the benchmarks.\", \"weaknesses\": \"1. Experiments are not comprehensive and convincing. The actual baseline used in the experiments is VELO. However, the field has many other famous approaches, such as Shampoo optimizers. Can the proposed approach show better results than Shampoo as well? I am also not sure about the generalization of the proposed approach. Specifically, how would one know that the layers trained with the proposed approach are not stuck in the local optimal? Can you provide any theoretical or experimental analysis? It seems to be odd to focus only on achieving accuracy. It would be better to see if the model is converged.\\n2. Resources. The proposed approach is still considerably expensive, and it might not be that attractive to the practitioner if it only helps to optimize the optimizer to adapt to the specific dataset with specific model fine-tuning. It would be great to justify the resources.\", \"questions\": \"1. How is the proposed approach perform against the other alternative such as Shampoo optimizer?\\n\\n2. How is the proposed approach determine if the learned optimizer is useful to help the model to be trained to converged rather than reaching certain accuracy?\\n\\n3. Can you give more back envelop estimation on the computational cost versus the benefits of the proposed approach bringing in in the actual useful applications?\", \"flag_for_ethics_review\": \"['No ethics review needed.']\", \"rating\": \"5\", \"confidence\": \"4\", \"code_of_conduct\": \"Yes\"}", "{\"title\": \"Paper Decision\", \"decision\": \"Reject\"}", "{\"comment\": \"> \\u201cthe proposed learned optimizer only outperforms Adam in the early stages with smaller training steps\\u201d \\u2026 \\u201cGiven that the final performance of L3RS is comparable to Adam and considering the extra computational costs, what are the specific scenarios or benefits that justify the use of learned optimizers?\\u201d\\n\\nWhile L3RS's final performance is comparable to Adam in long-horizon training, its key benefit lies in rapid adaptation. This makes L3RS particularly valuable in scenarios like few-shot learning, transfer learning, or when models require frequent and efficient fine-tuning on new data. The initial meta-training cost is amortized over numerous adaptation tasks, leading to overall computational savings in dynamic environments.\\n\\n> \\u201cExperiments on additional tasks and models are necessary.\\u201c\\n\\nWe agree that evaluating our method on a broader range of tasks and models would be beneficial. Our choice of ImageNet and PLACES was driven by their recognition as challenging, large-scale benchmarks that effectively highlight the strengths of our method in a complex visual domain. Due to resource constraints, we focused on these core vision tasks for this study, but we intend to explore these avenues in future work.\\n\\n> \\u201cA more in-depth discussion of advanced adaptive learning methods, such as Adabelief, is helpful.\\u201d\\n\\nWe appreciate the reviewer's suggestion to include a discussion of AdaBelief. Our choice of Adam was motivated by its status as a widely adopted and effective adaptive optimizer, providing a strong and relevant baseline for our method. While a comprehensive comparison with all advanced adaptive methods is computationally intensive, we agree that including AdaBelief is valuable. We will perform experiments with AdaBelief and provide a detailed analysis of the results in the appendix, including a discussion of its performance relative to Adam and our proposed method.\"}", "{\"summary\": \"This work proposes a learning to learn method where learned optimizers are used to finetune pretrained models. The work focuses mainly on downstream tasks with the goal of focusing the meta learning process on narrower tasks. Experiments revolve around showing that the learned optimizer can use off-the-shelf optimizers to surpass both off-the-shelf and SotA learned optimizers.\", \"soundness\": \"3\", \"presentation\": \"1\", \"contribution\": \"2\", \"strengths\": \"The experiments on task distribution are comprehensive.\\nThe section on preliminaries is comprehensive.\\nThe ablation studies show the effectiveness of each design choice.\", \"weaknesses\": [\"The abstract is poorly written with wording that replaces necessary definitions. What is meant by \\u201ctransforms the updates\\u201d (missing context), \\u201cvarious statistics\\u201d (can be replaced with an actual example) or \\u201chand-designed\\u201d (didn\\u2019t understand what this could be in relation to)? In general, in terms of writing, the paper seems rushed and incomplete with inconsistencies in writing quality.\", \"L154: There is a mention of \\\"a lot of parameters\\\". A casual writing style isn't appropriate. Either the number of parameters should be mentioned or a relative figure should be given justifying the issues that the authors take with VELO. Especially since this paper quantitatively addresses this issue in Table 1 and a simple referral to that section would be enough.\", \"L153: \\\"2-hidden layer, 4-hidden MLP\\\" this part doesn't make sense. 4-hidden MLP?\", \"L155: The usage of the word \\\"lean\\\" is vague and uncommon as far as I'm aware. Did you mean flexible?\", \"L189: \\u201cis probably the closest\\u201d. Again, casual writing style is not appropriate.\", \"The structuring of paragraphs is odd. As an example, in the preliminaries section, some paragraphs are only a single sentence.\", \"One of the problems mentioned in the intro is about the short horizon and how far we need to move from the pretrained model to train it. But then in the next few paragraphs, the authors mention that they want to focus on finetuning pretrained models. Wouldn\\u2019t that make the problem of short horizons moot not only for this work but also for the previous works that supposedly had problems with long horizons?\", \"I didn\\u2019t find a comparison to ATMO Landro et al. (2021) in the paper especially since it is mentioned in the paper that ATMO is the closest to this work. Is the ablation at L476 a representation of ATMO?\", \"The experiments seem to focus on one structure and one variant of that structure. More structures are needed to show that the approach isn't limited to resnet only especially since more complicated mechanisms like attention don't exist in ResNet-34 making them unsuitable for a considerable number of current day problems.\", \"Section 5, meta-evaluation and baselines: why are those baselines chosen? there is no description of the reasoning as to what the point of comparison to those baselines is. This is referring to the case of cosine, cosine head, const and const head. If the point is to vary the learning rate scheduler, there are many other schedulers. What makes cosine scheduling so special to act as a baseline? Is it the popularity of cosine schedulers? To note, I'm asking for a description for the reasoning of choosing those baselines. The VELO models have descriptions giving reasoning as to why they were chosen for comparison but the other baselines don't.\", \"Since the work is focused on narrow datasets and finetuning scenarios, I\\u2019d expected to see more datasets with varying granularity to showcase the effectiveness of this method.\"], \"nitpicks\": \"Tables should be changed to booktabs format for readability if the venue rules allow.\\nFigure 3 caption is hard to read.\\nL200, comma missing at the start of paragraph.\", \"questions\": \"Please refer to the weaknesses section.\", \"flag_for_ethics_review\": \"['No ethics review needed.']\", \"rating\": \"5\", \"confidence\": \"4\", \"code_of_conduct\": \"Yes\"}", "{\"summary\": \"This paper explores learned optimizers to refine pretrained models. The proposed method, L3RS, dynamically adjusts the weighting scaler for gradient directions derived from different optimizers like SGD and Adam in a layer-specific manner and tunes hyperparameters such as the learning rate during the meta-learning process. The results demonstrate that L3RS surpasses both traditional and other learned optimizers in terms of performance during the initial fine-tuning steps.\", \"soundness\": \"2\", \"presentation\": \"3\", \"contribution\": \"2\", \"strengths\": \"1) The paper studies the important challenge of automating hyperparameter tuning for optimizers, which is a critical aspect of training neural networks efficiently.\\n2) By integrating the update directions from multiple optimizers and learning the optimal combination, the proposed method introduces a promising and potentially more adaptable approach to optimizer design. \\n3) L3RS shows enhanced performance in the early stages of fine-tuning compared to baseline methods.\", \"weaknesses\": \"1) My main concern is the applicability of this approach. According to Figure 3, the proposed learned optimizer only outperforms Adam in the early stages with smaller training steps. For larger training steps, Adam achieves comparable performance to the learned optimizer. Given that the learned optimizer requires extra time and memory to learn additional parameters, using it may not be necessary. Furthermore, the total convergence time, including the meta-learning process, may be slower than Adam.\\n2) The evaluation is limited to training a ResNet-34 model on image classification tasks. Expanding the experiments to include diverse tasks such as language understanding or generation and different architectures like transformers would provide a more comprehensive evaluation. \\n3) The study does not consider several recent and more effective variants of adaptive learning rate methods, such as Adabelief [1]. Including these in the comparative analysis or integrating their strategies could enhance the performance of learned optimizers and better justify their adoption. \\n\\n[1] Zhuang, Juntang, et al. \\\"Adabelief optimizer: Adapting stepsizes by the belief in observed gradients.\\\" Advances in neural information processing systems 33 (2020): 18795-18806.\", \"questions\": \"1)\\tGiven that the final performance of L3RS is comparable to Adam and considering the extra computational costs, what are the specific scenarios or benefits that justify the use of learned optimizers?\\n2)\\tExperiments on additional tasks and models are necessary. \\n3)\\tA more in-depth discussion of advanced adaptive learning methods, such as Adabelief, is helpful.\", \"flag_for_ethics_review\": \"['No ethics review needed.']\", \"rating\": \"3\", \"confidence\": \"3\", \"code_of_conduct\": \"Yes\"}", "{\"title\": \"Post-rebuttal Comment\", \"comment\": \"Thank you to the authors for their response. However, the majority of my concerns remain unresolved. The applicability of the proposed approach is still unclear. While the authors claim it may be useful in scenarios such as few-shot learning, there is insufficient evidence or experimental support to substantiate this claim. As a result, I maintain my original score.\"}", "{\"comment\": \"> \\u201cL3RS is not generalized and needs to be trained independently for each model architecture\\u201d\\n\\nWe agree that exploring the broader generalization of L3RS across diverse architectures is a valuable direction for future work. However, it's important to note that our current focus is on the specific and challenging problem of fine-tuning from a fixed checkpoint. In this domain, some level of model-specific adaptation is often necessary due to the inherent differences between pre-trained models and downstream tasks. While L3RS is designed to be adaptable, our primary contribution lies in its effectiveness within this specific fine-tuning setting. We plan to investigate broader architecture generalization in future research.\\n\\n> \\u201cFrom ImageNet <-> PLACES experiments it seems a trained L3RS can generalize to other data distributions, and it would be more beneficial to include more benchmarks to showcase that.\\u201d\\n\\nWe understand that more evaluations are always preferred. We chose ImageNet and PLACES as the evaluation datasets due to their complexity and we believe that the current experiments reasonably show the usefulness of the method. The ideal usage of the method is to meta-train the optimizer on the data-distribution it will be used on. This generalization outside of the training distribution is not always expected with meta-learning methods and showcases the robustness of the method.\\n\\n> \\u201cExperiments are only conducted on ResNet34, while including evaluation on other architectures and more diverse benchmarks (e.g. VeLO) would make the results more convincing.\\u201d\\n\\nWe agree that evaluations of other architectures would be ideal, but have left that to future work. The VeLO paper did a good job of this, but VeLO is a general optimizer and needed to show meta-test time generalization to other architectures. The Velodrome dataset they created is also not applicable here because that dataset samples model architectures.\\n\\n> \\u201cFinetuning for only 1000 steps may not well represent the practical finetuning setting.\\u201c\\n\\nWe agree that the optimal number of fine-tuning steps can vary depending on the specific application. However, our experiments demonstrate that L3RS is highly effective even with relatively short fine-tuning durations, achieving strong results with up to 2500 steps. Moreover, our results show that L3RS achieves significant performance gains even within the 500-2500 step range, which is outside of the meta-training distribution, indicating its efficiency and effectiveness in practical fine-tuning scenarios.\\n\\n> \\u201cLack of a deeper analysis on how SGD/Adam update directions are favored by different layers/learning stages.\\u201d\\n\\nThere are some patterns that we see with how the SGD/Adam directions are chosen throughout training. Figures 4, 8, and 9 show averages through training. In particular, Figure 8 shows the average parameter movement across all layers, reveals several distinct phases: an initial warm-up period with an increasing learning rate, a period of relatively constant learning rate while transitioning from ADAM to SGD, a phase of rapid learning rate decay, and a final convergence to the SGD direction over the last \\u223c10 steps. While the precise\\ninterpretation of these parameter dynamics is challenging, the L3RS parameters are considerably more interpretable than those of most black-box learned optimizers.\\n\\n> \\u201cFor practical use of L3RS, there needs to be a L3RS training recipe generalized across different model architectures, or pretrained L3RS checkpoints tuned for popular architectures.\\u201c\\n\\nThank you for raising this important point about the practical application of L3RS. We agree that generalizability and ease of use are key for adoption. Regarding hyperparameter selection, we designed our meta-training procedure with broad applicability in mind, and we believe the chosen hyperparameters will be effective across a range of scenarios. To clarify this, we will expand the paper with a detailed discussion of the rationale behind our hyperparameter choices and provide guidance on potential adjustments for specific use cases.\\n\\nWe also strongly agree with the suggestion of providing pretrained L3RS checkpoints. Our vision for L3RS is indeed to offer a collection of specialized optimizers, tailored for different architectures and tasks, rather than a single monolithic model, like VeLO. We plan to release pretrained checkpoints for several popular architectures to facilitate practical use. Finally, we find the suggestion of investigating few-shot fine-tuning very compelling. This approach could enable rapid adaptation of L3RS to new models and data distributions, and we will explore this direction in future work.\"}", "{\"metareview\": \"The submission introduces L3RS (Learned Layer-wise Learning Rate Scheduler), an optimizer that learns to combine the updates provided by hand-designed optimizers such as SGD and Adam, as well as heuristics such as multi-scale EMA.\\nAfter the initial round of reviews, this received scores of 5, 3, 5, 5. \\nAll reviewers raised the concern that the method was not evaluated on a sufficient number of datasets, architectures, and tasks.\\n\\nMost importantly, during the rebuttal, the authors uploaded a revision that de-anonymized the submission and revealed their names and affiliations. This was noticed and flagged by the reviewers and AC. This is in violation of the reviewing policy and is sufficient grounds for desk rejection.\", \"additional_comments_on_reviewer_discussion\": \"All reviewers raised the concern that the method was not evaluated on a sufficient number of datasets, architectures, and tasks. Further, they pointed out that the model's loss using this new optimizer was comparable to Adam, given sufficient number of updates. Even after the rebuttal by the authors, the reviewers remained unconvinced.\"}", "{\"comment\": \"We appreciate the reviewer for the careful review and for pointing out many small errors and typos that we missed. We will certainly address and fix them as well as carefully re-review for any others missed.\\n\\n> \\u201cOne of the problems mentioned in the intro is about the short horizon and how far we need to move from the pretrained model to train it.\\u201d\\n\\nThank you for raising this important point. We understand the apparent contradiction between highlighting the short horizon problem and then focusing on fine-tuning. Allow us to clarify.\\n\\nWhile fine-tuning pretrained models does typically involve shorter training times compared to training from scratch, it does not inherently eliminate the short horizon bias. There are situations where we need to adapt to a slightly longer optimization trajectory than what the meta-optimizer was originally trained on. For example, we might encounter a new task or dataset that requires a few more fine-tuning steps to reach optimal performance. A meta-optimizer trained on very short horizons might fail to generalize effectively, even if the absolute fine-tuning time remains relatively short. In our work, we demonstrate that our proposed optimizer is robust to this problem. Specifically, we show that it can successfully generalize to longer fine-tuning horizons than those it was explicitly meta-trained on (e.g. see Figure 3 meta-generalization of L3RS curves from solid to dotted lines). \\n\\n> \\u201cI didn\\u2019t find a comparison to ATMO\\u201d. Is the ablation at L476 a representation of ATMO?\\n\\nThanks for raising this. The ablation at L476 and \\\"Global\\\" in Table 2 are our closest comparisons to ATMO, as they reduce our method to a weighted combination across all layers, similar to ATMO's linear combination of SGD and Adam.\\n\\nHowever, even here our method is meta-learned, the linear weighting and learning rates are chosen dynamically, while ATMO uses a static hyperparameter. Thus, \\\"Global\\\" provides an upper bound on ATMO's performance. We'll clarify this in the manuscript.\\n\\n> \\u201cThe experiments seem to focus on one structure and one variant of that structure\\u201d\\n\\nWe acknowledge that evaluating on a wider range of architectures is an important consideration. We initially focused on ResNet-34 due to its widespread use and established performance as a benchmark in the field. Furthermore, we don\\u2019t expect any intra-model generalization, since our current focus is fine-tuning from a fixed checkpoint and we expect some degree of model-specific adaptation is expected and, in some cases, even beneficial. We will be sure to highlight this scope and the potential for future architectural exploration in the revised manuscript.\\n\\n> \\u201cTo note, I'm asking for a description for the reasoning of choosing those baselines.\\u201d\\n\\nOur choices were guided by both standard practice and the need to isolate specific contributions. Adam serves as a robust and widely used optimizer benchmark. Cosine Schedule reflects the increasing popularity of cosine learning rate decay in fine-tuning for its smooth convergence. While other schedulers exist, the cosine schedule's effectiveness and prevalence made it a representative choice. Constant Learning Rate isolates the benefits of a schedule versus a single, fixed or learned global learning rate. 'Const head' adds a minimal learnable scaling in cases the budget is limited. We will clarify this reasoning in Section 5 of the revised manuscript.\\n\\n> \\u201cI\\u2019d expected to see more datasets with varying granularity\\u201d\\n\\nThank you for raising this important point about the diversity of datasets used in our evaluation. We understand the desire to see L3RS applied to a wider range of datasets with varying granularities. Our current focus, however, is on demonstrating the effectiveness of L3RS on established, large-scale image classification benchmarks (ImageNet and PLACES). This allows us to conduct a more in-depth analysis (like ablation in studies in Section 6) and demonstrate the effectiveness of L3RS within this specific context. We will clarify this scope and the motivation for our dataset selection in the revised manuscript.\"}", "{\"comment\": \"Thank you for your detailed answers. I have a few questions and points to raise.\\n\\n> For example, we might encounter a new task or dataset that requires a few more fine-tuning steps to reach optimal performance. \\n\\nAs mentioned by the reviewer Gurv, in longer horizons, the proposed approach only outperforms Adam in the early stages with smaller training steps and on longer horizons, Adam works fine. So based on your answer to that comment and mine, would that mean that the specific targeted problem here would be very short horizon + few-shot or continual learning?\\n\\n> We initially focused on ResNet-34 due to its widespread use and established performance as a benchmark in the field\\n\\nI would accept this answer in the light of the paper having deeper insights. However, the cited works that have been mentioned as being close to the submitted work seem to experiment with more than one structure. [a] has experimented with ResNet18, ResNet34, and BERT. [b] has experiments for GPT2, ResNet18, ResNet50. So I'd at least expect some potential results with one other structure on commonly used datasets but without any other structures, I wouldn't be comfortable changing my score.\\n\\nI'm happy with the answers to the rest of my initial questions. Although, my comments about the writing of the paper have not been addressed. I expected the manuscript to be updated with better writing by now.\\n\\n[a] Landro N, Gallo I, La Grassa R. Combining Optimization Methods Using an Adaptive Meta Optimizer. Algorithms. 2021; 14(6):186. https://doi.org/10.3390/a14060186\\n\\n[b] Almeida, D., Winter, C., Tang, J., & Zaremba, W. (2021). A Generalizable Approach to Learning Optimizers. ArXiv, abs/2106.00958.\"}", "{\"comment\": \"1. It is understandable to skip Shampoo this time. However, if things are allowed, i feel that comparison would help to provide a good perspective on the proposed optimizer. I am not sure why the 2nd order optimizer is skipped, given that has done experiments on the same if not the similar dataset. See https://arxiv.org/pdf/1802.09568. The experiments were running on CIFAR 10/100 in Shampoo paper back in 2018. It seems that the 2024 GPU resources that could be running for the proposed optimizer on ImageNet can be easily reused to run the experiments on CIFAR 10/100?\\n\\n2. Accuracy might makes sense in the selection application, it might be very misleading to have the practical meaning in a lot of application. e.g. autonomous vehicle application, it makes very little sense to have a model to reach one accuracy without looking into the other metrics such as confusion matrix, precision, recall, etc. I would like to learn more about what the motivation of only looking into accuracy.\\n3. By back envelope estimation, i would like to encourage authors to list the estimation of the computational costs and other costs associated with applying the proposed optimizers in the real application. Yes, i agree with the arguments that it might worth paying the cost wit the proposed optimizer when we consider some circumstances. But I am also interested in learning the weakness of the proposed approach, and see if there is any rooms to be improved.\"}", "{\"comment\": \"> \\u201cHowever, the field has many other famous approaches, such as Shampoo optimizers.\\u201d\\n\\nWe appreciate the reviewer's suggestion. We chose VeLO as it is the SoTA learned optimizer at this time. Shampoo is a traditional optimizer, but is worthwhile to consider as a baseline. Due to resource constraints we chose a limited number of baselines. We compared to Adam since it is a popular, robust method which tends to perform well with little hyperparameter tuning.\\n\\n> \\u201cHow is the proposed approach determine if the learned optimizer is useful to help the model to be trained to converged rather than reaching certain accuracy?\\u201d\\n\\nWhile model convergence is an important aspect for an optimizer, guaranteeing global convergence is a challenge for most optimization algorithms, including widely used methods like Adam (see e.g. https://arxiv.org/abs/1904.09237). Our method, like most other meta-optimization approaches, focuses on practical performance improvement rather than theoretical convergence guarantees.\\n\\nHowever, because of the interpretability of our method, we can demonstrate certain aspects of the final performance that hints at convergence of our model (see Fig.9 from the appendix). First, close to the end of training, the learning rate drops significantly, which aligns with the principle of gradually reducing the learning rate as the model approaches a minimum. Second, our learned algorithm switches from Adam to SGD, which helps with the convergence. This transition leverages the strengths of each optimizer: Adam for initial exploration in early stages, and SGD for fine-tuning and potential convergence to sharper minima in later stages. This strategy is consistent with established practices in deep learning (see e.g. https://arxiv.org/abs/1705.08292).\\n\\nThese clarifications and additions will be incorporated into the final version of the manuscript.\\n\\n> \\u201cIt seems to be odd to focus only on achieving accuracy. It would be better to see if the model is converged.\\u201d\\n\\nAccuracy is the preferred metric for the datasets we\\u2019ve chosen, but we have included corresponding figures and tables using loss as the metric in the appendix. This allows for a comprehensive evaluation of performance beyond just accuracy.\\n\\n> \\u201cCan you give more back envelop estimation on the computational cost versus the benefits of the proposed approach bringing in in the actual useful applications?\\u201d\\n\\nTable 1 provides the memory and compute overheads for our optimizer. While overall training a meta-optimizer is computationally more expensive, we argue that the benefits of our meta-training approach outweigh the costs in several practical scenarios, for example.\\n\\n1. Fine-tuning large models often involves thousands of iterations with different datasets or tasks. Assuming a typical fine-tuning run requires $X$ compute hours and our meta-trained optimizer improves performance by $Y\\\\%$, amortizing the meta-training cost ( $Z$ compute hours) becomes beneficial after approximately $Z / (X * Y/100)$ fine-tuning runs. Given the scale of the model deployments (e.g. for LLM), this threshold can be easily surpassed.\\n\\n2. In domains where even small performance gains translate to substantial real-world impact (e.g., medical diagnosis, fraud detection), the investment in meta-training is justified. A $X\\\\%$ improvement in accuracy, even at a higher initial computational cost, can lead to significant downstream benefits that outweigh the initial investment.\\n\\n3. In cases where data or compute resources are limited, efficiently utilizing the available resources is critical. Our method, by achieving faster convergence and potentially better performance with fewer fine-tuning steps, directly addresses this constraint. For instance, if our method reduces the required training steps by $X\\\\%$, this translates to a proportional reduction in time and cost, making fine-tuning feasible in scenarios otherwise impossible.\"}" ] }

[ "Ling Haotian", "Wenzhang SUN", "Sen Liang" ]

[ "Consistency Distillation; Controllable and Consistent Generation" ]

{ "note_id": [ "O1SLbdokp4" ], "note_type": [ "comment" ], "note_created": [ 1731033076842 ], "note_signatures": [ [ "ICLR.cc/2025/Conference/Submission1476/Authors" ] ], "structured_content_str": [ "{\"withdrawal_confirmation\": \"I have read and agree with the venue's withdrawal policy on behalf of myself and my co-authors.\"}" ] }

[ "Muyao Wang", "Zeke Xie", "Bo Chen" ]

[ "channel-wise influence function", "mutivariate time series" ]

{ "note_id": [ "z5PRJaOtId", "xZfxf6wCrI", "xVpplfwoJf", "v2YQGgO5GO", "tS7gq6STBm", "szr4ZYmjVI", "qF49dHb3TX", "idarvg4Jhm", "iRgfk3Z1Wj", "iF4ERBO2LR", "gNMLdNndDi", "auxzwHWqsr", "ZesTzrRBKK", "Y0vsHj0UBn", "X2fzhE1sry", "VmbJU44xe6", "VSSe4fnYk4", "VLoande5Ab", "V4XCOw8RkR", "V1CzghxAcx", "U7bqn8eftW", "RdjacfkOcN", "RRV0MLJog1", "Oeb1rEV3wD", "OQSNgaMNd3", "MIYjzwRKi9", "KiE10sqG6E", "K8F0IvsunS", "K6vxYlTWWP", "EEq0uDRcQW", "C2rzz0HBV2", "8vY63CcmKT", "5CBk88wex5", "1n0Szd8Ww3", "0p68zl6LzR" ], "note_type": [ "official_comment", "official_comment", "official_comment", "official_comment", "official_comment", "official_comment", "official_comment", "official_comment", "official_comment", "official_comment", "official_comment", "official_comment", "official_review", "official_comment", "official_comment", "official_comment", "official_comment", "official_comment", "official_comment", "official_review", "official_comment", "official_comment", "official_comment", "official_comment", "official_review", "official_comment", "comment", "official_comment", "official_comment", "official_comment", "official_comment", "official_review", "official_comment", "official_comment", "official_comment" ], "note_created": [ 1733105049855, 1732524170957, 1731833786454, 1732544679544, 1732444466021, 1731643063003, 1732429067558, 1732692164415, 1731833160036, 1731643006080, 1733197482431, 1731833871707, 1730765121914, 1732444286712, 1733221326128, 1731833178160, 1732444386368, 1731833706067, 1731643199063, 1730520729421, 1733196235493, 1731833746859, 1732517702753, 1732532957326, 1730685625219, 1731832903419, 1737612362224, 1731832992819, 1732690894633, 1732428761816, 1731833962399, 1730469081878, 1731833013918, 1731832943108, 1732536553817 ], "note_signatures": [ [ "ICLR.cc/2025/Conference/Submission2768/Authors" ], [ "ICLR.cc/2025/Conference/Submission2768/Authors" ], [ "ICLR.cc/2025/Conference/Submission2768/Authors" ], [ "ICLR.cc/2025/Conference/Submission2768/Authors" ], [ "ICLR.cc/2025/Conference/Submission2768/Authors" ], [ "ICLR.cc/2025/Conference/Submission2768/Authors" ], [ "ICLR.cc/2025/Conference/Submission2768/Authors" ], [ "ICLR.cc/2025/Conference/Submission2768/Authors" ], [ "ICLR.cc/2025/Conference/Submission2768/Authors" ], [ "ICLR.cc/2025/Conference/Submission2768/Authors" ], [ "ICLR.cc/2025/Conference/Submission2768/Authors" ], [ "ICLR.cc/2025/Conference/Submission2768/Authors" ], [ "ICLR.cc/2025/Conference/Submission2768/Reviewer_pGX7" ], [ "ICLR.cc/2025/Conference/Submission2768/Authors" ], [ "ICLR.cc/2025/Conference/Submission2768/Authors" ], [ "ICLR.cc/2025/Conference/Submission2768/Authors" ], [ "ICLR.cc/2025/Conference/Submission2768/Authors" ], [ "ICLR.cc/2025/Conference/Submission2768/Authors" ], [ "ICLR.cc/2025/Conference/Submission2768/Authors" ], [ "ICLR.cc/2025/Conference/Submission2768/Reviewer_3pTH" ], [ "ICLR.cc/2025/Conference/Submission2768/Reviewer_pGX7" ], [ "ICLR.cc/2025/Conference/Submission2768/Authors" ], [ "ICLR.cc/2025/Conference/Submission2768/Reviewer_3pTH" ], [ "ICLR.cc/2025/Conference/Submission2768/Reviewer_pGX7" ], [ "ICLR.cc/2025/Conference/Submission2768/Reviewer_eNTa" ], [ "ICLR.cc/2025/Conference/Submission2768/Authors" ], [ "ICLR.cc/2025/Conference/Submission2768/Authors" ], [ "ICLR.cc/2025/Conference/Submission2768/Authors" ], [ "ICLR.cc/2025/Conference/Submission2768/Reviewer_4y6T" ], [ "ICLR.cc/2025/Conference/Submission2768/Reviewer_eNTa" ], [ "ICLR.cc/2025/Conference/Submission2768/Authors" ], [ "ICLR.cc/2025/Conference/Submission2768/Reviewer_4y6T" ], [ "ICLR.cc/2025/Conference/Submission2768/Authors" ], [ "ICLR.cc/2025/Conference/Submission2768/Authors" ], [ "ICLR.cc/2025/Conference/Submission2768/Authors" ] ], "structured_content_str": [ "{\"title\": \"Gentle Reminder\", \"comment\": \"Dear Reviewer 3pTH,\\n\\nWe sincerely appreciate your time and effort in reviewing our manuscript and offering valuable suggestions. As the discussion phase is drawing to an end, we sincerely hope to know whether we have addressed all of your concerns. If you have any further questions, we would be glad to engage in further discussion.\\n\\nBest Regards\"}", "{\"title\": \"Reponse to new issuses\", \"comment\": \"Thank you for your detail responses. In response to your new questions, here are our new answers.\\nIf we have misunderstood your question in any way, we kindly ask for further discussion.\\n\\n**Q1:** The revised version does not appear to include the additional experiments. For example those utilizing the ETTh1, ETTm1 datasets, and the DLinear model, etc.\\n\\n**A1:** Thank you for your suggestion. We have added the new experiments in the appendix C.3 and C.4, and uploaded the revised version of the paper for your review.\\n\\n**Q2:** Regarding baselines comparison, I think there might be some relevant methods to compare to such those using either channel independence (CI) or channel dependence (CD) for time series analysis. Following are some examples that might be relevant:\\n\\n[1] Rethinking Channel Dependence for Multivariate Time Series Forecasting: Learning from Leading Indicators. ICLR 2024\\n\\n[2] Feature Selection for Multivariate Time Series via Network Pruning. https://arxiv.org/pdf/2102.06024\\n\\n**A2:** Thank you for your feedback. As far as we know, DLinear is also a very representative channel-independence method because it assumes that all channels share the same linear parameters, as mentioned in [1]. That explains why we choose this model. Regarding the first paper you provided, it is a plug-and-play method that can be applied to various models, so we are currently considering how to make a fair comparison with our method. If you have any suggestions, we would be happy to hear them. Lastly, concerning the second paper, since we couldn't find the authors' open-source code, we are attempting to reproduce their results.\\n\\n[1] A TIME SERIES IS WORTH 64 WORDS: LONG-TERM FORECASTING WITH TRANSFORMERS ICLR 2023 \\n\\n**Q3\\uff1a** My previous request regarding computational complexity remains open. I require an analysis of the proposed method's computational complexity, particularly its scalability with high-dimensional data and the trade-off between this complexity and the achieved performance gains and not the complexity for a single channel.\\n\\n**A3:** We think that there may be some misunderstanding regarding our experiments. The experiments conducted in Appendix C.4 measure the influence for the entire multivariate time series, meaning we calculated the influence across all channels rather than only a single channel. Specifically, we computed the influence for a single MTS data sample, which includes a large number of channels.Furthermore, we are not entirely sure we understand your point regarding the trade-off between high-dimensional data and the achieved performance gains, as we always compute the influence of all channels within a single MTS data sample. Thus, such a trade-off should not exist in our case. If we have misunderstood your question, please feel free to clarify.\\n\\n**Q4\\uff1a** Regarding your answer to Q6: The observation that a simple MLP model with only one layer outperforms a Transformer model raises concerns about the chosen datasets. It is possible that the datasets used might lack the complexity typically observed in real-world multivariate time series (MTS) data, where intricate temporal dynamics are prevalent.\\n\\n**A4:** Thank you for your suggestion. This aligns with one of the concerns mentioned in the paper[2], namely that existing datasets for time series anomaly detection might be somewhat simplistic. This is also one of the reasons to explain why we used MTS forecasting datasets in the channel pruning task to further demonstrate the effectiveness of our method.\\n \\n[2]Position paper: Quo vadis, unsupervised time series anomaly detection? ICML 2024\"}", "{\"title\": \"Response to weaknesses:\", \"comment\": \"**Q5:** Additionally, the forecast length was fixed at 96, which may restrict the credibility of the results and the method's broader applicability.\\n\\n**A5\\uff1a** Thank you for your suggestion. We have added experimental results for the prediction length of 192. The detailed results are as follows:\\n| Dataset | | ECL | | | | | | Solar | | | | | | Traffic | | | | | |\\n|:--------------------------------:|:--------------------:|:-----:|:-----:|:-----:|:-----:|:-------:|:-----:|:-----:|:-----:|:-----:|:-------:|:-------:|:-----:|:-------:|:-----:|:-----:|:-----:|:-------:|:-----:|\\n| Proportion of variables retained | | 5% | 10% | 15% | 20% | **50%** | 100% | 5% | 10% | 15% | 20% | **50%** | 100% | 5% | 10% | 15% | 20% | **30%** | 100% |\\n| iTransformer | Continuous selection | 0.212 | 0.193 | 0.189 | 0.186 | 0.182 | 0.164 | 0.270 | 0.260 | 0.256 | 0.251 | 0.249 | 0.240 | 0.486 | 0.456 | 0.427 | 0.426 | 0.425 | 0.413 |\\n| | Random selection | 0.203 | 0.189 | 0.183 | 0.179 | 0.172 | 0.164 | 0.266 | 0.258 | 0.260 | 0.249 | 0.248 | 0.240 | 0.476 | 0.436 | 0.425 | 0.421 | 0.420 | 0.413 |\\n| | Influence selection | 0.191 | 0.181 | 0.173 | 0.171 | 0.165 | 0.164 | 0.259 | 0.256 | 0.254 | 0.244 | 0.242 | 0.240 | 0.460 | 0.430 | 0.422 | 0.416 | 0.413 | 0.413 |\\n| Proportion of variables retained | | 5% | 10% | 15% | 20% | **40%** | 100% | 5% | 10% | 15% | **20%** | 50% | 100% | 5% | 10% | 15% | 20% | **20%** | 100% |\\n| PatchTST | Continuous selection | 0.272 | 0.216 | 0.201 | 0.200 | 0.199 | 0.186 | 0.282 | 0.270 | 0.265 | 0.264 | 0.260 | 0.260 | 0.501 | 0.488 | 0.480 | 0.479 | 0.479 | 0.465 |\\n| | Random selection | 0.210 | 0.206 | 0.198 | 0.194 | 0.191 | 0.186 | 0.274 | 0.270 | 0.266 | 0.263 | 0.260 | 0.260 | 0.496 | 0.485 | 0.480 | 0.474 | 0.474 | 0.465 |\\n| | Influence selection | 0.200 | 0.197 | 0.195 | 0.190 | 0.186 | 0.186 | 0.267 | 0.264 | 0.262 | 0.260 | 0.260 | 0.260 | 0.485 | 0.475 | 0.470 | 0.465 | 0.465 | 0.465 |\\n\\nFrom the results shown in the table, it can be observed that channel-pruning based on channel-wise influence is more effective. Additionally, iTransformer still exhibits a larger core subset, demonstrating its superior ability to model channel dependency.\"}", "{\"title\": \"Additional Repsonse to Q2:\", \"comment\": \"To better highlight the effectiveness of our method, we compared it with the approach proposed in the mentioned paper[1], referred to as NFS. The specific results are as follows:\\n\\n| Dataset | | ECL | | | | | | Solar | | | | | | Traffic | | | | | |\\n|:--------------------------------:|:-------------------:|:-----:|:-----:|:-----:|:-----:|:-----:|:-----:|:-----:|:-----:|:-----:|:-----:|:-----:|:-----:|:-------:|:-----:|:-----:|:-----:|:-----:|:-----:|\\n| Proportion of variables retained | | 5% | 10% | 15% | 20% | 50% | 100% | 5% | 10% | 15% | 20% | 50% | 100% | 5% | 10% | 15% | 20% | 30% | 100% |\\n| iTransformer | NFS | 0.201 | 0.185 | 0.180 | 0.177 | 0.167 | 0.148 | 0.260 | 0.248 | 0.227 | 0.222 | 0.214 | 0.206 | 0.428 | 0.408 | 0.402 | 0.399 | 0.397 | 0.395 |\\n| | Influence selection | 0.187 | 0.174 | 0.170 | 0.165 | 0.150 | 0.148 | 0.229 | 0.224 | 0.220 | 0.219 | 0.210 | 0.206 | 0.419 | 0.405 | 0.398 | 0.397 | 0.395 | 0.395 |\\n\\nFrom the results shown in the table, it is evident that our method is more effective. According to the method described in the paper[1], this approach introduces additional network parameters to evaluate the importance of different channels. Furthermore, the number of additional parameters required by this method scales with the number of channels, significantly increasing its computational time. Specifically, while the original iTransformer takes only 17 seconds to train one epoch on the ECL dataset, this method increases the time to 32 seconds per epoch.\"}", "{\"title\": \"Gentle reminder\", \"comment\": \"Dear Reviewer 4y6T\\n\\nWe sincerely appreciate your time and effort in reviewing our manuscript and offering valuable suggestions. As the discussion time is coming to an end, we would like to confirm whether our responses have effectively addressed your concerns. We provided detailed responses to your concerns a few days ago, and we hope they have adequately addressed your issues. If you require further clarification or have any additional concerns, please do not hesitate to contact us. We are more than willing to continue our communication with you.\\n\\nBest regards,\"}", "{\"title\": \"Response to weaknesses\", \"comment\": \"**Q1:** Figure 1 is not cited within the paper.\\n\\n**A1\\uff1a** We have revised the paper according to your suggestions and re-uploaded it. The modified sections are highlighted in blue for your reference.\\n\\n**Q2:** Algorithm 2 could be polished.\\n\\n**A2\\uff1a** We have revised the paper according to your suggestions and re-uploaded it. The modified sections are highlighted in blue for your reference. In addition, we would appreciate any further suggestions you may have for refining Algorithm 2. This would greatly assist us in better explaining our work to you.\"}", "{\"comment\": \"Thank you for your response. If you have any new questions, we would like to have a further discussion with you.\"}", "{\"title\": \"Thank you for your response\", \"comment\": \"We are glad that we have addressed your questions. Thank you for your valuable suggestions and time. If you have any new questions, we would be glad to have a further discussion with you.\"}", "{\"title\": \"Response to weaknesses:\", \"comment\": \"We appreciate your time to provide valuable comments and suggestions to improve our paper substantially.\\n\\n**Q1:** The technical contribution of this paper is not very high. Only the influence function is proposed in MTS, which has been well-studied in other domains.\\n**A1:** Before we begin addressing your questions, we would like to first clarify the primary contributions of our paper. Influence functions have demonstrated significant performance and value across various fields[4]-[10], with notable applications in outlier detection[7][8][9][10] and data pruning[4][5]. However, there is no preceding research on the influence functions of multivariate time series to shed light on the effects of modifying the channel of multivariate time series. To fill this gap, we propose a channel-wise influence function, which is the first data-centric method that can estimate the influence of different channels in multivariate time series. We conducted extensive experiments and found that the original influence function performed poorly in anomaly detection and could not facilitate channel pruning, underscoring the superiority and necessity of our approach. Additionally, we can further analyze the information learned by the model through the channel-wise influence matrix. For example, as mentioned in Section 5.2.1 of our paper, comparing the number of core channel subsets across different models reveals each model's capacity for capturing channel dependencies. A larger core subset indicates that the model has captured more effective information, which also highlights the interpretability of our approach.\\n\\n**Regarding the selection of tasks to verify our method:** Anomaly detection has long been a critical issue in multivariate time series analysis, with relevant studies including[1][2]. Data pruning is equally important as it raises the question of whether we can train a high-performing model with less data than predicted by scaling laws[3], with related work found in studies such as [3][4][5]. However, data pruning has not yet been extensively studied within the context of time series. By analyzing the characteristics of multivariate time series, we identified redundancy between channels and developed a channel pruning method based on our proposed channel-wise influence function, which outperforms traditional data pruning approaches. In addition, this method also supports the interpretability analysis of the model's ability to model multivariate time series.\\n\\n[1]Position paper: Quo vadis, unsupervised time series anomaly detection? ICML 2024\\n\\n[2]Anomaly transformer: Time series anomaly detection with association discrepancy. ICLR 2022\\n\\n[3]Beyond neural scaling laws: beating power law scaling via data pruning Neurips 2022\\n\\n[4]Data Pruning via Moving-one-Sample-out Neurips 2023\\n\\n[5]Dataset Pruning: Reducing Training Data by Examining Generalization Influence ICLR 2023\\n\\n[6]Self-influence guided data reweighting for language model pre-training. ACL 2023\\n\\n[7]Detecting adversarial samples using influence functions and nearest neighbors. CVPR 2020\\n\\n[8]Estimating training data influence by tracing gradient descent. Neurips 2020\\n\\n[9]Understanding Black-box Predictions via Influence Functions. ICML 2017\\n\\n[10]Resolving Training Biases via Influence-based Data Relabeling. ICLR 2022\"}", "{\"title\": \"Explanation of the contributions of the paper:\", \"comment\": \"We appreciate your time to provide valuable comments and suggestions to improve our paper substantially. Before we begin addressing your questions, we would like to first clarify the primary contributions of our paper. Influence functions have demonstrated significant performance and value across various fields[4]-[10], with notable applications in outlier detection[7][8][9][10] and data pruning[4][5]. However, there is no preceding research on the influence functions of multivariate time series to shed light on the effects of modifying the channel of multivariate time series. To fill this gap, we propose a channel-wise influence function, which is the first data-centric method that can estimate the influence of different channels in multivariate time series. We conducted extensive experiments and found that the original influence function performed poorly in anomaly detection and could not facilitate channel pruning, underscoring the superiority and necessity of our approach. Additionally, we can further analyze the information learned by the model through the channel-wise influence matrix. For example, as mentioned in Section 5.2.1 of our paper, comparing the number of core channel subsets across different models reveals each model's capacity for capturing channel dependencies. A larger core subset indicates that the model has captured more effective information, which also highlights the interpretability of our approach.\\n\\n**Regarding the selection of tasks to verify our method:** Anomaly detection has long been a critical issue in multivariate time series analysis, with relevant studies including[1][2]. Data pruning is equally important as it raises the question of whether we can train a high-performing model with less data than predicted by scaling laws[3], with related work found in studies such as [3][4][5]. However, data pruning has not yet been extensively studied within the context of time series. By analyzing the characteristics of multivariate time series, we identified redundancy between channels and developed a channel pruning method based on our proposed channel-wise influence function, which outperforms traditional data pruning approaches. In addition, this method also supports the interpretability analysis of the model's ability to model multivariate time series.\\n\\n[1]Position paper: Quo vadis, unsupervised time series anomaly detection? ICML 2024\\n\\n[2]Anomaly transformer: Time series anomaly detection with association discrepancy. ICLR 2022\\n\\n[3]Beyond neural scaling laws: beating power law scaling via data pruning Neurips 2022\\n\\n[4]Data Pruning via Moving-one-Sample-out Neurips 2023\\n\\n[5]Dataset Pruning: Reducing Training Data by Examining Generalization Influence ICLR 2023\\n\\n[6]Self-influence guided data reweighting for language model pre-training. ACL 2023\\n\\n[7]Detecting adversarial samples using influence functions and nearest neighbors. CVPR 2020\\n\\n[8]Estimating training data influence by tracing gradient descent. Neurips 2020\\n\\n[9]Understanding Black-box Predictions via Influence Functions. ICML 2017\\n\\n[10]Resolving Training Biases via Influence-based Data Relabeling. ICLR 2022\"}", "{\"title\": \"Response to New question\", \"comment\": \"Our method demonstrates significant advantages when it comes to accurately identifying the influence of a specific channel within an MTS. Specifically, as highlighted in our paper, this includes anomaly detection tasks where pinpointing the exact anomalous channel is crucial, as well as channel pruning tasks aimed at identifying the most representative channels to accelerate model training\\u2014an advantage that becomes more pronounced as the number of channels increases. Furthermore, our method can be applied to tasks like data attribution, where understanding which channel significantly influenced a model's decision is essential.\\n\\nRegarding the limitations of our approach, one challenge lies in deployment on certain edge devices, as some may not support gradient computation, leading to practical restrictions. Additionally, while the computation time increases with the number of channels, this growth is approximately linear, as detailed in Appendix C.4.\"}", "{\"title\": \"Response to weaknesses:\", \"comment\": \"**Q6:** Insufficient Comparison with Baseline Models: The paper lacks comparison with enough baseline models, especially current mainstream state-of-the-art (SOTA) methods. This limitation makes it difficult to fully assess the proposed method's effectiveness relative to existing approaches, thus limiting the demonstration of its advantages. For instance, in time series forecasting, only PatchTST and iTransformer were used for comparison, while other competitive models like GPHT, SimMTM, TSMixer, TimesNet, and DLinear were omitted.\\n\\n**A6\\uff1a** Thank you for your suggestion. Considering that the primary purpose of our method is to accelerate training and better interpret the model's behavior, we did not include comparisons with a wide range of time series forecasting methods. However, given that DLinear is a highly representative approach, we have added it as a supplementary method and tested it under our original setting. The results are as follows:\\n| Dataset | | ECL | | | | | | Solar | | | | | | Traffic | | | | | |\\n|:--------------------------------:|:--------------------:|:-----:|:-----:|:-----:|:-----:|:-----:|:-----:|:-----:|:-----:|:-----:|:-----:|:-----:|:-----:|:-------:|:-----:|:-----:|:-----:|:-----:|:-----:|\\n| Proportion of variables retained | | 5% | 10% | 15% | 20% | 50% | 100% | 5% | 10% | 15% | 20% | 50% | 100% | 5% | 10% | 15% | 20% | 30% | 100% |\\n| DLinear | Continuous selection | 0.201 | 0.200 | 0.198 | 0.197 | 0.196 | 0.196 | 0.311 | 0.309 | 0.307 | 0.301 | 0.301 | 0.301 | 0.649 | 0.647 | 0.645 | 0.645 | 0.645 | 0.645 |\\n| | Random selection | 0.200 | 0.198 | 0.196 | 0.196 | 0.196 | 0.196 | 0.306 | 0.304 | 0.303 | 0.301 | 0.301 | 0.301 | 0.649 | 0.648 | 0.645 | 0.645 | 0.645 | 0.645 |\\n| | Influence selection | 0.197 | 0.196 | 0.196 | 0.196 | 0.196 | 0.196 | 0.301 | 0.301 | 0.301 | 0.301 | 0.301 | 0.301 | 0.646 | 0.645 | 0.645 | 0.645 | 0.645 | 0.645 |\\n\\nThe experimental results in the table show that the core channel subset of DLinear is less than 5%, which highlights the limited ability of simple linear models to utilize information from different channels effectively.\\n\\n**Q7:** Additionally, while the authors designed a CHANNEL PRUNING experiment, it would also be valuable to see how the Channel-wise Influence method performs in a standard time series forecasting setup for a more comprehensive evaluation.\\n\\n**A7\\uff1a** We are not entirely sure we understand your question on this point. As described in Section 4.2 of our paper, the motivation behind channel pruning is to accelerate training and enable interpretability analysis, rather than to propose a method for improving time series forecasting performance. Therefore, we did not conduct experiments under the standard time series settings. If we have misunderstood your concerns, we would greatly appreciate your clarification.\"}", "{\"summary\": \"This paper introduces the Channel-wise Influence Function, a novel method tailored for multivariate time series (MTS) data to enhance model interpretability and performance by assessing the impact of individual channels. While MTS data are pivotal in domains like healthcare, traffic forecasting, and finance, traditional deep learning approaches have primarily focused on architectural improvements rather than understanding the unique contributions of each channel. Existing influence functions, effective in areas with independent data, fall short for MTS due to their inability to differentiate channel-specific effects. The proposed Channel-wise Influence Function addresses this by using a first-order gradient approximation to evaluate each channel\\u2019s contribution, proving especially useful in tasks like anomaly detection and forecasting. Extensive experiments show that this new approach outperforms traditional influence functions on real-world datasets, offering a more effective, interpretable tool for MTS analysis.\", \"soundness\": \"2\", \"presentation\": \"2\", \"contribution\": \"2\", \"strengths\": \"Innovation: The paper introduces the Channel-wise Influence Function, a novel method for analyzing the influence relationships between different channels in multi-channel time series (MTS) data. This approach is relatively rare in existing research and provides a new perspective for understanding and optimizing multi-channel data.\", \"fine_grained_dependency_analysis\": \"Traditional influence function methods typically calculate only the overall influence, while the channel-wise influence function enables detailed quantification of each channel's influence on other channels. This fine-grained analysis is valuable in prediction and anomaly detection tasks for multi-channel data.\", \"broad_application_scenarios\": \"The proposed method holds potential for various tasks, such as anomaly detection, channel pruning, and feature selection. The channel-wise influence function can help identify key channels, simplify models, and improve prediction accuracy, making it highly practical in real-world applications.\", \"weaknesses\": \"Lack of Clarity in Presentation: Figure 1, intended as an overview of the framework, does not clearly correspond with the main text, leaving several critical points unexplained. For instance, the calculation of the \\\"Score\\\" in the figure is not detailed, nor is its derivation clearly defined in the \\\"CHANNEL-WISE INFLUENCE FUNCTION\\\" section. Additionally, the term \\\"well-trained model\\\" lacks a concrete description of what type of model is being referred to. The paper also mentions that the \\\"Channel-wise Influence\\\" can serve as an explainable method to assess the channel-modeling capabilities of different approaches; however, it lacks detailed explanations and specific case studies to illustrate this claim.\\nLimited Datasets, Leading to Less Convincing Results: The experiments are conducted on a limited number of datasets, which reduces the generalizability and representativeness of the results. For example, in the time series forecasting task, only the electricity, solar-energy, and traffic datasets were used, without evaluating common benchmarks like ETTh, ETTm, and Exchange. Additionally, the forecast length was fixed at 96, which may restrict the credibility of the results and the method's broader applicability.\", \"insufficient_comparison_with_baseline_models\": \"The paper lacks comparison with enough baseline models, especially current mainstream state-of-the-art (SOTA) methods. This limitation makes it difficult to fully assess the proposed method's effectiveness relative to existing approaches, thus limiting the demonstration of its advantages. For instance, in time series forecasting, only PatchTST and iTransformer were used for comparison, while other competitive models like GPHT, SimMTM, TSMixer, TimesNet, and DLinear were omitted. Additionally, while the authors designed a CHANNEL PRUNING experiment, it would also be valuable to see how the Channel-wise Influence method performs in a standard time series forecasting setup for a more comprehensive evaluation.\", \"questions\": \"1. The framework figure (Figure 1) does not clearly correspond with the main text, particularly in areas like the calculation and derivation of \\\"Score\\\" and the definition of \\\"well-trained model.\\\" Could you provide additional explanations or examples to clarify these components and better illustrate the core concept of the channel-wise influence function?\\n2. You mentioned that \\\"it can serve as an explainable method to reflect the channel-modeling ability of different approaches.\\\" (6nd paragraph, line 293) Could you provide more specific explanations or examples, perhaps through case studies or illustrative examples, to demonstrate how the channel-wise influence function explains or evaluates different models' abilities to capture channel dependencies?\\n3. The current experiment includes only a few baseline comparisons, especially missing mainstream SOTA models like GPHT, SimMTM, TSMixer, TimesNet, and DLinear in time series forecasting. Do you plan to add comparisons with these models in future work to better demonstrate your method's competitiveness?\\n4. Given the limited datasets used in the experiments (electricity, solar-energy, and traffic) and the fixed forecast length of 96, the generalizability of the results might be limited. Would testing on additional datasets, such as ETTh, ETTm, and Exchange, with varied forecast lengths, help further validate the method's applicability?\", \"flag_for_ethics_review\": \"['No ethics review needed.']\", \"rating\": \"5\", \"confidence\": \"5\", \"code_of_conduct\": \"Yes\"}", "{\"title\": \"Gentle reminder\", \"comment\": \"Dear Reviewer pGX7\\n\\nWe sincerely appreciate your time and effort in reviewing our manuscript and offering valuable suggestions. As the discussion time is coming to an end, we would like to confirm whether our responses have effectively addressed your concerns. We provided detailed responses to your concerns a few days ago, and we hope they have adequately addressed your issues. If you require further clarification or have any additional concerns, please do not hesitate to contact us. We are more than willing to continue our communication with you.\\n\\nBest regards,\"}", "{\"title\": \"Gentle Reminder\", \"comment\": \"Dear Reviewer pGX7,\\n\\nWe sincerely appreciate your time and effort in reviewing our manuscript and offering valuable suggestions. As the discussion phase is drawing to an end, we sincerely hope to know whether we have addressed all of your concerns. If you have any further questions, we would be glad to engage in further discussion.\\n\\nBest Regards\"}", "{\"title\": \"Response to weaknesses:\", \"comment\": \"**Q2:** The experimental results are not very impressive. In Table 2, we can observe that by using of proposed influence the improvement is not very significant. And also the datasets used in this paper are not enough.\\n\\n**A2:** Our method achieved a 7% improvement on the SMD dataset and a 15% improvement on the SMAP dataset, along with varying degrees of improvement on other anomaly detection datasets, demonstrating its effectiveness. For the time-series anomaly detection task, we utilized five real-world datasets, while for the time-series forecasting task, we employed three real-world datasets. Additionally, we added experiments on the ETTh1 and ETTm1 datasets, as shown in the table below. Overall, we believe our use of a relatively large number of datasets in time-series research highlights the generalizability and effectiveness of our approach.\\n\\nSince the original number of channels in ETTh1 and ETTm1 is only 7, the horizontal axis in the table directly represents the number of retained channels.\\n\\n| Dataset | | ETTh1 | | | ETTm1 | | |\\n|:--------------------------------:|:--------------------:|:-----:|:-----:|:-----:|:-----:|:-----:|:-----:|\\n| number of channels retained | | 7 | 3 | 2 | 7 | 3 | 2 |\\n| iTransformer | Continuous selection | 0.396 | 0.502 | 0.573 | 0.332 | 0.756 | 0.826 |\\n| | Random selection | 0.396 | 0.428 | 0.434 | 0.332 | 0.362 | 0.372 |\\n| | Influence selection | 0.396 | 0.403 | 0.420 | 0.332 | 0.333 | 0.355 |\\n| PatchTST | Continuous selection | 0.400 | 0.460 | 0.491 | 0.330 | 0.539 | 0.687 |\\n| | Random selection | 0.400 | 0.415 | 0.424 | 0.330 | 0.352 | 0.364 |\\n| | Influence selection | 0.400 | 0.400 | 0.405 | 0.330 | 0.336 | 0.347 |\\n\\nThe results in the table demonstrate the effectiveness of channel pruning based on the channel-wise influence function, highlighting that PatchTST and iTransformer exhibit comparable utilization of channel information on the ETTh1 and ETTm1 datasets.\\n\\n**Q3:** The time complexity of the proposed method is not analyzed in this paper.\\n\\n**A3:** We have added an experiment measuring the time required for detection at each time point to demonstrate the complexity of our approach, as shown in the table below:\\n \\n\\n| Dataset | GCN_lstm+ours | iTransformer+ours |\\n|---------|----------|--------------|\\n| SWAT | 1.4ms | 1.5ms |\\n| WADI | 6.4ms | 6.5ms |\\n\\nThe results in the table indicate that our detection speed is at the millisecond level, which is acceptable for real-world scenarios.\\n\\n**Q4:** The code of this paper is not provided.\\n\\n**A4:** Since ICLR does not mandate code submission, we have not uploaded it at this time. However, if the paper is accepted, we commit to making our code publicly available.\"}", "{\"title\": \"Gentle reminder\", \"comment\": \"Dear Reviewer 3pTH\\n\\nWe sincerely appreciate your time and effort in reviewing our manuscript and offering valuable suggestions. As the discussion time is coming to an end, we would like to confirm whether our responses have effectively addressed your concerns. We provided detailed responses to your concerns a few days ago, and we hope they have adequately addressed your issues. If you require further clarification or have any additional concerns, please do not hesitate to contact us. We are more than willing to continue our communication with you.\\n\\nBest regards,\"}", "{\"title\": \"Explanation of the contributions of the paper:\", \"comment\": \"We appreciate your time to provide valuable comments and suggestions to improve our paper substantially. Before we begin addressing your questions, we would like to first clarify the primary contributions of our paper. Influence functions have demonstrated significant performance and value across various fields[4]-[10], with notable applications in outlier detection[7][8][9][10] and data pruning[4][5]. However, there is no preceding research on the influence functions of multivariate time series to shed light on the effects of modifying the channel of multivariate time series. To fill this gap, we propose a channel-wise influence function, which is the first data-centric method that can estimate the influence of different channels in multivariate time series. We conducted extensive experiments and found that the original influence function performed poorly in anomaly detection and could not facilitate channel pruning, underscoring the superiority and necessity of our approach. Additionally, we can further analyze the information learned by the model through the channel-wise influence matrix. For example, as mentioned in Section 5.2.1 of our paper, comparing the number of core channel subsets across different models reveals each model's capacity for capturing channel dependencies. A larger core subset indicates that the model has captured more effective information, which also highlights the interpretability of our approach.\\n\\n**Regarding the selection of tasks to verify our method:** Anomaly detection has long been a critical issue in multivariate time series analysis, with relevant studies including[1][2]. Data pruning is equally important as it raises the question of whether we can train a high-performing model with less data than predicted by scaling laws[3], with related work found in studies such as [3][4][5]. However, data pruning has not yet been extensively studied within the context of time series. By analyzing the characteristics of multivariate time series, we identified redundancy between channels and developed a channel pruning method based on our proposed channel-wise influence function, which outperforms traditional data pruning approaches. In addition, this method also supports the interpretability analysis of the model's ability to model multivariate time series.\\n\\n[1]Position paper: Quo vadis, unsupervised time series anomaly detection? ICML 2024\\n\\n[2]Anomaly transformer: Time series anomaly detection with association discrepancy. ICLR 2022\\n\\n[3]Beyond neural scaling laws: beating power law scaling via data pruning Neurips 2022\\n\\n[4]Data Pruning via Moving-one-Sample-out Neurips 2023\\n\\n[5]Dataset Pruning: Reducing Training Data by Examining Generalization Influence ICLR 2023\\n\\n[6]Self-influence guided data reweighting for language model pre-training. ACL 2023\\n\\n[7]Detecting adversarial samples using influence functions and nearest neighbors. CVPR 2020\\n\\n[8]Estimating training data influence by tracing gradient descent. Neurips 2020\\n\\n[9]Understanding Black-box Predictions via Influence Functions. ICML 2017\\n\\n[10]Resolving Training Biases via Influence-based Data Relabeling. ICLR 2022\"}", "{\"title\": \"Response to Questions\", \"comment\": \"**Q1:** After channel pruning, does the final prediction use the pruned channels or the full set of channels? Clarifying this will help determine whether pruning directly improves prediction or simply reduces computational costs, and why are the pruned channels still accurately predicted? How does the model achieve this?\\n\\n**A1\\uff1a** To ensure a fair comparison, the model\\u2019s output during testing includes predictions for all channels. The main goals of channel pruning are twofold: first, by removing redundant channel information in the training set, we can accelerate model training; second, channel pruning allows us to identify an effective training channel subset for a specific model, supporting interpretability analysis. A larger subset (The proportion marked in red in Table 5 represents the size of the core subset.) indicates a stronger capability of the model to capture channel dependencies in time series data. The fact that pruned channels can still be accurately predicted is due to the presence of channels with similar patterns to those removed during training, revealing redundancy between channels. This redundancy enables the model to learn one channel\\u2019s trend and generalize it effectively to accurately predict other channels. \\n\\n \\n\\n**Q2:** Given that PatchTST is channel-independent, how can we justify that removing channels enhances overall performance? For example, certain channels may have lower MSE due to higher predictability, while others may be more erratic, resulting in higher MSE. If more erratic channels are removed, this might artificially lower the overall MSE, which could be misleading.\\n\\n**A2\\uff1a** Referring to the explanation in Q1, we did not test only a subset of the channels, but instead evaluated the prediction results for all channels. Therefore, you don't need to worry about this case.\\n\\n\\n**Q3:** Rather than pruning channels, would it be more insightful to analyze the interactions between channels? For example, investigating how one channel affects another could provide a deeper understanding of channel dependencies in MTS.\\n\\n**A3\\uff1a** Thank you for your suggestion. We have addressed this issue in Remark 3.2 of the paper. We believe that the channel-wise influence matrix indeed reflects how different models understand channel correlations. This is why iTransformer has a larger core subset\\u2014it can more accurately distinguish and identify the relationships between different channels. This also explains why we conducted this experiment, as the core subset reflects whether the model is capable of understanding which channels are related and different from each other.\\n\\n**Q4:** Real-world MTS often exhibit dynamic relationships between channels, which may vary over time. For instance, two channels might show positive correlation at one point and no correlation at another. Could pruning lead to a loss of such dynamic, context-dependent information?\\n\\n**A4\\uff1a** Thank you for your suggestion. Since we are focusing on the channels that are more important to the model's performance throughout the entire training process, rather than at a specific moment, it does not reflect the dynamic channel correlations. Addressing this issue could be a new research direction we may consider moving forward.\\n\\n**Q5:** From the results in Table 5, it appears that the pruned models only slightly outperform or match the full-channel models. This raises questions about the necessity and practical benefits of pruning. How does channel pruning substantively benefit the analysis or forecasting tasks, given these marginal differences?\\n\\n**A5\\uff1a** Referring to our previous response to Q1, the purpose of pruning is not to improve model performance, but rather to accelerate training and facilitate interpretability analysis of the model's capabilities. If I have misunderstood your question, please feel free to clarify, and I would be happy to discuss it further.\\n\\n**Q6:** Based on the above Q1 and Q2, the biggest confusion is\\uff1awe think all comparison experiments should maintain consistent output channels (i.e., the same number of channels) to ensure fairness and accuracy when evaluating the model's performance?\\n\\n**A6\\uff1a** Referring to our previous response to Q1, we predict the results for all channels during testing, so the comparison is valid. If I have misunderstood your question, please feel free to clarify, and I would be happy to discuss it further.\"}", "{\"summary\": \"This paper introduces the Channel-wise Influence Function, a method designed to analyze the influence of individual channels in MTS data on the performance of ML models. The authors argue that existing influence function methods, commonly applied in CV and NLP, are inadequate for MTS analysis due to temporal dependencies and diverse information contained within different channels of MTS data. The proposed method leverages a first-order gradient approximation, drawing inspiration from the TracIn method, to quantify how training with a specific channel in the MTS data affects the model's ability to predict another channel. This method is presented to provide insights into the relationship between data and model behavior.\", \"soundness\": \"2\", \"presentation\": \"2\", \"contribution\": \"2\", \"strengths\": \"(1) The proposed method addresses a limitation in existing influence function methods by studying the unique contributions of individual channels within MTS data. While traditional methods assess the impact of entire data samples on model performance.\\n(2) By ranking channels based on their self-influence scores, the proposed method enables the selection of a reduced subset of channels without significant compromise to the model's predictive accuracy. This is particularly advantageous in scenarios where training with the entire set of channels is computationally expensive or infeasible.\", \"weaknesses\": \"(1) The paper primarily focuses on anomaly detection and forecasting, leaving the application to other relevant MTS tasks, such as classification, clustering, or imputation, unexplored. This limited scope restricts the paper's ability to fully demonstrate the potential of the proposed method in diverse MTS applications.\\n(2) The method relies on gradient computations, which can become computationally demanding for complex models, particularly when applied to large-scale MTS datasets. To address this, the paper proposes using gradients from a subset of model parameters to improve efficiency. However, a more detailed analysis of the trade-off between computational cost and performance when employing a reduced set of gradients is warranted.\\n(3) The paper employs an equidistant sampling strategy to select channels based on their ranked self-influence scores. This approach may introduce biases, particularly when the distribution of influence scores is uneven. For instance, if a large number of channels have similar influence scores, the equidistant sampling might lead to the exclusion of potentially informative channels simply because they are clustered together in the ranking.\", \"questions\": \"(1) Several works have successfully applied influence functions to analyze MTS data. For instance, TimeInf (Li et al., 2024) utilizes influence functions to quantify the impact of individual data points on the model's predictions. It would be beneficial for the authors to explicitly discuss how the proposed method compares to, or builds upon, these existing approaches.\\n\\n1. TimeInf: Time Series Data Contribution via Influence Functions. https://arxiv.org/abs/2407.15247\\n2. Interdependency Matters: Graph Alignment for Multivariate Time Series Anomaly Detection. https://arxiv.org/abs/2410.08877\\n3. sTransformer: A Modular Approach for Extracting Inter-Sequential and Temporal Information for Time-Series Forecasting. https://arxiv.org/abs/2408.09723\\n\\n(2) The paper primarily focuses on comparing with the original influence function and naive channel selection methods. A more comprehensive evaluation would involve comparing with other channel selection techniques, such as those based on feature importance scores or attention mechanisms, to provide a more robust assessment of its effectiveness.\\n\\n(3) Computational complexity analysis of the proposed method as the number of channels increases is crucial. Hence, an empirical evaluation using larger and more diverse datasets, such as the publicly available ETT, Electricity, and Traffic datasets (link: https://drive.google.com/file/d/1l51QsKvQPcqILT3DwfjCgx8Dsg2rpjot/view), would be beneficial.\\n\\n(4) While the paper emphasizes the potential of the proposed method for post-hoc model analysis, particularly in the context of channel pruning, it is worth exploring further applications. For instance, could metrics derived from the channel influence matrix, such as entropy or diversity of influential channels, be leveraged to compare and evaluate different MTS models? Such metrics might provide insights into a model\\u2019s ability to capture complex channel relationships and its overall performance.\\n\\n(5) For the selection of representative channels, I'm wondering if methods like top-k selection or adaptive sampling based on the influence score distribution be more appropriate?\\n\\n(6) The 1-Layer MLP model in Table 3 appears to refer to a single-layer Multilayer Perceptron as the entire model architecture. It is intriguing that such a simple model can achieve comparable, and in some cases, superior performance to a more complex Transformer-based model?\", \"flag_for_ethics_review\": \"['No ethics review needed.']\", \"rating\": \"5\", \"confidence\": \"4\", \"code_of_conduct\": \"Yes\"}", "{\"title\": \"One more question?\", \"comment\": \"Could you further clarify under what conditions or scenarios, such as varying numbers of channels, the strengths and limitations of your method become apparent?\"}", "{\"title\": \"Response to weaknesses:\", \"comment\": \"**Q1:** Lack of Clarity in Presentation: Figure 1, intended as an overview of the framework, does not clearly correspond with the main text, leaving several critical points unexplained. For instance, the calculation of the \\\"Score\\\" in the figure is not detailed, nor is its derivation clearly defined in the \\\"CHANNEL-WISE INFLUENCE FUNCTION\\\" section.\\n\\n**A1\\uff1a** We have revised the paper according to your suggestions and re-uploaded it. The modified sections are highlighted in blue for your reference.\\n\\n**Q2:** Additionally, the term \\\"well-trained model\\\" lacks a concrete description of what type of model is being referred to. \\n\\n**A2\\uff1a** We have revised the paper according to your suggestions and re-uploaded it. The modified sections are highlighted in blue for your reference.\\n\\n**Q3:** The paper also mentions that the \\\"Channel-wise Influence\\\" can serve as an explainable method to assess the channel-modeling capabilities of different approaches; however, it lacks detailed explanations and specific case studies to illustrate this claim. \\n\\n**A3:** In our paper, we conducted interpretability analysis in *Remark 3.2 of Section 3*, as well as in the *Result Analysis* and *Outlook* sections of 5.2.1. Specifically, the size of the core subset (the red-marked proportions in Table 5 indicate the size of the core subset) reflects the model's ability to leverage information across different channels. A larger core subset indicates that the model can effectively distinguish and capture dependency between channels. This implies that the model is able to fully utilize information from various channels to enhance its predictive performance. The more information utilized, the stronger the model's capability to capture channel dependency. Therefore, the size of the core subset provides an explanation of the model's ability to model channel dependency.\\n\\n**Q4:** Limited Datasets, Leading to Less Convincing Results: The experiments are conducted on a limited number of datasets, which reduces the generalizability and representativeness of the results. For example, in the time series forecasting task, only the electricity, solar-energy, and traffic datasets were used, without evaluating common benchmarks like ETTh, ETTm, and Exchange. \\n\\n**A4\\uff1a** We proposed a novel influence function and validated its effectiveness and superiority through diverse experiments and datasets. In the context of time series forecasting, one of the objectives of our channel pruning approach is to accelerate training. Therefore, we selected datasets with relatively high computational resource demands for our experiments. To better address your suggestions, we have added experiments on the ETTh1 and ETTm1 datasets, as shown in the table below. Overall, we believe our use of a relatively large number of datasets in time-series research highlights the generalizability and effectiveness of our approach.\\n\\nSince the original number of channels in ETTh1 and ETTm1 is only 7, the horizontal axis in the table directly represents the number of retained channels.\\n\\n| Dataset | | ETTh1 | | | ETTm1 | | |\\n|:--------------------------------:|:--------------------:|:-----:|:-----:|:-----:|:-----:|:-----:|:-----:|\\n| number of channels retained | | 7 | 3 | 2 | 7 | 3 | 2 |\\n| iTransformer | Continuous selection | 0.396 | 0.502 | 0.573 | 0.332 | 0.756 | 0.826 |\\n| | Random selection | 0.396 | 0.428 | 0.434 | 0.332 | 0.362 | 0.372 |\\n| | Influence selection | 0.396 | 0.403 | 0.420 | 0.332 | 0.333 | 0.355 |\\n| PatchTST | Continuous selection | 0.400 | 0.460 | 0.491 | 0.330 | 0.539 | 0.687 |\\n| | Random selection | 0.400 | 0.415 | 0.424 | 0.330 | 0.352 | 0.364 |\\n| | Influence selection | 0.400 | 0.400 | 0.405 | 0.330 | 0.336 | 0.347 |\\n\\nThe results in the table demonstrate the effectiveness of channel pruning based on the channel-wise influence function, highlighting that PatchTST and iTransformer exhibit comparable utilization of channel information on the ETTh1 and ETTm1 datasets.\"}", "{\"comment\": \"I appreciate the author's efforts to address my previous concerns. However, a few issues remain:\\n\\n1. The revised version does not appear to include the additional experiments. For example those utilizing the ETTh1, ETTm1 datasets, and the DLinear model, etc. \\n \\n2. Regarding baselines comparison, I think there might be some relevant methods to compare to such those using either channel independence (CI) or channel dependence (CD) for time series analysis. Following are some examples that might be relevant:\\n\\n[1] Rethinking Channel Dependence for Multivariate Time Series Forecasting: Learning from Leading Indicators. ICLR 2024\\n\\n[2] Feature Selection for Multivariate Time Series via Network Pruning. https://arxiv.org/pdf/2102.06024\\n\\n3. My previous request regarding computational complexity remains open. I require an analysis of the proposed method's computational complexity, particularly its scalability with high-dimensional data and the trade-off between this complexity and the achieved performance gains and not the complexity for a single channel.\\n\\n4. Regarding your answer to Q6: The observation that a simple MLP model with only one layer outperforms a Transformer model raises concerns about the chosen datasets. It is possible that the datasets used might lack the complexity typically observed in real-world multivariate time series (MTS) data, where intricate temporal dynamics are prevalent.\\n\\nHowever, I believe a rating of 5 is more appropriate. I would like to adjust my previous score of 3 accordingly.\"}", "{\"title\": \"Response to authors\", \"comment\": \"We appreciate the authors' thoughtful and detailed response.\"}", "{\"summary\": \"This paper studies the problem of influence function for multivariate time series (MTS), which is the first study of MTS in deep learning. To effectively estimate the influence of MTS, this paper proposes a first-order gradient approximation. Then, the authors propose two channel-wise influence function-based algorithms for MTS anomaly detection and forecasting, respectively.\", \"soundness\": \"3\", \"presentation\": \"2\", \"contribution\": \"3\", \"strengths\": [\"It is the first work of influence function for MTS in deep learning.\", \"Two channel-wise influence function-based algorithms is proposed in this paper to be applied in MTS anomaly detection and forecasting tasks.\"], \"weaknesses\": [\"The technical contribution of this paper is not very high. Only the influence function is proposed in MTS, which has been well-studied in other domains.\", \"The experimental results are not very impressive. In Table 2, we can observe that by using of proposed influence the improvement is not very significant. And also the datasets used in this paper are not enough.\", \"The time complexity of the proposed method is not analyzed in this paper.\", \"The code of this paper is not provided.\"], \"questions\": \"See above weaknesses.\", \"flag_for_ethics_review\": \"['No ethics review needed.']\", \"rating\": \"6\", \"confidence\": \"3\", \"code_of_conduct\": \"Yes\"}", "{\"title\": \"Explanation of the contributions of the paper:\", \"comment\": \"We appreciate your time to provide valuable comments and suggestions to improve our paper substantially. Before we begin addressing your questions, we would like to first clarify the primary contributions of our paper. Influence functions have demonstrated significant performance and value across various fields[4]-[10], with notable applications in outlier detection[7][8][9][10] and data pruning[4][5]. However, there is no preceding research on the influence functions of multivariate time series to shed light on the effects of modifying the channel of multivariate time series. To fill this gap, we propose a channel-wise influence function, which is the first data-centric method that can estimate the influence of different channels in multivariate time series. We conducted extensive experiments and found that the original influence function performed poorly in anomaly detection and could not facilitate channel pruning, underscoring the superiority and necessity of our approach. Additionally, we can further analyze the information learned by the model through the channel-wise influence matrix. For example, as mentioned in Section 5.2.1 of our paper, comparing the number of core channel subsets across different models reveals each model's capacity for capturing channel dependencies. A larger core subset indicates that the model has captured more effective information, which also highlights the interpretability of our approach.\\n\\n**Regarding the selection of tasks to verify our method:** Anomaly detection has long been a critical issue in multivariate time series analysis, with relevant studies including[1][2]. Data pruning is equally important as it raises the question of whether we can train a high-performing model with less data than predicted by scaling laws[3], with related work found in studies such as [3][4][5]. However, data pruning has not yet been extensively studied within the context of time series. By analyzing the characteristics of multivariate time series, we identified redundancy between channels and developed a channel pruning method based on our proposed channel-wise influence function, which outperforms traditional data pruning approaches. In addition, this method also supports the interpretability analysis of the model's ability to model multivariate time series.\\n\\n[1]Position paper: Quo vadis, unsupervised time series anomaly detection? ICML 2024\\n\\n[2]Anomaly transformer: Time series anomaly detection with association discrepancy. ICLR 2022\\n\\n[3]Beyond neural scaling laws: beating power law scaling via data pruning Neurips 2022\\n\\n[4]Data Pruning via Moving-one-Sample-out Neurips 2023\\n\\n[5]Dataset Pruning: Reducing Training Data by Examining Generalization Influence ICLR 2023\\n\\n[6]Self-influence guided data reweighting for language model pre-training. ACL 2023\\n\\n[7]Detecting adversarial samples using influence functions and nearest neighbors. CVPR 2020\\n\\n[8]Estimating training data influence by tracing gradient descent. Neurips 2020\\n\\n[9]Understanding Black-box Predictions via Influence Functions. ICML 2017\\n\\n[10]Resolving Training Biases via Influence-based Data Relabeling. ICLR 2022\"}", "{\"withdrawal_confirmation\": \"I have read and agree with the venue's withdrawal policy on behalf of myself and my co-authors.\"}", "{\"title\": \"Response to Questions:\", \"comment\": \"**Q1:** Several works have successfully applied influence functions to analyze MTS data. For instance, TimeInf (Li et al., 2024) utilizes influence functions to quantify the impact of individual data points on the model's predictions. It would be beneficial for the authors to explicitly discuss how the proposed method compares to, or builds upon, these existing approaches.\", \"timeinf\": \"Time Series Data Contribution via Influence Functions. https://arxiv.org/abs/2407.15247\", \"interdependency_matters\": \"Graph Alignment for Multivariate Time Series Anomaly Detection. https://arxiv.org/abs/2410.08877\", \"stransformer\": \"A Modular Approach for Extracting Inter-Sequential and Temporal Information for Time-Series Forecasting. https://arxiv.org/abs/2408.09723\\n\\n**A1\\uff1a** Thank you for providing the references. After careful review, we believe that only the first article specifically addresses the use of influence functions in time series. To be honest, when we completed our work, these articles did not exist on the Internet.Since all three articles were published after July, we consider them to be concurrent work. Therefore, we believe it is reasonable not to include comparisons with these works in our study.\\n\\nIn addition, the specific distinctions between our work and the referenced papers are as follows:\\n\\n**Difference from TimeInf**: TimeInf is an influence function inspired by autoregressive models, primarily focused on autoregressive settings and motivated by the goal of more accurately calculating influence functions while considering temporal dependencies. In contrast, our approach is the first to focus on channel-wise influence evaluation. We emphasize evaluating the influence among channels rather than across time steps. Additionally, our channel-wise influence function effectively produces a channel-wise influence matrix, which captures the inter-channel relationships during training. This matrix can be utilized to derive the core channel subset for training, further aiding in the interpretability of the model's capabilities.\\n\\n**Differences from the other two methods**: The latter two approaches are task-specific, model-centric methods designed to achieve better performance in specific tasks. This is fundamentally different from our data-centric approach and contributions. For details on our contributions, please refer to *Explanation of the Contributions of the Paper*.\\n\\n**Q2:** The paper primarily focuses on comparing with the original influence function and naive channel selection methods. A more comprehensive evaluation would involve comparing with other channel selection techniques, such as those based on feature importance scores or attention mechanisms, to provide a more robust assessment of its effectiveness.\\n\\n**A2\\uff1a** Since we are the first to propose using channel pruning instead of data pruning for multivariate time series tasks, there are no existing baselines of this type available for direct comparison. Therefore, we consider this an area for future research. If possible, could you kindly provide specific references or articles that we can compare against?\\n\\n**Q3:** Computational complexity analysis of the proposed method as the number of channels increases is crucial. Hence, an empirical evaluation using larger and more diverse datasets, such as the publicly available ETT, Electricity, and Traffic datasets (link: https://drive.google.com/file/d/1l51QsKvQPcqILT3DwfjCgx8Dsg2rpjot/view), would be beneficial.\\n\\n**A3\\uff1a** In our experiments, we utilized the ETTm1, Solar-Energy, Electricity, and Traffic datasets to analyze the computational complexity of our method. By measuring the time required for calculating single-instance influence, we demonstrated how the computational time scales with the number of channels.\\n\\n| | ETTm1 | Solar-Energy| Electricity | traffic |\\n|--------------|--------------|-------------|---------|---------|\\n| iTransformer+ours | 0.0025s | 0.023s | 0.071s | 0.18s |\\n\\nFrom the table, it can be observed that the computational complexity approximately increases linearly with the number of channels.\"}", "{\"title\": \"Thank you for your response\", \"comment\": \"Thank you for your response. Our questions are well-answered. I have raised the score to 6.\"}", "{\"comment\": \"Thanks for the author to answer my question. My previous concerns are partially solved, and I would like to increase my score to positive.\"}", "{\"title\": \"Response to Questions:\", \"comment\": \"**Q1:** The framework figure (Figure 1) does not clearly correspond with the main text, particularly in areas like the calculation and derivation of \\\"Score\\\" and the definition of \\\"well-trained model.\\\" Could you provide additional explanations or examples to clarify these components and better illustrate the core concept of the channel-wise influence function?\\n\\n**A1\\uff1a** We have revised the paper based on your suggestions and marked the changes in blue. The specific explanations are as follows:\\n\\n**Score** refers to the influence score calculated through the channel-wise self-influence function, specifically the diagonal elements of the channel-wise influence matrix.\\n**Well-trained model** denotes a model that has been trained on any given task.\\nThe core of the channel-wise influence function lies in its ability to measure the influence of different channels between any two samples. This is distinct from the original influence function, which can only evaluate the influence between two samples as a whole.\\n\\nWith the channel-wise influence function, we can determine the influence between different channels within a single sample. This, to some extent, reflects the dependency between different channels, as discussed in Remark 3.2 of the paper.\\n\\n**To illustrate with a specific example**: suppose we have a multivariate time series with 100 channels. By calculating the channel-wise influence function for this sample, we can obtain the influence between any two channels. According to the definition of the influence function, it represents how much training on channel a helps reduce the test loss of channel b. This means that channels with high influence are highly similar, and selecting only a representative subset of channels can enable the model to make predictions across all channels. For instance, if we train on just 10 representative channels, the model can generalize to the remaining 90 channels because these 10 channels exhibit high influence with the others.\\n\\n**Q2:** You mentioned that \\\"it can serve as an explainable method to reflect the channel-modeling ability of different approaches.\\\" (6nd paragraph, line 293) Could you provide more specific explanations or examples, perhaps through case studies or illustrative examples, to demonstrate how the channel-wise influence function explains or evaluates different models' abilities to capture channel dependencies?\\n\\n**A2\\uff1a** As addressed in Response to Weaknesses under A3, we explain the quality of a model's channel modeling capability by analyzing the size of its core channel subset (the red-marked proportions in Table 5 indicate the size of the core channel subset). Specific experimental examples are shown in Section 5.2.1, and detailed experimental analyses are provided in the Result Analysis and Outlook sections.\\n\\n**Q3:** The current experiment includes only a few baseline comparisons, especially missing mainstream SOTA models like GPHT, SimMTM, TSMixer, TimesNet, and DLinear in time series forecasting. Do you plan to add comparisons with these models in future work to better demonstrate your method's competitiveness?\\n\\n**A3\\uff1a** We have added new experiments as per your request. Please refer to *Response to Weaknesses* sections *A6* for the details.\\n\\n**Q4:** Given the limited datasets used in the experiments (electricity, solar-energy, and traffic) and the fixed forecast length of 96, the generalizability of the results might be limited. Would testing on additional datasets, such as ETTh, ETTm, and Exchange, with varied forecast lengths, help further validate the method's applicability?\\n\\n**A4\\uff1a** We have added new experiments as per your request. Please refer to *Response to Weaknesses* sections *A4 and A5* for the details.\"}", "{\"summary\": \"The paper introduces a new channel-wise influence function designed to address limitations in multivariate time series (MTS) analysis. Unlike previous model-centric methods, this approach provides a data-centric view, allowing the estimation of the influence of each channel within the MTS. The authors propose an influence function leveraging a first-order gradient approximation to improve MTS anomaly detection and forecasting tasks. Experimental results on various datasets indicate that the method outperforms traditional influence functions, especially in anomaly detection and channel pruning for forecasting.\", \"soundness\": \"3\", \"presentation\": \"3\", \"contribution\": \"3\", \"strengths\": \"Originality: Proposes a unique channel-wise influence function, filling an important gap in MTS analysis by focusing on data-centric rather than model-centric approaches.\", \"quality\": \"Demonstrates robust experiments across datasets, highlighting improvements in MTS anomaly detection and forecasting.\", \"clarity\": \"Clear, structured explanations and well-supported claims for the impact of the influence function on downstream MTS tasks.\", \"significance\": \"The model holds practical relevance across domains where MTS is essential, particularly in applications needing channel-wise insights.\", \"weaknesses\": \"1. Figure 1 is not cited within the paper.\\n2. Algorithm 2 could be polished.\", \"questions\": \"1. After channel pruning, does the final prediction use the pruned channels or the full set of channels? Clarifying this will help determine whether pruning directly improves prediction or simply reduces computational costs, and why are the pruned channels still accurately predicted? How does the model achieve this?\\n\\n2. Given that PatchTST is channel-independent, how can we justify that removing channels enhances overall performance? For example, certain channels may have lower MSE due to higher predictability, while others may be more erratic, resulting in higher MSE. If more erratic channels are removed, this might artificially lower the overall MSE, which could be misleading.\\n\\n3. Rather than pruning channels, would it be more insightful to analyze the interactions between channels? For example, investigating how one channel affects another could provide a deeper understanding of channel dependencies in MTS.\\n\\n4. Real-world MTS often exhibit dynamic relationships between channels, which may vary over time. For instance, two channels might show positive correlation at one point and no correlation at another. Could pruning lead to a loss of such dynamic, context-dependent information?\\n\\n5. From the results in Table 5, it appears that the pruned models only slightly outperform or match the full-channel models. This raises questions about the necessity and practical benefits of pruning. How does channel pruning substantively benefit the analysis or forecasting tasks, given these marginal differences?\\n\\n6. Based on the above Q1 and Q2, the biggest confusion is\\uff1awe think all comparison experiments should maintain consistent output channels (i.e., the same number of channels) to ensure fairness and accuracy when evaluating the model's performance?\", \"flag_for_ethics_review\": \"['No ethics review needed.']\", \"rating\": \"6\", \"confidence\": \"4\", \"code_of_conduct\": \"Yes\"}", "{\"title\": \"Response to Questions:\", \"comment\": \"**Q4:** While the paper emphasizes the potential of the proposed method for post-hoc model analysis, particularly in the context of channel pruning, it is worth exploring further applications. For instance, could metrics derived from the channel influence matrix, such as entropy or diversity of influential channels, be leveraged to compare and evaluate different MTS models? Such metrics might provide insights into a model\\u2019s ability to capture complex channel relationships and its overall performance.\\n\\n**A4** Thank you for your suggestion. Regarding your idea of directly deriving evaluation metrics from the influence matrix, we think it's an excellent approach. However, after some initial consideration, we believe that metrics like entropy and diversity of the matrix can only measure the channel utilization ratio of the model, but they do not accurately reflect the model's effectiveness in utilizing those channels. To illustrate this with a simple example: if a model's channel-wise influence matrix has high entropy, it means the model has attended to all channels. However, if the model hasn't learned much from these channels, meaning the influence across all channels is low, the actual test loss might still be high. Therefore, we believe that our approach, which involves using channel pruning to identify the core training subset and evaluating the model's channel modeling capability based on the size of the core training subset, provides a more accurate assessment of the model's ability.\\nIn Section 5.2.1 of the paper, under Result Analysis and Outlook, we conducted an interpretability analysis of the model's capability. Specifically, the size of the core subset reflects the model's utilization of information across different channels. If a model has a larger core subset (indicated by the red-highlighted proportions in Table 5), it suggests that the model can effectively distinguish and capture the relationships between different channels. This is because it leverages the information from various channels to improve its predictions. The more information utilized, the stronger the model's ability to capture channel dependencies. Therefore, the size of the core subset provides an explanation of the model's capacity to model channel dependencies. In other words, the size of the core subset can also serve as a metric to assess this capability.\\n\\n**Q5:** For the selection of representative channels, I'm wondering if methods like top-k selection or adaptive sampling based on the influence score distribution be more appropriate?\\n\\n**A5\\uff1a** Thank you for your valuable suggestion. In *Appendix C.1*, we compared the top-k selection method, which involves selecting the most influential samples. The results indicate that this approach does not perform as well as equidistant sampling. We attribute this to the fact that channels with high influence may sometimes be outliers in terms of data distribution or represent channels that are particularly difficult to predict (e.g., channels with extreme variations). Overemphasizing such high-influence channels may not necessarily lead to better pruning results.\\n\\nThe rationale behind our use of equidistant sampling is to maximize channel diversity retention. While we have not conducted an in-depth study on adaptive sampling methods, we consider this an exciting avenue for future research. In addition, respectly, we don't think this problem can be a weakness, because there is always a new method to improve the previous method. If you would like to share further insights or suggestions, we would be eager to learn from them.\\n\\n**Q6:** The 1-Layer MLP model in Table 3 appears to refer to a single-layer Multilayer Perceptron as the entire model architecture. It is intriguing that such a simple model can achieve comparable, and in some cases, superior performance to a more complex Transformer-based model?\\n\\n**A6\\uff1a** The results in Table 3 are directly copied from the ICML 2024 paper[1], which represents the core argument of that study\\u2014namely, that modern deep learning models are, in some cases, merely presenting a fa\\u00e7ade of progress and do not necessarily outperform simpler machine learning models.\\n\\n[1]Position paper: Quo vadis, unsupervised time series anomaly detection? ICML 2024\"}", "{\"title\": \"Response to weaknesses\", \"comment\": \"**Q1:** The paper primarily focuses on anomaly detection and forecasting, leaving the application to other relevant MTS tasks, such as classification, clustering, or imputation, unexplored. This limited scope restricts the paper's ability to fully demonstrate the potential of the proposed method in diverse MTS applications.\\n\\n**A1\\uff1a** Considering that the contribution of our paper lies in introducing a data-centric approach to evaluate channel-wise influence for multivariate time series, it is not feasible to validate our method across all time series methods. Extending our approach to other application tasks is a direction for future research, which we have acknowledged in the limitations section of the paper. Respectly, we do not view this as a weakness, as we have thoroughly demonstrated the effectiveness of our data-centric method in two representative time series tasks.\\n\\n**Q2:** The method relies on gradient computations, which can become computationally demanding for complex models, particularly when applied to large-scale MTS datasets. To address this, the paper proposes using gradients from a subset of model parameters to improve efficiency. However, a more detailed analysis of the trade-off between computational cost and performance when employing a reduced set of gradients is warranted. \\n\\n**A2\\uff1a** In Section 5.1.3 of our paper, *Parameter Analysis*, we thoroughly discussed the impact of the number of gradient parameters used in the computation across three different datasets and found no significant differences. Additionally, other studies on influence functions have also addressed this trade-off, as referenced in [1], [2], and [3]. These works have highlighted that using only a subset of the model\\u2019s parameters can still achieve excellent results. Therefore, we believe that accelerating the computation of influence by calculating gradients for only a portion of the parameters is a reasonable and effective approach.\\n\\n**Q3:** The paper employs an equidistant sampling strategy to select channels based on their ranked self-influence scores. This approach may introduce biases, particularly when the distribution of influence scores is uneven. For instance, if a large number of channels have similar influence scores, the equidistant sampling might lead to the exclusion of potentially informative channels simply because they are clustered together in the ranking.\\n\\n**A3\\uff1a** Thank you very much for your suggestion. We have also considered a similar issue, and a detailed response can be found in *Response to Questions*, Q5.\\n\\n[1]Dataset Pruning: Reducing Training Data by Examining Generalization Influence ICLR 2023\\n\\n[2]Self-influence guided data reweighting for language model pre-training. ACL 2023\\n\\n[3]Estimating training data influence by tracing gradient descent. Neurips 2020\"}", "{\"title\": \"Response to Reviewer\", \"comment\": \"Thanks for the responses. We sincerely and respectfully hope that you might consider reevaluating our work in light of the responses we have provided, which aim to address your main concerns. Your insights and contributions will be a nice addition to our community.\\n\\nWe greatly appreciate your time and effort in advance. If you have other concerns, we are willing to further address them.\"}" ] }

[ "Noel Loo", "Fotis Iliopoulos", "Wei Hu", "Erik Vee" ]

[ "Distillation", "Few-Classes", "Binary Classification" ]

{ "note_id": [ "tOf7ZLdEig", "sTmDEOxEMS", "s9EaBXk0C9", "nT5TxPu9yz", "m9KMRmQKXa", "jN3z62oVz9", "h7drKklynj", "h6Q0l1svjH", "ZtICZBexIv", "ZW8sijOIz4", "WkOOWKdzmS", "UEepCkTZSd", "Mny8Vop6Zh", "LL1wj0xv9u", "G2CsFfiAMR", "2JzzkOD1Pp" ], "note_type": [ "official_comment", "official_comment", "official_comment", "official_review", "official_comment", "meta_review", "official_comment", "official_review", "official_comment", "official_comment", "official_comment", "official_comment", "official_review", "official_review", "official_comment", "decision" ], "note_created": [ 1732056022599, 1732037266441, 1732505652929, 1729590343699, 1732478402000, 1734681450510, 1732045985610, 1730139866085, 1732036030095, 1732044957258, 1732055124225, 1732555934607, 1730085038056, 1730763575593, 1732045613264, 1737523900593 ], "note_signatures": [ [ "ICLR.cc/2025/Conference/Submission8310/Authors" ], [ "ICLR.cc/2025/Conference/Submission8310/Authors" ], [ "ICLR.cc/2025/Conference/Submission8310/Reviewer_kvSt" ], [ "ICLR.cc/2025/Conference/Submission8310/Reviewer_kvSt" ], [ "ICLR.cc/2025/Conference/Submission8310/Authors" ], [ "ICLR.cc/2025/Conference/Submission8310/Area_Chair_5o1E" ], [ "ICLR.cc/2025/Conference/Submission8310/Authors" ], [ "ICLR.cc/2025/Conference/Submission8310/Reviewer_Hun6" ], [ "ICLR.cc/2025/Conference/Submission8310/Authors" ], [ "ICLR.cc/2025/Conference/Submission8310/Authors" ], [ "ICLR.cc/2025/Conference/Submission8310/Authors" ], [ "ICLR.cc/2025/Conference/Submission8310/Authors" ], [ "ICLR.cc/2025/Conference/Submission8310/Reviewer_VGkY" ], [ "ICLR.cc/2025/Conference/Submission8310/Reviewer_PjQV" ], [ "ICLR.cc/2025/Conference/Submission8310/Authors" ], [ "ICLR.cc/2025/Conference/Program_Chairs" ] ], "structured_content_str": [ "{\"title\": \"Response to Reviewer kvSt\", \"comment\": \"We thank the reviewer for the time and effort put in evaluating our work. We have responded to the reviewer's comments below and are happy to answer any additional questions.\\n\\n**1. Since the main advantage of the proposed method over the Subclass Distillation is re-training free, it would be better to compare the training costs of different methods in the Experiments.**\\n\\nFirst, let us emphasize that our method significantly outperforms Subclass Distillation in most scenarios (e.g., in the largest datasets considered in the study: Amazon Reviews/ Sentiment140). In other words, the main advantage of our method is not just that it is re-training free. \\n\\nSecond, as detailed in Lines 151-161 and Lines 225-247, these approaches often necessitate retraining the teacher multiple times for hyperparameter optimization. Given that Subclass Distillation has 4 hyperparameters, this makes the training process many orders of magnitudes more expensive (depending on the size of the teacher model). Even worse, if one is given only inference-access to the teacher model, as is often the case in real-world scenarios, Subclass Distillation is not even applicable.\\n\\n\\nSince LELP and the other distillation methods explored in this study have negligible computational overhead, a detailed analysis of training costs falls outside the scope of this work. We believe such an analysis would detract from the core message of the paper.\\n\\nThat said, we will make sure to emphasize the above facts in the next version of our paper, and provide explicit numbers and figures to illustrate the stark difference in training expenses within a specific scenario as an example.\\n\\n\\n\\n**2. As shown in Algorithm 1, the proposed method obtains the subclass direction by feeding the training samples into the teacher network. Since the data augmentation will be different at each training epoch, I am wondering if the effectiveness of the subclass direction is degraded by computing in advance.**\\n\\nObserve that when we create \\\"augmented data\\\", such as by rotating an image, the generated variations share the same label as the original. For example, if we rotate a picture of a cat multiple times, each rotated version is still labeled as a \\\"cat\\\". Consequently, a reliable teacher model should classify all these augmented images identically. This means the teacher model's 'embedding-vector' for these images should consistently represent a \\\"cat\\\". Since our pseudo-classes are derived from these embeddings, pre-computing them shouldn't lead to a performance drop.\\n\\n\\nAs a side remark, it's worth noting that our largest experiments involve NLP datasets, which don't typically use data augmentation. (However, this doesn't invalidate the point made earlier.)\\n\\n**3. From Figure 5, it seems that random projections already achieve stable and promising performance. How about using an ensemble of random projections with different initializations to generate the subclasses?**\\n\\n- We acknowledge the appeal of random projections due to their computational efficiency and conceptual simplicity. We extensively investigated their potential to match the performance of LELP and other clustering methods, recognizing the value of such an outcome. However, our experiments (see e.g. Figure 5, second row, third plot) revealed that LELP (and sometimes other clustering techniques) outperform random projections.\\n\\n- We are not really certain we have fully understood the details of what the reviewer is proposing (in the sense that our understanding is that averaging multiple random projections effectively results in another random projection, which does not provide additional information gain). Could the reviewer please elaborate on how such an ensemble might be constructed to improve performance ? \\u2014 we would be happy to conduct and report the results of the suggested experiment.\\n\\n\\n**4. The compared distillation methods are not new. The latest method was published in 2022.**\\n\\nWe have made every effort to include and compare against all relevant distillation methods applicable to our specific setting. However, we are always open to suggestions and would be happy to incorporate any additional methods that the reviewer deems relevant for a more comprehensive analysis.\\n\\n\\n**5. There are many typos in the current manuscript. For instance, \\u201cform\\u201d->\\u201dfrom\\u201d in line 073, \\u201cthey authors\\u201d->\\u201dthe authors\\u201d in line 149. \\u201ccoarse-graned\\u201d->\\u201dcoarse-grained\\u201d in line 202. The authors should carefully check the whole manuscript.**\\n\\n\\nThank you \\u2014 we will make sure to address these typos in the next version of our paper.\"}", "{\"title\": \"Response to Reviewer PjQV (part 2)\", \"comment\": \"**5a. [...] binary classification and few-class classification tasks are not commonly utilized [...]**\\n\\nOn the contrary, binary classification is arguably one of the most widespread and impactful classification types used today. Its applications are far-reaching and crucial to the success of major multi-billion dollar industries. For example:\\n\\n- **Click-through prediction**: A core component of online advertising, determining ad relevance and user engagement.\\n- **Query understanding**: Essential for search engines to accurately interpret user intent and deliver meaningful results.\\n- **Sentiment analysis**: A valuable tool for gauging public opinion, informing product development, and shaping marketing strategies.\\n\\nYet, as suggested both by past results (e.g., [1]) and our experiments, existing distillation techniques struggle in this setting, especially for data types beyond Computer Vision (e.g., NLP).\\n\\n**5b. For example, what is the practical significance of the binarization experiments of CIFAR-10.** \\n\\n\\nThe experiments on binarized CIFAR-10/100 are not presented for their practical significance (we have experiments on Amazon Reviews and Sentiment140 for this purpose).\\n\\nThe main reason we considered the binarized CIFAR-10/100 experiments is that the inherent subclass structure of these settings makes them ideal for exploring several natural ways of inventing pseudo-subclasses via clustering and showing that this approach can enhance distillation performance. Crucially, as we mention in Line 407, the availability of original labels in these datasets allows us to explore the \\\"Oracle Clustering\\\" approach, where the subclass structure is known a priori. This serves as an upper bound, and emphatically suggests that the generation of pseudo-subclasses through clustering techniques has substantial promise.\\n\\n**6. If other related works use sub-classes for distillation [...]**\\n\\nWe have made every effort to include and compare against all relevant distillation methods applicable to our specific setting. Besides the original Subclass distillation paper, we have not found any other paper that is applicable to the scenarios considered in the paper (and is substantially different from Subclass distillation). \\n\\nThat said, we will include to our reference list papers that make use variations of subclass distillation for specialized settings.\\n\\nAlso, and as we have already said, we are always open to suggestions and would be happy to incorporate any additional methods that the reviewer deems relevant for a more comprehensive analysis.\\n\\n\\n**7. As for the datasets without subclass structure (Table 2) [...]**\", \"we_would_like_to_emphasize_that\": \"- Our method consistently performs on par with, and typically outperforms, the best baseline in each scenario. (No other method is so consistent).\\n\\n- Our method outperforms all other baselines by significant margins in the two largest (and most difficult) datasets considered in this study, namely Amazon Reviews (5 classes, 500k examples) and Sentiment140 (binary, 1.6 million examples) achieving an improvement of 1.85% and 0.88%, respectively, over the best baseline.\\n\\n**8. The authors missed some related works that use multi-granularity class [...]**\\n\\nThank you for highlighting the relevance of multi-granularity class structures \\u2014 we will make sure to refer to this line of work in the next version of our paper. While our initial exploration didn't reveal any applications within the specific knowledge distillation context we're addressing, we're certainly open to expanding our perspective. We would be very grateful if the reviewer could point us towards any relevant works in this area. We are committed to thoroughly investigating this further and incorporating any pertinent references into our paper.\"}", "{\"title\": \"Response to Authors\", \"comment\": \"Dear Authors,\\n\\nMany of my concerns are addressed properly. I am happy to increase one more score. However, there is no such option. Therefore, I will keep my initial rating.\\n\\nThank You\"}", "{\"summary\": \"This paper aims to improve the effectiveness of knowledge distillation on datasets with few classes. Specifically, the authors propose identifying the informative linear subspaces in the teacher\\u2019s embedding space and generating multiple pseudo labels from the perspective of different subspaces. In this way, the number of classes can be increased to improve the distillation performance on the few-class dataset. Experimental results and ablation studies demonstrated the effectiveness of the proposed method.\", \"soundness\": \"3\", \"presentation\": \"2\", \"contribution\": \"3\", \"strengths\": \"(1) The motivation is clear. The authors expand the number of classes by mapping the teacher\\u2019s embedding into different subspaces to generate pseudo labels.\\n\\n(2) The proposed method fully explores the latent structure hidden in the teacher\\u2019s embedding and avoids re-training the teacher network for pseudo-label generation, which is interesting.\\n\\n(3) The authors conduct extensive experiments under different settings, such as binary-class and few-class distillation, and on different datasets, such as Amazon Reviews and Sentiment140. As shown in the experiments, the proposed method outperforms the existing distillation methods by a clear margin.\", \"weaknesses\": \"(1) Since the main advantage of the proposed method over the Subclass Distillation is re-training free, it would be better to compare the training costs of different methods in the Experiments.\\n\\n(2) As shown in Algorithm 1, the proposed method obtains the subclass direction by feeding the training samples into the teacher network. Since the data augmentation will be different at each training epoch, I am wondering if the effectiveness of the subclass direction is degraded by computing in advance.\\n\\n(3) From Figure 5, it seems that random projections already achieve stable and promising performance. How about using an ensemble of random projections with different initializations to generate the subclasses?\\n\\n(4) The compared distillation methods are not new. The latest method was published in 2022.\\n\\n(5) There are many typos in the current manuscript. For instance, \\u201cform\\u201d->\\u201dfrom\\u201d in line 073, \\u201cthey authors\\u201d->\\u201dthe authors\\u201d in line 149. \\u201ccoarse-graned\\u201d->\\u201dcoarse-grained\\u201d in line 202. The authors should carefully check the whole manuscript.\", \"questions\": \"Please refer to the weaknesses.\", \"flag_for_ethics_review\": \"['No ethics review needed.']\", \"rating\": \"6\", \"confidence\": \"3\", \"code_of_conduct\": \"Yes\"}", "{\"title\": \"Response to Reviewer Hun6 (part 4)\", \"comment\": \"We appreciate the reviewer acknowledging our responses and increasing their score accordingly. We have responded to the reviewer's new comments below and are always happy to answer any additional concerns.\\n\\n\\n**1a. Please note that FitNet is an extreme case of learnable projections at every layer.**\\n\\nLet us clarify that we implement FitNet as it is described in the original paper of Romero et. al. in [2]. Concretely, we apply Algorithm 1, Section 2.3 in [2] with h (hint layer) corresponding to the teacher's embeddings layer and g (guided layer) corresponding to the student's embedding layer introducing a learnable projection in the case of a dimensions-mismatch \\u2014\\u00a0 see also Figure 1b in [2].\\n\\nIn other words, we are faithful to the original description of FitNet and we are **not** introducing learnable projections at every layer. (In our paper, we describe our implementation in Lines 138-145, and give further details in Lines 990-994.) That said, we are aware that FitNet and related methods, including our own, can be naturally extended by transferring knowledge from the teacher to the student using multiple teacher-layers (and that this might involve incorporating learnable projections to facilitate the transfer). However, we believe such an analysis would detract from the core message of the paper.\\n\\n**1b. There are other representation distillation techniques which can easily support teacher and student of different dimensions simply by adding projection layer at the final outptut of the network (as CRD for example).**\\n\\nWe agree, \\u00a0and this is exactly how we implement FitNet, CRD, VID etc in our paper. We emphasize that *our claim is not that these methods are not applicable*, rather that they do not always perform very well, especially when the teacher and student models come from very different architecture-families.\\n\\n\\n**2a. Using FItNet may require hyper-parameter optimization (as the knowledge distillation parameter loss parameters, learning rate etc). It is unclear what effort the authors performed to make it work.** \\n\\nThe implementation details, and the related hyperparameter optimization, of our study are presented in Appendix H. To be fair to all methods, we either optimized hyperparameters such learning rate for standard training of the student model, i.e., without using distillation, or used Vanilla-KD-optimized hyperparameters that have been used in other papers (e.g., from Stanton et al. [3] in the case of ResNets models).\\n\\nWhile we understand that the reviewer may be skeptical about the effort we put on implementing baselines methods, we'd like to highlight that previous work, such as [1], has also shown FitNet to underperform in specific situations, including binary classification tasks, which are relevant to our research. This supports our findings and emphasizes the need for alternative approaches.\\n\\n\\n\\n**2b. Overall, from my experiment (and from other works in the literature) using different representation dimensions for teacher and student is not an issue as one can simply project them to a shared dimensions.**\\n\\nAgain, we are not claiming that methods like FitNet etc are not applicable. We claim, and experimentally show, that they are not as effective in certain settings, as it is also suggested by [1] in the case of FitNet.\\n\\n Our focus in this paper is on distillation with a limited number of classes, such as binary classification, particularly in domains beyond computer vision, like natural language processing. We maintain that most existing distillation methods struggle in these scenarios. However, we're open to incorporating or discussing any relevant work the reviewer might suggest.\\n\\n\\n[1] Subclass Distillation (Rafael M\\u00fcller, Simon Kornblith, Geoffrey Hinton) \\n\\n[2] FitNets: Hints for Thin Deep Nets. (Adriana Romero, Nicolas Ballas, Samira Ebrahimi Kahou, Antoine Chassang, Carlo GattaYoshua Bengio)\\n\\n[3] Does knowledge distillation really work? (Samuel Stanton, Pavel Izmailov, Polina Kirichenko, Alexander A Alemi, and Andrew G Wilson.)\"}", "{\"metareview\": \"This paper aims to handle binary or few-class classification when applying knowledge distillation. To achieve this goal, the authors increase the number of classes by projecting the final embedding vectors of the student and the teacher into several PCA subsets. In this way, the teacher could contain more information that is distributed over many more effective classes, and thus transfer to the student during the training process.\", \"pros\": [\"This paper is well-written and easy to follow.\", \"The motivation is clear. The authors enlarge the number of classes by mapping the teacher's embedding into different subspaces to generate pseudo labels.\"], \"reasons_to_reject\": [\"The novelty of the proposed method is limited. The proposed sub-classes framework has been developed by (M\\u00fcller et al. 2020), and it just adds a pseudo-subclasses splitting component by PCA decomposition compared to (M\\u00fcller et al. 2020).\", \"The experimental performance is not promising. We can see that the improvements over compared methods are marginal.\", \"The generalizability of the proposed method is low. Binary classification and few-class classification tasks are not commonly utilized in many practical scenarios. We expect that it can handle more real-world applications with abundant number of classes, instead of only binary / few-class classification.\"], \"additional_comments_on_reviewer_discussion\": \"This paper finally receives the scores of 6, 6, 5, 5. I have carefully checked all the comments from the reviewers and the rebuttal from the authors. Although the authors indeed have addressed some of the reviewers' concerns, I agree with Reviewer PjQV that the novelty of the proposed method and the generalizability of the proposed method are limited. I also agree with Reviewer Hun6 that the practical improvements are marginal.\\n\\nConsidering the above situations and given that the overall score of this paper is relatively low, I have to recommend rejecting this paper.\"}", "{\"title\": \"Response to Reviewer Hun6 (part 3)\", \"comment\": \"-**Main concern is the weak experimental section. Only Table 2 provides detailed classification results. Only one teacher and student architectural choices were used. It is not clear how the method generalizes to other architectures. Also, the results are not convincing enough to my opinion and in some cases are marginal.**\\n\\nWe respectfully disagree. \\n\\n1. Table 2 provides experiments with 3 types of teachers (Albert-large, Albert-XL, Albert-XXL) and two types of students (Albert-base, MLPs operating over T5-(11B) frozen embeddings). We also include several more experiments in Tables 3 and 4 using ResNet and MobileNet architectures. See Lines 339-356 for details.\\n\\n2. Our method *consistently* performs on par, and typically outperforms the best baseline in each scenario. (No other method is so consistent).\\n\\n3. Our method outperforms all other baselines by significant margins in the two largest (and most difficult) datasets considered in this study, namely Amazon Reviews (5 classes, 500k examples) and Sentiment140 (binary, 1.6 million examples) achieving an improvement of 1.85% and 0.88%, respectively, over the best baseline. In fact, in the former case, the LELP-trained student outperforms even the teacher, which contains over 20x the number of parameters.\\n\\n\\n- **What is the impact of the S hyper-parameter? (The number of sub-classes per class). I would expect some ablation study on this.**\\n\\nWe have already presented ablations on the impact of the S hyper-parameter \\u2014 see Figure 5 (where the horizontal axis corresponds to the number of subclasses, i.e., S), and the discussion in Appendix C (Lines 678-732).\\n\\n- **Minor: Line 73: form \\u2014> from. Line 202: coarse-graned \\u2014> coarse-grained**\\n\\nThank you \\u2014 we will make sure to address these typos in the next version of our paper.\"}", "{\"summary\": \"The main goal of the paper is to handle cases with relatively small number of classes when applying knowledge distillation. To this end, the authors enlarge the effective number of classes by projecting the final embedding vectors of the student and the teacher into several PCA subsets. This way, the teacher may contain more information that are distributed over many more effective classes, which transfer to the student during its training process.\", \"soundness\": \"1\", \"presentation\": \"2\", \"contribution\": \"2\", \"strengths\": \"- The problem that the paper deals with (specifically, handling small number of class in knowledge distillation) is important and valuable.\\nAlso, the general idea of extending the clusters from the given classes to sub-classes is interesting and valid. \\n-The results that were reported are also somewhat encouraging.\", \"weaknesses\": [\"In section 3 the authors argued that in case the student and the teacher do not share the same embedding dimensions, a learnable projection layer is required which can often harm performance - however, the authors do not provide any explanation or evidence to this sentence (why it harms performance?) nor at least any reference to this determination. Also note that the proposed approach in the paper includes much more projection layers - why in this case the authors don\\u2019t think it can harm the performance?\", \"The authors proposed to use PCA to obtain the informative linear subspaces, which is an off-line process where only the final embedding layer was used. I am wondering whether these linear subspaces could be learned as part of the training of the teacher, to also output these additional embeddings? (e.g. using reconstruction loss)\", \"There is a significant effort to explain the setup in section 4.1 which I am wondering whether it was necessary, especially as the authors focus on cases where the teacher and student architectures have exactly the same dimensions which as I stated before, not sure why to limit to these cases?\", \"I would expect the authors to experiment also with regular (large) number of classes as CIFAR-100, TinyImageNet or other datasets to understand what are the limitations of the proposed approach and how it behaves on regular and common cases where there are many categories.\", \"I found it very hard to understand the t-SNE plots provided in Figure 4. What is the meaning of running different t-SNE for each one of the methods as each individual t-SNE run organizes the points differently? Why the shape of the embeddings look so different in the top row? Further explanation will be helpful.\", \"An intermediate analysis that shows the meaning of the sub-classes obtained by PCA could help for visualization and understanding. For instance, would we observe meaningful fine-grained classes?\", \"Main concern is the weak experimental section. Only Table 2 provides detailed classification results. Only one teacher and student architectural choices were used. It is not clear how the method generalizes to other architectures. Also, the results are not convincing enough to my opinion and in some cases are marginal.\", \"What is the impact of the S hyper-parameter? (The number of sub-classes per class). I would expect some ablation study on this.\"], \"minor\": \"\", \"line_73\": \"form \\u2014> from.\", \"line_202\": \"coarse-graned \\u2014> coarse-grained\", \"questions\": \"I have already stated my questions in the 'weaknesses' section. Hope the authors can address my concern.\", \"flag_for_ethics_review\": \"['No ethics review needed.']\", \"rating\": \"5\", \"confidence\": \"5\", \"code_of_conduct\": \"Yes\"}", "{\"title\": \"Response to Reviewer PjQV (part 1)\", \"comment\": \"We thank the reviewer for the time and effort put in evaluating our work. We have responded to the reviewer's comments below and are happy to answer any additional questions.\\n\\n**1a. In the abstract [...] Could you explain more about this issue?** \\n\\nIn the abstract and introduction, we highlight the challenge of knowledge distillation with few classes, drawing upon the observation that the richness of the \\\"generalization pattern\\\" information scales with the number of classes. This concept, rooted in the findings of M\\u00fcller et al., suggests that a teacher model's predictions in a high-dimensional output space (many classes) inherently convey more nuanced information about its decision-making process compared to a low-dimensional output space (few classes).\\n\\nTo illustrate, consider the difference between a 1000-class and a 2-class classification problem. The teacher's output in the 1000-class case (e.g., a probability distribution over 1000 classes) carries significantly more information about its learned features and generalization strategies than in the 2-class case. This richer information allows for more effective knowledge transfer to the student.\\n\\nExisting distillation methods often struggle with few-class scenarios because they are less effective at capturing and transferring this limited \\\"generalization pattern\\\" information. Our proposed method addresses this issue by inventing informative pseudo-subclasses that enrich the output space and enhance the transfer of the teacher's generalization patterns to the student.\\n\\nIn essence, our method aims to extract and distill the crucial knowledge embedded within the teacher's predictions, even when the number of classes is limited, thus enabling effective learning in few-class knowledge distillation.\\n\\nWe will revise the relevant sections to ensure this explanation is clearly conveyed to all readers.\\n\\n**1b. Also, why the proposed method can solve the impact of poor generalization of the teacher model?**\\n\\nWe are not making such a general claim. Perhaps the reviewer is referring to our experiments on the semi-supervised distillation setting (see Appendix F for more details). We suspect that our stronger performance in this setting may stem from the inherent label smoothing effects of our distillation loss.\\n\\n\\n**2. Most of the references on knowledge distillation are around 2020 [..]?**\\n\\nWe have made every effort to include and compare against all relevant distillation methods applicable to our specific setting. However, we are always open to suggestions and would be happy to incorporate any additional methods that the reviewer deems relevant for a more comprehensive analysis.\\n\\n**3. What is the actual impact of neural collapse [... ] ?**\\n\\nAs we describe in Lines 197-209, our method is inspired by the recent paper of Yang et al. on the aspects of the neural collapse phenomenon. In a nutshell:\\n\\n- Yang et al. show both theoretically and experimentally that while the final layer representations (embeddings) appear collapsed, they retain crucial fine-grained structure. They show that by applying unsupervised clustering techniques to the model\\u2019s internal representations, they are able to discover semantically meaningful pseudo-subclasses.\\n- Creating meaningful pseudo-subclasses aids student knowledge transfer as revealed both by our experiments (Section 4.2) and the work of M\\u00fcller et al.\\n- We present an unsupervised technique to extract knowledge from teacher embeddings using linear projections to form pseudo-subclasses.\\n\\n**4. The innovation of this method is not very novel [..].**\\n\\nWhile we certainly agree that our work is heavily inspired by M\\u00fcller et al., we would like to emphasize the two following points:\\n\\n- As we mention in Lines 151-161, the Subclass Distillation method of M\\u00fcller et al. is essentially not applicable in real-world scenarios, as it requires retraining the teacher model several times (once for each hyperparameters-configuration). Moreover, in many real-world settings, one is only given inference-access to the teacher model, i.e., one is not allowed to retrain it (let alone several times!)\\n\\n- Our method often significantly outperforms Subclass Distillation (and all other methods) in large-scale settings such as Amazon Reviews (5 classes, 500k examples) and Sentiment140 (binary, 1.6 million examples) achieving an improvement of 1.85% and 0.88%, respectively, over the best baseline.\"}", "{\"title\": \"Response to Reviewer Hun6 (part 1)\", \"comment\": \"We thank the reviewer for the time and effort put in evaluating our work. We have responded to the reviewer's comments below and are happy to answer any additional questions.\\n\\n- **In section 3 the authors argued that in case the student and the teacher do not share the same embedding dimensions, a learnable projection layer is required which can often harm performance - however, the authors do not provide any explanation or evidence to this sentence (why it harms performance?) nor at least any reference to this determination**\\n\\nWe provide experimental evidence for the claim that learnable projections (i.e., the FitNet method) can oftentimes harm performance when the internal representations of the teacher and student have different sizes or come from fundamentally different network designs. See for example Lines 790-792 and:\\n\\n1. Table 3, ResNet92 \\u2192 MobileNet, CIFAR-100bin. Vanilla: 72.16%, FitNet: 71.76%\\n2. Table 3, MobileNetWD2 \\u2192 MobileNet, CIFAR-100bin. Vanilla: 71.45%, FitNet: 68.79%\\n3. Table 4, ResNet92 \\u2192 MobileNet, CIFAR-10. Vanilla: 86.45%, FitNet: 85.70%\\n4. Table 4, ResNet92 \\u2192 MobileNet, CIFAR-100. Vanilla: 56.20%, FitNet: 38.23%\\n5. Let us also point out that in every experiment of Table 2 where the teacher and student have different embedding dimensions (i.e., in all but two of our experiments), FitNet essentially is on par with Vanilla distillation, offering no real improvements.\\n\\n\\nWe will revise the relevant section to ensure this explanation is clearly conveyed to all readers\\n\\n- **Also note that the proposed approach in the paper includes much more projection layers - why in this case the authors don\\u2019t think it can harm the performance?**\\n\\nWhile our method indeed adds a layer to the student model, its function is distinct from the learnable projection in FitNet. Instead of simply copying the teacher's embeddings, our layer learns semantically meaningful relationships between pseudo-subclasses. This difference leads to superior performance in all our experiments, where our method consistently surpasses both FitNet and standard knowledge distillation.\\n\\nWe will revise the relevant section to ensure this explanation is clearly conveyed to all readers.\\n\\n\\n- **The authors proposed to use PCA to obtain the informative linear subspaces, which is an off-line process [...]**\\n\\nWe appreciate the reviewer's perspective, but our goal is to explicitly avoid methods that require learning subspaces during teacher training (e.g. Subclass Distillation, which is similar in flavor to what the reviewer is proposing). As detailed in Lines 151-161 and Lines 225-247, these approaches often necessitate retraining the teacher multiple times for hyperparameter optimization, introducing impracticalities (for example, they rarely can be applied in an online fashion due to the hyperparameter optimization issue). Our focus is on developing techniques that operate efficiently without the need for repeated teacher retraining.\\n\\nThat said, we recognize the benefits of online methods, but developing one is not within the scope of this current research. However, we believe this is a promising avenue for future exploration.\\n\\n\\n- **There is a significant effort to explain the setup in section 4.1 [...] the authors focus on cases where the teacher and student architectures have exactly the same dimensions?**\\n\\nOn the contrary, in Lines 346-356 we explain that our experiments **deliberately cover every case**, and do not focus on the same dimension case. These cases include scenarios where there is a mismatch in the teacher-student embedding dimensions, and scenarios with the family of the teacher and student architecture differ.\\n\\nWe put the effort so that the reader is aware exactly that we do not limit ourselves to any particular scenario.\", \"we_emphasize_the_following\": \"1. In our largest experiments (Amazon Reviews, Sentiment 140) which we highlight in Figure 1, the teacher and student embedding dimensions are indeed different. Even more, all but two of the experiments in Table 2 correspond to teacher-student pairs with different embedding dimensions. Even for the two experiments where the embedding dimensions of the teacher and the student are equal, the underlying architectures are radically different (ALBERT-family, vs MLPs operating over T5 (11B) frozen embeddings.\\n 2. Four out of six experiments in Table 3 consider teacher-student pairs with different embedding dimensions.\"}", "{\"title\": \"Response to Reviewer VGkY\", \"comment\": \"We thank the reviewer for the time and effort put in evaluating our work. We have responded to the reviewer's comments below and are happy to answer any additional questions.\\n\\n**1. [...] provide a more detailed explanation of why it is more effective to first project onto the \\\"null-space\\\" [...]**\\n\\n\\nThe motivation behind the null space projection is that the information along these directions is already contained in the original \\\"super-class\\\" soft-labels generated by the teacher, as we use $w_1, \\u2026 w_C$ to construct $p^{Teacher}_c$ (line 288). Therefore, we do not need this to encode this information again in the labels/directions of the pseudo-subclasses. Performing the null space projection before computing the PCA ensures that the subclass directions $v_1, \\u2026 v_S$ are orthogonal to $w_1, \\u2026 w_C$.\\n\\n\\n\\n**2. Why does random rotation [...] Are there any theoretical insights [...] ?**\\n\\n\\nWe assume that the reviewer is referring to the rotation operation given in lines 270-272. Suppose $V = [v_1, \\u2026. v_S]$ is our original projection vector. Let $Q$ be a random orthonormal matrix drawn from the Haar measure over the special orthogonal group $\\\\mathrm{SO}(S)$ (i.e. rotationally uniform), and assume $Q = [q_1, \\u2026 q_S]$. \\n\\nSince the distribution of $Q$ is rotationally uniform, $q_1, \\u2026 q_S$ have the same distribution. Furthermore, the covariance of our subclass projections after projecting onto $V$ is given by $\\\\Sigma_V = \\\\mathrm{diag}(\\\\lambda_1, \\u2026 \\\\lambda_S)$, where $\\\\lambda_s$ is the $s$-th largest eigenvalue of $\\\\Sigma_c = \\\\mathbb{E}[{h_c h_c^T}]$ (the embedding covariance). This is because $v_s$ is chosen as the $s$-th eigenvector of $ \\\\Sigma_c$. \\n\\nNow after projecting onto $q_i$, this will have variance given by $q_i^T \\\\Sigma_V q_i$. In expectation this has variance \\n\\n$\\\\mathbb{E}[{q_i^T \\\\Sigma_V q_i}] = \\\\mathbb{E}[{ \\\\mathrm{Tr}(q_i^T \\\\Sigma_V q_i)}] = \\\\mathbb{E}[{ \\\\mathrm{Tr}(q_i q_i^T \\\\Sigma_V)}] = \\\\mathrm{Tr}( \\\\mathbb{E}[{ q_i q_i^T \\\\Sigma_V}] ) = \\\\mathrm{Tr}( \\\\frac{1}{S} I \\\\Sigma_V) = \\\\frac{1}{S} \\\\Sigma_{s = 1}^S \\\\lambda_s $, \\nwhich is the same for all directions $q_i$. Note that we make use of the fact that $\\\\mathbb{E}[ q_i q_i^T] = \\\\frac{I}{S} $ for each of $q_i$ when marginalized and $q_i$ is a random unit-norm vector in $R^S$.\\n\\nWe will include the above to the next version of our paper.\\n\\n**3. When the number of categories in the dataset is sufficiently large [...]**\\n\\nAs we mention in the Limations section of our work (Lines 497-506), we concur that LELP is not suitable for distillation in multi-class settings with a large number of classes as it is not designed for such scenarios. See also the General Response to all the reviewers. \\n\\n\\n**4. [...] on datasets with a greater number of categories, such as ImageNet, in Table 4.**\\n\\nOur method is indeed designed for classification with a small number of classes, and we particularly focus on binary classification. \\n\\nWe want to strongly emphasize that binary classification is one of the most widespread and impactful classification types used today in real world scenarios, and this is what motivated our work. Its applications are far-reaching and crucial to the success of major multi-billion dollar industries. For example:\\n - **Click-through prediction:** A core component of online advertising, determining ad relevance and user engagement.\\n- **Query understanding:** Essential for search engines to accurately interpret user intent and deliver meaningful results.\\n- **Sentiment analysis:** A valuable tool for gauging public opinion, informing product development, and shaping marketing strategies.\\n\\n\\n\\nAs acknowledged in the Limitations section (Section 5, Lines 497-506), our work does not address multi-class distillation with a large number of classes, such as ImageNet-1k. LELP's design specifically focuses on scenarios with fewer classes (this is because the necessity for supplementary pseudo-subclasses naturally decreases as the number of original classes grows). While our work focuses on few-class settings, we believe this strengthens, rather than diminishes, its significance. Our findings demonstrate that distillation techniques optimized for large-scale multi-class problems, such as ImageNet-1k, may underperform in the few-class setting, highlighting the need for different, potentially specialized, approaches.\\n\\n\\n\\n\\n**5. The authors only provided the results of the grid search for hyperparameters [...]**\\n\\n\\nWe provided the results of the grid search for hyperparameters (and the values chosen) for reproducibility purposes \\u2014 unfortunately though, we did not record the outcome of every single experiment conducted.\\n\\nThat said, we have already conducted and presented ablations regarding how the hyperparameters affect the performance of our method \\u2014 see Figure 5 ( third column), and Appendix C for more details.\\n\\nWe appreciate your suggestions and are happy to conduct further ablation studies as recommended to enhance the comprehensiveness of our work.\"}", "{\"comment\": \"We thank the reviewer for their support and for acknowledging our responses!\"}", "{\"summary\": \"This paper introduces a knowledge distillation approach titled Learning Embedding Linear Projections (LELP) aimed at enhancing model performance in few-class classification tasks. LELP identifies informative linear subspaces within the teacher model's embedding space, splits them into pseudo-subclasses, and uses these to guide the training of the student model. Experimental results demonstrate that LELP outperforms existing state-of-the-art methods in large-scale NLP benchmarks such as Amazon Reviews and Sentiment140.\", \"soundness\": \"3\", \"presentation\": \"3\", \"contribution\": \"3\", \"strengths\": \"1. The author's viewpoint that \\\"the information about the teacher model\\u2019s generalization patterns scales directly with the number of classes\\\" is insightful and is not limited to knowledge distillation tasks.\\n\\n2. The LELP method innovatively leverages structural information, i.e., \\\"subclasses\\\", in the teacher model's embedding space to enhance the performance of the student model, without the need to retrain the teacher model, and it is insensitive to differences in data types and model architectures.\", \"weaknesses\": \"1. Could you provide a more detailed explanation of why it is more effective to first project onto the \\\"null-space\\\" before performing PCA?\\n\\n2. Why does random rotation guarantee that each direction has the same variance in expectation? Are there any theoretical insights regarding this?\\n\\n3. When the number of categories in the dataset is sufficiently large, utilizing subclasses can further increase the category count. In this scenario, applying cross-entropy loss for distillation may weaken knowledge transfer for certain categories due to the additional reduction in gradient updates. \\n\\n4. If the method is only effective with a very small number of categories, its generalizability is quite limited. The authors should include performance comparisons of additional model architectures on datasets with a greater number of categories, such as ImageNet, in Table 4.\\n\\n5. The authors only provided the results of the grid search for hyperparameters without showing the corresponding test performance for different values. Therefore, I am unsure about the method's sensitivity to hyperparameters, and I believe this is very important for other researchers who wish to utilize this method.\", \"questions\": \"Please see the weaknesses.\", \"flag_for_ethics_review\": \"['No ethics review needed.']\", \"rating\": \"6\", \"confidence\": \"3\", \"code_of_conduct\": \"Yes\"}", "{\"summary\": \"This manuscript proposes Learning Embedding Linear Projections, a method for distilling knowledge from a teacher model's representations. The proposed method identifies informative linear subspaces in the teacher's embedding space and converts them into pseudo-subclasses to teach students. It leverages the structure of final-layer representations and improves student performance, especially in finetuning tasks with a few classes without requiring retraining of the teacher model.\", \"soundness\": \"3\", \"presentation\": \"3\", \"contribution\": \"3\", \"strengths\": \"1.The idea of modality-independent of model distillation is interesting.\\n2.The implementation details are well-presented in the paper and comprehensive experiments are provided.\\n3.This paper is fluently written. The proposed method is easy to follow.\", \"weaknesses\": \"1.In the abstract and introduction section, the authors mentioned that existing methods can not perform well on few-class distillation because of the teacher model\\u2019s generalization patterns scales based on the number of classes. Could you explain more about this issue? Also, why the proposed method can solve the impact of poor generalization of the teacher model?\\n2.Most of the references on knowledge distillation are around 2020, which is too early and limited to reflect the development of work in the past two years. Also, is (M\\u00fcller et al. 2020)\\u00a0the only research that uses sub-classes to solve few-class distillation?\\u00a0\\n3.What is the actual impact of neural collapse\\u00a0mentioned in the related work on few-class distillation, and what is the relationship between the proposed method and neural collapse? I am puzzled because this is not reflected in the experiments.\\n4.The innovation of this method is not very novel.\\u00a0The proposed sub-classes framework has been developed by (M\\u00fcller et al. 2020), and it just adds a pseudo-subclasses splitting component by PCA decomposition compared to (M\\u00fcller et al. 2020).\\n5.Nowadays, in large-scale scenarios, binary classification and few-class classification tasks are not commonly utilized. Are there any practical applications for studying the distillation of binary classification? For example, what is the practical\\u00a0significance\\u00a0of the binarization\\u00a0experiments\\u00a0of CIFAR-10.\\n6.If other related works use sub-classes for distillation, please consider citing and comparing\\u00a0them\\u00a0in the experiments.\\n7.As for the datasets without subclass structure\\u00a0(Table 2), the gain over the best baseline is minimal. Half of the experiments show an improvement of approximately 0.3%\\u00a0or even less. \\n8. The authors missed some related works that use multi-granularity class structures to address various tasks, e.g., long-tailed classification, incremental learning etc. The motivations between this manuscript and thses works are similar, so it is crucial to review such works to faciliate uncderstanding.\\n\\n[1] M\\u00fcller R, Kornblith S, Hinton G. Subclass distillation[J]. arXiv preprint arXiv:2002.03936, 2020.\", \"questions\": \"See Weaknesses.\", \"flag_for_ethics_review\": \"['No ethics review needed.']\", \"rating\": \"5\", \"confidence\": \"4\", \"code_of_conduct\": \"Yes\"}", "{\"title\": \"Response to Reviewer Hun6 (part 2)\", \"comment\": \"-**I would expect the authors to experiment also with regular (large) number of classes as CIFAR-100 [...]**\\n\\nExperiments on CIFAR-100 are provided in Table 4. \\n\\nAs it is suggested by the title of our paper, but also explicitly mentioned in the \\u201cLimitations\\u201d section (Lines 498-506) and MultiClass Classification section (Appendix E, Lines 774-794), our method is designed for [and performs well when] there is limited teacher logit information, such as in binary classification tasks. Indeed, as the number of classes increases, we anticipate LELP\\u2019s performance to converge with vanilla knowledge distillation (and we explicitly mention that in the lines mentioned above). Consequently, we did not present experiments on datasets with a very large number of classes, since LELP is not designed for such scenarios. \\n\\nWith that being said, one should not underestimate the importance and difficulty of distillation in the binary classification (and few class classification in general), as it is one of the most common and impactful scenarios that affect major multi-billion dollar industries. Applications include:\\n\\n**1.Click-through prediction**: A core component of online advertising, determining ad relevance and user engagement.\\n**2.Query understanding**: Essential for search engines to accurately interpret user intent and deliver meaningful results.\\n**3.Sentiment analysis**: A valuable tool for gauging public opinion, informing product development, and shaping marketing strategies.\\n\\nYet, as suggested both by past results (e.g., [1]) and our experiments, existing distillation techniques struggle in this setting, especially for data types beyond Computer Vision (e.g., NLP).\\n\\n-**I found it very hard to understand the t-SNE plots provided in Figure 4. [..]**\\n\\n\\n#### Description\\n\\nFigure 4 has three columns and two rows. Each column corresponds to t-SNE visualization of the feature embeddings learned by Vanilla KD, LELP and Oracle Clustering, respectively, during knowledge distillation from a ResNet-92 teacher to a ResNet-56 student on the binarized CIFAR-10 dataset. For a given column, the top and bottom row correspond to the same plot, colored differently: The first row depicts embeddings colored according to the two primary classes of the task, while the second row uses color to represent the underlying subclasses (recall this is the binarized CIFAR-10 dataset, where we binary labels based on the original class labels (y_binary = y_original%2). )\\n\\n#### Motivation\\n\\nWe employed t-SNE visualization as a means to qualitatively assess the feature embeddings learned by our models. The closer the proximity of two points in the t-SNE plot, the more semantically similar their interpretations are according to the model.\\nAs it can be observed, the 'ideal' Oracle Clustering approach yields a clear delineation of the underlying subclass structure, with distinct clusters corresponding to each subclass. This supports the hypothesis that capturing semantically meaningful subclasses contributes to improved performance.\\nFurthermore, the t-SNE plot for the LELP-trained student model exhibits a richer embedding structure compared to the Vanilla KD approach. This suggests that LELP facilitates the capture of more inherent subclass information within the dataset, offering a plausible explanation for its superior performance.\\n\\n\\nWe will revise the relevant parts of the text to ensure this explanation is clearly conveyed to all readers.\\n\\n- **An intermediate analysis that shows the meaning of the sub-classes obtained by PCA could help for visualization and understanding. For instance, would we observe meaningful fine-grained classes?**\\n\\nThank you for your suggestion \\u2014 we plan to do this in the next version of our paper. Motivated by your question, and to demonstrate that this is indeed the case, we tested to what extent the pseudo-classes discovered by each method on the binary CIFAR-10 task can predict the original classes of the CIFAR-10 dataset (we do so by directly taking the arg max of the subclass layer and picking the permutation that maximizes the accuracy in the original 10-classification problem). The results are as follows:\\n\\na. Agglomerative: 32.22%\\n\\nb. K-means: 42.40%\\n\\nc. t-sne & K-means: 50.97%\\n\\nd. LELP (ours): 51.32%\"}", "{\"title\": \"Paper Decision\", \"decision\": \"Reject\"}" ] }

[ "Long Qian", "Ziru Wang", "Sizhe Wang", "Lipeng Wan", "Zeyang Liu", "Xingyu Chen", "Xuguang Lan" ]

[ "Pretraining World Models", "Model-based Reinforcement Learning", "Visual Robot Control" ]

{ "note_id": [ "xBDhlY6RQ2", "tR3R4MpvHa", "t3zzsUu5aj", "sfnvYcCcsY", "sBl8ih4WPW", "l9ESynLGsq", "jIwllQGCZJ", "haI1Hisd6L", "fjT2ydRh02", "fWg7D0Cl0B", "dOypCVFDdM", "ZJ3B66ett7", "XkeIoRJhrT", "X6schT4ndy", "QkR7A4YUmZ", "Qcrvu09Wa0", "OOdTh7Yo4d", "Grgq1pRFq5", "BjqdXvhXrv", "BhfRDKBK5Z", "AqsgCBmtKr", "9Kdez6YdqQ", "8oYPIU4p9H", "7YFiCM6QvK", "6rXQYDhAMz", "4zGrvSO9nV", "16Sn4148ds", "0eJHGt7x3J" ], "note_type": [ "official_comment", "official_comment", "meta_review", "official_comment", "official_comment", "official_comment", "official_comment", "official_review", "official_comment", "official_comment", "official_comment", "official_comment", "official_comment", "official_comment", "official_comment", "official_review", "decision", "official_comment", "official_comment", "official_comment", "official_comment", "official_review", "official_comment", "official_comment", "official_review", "official_comment", "official_comment", "official_comment" ], "note_created": [ 1732499712137, 1732549631699, 1734408821240, 1733041312312, 1732677608729, 1732610022955, 1732611021104, 1730527070277, 1732777643284, 1732192851375, 1731516720102, 1731516412760, 1732094059384, 1732886770855, 1731503233936, 1730209588533, 1737523745326, 1731516764571, 1732607628719, 1731501262061, 1732619978751, 1730853475168, 1731503793937, 1732873232950, 1730623031632, 1732503086466, 1732605705249, 1733040330034 ], "note_signatures": [ [ "ICLR.cc/2025/Conference/Submission6111/Reviewer_nEog" ], [ "ICLR.cc/2025/Conference/Submission6111/Area_Chair_SfiK" ], [ "ICLR.cc/2025/Conference/Submission6111/Area_Chair_SfiK" ], [ "ICLR.cc/2025/Conference/Submission6111/Authors" ], [ "ICLR.cc/2025/Conference/Submission6111/Authors" ], [ "ICLR.cc/2025/Conference/Submission6111/Authors" ], [ "ICLR.cc/2025/Conference/Submission6111/Reviewer_nEog" ], [ "ICLR.cc/2025/Conference/Submission6111/Reviewer_nEog" ], [ "ICLR.cc/2025/Conference/Submission6111/Reviewer_pYBH" ], [ "ICLR.cc/2025/Conference/Submission6111/Authors" ], [ "ICLR.cc/2025/Conference/Submission6111/Authors" ], [ "ICLR.cc/2025/Conference/Submission6111/Authors" ], [ "ICLR.cc/2025/Conference/Submission6111/Authors" ], [ "ICLR.cc/2025/Conference/Submission6111/Reviewer_qUFP" ], [ "ICLR.cc/2025/Conference/Submission6111/Authors" ], [ "ICLR.cc/2025/Conference/Submission6111/Reviewer_tbDh" ], [ "ICLR.cc/2025/Conference/Program_Chairs" ], [ "ICLR.cc/2025/Conference/Submission6111/Authors" ], [ "ICLR.cc/2025/Conference/Submission6111/Authors" ], [ "ICLR.cc/2025/Conference/Submission6111/Authors" ], [ "ICLR.cc/2025/Conference/Submission6111/Reviewer_tbDh" ], [ "ICLR.cc/2025/Conference/Submission6111/Reviewer_pYBH" ], [ "ICLR.cc/2025/Conference/Submission6111/Authors" ], [ "ICLR.cc/2025/Conference/Submission6111/Authors" ], [ "ICLR.cc/2025/Conference/Submission6111/Reviewer_qUFP" ], [ "ICLR.cc/2025/Conference/Submission6111/Reviewer_qUFP" ], [ "ICLR.cc/2025/Conference/Submission6111/Authors" ], [ "ICLR.cc/2025/Conference/Submission6111/Authors" ] ], "structured_content_str": [ "{\"comment\": \"Thanks for your reply! I have changed my scores to Rating: 3 and Confidence: 3.\", \"the_authors_did_not_include_any_of_the_experiments_i_proposed_in_the_original_review_and_responded_with_incorrect_information\": \"TD-MPC2 is **not** a state-based RL algorithm and has been **validated** on diverse manipulation tasks. As a leading model-based RL algorithm, it is reasonable to expect the authors to compare its performance with the proposed method. I hope the authors will include more comparisons in the future.\"}", "{\"title\": \"Please read rebuttal\", \"comment\": \"Dear Reviewer pYBH, Could you please read the authors' rebuttal and give them feedback at your earliest convenience? Thanks. AC\"}", "{\"metareview\": \"This paper proposes a world-model-based framework for robot learning. However, the paper does not have enough experiments and ablative studies to prove the effectiveness of the proposed idea. Moreover, the generalization ability is not tested in the paper. MIssing baselines give another issue. Overall, the paper is below the bar of ICLR.\", \"additional_comments_on_reviewer_discussion\": \"The authors addressed some of the reviewers' concerns. However, the core challenges about baselines, ablation studies, and span of benchmarks are not fully resolved.\"}", "{\"comment\": \"We sincerely appreciate the valuable time and patience you have dedicated to us, as well as the insightful feedback you provided. We fully agree with the issues you raised, and we will incorporate your suggestions to improve our paper in the future.\\n\\nWe have added a comparison experiment with TD-MPC2 on our [website](https://robo-centric-wm.github.io/), and we hope you will take a look. Although TD-MPC2 performs similarly and is more lightweight and simpler than our method, we still believe that task-agnostic pre-trained world models are a valuable research focus for the future.\\n\\nFinally, once again, our sincerest respect for all that you have done for us!\"}", "{\"comment\": \"We sincerely appreciate your recognition of our method, as it holds great significance for us.\\n\\nDue to limited computational resources, the supplementary experiments are still in progress. We promise that we will supplement our comparative experiments with APV and discuss the limitations of RCWM more clearly. Given the impending rebuttal deadline, we will update the experimental results on our website as soon as possible. Please stay tuned. \\n\\nThank you once again for your time and effort in reviewing our work!\"}", "{\"comment\": [\"We sincerely appreciate your recognition of our work, as it means so much to us. We hope the following response can help clarify concerns you may have about our methods:\", \"**W1,Q3**: We sincerely appreciate your valuable feedback. We are currently incorporating comparisons with APV, a straightforward yet effective action-free pretraining method based on DreamerV2. To ensure fairness in the comparison, we have implemented APV on the foundation of DreamerV3 to eliminate any confounding factors. This experiment will be included in subsequent revisions of the paper.\", \"**W2**: RCWM does have certain limitations. It cannot handle more complex scenarios that may arise in real-world settings, such as a tilted table or viewpoint changes, which could introduce errors in the robot dynamics learned by the world model. Addressing robustness in such cases would require incorporating corresponding disturbances during training. However, this is not the focus of this paper. In future work, we will explore more robust methods for world model learning.\", \"**Q1**: Yes, we used the same set of trajectories for evaluation. Specifically, we selected 100 successful trajectories collected by a third-party policy that is independent of the evaluated policies as our evaluation dataset. This ensures fairness. Moreover, successful trajectories contain rich dynamic information, making them highly suitable for evaluating dynamics learning.\", \"**Q2**: In the stick-push task, the robot needs to first grasp the stick and then use it to push the kettle. During the stick-grasping phase, the robot may collide with the stick and the table, altering the dynamics and increasing dynamic errors. This highlights a limitation of the RCWM approach: it may struggle to effectively infer the robot's dynamics in scenarios involving significant collisions or resistance. Nevertheless, our method is still more accurate than vanilla world model that uses a single model to learn global dynamics.\", \"**Q4**: Thank you very much for your valuable feedback. RCWM is the first step toward decoupling robot dynamics from environmental dynamics. We firmly believe that this decoupling and explicit interaction modeling represent a valuable research direction. Our goal is to enable robots to first learn to predict their own motion and then progressively learn to interact with the external world. However, explicitly modeling interaction relationships can be challenging, especially for complex interactions, such as those involving flexible objects. Currently, RCWM is limited to learning relatively simple interactions, such as pushing objects or opening doors. Furthermore, when factors in real-world scenarios cause changes in robot dynamics, RCWM may struggle to robustly provide accurate dynamic predictions. In future work, we plan to explore methods for learning more robust robot dynamics and more accurately modeling interactions.\", \"Thank you once again for the time and effort you have dedicated to our work!\"]}", "{\"comment\": \"Thank you for your detailed clarification! I have updated my scores to Rating: 5 and Confidence: 4.\\n\\nSince many visual-based RL algorithms have been successfully tested in the Adroit environment (not just state-based methods), I still believe it would be a valuable complement to the original paper to showcase the capability of the proposed method in world model construction and pretraining in this environment, along with its performance comparison against other MBRL baselines. If the results do not match or over state-of-the-art methods, it would be beneficial to summarize the limitations and propose future directions for improvement.\"}", "{\"summary\": \"The paper introduces the Robo-Centric World Model (RCWM), designed to improve sample efficiency and robustness in model-based reinforcement learning (MBRL) for visual robot control. RCWM achieves this by decoupling robot dynamics from environment dynamics, allowing each component to be modeled independently while an interaction model, based on cross-attention, captures the effect of robot actions on the environment. The model\\u2019s training pipeline includes a mask-guided warmup using robot segmentation masks, followed by mask-free pre-training and fine-tuning, ensuring RCWM can robustly handle novel tasks and disturbances.\", \"soundness\": \"2\", \"presentation\": \"3\", \"contribution\": \"2\", \"strengths\": [\"The paper is well-written and well-organized.\", \"The idea of decoupling robot and environment dynamics is very novel and holds potential value for improving the efficiency and robustness of learning algorithms.\", \"The proposed method demonstrates resilience against visual disturbances and changing backgrounds.\"], \"weaknesses\": [\"More baselines should be included, such as a leading model-based RL algorithm TD-MPC2 (https://arxiv.org/abs/2310.16828). Meanwhile, it is important to report the sample-efficiency comparison with leading model-free algorithms like DrM (https://arxiv.org/pdf/2310.19668).\", \"More experiments should be conducted in more challenging tasks such as dexterous manipulations in Adroit (https://arxiv.org/pdf/1709.10087) to validate the effectiveness of the proposed method.\", \"It is also essential to validate the proposed method in real-world experiment (such as Box Close task).\"], \"questions\": [\"How might RCWM handle scenarios where prior robot segmentation masks are unavailable or difficult to obtain? Could an alternative approach to disentangling robot and environment dynamics be feasible in these cases?\", \"Given RCWM's reliance on cross-attention for modeling interactions, how well would it handle environments with more unpredictable or dynamic elements, such as deformable objects or non-static obstacles?\", \"What will happen if we only use the replay buffer from 1 task trained by DreamerV3 as the dataset?\"], \"flag_for_ethics_review\": \"['No ethics review needed.']\", \"rating\": \"5\", \"confidence\": \"4\", \"code_of_conduct\": \"Yes\"}", "{\"comment\": \"I would like to thank the authors for the responses. The response addressed my first question. The responses suggested what will happen if the information exchange is disabled, but it would be nice if this can be included in the baseline since it is a key design factor. I would like to maintain my score of 6.\"}", "{\"comment\": \"## **We hereby summarize some common misunderstandings and concerns raised by the reviewers regarding our work.**\\n\\nFirst, we would like to emphasize that our work is oriented towards robot manipulation tasks with purely visual inputs. Our approach is improved based on DreamerV3, since the Dreamer series of methods has been widely used to solve visual robot manipulation tasks.\\n\\n* **The reviewers mentioned the comparison with TD-MPC2 and the expansion based on it, and we would like to clarify the difference and comparability of our method with TD-MPC2**. The main contribution of our approach is to improve the construction of the world model in Dreamerv3 to make it more suitable for learning robot manipulation tasks. Although DreamerV3 and TD-MPC2 are both advanced model-based algorithms, there are significant differences between them. First, there are significant differences in the construction of the world models. DreamerV3 uses reconstruction loss to learn the hidden space representation and constructs RSSM to learn the dynamics. In contrast, TD-MPC2 uses contrast learning to learn the hidden space and uses MLP to learn dynamics with frame stacking as input. Second, the two use completely different approaches for policy learning. Moreover, TD-MPC2 focuses more on control tasks with state as input rather than visual control tasks, while DreamerV3 focuses more on visual control tasks. Therefore, we believe that the comparison with TD-MPC2 does not reflect the improvement of our approach because our improvement focuses on the world model, while the two are quite different both in terms of world modeling and policy learning. Moreover, there are obvious problems in extending our approach to TD-MPC2 due to the different construction forms of the world model. **We would like to clarify that our approach and TD-MPC2 are not directly comparable due to fundamental differences in world modeling and policy learning.**. \\n* The reviewers refer to evaluations on more complex control tasks, such as dexterous hand or humanoid robot control tasks. We would like to emphasize that our approach makes a valuable attempt to effectively decouple robot dynamics as well as interaction learning. However, learning complex robot dynamics such as dexterous hands from visual input is still an open problem. The fact that dexterous hands have many joints and are often occluded when performing manipulation tasks which leads to the difficulty of learning such high-dimensional dynamics simply from 2D images. Moreover, the interaction between dexterous hands and objects is much more complex compared to gripper-object interaction, and trying to learn this interaction accurately may require more complex models and more data. Although our approach may not be effective in solving such complex tasks, we believe that we have performed a valuable exploration and provided a new way of thinking about world model construction. Learning about complex robot dynamics is our future endeavor.\"}", "{\"comment\": [\"We hope that the following responses will help reviewers better evaluate our approach:\", \"**Q1**: We use SAM2 to obtain robot segmentation masks, a technique that is well established and works well. We describe it in detail in A.4. Only manual labeling of the first frame of each trajectory is required to automatically obtain masks for subsequent frames, which results in lower manual costs. Furthermore, it is important to emphasize that our approach requires only a few data with robot masks to effectively decouple the dynamics of the robot and the environment, and doesn't require additional mask data for subsequent fine-tuning. In the paper, we only used 16 trajectories with a total of 4000 steps with masks for warm-up, which means that even if each trajectory needs to be manually labeled in order to obtain masks using SAM2, only 16 images need to be manually labeled. And further reducing the amount of data the model may still be able to function properly. In fact, even without mask data, our model still exhibits the ability to decouple structured information. We illustrate this in A5.1 as well as in Figure 12. Nevertheless, it is still difficult to stably decouple robot and environment dynamics without prior masks. It is not clear to us if there is a way to do so.\", \"**Q2**: Learning world models in dynamic stochastic environments is still an open problem. For DreamerV3, its ability to model random parts of the environment, such as random walks of monsters in Atari games, through stochastic representations is still limited. It is quite difficult to accurately model the physical interactions of unpredictable objects. Existing world models are all data-driven in nature and are deficient in modeling dynamic stochastic environments. However, for simple physical interactions such as pushing a cube, opening a door, etc., our approach can effectively learn this interaction and generate realistic imaginary trajectories.\", \"**Q3**: If only the replay buffer from a single task is used as the dataset for pre-training, it may lead to insufficient learning of the robot dynamics, as the covered state space might not be comprehensive enough. This could prevent the learned robot model from providing accurate dynamic predictions for new tasks. We focus on enabling the same robot to learn a variety of tasks and aim to better utilize the data collected from previous tasks to pre-train the world model. This is useful in real applications. In fact, as long as the state and action spaces of the robot in the pre-training dataset are sufficiently covered, even data collected through unsupervised exploration rewards in a single task can lead to a good learning of robot dynamics.\"]}", "{\"comment\": \"We sincerely thank the reviewers for their valuable comments to make this paper better!\", \"we_hope_that_the_following_responses_will_help_reviewers_better_evaluate_our_approach\": [\"**W1**: TD-MPC2 is currently a leading model-based RL algorithm and has garnered significant attention from the community. However, it is primarily focused on locomotion control tasks that rely on state inputs, rather than on visual robot manipulation tasks that depend on image inputs. Additionally, we believe that directly comparing our method with TD-MPC2 would not provide a valid assessment of our approach, as our method is an enhancement based on DreamerV3, and performance differences between TD-MPC2 and DreamerV3 could obscure our method's effectiveness. While our approach could theoretically be adapted to build world models in TD-MPC2, doing so would require substantial modifications. We chose DreamerV3 as the foundation for our algorithm because it demonstrates exceptional potential in visual robot manipulation tasks. Our goal is to investigate whether there exists a more suitable method for constructing world models specifically for visual robot manipulation tasks, while using TD-MPC or Actor-Critic for policy learning simply represents an alternative way to leverage this world model. And for some model-free methods that focus on sample efficiency, the same can be disruptive in evaluating our methods. DrM, for example, uses neural network perturbations to enhance exploration, which is important in Meta-world tasks. There also exist Model-based rl methods for studying efficient exploration that could be combined with our approach to improve exploration efficiency, but this is not the dimension we wish to evaluate. We believe that our comparison with the vanilla world model in DreamerV3 is sufficient to illustrate the effectiveness of our approach and is in the dimension of world model construction.\", \"**W2**: For dexterous manipulation tasks in Adroit, we believe that state-based control algorithms such as TD-MPC2 are more suitable. While visual model-based rl methods may have difficulty in effectively learning high-dimensional hand dynamics from only images, which remains a current area of endeavor. And the interaction between the dexterous hand and external objects is more complex compared to the gripper, and it is quite difficult to make the world model learn this complex interaction accurately. We believe that our chosen tasks are also challenging, which typically require more than a million interactions to learn effective policies and can sufficiently validate the effectiveness of our approach. To the best of our knowledge, we are the first to separate robot dynamics and environment dynamics and simultaneously model their interactions, which we believe is a valuable and successful attempt. However, for learning more complex robot dynamics and interactions, we will try it in our future work.\", \"**W3**: RL training in the real world is often costly, and although the method is already sample efficient, it still requires a significant amount of environment interaction. We believe that experiments in simulated environments have sufficiently demonstrated the effectiveness of our approach. We will try real-world experiments in future work if conditions permit.\"]}", "{\"comment\": \"We sincerely appreciate your recognition of our work, as it means so much to us. We hope the following response can help clarify concerns you may have about our methods:\\n\\n* **W1**: To eliminate interference caused by model capacity, we reduced the latent space dimension when constructing the two branches in RCWM. The latent space dimension of the dynamics model in DreamerV3 is 512, with 5.7M parameters, whereas the latent space dimension of the dynamics model in RCWM is 256, with a total of 3.7M parameters for both branches and the interaction model combined. In fact, our method uses fewer parameters in the dynamics model. This also indirectly demonstrates that RCWM is an efficient approach to constructing world models. We believe that expanding the capacity would likely result in performance improvements, as validated in DreamerV3. \\n* **W2**: Our aim is to learn generalized robot dynamics that can be directly used for new tasks through pre-training, therefore hoping that it can inference independently of the environment. This prevents us from designing the information exchange between branches, even though doing so might lead to better performance. We explicitly models the effect of the robot on the environment while implicitly modeling the effect of the environment on the robot. If the interaction model is disabled, the environment branch will not be able to access the action information and the details of the robot's movement and thus it will not work properly. If we simply use two identically constructed branches to predict the dynamics of the robot and the environment separately, we believe that this may not allow for effective dynamic separation and consistent interaction prediction. Since the learning of policies requires multi-step rollout in the world model, if there is no information exchange between two branches completely, the prediction results of the two branches may produce significant differences during rollout due to the presence of compounding errors thus failing to produce consistent interaction prediction. We therefore believe that constructing an interaction model is necessary, and this is the key to the success of our approach in modeling the manipulation process.\\n\\nThank you once again for the time and effort you have dedicated to our work!\"}", "{\"comment\": [\"Apologies for the delay in response.\", \"I particularly want to thank the authors for taking so much time to explain their settings and answer all the questions I had. Here is a summary of the main concerns that were not addressed by the authors:\", \"I wish I could make my statement about 'TD-MPC2 should be included as a baseline' clearer. I know that the authors aim to convey a promising direction, which I agree with and appreciate: decoupling robot dynamics and environments is helpful. However, from my perspective, the current submission only verifies the feasibility of this interesting idea, but is far from the conclusion on its generalizable effectiveness. Specifically, the training setup is the same as the one in TD-MPC2 and DreamverV3 but with an additional pre-training phase. In other words, the goal of this manuscript is to improve the accuracy of world modeling. If TD-MPC2 or other SOTA MBRL algorithms, which are not included in this manuscript, can already outperform RCWM by learning from scratch, then it is hard to see the motivation of the community to use the proposed RCWM that even require additional efforts (e.g., SAM 2 annotation) to design the pre-training stage. In this case, using other SOTA MBRL algorithms will be enough and burden-easy.\", \"That is also the reason why I wish to see the results on more tasks. Possibly, RCWM may perform badly in tasks with complex interactions. If the authors could show the superiority of RCWM on diverse task domains, even compared with only DreamerV3, the concern above could also be alleviated.\", \"That is also the reason why I wish to see additional emergent properties, like generalization ability and robustness to visual disturbance that are not discovered in previous methods. These properties could also greatly motivate the use of RCWM.\"], \"regarding_other_responses\": [\"TD-MPC2 is not a solely state-based algorithm, recognized by other reviewers as well. There already exists an extension of TD-MPC2 to visual humanoid control tasks [1], which are likely more complex than manipulation tasks. Based on their results, DreamerV3 significantly underperforms TD-MPC2. Meanwhile, the authors of TD-MPC2 also open-source their code with high reusability to the tasks considered in this manuscript.\", \"ManiSkill2 does not include only simple tasks like grasping. Tasks like insertion, stacking, and assembling are also included. I do not think they are simpler than the selected ones. ManiSkill2 also supports more realistic rendering, which may be a better choice to show the promise of RCWM.\", \"Regarding MyoSuite tasks or Adroit mentioned by other reviewers, it is true that they are hard to model. Informally speaking, based on my personal experience, these tasks could be successfully learned with DreamerV3 with ~33 PSNR. It would be better to give the conclusion after conducting the results.\", \"I also carefully read the discussions with other reviewers. The authors said that \\\"in Adroit, the viewpoints are generally inconsistent between tasks, making it nearly impossible to extract reusable dynamics.\\\" I would like to say that the views can simply be consistent across all Adroid tasks, based on my past research. The authors also said that \\\"the joints of the dexterous hand often experience severe occlusion, which presents a significant challenge for learning the robot's dynamics.\\\" This is true. But, Adroid tasks are inherently partially observable and can be solved by DreamerV3 without the additional tuning, based on my research as well. This is not the reason to exclude the possibility of doing experiments in this domain.\", \"Ablation studies are necessary. I understand this paper, and I know that some components cannot be removed. What I wish to see are some other design choices, like model size, pre-training dataset, model choice, etc. Doing more experiments on design choices will help to guide the community to extend RCWM in the future. Meanwhile, the authors tell me some conclusions (in both manuscript and rebuttal page), but do not show the numerical results to verify them. I would suggest providing more empirical numbers to strengthen some words.\", \"In summary, I would maintain my score and genuinely suggest the authors address the concerns above with more empirical results.\", \"[1] Hansen, N., SV, J., Sobal, V., LeCun, Y., Wang, X., & Su, H. (2024). Hierarchical World Models as Visual Whole-Body Humanoid Controllers. arXiv preprint arXiv:2405.18418.\"], \"title\": \"Final Response\"}", "{\"comment\": [\"We hope that the following responses will help reviewers better evaluate our approach:\", \"**Q1**: Our approach is not an improvement for TD-MPC2, nor does it address the problem of multi-task offline learning. We focus on online training for visual robot manipulation. And, to the best of our knowledge, TD-MPC2 does not perform multi-task learning with images as input either. This remains a difficult problem for the current research and we believe it is beyond the scope of this paper.\", \"**Q2**: We detailed the computation of the attention map in A.5.3 and supplemented the visualization results in Figures 15 and 16. The attention map consists of two parts, one for $\\\\hat{z}_t^{R}$ and $z _ {t-1}^E$ with a shape of 32*32 and one for $\\\\hat{h}_t^R$ and $z _ {t-1}^E$ with a shape of 8*32. We concatenate both as 40*32 attention maps and resize to 80*64 to align the size of the image observations for visualization. The parts of the attentional map without significant activation are the attentional maps of $\\\\hat{z}_t^{R}$ and $z _ {t-1}^E$, and the parts showing significant activation are the attentional maps of $\\\\hat{h}_t^R$ and $z _ {t-1}^E$. This is because $\\\\hat{z}_t^{R}$ is a stochastic representation generated by $\\\\hat{h}_t^R$, which contains richer information, such as action information. Although the attention maps for $\\\\hat{z}_t^{R}$ and $z _ {t-1}^E$ are not significant, they are still computed to ensure consistency between the robot and environment representations. The activations are not meaningless either. We observe significant activation when the robot touches an object, suggesting that the interaction model is capable of learning the interaction relationship between the robot and the object.\", \"**Q3**: The gripper may lose some details when reconstructed due to its small size, but the opening and closing state of the gripper can also be clearly represented, which does not affect the imagination of the operation. In Figure 5, in the case of occlusion of the gripper, it may appear to disappear due to its small size, but it still does not affect the operation of the door. Methods based on reconstruction usually lose some details when reconstructing, which is due to the nature of the autoencoder. Even though the reconstructed image may be missing some details, the hidden state may not ignore this information. We think reconstruction is just a way to better help us understand what's going on in our world model, because state transitions and decisions happen in the latent space.\"]}", "{\"summary\": \"This paper introduces the Robo-Centric World Model (RCWM), which decouples robot dynamics from environmental dynamics, and employs an interaction model to evaluate the impact of the robot's actions on the environment. The authors use SAM2 to create segment masks for the robot, which are then used to warmup the mask reconstruction process. The subsequent pre-training is conducted without mask usage. Experiments are conducted in the Meta-world domain, demonstrating through quantitative and visual results that RCWM can learn distinct dynamics and show robustness against disturbances.\", \"soundness\": \"3\", \"presentation\": \"3\", \"contribution\": \"2\", \"strengths\": [\"The decomposition of robot and environmental dynamics is a straightforward method that enables transfer of shared knowledge.\", \"The distillation of SAM into world models that enables the agent to distinguish robot and background is an interesting practice.\", \"The experimental results show improvement over the base model, with the rich visualization results offering valuable insights.\"], \"weaknesses\": [\"Discussion and comparison to related works are missing. The authors state that action-free pre-training methods \\\"are of limited help when confronted with robot manipulation tasks that require accurate predictions\\\". However, the paper only carries out experiments in the Meta-world domain, where other action-free pre-training methods also demonstrate good performance.\", \"Limitations are not addressed adequately. RCWM limits the interaction between the robot and the environment from two-way to one-way, which is acceptable for Meta-world since pre-training and fine-tuning are carried out on the same platform. However, RCWM may encounter difficulties when applied to certain types of real-world visual robotics tasks, such as dealing with a different friction coefficient or a different tilting angle for the table.\"], \"questions\": [\"In Figure 7(a), do RCWM and vanilla WM use the same set of trajectories for evaluation, or are the trajectories sampled independently for each model? If the models share the same trajectories, how are they sampled?\", \"In Figure 7(b), a sharp turn can be observed between 10 and 20 rollout steps for the stick-push task. Why would this happen?\", \"A discussion section comparing RCWM to previous action-free pre-training methods should be added. The authors should compare RCWM to previous action-free pre-training methods specifically on robot manipulation tasks that requires accurate predictions.\", \"A limitation section about the applicability and generality scope of RCWM should be added. The authors should explicitly discuss the potential limitations in applying RCWM to real-world scenarios with varying physical properties.\"], \"minor_comments\": [\"The notation for the baseline method is a bit inconsistent. I suggest changing all \\\"vanilla WM\\\" notations to \\\"DreamerV3\\\" or vice versa for better readability.\", \"Typo: \\\"dynamic model\\\" should be \\\"dynamics model\\\"\"], \"flag_for_ethics_review\": \"['No ethics review needed.']\", \"rating\": \"8\", \"confidence\": \"4\", \"code_of_conduct\": \"Yes\"}", "{\"title\": \"Paper Decision\", \"decision\": \"Reject\"}", "{\"comment\": \"We sincerely hope that the reviewers will re-evaluate our approach in light of our responses. We greatly value any feedback on our responses. Once again, thank you for your valuable suggestions despite your busy schedule!\"}", "{\"comment\": \"we have provided clear reasons why it is unnecessary to compare our method with TD-MPC2, and why our approach is not suited for dexterous hand tasks. However, it seems that you have not carefully read our response. You pointed out that we gave wrong information, but that's just a misunderstanding on your part. I wish to clarify the issue once again:\\n\\nWe are certainly aware that TD-MPC2 has a vision-based implementation. However, the original paper does not include any experiments on vision-based manipulation tasks, only experiments on visual DMC. For the dexterous manipulation tasks in Adroit, we believe that state-based inputs are more suitable for MBRL than image-based inputs, as the world model may struggle to effectively learn complex dynamic information. TD-MPC2 demonstrates excellent performance with state-based inputs. **However, this is not relevant to this paper.** \\n\\nWe have clarified the relationship between our method and TD-MPC2 in our pinned response. We believe this comparison is not meaningful. It only reflects the performance differences between DreamerV3 and TD-MPC2, rather than addressing the method we proposed. **We emphasize once again that our method focuses on the dimensions of world model construction and pretraining, not policy optimization.** TD-MPC2 and DreamerV3 are fundamentally different in terms of policy learning, which is not the dimension we aim to compare. As for DrM, we see no valid reason to include a comparison with it. **Our goal is not to stack tricks to improve sample efficiency but to explore a new approach to world model construction and pretraining that is more suitable for robot learning.** One of the benefits of this approach is the ability to accelerate learning for new tasks. We believe that you may not have fully understood our paper.\"}", "{\"comment\": \"We sincerely thank the reviewers for their valuable comments to make this paper better!\", \"we_hope_that_the_following_responses_will_help_reviewers_better_evaluate_our_approach\": [\"**W1**: We considered the potential performance gains that could result from the use of robot masks, so we added the same mask-guided decoder as RCWM when training DreamerV3 and used the same amount of mask data for pre-training to eliminate the interference. We explain this in line 417 of the paper. For the interaction model, which is an integral part of RCWM, the same is part of the proposed improvements. Our RCWM, by decoupling robot dynamics from environment dynamics, is able to allow us to model the interaction between the two more explicitly, which is one of the advantages of RCWM over the vanilla world model.\", \"**W2**: Our approach is not an improvement aimed at improving generalization. The improvement in generalization for environment disturbances is a result of our separation of predictions for robot dynamics and environment dynamics. When the environment changes, our robot branch is able to provide accurate robot representations and dynamics predictions almost unaffected. Thus even if the environment representation changes, the policy can still generate reasonable actions based on the robot representation. Figure 8 shows that our approach is more robust to environment disturbances compared to DreamerV3, which strongly supports our idea. As to why both our approach and DreamerV3 produce significant performance degradation on the sweep-into task, we believe that it is because the sweep-into task needs to determine where the holes and objects are by the desktop texture, and thus is very sensitive to the desktop texture. For a description and visualization of the sweep-into task check out https://meta-world.github.io/. Furthermore, since we focus on using the same robot for multiple tasks, there is no need to be robust to robot appearance. And when position and viewpoint change, the dynamics in the 2d image-based world model will be severely affected, which is still lacking research.\", \"**W3**: The tasks we chose are very challenging tasks in the Meta-world benchmark, which usually require more than a million steps of interaction with the environment to learn effective policy. And these tasks mostly involve interactions with objects in the environment, which can effectively evaluate whether our method is able to learn such complex interactions. Our focus is on visual robot manipulation tasks rather than locomotion control tasks. As for the dexterous hand in MyoSuite evaluated in TD-MPC2 or the humanoid robot control task in Humanoidbench, it is very difficult to use visual inputs for control, and the current approach is still attempting on state inputs. Moreover, it is also very difficult to accurately learn the complex dynamics of the dexterous hand from vision, which we believe is beyond the scope of this paper.\", \"**W4**: Since every component of RCWM is indispensable, we think that ablation experiments are not necessary. For example, without the warm-up phase, it is difficult for our model to stably disentangle representations of the robot and the environment without prior robot masks. For the choice of warm-up data, which is not critical for this method, it is sufficient that the data covers the operational space relatively adequately and thus allows our model to learn the robot dynamics, or even trajectories collected with unsupervised stochastic exploration. As for the components in RCWM, such as mask-guided decoder, interaction model, etc., RCWM does not work properly after removal.\", \"**W5**: Although reconstruction error is not a good metric to measure the ability to model robot dynamics, it also reflects the ability to some extent. In order to avoid the influence of environment on evaluating robot dynamics modeling, we multiply the imagined reconstructed image with the ground-truth robot mask and compute the mean square error with the ground-truth robot image to serve as the robot dynamics prediction error. We mentioned in line 447 of the paper. With this evaluation method, we were able to consider only the reconstruction results for the robot part. We perform a full evaluation in Figure 13 in Appendix A.5.2.\", \"**W6**: TD-MPC2 mainly focuses on locomotion control tasks using state as input rather than images, and does not use reconstruction loss to learn representations. In contrast, our approach focuses on visual robot manipulation tasks and uses reconstruction loss to learn representations. Applying RCWM to TD-MPC2 would require large modifications, which may be beyond the scope of this paper and may lead to new approaches. We believe that the performance improvement over the vanilla world model is sufficient to illustrate the effectiveness of our approach.\"]}", "{\"comment\": \"Thank you for addressing my comments. I am willing to raise my score to 8 if the authors promise to add the comparison experiments with APV, as well as a detailed discussion section on the limitations of RCWM, including the inability to handle complex scenarios and disturbances, upon publication of this paper.\"}", "{\"summary\": \"This paper considers the problem of world model pre-training in robotics applications. Different from previous approaches that use a single model to train the scene evolution, the key idea of this paper is to decouple world dynamics into robot dynamics and environment dynamics. The proposed model uses a dedicated robot branch to predict the future images of the robot, an environment branch to predict the future images of the environment, and an interaction module to inject the information from the robot branch to the environment branch.\", \"soundness\": \"2\", \"presentation\": \"3\", \"contribution\": \"2\", \"strengths\": \"This paper is well-written and the logic is clear. The idea of decupling robot dynamics and environment dynamics is interesting. The claim is supported by promising experiment results.\", \"weaknesses\": \"It is unclear if the gains are from the additional capacity introduced by the additional branch. (2x model capacity?) To verify this, the authors could expand the dreamer model capacity and compare the results.\\n\\nIt is strange that the robot branch can learn effects of the environment on the robot, even there is no information exchange from environment branch to the robot branch.\\nThis makes me wonder if the true technical idea is simply using two models to predict the evolution of the robot and the rest of the scenes separately. This can be validated by disabling the interaction part and compare with the proposed model in terms of dynamics prediction and policy learning.\", \"questions\": \"See my questions above\", \"flag_for_ethics_review\": \"['No ethics review needed.']\", \"rating\": \"6\", \"confidence\": \"4\", \"code_of_conduct\": \"Yes\"}", "{\"comment\": \"We sincerely hope that the reviewers will re-evaluate our approach in light of our responses. We greatly value any feedback on our responses. Once again, thank you for your valuable suggestions despite your busy schedule!\"}", "{\"comment\": \"We sincerely appreciate the constructive suggestions you have provided.\\n\\nWe acknowledge that our discussion of RCWM's limitations was insufficient, which may have caused some confusion, as pointed out by Reviewer tbDh. The core idea of our method is to extract reusable robot dynamics from previously learned tasks, but there are some limitations to this approach:\\n* Firstly, since our input is image, we need to ensure that the tasks in the pretraining data share a consistent viewpoint with the new tasks. Only under this condition can reusable dynamics be effectively extracted. However, in Adroit, the viewpoints are generally inconsistent between tasks, making it nearly impossible to extract reusable dynamics. \\n* Secondly, the robot must not be over-obscured. Secondly, the robot should not be excessively occluded. Excessive occlusion can make it difficult for the world model to learn the robot's dynamics. In Adroit, the joints of the dexterous hand often experience severe occlusion, which presents a significant challenge for learning the robot's dynamics.\\n\\nOur approach is mainly applicable to fixed-viewpoint robot arm visual manipulation tasks. This is a commonly used setup in the field of robotics. However, we do need to recognize that this setup has some limitations. Also the learning of complex robot dynamics such as dexterous hands is yet to be investigated. We will include a comprehensive discussion of the applicability scenarios and limitations of RCWM in the appendix of the paper.\\n\\nFurthermore, to address your concerns, we will consider adding a comparison with TD-MPC2 in the appendix and discuss the differences and advantages of our method in visual manipulation tasks. This will provide a reference for the community, although we still believe that this comparison is not entirely reasonable. **We will update the comparison results with TD-MPC2 on our website in a timely manner. Please stay tuned**.\\n\\nWe sincerely hope that you will assess our method in its entirety. Our approach aims to enable robots to first learn to predict their own movements, and then gradually learn to predict interactions with the external world. We are the first to realize this idea. This provides a novel perspective for pretraining and constructing world models that are applicable to robotic learning.\\n\\nWe would like to express our sincere gratitude for the time and effort you have devoted to reviewing our work!\"}", "{\"summary\": \"This paper presents robot-centric world models that distinctively model robot and environmental dynamics to enhance visual model-based reinforcement learning. Results from eight MetaWorld tasks demonstrate improved learning efficiency compared to the vanilla baseline, DreamerV3.\", \"soundness\": \"3\", \"presentation\": \"3\", \"contribution\": \"2\", \"strengths\": [\"The paper is well-organized, featuring visualizations that aid in understanding the proposed robot-centric world models.\", \"The approach appears to effectively learn robot-centric dynamics, though I have some questions about it.\", \"Experimental results show performance gains over the state-of-the-art DreamerV3 across 8 MetaWorld tasks.\"], \"weaknesses\": [\"A primary concern is that the performance improvement may not solely be attributed to the proposed idea. Several additional implementations, such as the transformer in the interaction model, mask-guided encoder, and predictor head, confuse the attribution of improvements.\", \"The generalization ability of the proposed model seems limited. Significant performance drops occur under environmental disturbances, particularly in the Sweep-Into task (Figure 8(b)). Additionally, the focus on disturbance testing should extend to other variables like robot arm appearance, base position, and camera view.\", \"The selected tasks appear relatively simple. It would be beneficial to evaluate the modeling effectiveness on more complex embodiments, such as dexterous hands or humanoids, as evaluated in [1].\", \"The absence of ablation studies. An analysis of each design's impact\\u2014such as the warm-up stage, warm-up data choice, or removal of components\\u2014would assist the understanding.\", \"Construction error may not be a good metric to measure the ability to model robot dynamics, because the error may mainly caused by the environmental dynamics error. As an extreme case, the vanilla world model may be good at robot dynamics but very poor at environmental modeling. The authors should address this concern.\", \"Testing the extension capability of the proposed method on other state-of-the-art algorithms, like TD-MPC2 [1], would significantly strengthen this paper.\"], \"questions\": [\"What is the performance in a multi-task setup, following [1]?\", \"What do the attention maps signify in all figures? The highlighted regions seem meaningless.\", \"The gripper reconstruction in Figure 5 appears inadequate. Could the authors clarify this?\", \"[1] Hansen, N., Su, H., & Wang, X. TD-MPC2: Scalable, Robust World Models for Continuous Control. In\\u00a0*The Twelfth International Conference on Learning Representations*.\", \"[2] Sferrazza, C., Huang, D. M., Lin, X., Lee, Y., & Abbeel, P. (2024). Humanoidbench: Simulated humanoid benchmark for whole-body locomotion and manipulation.\\u00a0*arXiv preprint arXiv:2403.10506*.\"], \"flag_for_ethics_review\": \"['No ethics review needed.']\", \"rating\": \"3\", \"confidence\": \"5\", \"code_of_conduct\": \"Yes\"}", "{\"comment\": [\"Thanks for the response. I genuinely think the robot-centric world model is promising in the future. However, I disagree with some replies and have the following concerns:\", \"**More experiments on other simulation tasks.** MetaWorld is not scene-complex and visually realistic enough to show the potential of RCWM completely. MyoSuite, ManiSkill2, or Robocasa could be evaluated to address this concern, following current MBRL papers on robot manipulation.\", \"**Generalization ability.** The authors did not conduct the experiments to address my proposed concerns. They claimed \\\"there is no need to be robust to robot appearance.\\\" and \\\"when position and viewpoint change, the dynamics in the 2d image-based world model will be severely affected, which is still lacking research.\\\". However, these properties are very important to the proposed robot-centric world model, from my perspective. At least, the authors should provide empirical experiments to investigate these.\", \"**TD-MPC2 does have vision-based implementations.** Please check their official code carefully.\", \"**TD-MPC2 mainly focuses on locomotion control tasks using state as input rather than images,...** They focus on greatly many manipulation tasks as well.\", \"**Ablation is very necessary.** The authors claim \\\"ablation experiments are not necessary\\\" by saying \\\"warm-up data is not critical\\\" and \\\"mask-guided decoder, interaction model, etc., RCWM does not work properly after removal.\\\" But, how do the authors reach these conclusions? Why are they not important? It would be very useful to provide these studies explicitly.\", \"**Extention to TD-MPC2.** I agree that it is hard to extend the current framework to TD-MPC2, which has no explicit reconstruction loss. However, this is the limitation of this paper. The authors should discuss it and propose how to extend RCWM to TD-MPC2 in the paper. I do not see these changes in the next version of the manuscript.\", \"Given that the proposed method does not show additional properties (e.g., generalization ability, multi-task training, etc) compared with SOTA MBRL algorithms such as TD-MPC2 and DreamerV3, the authors should compare RCWM with these methods on diverse tasks to demonstrate their superiority.\", \"I wish to see that these concerns will be addressed in the future.\"]}", "{\"comment\": [\"Thank you sincerely for acknowledging the potential of our approach in the future. I hope my response will sufficiently address your concerns:\", \"We are very eager to test our method in more simulation environments, but currently, Meta-World is the most suitable for our setting. Firstly, our research focuses on how the same robot can quickly learn a variety of manipulation skills while fully utilizing reusable and useful prior knowledge. This requires the simulation environment to offer a large number of manipulation tasks. However, ManiSkill2 includes only a limited number of simple tasks such as grasping, which does not align with our setting. RoboCasa, on the other hand, is not RL-friendly; it primarily relies on imitation learning to derive effective policies from datasets. As for MyoSuite, solving such complex, high-dimensional locomotion control tasks with vision-based input is exceedingly challenging. Additionally, our method requires explicit modeling of the interactions between the dexterous hand and the objects, which is highly complex. We believe this represents a promising direction for future research.\", \"Generalization is indeed crucial for practical applications, but it is an independent research direction and not the primary focus of our method. The generalization capability demonstrated in the paper is merely one of the advantages brought by RCWM. Visual MBRL still lacks sufficient research on viewpoint generalization. As I mentioned, world models based on 2D image inputs are significantly affected by viewpoint changes. It is important to emphasize that this is not the focus of this paper and that it is an area of research that has not been fully explored. While we plan to investigate this in our future work, it is beyond the scope of this paper.\", \"I am certainly aware that TD-MPC2 has a vision-based implementation. However, the original paper does not include any experiments on vision-based manipulation tasks, only experiments on visual DMC. Our ongoing research is also exploring the potential of TD-MPC2 in vision-based control, but this is unrelated to this paper. I have already detailed the relationship between our method and TD-MPC2 in my pinned response.\", \"TD-MPC2 does indeed focus on manipulation tasks, but it is based on state inputs rather than images.\", \"Ablation studies are necessary, but our method cannot be ablated because each component is indispensable. I believe that if you fully understand our model, this question will not arise. As for the claim that pretraining data is not important, this is indeed the case. Our pretraining focuses solely on extracting effective robot dynamics without considering the environment. As long as the pretraining data contains sufficient information about robot dynamics, RCWM can learn reusable robot dynamics effectively.\", \"Our method focuses on the construction and pretraining of the world model rather than policy optimization. While DreamerV3 and TD-MPC2 differ in world model construction, their approaches are conceptually similar. However, they are fundamentally different in policy learning. I do not believe our method needs to be extended to TD-MPC2. In fact, we could simply modify the policy learning component to a form similar to that of TD-MPC2. However, this has no direct connection to TD-MPC2. Moreover, this comparison pertains to the dimension of policy optimization, whereas our focus is on world model construction.\", \"I disagree with your statement that \\\"the proposed method does not show additional properties (e.g., generalization ability, multi-task training, etc.) compared with SOTA MBRL algorithms such as TD-MPC2 and DreamerV3.\\\" In fact, we are the first to propose an algorithm that decouples robot dynamics and applies it to new tasks. Our model effectively decouples robot dynamics from environmental dynamics and explicitly models their interaction, which previous models could not achieve. Furthermore, we believe that this decoupling is valuable for future research, as it allows the robot to first learn to control itself and gradually learn to interact with the environment. We believe that the properties of RCWM are distinct and clearly differentiate it from previous methods.\", \"Thank you for your valuable feedback. However, we still disagree with some of the points you raised. We will work on improving our paper in the future.\"]}", "{\"comment\": \"We have updated the comparison results with TD-MPC2 on our [website](https://robo-centric-wm.github.io) and hope you will take a look. Experimentally, our method is competitive with TDMPC2. Since TDMPC2 has significant advantages over DreamerV3 in terms of both policy learning and decision making, our approach focuses on the construction of the world model without modifying the policy learning, and therefore does not show a consistent advantage over TDMPC2. We found that TDMPC2 still has excellent performance even without pre-training. However, since the learning of representations and dynamics relies heavily on task-relevant reward information, it is difficult for TDMPC2 to obtain valid information from pre-training. While our method can efficiently learn representations and robot dynamics that are useful for new task learning. Although our method is not as lightweight as TDMPC2 and requires the use of pre-training, robot masks, etc. to perform well, we believe that task-independent pre-trained world models will be one of the important research directions in the future. And our approach offers a new way of thinking about this.\\n\\nOnce again, we sincerely appreciate the time and patience you have dedicated to reviewing our work.\"}" ] }

[ "Sihyun Yu", "Sangkyung Kwak", "Huiwon Jang", "Jongheon Jeong", "Jonathan Huang", "Jinwoo Shin", "Saining Xie" ]

[ "Diffusion models", "Representation learning" ]

{ "note_id": [ "zYj4BV5vyW", "vJuh8T1nxN", "sUSKrkBpY2", "p1w84ihuXA", "onJjYSuBj4", "oYsuhLFX0D", "oQqavHhWdT", "oGAQmXD8qG", "ne7Uq2zn2q", "mWjdqqwrrH", "lY7CPgCGwz", "kIhFzftsQH", "j1YDeFhKuY", "gzl6ksYFsH", "gq9k6Yi4zg", "gmyr8Smw8e", "gUi5idCATZ", "fjfUL4wTsZ", "aVHjnTFLiu", "aMqUUw2u2g", "ZXxUUVp7T4", "ZA9CfsyJA5", "YIKutkAEAu", "XqwOrzAVdl", "WXeGS7w3H7", "WHMqVOyern", "SJLpUPbSDk", "OCiBYMF49A", "O29E2fJq1q", "Jf70hOpmal", "JDPzwyOJMj", "HC7K3RQUe7", "FiW2eNWjsu", "FhlJKuGqcP", "EoEzTn0le3", "E3q0JkaYcM", "BDOiQSAKDd", "8D5Oy3j5Ok", "7nBNDXqn46", "74jn4JZ5Tz", "48w5ic40TB", "08ooonUcvc" ], "note_type": [ "official_comment", "official_comment", "official_review", "official_comment", "official_comment", "official_comment", "official_comment", "official_comment", "official_review", "official_comment", "official_comment", "official_review", "official_comment", "official_comment", "official_comment", "official_comment", "meta_review", "official_comment", "official_comment", "official_comment", "official_review", "official_comment", "official_comment", "official_comment", "official_comment", "official_comment", "official_comment", "official_comment", "official_comment", "official_comment", "official_review", "official_comment", "official_comment", "official_comment", "official_comment", "decision", "official_review", "official_comment", "official_comment", "official_comment", "official_comment", "official_comment" ], "note_created": [ 1732460849773, 1732955939306, 1730644111574, 1732928770740, 1732246955284, 1732567150275, 1732509761227, 1732247206864, 1730707674887, 1732246983330, 1732247078027, 1730717036430, 1732374697898, 1732933134260, 1732247272189, 1732247613394, 1734469830624, 1732294459085, 1732928656000, 1732374970860, 1729583456667, 1732247415215, 1732928811657, 1732247341415, 1732246872177, 1732464467954, 1732247104804, 1732424234783, 1732560875608, 1732614409070, 1730161515163, 1732446162911, 1732247319914, 1732509713125, 1732928723662, 1737523843257, 1730608731332, 1732296328211, 1732934309562, 1732544789545, 1732247400354, 1732247177780 ], "note_signatures": [ [ "ICLR.cc/2025/Conference/Submission7519/Reviewer_MZYg" ], [ "ICLR.cc/2025/Conference/Submission7519/Reviewer_MZYg" ], [ "ICLR.cc/2025/Conference/Submission7519/Reviewer_K7ig" ], [ "ICLR.cc/2025/Conference/Submission7519/Authors" ], [ "ICLR.cc/2025/Conference/Submission7519/Authors" ], [ "ICLR.cc/2025/Conference/Submission7519/Reviewer_U4Y4" ], [ "ICLR.cc/2025/Conference/Submission7519/Authors" ], [ "ICLR.cc/2025/Conference/Submission7519/Authors" ], [ "ICLR.cc/2025/Conference/Submission7519/Reviewer_U4Y4" ], [ "ICLR.cc/2025/Conference/Submission7519/Authors" ], [ "ICLR.cc/2025/Conference/Submission7519/Authors" ], [ "ICLR.cc/2025/Conference/Submission7519/Reviewer_XnZq" ], [ "ICLR.cc/2025/Conference/Submission7519/Authors" ], [ "ICLR.cc/2025/Conference/Submission7519/Reviewer_K7ig" ], [ "ICLR.cc/2025/Conference/Submission7519/Authors" ], [ "ICLR.cc/2025/Conference/Submission7519/Authors" ], [ "ICLR.cc/2025/Conference/Submission7519/Area_Chair_963h" ], [ "ICLR.cc/2025/Conference/Submission7519/Reviewer_vfsY" ], [ "ICLR.cc/2025/Conference/Submission7519/Authors" ], [ "ICLR.cc/2025/Conference/Submission7519/Authors" ], [ "ICLR.cc/2025/Conference/Submission7519/Reviewer_MZYg" ], [ "ICLR.cc/2025/Conference/Submission7519/Authors" ], [ "ICLR.cc/2025/Conference/Submission7519/Authors" ], [ "ICLR.cc/2025/Conference/Submission7519/Authors" ], [ "ICLR.cc/2025/Conference/Submission7519/Authors" ], [ "ICLR.cc/2025/Conference/Submission7519/Authors" ], [ "ICLR.cc/2025/Conference/Submission7519/Authors" ], [ "ICLR.cc/2025/Conference/Submission7519/Reviewer_XnZq" ], [ "ICLR.cc/2025/Conference/Submission7519/Reviewer_K7ig" ], [ "ICLR.cc/2025/Conference/Submission7519/Reviewer_MZYg" ], [ "ICLR.cc/2025/Conference/Submission7519/Reviewer_i9uk" ], [ "ICLR.cc/2025/Conference/Submission7519/Authors" ], [ "ICLR.cc/2025/Conference/Submission7519/Authors" ], [ "ICLR.cc/2025/Conference/Submission7519/Authors" ], [ "ICLR.cc/2025/Conference/Submission7519/Authors" ], [ "ICLR.cc/2025/Conference/Program_Chairs" ], [ "ICLR.cc/2025/Conference/Submission7519/Reviewer_vfsY" ], [ "ICLR.cc/2025/Conference/Submission7519/Reviewer_K7ig" ], [ "ICLR.cc/2025/Conference/Submission7519/Authors" ], [ "ICLR.cc/2025/Conference/Submission7519/Reviewer_i9uk" ], [ "ICLR.cc/2025/Conference/Submission7519/Authors" ], [ "ICLR.cc/2025/Conference/Submission7519/Authors" ] ], "structured_content_str": [ "{\"comment\": \"Thanks to the author's reply and experiment, which addressed most of my concerns, I think this is a good paper, and I keep my rating 8.\"}", "{\"title\": \"Final decision and thanks to author's efforts\", \"comment\": \"Thanks for the author's reply and efforts during the rebuttal. After reviewing all the other reviewers' opinion and the discussion between the author and the reviewers, I decided to raise my score to 10, believing that this work will bring new insights and inspiration to the subsequent research and the community.\"}", "{\"summary\": \"The paper introduces representation alignment for diffusion models, a new technique that aligns diffusion features with those of a pretrained foundation model during training. The method is motivated by the observation that the features of pretrained diffusion models inherently align with the features of pretrained, diffusion-based transformer models. Inspired by this, the authors conducted a thorough analysis of the correlation between features at different layers of a foundation model and a diffusion model, finding that certain layers exhibited higher feature correlation. To enhance this alignment, the authors introduced a representation alignment loss, which results in a performance boost. An extensive study was conducted with various foundation models and across different diffusion model layers to identify the most suitable model and layer for enforcing similarity. The authors achieved 17.5x faster convergence on DiT when trained with RePA.\", \"soundness\": \"4\", \"presentation\": \"4\", \"contribution\": \"3\", \"strengths\": \"1. The paper is well-motivated. The introduction section clearly states the logic and reasoning behind why and how the features of foundation models can be leveraged to improve the convergence of a diffusion model.\\n2. The authors analyze different visual foundation models for representation learning and demonstrate that RePA is invariant to the choice of foundation model, with almost all visual foundation models enhancing generation performance and convergence.\\n3. The authors also study the correlation between generation performance and discriminative classification performance using validation accuracy on ImageNet, showing that both exhibit a linear correlation. A model trained to provide better representation capabilities automatically achieves better generation quality as well.\\n4. These insights are extremely valuable and novel, representing a significant step forward in the field.\", \"weaknesses\": \"1. The main claims of the paper is valid in the cases where classifier free guidance is not applied. Could the authors provide an analysis of the benefit of RePA in the presence of classifier free guidance. Specifically it would be great to see the results in Figure 1 with classifier free guidance included\\n2. How well does RePA work when there is already an alignment with text like cross attention in text-to-image models. Will RePA cause a conflict in representation alignment between CLIP/T5 and Dinov2 representations and reduce performance? If time permits I would request the authors to add an analysis in this aspect. This could be a simple experiment like finetuning the existing model an small text to image datasets like CUB-200[3]. If not a detailed explanation of why/why not this may work would suffice.\\n3. Diffusion features are generally noisy in the encoder layers and tends to become clearer in the decoder[1,2]. However in REPA we find that the best suited layer is indeed in the encoder which suggests cleaner representations in the encoder itself. Could the authors comment on why although the correlations seems better in the decoder features, the encoder layer 8 is best suited for representation alignment? An answer to Q1 in the questions section would suffice for this query.\\n4. There are no limitations section or future works section in the manuscript. I would advise the authors to please include these as well in an updated version. The request for these sections is for enabling the research community to further tackle problems that the authors might not have time to tackle. \\n\\n\\n [1] Tumanyan, N., Geyer, M., Bagon, S. and Dekel, T., 2023. Plug-and-play diffusion features for text-driven image-to-image translation. In Proceedings of the IEEE/CVF Conference on Computer Vision and Pattern Recognition (pp. 1921-1930).\\n\\n [2] Cao, M., Wang, X., Qi, Z., Shan, Y., Qie, X. and Zheng, Y., 2023. Masactrl: Tuning-free mutual self-attention control for consistent image synthesis and editing. In Proceedings of the IEEE/CVF International Conference on Computer Vision (pp. 22560-22570).\\n\\n [3] Wah, C., Branson, S., Welinder, P., Perona, P. and Belongie, S., 2011. The caltech-ucsd birds-200-2011 dataset.\", \"questions\": \"1. In Figure 3, was the analysis performed by training different networks with RePA applied at different layers or was the training process for a single layer and evaluation was performed at different layer? This aspect is not clear from the paper. Could the authors please include this clarification in the figure caption or the related section.\\n2. In cross attention layers, the main learning process happens through alignment of the image space and text space . Diffusion models leveraging cross attention functions better if the cross attention is applied at different layers. Considering a contrast of REPA for diffusion alignment. Would doing representation alignment based training leveraging different levels of features from the foundation model and the diffusion model lead to an improve in performance? Could the authors comment on this.\\n3. Diffusion features are generally noisy towards the start of the sampling process and becomes clearer towards the end. In Figure 2a, the authors showed that the semantic gap for cleaner features tends to be lower. However does this also suggest that a time varying repa might lead to a even better boost in performance\\n4. In Figure 5, the authors have shown the benefit of different visual foundation models for represenation alignment. However, there is also a correlation that the linear probing performance also follows the same trend i.e \\nDinov2> CLIP>MoCov3>DINO>MAE\\nHence I'm curious if repa using a pre-trained SOTA VIT based classifier may further boost the performance. An experiment for a limited number of training iterations or a detailed explanation would suffice for this issue\", \"flag_for_ethics_review\": \"['No ethics review needed.']\", \"rating\": \"10\", \"confidence\": \"4\", \"code_of_conduct\": \"Yes\"}", "{\"title\": \"Response to Reviewer i9uk\", \"comment\": \"Dear Reviewer i9uk,\\n\\nWe are happy to hear that our rebuttal addressed your concerns well! Also, we appreciate your support for our work. If you have any further questions or suggestions, please do not hesitate to let us know.\\n\\nBest regards, \\nAuthors\"}", "{\"title\": \"Response to Reviewer XnZq (2/3)\", \"comment\": \"**[W4] Effect of different diffusion objectives.**\\n\\nWe remark that our analyses on SiT (in Figure 2) and those on DiT (in Figure 9) already correspond to two different diffusion objectives, i.e., the v-prediction and $\\\\epsilon$-prediction models, respectively. The results in Table 2 also validate the effectiveness of REPA for these models; we have clarified this point in the revised manuscript. \\n\\nTo further address your concern, we additionally report the performance of DiT-L/2 + REPA using the x0-prediction objective in the table below. Similar to our experimental results with v-prediction or $\\\\epsilon$-prediction objectives in Table 2, REPA is also effective in this case. \\n\\n\\\\begin{array}{lc}\\n\\\\hline\\n\\\\text{Method} & \\\\text{FID}\\\\downarrow \\\\newline \\n\\\\hline\\n\\\\text{DiT-L/2 ($\\\\epsilon$-pred.)} & 23.3 \\\\newline\\n\\\\text{DiT-L/2+REPA ($\\\\epsilon$-pred.)} & 15.6 \\\\newline\\n\\\\text{DiT-L/2+REPA ($\\\\mathbf{x}_0$-pred.)} & 16.5 \\\\newline\\n\\\\hline\\n\\\\end{array} \\n\\n---\\n\\n**[W5] REPA for text-to-image or text-to-video generation**\\n\\nTo address your concern, we additionally conducted a text-to-image (T2I) generation experiment on MS-COCO [2], following the setup in previous literature [3]. We tested REPA on MMDiT [4], a variant of DiT designed for T2I generation, given that the standard DiT/SiT architectures are not suited for this task. As shown in the table below, REPA also shows clear improvements in T2I generation, highlighting the importance of alignment of visual representations even under the presence of text representations. In this respect, we believe that scaling up REPA training to large-scale T2I models will be a promising direction for future research. We added these results with qualitative comparison in Appendix K in the revised manuscript. \\n\\n\\\\begin{array}{lcc}\\n\\\\hline\\n\\\\text{Method} & \\\\text{Type} & \\\\text{FID} \\\\newline\\n\\\\hline\\n\\\\text{AttnGAN} & \\\\text{GAN} & 35.49 \\\\newline\\n\\\\text{DM-GAN} & \\\\text{GAN} & 32.64 \\\\newline\\n\\\\text{VQ-Diffusion} & \\\\text{Discrete Diffusion} & 19.75 \\\\newline\\n\\\\text{DF-GAN} & \\\\text{GAN} & 19.32 \\\\newline\\n\\\\text{XMC-GAN} & \\\\text{GAN} & \\\\phantom{0}9.33 \\\\newline\\n\\\\text{Frido} & \\\\text{Diffusion} & \\\\phantom{0}8.97 \\\\newline\\n\\\\text{LAFITE} & \\\\text{GAN} & \\\\phantom{0}8.12 \\\\newline\\n\\\\hline\\n\\\\text{U-Net} & \\\\text{Diffusion} & \\\\phantom{0}7.32 \\\\newline\\n\\\\text{U-ViT-S/2} & \\\\text{Diffusion} & \\\\phantom{0}5.95 \\\\newline\\n\\\\text{U-ViT-S/2 (Deep)} & \\\\text{Diffusion} & \\\\phantom{0}5.48 \\\\newline\\n\\\\hline\\n\\\\text{MMDiT (ODE; NFE=50, 150K iter)} & \\\\text{Diffusion} & \\\\phantom{0}6.05 \\\\newline\\n\\\\textbf{MMDiT+REPA (ODE; NFE=50, 150K iter)} & \\\\text{Diffusion} & \\\\phantom{0}\\\\bf{4.73} \\\\newline\\n\\\\hline\\n\\\\text{MMDiT (SDE; NFE=250, 150K iter)} & \\\\text{Diffusion} & \\\\phantom{0}5.30 \\\\newline\\n\\\\textbf{MMDiT+REPA (SDE; NFE=250, 150K iter)} & \\\\text{Diffusion} & \\\\phantom{0}\\\\bf{4.14} \\\\newline\\n\\\\hline\\n\\\\end{array}\\n\\n[2] Microsoft COCO: Common Objects in Context, ECCV 2014 \\n[3] All are Worth Words: A ViT Backbone for Diffusion Models, CVPR 2023 \\n[4] Scaling Rectified Flow Transformers for High-Resolution Image Synthesis, ICML 2024 \\n\\n---\\n\\n**[Q1] Code release.**\\n\\nThank you! We plan to make all the training and eval code, model checkpoints, and supporting scripts from the paper open source, along with the necessary tools to replicate the results presented in the paper.\\n\\n---\\n\\n**[Q2-1] Why direct DINOv2 fine-tuning fails?**\", \"we_hypothesize_that_this_is_mainly_due_to_the_input_mismatch_problem\": \"DINOv2 has never been exposed to noisy inputs, and they are trained with image pixels rather than compressed latent images computed from the Stable Diffusion VAE. Thus, DINOv2 initialization might not be that beneficial for training latent diffusion transformers.\\n\\n---\\n\\n**[Q2-2] Diffusion model from scratch with partial DINOv2-based loss.**\\n\\nIn our work, we did not consider such a training scheme for several reasons. First, since our method is inspired by analysis of the \\u201cinternal\\u201d representation of diffusion transformers, we focus on a more explicit form of regularization that aligns between representations of diffusion transformers and powerful pretrained visual encoders. Moreover, applying an LPIPS-like loss using DINOv2 is both memory- and computation-intensive compared to REPA, particularly for latent diffusion models. This is because inputs of pretrained visual encoders (e.g., DINOv2) are image pixels, but outputs of diffusion transformers are compressed latent images. Thus, one should decode the output from diffusion transformers to image pixels through pretrained VAE at every training iteration before feeding them to pretrained visual encoders like DINOv2.\"}", "{\"comment\": \"Hi, thanks for your rebuttal. I would like to raise my score.\"}", "{\"title\": \"Gentle Reminder\", \"comment\": \"Dear Reviewer i9uk,\\n\\nThank you again for your time and efforts in reviewing our paper.\\n\\nAs the discussion period draws close, we kindly remind you that two days remain for further comments or questions. We would appreciate the opportunity to address any additional concerns you may have before the discussion phase ends.\\n\\nThank you very much!\\n\\nMany thanks, \\nAuthors\"}", "{\"title\": \"Response to Reviewer K7ig (2/2)\", \"comment\": \"**[Q2] Representation alignment with different levels of features from the foundation model?**\\n\\nWe think it is a really interesting future direction to explore. Given that recent diffusion model literature has shown that coarse-to-fine generation can make diffusion model training more efficient, we think that exploring the alignment of representations from foundation models and diffusion models in a hierarchical manner will be an exciting direction. We think there are many other possible directions, and we leave it for future work.\\n\\n---\\n\\n**[Q3] Time-varying REPA: might lead to an even better boost in performance?**\\n\\nThanks for the insightful suggestion. Indeed, as diffusion models deal with noisy inputs over different noise scales, time-varying REPA could lead to further performance improvements. One possible direction can be designing a weight function based on the noise schedule used in the diffusion process. We have not explored this in this work as our main focus is more on performing extensive analysis on other perspectives, such as target representations used for alignment, alignment depth, scalability of the method, etc. We leave this as an exciting direction for future work.\\n\\n---\\n\\n**[Q4] Performance of REPA with the state-of-the-art ViT classifier?**\\n\\nFollowing your suggestion, we conducted an additional experiment using the VIT-L classifier fine-tuned from SWAG [4], which has 88.1% accuracy on ImageNet and is better than the visual encoder that we used in our experiment. As shown in the table below, it shows less improvement than other powerful self-supervised ViTs like DINOv2. In this respect, we hypothesize that aligning with a generic good visual representation learned from massive amounts of data is more effective in diffusion transformer training compared to discriminative representation on the target dataset.\\n\\n\\\\begin{array}{lccccc}\\n\\\\hline\\n\\\\text{Method} & \\\\text{FID $\\\\downarrow$} & \\\\text{sFID $\\\\downarrow$} & \\\\text{IS $\\\\uparrow$} & \\\\text{Pre. $\\\\uparrow$} & \\\\text{Rec. $\\\\uparrow$} \\\\newline\\n\\\\hline\\n\\\\text{DINOv2-L} & \\\\phantom{0}9.9 & 5.34 & 111.9 & 0.68 & 0.65 \\\\newline\\n\\\\text{ViT-L Classifier} & 11.4 & 5.24 & 100.3 & 0.68 & 0.64 \\\\newline\\n\\\\hline\\n\\\\end{array} \\n\\n[4] Revisiting Weakly Supervised Pre-Training of Visual Perception Models, CVPR 2022\"}", "{\"summary\": \"This paper presents REPresentation Alignment (REPA), a regularization technique designed to enhance the efficiency and quality of training in diffusion models. By aligning the noisy input states within denoising networks with clean image representations taken from pretrained visual encoders, REPA helps diffusion models learn better internal representations. The approach significantly improves training efficiency\\u2014such as a 17.5\\u00d7 speed-up for SiT models\\u2014and boosts generation quality, achieving a FID score of 1.80 on ImageNet with guidance. The authors emphasize the importance of aligning diffusion model representations with powerful self-supervised representations to make training easier and more effective.\", \"soundness\": \"3\", \"presentation\": \"3\", \"contribution\": \"3\", \"strengths\": [\"I like the idea of combining diffusion model training and representation learning. The authors highlight the importance of aligning diffusion model representations with powerful self-supervised representations to make training easier and more effective.\", \"The writing in the paper is clean and easy to follow. The authors start with their observations from the empirical study on pretrained diffusion models, which provides the audience with enough background to understand the problem.\", \"The experimental section of this paper is solid. They conduct extensive ablation studies on the proposed method, including aspects such as encoder type, encoder size, alignment depth, and more.\"], \"weaknesses\": [\"My main concern with this work is that the authors focus on class-conditioned diffusion models rather than text-conditioned diffusion models. The success of diffusion heavily depends on text prompts, as better prompts lead to improved performance and faster training of the diffusion model. I am worried that representation learning may not be necessary for text-conditioned diffusion models, as the text itself already acts as a regularizer to guide the training. Additionally, the improvement in FID with classifier-free guidance (CFG) in this paper is not significant, which partially validates my concern that additional representation learning may not be needed when there is strong guidance.\", \"The empirical study presented in Figure 2 is based on linear probing, which is unfair to the diffusion model as it is trained with reconstruction objective. In this context, I suspect that the performance gap for the diffusion model would be smaller on tasks like semantic segmentation.\"], \"questions\": \"I believe this is a solid piece of work and an important first step toward combining representation learning and diffusion model training. My main concern is whether this approach is generalizable to text-conditioned diffusion models. Additionally, I would suggest that the authors add [a] and [b] to the literature review:\\n\\n[a] Learning Disentangled Representation by Exploiting Pretrained Generative Models: A Contrastive Learning View. ICLR 2022.\\n\\n[b] DisDiff: Unsupervised Disentanglement of Diffusion Probabilistic Models. NeurIPS 2023.\", \"flag_for_ethics_review\": \"['No ethics review needed.']\", \"rating\": \"8\", \"confidence\": \"4\", \"code_of_conduct\": \"Yes\"}", "{\"title\": \"Response to Reviewer XnZq (3/3)\", \"comment\": \"**[Q3] How to handle if the spatial dimensions differ between DINOv2 and DiT?**\\n\\nWhen spatial dimensions differ, we align them by interpolating the positional embeddings of pretrained visual encoders and resizing input images accordingly (e.g., as done in [5]). For instance, the original MoCov3 has a spatial dimension of 14x14 after patch embedding. However, the spatial dimensions of DiT/SiT models that we used in our experiments are 16x16; thus, we interpolated positional embedding of MoCov3 and resized input image resolution (from 224x224 to 256x256) to make the spatial dimension to be 16x16. This strategy also worked well with higher-resolution experiments (512x512 resolution experiments in [W1]) with DINOv2.\\n\\n[5] ResFormer: Scaling ViTs with Multi-Resolution Training, CVPR 2023.\"}", "{\"title\": \"Response to Reviewer U4Y4 (1/2)\", \"comment\": \"We deeply appreciate your insightful comments and efforts in reviewing our manuscript. We respond to each of your comments one-by-one in what follows. In the revised draft, we mark our major revisions as \\u201cblue\\u201d.\\n\\n---\\n\\n**[W1-1] Focus is class-conditioned diffusion models rather than text-conditioned diffusion models.** \\n\\nTo address your concern, we have additionally conducted a text-to-image (T2I) generation experiment on MS-COCO [1], following the setup in previous literature [2]. We tested REPA on MMDiT [3], a variant of DiT designed for T2I generation, given that the standard DiT/SiT architectures are not suited for this task. As shown in the table below, REPA also shows clear improvements in T2I generation, highlighting the importance of alignment of visual representations even under the presence of text representations. In this respect, we believe that scaling up REPA training to large-scale T2I models will be a promising direction for future research. We added these results with qualitative comparison in Appendix K in the revised manuscript. \\n\\n\\\\begin{array}{lcc}\\n\\\\hline\\n\\\\text{Method} & \\\\text{Type} & \\\\text{FID} \\\\newline\\n\\\\hline\\n\\\\text{AttnGAN} & \\\\text{GAN} & 35.49 \\\\newline\\n\\\\text{DM-GAN} & \\\\text{GAN} & 32.64 \\\\newline\\n\\\\text{VQ-Diffusion} & \\\\text{Discrete Diffusion} & 19.75 \\\\newline\\n\\\\text{DF-GAN} & \\\\text{GAN} & 19.32 \\\\newline\\n\\\\text{XMC-GAN} & \\\\text{GAN} & \\\\phantom{0}9.33 \\\\newline\\n\\\\text{Frido} & \\\\text{Diffusion} & \\\\phantom{0}8.97 \\\\newline\\n\\\\text{LAFITE} & \\\\text{GAN} & \\\\phantom{0}8.12 \\\\newline\\n\\\\hline\\n\\\\text{U-Net} & \\\\text{Diffusion} & \\\\phantom{0}7.32 \\\\newline\\n\\\\text{U-ViT-S/2} & \\\\text{Diffusion} & \\\\phantom{0}5.95 \\\\newline\\n\\\\text{U-ViT-S/2 (Deep)} & \\\\text{Diffusion} & \\\\phantom{0}5.48 \\\\newline\\n\\\\hline\\n\\\\text{MMDiT (ODE; NFE=50, 150K iter)} & \\\\text{Diffusion} & \\\\phantom{0}6.05 \\\\newline\\n\\\\textbf{MMDiT+REPA (ODE; NFE=50, 150K iter)} & \\\\text{Diffusion} & \\\\phantom{0}\\\\bf{4.73} \\\\newline\\n\\\\hline\\n\\\\text{MMDiT (SDE; NFE=250, 150K iter)} & \\\\text{Diffusion} & \\\\phantom{0}5.30 \\\\newline\\n\\\\textbf{MMDiT+REPA (SDE; NFE=250, 150K iter)} & \\\\text{Diffusion} & \\\\phantom{0}\\\\bf{4.14} \\\\newline\\n\\\\hline\\n\\\\end{array}\\n\\n[1] Microsoft COCO: Common Objects in Context, ECCV 2014 \\n[2] All are Worth Words: A ViT Backbone for Diffusion Models, CVPR 2023 \\n[3] Scaling Rectified Flow Transformers for High-Resolution Image Synthesis, ICML 2024\\n\\n---\\n\\n**[W1-2] it seems FID improvements with classifier-free guidance are not significant.**\\n\\nWe politely disagree with your concern. We strongly believe that we have already shown that FID improvement is also quite significant with CFG; for instance, in Table 2 of our manuscript, REPA outperforms the vanilla SiT-XL/2 with CFG using 7x fewer iterations. We have also provided experimental results showing that the result can be further improved with longer training (1.96 at 1M iteration to 1.80 at 4M iteration). This has also been highlighted in L482-L483 in our main manuscript. Moreover, the above text-to-image generation results in [W1-1] are achieved with CFG, where REPA shows considerably better FID scores (5.30$\\\\to$4.14). To further address your concern, we also conducted an additional experiment on ImageNet 512x512 and compared FID values with CFG: SiT-XL/2 trained with REPA outperforms the vanilla SiT-XL/2 FID by improving values from 2.62 to 2.08 using 3x fewer training iterations.\\n\\nFinally, we additionally provide a similar plot to Figure 1 with classifier-free guidance in Appendix G in the revised manuscript. The plot also shows similar trends to those in Figure 1 in our manuscript, validating the effectiveness of REPA even with CFG. \\n\\n\\n\\n---\\n\\n**[W2] Linear probing comparison is unfair: Performance for the diffusion model would be smaller on tasks like semantic segmentation.**\\n\\nWe note that linear probing has been widely used in previous diffusion model representation analysis [4, 5, 6, 7]. Moreover, we could not perform the semantic segmentation that you mentioned because most open-sourced pretrained diffusion transformers (particularly DiT and SiT) are latent diffusion models. This makes the spatial resolution of DiTs much smaller (8x) in contrast to pretrained visual encoders, and thus it is difficult to perform semantic segmentation in this latent space. Nevertheless, we agree that exploring representational gaps using other tasks like dense prediction (e.g. [8]) should be an interesting direction in the future by training an additional pixel-level diffusion model with DiT architectures. \\n\\n[4] Deconstructing Denoising Diffusion Models for Self-Supervised Learning, arXiv 2024 \\n[5] Denoising Diffusion Autoencoders are Unified Self-supervised Learners, ICCV 2023 \\n[6] Diffusion Models Beat GANs on Image Classification. arXiv 2023 \\n[7] Do Text-free Diffusion Models Learn Discriminative Visual Representations?, ECCV 2024 \\n[8] Diffusion Model as Representation Learner, ICCV 2023\"}", "{\"summary\": \"The paper presents a novel argument that a primary bottleneck in training large-scale diffusion models for generation lies in learning effective representations. The authors suggest that training can be significantly simplified when the model is supported by strong external visual representations. To address this, they introduce a straightforward regularization technique called REPresentation Alignment (REPA), which aligns the projections of noisy input hidden states in denoising networks with clean image representations obtained from pretrained external visual encoders, such as DINOv2. Comprehensive experiments validate this perspective, reinforcing the paper\\u2019s innovative viewpoint.\", \"soundness\": \"4\", \"presentation\": \"3\", \"contribution\": \"4\", \"strengths\": \"1. The paper\\u2019s key finding\\u2014that self-supervised representations, like those from DINOv2, can serve as a teacher to distill base features in a diffusion model\\u2014is both novel and insightful. By using these high-quality representations, the diffusion model can more quickly learn a robust semantic foundation, allowing deeper layers to focus on higher-frequency details. This approach is innovative and inspiring.\\n2. The experimental setup is thorough, covering various aspects such as types of self-supervised encoders, encoder scalability, the number and location of layers used for regularization, and different alignment objectives. These comprehensive experiments add credibility to the proposed method.\", \"weaknesses\": \"1. High-resolution results (e.g., 512x512) are needed to support and further validate findings.\\n2. FID may be unreliable here, as it relies on the Inception network, which tends to lose significant spatial information and focusing on class information. I recommend re-evaluating using DINO-FID to obtain a more accurate measure. I would consider raising the score to 10 if state-of-the-art fid is demonstrated at resolution 512x512 and DINO-FID at 256x256. For DINO-FID, it\\u2019s necessary to pass the ImageNet training set through DINOv2 to store features for dino-FID calculation, which might be challenging to implement. If resources are limited, DINO-FID can be computed at 256x256 resolution, while 512x512 results can use the Inception FID npz provided by ADM.\\n3. It would be beneficial to include visualizations of the features before and after alignment. Although differences can already be observed in the generated images, since the core concept is feature alignment, visualizing the impact directly at the feature level would strengthen the argument and provide deeper insights.\\n4. I recommend exploring the effects of different diffusion objectives. For example, the intermediate features of an epsilon-prediction diffusion model might differ from those of a v-prediction or x0-prediction model. An analysis of these variations could provide valuable insights into the interaction between diffusion objectives and feature alignment.\\n5. The use of class conditions may not fully represent the entire generative domain, particularly in areas like text-to-image and text-to-video generation. This raises concerns about the generalization of the claim that feature alignment is universally important for generative tasks. It would be beneficial to clarify or qualify this claim in light of these broader application areas. In scenarios that already include rich semantic prompts, such as text-to-video generation, would the proposed method still be effective? DINO\\u2019s semantic extraction during training may differ from the semantics derived by an LLM when captioning or re-captioning. It would be helpful to include experiments that use detailed textual descriptions as conditions to evaluate the method\\u2019s performance under these circumstances.\", \"questions\": \"1. I recommend releasing the training and evaluation codes to support future research efforts, as feature representation plays a crucial role in diffusion models.\\n2. You mention that directly fine-tuning a DINOv2 model within a diffusion framework fails due to the noisy input. This raises some questions, as fine-tuning is generally quite robust and should be capable of handling noise. Additionally, have you considered training a diffusion model from scratch while incorporating a partial DINOv2-based loss (similar to a LPIPS loss) alongside the denoising loss? This approach might aid in feature preservation during denoising.\\n3. How do you handle cases where the spatial dimensions (height \\u00d7 width) differ between DINOv2 and DIT? Would using cross-attention mechanisms be a feasible method for aligning features in such cases? This might offer a flexible solution to manage discrepancies in spatial resolution between the models.\", \"flag_for_ethics_review\": \"['No ethics review needed.']\", \"rating\": \"10\", \"confidence\": \"4\", \"code_of_conduct\": \"Yes\"}", "{\"title\": \"Response to Reviewer K7ig\", \"comment\": \"We are happy to hear that our response could help to address your concerns well. Due to your valuable and constructive suggestions, we also believe that our paper is much improved. We respond to each of your additional questions one-by-one in what follows. In the revised draft, we mark our additional revisions as \\u201cred\\u201d.\\n\\n**[W2-1] \\u201cWas the MS-COCO finetuning performed by finetuning an existing model or was the training performed from scratch. In case it was trained with an existing models. From my understanding one of the main benefits RePA provides is faster convergence. Would this mean that finetuning with RePA may also lead to better performance?\\u201d** \\n\\nWe did not perform any finetuning here; rather, we trained a new MMDiT model from scratch on MS-COCO. From Table 3 and 4 in our manuscript, we show that REPA not only shows faster convergence but also better performance at the end of the training. We think exploring the effectiveness of REPA in fine-tuning setups will be a promising future direction. We have clarified these points in the revised manuscript.\\n\\n---\\n\\n**[W2-2] \\u201cWas the representation alignment performed using DinoV2 embeddings or CLIP embeddings? Would there be an added advantage in performing RePA with CLIP embeddings for T2I models\\u201d**\\n\\nFor the T2I experiment, we apply REPA DINOv2 embeddings, while the backbone MMDiT uses CLIP text embeddings as the condition. This is to more directly address the concern you asked: \\u201cWill RePA cause a conflict in representation alignment between CLIP/T5 and Dinov2 representations and reduce performance?\\u201d The results show that REPA does not suffer from conflict with CLIP text embeddings and can improve performance.\\n\\nFinally, as you mentioned, there might be better representations (like CLIP image embeddings) that can be more beneficial in T2I experiments; we leave it for future work as our main focus is not on applying REPA better for T2I setup.\\n\\n---\\n\\n**[W3] \\u201cI thank the authors for this clarification. Seeing this response and after seeing the PCA visualization in Figure 38. Would performing RePA on later transformer layer embeddings (layers 16-20) than layer 8 be more suited. If Yes, I would appreciate if the authors may include this aspect in the future works section in the manuscript.\\u201d**\\n\\nWe have empirically shown that applying REPA to layer 8 is more beneficial than later transformer layer embeddings, and we have already highlighted this in Table 2 and Section 4.2. Performing further analysis of this result will be an interesting direction. We added this aspect in future works section in the revised version of the manuscript.\\n\\n---\\n\\n**[Q4] \\u201cDear authors, I thank for the experiment with the ViT classifier fine-tuned on SWAG[4]. I think the authors may have misread my question in the questions section. My concern was whether utilizing a classifier trained just for ViT classification with labels may perform better when compared to a network trained in a self-supervised fashion. From my understanding, another self-supervised network was utilized in the experiment provided by the authors.\\u201d**\\n\\nFollowing your suggestion, we conducted an additional experiment by training SiT-L/2+REPA with the representation of a pretrained ViT-L trained just for classification (i.e., not pretrained in a self-supervised fashion). At 400K iterations, it achieves FID=11.6, which is worse than FID=9.9 of SiT-L/2+REPA with DINOv2-L representations. This highlights that using a strong visual representation, learned in a self-supervised manner from massive amounts of data, is more effective for training diffusion transformers than relying on a discriminative representation learned from direct classifier training.\"}", "{\"comment\": \"I thank the authors for conducting the additional experiments.\\n\\nThe new experiments demonstrate a strong correlation between ImageNet classification performance and FID scores. However, I politely disagree with the authors' statement that \\\"using a ViT classifier shows a worse FID than using DINOv2, even with a classifier that has better accuracy than DINOv2.\\\" From the presented table, the numbers appear almost equal. I suggest the authors include the performance in the presence of classifier-free guidance as well.\\n\\nThe observed pattern across different classifiers indicates that better classification performance is correlated to better FID scores.\\n\\nThus, alignment with DINOv2 embeddings may not be ideal for text-to-image modeling. A representation closer to the text embeddings being used might be more suitable, particularly when leveraging RePA for text-to-image modeling. This opens up avenues for future work, such as HART [1], where text embeddings are derived from an LLM. In such cases, aligning the vision encoder's image embeddings (of the corresponding MLLM) with the latent features may lead to better performance compared to DINOv2.\\n\\nWhile I understand this discussion may be beyond the scope of the current paper, I encourage the authors to consider adding this aspect to the future works section.\\n\\nI deeply appreciate the authors' efforts in presenting the requested experiments and fostering active discussion. I believe the ideas in this paper are highly valuable to the research community, and I have therefore increased my score to 10.\\n\\n[1] Tang, Haotian, et al. \\\"Hart: Efficient Visual Generation with Hybrid Autoregressive Transformer.\\\" arXiv preprint arXiv:2410.10812 (2024).\"}", "{\"title\": \"Response to Reviewer vfsY\", \"comment\": \"We deeply appreciate your insightful comments and efforts in reviewing our manuscript. We respond to each of your comments one-by-one in what follows. In the revised draft, we mark our major revisions as \\u201cblue\\u201d.\\n\\n\\n---\\n\\n**[W1] Higher resolution experiments (e.g., 512x512).**\\n\\nThanks for the suggestion! We agree that high-resolution results will make the paper more convincing. To address this concern, we additionally train SiT-XL/2 on ImageNet-512x512 with REPA and report the quantitative evaluation in the table below. Notably, as shown in this table, the model (with REPA) already outperforms the vanilla SiT-XL/2 in terms of four metrics (FID, sFID, IS, and Rec) using >3x fewer training iterations. We added this result in Appendix J in the revised manuscript with qualitative results. We will also add the final results in the final draft with longer training (please understand that it takes more than 2 weeks, so it will not be possible to update them until the end of the discussion period).\\n\\n\\\\begin{array}{lcccccc}\\n\\\\hline\\n\\\\phantom{0}\\\\phantom{0} \\\\text{Model} & \\\\text{Epochs} & \\\\text{FID $\\\\downarrow$} & \\\\text{sFID $\\\\downarrow$} & \\\\text{IS $\\\\uparrow$} & \\\\text{Pre. $\\\\uparrow$} & \\\\text{Rec. $\\\\uparrow$} \\\\newline\\n\\\\hline\\n\\\\text{\\\\emph{Pixel diffusion}} \\\\newline\\n\\\\phantom{0}\\\\phantom{0} \\\\text{VDM++} & - & 2.65 & - & 278.1 & - & - \\\\newline\\n\\\\phantom{0}\\\\phantom{0} \\\\text{ADM-G, ADM-U} & 400 & 2.85 & 5.86 & 221.7 & 0.84 & 0.53 \\\\newline\\n\\\\phantom{0}\\\\phantom{0} \\\\text{Simple diffusion (U-Net)} & 800 & 4.28 & - & 171.0 & - & - \\\\newline\\n\\\\phantom{0}\\\\phantom{0} \\\\text{Simple diffusion (U-ViT, L)} & 800 & 4.53 & - & 205.3 & - & - \\\\newline\\n\\\\hline\\n\\\\text{\\\\emph{Latent diffusion, Transformer}} \\\\newline\\n\\\\phantom{0}\\\\phantom{0} \\\\text{MaskDiT} & 800 & 2.50 & 5.10 & 256.3 & 0.83 & 0.56 \\\\newline\\n\\\\phantom{0}\\\\phantom{0} \\\\text{DiT-XL/2} & 600 & 3.04 & 5.02 & 240.8 & 0.84 & 0.54 \\\\newline\\n\\\\phantom{0}\\\\phantom{0} \\\\text{SiT-XL/2} & 600 & 2.62 & 4.18 & 252.2 & 0.84 & 0.57 \\\\newline\\n\\\\phantom{0}\\\\phantom{0} \\\\text{+REPA (ours)} & \\\\phantom{0}80 & {2.44} & 4.21 & 247.3 & 0.84 & 0.56 \\\\newline\\n\\\\phantom{0}\\\\phantom{0} \\\\text{+REPA (ours)} & 100 & 2.32 & \\\\bf{4.16} & 255.7 & 0.84 & 0.56 \\\\newline\\n\\\\phantom{0}\\\\phantom{0} \\\\text{+REPA (ours)} & 200 & \\\\bf{2.08} & 4.19 & \\\\bf{274.6} & 0.83 & \\\\bf{0.58} \\\\newline\\n\\\\hline\\n\\\\end{array} \\n\\n---\\n\\n**[Q1] Why are the experiments focused on diffusion transformers?**\\n\\nWe mainly focused on the diffusion transformer (DiT) architecture for several reasons. First, as you mentioned, recent state-of-the-art visual encoders (e.g., DINOv2) use vision transformer architecture, so we thought enforcing the alignment of the features with DiTs makes more sense. Next, many papers have demonstrated that DiT architecture has great scalability, thereby being used in recent state-of-the-art diffusion models like Flux, Stable Diffusion 3.5, and Sora. Finally, DiT does not contain complicated components (e.g., up/downsampling blocks, skip connections) compared with U-Nets; thus, it is easy for us to perform extensive analysis of REPA under a simplified design space. In these respects, our experiments mainly focused on diffusion transformers. Applying REPA with other diffusion model architectures like U-Net would be an interesting direction in the future.\"}", "{\"title\": \"Common Response\", \"comment\": \"Dear reviewers and AC,\\n\\nWe sincerely appreciate your valuable time and effort spent reviewing our manuscript.\\n\\nWe propose REPA, a regularization for improving diffusion transformers by aligning their representations with powerful pretrained target representations. As reviewers highlighted, our method is well-motivated (K7ig, vfsY, i9uK, MZyg), simple yet effective (vfsY, i9uk), providing a new meaningful insight (XnZq, K7ig), demonstrated by strong empirical results and comprehensive experiments and analysis (all).\\nWe appreciate your constructive feedback on our manuscript. In response to the comments, we have carefully revised and enhanced the manuscript as follows:\\n\\n- ImageNet 512x512 experiment (Appendix J)\\n- Text-to-image experiment (Appendix K)\\n- Feature map visualization (Appendix L)\\n- Dataset analysis used for training target visual encoders (Appendix C.3)\\n- State-of-the-art FID on ImageNet 256x256 with guidance interval (Table 2)\\n- Limitation and Future Work (Appendix M)\\n- Fixing typos (L290)\\n\\nIn the revised manuscript, these updates are temporarily highlighted in blue for your convenience to check.\\n\\nWe sincerely believe that these updates may help us better deliver the benefits of the proposed REPA to the ICLR community.\\n\\nThank you very much, \\nAuthors.\"}", "{\"metareview\": \"This paper introduces REPresentation Alignment (REPA), a simple yet effective regularization technique that significantly enhances the efficiency and performance of diffusion transformers by aligning their representations with pretrained self-supervised visual encoders. Reviewers praised the paper's strong empirical results, including substantial speedups in training (e.g., 17.5\\u00d7 faster for SiT) and improved generation quality, as well as the thorough experimental analyses across various settings. The clear motivation, innovative insights into representation learning, and demonstration of REPA's effectiveness in both class- and text-conditioned generative tasks make this work a strong contribution to the field.\", \"additional_comments_on_reviewer_discussion\": \"During the rebuttal, reviewers raised concerns about higher-resolution experiments, text-to-image (T2I) generation, metric trends, and dataset leakage, alongside suggestions for exploring alignment depth and pretrained classifier comparisons. The authors addressed these by conducting additional experiments at 512x512 resolution, evaluating REPA on T2I tasks (MS-COCO), providing new metrics like CLIP score and Aesthetics, and clarifying their design choices and findings. These comprehensive responses resolved reviewer concerns, leading to increased scores and strong consensus on the paper's contributions and significance\"}", "{\"comment\": \"Thanks the authors for the rebuttal! I think the provided additional experimental results on $512\\\\times512$ solved my concern, and the explanation about why only experimenting with diffusion Transformers also makes sense. Therefore, I would like to raise my score to 8.\\n\\nBy the way, a kind reminder that your included tables in the rebuttal only work occasionally on the website. In other cases, it is just Latex code without actually showing the table. Not sure if it is some technical issue, or probably it is better to use Markdown formatting.\"}", "{\"title\": \"Response to Reviewer K7ig\", \"comment\": \"We deeply appreciate your frequent communication with us. We respond to each of your additional questions one-by-one in what follows.\\n\\n---\\n\\n**[AQ1] \\u201cFollow-up:- Could the authors clarify which layers of the classifier were utilized in this experiment?\\u201d** \\nSimilar to our previous experimental setup, we used the last layer embeddings (i.e., before a classifier head) of the pretrained ViTs for experiments.\\n\\n---\\n\\n**[AQ2] \\u201cCould you report the ImageNet accuracies of the classifier and Dino-v2 as well if time permits?\\u201d**\\n\\nWe report the ImageNet accuracies of the ViTs in the table below. We also report FIDs of SiT-L/2 models trained with REPA using those of VIT classifiers. Moreover, following your suggestion, we additionally conducted experiments and reported results using DeIT III-L, a ViT classifier that has better accuracy than DINOv2-L.\\n\\n\\n\\\\begin{array}{lcc}\\n\\\\hline\\n\\\\text{Model} & \\\\text{Acc.}\\\\uparrow & \\\\text{FID}\\\\downarrow \\\\newline\\n\\\\hline\\n\\\\text{ViT-L Classifier (Vanilla)} & 79.7 & 11.6 \\\\newline \\n\\\\text{DeiT III-L} & 84.2 & 10.0 & \\\\newline \\n\\\\hline\\n\\\\text{DINOv2-L} & 83.5 & \\\\phantom{0}9.9 \\\\newline\\n\\\\hline\\n\\\\end{array}\\n\\nAs shown in this figure, using a ViT classifier shows a worse FID than using DINOv2, even with the classifier that has a better accuracy than DINOv2. This highlights the effectiveness of using a strong visual representation learned in a self-supervised manner from massive amounts of data for diffusion transformer training.\"}", "{\"title\": \"Response to Reviewer vfsY\", \"comment\": \"Dear Reviewer vfsY,\\n\\nWe are happy to hear that our rebuttal addressed your concerns well. Also, we appreciate your support for our work. If you have any further questions or suggestions, please do not hesitate to let us know. Moreover, thanks for letting us know about the issues about the ables that we added in the response. We will take a look and update to Markdown formatting if the problem persists.\\n\\nBest regards, \\nAuthors\"}", "{\"summary\": \"This paper finds that learning a good representation in diffusion transformers will speed up the training process and achieve better performance. By simply aligning diffusion transformer representations with recent self-supervised representations (DINOv2), the DDPM-based models (DiT) and flow-based models (SiT) show significant FID metric drops in early training.\", \"soundness\": \"4\", \"presentation\": \"3\", \"contribution\": \"3\", \"strengths\": \"This paper astutely captures the feature representation gap between generative and discriminative models, providing a feasible approach to enhance model representation and accelerate the training process of DiT models. The extensive analysis and observations regarding representation clarify the underlying motivation. Additionally, the experiments are detailed and validate the effectiveness of the proposed method across different settings. The presentation of Table 2 and the experiment section is very clear.\", \"weaknesses\": \"1. All the experiments in this paper are conducted under the setting of ImageNet 256x256. Although this work shows good results in this setting, it is still far from being applied to the currently popular high-resolution transformer-based text-to-image generation models, such as Flux. I would be more excited to see results and observations at higher resolutions or in text-to-image generation. If the generation is limited to the DiT/SiT class condition, its applications will be severely restricted.\\n2. Metrics for ImageNet generation often confuse me; the FID, sFID, IS, and other metrics frequently show differing trends. And FID does not effectively reflect actual quality differences at low values. How do you consider these metrics comprehensively to make a reasonable judgment about performance? For instance, in the last two rows of Table 2, NT-Xent outperforms in sFID, while Cos. sim. outperforms in FID and IS. And it would be beneficial to provide some experimental results to explain why you chose NT-Xent, rather than simply stating \\\"Empirically, ...\\\" in line 421. I would be glad to discuss this further with you in the Questions section.\", \"questions\": \"1. The experimental results indicate that the speedup for SiT training is quite significant. However, can it achieve state-of-the-art performance in the final results? MDT (ICCV'23) [1] seems to have achieved an FID of 1.79.\\n2. Let's discuss the gap between FID metrics and actual image performance, in Figure 6, your visualization are under classifier-free guidance with $w = 4.0$, but SiT-XL/2 with REPA achieves best FID of 1.80 under classifier-free guidance scale of $w = 1.35$. What do you think of the difference w between best visualization and best metrics, and whether this measure is unreasonable?\\n3. I agree with \\\"the diffusion transformer model needs some capacity for capturing high-frequency details after learning a meaningful representation that contains good semantics.\\\", but minimum semantic gap are at layer 20 before alignment with REPA, which is different between layer 8 after alignment with REPA (I note this because layer 8 yields the best metrics). Could you further explain this difference?\\n4. To more clearly represent the process of alignment in the representation, I recommend including the definition of layers in formula (8). I suggest using $h^{[n,m]}$ to represent diffusion transformer encoder output, where $n$ is a patch index and $m$ is layer index. There is a small parenthesis error in formula (8).\\n\\n[1] Gao, Shanghua, et al. \\\"Masked diffusion transformer is a strong image synthesizer.\\\" Proceedings of the IEEE/CVF International Conference on Computer Vision. 2023.\", \"flag_for_ethics_review\": \"['No ethics review needed.']\", \"rating\": \"10\", \"confidence\": \"4\", \"code_of_conduct\": \"Yes\"}", "{\"title\": \"Response to Reviewer MZYg (2/2)\", \"comment\": \"**[W2] Comprehensive analysis: different metric trends for ImageNet generation.**\\n\\nWe mainly use FID (and IS) metrics as criteria for determining design choices, as these two metrics are the most popular, widely-used metrics, and they also showed quite clear trends across different design choices. Moreover, following your suggestion, we provide additional quantitative evaluation results for NT-Xent and cos. sim at the early training stage in the table below (due to the limited time we have, we used smaller NFE=50 here, different from NFE=250 in the manuscript). The results show that NT-Xent is more beneficial at early iterations, but the gap diminishes with longer training.\\n\\n\\\\begin{array}{lcccc}\\n\\\\hline\\n\\\\text{Method} & \\\\text{50K} & \\\\text{100K} & \\\\text{200K} & \\\\text{400K} \\\\newline\\n\\\\hline\\n\\\\text{NT-Xent} & 26.29 & 18.11 & 15.61 & 14.38 \\\\newline\\n\\\\text{Cos. sim.} & 29.21 & 18.42 & 15.43 & 14.17 \\\\newline\\n\\\\hline\\n\\\\end{array}\\n\\n---\\n\\n**[Q1] Can REPA achieve state-of-the-art results (outperforming FID=1.79 of MDT)?**\\n\\nFirst, in Appendix G, we already have shown that REPA can achieve the same FID of MDT (1.79) by using a slightly smaller CFG scale $w=1.325$. Moreover, note that MDT uses CFG coefficient scheduling that can dramatically improve the performance [4, 5], where we used a constant coefficient and did not apply this technique to achieve the same FID. \\n\\nWe also conducted an additional evaluation by applying CFG scheduling similar to MDT. If we apply a simple scheduling technique proposed in recent work [5], REPA achieves significantly improved FID=1.42. We added this result in Table 4 and Appendix G in the revised manuscript. \\n\\n[4] Masked Diffusion Transformer is a Strong Image Synthesizer, ICCV 2023. \\n[5] Applying Guidance in a Limited Interval Improves Sample and Distribution Quality in Diffusion Models, to appear at NeurIPS 2024 \\n\\n---\\n\\n**[Q2] Why different CFG scale is used for quantitative and qualitative comparison?**\\n\\nThis is a quite common practice in most diffusion model literature [6, 7, 8], and we simply followed their setup. Specifically, generating samples with a large CFG coefficient can provide high-quality individual samples, but they lack diversity [9], potentially leading to quantitative evaluation degradation. \\n\\n[6] Scalable Diffusion Models with Transformers, ICCV 2023 \\n[7] SiT: Exploring Flow and Diffusion-based Generative Models with Scalable Interpolant Transformers, ECCV 2024 \\n[8] High-Resolution Image Synthesis with Latent Diffusion Models, CVPR 2022 \\n[9] Classifier-free Diffusion Guidance, arXiv 2022\\n\\n---\\n\\n**[Q3] Why do minimum semantic differences appear at later layers without REPA?**\\n\\nWe hypothesize that the denoising task used for diffusion model training, which is a sort of reconstruction, may not be a suitable task for learning good representations. Specifically, as mentioned in the Introduction of our original manuscript, it is not capable of eliminating unnecessary details in the image for representation learning [10, 11]. Thus, representation might be learned inefficiently and appear after unnecessarily many layers, even though the first few layers of the model have enough capacity to learn meaningful representations (note that we showed it through applying REPA at the 8th layer). Exploring such different behaviors will be an exciting future direction, and we leave it for future work. \\n\\n[10] A Path towards Autonomous Machine Intelligence Version, OpenReview 2022 \\n[11] Self-supervised learning from images with a joint-embedding predictive architecture, CVPR 2023\\n\\n---\\n\\n**[Q4] Notation**.\\n\\nThanks for the suggestion! We reflected them (notation and fixing typos) in the revised manuscript.\"}", "{\"title\": \"Response to Reviewer U4Y4\", \"comment\": \"Dear Reviewer U4Y4,\\n\\nWe are happy to hear that our rebuttal addressed your concerns well! Also, we appreciate your support for our work. If you have any further questions or suggestions, please do not hesitate to let us know.\\n\\nBest regards, \\nAuthors\"}", "{\"title\": \"Response to Reviewer i9uk (2/2)\", \"comment\": \"**[Q1] The pretrained vision encoder usually also finetunes on the ImageNet dataset; how do you separate the dataset leakage effect when measuring generative models trained on the ImageNet?**\\n\\nFirst, we did not fine-tune encoders (e.g., SigLIP and CLIP) with the ImageNet dataset, particularly if they were trained with another dataset, thereby separating the dataset leakage effect if we use these encoders. As shown in [W2], REPA also achieves significant improvements with these encoders, which validates that the improvement does not simply come from data leakages. \\n\\nTo further address your concern, we conduct an additional text-to-image (T2I) generation experiment on MS-COCO by using DINOv2 as the target representation. Since the training dataset of DINOv2 does not include MS-COCO, it can validate whether the gain comes from data leakage or from aligning diffusion representation with a good visual representation. As shown in the table below, REPA with DINOv2 also shows improvement in this setup, which further highlights our claim. \\n\\n\\\\begin{array}{lcc}\\n\\\\hline\\n\\\\text{Method} & \\\\text{Type} & \\\\text{FID} \\\\newline\\n\\\\hline\\n\\\\text{AttnGAN} & \\\\text{GAN} & 35.49 \\\\newline\\n\\\\text{DM-GAN} & \\\\text{GAN} & 32.64 \\\\newline\\n\\\\text{VQ-Diffusion} & \\\\text{Discrete Diffusion} & 19.75 \\\\newline\\n\\\\text{DF-GAN} & \\\\text{GAN} & 19.32 \\\\newline\\n\\\\text{XMC-GAN} & \\\\text{GAN} & \\\\phantom{0}9.33 \\\\newline\\n\\\\text{Frido} & \\\\text{Diffusion} & \\\\phantom{0}8.97 \\\\newline\\n\\\\text{LAFITE} & \\\\text{GAN} & \\\\phantom{0}8.12 \\\\newline\\n\\\\hline\\n\\\\text{U-Net} & \\\\text{Diffusion} & \\\\phantom{0}7.32 \\\\newline\\n\\\\text{U-ViT-S/2} & \\\\text{Diffusion} & \\\\phantom{0}5.95 \\\\newline\\n\\\\text{U-ViT-S/2 (Deep)} & \\\\text{Diffusion} & \\\\phantom{0}5.48 \\\\newline\\n\\\\hline\\n\\\\text{MMDiT (ODE; NFE=50, 150K iter)} & \\\\text{Diffusion} & \\\\phantom{0}6.05 \\\\newline\\n\\\\textbf{MMDiT+REPA (ODE; NFE=50, 150K iter)} & \\\\text{Diffusion} & \\\\phantom{0}\\\\bf{4.73} \\\\newline\\n\\\\hline\\n\\\\text{MMDiT (SDE; NFE=250, 150K iter)} & \\\\text{Diffusion} & \\\\phantom{0}5.30 \\\\newline\\n\\\\textbf{MMDiT+REPA (SDE; NFE=250, 150K iter)} & \\\\text{Diffusion} & \\\\phantom{0}\\\\bf{4.14} \\\\newline\\n\\\\hline\\n\\\\end{array}\\n\\n---\\n\\n**[Q2] Apply REPA to video generation model?**\\n\\nSimilar to the success in the image domain, we strongly believe that REPA can be applied to video diffusion models by exploiting strong video self-supervised representations, such as V-JEPA [1]. Exploring this should be an interesting future direction.\\n\\n[1] Revisiting Feature Prediction for Learning Visual Representations from Video, arXiv 2024.\"}", "{\"title\": \"Response to Reviewer XnZq (1/3)\", \"comment\": \"We deeply appreciate your insightful comments and efforts in reviewing our manuscript. We respond to each of your comments one-by-one in what follows. In the revised draft, we mark our major revisions as \\u201cblue\\u201d.\\n\\n---\\n\\n**[W1] Higher-resolution results (e.g., 512x512).**\\n\\nThanks for the suggestion! We agree that high-resolution results will make the paper more convincing. To address this concern, we additionally train SiT-XL/2 on ImageNet-512x512 with REPA and report the quantitative evaluation in the table below. Notably, as shown in this table, the model (with REPA) already outperforms the vanilla SiT-XL/2 in terms of four metrics (FID, sFID, IS, and Rec) using >3x fewer training iterations. We added this result in Appendix J in the revised manuscript, along with qualitative results. We will also add the final results in the final draft with longer training (please understand that it takes more than 2 weeks, so it will not be possible to update them until the end of the discussion period).\\n \\n\\\\begin{array}{lcccccc}\\n\\\\hline\\n\\\\phantom{0}\\\\phantom{0} \\\\text{Model} & \\\\text{Epochs} & \\\\text{FID $\\\\downarrow$} & \\\\text{sFID $\\\\downarrow$} & \\\\text{IS $\\\\uparrow$} & \\\\text{Pre. $\\\\uparrow$} & \\\\text{Rec. $\\\\uparrow$} \\\\newline\\n\\\\hline\\n\\\\text{\\\\emph{Pixel diffusion}} \\\\newline\\n\\\\phantom{0}\\\\phantom{0} \\\\text{VDM++} & - & 2.65 & - & 278.1 & - & - \\\\newline\\n\\\\phantom{0}\\\\phantom{0} \\\\text{ADM-G, ADM-U} & 400 & 2.85 & 5.86 & 221.7 & 0.84 & 0.53 \\\\newline\\n\\\\phantom{0}\\\\phantom{0} \\\\text{Simple diffusion (U-Net)} & 800 & 4.28 & - & 171.0 & - & - \\\\newline\\n\\\\phantom{0}\\\\phantom{0} \\\\text{Simple diffusion (U-ViT, L)} & 800 & 4.53 & - & 205.3 & - & - \\\\newline\\n\\\\hline\\n\\\\text{\\\\emph{Latent diffusion, Transformer}} \\\\newline\\n\\\\phantom{0}\\\\phantom{0} \\\\text{MaskDiT} & 800 & 2.50 & 5.10 & 256.3 & 0.83 & 0.56 \\\\newline\\n\\\\phantom{0}\\\\phantom{0} \\\\text{DiT-XL/2} & 600 & 3.04 & 5.02 & 240.8 & 0.84 & 0.54 \\\\newline\\n\\\\phantom{0}\\\\phantom{0} \\\\text{SiT-XL/2} & 600 & 2.62 & 4.18 & 252.2 & 0.84 & 0.57 \\\\newline\\n\\\\phantom{0}\\\\phantom{0} \\\\text{+REPA (ours)} & \\\\phantom{0}80 & {2.44} & 4.21 & 247.3 & 0.84 & 0.56 \\\\newline\\n\\\\phantom{0}\\\\phantom{0} \\\\text{+REPA (ours)} & 100 & 2.32 & \\\\bf{4.16} & 255.7 & 0.84 & 0.56 \\\\newline\\n\\\\phantom{0}\\\\phantom{0} \\\\text{+REPA (ours)} & 200 & \\\\bf{2.08} & 4.19 & \\\\bf{274.6} & 0.83 & \\\\bf{0.58} \\\\newline\\n\\\\hline\\n\\\\end{array} \\n\\n\\n---\\n\\n**[W2] DINO-FD on ImageNet-256x256.**\\n\\nThis is a good point. Following your suggestion, we additionally measure the DINOv2-FD [1] of SIT-XL/2+REPA, as reported in the table below. It shows that our method achieves state-of-the-art DINO-FD on 256x256 resolution with a value of 63.90. Note that this improvement does not simply come from using SiT-XL/2 as a backbone; we observe that the vanilla SiT-XL/2 achieves an even worse DINOv2-FD of 90.93 than DiT-XL/2. We will also add the DINOv2-FD values on ImageNet 512x512 in the final draft after we complete training the 512x512 model with a large number of training iterations. \\n\\n\\\\begin{array}{lc}\\n\\\\hline\\n\\\\text{Method} & \\\\text{DINOv2-FD}\\\\downarrow \\\\newline \\n\\\\hline\\n\\\\text{BigGAN} & 401.22 \\\\newline\\n\\\\text{RQ-Transformer} & 304.05 \\\\newline\\n\\\\text{GigaGAN} & 228.37 \\\\newline\\n\\\\text{MaskGIT} & 214.45 \\\\newline\\n\\\\text{LDM} & 112.40 \\\\newline\\n\\\\text{ADMG-ADMU} & 111.24 \\\\newline\\n\\\\text{DiT-XL/2} & \\\\phantom{0}79.36 \\\\newline\\n\\\\hline\\n\\\\text{SiT-XL/2} & \\\\phantom{0}90.93 \\\\newline\\n\\\\text{+REPA (ours)} & \\\\phantom{0}\\\\bf{63.90} \\\\newline\\n\\\\hline\\n\\\\end{array} \\n\\nNote that we follow the evaluation setup in [1] for a fair comparison with baseline results. Specifically, we do not tune the CFG coefficient for DINOv2-FD and use the same coefficient used for FID computation. To validate the improvement solely from REPA, We also report the DINOv2-FD of the vanilla SiT-XL/2 using the official implementation of SiT.\\n\\n[1] Exposing Flaws of Generative Model Evaluation Metrics and Their Unfair Treatment of Diffusion Models, NeurIPS 2023 \\n\\n---\\n\\n**[W3] Feature visualization before vs. after REPA.**\\n\\nFollowing your suggestion, we added a feature map visualization of pretrained SiT models before and after alignment in Appendix L in the revised manuscript. As shown in the figure, vanilla SiT-XL/2 exhibits a noisy feature map in the early layers at large timestep $t$. In contrast, with alignment, the model shows cleaner feature maps with clear coarse-to-fine patterns across model depths.\"}", "{\"title\": \"Response to Reviewer MZYg\", \"comment\": \"Dear Reviewer MZYg,\\n\\nWe are happy to hear that our rebuttal addressed your concerns well! Also, we appreciate your support for our work. If you have any further questions or suggestions, please do not hesitate to let us know.\\n\\nBest regards, \\nAuthors\"}", "{\"title\": \"Response to Reviewer U4Y4 (2/2)\", \"comment\": \"**[Q1] Add literature review: [a] and [b]**\\n\\nThanks for introducing relevant works. [a] proposes a method to learn disentangled representations using a variety of frozen generative models, such as pretrained GANs. [b] also tries to solve a similar problem but focuses on disentangling diffusion model representations. Our goal is to improve diffusion model training using frozen visual representations. We also did several analyses using pretrained models. We also added this discussion and citations in the revised manuscript.\"}", "{\"title\": \"The rebuttal address most of my concern, and i will raise my score to 10\", \"comment\": \"1. experiments of high-resolution 512x512 are provided, remaining good improvement\\n2. experiments of text-to-image are provided, showing good improvement even with text condition\\n3. the results of DINO-Fid are provided, demonstrating robust performance improvement\\n\\nTherefore, the rebuttal address most of my concerns, and i will raise my score to 10\"}", "{\"comment\": \"Dear authors,\\n\\nI thank you for clarifying these queries and including the future works section. \\n\\n1. The experiments with T2I models portray that RePA is beneficial for T2I training as well in COCO dataset.\\n2. I understand that more experiments with future works may be required to find the best possible alignment scheme. \\n3. I thank the authors for including the relevance of different layers in the future works section.\\n4. Follow-up:- Could the authors clarify which layers of the classifier were utilized in this experiment?\\n\\n[W2] Could you report the ImageNet accuracies of the classifier and Dino-v2 as well if time permits?\"}", "{\"comment\": \"Dear Author,\\n\\nSince the discussion period has been delayed, I still have some questions about the manuscript that I would like to discuss with you further.\\n\\n**1.Additional Metrics for Text-to-Image Evaluation:** \\nSeveral reviewers, including myself, have mentioned that the application of REPA in text-to-image generation can bring novel insights. While I acknowledge the good performance of MMDiT on MSCOCO, the FID metric alone is not always indicative of the actual quality in text-to-image generation practices. Therefore, I suggest that the authors include additional metrics, such as the CLIP score or aesthetics score, or conduct user studies to further evaluate REPA's performance in text-to-image generation.\\n\\n**2.Application to Pretrained Models:** \\nFurthermore, we are all aware that pre-training for text-to-image generation requires substantial computational resources. If REPA can be quickly fine-tuned and applied to existing pretrained models through methods like LoRA or other techniques to achieve feature alignment and demonstrate stronger performance, it would significantly enhance its application value.\\n\\nI will consider raising my score if the author can consider the above two improvement, because it can further expand the practical application of text to image generation.\"}", "{\"summary\": \"This paper proposes a simple method to improve the diffusion-based generative model\\u2019s training efficiency. It discovers the semantic difference in self-supervised vision encoders and diffusion generative models, and the motivation is to use pre-trained vision encoder representation to regularize the diffusion transformer\\u2019s feature representation. The paper is well-written, the motivation, metrics, and methods are easy to understand, and the experiments conducted on various pre-trained vision encoders under different settings demonstrate the effectiveness of the proposed method in both generation quality measured in FID and representation ability measured in linear-probing accuracy.\", \"soundness\": \"3\", \"presentation\": \"4\", \"contribution\": \"3\", \"strengths\": \"--the proposed method is simple and very easy to implement, also the idea is well-motivated by the semantic measurement metrics\\n\\n--the experiments are strong and complete, and examine various vision encoders under various setups (model size, depth) and with different DiT model sizes, all show promising improvement in terms of FID\", \"weaknesses\": \"-- the paper only shows results under resolution 256x256, which is the scale most of the vision encoders are pretrained on, it raises the concern if the pre-trained low-res representation can transfer to the generative models when train on higher resolution 512, 1024, 2048 etc\\n\\n-- missing dataset analysis on the pre-trained vision encoder, i.e. is the performance of the encoder pre-trained on ImageNet the same as on in-the-wild dataset?\", \"questions\": \"--The pretrained vision encoder usually also finetunes on the ImageNet dataset, how do you separate the dataset leakage effect when measuring generative models trained on the ImageNet?\\n\\n-- The same techniques can be applied to the video generative model, where training cost/efficiency is more important, do you think the proposed method can be transferred to the video domain?\", \"flag_for_ethics_review\": \"['No ethics review needed.']\", \"rating\": \"8\", \"confidence\": \"4\", \"code_of_conduct\": \"Yes\"}", "{\"title\": \"Response to Reviewer XnZq\", \"comment\": \"Dear Reviewer XnZq,\\n\\nWe are happy to hear that our rebuttal addressed your concerns well! Also, we appreciate your support for our work. If you have any further questions or suggestions, please do not hesitate to let us know.\\n\\nBest regards, \\nAuthors\"}", "{\"title\": \"Response to Reviewer i9uk (1/2)\", \"comment\": \"We deeply appreciate your insightful comments and efforts in reviewing our manuscript. We respond to each of your comments one-by-one in what follows. In the revised draft, we mark our major revisions as \\u201cblue\\u201d.\\n\\n---\\n\\n**[W1] Higher resolution experiments (e.g., 512x512).**\\n\\nThanks for the suggestion! We agree that high-resolution results will make the paper more convincing. To address this concern, we additionally train SiT-XL/2 on ImageNet-512x512 with REPA and report the quantitative evaluation in the table below. Notably, as shown in this table, the model (with REPA) already outperforms the vanilla SiT-XL/2 in terms of four metrics (FID, sFID, IS, and Rec) using >3x fewer training iterations. We added this result in Appendix J in the revised manuscript with qualitative results. We will also add the final results in the final draft with longer training (please understand that it takes more than 2 weeks, so it will not be possible to update them until the end of the discussion period).\\n\\n\\\\begin{array}{lcccccc}\\n\\\\hline\\n\\\\phantom{0}\\\\phantom{0} \\\\text{Model} & \\\\text{Epochs} & \\\\text{FID $\\\\downarrow$} & \\\\text{sFID $\\\\downarrow$} & \\\\text{IS $\\\\uparrow$} & \\\\text{Pre. $\\\\uparrow$} & \\\\text{Rec. $\\\\uparrow$} \\\\newline\\n\\\\hline\\n\\\\text{\\\\emph{Pixel diffusion}} \\\\newline\\n\\\\phantom{0}\\\\phantom{0} \\\\text{VDM++} & - & 2.65 & - & 278.1 & - & - \\\\newline\\n\\\\phantom{0}\\\\phantom{0} \\\\text{ADM-G, ADM-U} & 400 & 2.85 & 5.86 & 221.7 & 0.84 & 0.53 \\\\newline\\n\\\\phantom{0}\\\\phantom{0} \\\\text{Simple diffusion (U-Net)} & 800 & 4.28 & - & 171.0 & - & - \\\\newline\\n\\\\phantom{0}\\\\phantom{0} \\\\text{Simple diffusion (U-ViT, L)} & 800 & 4.53 & - & 205.3 & - & - \\\\newline\\n\\\\hline\\n\\\\text{\\\\emph{Latent diffusion, Transformer}} \\\\newline\\n\\\\phantom{0}\\\\phantom{0} \\\\text{MaskDiT} & 800 & 2.50 & 5.10 & 256.3 & 0.83 & 0.56 \\\\newline\\n\\\\phantom{0}\\\\phantom{0} \\\\text{DiT-XL/2} & 600 & 3.04 & 5.02 & 240.8 & 0.84 & 0.54 \\\\newline\\n\\\\phantom{0}\\\\phantom{0} \\\\text{SiT-XL/2} & 600 & 2.62 & 4.18 & 252.2 & 0.84 & 0.57 \\\\newline\\n\\\\phantom{0}\\\\phantom{0} \\\\text{+REPA (ours)} & \\\\phantom{0}80 & {2.44} & 4.21 & 247.3 & 0.84 & 0.56 \\\\newline\\n\\\\phantom{0}\\\\phantom{0} \\\\text{+REPA (ours)} & 100 & 2.32 & \\\\bf{4.16} & 255.7 & 0.84 & 0.56 \\\\newline\\n\\\\phantom{0}\\\\phantom{0} \\\\text{+REPA (ours)} & 200 & \\\\bf{2.08} & 4.19 & \\\\bf{274.6} & 0.83 & \\\\bf{0.58} \\\\newline\\n\\\\hline\\n\\\\end{array} \\n\\n---\\n\\n**[W2] Missing dataset analysis on the pretrained visual encoders.**\\n\\nThanks for pointing this out. In the table below, we additionally provide the dataset analysis for visual encoders (we also added I-JEPA [1] and SigLIP [2] in Table 2 in the revision for a more extensive analysis). As shown in this table, better visual representations learned from massive amounts of image data provide more improvement, regardless of whether the dataset does not include ImageNet. We also added this discussion in Appendix C in the revised manuscript.\\n\\n\\\\begin{array}{llccc}\\n\\\\hline\\n\\\\text{Method} & \\\\text{Dataset} & \\\\text{w/ ImageNet-1K} & \\\\text{Text sup.} &\\n\\\\text{FID$\\\\downarrow$} \\\\newline\\n\\\\hline\\n\\\\text{MAE} & \\\\text{ImageNet-1K} & \\\\text{O} & \\\\text{X} & 12.5 \\\\newline\\n\\\\text{DINO} & \\\\text{ImageNet-1K} & \\\\text{O} & \\\\text{X} & 11.9 \\\\newline\\n\\\\text{MoCov3} & \\\\text{ImageNet-1K} & \\\\text{O} & \\\\text{X} & 11.9 \\\\newline\\n\\\\text{I-JEPA} & \\\\text{ImageNet-1K} & \\\\text{O} & \\\\text{X} & 11.6 \\\\newline\\n\\\\hline\\n\\\\text{CLIP} & \\\\text{WIT-400M} & \\\\text{X} & \\\\text{O} & 11.0 \\\\newline\\n\\\\text{SigLIP} & \\\\text{WebLi-4B} & \\\\text{X} & \\\\text{O} & 10.2 \\\\newline\\n\\\\text{DINOv2} & \\\\text{LVD-142M} & \\\\text{O} & \\\\text{X} & 10.0 \\\\newline\\n\\\\hline\\n\\\\end{array}\"}", "{\"title\": \"Gentle Reminder\", \"comment\": \"Dear Reviewer U4Y4,\\n\\nThank you again for your time and efforts in reviewing our paper.\\n\\nAs the discussion period draws close, we kindly remind you that two days remain for further comments or questions. We would appreciate the opportunity to address any additional concerns you may have before the discussion phase ends.\\n\\nThank you very much!\\n\\nMany thanks, \\nAuthors\"}", "{\"title\": \"Response to Reviewer MZYg\", \"comment\": \"We deeply appreciate your additional feedback and questions on improving the paper further. We respond to each of your additional questions one-by-one in what follows.\\n\\n---\\n\\n**[AQ1] Additional Metrics for Text-to-Image Evaluation.\\u201d** \\n\\nFollowing your suggestion, we have additionally compared the CLIP score (using CLIP ViT-B/32 [1]) and the Aesthetics score (using the fine-tuned ConvNeXt-Base CLIP [2]) of MMDiT and MMDiT+REPA as in the table below. Indeed, we observe MMDiT+REPA not only improves FID but also CLIP score and Aesthetics significantly, verifying the effectiveness of REPA on text-image and perceptual alignments, respectively. This is also qualitatively shown in Figure 37 in our manuscript: e.g., for a prompt \\u201cA zebra standing at the edge of a pond,\\u201d MMDiT struggles to generate a pond, and the zebra is on the ground, but MMDiT+REPA generates ponds and correctly locates the generated zebra at the edge of the pond. We will add this discussion in the final draft. \\n\\n[1] https://huggingface.co/openai/clip-vit-base-patch32 \\n[2] https://huggingface.co/laion/CLIP-convnext_base_w_320-laion_aesthetic-s13B-b82K\\n\\n\\\\begin{array}{lcc}\\n\\\\hline\\n\\\\text{Method} & \\\\text{FID}\\\\downarrow & \\\\text{CLIPSIM}\\\\uparrow & \\\\text{Aesthetics}\\\\uparrow \\\\newline\\n\\\\hline\\n\\\\text{MMDiT (ODE; NFE=50, 150K iter)} & \\\\phantom{0}6.05 & 0.2883 & 0.3757 \\\\newline\\n\\\\textbf{MMDiT+REPA (ODE; NFE=50, 150K iter)} & \\\\phantom{0}\\\\textbf{4.73}& \\\\textbf{0.2940} & \\\\textbf{0.3915} \\\\newline\\n\\\\hline\\n\\\\text{MMDiT (SDE; NFE=250, 150K iter)} & \\\\phantom{0}5.30 & 0.2894 & 0.3793 \\\\newline\\n\\\\textbf{MMDiT+REPA (SDE; NFE=250, 150K iter)} & \\\\phantom{0}\\\\bf{4.14} & \\\\textbf{0.2950} & \\\\textbf{0.3944} \\\\newline\\n\\\\hline\\n\\\\end{array}\\n\\n\\n\\n\\n---\\n\\n**[AQ2] Application to Pretrained Models.**\\n\\nThank you for the suggestion. We agree that exploring the applicability of REPA for fine-tuning (text-to-image) pretrained models can enhance the application values; for now, we leave this as an interesting future work. In particular, there can be some nontrivial design choices to be explored when adapting REPA for fine-tuning. For instance, REPA requires an MLP to project transformer hidden states, which are jointly optimized with the diffusion transformer, but existing pretrained models do not include such MLPs. Thus, one needs to attach a randomly initialized MLP to fine-tune pretrained models with REPA, which can affect the training dynamics. We expect that a careful consideration of such aspects would make REPA also beneficial in the fine-tuning setup. We will include this discussion and will continue to work on providing related experimental results and insights in the final draft.\"}", "{\"title\": \"Paper Decision\", \"decision\": \"Accept (Oral)\"}", "{\"summary\": \"This paper presents a technique called REPA, which speeds up the process of training diffusion transformers. The high-level idea of REPA is to align the diffusion model representation with the visual representation of pretrained models. Experimental results show that after using REPA, the training process of diffusion transformers can be much faster, and also achieve better performance when training for the same number of steps.\", \"soundness\": \"3\", \"presentation\": \"3\", \"contribution\": \"3\", \"strengths\": \"++ The idea flow of this paper is very clear. First, the paper presents the semantic gap between diffusion transformer features and discriminative features. Then, the paper shows that the quality of the feature representations from diffusion transformers are correlated with the generation quality. Finally, the proposed method REPA is an intuitive solution based the previous observations and arguments. Therefore, the proposed technique has clear and reasonable motivations.\\n\\n++ The benefit of applying REPA in training diffusion transformers seem to be significant to me. Experimental results like the quantitative ones from Tables 2-4 show that REPA helps the models reach the same performance with fewer iterations, and further achieve better generation results when trained for the same number of steps. Therefore, this technique can be useful in training diffusion models.\\n\\n++ The proposed solution is simple but effective, just to align the features from diffusion models with pretrained visual foundation models. Therefore, it is a neat yet efficient solution for speeding up diffusion models.\", \"weaknesses\": \"-- The quantitative evaluations of REPA on DiT/SiT are only conducted on $256\\\\times 256$ images, which is kind of low-resolution with respect to the capability of state-of-the-art diffusion models. I am wondering how REPA performs in higher-resolution cases, like $512\\\\times 512$ which is also be supported by DiT/SiT. Is it still useful in training higher-resolution diffusion transformers? I think this evaluation is crucial, otherwise the application scenario of this technique will be relatively restricted to lower-resolution.\", \"questions\": \"-- I understand that this paper mainly focuses on speeding up diffusion transformers, as mentioned in the title. However, I am curious about why the application scenario is only limited in diffusion transformers instead of more general diffusion models. Is it because pretrained visual encoders like DINOv2 are mainly in vision transformer architecture, so enforcing the alignment of the features make more sense? Or the authors think diffusion transformers are the future trend for developing diffusion models, so studying the training dynamics of diffusion transformers is more meaningful?\", \"flag_for_ethics_review\": \"['No ethics review needed.']\", \"rating\": \"8\", \"confidence\": \"3\", \"code_of_conduct\": \"Yes\"}", "{\"comment\": \"I thank the authors for the detailed response. I have some doubts regarding some of the responses.\\n\\n[W2] Was the MS-COCO finetuning performed by finetuning an existing model or was the training performed from scratch. In case it was trained with an existing models. From my understanding one of the main benefits RePA provides is faster convergence. Would this mean that finetuning with RePA may also lead to better performance?\\n\\n[W2] Was the representation alignment performed using DinoV2 embeddings or CLIP embeddings. Would there be an added advantage in performing RePA with CLIP embeddings for T2I models\\n\\n[W3] I thank the authors for this clarification. Seeing this response and after seeing the PCA visualization in Figure 38. Would performing RePA on later transformer layer embeddings (layers 16-24) than layer 8 be more suited. If Yes, I would appreciate if the authors may include this aspect in the future works section in the manuscript.\\n\\n[Q4] Dear authors, I thank for the experiment with the ViT classifier fine-tuned on SWAG[4]. I think the authors may have misread my question in the questions section. My concern was whether utilizing a classifier trained just for ViT classification with labels may perform better when compared to a network trained in a self-supervised fashion. From my understanding, In the experiment provided by the authors, another self supervised network was utilized.\"}", "{\"title\": \"Response to Reviewer K7ig\", \"comment\": \"Dear Reviewer K7ig,\\n\\nWe sincerely appreciate your incisive and thoughtful comments on our manuscript. Thanks to your valuable and constructive suggestions, we believe our paper has improved significantly.\\n\\nAs you suggested, we will include additional results with CFG and related discussions in the future works section in the final draft. Additionally, we will continue to explore the strong correlation between ImageNet classification performance and FID scores and will incorporate it in the final draft.\\n\\nThank you once again for your invaluable feedback.\\n\\nBest regards, \\nAuthors\"}", "{\"comment\": \"After reading the author's rebuttal, it mostly addresses my concerns regarding the high-resolution training and dataset leakage of ImageNet. I raise my score to 8.\"}", "{\"title\": \"Response to Reviewer MZYg (1/2)\", \"comment\": \"We deeply appreciate your insightful comments and efforts in reviewing our manuscript. We respond to each of your comments one-by-one in what follows. In the revised draft, we mark our major revisions as \\u201cblue\\u201d.\\n\\n---\\n\\n**[W1-1] Higher resolution experiments (e.g., 512x512)**\\n\\nThanks for the suggestion! We agree that high-resolution results will make the paper more convincing. To address this concern, we additionally train SiT-XL/2 on ImageNet-512x512 with REPA and report the quantitative evaluation in the table below. Notably, as shown in this table, the model (with REPA) already outperforms the vanilla SiT-XL/2 in terms of four metrics (FID, sFID, IS, and Rec) using >3x fewer training iterations. We added this result in Appendix J in the revised manuscript with qualitative results. We will also add the final results in the final draft with longer training (please understand that it takes more than 2 weeks, so it will not be possible to update them until the end of the discussion period).\\n\\n\\\\begin{array}{lcccccc}\\n\\\\hline\\n\\\\phantom{0}\\\\phantom{0} \\\\text{Model} & \\\\text{Epochs} & \\\\text{FID $\\\\downarrow$} & \\\\text{sFID $\\\\downarrow$} & \\\\text{IS $\\\\uparrow$} & \\\\text{Pre. $\\\\uparrow$} & \\\\text{Rec. $\\\\uparrow$} \\\\newline\\n\\\\hline\\n\\\\text{\\\\emph{Pixel diffusion}} \\\\newline\\n\\\\phantom{0}\\\\phantom{0} \\\\text{VDM++} & - & 2.65 & - & 278.1 & - & - \\\\newline\\n\\\\phantom{0}\\\\phantom{0} \\\\text{ADM-G, ADM-U} & 400 & 2.85 & 5.86 & 221.7 & 0.84 & 0.53 \\\\newline\\n\\\\phantom{0}\\\\phantom{0} \\\\text{Simple diffusion (U-Net)} & 800 & 4.28 & - & 171.0 & - & - \\\\newline\\n\\\\phantom{0}\\\\phantom{0} \\\\text{Simple diffusion (U-ViT, L)} & 800 & 4.53 & - & 205.3 & - & - \\\\newline\\n\\\\hline\\n\\\\text{\\\\emph{Latent diffusion, Transformer}} \\\\newline\\n\\\\phantom{0}\\\\phantom{0} \\\\text{MaskDiT} & 800 & 2.50 & 5.10 & 256.3 & 0.83 & 0.56 \\\\newline\\n\\\\phantom{0}\\\\phantom{0} \\\\text{DiT-XL/2} & 600 & 3.04 & 5.02 & 240.8 & 0.84 & 0.54 \\\\newline\\n\\\\phantom{0}\\\\phantom{0} \\\\text{SiT-XL/2} & 600 & 2.62 & 4.18 & 252.2 & 0.84 & 0.57 \\\\newline\\n\\\\phantom{0}\\\\phantom{0} \\\\text{+REPA (ours)} & \\\\phantom{0}80 & {2.44} & 4.21 & 247.3 & 0.84 & 0.56 \\\\newline\\n\\\\phantom{0}\\\\phantom{0} \\\\text{+REPA (ours)} & 100 & 2.32 & \\\\bf{4.16} & 255.7 & 0.84 & 0.56 \\\\newline\\n\\\\phantom{0}\\\\phantom{0} \\\\text{+REPA (ours)} & 200 & \\\\bf{2.08} & 4.19 & \\\\bf{274.6} & 0.83 & \\\\bf{0.58} \\\\newline\\n\\\\hline\\n\\\\end{array} \\n\\n**[W1-2] Text-to-image experiments.**\\n\\nTo address your concern, we have additionally conducted a text-to-image (T2I) generation experiment on MS-COCO [1], following the setup in previous literature [2]. We tested REPA on MMDiT [3], a variant of DiT designed for T2I generation, given that the standard DiT/SiT architectures are not suited for this task. As shown in the table below, REPA also shows clear improvements in T2I generation, highlighting the importance of alignment of visual representations even under the presence of text representations. In this respect, we believe that scaling up REPA training to large-scale T2I models will be a promising direction for future research. We added these results with qualitative comparison in Appendix K in the revised manuscript. \\n\\n\\\\begin{array}{lcc}\\n\\\\hline\\n\\\\text{Method} & \\\\text{Type} & \\\\text{FID} \\\\newline\\n\\\\hline\\n\\\\text{AttnGAN} & \\\\text{GAN} & 35.49 \\\\newline\\n\\\\text{DM-GAN} & \\\\text{GAN} & 32.64 \\\\newline\\n\\\\text{VQ-Diffusion} & \\\\text{Discrete Diffusion} & 19.75 \\\\newline\\n\\\\text{DF-GAN} & \\\\text{GAN} & 19.32 \\\\newline\\n\\\\text{XMC-GAN} & \\\\text{GAN} & \\\\phantom{0}9.33 \\\\newline\\n\\\\text{Frido} & \\\\text{Diffusion} & \\\\phantom{0}8.97 \\\\newline\\n\\\\text{LAFITE} & \\\\text{GAN} & \\\\phantom{0}8.12 \\\\newline\\n\\\\hline\\n\\\\text{U-Net} & \\\\text{Diffusion} & \\\\phantom{0}7.32 \\\\newline\\n\\\\text{U-ViT-S/2} & \\\\text{Diffusion} & \\\\phantom{0}5.95 \\\\newline\\n\\\\text{U-ViT-S/2 (Deep)} & \\\\text{Diffusion} & \\\\phantom{0}5.48 \\\\newline\\n\\\\hline\\n\\\\text{MMDiT (ODE; NFE=50, 150K iter)} & \\\\text{Diffusion} & \\\\phantom{0}6.05 \\\\newline\\n\\\\textbf{MMDiT+REPA (ODE; NFE=50, 150K iter)} & \\\\text{Diffusion} & \\\\phantom{0}\\\\bf{4.73} \\\\newline\\n\\\\hline\\n\\\\text{MMDiT (SDE; NFE=250, 150K iter)} & \\\\text{Diffusion} & \\\\phantom{0}5.30 \\\\newline\\n\\\\textbf{MMDiT+REPA (SDE; NFE=250, 150K iter)} & \\\\text{Diffusion} & \\\\phantom{0}\\\\bf{4.14} \\\\newline\\n\\\\hline\\n\\\\end{array}\\n\\n\\n[1] Microsoft COCO: Common Objects in Context, ECCV 2014 \\n[2] All are Worth Words: A ViT Backbone for Diffusion Models, CVPR 2023 \\n[3] Scaling Rectified Flow Transformers for High-Resolution Image Synthesis, ICML 2024\"}", "{\"title\": \"Response to Reviewer K7ig (1/2)\", \"comment\": \"We deeply appreciate your insightful comments and efforts in reviewing our manuscript. We respond to each of your comments one-by-one in what follows. In the revised draft, we mark our major revisions as \\u201cblue\\u201d.\\n\\n---\\n\\n**[W1] Benefit of REPA with the classifier-free guidance: something like Figure 1?**\\n\\nFirst, we have already shown FID improvement with CFG: In Table 2 of our manuscript, REPA outperforms the vanilla SiT-XL/2 with CFG using 7x fewer iterations. We have also provided experimental results showing that the result can be further improved with longer training (1.96 at 1M iteration to 1.80 at 4M iteration). This has been highlighted in L482-L483 in our main manuscript.\\n\\nNevertheless, following your suggestion, we additionally provide a similar plot to Figure 1 with classifier-free guidance in Appendix G in the revised manuscript. The plot also shows a similar trend to Figure 1 in our manuscript, validating the effectiveness of REPA with CFG. \\n\\n---\\n\\n**[W2] How does REPA work in text-to-image models?**\\n\\nTo address your concern, we have additionally conducted a text-to-image (T2I) generation experiment on MS-COCO [1], following the setup in previous literature [2]. We tested REPA on MMDiT [3], a variant of DiT designed for T2I generation, given that the standard DiT/SiT architectures are not suited for this task. As shown in the table below, REPA also shows clear improvements in T2I generation, highlighting the importance of alignment of visual representations even under the presence of text representations. In this respect, we believe that scaling up REPA training to large-scale T2I models will be a promising direction for future research. We added these results with qualitative comparison in Appendix K in the revised manuscript. \\n\\n\\\\begin{array}{lcc}\\n\\\\hline\\n\\\\text{Method} & \\\\text{Type} & \\\\text{FID} \\\\newline\\n\\\\hline\\n\\\\text{AttnGAN} & \\\\text{GAN} & 35.49 \\\\newline\\n\\\\text{DM-GAN} & \\\\text{GAN} & 32.64 \\\\newline\\n\\\\text{VQ-Diffusion} & \\\\text{Discrete Diffusion} & 19.75 \\\\newline\\n\\\\text{DF-GAN} & \\\\text{GAN} & 19.32 \\\\newline\\n\\\\text{XMC-GAN} & \\\\text{GAN} & \\\\phantom{0}9.33 \\\\newline\\n\\\\text{Frido} & \\\\text{Diffusion} & \\\\phantom{0}8.97 \\\\newline\\n\\\\text{LAFITE} & \\\\text{GAN} & \\\\phantom{0}8.12 \\\\newline\\n\\\\hline\\n\\\\text{U-Net} & \\\\text{Diffusion} & \\\\phantom{0}7.32 \\\\newline\\n\\\\text{U-ViT-S/2} & \\\\text{Diffusion} & \\\\phantom{0}5.95 \\\\newline\\n\\\\text{U-ViT-S/2 (Deep)} & \\\\text{Diffusion} & \\\\phantom{0}5.48 \\\\newline\\n\\\\hline\\n\\\\text{MMDiT (ODE; NFE=50, 150K iter)} & \\\\text{Diffusion} & \\\\phantom{0}6.05 \\\\newline\\n\\\\textbf{MMDiT+REPA (ODE; NFE=50, 150K iter)} & \\\\text{Diffusion} & \\\\phantom{0}\\\\bf{4.73} \\\\newline\\n\\\\hline\\n\\\\text{MMDiT (SDE; NFE=250, 150K iter)} & \\\\text{Diffusion} & \\\\phantom{0}5.30 \\\\newline\\n\\\\textbf{MMDiT+REPA (SDE; NFE=250, 150K iter)} & \\\\text{Diffusion} & \\\\phantom{0}\\\\bf{4.14} \\\\newline\\n\\\\hline\\n\\\\end{array}\\n\\n[1] Microsoft COCO: Common Objects in Context, ECCV 2014 \\n[2] All are Worth Words: A ViT Backbone for Diffusion Models, CVPR 2023 \\n[3] Scaling Rectified Flow Transformers for High-Resolution Image Synthesis, ICML 2024 \\n\\n---\\n\\n**[W3, Q1] In Figure 3, was the analysis performed by training different networks with RePA applied at different layers, or was the training process for a single layer and evaluation performed at different layers?**\\n\\nThank you for pointing this out. The analysis was performed by using a single network trained with REPA at layer 8 and evaluated at different layers. This is why the model with REPA has the minimum representational gap at layer 8. This allows more layers after alignment to focus on capturing high-frequency details (based on a good representation) and achieves more improvement in generation performance, as explained in the \\u201cAlignment depth\\u201d paragraph in Section 4.2. As you suggested, we added clarification of Figure 3 in the caption in the revised manuscript. \\n \\n---\\n\\n**[W4] No limitation or future works section.**\\n\\nThanks for the suggestion. In this paper, we mainly focused on latent diffusion in the image domain. Exploring REPA with pixel-level diffusion or on other data domains like videos would be interesting future directions. Moreover, training large-scale text-to-image diffusion models with REPA will also be an interesting direction. Exploring theoretical insights into why REPA works well will also be an exciting future direction. We also added such discussions in Appendix M in the revised manuscript.\"}" ] }

[ "Zhijie Cai", "Haolong Chen", "Guangxu Zhu" ]

[ "Large Model Fine-tuning", "Federated Learning", "Heterogeneity Resilience", "Byzantine Resilience" ]

{ "note_id": [ "y7x4rV6yNg", "rHY545mPHh", "oBJryOLW3k", "nZAXqoUWfl", "jxI3P6drFs", "hIaoSwHbaz", "fsTaFh8Vgz", "bLmajVvfSm", "aildNGoYXp", "ZnuovXxfcs", "WGURF5pLMY", "SSeSwN8fTh", "RZBnrL2MbI", "QGKEzG8xTo", "PdFj0PEEOI", "MZMhfbPQwL", "MLrcDySX0T", "IXymxMFS2Q", "HoD0lOiXW5", "FhpvRABraB", "DOV6YKY16C", "4ZL8JwdDDP" ], "note_type": [ "official_comment", "official_comment", "official_comment", "official_comment", "meta_review", "official_comment", "official_comment", "official_comment", "official_review", "official_comment", "official_comment", "official_comment", "official_review", "official_review", "official_comment", "official_comment", "official_comment", "official_review", "official_comment", "decision", "official_comment", "official_comment" ], "note_created": [ 1732030264774, 1732592085096, 1733126869980, 1732030999994, 1734680014526, 1732590992844, 1732115804211, 1733066188617, 1730512949181, 1732030949977, 1732103814545, 1732626634201, 1730456391668, 1730719329216, 1732563791206, 1732030196752, 1732030376792, 1730659943623, 1732606302541, 1737523836280, 1733126852329, 1732030420272 ], "note_signatures": [ [ "ICLR.cc/2025/Conference/Submission7398/Authors" ], [ "ICLR.cc/2025/Conference/Submission7398/Reviewer_WF4n" ], [ "ICLR.cc/2025/Conference/Submission7398/Authors" ], [ "ICLR.cc/2025/Conference/Submission7398/Authors" ], [ "ICLR.cc/2025/Conference/Submission7398/Area_Chair_B5dx" ], [ "ICLR.cc/2025/Conference/Submission7398/Area_Chair_B5dx" ], [ "ICLR.cc/2025/Conference/Submission7398/Authors" ], [ "ICLR.cc/2025/Conference/Submission7398/Authors" ], [ "ICLR.cc/2025/Conference/Submission7398/Reviewer_G6oG" ], [ "ICLR.cc/2025/Conference/Submission7398/Authors" ], [ "ICLR.cc/2025/Conference/Submission7398/Reviewer_Qg9z" ], [ "ICLR.cc/2025/Conference/Submission7398/Reviewer_G6oG" ], [ "ICLR.cc/2025/Conference/Submission7398/Reviewer_rcZ7" ], [ "ICLR.cc/2025/Conference/Submission7398/Reviewer_Qg9z" ], [ "ICLR.cc/2025/Conference/Submission7398/Reviewer_rcZ7" ], [ "ICLR.cc/2025/Conference/Submission7398/Authors" ], [ "ICLR.cc/2025/Conference/Submission7398/Authors" ], [ "ICLR.cc/2025/Conference/Submission7398/Reviewer_WF4n" ], [ "ICLR.cc/2025/Conference/Submission7398/Reviewer_Qg9z" ], [ "ICLR.cc/2025/Conference/Program_Chairs" ], [ "ICLR.cc/2025/Conference/Submission7398/Authors" ], [ "ICLR.cc/2025/Conference/Submission7398/Authors" ] ], "structured_content_str": [ "{\"title\": \"Response to Reviewer Qg9z (Part 2)\", \"comment\": \"**Q5: Regarding the meaning of a parameter**\\n\\n**A5**: Thanks for the question. $D$ is a parameter introduced during applying the mean value theorem on a term in the proof ($ 2\\\\sqrt{ab} \\\\leq Da + b/D $). We have gone through our proof and discarded this parameter for a more precise result (see lines 294-311).\\n\\n**Q6: Regarding the attack policy**\\n\\n**A6**: Thanks for the question. The mentioned method is viable, and as pointed out, \\\"only\\\" is misleading. We emphasized the \\\"always reverse\\\" policy because we found that according to the analysis, the convergence of FeedSign is connected to how often the reported sign is \\\"wrong\\\". So, always sending a reversed sign should be a more effective attack policy. We have corrected that sentence (lines 322-323) in response to this question.\"}", "{\"title\": \"Revised Theorem Proof and Simulation Weaknesses\", \"comment\": \"Thank you to the authors for their revisions and for updating the proof of the theorem. The revised proof appears convincing; however, the weaknesses in the simulations remain a concern, leading me to maintain my previous decision.\"}", "{\"title\": \"Rebuttal Summary (part 2)\", \"comment\": [\"**Concerns and our response.**\", \"**Misstructured proofs.** The convergence analysis of the proposed method, FeedSign, seems to be built on a wrong assumption. `WF4n`\", \"In response, we have checked our paper and found that the relation between the convergence bound and the concerned assumption is vaguely presented. We have revised the analysis part.\", \"The reviewer commented, \\\"The revised proof appears convincing\\\".\", \"**Lack of speed analysis for additional baselines.** Only the ZO methods have a convergence analysis. An analysis of conventional FO methods (like FedAvg) is expected. `G6oG`\", \"In response, we added a FedSGD counterpart to our analysis and included discussions and the rationale of the proposed design.\", \"**Originality and Significance.** There are existing works on one-bit compression in FL systems. `Qg9z` `rcZ7`\", \"In response, we highlighted our differences to the referred works:\", \"Our work is built on forward passes-only finetuning; hence, it can be operated with less computation and memory overheads while lowering the communication load to a dimensionally independent 1 bit.\", \"In signSGD-like works mentioned by `rcZ7`, 1 bit is elementwise, and the total communication load scales to model size.\", \"Apart from the above, the proposed design is resilient against data heterogeneity and Byzantine attacks.\", \"We have a different rationale compared to the existing works; existing works address the heavy communication load by separate lossy load compression, while the proposed design directly features a less accurate but much easier commutable gradient estimation.\", \"We discussed that the proposed design enjoys some underexplored additional privacy protection.\", \"Reviewer `Qg9z` admitted the advantages of our work, but since the discussed features and advantages against the referred earlier works are not perfectly exclusive to the proposed design, concerns remain.\", \"We believe that there are observable distinctions between our design and the prior works, and the proposed design can work better under non-ideal settings, as supported by empirical results in the submission and additional results posted in rebuttals.\", \"**Simple settings regarding Byzantine resilience.** The original setting of 1 Byzantine client in 5 participating clients is not adequate to prove the Byzantine resilience of FeedSign. `G6oG` Besides, some traditional methods, including noise injection and label flipping, are not considered. `rcZ7`\", \"In response, we added empirical results with a client pool size of 25 in both language models and vision models.\", \"We highlighted that since we adopted a seed-projection pair design, any gradient modification attack boils down to having an inaccurate measure of gradient projection, so the simulated scenario is sufficient.\", \"**Convergence deficits.** FeedSign converges slower; hence, the communication reduction can not be justified as a significant advantage. `G6oG`\", \"In response, we admitted that convergence speed under general settings is not an advantage of FeedSign. Its advantages include better data heterogeneity resilience and Byzantine attack resilience. Additionally, empirical results show that FeedSign converges faster under extreme cases like extreme noniid data distribution or Byzantine attacks.\", \"**Practical relevance of Assumption.** Assumption 2, in particular, appears to impose conditions that may not align with realistic settings. `rcZ7`\", \"In response, we have added several works empirically verifying the validity of the assumption.\", \"We would like to thank the reviewers, AC, and PC again for their time and efforts.\"]}", "{\"title\": \"Response to Reviewer rcZ7\", \"comment\": \"**W1: Byzantine resilience**.\\n\\n**A1**: Thanks for the insightful comment. In response to your comment, we have revised Remark 4 (lines 340-346) to discuss why other attack methods are excluded from our investigation.\\n\\n- FeedSign is immune to gradient noise injection, which damages convergence by altering the gradient direction. This is because in FeedSign-like algorithms (uses SPSA, Def. 1), the gradient is represented by $\\\\boldsymbol{g}=p \\\\boldsymbol{z}$, where $p$ is the gradient projection (a scalar), and $\\\\boldsymbol{z}$ is the PRNG generated Gaussian random vector. The deterministic nature of PRNG guarantees that $\\\\boldsymbol{z}$ will be identical as long as the same PRNG is used, so the only way to disrupt $\\\\boldsymbol{g}$ will be changing $p$, which is the demonstrated case in our experiment section.\\n \\n- The same reason applies to label flipping, and every attack means against gradient estimation boils down to an inaccurate measurement of $p$.\\n \\n\\nTo wrap up, our chosen baseline ZO-FedSGD could have complex designs regarding projection modification, but in FeedSign, Byzantine clients have only one bit to manipulate.\\n\\n**W2: Novelty Consideration**.\\n\\n**A2**: Thanks for raising this issue. We would like to point out that \\\"1 bit\\\" in our context fundamentally differs from \\\"1 bit\\\" in signSGD-like works. In signSGD, \\\"1 bit\\\" is elementwise; that is, each entry of the gradient vector, rather than the whole gradient being quantized to \\\"1 bit\\\". Consequently, utilizing signSGD-like algorithms will result in a dimension-dependent communication overhead, while our \\\"1 bit\\\" is dimension-independent. We added discussions to our paper in light of this comment (lines 091-093, 163-166, and 173-174).\\n\\n**W3: Practical Relevance of Assumptions**.\\n\\n**A3**: Thanks for the insightful comment. Assumption 2 is a less common assumption on similar optimization problems, as pointed out. Assumption 2 is saying that most of the eigenvalues of the Hessian matrix of the objective should be near 0. Intuitively, if $r$ is large, then there will be many eigenvalues ($\\\\geq r$) having magnitudes comparable to the operator norm. Many works empirically show this is true in a well-trained model. In light of this, we added references to earlier works that empirically verified this property (lines 317-318).\\n\\n**Q1: More advanced Byzantine attacks**.\\n\\n**A4**: Thanks for the question. We would like to point out that due to the reason shown in **A1**, since the direction of the gradients ($\\\\boldsymbol{z}$ part) is fixed due to the deterministic nature of PRNG, to the best of our knowledge, every attack means will boil down on having an inaccurate $p$, which is the setting we adopted in experiments.\\n\\n**Q2: Reliance on local low effective rank assumption**.\\n\\n**A5**: Thanks for the question. We would like to clarify that reliance on Assumption 2 of this work is the reason we restrict our domain of discussion to FFT rather than general FL. To the best of our knowledge, there is no adjustment that will result in a considerably better analysis or empirical results. However, as discussed in **A3**, Assumption 2 is acceptable and is supported by empirical results.\\n\\n**Q3: Choices of PRNG**.\\n\\n**A6**: Thanks for the question. As long as a high-quality PRNG is chosen (done by computing device manufacturers like NVIDIA) and a zeroth-order optimizer that does not introduce further randomness is chosen, reproducibility is mathematically guaranteed. Client devices only need to worry about agreeing to use the same PRNG in the same way.\"}", "{\"metareview\": \"The authors propose a federated fine-tuning approach that just use 1-bit per client to update the model parameters each iteration. The 1-bit update is a carefully-chosen step-size towards a random direction. The size of the step is dependent on the gradient-to-that-random-direction (obtained via function evaluations).\\n\\nIt is a good idea, since such 1-bit updates are pretty good estimators (as well-studied in sketching and 1 bit compressed sensing etc.).\\n\\nHowever the novelty beyond this point seems limited as pointed out by all the reviewers. Note that, given signSGD and follow-up papers, robustness/byzantine resilience is not that surprising as the authors claim. In fact, the paper contained a wrong-claim about unbiasedness.\\n\\nBased on the reviews and discussions, I recommend rejection at this stage.\", \"additional_comments_on_reviewer_discussion\": \"There are fruitful discussion which will potenntially help improve this paper.\"}", "{\"title\": \"Response\", \"comment\": \"Dear Reviewers,\\n\\nThe authors have provided their rebuttal to your questions/comments. It will be very helpful if you can take a look at their responses and provide any further comments/updated review, if you have not already done so.\\n\\nThanks!\"}", "{\"title\": \"Response to follow-up comments of Reviewer Qg9z\", \"comment\": \"Hi, thanks for your follow-up review. In response:\\n\\n- Yes, regarding this additional privacy layer, this property is also valid in *FwdLLM* and *FedKSeed*. However, this benefit remains underexplored in their works. Additionally, from a broader view, *FeedSign* is more private than *FwdLLM* and *FedKSeed*, since it releases less information about the gradient projection estimates, apart from other resilience enhancements. We will clarify this in the next version of our paper in response to this comment.\\n \\n- Yes, they also enjoy this reduction in computational cost since we all employ ZO optimizers.\\n \\n- We would like to clarify that our work shares the benefit of computational cost reduction compared to the referred work in your earliest comment [1,2] as a result of employing ZO optimization. We discussed the additional \\\"models kept local\\\" privacy offered by the framework design since it is underexplored, and we consider this property valuable. Additionally, we would like to highlight the enhanced resilience of *FeedSign* against data heterogeneity and Byzantine attacks as a consequence of the one-bit compression while maintaining low memory, computation, and communication overheads for the clients.\\n \\n- We would like to clarify that uplink communication load reduction is a part of the motivation for the one-bit compression we employed. The feature that the server can host no actual global model is an attainable advantage of using ZO optimizers in a distributed manner. It is true that our compressed suggestion results in a reduction of memory overhead and storage footprint, but the benefit lies more in the resilience brought by the low influence and vague update.\\n \\n\\nThanks for your comment. If you should have further comments, please don't hesitate to reach out to us.\\n\\n[1] Lang, Natalie, et al. \\\"CPA: Compressed private aggregation for scalable federated learning over massive networks.\\\" ICASSP 2023-2023 IEEE International Conference on Acoustics, Speech and Signal Processing (ICASSP). IEEE, 2023.\\n\\n[2] Lang, Natalie, et al. \\\"Compressed private aggregation for scalable and robust federated learning over massive networks.\\\" arXiv preprint arXiv:2308.00540 (2023).\"}", "{\"title\": \"Response to Follow-Up Comment by Reviewer G6oG\", \"comment\": \"Thanks for your follow-up comments.\\n\\n**Empirical support for implied data heterogeneity.** As pointed out, ZO-FedSGD outperforms our method in 4 out of 7 instances. However, it should be noted that in these instances, the gap is smaller (-0.3 in WIC, -0.1 in MultiRC), including two draws (0.0 in RTE and WSC). In those instances where we outperform ZO-FedSGD, we observe bigger leads (+2.3 in SST-2, +1.8 in CB, +0.2 in BoolQ). We report the performance with a larger client pool size.\\n\\n$\\\\beta=1.0, K=25$,\\n\\n| | SST-2 | RTE | CB | BoolQ | WSC | WIC | MultiRC |\\n| --- | --- | --- | --- | --- | --- | --- | --- |\\n| ZO-FedSGD | 58.8 | 52.7 | 60.7 | 52.6 | 42.3 | 50.3 | **55.8** |\\n| FeedSign | **64.2** | **53.7** | **66.0** | **58.4** | **44.2** | **51.2** | **55.8** |\\n\\nIt can be observed that FeedSign outperforms ZO-FedSGD in most of the columns, reflecting the theoretically implied data heterogeneity resilience.\\n\\n**Simple settings in Byzantine resilience experiments.** Thanks for your comment. We report the test accuracy of ZO-FedSGD and FeedSign with different rates of Byzantine clients as follows with the number of steps aligned. Head of the table $K_B/K$ denotes $K_B$ Byzantine clients in overall $K$ clients.\\n\\n| CIFAR-100 | 1/25 | 2/25 | 3/25 |\\n| --- | --- | --- | --- |\\n| ZO-FedSGD | 8.1 | 4.0 | 3.2 |\\n| FeedSign | **25.7** | **19.6** | **5.2** |\\n\\n| CIFAR-10 | 1/25 | 2/25 | 3/25 |\\n| --- | --- | --- | --- |\\n| ZO-FedSGD | 82.5 | 71.0 | 54.0 |\\n| FeedSign | **92.4** | **90.9** | **82.1** |\\n\\nWe would like to mention that under this harsher setting, all of the CIFAR-100 and some of the CIFAR-10 instances do not reach convergence at the same number of steps as that used in the paper. However, FeedSign has shown its advantage in convergence speed compared to ZO-FedSGD under these settings.\\n\\n**Convergence speed tradeoff.** Thanks for the comment. If our understanding is correct, the reviewer thinks that the trade for data heterogeneity is not good enough. We would like to point out that apart from data heterogeneity resilience, reflected both theoretically and empirically, FeedSign also has good resilience against Byzantine attacks, with a significantly lower communication overhead. We believe that this is a valid advantage and can be of good value under certain circumstances.\\n\\n**Regarding section 5.** Thanks for your comment. It is true that the advantages discussed in Section 5 stem from the seed-projection design. We have carefully phrased our statement in our previous submission as\\n\\n- \\\"discuss some interesting advantages as byproducts guaranteed by the design of FeedSign\\\" in the Abstract,\\n \\n- \\\"discuss some interesting features as byproducts\\\" in the Introduction,\\n \\n- \\\"in FL systems featuring alike designs to FeedSign\\\", \\\"FeedSign-like seed-projection pairs design\\\" in Section 5,\\n \\n\\nand made no claims that this is exclusive to FeedSign or is one of our main contributions. We added this discussion to our work because we believe they can be interesting and valuable features but remain underexplored in recent pioneering works.\\n\\n**Regarding Table 4.** We refer *ZO-based training SOTA* to methods that start ZO optimization from a randomly initialized network (from scratch), and both ZO-FedSGD and FeedSign should be classified into *ZO-based finetuning*. Our statement is that given FeedSign is an aggressive scheme that discards most of the knowledge on client gradient compared to ZO-FedSGD, it can still outperform ZO-based training SOTA in a relatively small number of steps thanks to a general pre-trained model, as shown in the following table, extracted from our previous submission.\\n\\n| Dataset | CIFAR-10 | CIFAR-100 |\\n| --- | --- | --- |\\n| ZO-trained SOTA (from scratch) | 86.5 | 34.2 |\\n| FeedSign | **91.7** | **45.3** |\\n\\nWe believe that this finding gives us an empirical sense that finetuning should be considered a priority if we want to use ZO optimizers on NN tasks.\\n\\n**Regarding Figure 3.** If we understand correctly, the reviewer is referring to the confidence interval that appears as shades around the curves. The confidence interval is actually displayed in Figure 3. We report the standard deviation of metrics in the last epoch in 5 repeats as follows.\\n\\n| | Loss | Accuracy |\\n| --- | --- | --- |\\n| CIFAR-10 | 0.07 | 0.10 |\\n| CIFAR-100 | 0.05 | 0.19 |\\n\\nIt took us some time to prepare evidence to support our response. However, we will respond ASAP from now on, as the discussion phase is closing. We greatly appreciate your time and attention in reviewing our paper.\"}", "{\"summary\": \"This paper introduces FeedSign, a federated fine-tuning framework that employs zeroth-order (ZO) optimizers and pseudo-random number generators, aiming to reduce communication overhead from 64 bits to 1 bit per communication round. While this technical innovation represents a noteworthy advancement in communication per round, the practical relevance of such a reduction remains debatable, particularly given the existing sufficiency of bandwidth for 64 bits. Furthermore, FeedSign does not demonstrate a clear performance advantage over existing frameworks such as FwdLLM and FedKSeed, which undermines its overall contribution.\", \"soundness\": \"3\", \"presentation\": \"2\", \"contribution\": \"2\", \"strengths\": \"1 The motivation of this paper is well shown.\\n2 Detailed proof is given.\", \"weaknesses\": \"1 Lack of convergence speed analysis. The paper lacks a comprehensive analysis of the convergence speed, which is critical as it seems to be the tradeoff between FeedSign and conventional methods (like FedAvg). Adding a direct comparison can better validate the proposed method.\", \"2_performance_comparison_deficits\": \"Despite its lower communication cost, FeedSign does not surpass ZO-FedSGD in several performance metrics across different experiments. The marginal reduction of 63 bits in communication cost per round is not adequately justified as a significant advantage over the existing methods, especially when FeedSign does not exhibit faster convergence. This could result in an increased number of communication rounds, negating its low bandwidth benefits. Figure 2 underscores this issue, showing that ZO-FedSGD can achieve faster convergence speed.\", \"3_vague_claims_of_superiority\": \"The paper claims that FeedSign offers \\u201cnumerous surprising benefits\\u201d over its predecessors. However, these benefits are not well-defined or substantiated beyond the reduced communication requirement, making these claims appear overstated. The advantages over the frameworks in [1], [2], and [3] are ambiguously presented and lack clear support. The contribution should be strengthened.\", \"4_limited_client_participation\": \"The experimental setup with only five participating clients raises questions about the scalability and generalizability of FeedSign. Testing with a larger client pool could provide more robust insights into the framework\\u2019s performance across diverse federated environments.\\n\\n[1] Mengwei Xu, Dongqi Cai, Yaozong Wu, Xiang Li, and Shangguang Wang. {FwdLLM}: Efficient federated finetuning of large language models with perturbed inferences. In 2024 USENIX Annual Technical Conference (USENIX ATC 24), pp. 579\\u2013596, 2024\\n[2] Zhen Qin, Daoyuan Chen, Bingchen Qian, Bolin Ding, Yaliang Li, and Shuiguang Deng. Federated full-parameter tuning of billion-sized language models with communication cost under 18 kilobytes.\\n[3] Sadhika Malladi, Tianyu Gao, Eshaan Nichani, Alex Damian, Jason D Lee, Danqi Chen, and Sanjeev Arora. Fine-tuning language models with just forward passes.\", \"questions\": \"See Weakness.\", \"flag_for_ethics_review\": \"['No ethics review needed.']\", \"rating\": \"5\", \"confidence\": \"4\", \"code_of_conduct\": \"Yes\"}", "{\"title\": \"Response to Reviewer G6oG\", \"comment\": \"**W1: Lack of convergence speed analysis**\\n\\n**A1**: Thanks for the comment. In response to this comment, we have newly included a convergence analysis of the proposed method and the conventional FO-based method (lines 302-304) in Theorem 1, allowing a direct comparison of the convergence speed among the considered methods (lines 315-316).\\n\\n**W2: Performance comparison deficits**\\n\\n**A2**: Thanks for the comment. It is true but natural that the lower communication overhead of FeedSign results in slower convergence. However, FeedSign enjoys the following advantages compared to ZO-FedSGD:\\n\\n- Data heterogeneity resilience. In rationale, FeedSign trades for better resilience against data heterogeneity at the cost of having a slightly lower convergence speed, as shown in Theorem 1 and Remark 3. Convergence analysis of FeedSign yields a performance bound that is independent of data heterogeneity. This is further verified empirically in Figure 2 and Table 5. Notably, FeedSign outperforms ZO-FedSGD in the practical noniid case.\\n \\n- Byzantine resilience. When Byzantine clients are in the client pool, the performance of ZO-FedSGD is compromised, while FeedSign shows marginal performance loss. This is shown in Tables 4, 6, and 7, as well as the newly appended Figure 3, in response to this comment. Additionally, the one-bit design also closes the room for further Byzantine attack design since the sign is the only thing that can be manipulated. This is different from ZO-FedSGD, where Byzantine clients can choose a cleverly distorted distribution of gradient projection to disable the system more effectively or stealthily. We have highlighted this point in Remark 4.\\n \\n\\n**W3: Vague Claims of Superiority**\\n\\n**A3**: Thanks for the comment. We revised the corresponding part by further strengthening our claim with mathematical and empirical evidence.\\n\\n- As recalled in our response to W2, we mathematically characterize data heterogeneity resilience by showing that FeedSign's convergence speed and error bound are irrelevant to data heterogeneity factors. We highlighted this claim in Remark 3 in response to this comment.\\n- We also characterize how the Byzantine client affects FeedSign's convergence, as highlighted in Remark 4. We quantify how the convergence is compromised by two key factors, the Byzantine client proportion and the inherent sign reversing probability, combining results in Theorem 1 and Proposition 1.\\n- The mathematical findings are backed by empirical results. We demonstrate that FeedSign can outperform ZO-FedSGD under a noniid case in Figure 2, and we include Figure 3, reporting the loss and accuracy curve versus the number of steps elapsed. FeedSign manifests good Byzantine resilience with marginal performance degradation, while ZO-FedSGD is compromised by the Byzantine client.\\n\\nMoreover, we discuss some underexplored features FeedSign-like algorithms bring to an FL system, including parameter security and efficient model sharing.\\n\\n**W4: Limited Client Participation**\\n\\n**A4**: Thanks for the comment. In response to your comment, we will be adding a comparison of OPT-125M with client pool sizes K=25 in the experiment section as soon as the results are available.\"}", "{\"comment\": [\"Hi, thanks for you answer. Following that:\", \"Your are saying that you introduce a new layer of privacy in FL systems as the server only collects and forwards seed-projection pairs submitted by clients. But in you paper, you said that the works of FwdLLM Xu et al. (2024) and FedKSeed Qin et al. (2023) discuss a federated fine-tuning framework that exchanges models by exchanging seed-projection pairs (lines 150-153). So, is that privacy contribution, relying on exchanging seed-projection, was already introduced by FwdLLM and FedKSeed?\", \"When pointing out the differences between the works 1) and 2) and yours, you say that the computational cost will be largely cut down since FeedSign excludes backpropagation to perform gradient estimation, which is computation-intensive (especially for large models) but inevitable in FO-based methods. FwdLLM and FedKSeed also exclude backpropagation as they utilize ZO optimization. So do they similarly enjoy this reduced computational cost?\", \"In light of these two trends, privacy and computational cost reduction have already been presented in the algorithms of FwdLLM and FedKSeed?\", \"As pointed out by you, the global model is not stored at the server, and is therefore not being communicated from the users to the server in the uplink channel; what is usually considered as the main motivation for utilizing compression in FL. So in your case, is the gain in your compressed suggestion is the memory overhead reduction in the local storage footprint at the remote edge users devices? (with the additional follow-up contributions of having each user characterized with low influence of one-bit)\"]}", "{\"comment\": \"Thank you for the response. However, I still find the contribution of the proposed method unclear. While the newly added results and analyses provide additional insights, they do not convincingly demonstrate that the proposed method offers a distinct advantage in handling data heterogeneity. For instance, in Table 5, ZO-FedSGD outperforms the proposed method in 4 out of 7 non-IID tasks, raising questions about the claimed resilience.\\n\\nIf Byzantine resilience is indeed the main strength of FeedSign, the current experiment setup appears overly simplistic. A more rigorous evaluation, such as considering varying rates of Byzantine clients, would provide stronger evidence of robustness.\\n\\nAdditionally, the tradeoff in convergence speed does not present a compelling advantage. The improvements seem marginal and are not adequately justified as a significant contribution.\\n\\nRegarding the high-level features discussed in Section 5, it seems that their advantages stem primarily from seed-projection, which is not exclusive to FeedSign and, therefore, cannot be claimed as a direct contribution of the method. Moreover, the analysis accompanying Table 4 is somewhat unclear. While ZO-FedSGD demonstrates superior performance in the table, the authors conclude that FeedSign is faster than the ZO-based training SOTA, which appears contradictory.\\n\\nLastly, in Figure 3, the distributions for the upper and lower subfigures are missing.\"}", "{\"summary\": \"This paper presents FeedSign, a federated fine-tuning (FFT) method that significantly reduces communication overhead for large models, requiring just one bit per step. Unlike conventional FFT, which demands high memory and communication, FeedSign uses zeroth-order optimization and a shared random generator to let clients signal only a binary vote indicating local model improvement. This keeps memory demands low and is compatible with a range of device constraints. FeedSign converges at rates similar to first-order methods and is robust against data heterogeneity and Byzantine attacks, performing on par with or better than other FFT methods across model sizes up to 13 billion parameters.\", \"soundness\": \"3\", \"presentation\": \"2\", \"contribution\": \"2\", \"strengths\": [\"Strong experimental results: the considered experimental setups are diverse and feature strong baselines, and the results of the proposed methods seem to be on par or better than the considered baselines.\", \"The idea of communication one bit of information is quite simple and could be used in practice.\"], \"weaknesses\": \"* **Byzantine Resilience.** The paper could explore a broader range of Byzantine attacks and defenses, since \\u201cByzantine resilience\\u201d refers to the ability of tolerating arbitrary corruptions. While robustness to basic Byzantine failures (Section 4.3) is a positive outcome, the method\\u2019s effectiveness against specific attacks (e.g., label flipping, gradient noise injection) is unclear. For instance, Allouah et al. (2023) explored representative defenses and attacks that might be relevant here, and integrating or testing such techniques could enhance FeedSign\\u2019s security profile.\\n\\n* **Novelty Consideration.** Although FeedSign introduces an efficient mechanism for communication reduction, the reliance on sign-based updates and zeroth-order optimization is not entirely novel. Techniques like sign-SGD have been previously studied for Byzantine-resilient federated learning (Li et al. 2019), and zeroth-order methods are known in federated contexts. While FeedSign\\u2019s combination of these ideas is compelling, the novelty could be highlighted more by contrasting its specific contributions with these prior works in-depth.\\n\\n* **Practical Relevance of Assumptions.** Assumption 2, in particular, appears to impose conditions that may not align with realistic settings. Further analysis or empirical evaluation showing how sensitive FeedSign\\u2019s performance is to deviations from this assumption would clarify the applicability of the theoretical results.\\n\\n### References\\n\\nLi et al. (AAAI 2019). RSA: Byzantine-robust stochastic aggregation methods for distributed learning from heterogeneous datasets.\\n\\nAllouah et al. (AISTATS 2023). Fixing by Mixing: A Recipe for Optimal Byzantine ML under Heterogeneity.\", \"questions\": \"1. Could the authors clarify how FeedSign would handle more advanced Byzantine attack scenarios beyond \\\"random\\\" faults? Are there defenses that could be integrated into FeedSign to enhance robustness without substantially increasing communication costs?\\n\\n2. The reliance on Assumption 2 for theoretical guarantees may limit FeedSign\\u2019s applicability in real-world data distributions. Could the authors provide empirical insights or adjustments to make this assumption more practical?\\n\\n3. Since FeedSign\\u2019s communication relies on PRNG and zeroth-order methods, do these choices introduce any potential issues with reproducibility or variance in results across different clients, and if so, how might they be mitigated?\", \"flag_for_ethics_review\": \"['No ethics review needed.']\", \"rating\": \"6\", \"confidence\": \"3\", \"code_of_conduct\": \"Yes\"}", "{\"summary\": \"This work studies Federated fine-tuning (FFT) realized by utilizing zeroth-order (ZO) optimizers. By using shared pseudo-random number generators (PRNG) across devices, the authors suggest to compress the transmitted gradients using 1-bit; which is in turn robust, as a result of the associated low-influence per-client. A convergence analysis is provided, demonstrating exponential rate similarly to the first-order (FO) methods. An experimental stay and a discussion are further presented, where the latter extends the proposed algorithm into a differentially private one.\", \"soundness\": \"3\", \"presentation\": \"3\", \"contribution\": \"1\", \"strengths\": [\"Quality & Clarity:\", \"The paper is well written and presented.\", \"The provided convergence analysis supports the validation of the presented algorithm.\", \"The discussion section is comprehensive.\", \"The reference to ZO-FedSGD is clear and easy- to-follow.\"], \"weaknesses\": [\"Originality & Significance:\", \"Compressed FL has been extensively studied in literature. Specifically, the idea of clients voting via 1-bit compression and shared source-of-randomness; its differentially private version; and its implied associated robustness due to the implicit low-influence of its clients; have all already been presented in: 1) Lang, Natalie, et al. \\\"CPA: Compressed private aggregation for scalable federated learning over massive networks.\\\" ICASSP 2023-2023 IEEE International Conference on Acoustics, Speech and Signal Processing (ICASSP). IEEE, 2023, and in 2) Lang, Natalie, et al. \\\"Compressed private aggregation for scalable and robust federated learning over massive networks.\\\" arXiv preprint arXiv:2308.00540 (2023).\\u200f\", \"The setting of both works 1) and 2) is the conventional FL with FO optimization, rather than the less adopted FFT and ZO, respectively.\", \"Moreover, as reflect from Algorithm 1 and lines 46-47; FFT does not change the implementation and associated challenges of regular FL, having the latter not-restricted to models of a certain size.\"], \"questions\": \"1. In lines 85-87: \\\"However, we show that the per-step uplink and downlink communication overhead can be further reduced to 1 bit per step regardless of model size with little performance loss but numerous surprising benefits...\\\". According to you Algorithm 1, only your uplink communication is being compressed. Additionally, in \\\"numerous surprising benefits\\\" the use of \\\"numerous\\\" may be too exaggerating.\\n2. In lines 187-188: \\\"However, to the best of our knowledge, efforts toward communication efficiency, data heterogeneity, and Byzantine resilience on FL are separated, motivating this work.\\\". How does you method supports data heterogeneity?\\n3. In line 227: \\\"...perturb its model in the same direction.\\\" What do you mean by that?\\n4. In line: \\\"FeedSign left the sampling of random seeds to the PS...\\\". Is this left of sampling is unique to FeedSign or can also be implemented in ZO-FedSGD?\\n5. What is 'D' in eq. (16)?\\n6. In lines 315-318: \\\"...the only means of damaging convergence of FFT due to the binary voting scheme in FeedSign is to always send a reversed sign to PS.\\\" Does sending a constant sign (regardless of the true value) is also a possibility?\", \"flag_for_ethics_review\": \"['No ethics review needed.']\", \"rating\": \"5\", \"confidence\": \"4\", \"code_of_conduct\": \"Yes\"}", "{\"comment\": \"I thank the authors for their rebuttal and would like to maintain my original score.\"}", "{\"title\": \"Response to Reviewer Qg9z (Part 1)\", \"comment\": \"**W: Originality and Significance**\\n\\n**A1**: Thanks for bringing out this insightful point. We would like to clarify the difference between FeedSign and the referred work in the following aspects:\\n\\n- In principle, FL's long-existing bottleneck lies in communicating model updates. Most efforts addressing this issue are separately doing **accurate** gradient estimation followed by **lossy** compression, leading to potentially unnecessary computational loads, as the compression eventually negates the costly effort of acquiring an accurate gradient estimation by backpropagation. In light of this, we envisage a more integrated and efficient framework that runs on gradient estimation that is less accurate but attainable and communicable with lower overheads with marginal performance loss, arriving at the proposal of FeedSign. This marks a fundamental difference between our work and conventional compression FL methods.\\n- In consequence, FeedSign possesses a key advantage over FO-based methods with its largely reduced memory and computational load, which is critical in large model FFT. The significant memory overhead reduction (1/100 - 1/10, depending on model architectures and tasks) comes from FeedSign's exemption of backward passes due to the adoption of ZO optimization. The computational cost will also be largely cut down since FeedSign excludes backpropagation to perform gradient estimation, which is computation-intensive (especially for large models) but inevitable in FO-based methods.\\n- Additionally, we introduce a new layer of privacy in FL systems. In [1,2], the server must estimate and host the global model for broadcast. However, in FeedSign, the server only collects and forwards seed-projection pairs submitted by clients. As a result, **not only data but also models are kept local and private** in FL systems that feature an aggregation method like FeedSign, adding double protection of privacy. Also, the hardware demand for the server is significantly lowered.\\n\\nDue to the abovementioned features, we believe that FeedSign possesses originality and significance. To highlight the originality and significance of our work, especially the differences from the referred work, we have included more discussions on the differences to the referred work regarding the commented issues (see lines 174-185, 493-495).\\n\\n**Q1: Rephrasing overstated statements**\\n\\n**A1**: Thanks for your question. We originally used the \\\"numerous surprising benefits\\\" to refer to the data heterogeneity, Byzantine resilience, parameter security, and other features brought by FeedSign while reducing the communication, computation, and memory overhead. We have rephrased the corresponding part of the paper and specified the benefits (see lines 087-089).\\n\\n**Q2: Vague support of data heterogeneity resilience**\\n\\n**A2**: Thanks for the comment. FeedSign's data heterogeneity resilience property is demonstrated both theoretically (see Remark 3, lines 319-323) and empirically (see Figure 2 & Table 5). Theoretically, our analysis shows that FeedSign trades we trade for more resilience against data heterogeneity at the cost of having a fixed error floor. Empirically, FeedSign shows a smaller performance gap than the baseline under data heterogeneity. We have refined the corresponding part in response to this question.\\n\\n**Q3: Regarding the definition of perturbation**\\n\\n**A3**: Thanks for the question. As shown in Def 1 (lines 216-223), the gradient estimation in FeedSign (and other algorithms using SPSA variants) is realized by clients measuring the induced change of the loss value after making a deliberate change on its model weights. This change is usually numerically small, hence referred to as *perturbation* in earlier works.\\n\\n**Q4: Seed sampling**\\n\\n**A4**: Thanks for the question. This question is related to a detailed design of FeedSign to realize its strengthened ability. In ZO-FedSGD, each client samples different seeds to perform their own gradient estimation; that is to say, they measure the change of loss towards different directions in the parameter space and update consistently according to seed-projection pairs reported by other clients forwarded by the server. In FeedSign, the projection is compressed to only one bit. Since allowing the clients to explore different directions while using only a binary projection could introduce too much noise, we decided to have them explore the same direction, sampled by the server. Clients upload their binary projections in the same exploring direction, like voting, which is a model usually used in FL compression or security research, as commented. Having a shared seed is also doable in ZO-FedSGD, but it could undermine the performance of the baseline since fewer update directions are explored. However, we did not dig deep into this due to the length limit.\"}", "{\"title\": \"Response to Reviewer WF4n (Part 1)\", \"comment\": \"**W1: Vague primary contribution**\\n\\n**A1**: Thanks for the comment. We would like to admit that the primary idea of zeroth-order finetuning of large models was originally explored by MeZO and ZO-FedSGD. We make further advances from the prior works in the following perspectives.\\n\\n- Compared to ZO-FedSGD, FeedSign is more resilient to data heterogeneity and Byzantine attacks and has an order-of-magnitude smaller communication overhead due to the more restrained gradient projection representation of 1 bit. The conclusions are backed by theoretical and empirical results.\\n \\n- We further discovered some underexplored features of ZO optimization on FL systems, including parameter security, efficient model sharing, and its potential differential privacy enhancement.\\n \\n- We also extend the investigation to vision models, including ViT and ResNet, and demonstrate the advantage of ZO finetuning compared to from-the-scratch ZO training (lines 401-409).\\n \\n\\n**W2: Convergence analysis issue**\\n\\n**A2**: Prompted by your comment, we carefully checked our proof and found that the convergence analysis of FeedSign does not need the unbiased gradient estimate assumption. We are sorry that we have mistakenly stated that the convergence analysis of FeedSign is based on the assumption of unbiasedness in the previous version. We have revised Theorem 1 and rewritten the proofs to fix this issue (see lines 936-989 in the updated version). The new proof is sketched as follows.\\n\\nWe start from the L-smooth assumption.\\n\\nTwo key steps to arrive at the descent lemma for FeedSign are to calculate the inner product term and the quadratic term. \\n\\nFor the inner product term, the weight distance $\\\\mathbf{w}_{t+1} - \\\\mathbf{w}_t$ term will be replaced with an estimated gradient projection-related term, and Assumption 5 further replaces it with a true gradient-related term. We show that this term is eventually half-normal distributed, whose expectation can be easily derived. \\n\\nFor the quadratic norm term, since FeedSign records no amplitude, the norm of the weight difference $\\\\|\\\\boldsymbol{w}_{t+1} - \\\\boldsymbol{w}_t\\\\|_2^2$ is fixed to a constant related to the Lipschitz constant $L$ and learning rate $\\\\eta$. We will reach Equation 43 after this.\\n\\n\\n**W3: Abnormal outperforming instances**\\n\\n**A3**: Thanks for pointing out this issue. We have elaborated on the specificities of the experiment settings in the corresponding part (lines 361-363). To be brief, we copied the reported results in the MeZO paper for the FO and MeZO rows for fair comparison. In runs of ZO-FedSGD and FeedSign, we keep the total number of forward passes (dominant part of computational cost, $n_{\\\\text{centrl}} = T$) the same as that in MeZO. However, different from centralized methods, the number of forward passes does not equal to steps, specifically, reciprocal smaller regarding the client pool size ($n_{\\\\text{distrb}}=n_{\\\\text{centrl}} / K=T$). Hence, it is equivalent to ZO-FedSGD and FeedSign adopting an early stop strategy, and centralized methods seem to have experienced overfitting in the referred instances.\\n\\nHowever, we realized that this could lead to misunderstandings, so we are running new results with a total number of *global model update steps* rather than a total number of *forward passes* aligned.\"}", "{\"summary\": \"The paper proposes FeedSign and ZO-FedSGD as two methods to fine tune large models in an FL setting with communication efficiency. They utilize zeroth-order gradient estimation to also reduce the computational complexity in the edge devices. In the ZO-FedSGD method, each client samples a seed and computes the gradient estimator coefficient and shares the seed and the coefficient with the server (64 bits per round). In the FeedSign method, the seed is shared by the server to all clients, and clients compute their gradient estimator coefficient for that seed and send the sign of that estimator to the server (1 bit per round). In Theorem 1, they proved that the method converges with exponential rate O(e^{-t}). They evaluate the method's performance under different models and datasets for different tasks. Also the differential private version of FeedSign (DP-FeedSign) is proposed in theorem 2.\", \"soundness\": \"1\", \"presentation\": \"2\", \"contribution\": \"3\", \"strengths\": \"The paper introduces a novel approach to minimizing communication overhead in fine-tuning large models by communicating only one bit per round, regardless of model size, structure, or task. This method combines communication efficiency with the computational efficiency of a zeroth-order gradient estimator in each client, which reduces memory requirements by estimating gradients through inference rather than backpropagation. The methods for both ZO-FedSGD and FeedSign are detailed in Algorithm 1. For the FeedSign method, which employs a voting mechanism, robustness against Byzantine attacks is achieved.\\nThe exponential convergence rate O(e^{-t}) is proved in Theorem 1, and a comprehensive set of experiments is provided for various model architectures (ResNet, ViT, RoBERTa, OPT) and scales (ranging from 11M to 13B parameters).\\nThe paper addresses the critical challenge of communication in federated learning by reducing communication overhead to one bit per round for FeedSign and 64 bits for ZO-FedSGD. It also tackles computational limitations in edge devices through the use of a zeroth-order gradient estimator. The method scales effectively to very large models (up to 13B parameters) and offers additional benefits, such as enhanced parameter security and privacy guarantees as byproducts.\", \"weaknesses\": \"1- The ZO-FedSGD method is a distributed version of a zeroth-order algorithm, similar to MeZO, and is referenced in other forms in some citations within the paper. However, it does not appear to be the main contribution of the paper; instead, FeedSign is presented as the primary contribution, which is theoretically and practically distinct from previous work.\\n\\n2- The assumption that FeedSign is unbiased is fundamentally inaccurate. In FeedSign, only the sign of $p$ is transmitted and aggregated, which would only yield unbiasedness if all $p$ values were uniformly $+1$ or $-1$. Since this is not the case, Lemma 1 holds only for ZO-FedSGD and does not apply to FeedSign. Consequently, it cannot be used in Theorem 1, and the proof of convergence for FeedSign in Theorem 1 should be revised.\\n\\n3- In the experimental section, Table 1 shows instances where FeedSign or ZO-FedSGD achieve better accuracy than the centralized version, which seems improbable under the same scenario, as a decentralized version typically cannot surpass the accuracy of its centralized counterpart. If different scenarios were used for fine-tuning, this should be specified in the section, along with a rationale for selecting particular scenarios for the experiments.\", \"questions\": \"1- Your method clearly introduces bias in gradient estimation by using only signs. Have you analyzed how this bias affects the convergence compared to unbiased ZO-FedSGD? Why does FeedSign still work well despite being biased?\\n2- Is there any theoretical bound on the bias of the method?\\n3- Is there any theoretical prove for the convergence of the FeedSign considering its a biased estimation of the gradient?\", \"flag_for_ethics_review\": \"['No ethics review needed.']\", \"rating\": \"5\", \"confidence\": \"4\", \"code_of_conduct\": \"Yes\"}", "{\"comment\": \"Thank you for your detailed response. While I appreciate your clarifications and proposed revisions, my concern regarding the limited novelty remains, so I will maintain my original score.\"}", "{\"title\": \"Paper Decision\", \"decision\": \"Reject\"}", "{\"title\": \"Rebuttal Summary (part 1)\", \"comment\": [\"We would like to thank the AC and PCs for handling our paper and the reviewers for their expertise, effort, and time in reviewing our submission. They have helped us a lot in optimizing our work. Since the discussion phase is closing, we summarize our claimed contributions and the rebuttal as follows.\", \"**Claimed contributions.**\", \"We proposed FeedSign, a federated finetuning framework. It features a zeroth-order optimizer, splits the gradient estimation into 1) direction, and 2) projection, and asks the client to communicate only the sign of the gradient projection. Since 1) can be easily reconstructed in a remote device with a shared PRNG, the sign can be regarded as a vague update that uses up only 1 bit per step per client, independent of model size. Meanwhile, the vague updates boost the system with\", \"data heterogeneity resilience,\", \"and Byzantine attack resilience.\", \"The convergence of the FL system with the sign-only transmission scheme is theoretically characterized and empirically verified. FeedSign shares low memory and computation requirements since employing ZO optimizers while the per-step communication load is further reduced. We also discussed some underexplored but valuable features that can be found in similar seed-projection designs.\", \"**Acknowledged strengths.**\", \"**Strong experiment settings.** Strong baselines are considered, and the results cover a wide range of models and tasks. `rc27` `WF4n`\", \"**Convergence analysis.** This work features a theoretical analysis supported by comprehensive empirical results. `Qg9z` `G6oG`\", \"**Clean reference to pioneering works.** The references to prior works are easy to follow. `Qg9z`\", \"**Comprehensive discussion section.** `Qg9z`\", \"**Possible practical use.** `rcZ7`\"]}", "{\"title\": \"Response to Reviewer WF4n (Part 2)\", \"comment\": \"**Q1: Bias effect**\\n\\n**A4**: Thanks for the question.\\n\\nYes, we have added the analysis of the impact of biased gradient estimation in the updated version in response to this question. The consequence of biased gradient estimation is that FeedSign converges to the neighborhood of the stationary point with a fixed loss floor regardless of the data heterogeneity factors. In comparison, the error floor vanishes for the unbiased gradient estimation-based ZO-FedSGD under an ideal iid case ($c_g = 1, c_h = \\\\sigma_h = 0$ in Assumption 3) but scales to the data heterogeneity factors. In plain words, the proposed design trades for better resilience against data heterogeneity at the cost of having a small constant error floor.\\n\\nAs for why FeedSign works well with biased gradient estimates, if we keep the learning rate $\\\\eta$ small, since the projected error floor scales to $\\\\eta$, the error floor bound can be controlled within a small scale. This is reflected in the experiments and justifies the comparable performance of FeedSign.\\n\\n**Q2: Theoretical bound on biasedness**\\n\\n**A5**: Thanks for the question. In response to this question, we have added a subsection in the appendix (lines 1060-1079) discussing a special case where FeedSign is an unbiased estimator. Briefly, we show that when the true gradient projection $p$ takes value in $[-1, 1]$ and the difference between the batch gradient projection estimate $p_1$ and $p$, denoted by $n$, follows a uniform distribution on $[-1, 1]$, FeedSign is unbiased. We believe that the bias can be bounded by the divergence between the abovementioned distribution and the actual one of $n$. We are leaving this for future work as this may involve substantial workloads deserving a separate work.\\n\\n**Q3: Theoretical characterization of FeedSign**\\n\\n**A6**: Thanks for the question. As recalled in our reply to W2, we have revised the theorem and the proofs. We believe that the updated Theorem 1 is valid for the convergence analysis for FeedSign. If you should have further problems, please don't hesitate to reach out to us.\"}" ] }

[ "Yusu Hong", "Junhong Lin" ]

[ "Adafactor", "stochastic optimization", "non-convex smooth optimization", "convergence" ]

{ "note_id": [ "tlOgLkGfEx", "mnE92tNmFF", "jpYoV9Z3tJ", "jaI0etQfFG", "VxueKXkWLy", "SW5r59AudK", "SQuBa7v97s", "PZapfRXXzc", "OAUsldBjZ4", "Hrvxs1ELby", "HM0Pclwnq6", "FeOvmQ9NlH", "F3XBd1joE6", "DGI7GoO9tx", "B74OQ2lpHP", "AGDpG20d4J", "82LwslbbK0", "1gbGaqkhgq" ], "note_type": [ "official_comment", "decision", "official_comment", "official_review", "official_comment", "official_comment", "official_review", "official_review", "official_comment", "official_comment", "official_comment", "official_comment", "official_comment", "meta_review", "official_comment", "official_comment", "official_comment", "official_comment" ], "note_created": [ 1731850667557, 1737524281432, 1732549618976, 1730568563326, 1731850281136, 1732549765811, 1729571128279, 1730321214521, 1732519675012, 1732279504918, 1731851028040, 1732549263594, 1732524543069, 1734777785819, 1732460927458, 1731848885123, 1731849462362, 1732545672493 ], "note_signatures": [ [ "ICLR.cc/2025/Conference/Submission13777/Authors" ], [ "ICLR.cc/2025/Conference/Program_Chairs" ], [ "ICLR.cc/2025/Conference/Submission13777/Authors" ], [ "ICLR.cc/2025/Conference/Submission13777/Reviewer_nLPm" ], [ "ICLR.cc/2025/Conference/Submission13777/Authors" ], [ "ICLR.cc/2025/Conference/Submission13777/Authors" ], [ "ICLR.cc/2025/Conference/Submission13777/Reviewer_uk85" ], [ "ICLR.cc/2025/Conference/Submission13777/Reviewer_pL2X" ], [ "ICLR.cc/2025/Conference/Submission13777/Reviewer_pL2X" ], [ "ICLR.cc/2025/Conference/Submission13777/Authors" ], [ "ICLR.cc/2025/Conference/Submission13777/Authors" ], [ "ICLR.cc/2025/Conference/Submission13777/Authors" ], [ "ICLR.cc/2025/Conference/Submission13777/Reviewer_uk85" ], [ "ICLR.cc/2025/Conference/Submission13777/Area_Chair_gXec" ], [ "ICLR.cc/2025/Conference/Submission13777/Reviewer_nLPm" ], [ "ICLR.cc/2025/Conference/Submission13777/Authors" ], [ "ICLR.cc/2025/Conference/Submission13777/Authors" ], [ "ICLR.cc/2025/Conference/Submission13777/Authors" ] ], "structured_content_str": [ "{\"comment\": \"We thank a lot for the reviewer's effort and valuable suggestions on our manuscript.\\n\\n> **W1(a).** Assumption A.4 (almost surely bounded stochastic gradient) is quite strong.\\n\\n**Re.** Please refer to the **global rebuttal** related to the discussion of the bounded stochastic gradient assumption.\\n\\n---\\n\\n> **W1(b).** What is the authors' main idea to add clipping? \\n\\n**Re.** **Main idea of adding clipping.**\\n\\nWe follow the update clipping introduced by [1] to recover the vanilla Adafactor as closely as possible. As we mentioned in Section 4 \\\"Update clipping\\\" paragraph, the clipping is used to \\\"calibrate the second moment estimator $W_k$ when it exceeds a threshold $d$.\\\" We highlight that it's different from the standard clipping using $1/\\\\max\\\\left\\\\\\\\{1,\\\\frac{\\\\lambda}{\\\\\\\\|{{G}_k}\\\\\\\\|} \\\\right\\\\\\\\}$. It remains unknown whether the clipping in Adafactor plays the same role in heavy-tail cases as the standard one, which is beyond the scope of this paper.\\n\\n**Same rate for two cases.** \\n\\nWe believe that bounded noise assumption could be the main reason for deriving the same rates for Adafactor both with and without clipping. We suspect that there may be some essential differences when considering the heavy-tail noise. \\n\\n---\\n\\n> **W2.** The experimental section is weak.\\n\\n**Re.** We have added an experiment using Adam to train BERT-Base under the same setup. The corresponding training loss curve is added to Figure 1. It's shown that Adafactor could achieve a comparable convergence rate as Adam.\\n\\n---\\n\\n> **W3.** Some shortcomings in terms of the writing of the paper\\n\\n**W3(a).** **Re.** To clarify this, we have updated the corresponding expressions in the \\\"Contribution\\\" part. See Lines 74-75.\\n\\n**W3(b).** **Re.** We have removed these redundant references in the revised version.\\n\\n---\\n\\n**References.**\\n\\n[1] Shazeer et al., Adafactor: Adaptive Learning Rates with Sublinear Memory Cost, arXiv:1804.04235.\", \"title\": \"Rebuttal\"}", "{\"title\": \"Paper Decision\", \"decision\": \"Reject\"}", "{\"comment\": \"Thanks a lot for the reviewer's reply. We have now replied to other reviewers' new questions and updated a new version of our paper. If there is any further question, we are willing to discuss it.\\n\\nBest,\\n\\nAuthors.\"}", "{\"summary\": \"The paper studies the theoretical convergence of Adafactor without momentum for smooth non-convex optimization. That is, under the assumption of Lipschitzness of the gradient, lower boundedness of the objective, and uniform boundedness of the (stochastic) gradients, the authors derive new convergence guarantees for Adafactor with and without update clipping.\\n\\nIn particular, for the deterministic version of Adafactor, the authors derive $O(\\\\log(T) / T)$ rate for the constant relative stepsize parameter $\\\\rho_k$ and $O(\\\\log(T) / \\\\sqrt{T})$ rate for $\\\\rho_k \\\\sim k^{-1/2}$. Both results hold for $\\\\beta_{2,1} = 1/2$ and arbitrary $\\\\beta_{2,k} \\\\in (0,1)$ for $k \\\\geq 2$\\n\\nNext, for the stochastic version of Adafactor without update clipping, the authors prove $O(\\\\log(T/\\\\delta) T^{-c + 1/2})$ high-probability convergence rate, where $\\\\delta \\\\in (0,1)$ is the failure probability and parameter $c \\\\in [1/2,1]$ defines the rate of the increase of $\\\\beta_{2,k}$ as $\\\\beta_{2,k} = 1 - k^{-c}$ for $k\\\\geq 2$. In particular, when $c = 1$, the derived rate matches the one known for Adam. \\n\\nFinally, for the stochastic version of Adafactor with update clipping, the authors show similar results when the clipping parameter $d_k$ is chosen as $d_k = k^{\\\\frac{c}{2(\\\\alpha - 1)}}$ for some $\\\\alpha > 1$.\\n\\nThe authors also provide several experimental results where they test the performance of Adagrad for different increase rates for $\\\\beta_{2,k}$ parameter and the sensitivity of the method to the choices of $\\\\epsilon_1$ and $\\\\alpha$ parameters.\", \"soundness\": \"2\", \"presentation\": \"4\", \"contribution\": \"2\", \"strengths\": \"S1. To the best of my knowledge, this paper provides the first theoretical convergence analysis of Adafactor. Given the popularity of the method and the relevance of memory-efficient optimizers to modern problems such as the training of LLMs, obtaining rigorous theoretical convergence guarantees for Adafactor is important for the community.\\n\\nS2. The authors provide a sketch of the proof that helps to understand the key steps of the analysis.\", \"weaknesses\": \"W1. The analysis relies on the assumption that the $\\\\ell_\\\\infty$-norms of **the iterates are bounded from below and from above by $\\\\Theta_{\\\\min}$ and $\\\\Theta_{\\\\max}$ respectively**. This is a restrictive assumption, and it should be included in the list of assumptions provided in Section 3. In lines 302-304, the authors briefly mention that they assume $\\\\|\\\\| X_k\\\\|\\\\| \\\\leq \\\\Theta_{{\\\\max}}$ and that the rate depends on $\\\\Theta_{\\\\max}$, but they do not mention in the main text that all the results of the paper rely on the additional assumption that $\\\\|\\\\|X_k \\\\|\\\\| \\\\geq \\\\Theta_{\\\\min}$ for some $\\\\Theta_{\\\\min} > 0$. Both conditions are restrictive and it is not obvious why the norms of the iterates are bounded with probability $1$. The best-known convergence results for Adam do not require such assumptions.\\n\\nW2. The analysis relies on the boundedness of the gradients and the boundedness of the gradient noise. Although the boundedness of the gradients is a common assumption in the literature, assuming boundedness of the noise is quite restrictive: this assumption seems to be unrealistic (e.g., even for Gaussian noise, it doesn't hold), and, in addition, even if the noise is bounded for a particular run of the method, the bound can be huge, especially for training LLMs [1].\\n\\nW3. The derived bounds are proportional at least to $\\\\epsilon_1^{-1/2}$ (e.g., the first bound from (13)), some bounds are proportional to $\\\\epsilon_1^{-5/2}$ (e.g., the second bound from (13)). Since $\\\\epsilon_1$ is typically small, this extra factor is noticeable. Moreover, the best-known results for Adam do not have such a dependency on an analogous parameter, e.g., in [2], the dependency is only logarithmical.\\n\\nW4. The rate in the deterministic case is $O(mn\\\\log(T)/T)$ (for constant $\\\\rho_k$) or to $O(mn\\\\log(T)/\\\\sqrt{T})$ (if we assume that $A_0$ and $A_1$ are $O(1)$ in the first bound in (13)) or to $O(\\\\epsilon_1^{-2}\\\\log(T)/\\\\sqrt{T})$ (if we assume that $A_0$ and $A_1'$ are $O(1)$ in the second bound in (13)). That is, the rate is either proportional to $mn$, i.e., the dimension dependence is similar to Adam, or to $\\\\epsilon_1^{-2}$, which is of the order $10^{60}$ - much larger than the dimensionality of the largest existing model - for the default value $\\\\epsilon_1$.\\n\\nW5. Experiments do not clearly illustrate the dependence on parameters $\\\\epsilon_1, c, \\\\alpha$. In particular, in the experiment for BERT-base model, the authors report only training loss. Next, in the experiments with ResNet, the authors show that the accuracy, in fact, largely depends on $c$, but from the training loss, it is not that clear. Finally, in the experiments from sections D.2 and D.3 the authors do not report the accuracy and the test loss, thus, the real influence of $\\\\epsilon_1$ and $\\\\alpha$ remains unclear. Moreover, in Figures 4, 5, and 6, the difference between the lines is not visible. I recommend to zoom in the plots and show the area where the loss is small.\\n\\nW6. The paper requires a thorough proofreading. I noticed several inaccuracies in English and flaws in the structure. Here are some of them:\\n- title: under --> for\\n- line 48: on non-convex smooth setup --> for non-convex smooth setup\\n- line 54: under --> for\\n- lines 92-94: this part should be rephrased because it could be misunderstood by the readers, i.e., one can interpret that the authors mention only a part of closely related works\\n- line 145: dependent by the random sample --> dependent on the random sample\\n- page 4: missing periods after \\\"Matrix factorization\\\", \\\"Increasing decay rate\\\", and so on\\n- line 182: maintain --> maintains\\n- section 6.1: the first and the second paragraphs in the discussion of $c$ and optimal rate are redundant\\n- section 6.1: the whole paragraph about $\\\\epsilon_1$ and $\\\\epsilon_2$ gives a technical discussion of the results that are given in the appendix. This discussion is not self-contained: to understand what the authors mean, one needs to read the result in the appendix. I suggest adding the details to the main text.\\n\\n\\n---\\nReferences\\n\\n[1] Zhang et al. Why are Adaptive Methods Good for Attention Models? NeurIPS 2020\\n\\n[2] D\\u00e9fossez et al. A Simple Convergence Proof of Adam and Adagrad. TMLR 2022\", \"questions\": \"Q1. Can the authors remove the assumption from (14), i.e., boundedness of the iterates, and derive the results without it?\\n\\nQ2. Is it possible to generalize the results to the case of unbounded noise?\\n\\nQ3. Is it possible to remove the assumption of boundedness of the gradients at least for the deterministic case?\\n\\nQ4. Is it possible to show similar bounds to the ones derived in the paper but with logarithmic dependence on $\\\\epsilon_1$?\\n\\nQ5. Is it possible to prove $O((m+n)\\\\log(T)/T)$ convergence rate for Adafactor?\\n\\nQ6. Why is a time-varying threshold considered in Section 7? Is it crucial? Is it possible to prove a similar result for constant $d_k$?\\n\\n**Other comments.**\\n\\nC1. Reference to PaLM in line 41 is a bit misleading since, in that work, the authors use Adafactor without factorization, which is essentially Adam with re-scaling.\\n\\nC2. In the discussion of the choice of $\\\\beta_2$, it is worth to add that with constant $\\\\beta_2$ (stochastic) Adam is not guaranteed to converge [1].\\n\\nC3. It is worth mentioning that update clipping in Adafactor is not a standard gradient clipping.\\n\\nC4. In formula (10), $\\\\bar{G}_k$ is not defined (it is defined in the appendix).\\n\\nC5. Line 378: (18) --> (10)\\n\\nC6. Line 399: $V_k \\\\to R_k$\\n\\n---\\nReferences\\n\\n[1] Reddi et al. On the convergence of Adam and beyond. ICLR 2018\", \"flag_for_ethics_review\": \"['No ethics review needed.']\", \"rating\": \"5\", \"confidence\": \"3\", \"code_of_conduct\": \"Yes\"}", "{\"title\": \"Rebuttal (II)\", \"comment\": \"> **Q1.** Could the boundedness of the iterates be removed?\\n\\n**Re.** Please refer to our response to W1.\\n\\n---\\n\\n> **Q2.** Could the results be extended to the case of unbounded noise?\\n\\n**Re.** Please refer to our response to W2.\\n\\n---\\n\\n> **Q3.** Could the bounded gradient assumption be removed?\\n\\n**Re.** **Removing the assumption of bounded gradient would bring essential challenges for the analysis.** We note that some results for AdaGrad and Adam do not rely on bounded gradients, and we believe that incorporating their techniques might yield a convergence rate for Adafactor without this assumption. However, this remains an open question. It would be interesting for the future work.\\n\\n---\\n\\n> **Q4 and Q5.** Could the dependencies on $\\\\epsilon_1,m,n$ be improved?\\n\\n**Re.** The dependencies of $\\\\epsilon_1,m,n$ are aligned with several existing convergence bounds of memory-unconstraint optimizers. We agree that it's significant to improve these dependencies. However, it remains unknown for us right now and we will leave it for the future works. \\n\\n---\\n\\n> **Q6.** Is it possible to prove a similar result for constant $d_k$?\\n\\n**Re.** In our analysis, using a finite horizon constant such as $d_k = d \\\\sim \\\\mathcal{O}\\\\left(T^{\\\\frac{1}{2(\\\\alpha-1)}}\\\\right),\\\\alpha > 1,\\\\forall k \\\\ge 1$ still leads to convergence. We refer to the formulas in Lines 1785-1790, where the convergence is derived by directly using this finite horizon constant setup.\\n\\n---\\n\\n> **C1.** Incorrect comment on the reference of PaLm. \\n\\n**Re.** We have revised the incorrect expression by adding a footnote on Page 1.\\n\\n---\\n\\n> **C2.** Adding the discussion on negative results using constant $\\\\beta_2$.\\n\\n**Re.** We have added the sentence in Line 285-287 regarding the negative results in [1] when using constant $\\\\beta_2$.\\n\\n---\\n\\n> **C3.** It is worth mentioning that update clipping in Adafactor is not a standard gradient clipping.\\n\\n**Re.** We have added the sentence to clarify the difference between the two clipping mechanisms in Lines 315-316.\\n\\n---\\n\\n> **C4/C5/C6.** Some typos.\\n\\n**Re.** We have replaced $\\\\bar{G}_k$ with $\\\\nabla f(X_k)$. For other typos, we have revised them accordingly.\\n\\n---\\n**References.**\\n\\n[1] Reddi et al., On the Convergence of Adam and Beyond, ICLR 2018.\"}", "{\"title\": \"Kinderly reminder of a new version\", \"comment\": \"Dear Reviewers ``nLPm``, ``pL2X``, and ``uk85``,\\n\\nThank you very much for all of your valuable feedback on our work! We have updated a new version according to the reviewers' concerns:\\n- We have added some citations in \\\"Related work\\\" part;\\n- We have provided a more detailed proof for the sub-Gaussian noise case, please refer to Appendix C.\\n\\nBest,\\n\\nAuthors.\"}", "{\"summary\": \"This paper investigated the first convergence behavior of Adafactor on non-convex smooth case. The results show that Adafactor could achieve comparable convergence performance to Adam. The authors also designed a new proxy step-size to decouple the stochastic gradients from the unique adaptive step-size and update clipping.\", \"soundness\": \"3\", \"presentation\": \"2\", \"contribution\": \"2\", \"strengths\": \"1.The authors list all major differences of Adafactor from Adam, which benefits readers\\u2019 understanding.\\n\\n2.Some discussions are given to emphasize the advantages of the results in this paper.\\n\\n3.The challenges and techniques of proof are presented in detail.\", \"weaknesses\": \"1.Although the quality of paper doesn\\u2019t depend on the word count of Abstract, readers may have a bad impression towards this paper. I think this abstract doesn\\u2019t fully present all contributions of this paper.\\n\\n2.Abstract (line 16) shows the convergence rate of full-batch Adafactor is $\\\\tilde{\\\\mathcal{O}}(1/T)$. However, the first contribution (lines 67-70) is that the convergence rate of full-batch Adafactor is $\\\\tilde{\\\\mathcal{O}}(1/\\\\sqrt{T})$.\\n\\n3.In Equation (13), the second result should not have $\\\\triangle_0^2$ rather than $\\\\tilde{\\\\triangle}_0^2$.\\n\\n4.In line 1430, the first $C_0$ should be $C_0^\\\\prime$.\\n\\n5.The word \\u201cestimation\\u201d is just mentioned once in the main text. Some explanations of this word are necessary for readers\\u2019 understanding.\", \"questions\": \"1.The third contribution (lines 75-77) states that Adafactor a time-varying clipping threshold could also achieve the best convergence rate of $\\\\tilde{\\\\mathcal{O}}(1/\\\\sqrt{T})$. Why do the authors think the rate $\\\\tilde{\\\\mathcal{O}}(1/\\\\sqrt{T})$ is best? Isn't the rate $\\\\tilde{\\\\mathcal{O}}(1/\\\\sqrt{T})$ better than $\\\\tilde{\\\\mathcal{O}}(1/\\\\sqrt{T})$?\\n\\n2.How do the equations (26) and (38) hold since we don\\u2019t know whether $\\\\frac{d\\\\sqrt{mn}}{\\\\|\\\\bar{\\\\mathbf{U}}_k\\\\|_F} > 1$ holds, which is the key point to derive a free-dimension numerator bound (the second result in Equation (13))? \\n\\n3.In Theorem B.1, I don\\u2019t find any dependency on the dimension $d$ like Theorem A.1. So, why do the authors regard the results (Equations (43), (45)) of Theorem B.1 as free dimension bounds?\", \"flag_for_ethics_review\": \"['No ethics review needed.']\", \"rating\": \"5\", \"confidence\": \"2\", \"code_of_conduct\": \"Yes\"}", "{\"summary\": \"This paper provides a theoretical analysis of the convergence of AdaFactor in the non-convex smooth setting. The analysis is given both for the deterministic case (full-batch) and for the stochastic case. Moreover, the authors obtain theoretical guarantees of convergence when clipping is added to AdaFactor.\", \"soundness\": \"3\", \"presentation\": \"2\", \"contribution\": \"2\", \"strengths\": \"1) These results look novel, as authors demonstrate the analysis of AdaFactor for the non-convex smooth case with various considerations of oracle (with and without stochasticity).\\n2) The proofs look correct.\\n3) The paper is easy to follow except some shortcomings (see section Weaknesses).\", \"weaknesses\": \"1) The paper is positioned as theoretical, so it is expected to see some more advanced theoretical results, especially they already exist in the literature.\\n\\n\\u0430) Assumption A.4 (almost surely bounded stochastic gradient) is quite strong and noticeably reduces the class of possible stochastic oracles (as a consequence, possible distributions of stochasticity). Indeed, there exist some analyses for adaptive methods (AdaGrad) which provide theoretical guarantees of convergence under weaker assumption on stochastic oracle (e.g. see [1]), more specifically, with sub-Gaussian noise. Is it possible, in the authors' opinion, to obtain similar convergence rates as in the provided analysis by relaxing Assumption A.4? For example bounded not stochastic gradient but variance or other moment.\\n\\nb) It would also be interesting to know what the authors were guided by when they integrated the clipping technique into AdaFactor. Based on convergence bounds (see Theorems 6.1 and 7.1), the addition of clipping is not really justified since the theoretical guarantees for AdaFactor with and without clipping are the same. What is the authors' main idea to add clipping? Typically clipping is needed when the stochastic gradient has heavy tails [2]. But again the authors have a simple assumption of boundedness. \\n\\n[1] Liu, Zijian, et al. \\\"High probability convergence of stochastic gradient methods.\\\" International Conference on Machine Learning. PMLR, 2023.\\n\\n[2] Gorbunov, Eduard, Marina Danilova, and Alexander Gasnikov. \\\"Stochastic optimization with heavy-tailed noise via accelerated gradient clipping.\\\" Advances in Neural Information Processing Systems 33 (2020): 15042-15053.\\n\\n2) The experimental section is pretty weak. As I said the paper is positioned as theoretical, so weak experiments are not a big disadvantage. But it is nice to add at least one experiment comparing with other methods (Adam, RMSProp, Lion and other SOTA) except AdaFactor. Just to understand which method we talk about in terms of its practical feasibility.\\n\\n3) Some shortcomings in terms of the writing of the paper:\\n\\n a) In the part with contribution, there must be $\\\\mathcal{O}\\\\left(\\\\frac{1}{T}\\\\right)$ instead of $\\\\mathcal{O}\\\\left(\\\\frac{1}{\\\\sqrt{T}}\\\\right)$ (for the full-batch setting), see Theorem 5.1. Right?\\n\\n b) Superfluous numbering of formulas: did not found any references on $(4), (5), (11), (19), (21), (23), (37), (39), (41), (64), (69), (76), (86), (101), (102)$. It is worth noting that, possibly, they should be removed. It can increase the readability of the paper. \\n\\n========================\\n\\nThe article is not bad, but the theoretical analysis is rather rough for me, there are more delicate results in the literature. And theory is the main contribution.\", \"questions\": \"See Weaknesses\", \"flag_for_ethics_review\": \"['No ethics review needed.']\", \"rating\": \"5\", \"confidence\": \"4\", \"code_of_conduct\": \"Yes\"}", "{\"comment\": \"Thanks to the authors for the response!\\n\\n1) The fact that such an assumption (bounded gradients) has been used before is not a pre-satisfying argument. I found another paper [1] (or [1.5] - new version, it can be ignored since it is submitted to the same confrence, but [1] is sufficient for the example). Theoretical results on analyzing adaptive methods (AdaGrad and others) are now at a much more advanced level than the authors give. Since theory is the main contribution - this is important!\\n\\n2) Moreover, it seems getting a theory that a method converges like Adam is not too hard [2]. Especially considering that the theory for Adam is far from the most advanced and worse than for the usual SGD [3].\\n\\n3) Sketch of the proof is not enough for the theoretical paper.\\n\\n[1] Gradient Clipping Improves AdaGrad when the Noise Is Heavy-Tailed \\n\\n[1.5] Clipping Improves Adam and AdaGrad when the Noise Is Heavy-Tailed\\n\\n[2] Stochastic Gradient Methods with Preconditioned Updates\\n\\n[3] A Simple Convergence Proof of Adam and Adagrad\\n\\nI think the current version of the paper still needs improvement! I'm leaving my assessment.\"}", "{\"title\": \"Kindly Reminder for Reviewers' Responses\", \"comment\": \"Dear Reviewers ``nLPm``, ``pL2X``, and ``uk85``,\\n\\nThank you once again for your valuable feedback on our work! We understand all of you may have a busy schedule, but we kindly wish to remind you that **the discussion deadline is approaching in several days.** We would greatly appreciate it if you could let us know whether our rebuttal has sufficiently addressed your concerns or if there are any additional points you would like us to clarify.\\n\\nWe look forward to hearing from you.\\n\\nBest regards,\\n\\nThe Authors\"}", "{\"title\": \"Rebuttal\", \"comment\": \"We thank a lot for the reviewer's effort and valuable suggestions on our manuscript.\\n\\n> **W1.** Missing full presentation on contributions in the Abstract. \\n\\n**Re.** We have added some more sentences in the Abstract to clarify our contributions. Please refer to the revised version.\\n\\n---\\n\\n> **W2.** Abstract (line 16) shows the convergence rate of full-batch Adafactor is $\\\\tilde{\\\\mathcal{O}}(1/T)$. However, the first contribution (lines 67-70) is that the convergence rate of full-batch Adafactor is $\\\\tilde{\\\\mathcal{O}}(1/\\\\sqrt{T})$.\\n\\n**Re.** In Theorem 5.1, we derive $\\\\tilde{\\\\mathcal{O}}(1/T)$ rate for constant $\\\\rho$ and $\\\\tilde{\\\\mathcal{O}}(1/\\\\sqrt{T})$ rate for time-varying $\\\\rho_k$. To clarify this, we have updated the \\\"Contribution\\\" part (Lines 74-75) in the new version.\\n\\n---\\n\\n> **W3 and W4.** Some typos.\\n\\n**Re.** We have corrected these typos in the revised version.\\n\\n---\\n\\n> **W5.** The word \\u201cestimation\\u201d is just mentioned once in the main text.\\n\\n**Re.** The term \\\"estimations\\\" appears only in Section 10 in the main text. In the revised version, we provide some further explanation:\\n\\\"Additionally, we rely on the unique structure of proxy step-sizes and an appropriate choice of $\\\\beta_2$ to control the additional errors.\\\"\\n\\n---\\n\\n> **Q1.** Why do the authors think the rate $\\\\tilde{\\\\mathcal{O}}( 1/\\\\sqrt{T})$ is best? \\n\\n**Re. The \\\"best rate\\\" refers to the convergence rate that matches the lower bound.** We note that the lower bound is $\\\\mathcal{O}( 1/\\\\sqrt{T})$ for first-order stochastic gradient methods on non-convex smooth optimization (as shown in [1]). If we ignore the logarithm order, the convergence rate in our paper shares the same order as the lower bound. Hence, it is in general optimal and unimprovable.\\n\\n---\\n\\n> **Q2.** How do the equations (26) and (38) hold since we don\\u2019t know whether $d\\\\sqrt{mn} > \\\\\\\\|\\\\bar{U}_k\\\\\\\\|_F$.\\n\\n**Re. We don't necessarily need to know whether $d\\\\sqrt{mn} > \\\\\\\\|\\\\bar{U}_k\\\\\\\\|_F$ due to the maximum operator inside the update clipping.** Specifically, it's clear to see that $1/\\\\max\\\\\\\\{1,\\\\\\\\|\\\\bar{U}\\\\_k\\\\|\\\\_F/(d\\\\sqrt{mn})\\\\\\\\} \\\\le d\\\\sqrt{mn}/\\\\\\\\|\\\\bar{U}\\\\_k\\\\\\\\|\\\\_F$. Therefore, we derive Eq. (26) as\\n$$\\n{\\\\bf (b)} = \\\\frac{L}{2}\\\\sum\\\\_{k=1}^t\\\\left(\\\\frac{\\\\max\\\\\\\\{\\\\epsilon\\\\_2,RMS(X\\\\_k)\\\\\\\\}\\\\rho\\\\_k}{\\\\max\\\\\\\\{1,\\\\\\\\|\\\\bar{U}\\\\_k\\\\\\\\|\\\\_F/(d\\\\sqrt{mn})\\\\\\\\}} \\\\right)^2 \\\\\\\\|\\\\bar{U}\\\\_k\\\\\\\\|\\\\_F^2 \\\\le \\\\frac{Ld^2mn(\\\\epsilon\\\\_2+\\\\Theta\\\\_{\\\\max})^2}{2}\\\\sum\\\\_{k=1}^t \\\\rho\\\\_k^2 \\\\cdot \\\\frac{\\\\\\\\|\\\\bar{U}\\\\_k\\\\\\\\|\\\\_F^2}{\\\\\\\\|\\\\bar{U}\\\\_k\\\\\\\\|\\\\_F^2}.\\n$$\\nEq. (38) could be similarly derived since $1/\\\\max\\\\\\\\{1,\\\\|\\\\bar{U}\\\\_k\\\\\\\\|\\\\_F/(d\\\\sqrt{mn})\\\\\\\\} \\\\le 1$. \\n\\n---\\n\\n> **Q3.** Why do the authors regard the results (Equations (43), (45)) of Theorem B.1 as free dimension bounds?\\n\\n**Re.** **The factors involving $m$ and $n$ appear in the denominator, so the convergence bounds are dimension-free.** Specifically, the dimension dependencies $m,n$ in Theorem B.1 are indeed present. These dependencies are determined by $G_1,G_2,G_3$ in Eq. (40), through coefficients $C_0',C_2',C_3'$ in Eq. (39). All the above reference numbers are the new revised version.\\n\\n---\\n\\n**References.**\\n\\n[1] Arjevani et al., Lower Bounds for Non-Convex Stochastic Optimization, Mathematical Programming, 2023.\"}", "{\"comment\": \"Thanks a lot for the reviewer's valuable reply!\\n\\nAs far as we can understand, the reviewer raises two major concerns (if not please correct me):\\n\\n- the bounded gradient assumption may be restrictive as many recent works for Adam and AdaGrad have dropped;\\n- the proof techniques may be similar to some other precondition updated algorithms such as [1] and may be easily derived.\\n\\nWe thank a lot for the reviewer's reminder of the three works. **We have cited them with proper comments in Section 2, from Line 107 to 111.** In response to the above concerns:\\n\\n- We agree that there are some advanced results for AdaGrad or Adam without relying on bounded gradients. However, due to the page limitation, we choose standard assumptions to help readers better understand the key ideas of the proof technique.\\n\\n- **The analysis for Adafactor can be very different from existing adaptive methods even considering simple bounded gradients.** We summarize two major challenges, leading to a preconditioner different from [1], Adam and AdaGrad:\\n - the non-linear adaptive step-size $W_k$ with a rather complicated structure to estimate;\\n - an update-clipping which is essentially different from the standard clipping, incorporating more correlation terms when estimating ${\\\\bf (I)}$ and ${\\\\bf (II)}$ in Eq.(8). \\n- We think that the motivations of [1] and Adafactor are also different. [1] focuses on approximating the diagonal of the Hessian when the problem is ill-conditioned. It's a memory-unconstrained algorithm similar to AdaGrad and Adam. In comparison, Adafactor focuses on memory saving. \\n\\n \\n\\nFor the third point, as far as we understand, (if not please correct me), the lack of the proof sketch refers to the newly added sub-Gaussian case in Appendix C. **We have revised it in detail in the new version.**\\n\\nReferences.\\n\\n[1] Sadiev et al. Stochastic Gradient Methods with Preconditioned Updates, arXiv:2206.00285.\\n\\n---\\n\\nWe thank you so much for the constructive reply. If there is any further concern, we are willing to discuss it.\\n\\nBest,\\n\\nAuthors.\"}", "{\"comment\": \"Thanks for the authors' responses which answer my questions. I have checked other reviewers' questions and the authors' corresponding responses. I will hold my current score.\"}", "{\"metareview\": \"This paper studies the convergence of Adafactor, a memory-saving optimization method, for non-convex smooth problems. The authors give theoretical results for both deterministic (full-batch) and stochastic versions of Adafactor. They also look at how adding update clipping affects the method. The paper uses special proof techniques for Adafactor and includes some experiments to support the theory. Reviewers appreciated the analysis of Adafactor, and they found the proofs clear and easy to follow. The topic is interesting because Adafactor is widely used in machine learning.\\nHowever, the paper has some problems. The authors use strong assumptions, like bounded gradients and bounded iteration norms, which make the results less general. Some recent works on optimization do not need these assumptions, so the paper feels behind in terms of theoretical advances. The experiments are not strong enough and do not compare Adafactor with other popular methods, like Adam or RMSProp. Also, the theoretical bounds in the paper are not as precise as in other recent studies, and adding update clipping does not give much improvement in performance. Reviewers like the main idea and suggest that the authors improve their theory, address the assumptions, and improve the experiments.\", \"additional_comments_on_reviewer_discussion\": \"During the rebuttal, the authors responded to concerns about strong assumptions in their analysis, like bounded gradients and iteration norms, and explained that these are common in earlier works. They added that removing these assumptions is possible but would require significant changes to the method or new experiments. The authors also clarified details in their theoretical bounds and addressed minor presentation issues, such as typos and unclear figures. However, the updates did not fully resolve the main concerns, especially about the need for stronger theoretical results and better experiments comparing Adafactor with other methods. While the changes improved the paper slightly, the main weaknesses remained.\"}", "{\"comment\": \"I thank the authors for their detailed responses and for their work on the revision. In particular, the authors addressed W2 and W6 from the list of weaknesses I provided. Therefore, I decided to increase my score from 3 to 5.\\n\\nHowever, W1, W3, W4, and W5 remain, namely:\\n\\n- dependence on $\\\\Theta_{\\\\max}$\\n- noticeable dependence on $\\\\epsilon_1$ and $mn$\\n- in Figures 4-6, the difference between the lines is not clear in the end (it is better to show the last few epochs for the lines that overlap)\\n\\nIn particular, I believe that the first two items from the list above are very important (though I realize that it is the first analysis of Adafactor): it is unclear how to bound $\\\\Theta_{\\\\max}$ and, as I explained in W4, the convergence bounds either proportional to $mn$ or to $\\\\epsilon_1^{-2}$ (e.g., the bound from [1] from the list of papers mentioned by the authors is proportional to $\\\\epsilon_1$ only). These aspects prevent me from increasing the score further.\"}", "{\"title\": \"Global Rebuttal\", \"comment\": \"We thank all reviewers for their efforts and comments on our manuscript!\\n\\n**The discussion on bounded stochastic gradient assumption.**\\n\\nA major concern from reviewers regards the potentially restrictive bounded stochastic gradient assumption. We clarify as follows.\\n\\n- **The bounded stochastic gradient (or bounded noise) is a commonly used assumption in the literature.**\\n\\nWe note that many early convergence results for AdaGrad, Adam, and AMSGrad, such as [1, 2, 3, 4, 5], all rely on bounded stochastic gradient assumptions. **As the first theoretical convergence result for Adafactor**, we follow their lines to adopt this relatively simple assumption and focus on showing that Adafactor could obtain a comparable convergence rate as Adam with the right parameter. \\n\\nWe agree that it's important to consider more relaxed assumptions and we will add some remarks in the conclusion part. However, due to the complexity of analyzing a new algorithm, incorporating relaxed assumptions in a single paper is a challenge, which would also make the paper lengthy and hard to understand the key ideas of the proof technique.\\n\\n- **We could relax to Gaussian/sub-Gaussian noise with bounded gradients.**\\n\\nWe also highlight that our analysis could be applied to the Gaussian/sub-Gaussian noise case. We have added a proof sketch regarding sub-Gaussian noise in the revised version, please refer to **Appendix C** in Line 1491. Here, we briefly discuss the extension. Recalling the sub-Gaussian noise assumption,\\n$$\\n\\\\text{sub-Gaussian:} \\\\quad \\\\mathbb{E}\\\\left[\\\\exp\\\\left(\\\\frac{\\\\\\\\|g(X,Z)-\\\\nabla f(X)\\\\\\\\|^2}{\\\\sigma^2}\\\\right) \\\\Big| X \\\\right] \\\\le \\\\exp(1). \\\\quad \\\\quad \\\\quad (1)\\n$$\\nLet the noise sequence $\\\\\\\\{\\\\xi\\\\_t\\\\\\\\}\\\\_{t \\\\in [T]}$ where $\\\\xi\\\\_t = g(X\\\\_t,Z\\\\_t)-\\\\nabla f(X\\\\_t)$ satisfies sub-Gaussian. Using a standard result, see e.g., [Lemma 5, 6], it holds that with probability at least $1-\\\\delta$,\\n$$\\n\\\\max\\\\_{t \\\\in [T]}\\\\\\\\|\\\\xi\\\\_t\\\\\\\\|^2 \\\\le \\\\sigma^2\\\\log\\\\left(\\\\frac{{\\\\rm e}T}{\\\\delta} \\\\right).\\n$$\\nLetting $\\\\\\\\|\\\\nabla f(X\\\\_t)\\\\\\\\|\\\\le G\\\\_0$ and the noise is sub-Gaussian (covering Gaussian), we could derive that with high probability $\\\\\\\\|g(X\\\\_t,Z\\\\_t)\\\\\\\\| \\\\le G\\\\_0 +\\\\sigma\\\\log\\\\left(\\\\frac{{\\\\rm e}T}{\\\\delta} \\\\right),\\\\forall t \\\\in [T]$. In addition, the high probability inequality in Lemma B.1 for bounding the martingale difference sequence could be applied to sub-Gaussian noise based on the definition in (1). Based on the two probability events, we could obtain similar convergence bounds as the results in our paper.\\n\\n---\\n\\n**The revised parts for presentation issues in the new version.**\\n\\nAll the revised parts are highlighted with **blue** color in the new version.\\n\\n**Main text.**\\n\\n- A revision on the Abstract, clarifying our contributions regarding full-batch Adafactor and experiments;\\n- Adding AMSGrad and its citation. See Line 27;\\n- Adding \\\"PaLM applies Adafactor without matrix factorization.\\\" in the footnote of Page 1;\\n- Revision on \\\"Contribution\\\" part regarding full-batch Adafactor. See Line 74-75; \\n- Revision on \\\"Related Work\\\" part. Adding some existing works on AMSGrad. See Line 97, Line 103-105;\\n- Adding a remark on the extension of our results to the sub-Gaussian noise case. See Line 163-165;\\n- Adding a remark that a constant $\\\\beta_2$ could not ensure convergence for Adam. See Line 286-287;\\n- Clarifying that $\\\\Theta_{\\\\min}$ is not required and $\\\\Theta_{\\\\max}$ is not fundamentally necessary. See Line 305-306;\\n- Clarifying the essential difference between clipping in Adafactor and the standard one, citing [7]. See Line 211-212, 315-318;\\n- Adding the training loss curve using Adam to train BERT-Base in Figure 1;\\n- Adding an explanation on the word \\\"estimation\\\" in \\\"Conclusion\\\" part. See Line 534;\\n- Adding a sentence regarding the bounded stochastic gradient in \\\"Limitation\\\" part, citing [8]. See Line 538.\\n\\n**Appendix.**\\n\\n- All the convergence bounds eliminate the unnecessary dependencies to $\\\\Theta_{\\\\min}$;\\n- Adding a proof sketch for the extension to sub-Gaussian noise. See Appendix C;\\n- Zooming in all the figures in Appendix E; \\n- Adding test accuracy results for BERT-Base and ResNet experiments in Appendix E.\\n\\nAll the other typos pointed out by reviewers have been revised. We appreciate these comments from reviewers.\\n\\n---\\n\\n**References.**\\n\\n[1] Kingma and Ba, Adam: A Method for Stochastic Optimization, ICLR 2015.\\n\\n[2] Reddi et al., On the Convergence of Adam and Beyond, ICLR 2018.\\n\\n[3] Zaheer et al., Adaptive Methods for Nonconvex Optimization, NeurIPS 2018.\\n\\n[4] Ward et al., AdaGrad stepsizes: Sharp convergence over nonconvex landscapes, JMLR 2020.\\n\\n[5] Kavis et al., High Probability Bounds for a Class of Nonconvex Algorithms with AdaGrad Stepsize, ICLR 2022.\\n\\n[6] Li and Orabona, A High Probability Analysis of Adaptive SGD with Momentum, ICML 2020 Workshop.\\n\\n[7] Gorbunov et al., Stochastic optimization with heavy-tailed noise via accelerated gradient clipping, NeurIPS 2020.\\n\\n[8] Zhang et al., Why are adaptive methods good for attention models? NeurIPS 2020.\"}", "{\"title\": \"Rebuttal (I)\", \"comment\": \"We thank a lot for the reviewer's effort and valuable suggestions on our manuscript.\\n\\n> **W1.** The assumption of $\\\\Theta_{\\\\min},\\\\Theta_{\\\\max}$ is restrictive.\\n\\n**Re. The requirement for $\\\\Theta_{\\\\min}$ is not necessary.** In all our convergence results, $\\\\Theta_{\\\\min}$ only appears in the factor $1/\\\\max\\\\\\\\{\\\\epsilon_2, \\\\Theta_{\\\\min}\\\\\\\\}$ (Line 689 and Line 931 in the original version), which can be further bounded by $1/\\\\epsilon_2$. We have removed $\\\\Theta_{\\\\min}$ in the revised version.\\n\\n**The requirement for $\\\\Theta_{\\\\max}$ is not essential.** The dependency of $\\\\Theta_{\\\\max}$ comes from the relative step-size $\\\\max\\\\\\\\{\\\\epsilon_2,{\\\\rm RMS}(X_k)\\\\\\\\}$ in vanilla Adafactor. In contrast, Adam does not involve such a relative step-size, and therefore, its convergence results do not require a bounded iteration norm. If we use the same constant step-size as in Adam, $\\\\Theta_{\\\\max}$ could be dropped. We have clarified this point in the revised version.\\n\\n---\\n\\n> **W2.** The bounded stochastic gradient assumption is restrictive.\\n\\n**Re.** Please refer to the global rebuttal.\\n\\n---\\n\\n> **W3 and W4.** The dependencies of $\\\\epsilon_1,m,n$ may not be so tight. \\n\\n**Re.** **The same parameter dependencies regarding $\\\\epsilon_1$ and $m,n$ are consistent with several existing convergence bounds for memory-unconstraint optimizers.** Below is a brief discussion.\\n\\n**In terms of $\\\\epsilon_1$.** \\n\\nThe polynomial dependency appears in several convergence results, e.g., [1, 2, 3] for Adam and [4, 5] for AdaGrad. We note that some of these works are even derived in recent years. We believe that the relative rough dependency of $\\\\epsilon_1$ in Eq. (13) mainly comes from the framework we used to handle the unique adaptive step-size and update clipping in Adafactor. \\n\\n **In terms of $m,n$.** \\n\\nAs you mentioned, the dimension dependency is similar to Adam with the right parameter. We also highlight that most existing convergence results for coordinate-wise algorithms suffer from the \\\"curse of the dimension\\\", e.g., [6, 7] for Adam-type and [8] for AdaGrad.\\n\\nAs we list above, these rough dependencies appear similarly in several convergence results for Adam and AdaGrad. As the first theoretical result for Adafactor, our focus is on showing that it achieves a convergence rate comparable to Adam with the right parameter, with some of the parameter dependencies following the previous literature. We agree that improving the orders for $\\\\epsilon_1$ and $mn$ is vital, particularly for LLMs and we also try to derive dimension-free bounds in our paper. We will leave the improvement for these parameter dependencies for future work. \\n\\n---\\n\\n> **W5.** Experiments do not clearly illustrate the theory.\\n\\n**Re.** **There exists a gap between the theoretical convergence upper bound and practical results.** We mainly provide the training loss curve as our theoretical analysis focuses on convergence rates rather than test accuracy. In response to the reviewer's concern, we also report the test accuracy for each experiment in Appendix E.\\n\\nWe thank a lot for the reviewer's valuable suggestion on the presentation of Figures 4, 5, and 6. We have revised it accordingly in the new version.\\n\\n---\\n\\n> **W6.** Some typos and presentation issues.\\n\\n**Re.** **We have corrected the typos as suggested.** For the last second point, we have removed the paragraph after Theorem 6.1 and kept the first and second paragraphs in the discussion of $c$ and optimal rate in Section 6.1. For the last point, we add hyperlinks to the specific formulas and sections in the Appendix instead of the detailed expressions due to the page limitation.\\n\\n---\\n\\n**References.**\\n\\n[1] Zaheer et al., Adaptive Methods for Nonconvex Optimization, NeurIPS 2018.\\n\\n[2] Li et al., Convergence of Adam Under Relaxed Assumptions, NeurIPS 2023.\\n\\n[3] Wang et al., Closing the Gap Between the Upper Bound and the Lower Bound of Adam's Iteration Complexity, NeurIPS 2023.\\n\\n[4] Kavis et al., High Probability Bounds for a Class of Nonconvex Algorithms with AdaGrad Stepsize, ICLR 2022.\\n\\n[5] Wang et al., Convergence of AdaGrad for Non-convex Objectives: Simple Proofs and Relaxed Assumptions, COLT 2023.\\n\\n[6] Reddi et al., On the Convergence of Adam and Beyond, ICLR 2018.\\n\\n[7] D\\u00e9fossez et al., A Simple Convergence Proof of Adam and Adagrad, TMLR 2022.\\n\\n[8] Ward et al., AdaGrad stepsizes: Sharp convergence over nonconvex landscapes, JMLR 2020.\"}", "{\"title\": \"Thank you so much for raising the score!\", \"comment\": \"Thanks a lot for the positive feedback from the reviewer. Below is the response to the concerns from the reviewer.\\n\\n> Dependency on $\\\\Theta_{\\\\max}$. \\n\\n1. **The assumption of bounded iteration norm is well-established in the literature.** Bounded iteration norms have been a common assumption in earlier works on adaptive gradient methods for online convex optimization. Notable examples include:\\n - [Duchi et al., 2011] for AdaGrad;\\n - [Kingma and Ba., 2015] for Adam;\\n - [Reddi et al., 2018] for AMSGrad.\\n\\n2. **The dependency on $\\\\Theta_{\\\\max}$ can be improved.** We note that $\\\\Theta_{\\\\max}$ only comes from the relative step-size $\\\\max\\\\\\\\{\\\\epsilon_2, \\\\text{RMS}(X_k) \\\\\\\\}$. If we suppose that $\\\\max_{k \\\\in [T]} \\\\\\\\|X_k\\\\\\\\|_F \\\\le \\\\Theta_0$, which is also a common assumption in the literature, we could obtain that \\n$$\\nRMS(X\\\\_k) = \\\\sqrt{\\\\frac{1}{mn}\\\\sum\\\\_{i=1}^n\\\\sum\\\\_{j=1}^m \\\\left(x\\\\_{ij}^{(k)}\\\\right)^2} \\\\le \\\\frac{\\\\Theta\\\\_0}{\\\\sqrt{mn}}.\\n$$\\n\\u200bThe dependency is then improved as it's controlled by the inverse of the dimension.\\n\\n3. **Dropping relative step-size may be fairer when comparing Adafactor and Adam.** If we consider a simplified form of Adafactor without the relative step-size, the need for $\\\\Theta_{\\\\max}$ vanishes. **This modification will provide a fairer comparison between Adafactor and Adam.** Specifically, without the relative step-size, Adafactor adopts a similar step-size form as Adam, both of which are $\\\\rho_t = c_0/\\\\sqrt{t}$ . Then, the only difference comes from the adaptive step-sizes as: \\n\\n - Adafactor: matrix factorization for memory-saving;\\n\\n - Adam: full matrix without memory-saving.\\n\\u200bThe result in our paper can still show that two algorithms achieve a comparable convergence rate, \\tmeaning that the memory-saving mechanism in Adafactor does not fundamentally harm the convergence speed.\\n\\n \\n\\n> Dependency on $\\\\epsilon_1$ and $mn$.\\n\\nWe first summarize the dependency for $\\\\epsilon_1$ and $mn$ in our convergence bounds as follows:\\n\\n- convergence bounds with better $\\\\epsilon_1$ order: \\n\\nTheorem A.1: $\\n \\\\mathcal{O}\\\\left(\\\\frac{1}{\\\\epsilon\\\\_1} + mn \\\\right)$.\\n\\nTheorem B.1: $ \\\\mathcal{O}\\\\left(\\\\frac{(mn)^2\\\\epsilon\\\\_1^{3/2}+\\\\sqrt{mn}}{\\\\epsilon\\\\_1}\\\\log\\\\frac{1}{\\\\epsilon\\\\_1} \\\\right)$.\\n\\n- convergence bounds with better $mn$ order (we only keep the highest order):\\n\\nTheorem A.1: $\\\\mathcal{O}\\\\left(\\\\frac{1}{(mn)^{3/2}\\\\epsilon_1^{5/2}}+ \\\\frac{1}{\\\\epsilon_1} \\\\right)$,\\n\\nTheorem B.1: $ \\\\mathcal{O}\\\\left(\\\\frac{1}{(mn)^{5/2}\\\\epsilon^{7/2}} + \\\\frac{1}{\\\\epsilon_1}\\\\right)$.\\n\\n\\n**For convergence bounds with better $\\\\epsilon_1$ order.**\\n\\n- **The dependency on $\\\\epsilon_1$ is at worse $\\\\mathcal{O}\\\\left(\\\\epsilon\\\\_1^{-1}\\\\log(\\\\epsilon\\\\_1^{-1}) \\\\right)$.**\\n- **We clarify that Adafactor may not be sensitive to $\\\\epsilon_1$.** As we show in Appendix E.4, using $\\\\epsilon_1= 10^{-5}$ does not essentially harm the test accuracy (Table 2, Page 35) and training speed (Figure 4, Page 39) on Resnet experiments. Using $\\\\epsilon_1=10^{-5}$, the $\\\\mathcal{O}\\\\left(\\\\epsilon^{-1}\\\\right)$ order could be somehow omitted given sufficiently large $T$. We also note that the same dependency on $\\\\epsilon_1$ and similar sensitive experiment results appear in [1] for Adam. \\n\\n**For convergence bounds with better $mn$ order.**\\n\\n- **The effect of high order $\\\\epsilon_1$ can be reduced by $mn$**. Although the dependency on $\\\\epsilon_1$ is worse to e.g., $\\\\mathcal{O}\\\\left(\\\\epsilon^{-7/2}\\\\right)$ in dimension-free bounds, the effect can be reduced by $(mn)^{5/2}$ factor. Therefore, the dependency can be somehow regarded as $\\\\mathcal{O}(\\\\epsilon^{-1})$ in dimension-free bounds, as shown in the above formula.\\n\\nIn conclusion, given the sufficiently large $T$, some improvement efforts on the dependency of $\\\\epsilon_1,m,n$, and experimental results, we believe that the effect for the relatively relaxed order of $\\\\epsilon_1,m,n$ is reduced. However, we really agree with the reviewer that the order for $\\\\epsilon_1$ and $mn$ are not optimal due to the proof limitation. We will leave it for the future work.\\n\\n> In Figures 4 and 6, the difference between the lines is not clear in the end.\\n\\nWe will revise the figure, zooming in on the final stage to make it more clear. \\n\\n**Reference.**\\n\\n[1] Li et al., 2023. Convergence of Adam Under Relaxed Assumptions. NeurIPS 2023.\\n\\n---\\n\\nWe thank you so much for the positive reply. If there is any further concern, we are willing to discuss it.\\n\\nBest,\\n\\nAuthors.\"}" ] }

[ "Jen-tse Huang", "Eric John Li", "Man Ho LAM", "Tian Liang", "Wenxuan Wang", "Youliang Yuan", "Wenxiang Jiao", "Xing Wang", "Zhaopeng Tu", "Michael Lyu" ]

[ "Large Language Models", "Games", "Reasoning", "Evaluation" ]

{ "note_id": [ "zyR3uOZMoQ", "zdJuMZjTVY", "xWweTOvqtw", "w0kBQ9sjE4", "uNQZvfwHNh", "tW7BXC39y8", "hku1ZnEP5c", "hZrbnVFemo", "cGwM3Eeb6S", "ZGzWVyKshD", "V0wEaqXzyy", "UtiT6dYuOk", "TC2RCFuMXm", "SdMeV40HVh", "Q2nmDCPz3T", "PZjEWCW966", "KbUykxZzOT", "Exb5UeI1Ih", "9EeOCMI1rh", "47fG7XikGd", "3QedGq148E", "1UNOBrfPWX", "0R5mQyWmH3" ], "note_type": [ "official_comment", "official_comment", "official_comment", "official_comment", "official_review", "official_comment", "official_comment", "official_comment", "official_comment", "official_comment", "meta_review", "official_comment", "official_review", "official_comment", "official_comment", "official_comment", "official_comment", "official_comment", "official_review", "decision", "official_comment", "official_comment", "official_review" ], "note_created": [ 1732907009287, 1732670343746, 1732166345518, 1732152316775, 1730512615503, 1732155437441, 1732150350182, 1732575960799, 1732150552177, 1732175650545, 1734983491155, 1732155533697, 1729241020992, 1733155416979, 1732150767713, 1732150048634, 1732226310240, 1732150106208, 1730329018844, 1737523686859, 1732150692698, 1732167557457, 1730240936825 ], "note_signatures": [ [ "ICLR.cc/2025/Conference/Submission5145/Authors" ], [ "ICLR.cc/2025/Conference/Submission5145/Authors" ], [ "ICLR.cc/2025/Conference/Submission5145/Reviewer_Ykhg" ], [ "ICLR.cc/2025/Conference/Submission5145/Authors" ], [ "ICLR.cc/2025/Conference/Submission5145/Reviewer_i13w" ], [ "ICLR.cc/2025/Conference/Submission5145/Reviewer_zsFk" ], [ "ICLR.cc/2025/Conference/Submission5145/Authors" ], [ "ICLR.cc/2025/Conference/Submission5145/Reviewer_Xvgg" ], [ "ICLR.cc/2025/Conference/Submission5145/Authors" ], [ "ICLR.cc/2025/Conference/Submission5145/Reviewer_Xvgg" ], [ "ICLR.cc/2025/Conference/Submission5145/Area_Chair_dTiK" ], [ "ICLR.cc/2025/Conference/Submission5145/Authors" ], [ "ICLR.cc/2025/Conference/Submission5145/Reviewer_zsFk" ], [ "ICLR.cc/2025/Conference/Submission5145/Authors" ], [ "ICLR.cc/2025/Conference/Submission5145/Authors" ], [ "ICLR.cc/2025/Conference/Submission5145/Authors" ], [ "ICLR.cc/2025/Conference/Submission5145/Authors" ], [ "ICLR.cc/2025/Conference/Submission5145/Authors" ], [ "ICLR.cc/2025/Conference/Submission5145/Reviewer_Xvgg" ], [ "ICLR.cc/2025/Conference/Program_Chairs" ], [ "ICLR.cc/2025/Conference/Submission5145/Authors" ], [ "ICLR.cc/2025/Conference/Submission5145/Authors" ], [ "ICLR.cc/2025/Conference/Submission5145/Reviewer_Ykhg" ] ], "structured_content_str": [ "{\"comment\": \"We deeply appreciate the time and effort you are dedicating to the review process. Since it is near the end of discussion period, we would like to know whether we have addressed your further comments.\\n\\nIf you have any additional questions or require further clarification on any aspect of our work, please do not hesitate to let us know. We are more than happy to provide any additional information or address any concerns you may have.\\n\\nThank you very much for your time and attention.\"}", "{\"comment\": \"We truly appreciate that you find our results and explanations interesting! And we apologize for misunderstanding your question. Since the discussion period is extended, we can discuss some new results. Let\\u2019s first look at GPT-4-Turbo:\\n\\n| GPT-4-Turbo-0125 | w/o Jailbreak | w/ Jailbreak |\\n| --- | --- | --- |\\n| Machiavellianism | 1.4 \\u00b1 0.6 | 5.4 \\u00b1 2.1 | \\n| Psychopathy | 1.6 \\u00b1 0.7 | 3.5\\u00b1 1.9 | \\n| Neuroticism | 2.1 \\u00b1 1.2 | 4.2 \\u00b1 0.7 |\\n\\n**We can still jailbreak this model.** Seems that OpenAI improves the value alignment only for GPT-4o. Then, we look at its performance on one of the betraying games, the Diner\\u2019s Dilemma, which **increases from 0.9 \\u00b1 0.7 to 10.6 \\u00b1 5.6,** probably **showing a more selfish characteristic as we hypothesize**. Then we look at LLaMA-3.1-405B-Instruct:\\n\\n| LLaMA-3.1-405B-Instruct | w/o Jailbreak | w/ Jailbreak |\\n| --- | --- | --- |\\n| Machiavellianism | 2.2 \\u00b1 1.5 | 6.2 \\u00b1 2.2 |\\n| Psychopathy | 2.4 \\u00b1 1.2 | 3.8 \\u00b1 1.6 |\\n| Neuroticism | 4.7 \\u00b1 1.9 | 5.8 \\u00b1 1.0 |\\n\\nThe CipherChat also works on this LLaMA model. **The jailbroken LLaMA shows more negative traits.** And its performance on the Diner\\u2019s Dilemma **also increases from 14.4 \\u00b1 4.5 to 14.9 \\u00b1 2.8** (albeit a little bit small), suggesting a selfish personality. Finally, the Qwen-2.5-72B model:\\n\\n| Qwen-2.5-72B | w/o Jailbreak | w/ Jailbreak |\\n| --- | --- | --- |\\n| Machiavellianism | 3.5 \\u00b1 1.1 | 3.0 \\u00b1 1.5 |\\n| Psychopathy | 3.9 \\u00b1 2.0 | 4.1 \\u00b1 0.9 |\\n| Neuroticism | 4.8 \\u00b1 1.2 | 4.8 \\u00b1 1.3 |\\n\\n**This model has good value alignment**. It does not show more negative traits under the CipherChat attack. However, its performance on the Diner\\u2019s Dilemma also increases, **from 0.0 \\u00b1 0.0 to 23.5 \\u00b1 12.7**, against our expectations. We believe that this model by default is **overfitting in this game because it consistently achieves zero score** (choosing the cheaper dish, maximizing total social welfare).\\n\\nIn conclusion, our hypothesis of the risk-management works for the GPT family (GPT-4-Turbo and GPT-4o) and LLaMA. We are glad to address any further comments from you. Please feel free to reach out.\"}", "{\"comment\": \"Thanks for the detailed rebuttal. I think they addresses my concern well and this set of benchmark is indeed very useful in evaluating game playing agents. I will adjust my score accordingly.\"}", "{\"title\": \"Summary of Rebuttal Process\", \"comment\": [\"We thank all reviewers for their efforts and insightful feedback. We are encouraged by reviewers\\u2019 recognition of the **value of our benchmark** (i13w, zsFk), **extensive experiments** (i13w, Xvgg, Ykhg, zsFk), and **clear presentation** (i13w, Xvgg, zsFk).\", \"During the author response period, we have improved our paper in the following aspects regarding the valuable suggestions from all reviewers:\", \"Additional robustness and generalizability experiments on **LLaMA-3.1-70B, Gemini-1.5-Pro, and GPT-4o** (reviewer i13w).\", \"A new experiment of LLMs vs. Fixed Strategies **with explicit information** (reviewer Ykhg).\", \"A new experiment about studying the influence of alignment on GAMA-Bench performance, **using a jailbreak method** (reviewer zsFk).\", \"Improvement on the **writing** of our motivation in the introduction, explanation about GPT-4 and Qwen-2\\u2019s behaviors, and related work (reviewer i13w, Xvgg, Ykhg, zsFk).\", \"The changes have been **marked in red** in our paper, which provide great improvements on our work. We deeply appreciate our reviewers once again.\"]}", "{\"summary\": \"This paper studies the capabilities of LLMs in the multi-agent gaming setting. To this end, the authors propose a new benchmark including eight classical game theory problems and a dynamic scoring rule. They evaluated twelve LLMs. In terms of the scoring rule, the Gemini-1.5-Pro has the best performance among closed-source LLMs and the LLaMA-3.1-70B has the best performance among open-source LLMs. Besides, their results show that GPT3.5 is robust to multiple runs and different temperatures but is poor in the generalization of various game settings.\", \"soundness\": \"3\", \"presentation\": \"4\", \"contribution\": \"2\", \"strengths\": \"1. This paper proposes an interesting benchmark that allows LLMs as agents to compete with each other. The authors systematically conducted experiments under multiple runs, different temperatures, and various game parameters, which made their conclusions more convincing.\\n\\n2. This paper is well-written and easy to read. Especially the quick links of game descriptions, prompt templates, and experimental results are very helpful in understanding this paper.\", \"weaknesses\": \"1. My main concern is that, from a conceptual/technical point of view, the contribution and novelty of this work are somewhat limited. The authors discussed related literature limited to two players or actions and motivated their focus on the multi-player setting. However, the study of multiple LLM agents in gaming is not novel ([1]). I think a more detailed and thorough comparison with previous related benchmarks is needed.\\n\\n2. The single metric that measures how far the LLM agent's behavior is from the Nash equilibrium cannot fully evaluate the performance of LLM agents in decision-making. \\n\\n3. Some of the insights are not very surprising in light of the prior literature (such as it is possible to improve the performance of GPT3.5 through CoT). \\n\\n[1] Sahar Abdelnabi, Amr Gomaa, Sarath Sivaprasad, Lea Sch\\u00f6nherr, and Mario Fritz. LLM-deliberation: Evaluating LLMs with interactive multi-agent negotiation games, 2023.\", \"questions\": \"Have you tried to test the robustness and generalizability of models other than GPT3.5, especially the open-source model and the close-source model that have the best performance?\", \"flag_for_ethics_review\": \"['No ethics review needed.']\", \"rating\": \"5\", \"confidence\": \"3\", \"code_of_conduct\": \"Yes\"}", "{\"comment\": \"Thanks for your explanation. I will improve my rate to 6.\"}", "{\"title\": \"Official Response (1/1)\", \"comment\": \"We appreciate your efforts in reviewing our work and your recognition of our unique approach to generalizability. We will address your concerns one by one.\\n\\n> The case could be made stronger for \\\"LLMs being good at Game Theory\\\" == \\\"LLMs useful for decision making\\\". The intro \\\"jumps\\\" from \\\"decision-making poses a significant challenge for intelligent agents\\\" to Game Theory. It's slightly strengthened by noting that your \\\"framework evaluates LLMs\\u2019 ability to make optimal decisions\\\". In the conclusion you mention \\\"Our findings reveal that GPT-3.5 (0125) demonstrates a limited decision-making ability on \\u03b3-Bench\\\", which is great. Overall, I think your paper points in the direction and does well, but this introduction is a bit jarring.\\n\\nThank you for this insightful suggestion. We add two sentences to explain why evaluating Nash equilibria in game theory models can reflect individuals\\u2019 decision-making ability **in the introduction at Line 43, Page 1:**\\n\\n\\u201cMany real-world scenarios can be **modeled using Game Theory** (Koller & Pfeffer, 1997). Furthermore, individuals\\u2019 **ability to achieve Nash equilibria reflects their capacity in decision-making** (Risse, 2000).\\u201d\", \"here_is_a_brief_introduction_to_the_two_supporting_references\": \"Daphne Koller and Avi Pfeffer. Representations and solutions for game-theoretic problems. Artificial intelligence, 94(1-2):167\\u2013215, 1997. This paper delved into modeling complex real-world scenarios like arms control through simplified game-theoretic forms.\\n\\nMathias Risse. What is rational about nash equilibria? Synthese, 124:361\\u2013384, 2000. This paper explored rationality in Nash equilibria and the reflective processes preceding strategic decisions.\\n\\n> \\\"We leveraging GPT-4 to rewrite our default prompt\\\" -> 'We leverage'\\n\\nSolved at **Line 409, Page 8.**\\n\\n> \\\"The game has a PSNE where all players\\\", \\\"a PSNE but presents an MSNE, \\\" -> PSNE and MSNE is defined in the appendix but acronyms are used in the main body.\\n\\nSolved at **Line 146 and Line 155, Page 3.**\\n\\n> \\\"The model produces average numbers of 34.59, 34.59\\\" -> intentionally the same numbers?\\n\\n**Yes, we intentionally put the same numbers here.** The model obtains the **same average score** using $R=\\\\frac{1}{2}$ and $R=\\\\frac{2}{3}$. Please also see **Table 8 at Page 34.**\\n\\n> \\\"We first focus on open-source models, including OpenAI\\u2019s GPT-3.5 (0613, 1106, and 0125), GPT-4 (0125), and Google\\u2019s Gemini Pro (1.0, 1.5).\\\" -> closed source\\n\\nSolved at **Line 477, Page 9.**\\n\\n> RW: \\\"Other than papers listed in Table 3 on evaluating...\\\" -> this should present the table better. \\\"We present a comparison of studies using LLMS...\\\" It currently feels like a passing note, but is stronger than that. Also, link this in your statement contributions in the introduction.\\n\\nWe appreciate the feedback. We have improved our presentation in the paper, particularly in the sections of related work and introduction.\\n\\nSolved in the related work at **Line 499, Page 10:**\\n\\n\\u201cEvaluating LLMs through game theory models has become a popular research direction.\\nAn overview on recent studies is summarized in Table 3. We find: (1) Many studies examine the PSNE on two-player, single-round settings, focusing on the Prisoner's Dilemma and the Ultimatum Game. (2) Varying temperatures are employed without discussing the impact on LLMs' performance.\\u201d\\n\\nSolved in the introduction at **Line 122, Page 3:**\\n\\n\\u201cWe provide a comprehensive review and comparison of existing literature on evaluating LLMs using game theory scenarios, as summarized in Table 3. The review includes key aspects such as models, games, temperature settings, and other game parameters}, highlighting our emphasis on the multi-player setting and the generalizability of LLMs.\\u201d\\n\\n> RQ4: Qwen-2 seems to do great in all but Diner and SBA which seem very out of place and there's no mention of this result or why it could've happened. What happened here?\\n\\nThank you for pointing out this phenomenon. Many LLMs show this similar behavior in Betraying games, including Qwen-2 and GPT-4-0125. They all achieve **relatively good performance on Public Goods Game**, but **perform badly on Diner\\u2019s Dilemma and SBA**. We believe that these models are **tuned to be risk-averse**. In the Public Goods Game, they think \\u201cif no contribution is made to the public pot, then I will have no loss.\\u201d In Diner\\u2019s Dilemma, they think \\u201cchoosing the cheaper dish will cost me less money.\\u201d In SBA, they think \\u201cthe utility will not be negative as long as the bid is less than the valuation,\\u201d thus not taking the risk to give a much lower or higher bid. The same **conservative strategy appears in the El Farol Bar Game**, where GPT-4 and Qwen-2 perform badly. They tend to stay at home instead of risking going to the bar.\\n\\nThe explanation is added to **Line 482, Page 9.**\"}", "{\"comment\": \"Thank you for this thorough response and for running the additional tests. The results are quite interesting! I should have been clearer in my previous comment, I was particularly curious about the effects of jailbreaking on the lowest performing models (Qwen, Llama 3.1 405B, GPT-4 Turbo, etc.).\\n\\nI appreciate you running these tests and especially how you've updated your hypothesis based on the new information. Note that at this point I'm not asking to see additional results as you've gone beyond what's necessary, I'm just genuinely interested in these results.\\n\\nThank you for your work!\"}", "{\"title\": \"Official Response (1/1)\", \"comment\": \"We appreciate your efforts in reviewing and your recognition of our extensive experiments and our clear presentation. We will address your concerns one by one.\\n\\n> The author mentioned that most previous benchmarks incorporates classic settings that LLM has seen during training. Yet most games proposed in GAMA-Bench seem to also be taken from classical work. For instance, I prompted the game definition of all 3 cooperative games to GPT-4o and it is able to recognize which famous game it is. The authors could improve on this by proposing variants and provide concrete evidence on no test set leakage by comparing LLM performance on variants vs. original games.\\n\\nWe appreciate your effort in trying GPT-4o to recognize the games. We acknowledge that, with the vast training data, state-of-the-art LLMs know well about the definition, and even the Nash equilibria of classical games. However, we would like to highlight that: (1) there is a distance **from theory to practice**. Knowing the theory does not necessarily imply doing well in practice. (2) Models **fail to perform well in generalized settings**, even in recognizing. For example, when prompting the guessing game with the ratio (2/3) changed to 2, GPT-4o answers:\\n\\n```\", \"user\": \"What's the Nash equilibrium of \\\"2 guessing game\\\" such that the ratio is 2 instead of 2/3?\", \"gpt_4o\": \"The Nash equilibrium for this game is: $x_i = 0 \\\\forall i$.\\n```\", \"the_conversation_is_accessible_through_this_anonymous_link\": \"https://chatgpt.com/share/673c5be2-20bc-800a-b6f2-125170fba777. However, the Nash equilibrium of this setting is **the maximum number, which is 100.**\\n\\n> Language model are not designed to solve games, nor provide concrete mathematical calculation which is required to compute NEs. If the goal of this work is to understand LLM's ability to adapt in dynamic, multi-agent systems, I would encourage the authors to design additional experimental settings where partial actions by other agents are revealed. For instance, it would be more informative to see how models will adjust in \\\"Guess 2/3 of the Average\\\" game knowing there is a weak/malicious model that is likely to output a large number, compared to simply letting the model work its way to the NE. An example could be a series of rounds where the LLM is given information about other players' previous moves or tendencies, and then measure how quickly it adapts its strategy.\\n\\nThank you for the good suggestion. We acknowledge that current LLMs are weak in math calculations. Additionally, our framework provides LLMs with the chance to learn from historical data and adapt themselves in the environments. We have investigated LLMs\\u2019 performance when **playing against some fixed strategies in Page 36: (Appendix G) LLM vs. Specific Strategies.** First, we let one player **consistently bid an amount of 91 golds in the Divide the Dollar game**, compelling all other participants to bid a single gold. Additionally, we examine agents' reactions to a persistent **free-rider who contributes nothing in the Public Goods Game.** We find that agents **lower their bids in the Divide the Dollar game** in response to a dominant strategy. Contrary to expectations, in the Public Goods Game, agents **increase their contributions, compensating for the shortfall caused by the free-rider.** Conclusion: LLMs **can adapt their strategies dynamically to the environment.**\\n\\nHowever, it is an **implicit setting** for experiments described above. That is, we do not tell the players about others\\u2019 fixed strategies. Therefore, we further design experiments where we **explicitly tell the player about others\\u2019 fixed strategies** using the **Guess 2/3 of the Average game.**\\n- In setting (a), a player is told that others are smart and will always choose 0 the Nash equilibrium.\\n- In setting (b), a player is told that others are smart, but is not told that others will always choose the Nash equilibrium.\\n- In setting (c), a player is told that others are stupid and will always choose random numbers.\\nThe experiment uses GPT-4o.\", \"results_show_that\": [\"(a) GPT-4o selects 0 in the first round, and keeps selecting 0 for the remaining rounds.\", \"(b) GPT-4o does not select 0 in the first round, but converges to 0 quickly in a few rounds.\", \"(c) GPT-4o\\u2019s selection is quite random, **suggesting that it cannot infer the optimal decision of 50 * 2/3 = 33 since the average of others\\u2019 random selections is 50.**\", \"The experiment is added **in Appendix G in Page 36.**\"]}", "{\"comment\": \"Thank you for your time editing and responding to the comments I've given. I have one final point.\\n\\n> Many LLMs show this similar behavior in Betraying games, including Qwen-2 and GPT-4-0125. They all achieve relatively good performance on Public Goods Game, but perform badly on Diner\\u2019s Dilemma and SBA. We believe that these models are tuned to be risk-averse.\\n\\nIn another [rebuttal you give](https://openreview.net/forum?id=DI4gW8viB6&noteId=3QedGq148E), you use the CipherChat jailbreak to look at model behavior before and after value alignment. If this reasoning is true, then showing that a jailbroken model does better on these Betraying games would give further credence to your claim. This would be an interesting, but non-essential point to include.\"}", "{\"metareview\": \"This paper evaluates a number of LLMs on decision making in eight classic multi-agent game theory scenarios. The paper is not super-novel, but the investigation is well-executed and the paper is well-written.\", \"additional_comments_on_reviewer_discussion\": \"The authors have engaged constructively with the reviewers.\"}", "{\"comment\": \"Thank you very much for reading our responses. We deeply appreciate your recognition!\"}", "{\"summary\": \"This paper introduces GAMA-Bench, a novel benchmark designed to evaluate the gaming and decision-making abilities of LLMs in multi-agent environments. The benchmark comprises eight classical game theory scenarios, where LLMs are evaluated on how closely their decisions align with the Nash equilibrium, a theoretical standard for rational decision-making. Twelve different types of LLMs, including GPT-4, Gemini, and LLaMA, are tested. Additionally, the paper explores the impact of hyperparameters, prompt design, reasoning strategies, and persona on the robustness of LLM performance.\", \"soundness\": \"2\", \"presentation\": \"3\", \"contribution\": \"2\", \"strengths\": \"1. The paper is well-organized, making it comprehensible to a broad audience, including those unfamiliar with game theory. The authors provide clear explanations of complex game-theoretic concepts and how they apply to LLMs.\\n2. This work fills a gap in the literature by focusing on multi-agent scenarios, which are more complex and less explored compared to simpler single-agent or two-agent interactions. \\n3. The authors go beyond simply testing the LLMs and investigate the role of different factors such as temperature settings, prompt design, and reasoning strategies (e.g., CoT). By examining how these parameters influence LLM behavior and outcomes, the paper adds a layer of rigor, ensuring that the benchmark is not merely static but adaptable and robust under various conditions.\", \"weaknesses\": \"1. The paper does not sufficiently clarify which specific cognitive or decision-making abilities of LLMs are being measured through this benchmark. While the Nash equilibrium is a logical choice for evaluating decision rationality, the paper does not articulate whether the benchmark truly reflects the LLMs\\u2019 capacities in areas such as long-term planning, adaptability, or ethical decision-making. The discussion of which kind of ability can be measured through this benchmark.\\n2. The paper misses an opportunity to delve into the reasons behind the LLMs\\u2019 decisions. Different models may exhibit distinct decision-making tendencies based on their training data and architectures. For instance, GPT-4\\u2019s tendency toward cooperative behavior, as seen in the Public Goods Game, may stem from its RLHF process, which favors kindness and prosocial actions. Understanding these motivations could offer valuable insights into model alignment and performance tuning. One section of analyzing the reasoning behind the decision is the need for a better explanation of the various performances of LLMs.\", \"questions\": \"1. Could you explain why some LLMs, which are typically considered more advanced, do not perform well on this benchmark? For example, models like GPT-4 generally excel in many NLP tasks but underperform in certain games. Could this be due to the influence of ethical considerations embedded in their training (such as RLHF) that conflict with the purely rational strategies required to achieve Nash equilibrium?\\n2. Is Nash equilibrium the most appropriate evaluation target for LLMs, given that humans often make decisions based on ethical, emotional, or social factors rather than strict rationality? For example, GPT-4 tends to exhibit prosocial behavior, which may prevent it from reaching the Nash equilibrium in certain scenarios like the Diner\\u2019s Dilemma. Could the benchmark be expanded to account for human-aligned behavior, considering that LLMs are often used in contexts where replicating human-like decisions is more relevant than adhering to game-theoretic models?\", \"flag_for_ethics_review\": \"['No ethics review needed.']\", \"details_of_ethics_concerns\": \"No ethics review needed.\", \"rating\": \"6\", \"confidence\": \"3\", \"code_of_conduct\": \"Yes\"}", "{\"comment\": \"We sincerely appreciate the time and effort you have devoted to reviewing our work. As we approach the final day of the discussion period, we wanted to kindly check if our latest responses have adequately addressed your comments and concerns.\\n\\nIf there are any remaining questions or if further clarification is needed on any aspect, please don\\u2019t hesitate to let us know. We would be more than happy to provide additional information or address any outstanding concerns.\\n\\nThank you again for your valuable feedback and thoughtful engagement in this process.\"}", "{\"title\": \"Official Response (2/2)\", \"comment\": \"> Is Nash equilibrium the most appropriate evaluation target for LLMs, given that humans often make decisions based on ethical, emotional, or social factors rather than strict rationality? For example, GPT-4 tends to exhibit prosocial behavior, which may prevent it from reaching the Nash equilibrium in certain scenarios like the Diner\\u2019s Dilemma. Could the benchmark be expanded to account for human-aligned behavior, considering that LLMs are often used in contexts where replicating human-like decisions is more relevant than adhering to game-theoretic models?\\n\\nThis is a very good point. When designing our benchmark, there are two directions to optimize: **the Nash equilibrium**, which represents the rational analysis ability, and **the average human performance**, which represents the human-alignment. We finally decided to evaluate LLMs\\u2019 ability to achieve the optimal decision since **this direction is straightforward for reasoning-improvement strategies like CoT,** while aligning with human behaviors requires extra assumptions (contexts in the prompt) like \\u201csupposing others are average humans.\\u201d\\n\\nHowever, we also include some analysis on whether LLMs align with human choices **at Line 462, Page 9,** using the Guess 2/3 of the Average game. Different studies found that human choices are 36.73 and 36.20, while GPT-3.5 achieves 34.59, close to human choices. However, when the ratio changes to 1/2 and 4/3, human choices are 27.05 and 60.12. In these cases, GPT-3.5 achieves 34.59 and 74.92, more distant with human choices, suggesting **a lowered generalizability of current LLMs.**\\n\\nFinally, our benchmark **can be expanded to also evaluate LLM-human alignment** as suggested by the reviewer. However, there are efforts to collect human responses in our scenarios. We leave this human study as one of our future work.\"}", "{\"title\": \"Official Response (1/2)\", \"comment\": \"We appreciate your effort in reviewing and your recognition of the systematic experiments we conducted. We will address your concerns one by one.\\n\\n> My main concern is that, from a conceptual/technical point of view, the contribution and novelty of this work are somewhat limited. The authors discussed related literature limited to two players or actions and motivated their focus on the multi-player setting. However, the study of multiple LLM agents in gaming is not novel ([1]). I think a more detailed and thorough comparison with previous related benchmarks is needed.\\n[1] Sahar Abdelnabi, Amr Gomaa, Sarath Sivaprasad, Lea Sch\\u00f6nherr, and Mario Fritz. LLM-deliberation: Evaluating LLMs with interactive multi-agent negotiation games, 2023.\\n\\nWe deeply appreciate the insightful feedback. Studying LLMs through game-theoretic models is an active area of research. We acknowledge that while most existing papers focus on two-player or two-action games, there are still papers focusing on multi-player, multi-action settings. However, when it comes to classical game theory scenarios such as the **Prisoners\\u2019 Dilemma**, previous studies only focused on the two-player version, while in our GAMA-Bench, we use the multi-player version, the **Diner\\u2019s Dilemma**.\\n\\nAdditionally, we would like to highlight that models fail to perform well in **generalized settings**, even in recognizing. For example, when prompting the guessing game with the ratio (2/3) changed to 2, GPT-4o answers:\\n\\n```\", \"user\": \"What's the Nash equilibrium of \\\"2 guessing game\\\" such that the ratio is 2 instead of 2/3?\", \"gpt_4o\": \"The Nash equilibrium for this game is: $x_i = 0 \\\\forall i$.\\n```\", \"the_conversation_is_accessible_through_this_anonymous_link\": \"https://chatgpt.com/share/673c5be2-20bc-800a-b6f2-125170fba777. However, the Nash equilibrium of this setting is the **maximum number, which is 100**. These variants of the classical game theory models are not systematically studied in previous literature.\\n\\nFor Abdelnabi et al., 2023 [1], they design negotiation games involving six parties with distinct roles and objectives to evaluate LLMs\\u2019 ability to reach agreement. **The paper is discussed in the related work at Line 526, Page 10.**\\n\\n> The single metric that measures how far the LLM agent's behavior is from the Nash equilibrium cannot fully evaluate the performance of LLM agents in decision-making.\\n\\nThank you for pointing out this issue. We acknowledge that decision-making is a broad concept including various aspects. However, we believe evaluating Nash equilibria in game theory models can reflect individuals\\u2019 ability in decision-making (especially making the optimal decisions) because: (1) Many real-world scenarios can be **modeled using Game Theory** (Koller & Pfeffer, 1997), and (2) Individuals\\u2019 ability to **achieve Nash equilibria reflects their capacity in decision-making** (Risse, 2000).\", \"here_is_a_brief_summary_on_the_two_supporting_references\": \"Daphne Koller and Avi Pfeffer. Representations and solutions for game-theoretic problems. Artificial intelligence, 94(1-2):167\\u2013215, 1997. This paper delved into modeling complex real-world scenarios like arms control through simplified game-theoretic forms.\\n\\nMathias Risse. What is rational about nash equilibria? Synthese, 124:361\\u2013384, 2000. This paper explored rationality in Nash equilibria and the reflective processes preceding strategic decisions.\\n\\nWe have improved the writing of our motivation **in the introduction at Line 43, Page 1.**\\n\\n> Some of the insights are not very surprising in light of the prior literature (such as it is possible to improve the performance of GPT3.5 through CoT).\\n\\nThis is a good point. We acknowledge that CoT has been proven effective under multiple downstream tasks. However, **CoT is not always effective, as found by [1]**. Therefore, verifying whether CoT can also work in multi-agent gaming environments becomes important. Our findings suggest that **CoT in the scenario works as expected**, providing a deeper understanding about LLMs and their behaviors.\\n\\n[1] To CoT or not to CoT? Chain-of-thought helps mainly on math and symbolic reasoning. In arXiv 2409.12183. Zayne Sprague, Fangcong Yin, Juan Diego Rodriguez, Dongwei Jiang, Manya Wadhwa, Prasann Singhal, Xinyu Zhao, Xi Ye, Kyle Mahowald, Greg Durrett.\"}", "{\"comment\": \"Thank you for the follow-up question. This is a very interesting one.\\n\\nAt the beginning, we also thought that the CipherChat [1] method will make the model less prosocial, make it selfish, and increase the scores on betraying games. However, we observe that GPT-4o's scores on the Public Goods Game and the Diner's Dilemma **decrease** instead (90.91\\u00b12.72 to 88.55\\u00b12.38 and 10.7\\u00b18.3 to 7.5\\u00b14.1). We believe that it is because **OpenAI improves the value aliment on GPT-4o, defending against CipherChat**. Following [2], we conduct the test on model's negative traits using Dark Triad Dirty Dozen. Results of GPT-4o before and after jailbreak are listed below:\\n\\n| GPT-4o | w/o Jailbreak | w/ Jailbreak |\\n| --- | --- | --- |\\n| Machiavellianism | 4.6 \\u00b1 0.4 | 3.5 \\u00b1 1.3 | \\n| Psychopathy | 3.5 \\u00b1 0.4 | 3.0 \\u00b1 0.5 | \\n| Neuroticism | 6.1 \\u00b1 0.4 | 5.2 \\u00b1 0.8 |\\n\\nWe find that instead of the results of GPT-4 increasing its scores after jailbreak reported in [2], we find that **GPT-4o decreases in these negative traits** instead. Therefore, it may not show negative characteristics like selfishness.\\n\\nTherefore, we believe that **jailbreak currently affects more on the model's risk-management behavior**. GPT-4o is tuned to be risk-averse. After our jailbreak, it tends to take riskier strategies. In the Public Goods Game, it tries to contribute more money to the public pot, which is opposite to the optimal decision, thus decreasing the score. It is the same for the Diner's Dilemma. The jailbroken GPT-4o can take riskier strategies, choosing the costly dish and spending more money.\\n\\nNew discussion has been added **in Appendix H, Page 37.**\\n\\n[1] GPT-4 Is Too Smart To Be Safe: Stealthy Chat with LLMs via Cipher, In ICLR, 2024, Youliang Yuan, Wenxiang Jiao, Wenxuan Wang, Jen-tse Huang, Pinjia He, Shuming Shi, Zhaopeng Tu.\\n\\n[2] On the Humanity of Conversational AI: Evaluating the Psychological Portrayal of LLMs, In ICLR, 2024, Jen-tse Huang, Wenxuan Wang, Eric John Li, Man Ho Lam, Shujie Ren, Youliang Yuan, Wenxiang Jiao, Zhaopeng Tu, Michael R. Lyu.\"}", "{\"title\": \"Official Response (2/2)\", \"comment\": \"> Have you tried to test the robustness and generalizability of models other than GPT3.5, especially the open-source model and the close-source model that have the best performance?\\n\\nThank you for this suggestion. We add the robustness (multiple runs, temperatures, different prompt templates) and generalizability experiments for LLaMA-3.1-70B, Gemini-1.5-Pro, and GPT-4o. Here are some key conclusions:\\n\\n1. For temperature, we also observe a similar trend with GPT-3.5 using GPT-4o and LLaMA-3.1, where **smaller temperatures tend to have lower performance.**\\n2. For different prompt templates, the strongest model, Gemini-1.5-Pro, **has a smaller variance** than GPT-3.5, although the variance is still relatively high for the two sequential games.\\n3. Different models have different performance in the generalization settings. **LLaMA is good at Diner\\u2019s Dilemma; Gemini performs well on Sealed-Bid Auction but falls short on El Farol Bar**; GPT-4o has a mediocre performance compared to the two other models but still better than GPT-3.5.\\n\\n| Multiple Runs | Guess 2/3 of the Average | El Farol Bar | Divide the Dollar | Public Goods Game | Diner's Dilemma | Sealed-Bid Auction | Battle Royale | Pirate Game | Overall |\\n|-----------------|--------------------------|----------------|-------------------|-------------------|-----------------|--------------------|---------------|-------------|------------|\\n| LLAMA-3.1-70B | 84.0\\u00b11.7 | 59.7\\u00b13.5 | 87.0\\u00b14.1 | 90.6\\u00b13.6 | 48.1\\u00b15.7 | 15.7\\u00b12.7 | 77.7\\u00b126.0 | 64.0\\u00b115.5 | 65.9\\u00b13.3 |\\n| Gemini-1.5-Pro | 95.4\\u00b10.5 | 37.2\\u00b14.2 | 93.8\\u00b10.3 | 100.0\\u00b10.0 | 35.9\\u00b15.3 | 26.9\\u00b19.4 | 81.3\\u00b17.7 | 87.9\\u00b15.6 | 69.8\\u00b11.6 |\\n| GPT-4o | 94.3\\u00b10.6 | 70.0\\u00b122.1 | 95.2\\u00b10.7 | 90.9\\u00b13.0 | 10.7\\u00b18.3 | 20.8\\u00b13.2 | 67.3\\u00b114.8 | 84.4\\u00b16.7 | 66.7\\u00b14.7 |\\n| GPT-3.5 | 63.4\\u00b13.4 | 68.7\\u00b12.7 | 68.6\\u00b12.4 | 38.9\\u00b18.1 | 2.8\\u00b12.8 | 13.0\\u00b11.5 | 28.6\\u00b111.0 | 71.6\\u00b17.7 | 44.4\\u00b12.1 |\\n\\n| Temperatures | 0.0 | 0.2 | 0.4 | 0.6 | 0.8 | 1.0 |\\n|------------------|---------|---------|---------|---------|---------|---------|\\n| LLaMA-3.1-70B | 49.0 | 59.4 | 58.4 | 66.8 | 67.3 | 62.9 |\\n| Gemini-1.5-Pro | 72.2 | 69.6 | 70.7 | 70.3 | 73.2 | 70.8 |\\n| GPT-4o | 71.7 | 63.6 | 61.9 | 63.5 | 75.7 | 73.6 |\\n| GPT-3.5 | 38.1 | 36.7 | 41.9 | 39.9 | 43.2 | 45.9 |\\n\\n| Prompt Templates | Guess 2/3 of the Average | El Farol Bar | Divide the Dollar | Public Goods Game | Diner's Dilemma | Sealed-Bid Auction | Battle Royale | Pirate Game |\\n|-----------------|--------------------------|----------------|-------------------|-------------------|-----------------|--------------------|---------------|-------------|\\n| LLaMA-3.1-70B | 85.2\\u00b13.7 | 62.7\\u00b12.5 | 89.7\\u00b14.6 | 86.1\\u00b110.6 | 45.7\\u00b17.0 | 10.2\\u00b14.4 | 72.2\\u00b119.1 | 68.1\\u00b117.8 |\\n| Gemini-1.5-Pro | 94.0\\u00b13.3 | 45.2\\u00b113.1 | 87.7\\u00b114.8 | 99.1\\u00b11.2 |23.2\\u00b14.0 | 28.7\\u00b114.2 | 79.5\\u00b19.0 | 85.4\\u00b16.5 |\\n| GPT-4o | 93.7\\u00b11.4 | 65.0\\u00b121.0 | 95.4\\u00b10.9 | 92.4\\u00b13.3 | 38.9\\u00b111.3 | 29.2\\u00b18.8 | 50.8\\u00b131.1 | 82.9\\u00b110.3 |\\n| GPT-3.5 | 63.3\\u00b18.7 | 72.5\\u00b14.1 | 79.2\\u00b18.5 | 37.5\\u00b111.5 | 16.6\\u00b123.7 | 12.6\\u00b13.0 | 21.9\\u00b16.1 | 68.7\\u00b114.7 |\\n\\n| Generalizability | Guess 2/3 of the Average | El Farol Bar | Divide the Dollar | Public Goods Game | Diner's Dilemma | Sealed-Bid Auction | Battle Royale | Pirate Game |\\n|-----------------|--------------------------|----------------|-------------------|-------------------|-----------------|--------------------|---------------|-------------|\\n| LLaMA-3.1-70B | 88.0\\u00b16.2 | 70.7\\u00b16.5 | 88.9\\u00b110.1 | 92.5\\u00b14.9 | 41.4\\u00b16.6 | 7.4\\u00b13.8 | 60.39\\u00b113.59 | 58.1\\u00b114.7 |\\n| Gemini-1.5-Pro | 87.3\\u00b125.4 | 53.5\\u00b117.9 | 96.5\\u00b12.8 | 100.0\\u00b10.0 | 22.7\\u00b111.9 | 37.4\\u00b19.4 | 80.8\\u00b18.2 | 88.8\\u00b18.4 |\\n| GPT-4o | 76.2\\u00b123.4 | 85.5\\u00b115.1 | 96.3\\u00b12.3 | 93.6\\u00b14.6 | 18.2\\u00b115.2 | 23.0\\u00b12.3 | 67.5\\u00b113.8 | 71.3\\u00b116.6 |\\n| GPT-3.5 | 65.1\\u00b110.3 | 63.3\\u00b16.9 | 77.3\\u00b16.4 | 38.1\\u00b110.8 | 6.1\\u00b15.4 | 13.2\\u00b10.9 | 27.3\\u00b16.8 | 71.3\\u00b116.6 |\\n\\nThe results are included in **Table 9 to Table 20 in Page 38\\u201343 in the appendix.**\"}", "{\"summary\": \"The authors measure LLMs competing ability in various multi-agent game theoretic based scenarios. They put together a collection of 8 games and test across 12 different LLMs with dynamic parameter changes to the games to test for robustness. They contribute a literature review of studies focusing on game theory based LLM studies, the GAMA-bench (available after paper publication), and the results of benchmarking the LLMs they test.\", \"soundness\": \"3\", \"presentation\": \"4\", \"contribution\": \"3\", \"strengths\": [\"Overall the paper is great.\", \"Robust testing, using \\\"multiple runs, temperature parameter alterations, and prompt template variations\\\" as well as testing across 12 different LLMs.\", \"Approach to Generalizability (RQ3) is useful, unique, and future-proofs the benchmark to a degree.\", \"Excellent presentation with logical structure and intuitive navigation, all information is presented clearly. (Section 3.1 links to all game prompts, key findings and answers to research questions nicely emphasized.)\"], \"weaknesses\": [\"The case could be made stronger for \\\"LLMs being good at Game Theory\\\" == \\\"LLMs useful for decision making\\\". The intro \\\"jumps\\\" from \\\"decision-making poses a significant challenge for intelligent agents\\\" to Game Theory. It's slightly strengthened by noting that your \\\"framework evaluates LLMs\\u2019 ability to make optimal decisions\\\". In the conclusion you mention \\\"Our findings reveal that GPT-3.5 (0125) demonstrates a limited decision-making ability on \\u03b3-Bench\\\", which is great. Overall, I think your paper points in the direction and does well, but this introduction is a bit jarring.\", \"### Small things\", \"\\\"We leveraging GPT-4 to rewrite our default prompt\\\" -> 'We leverage'\", \"\\\"The game has a PSNE where all players\\\", \\\"a PSNE but presents an MSNE, \\\" -> PSNE and MSNE is defined in the appendix but acronyms are used in the main body.\", \"\\\"The model produces average numbers of 34.59, 34.59\\\" -> intentionally the same numbers?\", \"\\\"We first focus on open-source models, including OpenAI\\u2019s GPT-3.5 (0613, 1106, and 0125), GPT-4 (0125), and Google\\u2019s Gemini Pro (1.0, 1.5).\\\" -> closed source\", \"RW: \\\"Other than papers listed in Table 3 on evaluating...\\\" -> this should present the table better. \\\"We present a comparison of studies using LLMS...\\\" It currently feels like a passing note, but is stronger than that. Also, link this in your statement contributions in the introduction.\"], \"questions\": [\"RQ4: Qwen-2 seems to do great in all but Diner and SBA which seem very out of place and there's no mention of this result or why it could've happened. What happened here?\"], \"flag_for_ethics_review\": \"['No ethics review needed.']\", \"rating\": \"6\", \"confidence\": \"4\", \"code_of_conduct\": \"Yes\"}", "{\"title\": \"Paper Decision\", \"decision\": \"Accept (Poster)\"}", "{\"title\": \"Official Response (1/2)\", \"comment\": \"We appreciate your efforts in reviewing and your recognition of our paper's rigorous exploration of factors influencing LLM behavior. We will address your concerns one by one.\\n\\n> The paper does not sufficiently clarify which specific cognitive or decision-making abilities of LLMs are being measured through this benchmark. While the Nash equilibrium is a logical choice for evaluating decision rationality, the paper does not articulate whether the benchmark truly reflects the LLMs\\u2019 capacities in areas such as long-term planning, adaptability, or ethical decision-making. The discussion of which kind of ability can be measured through this benchmark.\\n\\nWe appreciate the feedback. All the eight games require some **common abilities**, such as arithmetic ability, the ability to understand environments, game rules, and historical results, the ability to understand others\\u2019 intentions (ToM ability), and strategic reasoning (critical thinking).\", \"there_are_some_distinct_abilities_for_each_game\": \"- K-level reasoning: Guess 2/3 of the Average;\\n- Mixed strategy adoption: El Farol Bar;\\n- Risk management: Divide the Dollar; Sealed-Bid Auction;\\n- Long-term planning: Battle Royale; Pirate Game;\\n- Ethical reasoning and Altruism: Public Goods Game; Diner\\u2019s Dilemma;\\n\\nWe have added the discussion **in the introduction at Line 107, Page 1.**\\n\\n> The paper misses an opportunity to delve into the reasons behind the LLMs\\u2019 decisions. Different models may exhibit distinct decision-making tendencies based on their training data and architectures. For instance, GPT-4\\u2019s tendency toward cooperative behavior, as seen in the Public Goods Game, may stem from its RLHF process, which favors kindness and prosocial actions. Understanding these motivations could offer valuable insights into model alignment and performance tuning. One section of analyzing the reasoning behind the decision is the need for a better explanation of the various performances of LLMs.\\n> Could you explain why some LLMs, which are typically considered more advanced, do not perform well on this benchmark? For example, models like GPT-4 generally excel in many NLP tasks but underperform in certain games. Could this be due to the influence of ethical considerations embedded in their training (such as RLHF) that conflict with the purely rational strategies required to achieve Nash equilibrium?\\n\\nThank you for the good suggestion. We agree that training data or different RLHF processes can affect models\\u2019 tendency. However, the **base models (before instruction tuning) do not have conversation ability**, thus are unable to conduct GAMA-Bench evaluation. Therefore, to bypass the value alignment on LLMs, we use the **jailbreak technique, specifically, the CipherChat [1].** Previous work showed that this jailbreak method can make GPT-4 show more negative traits [2]. To evaluate whether LLMs will have behavioral changes after value alignment, we evaluate **GPT-4o before and after CipherChat using betraying games, Public Goods Game and Diner\\u2019s Dilemma.**\\n\\n| GPT-4o | Public Goods Game | Diner\\u2019s Dilemma |\\n|--------------------|-------------------|-----------------|\\n| **Before Jailbreak** | 90.91\\u00b12.72 | 10.7\\u00b18.3 |\\n| **After Jailbreak** | 88.55 \\u00b1 2.38 | 7.5\\u00b14.1 |\\n\\nBefore CipherChat, GPT-4o achieves 90.91\\u00b12.72 and 10.7\\u00b18.3 on Public Goods Game and Diner\\u2019s Dilemma. After CipherChat jailbreaking, it achieves 88.55 \\u00b1 2.38 and 7.5\\u00b14.1 on the two games. We can observe a performance drop. This is because **GPT-4o is tuned to be risk-averse.** In the Public Goods Game, they think \\u201cif no contribution is made to the public pot, then I will have no loss.\\u201d In Diner\\u2019s Dilemma, they think \\u201cchoosing the cheaper dish will cost me less money.\\u201d The same conservative strategy appears in the El Farol Bar Game, where GPT-4 performs badly. It tends to stay at home instead of risking going to the bar. **After jailbreak, it can use more risky strategies** of contributing less in the Public Goods Game and selecting the expensive dish in the Diner\\u2019s Dilemma.\\n\\nThe experiment and discussion is added **in the Appendix in Page 37.**\\n\\n[1] GPT-4 Is Too Smart To Be Safe: Stealthy Chat with LLMs via Cipher, In ICLR, 2024, Youliang Yuan, Wenxiang Jiao, Wenxuan Wang, Jen-tse Huang, Pinjia He, Shuming Shi, Zhaopeng Tu.\\n\\n[2] On the Humanity of Conversational AI: Evaluating the Psychological Portrayal of LLMs, In ICLR, 2024, Jen-tse Huang, Wenxuan Wang, Eric John Li, Man Ho Lam, Shujie Ren, Youliang Yuan, Wenxiang Jiao, Zhaopeng Tu, Michael R. Lyu.\"}", "{\"comment\": \"Thank you very much for your recognition of the value of our benchmark!\"}", "{\"summary\": \"The authors introduce GAMA-Bench, a benchmark with 8 well-designed game scenarios. They performed evaluation on GAMA-bench for multiple mainstream LLMs and in addition evaluate robustness, reasoning, and generalizability of these models.\", \"soundness\": \"3\", \"presentation\": \"3\", \"contribution\": \"2\", \"strengths\": \"1. The benchmark questions are designed carefully, drawing inspiration from classic game theory scenarios. The objective of the three categories of games are clear.\\n2. On top of measuring performance, extensive experiments are conducted to understand the effect of prompting and sampling, CoT, and sensitivity to same game with different parameters.\", \"weaknesses\": \"1. The author mentioned that most previous benchmarks incorporates classic settings that LLM has seen during training. Yet most games proposed in GAMA-Bench seem to also be taken from classical work. For instance, I prompted the game definition of all 3 cooperative games to GPT-4o and it is able to recognize which famous game it is. The authors could improve on this by proposing variants and provide concrete evidence on no test set leakage by comparing LLM performance on variants vs. original games.\\n2. Language model are not designed to solve games, nor provide concrete mathematical calculation which is required to compute NEs. If the goal of this work is to understand LLM's ability to adapt in dynamic, multi-agent systems, I would encourage the authors to design additional experimental settings where partial actions by other agents are revealed. For instance, it would be more informative to see how models will adjust in \\\"Guess 2/3 of the Average\\\" game knowing there is a weak/malicious model that is likely to output a large number, compared to simply letting the model work its way to the NE. An example could be a series of rounds where the LLM is given information about other players' previous moves or tendencies, and then measure how quickly it adapts its strategy.\", \"questions\": \"I don't have any particular clarifying questions and most of my concerns are mentioned in \\\"Weaknesses\\\" section.\", \"flag_for_ethics_review\": \"['No ethics review needed.']\", \"rating\": \"6\", \"confidence\": \"3\", \"code_of_conduct\": \"Yes\"}" ] }

[ "Rom Parnichkun", "Neehal Tumma", "Armin W Thomas", "Alessandro Moro", "Qi An", "Taiji Suzuki", "Atsushi Yamashita", "Michael Poli", "Stefano Massaroli" ]

[ "model analysis", "interpretability", "linear systems", "attention", "state-space models", "sequence models", "memory utilization", "context utilization" ]

{ "note_id": [ "ywj00n0TdN", "yvssQGhJiD", "y933xypwwz", "weqR7XMkkk", "wdwdqCqeV6", "wbtTwwTG6I", "vpc7btyaUH", "uwDN1XSerU", "utrxo9PfgU", "ubUYb9ceZ6", "q6a6zwipG3", "ozrf2mXfU9", "mXHkXgpDch", "kF9Dt0tKhJ", "iQUmv1M0nI", "ZnpjX6YxzX", "Zeu6gcvPGE", "ZaPiiHaLsp", "YS1BaivF14", "Y52f2DFsou", "W9tlQyISFS", "VtTLc8HT21", "Uoeka34tRU", "UJYVGY8e8A", "TqOhZvBekt", "Pzi9TZBblO", "P8g9RYvcmT", "MwArP92Bce", "LB5ik2e8ha", "HgCOoHVe6w", "FJUWNTvUe1", "F1Uxo7tGnv", "9uUPPPVvtE", "7ILsWiXCio", "5s2ziBUO08", "2H1F1Qa4a0" ], "note_type": [ "official_comment", "official_comment", "official_comment", "official_comment", "official_comment", "official_comment", "official_comment", "meta_review", "official_comment", "official_comment", "official_review", "official_comment", "official_comment", "official_review", "official_comment", "official_comment", "official_comment", "official_comment", "official_review", "official_comment", "official_comment", "official_comment", "official_comment", "official_comment", "official_comment", "official_comment", "official_comment", "official_comment", "official_comment", "decision", "official_review", "official_comment", "official_review", "official_comment", "official_comment", "official_comment" ], "note_created": [ 1732465823281, 1732818974982, 1732818849181, 1732102065806, 1732561327883, 1732103168744, 1732818993838, 1734949900767, 1732103280380, 1732102879069, 1731211533339, 1732819979308, 1732107235207, 1730704856828, 1732103849421, 1732819011902, 1732227082931, 1732571196903, 1731113190289, 1732102223963, 1732820091970, 1732105513699, 1732107076137, 1732103270541, 1732102234950, 1733183833915, 1732495470913, 1732820072198, 1733183871564, 1737523980039, 1731201961620, 1732104163755, 1731039477075, 1732818879519, 1732509377036, 1732578221259 ], "note_signatures": [ [ "ICLR.cc/2025/Conference/Submission9386/Reviewer_77Pw" ], [ "ICLR.cc/2025/Conference/Submission9386/Authors" ], [ "ICLR.cc/2025/Conference/Submission9386/Authors" ], [ "ICLR.cc/2025/Conference/Submission9386/Authors" ], [ "ICLR.cc/2025/Conference/Submission9386/Reviewer_77Pw" ], [ "ICLR.cc/2025/Conference/Submission9386/Authors" ], [ "ICLR.cc/2025/Conference/Submission9386/Authors" ], [ "ICLR.cc/2025/Conference/Submission9386/Area_Chair_Yv6x" ], [ "ICLR.cc/2025/Conference/Submission9386/Authors" ], [ "ICLR.cc/2025/Conference/Submission9386/Authors" ], [ "ICLR.cc/2025/Conference/Submission9386/Reviewer_6qwH" ], [ "ICLR.cc/2025/Conference/Submission9386/Authors" ], [ "ICLR.cc/2025/Conference/Submission9386/Authors" ], [ "ICLR.cc/2025/Conference/Submission9386/Reviewer_77Pw" ], [ "ICLR.cc/2025/Conference/Submission9386/Authors" ], [ "ICLR.cc/2025/Conference/Submission9386/Authors" ], [ "ICLR.cc/2025/Conference/Submission9386/Reviewer_3frp" ], [ "ICLR.cc/2025/Conference/Submission9386/Reviewer_6qwH" ], [ "ICLR.cc/2025/Conference/Submission9386/Reviewer_3frp" ], [ "ICLR.cc/2025/Conference/Submission9386/Authors" ], [ "ICLR.cc/2025/Conference/Submission9386/Authors" ], [ "ICLR.cc/2025/Conference/Submission9386/Authors" ], [ "ICLR.cc/2025/Conference/Submission9386/Authors" ], [ "ICLR.cc/2025/Conference/Submission9386/Authors" ], [ "ICLR.cc/2025/Conference/Submission9386/Authors" ], [ "ICLR.cc/2025/Conference/Submission9386/Authors" ], [ "ICLR.cc/2025/Conference/Submission9386/Authors" ], [ "ICLR.cc/2025/Conference/Submission9386/Authors" ], [ "ICLR.cc/2025/Conference/Submission9386/Authors" ], [ "ICLR.cc/2025/Conference/Program_Chairs" ], [ "ICLR.cc/2025/Conference/Submission9386/Reviewer_o977" ], [ "ICLR.cc/2025/Conference/Submission9386/Authors" ], [ "ICLR.cc/2025/Conference/Submission9386/Reviewer_8oZA" ], [ "ICLR.cc/2025/Conference/Submission9386/Authors" ], [ "ICLR.cc/2025/Conference/Submission9386/Reviewer_8oZA" ], [ "ICLR.cc/2025/Conference/Submission9386/Reviewer_o977" ] ], "structured_content_str": [ "{\"comment\": \"Thank you for your response. I appreciate the efforts to streamline the paper. However, I remain concerned by the absence of a single, clear formulation/definition for the ESS metric, which I believe significantly limits its usefulness (the authors switch between different ways of computing it, and different ways of aggregating across layers, channels, and timesteps). The limited novelty of the ideas (which other reviewers also noted), also remains a concern. For these reasons, I maintain my score.\"}", "{\"title\": \"Response to reviewer o977 (1/2)\", \"comment\": \"We thank the reviewer for their detailed response. We respond to their points below.\\n\\n> 1. However, I disagree with the author\\u2019s claim that they \\\"focus on vectorized A matrices, specifically in models like GLA, WLA, and LA, which have vectorized A matrices of size d/h per channel.\\\" In linear attention or general attention mechanisms, scalar A is used per head rather than vectorized A. This can be observed in models like Mamba2 (and RetNet) that they employed scalar A and thus demonstrated that \\\"transformers are SSMs.\\\"\\n\\nTo clarify, linear attention (LA) has no trainable $A$ matrix, and it can be formulated both in a \\u201cvectorized\\u201d form (i.e. $A=I$, the identity matrix) and a scalar form (i.e. $A=1$). Please refer to Section D.2 for the formulation of LA with \\u201cvectorized\\u201d state-transition. Gated linear attention [1] (GLA) is an extension of LA, in which the $A$ matrix is now an input varying diagonal matrix with trainable projections (which is vectorized). Weighted linear attention (WLA) is similarly an extension of LA, with a diagonal $A$ matrix that is trainable but not input-varying. Softmax attention (SA) has a different notion of an $A$ matrix due to the softmax. The complete recurrence for SA can only be formulated with a truncated diagonal $A$ matrix that grows with sequence index (as in Equation C.2.5). To summarize, since the models we examined in this work are either state-space models with \\u201cvectorized\\u201d state-transitions (GLA and WLA), or models without trainable $A$ matrices (e.g. SA and LA, where the notion of having a vectorized or a scalar state-transition is arbitrary), we maintain the following: **the focus of the experiments presented in our work is on comparing models with \\u201cvectorized\\u201d $A$ matrices.**\\n\\nWe did not specifically examine models like Mamba2 and RetNet (i.e. models with scalar state-transitions), and simply grouped them into the model class of input-varying $A$ and input-invariant $A$ matrices, respectively. **This is because our axis of comparison is not scalar vs vectorized $A$, but rather input-invariant (WLA) vs input-varying $A$ (GLA)**, which is in line with the classical (and standard) classification of linear systems: linear time-invariant systems (LTI) and linear time-varying systems (LTV). \\nMoreover, we chose the input-varying axis of comparison, since intuitively it should have an impact on ESS, since ESS is directly a function of the input. Indeed, we find that this is true when comparing GLA and WLA in the state modulation results presented in Section 5.3. We note that the scalar vs vectorized axis of comparison is certainly interesting to examine, however it is entirely orthogonal to the input-invariant vs input-varying axis of comparison. Therefore, its absence from the paper does not impact the validity of the findings presented. \\n\\n> 2. It is unclear how the paper categorizes all these methods under the names of (gated or weighted) linear attention. \\n\\n> 3. I checked the models that the paper investigated and found that some models adopt scalar A while others use vectorized A. These two kinds of designs bring different efficiency and accuracy differences, but the paper doesn't distinguish them in its statements and experimental comparisons.\\n\\nContinuing from what was mentioned above, our axis of comparison can be characterized as follows:\\n- Models with input-varying $A$ matrix such as GLA, Mamba, Mamba2, LiquidS4 (of which GLA and Mamba via S6 are examined in this paper)\\n- Models with input-invariant $A$ matrix such as WLA, RetNet, Hyena-S4D, Hyena-RTF (of which WLA is examined in this paper)\\n- Models with input-invariant $A$ matrix (where A matrix is fixed to an identity matrix) such as LA (which is examined in this paper)\\n- Models with linearly growing state-size such as SA (which is examined in this paper)\\n\\nWhile we did not distinguish between scalar and vectorized state-transitions, the categorization itself is consistent and relatively straightforward. Again, the reason we put Mamba and GLA (models with vectorized $A$) and Mamba2 (a model with scalar $A$) in the same category is because we are primarily interested in the effects of input-varying state-transition matrices, and not necessarily on the effects of scalar vs vectorized $A$ matrices.\"}", "{\"title\": \"Meta-response detailing final revisions\", \"comment\": [\"We thank all the reviewers for their repeated engagement during the discussion period. Here, we provide some high level detail regarding the final set of revisions made to the paper.\", \"1. The related work has been refactored\", \"A discussion that contextualizes ESS with respect to concept of semiseparable rank presented in Mamba-2 has been added\", \"The second paragraph in related work has been changed to \\u201cQuantifying memory utilization in sequence models\\u201d in order to emphasize that the quantitative application of ESS lies specifically with respect to it serving as a proxy for memory utilization\", \"2. ESS has been formulated more precisely as a quantitative metric\", \"We now define ESS for three classes of models in increasing order of specificity: linear systems, SISO linear systems, and multi-layer LIV SISO models (the latter of which are the models explored in the paper)\", \"In doing so, we explicitly show how ESS can be viewed as a function of the input, sequence index, channel, and layer in multi-layer LIV SISO models which was previously an implicit assumption\", \"We discuss how constructing ESS metrics in multi-layer LIV SISO models can be viewed as selecting a particular aggregation scheme across the input, sequence index, channel, and layer dimensions\", \"We motivate average ESS and total ESS as two particular modes of aggregation and justify why these two modes were chosen as the forms of ESS analyzed in the paper; in doing so, we mathematically formulate these metrics to emphasize their quantitative nature\", \"We hope that our final set of revisions resolve the last few points raised by the reviewers, and thank the reviewers again for their insightful comments that have further improved the quality of our work.\"]}", "{\"title\": \"Response to reviewer 8oZA\", \"comment\": \"We thank Reviewer 8oZA for their comprehensive and insightful review! We have incorporated many of your suggestions into the revised draft and address each of your points in turn below:\\n\\n> 1. Novelty, the paper argues (Line 108) that one of the main contributions is to prove that the rank of submatrices of the input-output causal operator T determines the minimally realizable state-size of the recurrent operator. There is nothing to prove, this is textbook material reported verbatim from realization theory of linear time invariant dynamical systems. Please make sure to point the reader to proper textbook material for both Theorem 2.1 and Theorem 2.2, see [1, 2, 3].\\n\\nWe agree that as originally presented, it appeared that we were arguing that the results we present on linear systems were novel. To address this, we make the following revisions:\\n* We explicitly state where the proof of Theorem 3.1 comes from in our presentation of the theorem. Readers can now see where exactly we adapted Dewilde\\u2019s proof, as we also point the chapter of the book.\\n\\n* We make clear that our main contribution isn\\u2019t in the proof, but rather in extending the ideas from minimal realization theory in linear systems to LIVs. Namely, we clarify that the novelty of our work lies in showing that ideas from minimal realization theory that have been well established in the context of linear systems can in practice be usefully extended to modern LIV sequence models.\\n\\n> 2. While the main results on linear input-invariant recurrences are well known, in practice modern LLMs utilize input varying recurrences which are not as straightforward to analyze. This latter case is quickly and vaguely described in a single paragraph (starting in Line 175). This is the key novelty and contribution of the paper (aside from the empirical validation), however the current manuscript does not provide any theoretical guarantees and only describes, non-tight, bounds on the ESS of an input-varying recurrence using its input-invariant counterpart.\\n\\nWe agree that there are no theoretical guarantees other than the non-tight bound that $TSS \\\\geq ESS$ which is why our paper is heavily focused on the empirical validation of ESS as a proxy for memory utilization in LIVs. Our results clearly show that even though we are not presenting a tighter theoretical bound, extending ESS from linear systems to LIVs is empirically justified since we observe strong correlations between ESS and recall performance. This makes it useful in practice given that the space of existing proxies for memory utilization is lacking and ESS serves as a significantly better proxy for memory utilization than TSS which is currently the canonical measure. \\n\\n> 3. A thorough related work section is missing, please consider adding one in the main text. Some references to complement the ones already cited that might be helpful to the readers are provided below (Questions section).\\n\\nAgreed, there should be one. We have now added a dedicated section in the main text and have incorporated many of the references you suggested in your comment. Furthermore, we modified our framing of the space of operators to clearly disambiguate between input-invariant linear systems (or just linear systems for short) and systems with input-varying linear operators (which we now abbreviate as LIV). We hope that this helps in disambiguating which results are being used from classic control theory and how we are extending those results to modern sequence models. \\n\\n> 4. The paragraph starting in Line 175 is unfocused and hard to read, yet it should be the key novel contribution of the paper. How should one define ESS for input-varying recurrences in theory? The ESS needs to depend on the specific input being considered and can, indeed, oscillate depending on the type of the input signals. Have the authors considered using a set of test reference signals or an optimization procedure over the space of sequences of a given length that maximize the required state dimension of their equivalent realization? Are these feasible choices in practice? A deeper discussion about other possible choices that are more theoretically motivated yet not feasible in practice would be beneficial for the reader.\\n\\nAgreed, we have significantly refactored the theory section in order to emphasize this paragraph and better contextualize it. Instead of taking the route of trying to define ESS for input-varying operators, we directly define ESS as the metric given by the rank($H_i$). Then, we describe theoretical properties of the metric with respect to both classical linear systems and systems with input-varying operators, enabling its interpretation as a proxy for memory utilization. We recognize that our theoretical bound for the input-varying case is not tight, which is why we focused our work heavily on the empirical validation of ESS as a proxy for memory utilization in LIVs. We address the rest of the question in the next point.\"}", "{\"comment\": \"Thank you for your response. I respectfully disagree that simply writing $ESS = {\\\\rm rank}(H_i)$ is a clear definition. For example, this expression hides what ESS depends on as a function, and writing something like $ESS(x)_i$ would be better to highlight dependence on the input and timestep. Incidentally, the term \\\"state size\\\" may be somewhat misleading, since typically the size of the state -- defined as a summary statistic of the entire past -- should either be constant or increase over time.\\n\\nAppendix D.1 states: \\\"unless stated otherwise, our figures are presented using the entropy-ESS. In cases where we require ESS comparison across the sequence dimension, we instead plot ESS for multiple tolerance values.\\\" While flexibility in variations and aggregation strategies can be appropriate for interpretability tools aimed at informal / qualitative explorations (like attention maps), a paper proposing a new metric should in my view be more precise.\\n\\nI would encourage the authors to consider either formalizing their treatment of ESS, or reframing their work as an exploratory analysis of the inner workings of sequence modeling architectures, without emphasizing the introduction of a quantitative metric.\"}", "{\"title\": \"Response to reviewer 8oZA continued\", \"comment\": \"> 5. Why ESS definitions in Eq. (3) and (4) do not depend on the time index i? Given a sequence and a linear input-invariant system of finite order, one needs to progressively increase the sequence length of the Hankel submatrices until the rank stabilizes to the value of the state dimension. However, Equations (3) and (4) do not scan over different sequence lengths.\\n\\nYes, ESS does depend on the time index, which is why we used a subscript $i$ when indexing the entropy and tolerance ESS. However, you are correct in that we did not clarify that we marginalize across the entire sequence length when computing ESS. To clarify this, we added a paragraph in Section 3.1 which discusses this among other things that we consider when computing ESS. \\n\\nSteady-state rank is very interesting, but we did not yet find much use for it in the practical setting. This is because of the following:\\n* Most tasks already have a predefined sequence length\\n* For input-varying systems, the rank isn\\u2019t guaranteed to stabilize. \\n\\nNonetheless, we believe it would be interesting to think of the types of input to use to study the steady state rank, but this is something we consider as future work. \\n\\n> 6. Why in the empirical validation (section 3) Mamba-1 model has not been validated? I am specifically referring to Mamba-1 and not Mamba-2 since the latter is already closely matched by GLA that is already discussed by the authors.\\n\\nWe refrained from empirically validating Mamba-1 since, as noted in prior works like [A], the functional form of S4 (which later led to Mamba-1) is quite complex and contains many components that turn out to be unnecessary for performance. One component in particular is the discretization step, which is lacking from other recurrent models like GLA or LA. Since this, among other aspects of the architecture, introduces unnecessary confounders in the analysis, we found it more appropriate to restrict ourselves to the GLA, LA and WLA functional forms which are varied methodically with respect to how they differ in parameterizing the state transition dynamics through $A$. Furthermore, we do explore S6 (the SSM component of Mamba-1) in the initialization-phase analysis (Section 5.1). Nonetheless, we are happy to run a proof of concept on a subset of the task-model space demonstrating that the correlation between ESS and performance holds in Mamba-1 as well if the reviewer still maintains that this is necessary. \\n\\n> 7. Can the authors explicitly define TSS for each architecture used in the empirical section?\\n\\nYes, we have added this to the appendix which can be found in Section D.2.\\n\\n> 8. Figure 3 is quite strange, GLA and WLA are strictly more expressive than LA yet accuracy of the latter is higher across all evaluations. Is it possible that this is due to some training instability/poor optimization/parametrization? Can the authors contextualize their results in light of the empirical study conducted in [5], specifically in Section 3.4? In particular, highlighting the relationship of fast decaying eigenvalues and normalization at initialization (this is relevant also for your section 4.1).\\n\\nAs you correctly noted, GLA and WLA are strictly more expressive than LA, and it turns out that this is precisely the reason we observe the phenomenon of state collapse (discussed in Section 4) which is the training instability you are hinting at that lies at the crux of this result. In particular, the gap between performance on LA and GLA/WLA is particularly notable in the set of difficult tasks (where difficulty in the context of MQAR is given by a large number of kv pairs). In this portion of task-model space, we find that GLA and WLA are prone to learning $A$ matrices with values close to 0. This causes signals from the distant past to decay exponentially (resulting in low ESS) because the eigenvalues of the state-transition matrices are parameterized to be less than 1. In language modeling, we think the need for effective state modulation outweighs the requirement for stable long-range training signals, which explains the opposite trend we observe when evaluating bigram recall perplexity.\\n\\nWith respect to the empirical study conducted in [5], we note that unlike their work, our study was conducted on input-varying models and therefore, their findings are not directly applicable to our case. Nonetheless, to contextualize our results with respect to their study, we note that:\\n* For Linear Attention, the $A$ matrix is basically at the ring where r_min and r_max = 1 (following notation in [5]). \\n* For WLA and GLA the average eigenvalue is 0.96 upon initialization. This is similar to setting r_min =0.9 and r_max = 0.99 in the experiments conducted in [5], which they found to perform well for tasks like LRA.\\n\\n\\n[A] A. Orvieto et al., \\u201cResurrecting Recurrent Neural Networks for Long Sequences\\u201d, PMLR 202:26670-26698, 2023.\"}", "{\"title\": \"Response to reviewer o977 (2/2)\", \"comment\": \"Nonetheless, we do agree with the reviewer\\u2019s general sentiment that the scalar vs vectorized axis of comparison is potentially illuminating. In lieu of this, we have just conducted an experiment on a scalar GLA model to show that it, like its vectorized analog presented in the paper, also demonstrates a correlation between ESS and accuracy over the course of training.\\n\\nIn particular, scalar GLA is defined the same as the \\\"vectorized\\\" GLA presented in the paper, except the $A$ matrix is parameterized as \\n\\n $A^k_{i-1} = \\\\text{diag}(\\\\text{sigmoid}(W_{A}u_i)^{1/\\\\beta} \\\\mathbf{1})$ where $W_A \\\\in \\\\mathbb{R}^{1 \\\\times d}$ and $\\\\mathbf{1}$ denotes a vector of ones of size $d/h$.\\n\\nThis is distinct from how the \\\"vectorized\\\" GLA [1] explored in the paper is parameterized where\\n\\n$A^k_{i-1} = \\\\text{diag}(\\\\text{sigmoid}(W_{A_2}^kW_{A_1}u_i)^{1/\\\\beta}) $ where $W_{A_1} \\\\in \\\\mathbb{R}^{16 \\\\times d}$ and $W_{A_2} \\\\in \\\\mathbb{R}^{d / h \\\\times 16}$.\\n\\nIn this experiment, we train a scalar GLA model with a channel dimension of 64 and 8 heads (which means that TSS = 8) on MQAR (with 16 key-value pairs and a sequence length of 128). Analogous to the experiments presented in Section 4.2, we collect the ESS and accuracy over the course of training; a plot of the results can be found [here](https://github.com/iclr2025-ESS/rebuttal-figures/blob/main/acc_and_ess_vs_epoch.png). As shown in the plot, we observe a positive correlation between ESS and accuracy in scalar GLA. This suggests that the scalar vs vectorized nature of $A$ does not impact the utility of the ESS metric as a predictor of performance on MQAR. \\n\\nSince running the sweep over the entirety of the task-model space explored in the paper takes substantial time given our compute budget, we are happy to run a more extensive set of experiments for the camera ready version and add a section to the appendix discussing the impact of a scalar vs vectorized $A$ on ESS. But again, we note that this axis of comparison is orthogonal to the central narrative of the work and would simply serve as an additional finding that is of potential interest to practitioners.\\n\\nWe thank the reviewer again for the points they have raised and hope our response above has clarified the use of scalar vs vectorized $A$ models in our work. \\n\\n[1] Songlin Yang., et al. \\\"Gated Linear Attention Transformers with Hardware-Efficient Training,\\\" in ArXiv, vol. abs/2312.06635, 2023.\"}", "{\"metareview\": \"## Summary\\nThe paper introduces the effective state size (ESS), a quantitative measure of memory utilization for sequence models. ESS analyzes how models store past information using input-invariant and input-varying linear operators, including attention, convolutions, and recurrences. Unlike prior approaches, ESS offers interpretable metrics that guide initialization, regularization, and model distillation improvements. The authors demonstrate ESS\\u2019s utility in enhancing performance and efficiency and analyzing differences in memory usage across architectures.\\n\\n## Decision\\n\\nThis paper presents interesting ideas and potential contributions; however, in its current form, it is not yet ready for publication at ICLR. As a result, this paper is being rejected due to several significant weaknesses highlighted by the reviewers, including concerns over clarity, presentation, novelty, and depth of analysis. The reviewers gave extensive feedback to the authors to improve their paper; overall, they did a decent job addressing them during the rebuttal period. The average score of the paper was pointing towards borderline. However, the reviewers thought the paper was still not ready yet. It seems like substantial revisions would be required to make the paper suitable for acceptance at this venue.\", \"additional_comments_on_reviewer_discussion\": \"The main reasons for rejection are summarized below, grouped by similar themes and with attribution to the respective reviewers:\\n\\n\\n\\nThe paper is being rejected due to several significant weaknesses highlighted by the reviewers, including concerns over clarity, presentation, novelty, and depth of analysis. The main reasons for rejection are summarized below, grouped by similar themes and with attribution to the respective reviewers:\", \"clarity_and_presentation_issues\": \"1.\\t**Overly Dense Content and Structure**:\\nReviewer 6qwH and Reviewer 77Pw noted that the paper attempts to cover too many aspects, making it difficult to follow. Reviewer 6qwH highlighted that related work is relegated to the appendix, and the figures are too small to read. At the same time, Reviewer 77Pw emphasized that key definitions and results require constant referencing of a lengthy appendix. Both reviewers suggested reorganizing the paper to improve readability.\\n\\n2.\\t**Ambiguous and Poorly Defined Terminology**:\\nReviewer 8oZA and Reviewer 77Pw pointed out that terms such as \\u201cstate saturation,\\u201d \\u201cstate collapse,\\u201d and \\u201ctotal ESS\\u201d are not adequately explained in the main text. Reviewer 77Pw also noted that the paper\\u2019s presentation of ESS as both an architectural property and an input-dependent metric is unclear.\\n\\n3.\\t**Lack of Emphasis on Key Contributions**:\\nReviewer o977 mentioned that with nine findings presented, the paper does not highlight which are most significant. This lack of focus diminishes the clarity of its main contributions.\", \"novelty_and_contribution_concerns\": \"4.\\t**Limited Originality in Core Results**:\\nReviewer 8oZA argued that the theoretical results on input-invariant recurrences rely on well-established concepts in realization theory and do not offer new insights. They also noted that the treatment of input-varying recurrences, which could represent the paper\\u2019s key novelty, is limited and lacks theoretical guarantees.\\n\\n5.\\t**Insufficient Discussion of Related Work**:\\nReviewer 6qwH and Reviewer 8oZA highlighted the lack of a thorough related work section in the main text. Reviewer 8oZA emphasized that the theoretical foundations are not properly contextualized with prior literature.\", \"experimental_and_methodological_weaknesses\": \"6.\\t**Lack of Comparison with Baselines**:\\nReviewer 6qwH observed that the paper does not adequately compare ESS with model size as a baseline for memory utilization, missing an opportunity to contextualize its contributions.\\n\\n7.\\t**Insufficient Analysis of Key Factors:**\\nReviewer o977 criticized the lack of analysis on memory utilization for longer sequences, which are critical for state-space and large language models. Similarly, Reviewer 3frp pointed out the absence of ablations on network depth and discussion on computational costs, both of which are critical for assessing scalability.\\n\\n8.\\t**Ambiguity in Terminology and Categorization:**\\nReviewer o977 mentioned that terms like GLA and WLA are unclear and inconsistently applied, complicating the interpretation of findings.\\n\\n9.\\t**Narrow Empirical Findings:**\\nReviewer 77Pw and Reviewer 6qwH argued that many findings are narrow in scope and not particularly impactful. Reviewer 77Pw also questioned the broader utility of the empirical results beyond the first finding.\\n\\nBased on this feedback provided by the reviewers, the paper falls short in its current state in terms of clarity, novelty, and methodological rigor.\"}", "{\"comment\": \"> - Figure 4b is a bit confusing to read since ESS and Accuracy are on the same axis. It would also to help explain the experimental process, as it seems there are multiple configurations and you take the mean accuracy across those.\\n\\nUnless specified otherwise, we take the average across sequence length, channels, and layers (we clarify this in Section 3.1). This approach is detailed in the appendix, and we have also added a note in the main text to clarify why we marginalize over these dimensions.\\n\\nThanks again for your thoughtful comments! We hope that our discourse regarding deeper, hybrid networks clarifies the questions you posed and that the rest of your concerns have been resolved by our revisions.\\n\\n[1] Michael Poli, et al, \\\"Mechanistic Design and Scaling of Hybrid Architectures,\\\" 2024.\\n\\n[2] Opher Lieber, undefined., et al, \\\"Jamba: A Hybrid Transformer-Mamba Language Model,\\\" 2024.\", \"title\": \"Response to reviewer 3frp continued\"}", "{\"comment\": \"We thank reviewer o977 for raising important points regarding our paper. To improve our work, we restructured the paper in order to address higher-level concerns with readability and density. Regarding your point in particular, we clarified our core contributions in the introductory section. We would also like to discuss the questions and weaknesses you raised here:\\n\\n> - The terms GLA and WLA are ambiguous. Why do the authors label the input-invariant A matrix as weighted linear attention? Because the softmax attention is also weighted. \\n\\nGated Linear Attention [1] is a sequence model with a recurrent update similar to Linear Attention. However, it incorporates a gating mechanism on the A matrix, analogous to other deep learning components like Gated Linear Units (GLUs). Weighted Linear Attention (WLA) is derived from Gated Linear Attention; instead of using a gating mechanism, the A matrix remains trainable but is no longer input-dependent. This approach effectively \\u201cweights\\u201d each state rather than \\u201cgating\\u201d it, hence the name Weighted Linear Attention. That said, we welcome any suggestions regarding revisions to the naming convention.\\n\\n> For the recurrence, did the authors investigate the A matrix in the vectorized shape or the scalar value shape? The vectorized A is used in many classical RNN papers as well as in S4, S5, and S6. However, the scalar value A is used in the recent Mamba2 paper and RetNet, which directly builds the connection between attention and state-space models. I think this choice can affect the memory utilization and also efficiency.\\n\\nWe investigated the effective state size for vectorized A matrices, focusing on ESS in models like GLA, WLA, and LA, which have vectorized A matrices of size d/h per channel. Additionally, we provide a derivation in the appendix, illustrating the progression from LA to a state-space model form similar to Mamba 1/2. \\n\\n> - Also, in line 242, the authors categorize Mamba as a GLA layer. However, Mamba or S6 is not exactly linear attention, although Mamba2 can be.\\n\\nWe agree that GLA is not identical to S6, though it is somewhat similar to Mamba2. Notably, GLA is like Mamba in its use of a vectorized A matrix rather than a scalar one, while its B and C projections more closely resemble those in Mamba2. We chose GLA because our primary goal was to examine ESS variations across a diverse range of model classes. Models like GLA, S6, Mamba2, and Liquid-S4 represent a class where A, B, and C are all input-dependent. In contrast, models like WLA, gated-convolutional models (e.g., RetNet and Hyena) have input-dependent B and C but not A (though A is trainable). Finally, linear attention models offer a case where B and C are input-dependent while A is fixed to an identity matrix. Given that the impact of these configurations on memory utilization is not fully understood, our aim was to compare models from these distinct classes with the fewest changes necessary; thus, we found it the most appropriate to compare using those models selected.\\n\\n> - Could the paper provide more discussion and analyses of memory utilization across different sequence lengths? I see the paper extends the analysis to a sequence length of 2048, but what about even longer sequences? Many state-space models highlight their long-context abilities more than attention, and long-context is also a crucial ability required in LLMs.\\n\\nWe maintain that our extension to sequence lengths of 2048 is sufficient for capturing the long-context regime as prior related works that work with synthetics such as [2] extend their models to a context length of only 512. Moreover, we note that although state-space models are understood to have strong long-context abilities, [3] contradicts this claim, and our results in Figure 7b also demonstrates similar performance drops of SSMs from sequence length of 512.\\n\\n> - What is the direct conclusion regarding the memory utilization of different linear operators? I didn\\u2019t find a direct conclusion or explanation in the findings.\\n\\nThe direct conclusion is that LA realizes better memory utilization on synthetics than GLA and WLA. We added this to Finding 3. \\n\\nThank you again for the detailed evaluation of our work! We hope that our revisions and clarifications address the concerns you have raised.\\n\\n[1] Songlin Yang, undefined., et al. \\\"Gated Linear Attention Transformers with Hardware-Efficient Training,\\\" in ArXiv, vol. abs/2312.06635, 2023.\\n\\n[2] Simran Arora, undefined., et al, \\\"Zoology: Measuring and Improving Recall in Efficient Language Models,\\\" 2023.\\n\\n[3] Samy Jelassi, undefined., et al, \\\"Repeat After Me: Transformers are Better than State Space Models at Copying,\\\" 2024.\", \"title\": \"Response to reviewer o977\"}", "{\"summary\": \"The paper frames many sequence modeling architectures as \\\"input-varying linear operators\\\" $u\\\\mapsto T(u)u$, with $u$ being the sequence features. It then focuses on the linear operator $T(u)$ and introduces the \\\"effective state size\\\" (ESS) of this operator as the minimal possible hidden size of the state of an SSM representing $T$. The paper demonstrates that ESS is a relevant measure of the capacity to process memory in the model and compares it favorably to \\\"total state rank\\\" (see discussion below on its definition). The paper also demonstrates how insights about ESS of a model can drive architecture development, initialization and regularization techniques. Finally, the paper shows that the ability to change ESS along the sequence is helpful for real models in bigram recall.\", \"soundness\": \"3\", \"presentation\": \"2\", \"contribution\": \"3\", \"strengths\": [\"The ESS measure is clever, well justified theoretically through Thm 2.1, 2.2, and, to the best of my knowledge, novel.\", \"Even just the rephrasing of other sequence models through the lens of input-dependent SSM parameters can be useful for the community.\", \"The paper performs _a lot_ of experiments to determine usefulness of ESS. I especially liked the insight of ESS saturation for the GLA model at initialization.\", \"The approach is fairly multi-disciplinary within ML, with insights from neural ODEs, SSMs, and control theory.\"], \"weaknesses\": [\"# Density\", \"This should have been a journal article. The paper wants to say so much, that the related work section is completely moved into the appendix! The paper attempts to cover extremely wide ground, from theory about ESS to experiments clarifying the notion to at least three fixes to the learning pipeline, and becomes very difficult to follow. In my view, in the current state the paper cannot be accepted even though the contributions are sufficient for ICLR. Hence, I am giving a 5/10, but I will happily adjust the score if the density concerns are addressed. This would require the following:\", \"Increasing the size of the figures (Fig. 2 and 3 would be impossible to read on paper)\", \"Moving some of the findings or the related discussions to the appendix. See below for some findings that could be suitable for that, but I will leave it up to authors to decide on the things to move.\", \"Reintroducing related work, even if just a couple of paragraphs, in the main text\", \"# Other concerns\", \"We already have a measure of model capabilities that is widely used by the practitioners and that, among other things, correlates with ability to store and recall memories. That is the model size (number of parameters). In my view, the biggest issue other than density is that the paper never discusses the size as a baseline, eg in Figure 2 when comparing TSS to ESS.\", \"The TSS measure, as discussed in appendix, is not a proper function of the operator T. While model size comes naturally with the architecture and hyperparams, TSS depends on a specific way of _rewriting_ the model's architecture. The paper mostly shows TSS in a negative light as an easy baseline for ESS. The need for introducing TSS is thus not clear to me.\", \"Finding 3 is too specific. I suspect that the \\\"state collapse\\\", namely the model not utilizing all of its potential, might also be relevant to hyperparameter selection.\", \"## Typos\", \"Fig 6a y axis: should this be ESS? The text talks about ESS, and I don't think TSS changes over time?\", \"Fig 5a axis \\\"vs\\\" instead of \\\"kv\\\"\"], \"questions\": [\"Although ESS is introduced as a per-token measure, when presenting most of the results (apart from last section) ESS is presented as a single value. Is it maximum, average, or some other statistic, and is there intuition for this?\", \"Finding 6 tells us that GLA and WLA perform worse than LA on assortative recall. This is surprising to me. Shouldn't architectures like Mamba outperform simple linear attention on such things? Maybe it is the specific task, but it was chosen by Poli et al (2024) to be specifically correlated with real-world performance.\", \"Related: if it is indeed ESS, how did authors compute it for Mamba 7B? The numbers are of the order of `6e6`, I am not sure we can run SVD on matrices with this number of this size.\"], \"flag_for_ethics_review\": \"['No ethics review needed.']\", \"rating\": \"6\", \"confidence\": \"3\", \"code_of_conduct\": \"Yes\"}", "{\"title\": \"Response to reviewer 8oZA\", \"comment\": \"We thank reviewer 8oZA for their continually detailed responses as well as the positive evaluation of our work. We respond to the points raised below.\\n\\n> 1. For the camera ready please include Mamba models, this would certainly help your work to increase its impact and guide many practicioners that tent to trust and use Mamba models more than other variants like GLA.\\n\\nThank you for the suggestion. We agree that these results will likely be useful for practitioners, and are happy to include ESS analysis on Mamba models analogous to what is currently in the paper for the camera ready version.\\n\\n> 2. I think this is a true statement in general but I don\\u2019t expect B and C to play a huge role in practice, since it is not likely that simplifications occur on trained models (i.e. the trained layers are fully observable/controllable) \\n\\nIn fact, ESS can be thought of as the minimum rank between the observability (state-output projection) and controllability (input-state projection) matrices (see Equation C.2.4), and because we observe phenomena such as state-collapse during training (Section 4.2), models can in fact simplify during training. \\n\\n> 3. Do authors have a better intuition or evidence to support the fact that using ESS rather than a simpler eigenvalues analysis can make a difference? \\n\\nSome intuition on this can be seen through the lens of weight decay on the $B$ and $C$ projection matrices. In particular, note that applying weight decay to $W_b$ and $W_c$ can lower the norm of $B$ and $C$ projections during training, which induces a decrease in ESS. **This is an example of something that cannot be captured by a simple eigenvalue analysis.** This may be one of the reasons why SSMs (like S4, S4D, RTF) typically set weight decay for $B$ and $C$ matrices to 0, while enabling it for other components of the model. However, as mentioned in our earlier response, we do agree that for simpler models (e.g. SISO + diagonal recurrence), there are findings obtained via an analysis of ESS that can also be uncovered with a simpler eigenvalue analysis. As the reviewer pointed out in an earlier response, this insight is leveraged in our mid-training analysis (Section A).\\n\\n> 4. Perhaps a simple baseline to test this could be to measure the complexity of the state by counting the number of eigenvalues grater than a given threshold and confirm whether this performs closely to ESS.\\n\\nWe tried this baseline for the state-modulation task on Mamba 2.8B and included the results in the supplementary material (Figure 33 is the corresponding ESS plot), a plot of which can also be found [here](https://github.com/iclr2025-ESS/rebuttal-figures/blob/main/state_modulation_A.pdf). We note the similarities and differences below:\\n- Both ESS and the number of eigenvalues above a threshold show a noticeable dip around the EOS tokens.\\n- ESS highlights the difference in the minimum state size needed to perform the same operation with different separator tokens. \\n- In contrast, using only the number of eigenvalues above a threshold to estimate the lower bound for state size is less informative, as the peak state sizes are very similar across both separator tokens.\\n\\nOne final note is that eigenvalue analysis is restricted to SSMs, which means that unlike ESS, it cannot be used to compare between GLA and SA.\\n\\nOnce again, we thank the reviewer for raising important questions and helping us further refine our work.\"}", "{\"title\": \"Response to reviewer 77Pw continued\", \"comment\": \"> 4. Beyond Finding 1, the other empirical findings seem to be very narrow and not especially useful or insightful.\\n\\nWith respect to your point about our findings being narrow, we note that in our work we aimed for breadth and not depth in the analyses we conducted, since the proposition of the ESS metric is itself novel. In particular, we aimed to showcase the potential for application across a wide domain and hope this inspires future, more in depth, work in some of the directions we have examined. \\n\\nWith respect to your point about our findings not being especially useful or insightful, we tend to disagree. While we agree that our findings on initialization and regularization have been explored before and ESS is simply providing a different lens as to the efficacy of these approaches, our findings on distillation and hybridization, to the extent of our knowledge, are entirely novel in that ESS provides perspectives on these two fields that was previously not known. Furthermore, in our extension to language, we note that our observation of state-modulation covers a large model space which sheds new light as to why certain models perform better on recall which is a very popular topic in the current age of machine learning.\\n\\n> 5. Similarly, how is the TSS different from the conventional notion of state size?\\n\\nTSS corresponds to the conventional concept of state size; however, we use the term 'theoretically realizable state-size' to emphasize its role as an upper bound for the effective state-size metric. This distinction highlights its interpretation as the model's memory capacity. Moreover, we also wanted to emphasize the fact that TSS is the state-size in the form written in Equation (1), and is related but not the same as implementation specific quantities like \\u201ccache-size\\u201d, which is often used analogously with \\u201cstate-size\\u201d.\\n\\n> 6. Minor: Why use the term \\\"input-varying linear operator\\\"? Input dependence typically renders the operator non-linear\\n\\nWe originally used the term 'operator' to refer to both the operator 'T' and the model as a whole. To clarify, we now use 'system' for the latter. Thus, 'input-varying linear operators' are now described as 'systems with input-varying linear operators.' and we now abbreviate this as LIVs to conform to classical conventions. This revision emphasizes that the models are 'systems' containing linear operators (i.e. matrix T) that vary with the input.\\n\\n> 7. Minor: I believe that any differentiable map $y = F(u)$ satisfying $F(0) = 0$ can be expressed in the form $y = M_F (u) u$\\n\\nWhile the framework is indeed broad, it is especially valuable for modern sequence models, most of which include a 'featurization' phase. In this phase, features like $A, B, C, D$ matrices for SSMs and $Q, K$ features for attention-like models are computed. After featurization, as noted in the paper, the model essentially becomes a simple linear system, allowing for the application of various efficient algorithms\\u2014particularly when the linear operator has known structures like semiseparable, Toeplitz, or low-rank. \\n\\nWe thank the reviewer again for their thoughtful review of our work! We hope that our revisions have improved clarity on the definition and formulation of the ESS metric and that our answers to your questions have resolved any outstanding concerns you may have.\"}", "{\"summary\": \"The authors introduce a metric called \\\"effective state size (ESS)\\\" to capture the memory utilization of sequence modeling architectures. They compare the correlation between ESS and accuracy across various tasks and architectures, finding that ESS shows a stronger correlation with performance than the \\\"theoretically realizable state size\\\" in the SSM equations. They use ESS to guide initialization strategies and regularization methods. They also observe that ESS dynamically changes in response to inputs, particularly at EOS tokens, noting that this modulation effect is more stronger in more performant architectures.\", \"soundness\": \"2\", \"presentation\": \"2\", \"contribution\": \"2\", \"strengths\": [\"Identifying quantitative measures to compare different language modeling architectures is an important and timely problem.\", \"The framework proposed by the authors is broadly applicable to many sequence modeling architectures.\", \"The idea of the ESS is natural and connected to classical ideas in control theory.\", \"The authors\\u2019 observations on the phenomenon of \\\"state modulation\\\" are interesting from a linguistic perspective.\"], \"weaknesses\": [\"While the concept of ESS is relatively straightforward, the paper is very difficult to read since it constantly refers to the appendix (which is 30+ pages long) for definitions and empirical results.\", \"Notation and plots are often not explained in the main text (e.g., the meaning of \\\"total ESS\\\").\", \"The core concept of ESS is not clearly defined; although the authors present it as an architectural property, it also depends on the input (as noted in Sec 4.2), so it should vary with both data and task.\", \"Key terms like \\\"state saturation\\\" and \\\"state collapse\\\" are introduced only informally.\", \"Although perhaps novel in this context, the basic idea of ESS is not new; for instance, it is closely related to the \\\"semiseparable rank\\\" in the Mamba2 paper.\", \"Beyond Finding 1, the other empirical findings seem to be very narrow and not especially useful or insightful.\"], \"questions\": [\"Can the authors provide a clear definition of ESS, explaining whether it is a function of the model or the data, and describe how it is computed in practice? The two approaches introduced in Section 2.4 do not seem to be ever discussed in the paper again.\", \"Similarly, how is the TSS different from the conventional notion of state size?\", \"Minor: Why use the term \\\"input-varying _linear_ operator\\\"? Input dependence typically renders the operator non-linear, and I believe that any differentiable map $y=F(u)$ satisfying $F(0)=0$ can be expressed in the form $y = M_F(u) u$\"], \"flag_for_ethics_review\": \"['No ethics review needed.']\", \"rating\": \"5\", \"confidence\": \"3\", \"code_of_conduct\": \"Yes\"}", "{\"title\": \"Response to reviewer 8oZA continued\", \"comment\": \"> 9. Results in Section 4.2 are not surprising nor specific to the proposed metric and are in general well known, see a similar analysis in [4, 5]. A simple analysis of the eigenvalues of the recurrent updates will lead to the same insights. Is ESS providing further insights?\\n\\nWe agree that the results in Section 4.2 (which has now been moved to the appendix in Section A) in particular are not very surprising in hindsight as having fast decaying eigenvalues results in low ESS, and therefore, we could\\u2019ve instead looked at the eigenvalues to have arrived at similar insights. We note, however, that these prior works demonstrate drawbacks of having a parametrization of the eigenvalues with norm less than 1. In this work, we additionally identify that not only is having a norm of less than 1 hurting recall ability, increasing the state-size is also futile if they all decay to values very close to 0, as it effectively does not increase memory utilization, and provide a very simple fix for it.\\n\\nMoreover, unlike the decay rates which do not capture the complexity/richness in the long range dependencies, ESS provides a metric that can be compared to TSS in order to assess how much of the memory capacity is actually realized. For instance, we see that GLA\\u2019s ESS where TSS = 16, ESS is very close to 16, but as state-size increases, the rate at which ESS increases with respect to TSS saturates. Mamba and GLA-S6 have significantly lower ESS at initialization, and all increases in ESS with larger TSS, but at a significantly slower rate (note that decay rates stay relatively constant even with increased state-size). We also see that after increasing arange norm beyond $2^{14}$, the ESS decreases for GLA-S6. These observations prompt further investigation into the parametrization of the different models, and is something that would not be captured if only looking at the eigenvalues and the rate of decay.\\n\\nFinally, we note that decay rates as measured by the eigenvalues of $A$ fail to directly capture dependencies from the input-to-state and state-to-output transitions given by the $B$ and $C$ matrices, respectively. In contrast, a metric like ESS does capture these aspects of the model. \\n\\n> 10. Can the authors further comment on ESS for hybrid models? Why the order of Attention and Recurrent layers matters and how does ESS can guide the user to those insights? Recent Hybrid models that are worth mentioning/commenting are [4, 6, 7].\\n\\nThank you for bringing the other works on hybrid models to our attention, we have added those citations to the paper. \\n\\nWe note that a full discourse on ESS in hybrids can be found in Section E.4.2, but we provide a distilled version of the interesting findings here in order to answer your questions. In hybrid networks with both 4 and 8 layers, we observe that models with lower ESS in their softmax attention layers tend to perform worse on MQAR compared to models with higher ESS in these layers. As you suggested, this relationship is influenced by both the order and number of attention layers within the network. A particularly notable finding is that placing attention in the first layer often results in significantly lower ESS, which correlates with decreased performance (see Figure 32a). This aligns with prior observations, such as in [B], which use a hybridization policy that avoids assigning attention to the first layer. Here, we see that ESS can guide the user to this insight, as a post-training ESS analysis on the hybrid network provides a concrete explanation as to why this design choice is effective. Concrete justifications as to why certain design choices are made when constructed hybrid networks is something that is currently lacking in works like [C, D]. This is something we hope can be resolved with ESS.\\n\\nHowever, making more general claims regarding the impact of hybrid network topology on ESS and performance requires more experiments and ablations, and this is something we intend to explore further in future work. We think that this could lead to the design of hybridization policies that are ESS-informed. \\n\\n[B] Opher Lieber., et al, \\\"Jamba: A Hybrid Transformer-Mamba Language Model,\\\" 2024.\\n\\n[C] Paolo Glorioso., et al, \\\"Zamba: A Compact 7B SSM Hybrid Model,\\\" 2024.\\n\\n[D] Soham De., et al, \\\"Griffin: Mixing Gated Linear Recurrences with Local Attention for Efficient Language Models,\\\" 2024.\"}", "{\"title\": \"Response to reviewer 3frp\", \"comment\": \"We thank the reviewer for their response and positive evaluation of our work! We will try to replot the hybridization results in a more readable manner for the camera ready version of the paper.\"}", "{\"title\": \"Response to authors\", \"comment\": \"I thank the authors for their response. I have reviewed the other reviewers responses and the authors corresponding comments. The authors have made steps to address my concerns, thus I have raised my confidence score from 2 to 3. I appreciate the clarification on total ESS vs. ESS, as well as the plot on hybridization in the appendix, although the plot is a bit difficult to interpret. I look forward to hearing the dialogue on the other reviews.\"}", "{\"title\": \"Updated rating, remaining issues with related work\", \"comment\": \"The authors did a thorough job in addressing my and other reviewers' concerns and streamlining the exposition of the paper. The new version is indeed more self-contained, and the figures are more readable. As a result, I am updating my score to 6, and recommend accepting the paper. I am also updating my confidence down to account for other reviewers' familiarity with the related work.\\n\\nRegarding the definition of TSS, I agree that it makes intuitive sense for SSMs or RNNs, but the choice to assign it proportional to the timestamp in transformer models seems not as justified, and provides an overly loose bound. I do suspect that in practice transformers have limited memory capacity, bounded by the dimension of the residual stream and the relevant attention matrices. Hence, ever-growing memory does not seem like a useful baseline. I do acknowledge that, to my knowledge, there is no standard way of measuring the memory in this case beyond hidden dimensions or model size, so lack of a baseline does not necessitate rejection in my opinion.\\n\\nRegarding the related work section, I appreciate that the authors introduce it in the paper, but some important references seem to still be missing. I believe it would be worth discussing classical results on non-input varying linear operators that reviewer 8oZA mentioned there. Furthermore, the references on semiseparable rank that the paper mentions in footnote 3 seem very relevant for the ESS metric, and their relation to current work should be moved to the related work. I found this comment from the reply of the authors to one of the reviewers insightful and relevant here:\\n> Indeed, ESS is connected to 'semiseparable rank,' which we observe can be conceptualized as the max(ESS) across sequence length. However, as presented in previous work [2, 3], semiseparable rank has been applied in a way that is more aligned with the notion of TSS to facilitate efficient algorithm design. This means that prior notions of semiseparable rank do not capture anything beyond model structure (i.e. input data, optimization, etc.). In this study, we provide complete derivations of ESS, clearly distinguish it from TSS, and demonstrate its effectiveness as a proxy for memory utilization in practical settings for modern LIV sequence models. This, in our view, is novel and is the core contribution of our work. Furthermore, applying the ideas of effective rank to produce the entropy-ESS metric has, to the best of our knowledge, never been done before.\\n\\nFinally, the authors cite Kaplan et al 2020 for scaling laws of language models. Kaplan's laws are now obsolete, and practitioners instead follow so-called \\\"Chinchilla scaling laws,\\\" given in [1]. It is worth citing those in addition to or instead of Kaplan.\\n\\n[1] Hoffmann, J., Borgeaud, S., Mensch, A., Buchatskaya, E., Cai, T., Rutherford, E., Casas, D.D.L., Hendricks, L.A., Welbl, J., Clark, A. and Hennigan, T., 2022. Training compute-optimal large language models. arXiv preprint arXiv:2203.15556.\"}", "{\"summary\": \"This paper introduces the notion of effective state size (ESS), and demonstrate that it correlates with downstream performance on recall-based tasks better than theoretical state size (TSS). The effective state size (ESS) is the smallest dimension required to represent the causal sequence operation as a linear recurrence. They test their method for a variety of training runs, and task complexities.\", \"soundness\": \"3\", \"presentation\": \"3\", \"contribution\": \"3\", \"strengths\": [\"The effective state size metric is intuitive and of conceptual value.\", \"The experiments show better correlation with accuracy on recall tasks than theoretical state size\", \"The method may be useful to compare the effective memory capabilities of different architectures, in contrast with their theoretical expressivity.\"], \"weaknesses\": [\"The paper seems to be lacking ablations on network depth, at least in the main body. Showing how the results change with the number of layers could make the paper stronger.\", \"There is little discussion about the computational costs of the method. The state sizes of modern SSMs like Mamba are very large, thus it would help to have some reassurance that the method is scalable to modern architectures.\", \"The authors briefly mention hybrid architectures in the main body. However, since Hybrid architectures are becoming more prominent, some further discussion might be warranted. Since Hybrid architectures have attention layers and skip connections, we might expect that they have full recall capabilities within their context window, which could permit the SSM layers memorize less in their state.\"], \"questions\": \"Line 142: I believe $C \\\\in \\\\mathbb{R}^{d \\\\times n_i}$ (dimensions should be swapped)\\n\\nHow expensive is it to compute the ESS?\\n\\n\\u201cwhich are comprised of two sequence mixing and two channel mixing layers) detailed above\\u201d. Do you do any ablations to consider effect of greater depth?\\n\\nWhat is (total ESS) vs ESS Figure 2?\\n\\nWhy such low correlation for WLA method with KV = 2^7 but high at 2^6?\\n\\nFigure 4b is a bit confusing to read since ESS and Accuracy are on the same axis. It would also to help explain the experimental process, as it seems there are multiple configurations and you take the mean accuracy across those.\", \"flag_for_ethics_review\": \"['No ethics review needed.']\", \"rating\": \"6\", \"confidence\": \"3\", \"code_of_conduct\": \"Yes\"}", "{\"comment\": \"Thank you very much for the constructive feedback. To improve the paper, we addressed the issue regarding the density (which other reviewers have also criticized directly and indirectly), and also reintroduced important concepts such as TSS into the main text.\\n\\nHere are the modifications made to the manuscript (as suggested) to address the points you made above:\\n\\n- We have increased sizes of Figure 2 and 3.\\n- We moved the mid-training experiments and discourse on hybridization in post-training to the appendix.\\n- Added a section dedicated to related works in the main text.\\n- Streamlined the theory section and removed information that is related to but not necessary for formalizing and interpreting ESS\\n- Streamlined the introductory section and more clearly emphasized the contributions of our work.\\n- Added a section dedicated to discussing TSS in greater detail in the main text.\\n\\nNext, we would like to discuss other concerns and questions raised:\\n> - We already have a measure of model capabilities that is widely used by the practitioners and that, among other things, correlates with ability to store and recall memories. That is the model size (number of parameters). In my view, the biggest issue other than density is that the paper never discusses the size as a baseline, eg in Figure 2 when comparing TSS to ESS.\\n> - The paper mostly shows TSS in a negative light as an easy baseline for ESS. The need for introducing TSS is thus not clear to me.\\n\\nThe primary objective of our paper is to explore how different sequence models utilize their memory by using ESS as a framework. While the correlation between model size and recall capability can provide some insights, it does not fully capture the way memory utilization varies across different models, especially given the influence of other factors like MLP size. In contrast, we find that TSS provides a more accurate benchmark, as it represents the theoretical maximum memory utilization (i.e. an upper bound on ESS). Moreover, we wanted to compare metrics that are more closely related to one another (ESS vs TSS), rather than (ESS vs model size). Therefore, we believe it serves as a more suitable baseline for evaluating our proxy. To clarify this further, we have added a dedicated section on explaining and contextualizing TSS.\\n\\n> - The TSS measure, as discussed in appendix, is not a proper function of the operator T. While model size comes naturally with the architecture and hyperparams, TSS depends on a specific way of rewriting the model's architecture. \\n\\nAs you rightly noted, TSS is not directly a function of the operator. In this paper, however, we use the conventional recurrence formulation for each model. Specifically, for state-space models, TSS corresponds to the state size. For models using softmax attention, where there is no recognized \\u201cminimal realization-agnostic\\u201d recurrent formulation, we use the trivial realization, with per-channel (i.e. average) TSS being equal to the sequence index. We also added the formulation of each model analyzed to the appendix and hope that the added section on TSS in the main text clarifies this point further. \\n\\n> Finding 3 is too specific. I suspect that the \\\"state collapse\\\", namely the model not utilizing all of its potential, might also be relevant to hyperparameter selection.\\n\\nWe agree that finding 3 as originally presented was too specific. **Taking advice from reviewer o977, we have added to that finding to clarify more generally that LA better utilizes its memory on synthetics than GLA or WLA.** However, we maintain that noting the specific observation of state collapse occurring for difficult tasks is still pertinent; heavy recall on long sequences is of great interest in language tasks and our finding holds across a large set of tasks and models (i.e. it is not restricted to a small, statistically-irrelevant set of hyperparameters in task-model space).\", \"title\": \"Response to reviewer 6qwH\"}", "{\"title\": \"Response to reviewer 77Pw (2/2)\", \"comment\": \"> 3. While flexibility in variations and aggregation strategies can be appropriate for interpretability tools aimed at informal / qualitative explorations (like attention maps), a paper proposing a new metric should in my view be more precise.\\n\\nYes, this is a fair point: the selection of the particular aggregation strategy and/or choosing how to deal with numerical precision via entropy-ESS vs tolerance-ESS is somewhat arbitrary. However, we also note that this is akin to other quantitative metrics like FLOPs: for example, there are multiple ways to determine the number of FLOPs of a single operation (some consider FMA as 2 operations, while others consider it as 1, depending on the analysis). Nonetheless, to be more precise and quantitative in our formulation of the ESS metric, we made the following changes to the paper:\\n\\n- We reframed the related works from the perspective of \\u201cquantifying memory utilization\\u201d instead of \\u201cquantitatively distinguishing sequence models\\u201d to de-emphasize the generally quantitative nature of the ESS metric and instead emphasize its ability to quantify memory utilization in particular \\n- We formulate ESS more precisely, by iterating from a formulation general to all linear systems to a formulation specific to multi-layer LIV SISO models. In particular, we start Section 3 by developing the notion of per-sequence index ESS which shows that ESS is a function of the sequence index. We note that this is a general, quantitative formulation that encompasses both linear systems and LIVs that realize an operator $T$. In particular, the per-sequence index ESS (which equals rank($H_i$)) precisely computes a lower bound of the TSS needed for realizing the same operation at that sequence index. \\n- Next, for SISO linear systems, we extend the per-sequence index ESS to the channel dimension by discussing the distinction between the ESS computation for SISO and MIMO models in the \\u201cComputational complexity of ESS\\u201d paragraph. We also elaborate on this in Section D.1. \\n- We wrote a new paragraph called \\u201cAggregation of ESS across model and data dimensions\\u201d which discusses ESS specifically in the context of multi-layer LIV SISO models since these are the models considered in our paper. This extends the per-channel, per-sequence index ESS discussed in the \\u201cComputational complexity of ESS\\u201d paragraph to the input (i.e batch) and layer dimensions as well.\\n- In this paragraph, we clarify that ESS in multi-layer LIV SISO models can be aggregated in various ways, but we justify the particular aggregations we employ in the paper. In particular, we provide a mathematical formulation of both the average ESS and total ESS to provide quantitative definitions for the metrics. We also clarify that references to ESS in the analysis section are referring to the average ESS.\\n- In Section 5.3 where we discuss state-modulation, we define another form of aggregation which we term $(\\\\textrm{total ESS})_i$ which is total ESS that is not marginalized along the sequence dimension. We explicitly state that we are qualitatively analyzing ESS in this case, since this form of aggregation produces a tensor as opposed to a single-number summary of the system. \\n\\n> 4. I would encourage the authors to consider either formalizing their treatment of ESS, or reframing their work as an exploratory analysis of the inner workings of sequence modeling architectures, without emphasizing the introduction of a quantitative metric.\\n\\nVia the changes described above, we aimed to be more precise and quantitative in our formulation of the ESS metric by specifying the modes of aggregation employed in this paper and providing the formulas used to compute ESS under the chosen aggregation schemes. \\n\\nHowever, we have also revised various parts of the paper to de-emphasize the quantitative nature of the ESS metric a bit since we agree that in the previous iteration of the paper, we did not appropriately acknowledge the certain degree of arbitrariness in choosing things like entropy vs tolerance ESS or the aggregation strategy. We hope that the current set of revisions have clarified the precise, quantitative nature of the average and total ESS metrics, but also made clear that these are not the only ways we can view ESS.\\n\\nWe thank the reviewer again for their response and hope our revisions have resolved the concerns that have been raised.\"}", "{\"title\": \"Meta-response to reviewers\", \"comment\": \"We thank all the reviewers for their thoughtful insights and suggestions.\", \"as_our_paper_aims_to_cover_a_broad_scope\": \"(1) laying out the theoretical groundwork for interpreting ESS as memory utilization, (2) empirically validating these theoretical interpretations, and (3) garnering insights from applying ESS in a wide range of applications, the majority of the weaknesses and questions were due to the density and presentation of the paper. To address this we made major revisions to the manuscript as follows:\\n1. We more clearly disambiguate between linear systems and systems with input-varying linear operators, the latter of which we now abbreviate by LIV to conform to classical convention.\\n2. We move the mid-training results (originally Section 4.2) and hybridization results (originally discussed briefly in Section 4.3), to the appendix in order to better highlight what we think are the central findings of the paper.\\n3. In Section 1, we modified the contributions section in order to more specifically highlight the core findings of the paper.\\n4. We have added a concise related works section (Section 2) in order to clarify how our work stands distinct with respect to prior works in the two following ways:\\n - We are extending results from classical linear systems theory to modern LIV sequence models\\n - We are applying the notions of effective rank to analyze LIVs which has, to the extent of our knowledge, not been done before\\n5. We have rewritten the theory section (now Section 3) as follows:\\n - We clarify that our novel contribution does not lie in the derivation of the theoretical results from minimal realization theory in linear systems, but rather in their extension to LIVs and demonstrating that this extension is empirically justified and can be applied to garner insights that can be used to improve performance in various settings\\n - We more thoroughly motivate and define ESS and TSS, discussing their interpretations and how they are distinct from one another\\n - We added a section to \\u201cComputing Effective State-Size\\u201d which clarifies the distinction between average and total ESS\\n - We added a section to \\u201cComputing Effective State-Size\\u201d which discusses the time complexity of computing the ESS metric and ways we can improve it\\n6. We have reduced the number of references to the appendix to make the work self-contained. As much as possible, we now reserve mentions of the appendix only for ease of reference for the reader.\\n\\nWe hope that our revisions resolve many of the reviewers' concerns and we continue to welcome any additional feedback for further improvement. Thank you again for the constructive feedback.\"}", "{\"title\": \"Response to reviewer 77Pw\", \"comment\": \"Thank you for the thorough review of our work. The weaknesses you have pointed out are entirely valid, and we have revised the manuscript to address them.\\n\\nFirstly, to improve the general readability, we clarified a few key concepts in the main text and reduced the density of the paper as follows. Please refer to the meta-review addressed to all reviewers for a high-level description of the structural modifications we made. To address the first two weaknesses you brought up, we made the following revisions in particular: \\n* Streamlined the theory section:\\n - Removed unnecessary (but related) equations and discussion, thereby reducing references to the appendix\\n - More clearly defined ESS as a metric, clarifying that unlike TSS it is a function of both the model and input data\\n - Contextualized ESS against the concept of semiseparable rank presented in Mamba2\\n - Discussed TSS in greater detail\\n - Added a section clarifying the distinction between average and total ESS and TSS\\n\\n* Streamlined the introductory section to more clearly emphasize the contributions of our work\\n\\nBeyond these general improvements, we would like to address specific weaknesses and questions raised by the reviewer:\\n\\n> 1. The core concept of ESS is not clearly defined; although the authors present it as an architectural property, it also depends on the input (as noted in Sec 4.2), so it should vary with both data and task. Can the authors provide a clear definition of ESS, explaining whether it is a function of the model or the data, and describe how it is computed in practice? The two approaches introduced in Section 2.4 do not seem to be ever discussed in the paper again.\\n\\nThank you for your insightful feedback. We agree that ESS reflects properties of both the architecture and the data, which allows us to investigate cross-architectural differences by applying the same input across different models (note that this is lacking from TSS). This approach also enables us to analyze ESS at a per-token level, as demonstrated in our state-modulation experiments. We've added a paragraph to clarify this in Section 3.1.\\n\\nRegarding how ESS is computed, we've added a paragraph to the paper titled \\\"Average vs total ESS\\\" which details how ESS is computed in practice. Additionally, we've added a paragraph titled \\\"Computational complexity of ESS\\\" which provides insight into how the time complexity of computing the ESS metrics scales as a function of the data and model. Both of these can be found in Section 3.1.\\n\\n> 2. Key terms like \\\"state saturation\\\" and \\\"state collapse\\\" are introduced only informally.\\n\\nWhile it is true that \\u201cstate saturation\\u201d and \\u201cstate collapse\\u201d are introduced informally, we aim to use those concepts similarly to a concept like \\u201cattention sink\\u201d [1], where the concepts help point to a phenomenon that recurs and has useful fixes (like through regularization as shown in the mid-training experiments). \\n\\n> 3. Although perhaps novel in this context, the basic idea of ESS is not new; for instance, it is closely related to the \\\"semiseparable rank\\\" in the Mamba2 paper.\\n\\nIndeed, ESS is connected to 'semiseparable rank,' which we observe can be conceptualized as the max(ESS) across sequence length. However, as presented in previous work [2, 3], semiseparable rank has been applied in a way that is more aligned with the notion of TSS to facilitate efficient algorithm design. This means that prior notions of semiseparable rank do not capture anything beyond model structure (i.e. input data, optimization, etc.). In this study, we provide complete derivations of ESS, clearly distinguish it from TSS, and demonstrate its effectiveness as a proxy for memory utilization in practical settings for modern LIV sequence models. This, in our view, is novel and is the core contribution of our work. Furthermore, applying the ideas of effective rank to produce the entropy-ESS metric has, to the best of our knowledge, never been done before. \\n\\n\\n[1] Guangxuan Xiao., et al, \\\"Efficient Streaming Language Models with Attention Sinks,\\\" 2024.\\n\\n[2] Tri Dao. Albert Gu, \\\"Transformers are SSMs: Generalized Models and Efficient Algorithms Through Structured State Space Duality,\\\" 2024.\\n\\n[3] R. Vandebril, M. Van Barel, N. Mastronardi. \\\"A note on the representation and definition of semiseparable matrices,\\\" in Numerical Linear Algebra with Applications, vol. 12, no. 8, pp. 839-858, 2005.\"}", "{\"comment\": \"We thank reviewer 3frp for the constructive feedback. We respond to your points below:\\n\\n> - There is little discussion about the computational costs of the method. The state sizes of modern SSMs like Mamba are very large, thus it would help to have some reassurance that the method is scalable to modern architectures.\\nHow expensive is it to compute the ESS?\\n\\nThank you for bringing this up. We have added a discussion about the computational cost of the method in the main text (Section 3.1). \\n\\n> - The paper seems to be lacking ablations on network depth, at least in the main body. Showing how the results change with the number of layers could make the paper stronger.\\n\\u201cwhich are comprised of two sequence mixing and two channel mixing layers) detailed above\\u201d. Do you do any ablations to consider effect of greater depth?\\nThe authors briefly mention hybrid architectures in the main body. However, since Hybrid architectures are becoming more prominent, some further discussion might be warranted. Since Hybrid architectures have attention layers and skip connections, we might expect that they have full recall capabilities within their context window, which could permit the SSM layers memorize less in their state.\\n\\nWe present results on network depths greater than two sequence mixing and two channel mixing layers in the hybridization experiments, which can be found in Section E.4.2. However, we note that ablating on network depth is not a central focus in this work since ESS itself is a novel metric and thus warrants detailed exploration in simpler network regimes (i.e. 2 layers). Furthermore, since we explore such a vast task-model space, it is quite costly to extend this analysis across another dimension (in this case network depth). This is in line with prior works like [1] which also restrict the scope of their models to 2 layers.\\n\\nNonetheless, some of the findings in the hybrid experiments provide some insight into the robustness of the ESS metric in deeper networks and is something that we are currently exploring as a part of our continued work on the research directions presented in this paper. Namely, in hybrid networks of both 4 and 8 layers, models that realize lower ESS in the softmax attention layers tend to perform worse on MQAR than models with attention layers that realize higher ESS. Furthermore, this realization is sensitive to both the order and number of attention layers in the network. One particularly interesting finding is that placing attention in the first layer of the network tends to result in significantly lower ESS (and also lower performance, see Figure 32a). This is in line with empirical observations in works like [2] which construct hybridization policies that avoid placing attention first. Note that ESS provides concrete intuition as to why this is a good design choice, which is something that is currently lacking in the space of hybrid model design. Making more general claims regarding the impact of hybrid network topology on ESS and performance requires more experiments and ablations, and this is something we intend to explore further in future work. \\n\\n> - Line 142: I believe \\u2026 (dimensions should be swapped)\\n\\nYes, thank you for pointing that out. It was a typo. \\n\\n> - What is (total ESS) vs ESS Figure 2?\\n\\nWe have added an explanation in the main text, which can be found in Section 3.1. Total ESS refers to a sum across all channels of the model layer, and average ESS refers to an average across the channels.\\n\\n> - Why such low correlation for WLA method with KV = 2^7 but high at 2^6?\\n\\nThis is the crux of the state collapse phenomenon we observe and elucidate in Section 4. In particular, a core finding of our work is that for difficult tasks (in the case of MQAR this is captured by a large number of key-value pairs), recurrent models with learnable A matrices like WLA tend to realize significantly lower ESS than a model like LA which has a fixed A. This is because during training, the model tends to learn values in A close to 0, leading to a fast decay across the sequence dimension which results in poor memory utilization.\", \"title\": \"Response to reviewer 3frp\"}", "{\"comment\": \"> - Although ESS is introduced as a per-token measure, when presenting most of the results (apart from last section) ESS is presented as a single value. Is it maximum, average, or some other statistic, and is there intuition for this?\\n\\nFor the most part, we use the average or sum across the sequence length and channels, which correspond to the average and total ESS respectively. However, we specify if we deviate from this and take the maximum. To further clarify this, we have also added a section in the \\u201cComputing Effective State-Size\\u201d section (Section 3.1) in order to explain this distinction. Generally, we find that the observed trends are not particularly sensitive to taking the average vs max and thus tend to present results where we take the average. However, a case where we do note a distinction is in the hybridization experiments (Section E.4.2) where we find that the max ESS more strongly correlates with performance than the average ESS. We can interpret the average ESS as a measure of memory utilization that takes into account all points in the sequence equally, whereas the max ESS is a measure of the highest level of memory utilization observed across the entire sequence length. It is possible that there are other settings where the max and average tell different stories, but for the most part, the analyses conducted in this work were not sensitive to this choice. \\n\\n> - Finding 6 tells us that GLA and WLA perform worse than LA on assortative recall. This is surprising to me. Shouldn't architectures like Mamba outperform simple linear attention on such things? Maybe it is the specific task, but it was chosen by Poli et al (2024) to be specifically correlated with real-world performance.\\n\\nWe, too, were initially surprised by these results, because as you noted, GLA and WLA are strictly more expressive than LA. However, after examining ESS in both initialization-phase and mid-training experiments, we believe this outcome stems from a trainability issue (which is observed most notably in the state collapse regime). Specifically, signals from the distant past tend to decay exponentially (resulting in low ESS) because the eigenvalues of the state-transition matrices are parameterized to be less than 1. In language modeling, we think the need for effective state modulation outweighs the requirement for stable long-range training signals, which explains the opposite trend we observe when evaluating bigram recall perplexity.\\n\\n> - Related: if it is indeed ESS, how did authors compute it for Mamba 7B? The numbers are of the order of 6e6, I am not sure we can run SVD on matrices with this number of this size.\\n\\nModels like Mamba, Softmax Attention, Linear Attention, and S4 use single-input-single-output recurrences, meaning there is no channel mixing within the recurrence. This feature is beneficial for calculating ESS, as it allows us to calculate ESS independently for each channel (and hence system) and then sum them (i.e. total ESS which is described in Section 3.1). In this particular analysis, we also summed ESS across layers, resulting in values on the order of 6e6. Importantly, the actual computation does not require taking SVDs of matrices of this size, as we can decompose the calculation into smaller matrices since we can compute SVDs on the operators for each channel individually instead of computing a single SVD on an operator that comprises all channels. \\n\\nAgain, thank you for your thorough attention to detail when reviewing our work! We hope that our revisions resolve your primary concerns with the readability/density of the paper.\", \"title\": \"Response to reviewer 6qwH continued\"}", "{\"title\": \"Follow-up on previous response\", \"comment\": \"As we approach the end of the discussion period, we would like to follow up on our previous responses to ensure that they have adequately addressed the concerns raised in your previous review. If you have any additional questions, we are happy to provide further clarification.\"}", "{\"title\": \"Response to reviewer 77Pw\", \"comment\": \"We thank the reviewer for their response and respond to the points raised below:\\n\\nRegarding the lack of a clear definition for the ESS metric, we tend to disagree. In the paper (line 180), there is a single, clear definition presented: ESS = rank($H_i$). The reason there are two ways of computing this rank is consistent with how rank is computed numerically in practice. Namely, the two canonical approaches are numerical rank (which corresponds to tolerance ESS) and effective rank (which corresponds to entropy ESS). There are different ways of aggregating it, simply due to the shape of the data and model. This is no different from other interpretability metrics like attention maps, which also have to choose which model/data dimensions to marginalize across to make the analysis more tractable. In fact, given the quantitative nature of the ESS metric, it is more concise in its presentation of information than a qualitative visualization of an attention map.\\n\\nRegarding the limited novelty of the idea, while we agree that there are ideas presented in our work that are similar to those found in previous works like Mamba-2, we maintain that the ESS metric in the context of LIV systems is novel. In particular, there are no prior works that apply minimal realization theory to input-varying linear operators (LIVs) which forms the basis for the ESS metric. LIVs are of great practical interest in deep learning, since many sequence models can be formulated under this framework. Furthermore, our results go on to demonstrate that the ESS metric is more correlated with performance on recall tasks than TSS is, which demonstrates the usefulness of ESS beyond its interpretability. Regarding the note on other reviewers citing lack of novelty, we note that only reviewer 8oZA made such comments and the main issue brought up here was with respect to our initial presentation of theory which suggested that the proofs we used from existing results on linear systems were novel, when in fact they are not. We have reworded the theory section to clarify this misconception. \\n\\nWe thank the reviewer again for their time and hope they will reconsider their score in lieu of our above responses.\"}", "{\"title\": \"Response to reviewer 77Pw (1/2)\", \"comment\": \"We thank the reviewer for their insightful response, and agree with most of the points raised. As such, we have made significant revisions to the manuscript, which are detailed below.\\n\\n> 1. I respectfully disagree that simply writing ESS=rank(Hi) is a clear definition. For example, this expression hides what ESS depends on as a function, and writing something like ESS(x)i would be better to highlight dependence on the input and timestep.\\n\\nThank you for clarifying what you meant by this. We agree that only writing ESS = rank($H_i$) is not a clear definition without appropriate elaboration. In lieu of this, in our revision, we clarify that for LIV systems (which are the models we consider in this paper) ESS is input dependent (for example in line 184 of the paper). Additionally, we revised the paper to clarify that rank($H_i$) computes the state-size for all $d$ channels, but for SISO models in particular (where we can perform a per-channel computation of ESS), we can view ESS as a per-channel metric. Initially, we made this logical leap without spelling it out.\\n\\nHowever, since the general formulation of ESS applies to both input-varying and input-invariant models, we still use ESS = rank($H_i$). When specifically discussing the multi-layer LIV SISO models used in this paper, we explicitly formulate ESS as a function of the input, sequence index, channel, and layer number as requested by the reviewer. \\n\\n> 2. Incidentally, the term \\\"state size\\\" may be somewhat misleading, since typically the size of the state -- defined as a summary statistic of the entire past -- should either be constant or increase over time.\\n\\nYes, we agree that the typical notion of state-size is as you described. However, we want to create a proxy for memory utilization, and therefore we think it's sensible that the state-size can vary non-monotonically depending on the conditions of the input. For example, the primary mechanism of \\\"selective\\\" SSMs that modulate the content of the recurrent state is akin to the \\\"forget gates\\\" in LSTMs, which ESS (a proxy for memory utilization) is able to capture (for selective SSMs like S6 or GLA).\"}", "{\"title\": \"Follow-up on previous response\", \"comment\": \"As we approach the end of the discussion period, we would like to follow up on our previous responses to ensure that they have adequately addressed the concerns raised in your previous review. If you have any additional questions, we are happy to provide further clarification.\"}", "{\"title\": \"Paper Decision\", \"decision\": \"Reject\"}", "{\"summary\": \"The paper provides detailed analyses of memory utilization for many input-invariant and input-varying linear operators, including attention, convolutions, and recurrences. It introduces the metric called effective state size by leveraging rank or entropy. This metric is used to evaluate and compare the memory utilization of different linear operators from three model phases: initialization, mid-training, and post-training, with a lot of findings. The authors also showed using this to get better performance through better initialization, normalization, and distillation.\", \"soundness\": \"2\", \"presentation\": \"2\", \"contribution\": \"3\", \"strengths\": [\"The paper proposes considering memory utilization to evaluate the performance of various linear operators. Specifically, it introduces two metrics to measure effective state size, which can serve as a proxy for memory utilization.\", \"Empirical experiments are conducted across different phases of model training, yielding many interesting findings.\", \"The analyses of memory utilization may help people better understand the behavior and performance of different models and inspire further improvements.\"], \"weaknesses\": [\"For the recurrence, did the authors investigate the A matrix in the vectorized shape or the scalar value shape? The vectorized A is used in many classical RNN papers as well as in S4, S5, and S6. However, the scalar value A is used in the recent Mamba2 paper and RetNet, which directly builds the connection between attention and state-space models. I think this choice can affect the memory utilization and also efficiency.\", \"Could the paper provide more discussion and analyses of memory utilization across different sequence lengths? I see the paper extends the analysis to a sequence length of 2048, but what about even longer sequences? Many state-space models highlight their long-context abilities more than attention, and long-context is also a crucial ability required in LLMs.\", \"While there are many findings (9 in the main paper) related to memory utilization, I wonder which are the most important. Could the authors highlight the most meaningful findings, perhaps in the introduction, to better emphasize the paper's contribution?\", \"What is the direct conclusion regarding the memory utilization of different linear operators? I didn\\u2019t find a direct conclusion or explanation in the findings.\", \"The terms GLA and WLA are ambiguous. Why do the authors label the input-invariant A matrix as weighted linear attention? Because the softmax attention is also weighted. Also, in line 242, the authors categorize Mamba as a GLA layer. However, Mamba or S6 is not exactly linear attention, although Mamba2 can be.\"], \"questions\": \"Please see the weakness part.\", \"flag_for_ethics_review\": \"['No ethics review needed.']\", \"rating\": \"5\", \"confidence\": \"4\", \"code_of_conduct\": \"Yes\"}", "{\"title\": \"Response to reviewer 8oZA continued\", \"comment\": \"> 11. Why in Figure 6 the ESS decreases (almost symmetrically) near the end of the plot? And why do we expect dips in the ESS to account for a state reset? Take for example a LTI system whose state is set to zero at some random point in an interval of length N (where N is the LTI\\u2019s state dimension). The ESS value should not change since the state dimension is a structural property of the dynamical system being studied and not of the specific values taken by the state.\\n\\nESS for LTI and LTV is a measure of state-size in the sense that it looks at the number of states required to store from the past to process the future. Therefore, the state-size at the ends are not constrained by the model, but rather by the sequence index. Early sequences have less information to store, and vice versa, when there are not many tokens left to process, it doesn't require as many states. \\n\\nLTI systems cannot have the state reset to zero, without external intervention, and ESS doesn\\u2019t capture such external interventions. To model a state of a LTI system being reset, we can set $A$ and $B$ to 0 at some specific time-step, note that this actually converts the model to an LTV system instead. When $A$ and $B$ are set to 0, the rank of the submatrices will drop because $T_{ij} = C_i A_{i-1} \\\\cdots A_{j+1} B_j$\\n\\nThe dips are not caused by us explicitly resetting, the dips are caused by sending EOS tokens, and the finding is interesting because it shows that some models experience larger dips in state-size compared to others due to this EOS token. Also note that the phenomenon also occurs without the EOS token (using a period instead), but to a lower degree.\\n\\n> 12. Minor: Rewrite contributions and typos\\n\\nWe have addressed both of these. Please refer to the meta-review addressed to all reviewers for information on how the contributions section was restructured. And yes, this was a typo: thank you for bringing it to our attention.\\n\\nWe thank the reviewer again for their thoughtful review! We hope our responses and revisions have adequately addressed the weaknesses and questions you've posed.\"}", "{\"summary\": \"The paper proposes a quantitative measure of memory utilization for modern causal Large Language Models (LLMs). The proposed metric, called Effective State-Size (ESS) is obtained following standard results of realization theory of dynamical systems and can be used to analyze models employing different time mixing layers like Attention, convolutions and more recent (Selective) State Space Models. The paper shows that ESS is informative of the quality of initialization and regularization strategies for LLMs\\u2019 training.\", \"soundness\": \"3\", \"presentation\": \"2\", \"contribution\": \"2\", \"strengths\": \"The paper addresses an important and timely question on how modern LLMs\\u2019 sequence mixing layers modulate memory. The proposed metric ESS that is derived for input-invariant dynamical systems can be applied to many different modern architectures and is sound, as it is directly derived from standard results in realization theory of dynamical systems.\", \"weaknesses\": \"Novelty, the paper argues (Line 108) that one of the main contributions is to prove that the rank of submatrices of the input-output causal operator T determines the minimally realizable state-size of the recurrent operator. There is nothing to prove, this is textbook material reported verbatim from realization theory of linear time invariant dynamical systems. Please make sure to point the reader to proper textbook material for both Theorem 2.1 and Theorem 2.2, see [1, 2, 3].\\n\\nWhile the main results on linear input-invariant recurrences are well known, in practice modern LLMs utilize input varying recurrences which are not as straightforward to analyze. This latter case is quickly and vaguely described in a single paragraph (starting in Line 175). This is the key novelty and contribution of the paper (aside from the empirical validation), however the current manuscript does not provide any theoretical guarantees and only describes, non-tight, bounds on the ESS of an input-varying recurrence using its input-invariant counterpart. \\n\\nA thorough related work section is missing, please consider adding one in the main text. Some references to complement the ones already cited that might be helpful to the readers are provided below (Questions section).\", \"questions\": \"1. The paragraph starting in Line 175 is unfocused and hard to read, yet it should be the key novel contribution of the paper. How should one define ESS for input-varying recurrences in theory? The ESS needs to depend on the specific input being considered and can, indeed, oscillate depending on the type of the input signals. Have the authors considered using a set of test reference signals or an optimization procedure over the space of sequences of a given length that maximize the required state dimension of their equivalent realization? Are these feasible choices in practice? A deeper discussion about other possible choices that are more theoretically motivated yet not feasible in practice would be beneficial for the reader.\\n2. Why ESS definitions in Eq. (3) and (4) do not depend on the time index i? Given a sequence and a linear input-invariant system of finite order, one needs to progressively increase the sequence length of the Hankel submatrices until the rank stabilizes to the value of the state dimension. However, Equations (3) and (4) do not scan over different sequence lengths. \\n3. Why in the empirical validation (section 3) Mamba-1 model has not been validated? I am specifically referring to Mamba-1 and not Mamba-2 since the latter is already closely matched by GLA that is already discussed by the authors.\\n4. Can the authors explicitly define TSS for each architecture used in the empirical section? \\n5. Figure 3 is quite strange, GLA and WLA are strictly more expressive than LA yet accuracy of the latter is higher across all evaluations. Is it possible that this is due to some training instability/poor optimization/parametrization? Can the authors contextualize their results in light of the empirical study conducted in [5], specifically in Section 3.4? In particular, highlighting the relationship of fast decaying eigenvalues and normalization at initialization (this is relevant also for your section 4.1).\\n6. Results in Section 4.2 are not surprising nor specific to the proposed metric and are in general well known, see a similar analysis in [4, 5]. A simple analysis of the eigenvalues of the recurrent updates will lead to the same insights. Is ESS providing further insights? \\n7. Can the authors further comment on ESS for hybrid models? Why the order of Attention and Recurrent layers matters and how does ESS can guide the user to those insights? Recent Hybrid models that are worth mentioning/commenting are [4, 6, 7].\\n8. Why in Figure 6 the ESS decreases (almost symmetrically) near the end of the plot? And why do we expect dips in the ESS to account for a state reset? Take for example a LTI system whose state is set to zero at some random point in an interval of length N (where N is the LTI\\u2019s state dimension). The ESS value should not change since the state dimension is a structural property of the dynamical system being studied and not of the specific values taken by the state.\", \"minor\": \"- Contributions\\u2019 section is rather generic; it is worth rewriting it. \\n- Line 142 typo on the dimension of C_i. Why does the dimension of the A matrix change? Is it to cover the Attention layers whose state needs to increase as the processed sequence length increases? \\n- Line 235 typo: \\u201cas is pertains\\u201d.\\n\\n\\n[1] B. L. HO, R.E. Kalman, \\u201cEffective construction of linear state-variable models from input/output functions.\\u201d, Regelungstechnik, vol. 14, pp. 545-548, 1966.\\n\\n[2] Akaike. H. (1974b). Stochastic theory of minimal realization. IEEE Trans. Automatic Control. AC-19:667-674.\\n\\n[3] L. Ljung, \\u201cSystem Identification: Theory for the User\\u201d, Prentice Hall, 1999.\\n\\n[4] L. Zancato et al., \\u201cB'MOJO: Hybrid State Space Realizations of Foundation Models with Eidetic and Fading Memory\\u201d. arXiv preprint arXiv:2407.06324 (2024).\\n \\n[5] A. Orvieto et al., \\u201cResurrecting Recurrent Neural Networks for Long Sequences\\u201d, PMLR 202:26670-26698, 2023.\\n\\n[6] De, Soham, et al. \\\"Griffin: Mixing gated linear recurrences with local attention for efficient language models.\\\" arXiv preprint arXiv:2402.19427 (2024).\\n\\n[7] P. Glorioso, et al. \\\"Zamba: A Compact 7B SSM Hybrid Model.\\\" arXiv preprint arXiv:2405.16712 (2024).\", \"flag_for_ethics_review\": \"['No ethics review needed.']\", \"rating\": \"6\", \"confidence\": \"5\", \"code_of_conduct\": \"Yes\"}", "{\"title\": \"Addressing final concerns from reviewer 6qwH\", \"comment\": \"We thank the reviewer for the positive evaluation of our work! We respond to the last couple of points they raised below.\\n\\nRegarding the points on TSS, we agree with the observation that attention in practice does not realize an unbounded memory capacity. In particular, we have also observed that the ESS of attention models at initialization grows sublinearly as a function of sequence length, indicating a potentially limited memory capacity. As the reviewer hints at, this suggests that it may be possible to find alternative formulations that take advantage of this observation. However, as mentioned by the reviewer, such recurrent formulations, to the best of our knowledge, do not yet exist; therefore, the reasonable baselines to use are TSS (hidden dimension * sequence length) or model size (both of which we discuss in the paper). \\n\\nRegarding the points about the related work, we agree with all them. We have added some discourse on semiseparable rank to the related work, added in the remaining references suggested by reviewer 8oZA and changed the scaling laws reference to the paper suggested by the reviewer. \\n\\nWe thank the reviewer again for their attention to detail in reviewing our work!\"}", "{\"comment\": \"Thank you for your thorough and clear responses! Most of my concerns have been addressed, and I appreciate the authors' willingness to revise parts of the previous manuscript. I am raising my score as a result.\", \"i_have_two_last_comments\": \"> 6. Why in the empirical validation (section 3) Mamba-1 model has not been validated? I am specifically referring to Mamba-1 and not Mamba-2 since the latter is already closely matched by GLA that is already discussed by the authors.\\n\\nFor the camera ready please include Mamba models, this would certainly help your work to increase its impact and guide many practicioners that tent to trust and use Mamba models more than other variants like GLA.\\n\\n> Finally, we note that decay rates as measured by the eigenvalues of A fail to directly capture dependencies from the input-to-state and state-to-output transitions given by the B and C matrices, respectively. In contrast, a metric like ESS does capture these aspects of the model.\\n\\nI think this is a true statement in general but I don\\u2019t expect B and C to play a huge role in practice, since it is not likely that simplifications occur on trained models (i.e. the trained layers are fully observable/controllable) do authors have a better intuition or evidence to support the fact that using ESS rather than a simpler eigenvalues analysis can make a difference? Perhaps a simple baseline to test this could be to measure the complexity of the state by counting the number of eigenvalues grater than a given threshold and confirm whether this performs closely to ESS.\"}", "{\"title\": \"post-rebuttal\", \"comment\": \"I thank the authors for their response. Part of my concerns are addressed. However, I disagree with the author\\u2019s claim that they \\\"focus on vectorized A matrices, specifically in models like GLA, WLA, and LA, which have vectorized A matrices of size d/h per channel.\\\" In linear attention or general attention mechanisms, scalar A is used per head rather than vectorized A. This can be observed in models like Mamba2 (and RetNet) that they employed scalar A and thus demonstrated that \\\"transformers are SSMs.\\\" With vectorized A matrix, parallel scan can only be adopted for fast training rather than the same sequence length parallelism as in attention.\\n\\nTo conclude, my concern is that while attention uses scalar A per head and the paper focuses on vectorized A, it is unclear how the paper categorizes all these methods under the names of (gated or weighted) linear attention. Also, I checked the models that the paper investigated and found that some models adopt scalar A while others use vectorized A. These two kinds of designs bring different efficiency and accuracy differences, but the paper doesn't distinguish them in its statements and experimental comparisons.\\n\\nThus, I tend to maintain my score.\"}" ] }

[ "Francesco Bacchiocchi", "Francesco Emanuele Stradi", "Matteo Castiglioni", "Alberto Marchesi", "Nicola Gatti" ]

[ "Bayesian Persuasion", "Online Learning", "Markov Persuasion Process" ]

{ "note_id": [ "yFOPMcMxEu", "rXTDXy6p3v", "kqvkJQdcee", "i6xegOLk6i", "gu4q1mV2YK", "baEAKc6joc", "alIv7GAxib", "YVjWwaREde", "T4hOyPcA2F", "S7aXt9bH3B", "JbGmJbenQO", "Hl2KZvrgcz", "FEwoOuhBDM", "509hLwUZzu", "09nMxl8pNd" ], "note_type": [ "meta_review", "official_comment", "official_review", "official_comment", "official_review", "official_comment", "official_review", "official_comment", "official_comment", "official_review", "official_comment", "official_review", "official_comment", "decision", "official_comment" ], "note_created": [ 1734642349946, 1732160684435, 1731281202173, 1732005416899, 1730694621058, 1732005114595, 1730692571087, 1732356197455, 1732004910031, 1729604826783, 1732005204519, 1730701881358, 1732162719719, 1737524054724, 1732004756807 ], "note_signatures": [ [ "ICLR.cc/2025/Conference/Submission10452/Area_Chair_F64R" ], [ "ICLR.cc/2025/Conference/Submission10452/Reviewer_AiNi" ], [ "ICLR.cc/2025/Conference/Submission10452/Reviewer_KHBX" ], [ "ICLR.cc/2025/Conference/Submission10452/Authors" ], [ "ICLR.cc/2025/Conference/Submission10452/Reviewer_Cbov" ], [ "ICLR.cc/2025/Conference/Submission10452/Authors" ], [ "ICLR.cc/2025/Conference/Submission10452/Reviewer_aYUy" ], [ "ICLR.cc/2025/Conference/Submission10452/Reviewer_Cbov" ], [ "ICLR.cc/2025/Conference/Submission10452/Authors" ], [ "ICLR.cc/2025/Conference/Submission10452/Reviewer_AiNi" ], [ "ICLR.cc/2025/Conference/Submission10452/Authors" ], [ "ICLR.cc/2025/Conference/Submission10452/Reviewer_w5p2" ], [ "ICLR.cc/2025/Conference/Submission10452/Reviewer_w5p2" ], [ "ICLR.cc/2025/Conference/Program_Chairs" ], [ "ICLR.cc/2025/Conference/Submission10452/Authors" ] ], "structured_content_str": [ "{\"metareview\": \"The reviewers acknowledged that the paper investigates an interesting problem setting in sequential Bayesian persuasion where a sender has limited information about the receiver and provides a thorough theoretical analysis for this setting. However, the reviewers pointed out several weaknesses and shared common concerns related to the limited novelty w.r.t. the prior work. We want to thank the authors for their detailed responses. Based on the raised concerns and follow-up discussions, unfortunately, the final decision is a rejection. Nevertheless, the reviewers have provided detailed and constructive feedback. We hope the authors can incorporate this feedback when preparing future revisions of the paper.\", \"additional_comments_on_reviewer_discussion\": \"The reviewers pointed out several weaknesses and shared common concerns related to the limited novelty w.r.t. the prior work. There was a consensus among the reviewers that the paper is not ready for acceptance.\"}", "{\"comment\": \"Thank you for the response, it has helped me understand the paper better. I think the comparison with Wu et al in the current version of the paper is okay, but I think including an even more explicit and direct comparison with Wu et al would make it easier for future reviewers to judge the paper.\\n\\nI can understand the reasoning behind omitting the discussion of real-world applications due to space constraints, but I think that is pretty important to include, actually more important than some of the technical details. I also understand that the MPP model was defined prior to your work, but I think it is still worth justifying why this is an important problem to work on.\\n\\nI will maintain my score.\"}", "{\"summary\": \"This paper considers learning in a Markov persuasion process (MPP) where the learner cannot take actions directly, and must persuade a receiver to take the intended action. The focus is on the setting where the learner is not aware of the receiver's reward function and must guarantee that both the regret in total reward and violation of persuasion constraints is sublinear in $T$. The authors consider two settings -- (a) full feedback setting where the learner observes the rewards for all the actions at a time-step, and (b) partial feedback setting where the learner observes rewards only for the chosen action.\\n\\nThe authors propose an optimistic planning based algorithm which finds persuasive policy by being optimistic according to sender's rewards and receiver's persuasion constraints. For the full feedback setting the reward regret and violation of constraints is $O(\\\\sqrt{T})$, whereas for the partial feedback setting there is a trade-off between regret in reward and violation of constraints.\", \"soundness\": \"3\", \"presentation\": \"3\", \"contribution\": \"2\", \"strengths\": \"The authors consider an interesting extension of MPP when the sender is unware of the receiver's rewards and must learn them over time. The algorithms and the main ideas are explained clearly in the paper. It's also interesting to see that the authors provide a trade-off between the reward regret and the violation of persuasion constraints.\", \"weaknesses\": \"1. The authors claim that it is impossible to satisfy persuasive constraints at all rounds. However, the negative result is provided only for the partial feedback setting, and I wonder if one can avoid the negative result for the full feedback setting. If so, it makes more sense to study a version of MPP where the constraints are satisfied with high probability. In general, I favour the guarantee of high probability persuasion compared to providing only upper bound on the total amount of violation. Since we cannot make any assumption about receiver's preferences, it is not clear whether the receivers will still follow the sender's recommendation.\\n\\n2. The proposed algorithms and the proof techniques are very similar to prior work (in particular Bernasconi et. al. 2022 or Gan et. al. 2024). All these works propose explore then exploit (based on optimistic planning) algorithm for persuasion problems. So the authors need to clarify what are the technical difficulties in the analysis in this paper.\\n\\n3. It is not clear that the optimistic planning problem can be solved efficiently i.e. poly(|X|, |A|, L) time.\\n\\n4. Finally, the authors consider only tabular MDPs. The original paper on MPP did consider more general MDPs and without such extensions, it is not clear whether the result generalizes.\", \"questions\": \"1. What is the trade-off between reward regret and constraint violation for the full feedback setting?\\n\\n2. What is the time-complexity of Opt-Opt problem (2)?\\n\\n3. Can you generalize your results beyond tabular MDP?\", \"flag_for_ethics_review\": \"['No ethics review needed.']\", \"rating\": \"3\", \"confidence\": \"5\", \"code_of_conduct\": \"Yes\"}", "{\"comment\": \"We agree with the Reviewer's comparison between our work and [1]. Here, we provide a detailed answer to each point.\\n\\n> (A) and (B). I argue that typically in RL theory, most of the technical difficulty comes from learning the transition function, and knowing the reward function doesn\\u2019t help much. The distinction between stochastic and deterministic rewards is also typically not significant. To semi-formalize this, I argue below that for {0,1} rewards, any no-regret algorithm for MDPs with known deterministic rewards can also solve MDPs with unknown stochastic rewards. This reduction breaks down for more general rewards than {0,1}, but I think the conceptual takeaway still holds: that most of the difficulty comes from learning the transition function. Also note that {0,1} rewards are sufficient for most RL lower bounds [2].\\n\\nWe agree with the Reviewer\\u2019s arguments. However, we would like to point out that the main challenges tackled in our paper do not stem from rewards being stochastic, but rather on the fact that both the transitions and the receiver\\u2019s utility functions are unknown, as the Reviewer noticed, and the particular type of feedback received by the learner in our setting. Notice that the knowledge of the receiver\\u2019s utility is crucial in our framework to achieve the desired incentive compatibility. In this work, we decided to work with stochastic rewards rather than simplifying to deterministic ones since notation was not excessively cluttering. \\n\\n> (C). I would guess that since the reward function for each episode is iid, their average quickly converges to the mean, such that this does not add much difficulty. However, I may be wrong, and I could imagine this component adding some novelty to the paper.\\n\\nThe Reviewer is right, stuff converges quickly so it is easy to achieve a $O(T^{2/3})$ regret/violation bound. The main challenge in our setting is how to guarantee a $O(T^{\\\\alpha})$ regret and $O(T^{1 - \\\\alpha/2})$ violation, for each $\\\\alpha \\\\in [1/2, 1]$. Indeed, this was still an open problem in similar settings. Notice that Bernasconi et. al. (2022) achieve such guarantees only when $\\\\alpha \\\\in [1/2, 2/3]$. Furthermore, the incentive compatibility constraints introduce partial observability in the feedback that the sender receives regarding the constraints at each round. This requires different approaches compared to those used in traditional constrained Markov decision processes.\\n\\n> (D). If I understand correctly, the present submission instead assumes that the receiver always plays the action recommended by the sender and does not play a best response at all. The authors then show that the cumulative violation of the persuasiveness constraint is sublinear in T. I think this approach is reasonable: as the authors note, it is impossible to be immediately persuasive when the sender starts out with no information about the receiver. However, I don\\u2019t think this is a strength over [1]: this model seems easier in some ways and harder in some ways than [1]\\u2019s assumption of perfect best response.\\n\\nThe reviewer is right, the two are different models and present different challenges. While we attempt to relax some of the assumptions in [1], such as the fact that the utility of the receivers are unknown, at the same time we assume that the receivers follow the recommended actions. \\n\\n> Beyond the comparison with [1], I also have some concerns about the model. I\\u2019m unsure whether there exist natural applications which both involve Bayesian persuasion and MDP-style dynamics. The authors cite movie recommender systems as a motivating example, but what do the states represent? Receivers would be users, right? If I understand correctly, the sender interacts with a new receiver on every time step, so how does one user affect the state of a different user? It also seems like users\\u2019 incentives are pretty aligned with the recommendation system (they want to watch movies that they like), so it seems unlikely for users to engage in reasoning like \\u201cthe system is recommending me movie A which isn\\u2019t what I want to watch but it does give me information about which movie I should actually watch\\u201d.\\n\\nThe main real-world applications of these models are presented in the papers that first introduced them, see, e.g., Section 1 in (Wu et al. 2022). We did not report these examples in our work either due to lack of space.\"}", "{\"summary\": [\"This paper studies the online learning version of Markov Persuasion Process (MPP). An MPP involves a sender and a receiver interacting for $L$ time steps, where at each time step with state $x_k$ commonly observed by both players, the sender sees an additional outcome $\\\\omega_k \\\\sim \\\\mu(x_k)$ (only observed by the sender) and sends a signal (action recommendation) to the receiver according to some signaling scheme, then the receiver takes an action that affects the rewards of both players and the state transition. The authors assume that the sender does not know any information about the environment (the prior $\\\\mu$, the transition matrix, the receiver's reward, and their own reward). Repeating this MPP $T$ times, the sender aims to learn the environment and the optimal signaling scheme over time. The main results include:\", \"With full feedback (which includes the realized rewards of all actions at each round), the authors design a learning algorithm that achieves $O(L^2|X| \\\\sqrt{T |A||\\\\Omega| \\\\ln(1/\\\\delta)})$ regret for the sender, and $O(L^2 |X| \\\\sqrt{T |A| |\\\\Omega| \\\\ln(1/\\\\delta)})$ violation of the persuasiveness constraint (i.e., the regret for the receiver if the receiver follows the action recommendation.)\", \"With partial feedback (which includes the reward of the taken action only), the authors design a learning algorithm with $O(T^\\\\alpha)$ regret for the sender and $O(T^{1-\\\\alpha/2})$ violation for the receiver, where $\\\\alpha\\\\in[1/2, 1]$.\", \"A lower bound showing that no learning algorithm can achieve regret $o(T^{\\\\alpha})$ and violation $o(T^{1-\\\\alpha/2})$.\"], \"soundness\": \"3\", \"presentation\": \"3\", \"contribution\": \"2\", \"strengths\": \"(S1) This paper provides a relatively complete picture for the online MPP problem, providing upper and lower bounds on the sender's regret and the receiver's violation that are tight in terms of $T$.\\n\\n(S2) Compared to previous works in online MPP that all assume that sender has some type of knowledge of the environment, this work makes no such assumption. This is a significant conceptual contribution.\", \"weaknesses\": \"(W1) Although this paper provides a relatively complete picture for the online MPP problem, most of the techniques are standard and directly come from previous works. The upper bound techniques come from the constrained Markov Decision Process (MDP) literature, e.g., [Germano et al, 2023](https://arxiv.org/pdf/2304.14326), as the authors mentioned. The MPP problem is basically a constrained MDP with linear objective and linear constraint (maximizing the sender's expected reward subject to persuasiveness constraint), for which the constrained MDP literature already provides satisfactory solutions.\\n\\nThe lower bound is basically the same as previous paper [Bernasconi et al (2022)](https://proceedings.neurips.cc/paper_files/paper/2022/file/6604fbf7548524576c9ee2e30b0d5122-Paper-Conference.pdf), except that previous bound only works for $\\\\alpha \\\\in[1/2, 2/3]$ while this paper improves to $\\\\alpha \\\\in [1/2, 1]$. \\n\\n(W2) Although the regret bounds in this work are tight in $T$, there is still a large gap between the upper and lower bounds in terms of other parameters $L, |X|, |\\\\Omega|, |A|$. The lower bound does not contain those parameters, while the upper bound have polynomial dependency on them. In the full information setting for example, an upper bound in the form of $O(parameter * \\\\sqrt{T})$ is typical in the online learning literature (in particular, it can be easily derived from the previous constrained MDP techniques), and a lower bound like $\\\\Omega(\\\\sqrt{T})$ is also expected. Since this work aims to give a complete picture for the online MPP problem, I think it is important to characterize the tight dependency of the regret on parameters other than $T$ as well. Moreover, given that there are already several previous works on online Bayesian persuasion and MPP (like Wu et al (2022)), only characterizing the regret dependency on $T$ does not seem to be a large enough contribution to the existing literature.\", \"questions\": \"**Question:**\\n\\n(Q1) How is your work different from the constrained MDP works you cited? What's the additional contribution? \\n\\n(Q2) Can you provide a lower bound that includes the parameters of the environment? \\n\\n\\n**Suggestions:**\\n\\n- Typo: Line 428: \\\"si\\\" -> \\\"is\\\".\", \"flag_for_ethics_review\": \"['No ethics review needed.']\", \"rating\": \"5\", \"confidence\": \"3\", \"code_of_conduct\": \"Yes\"}", "{\"comment\": \"> Although this paper provides a relatively complete picture for the online MPP problem, most of the techniques are standard and directly come from previous works. The upper bound techniques come from the constrained Markov Decision Process (MDP) literature, e.g., Germano et al, 2023, as the authors mentioned. The MPP problem is basically a constrained MDP with linear objective and linear constraint (maximizing the sender's expected reward subject to persuasiveness constraint), for which the constrained MDP literature already provides satisfactory solutions.\\n\\nThe results in Germano et al. (2023) are developed for a feedback that is much stronger than what we refer as full-feedback in our work. Precisely, in Germano et al. (2023), the learner observes the rewards and constraints sample **for every path**. Thus, their techniques cannot be employed in our work. Furthermore, the IC constraints cannot be handled using the technique from Germano et al. (2023), or **any other CMDP algorithm**. Indeed, in our setting, the constraints depend on the difference between the action recommended by the sender, $a$, and another action, $a'$, which is the best response. However, the sender receives feedback only on the receiver's utility for action $a$ and does not observe anything regarding the utility in $a'$. This introduces partial observability in the IC constraints, which cannot be addressed with the techniques from Germano et al. (2023), or **any other CMDP algorithm** as mentioned by the Reviewer.\\n\\n> Although the regret bounds in this work are tight in $T$, there is still a large gap between the upper and lower bounds in terms of other parameters $L, |X|, |\\\\Omega|, |A|$. The lower bound does not contain those parameters, while the upper bound have polynomial dependency on them. In the full information setting for example, an upper bound in the form of $O(parameter * \\\\sqrt{T})$ is typical in the online learning literature (in particular, it can be easily derived from the previous constrained MDP techniques), and a lower bound like $\\\\Omega(\\\\sqrt{T})$ is also expected. Since this work aims to give a complete picture for the online MPP problem, I think it is important to characterize the tight dependency of the regret on parameters other than $T$ as well. Moreover, given that there are already several previous works on online Bayesian persuasion and MPP (like Wu et al (2022)), only characterizing the regret dependency on $T$ does not seem to be a large enough contribution to the existing literature.\\n\\nThe main goal of our work was to both relax some of the limiting assumptions made by Wu et al. (2022), such as the assumption that the sender knows the receivers\\u2019 utility function, and design an algorithm that guarantees $O(T^{\\\\alpha})$ regret and $O(T^{1 - \\\\alpha/2})$ violation for each $\\\\alpha \\\\in [1/2, 1]$. Both of these were open problems, which we address in our paper. Understanding the tightness of our algorithm with respect to all its parameters is an interesting future direction, but we believe it was not the primary point to be addressed.\\n\\n> How is your work different from the constrained MDP works you cited? What's the additional contribution? \\n\\nPlease refer to previous questions.\\n\\n> Can you provide a lower bound that includes the parameters of the environment?\\n\\nIt is an interesting direction that we want to explore in the future. At the moment, we don\\u2019t actually know if these constants are tight or not.\"}", "{\"summary\": \"This paper studies the Markov persuasion process (MPP) in which the sender does not know the environment, i.e., the transition, prior, and reward functions. They consider two types of feedback: full feedback and partial feedback. Full feedback means that the sender can observe all agents' rewards for the realized state and outcome in every round, but partial feedback means that the sender can only observe agents' rewards for the realized state, outcome, and action in every round.\\n\\nThe authors design algorithms for both kinds of feedback that achieve sublinear regret and violation of persuasiveness. Furthermore, the algorithm for the partial feedback has a matching lower bound.\", \"soundness\": \"3\", \"presentation\": \"3\", \"contribution\": \"3\", \"strengths\": \"1. The paper removes the assumption in the previous related paper that the sender knows everything about the environment. Given their result that it is impossible to achieve sublinear regret while being persuasive at every episode with high probability, it's reasonable to turn to the goal that the violation of persuasiveness is sublinear in T. Overall, the question studied by this paper is well motivated and their desiderata are reasonable.\\n\\n2. The paper provides a solid theoretical analysis. The authors achieve tight results for the partial feedback setting.\", \"weaknesses\": \"1. The setting of this paper is similar to the setting of [1]. To be specific, in this paper, the authors consider MDP with persuasiveness as the stochastic long-term constraint because the receiver's reward function is drawn from some distribution. In [1], the authors consider MDP with constraint matrices, which can be stochastic or adversarial. As a consequence, these two papers share a similar upper-bound technique that maintains estimators and confidence bounds of the environment and uses them to update the occupancy measure. The similarity makes me cast doubt on the novelty and technical contribution of this paper. I think the authors should clarify the difference between these two papers.\\n\\n2. While the result is tight in the partial feedback setting, it is not shown in the paper whether the result is tight in the full feedback setting. I think the lower bound in the full feedback setting should be included for the completeness of this paper.\\n\\n3. For the proposed algorithm: (1)the computational complexity can be another issue that may prevent MPPs from being used in practice because large linear programming needs to be solved at every round; (2) the intuition of the algorithms should be explained more for better understanding. \\n\\n4. There is a typo on page 8: \\\"every triple \\\\si\\\" not \\\"si\\\".\\n\\n[1]. Jacopo Germano, Francesco Emanuele Stradi, Gianmarco Genalti, Matteo Castiglioni, Alberto Marchesi, and Nicola Gatti. A best-of-both-worlds algorithm for constrained MDPs with long-term constraints.\", \"questions\": \"Is the regret bound of the algorithm in the full feedback setting tight?\", \"flag_for_ethics_review\": \"['No ethics review needed.']\", \"rating\": \"5\", \"confidence\": \"3\", \"code_of_conduct\": \"Yes\"}", "{\"comment\": \"Thank the authors for the response!\\n\\nNow I agree that this work is different from the CMDP literature. It might be worthwhile to compare this work with the CMDP literature more explicitly in Appendix A. However, I still have other concerns: \\n\\n- Regarding the tightness of lower bound, the authors say that \\\"it was not the primary point to be addressed\\\", and the main goal of this work was to \\\"_both relax the limiting assumptions made by Wu et al. (2022), such as the assumption that the sender knows the receivers\\u2019 utility function, and design an algorithm that guarantees $O(T^\\\\alpha)$ regret and $O(T^{1-\\\\alpha/2})$ violation for each $\\\\alpha \\\\in [1/2, 1]$_\\\". However, this main goal seems a bit incremental. As reviewer AiNi mentioned, a more explicit comparison with Wu et al (2022) might be needed for readers to see the novelty of this work. And the trade-off between $O(T^\\\\alpha)$ regret and $O(T^{1-\\\\alpha/2})$ violation has been noticed by Bernasconi et al (2022) [Sequential information design: Learning to persuade in the dark]. Although the present work improves previous work by extending the analysis from $\\\\alpha\\\\in[1/2, 2/3]$ to $\\\\alpha\\\\in[1/2, 1]$, this contribution still seems too incremental.\", \"i_read_other_reviews_and_agree_with_two_other_concerns_about_this_work\": [\"One is the lack of real-world motivation for MPP (raised by both w5p2 and AiNi).\", \"The other is AiNi's comment (D) \\\"_The present submission assumes that the receiver always plays the action recommended by the sender and does not play a best response at all. The authors then show that the cumulative violation of the persuasiveness constraint is sublinear in T. I think this approach is reasonable: as the authors note, it is impossible to be immediately persuasive when the sender starts out with no information about the receiver. However, I don\\u2019t think this is a strength over [1]: this model seems easier in some ways and harder in some ways than [1]\\u2019s assumption of perfect best response._\\\" This seems to be a limitation of this work, because there is no guarantee that the receiver will actually follow the action recommendation if the recommendation is only approximately persuasive.\"]}", "{\"comment\": \"> I think the major weakness of this paper is the missing case study. While the authors highlight \\u201cpractical/real-world application\\u201d as the key motivation behind studying this variation of MPP, they fail to provide an example (or a simple toy case). I think the paper would benefit from a case study as it would also help readers to understand the problem better.\\n\\nWe agree with the Reviewer, we simply did not add a real-world example due to space constraints. However, the main real-world applications of these models are presented in the papers that first introduced them, see, e.g., Section 1 in (Wu et al. 2022).\\n\\n> I am not an expert in this topic, but from what I gathered, the setup in the paper resembles a general-sum game, is that correct? If so, could it be also extended to model a zero-sum game in which it may not be in the receivers' best interest to follow the sender? \\n\\nWe believe that our model is quite different from general-sum games, and that the game-theoretic model closest to ours is represented by Stackelberg games. Indeed, while in general-sum games the two agents may play simultaneously, our framework includes a commitment stage, which is not present in general-sum or zero-sum games.\\n\\n> In line 383: ...the sender does not observe sufficient feedback about the persuasiveness of $\\\\phi_t$. Could the authors comment on what are the necessary feedback to infer about the persuasiveness and why the information about only the agents' rewards for the visited triplets are not enough?\\n\\nTo be perfectly persuasive, the sender should know exactly both the prior distribution and the receiver's utility function. While in our paper the sender just observes samples from the probability distributions that define these quantities.\"}", "{\"summary\": \"In Bayesian persuasion, a sender sends information to a receiver with the goal of persuading them to take particular actions, while the receiver is aware of the sender\\u2019s incentive and has their own goals, and thus may deviate from the recommended action. Typically one designs a \\u201cpersuasive\\u201d communication scheme, meaning it is always in the receiver\\u2019s best interest to follow the recommendation. Usually, this occurs in a single-round setting.\\n\\nThe present submission studies Markov Persuasion Processes (MPPs), which essentially combine MDPs with Bayesian persuasion. Specifically, the sender instead interacts with T different receivers sequentially, and actions on previous time steps affect the current state. This paper assumes the sender starts with no information and must learn everything on the fly (transition function, sender reward function, receiver reward function). The goal is then regret which is sublinear in T. This paper also requires the cumulative violation of the persuasiveness constraint to be sublinear in T.\\n\\nThe authors provide algorithms which achieve both of those goals (regret sublinear in T and persuasiveness violation sublinear in T), in both a \\u201cfull feedback\\u201d setting and a \\u201cpartial feedback\\u201d setting. They also provide a matching lower bound.\", \"soundness\": \"3\", \"presentation\": \"3\", \"contribution\": \"1\", \"strengths\": \"I think this is a nice paper. It\\u2019s well-written, the model seems mostly reasonable, the results are satisfying, and there are some interesting technical ideas. Without considering prior work, I would probably lean towards acceptance.\", \"weaknesses\": \"Unfortunately, I have some serious concerns about the lack of novelty when compared to [1], which previously studied no-regret learning in MPPs. From my reading, the authors articulate four differences between the present submission and [1]:\\n\\nA. [1] assumed that the receiver\\u2019s reward function is known to the sender, while the present submission does not. This is the primary difference emphasized by the authors.\\n\\nB. [1] assumed rewards are deterministic, while the present submission allows rewards to be stochastic\\n\\nC. [1] assumed the reward function is fixed, while the reward function to vary across episodes, but assumes that the reward function for each episode is sampled iid\\n\\nD. [1] assumed that receivers know everything about the environment in order to compute a best-response, while the present submission does not.\\n\\nI commend the authors for providing a clear discussion of the technical differences between their work and [1]; this made my job as a reviewer much easier. Unfortunately, none of (A) - (D) seem especially significant to me. I discuss each in turn.\\n\\n_(A) and (B)_.\\nI argue that typically in RL theory, most of the technical difficulty comes from learning the transition function, and knowing the reward function doesn\\u2019t help much. The distinction between stochastic and deterministic rewards is also typically not significant. To semi-formalize this, I argue below that for {0,1} rewards, any no-regret algorithm for MDPs with known deterministic rewards can also solve MDPs with unknown stochastic rewards. \\n\\nThis reduction breaks down for more general rewards than {0,1}, but I think the conceptual takeaway still holds: that most of the difficulty comes from learning the transition function. Also note that {0,1} rewards are sufficient for most RL lower bounds [2].\\n\\nBeyond the technical connections, [1] also provide a conceptual justification for known rewards: \\u201cThe receiver\\u2019s utility is known to the sender because the pricing rules are usually transparent, some are even set by the platform. For example, a rider-sharing platform usually sets per hour or mile payment rules for the drivers.\\u201d I think this is a reasonable argument, although it certainly doesn\\u2019t apply to all applications.\\n\\n_(C)_.\\nI would guess that since the reward function for each episode is iid, their average quickly converges to the mean, such that this does not add much difficulty. However, I may be wrong, and I could imagine this component adding some novelty to the paper.\\n\\n_(D)_.\\nIf I understand correctly, the present submission instead assumes that the receiver always plays the action recommended by the sender and does not play a best response at all. The authors then show that the cumulative violation of the persuasiveness constraint is sublinear in T. I think this approach is reasonable: as the authors note, it is impossible to be immediately persuasive when the sender starts out with no information about the receiver. However, I don\\u2019t think this is a strength over [1]: this model seems easier in some ways and harder in some ways than [1]\\u2019s assumption of perfect best response.\\n\\nBeyond the comparison with [1], I also have some concerns about the model. I\\u2019m unsure whether there exist natural applications which both involve Bayesian persuasion and MDP-style dynamics. The authors cite movie recommender systems as a motivating example, but what do the states represent? Receivers would be users, right? If I understand correctly, the sender interacts with a new receiver on every time step, so how does one user affect the state of a different user? It also seems like users\\u2019 incentives are pretty aligned with the recommendation system (they want to watch movies that they like), so it seems unlikely for users to engage in reasoning like \\u201cthe system is recommending me movie A which isn\\u2019t what I want to watch but it does give me information about which movie I should actually watch\\u201d.\\n\\nEven if the authors agree with everything above (and I am open to disagreement), I don\\u2019t think the paper has zero novelty, but I think the novelty is too low for ICLR.\\n\\nReferences\\n1. Wu et al (2022) https://arxiv.org/pdf/2202.10678\\n2. Osband and Van Roy (2016) https://arxiv.org/pdf/1608.02732\\n\\n_Reduction sketch_:\\nConsider an MDP M with unknown rewards in {0,1} and suppose we have a no-regret algorithm for MDPs with known rewards. Define a new MDP M\\u2019 with the original state space plus 2|A||S| additional states, each labeled (s,a,r): one new state for each possible state-action-reward combination. If the agent takes action a in an original state s, we add an intermediate time step where the agent transitions to some state (s,a,r), where r = r(s,a) is chosen stochastically. Regardless of the action taken in state (s,a,r), the agent receives reward r and transitions according to P(s,a) (i.e., how they would have transitioned in M). Basically, every time step in M becomes two time steps in M\\u2019, during which the agent obtains the same expected reward. Then E[agent reward in M after T steps] = E[agent reward in M\\u2019 after 2T steps]. This means that to solve M, we can simply run our no-regret algorithm on M\\u2019 and ignore the actions it takes on even time steps (that is, in (s,a,r) states).\", \"questions\": \"Do you agree with my comparison with [1]? For (A) and (B), do you agree with my reduction? For (C), could you elaborate on whether you believe this difference is significant? Is my understanding of (D) correct?\\n\\nI would also be curious to hear if the authors have any response to my concerns about the model.\", \"flag_for_ethics_review\": \"['No ethics review needed.']\", \"rating\": \"3\", \"confidence\": \"3\", \"code_of_conduct\": \"Yes\"}", "{\"comment\": \"> The setting of this paper is similar to the setting of [1]. To be specific, in this paper, the authors consider MDP with persuasiveness as the stochastic long-term constraint because the receiver's reward function is drawn from some distribution. In [1], the authors consider MDP with constraint matrices, which can be stochastic or adversarial. As a consequence, these two papers share a similar upper-bound technique that maintains estimators and confidence bounds of the environment and uses them to update the occupancy measure. The similarity makes me cast doubt on the novelty and technical contribution of this paper. I think the authors should clarify the difference between these two papers.\\n\\nWe agree with the Reviewer that both papers use the occupancy measure tool. However, aside from this similarity, the two papers are very different. We outline the main differences below. \\n\\n- The algorithm in [1] requires full feedback and does not work under partial feedback, while our main contribution addresses the partial feedback case. Furthermore, even the full-feedback case considered in [1] is much stronger than the one considered in this paper. Specifically, [1] assumes observing the loss of all the possible triplets $(x, \\\\omega, a)$ at the end of the episode, whereas we assume observing only the triplets visited during the episode.\\n\\n- From a technical point of view the two are also unrelated. Indeed, the IC constraints cannot be handled using the technique from [1]. This is because, in our case, the constraints depend on the difference between the action recommended by the sender, $a$, and another action, $a'$, which is the best response. However, the sender receives feedback only on the receiver's utility for action $a$ and does not observe anything regarding the utility in $a'$. This introduces partial observability in the IC constraints, which cannot be addressed with the techniques from [1], as mentioned by the Reviewer. \\n\\n> For the proposed algorithm: (1) the computational complexity can be another issue that may prevent MPPs from being used in practice because large linear programming needs to be solved at every round; (2) the intuition of the algorithms should be explained more for better understanding. \\n\\n(1) Linear programs can generally be solved efficiently. However, designing more efficient algorithms represents an interesting future direction. (2) We did our best to give any possible intuitions about the algorithms presented in our work. If there is a specific point in the algorithms that is not clear, please let us know.\\n\\n> Is the regret bound of the algorithm in the full feedback setting tight?\\n\\nWe refer the Reviewer to the updated version of the paper, where we present the lower-bound for the full-feedback case (see Theorem 6), showing that our result is tight.\"}", "{\"summary\": \"This paper studies the Markovian Persuasion Processes (MPPs), a repeated version of Bayesian persuasion, by relaxing the common assumption that the sender knows receivers\\u2019 rewards. Unlike previous works, the authors use the setting in which the senders have no knowledge about transitions, prior distributions over outcomes, sender\\u2019s stochastic rewards, and receivers\\u2019 ones. Removing this requirement allows for capturing real-world problems, for e.g., online streaming platforms recommending movies to its users. The authors propose a learning algorithm, Optimistic Persuasive Policy Search (OPPS) for the sender with partial feedback and prove that its regret with respect to an optimal information-disclosure policy grows sublinearly in the number of episodes.\", \"soundness\": \"2\", \"presentation\": \"3\", \"contribution\": \"2\", \"strengths\": \"The paper considers a natural extension of the existing MPP studies by relaxing the assumption of full knowledge about the environment and the players. The problem formulation as well as the objectives of the learning problem are clearly described. Mathematical proofs are also provided that highlight the effectiveness of the proposed algorithm.\", \"weaknesses\": \"I think the major weakness of this paper is the missing case study. While the authors highlight \\u201cpractical/real-world application\\u201d as the key motivation behind studying this variation of MPP, they fail to provide an example (or a simple toy case). I think the paper would benefit from a case study as it would also help readers to understand the problem better.\", \"questions\": [\"I am not an expert in this topic, but from what I gathered, the setup in the paper resembles a general-sum game, is that correct? If so, could it be also extended to model a zero-sum game in which it may not be in the receivers' best interest to follow the sender?\", \"In line 383:\", \"> ...the sender does not observe sufficient feedback about the persuasiveness of $\\\\phi_t$.\", \"Could the authors comment on what are the necessary feedback to infer about the persuasiveness and why the information about only the agents' rewards for the visited triplets are not enough?\"], \"flag_for_ethics_review\": \"['No ethics review needed.']\", \"rating\": \"5\", \"confidence\": \"2\", \"code_of_conduct\": \"Yes\"}", "{\"comment\": \"Thank you for the response. To clarify, my concern wasn't so much the absence of a \\\"real-world\\\" example, but rather the lack of a toy case to introduce the problem and illustrate the optimal policy. This would help readers get a better perspective of what's actually going on. In that regard, I would agree with one of the other reviewers who pointed out that it is sometimes more important to discuss the applications than the technical details, and would add that working through a simple example would be more illuminating.\"}", "{\"title\": \"Paper Decision\", \"decision\": \"Reject\"}", "{\"comment\": \"> The authors claim that it is impossible to satisfy persuasive constraints at all rounds. However, the negative result is provided only for the partial feedback setting, and I wonder if one can avoid the negative result for the full feedback setting. If so, it makes more sense to study a version of MPP where the constraints are satisfied with high probability. In general, I favour the guarantee of high probability persuasion compared to providing only upper bound on the total amount of violation. Since we cannot make any assumption about receiver's preferences, it is not clear whether the receivers will still follow the sender's recommendation.\\n\\nWe thank the Reviewer for the opportunity to properly tackle this aspect. In our setting, **it is not possible to guarantee zero violations with high probability if the goal is to design a no-regret algorithm, even when full-feedback is available**. We updated the paper, proving this lower bound for the full-feedback setting (see Theorem 6). Please refer to the updated version of the paper for the formal proof.\\n\\n> The proposed algorithms and the proof techniques are very similar to prior work (in particular Bernasconi et. al. 2022 or Gan et. al. 2024). All these works propose explore then exploit (based on optimistic planning) algorithm for persuasion problems. So the authors need to clarify what are the technical difficulties in the analysis in this paper.\\n\\nApproaches such as explore and commit are well known in the literature. In our setting, the main challenge is how to guarantee a $O(T^{\\\\alpha})$ regret and $O(T^{1 - \\\\alpha/2})$ violation, for every $\\\\alpha \\\\in [1/2, 1]$. Indeed, Bernasconi et. al. (2022) achieve such guarantees only when $\\\\alpha \\\\in [1/2, 2/3]$, while Gan et. al. (2024) when $\\\\alpha = 2/3$. On the contrary, **our work is the only one to completely close the gap between upper and lower bound**. This result is attainable by employing a different kind of exploration phase w.r.t. Bernasconi et. al. (2022) and Gan et. al. (2024), that is, we continuously shrink the decision space before the beginning of the exploitation phase. We believe that this is a remarkable contribution of our approach. \\n\\nFurthermore, while we agree with the Reviewer that our algorithmic approach is similar to existing ones, we emphasize that our technical analysis significantly differs from the one pointed out by the Reviewer. Specifically:\\n\\n- Bernasconi et al. (2022) do **not** need to address the uncertainty associated with the transition model (note that they do **not** work in a Markovian setting) and the receiver's utility function. \\n\\n- Gan et al. (2024) employs an exploration procedure adopted from Jin et al. (2020). However, this exploration procedure does **not** guarantee to achieve a tight $O(T^{\\\\alpha})$ regret and $O(T^{1 - \\\\alpha/2})$ violation, for every $\\\\alpha \\\\in [1/2, 1]$. To do so, we need to maximize the probability of visiting each triplet $(x, \\\\omega, a)$ for $N$ times during the initial phase, in order to continue shrinking the decision space during the commitment phase.\\n\\n> What is the trade-off between reward regret and constraint violation for the full feedback setting?\\n\\nAs specified in the answer above, the $O(\\\\sqrt{T})$ regret/violation bound is tight even in the full feedback case. Please refer to the updated version of the paper.\\n\\n> What is the time-complexity of Opt-Opt problem (2)?\\n\\nProblem (2) (Opt-Opt) is a linear program, so it can be solved efficiently in $\\\\textnormal{poly}(|X|, |A|, L)$ time.\\n\\n> Can you generalize your results beyond tabular MDP?\\n\\nExtending the results to general MDPs is an interesting future direction. We conjecture that, with some work, our approach can be generalized to achieve an $O(T^{2/3})$ regret and violation bound in general MDPs. However, achieving $O(T^{\\\\alpha})$ regret and $O(T^{1 - \\\\alpha/2})$ violation, when $\\\\alpha \\\\in [1/2, 1]$, as done in our paper for the tabular case, would require new ideas and a different approach.\\n\\n[Chi Jin, Akshay Krishnamurthy, Max Simchowitz, and Tiancheng Yu. Reward-free exploration for reinforcement learning. In International Conference on Machine Learning, pages 4870\\u2013 4879. PMLR, 2020.]\"}" ] }

[ "Indradyumna Roy", "Eeshaan Jain", "Soumen Chakrabarti", "Abir De" ]

[ "Graph neural network", "distant supervision" ]

{ "note_id": [ "mLGrNTDQXt", "dAT56JFiTj", "bsRirnmiul", "a20dshusWm", "XlsPRSGC4c", "V6k99jSKoG", "SrzcuPdWJc", "MvuVMz45Ul", "KawHnDoUE8", "JYneqFX0tt", "Iiyzf3TB0l", "F2uEXBsePh", "A3f4GYKCVQ", "3Y4b6oavrI", "1ltBkOj4nb" ], "note_type": [ "official_comment", "decision", "official_comment", "official_comment", "official_comment", "official_comment", "official_comment", "official_review", "official_review", "official_review", "official_comment", "official_comment", "official_comment", "official_comment", "meta_review" ], "note_created": [ 1732115619795, 1737524289833, 1732544688724, 1732115907094, 1732721678298, 1732115708429, 1732115572492, 1730696283355, 1731082812257, 1730261068660, 1732116122874, 1732746095047, 1732116060798, 1732116012641, 1733933273775 ], "note_signatures": [ [ "ICLR.cc/2025/Conference/Submission13932/Authors" ], [ "ICLR.cc/2025/Conference/Program_Chairs" ], [ "ICLR.cc/2025/Conference/Submission13932/Reviewer_U7Wn" ], [ "ICLR.cc/2025/Conference/Submission13932/Authors" ], [ "ICLR.cc/2025/Conference/Submission13932/Authors" ], [ "ICLR.cc/2025/Conference/Submission13932/Authors" ], [ "ICLR.cc/2025/Conference/Submission13932/Authors" ], [ "ICLR.cc/2025/Conference/Submission13932/Reviewer_GJPR" ], [ "ICLR.cc/2025/Conference/Submission13932/Reviewer_7fYN" ], [ "ICLR.cc/2025/Conference/Submission13932/Reviewer_U7Wn" ], [ "ICLR.cc/2025/Conference/Submission13932/Authors" ], [ "ICLR.cc/2025/Conference/Submission13932/Reviewer_GJPR" ], [ "ICLR.cc/2025/Conference/Submission13932/Authors" ], [ "ICLR.cc/2025/Conference/Submission13932/Authors" ], [ "ICLR.cc/2025/Conference/Submission13932/Area_Chair_GoHj" ] ], "structured_content_str": [ "{\"title\": \"Response to Reviewer 7fYN (2/2)\", \"comment\": \"> *scalability for large graphs has not been verified*\\n \\nThere are two reasons why our primary focus was not on large graphs in the initial version. However, we have now stress-tested our method with additional experiments, as described later.\\n\\n\\n(1) Our goal is to design an *end-to-end differentiable model* \\u2015 which is guided by the needs of practical applications like estimation of size of maximum induced common subgraph for graph simialrity. These applications typically involves fewer than 200 nodes (but possibly very many graphs).\\n\\nStill, some of our datasets are much larger than the datasets used by the baselines. Specifically, our method uses graphs with upto 33K edges (Mutag-m), which is larger than all other datasets used in any end-to-end differentiable neural network based method. Moreover, we use the RB dataset, which is known to be notoriously hard for clique detection. Since clique number computation stands out as one of the hardest NP-complete problems [A,B], designing neural methods for even such moderate sized graphs is already quite challenging. It is unsurprising that neural methods have all limited themselves to relatively small graphs.\\n\\n(2) Like any other ML task, neural clique detectors need *multiple* graphs for training and one entire graph represents one instance of data. Data sets with a single large graph are more common than data sets containing multiple large graphs with known clique numbers, which prevents a neural method to test its performance on large graphs. Nevertheless, we have the following proposal to predict clique number for a large graph, from which all neural models can benefit.\\n\\nWe decompose a large graph $\\\\mathcal{G}$ into overlapping subgraphs $G_1,..,G_N$ each with moderate sizes. Then, the clique number of $\\\\mathcal{G}$ is estimated as $\\\\max_i \\\\omega(G_i)$. \\nThis decomposition is helpful because (1) ground truth clique number generation is much easier in smaller graphs and (2) a neural clique detector requires multiple (graph, clique number) pairs for training. The risk of missing a clique straddling multiple subgraphs can be reduced via various degree based or K-core decomposition based heuristics. \\n\\n\\nDuring the rebuttal, we worked with Amazon and email-Enron datasets. Amazon has 334,863 nodes and 925,872 edges. email-Enron has 36,692 nodes and 183,831 edges. The table below shows the true and predicted clique numbers.\\n \\n\\n|| $\\\\omega(G)$| $\\\\widehat{\\\\omega}(G)$|\\n|:-:|:-:|:-: |\\n| Amazon | 7 | 6 |\\n|email-Enron | 20 | 18 |\\n\\nWe note that in each dataset, (1) MxNet was trained on a small set of subgraphs, sampled from the available single large graph, with corresponding ground truth clique numbers found using the Gurobi solver. During inference, MxNet effectively generalized to a much larger set of subgraphs extracted using degree-based heuristics, to ensure more comprehensive coverage of the large graph; (2) MxNet correctly identifies the subgraph containing the largest clique of the whole graph, i.e., $\\\\arg \\\\max_i \\\\omega(G_i) = \\\\arg \\\\max_i \\\\widehat{\\\\omega}(G_i)$; (3) MxNet correctly predicts most of the member nodes of the maximum clique within the graph; (4) MxNet's predicted clique number for the large graph closely approximates the true clique number \\u2015 much better than the predictions made by baselines, even with smaller graphs.\\n\\n---\\n\\n[A] H\\u00e5stad, J. (1999), Clique is hard to approximate within $n^{1-\\\\epsilon}$, Acta Mathematica, 182.\\n\\n[B] Zuckerman, D. (2006), Linear degree extractors and the inapproximability of max clique and chromatic number, STOC.\\n\\n> *How should temperature of Gumbel Sinkhorn (GS) should be set*\\n\\n\\nWe found that the performance (MSE) is robust to the temperature of GS network as shown by the following result for PTC-MM. \\n\\n | $\\\\tau\\\\to$|0.001|0.01|0.025|0.05|0.1|0.25|1 |\\n|-|-|-|-|-|-|-|-|\\n| MSE $\\\\to$|0.237|0.238|0.200|0.204|0.293|0.276|1.796|\\n\\n\\nIf the number of nodes $|V|$ is large, the entries of doubly stochastic matrix $S$ become more diffused. For the same temperature, the highest value in each row/column of $S$ becomes smaller as we increase $|V|$. Hence, we can decrease the temperature to ensure that $S$ has sufficiently low entropy to be interpretable. Further, we can use reparameterization of weight matrices [C] in Sinkhorn network using spectral norm based scaling to facililate training in large graph training.\\n\\n[C] Stabilizing Transformer Training by Preventing Attention Entropy Collapse. Zhai et al. ICML 2023. \\n\\n> *The lambda balances the two terms in the loss function, is the proposed method robust to this hyperparameter?*\\n\\nOur experiments show that the proposed method is robust to the choice of $\\\\lambda \\\\in [0.5,2]$, as shown below (PTC-mm).\\n\\n| $\\\\lambda \\\\to$ | 0.1 | 0.25 | 0.5 | 1 | 2 | 5 | 10 |\\n| - | - | - | - | - | - | - | - |\\n| MSE $\\\\to$ | 2.364 | 0.317 | 0.257 | 0.204 | 0.176 | 0.442 | 0.446 |\"}", "{\"title\": \"Paper Decision\", \"decision\": \"Accept (Poster)\"}", "{\"comment\": \"Thank you for your comments and the improved version of the paper. It has well addressed my concerns, and thus I update the score.\"}", "{\"title\": \"Response to Reviewer GJPR (2/2)\", \"comment\": \"[Contd from above]\\n\\n* In MxNet (MSS), the goal is to find node permutation $S$ that brings all 1s in $S A S^\\\\top$ into a dense submatrix. Achieving this requires moving the zeros to the right places. When $S$ is relaxed to continuous values, non-zeros spread throughout $S A S^\\\\top$, making it difficult to detect the MSS. Various thresholds or nonlinearities nay reduce the problem, but also attenuate gradient signals when $x_u^\\\\top x_v$ is very high or very low. Thus, $x_u^\\\\top x_v$ scores serve as auxiliary signals for clique detection, but simply adding them to $A$ contributes much noise in the estimate of $\\\\omega$. In contrast, the form $S (A \\\\odot XX^{\\\\top}) S^\\\\top$ is better at absorbing the signal from $\\\\{x_u\\\\}$ without succumbing to its noise.\\n\\n* As a further mechanistic discussion, suppose, instead of $A\\\\odot XX^{\\\\top}$, we use only the binary adjacency matrix $A$. Then, for each parameter $\\\\theta\\\\in \\\\mathbb{R}$, the gradient term will involve computation of $S A \\\\frac{dS^{\\\\top}}{d\\\\theta} + \\\\frac{dS}{d\\\\theta} A S^{\\\\top}$. Since $S$ is computed using iterative normalization of rows and columns, starting with an exponential term, $\\\\frac{dS}{d\\\\theta}$ will contain terms such as $S_{ij} S_{i'j'}$ [2]. Thus, $S A \\\\frac{dS^{\\\\top}}{d\\\\theta}$ contain terms of the form $S_{ij} S_{i'j'} S_{i''j''}$, with each $S_{.,.} \\\\in [0,1]$. This leads to attenuation of gradient signals. If we keep $A\\\\odot XX^{\\\\top}$, then the gradient will have $S_{ij}S_{i'j'}$ $[\\\\frac{d XX^T}{d\\\\theta}]_{a,b}$, which will allow more significant gradient signals. Moreover, due to continuous adjacency entries, $S _{ij} S _{i'j'} S _{i''j''}$ will now be replaced with $S _{ij} S _{i'j'} S _{i''j''} X _{a,b} X _{a',b'}$, where $X$s can control the gradient signals better, leading to actual learning of clique number computation for a distribution over graphs.\\n\\n[1] In neural NLP, it is common to pretrain a language model for masked word prediction, and simultaneously train for a suite of common language tasks (e.g., FLAN-T5), or fine-tune them later. We follow the same strategy.\\n\\n[2] This can be obtained from the derivative of softmax probabilities $\\\\frac{d}{do_k} e^{o_j} / \\\\sum_i e^{o_i} = -(e^{o_j} / \\\\sum_i e^{o_i}) (e^{o_k}/ \\\\sum_i e^{o_i})$ \\n\\n**(2) Relaxing Algorithm 1 using message passing GNN:** $MSS(B)$ can accurately compute clique only when $B$ has (close to) binary values. However, our computation of $SWS^T$ involves relaxation of binary values to real values in $(0,1)$ from $S$ and +ve/-ve from $W$, which makes the entries of $B[i,j]$ to be +ve/-ve real numbers. Further, multiplication by B[i,j] in line 7 in Algorithm 1 compounds this issue. To reduce these deleterious effects of fractional numbers on clique detection, several thresholding/clipping functions, such as Sigmoid, Tanh, ReLU, and ReLU6, may be applied, achieving varying degrees of success (we tried these). However, the best results were obtained by our final GNN-inspired solution, which could implement some form of local adaptive soft thresholding, as the message wavefront progressed. Note that this GNN is extremely lightweight, consisting of only 20 parameters.\\n\\nBelow, we compare the results of the best non-GNN thresholding variant (ReLU1 = min(max(0,x), 1)) against the results of MSS with the GNN-based Algorithm 1 implementation.\\n\\n| | IMDB | PTC-MM | RB |\\n|:---:|:---:|:---:|:---:|\\n| MXNET | **0.056** | **0.204** | **7.170** |\\n|No GNN in Alg 1 | 0.935 | 0.386 | 7.626 |\\n\\nWe observe that using a GNN based implementation for Algorithm 1 gives a performance improvement (lower error) across all datasets.\\n\\n\\n**(3) Relaxing clique coverage loss in MxNet:** $\\\\min _P[K _c-PAP^{\\\\top}] _+$ is a \\nquadratic assignment problem (QAP), which is a hard problem to solve. Moreover, the binary values of $A$ and $K _c$ attenuate the gradient signals as described in the last para of item (1) above. We overcome the above challenges by replacing $\\\\min_P[K _c-PAP^{\\\\top}] _+$ with $[Q _c-SX] _+$. Instead of solving QAP, it solves a linear assignment problem, which is more tractable; and allows substantial gradient signals.\\n\\n|| IMDB | PTC-MM | RB |\\n|:-:|:-:|:-:|:-:|\\n| MXNET | **0.056** | **0.204** | **7.170** |\\n|Hard Clique Loss | 0.648 | 0.425 | 9.675 |\\n> *[curriculum learning] is full sequence of c is helpful?* \\n\\nThis is indeed a great suggestion. We performed experiments where in Eq (9), we limited the first inner summation to only $c= \\\\omega(G)$ and the second summation to only $c=\\\\omega(G)-1$. The following results show that summation from 2 to $\\\\omega(G)$ shows better result.\\n\\n||IMDB | PTC-MM | RBG |\\n|-|-|-|-|\\n|Full curriculum|**0.056** |**0.204** | **7.170** |\\n|Only last term|0.481| 1.339| 10.500|\\n\\n\\n\\nThis is because, summation from 2 to $\\\\omega (G)$ is providing more explicit guidance to the learner that, $K_2,..K_c$ are subgraphs of $G$. Otherwise, it is unable to reason that if $K_c$ is a subgraph of $G$ then also $K_2,..,$ are also subgraphs of $G$.\"}", "{\"title\": \"Thanks!\", \"comment\": \"Thank you very much for your encouraging comments.\"}", "{\"title\": \"Response to Reviewer GJPR (1/2)\", \"comment\": \"We thank the reviewer for their suggestions, which we address as follows. We have also added them in the revised version of the paper.\\n\\n> *the computational burden of the MxNet model may be a concern when dealing with larger graphs*\\n\\nThe limitation we stated applies not just to our method but for all neural methods. There are two reasons why our primary focus was not on large graphs in the initial version. However, we have now stress-tested our method with additional experiments, as described later.\\n\\n(1) Our goal is to design an *end-to-end differentiable model* \\u2015 which is guided by the needs of practical applications like estimation of size of maximum induced common subgraph for graph simialrity. These applications typically involves fewer than 200 nodes (but possibly very many graphs).\\n\\nStill, some of our datasets are much larger than the datasets used by the baselines. Specifically, our method uses graphs with upto 33K edges (Mutag-m), which is larger than all other datasets used in any end-to-end differentiable neural network based method. Moreover, we use the RB dataset, which is known to be notoriously hard for clique detection. Since clique number computation stands out as one of the hardest NP-complete problems [A,B], designing neural methods for even such moderate sized graphs is already quite challenging. It is unsurprising that neural methods have all limited themselves to relatively small graphs.\\n\\n(2) Like any other ML task, neural clique detectors need *multiple* graphs for training and one entire graph represents one instance of data. Data sets with a single large graph are more common than data sets containing multiple large graphs with known clique numbers, which prevents a neural method to test its performance on large graphs. Nevertheless, we have the following proposal to predict clique number for a large graph, from which all neural models can benefit.\\n\\nWe decompose a large graph $\\\\mathcal{G}$ into overlapping subgraphs $G_1,..,G_N$ each with moderate sizes. Then, the clique number of $\\\\mathcal{G}$ is estimated as $\\\\max_i \\\\omega(G_i)$. \\nThis decomposition is helpful because (1) ground truth clique number generation is much easier in smaller graphs and (2) a neural clique detector requires multiple (graph, clique number) pairs for training. The risk of missing a clique straddling multiple subgraphs can be reduced via various degree based or K-core decomposition based heuristics. \\n\\n\\nDuring the rebuttal, we worked with Amazon and email-Enron datasets. Amazon has 334,863 nodes and 925,872 edges. email-Enron has 36,692 nodes and 183,831 edges. The table below shows the true and predicted clique numbers.\\n \\n\\n|| $\\\\omega(G)$| $\\\\widehat{\\\\omega}(G)$|\\n|:-:|:-:|:-: |\\n| Amazon | 7 | 6 |\\n|email-Enron | 20 | 18 |\\n\\nWe note that in each dataset, (1) MxNet was trained on a small set of subgraphs, sampled from the available single large graph, with corresponding ground truth clique numbers found using the Gurobi solver. During inference, MxNet effectively generalized to a much larger set of subgraphs extracted using degree-based heuristics, to ensure more comprehensive coverage of the large graph; (2) MxNet correctly identifies the subgraph containing the largest clique of the whole graph, i.e., $\\\\arg \\\\max_i \\\\omega(G_i) = \\\\arg \\\\max_i \\\\widehat{\\\\omega}(G_i)$; (3) MxNet correctly predicts most of the member nodes of the maximum clique within the graph; (4) MxNet's predicted clique number for the large graph closely approximates the true clique number \\u2015 much better than the predictions made by baselines, even with smaller graphs.\\n\\n---\\n\\n[A] H\\u00e5stad, J. (1999), Clique is hard to approximate within $n^{1-\\\\epsilon}$, Acta Mathematica, 182.\\n\\n[B] Zuckerman, D. (2006), Linear degree extractors and the inapproximability of max clique and chromatic number, STOC.\\n\\n \\n\\n> *differentiable approximation of the combinatorial MCP: Benefits of first and third approximation and submatch?*\\n\\n\\n**(1) Benefits of relaxing binary adjacency matrix to continuous values:** In the following, we show the results of ablation study.\\n\\n| | IMDB | PTC-MM-m | RB |\\n|:---:|:---:|:---:|:---:|\\n| MXNET | **0.056** | **0.204** | **7.170** |\\n|Binary $A$ in MXNET | 1.851 | 2.364 | 10.500 |\\n\\n\\nWe observe that our smooth surrogate works better. \\n\\nNext, we discuss the rationale for our design, and plausible explanations for its success.\\n\\n* CLIQUE is a classical hard-to-approximate problem in the worst case, so the promise of neural methods is to take advantage of *distributions* from which graphs are generated in an application. A natural [1] way toward this goal is to train node representations $x_u$ that simultaneously predict the graph $A$ (via a generic GNN that aligns $x_u^\\\\top x_v$ with $A[u,v]$), *and* make clique number prediction feasible (through a suitable task-customized network) \\u2015 in a graph containing a $k$-clique that includes nodes $u$ and $v$, they share the same $k-1$ node neighborhood, leading to a high $x_u^\\\\top x_v$ value.\"}", "{\"title\": \"Response to Reviewer 7fYN (1/2)\", \"comment\": \"We thank the reviewer for their feedback. We address them here and have also added them in the revised version of the paper.\\n\\n> *adding a figure illustrating the task*\\n\\nActing on your suggestions, we have overhauled Figure 1, clearly showing how maximal dense subsquare detection works, and then illustrate the nested tests for a series of sub-clique containment tests, and finally the overall differentiable composite loss. The caption has been modified to be clearer and more descriptive.\\n\\n> *purpose of smooth surrogate for the adjacency matrix? ... ablation study*\\n\\nIn the following, we show the MSE from ablation study, which shows smooth surrogate works better (smaller MSE).\\n||IMDB | PTC-MM-m | RB |\\n|:-:|:-:|:-:|:-:|\\n| MXNET | **0.056** | **0.204** | **7.170** |\\n|Binary $A$ in MXNET | 1.851 | 2.364 | 10.500 |\\n\\nNext, we discuss the rationale for our design, and plausible explanations for its success.\\n\\n* CLIQUE is a classical hard-to-approximate problem in the worst case, so the promise of neural methods is to take advantage of *distributions* from which graphs are generated in an application. A natural [1] way toward this goal is to train node representations $x_u$ that simultaneously predict the graph $A$ (via a generic GNN that aligns $x_u^\\\\top x_v$ with $A[u,v]$), *and* make clique number prediction feasible (through a suitable task-customized network) \\u2015 in a graph containing a $k$-clique that includes nodes $u$ and $v$, they share the same $k-1$ node neighborhood, leading to a high $x_u^\\\\top x_v$ value.\\n* In MxNet (MSS), the goal is to find node permutation $S$ that brings all 1s in $S A S^\\\\top$ into a dense submatrix. Achieving this requires moving the zeros to the right places. When $S$ is relaxed to continuous values, non-zeros spread throughout $S A S^\\\\top$, making it difficult to detect the MSS. Various thresholds or nonlinearities nay reduce the problem, but also attenuate gradient signals when $x_u^\\\\top x_v$ is very high or very low. Thus, $x_u^\\\\top x_v$ scores serve as auxiliary signals for clique detection, but simply adding them to $A$ contributes much noise in the estimate of $\\\\omega$. In contrast, the form $S (A \\\\odot XX^{\\\\top}) S^\\\\top$ is better at absorbing the signal from $\\\\{x_u\\\\}$ without succumbing to its noise.\\n* As a further mechanistic discussion, suppose, instead of $A\\\\odot XX^{\\\\top}$, we use only the binary adjacency matrix $A$. Then, for each parameter $\\\\theta\\\\in \\\\mathbb{R}$, the gradient term will involve computation of $S A \\\\frac{dS^{\\\\top}}{d\\\\theta} + \\\\frac{dS}{d\\\\theta} A S^{\\\\top}$. Since $S$ is computed using iterative normalization of rows and columns, starting with an exponential term, $\\\\frac{dS}{d\\\\theta}$ will contain terms such as $S_{ij} S_{i'j'}$ [2]. Thus, $S A \\\\frac{dS^{\\\\top}}{d\\\\theta}$ contain terms of the form $S_{ij} S_{i'j'} S_{i''j''}$, with each $S_{.,.} \\\\in [0,1]$. This leads to attenuation of gradient signals. If we keep $A\\\\odot XX^{\\\\top}$, then the gradient will have $S_{ij}S_{i'j'}$ $[\\\\frac{d XX^T}{d\\\\theta}]_{a,b}$, which will allow more significant gradient signals. Moreover, due to continuous adjacency entries, $S _{ij} S _{i'j'} S _{i''j''}$ will now be replaced with $S _{ij} S _{i'j'} S _{i''j''} X _{a,b} X _{a',b'}$, where $X$s can control the gradient signals better, leading to actual learning of clique number computation for a distribution over graphs.\\n\\n[1] In neural NLP, it is common to pretrain a language model for masked word prediction, and simultaneously train for a suite of common language tasks (e.g., FLAN-T5), or fine-tune them later. We follow the same strategy.\\n\\n[2] This can be obtained from the derivative of softmax probabilities $\\\\frac{d}{do_k} e^{o_j} / \\\\sum_i e^{o_i} = -(e^{o_j} / \\\\sum_i e^{o_i}) (e^{o_k}/ \\\\sum_i e^{o_i})$ \\n\\n> *bicriteria early stopping strategy have not been verified.*\\n\\nWe found bicriteria early stopping to be an effective guardrail against potential overfitting of MXNET (MSS). Below are the numbers for Brock and Enzyme. MSS based early stopping led to overfitting of MSS, which is why the performance of submatch was worse. But Bicriteria early stopping improved performance of submatch significantly, with a small increase in MSE of MSS. For Enzyme, Bicriteria early stopping improved the performance of submatch without any deterioration of MSS.\\n\\n| | MSS | SubMatch | MSS |SubMatch\\n|-|-|-|-|-|\\n| |Brock | Brock |Enzyme|Enzyme |\\n| ES=MSS | **7.615** | 1400.00| **0.235** | 0.328 |\\n| ES=SubMatch | 21.265| **227.91** | **0.235** | 0.353 |\\n| ES = Bicriteria | 9.260 | 307.90 | **0.235** | **0.261** |\"}", "{\"summary\": \"In this work, the authors present a method for learning the maximum clique size in graphs by parameterizing node permutations using neural networks and training them with a composition of two types of losses, maximal subsquare (MSS) and SubMatch. Combined with techniques including various neural relaxations, curriculum training and bi-criteria early stopping, the model is able to learn to predict maximum clique size better than or close to the best among a number of baseline methods on several benchmark datasets.\", \"soundness\": \"3\", \"presentation\": \"2\", \"contribution\": \"3\", \"strengths\": \"While prior works have proposed various deep learning approaches for solving the maximum clique problem, the \\\"distant supervision regime\\\" where only the size of the maximum clique is provided during training is under-explored, and the authors' proposal to parameterize node permutation matrices with GNNs and Sinkhorm iterations is novel to my knowledge and an interesting one. The authors have also performed extensive numerical experiments to compare the proposed method with several baselines as well as analyzing the various design choices such as the loss choice and the early stopping criteria. The paper is clearly-written overall with technical details well-documented.\", \"weaknesses\": \"As acknowledged by the authors, the computational burden of the MxNet model may be a concern when dealing with larger graphs, and indeed the datasets used in the experiments consist of relatively small graphs.\\n\\nSee two questions below regarding some design choices in the MxNet model.\", \"questions\": \"1. In Section 3.1, the authors proposed a differentiable approximation of the combinatorial MCP by relaxing the discrete objective in three fronts, and I am curious if there is evidence or to believe that the first (relaxing the adjacency matrix to be continuously-valued embeddings) and the third (replacing Algorithm 1 by a message passing GNN) are necessary / beneficial in the case of featureless graphs. Without them, it seems that the model can still be trained via a differentiable loss function and the model might actual be more interpretable. A similar question on the relaxation of the clique average loss for the definition of MxNet (SubMatch) in Section 3.2.\\n\\n2. In equation (8) for the subgraph matching problem, the last inequality ($K_{\\\\omega(G)} \\\\leq P A P^{\\\\intercal}$) necessarily entails the earlier ones (e.g., $K_1 \\\\leq P A P^{\\\\intercal}$). Hence, instead of using the full curriculum with $c$ ranging from $2$ to $\\\\omega(G)$, it seems possible to consider a simplification of the SubMatch loss in (9) by reducing the first (respectively, second) inner summation over $c$ to only the last term with $c = \\\\omega(G)$ (respectively, $c = \\\\omega(G)-1$). Is there evidence that including the full sequence of $c$'s is helpful?\", \"finally_just_a_typo\": \"On the bottom of Page 7, \\\"$u$ indicating\\\" --> \\\"indicates\\\".\", \"flag_for_ethics_review\": \"['No ethics review needed.']\", \"rating\": \"6\", \"confidence\": \"3\", \"code_of_conduct\": \"Yes\"}", "{\"summary\": \"In this submission, the authors propose a differentiable solution to the clique number estimation problem. In particular, they formulate the maximum clique problem (MCP) as a maximization of the size of a fully dense square submatrix within a suitably row-column-permuted adjacency matrix.\\nThis problem can be further treated as a sequence of subgraph matching tasks, and the cliques can be progressively detected, leading to a fully differentiable neural network called MxNet. Experiments show that the proposed method outperforms baselines in most situations, which is more robust to the OOD issue.\", \"soundness\": \"3\", \"presentation\": \"3\", \"contribution\": \"3\", \"strengths\": \"1. The problem is significant for many applications.\\n2. The proposed method is reasonable, and the re-formulation of MCP is insightful.\\n3. The experiments are solid and sufficient. Analytic experiments such as ablation studies are provided.\", \"weaknesses\": \"1. The writing and organization of the proposed method are not friendly to readers without sufficient background. In the introduction section, adding a figure illustrating the task may help readers quickly grasp the key concepts of the paper. Similarly, in Figure 1, binding notations like MSS(B) and rho_theta to the modules in the figure is necessary.\\n2. The motivation and rationale behind certain modeling strategies are not clearly explained. For instance, in Figure 1, what is the purpose of using a smooth surrogate for the adjacency matrix? Is there an ablation study that supports this approach? Additionally, the effects of the bicriteria early stopping strategy have not been verified.\\n3. The scalability of the proposed method for large graphs has not been verified. In particular, the Sinkhorn network often experiences numerical instability when dealing with very large graphs. What approaches can be taken to mitigate this issue? Additionally, how should the temperature of the Gumbel-softmax be set within the network?\\n4. The lambda balances the two terms in the loss function, is the proposed method robust to this hyperparameter?\", \"questions\": \"Please see above.\", \"flag_for_ethics_review\": \"['No ethics review needed.']\", \"rating\": \"6\", \"confidence\": \"2\", \"code_of_conduct\": \"Yes\"}", "{\"summary\": \"This paper introduces MXNET, an end-to-end differentiable model for estimating the clique number in the graph. It contains MXNET(MSS) detection that detects cliques via message passing on permuted adjacency matrix and MXNET(SubMatch) that curriculum matches a series of cliques. Extensive experiments highlight the effectiveness of the proposed methods.\", \"soundness\": \"3\", \"presentation\": \"3\", \"contribution\": \"3\", \"strengths\": \"S1: It integrates both the message-passing-based clique detection and the matching-based techniques for accurate clique number estimation.\", \"s2\": \"The design of the proposed method has sufficient motivations.\", \"s3\": \"Experiments over multiple datasets validate its effectiveness.\", \"weaknesses\": \"W1: A more thorough comparison and introduction of related works would enhance the quality of this paper.\\nW1.1: A related field is subgraph counting [1]. We can directly use 2-cliques, 3-cliques, ..., k-cliques as query graphs and apply subgraph counting methods to determine the number of k-cliques in the data graph. If the number of k-cliques is 1, then the clique number may be k. Given the limited availability of direct baselines for the problem of clique number estimation, this method could serve as a promising baseline. Some promising methods are in [1] and [4]. The first one stands as a representative that uses the neural method to estimate the subgraph number while the second, while the second one stands as a representative that designs an algorithm for subgraph counting.\\n\\nW1.2: Another promising area is the development of algorithm-based methods for approximate maximum clique detection or k-clique detection, as well as exact maximum clique detection [2]. These methods appear capable of quickly identifying accurate cliques. Exploring the motivation for using learning-based approaches and comparing these methods would be beneficial. Some promising methods are in [2] and [3]. The method in [2] is for exact maximum clique detection while the method in [3] is for approximate k-clique detection with theoretical guarantee which can be adapted for Clique Number Estimation.\\n\\n========\", \"w2\": \"Some claims can be improved\\nW2.1: The authors seem to argue that relying on \\\"extreme or no supervision\\\" is not beneficial (Line 061). However, intuitively, avoiding such supervision could enhance the generalization and applicability of the algorithms used. A better explanation would help the understanding of this paper.\\n\\nW2.2: The author seems to focus on introducing prior work related to the Maximum Clique problem (Lines 49-62) in the introduction. However, the existing methods for estimating the clique number and their limitations are not sufficiently explored.\\n\\n========\", \"w3\": \"Some experiments can be enhanced.\\n\\nW3.1: As demonstrated in the related works introduced in Section 1.2, the clique number can be bounded. (There are also many other metrics that can be used to bound the clique number.) Given that the graph used in this paper is small and dense (see Table 7), employing these bounded metrics may yield good results and assist in pruning unpromising outcomes. As there are not many methods directly predicting the clique number, this bound-based baseline would be a good choice.\\n\\nW3.2: The datasets evaluated in the paper are dense and small, with the largest containing only 300 nodes. It would be interesting to assess the performance on more diverse and larger datasets, as we can easily identify the exact cliques in smaller graphs. For example, the method proposed in previous works like in [3] can handle billion-scale graphs. Some smallest datasets in this paper like Email and Amazon would be helpful to asses the performance of the MXNET.\\n\\n\\n\\nW3.3: The authors evaluate the effect of distribution shift; however, they remain within the same graph. It would be interesting to assess whether the trained model can generalize to different datasets, especially since there may be scenarios where labels are not available for training. An interesting scenario is that could the model trained in this paper can be generalized to predict the clique number for the datasets in [3].\\n\\n[1]: \\\"Neural Subgraph Counting with Wasserstein Estimator\\\" in SIGMOD 2022\\n\\n[2]: \\\"Finding the Maximum Clique in Massive Graphs\\\" in VLDB 2017\\n\\n[3]: \\\"Scaling Up \\ud835\\udc58-Clique Densest Subgraph Detection\\\" in SIGMOD 2023\\n\\n[4]: \\\"Fast Local Subgraph Counting\\\" in VLDB 2024\", \"questions\": \"Q1: How do these subgraph counting algorithms perform in the clique number estimation?\", \"q2\": \"How do these bound-based algorithms perform in the clique number estimation?\", \"q3\": \"How does the proposed method perform in large graph.\", \"flag_for_ethics_review\": \"['No ethics review needed.']\", \"rating\": \"8\", \"confidence\": \"4\", \"code_of_conduct\": \"Yes\"}", "{\"title\": \"Response to Reviewer U7Wn (3/3)\", \"comment\": \"> *W3.2: [large datasets] Email and Amazon would be helpful to asses the performance of the MXNET.*\\n\\n\\n\\nThere are two reasons why our primary focus was not on large graphs in the initial version. However, we have now stress-tested our method with additional experiments, as described later.\\n\\n\\n(1) Our goal is to design an *end-to-end differentiable model* \\u2015 which is guided by the needs of practical applications like estimation of size of maximum induced common subgraph for graph simialrity. These applications typically involves fewer than 200 nodes (but possibly very many graphs).\\n\\nStill, some of our datasets are much larger than the datasets used by the baselines. Specifically, our method uses graphs with upto 33K edges (Mutag-m), which is larger than all other datasets used in any end-to-end differentiable neural network based method. Moreover, we use the RB dataset, which is known to be notoriously hard for clique detection. Since clique number computation stands out as one of the hardest NP-complete problems [A,B], designing neural methods for even such moderate sized graphs is already quite challenging. It is unsurprising that neural methods have all limited themselves to relatively small graphs.\\n\\n(2) Like any other ML task, neural clique detectors need *multiple* graphs for training and one entire graph represents one instance of data. Data sets with a single large graph are more common than data sets containing multiple large graphs with known clique numbers, which prevents a neural method to test its performance on large graphs. Nevertheless, we have the following proposal to predict clique number for a large graph, from which all neural models can benefit.\\n\\nWe decompose a large graph $\\\\mathcal{G}$ into overlapping subgraphs $G _1,..,G _N$ each with moderate sizes. Then, the clique number of $\\\\mathcal{G}$ is estimated as $\\\\max _i \\\\omega(G _i)$. \\nThis decomposition is helpful because (1) ground truth clique number generation is much easier in smaller graphs and (2) a neural clique detector requires multiple (graph, clique number) pairs for training. The risk of missing a clique straddling multiple subgraphs can be reduced via various degree based or K-core decomposition based heuristics. \\n\\n\\nDuring the rebuttal, we worked with Amazon and email-Enron datasets. Amazon has 334,863 nodes and 925,872 edges. email-Enron has 36,692 nodes and 183,831 edges. The table below shows the true and predicted clique numbers.\\n \\n\\n|| $\\\\omega(G)$| $\\\\widehat{\\\\omega}(G)$|\\n|:-:|:-:|:-:|\\n| Amazon| 7| 6|\\n|email-Enron| 20| 18|\\n\\nWe note that in each dataset, (1) MxNet was trained on a small set of subgraphs, sampled from the available single large graph, with corresponding ground truth clique numbers found using the Gurobi solver. During inference, MxNet effectively generalized to a much larger set of subgraphs extracted using degree-based heuristics, to ensure more comprehensive coverage of the large graph; (2) MxNet correctly identifies the subgraph containing the largest clique of the whole graph, i.e., $\\\\arg \\\\max _i \\\\omega(G _i) = \\\\arg \\\\max _i \\\\widehat{\\\\omega}(G _i)$; (3) MxNet correctly predicts most of the member nodes of the maximum clique within the graph; (4) MxNet's predicted clique number for the large graph closely approximates the true clique number \\u2015 much better than the predictions made by baselines, even with smaller graphs.\\n\\n---\\n\\n[A] H\\u00e5stad, J. (1999), Clique is hard to approximate within $n^{1-\\\\epsilon}$, Acta Mathematica.\\n\\n[B] Zuckerman, D. (2006), Linear degree extractors and the inapproximability of max clique and chromatic number, STOC.\\n\\n\\n> *whether the trained model can generalize to different datasets*\\n\\n\\nWe train our model on AIDS-m and use it for testing on PTC-MM-m, to get an MSE of 0.802. When our model was trained on PTC-MM-m and tested on itself, we got an MSE of 0.204.\\nOur approach approximates an NP-hard problem. To do so, we primarily exploite the distributional patterns present in the training data, enabling the model to specialize in those specific characteristics. Consequently, in out-of-distribution (OOD) experiments\\u2014where the training and testing datasets differ\\u2014the model's performance may degrade as it encounters patterns and distributions it has not been optimized to handle.\"}", "{\"title\": \"Thank you for the response\", \"comment\": \"I really appreciate the response from the authors and the additional experiments, which are helpful in addressing my concerns and added clarifications on the motivation for the model design. I am willing to raise my score to '7'.\"}", "{\"title\": \"Response to Reviewer U7Wn (2/3)\", \"comment\": \"> *W 1.2. algorithms for approximate maximum clique detection or k-clique detection [2,3].*\\n\\n**Scaling Up k-Clique Densest Subgraph Detection (SCTL) (paper [3] cited by the reviewer)**\\n\\nThe SCTL paper addresses the k-clique densest subgraph problem. To use SCTL for clique number detection, we initially employed the same protocol as MxNet, SCOPE, and NeurSC \\u2015 incrementally increasing k from 2 to $\\\\omega(G)$. However, we found that when $k$ is smaller than $\\\\omega(G)$, the increase in the number of $k$-cliques leads to prohibitively long runtimes \\u2015 often hundreds of seconds per graph for a single $k$, which is far from the millisecond-level inference times achieved by MxNet and other baselines.\\n\\nTo optimize SCTL's runtime, we reversed the search direction: starting with the maximum possible clique size (equal to the graph size), we detect the absence of a clique (which is much faster) and decrease $k$ until a clique is detected. This adjustment significantly reduces computational overhead. However, SCTL is still 5x (PTC-MM-m, Brock) to 20x (AIDS-m, MUTAG-m) slower than MxNet. \\n\\nWe could not find the code of \\\"Finding the maximum clique in massive graphs, VLDB 2017\\\". \\n \\n> *W2.1: The authors seem to argue that relying on \\\"extreme or no supervision\\\" is not beneficial (Line 061)... A better explanation would help the understanding of this paper.*\\n\\nWe meant to state that existing methods fall in two broad regimes. Combinatorial methods often use no training at all, whereas methods from the ML community (e.g., Sun & Yang, 2024) depend on full supervision with a demonstration of an actual maximal clique. Our paper focuses on the neglected middle ground where supervision is provided as only the clique number (which can be estimated from various efficient relaxations) and not a clique demonstration (which is computationally expensive to arrange for training). In several graph search and retrieval scenarios, the relevance of a corpus graph depends on the extent to which query and corpus graphs overlap, which can be reduced to a maximum common induced subgraph (size) computation. In such cases, only clique number is available for supervision. We have updated the paper with further explanation.\\n\\n> *W2.2 existing methods for estimating the clique number are not sufficiently explored.*\\n\\nWe were unable to find neural models that estimate clique number with less emphasis on maximum clique. But we discussed papers from discrete algorithms on clique number estimation without maximum clique computation in Section 1.2. We indeed thank the reviewer for the suggested papers from database domain, which are quite intriguing. We added those and some other papers which we found to be related in Appendix C, where we discussed related work in details. \\n\\n\\n> *W3.1: the clique number can be bounded bound-based baseline would be a good choice.*\\n\\nWe consider the following three Lower-Bounds and four Upper-Bounds from \\\"Exact bounds on the order of the maximum clique of a graph,\\\" Budinich. 2003, Discrete Applied Mathematics (In Eq 7, Eq 4).\\n\\nIn particular, the bounds are:\\n\\n1. **(UB) Eq. 1**: \\n $$\\\\omega(G) \\\\leq \\\\frac{3+\\\\sqrt{9 - 8(|V| -|E|)}}{2}$$\\n\\n2. Let $\\\\rho(G)$ denote the spectral radius of the adjacency matrix $A$ of $G$. Then, \\n **(UB) Eq. 2**: \\n $$\\\\omega(G) \\\\leq \\\\rho(G) + 1$$\\n\\n3. Let $N _{-1} =|\\\\{\\\\lambda _i: \\\\lambda _i \\\\leq -1\\\\}|$ where $(\\\\lambda _i) _{i=1}^{|V|}$ denote the eigenvalues of $A$. Then, \\n **(UB) Eq. 3**: \\n $$\\\\omega(G) \\\\leq N _{-1} + 1$$\\n\\n4. Let $\\\\bar{A}$ denote the adjacency matrix of the complementary graph of $G$. Then, \\n **(UB) Eq. 4**: \\n $$\\\\omega(G) \\\\leq|V| - \\\\frac{\\\\text{rank}(\\\\bar{A})}{2}$$\\n\\n5. **(LB) Eq. 5**: \\n $$\\\\omega(G) \\\\geq \\\\frac{1}{1 - \\\\frac{2|E|}{|V|^2}}$$\\n\\n6. Let $\\\\lambda _P$ denote the Perron eigenvalue of $A$, and $\\\\mathbf{v} _P$ denote the corresponding eigenvector. Then, \\n **(LB) Eq. 6**: \\n $$\\\\omega(G) \\\\geq \\\\frac{\\\\lambda _P}{(\\\\mathbf{1}^\\\\top \\\\mathbf{v} _P)^2 - \\\\lambda _P} + 1$$\\n\\n7. Let $\\\\lambda _j$ denote an eigenvalue of $A$, and $\\\\mathbf{v} _j$ denote the corresponding eigenvector. Define \\n $$g _j(\\\\alpha) = \\\\frac{\\\\alpha^2\\\\lambda _j + (1-\\\\alpha^2)\\\\lambda _P}{\\\\alpha (\\\\mathbf{1}^\\\\top \\\\mathbf{v} _j) + \\\\sqrt{1-\\\\alpha^2}(\\\\mathbf{1}^\\\\top \\\\mathbf{v} _P)}.$$ \\n For each $j$, $g _j(\\\\alpha)$ is defined on \\n $$\\\\left[\\\\max _{i: \\\\mathbf{v} _{ji} > 0} \\\\frac{-\\\\mathbf{v} _{Pi}}{\\\\sqrt{\\\\mathbf{v} _{Pi}^2 + \\\\mathbf{v} _{ji}^2}}, \\\\min _{i: \\\\mathbf{v} _{ji} < 0} \\\\frac{\\\\mathbf{v} _{Pi}}{\\\\sqrt{\\\\mathbf{v} _{Pi}^2 + \\\\mathbf{v} _{ji}^2}}\\\\right].$$ \\n Then, for graphs which are not regular complete multipartite, \\n **(LB) Eq. 7**: \\n $$\\\\omega(G) \\\\geq \\\\frac{1}{1 - \\\\max _{j,\\\\alpha} g _j(\\\\alpha)}$$\\n\\nWe report the *MSE* values of the best of the lower and best of the upper bounds as follows.\\n\\n|Method|Enzymes|PTC-mm|RB|\\n|-|-|-|-|\\n| MxNet| **0.235**| **0.204**| **7.170**|\\n|Best-Lower-Bound|3.429|15.101|253.800|\\n|Best-Upper-Bound|1.756|637.70|532.53|\\n\\nWe observe that our method performs better.\"}", "{\"title\": \"Response to Reviewer U7Wn (1/3)\", \"comment\": \"We thank the reviewer for their suggestions, which we discuss below and have incorporated in the paper.\\n\\n> *W1.1: A related field is subgraph counting [1,4].*\\n\\nWe appreciate the reviewer\\u2019s suggestion regarding subgraph counting methods as potential baselines for our problem of clique number estimation. \\n\\n**Neural Subgraph Counting with Wasserstein Estimator (NeurSC) [1]**\\n\\nWe adapt NeurSC ([1] cited by reviewer) as a baseline for our clique number prediction method by employing increasing $k$-cliques as query graphs and determining the subgraph count for each. The clique number is then estimated as the largest value of $k$ for which a non-zero count is returned.\\nWe present the results (MSE) of NeurSC in the following table, which shows that our method MxNet performs better.\\n\\n|Dataset|IMDB|AIDS-m|PTC-MM-m|DSJC|Brock|Enzymes|RB|MUTAG-m|\\n|-|-|-|-|-|-|-|-|-|\\n|NeurSC|5.33|1.24|1.51|15.35| 88.79|0.63|10.08|3.52|\\n|MxNet|0.056|0.350|0.204|0.200|7.615|0.235|7.170|0.890|\\n\\nWe have also incorporated NeurSC's results into Table 1 of the main paper for completeness. While our proposed MxNet method consistently outperforms NeurSC across all datasets, NeurSC demonstrates strong performance in certain scenarios. Specifically, it ranks as the third-best performer among decoder and non-decoder models for the Enzymes and RB datasets. Additionally, among non-decoder-based models, NeurSC ranks third for the PTC-MM-m, AIDS-m, and MUTAG-m datasets. These results underscore the utility of integrating neural modules to obtain clique presence certificates, which are effective for clique number estimation.\\n\\nWe thank the reviewer for suggesting this highly relevant and competitive baseline, which has enriched our analysis and strengthened our comparisons.\\n\\n**Fast Local Subgraph Counting (SCOPE) [4]**\\n\\nSCOPE is a tree-decomposition-based method for local subgraph counting. It estimates the occurrence of a given query graph in the local neighborhood of each node within the corpus graph and provides a count for every corpus graph node. The method utilizes tree decomposition and symmetry-breaking rules to minimize redundancy and incorporates a novel multi-join algorithm for efficient computation. To predict the clique number, we supply SCOPE with a set of query clique graphs and retrieve the corresponding local subgraph counts. For every query clique smaller than the clique number, at least one node in the corpus graph contains the clique pattern in its local neighborhood. We determine clique presence by taking the maximum of the individual neighborhood counts, and the largest query clique with a non-zero count is deemed the predicted clique number.\", \"it_is_important_to_note_that_scope_addresses_a_significantly_more_challenging_task\": \"estimating the count of patterns in each local neighborhood. As such, it naturally requires substantially more computational time compared to MxNet and earlier global subgraph counting methods. For each query\\u2013corpus graph pair provided to SCOPE, we set a timeout from the range [0.1, 1, 10, 100] seconds. If the timeout elapses without returning a result, we assume that no cliques were detected, and the clique number is determined accordingly.\\n\\nThe table below presents the performance of SCOPE under various timeout settings for each corpus graph. For MxNet, the numbers in parentheses indicate the average time taken per corpus graph (in seconds). We compare SCOPE against MxNet in terms of mean squared error (MSE).\\n\\n|Timeout (sec)| IMDB-m| AIDS-m| PTC _MM-m| DSJC| Brock| Enzymes| RB| MUTAG-m|\\n|-|-|-|-|-|-|-|-|-|\\n|0.1| 42.620| 6.140|1.486| 274.735| 595.545| 0.613| 185.525| 68.565|\\n|1| 25.000| 0.005|0.000| 226.165| 469.120| 0.000| 84.975| 50.255|\\n|10| 23.148|0.005|0.000| 217.180| 430.180| 0.000| 81.160| 32.175|\\n|100| 20.093|0.000|0.000| 192.615| 398.050| 0.000| 68.040| 12.515|\\n|MxNet| 0.056 (0.029 sec)| 0.350 (0.021 sec)| 0.204 (0.018 sec)| 0.200 (0.014 sec)| 7.615 (0.014 sec)| 0.235 (0.023 sec)| 7.170 (0.119 sec)| 0.890 (0.134 sec)|\\n\\nWe observe MxNet significantly outperforms SCOPE across all datasets when SCOPE is limited to a per-graph time of 0.1 seconds, which is comparable to the highest inference time taken by MxNet. Also, SCOPE's MSE consistently improves as it is afforded more computational time per graph, achieving perfect predictions on datasets such as Enzymes, AIDS-m, and PTC-MM-m. However, these improvements come at the cost of a substantial increase in inference time\\u2014exceeding 50x compared to MxNet.\\n\\nAdditionally, on several datasets, SCOPE is unable to outperform MxNet even when given up to 100 seconds per graph, while MxNet achieves superior accuracy at a fraction of the computational cost. This behavior is expected, as SCOPE tackles a more challenging task of local subgraph counting, a level of granularity that is unnecessary for the specific task of clique number prediction. These results highlight MxNet's efficiency and suitability for practical applications requiring fast and accurate inference.\"}", "{\"metareview\": \"This paper consider estimating clique number through the lens of learning. The main technical ingredients are: reformulating the problem of finding fully dense square submatrix, solving a sequence of subgraph matching problems. Reviewers agree that the problem is important and the proposed approach is new. Reviewers yet also have concerns on the computational cost for large-scale problems. Since the main contribution of the paper is on algorithmic aspect (i.e. introducing a differentiable optimization approach), which reviewers were convinced of, the AC believes that the work is above the bar.\", \"additional_comments_on_reviewer_discussion\": \"Despite some clarity questions, a primary concern from the reviewers is the computational cost. Authors responded that some data sets they used are already larger than in prior works, and that the key contribution is the introduction of a new differentiable algorithm. The AC and reviewers were convinced. The AC-reviewer discussion was not initiated due to the fairly clear scores.\"}" ] }

[ "Yuche Tsai", "Hsiang Hsiao", "Shou-De Lin" ]

[ "Text embedding", "Defense Inversion Attack" ]

{ "note_id": [ "yNE33q5OvQ", "wVHHJFkDU5", "sQUfUWwh26", "rQDWORTgZ5", "qMtGMhbcQ6", "q82bGrTlD7", "oiWUxKFNal", "lq1YDkWi8t", "lSbwpMR6XG", "lFB3e1gLXE", "iycc9mu2Xm", "dNZI2ggl8l", "ZZE60SrAPj", "YLC78Ys4My", "SPqR8ju7vi", "Qw3mEixCnf", "PVHGYoI4cD", "PHFi7GeJvZ", "OGFMeMZdSh", "MqWJxpxx4B", "M1kupLv46o", "JMKmU4Nh9W", "EfDhn5iYoA", "CdxCnhpFTZ", "8D4S6fjEXO", "79bN1ULtF0", "38rzbwyKl0", "38KQWmVVP3", "32FymM70yL", "2zYsYlDOdG", "2hwMa5X0ck" ], "note_type": [ "official_comment", "official_review", "official_comment", "official_comment", "official_review", "official_comment", "official_comment", "official_comment", "official_comment", "official_comment", "official_comment", "official_comment", "official_comment", "official_comment", "official_comment", "meta_review", "official_comment", "official_comment", "decision", "official_comment", "official_review", "official_comment", "official_comment", "official_comment", "official_comment", "official_review", "official_comment", "official_comment", "official_comment", "official_comment", "official_comment" ], "note_created": [ 1732211424974, 1730806331874, 1732207994220, 1732210427586, 1729161792396, 1732591334429, 1732211902629, 1732959860405, 1732957313419, 1732208674167, 1732591140513, 1732956904772, 1732211864836, 1732818399885, 1732199488341, 1734718629907, 1733117307516, 1732591001838, 1737524265499, 1732957161341, 1729670010208, 1733210734602, 1732211267803, 1732591113540, 1732200588039, 1729748732067, 1732208821877, 1732704982992, 1732616758363, 1732211711755, 1732290257601 ], "note_signatures": [ [ "ICLR.cc/2025/Conference/Submission13525/Authors" ], [ "ICLR.cc/2025/Conference/Submission13525/Reviewer_GaoG" ], [ "ICLR.cc/2025/Conference/Submission13525/Authors" ], [ "ICLR.cc/2025/Conference/Submission13525/Authors" ], [ "ICLR.cc/2025/Conference/Submission13525/Reviewer_FFaT" ], [ "ICLR.cc/2025/Conference/Submission13525/Authors" ], [ "ICLR.cc/2025/Conference/Submission13525/Authors" ], [ "ICLR.cc/2025/Conference/Submission13525/Reviewer_QCCL" ], [ "ICLR.cc/2025/Conference/Submission13525/Authors" ], [ "ICLR.cc/2025/Conference/Submission13525/Authors" ], [ "ICLR.cc/2025/Conference/Submission13525/Authors" ], [ "ICLR.cc/2025/Conference/Submission13525/Authors" ], [ "ICLR.cc/2025/Conference/Submission13525/Authors" ], [ "ICLR.cc/2025/Conference/Submission13525/Authors" ], [ "ICLR.cc/2025/Conference/Submission13525/Authors" ], [ "ICLR.cc/2025/Conference/Submission13525/Area_Chair_itwg" ], [ "ICLR.cc/2025/Conference/Submission13525/Authors" ], [ "ICLR.cc/2025/Conference/Submission13525/Authors" ], [ "ICLR.cc/2025/Conference/Program_Chairs" ], [ "ICLR.cc/2025/Conference/Submission13525/Authors" ], [ "ICLR.cc/2025/Conference/Submission13525/Reviewer_8zq5" ], [ "ICLR.cc/2025/Conference/Submission13525/Reviewer_8zq5" ], [ "ICLR.cc/2025/Conference/Submission13525/Authors" ], [ "ICLR.cc/2025/Conference/Submission13525/Authors" ], [ "ICLR.cc/2025/Conference/Submission13525/Authors" ], [ "ICLR.cc/2025/Conference/Submission13525/Reviewer_QCCL" ], [ "ICLR.cc/2025/Conference/Submission13525/Authors" ], [ "ICLR.cc/2025/Conference/Submission13525/Reviewer_GaoG" ], [ "ICLR.cc/2025/Conference/Submission13525/Reviewer_8zq5" ], [ "ICLR.cc/2025/Conference/Submission13525/Authors" ], [ "ICLR.cc/2025/Conference/Submission13525/Reviewer_FFaT" ] ], "structured_content_str": [ "{\"comment\": \"**Q2: Is it possible to design an adaptive attack scenario to demonstrate that this defense method remains effective even if the privacy protection scheme is exposed to adversaries.**\\n\\nWe appreciate the reviewer highlighting this scenario to evaluate DPPN\\u2019s robustness when adversaries are aware of the protection scheme. To address this, we consider an adaptive attack where the adversary knows which embedding dimensions (i.e., the privacy neurons $\\\\mathcal{N}_t$) are perturbed.\", \"the_research_question_is\": \"**Can the adversary extract private information from the \\u201cunperturbed\\u201d embeddings?** As defined in Definition 1, text embeddings decompose into privacy-sensitive embeddings and privacy-invariant embeddings. Since the privacy-sensitive embeddings are perturbed through noise injection, the adversary would resort to train their attack model on privacy-invariant embeddings.\\n\\n**Adaptive attack experiment setup:** \\n\\nThe attacker is given the full text embedding and access to the indices of the top-10% privacy neurons. The attacker builds a threat model by excluding these privacy neurons from their training (i.e., training is performed on $d*0.9$ dimensions). We term the scenario as oracle since the attacker has additional knowledge on the defense mechanism. We also report the attack performance when the defense mechanism is unknown to the adversary. \\n\\n**Results and discussion:**\\n\\n* **With external knowledge on the defense mechanism, the adversary did attack better compared to the unknown scenario.** As expected, an adversary with external knowledge of the defense mechanism performs better than one without it. On the STS12 dataset, privacy leakage increased to 25% in the oracle scenario, compared to 13% in the unknown scenario. A similar trend is observed in the FIQA dataset.\\n* **The attacker cannot inference private information from privacy-invariant embeddings.** Despite oracle knowledge, the adversary\\u2019s ability to infer private information is significantly reduced compared to unprotected embeddings. For example, in the STS12 dataset, leakage drops from 60% (unprotected) to 25% (oracle), demonstrating that excluding the privacy neurons significantly limits the adversary\\u2019s success. A similar reduction is observed in the FIQA dataset, where leakage drops from 77% to 28%. These results indicate that even with full knowledge of the protection scheme, the adversary cannot reconstruct private information from the privacy-invariant embeddings. \\n\\n\\n**STS12 dataset:**\\n\\n| Method | Leakage$\\\\downarrow$ (%) | Confidence$\\\\downarrow$ (%) | Downstream$\\\\uparrow$ (%) |\\n|----------|----------|----------|----------|\\n| unprotected | 60.09 | 47.81 | 74.25 |\\n| oracle-attack | 25.03 | 16.37 | 73.51 |\\n| unknown-attack | 13.44 | 6.05 | 67.05 |\\n\\n**FIQA dataset:**\\n| Method | Leakage$\\\\downarrow$ (%) | Confidence$\\\\downarrow$ (%) | Downstream$\\\\uparrow$ (%) |\\n|----------|----------|----------|----------|\\n| unprotected | 77.35 | 54.48 | 33.56 |\\n| oracle-attack | 28.86 | 19.12 | 29.64 |\\n| unknown-attack | 20.15 | 11.92 | 25.96 |\"}", "{\"summary\": \"This paper focuses on defense strategies against embedding inversion attacks, a type of privacy attack where attackers attempt to reconstruct original sensitive data from its embedding representation. Existing defense methods commonly add noise uniformly across all embedding features. However, this approach is limited in maintaining model performance and is limited in effectively protecting privacy since, ideally, more noise should be directed towards privacy-sensitive features.\\n\\nTo address these issues, the authors first assume and validate that embeddings are composed of both privacy-sensitive and privacy-invariant features. Then, they propose an optimization problem in which a differentiable mask is optimized to isolate privacy-sensitive information within learned embeddings. The optimized mask becomes a tool to detect privacy-sensitive features, and by adding noise to these features, the authors achieve defense against embedding inversion attacks.\", \"soundness\": \"3\", \"presentation\": \"4\", \"contribution\": \"2\", \"strengths\": \"1. The method is technically sound, successfully enhances benign accuracy in downstream tasks, and prevents privacy leakage.\\n\\n2. The hypothesis validated in this paper, that features can be divided into privacy-sensitive and privacy-invariant categories, is quite interesting. Building on this, the idea of using a mask to separate these features is also very novel.\", \"weaknesses\": \"1. The paper lacks a formal privacy guarantee. For instance, in methods like LapMech, the authors provide a proof to demonstrate the effectiveness of privacy protection, but this paper lacks such a discussion. Such a drawback raises doubts about the trustworthiness of the proposed method, especially if attackers know the defense mechanism.\\n\\n2. This defense method requires two datasets, one containing privacy-sensitive data and one without, which necessitates labeling what information as private information. This adds a labeling burden in real-world datasets, as additional annotation is required.\", \"questions\": \"1. Is it possible to formulate privacy realized by this framework?\\n\\n2. It is recommended that the authors consider adaptive attack scenarios to demonstrate that this defense method remains effective even if the privacy protection scheme is exposed to adversaries.\", \"flag_for_ethics_review\": \"['No ethics review needed.']\", \"rating\": \"6\", \"confidence\": \"3\", \"code_of_conduct\": \"Yes\"}", "{\"comment\": \"**W5: It seems that only one attack model is evaluated in the whole paper, making the defense performance not convincing again. Are there any results for other attack models?**\\n\\nWe believe there is a misunderstanding regarding the evaluation of attack models in our paper. As clarified in **Table 3** and **Section 6.1**, our manuscript evaluates **three attack models**: Vec2text [6], GEIA [7], and MLC [8]. Due to page constraints, we only presented experimental results on the STS12 dataset with $\\\\epsilon = 1$ and $\\\\epsilon = 2$ in the main text. To address the reviewer\\u2019s concern, we include additional experimental results using the GEIA and MLC attack models below. For brevity, we report only privacy-related metrics (Leakage & Confidence), as the utility metric remains consistent with those in Table 1 where DPPN outperforms the baseline methods.\\n\\nThe results in the tables below demonstrate that DPPN consistently outperforms baseline methods (LapMech and PurMech) across various perturbation levels ($\\\\epsilon$) and attack models. We hope this provides sufficient evidence to validate the effectiveness of DPPN and addresses the reviewer\\u2019s concern.\\n\\n\\n**Results using MLC[8] as attack model:**\\n\\n**STS12 dataset**\\n| Epsilon | **Leakage $\\\\downarrow$(%)** | | |\\n|---------|---------------------------------|-----------------|-----------------|\\n| **Methods** | **LapMech** | **PurMech** | **DPPN** | \\n| 1 | 49.39 | 49.80 | **47.63** |\\n| 2 | 52.74 | 52.68 | **49.59** |\\n| 4 | 52.35 | 52.48 | **50.25** |\\n| 6 | 52.16 | 52.15 | **51.01** |\\n| 8 | 52.38 | 52.69 | **51.69** |\\n\\n**FIQA dataset**\\n| Epsilon | **Leakage $\\\\downarrow$(%)** | | |\\n|---------|---------------------------------|-----------------|-----------------|\\n| **Methods** | **LapMech** | **PurMech** | **DPPN** |\\n| 1 | **41.24** | 41.94 | 45.51 |\\n| 2 | 49.46 | 49.75 | **45.74** |\\n| 4 | 53.37 | 53.33 | **50.87** |\\n| 6 | 54.17 | 54.19 | **53.05** |\\n| 8 | 54.48 | 54.32 2 | **53.95** |\\n\\n\\n\\n\\n**Results using GEIA[7] as attack model:**\\n\\n\\n**STS12 dataset**\\n| Epsilon | **Leakage $\\\\downarrow$(%)** | | | \\n|---------|---------------------------------|-----------------|-----------------|\\n| **Methods** | **LapMech** | **PurMech** | **DPPN** | \\n| 1 | 12.30 | 12.36 | **7.08** | \\n| 2 | 20.60 | 21.21 | **15.82** | \\n| 4 | 23.61 | 23.51 | **21.49** | \\n| 6 | 24.77 | 24.84 | **22.97** | \\n| 8 | 24.81 | 24.85 | **23.50** | \\n\\n**FIQA dataset**\\n| Epsilon | **Leakage $\\\\downarrow$(%)** | | | \\n|---------|---------------------------------|-----------------|-----------------|\\n| **Methods** | **LapMech** | **PurMech** | **DPPN** |\\n| 1 | 24.18 | 23.58 | **4.27** | \\n| 2 | 41.27 | 40.85 | **25.13** | \\n| 4 | 46.06 | 46.51 | **40.09** | \\n| 6 | 47.43 | 47.31 |**43.27** | \\n| 8 | 47.76 | 47.87 | **44.73** | \\n\\n**W6: Only Table 3 shows the privacy metrics results for different attack models. How about the utility metrics?**\\n\\nThe experiment presented in Table 3 specifically focuses on evaluating privacy vulnerabilities under different attack models. The utility metrics are not included in Table 3 because they remain constant across all attack models for a given defense method. These utility results are identical to those reported in Table 1 for the STS12 dataset, as the defense mechanism's impact on utility is independent of the attack model being evaluated. \\n\\n**References**\\n\\n[1] Muennighoff, Niklas, et al. \\\"MTEB: Massive Text Embedding Benchmark.\\\"\\n\\n[2] Feyisetan, Oluwaseyi, et al. \\\"Privacy-and utility-preserving textual analysis via calibrated multivariate perturbations.\\\" \\n\\n[3] Du, Minxin, et al. \\\"Sanitizing sentence embeddings (and labels) for local differential privacy.\\\" \\n\\n[4] Hu, Lijie, et al. \\\"Differentially Private Natural Language Models: Recent Advances and Future Directions.\\\" \\n\\n[5] Meehan, Casey, Khalil Mrini, and Kamalika Chaudhuri. \\\"Sentence-level Privacy for Document Embeddings.\\\"\\n\\n[6] Morris, John, et al. \\\"Text Embeddings Reveal (Almost) As Much As Text.\\\" \\n\\n[7] Li, Haoran, Mingshi Xu, and Yangqiu Song. \\\"Sentence Embedding Leaks More Information than You Expect: Generative Embedding Inversion Attack to Recover the Whole Sentence.\\\" \\n\\n[8] Song, Congzheng, and Ananth Raghunathan. \\\"Information leakage in embedding models.\\\"\"}", "{\"title\": \"General Response on the theoretical guarantees of DPPN\", \"comment\": \"We acknowledge that the absence of a formal theoretical privacy guarantee represents a limitation of our work. Below, we outline a promising direction for incorporating formal privacy guarantees into DPPN and discuss the associated challenges in achieving this goal.\\n\\n\\n**Extending DPPN with Regularized Mahalanobis Differential Privacy:**\\n\\nTo meet standard differential privacy requirements, all dimensions of the text embeddings must be perturbed rather than focusing on a subset of embedding dimensions. A potential approach involves introducing \\\"elliptical\\\" noise into the text embeddings. Unlike the traditional Laplace mechanism, which adds isotropic (spherical) noise sampled uniformly from a multivariate Laplace distribution, elliptical noise allows for dimension-wise perturbation with variable scales. The Mahalanobis distance allows for more flexible, dimension-wise perturbations by accounting for the covariance structure of data, rather than treating all dimensions equally. This technique has been studied in the context of word embeddings [1], where privacy is defined under a metric-local differential privacy (metric-LDP) framework using the Mahalanobis distance (Definitions 3 and 4 of [1]). While this direction is promising, several challenges must be addressed.\", \"technical_challenges\": \"1) **Curse of Dimensionality in High-Dimensional Data:** Differential privacy in high-dimensional spaces faces significant challenges, as the noise magnitude required for privacy increases linearly with the embedding dimension [2]. Specifically, the noise norm in the Laplace mechanism follows the Gamma distribution $\\\\Gamma(d, \\\\epsilon)$, where $d$ is the embedding dimension and $\\\\epsilon$ is the privacy budget.\\nThis requires setting a very low privacy budget (e.g., $\\\\epsilon \\\\geq 500$) to maintain embedding utility for modern text embedding models with large dimensions (e.g., $d=768$ for SentenceBERT). While dimension reduction methods like Gaussian random projection could mitigate this issue, they are incompatible with DPPN's core design because they disrupt the separation of privacy-sensitive and privacy-invariant dimensions that is central to DPPN. \\n\\n2) **Deriving a Formal Proof for the Neuron-Suppressing Perturbation Function:**\\nAs demonstrated in Sections 3.3 and 5.2, our perturbation function achieves effective defense against inversion attacks compared to existing DP-based mechanisms. However, constructing a formal proof that this approach satisfies the Regularized Mahalanobis differential privacy guarantee is non-trivial. Specifically, this would require defining the covariance matrix for the Mahalanobis distance and formulating a corresponding perturbation function that meets metric-LDP criteria. We acknowledge this as a critical avenue for future work and intend to explore formalizing these guarantees in subsequent research.\\n\\n**Discussion:**\\n\\nWe believe the core contribution of our work\\u2014defending against inversion attacks through dimension-selective perturbation\\u2014addresses a critical gap in the literature. Moreover, it is worth noting that other prominent works, such as [3, 4, 5], have also made meaningful contributions to privacy research despite the lack of formal guarantees. We hope that our findings will inspire further exploration and innovation in embedding-based privacy defense mechanisms.\\n\\n**References**\\n\\n[1] Xu, Zekun, et al. \\\"A Differentially Private Text Perturbation Method Using Regularized Mahalanobis Metric.\\\" Proceedings of the Second Workshop on Privacy in NLP. 2020.\\n\\n[2] Wu, Xi, et al. \\\"Bolt-on differential privacy for scalable stochastic gradient descent-based analytics.\\\" Proceedings of the 2017 ACM International Conference on Management of Data. 2017.\\n\\n[3] Coavoux, Maximin, Shashi Narayan, and Shay B. Cohen. \\\"Privacy-preserving Neural Representations of Text.\\\" Proceedings of the 2018 Conference on Empirical Methods in Natural Language Processing. 2018.\\n\\n[4] Elazar, Yanai, and Yoav Goldberg. \\\"Adversarial Removal of Demographic Attributes from Text Data.\\\" Proceedings of the 2018 Conference on Empirical Methods in Natural Language Processing. 2018.\\n\\n[5] Struppek, Lukas, Dominik Hintersdorf, and Kristian Kersting. \\\"Be Careful What You Smooth For: Label Smoothing Can Be a Privacy Shield but Also a Catalyst for Model Inversion Attacks.\\\" The Twelfth International Conference on Learning Representations.\"}", "{\"summary\": \"The paper proposes a defense method DPPN to resist against embedding inversion attacks. In contrast to previous methods that add noise on all embedding dimensions, it recognize privacy neurons that contains more sensitive information and only perturbs them. Therefore, it achieve an excellent privacy-utility trade-off. Extensive experiments show that the defense method can protect private information while maintaining the origin semantic information.\", \"soundness\": \"3\", \"presentation\": \"2\", \"contribution\": \"3\", \"strengths\": \"Originality: The introduction of privacy neurons and targeted perturbation is innovative, departing from conventional methods that apply noise to all dimensions.\", \"quality\": \"The conducted experiments are comprehensive. The study evaluates DPPN across six datasets, multiple embedding models, and various attack models, showcasing robust and thorough experimental design.\", \"clarity\": \"The paper follows a clear structure, with a logical flow from problem motivation to solution, experiments, and results.\", \"significance\": \"The ability to reduce privacy leakage without sacrificing utility makes DPPN relevant for real-world applications where maintaining both privacy and accuracy is critical.\", \"weaknesses\": [\"The paper does not provide sufficient detail on how parameters $\\\\xi$ and $\\\\eta$ in formulas 3 and 5 are selected during the experiments. Please provide additional information about the selection process. This clarification would help readers understand their impact and ensure reproducibility.\", \"The concepts of $D^+$ and $D^-$ are introduced on line 170, but their explanations are deferred until line 204. This gap may confuse readers. It would be clearer if a brief definition were provided when these concepts are first mentioned, or if the detailed explanation were moved closer to the first appearance.\", \"In Fig. 2, the paper introduces the concept of sensitivity for privacy neurons. What if privacy neurons were selected based on their top dimension-wise sensitivity? The paper lacks a study on it.\"], \"questions\": [\"The paper uses a fixed top-k selection method for privacy neurons. What if we choose them based on a threshold of $m$, such as 0.5?\"], \"flag_for_ethics_review\": \"['No ethics review needed.']\", \"rating\": \"6\", \"confidence\": \"3\", \"code_of_conduct\": \"Yes\"}", "{\"comment\": \"Thank you very much for the score improvement and your constructive feedback. We will further polish the paper in the final revision. Thank you!\"}", "{\"comment\": \"**W4.1: The real-time performance and computational cost of DPPN in practical applications are unclear.**\\n\\nWe appreciate the reviewer for pointing out this important concern. In fact, the proposed DPPN defense method is designed to be efficient in both complexity and scalability. Specifically, the data owner can precompute and store the privacy neurons for each token in advance. During inference, the system only needs to sample noise and add it to the corresponding precomputed privacy neurons, which is computationally lightweight. As a result, the computational complexity of DPPN is identical to all of the baseline methods.\\n\\n**W4.2: The interpretability of the DPPN method is relatively low, potentially limiting its use in scenarios requiring high model interpretability.**\\n\\nWe believe this may be a misunderstanding. Interpretability is actually one of the core contributions of the DPPN method. Specifically, the detected privacy neurons offer a meaningful interpretation of the embedding dimensions. While individual embedding dimensions may not have explicit predefined meanings, our findings suggest that the embeddings themselves store token information in distinct, specific dimensions. As illustrated in Figure 6, we observe that semantically similar words tend to share the same privacy neurons, which can be leveraged for implicit privacy protection. We hope this clarifies the reviewer\\u2019s concern.\\n\\n**References**\\n\\n[1] https://learn.microsoft.com/en-us/azure/ai-services/language-service/overview\\n\\n[2] Morris, John, et al. \\\"Text Embeddings Reveal (Almost) As Much As Text.\\\" Proceedings of the 2023 Conference on Empirical Methods in Natural Language Processing. 2023.\\n\\n[3] Kim, Donggyu, Garam Lee, and Sungwoo Oh. \\\"Toward privacy-preserving text embedding similarity with homomorphic encryption.\\\" Proceedings of the Fourth Workshop on Financial Technology and Natural Language Processing (FinNLP). 2022.\"}", "{\"comment\": \"Thanks for the authors' feedback. The authors have addressed some of my concerns. I have increased the score.\"}", "{\"comment\": \"**W1.1: The NER method can only match a limited number of PII-related tokens. What happens to PII that is not matched? For example, in Figure 1, age 43 could also be considered a form of private data to some extent.**\\n\\nWe thank the reviewer for pointing out an important scenario where the sensitive information is difficult to extract and sometimes difficult to match. We would like to address two important points. \\n\\nFirst, we acknowledge that our experiments assume the data owner can extract sensitive information using rule-based systems or NER frameworks. Under this assumption, our results show that DPPN is effective in preventing privacy leakage for various categories of private information, including age, sex, and disease, as detailed in Table 4 and Section 6.2.\\n\\nSecond, we agree that there is a potential risk where PII may not be fully matched by the system. However, we would like to highlight an important finding in this work: **semantic\\nsimilar words share similar privacy neuron**. As detailed in Section 5.3 and Figure 6, we observed that these **\\\"privacy neurons\\\" represent specific privacy concepts**, meaning that perturbing a privacy neuron for one word can also provide protection for other semantically related terms. For example, the privacy neuron associated with \\\"america\\\" can also help protect related terms like \\\"U.S.\\\" and \\\"American\\\" (see Figure 6). \\n\\nAdditionally, we performed an experiment to verify the implicit protective capability of our approach, which is shown in Table 9. The results demonstrate that **when DPPN suppresses privacy neurons for a specific term, it also extends protection to semantically related words**, even if they are not explicitly matched. We hope this explanation clarifies how DPPN can provide broader privacy protection, even in cases where PII is not perfectly matched, and addresses the reviewer\\u2019s concern.\"}", "{\"comment\": \"We thank the reviewer for their feedback and will respond to the raised questions below.\\n\\n**W1: The paper does not provide sufficient detail on how parameters $\\\\xi$ and $\\\\gamma$ in formulas 3 and 5 are selected during the experiments.**\\n\\nThank you for pointing out the missing details regarding the parameter selection of $\\\\xi$ and $\\\\gamma$ in Formulas 3 and 5. We followed the optimal settings established in prior work [1], using $\\\\xi = 1.1$ and $\\\\gamma = -0.1$. We will incorporate this clarification into the revised manuscript to enhance transparency and reproducibility.\\n\\n\\n**W2: What if privacy neurons were selected based on their top dimension-wise sensitivity?**\\n\\nWe appreciate the reviewer\\u2019s suggestion and agree that selecting privacy neurons based on their top dimension-wise sensitivity could serve as a meaningful baseline for neuron selection methods. To evaluate this approach, we conducted experiments using sensitivity-based selection and compared the results with DPPN and random selection. \\nHere we report the privacy metric (Leakage) and utility metric (Downstream) by varying the top-$r$% privacy neurons. The results are presented in the tables below. \\n\\nThe results indicate that while sensitivity-based selection is effective in mitigating privacy leakage compared to random selection, DPPN demonstrates significantly superior performance. Specifically, the privacy neurons identified by DPPN result in lower leakage and higher downstream utility across different settings. This improvement can be attributed to DPPN's ability to assign higher weights to critical neurons via the neuron mask learning process. We hope the results clarify the reviewer's concern. \\n\\n**STS12 dataset**\\n| **Ratio** | **Leakage $\\\\downarrow$(%)** | || **Downstream $\\\\uparrow$(%)** | ||\\n| -------- | -------- | -------- | -------- | -------- |-------- | -------- |\\n| | **Random**| **Sensitivity** | **DPPN** | **Random**| **Sensitivity** | **DPPN**| \\n| 0.1 | 0.2043 | 0.1689 | **0.1270** | 0.5816 | 0.6511| **0.6788**| \\n| 0.2 | 0.2034 | 0.1532 | **0.1165** | 0.5699 | 0.6558 | **0.6705**|\\n| 0.4 | 0.2091 | 0.1765 | **0.1233** | 0.5424 | 0.6312 | **0.6567**|\\n| 0.6 | 0.2122 | 0.1732 | **0.1297** | 0.5873 | 0.6156 | **0.6462**|\\n| 0.8 | 0.2127 | 0.1860 | **0.1507** | 0.5849 | 0.6113 | **0.6352**|\\n\\n\\n**FIQA dataset**\\n| **Ratio** | **Leakage $\\\\downarrow$(%)** | || **Downstream $\\\\uparrow$(%)** | ||\\n| -------- | -------- | -------- | -------- | -------- |-------- | -------- |\\n| | **Random**| **Sensitivity** | **DPPN** | **Random**| **Sensitivity** | **DPPN**| \\n| 0.1 | 0.4285 | 0.2434 | **0.1783** | 0.2208 | 0.2329| **0.2583**| \\n| 0.2 | 0.4364 | 0.2189 | **0.1893** | 0.2233 | 0.2317 | **0.2540**|\\n| 0.4 | 0.4454 | 0.2276 | **0.1913** | 0.2232 | 0.2289| **0.2497**|\\n| 0.6 | 0.4324 | 0.2613 | **0.2344** | 0.2400 | 0.2385| **0.2494**|\\n| 0.8 | 0.4806 | 0.2975 | **0.2715** | 0.2330 | **0.2453**| 0.2418|\"}", "{\"comment\": \"Dear Reviewer 8zq5,\\n\\nThank you once again for your insightful comments and suggestions, which have been immensely helpful to us. We have posted responses to the proposed concerns.\\n\\nWe understand this may be a particularly busy time, so we deeply appreciate any time you can spare to review our responses and let us know if they adequately address your concerns. If there are any additional comments, we will make every effort to address them promptly.\\n\\nBest regards, \\nThe Authors\"}", "{\"comment\": \"**Q1: Replacing PII does not necessarily mean directly removing personal information; it can involve some random replacement of PII. Deleting PII may not be a good baseline for comparison.**\\n\\nThank you for your comment. We agree that the concept of \\\"replacing\\\" PII encompasses a broader range of methods, such as randomization or substitution. To address this issue, we implement two additional PII transformation baseline methods.\\n\\n1. **random word replacement**: Replace PII with a random word sampled in the corpus. \\n2. **semantic word replacement**: Replace PII with a semantic similar word under the same named entity category. \\n\\nWe present the experimental results on the STS12 and FIQA dataset in the following tables. To alleviate the impact of randomness, we report the average downstream performance of 10 runs with different random seeds. We have the following observations:\\n\\n**PII transformation methods also suffer from various levels of information loss and reduced downstream utility.** \\nBoth the Semantic and Random Replacement methods result in a noticeable reduction in downstream performance. For instance, on the STS12 dataset, the Semantic Replacement method causes a drop in downstream from 74% to 64%, while on the FIQA dataset, the downstream drops from 33% to 18%. Similar trends are observed with Random Replacement. Notably, these transformation methods tend to yield worse performance on the FIQA dataset compared to directly removing PII. Since FIQA is an information retrieval task, we hypothesize that replacing PII disrupts the semantic coherence of the text, thereby degrading retrieval quality. In contrast, PII transformations have a less pronounced impact on the STS12 dataset, which is focused on text similarity.\\n\\n**Effectiveness of DPPN as a soft protection method.**\\nWhile PII transformation methods are designed to protect private information, they often result in information loss and reduced task performance. In contrast, DPPN operates at the embedding level, perturbing the data in a more nuanced and \\\"soft\\\" manner that better preserves the semantic integrity of the text. Additionally, DPPN allows for a controlled tradeoff between privacy and utility by adjusting the perturbation level ($\\\\epsilon$).\\n\\n**DPPN provides better privacy-utility tradeoff rate.**\\nTo evaluate the privacy-utility tradeoff of different methods, we calculate the tradeoff ratio $R = \\\\frac{\\\\Delta \\\\text{Leakage}}{\\\\Delta \\\\text{Downstream}}$, where $\\\\Delta \\\\text{Leakage}$ represents the reduction in leakage (i.e., the difference in leakage between unprotected and protected data), and $\\\\Delta \\\\text{Downstream}$ is the corresponding reduction in downstream performance. As shown in the tables below, DPPN exhibits a superior tradeoff rate of 6.59 on the STS12 dataset and 7.52 on the FIQA dataset, outperforming the PII transformation methods.\\n\\nWe hope these results help clarify the effectiveness of DPPN in offering a better balance between privacy protection and downstream utility, particularly when compared to traditional PII transformation methods.\\n\\n\\n**Results on STS12 Dataset**\\n| **Method** | **Leakage $\\\\downarrow$(%)** | **Downstream $\\\\uparrow$(%)** | **Tradeoff Rate $R$ $\\\\uparrow$** |\\n|-----------------------|-----------------|---------------------|---------------------|\\n| **Unprotected** | 60.09 | 74.25 | -|\\n| **RemovePII** | - | 59.47 | 4.12| \\n| **Random-Replacement** | - | 60.50 | 4.42 |\\n| **Semantic-Replacement** | - | 64.46 | 6.22 |\\n| **DPPN ($\\\\epsilon=2$)** | 13.44 | 67.05 | **6.59** |\\n\\n**Results on FIQA Dataset**\\n| **Method** | **Leakage $\\\\downarrow$(%)** | **Downstream $\\\\uparrow$(%)** | **Tradeoff Rate $R$ $\\\\uparrow$** |\\n|-----------------------|-----------------|---------------------|---------------------|\\n| **Unprotected** | 77.35 | 33.56 |-|\\n| **RemovePII** | - | 21.24 | 6.27 |\\n| **Random-Replacement** | - | 19.20 | 5.38 |\\n| **Semantic-Replacement** | - | 18.37 | 5.09 |\\n| **DPPN ($\\\\epsilon=2$)** | 20.15 | 25.96 |**7.52** | \\n\\n\\n---\\n\\n**Q4: If the authors could open-source their artifact and contribute it to the community, that would be ideal, such as https://anonymous.4open.science/, etc.**\\n\\nThank you for your suggestion. We fully understand the importance of open-sourcing the artifact and contributing to the community. However, due to institutional policies and approval processes, we are unable to release the code publicly before acceptance. Once the paper is officially accepted, we will be able to make the code available to the community. We appreciate your understanding and look forward to making the artifact accessible to the research community.\"}", "{\"comment\": \"**Q5: Only two datasets' results are shown in the main text. Could the author explain in more detail the reasons for choosing these two datasets?**\\n\\nWe selected the STS12 and FIQA datasets for inclusion in the main text for two primary reasons. First, these datasets are widely used benchmarks in prior work on embedding attacks and defenses [2,3]. This allows us to maintain consistency with established studies and provide a meaningful comparison. Second, these datasets represent distinct downstream tasks for a comprehensive evaluation of defense utility: the STS12 dataset assesses performance on the semantic text similarity task, while the FIQA dataset is used for retrieval tasks. Additionally, we emphasize that two other datasets, PII-Masking300K and MIMIC-III clinical notes, were employed to assess privacy risks in real-world threat scenarios. This ensures that our study not only aligns with prior research but also explores the implications of our methods in practical, high-risk applications.\\n\\n**Q6: Lack of in-depth analysis of the results in Table 1.**\\n\\nWe appreciate the reviewer\\u2019s feedback regarding the analysis of results in Table 1. The primary goal of this experiment is to highlight the superior performance of DPPN in achieving an improved privacy-utility tradeoff compared to baseline methods. As demonstrated in Table 1, DPPN consistently outperforms the baselines by achieving lower privacy leakage and better downstream performance. This improvement stems from DPPN\\u2019s selective perturbation paradigm, which focuses on perturbing only the top 20% most informative neurons. In contrast, baseline methods perturb all dimensions uniformly, which compromises utility while providing a general defense.\\nWe believe this selective approach is a key contribution of our work. Furthermore, we validate the effectiveness of DPPN\\u2019s perturbation function in Section 5.2 and analyze the quality of neuron detection in Section 5.1 to support our findings. \\n\\n**W1.1: The DPPN method may not explicitly detail how to accurately match and process personal information.**\\n\\nWe thank the reviewer for highlighting this point. To extract sensitive information, we utilize named entity recognition (NER) models to identify and extract named entities effectively. The detailed process for matching and processing personal information using the DPPN method is thoroughly described in Appendix C. We would be glad to address any further questions or provide additional clarifications if needed.\\n\\n**W1.2: The effectiveness of DPPN relies on accurately identifying and selecting neurons related to privacy information. Inaccuracies in this process may lead to sensitive information leakage.**\\n\\nWe agree that the effectiveness of DPPN heavily depends on the accurate identification of privacy-related neurons. To address this, we conducted a thorough investigation into the quality of our neuron detection methods in Section 5.1. Figures 4 and 5 also demonstrate that DPPN achieves performance comparable to white-box defenses. Specifically, on the STS12 dataset, DPPN exhibits only a 3\\u20136% absolute difference in privacy leakage metrics and less than a 5% relative difference in downstream task performance. For a more comprehensive analysis, we encourage the reviewer to refer to Lines 358\\u2013369.\\n\\n\\n\\n**W2: Lack of Theoretical Guarantees.**\\n\\nWe agree that it is important to develop a formal privacy guarantee for a defense method. As outlined in the general response, we propose a potential direction to extend DPPN with formal differential privacy definitions. While we acknowledge the technical challenges involved in formalizing such a theoretical framework, we believe that the key insights provided by our work\\u2014particularly in identifying privacy neurons\\u2014lay a strong foundation for future research to develop more robust defense strategies in this domain.\"}", "{\"comment\": \"Thank you for your thoughtful feedback. We are grateful for your recognition of the strength of our experiments on adaptive attacks and the updated score. While we understand that the theoretical aspect may not have fully addressed your concerns, we are glad that the experimental results have helped to strengthen the overall contribution of the paper.\"}", "{\"comment\": \"We thank the reviewer for their feedback and will respond to the raised questions below.\\n\\n**W1: Is LapMech a variant of DP? What is the performance comparison with standard DP?**\\n\\nLapMech is indeed based on the Laplace mechanism, which is one of the foundational approaches in differential privacy (DP) and provides pure $\\\\epsilon$-DP guarantees. Both baseline methods in our evaluation, LapMech and PurMech, are DP-based approaches tailored for privacy preservation in text embeddings. Among them, PurMech represents the state-of-the-art defense against inversion attacks on embeddings.\\n\\nRegarding performance comparisons with standard DP mechanisms, we believe that the evaluations presented in Table 1 and Table 7 of our manuscript offer a comprehensive analysis. These results demonstrate that DPPN significantly outperforms the DP-based baselines in both privacy and utility metrics.\\n\\n**W2: What is \\\"Downstream\\\" in the utility metric?**\\n\\nDownstream refers to the subsequent tasks that utilize the text embeddings as input features. Since text embeddings serve as general-purpose representations, their utility is often evaluated through their performance on various downstream applications, including text classification, information retrieval, and semantic similarity assessment. Details of the downstream tasks and their evaluation metrics for each dataset could be found in Table 8 of our manuscript. In our evaluation, we specifically follow the comprehensive evaluation protocol established by the Massive Text Embedding Benchmark (MTEB) [1]. This benchmark provides standardized metrics for assessing embedding quality across multiple downstream tasks, allowing for systematic comparison of embedding utility.\\n\\n**W3: It seems that DPPN does not outperform other defense methods in some datasets. How do you explain the results in Table 7?**\\n\\nWe acknowledge that DPPN does not consistently outperform all baseline methods across every dataset and perturbation level. However, it is important to emphasize that DPPN demonstrates superior performance in the majority of cases. Specifically, in Table 7, DPPN outperforms the baseline methods in 48 out of 60 cases, achieving an **80% win rate**. \\n\\nFor the minority of cases where DPPN underperforms, the relative difference compared to the best-performing baseline is only **8.05%**. In contrast, when DPPN outperforms the second-best baseline, it achieves a substantial gains with **average improvement of 31.21%** in these scenarios. We also observe that DPPN\\u2019s underperformance typically occurs at lower perturbation levels (e.g., $\\\\epsilon = 6$ or $\\\\epsilon = 8$). Since the injected noise is minimal, the advantage of DPPN is reduced. This limitation is common to noise-based privacy schemes, where the trade-off between privacy and utility diminishes with lower noise levels.\\n\\nIn summary, while DPPN may not always achieve the top performance in every setting, we believe its overall performance and significant improvements in the majority of cases could validate its effectiveness and robustness compared to baseline methods.\\n\\n[1] Muennighoff, Niklas, et al. \\\"MTEB: Massive Text Embedding Benchmark.\\\" Proceedings of the 17th Conference of the European Chapter of the Association for Computational Linguistics. 2023.\"}", "{\"metareview\": \"This is a borderline paper. While the reviewers agreed on the merits of the problem, and some of the algorithmic approaches, there were legitimate concerns about the lack of a formal privacy guarantee. Since it seems methods developed in the differential privacy literature is applicable, so a question that is glaring is how the current method compare to formal privacy preserving methods. The authors did summarize it as a future direction. It seems that having the formal privacy component is crucial to the paper.\", \"additional_comments_on_reviewer_discussion\": \"NA\"}", "{\"comment\": \"Thank you for taking the time to review our work and for increasing the score. We sincerely appreciate your thoughtful consideration and the constructive feedback that has helped improve our manuscript. If there are any additional concerns or suggestions that could further enhance the quality of our work, we would be happy to address them.\"}", "{\"comment\": \"Dear Reviewer GaoG,\\n\\nThank you once again for your insightful comments and suggestions, which have been immensely helpful to us. We have posted responses to the proposed concerns.\\n\\nWe understand this may be a particularly busy time, so we deeply appreciate any time you can spare to review our responses and let us know if they adequately address your concerns. If there are any additional comments, we will make every effort to address them promptly.\\n\\nBest regards, \\nThe Authors\"}", "{\"title\": \"Paper Decision\", \"decision\": \"Reject\"}", "{\"comment\": \"**Q2.1.1: The Laplacian mechanism is often less effective than the Gaussian mechanism because it is a pure-DP mechanism, which is too strict for NLP tasks. It is recommended that the authors include a comparison with the Gaussian mechanism.**\\n\\nWe sincerely appreciate the reviewer\\u2019s valuable comment regarding the comparison with the Gaussian mechanism. In response, we have implemented the Gaussian mechanism (GaussianMech) and compare its defense performance with our DPPN method. To ensure a fair comparison, we first sample Gaussian noise and then apply the neuron suppression perturbation as described in Eq. 6 for DPPN. For the Gaussian mechanism, we vary the privacy budget $\\\\epsilon$ while fixing $\\\\delta = 10^{-5}$, and evaluate both leakage and downstream task performance across two datasets: STS12 and FIQA.\\nOur experiments show that DPPN consistently outperforms the Gaussian mechanism in terms of both leakage reduction and downstream task performance. The difference is particularly noticeable at lower $\\\\epsilon$ values, such as $\\\\epsilon = 0.5$ and $\\\\epsilon = 1$, where DPPN demonstrates significantly lower leakage and better downstream task accuracy. We hope the provided results clarify the effectiveness of DPPN in comparison to the Gaussian mechanism, and we hope this addresses the reviewer\\u2019s concern.\\n\\n**STS12 dataset**\\n| **Epsilon** | **Leakage $\\\\downarrow$ (%)** | | **Downstream $\\\\uparrow$(%)** | |\\n|---------|---------------------------|-------------|-------------|--------------|\\n| | **GaussianMech** | **DPPN** | **GaussianMech** | **DPPN** | \\n| 0.5 | 15.08 | **6.54** | 48.35 | **58.15** |\\n| 1 | 31.98 | **24.15** | 70.03 | **72.25** | \\n| 2 | 43.87 | **42.55** | 73.68 | **73.95** |\\n| 3 | **49.42** | 49.46 | 74.04 | **74.12** |\\n\\n\\n**FIQA dataset**\\n| **Epsilon** | **Leakage $\\\\downarrow$ (%)** | | **Downstream $\\\\uparrow$(%)** | |\\n|---------|---------------------------|-------------|-------------|--------------|\\n| **Methods** | **GaussianMech** | **DPPN** | **GaussianMech** | **DPPN** | \\n| 0.5 | 25.65 | **8.92** | 14.51 | **22.07** |\\n| 1 | 47.90 | **37.58** | 30.32 | **30.87** | \\n| 2 | **64.43** | 64.83 | 33.23 | **33.67** |\\n| 3 | **69.74** | 71.24 | 33.38 | **33.98** |\\n\\n**Q2.1.2:Could the author clarify why LapMech and PurMech were chosen because there are many benchmarks available for comparison?**\\n\\nThank you for raising this important question about the choice of baseline methods. As discussed in Section 8 of the paper, privacy-preserving text embeddings can be broadly classified into two categories: noise injection and adversarial training. Since DPPN relies on noise injection to achieve privacy preservation in text embeddings, it is most appropriate to compare it against other noise injection-based methods.\\n\\nWhile there is a large body of work on privacy-aware word embeddings with noise injection and differntial privacy, fewer studies focus on sentence-level embeddings. The two baseline methods we selected\\u2014Laplace Mechanism (WSDM 2020) [1] and Purkayastha Mechanism (WWW 2023) [2]\\u2014are currently the most well-established and theoretically grounded approaches for this specific problem. This is further supported by Table 1 in the survey paper [3], which identifies [2] and [4] as the only perturbation-based methods for sentence-level privacy, with [1] being a general DP mechanism. We excluded [4] from our experiments due to its additional requirements, such as fine-tuning the embedding model and reliance on an external corpus. Given the limited prior work in sentence-level privacy-preserving embeddings, we believe these selected baselines represent the most relevant and comparable methods for our study.\\n\\n**References**\\n\\n[1] Feyisetan, Oluwaseyi, et al. \\\"Privacy-and utility-preserving textual analysis via calibrated multivariate perturbations.\\\" Proceedings of the 13th international conference on web search and data mining. 2020.\\n\\n[2] Du, Minxin, et al. \\\"Sanitizing sentence embeddings (and labels) for local differential privacy.\\\" Proceedings of the ACM Web Conference 2023. 2023.\\n\\n[3] Hu, Lijie, et al. \\\"Differentially Private Natural Language Models: Recent Advances and Future Directions.\\\" Findings of the Association for Computational Linguistics: EACL 2024. 2024.\\n\\n[4] Meehan, Casey, Khalil Mrini, and Kamalika Chaudhuri. \\\"Sentence-level Privacy for Document Embeddings.\\\" Proceedings of the 60th Annual Meeting of the Association for Computational Linguistics (Volume 1: Long Papers). 2022.\"}", "{\"summary\": \"The paper presents DPPN, a method for defending text embeddings against inversion attacks by selectively perturbing privacy-sensitive neurons. It demonstrates strengths in improving privacy-utility tradeoffs and shows robustness across different datasets and embedding models. However, it also has weaknesses, including the lack of theoretical privacy guarantees and potential challenges in generalizing to new data. Overall, DPPN is a promising approach for privacy protection in text embeddings, but further research is needed to address its limitations and ensure broader applicability.\", \"soundness\": \"3\", \"presentation\": \"2\", \"contribution\": \"3\", \"strengths\": \"Strengths:\\n\\n1. Targeted Defense: DPPN focuses on identifying and perturbing only a subset of privacy-sensitive neurons, which is a more efficient approach compared to perturbing all dimensions of the embedding.\\n\\n2. Improved Privacy-Utility Tradeoff: The paper demonstrates that DPPN achieves a superior balance between privacy protection and maintaining the utility of the embeddings for downstream tasks.\\n\\n3. Effective Against Real-World Threats: DPPN shows significant effectiveness in mitigating sensitive information leakage on real-world datasets, such as medical records and financial data.\", \"weaknesses\": \"### 1. Personal Information Matching Issue\\n\\nThe DPPN method may not explicitly detail how to accurately match and process personal information. Ensuring accuracy and security, while protecting privacy, requires careful handling. This involves selecting and optimizing exact and fuzzy matching algorithms to provide accurate results without compromising privacy. The method uses a differentiable neuron mask learning framework to detect privacy neurons related to sensitive information. By assessing the importance of each embedding dimension, the top \\\\( k \\\\) dimensions with the highest importance are selected as privacy neurons. Visualizing the proportion of protected private data is necessary. The effectiveness of DPPN relies on accurately identifying and selecting neurons related to privacy information. Inaccuracies in this process may lead to sensitive information leakage.\\n\\n### 2. Lack of Theoretical Guarantees\\n\\nDPPN does not provide theoretical guarantees like Differential Privacy (DP), meaning it cannot quantify the degree of privacy protection or ensure the statistical insignificance of including or excluding a single data point. Adapting DPPN's targeted perturbation method to meet DP standards is challenging, as DP requires perturbing all published data for strong privacy guarantees, whereas DPPN only perturbs a subset of dimensions.\\n\\n### 3. Challenges in Multilingual and Multicultural Backgrounds\\n\\nExpressions of personal information vary across languages and cultural backgrounds. It is essential to discuss whether the DPPN method can adapt to and effectively handle these differences.\\n\\n### 4. Real-Time Performance and Computational Cost\\n\\nThe real-time performance and computational cost of DPPN in practical applications are unclear. This is an important consideration for systems that need to process large volumes of data in real-time. The interpretability of the DPPN method is relatively low, potentially limiting its use in scenarios requiring high model interpretability, such as medical diagnosis.\\n\\n### 5. Embedding Methods\\n\\nThe authors use embedding methods like GTR-base, Sentence-T5, and SBERT. It is suggested that traditional methods such as GloVe and Word2Vec be discussed and experimentally analyzed.\\n\\n### 6. Presentation Issues\\n\\nTable 9 is too large. Using \\\\resizebox \\\\textwidth is not recommended. Table 8: Statistics of datasets. The caption is below the table; the authors should unify the format. Authors can add more related work in the context:\\n- Private Language Models via Truncated Laplacian Mechanism EMNLP 2024\\n- Differentially Private Language Models Benefit from Public Pre-training PrivateNLP 2020\\n\\nThe explanations for Figures 1 and 3 are not detailed enough, especially regarding the meaning of arrows and labels. It is recommended that the authors clarify these in the legend.\", \"questions\": \"1. What are the benefits of neuron mask learning and direct matching for replacing PII compared to constructing a series of regular expressions to match and transform PII in the corpus?\\n2. What are the benefits or advantages of the author's method compared to traditional DP-based methods?\\n3. Could the author fully describe the challenges faced in this research?\\n4. The author would be greatly appreciated if the code could be made open source and contributed to the community.\\n5. Six datasets were used in the experiments, but only two datasets' results are shown in the main text. Could the author explain in more detail the reasons for choosing these two datasets?\\n6. The results in Table 1 show the performance of different methods, but there is a lack of in-depth analysis of these results. It is suggested to add a discussion of the results, explaining why DPPN performs better in these cases.\", \"flag_for_ethics_review\": \"['No ethics review needed.']\", \"rating\": \"6\", \"confidence\": \"5\", \"code_of_conduct\": \"Yes\"}", "{\"comment\": \"Thanks for the authors' feedback. The authors have addressed some of my concerns. I will keep my score.\"}", "{\"comment\": \"We thank the reviewer for their feedback and will respond to the raised questions below.\\n\\n**W1 & Q1: The paper lacks a formal privacy guarantee. Is it possible to formulate privacy realized by this framework?**\\n\\nWe agree that it is important to develop a formal privacy guarantee for a defense method. As outlined in the general response, we propose a potential direction to extend DPPN with formal differential privacy definitions. While we acknowledge the technical challenges involved in formalizing such a theoretical framework, we believe that the key insights provided by our work\\u2014particularly in identifying privacy neurons\\u2014lay a strong foundation for future research to develop more robust defense strategies in this domain. Additionally, we conducted an experiment (addressed in the following question) to demonstrate that our method remains effective even when the defense mechanism is disclosed to adversaries. We hope this clarifies and addresses the reviewer\\u2019s concern.\\n\\n**W2: This defense method requires two datasets, which necessitates labeling what information as private information.**\\nThe proposed defense method involves two datasets to evaluate the embedding differences with and without private information. However, we argue that this does not impose an additional labeling burden, as the datasets can be constructed using publicly available or generated resources. \\n\\nFor instance, if the private information to be protected pertains to medical data, the data owner can utilize publicly available medical-related articles, such as those on Wikipedia, or curated medical datasets. Additionally, synthetic privacy-related texts can be generated using generative models like ChatGPT, which can simulate relevant private information. This approach enables the data owner to construct the positive dataset $D^+$. The negative dataset $ D^-$ can then be derived from $D^+$ through simple modifications, as outlined in Lines 205\\u2013206 of the manuscript. In summary, the requirement of two datasets does not require additional manual labeling.\"}", "{\"comment\": \"Dear Reviewer QCCL,\\n\\nThank you once again for your insightful comments and suggestions, which have been immensely helpful to us. We have posted responses to the proposed concerns.\\n\\nWe understand this may be a particularly busy time, so we deeply appreciate any time you can spare to review our responses and let us know if they adequately address your concerns. If there are any additional comments, we will make every effort to address them promptly.\\n\\nBest regards, \\nThe Authors\"}", "{\"comment\": \"**W4: Experiments with two baselines are not very convincing.**\\n\\nWe thank the reviewer for raising this concern regarding the selection of baseline methods. As discussed in the related works section (Section 8), there are two main approaches for privacy-preserving text embeddings: noise injection and adversarial training. Since DPPN achieves privacy preservation by selectively injecting noise into text embeddings, it is most appropriate to compare DPPN against noise injection-based methods.\\n\\nWhile there is an extensive body of research on privacy-aware word embeddings, there are significantly fewer works focused on sentence-level embeddings. As a result, the two baseline methods used in our experiments\\u2014**Laplace Mechanism** (WSDM 2020) [2] and **Purkayastha Mechanism** (WWW\\u201923) [3]\\u2014are currently the most theoretically formalized and publicly recognized methods for this problem. This is further supported by Table 1 in the survey paper [4], which identifies [3] and [5] as the only two perturbation-based methods for sentence-level privacy, with [2] being a general DP mechanism. It is worth noting that we excluded [5] from our experiments due to its additional requirements, including fine-tuning the embedding model and reliance on an external corpus. Given the scarcity of prior research in sentence-level privacy-preserving text embeddings, our choice of baselines reflects the state-of-the-art approaches available. \\n\\nExperiment results with additional baseline. To address the concern and further enhance our evaluation, we implemented an additional baseline method that perturbs text embeddings by adding Gaussian noise. This method was studied in the Vec2Text [6] paper as a promising privacy defense mechanism. However, it is important to note that this method does not offer formal guarantees of differential privacy (DP). The results of this additional baseline are presented in the tables below.\\nOur analysis shows that the NormalNoise baseline exhibits similar performance to other baseline methods. Notably, our proposed DPPN consistently outperforms NormalNoise across all evaluation metrics. These results reinforce the robustness of DPPN and further validate its effectiveness compared to other noise injection-based approaches.\\nWe hope this addresses the reviewer\\u2019s concerns and demonstrates our rationale for baseline selection.\\n\\n**STS12 dataset**\\n| Epsilon | **Leakage $\\\\downarrow$(%)** | | | | **Confidence $\\\\downarrow$(%)** | | | | **Downstream $\\\\uparrow$(%)** | | | |\\n|---------|---------------------------|-------------|-------------|--------------|---------------------|-------------|-------------|-------------|---------------------|-------------|-------------|-------------|\\n| | **NormalNoise** | **LapMech** | **PurMech** | **DPPN** | **NormalNoise** | **LapMech** | **PurMech** | **DPPN** | **NormalNoise** | **LapMech** | **PurMech** | **DPPN** |\\n| 1 | 7.52 | 7.36 | 7.42 | **1.61** | 6.67 | 6.70 | 6.80 | **6.05** | 29.24 | 29.28 | 29.31 | **40.78** |\\n| 2 | 22.83 | 22.34 | 22.66 | **13.44** | 9.13 | 9.39 | 9.42 | **8.25** | 60.65 | 60.72 | 60.72 | **67.05** |\\n| 4 | 38.89 | 38.17 | 38.04 | **33.49** | 24.87 | 24.70 | 24.74 | **23.80** | 72.45 | 72.47 | 72.47 | **73.40** |\\n| 6 | 45.39 | 44.74 | 44.76 | **42.59** | 33.79 | 34.59 | 34.59 | **34.14** | 73.67 | 73.68 | 73.68 | **73.95** |\\n| 8 | 49.29 | 48.48| 48.48 | **48.34** | 47.11 | 39.08 | 38.75 | **38.49** | 38.49 | 73.97 | **73.98** | **73.98** | 74.09 |\\n\\n**FIQA dataset**\\n| Epsilon | **Leakage $\\\\downarrow$(%)** | | | | **Confidence $\\\\downarrow$(%)** | | | | **Downstream $\\\\uparrow$(%)** | | | |\\n|---------|---------------------------|-------------|-------------|--------------|---------------------|-------------|-------------|-------------|---------------------|-------------|-------------|-------------|\\n| | **NormalNoise** | **LapMech** | **PurMech** | **DPPN** | **NormalNoise** | **LapMech** | **PurMech** | **DPPN** | **NormalNoise** | **LapMech** | **PurMech** | **DPPN** |\\n| 1 | 13.33 | 12.56 | 13.01 | **2.01** | 6.48 | 6.67 | 6.70 | **5.84** | 10.74 | 10.64 | 10.63 | **15.05** |\\n| 2 | 34.58 | 35.17 | 35.31 | **20.15** | 16.96 | 16.70 | 16.55 | **11.92** | 21.47 | 21.74 | 21.76 | **25.96** |\\n| 4 | 55.11 | 55.69 | 55.38 | **51.26** | 35.20 | 35.32 | 35.25 | **31.36** | 32.10 | 32.22 | 32.23 | **32.84** |\\n| 6 | 64.53 | 64.12 | 64.13 | **62.79** | 44.23 | 43.35 | 43.56 | **41.57** | 33.10 | 33.24 | 33.26 | **33.58** |\\n| 8 | 68.74 | 68.85 | 68.63 | **67.99** | 48.22 | 48.07 | 47.77 | **46.25** | 33.34 | 33.50 | 33.52 | **33.73** |\"}", "{\"summary\": \"This paper introduces DPPN (Defense through Perturbing Privacy Neurons), a novel method that protects text embeddings by selectively identifying and perturbing privacy-sensitive neurons. The experiments show the effectiveness of the method.\", \"soundness\": \"2\", \"presentation\": \"2\", \"contribution\": \"2\", \"strengths\": \"1. This paper has a clear format, highlighting important keywords throughout the paper.\\n2. The paper explains the methodology in details.\", \"weaknesses\": \"1. Is LapMech a variant of DP? What is the performance comparison with standard DP? The paper can add a new section on this.\\n2. What is \\\"Downstream\\\" in utility metric? The paper could explain more about how they measure the utility of the method.\\n3. How do you explain the results in Table 7? Table 7 gives more results of the method than Table 1, and It seems that DPPN does not outperform other defense methods in some datasets.\\n4. The paper can include some other defense methods in their comparison. Experiments with two baselines are not very convincing.\\n5. In Sec 4.1, they mention that \\\"Vec2text serves as our primary attack model in subsequent experiments.\\\" So it seems that only one attack model is evaluated in the whole paper, making the defense performance not convincing again. Are there any results for other attack models?\\n6. Only Table 3 shows some results for attack models. However, only privacy metrics are presented. How about the utility metrics?\\n7. The paper could reorganize some experimental results based on some comments above, making the experiment section better.\", \"questions\": \"Please see those in weaknesses.\", \"flag_for_ethics_review\": \"['No ethics review needed.']\", \"rating\": \"6\", \"confidence\": \"3\", \"code_of_conduct\": \"Yes\"}", "{\"comment\": \"**Q1: What if the privacy neurons were chosen based on a threshold of m, such as 0.5?**\\n\\nWe appreciate the reviewer\\u2019s suggestion regarding threshold-based neuron selection. To address this, we conducted experiments with varying thresholds $h$, where the privacy neurons $\\\\mathcal{N}_t$ are selected if the mask score $m_i$ for the $i$-th neuron is larger than $h$. The results, obtained using the STS12 and FIQA datasets under a perturbation level of $\\\\epsilon = 2 $, are summarized in the tables below. For comparison, we also include the performance of unprotected embeddings and the Laplace Mechanism (LapMech) baseline.\\n\\n**Results and Discussion.**\\nFrom the results summarized below, we make the following observations:\\n* **Using a threshold-based neuron selection method proves to be an effective strategy.** When setting the threshold $h \\\\leq 0.6$, DPPN consistently outperforms the LapMech with lower privacy metrics (Leakage & Confidence) while maintaining higher downstream utility. \\n* **Optimal threshold selection.** We notice that most of the mask score $m_i$ for the $i$-th neuron falls into the range of 0.4~0.7. According to the experiment results setting the threshold to 0.5 or 0.6 seems to be a robust choice. \\nWe hope these results could address the reviewer\\u2019s concerns regarding threshold-based selection.\\n\\n\\n**STS12 dataset:**\\n| **Threshold** | **Leakage $\\\\downarrow$(%)** | **Confidence $\\\\downarrow$(%)** | **Downstream $\\\\uparrow$(%)** |\\n|----------|----------|----------|----------|\\n| **unprotected** | 60.09 | 47.81 | 74.25 |\\n| **LapMech** | 22.34 | 9.39 | 60.72 |\\n| 0.9 | 59.83 | 47.54 | 74.25 |\\n| 0.8 | 57.19 | 48.65 | 73.62 |\\n| 0.7 | 43.89 | 12.78 | 70.51 |\\n| 0.6 | 14.68 | 1.36 | 65.92 |\\n| 0.5 | 12.33 | 0.08 | 63.17 |\\n| 0.4 | 12.97 | 0.07 | 62.85 |\\n| 0.3 | 13.48 | 1.11 | 61.43 |\\n| 0.2 | 15.07 | 2.64 | 62.56 |\\n| 0.1 | 17.45 | 2.88 | 61.49 |\\n\\n\\n\\n**FIQA dataset:**\\n| **Threshold** | **Leakage $\\\\downarrow$(%)** | **Confidence $\\\\downarrow$(%)** | **Downstream $\\\\uparrow$(%)** |\\n|----------|----------|----------|----------|\\n| **unprotected** | 77.35 | 54.48 | 33.56 |\\n| **LapMech** | 35.17 | 16.70 | 21.74 |\\n| 0.9 | 76.84 | 54.52 | 33.50|\\n| 0.8 | 66.51 | 47.78 | 31.87 |\\n| 0.7 | 31.79 | 19.10 | 28.65 |\\n| 0.6 | 17.83 | 11.23 | 29.65 |\\n| 0.5 | 18.93 | 11.24 | 27.74 |\\n| 0.4 | 19.13 | 11.20 | 25.12 |\\n| 0.3 | 23.44 | 10.85 | 25.49 |\\n| 0.2 | 27.16 | 13.87 | 23.87 |\\n| 0.1 | 28.78 | 14.33 | 22.51 |\\n\\n\\n\\n[1] Louizos, Christos, Max Welling, and Diederik P. Kingma. \\\"Learning Sparse Neural Networks through L_0 Regularization.\\\" International Conference on Learning Representations. 2018.\"}", "{\"comment\": \"The authors have addressed some of my concerns. Although their response regarding the theoretical part was not entirely satisfactory, their experiments on adaptive attacks are convincing. Therefore, I have raised my score to 6.\"}", "{\"title\": \"Comment\", \"comment\": \"Thanks for authors' reply and clarification.\\n\\n**Reply to Q1**: Replacing PII does not necessarily mean directly removing personal information; it can involve some random replacement of PII. Deleting PII may not be a good baseline for comparison.\\n\\n**Reply to Q2**: The Laplacian mechanism is often less effective than the Gaussian mechanism because it is a pure-DP mechanism, which is too strict for NLP tasks. It is recommended that the authors include a comparison with the Gaussian mechanism. Could the author clarify why LapMech and PurMech were chosen because there are many benchmarks available for comparison?\\n\\n**Reply to Q4**: If the authors could open-source their artifact and contribute it to the community, that would be ideal, such as https://anonymous.4open.science/, etc.\\n\\n**Reply to W1.1**: The NER method can only match a limited number of PII-related tokens. What happens to PII that is not matched? For example, in Figure 1, age 43 could also be considered a form of private data to some extent.\"}", "{\"comment\": \"We thank the reviewer for their feedback and will respond to the raised questions below.\\n\\n**Q1: What are the benefits of DPPN compared to matching and transforming PII in the corpus?**\\n\\nWe acknowledge that matching and transforming PII is an effective approach to prevent privacy leakage, as it removes sensitive information entirely from the original text. However, this method has significant drawbacks, such as the loss of critical contextual information, which can substantially degrade the performance of downstream tasks. For instance, in medical retrieval tasks, removing details such as disease names or patient descriptions can severely impact the utility and effectiveness of the system.\\n\\nTo empirically evaluate the impact of removing PII on downstream tasks, we implemented a text anonymizer based on the state-of-the-art tool provided by Azure Language Service [1], where all privacy tokens were replaced by the symbol \\u2018*\\u2019.\", \"we_compare_the_privacy_leakage_and_downstream_performance_of_four_methods\": \"unprotected embeddings, embeddings with PII removed, and DPPN at two perturbation levels ($\\\\epsilon=2$ and $\\\\epsilon=1$). The results are summarized in the tables below, leading to the following key observations:\\n\\n1. **Removing PII significantly impacts downstream utility.** Comparing the unprotected embeddings with the RemovePII method, we observe a substantial drop in downstream performance\\u2014from 74% to 59% on the STS12 dataset, and from 33% to 21% on the FIQA dataset. While RemovePII effectively mitigates privacy leakage, it suffers from severe information loss, resulting in low utility.\\n\\n2. **DPPN provides an adaptive privacy-utility trade-off.** As shown in the tables, DPPN allows for balancing privacy and utility by adjusting the perturbation level $\\\\epsilon$. For instance, with $\\\\epsilon=2$, DPPN achieves better downstream performance than RemovePII while maintaining a relatively low privacy leakage (13.44% on the STS12 dataset). This adaptive mechanism enables data owners to fine-tune the balance between protecting privacy and maintaining utility according to their specific requirements.\\n\\n### Results on STS12 Dataset\\n| **Method** | **Leakage $\\\\downarrow$(%)** | **Downstream $\\\\uparrow$(%)** |\\n|-----------------------|-----------------|---------------------|\\n| **Unprotected** | 60.09 | 74.25 |\\n| **RemovePII** | - | 59.47 |\\n| **DPPN ($\\\\epsilon=2$)** | 13.44 | 67.05 |\\n| **DPPN ($\\\\epsilon=1$)** | 1.61 | 40.78 |\\n\\n### Results on FIQA Dataset\\n| **Method** | **Leakage $\\\\downarrow$(%)** | **Downstream $\\\\uparrow$(%)** |\\n|-----------------------|-----------------|---------------------|\\n| **Unprotected** | 77.35 | 33.56 |\\n| **RemovePII** | - | 21.24 |\\n| **DPPN ($\\\\epsilon=2$)** | 20.15 | 25.96 |\\n| **DPPN ($\\\\epsilon=1$)** | 2.01 | 15.05 |\\n\\n\\n**Q2: What are the benefits or advantages of the author's method compared to traditional DP-based methods?**\", \"the_advantages_of_our_proposed_dppn_over_traditional_dp_based_methods_are_twofold\": \"1. **Enhanced Privacy-Utility Tradeoff:** Unlike traditional DP methods that perturb all dimensions indiscriminately, DPPN selectively perturbs only the most informative dimensions. This approach significantly reduces the risk of privacy leakage while preserving utility for downstream tasks. Table 1 and our experimental results demonstrate that DPPN consistently achieves a better balance between privacy and utility. \\n\\n2. **Robustness Against Diverse Attack Models:** We evaluated DPPN against three strong attack models. The results show that DPPN provides better defense performance than other DP-based methods. This robustness validates its effectiveness in handling real-world scenarios with varied attack strategies. \\n\\n\\n**Q3: What are the challenges faced in this research?**\\n\\nThis research encounters two primary challenges. First, as noted in the general response, extending the current framework to satisfy formal differential privacy guarantees remains an ongoing effort. While we recognize that ensuring these guarantees is critical for developing a robust defense framework, we are still addressing the curse of dimensionality and working to derive a formal proof for our perturbation function. Second, learning a high-quality neuron detection method is inherently challenging due to the lack of explicit semantic meaning in embedding dimensions. Empirically, token information can only be inferred by observing changes in embeddings with and without specific tokens. Eventually, we found that adopting a neuron mask learning scheme proved to be an effective approach, and achieves performance comparable to white-box neuron detection scenarios.\"}", "{\"comment\": \"Thank you for thoroughly addressing my concerns and providing detailed explanations. The additional experiments and analyses have significantly strengthened the manuscript, resolving my previously raised issues.\\n\\nIn light of these improvements, I am increasing the rating to 6.\"}" ] }

[ "Zekun Li", "Xianjun Yang", "Kyuri Choi", "Wanrong Zhu", "Ryan Hsieh", "HyeonJung Kim", "Jin Hyuk Lim", "Sungyoung Ji", "Byungju Lee", "Xifeng Yan", "Linda Ruth Petzold", "Stephen D. Wilson", "Woosang Lim", "William Yang Wang" ]

[ "Scientific Figure Understanding", "Multimodal Large Language Model", "Large Vision Language Model", "Multi-discipline", "Multimodal", "Scientific knowledge understanding", "benchmark", "Nature science", "Visual instruction-following" ]

{ "note_id": [ "z8zJvt5L9J", "vcnhMjaPJQ", "ssqrpq0ZmF", "qPAMU4LiyC", "pZoXG2yeh7", "ob448Sxzid", "oQsWnqzoSg", "le1koqluab", "lKJ25y3MS6", "jFNno8wkXZ", "iqLo0IZ8pC", "ilOkkh6Scv", "hi3uQ4jIj0", "hdrOKHUA9r", "giuGP2ap4U", "gKA14HbiQt", "ftfvyfwKhS", "fl09L7Ep8G", "dnZRjNbJsJ", "aNlIrEf99t", "ZaOhfYiM0j", "Z4vq5QuWAM", "SgbbkXLyYF", "OLehjEWNkw", "NtYgn5WE19", "KjdSjessUw", "K8m3aHgBAt", "HsRPmcJ5zf", "HqMxW4uwRb", "H1srOR9Xvz", "DzqPRjVEVc", "DfufGe4JT5", "Bbr73BJvzO", "Ar0EK27t4e", "9GYC9Brtvf", "90uEAoVxPY", "3GmwY8rRQu", "2xdleHFdkK" ], "note_type": [ "decision", "meta_review", "official_comment", "official_comment", "official_comment", "official_comment", "official_comment", "official_comment", "official_comment", "official_comment", "official_comment", "official_comment", "official_review", "official_comment", "official_comment", "official_comment", "official_comment", "official_review", "official_comment", "official_comment", "official_comment", "official_comment", "official_comment", "official_comment", "official_comment", "official_comment", "official_comment", "official_comment", "official_comment", "official_review", "official_comment", "official_comment", "official_comment", "official_comment", "official_comment", "official_comment", "official_comment", "official_review" ], "note_created": [ 1737523565060, 1734976895841, 1732667220724, 1732402313793, 1733139138070, 1732402477931, 1733049738667, 1733157507047, 1732401490784, 1732406859554, 1732402035188, 1732814625602, 1730655362490, 1732481143142, 1732402094404, 1732402158323, 1732400614293, 1730010094459, 1732401871036, 1732403111571, 1732667394076, 1732434025022, 1732725831936, 1732401143230, 1733210310614, 1732402526294, 1733210379666, 1732667442833, 1732725784541, 1730586768416, 1733215282308, 1732667502411, 1733210192414, 1732401668608, 1733049346353, 1733301210883, 1733076246987, 1730066204749 ], "note_signatures": [ [ "ICLR.cc/2025/Conference/Program_Chairs" ], [ "ICLR.cc/2025/Conference/Submission3255/Area_Chair_wFSh" ], [ "ICLR.cc/2025/Conference/Submission3255/Authors" ], [ "ICLR.cc/2025/Conference/Submission3255/Authors" ], [ "ICLR.cc/2025/Conference/Submission3255/Reviewer_iZBf" ], [ "ICLR.cc/2025/Conference/Submission3255/Authors" ], [ "ICLR.cc/2025/Conference/Submission3255/Authors" ], [ "ICLR.cc/2025/Conference/Submission3255/Reviewer_acAx" ], [ "ICLR.cc/2025/Conference/Submission3255/Authors" ], [ "ICLR.cc/2025/Conference/Submission3255/Authors" ], [ "ICLR.cc/2025/Conference/Submission3255/Authors" ], [ "ICLR.cc/2025/Conference/Submission3255/Authors" ], [ "ICLR.cc/2025/Conference/Submission3255/Reviewer_4Pjm" ], [ "ICLR.cc/2025/Conference/Submission3255/Reviewer_iZBf" ], [ "ICLR.cc/2025/Conference/Submission3255/Authors" ], [ "ICLR.cc/2025/Conference/Submission3255/Authors" ], [ "ICLR.cc/2025/Conference/Submission3255/Authors" ], [ "ICLR.cc/2025/Conference/Submission3255/Reviewer_4ejM" ], [ "ICLR.cc/2025/Conference/Submission3255/Authors" ], [ "ICLR.cc/2025/Conference/Submission3255/Authors" ], [ "ICLR.cc/2025/Conference/Submission3255/Authors" ], [ "ICLR.cc/2025/Conference/Submission3255/Reviewer_acAx" ], [ "ICLR.cc/2025/Conference/Submission3255/Authors" ], [ "ICLR.cc/2025/Conference/Submission3255/Authors" ], [ "ICLR.cc/2025/Conference/Submission3255/Authors" ], [ "ICLR.cc/2025/Conference/Submission3255/Authors" ], [ "ICLR.cc/2025/Conference/Submission3255/Authors" ], [ "ICLR.cc/2025/Conference/Submission3255/Authors" ], [ "ICLR.cc/2025/Conference/Submission3255/Authors" ], [ "ICLR.cc/2025/Conference/Submission3255/Reviewer_acAx" ], [ "ICLR.cc/2025/Conference/Submission3255/Authors" ], [ "ICLR.cc/2025/Conference/Submission3255/Authors" ], [ "ICLR.cc/2025/Conference/Submission3255/Authors" ], [ "ICLR.cc/2025/Conference/Submission3255/Authors" ], [ "ICLR.cc/2025/Conference/Submission3255/Authors" ], [ "ICLR.cc/2025/Conference/Submission3255/Authors" ], [ "ICLR.cc/2025/Conference/Submission3255/Reviewer_acAx" ], [ "ICLR.cc/2025/Conference/Submission3255/Reviewer_iZBf" ] ], "structured_content_str": [ "{\"title\": \"Paper Decision\", \"decision\": \"Reject\"}", "{\"metareview\": \"The paper presents MMSci, a rich dataset sourced from Nature Communications, containing 131K top-tier articles and figures across 72 scientific disciplines. It sets up benchmarks comprising 1K tasks to assess the performance of Large Multimodal Models (LMMs) in comprehending intricate scientific content. Featuring text and image components, the dataset includes a mix of multiple-choice and open-ended questions, with a focus on sub-figures. The evaluation exposes challenges faced by current LMMs, including both open-weight and closed-source models, underscoring the efficacy of fine-tuning models on the training segment.\", \"additional_comments_on_reviewer_discussion\": \"After the rebuttal, the paper received 1xaccept, 1xboarderline accept, and 2xboarderline reject. The submission was discussed in multiple rounds.\\n\\nReviewers 4Pjm and iZBf were satisfied with the rebuttal and leaned towards the positive side, recommending acceptance and borderline acceptance. However, reviewers acAx and 4ejM remained on the negative side. The primary outstanding concern revolves around the experimental evaluation, particularly concerning human evaluation, as highlighted by reviewer acAx. This point underwent thorough discussion among authors and reviewers. Reviewer 4ejM also raised relevant concerns about this issue. The authors have provided additional evaluation from two esteemed researchers to support the human evaluation and have also re-conducted the 'PhD evaluation'. These efforts have clearly added support to the paper. Despite the importance of rigorous evaluation, the additional work addressing the major concerns seemed hasty and not yet well-prepared.\\n\\nThe AC recognizes this paper as a valuable submission with potential impacts in the field. However, due to the readiness of the evaluation, the paper is not recommended for acceptance. Please consider enhancing the manuscript by incorporating the review comments and discussions for a future submission.\"}", "{\"title\": \"[1/n] Response to Reviewer acAx\", \"comment\": \"We thank the reviewer for their prompt and insightful feedback. Please find our detailed response below:\\n\\n> Can the authors describe how the original 72 categories were re-defined into 18 fields? This still seems confusing\\u2014for example, Biochemistry is considered part of Biological Sciences according to Nature's taxonomy, yet you have separated them into two distinct fields. I am not objecting to the limited number of domains, but it would be better to ensure everything is as concise and consistent as possible. Additionally, the five categories listed in Table 6 should be compared with other works that consider broader domains as categories.\\n\\nOur re-categorization is based on the [Web-of-Science citation index](https://webofscience.zendesk.com/hc/en-us/articles/26916195552401-Web-of-Science-Core-Collection-Overview#h_01HF6Z7KCQ3ADTQP12H7DZK00D). The 72 subjects are mapped into 18 distinct fields, striking a balance between meaningful consolidation and preservation of important disciplinary distinctions. We have compiled the mapping in Table 1.\\n\\n**Table 1: recategorization of the 72 subjects in the MMSci dataset.**\\n| Category | Subjects |\\n|----|----|\\n| Material Science | Materials science, Nanoscience and technology |\\n| Chemistry | Chemistry |\\n| Physics | Physics, Optics and photonics |\\n| Engineering | Engineering |\\n| Energy | Energy science and technology, Energy and society |\\n| Mathematics and Computing | Mathematics and computing |\\n| Astronomy and Planetary Science | Astronomy and planetary science, Planetary science, Space physics |\\n| Environment | Ecology, Environmental sciences, Biogeochemistry, Water resources |\\n| Climate Sciences | Climate sciences |\\n| Earth | Solid Earth sciences, Ocean sciences, Natural hazards, Hydrology, Limnology, Geography |\\n| Social Sciences | Environmental social sciences, Psychology, Social sciences, Scientific community, Developing world |\\n| Biochemistry | Biochemistry, Molecular biology, Biophysics, Structural biology, Chemical biology |\\n| Biological Sciences | Microbiology, Genetics, Biological techniques, Computational biology and bioinformatics, Developmental biology, Evolution, Plant sciences, Physiology, Systems biology, Zoology, Cell biology |\\n| Biomedical Sciences | Neuroscience, Immunology, Biotechnology, Stem cells, Pathogenesis, Biomarkers, Anatomy, Molecular medicine |\\n| Health and Medicine | Cancer, Diseases, Medical research, Health care, Oncology, Cardiology, Gastroenterology, Endocrinology, Neurology, Risk factors, Rheumatology, Nephrology, Signs and symptoms, Urology, Health occupations |\\n| Pharmacology | Drug discovery |\\n| Agriculture | Agriculture, Forestry |\\n| Business and Industry | Business and industry |\"}", "{\"title\": \"Response to reviewer 4ejM\", \"comment\": \"Thank you for your thoughtful feedback and for recognizing the strengths of our work, including the large and diverse MMSCI dataset, the realistic and well-crafted tasks, and the pre-training experiment. We truly appreciate your insights. Below, please find our detailed responses to your concerns.\\n\\n> **C1**: The MMSCICAP (Scientific Figure Captioning) task seems flawed. Providing only the abstract rather than figure-specific sentences\\u2014or even the entire relevant section\\u2014may undermine the task\\u2019s grounding. Abstracts alone should suffice only for captioning teaser figures; otherwise, the lack of figure-paired text may contribute disproportionately to the task\\u2019s difficulty.\\n\\n**Response**: Thank you for the suggestions. We also conducted experiments where the entire article was provided to the model, challenging its ability to read the full text and identify information relevant to the figure. Given the extensive length of the full article, we evaluated on the proprietary model with long-context capability. The results are provided below:\\n\\n| Model | Ctx. | BLEU-4 | ROUGE-1 | ROUGE-2 | ROUGE-L | Meteor | BertScore | FActScore | G-Eval |\\n| ---- | ---- | ---- | ---- | ---- | ---- | ---- | ---- | ---- | ---- |\\n| Gemini-1.5-Flash | Abstract | 3.29 | 26.74 | 7.47 | 16.03 | 28.71 | 81.80 | 10.14 | 4.08 |\\n| Gemini-1.5-Pro | Abstract | 3.33 | 28.71 | 7.73 | 16.89 | 28.91 | 81.93 | 13.76 | 4.08 |\\n| Claude-3.5-Sonnet | Abstract | 3.20 | 29.60 | 6.71 | 16.65 | 27.52 | 81.76 | 12.11 | 4.04 |\\n| GPT-4V | Abstract| 3.18 | 28.45 | 7.01 | 15.65 | 27.62 | 82.37 | 19.52 | 4.13 | \\n| GPT-4o | Abstract | 3.58 | 28.85 | 7.79 | 16.36 | 28.37 | 81.84 | 18.87 | 4.22 |\\n| Gemini-1.5-Flash | Full Article | 6.94 | 32.83 | 14.15 | 22.02 | 34.50 | 83.26 | 19.41 | 4.12 |\\n| Gemini-1.5-Pro | Full Article | 7.01 | 32.24 | 13.34 | 19.32 | 33.75 | 83.18 | 19.33 | 4.22 |\\n| Claude-3.5-Sonnet | Full Article | 7.99 | 37.63 | 13.61 | 23.63 | 34.66 | 84.34 | 21.67 | 4.52 |\\n| GPT-4V | Full Article | 5.65 | 33.09 | 10.95 | 19.25 | 31.46 | 83.48 | 23.18 | 4.24 |\\n| GPT-4o | Full Article | 9.90 | 37.06 | 17.63 | 24.89 | 37.52 | 83.64 | 24.12 | 4.58 |\\n\\nWhile the performance did improve when using the full article content compared to using only the abstract, we want to emphasize that including figure-related content from the article might introduce unfairness. Authors sometimes repeat or closely mirror figure captions within the main text, which could lead to inflated performance metrics that do not reflect genuine model understanding. Given this consideration, we primarily use abstract-based captioning, which we believe could ensure a fairer evaluation while still providing contextual information about the figure's topic and the article's subject matter.\\n\\n> **C2**: Multidisciplinarity is highlighted as a key feature, yet the experiments lack in-depth analysis on performance variation across disciplines. What factors contribute to these variations across different subjects? For example, why does Astronomy and Planetary Science yield high accuracy while disciplines with more data, like Materials Science, perform less well?\\n\\n**Response**: \\nThank you for the valuable feedback. To gain deeper insights into the data across different disciplines, we engaged domain experts (PhDs in the relevant fields) to analyze our dataset. After reorganizing the original 72 categories into 18 scientific fields, we further prioritized 10 major science domains for detailed analysis.\\n\\n**PhD Expert Evaluation**: Specifically, we recruited 30 PhDs as human evaluators from the [Prolific platform](https://www.prolific.com/), which is a well established platform of high quality scores, with verified degrees in 10 major scientific categories that align with our dataset's primary domains: **Material Science**, **Chemistry**, **Physics**, **Biochemistry**, **Environment**, **Climate Sciences**, **Earth Sciences**, **Biological Sciences**, **Biomedical Sciences**, and **Health and Medicine**.\\n\\nOur human evaluation protocol covered 10 broad scientific domains. For each domain, we selected 75 questions (25 from each of our three figure-caption matching tasks), yielding a total evaluation set of 750 questions. We recruited 30 PhD-level evaluators through Prolific, specifically 3 PhDs per domain, with verified degrees in their respective fields. Each evaluator provided two types of assessments:\\n\\n - **Performance Score**: Evaluators answered the questions themselves, establishing a human performance baseline measured by accuracy (0-100%)\\n - **Quality Assessment**: Evaluators rated each question's quality on a 5-point scale (1-5), judging its clarity and whether it effectively tests domain-specific knowledge.\"}", "{\"comment\": \"Dear reviewer acAx,\\n\\nDespite some of these concerns it seems like the data still has a lot of value, in that the community can come up with better tasks and evaluations using this.\\n\\nRegarding the fine turning performance, while it's surprising, I hope the authors will share the code and tuned models to ensure reproducibility, as well as make it easier for people to run evaluations on this task.\\n\\nConsidering that, perhaps the ratings are a bit too harsh.\\n\\n*Dear authors*,\\n\\nReviewer acAx does raise valid concerns especially on the human evaluation. It might be worth rethinking how you do human evaluations. Because this is going to be a retrospective eval, you might want to identify papers which do fall in the expertise of your evaluator pool and see how valuable and informative they find the model responses. At this point it's not a surprise that LLMs, particularly proprietary ones, appear to know a lot more on many topics compared to the average person, but still get a lot of the details wrong.\\n\\nI would also appreciate if you can comment more on release of tuning and evaluation code and tuned models to help reproduce your findings. I hope you will also take effort to make things easy to run and evaluate. \\n\\nThanks,\\nReviewer iZBf\"}", "{\"title\": \"[2/n] Response to Reviewer 4ejM\", \"comment\": \"Specifically, for the quality assessment, the human evaluators are asked to assess **whether the questions were clear and required an understanding of scientific knowledge within the respective discipline**, as outlined in the following metrics:\\n\\n - **Score Point 1. Strongly Disagree**: The question is irrelevant or cannot be answered based on the scientific content presented in the figure.\\n - **Score Point 2. Disagree**: The question lacks clarity or can be answered without specific knowledge of the scientific content in the figure (e.g., it can be answered with common sense).\\n - **Score Point 3. Neutral**: The question is clear but requires only minimal understanding of the scientific content in the figure.\\n - **Score Point 4. Agree**: The question is clear, answerable, and requires an adequate understanding of the scientific content in the figure.\\n - **Score Point 5. Strongly Agree**: The question is clear, answerable, and effectively evaluates a very deep understanding of the scientific content in the figure.\\n\\nThe evaluation results are shown in the below table.\\n\\n**Table 1 in Rebuttal: Phd expert evaluation on the question quality.** Setting I indicates Figure-to-caption matching; Setting II indicates Subfigure-to-caption matching; Setting III indicates Caption-to-subfigure matching.\\n\\n| Field | Setting I | Setting II | Setting III |\\n|---------------------|-------------------------|-------------------------------|-------------------------------|\\n| Material Science | 4.0267 | 4.2933 | 4.1333 |\\n| Chemistry | 4.1333 | 3.7467 | 3.6133 |\\n| Physics | 4.0267 | 3.5467 | 3.8133 |\\n| Biochemistry | 3.1600 | 4.8267 | 4.4133 |\\n| Environment | 4.1067 | 4.4667 | 4.3467 |\\n| Climate Sciences | 4.1296 | 3.6471 | 3.4118 |\\n| Earth | 4.0267 | 4.2319 | 4.1739 |\\n| Biological Sciences | 3.8800 | 3.6800 | 3.7867 |\\n| Biomedical Sciences | 4.0133 | 4.1333 | 3.7733 |\\n| Health and Medicine | 4.3733 | 3.7467 | 3.6800 |\\n| **Average** | **4.0873** | **4.0319** | **3.9149** |\\n\\n\\nAs observed, the overall quality scores are consistently around 4 across all settings, indicating that **the questions are clear, answerable, and require adequate understanding of scientific content in the figures.** The score distributions across different Q&A tasks reveal several key insights:\\n\\n1. Varying Difficulty Levels: Different settings challenge different aspects of scientific understanding. For example, in Biochemistry, Setting II (subfigure-to-caption) scores significantly higher (4.83) than Setting I (3.16), suggesting that detailed technical matching requires deeper domain knowledge than overall figure understanding.\\n2. Domain-Specific Patterns: Some fields like Material Science show consistent scores across all settings (4.03, 4.29, 4.13), while others like Biochemistry show larger variations (3.16, 4.83, 4.41). This suggests that our three task types effectively capture different aspects of domain expertise.\\n3. Complementary Evaluation: The varying performance patterns across settings demonstrate that our benchmark tests scientific understanding from multiple angles, going beyond simple pattern matching. Each setting provides a distinct perspective on how domain knowledge is applied in scientific figure interpretation.\\n\\nIn addition to the quality assessment reported above, we also evaluated the actual performance of PhD experts on our benchmark to address the concerns about human baseline design. We conducted a comprehensive evaluation with PhD experts from the Prolific platform across 10 major scientific categories. Our human evaluation includes two settigns:\\n\\n- **In-Ph.D. Degree Domain Expert Performance**: Performance of human Ph.D. evaluating questions within their specialty domain of Ph.D. degree\\n - **Out-of-Ph.D. Degree Domain Performance**: Performance of human Ph.D. evaluating questions in Science, but outside their expertise of Ph.D. degree\"}", "{\"title\": \"Your Feedback Would Be Appreciated\", \"comment\": \"Dear Reviewer 4ejM,\\n\\nThank you once again for your valuable comments. Your suggestions on evaluations with additional metrics, performance analysis of LVLMs regarding different levels of input information, additional performance reports of proprietary models, and insights on performance differences on different subjects were very helpful. We are eager to know if our responses have adequately addressed your concerns.\\n\\nDue to the limited time for discussion, we look forward to receiving your feedback and hope for the opportunity to respond to any further questions you may have.\\n\\nYours sincerely,\\nAuthors\"}", "{\"comment\": \"Dear Reviewer iZBf,\\n\\nThank you for the thoughtful note! While I agree that the dataset could be very valuable as a training set or used to develop further evaluations in future, I do maintain strong validity concerns based on the current evaluation set-up with insufficient justification on results. Given that the paper should be reviewed holistically and benchmarking is a major contribution of the paper, I respectfully *disagree* with your comment on my rating. ICLR is a top-tier conference and I do think the current shape of their evaluation has *not* yet met its standard.\\n\\nAgain, I really appreciate the authors' feedback. I encourage the authors to \\n* carefully conduct human evaluations in order to support their claim (that the issue lies in the sub-domain specialty of evaluators or any potential issue with the QAs themselves, such as potential ambiguity), \\n* consider having more types of questions to both enhance the originality and difficulty of the evaluations (thus to prevent any possible leakage in future as well as quick saturation), and \\n* better demonstrate the general utility of their dataset by evaluating their finetuned models on other major VLM datasets in addition to theirs so one better understands the scope of impact when models are trained on your dataset.\\n\\nBest,\\n\\nReviewer acAx\"}", "{\"title\": \"[3/n] Response to Reviewer iZBf\", \"comment\": \"> C3: other metrics for captioning task\\n\\n**Response**: Thank you for the suggestion. We will BLEU (BLEU-4) [2], CIDEr [3], and also L3Score [4] as recommended in the updated Table 3 in the updated draft. Below we briefly show these added results when grounded on abstract.\", \"table_1\": \"Captioning results when grounded on paper article.\\n\\n| Model | BLEU-4 | CIDEr | G-Eval | L3Score |\\n|-------|----|----|----|----|\\n| Kosmos2 | 1.67 | 1.59 | 1.39 | 0.000 |\\n| LLaVA1.5-7B | 1.53 | 0.76 | 2.02 | 0.025 |\\n| LLaVA1.6-Mistral-7B | 1.42 | 0.48 | 1.47 | 0.019 |\\n| Qwen-VL-7B-Chat | 2.13 | 2.79 | 1.64 | 0.039 |\\n| InternVL2-2B | 0.82 | 0.96 | 2.17 | 0.058 |\\n| InternVL2-8B | 1.56 | 0.02 | 3.00 | 0.195 |\\n| IDEFICS2-8B | 0.79 | 0.65 | 1.96 | 0.026 |\\n| IDEFICS3-8B-Llama3 | 1.17 | 0.15 | 1.98 | 0.125 |\\n| MiniCPM-V-2.6 | 3.32 | 3.27 | 2.95 | 0.215 |\\n| Llama3.2-11B-Vision | 1.53 | 0.00 | 2.18 | 0.153 |\\n| Qwen2-VL-2B | 2.34 | 1.43 | 2.64 | 0.139 |\\n| Qwen2-VL-7B | 2.76 | 0.02 | 3.45 | 0.391 |\\n| Qwen2-VL-2B-MMSci | **6.16** | **4.98** | 3.17 | 0.186 |\\n| Qwen2-VL-7B-MMSci | **8.29** | **5.94** | 3.55 | 0.447 |\\n| Gemini-1.5-Flash | 3.29 | 0.00 | 4.08 | 0.362 |\\n| Gemini-1.5-Pro | 3.33 | 0.00 | 4.08 | 0.361 |\\n| Claude-3.5-Sonnet | 3.20 | 0.46 | 4.04 | **0.696** |\\n| GPT-4V | 3.18 | 0.20 | **4.13** | 0.590 |\\n| GPT-4o | 3.58 | 0.36 | **4.22** | **0.722** |\\n\\nThe BLEU and CIDEr scores are relatively low, likely because the captions are not typical text; they include many scientific domain-specific terminologies and scientific expressions, which pose challenges for these metrics. The L3Score exhibits a similar trend to G-Eval but provides more distinct differentiation. The finetuned models got meaningful improvements on all of these metrics by using our dataset. Especially, we were surprised at great increase on L3Score, so that our model is better than Gemini-1.5 Pro.\\n\\n**C4: The results for the materials science case study**\\n\\nWe appreciate your thoughtful questions regarding the material science case study results. We would like to firmly confirm that we followed all the same settings as Gruver et al., but we improve the results further with pre-training of LLMs with our dataset along with fine-tuning, and reported absolute percentage performance, which is much more fair and correct, from 10,000 generated sample cases instead of stage-wise survived ratio for the previous steps. Please find detailed response below.\\n\\n> C4.1: What is the baseline LLAMA-2-7B performance? (without any tuning?) Many numbers in Table 5 and Figure 6 already seem quite high so it is hard to understand what baseline you are starting from and how much room for improvement there was\\n\\n**Response**: The LLaMA2-7B and even the proprietary LLMs shows limited performance in crystal material generation without fine-tuning (For detailed zero-shot performance metrics of GPT-4o, please refer to response to C4.2.). Therefore, Gruver et al. proposed a novel way of fine-tuning LLMs for crystal material generation. The performance of LLAMA2 models reported in our Table 5 in the main pages are obtained by further finetuning on mateiral generation data as in Gruver et al's paper. Our experiments show that when the base LLaMA-2-7B model is first further pre-trained on our dataset before fine-tuning for material generation, it achieves superior performance compared to directly fine-tuning the base model. This improvement suggests that pre-training on our data enhances the model's scientific knowledge understanding.\\n\\n**Metrics**: The validity check measures the generated materials' correctness in terms of structure and composition, while the coverage metric assesses how well the generated materials compare to an existing collection. These metrics primarily ensure that the generated materials are valid and identify differences from existing ones, but they are less critical. \\nHowever, to develop meaningful crystal materials, **the most important metrics are about stability including metastability measured by M3GNet, and stability measured by DFT**, since practically we confront the difficulty on generating stable materials for next generation of materials. Regarding the performances on these two metrics from the previous SOTA models, there are rooms for significant improvement. As shown, our approach significantly enhances metastability and stability, which are the aspects that truly matter in material science.\"}", "{\"title\": \"[5/n] Response to reviewer iZBf\", \"comment\": \"However, we would like to emphasize again that the absolute percentage performances are much fairer and more accurate, as they represent the stable ratio well from 10,000 generated samples compared to each stage-wise survival ratio from the previous steps.\\n- Suppose that method A produces 600 stable (DFT) samples among 10,000 samples with 5,000 metastable samples (M3GNet). Then our reported number stability (DFT) is 6%; however, it would be 12% in Gruver et al.\\n- But, suppose that method B produces 770 stable (DFT) samples among 10,000 samples with 7,000 metastable samples (M3GNet). Then our reported stability (DFT) is 7.7%; however, it would be 11% in Gruver et al.\\n- Although method B provides a higher ratio of stability (DFT), it is not correctly displayed if we use the stage-wise survival ratios for the previous steps in Gruver et al.\\n\\n> C6: Figure 3 and Figure 4, and more related work to cite.\\n\\n**Response**: Thanks for the suggestion. We will refine Figure 3 and Figure 4 and update them in the new draft. The suggested work [1] and BLEU [2], CIDEr [3], and L3Score [4] will also be included in the updated version.\\n\\n**References**:\\n\\n[1] Tarsi, Tim, et al. \\\"SciOL and MuLMS-Img: Introducing A Large-Scale Multimodal Scientific Dataset and Models for Image-Text Tasks in the Scientific Domain.\\\" Proceedings of the IEEE/CVF Winter Conference on Applications of Computer Vision. 2024.\\n\\n[2] Papineni, Kishore, et al. \\\"Bleu: a method for automatic evaluation of machine translation.\\\" Proceedings of the 40th annual meeting of the Association for Computational Linguistics. 2002.\\n\\n[3] Vedantam, Ramakrishna, C. Lawrence Zitnick, and Devi Parikh. \\\"Cider: Consensus-based image description evaluation.\\\" Proceedings of the IEEE conference on computer vision and pattern recognition. 2015.\\n\\n[4] Pramanick, Shraman, Rama Chellappa, and Subhashini Venugopalan. \\\"Spiqa: A dataset for multimodal question answering on scientific papers.\\\" arXiv preprint arXiv:2407.09413 (2024).\\n\\nWe hope these responses have addressed your concerns. If you need any further clarification, please don't hesitate to ask. We value your feedback and look forward to further discussion.\"}", "{\"title\": \"[2/n] Response to Reviewer acAx\", \"comment\": \"We recruited 30 PhD-level evaluators through Prolific, specifically 3 PhDs per domain, with verified degrees in their respective fields. Each evaluator provided two types of assessments:\\n - **Performance Score**: Evaluators answered the questions themselves, establishing a human performance baseline measured by accuracy (0-100%)\\n - **Quality Assessment**: Evaluators rated each question's quality on a 5-point scale (1-5), judging its clarity and whether it effectively tests domain-specific knowledge.\\n\\nSpecifically, for the quality assessment, the human evaluators are asked to assess **whether the questions were clear and required an understanding of scientific knowledge within the respective discipline**, as outlined in the following metrics:\\n\\n - **Score Point 1. Strongly Disagree**: The question is irrelevant or cannot be answered based on the scientific content presented in the figure.\\n - **Score Point 2. Disagree**: The question lacks clarity or can be answered without specific knowledge of the scientific content in the figure (e.g., it can be answered with common sense).\\n - **Score Point 3. Neutral**: The question is clear but requires only minimal understanding of the scientific content in the figure.\\n - **Score Point 4. Agree**: The question is clear, answerable, and requires an adequate understanding of the scientific content in the figure.\\n - **Score Point 5. Strongly Agree**: The question is clear, answerable, and effectively evaluates a very deep understanding of the scientific content in the figure.\\n\\nThe evaluation results are shown in the below table.\\n\\n**Table 1 in Rebuttal: Phd expert evaluation on the question quality.** Setting I indicates Figure-to-caption matching; Setting II indicates Subfigure-to-caption matching; Setting III indicates Caption-to-subfigure matching.\\n\\n| Field | Setting I | Setting II | Setting III |\\n|---------------------|-------------------------|-------------------------------|-------------------------------|\\n| Material Science | 4.0267 | 4.2933 | 4.1333 |\\n| Chemistry | 4.1333 | 3.7467 | 3.6133 |\\n| Physics | 4.0267 | 3.5467 | 3.8133 |\\n| Biochemistry | 3.1600 | 4.8267 | 4.4133 |\\n| Environment | 4.1067 | 4.4667 | 4.3467 |\\n| Climate Sciences | 4.1296 | 3.6471 | 3.4118 |\\n| Earth | 4.0267 | 4.2319 | 4.1739 |\\n| Biological Sciences | 3.8800 | 3.6800 | 3.7867 |\\n| Biomedical Sciences | 4.0133 | 4.1333 | 3.7733 |\\n| Health and Medicine | 4.3733 | 3.7467 | 3.6800 |\\n| **Average** | **4.0873** | **4.0319** | **3.9149** |\\n\\n\\nAs observed, the overall quality scores are consistently around 4 across all settings, indicating that **the questions are clear, answerable, and require adequate understanding of scientific content in the figures.** The score distributions across different Q&A tasks reveal several key insights:\\n\\n1. Varying Difficulty Levels: Different settings challenge different aspects of scientific understanding. For example, in Biochemistry, Setting II (subfigure-to-caption) scores significantly higher (4.83) than Setting I (3.16), suggesting that detailed technical matching requires deeper domain knowledge than overall figure understanding.\\n2. Domain-Specific Patterns: Some fields like Material Science show consistent scores across all settings (4.03, 4.29, 4.13), while others like Biochemistry show larger variations (3.16, 4.83, 4.41). This suggests that our three task types effectively capture different aspects of domain expertise.\\n3. Complementary Evaluation: The varying performance patterns across settings demonstrate that our benchmark tests scientific understanding from multiple angles, going beyond simple pattern matching. Each setting provides a distinct perspective on how domain knowledge is applied in scientific figure interpretation.\"}", "{\"title\": \"[5/n] Response to Reviewers\", \"comment\": [\"Dear Reviewers,\", \"We sincerely thank you for your thoughtful feedback that has helped strengthen our manuscript. Given our comprehensive responses and substantial improvements, we respectfully request your reconsideration of our submission.\", \"**Major Enhancements**:\", \"**1. Rigorous Human Expert Validation**\", \"**Conducted large-scale evaluation with 30 PhD experts across 10 scientific fields**\", \"**Achieved consistent expert quality ratings (~4/5) validating scientific depth**\", \"Demonstrated clear expertise effects:\", \"in-field PhDs (40-50% accuracy) vs. out-of-field PhDs (33-46%)\", \"Validated task design through 750 expert assessments (75 per domain)\", \"**Confirmed questions require graduate-level domain knowledge through expert feedback**\", \"**Demonstrated real-world research assistant potential through expert performance benchmarking**\", \"**2. Comprehensive Technical Evaluation**\", \"**Expanded evaluation framework with comprehensive metrics**:\", \"BLEU-4, CIDEr, G-Eval, L3Score for robust assessment\", \"**Doubled evaluation sample size to 200 for enhanced statistical validity**\", \"**Extended model scale analysis across 2B, 7B, and 26B parameters**\", \"**Conducted full-article vs. abstract-based captioning comparison**\", \"Demonstrated Qwen2-VL-7B-MMSci achieves state-of-the-art performance:\", \"Multiple-choice accuracy: 87.49% overall\", \"Captioning metrics: BLEU-4 (8.29), ROUGE-L (21.80), L3Score (0.447)\", \"**Competitive performance of Qwen2-VL-7B-MMSci with minimal context requirements to the propriety model with full-article (Gemini 1.5)**\", \"**3. Enhanced Materials Science Validation**\", \"**Conducted comprehensive proprietary model comparisons**\", \"Achieved breakthrough improvements:\", \"Metastability: 64.5% (29.2% relative improvement)\", \"Stability: 8.2% (54.7% relative improvement)\", \"**Validated results through multiple experimental runs with standard error analysis**\", \"Demonstrated practical impact on materials discovery\", \"Established new state-of-the-art for scientific AI in materials generation\", \"**4. Framework and Methodological Improvements**\", \"**Refined scientific taxonomy using Web of Science citation index**\", \"**Distinguished MMSci from existing benchmarks through**:\", \"Graduate-level depth requirement\", \"Multi-domain scientific reasoning\", \"Comprehensive visual-language integration\", \"**Demonstrated value as pre-training resource through transfer learning results**\", \"Established clear evaluation protocols for reproducibility\", \"Provided detailed cross-disciplinary performance analysis\", \"These improvements demonstrate how our MMSci dataset advances the state-of-the-art in scientific understanding, enabling LVLMs to develop both broad and deep domain expertise across scientific fields. **We would greatly appreciate your reconsideration based on our comprehensive responses to your valuable feedback. Thank you for your time and careful consideration of our work.**\", \"Best regards,\", \"Authors\"]}", "{\"summary\": \"The paper introduces MMSci, a multimodal, multidisciplinary dataset collected from open-access scientific articles published in Nature Communications. Spanning 72 scientific disciplines, the dataset of 131K articles includes high-quality, peer-reviewed articles and figures, primarily within the natural sciences. The authors create challenging benchmarks with 1K tasks and settings to evaluate Large Multimodal Models (LMMs) in understanding advanced scientific figures and content. The dataset supports both text and images, offering a mix of multiple-choice and open-ended questions with sub-figures distinction focus. Their evaluation reveals significant challenges for current LLMs, including open-weights models and even closed-source models. The model finetuned on the training part yield high quality results.\", \"soundness\": \"3\", \"presentation\": \"3\", \"contribution\": \"4\", \"strengths\": [\"Comprehensive and Quality: The dataset is large-scale and diverse, covering 72 disciplines. It features high-quality source material, which enhances its utility and applicability.\", \"Challenging Benchmarks: The benchmarks are thoughtfully designed to assess models\\u2019 abilities in understanding complex scientific figures and content, revealing limitations in current models.\", \"Demonstrated Improvement: The fine-tuning of the LLaVA model using their dataset shows tangible improvements, achieving performance comparable to high-level models.\"], \"weaknesses\": [\"Dataset Curation Details: The paper should provide more detailed information about the data annotation process to enhance transparency and reproducibility. Specifically, information about quality control stages would be valuable.\", \"Model Size Comparison: The paper compares large closed-source models (GPT-4V, Gemini-Pro, etc.) with relatively small open-weight models limited to 8B parameters. A broader analysis including larger models (e.g., Qwen2-VL-72B) would be beneficial, especially given the near-random performance of some smaller models.\", \"LLM Evaluation Sample Size: The LLM-based evaluation reports final scores using only 100 randomly selected samples, which limits the statistical significance of the results.\"], \"questions\": [\"Quality Control: Could the authors provide more details on how post-collection dataset quality is evaluated? Specifically, what steps are taken to ensure regex extraction captures all figures and structures correctly?\", \"Downstream Applications: Beyond material generation tasks, have the authors explored how the finetuned model perform on other scientific tasks? (so does this dataset develops other LLMs abilities)\", \"Data Leakage: Do the authors evaluate potential data leakage between training and test sets? For example, similar images with different sub-charts might appear across different samples.\"], \"flag_for_ethics_review\": \"['No ethics review needed.']\", \"rating\": \"8\", \"confidence\": \"4\", \"code_of_conduct\": \"Yes\"}", "{\"comment\": \"Thanks for your detailed responses and for the additional analysis. Both the human evaluations, additional scoring metrics, and the improvements to the materials science case study are all good additions and address my main concerns.\\n\\nI still hold slight reservations and am curious to see your response to reviewer acAx 's follow up questions to your response. Nevertheless, I'm satisfied with the proposed changes, and will increase my rating, and look forward to seeing these in the final draft.\"}", "{\"title\": \"[3/n] Response to Reviewer acAx\", \"comment\": \"> **C4: Concerns about the design of the human baseline, specifically the use of CS graduates instead of domain experts as the benchmark.**\\n\\n**Response**: In addition to the quality assessment reported above, we also evaluated the actual performance of PhD experts on our benchmark to address the concerns about human baseline design. We conducted a comprehensive evaluation with PhD experts from the Prolific platform across 10 major scientific categories. Our evaluation was designed to establish three key performance metrics:\\n\\n - **In-Ph.D. Degree Domain Expert Performance**: Performance of human Ph.D. evaluating questions within their specialty domain of Ph.D. degree\\n - **Out-of-Ph.D. Degree Domain Performance**: Performance of human Ph.D. evaluating questions in Science, but outside their expertise of Ph.D. degree\\n - **Overall Cross-Domain Performance**: Comprehensive assessment across all domains\\n\\n\\n**Table 2 in Rebuttal: Performance Comparison of Human Ph.D. Experts and Models with a Newly Constructed sub-Benchmark (%)**\\n\\n| Model/Evaluator | Setting I | Setting II | Setting III |\\n|---------------------|-------------------------|-------------------------------|-------------------------------|\\n| Outside-Ph.D. Degree Domain in Science (Human) | 36.18 | 33.31 | 46.85 |\\n| In-Ph.D. Degree Domain (Human) | 40.26 | 43.45 | 50.46 |\\n| Gemini-1.5-Flash (Overall) | 58.11 | 79.88 | 62.66 |\\n| Gemini-1.5-Pro (Overall) | 63.47 | 78.83 | 78.65 |\\n| Claude-3.5-Sonnet (Overall) | 70.58 | 85.73 | 83.70 |\\n| GPT-4V (Overall) | 66.18 | 73.36 | 76.15 |\\n| GPT-4o (Overall) | 68.42 | 88.23 | 84.92 |\\n| Qwen2-VL-7B-MMSci (Overall) | 83.84 | 92.91 | 87.17 |\\n\\nAs demonstrated in Table 2 in Rebuttal, several key insights emerge:\\n\\n**Domain Expertise Impact**: PhDs evaluating within their expert domain of Ph.D. degree consistently outperform those working outside their expertise in other Science domains across all settings, confirming our tasks require domain-specific knowledge\\n\\n**Task Difficulty**: Even domain experts achieve moderate performance within the recommended time limit (2 minutes per question), indicating the tasks' challenging nature\\n\\n**Scientific Understanding Capabilities**: The strong performances of both our fine-tuned sLLM and large proprietary models demonstrate potential as AI research assistants. Notably, our dataset significantly improved sLLM performance, reducing the gap with large proprietary models (see Table 4 in the main paper)\\n\\n\\n> **C5**: For captioning tasks, the model finetuned on in-domain data achieved significantly higher score on the ROUGE metric yet underperforms its baseline counterpart in FActScore.\\n\\n**Response**: Firstly, we updated all results using 200 samples instead of the previous 100 for LLM-based evaluation. Additionally, we fine-tuned both Qwen2-VL-2B and Qwen2-VL-7B models. The results are included in the updated draft, and also presented in the following table.\\n\\n**Table 3 in Rebuttal: Updated figure captioning results using 200 samples for LLM-based evaluation, including Qwen2-VL-7B fine-tuned on our data.**\\n\\n| Model | Abstract | FActScore | G-Eval |\\n|---------------------|-------------------------|-------------------------------|-------------------------------|\\n| Qwen2-VL-2B | False | 9.94 | 2.31 |\\n| Qwen2-VL-2B-MMSci | False | 9.67 | 2.79 |\\n| Qwen2-VL-7B | False | 10.03 | 3.39 |\\n| Qwen2-VL-7B-MMSci | False | **18.17** | 3.47 |\\n| GPT-4V | False | 14.17 | 3.69 |\\n| GPT-4o | False | 13.20 | 4.01 |\\n| Qwen2-VL-2B | True | 11.88 | 2.64 |\\n| Qwen2-VL-2B-MMSci | True | 14.05 | 3.17 |\\n| Qwen2-VL-7B | True | 10.36 | 3.45 |\\n| Qwen2-VL-7B-MMSci | True | **20.58** | 3.55 |\\n| GPT-4V | True | 19.52 | 4.13 |\\n| GPT-4o | True | 18.87 | 4.22 |\\n\\nWe observed that fine-tuning the larger Qwen2-VL-7B model significantly improved the FActScore, even surpassing GPT-4V and GPT-4o. Regarding the performance degradation of Qwen2-VL-2B after fine-tuning, we manually reviewed the generated captions and found that this may be due to the oracle captions typically following a specific format: \\\"[Summary] a. [subcaption a] b. [subcaption b] ...\\\" This format is concise, only summarizing the essential content of each sub-figure without unnecessary details. Given the limited capabilities of Qwen2-VL-2B, it appears that the model learns the format but struggles to generate accurate and concise content, resulting in degraded performance. In contrast, the more powerful Qwen2-VL-7B model demonstrates notable improvement by effectively learning both the format and the concise, accurate summary of the figure's content.\"}", "{\"title\": \"[4/n] Response to Reviewer acAx\", \"comment\": \"> **Q1**: Relevance to MMStar [1]\\n\\n**Response**: Thank you for bringing this work to our attention. It is indeed relevant, and we will include it in the related work section of the updated draft. This paper also points out that many current datasets contain questions that do not require a deep understanding of the figure to answer. In contrast, our benchmark ensures that a thorough understanding of the images is necessary for answering the questions. Additionally, while MMStar is curated from existing works, we introduce a newly collected large dataset.\\n\\n> **Q2**: L359: Can authors verify the statement by evaluating the top 5 models on a different evaluator?\\n\\n**Response**: Thank you for the suggestion. In the updated draft, we have updated the results using the latest version of GPT-4o-0806 as the evaluator, which is different from the evaluated models.\\n\\n> **Q3**: Figure 4 is very confusing and the overlapping of performance from different models makes the comparison very hard to understand. Can authors use use a better way to visualize this or use a table instead?\\n\\n**Response**: Thank you for the suggestion. We consider updating Figure 4 to include the 10 reorganized subjects instead of the 3 categories and over 50 subjects, as discussed above, to make the figure easier to read.\\n\\n> **Q4**: For figure 6, the gap between MMSci+MMC4 (Vis+Text) and MMSci+MMC4 (Text) seems to be small. Can authors additional provide standard error? Also, given many figures appear to have small texts, have authors verified the readability of figures after being downscaled to 336^2 (L452 where you stated the use of CLIP ViT-L/14-336)?\\n\\n**Response**: Yes, we ran the inference three times using these two models. The average score and standard error are provided in the table, and we can see that the performance increases from using our multi-modal dataset are valid by considering standard error to the average scores.\\n\\n\\nYes, we run the inference three times using these two models. The average score and standard error are provided in the following table.\\n\\n| Model | Metric | Average Score | Standard Deviation |\\n|---------|--------|---------------|--------------------|\\n| MMSci+MMC4 (Vis+Text) | Structure | 0.9934 | 0.00175 |\\n| MMSci+MMC4 (Text) | Structure | 0.9851 | 0.00133 |\\n| MMSci+MMC4 (Vis+Text) | Composition | 0.98147 | 0.00241 |\\n| MMSci+MMC4 (Text) | Composition | 0.97405 | 0.00159 |\\n\\nIn addition to this table, we found the gains of 3.08% increase on metastability of using our dataset compared to the baseline with the same setting, which is a key metric for model performance. Additional significant gains in in-filling tasks are detailed in Table 11. of the supplementary materials.\", \"regarding_image_resolution\": \"While the 336x336 resolution maintains text legibility in most cases, we acknowledge potential readability limitations for very small text. However, this is a common resolution and practice in current MLLMs using this architecture. and we do think it can influence we draw the conclusion.\\n\\n> **Q5**: An additional experiment that can be very helpful to understand the impact of your training dataset is to evaluate existing VLMs model finetuned on your dataset on other knowledge-based benchmarks such as MMMU (which also examines specific sub-divisions in natural science) to see whether the model is only fitting to the nature communication distribution or generalizing to a variety of distributions that requires retrieving knowledge based on multimodal input. Could authors provide an additional experiment on this?\\n\\nWe appreciate the reviewer's suggestion to evaluate our fine-tuned models on other multimodal knowledge benchmarks, such as MMMU. We are pre-training and fine-tuning a larger model with our dataset, and we will keep trying to post the result within rebuttal period or at least we will include the results of larger models in the updated version.\"}", "{\"title\": \"Response to reviewer iZBf\", \"comment\": \"Thank you for your valuable feedback and for recognizing the strengths of our work, including the large and diverse dataset we introduce, the comprehensive evaluation we conduct, and the quality of the paper's writing. Please find our responses to your concerns below.\\n\\n> C1: The tasks are somewhat standard - Figure captioning, and matching figures/sub-figures to appropriate captions. It would have been nice to see some unique tasks created from this nice dataset showcasing the diversity of images/plots. e.g. some variety of interleaved image-text tasks such as Question Answering from images could have been considered.\\n\\n**Response**: Thank you for your suggestion. Our dataset contains high-quality and diverse information, including articles, figures, references, and reviews, offering a robust foundation for advancing this field. In the initial efforts on leveraing our dataset, the tasks we present already expose significant limitations in existing multimodal language models (MLLMs).\\n\\nBy focusing on scientific figure comprehension with figure captioning along with bi-directional matching between captions and figures/sub-figures, we identify a critical gap in current MLLM capabilities and provide a targeted benchmark for evaluation and development. However, we acknowledge the potential to expand into additional tasks involving more complex interleaved image-text interactions. This work lays the foundation for such advancements, and we plan to explore these directions in the future.\\n\\n> C2: It would have been nicer to have more detailed analysis of model responses for a few images (3-5) in about 10 domains. Where experts weigh-in on model responses even for just the figure captioning task to evaluate the strengths and weaknesses of models in the different domains. Especially on the variety showcased in Figure-2, e.g. 10 examples from each category in figure-2 analyzed by domain experts.\\n\\n**Response**: Thank you for the valuable feedback. We had indeed planned to involve domain experts (PhDs in corresponding fields) to analyze our dataset. After re-grouping the original 72 categories into 18 science fields, we prioritize 10 major science domains for further analysis. \\n\\n**PhD Expert Evaluation**: Specifically, we recruited 30 PhDs as human evaluators from the [Prolific platform](https://www.prolific.com/), which is a well established platform of high quality scores, with verified degrees in 10 major scientific categories that align with our dataset's primary domains: **Material Science**, **Chemistry**, **Physics**, **Biochemistry**, **Environment**, **Climate Sciences**, **Earth Sciences**, **Biological Sciences**, **Biomedical Sciences**, and **Health and Medicine**.\\n\\n**A new sub-benchmark**: We highly appreciate your suggestion on additional human evaluation on figure caption generation, but since there were questions on bi-directional matching between captions and figures/sub-figures, we constructed a new sub-benchmark with 10 major categories. For each category, we constructed a new sub-benchmark by selecting 25 questions per setting (75 total) from our three figure-caption matching tasks from the original test set. Thus, the new sub-benchmark consists of 750 questions total, and we have updated human evaluation scores with PhD degrees on 10 broad categories.\\n\\nSpecifically, we recruited 30 PhD-level evaluators through Prolific, specifically 3 PhDs per domain, with verified degrees in their respective fields. Each evaluator provided two types of assessments:\\n - **Performance Score**: Evaluators answered the questions themselves, establishing a human performance baseline measured by accuracy (0-100%)\\n - **Quality Assessment**: Evaluators rated each question's quality on a 5-point scale (1-5), judging its clarity and whether it effectively tests domain-specific knowledge.\\n\\nSpecifically, for the quality assessment, the human evaluators are asked to assess **whether the questions were clear and required an understanding of scientific knowledge within the respective discipline**, as outlined in the following metrics:\\n\\n - **Score Point 1. Strongly Disagree**: The question is irrelevant or cannot be answered based on the scientific content presented in the figure.\\n - **Score Point 2. Disagree**: The question lacks clarity or can be answered without specific knowledge of the scientific content in the figure (e.g., it can be answered with common sense).\\n - **Score Point 3. Neutral**: The question is clear but requires only minimal understanding of the scientific content in the figure.\\n - **Score Point 4. Agree**: The question is clear, answerable, and requires an adequate understanding of the scientific content in the figure.\\n - **Score Point 5. Strongly Agree**: The question is clear, answerable, and effectively evaluates a very deep understanding of the scientific content in the figure.\\n\\nThe evaluation results are shown in the table (next response).\"}", "{\"summary\": \"This paper presents a curated dataset derived from peer-reviewed Nature Communications articles that spans 72 diverse scientific fields. The dataset encompasses a rich diversity of figure types, including schematic diagrams and experimental visualizations. Through experimental benchmarks, the authors evaluate MLLM (Multimodal Language Model) performance on tasks like scientific figure captioning and multiple-choice question answering. The results, presented across both proprietary and open-source models, underscore the significant challenges MLLMs face when managing complex scientific content. Additionally, the paper highlights the dataset\\u2019s potential for pre-training in material science.\", \"soundness\": \"2\", \"presentation\": \"3\", \"contribution\": \"2\", \"strengths\": [\"The paper is well-structured and written in a clear, accessible manner.\", \"The dataset, MMSCI, is vast, comprising over 131k articles and 742k figures. It spans 72 scientific fields, providing a wide array of figure types from research articles.\", \"The multiple-choice question task is well-designed, utilizing authenticated labels from the articles, which is a reasonable and realistic setting.\", \"The pre-training experiment is a strong demonstration of MMSCI\\u2019s value, showcasing the dataset\\u2019s utility.\"], \"weaknesses\": [\"The MMSCICAP (Scientific Figure Captioning) task seems flawed. Providing only the abstract rather than figure-specific sentences\\u2014or even the entire relevant section\\u2014may undermine the task\\u2019s grounding. Abstracts alone should suffice only for captioning teaser figures; otherwise, the lack of figure-paired text may contribute disproportionately to the task\\u2019s difficulty.\", \"Multidisciplinarity is highlighted as a key feature, yet the experiments lack in-depth analysis on performance variation across disciplines. What factors contribute to these variations across different subjects? For example, why does Astronomy and Planetary Science yield high accuracy while disciplines with more data, like Materials Science, perform less well?\", \"Given the depth of scientific tasks, testing models like GPT-o1 or LMMs with enhanced reasoning abilities (e.g., chain-of-thought) could yield crucial insights for LMM development. While the dataset may not encompass all perspectives, enhanced reasoning capabilities could offer a more generalized solution to the complex nature of scientific reasoning.\", \"Line 230 mentions a figure caption but should clarify the \\u201cright\\u201d side to avoid confusion, as the caption does not appear on the \\u201cleft\\u201d side.\", \"Minor typos:\", \"Line 98, \\u201cFigure types\\u201d is preferable to \\u201cfigures types.\\u201d\", \"Consistency is needed in terminology: \\u201cMaterials Science\\u201d appears in Figure 4(a) but \\u201cMaterial Science\\u201d in line 438.\"], \"questions\": [\"How does GPT-o1 or other LMMs with advanced reasoning techniques (e.g., chain-of-thought) perform on these tasks?\", \"What factors drive the performance differences among disciplines?\", \"Why does Astronomy and Planetary Science show high accuracy compared to Materials Science, which has more articles and figures in the dataset?\"], \"flag_for_ethics_review\": \"['Yes, Legal compliance (e.g., GDPR, copyright, terms of use)', 'Yes, Potentially harmful insights, methodologies and applications']\", \"details_of_ethics_concerns\": [\"Firstly, the paper references the Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International (CC BY) license for Nature Communications content, with a link to the copyright policy at Nature Communications Open Access. However, it is not ideal to place the burden on readers to verify these copyright terms. Clarifying specific permissions and limitations associated with the dataset would be highly beneficial. Specifically:\", \"Is it legal to release the dataset in its entirety given that it draws exclusively from Nature Communications articles?\", \"Can other researchers freely conduct tests on the dataset?\", \"Are other researchers permitted to fine-tune models on the dataset?\", \"Is the dataset suitable for pre-training purposes in a broader research context?\", \"Can the dataset legally support commercial applications?\", \"Clarifying these aspects will provide essential guidance to researchers following your work.\", \"Secondly, given the dataset\\u2019s focus on academic caption generation, there are ethical considerations, especially around the risk of perpetuating inaccuracies. Such potential for misinformation, if unchecked, could have adverse impacts, particularly in educational and research environments. Introducing a brief discussion on mitigating these risks would enhance the responsible application of this work in various contexts.\"], \"rating\": \"5\", \"confidence\": \"4\", \"code_of_conduct\": \"Yes\"}", "{\"title\": \"Response to Reviewer acAx\", \"comment\": \"Thank you for recognizing the novelty of our dataset, the comprehensive evaluations, and the transparency of our benchmarks. Please find our detailed responses to your concerns below.\\n\\n> **C1 regarding taxonomy** \\n\\n**Response**: Thank you for your feedback on our taxonomy. The original taxonomy was established by the authoritative committee of the Nature Communications journals, providing a credible framework for categorization.\\n\\nHowever, we appreciate your valuable suggestion to consolidate the categories into broader groupings. To better align with the categorization approaches used in other datasets, we have re-defined the original 72 categories into 18 science fields: Material Science, Chemistry, Physics, Biochemistry, Environment, Climate Sciences, Earth Sciences, Biological Sciences, Biomedical Sciences, Health and Medicine, Engineering, Energy, Mathematics and Computing, Astronomy and Planetary Science, Social Science, Pharmacology, Agriculture, Business and Industry\\n\\nAdditionally, for the purposes of human evaluation, we have selected 10 of these major categories to report on.\\nRegardless of the specific taxonomy used or the number of categories, we believe that the scope of our dataset (encompassing over 131,000 peer-reviewed articles and 742,000 figures from the Nature Communications journals) provides comprehensive coverage to evaluate LLMs' understanding of natural sciences.\\n\\n> **C2 regarding benchmark design and question originality**:\\n\\n**Response**: \\n\\nWe acknowledge that the current dataset uses permutations of existing data. However, our benchmark requires comprehensive scientific understanding through bidirectional tasks:\\n\\n1. Figure-to-caption matching requires models to select the correct caption from multiple options within the same paper. For example, in Figure 3, models must distinguish between different experimental results and structural characterizations of PbZrO3 membranes by understanding detailed synthesis processes, surface morphology measurements, and atomic-scale structural analyses.\\n2. Subfigure-to-caption and caption-to-subfigure matching test bidirectional understanding of technical details. Models need to differentiate between various characterization techniques (surface morphology by AFM, atomic-resolution HAADF-STEM imaging, and electron diffraction patterns) and match them with their corresponding technical descriptions.\", \"regarding_the_concern_about_pattern_matching\": \"Our tasks specifically challenge superficial matching by using options from the same paper with similar technical depth. Success requires understanding the scientific relationships between different characterization methods and their implications. This is evidenced by:\\n1. Basic MLLMs performing at chance level on bi-directional figure-caption matching. \\n2. Performance improving significantly with abstract context (Table 3 in the main pages).\\n3. Clear performance differences from the large proprietary MLLMs and open-source MLLMs across scientific domains (Figure 4 in the main pages)\\n\\nWhile generating new questions could be valuable, current LLMs struggle with reliable scientific question generation, and expert annotation across 72 disciplines would be resource-intensive. Our work provides a foundation with rich peer-reviewed content for future extensions.\\n\\n> **C3 regarding whether the benchmark task necessaties the understanding of the scientific knowledge in the figures.**\\n\\n**Response**: To address the concerns about our human baseline and validate that our tasks require domain expertise, as we mentioned in the above, we conducted comprehensive evaluation with human experts of PhD degree in 10 major science domains.\\n\\n**PhD Expert Evaluation**: Specifically, by adopting your advice, we considered 10 broader major scientific categories, and we recruited PhDs from the [Prolific platform](https://www.prolific.com/), which is a well established platform of high quality scores, with verified degrees in 10 major scientific categories that align with our dataset's primary domains: **Material Science**, **Chemistry**, **Physics**, **Biochemistry**, **Environment**, **Climate Sciences**, **Earth Sciences**, **Biological Sciences**, **Biomedical Sciences**, and **Health and Medicine**.\\n\\nFor each category, we constructed a new sub-benchmark by selecting 25 questions per setting (75 total) from our three figure-caption matching tasks from the original test set. Thus, the new sub-benchmark consists of 750 questions total, and we have updated human evaluation scores with PhD degrees on 10 broad categories.\"}", "{\"title\": \"Response to Reviewer 4Pjm\", \"comment\": \"We sincerely appreciate your detailed and thoughtful review of our work. We are grateful for your recognition of the dataset\\u2019s comprehensiveness, the challenging benchmarks, and the demonstrated improvements through fine-tuning. These aspects are core to our contributions, and we are pleased that they resonate with you. Below, we provide our responses to your feedback and address your questions and concerns.\\n\\n> Concerns regarding Dataset Curation Details: \\\"The paper should provide more detailed information about the data annotation process to enhance transparency and reproducibility.\\\"\\n\\n**Response**: Thank you for the suggestion. We have now included additional information on the quality control stages. As outlined in Section 3, the dataset content, including article sections and figures, is systematically organized in different places in the original nature communications website, ensuring easy extraction without data loss. The primary task was to split the full figure captions into individual descriptions for each sub-figure. To achieve this, we first conducted a small-scale human verification to identify potential caption formats. Based on these findings, we designed regular expression matching functions to extract the sub-captions. Next, we used the SpaCy package to verify whether the extracted text fragments were complete sentences or meaningful standalone phrases. Finally, we performed additional human verification on a subset of the extracted data to ensure the method's accuracy and reliability.\\n\\n> Concerns about model size comparison.\\n\\n**Response**: \\nThank you for raising this concern. In our experiments, we prioritized widely used open-source and proprietary models. During the rebuttal period, we also fine-tuned Qwen2-VL-7B on our dataset, resulting in Qwen2-VL-7B-MMSci, and included baseline results from a larger model InternVL2-26B. Noting Qwen2-VL-7B's higher baseline performance compared to InternVL2-26B, we are also fine-tuning Qwen2-VL-72B. If these experiments are completed within the rebuttal period, we will report the results; otherwise, they will be included in the revised version. Additionally, we encourage other researchers to evaluate their models using our benchmark.\", \"table_1\": \"Multi-choice QA accuracy with additional models (partial results for brevity)\\n\\n| Model | Fig2Cap | SubFig2Cap | SubCap2Fig | Overall |\\n|-------|---------|------------|------------|---------|\\n| InternVL2-2B | 42.76 | 33.07 | 38.42 | 38.18 |\\n| InternVL2-8B | 52.78 | 49.60 | 40.13 | 47.62 |\\n| **InternVL2-26B** | 50.59 | 57.82 | 71.63 | 59.81 |\\n| MiniCPM-V-2.6 | 53.20 | 58.27 | 61.67 | 57.61 |\\n| Llama3.2-11B-Vision | 54.97 | 45.04 | 71.18 | 57.00 |\\n| Qwen2-VL-2B | 60.61 | 37.62 | 55.12 | 51.30 |\\n| Qwen2-VL-7B | 66.16 | 73.10 | 79.80 | 72.87 |\\n| Qwen2-VL-2B-MMSci | 78.62 | 83.02 | 83.57 | 81.67 |\\n| Qwen2-VL-7B-MMSci | 81.48 | 88.47 | 92.91 | 87.49 |\\n| Gemini-1.5-Flash | 54.77 | 77.84 | 64.41 | 65.24 |\\n| Gemini-1.5-Pro | 62.79 | 81.41 | 77.16 | 73.52 |\\n| Claude-3.5-Sonnet | 68.77 | 85.34 | 87.16 | 80.18 |\\n| GPT-4V | 60.43 | 75.07 | 76.12 | 70.45 |\\n| GPT-4o | 67.42 | 87.40 | 84.65 | 79.57 |\\n\\n> Concerns about LLM Evaluation Sample Size\\n\\n**Response**: Thank you for the suggestion. We have added LLM-based evaluation results with a sample size of 200 using the recent GPT-4o-0806 version, which will be included in the revised manuscript. \\\"W/ Abs\\\" and \\\"w/o Abs\\\" indicate whether captioning is grounded on abstracts. \\n \\n| Model | FActScore* (w/o Abs) | G-Eval (w/o Abs) | FActScore* (w/ Abs) | G-Eval (w/ Abs) |\\n|-------|---------------|--------------|--------------|-------------|\\n| Kosmos2 | 0.87 | 1.12 | 3.99 | 1.39 |\\n| LLaVA1.5-7B | 3.89 | 1.08 | 9.07 | 2.02 |\\n| LLaVA1.6-Mistral-7B | 5.17 | 1.23 | 7.67 | 1.47 |\\n| Qwen-VL-7B-Chat | 3.06 | 1.28 | 9.14 | 1.64 |\\n| InternVL2-2B | 5.99 | 1.76 | 10.38 | 2.17 |\\n| InternVL2-8B | 8.01 | 2.63 | 9.98 | 3.00 |\\n| IDEFICS2-8B | 2.56 | 1.40 | 5.17 | 1.96 |\\n| IDEFICS3-8B-Llama3 | 7.26 | 1.71 | 7.71 | 1.98 |\\n| MiniCPM-V-2.6 | 11.15 | 2.96 | 12.93 | 2.95 |\\n| Llama3.2-11B-Vision | 8.27 | 2.46 | 9.55 | 2.18 |\\n| Qwen2-VL-2B | 9.94 | 2.31 | 11.88 | 2.64 |\\n| Qwen2-VL-7B | 10.03 | 3.39 | 10.36 | 3.45 |\\n| Qwen2-VL-2B-MMSci | 9.67 | 2.79 | 14.05 | 3.17 |\\n| Qwen2-VL-7B-MMSci | **18.17** | 3.47 | **20.58** | 3.55 |\\n| Gemini-1.5-Flash | 8.18 | 3.70 | 10.14 | 4.08 |\\n| Gemini-1.5-Pro | **14.59** | **3.79** | 13.76 | 4.08 |\\n| Claude-3.5-Sonnet | 9.39 | 3.53 | 12.11 | 4.04 |\\n| GPT-4V | 14.17 | 3.69 | **19.52** | **4.13** |\\n| GPT-4o | 13.20 | **4.01** | 18.87 | **4.22** |\\n\\n> Concerns about Data Leakage\\n\\n**Response**: Since all the papers in our dataset are accepted publications from the prestigious Nature Communications journal, we believe there is minimal risk of significant overlap in similar images across the dataset.\\n\\nWe hope these responses have addressed your concerns. If you need any further clarification, please don't hesitate to ask. We value your feedback and look forward to further discussion.\"}", "{\"title\": \"[2/n] Response to Reviewer acAx\", \"comment\": [\"Regarding the specific question about separating Biochemistry from Biological Sciences, while we acknowledge that these fields are closely related, we maintained their distinction for several important reasons:\", \"Biochemistry represents a specialized focus on molecular-level chemical processes and substances within living organisms, with emphasis on: Molecular structures, Biochemical pathways, and Physical principles of biological molecules.\", \"Biological Sciences encompasses a broader range of disciplines studying living organisms at various scales, including: Genetics, Ecology, Physiology, Evolution, Organismal biology, etc.\"], \"this_separation_aligns_with_both_practical_and_theoretical_considerations\": \"- It reflects the distinct expertise profiles we encountered when recruiting PhD annotators through [Prolific](https://www.prolific.com/), where these two subjects are separated.\\n - It enables more granular evaluation of model performance across different scientific domains.\\n - It preserves important methodological and conceptual distinctions between these fields.\\n\\nWe maintain this level of categorization to provide meaningful insights into domain-specific performance while ensuring sufficient data representation within each field. This approach allows for more nuanced analysis while maintaining statistical reliability.\\nWe appreciate the suggestion to compare our categorization with other works using broader domains. We would be happy to include such comparisons in our revision if the reviewer finds it valuable.\\n\\n> What exactly is your benchmark evaluating? Does it assess holistic multimodal scientific understanding or only the specific tasks you outlined? If it evaluates holistic multimodal scientific understanding and your model, along with proprietary models, outperforms in-domain Ph.D. evaluators, this seems to contradict findings from other multimodal knowledge benchmarks such as MMMU, where GPT-4 performs worse than human experts. Could the authors explain this contradiction, or possibly rescope the evaluation?\\n\\nWe thank the reviewer for raising this important question about scope and relationship of benchmarks from MMSci to MMMU. The apparent different patterns in performances can be explained by fundamental differences between these benchmarks.\", \"our_comparative_analysis_reveals_key_distinctions\": [\"**Data Source and Object**\", \"**MMSci Dataset (Ours)**: Understanding specialized scientific visualizations from peer-reviewed Nature Communications articles in our MMSci dataset, which includes heterogeneous figure types like schematic diagrams (13.2%), microscopic photographs (14.7%), simulated images (3.4%). For example, interpreting crystallographic structures in materials science or molecular pathway diagrams in biochemistry requires deep domain expertise.\", \"**MMMU**: Scientific reasoning with visual information from online sources, textbooks, and lecture materials collected by 50 college students, covering broader academic content but with less specialized scientific depth.\", \"**LLM's Target Capability**\", \"**Benchmarks from MMSci Dataset (Ours)**: Testing LLM's capability to recognize, understand and analyze about domain-specific scientific content from scientific figures requiring graduate-level expertise. For example, our benchmarks evaluate whether models can correctly analyze relationships between visual elements in scientific figures and their underlying description, e.g., theoretical principles and experimental methodologies.\", \"**MMMU**: Testing general visual problem-solving capability including reasoning and understanding across subjects like art, business, history, health, humanities, and technology, with limited coverage of advanced natural sciences.\", \"**Human Evaluation Protocol**\", \"**A Q&A Benchmark from MMSci Dataset (Ours)**: Problem solving with only their own knowledge without any external source and textbook, completed within 2-minute time constraints per question, reflecting realistic scientific figure interpretation scenarios.\", \"**MMMU**: Problem solving with textbooks, allowing 90 college senior students (3 per subject) extended time for comprehensive evaluation.\", \"These fundamental differences in purpose and methodology explain the performance discrepancy noted by the reviewer. While MMMU aims to evaluate general reasoning capabilities for AGI development, one of benchmarks from our MMSci dataset tests how much Human/LLM has scientific knowledge both in depth and broad views together, which is required for scientific assistant model.\"]}", "{\"comment\": \"Thanks for the thorough response! For the rebuttal that\\n\\n> To better align with the categorization approaches used in other datasets, we have re-defined the original 72 categories into 18 science fields: Material Science, Chemistry, Physics, Biochemistry, Environment, Climate Sciences, Earth Sciences, Biological Sciences, Biomedical Sciences, Health and Medicine, Engineering, Energy, Mathematics and Computing, Astronomy and Planetary Science, Social Science, Pharmacology, Agriculture, Business and Industry\\n\\nCan the authors describe how the original 72 categories were re-defined into 18 fields? This still seems confusing\\u2014for example, Biochemistry is considered part of Biological Sciences according to Nature's taxonomy, yet you have separated them into two distinct fields. I am not objecting to the limited number of domains, but it would be better to ensure everything is as concise and consistent as possible. Additionally, the five categories listed in Table 6 should be compared with other works that consider broader domains as categories.\\n\\n> Performance of human Ph.D. evaluating questions within their specialty domain of Ph.D. degree\\n\\nUpon reviewing Table 2 in the rebuttal, I was surprised that your fine-tuned model not only outperformed all proprietary models but also in-domain Ph.D. evaluators by approximately 2x. This raises additional concerns about the utility of your benchmark:\\n\\n* What exactly is your benchmark evaluating? Does it assess holistic multimodal scientific understanding or only the specific tasks you outlined? If it evaluates holistic multimodal scientific understanding and your model, along with proprietary models, outperforms in-domain Ph.D. evaluators, this seems to contradict findings from other multimodal knowledge benchmarks such as MMMU, where GPT-4 performs worse than human experts. Could the authors explain this contradiction, or possibly rescope the evaluation?\\n\\n* In general, one would aim to create evaluations that humans (whether expert or average) perform well on, but not models. Based on the results, however, this appears to be a task where existing models outperform humans, while humans themselves struggle. Could the authors discuss why human experts perform worse than all models reported in the table?\\n\\n* Fine-tuning models on in-domain data appears to substantially boost performance. In fact, it seems that the fine-tuned 7B model is nearing saturation on this benchmark. Given that there are already more capable open-source models available than the one you used, this raises concerns that the utility of the benchmark could diminish if saturation occurs too soon. Could the authors address this issue and suggest ways to make the evaluation more challenging?\"}", "{\"title\": \"[2/n] Response to Reviewer 4ejM\", \"comment\": \"> **Response 2**: I appreciate the comprehensiveness of your evaluation; however, the article does not delve into insights about multidisciplinary differences. While your human evaluation protocol is strong, the final scores alone are insufficient to provide a holistic understanding. Interpretations and discussions are equally important. For instance, why do Astronomy and Planetary Science achieve high accuracy, whereas fields with more extensive datasets, such as Materials Science, perform relatively poorly? Addressing such questions would significantly enhance the value of your evaluation.\\n\\n\\nWe sincerely thank the reviewer for recognizing the comprehensiveness of our human evaluation protocol while raising important questions about interdisciplinary differences. Our analysis reveals notable performance variations across disciplines, particularly between Materials Science (showing performance in the 40-60% range) and Astronomy and Planetary Science, prompting a careful examination of the underlying factors.\", \"our_analysis_reveals_three_key_factors_contributing_to_this_performance_disparity\": \"**Factor 1: The complexity of knowledge domain structure plays a crucial role**\\n\\n**Using [Web of Science](https://webofscience.zendesk.com/hc/en-us/articles/27505726032017-Web-of-Science-Subject-Categories) classifications, we find that Materials Science encompasses six distinct specialized sub-fields**:\\n\\n**Materials Science**\\n 1. Materials Science, Multidisciplinary\\n 2. Materials Science, Ceramics\\n 3. Materials Science, Coatings & Films\\n 4. Materials Science, Composites\\n 5. Materials Science, Characterization & Testing\\n 6. Metallurgy & Metallurgical Engineering\\n\\n**In contrast, Astronomy and Planetary Science operates primarily within a single domain**:\\n\\n**Astronomy and Planetary Science** \\n 1. Astronomy & Astrophysics\\n\\n**Methodology Note on Field Classification**: Our analysis maps 250 Web of Science specialized subject categories to 18 first-level broad subjects, considering only primary relationships with high confidence. We employed a conservative mapping approach, excluding ambiguous cases and avoiding multiple mappings of the same subject. This ensures clear, well-defined relationships in our field complexity analysis.\\n\\nThis structural difference has profound implications for knowledge integration. Within Materials Science, even PhD-level experts naturally specialize in specific sub-areas, as mastering the entire breadth of the field is exceptionally challenging. For example, our dataset includes cases where understanding a single materials characterization figure requires expertise in both crystallography and mechanical properties sub-areas that typically represent distinct specializations even within Materials Science departments. **This specialization reality means that the difficulty of question-answering tasks can vary significantly depending on how many distinct sub-areas of expertise are required to fully interpret a single figure or answer a question.**\\n\\n**Factor 2: The visual content complexity varies significantly across fields.** \\nIn Materials Science, figures frequently combine multiple specialized visualization techniques within single panels. For instance, in our dataset, we observe materials characterization figures that simultaneously present atomic-scale microscopy, spectroscopic data, and phase diagrams - each requiring distinct interpretation approaches. This multiplicity of visualization paradigms within single figures creates additional cognitive demands for both human experts and LVLMs.\\n\\n**Factor 3: The depth and breadth of knowledge integration required for accurate interpretation varies substantially.** \\nOur analysis shows that Materials Science questions often require simultaneous application of knowledge from multiple specialized domains. This multi-domain integration requirement is evidenced in our benchmark questions, where successful responses frequently depend on connecting concepts across different sub-fields of materials science.\\n\\nOur fine-tuning experiments on the dataset demonstrate promising results in addressing these challenges. The LVLM models fine-tuned with our dataset MMSci achieved the highest overall multiple-choice accuracy on our benchmark, showing substantial improvements in handling multi-domain knowledge integration across both depth and breadth.\\n\\n**This analysis suggests that while performance variations across scientific fields stem from inherent differences in knowledge structure and integration requirements, they are not insurmountable limitations. Rather, they represent opportunities for targeted improvement in LVLM development, particularly in handling complex, multi-domain scientific content.** Our findings indicate that with appropriate training approaches and data resources, LVLMs can enhance their capabilities in processing sophisticated scientific information, even in fields requiring complex multi-domain expertise.\"}", "{\"title\": \"[2/n] Response to Reviewer iZBf\", \"comment\": \"**Table 1 in Rebuttal: Phd expert evaluation on the question quality.** Setting I indicates Figure-to-caption matching; Setting II indicates Subfigure-to-caption matching; Setting III indicates Caption-to-subfigure matching.\\n\\n| Field | Setting I | Setting II | Setting III |\\n|---------------------|-------------------------|-------------------------------|-------------------------------|\\n| Material Science | 4.0267 | 4.2933 | 4.1333 |\\n| Chemistry | 4.1333 | 3.7467 | 3.6133 |\\n| Physics | 4.0267 | 3.5467 | 3.8133 |\\n| Biochemistry | 3.1600 | 4.8267 | 4.4133 |\\n| Environment | 4.1067 | 4.4667 | 4.3467 |\\n| Climate Sciences | 4.1296 | 3.6471 | 3.4118 |\\n| Earth | 4.0267 | 4.2319 | 4.1739 |\\n| Biological Sciences | 3.8800 | 3.6800 | 3.7867 |\\n| Biomedical Sciences | 4.0133 | 4.1333 | 3.7733 |\\n| Health and Medicine | 4.3733 | 3.7467 | 3.6800 |\\n| **Average** | **4.0873** | **4.0319** | **3.9149** |\\n\\n\\nAs observed, the overall quality scores are consistently around 4 across all settings, indicating that **the questions are clear, answerable, and require adequate understanding of scientific content in the figures.** The score distributions across different Q&A tasks reveal several key insights:\\n\\n1. Varying Difficulty Levels: Different settings challenge different aspects of scientific understanding. For example, in Biochemistry, Setting II (subfigure-to-caption) scores significantly higher (4.83) than Setting I (3.16), suggesting that detailed technical matching requires deeper domain knowledge than overall figure understanding.\\n2. Domain-Specific Patterns: Some fields like Material Science show consistent scores across all settings (4.03, 4.29, 4.13), while others like Biochemistry show larger variations (3.16, 4.83, 4.41). This suggests that our three task types effectively capture different aspects of domain expertise.\\n3. Complementary Evaluation: The varying performance patterns across settings demonstrate that our benchmark tests scientific understanding from multiple angles, going beyond simple pattern matching. Each setting provides a distinct perspective on how domain knowledge is applied in scientific figure interpretation.\\n\\nIn addition to the quality assessment reported above, we also evaluated the actual performance of PhD experts on our benchmark to address the concerns about human baseline design. We conducted a comprehensive evaluation with PhD experts from the Prolific platform across 10 major scientific categories. Our human evaluation includes two settings:\\n\\n - **In-Ph.D. Degree Domain Expert Performance**: Performance of human Ph.D. evaluating questions within their specialty domain of Ph.D. degree.\\n - **Out-of-Ph.D. Degree Domain Performance**: Performance of human Ph.D. evaluating questions outside their expertise of Ph.D. degree.\\n\\n**Table 2 in Rebuttal: Performance Comparison of Human Ph.D. Experts and Models (%)**\\n\\n| Model/Evaluator | Setting I | Setting II | Setting III |\\n|---------------------|-------------------------|-------------------------------|-------------------------------|\\n| Out-of-Ph.D. Degree Domain (Human, Ph.D.) | 36.18 | 33.31 | 46.85 |\\n| In-Ph.D. Degree Domain (Human, Ph.D.) | 40.26 | 43.45 | 50.46 |\\n| Gemini-1.5-Flash | 58.11 | 79.88 | 62.66 |\\n| Gemini-1.5-Pro | 63.47 | 78.83 | 78.65 |\\n| Claude-3.5-Sonnet | 70.58 | 85.73 | 83.70 |\\n| GPT-4V | 66.18 | 73.36 | 76.15 |\\n| GPT-4o | 68.42 | 88.23 | 84.92 |\\n| Qwen2-VL-7B-MMSci | 83.84 | 92.91 | 87.17 |\\n\\nAs demonstrated in Table 2 in Rebuttal, several key insights emerge:\\n\\n**Domain Expertise Impact**: PhDs evaluating within their expert domain of Ph.D. degree consistently outperform those working outside their expertise in other Science domains across all settings, confirming our tasks require domain-specific knowledge\\n\\n**Task Difficulty**: Even domain experts achieve moderate performance within the recommended time limit (2 minutes per question), indicating the tasks' challenging nature.\\n\\n**Scientific Understanding Capabilities**: The strong performances of both our fine-tuned small LLM and proprietary models demonstrate potential as AI research assistants. Notably, our dataset significantly improved small LLM performance, reducing the gap with large proprietary models.\"}", "{\"title\": \"[2/n] Response to Reviewer iZBf and acAx\", \"comment\": \"3. When considering average Ph.D. experts, proprietary LVLMs can outperform human experts. Therefore, **we consider reporting both the average performance of all Ph.D. experts and the average of top Ph.D. experts in the report.**\\n4. These results validate our benchmark's effectiveness for evaluating LVLM scientific knowledge while offering meaningful comparisons with human expert performance. The significant performance variations among Ph.D. experts also underscore the challenging nature of our benchmark, even for human experts.\\n\\n\\n**Table 2: Extended results of Table 1: Accuracy (%) in material science test cases from two additional reliable Ph.D. of experts in Material Science, Top-1 and Top-2 Experts in Prolific, and LVLMs.**\\n| Metric | Setting I | Setting II | Setting III | Average Across Settings |\\n|--------|-----------|------------|-------------|------------------------|\\n| **One of Authors (Ph.D. and Expert in Material Science, Published Top Journals in Material Science, Former Member in the World-class Leading Lab)** | **80.00** | **92.00** | **92.00** | **88.00** |\\n| **His Trustable Colleague (Ph.D. and Expert in Material Science, Published Top Journals in Material Science)** | 36.00 | 76.00 | 84.00 | 65.33 |\\n| **Average of two Reliable Ph.D. and Experts in Material Science (One of Authors & His Trustable Colleague)** | **58.00** | **84.00** | **88.00** | **76.67** |\\n| **Top-1 Human Ph.D. Expert in Material Science in Prolific** | **92.00** | **92.00** | **84.00** | **89.33** |\\n| **Average of Top-2 Human Ph.D. Expert in Material Science in Prolific** | **56.00** | **52.00** | **56.00** | **54.67**\\n| Gemini-1.5-Flash on Material Science | 76.00 | 96.00 | 64.00 | 78.67 |\\n| Gemini-1.5-Pro on Material Science | 64.00 | 84.00 | 80.00 | 76.00 |\\n| Claude-3.5-Sonnet on Material Science | 64.00 | 96.00 | 80.00 | 80.00 |\\n| GPT-4V on Material Science | 52.00 | 76.00 | 64.00 | 64.00 |\\n| **GPT-4o on Material Science** | **68.00** | **96.00** | **72.00** | **78.67** |\\n| Qwen2-VL-7B-MMSci on Material Science | 84.00 | 96.00 | 92.00 | 90.67 |\\n\\n**Reanalysis of Human Evaluation Results from Prolific on All 10 Fields**\\n\\nBased on these observations and insights, **our analysis revealed significant performance variations among Ph.D. experts from Prolific when solving problems in our dataset**. These variations appear to correlate with their specific expertise and individual knowledge domains. **To better understand this pattern, we conducted a further analysis of top-performing Ph.D. experts from Prolific on all the 10 fields**. As shown in Table 3, the highest-performing individuals achieved substantially better results compared to the overall Ph.D. expert average. Our analysis yielded three key findings:\\n\\n1. **The accuracy from the Top-1 human Ph.D. expert in Prolific across 10 key fields is approximately 70%, which is better than Gemini-1.5-Flash and comparable to GPT-4V and Gemini-1.5-Pro.**\\n2. While the performance of Top-1 human experts might increase further if we were to consider only world-class Ph.D. human experts, such analysis is beyond the contribution and scope of our paper.\\n\\n**Table 3: Performances of Accuracy (ACC, %) of In-Domain Ph.D. Experts from Prolific with Top-Performances on all the 10 key fields.**\\n\\n| Field | Setting I | Setting II | Setting III | Average Across Settings |\\n|-------|-----------|------------|-------------|------------------------|\\n| **Average Human for In-domain Ph.D. in Prolific (Overall 10 Fields)** | **40.26** | **43.45** | **50.46** | **44.72** |\\n| **Average of Top-2 Human for Each In-domain Ph.D. in Prolific (Overall 10 Fields)** | **54.19** | **58.98** | **56.59** | **56.59** |\\n| **Average of Each Top-1 Human for Each In-domain Ph.D. in Prolific (Overall 10 Fields)** | **64.18** | **71.64** | **72.72** | **69.51** |\\n| **Gemini-1.5-Flash (Overall 10 Fields)** | **58.11** | **79.88** | **62.66** | **66.88** |\\n| Gemini-1.5-Pro (Overall 10 Fields) | 63.47 | 78.83 | 78.65 | 73.65 |\\n| Claude-3.5-Sonnet (Overall 10 Fields) | 70.58 | 85.73 | 83.70 | 80.00 |\\n| **GPT-4V (Overall 10 Fields)** | **66.18** | **73.36** | **76.15** | **71.90** |\\n| GPT-4o (Overall 10 Fields) | 68.42 | 88.23 | 84.92 | 80.52 |\\n| Qwen2-VL-7B-MMSci (Overall 10 Fields) | 83.84 | 92.91 | 87.17 | 87.97 |\\n\\nThank you again for the reviewers' insightful feedback. Our deeper analysis on the human evaluation results has revealed key observations on the behavior of Ph.D. expert on our one of benchmarks. Especially, there can be large performance variances among even Ph.D. experts in the same domain due to the difficulty of our knowledge test in science. Thus, we will incorporate these valuable insights into an additional discussion section, with comprehensive results included in the main pages and the supplementary material.\"}", "{\"title\": \"[3/n] Response to Reviewer 4ejM\", \"comment\": \"**Table 2 in Rebuttal: Performance Comparison of Human Ph.D. Experts and Models with a Newly Constructed sub-Benchmark (%)**\\n\\n| Model/Evaluator | Setting I | Setting II | Setting III |\\n|---------------------|-------------------------|-------------------------------|-------------------------------|\\n| Outside-Ph.D. Degree Domain in Science (Human, Ph.D.) | 36.18 | 33.31 | 46.85 |\\n| In-Ph.D. Degree Domain (Human, Ph.D.) | 40.26 | 43.45 | 50.46 |\\n| Gemini-1.5-Flash (Overall) | 58.11 | 79.88 | 62.66 |\\n| Gemini-1.5-Pro (Overall) | 63.47 | 78.83 | 78.65 |\\n| Claude-3.5-Sonnet (Overall) | 70.58 | 85.73 | 83.70 |\\n| GPT-4V (Overall) | 66.18 | 73.36 | 76.15 |\\n| GPT-4o (Overall) | 68.42 | 88.23 | 84.92 |\\n| Qwen2-VL-7B-MMSci (Overall) | 83.84 | 92.91 | 87.17 |\\n\\nAs demonstrated in Table 2 in Rebuttal, several key insights emerge:\\n\\n**Domain Expertise Impact**: PhDs evaluating within their expert domain of Ph.D. degree consistently outperform those working outside their expertise in other Science domains across all settings, confirming our tasks require domain-specific knowledge\\n\\n**Task Difficulty**: Even domain experts achieve moderate performance within the recommended time limit (2 minutes per question), indicating the tasks' challenging nature\\n\\n**Scientific Understanding Capabilities**: The strong performances of both our fine-tuned sLLM and large proprietary models demonstrate potential as AI research assistants. Notably, our dataset significantly improved sLLM performance, reducing the gap with large proprietary models (see Table 4 in main paper)\\n\\nWe will also provide the breakdown of different domains in the Figure 4 in the updated draft.\\n\\n> \\n> **C3**: Given the depth of scientific tasks, testing models like GPT-o1 or LMMs with enhanced reasoning abilities (e.g., chain-of-thought) could yield crucial insights for LMM development. While the dataset may not encompass all perspectives, enhanced reasoning capabilities could offer a more generalized solution to the complex nature of scientific reasoning.\\n\\n**Response**: Thank you for the suggestion. We would like to clarify that the current version of o1 does not support image input, and therefore cannot be evaluated on this test set. Additionally, the results we present for proprietary models are their zero-shot chain-of-thought performance. (For the other open-source models, chain-of-thought prompting had little or negative impact, so we report standard input-output prompting performance.) Please find the performance with GPT-4o with different prompting approach below.\\n\\n| Model | Prompting | Setting I | Setting II | Setting III |\\n| ---- | ---- | ---- | ---- | ---- |\\n| GPT-4o | w/o CoT | 60.34 | 78.91 | 81.30 |\\n| GPT-4o | 0-shot CoT | 67.42 | 87.40 | 84.65 |\\n| GPT-4o | 1-shot CoT | 69.87 | 89.61 | 85.86 |\\n| GPT-4o | 3-shot CoT | 69.70 | 90.97 | 85.65 |\\n| GPT-4o | 5-shot CoT | 70.20 | 90.78 | 86.17 |\\n\\nAs shown, chain-of-thought (CoT) reasoning improves performance for the powerful model, and increasing the number of shots provides a slight additional improvement, though not significantly. For a fair comparison, we use the 0-shot setting by default.\\n\\n> **C4**: Line 230 mentions a figure caption but should clarify the \\u201cright\\u201d side to avoid confusion, as the caption does not appear on the \\u201cleft\\u201d side.\\n\\n**Response**: Thanks for the suggestions. We will modify the description as suggessted to avoid confusion.\\n\\n> **C5 regarding typos**: \\n\\n**Response**: Thanks for pointing them out. We will modify them in the updated draft.\\n\\nWe hope these responses have addressed your concerns. If you need any further clarification, please don't hesitate to ask. We value your feedback and look forward to further discussion.\"}", "{\"title\": \"[3/n] Response to Reviewer iZBf and acAx\", \"comment\": \"Specifically, we will add:\\n1. The best (top-1) performance from Prolific PhD evaluations, demonstrating superior domain expertise\\n2. The top-2 performance from Prolific PhD evaluations, representing baseline results from domain PhDs with different expertise levels\\n3. A detailed and qualified case study of materials science expert evaluation results\\n\\nWe believe these additions will significantly strengthen our work by providing deeper insights into expert-based evaluation. We appreciate the reviewers' suggestions which have led to this meaningful analysis.\\n\\n\\n> Regarding Reproducibility\\n\\n**We have included the necessary materials to reproduce our results through our anonymous repository (https://anonymous.4open.science/r/MMSci-2321)**, including:\\n- Complete implementation code\\n- Dataset with detailed data card\\n- Model checkpoints\\n- Human evaluation results \\n- Step-by-step reproduction instructions\\n\\nWe will ensure all necessary resources are well-documented and readily accessible to the research community. Thank you again for your constructive feedback. We believe these improvements will significantly enhance both the rigor of our human evaluation methodology and the reproducibility of our results.\"}", "{\"title\": \"[3/n] Response to Reviewer acAx\", \"comment\": \"By considering different testing purposes and human evaluation protocols, it is clearly evident why humans perform better than LLMs in MMMU which focuses on reasoning rather than inherent high-level knowledge in depth. In contrast, tests based on our MMSci dataset require inherent knowledge in depth, enabling us to identify scientific understanding from both deep and broad perspectives, spanning many scientific disciplines and featuring diverse scientific figure types as shown in Figure 2. This makes benchmarks from MMSci dataset particularly effective at evaluating how well models and humans can interpret complex scientific content without external resources, which is focused on LLM's knowledge capability. Thus, MMMU and benchmarks from MMSci dataset have orthogonal contributions that help evaluate different perspectives.\\n\\nTaking this insightful feedback into consideration, we plan to extend our use cases of benchmarks from MMSci dataset by adding and applying meta-reasoning dataset construction in the future work. This strategic integration of orthogonal contributions will enable comprehensive evaluation of both inherent scientific knowledge and reasoning capabilities, effectively combining the complementary strengths of both approaches.\\n\\n> In general, one would aim to create evaluations that humans (whether expert or average) perform well on, but not models. Based on the results, however, this appears to be a task where existing models outperform humans, while humans themselves struggle. Could the authors discuss why human experts perform worse than all models reported in the table?\\n\\n\\nAs mentioned for the previous question, the performance difference can also be understood through the distinct processing capabilities of humans and AI models. Our benchmark involves complex scientific figures, each containing multiple sub-figures with dense visual information associated with multiple different sub-areas within the same subject sometimes. \\nThus, even PhD-level experts, while possessing deep domain knowledge, naturally specialize in specific sub-areas and topics in the subject. They may not be familiar with fully processing elements outside their core expertise even within the same subject, and also may require longer time than the allotted 2 minutes per problem to infer the answers.\\n\\nIn contrast, AI models can process all visual elements simultaneously across multiple domains without cognitive limitations or domain-specific constraints. This capability highlights MLLMs' potential value as AI research assistants, particularly for tasks requiring graduate-level expertise and rapid analysis of domain-specific scientific contents in multiple sub-areas.\\n\\nFurthermore, the human evaluators' confidence scores from the Prolific system reveal interesting insights on our test data: the human experts' confidence usually falls between Confidence Score 3 (somewhat confident with noticeable uncertainty) ~ Confidence Score 4 (mostly confident with minor doubts), even though they have verified Phd degrees in the corrsponding disciplines. These uncertainty levels likely reflect the natural limitations of domain expertise - for instance, an expert in NLP might struggle with detailed questions about computer vision or reinforcement learning, despite all being within computer science. This effect becomes even more pronounced across different scientific disciplines. For example, an expertise in one sub-domain of materials science (e.g., nanomaterials synthesis) may not translate to a deep understanding of techniques and data interpretation in other sub-domains (e.g., electrochemistry).\\n\\nHere are the human evaluators' confidence scores from the Prolific with a scale of 1\\u20135, defined as follows:\\n- **Not at all confident (Score 1):** I have no trust in my answer and believe it is likely incorrect.\\n- **Slightly confident (Score 2):** I have minimal trust in my answer and strongly doubt its accuracy.\\n- **Somewhat confident (Score 3):** I moderately believe my answer might be correct, but I have noticeable uncertainty.\\n- **Mostly confident (Score 4):** I largely believe my answer is correct, though I have still minor doubts.\\n- **Completely confident (Score 5):** I am absolutely certain my answer is correct, with no doubts at all.\"}", "{\"title\": \"[1/n] Response to reviewer 4ejM\", \"comment\": \"Thank you for your prompt and constructive feedback. We address each of your points below:\\n\\n> **Response 1**: What I intended to convey is that the information available in the abstract alone is insufficient for specific and meaningful captioning. In other words, solving the problem using just the abstract is inherently impossible. While the full article introduces noise, it at least contains the necessary information to make the captioning task feasible, albeit challenging.\\n\\nWe appreciate the reviewer's insight regarding full article context. While abstracts provide limited information compared to full papers, our results with Qwen2-VL-7B-MMSci, trained on our comprehensive MMSCI dataset, demonstrate significant capabilities that merit careful consideration.\\n\\n**Our experimental results show that Qwen2-VL-7B-MMSci, using only abstract context, achieves performance comparable to proprietary models using full articles.** Comparing with Gemini 1.5 (Flash&Pro)'s full-article performance:\\n\\n* BLEU-4: 6.89 versus 6.94-7.01\\n* ROUGE-1: 32.62 versus 32.24-32.83\\n* ROUGE-L: 21.80 versus 19.32-22.02\\n* BERTScore: 84.33 versus 83.18-83.26\\n\\nWhile we observe gaps in Meteor and G-Eval metrics, these differences primarily reflect semantic nuance rather than fundamental comprehension limitations. This performance validates our core contribution: developing vision-language models with deep scientific knowledge across multiple interactive domains through our carefully curated MMSsci dataset. **Our approach embeds graduate-level understanding during training, fundamentally reducing the need for extensive manual curation of information for assistant systems.**\\n\\n**The genuine knowledge capability demonstrated by our model proves particularly valuable for real-world research assistant systems.**\\n\\n* In practical applications such as scientific literature review, experimental data analysis, and cross-disciplinary research, approaches based on selecting manual full-PDFs and putting them into LLM often face significant constraints. These include context window limitations, processing overhead with complete documents, and retrieval performance challenges in RAG systems. Our approach, focusing on embedded knowledge through training rather than extensive context at inference time, offers a more efficient and lightweight alternative while maintaining competitive performance of applications including AI Agent systems too.\\n* This efficiency translates directly to real-world benefits. **For instance, in interactive scientific question-answering scenarios, our model can provide accurate responses without the latency associated with processing full documents. Similarly, in multi-turn scientific discussions, the model can leverage its embedded knowledge to maintain context coherence without repeatedly accessing full papers.**\\n\\n**While we acknowledge the potential benefits of full article context for long-context models, our results demonstrate that robust scientific context comprehension is achievable even with input of limited contextual information based on proper training on our dataset.** This finding has significant implications for developing more efficient and deployable scientific AI assistants that can effectively serve graduate-level research needs across multiple disciplines.\\n\\n**We will include both abstract-based and full-article results in our updated paper** to provide a comprehensive analysis, though our primary contribution lies in demonstrating how proper training with our dataset enables strong performance even with minimal context.\\n\\n**Table 1: Captioning results with different context, article absract or full article**\\n| Model | Ctx. | BLEU-4 | ROUGE-1 | ROUGE-2 | ROUGE-L | Meteor | BertScore | FActScore | G-Eval |\\n| ---- | ---- | ---- | ---- | ---- | ---- | ---- | ---- | ---- | ---- |\\n| Gemini-1.5-Flash | Abstract | 3.29 | 26.74 | 7.47 | 16.03 | 28.71 | 81.80 | 10.14 | 4.08 |\\n| Gemini-1.5-Pro | Abstract | 3.33 | 28.71 | 7.73 | 16.89 | 28.91 | 81.93 | 13.76 | 4.08 |\\n| Claude-3.5-Sonnet | Abstract | 3.20 | 29.60 | 6.71 | 16.65 | 27.52 | 81.76 | 12.11 | 4.04 |\\n| GPT-4V | Abstract| 3.18 | 28.45 | 7.01 | 15.65 | 27.62 | 82.37 | 19.52 | 4.13 | \\n| GPT-4o | Abstract | 3.58 | 28.85 | 7.79 | 16.36 | 28.37 | 81.84 | 18.87 | 4.22 |\\n| Qwen2-VL-7B-MMSci | Abstract | 6.89 | 32.62 | 10.02 | 21.80 | 20.89 | 84.33 | 18.17 | 3.47 |\\n| Gemini-1.5-Flash | Full Article | 6.94 | 32.83 | 14.15 | 22.02 | 34.50 | 83.26 | 19.41 | 4.12 |\\n| Gemini-1.5-Pro | Full Article | 7.01 | 32.24 | 13.34 | 19.32 | 33.75 | 83.18 | 19.33 | 4.22 |\\n| Claude-3.5-Sonnet | Full Article | 7.99 | 37.63 | 13.61 | 23.63 | 34.66 | 84.34 | 21.67 | 4.52 |\\n| GPT-4V | Full Article | 5.65 | 33.09 | 10.95 | 19.25 | 31.46 | 83.48 | 23.18 | 4.24 |\\n| GPT-4o | Full Article | 9.90 | 37.06 | 17.63 | 24.89 | 37.52 | 83.64 | 24.12 | 4.58 |\"}", "{\"summary\": \"The paper introduces MMSci, a dataset with high-quality and interleaved image-text data sourced from Nature Communications. The training set contains 742k figures from 131k articles, while the benchmark consists of several thousands of examples on a pre-defined set of tasks such as figure captioning and multiple-choice-based fig2cap and cap2fig matching. The authors conducted extensive experiments highlighting both the strengths and limitations of existing models and assessed the impact of finetuning VLMs on the training set. While the dataset is novel with comprehensive analysis, several issues require attention (see below).\", \"soundness\": \"1\", \"presentation\": \"3\", \"contribution\": \"3\", \"strengths\": [\"I believe that this is a novel dataset in the scope of scientific figure understanding that utilizes a different source than most existing works use (i.e., articles from nature communications instead arxiv preprints). This adds significant value to scientific figure understanding research by providing a different dataset distribution.\", \"The authors conducted extensive experiments to evaluate different models' performance on different tasks with different metrics, which lead to a very comprehensive result in terms of models' strengths and shortcomings. Further, authors verified that the training portion of the datasets brings significant advantage in improving the models\\u2019 semantic and stylistic patterns in generating captions for scientific figures in the nature communications distribution, and can potentially improve performance on text-only tasks such as material generation.\", \"The authors include a well-structured list of benchmark examples in the supplementary material, enhancing transparency and accessibility for the audience.\"], \"weaknesses\": [\"The current taxonomy comparison is misleading and can be improved. MMSci claims to cover 72 subjects, compared to CharXiv's 8 or SciCap's 1, but uses a more granular approach (e.g., \\\"Cell Biology\\\" as a separate subject from \\\"Microbiology\\\"). For consistency, authors should consider grouping these into five broader subjects (per Table 6) to better align with the definitions in other datasets.\", \"The entire benchmark only consists of permutations (e.g., matching subfigures to subcaptions), which could bias pre-trained models toward memorizing associations instead of correctly perceiving details in the image and retrieving the relevant knowledge correctly. There are no original questions in the benchmark.\", \"QA tasks focus on figure-caption matching, which may not require fine-grained domain knowledge required to analyze details within a figure but differences across figures (same for differences across captions given a subfigure). While captioning tasks do necessitate some scientific knowledge, the QA tasks might prioritize memory over understanding (e.g., recognizing details irrelevant to figure like \\\"2.5 mm x 2.5 mm\\\" in Figure 3, caption part b).\", \"The human baseline is not well designed. The authors recruited computer science graduate students to provide the human baseline in order to answer a set of challenging natural science questions that mostly require knowledge that is incompatible with computer science. It is unknown to what accuracy a model should achieve in order to match a human expert with domain-specific knowledge, and it is also unknown to what extent these multiple-choice questions make sense to human experts equipped with domain-specific knowledge.\", \"For captioning tasks, the model finetuned on in-domain data achieved significantly higher score on the ROUGE metric yet underperforms its baseline counterpart in FActScore. Authors briefly explained that the fine-tuned model learned the semantic and stylistic details, but it seems that this training data also produce a negative impact on the model\\u2019s capability in retrieving correct knowledge i.e., FActScore. Authors should discuss the main effect of the training dataset more extensively (what is the impact on the model after being finetuned on the training set).\"], \"questions\": [\"While the authors contrast its data contribution to ScienceQA, SciBench and MMMU, I believe that the authors should also discuss relevancy to MMStar [1] (which largely resolved the weaknesses mentioned in L178)?\", \"L359: Can authors verify the statement by evaluating the top 5 models on a different evaluator?\", \"Figure 4 is very confusing and the overlapping of performance from different models makes the comparison very hard to understand. Can authors use use a better way to visualize this or use a table instead?\", \"For figure 6, the gap between MMSci+MMC4 (Vis+Text) and MMSci+MMC4 (Text) seems to be small. Can authors additional provide standard error? Also, given many figures appear to have small texts, have authors verified the readability of figures after being downscaled to 336^2 (L452 where you stated the use of CLIP ViT-L/14-336)?\", \"An additional experiment that can be very helpful to understand the impact of your training dataset is to evaluate existing VLMs model finetuned on your dataset on other knowledge-based benchmarks such as MMMU (which also examines specific sub-divisions in natural science) to see whether the model is only fitting to the nature communication distribution or generalizing to a variety of distributions that requires retrieving knowledge based on multimodal input. Could authors provide an additional experiment on this?\", \"-----\", \"Update on 12/03:\", \"The authors' latest response has reasonably addressed one of my concerns regarding potential benchmark quality issues by providing additional evidence. This evidence shows that top performers achieved very high accuracy and that there is significant variance among evaluators. Consequently, I have raised my score to 5.\"], \"flag_for_ethics_review\": \"['No ethics review needed.']\", \"rating\": \"5\", \"confidence\": \"5\", \"code_of_conduct\": \"Yes\"}", "{\"title\": \"Follow-Up on Review Comments\", \"comment\": \"Dear Reviewer 4ejm,\\n\\nThank you for taking the time to provide us with valuable feedback on our work. We have conducted additional experiments and analyses to address your comments, and we have detailed our findings in our responses. \\n\\nAs the review deadline approaches, we would be grateful for any further thoughts or suggestions you might have. Additionally, we encourage you to review our responses to the other reviewers, as they include complementary experiments and insights relevant to your feedback. In particular: \\n\\n- [Response 1](https://openreview.net/forum?id=DEOV74Idsg&noteId=Bbr73BJvzO) \\n- [Response 2](https://openreview.net/forum?id=DEOV74Idsg&noteId=NtYgn5WE19) \\n- [Response 3](https://openreview.net/forum?id=DEOV74Idsg&noteId=K8m3aHgBAt) \\n\\nThese responses provide a detailed comparative analysis within the Materials Science domain, including human evaluations from two more established experts with publication record in top material science journals and the existing results from experts with verified degrees sourced via the Prolific platform. We compare these human evaluation results with various LVLMs (open-source, proprietary, and our fine-tuned models). In addition, we explore their performance across all the 10 key fields.\\n\\nWe hope these additional details address your concerns regarding the multidisciplinary differences highlighted in the review. \\n\\nThank you again for your time and thoughtful input. \\n\\nBest regards, \\nThe Authors\"}", "{\"title\": \"[4/n] Response to Reviewer acAx\", \"comment\": \"| Field | Setting I (Confidence) | Setting II (Confidence) | Setting III (Confidence) |\\n|-----------------------|----------------------------|-----------------------------|-----------------------------|\\n| Material Science | 3.9733 | 4.0400 | 3.9333 |\\n| Chemistry | 4.2000 | 4.1200 | 4.4000 |\\n| Physics | 3.8667 | 4.1533 | 4.2667 |\\n| Biochemistry | 3.0600 | 4.0933 | 3.4800 |\\n| Environment | 3.6533 | 4.1667 | 4.0533 |\\n| Climate Sciences | 3.9630 | 3.6275 | 4.0980 |\\n| Earth | 3.8933 | 4.1014 | 4.1449 |\\n| Biological Sciences | 3.1733 | 3.8533 | 3.7867 |\\n| Biomedical Sciences | 4.0667 | 3.8667 | 3.8800 |\\n| Health and Medicine | 3.2533 | 4.0133 | 3.8133 |\\n\\nThese findings suggest that the lower performance of human experts compared to AI models is largely due to the specialized nature of human expertise, which is often limited to specific sub-areas, and the time constraints during evaluation. In contrast, AI models demonstrate the ability to acquire knowledge both in depth and breadth, allowing them to efficiently handle diverse and dense visual information. This highlights their potential as valuable tools for assisting in interdisciplinary scientific research.\\n\\n> Fine-tuning models on in-domain data appears to substantially boost performance. In fact, it seems that the fine-tuned 7B model is nearing saturation on this benchmark. Given that there are already more capable open-source models available than the one you used, this raises concerns that the utility of the benchmark could diminish if saturation occurs too soon. Could the authors address this issue and suggest ways to make the evaluation more challenging?\\n\\nThank you for raising this important concern about potential benchmark saturation. While fine-tuning models on in-domain data indeed leads to significant performance gains, we believe our benchmark and dataset maintain their relevance and utility due to the following considerations.\\n\\n**Addressing Benchmark Saturation**\\n* **Performance Gaps Persist Across Tasks and Disciplines**:\\nDespite fine-tuning, performance variability across tasks and scientific disciplines remains substantial. For example, detailed caption generation and nuanced domain-specific reasoning, particularly in tasks like sub-caption matching and abstract-grounded captioning, are still challenging, as highlighted in Table 3 and Figure 4 of our paper. These gaps demonstrate that models have not saturated the benchmark and that it continues to differentiate between varying levels of capability.\\n* **Task Complexity and Dataset Design**:\\nMMSci evaluates models across complementary tasks such as question answering and caption generation, each requiring distinct reasoning skills. This diversity, combined with the complexity of multimodal scientific content, ensures the benchmark remains a rigorous test of scientific AI capabilities.\\n\\n**Contributions of MMSci Beyond Benchmarking**\\nOur dataset serves as more than just proposing benchmarks, offering long-term value through its versatility as a training resource.\\n* **Advancing Scientific Model Training**:\\nMMSci provides a rich pre-training resource, enabling models to learn robust knowledge both in depth and breadth. For instance, models pre-trained on MMSci demonstrated significant improvements on downstream tasks like crystal material structure generation (Section 7), highlighting its applicability to real-world scientific challenges.\\n* **Enabling Interdisciplinary Applications**:\\nBeyond evaluation, MMSci supports the development of tools that integrate knowledge across disciplines. Applications such as material generation illustrate how the dataset facilitates interdisciplinary advancements in scientific research.\\n\\nWe are confident that MMSci\\u2019s dual role as both a challenging benchmark and a high-quality training dataset ensures its continued relevance and adaptability. The persistent challenges, coupled with its broad applicability, highlight its potential to drive advancements in scientific AI research. Thank you for your thoughtful feedback, and we look forward to further enhancing MMSci\\u2019s impact.\"}", "{\"title\": \"[1/n] Response to Reviewer iZBf and acAx\", \"comment\": \"Dear Reviewers iZBf and acAx,\\n\\nWe sincerely thank both reviewers for their thoughtful feedback and recognition of our work's value. We particularly appreciate Reviewer iZBf's acknowledgment that our dataset provides significant value to the community for developing better tasks and evaluations, and we have uploaded the model and settings to Github with the link provided below. We also appreciate reviewer acAx's remaining concerns about human evaluation. These positive assessments encourage us to analyze the human evaluation in depth while addressing the concerns raised.\\n\\n> 1. Regarding human evaluations\\n\\nWe appreciate the constructive feedback regarding our human evaluation results. In response to the concerns raised, we have conducted two additional analyses:\\n - We obtained additional evaluations from trustable and established experts in the Materials Science field who possess extensive domain knowledge and research experience.\\n - We performed an in-depth analysis of our existing human evaluation data from the Prolific platform, examining performance across both Materials Science specifically and all ten scientific domains.\\n\\n**Additional Expert Evaluation in Materials Science**\\n\\nFollowing our initial analysis of Ph.D. expert evaluations from Prolific, we conducted additional assessment to generate comprehensive insights. Specifically, **we engaged two top researchers in materials science to evaluate our benchmark. Both of them are Ph.D. holders and established experts in material science who actively publish research in world-leading journals in the field.** These researchers assessed 75 material science problems from our benchmark suite.\\n\\nThe results from these two exceptional Ph.D. experts in material science are displayed in Table 1. We have several key observations:\\n1. **Notably, one of the authors, who holds a Ph.D. and is an expert in material science and was a member of a world-class leading lab in the US, achieved consistently high performance (80-92% accuracy across all settings).**\\n2. **Another trustworthy Ph.D. expert in material science performed overall reasonably with 65% ACC, but showed more variable performance (36-84% accuracy), highlighting significant expert-to-expert variation.**\\n3. **Surprisingly, even experts publishing leading research articles in top materials science journals show large performance variances.** A top researcher in material science can have an accuracy score as low as 36% on certain tasks with low confidence below 3, even in their domain of expertise.\\n4. The variation in confidence scores and accuracies across different settings suggests **our three settings effectively evaluate distinct aspects of information processing, and scientific knowledge understanding capabilities**. For example, the setting I (whole figure and caption matching) requires experts to comprehensively analyze multiple figure panels, synthesize the information, and deduce an appropriate overall caption for the entire figure.\\n\\n**Table 1: Accuracy (%) and confidence scores (1-5 scale, in parentheses) in Material Science test cases from two additional reliable Ph.D. of experts in Material Science.**\\n\\n| Metric | Setting I | Setting II | Setting III |\\n|--------|------------------------|------------------------------|--------------------------------|\\n| **One of Authors (Ph.D. and Expert in Material Science, Published Top Journals in Material Science, Former Member in the World-class Leading Lab)** | 80.00 (3.36) | 92.00 (3.64) | 92.00 (3.52) |\\n| **His Trustable Colleague (Ph.D. and Expert in Material Science, Published Top Journals in Material Science)** | 36.00 (2.56) | 76.00 (4.36) | 84.00 (4.36) |\\n| **Average of two Reliable Ph.D. and Experts in Material Science (One of Authors & His Trustable Colleague)** | **58.00 (2.96)** | **84.00 (4.00)** | **88.00 (3.94)** |\\n\\n**Reanalysis of Human Evaluation Results from Prolific on Materials Science**\\n\\nGiven the significant performance variations among expert evaluators, **we re-analyzed the existing results of experts on the Prolific platform, focusing on the best-performing (top-1) and second-highest performing (top-2) experts**. Table 2 presents a comprehensive comparison of results from our reliable Ph.D. experts in **Materials Science**, top-1/2 Prolific experts, and various LVLMs. This extended analysis revealed several important insights:\\n\\n1. **Both Top Ph.D. Experts in Material Science from our network and Prolific perform significantly better than GPT-4o and other proprietary LVLMs in solving problems from our Q&A benchmark.**\\n2. While our two reliable Ph.D. experts in our network perform better than the top-2 experts from Prolific, we observe significant **performance variations between top Ph.D. experts, with large variances noted in both the Prolific group and our network**.\"}", "{\"title\": \"[4/n] Response to reviewer iZBf\", \"comment\": \"> C4.2: How well do proprietary models perform on this task? Are there any proprietary models that generate reasonable responses worth evaluating?\\n\\n**Response**: We present the results of GPT-4o on this task using both 5-shot and 10-shot settings. We generated 10,000 samples via GPT-4o using the same prompt and setting as the other models in Table 5 in the main pages and Gruver et al. for evaluation. The results are shown below with the reported absolute percentage performances from the 10,000 generated sample cases.\\n\\n| Method | Validity Check (Structural) | Validity Check (Composition) | Coverage (Recall) | Coverage (Precision) | Property Distribution (wdist \\u03c1) | Property Distribution (wdist N_el) | Metastable (M3GNet) | Stable (DFT\\u2020) |\\n|--------|--------------|---------------|----------|-----------|--------------------|----------- |--------- |-----------|\\n| CDVAE | 1.000 | 0.867 | 0.992 | 0.995 | 0.688 | 1.432 | 22.1% | 1.2% |\\n| LM-CH | 0.848 | 0.836 | 0.993 | 0.979 | 0.864 | 0.132 | N/A | N/A |\\n| LM-AC | 0.958 | 0.889 | 0.996 | 0.986 | 0.696 | 0.092 | N/A | N/A |\\n| LLaMA2-7B (finetuned) | 0.967 | 0.933 | 0.923 | 0.950 | 3.609 | 1.044 | 33.6% | 2.1% |\\n| LLaMA2-13B (finetuned) | 0.958 | 0.923 | 0.884 | 0.983 | 2.086 | 0.092 | 34.3% | 4.9% |\\n| LLaMA2-70B (finetuned) | 0.997 | 0.949 | 0.860 | 0.988 | 0.842 | 0.433 | 50.1% | 5.3% |\\n| GPT-4o-5shot | 0.799 | 0.898 | 0.2804 | 0.961 | 5.42 | 1.017 | 1.50% | - |\\n| GPT-4o-10shot | 0.787 | 0.820 | 0.6535 | 0.963 | 3.98 | 0.917 | 4.72% | 0.09% |\\n| LLaMA2-7B-MMSci (finetuned) | 0.993 | 0.979 | 0.916 | 0.996 | 1.675 | 0.353 | 64.5% | 8.2% |\\n\\nAs observed, GPT-4o, representing large proprietary LLMs, showed notable limitations in materials generation across validity, coverage, and stability metrics. Its performance was limited - achieving only 1.50% metastability in 5-shot and 4.72% metastability with 0.09% stability in 10-shot settings. In contrast, our LLaMA2-7B-MMSci model, pre-trained on MMSCI dataset, achieved significantly higher results with 64.5% metastability and 8.2% stability, highlighting the crucial role of domain-specific training data in enhancing LLMs for materials research.\\n\\n\\n> C4.3: In Table 5, the \\u201cStable DFT\\u201d column numbers for LLAMA models (from Gruver et. al.) appear to not be consistent with numbers reported in Gruver et. al. Why is that?\\n\\n**Response**: We would like to clarify that we did not tweak anything but used absolute percentage performances from 10,000 generated samples from the output files in Gruver et al. to report their performances.\\nWe reran the experiments using their uploaded outputs, performed the DFT calculations with the same settings, and found the reported absolute percentages are almost identical to their reported performances if we reversely calculate from the stage-wise survival ratios from the previously survived candidates at the earlier steps in Gruver et al.\\n\\nThat is, we reported 2.1% Stability (DFT) for LLaMA2-7B, 4.9% Stability (DFT) for LLaMA2-13B, and 5.3% Stability (DFT) for LLaMA2-70B, and they are almost the same as, respectively:\\n\\n - 2.1% (Absolute stable (DFT) percentage from 10,000) = 2.10% = 0.964 * 35.0% * 6.2%\\n - 4.9% (Absolute stable (DFT) percentage from 10,000) ~= 5.23% = 0.955 * 38.0% * 14.4%\\n - 5.3% (Absolute stable (DFT) percentage from 10,000) ~= 5.26% = 0.996 * 49.8% * 10.6%\\n\\n**Here are the reverse calculations from the reported numbers in Gruver et al.**:\\n\\n**LLaMA2-7B in Gruver et al.**\\nFor 2.1% (Absolute stable (DFT) percentage from 10,000 samples from Gruver et al.) = 2.10% = 0.964 * 35.0% * 6.2%, where:\\n- 0.964 is the stage-wise valid ratio reported in Gruver et al.\\n- 35.0% is the stage-wise meta-stable ratio for the previous valid step\\n- 6.2% is the stage-wise stable ratio for the previous meta-stable step\\n\\n**LLaMA2-13B in Gruver et al.**\\nFor 4.9% (Absolute stable (DFT) percentage from 10,000 samples from Gruver et al.) ~= 5.23% = 0.955 * 38.0% * 14.4%, where:\\n- 0.955 is the stage-wise valid ratio reported in Gruver et al.\\n- 38.0% is the stage-wise meta-stable ratio for the previous valid step\\n- 14.4% is the stage-wise stable ratio for the previous meta-stable step\\n\\n**LLaMA2-70B in Gruver et al.**\\nFor 5.3% (Absolute stable (DFT) percentage from 10,000 samples from Gruver et al.) ~= 5.26% = 0.996 * 49.8% * 10.6%, where:\\n- 0.996 is the stage-wise valid ratio reported in Gruver et al.\\n- 49.8% is the stage-wise meta-stable ratio for the previous valid step\\n- 10.6% is the stage-wise stable ratio for the previous meta-stable step\"}", "{\"title\": \"Your Feedback Would Be Appreciated\", \"comment\": \"Dear Reviewer acAx,\\n\\nThank you once again for your valuable comments. Your suggestions on clarifying human evaluation, performance analysis and complementary relationships to other benchmarks were very helpful. We are eager to know if our responses have adequately addressed your concerns.\\n\\nDue to the limited time for discussion, we look forward to receiving your feedback and hope for the opportunity to respond to any further questions you may have.\\n\\nYours Sincerely,\\n\\nAuthors\"}", "{\"title\": \"Thanks for the time and efforts invested by all reviewers and ACs\", \"comment\": [\"Dear Reviewer, ACs, and SACs,\", \"We are deeply grateful to you and all reviewers for the invaluable feedback and constructive discussion process, which has strengthened our manuscript. During the rebuttal period, we have made substantial improvements. **The major updates include**:\", \"Extensive PhD expert validation (30 experts, 10 fields) demonstrating expertise performance on our benchmark\", \"Deepened PhD evaluation analysis comparing established journal-published PhD experts alongside PhD experts from crowdsource platform, especially in Material Science domain\", \"Enhanced captioning evaluation framework with additional metrics (BLEU, CIDEr, L3Score), doubled sample size, and full-article evaluation setting.\", \"Extended model scale analysis (2B, 7B, 26B)\", \"Performed comprehensive materials generation case study including proprietary model comparisons\", \"Elaborated scientific taxonomy using Web of Science citation index\", \"Clarified distinctions from existing benchmarks (MMStar, MMMU)\", \"Emphasized our MMSci's value as a training resource\", \"We deeply appreciate the reviewers' recognition of our dataset's potential, particularly for scientific assistant knowledge evaluation and improved material generation tasks. Their guidance has been instrumental in enhancing both the technical rigor and practical utility of our work.\", \"Thank you for all your time and thoughtful consideration.\", \"Best regards,\", \"Authors\"]}", "{\"comment\": [\"Dear Authors,\", \"Thank you for the rebuttal and further responses to my follow-up concerns with additional evaluations. I really appreciate the authors' efforts in improving the quality of the paper and clarifying key aspects. However, upon checking the responses, I have decided to maintain my current score:\", \"I appreciate the restructured categories, as they are more consistent to existing works. However, the granularity inconsistency still remains. If authors plan to use this categorization, I recommend avoid from making quantitative comparisons with existing works, as they are not directly comparable.\", \"I very much agree that MMSci offers a valuable resource for model training, which is a strong point of the work.\", \"I also appreciate the authors' effort to provide more detailed human expert evaluations, which strengthened my understanding about the benchmark.\", \"## Remaining concerns\", \"The authors used evaluators' confidence **in choosing the answer** to argue that in-domain phd evaluators may specialize in certain sub-domains while being less familiar with others. However, this appears to be a flawed argument because a moderate-to-high (but not absolute) confidence in choosing the answers does not exclusively equate to not having the full knowledge of the materials -- it could also indicate that they understand everything but there exists ambiguities in the questions themselves.\", \"A stronger justification would be directly asking how familiar evaluators are with the content in the QAs instead of relying on the confidence in choosing the answers in order to justify with the point that evaluators are less familiar with sub-domains, leading to weak performance.\", \"My main concern still persists regarding the surprising outcome where finetuned open-source models are significantly stronger than leading propritary models, and both are much stronger than PhD evaluators. The authors have not provided sufficient justification backed up by direct evidence why this is the case, and that the case is not related with issues about the benchmark questions themselves. A more thorough analysis is essential to address this.\", \"The minor concern on the originality of the questions, which also aligns with reviewer iZBf's points regarding the standard nature of the tasks, remains insufficiently addressed. I acknowledge that creating new questions are unfeasible in the limited rebuttal period, so I would only consider this as a minor one.\", \"While the improvements significantly strengthened the quality of the manuscript, the concerns that stemmed from authors additional results prevented me from raising my score. I encourage the authors to address these issues in future iterations and further improve the validity of the work.\"]}", "{\"summary\": \"The paper introduces a large diverse dataset of images and captions extracted from Nature Communications articles spanning 72 disciplines. They evaluate performance of multimodal LLMs on 2 types of tasks: (1) Figure captioning and (2) Figure<-->caption matching tasks such as figure to caption matching, sub figure to caption matching, and caption to sub-figure matching.\\nThe paper also includes a case study in materials science that demonstrates the value of the dataset to tune a LLaMA 2-7B model to generate or in-fill new material structures that are valid and stable.\", \"soundness\": \"3\", \"presentation\": \"3\", \"contribution\": \"3\", \"strengths\": [\"The paper introduces a large and diverse dataset capturing many domains that is missing in existing image caption datasets.\", \"A variety of open and closed models are used in the evaluations.\", \"The paper is written in a manner that is easy to follow.\"], \"weaknesses\": \"The main weaknesses are that considering the diversity in the data, the tasks do not seem to go beyond standard tasks; and even on the figure captioning tasks, the analysis is lacking, particularly in terms of representation of strong evaluations from domain experts.\\n\\n1. The tasks are somewhat standard - Figure captioning, and matching figures/sub-figures to appropriate captions. It would have been nice to see some unique tasks created from this nice dataset showcasing the diversity of images/plots. e.g. some variety of interleaved image-text tasks such as Question Answering from images could have been considered.\\n2. It would have been nicer to have more detailed analysis of model responses for a few images (3-5) in about 10 domains. Where experts weigh-in on model responses even for just the figure captioning task to evaluate the strengths and weaknesses of models in the different domains. Especially on the variety showcased in Figure-2, e.g. 10 examples from each category in figure-2 analyzed by domain experts.\\n3. Some metrics for figure captioning are missing e.g. BLEU, CIDEr, SPICE (https://github.com/tylin/coco-caption) are metrics often used in figure captioning evaluations, and it would be good to include these. ROUGE is primarily a recall based metric, while it\\u2019s relevant, in itself it\\u2019s not a sufficient signal particularly for captioning.\\n * Other LLM based metrics to consider using: LAVE (https://arxiv.org/pdf/2310.02567), L3Score (https://github.com/google/spiqa), PrometheusVision (https://github.com/prometheus-eval/prometheus-vision). L3Score is particularly interesting because you get the confidence from GPT-4o in addition to the generated response.\\n4. The results for the materials science case study is hard to interpret.\\n\\n 4.1 What is the baseline LLAMA-2-7B performance? (without any tuning?) Many numbers in Table 5 and Figure 6 already seem quite high so it is hard to understand what baseline you are starting from and how much room for improvement there was (and from the presented results, it doesn\\u2019t look like that much, which perhaps may not be correct)\\n\\n 4.2 How well do proprietary models perform on this task? Are there any proprietary models that generate reasonable responses worth evaluating?\\n\\n 4.3 In Table 5, the \\u201cStable DFT\\u201d column numbers for LLAMA models (from Gruver et. al.) appear to not be consistent with numbers reported in Gruver et. al. Why is that?\\n\\nMinor\\n\\n5. Related to point-2 Figure 4 is extremely difficult to follow. Perhaps reduce the materials science case study and include more detailed analysis of model responses and a discussion.\\n6. Figure 3 can be improved to clearly highlight the tasks and also the ground truth caption.\\n7. Other papers to consider citing in related works:\\n * the papers proposing different relevant metrics noted in Weakness-3.\\n * https://openaccess.thecvf.com/content/WACV2024/papers/Tarsi_SciOL_and_MuLMS-Img_Introducing_a_Large-Scale_Multimodal_Scientific_Dataset_and_WACV_2024_paper.pdf\\n\\nInitial rationale for rating of 5 is primarily due to weakness 1 and 2.\", \"questions\": \"Identical to weaknesses.\\n\\nWeaknesses 3 and 4 should be easy to address in the rebuttal.\\n\\nWeakness 2 is really key to making this task and dataset more valuable I hope you will consider involving domain experts to analyze responses from a few different questions.\\n\\n---\\n---\\n\\n**Discussion Phase**\\n\\nThe authors have provided detailed responses and additional analysis that address my main concerns. The human expert evaluations, additional scoring metrics, and the improvements to the materials science case study are all good additions and address my main concerns and have increased my score.\\n\\n---\\n---\", \"flag_for_ethics_review\": \"['No ethics review needed.']\", \"rating\": \"6\", \"confidence\": \"4\", \"code_of_conduct\": \"Yes\"}" ] }

[ "Xinle Cheng", "Zhuoming Chen", "Zhihao Jia" ]

[ "Generative Models", "Efficient Machine Learning" ]

{ "note_id": [ "yJKOAx6rqI", "cVlC7NzjdW", "ZnDAMQqFQN", "XPrvha6Xkc", "Lkwi0ff56T", "D6ZOh745Po" ], "note_type": [ "official_review", "official_review", "decision", "official_review", "official_review", "meta_review" ], "note_created": [ 1730670951291, 1730723378493, 1737523732950, 1730837632111, 1730661709508, 1734550711249 ], "note_signatures": [ [ "ICLR.cc/2025/Conference/Submission5910/Reviewer_nXeT" ], [ "ICLR.cc/2025/Conference/Submission5910/Reviewer_9Tq1" ], [ "ICLR.cc/2025/Conference/Program_Chairs" ], [ "ICLR.cc/2025/Conference/Submission5910/Reviewer_3Lg7" ], [ "ICLR.cc/2025/Conference/Submission5910/Reviewer_upgQ" ], [ "ICLR.cc/2025/Conference/Submission5910/Area_Chair_oxuW" ] ], "structured_content_str": [ "{\"summary\": \"The paper (CAT Pruning) introduces a technique to increase the inference efficiency of diffusion models. In particular, the authors combine caching mechanisms with token-wise pruning which reduces the computational overhead during inference. The paper is overall well written and provides good quantitative results for latest text-to-image models (such as SD-3), however lacks some performance benchmarking against some baselines and a more holistic evaluation of generation beyond the CLIP-score.\", \"soundness\": \"3\", \"presentation\": \"3\", \"contribution\": \"2\", \"strengths\": [\"Below I state the strengths and weaknesses of the paper:\", \"The paper is well-written and easy to follow \\u2014 with a strong motivation. Moreover improving the efficiency during inference, is a practical problem which still has some open problems for the newer t2i models based on the transformer architecture.\", \"The analysis on the token selection strategy based on relative noise magnitude (combined with spatial clustering and balancing) is comprehensive.\"], \"weaknesses\": [\"Weaknesses:\", \"[Minor] The authors are suggested to provide a brief overview of the diffusion model architecture (e.g., SD-3 like architecture) to which their method is applicable. This will improve readability by quite an extent.\", \"[Major] The paper does not compare with some of the caching only baselines (e.g., TGATE which they cite). This would be important to understand the effectiveness of combining caching with pruning techniques. Although not directly comparable, I\\u2019d also suggest the authors to provide the distillation based baselines (less number of steps in the inference) in the paper, to provide a full picture of the effectiveness of the caching + pruning family of methods.\", \"[Major] The authors provide the CLIP-score for generation quality \\u2014 but it\\u2019d be more effective to show a more holistic evaluation of the method in terms of generation quality. For example, the authors can test on compositionality, long caption generation etc for their method in terms of generation.\", \"[Minor]: The authors are suggested to provide more qualitative results comparing the generation across different methods improving efficiency.\"], \"questions\": \"See Weakness.\\n\\nOverall, the paper introduces a technically solid method, but lacks some important comparisons on evaluations. I am happy to revisit my score during the rebuttal, if the authors respond to the Weaknesses adequately.\", \"flag_for_ethics_review\": \"['No ethics review needed.']\", \"details_of_ethics_concerns\": \"N/A\", \"rating\": \"5\", \"confidence\": \"3\", \"code_of_conduct\": \"Yes\"}", "{\"summary\": \"The paper presents CAT Pruning, a method to increase the computational efficiency of diffusion model sampling. CAT pruning targets the attention calculations of the DM and aims to eliminate irrelevant tokens. The method combines clustering results, noise magnitude and staleness of tokens to identify unimportant tokens. The results indicate no perceiptable loss of output information when pruning up to 70% of tokens which results in a speedup of up to 60%.\", \"soundness\": \"2\", \"presentation\": \"1\", \"contribution\": \"2\", \"strengths\": [\"**Important topic.** Computational efficenciy is one of the main limitations of Diffusion Models. Works addressing these issues are of high value to the field.\", \"**Good performance** CAT Pruning appears to preseve the original performance of the model well, while yielding a decent speedup.\"], \"weaknesses\": [\"The paper has two overarching weaknesses that become apparent in a multitude of smaller issues.\", \"**Presentation**\", \"Key aspects of the paper are presented badly, making it hard for readers to grasp the contributions made by CAT-Pruning\", \"Underlying fundamentals of the method are not sufficiently explained. For example nowhere in the Abstract, Introduction or Conclusion to the authors elaborate that they prune tokens in the attention layers of the DM. In fact when asking multiple computer vision researchers what they assumed the method to be about, all of them assumed that tokens where pruned in the embeddings of the text prompt.\", \"The authors use MACs as a key performance metric throughout the paper without ever explaining it\", \"Similarly it is never explained between which samples the CLIP Score is calculated during evaluation\", \"a third of Page 7 is just empty, but Page 8 is almost exclusively Figures\", \"Tables 2 and 3 do not contain any bold numbers\", \"The diffusion notations are somewhat disconnected from common conventions. For example, noise (estimates) are usually reffered to as $\\\\epsilon$, during generation diffusion steps $t$ should **decrease** since this is the reverse diffusion process. The authors also claim that Diffusion involves solving a reverse-time SDE, which is indeed one valid mathmatical foundation for diffusion. However, it specifically does not encompas the models actually used in the remainder of the paper, with SD3 being a rectified flow model that is specifically incompatibel with stochhastic algorithms.\", \"**Evaluation**\", \"Further, there are problems with the validation of the poposed method.\", \"The main claim is that the output image after pruning is perceptually similar to the image generated without pruning. However, that specific aspect is never empirically evaluated. The obvious choice here would have been to simply report LPIPS distance between the pruned und unpruned image.\", \"Similarly the tradeoff between compute reduction and (un)pruning percentage $\\\\alpha$ is demonstrated with 4 examples but not ablated over empirically\", \"In the same vain many of the design choices of the CAT algorithm are showcased with 1 or 2 qualitiative examples with limited to no empirical ablations. A more structured analysis on the importance/downstream influence of the different components in the selection algorithm would have been important\", \"The empriical results in Tab. 2 and 3 do not contain any confidence intervals or standard deviations\", \"There is no qualitative comparison with competing methods\", \"The authors only compare against one other baseline, although other methods exist, including \\u2206-DiT [1], Faster Diffusion [2], or TGATE [3] or basic methods like KV caching\", \"The most prominent choices for speeding up DM inference are, of course, distillation methods or consistency models. Consequently, it would be important to consider if CAT-Pruning still offers advantages when applied to distilled or consistency models.\", \"[1] Pengtao Chen, et al. \\u2206-DIT: A training-free acceleration method tailored for diffusion transformers. arXiv:2406.01125\", \"[2] Senmao Li et al. Faster diffusion: Rethinking the role of unet encoder in diffusion models. arXiv:2312.09608, 2023.\", \"[3 Wentian Zhang, et al. Cross-attention makes inference cumbersome in text-to-image diffusion models. arXiv:2404.02747, 2024.\", \"**Other**\", \"Method appears to be limited to DiT architecture. At least no other architecture is considered\"], \"questions\": [\"**Q1.** Is CAT-Pruning restricted to DiTs or does it also apply to other architectures like UNet DMs with attention?\", \"**Q2.** You write that \\\"cached features must remain consistent across timesteps\\\" L 110 and that your methods combines token-level pruning with ache mechanisms L 64. How exactly is the cache optimization realized with CAT-Pruning? At no point in the paper do you mention which part of the method actually is responsible for the cache optimiztion. Is that achieved by the Frequency monitoring over timesteps?\"], \"flag_for_ethics_review\": \"['No ethics review needed.']\", \"rating\": \"3\", \"confidence\": \"4\", \"code_of_conduct\": \"Yes\"}", "{\"title\": \"Paper Decision\", \"decision\": \"Reject\"}", "{\"summary\": \"This paper introduces CAT Pruning (Cluster-Aware Token Pruning), an acceleration technique for text-to-image diffusion models that aims to reduce computational cost by selectively updating tokens based on relative noise magnitude, spatial clustering, and balanced selection frequencies. By combining token pruning with caching, CAT Pruning demonstrates up to a 2x speedup and a 50-60% reduction in computation on two models (Stable Diffusion 3 and Pixart-\\u03a3), two denoising steps (28 and 50), and two datasets (PartiPrompts and COCO2017), while maintaining CLIP score.\", \"soundness\": \"2\", \"presentation\": \"2\", \"contribution\": \"2\", \"strengths\": \"1. The proposed method achieves notable speedup (up to 2x) while preserving CLIP Score.\\n2. The proposed method can be applied to pre-trained models without additional training costs, making it a lightweight option for improving inference efficiency across different tasks.\", \"weaknesses\": \"1. The paper lacks a thorough discussion of prior token pruning work, making it difficult to assess the proposed method\\u2019s novelty and improvements over existing methods. A more detailed overview of token pruning techniques, their limitations, and how the proposed method addresses these would clarify its contributions.\\n2. The study lacks comparisons with a diverse set of token pruning baselines and established training-free methods (e.g., caching), which limits a comprehensive view of the proposed method\\u2019s effectiveness relative to existing techniques.\\n3. The qualitative differences shown in Figure 6 between clustering and non-clustering approaches are subtle, and there is no rigorous ablation study to quantitatively assess clustering\\u2019s impact on model performance. A thorough ablation study is needed to substantiate the claimed benefits of clustering.\\n4. The paper relies solely on CLIP Score to assess image quality, which measures text-image alignment but not visual fidelity. Including metrics such as FID would provide a more complete evaluation of image quality and support claims of fidelity preservation.\", \"questions\": \"1. Could you clarify where the difference in inference speed arises between CAT Pruning and existing token pruning methods?\\n2. What is t0 used in the experiments? \\n3. Could you explain where the differences in speed and CLIP score arise between CAT Pruning and the AT-EDM baseline?\", \"flag_for_ethics_review\": \"['No ethics review needed.']\", \"rating\": \"3\", \"confidence\": \"3\", \"code_of_conduct\": \"Yes\"}", "{\"summary\": \"This paper proposes a new method for accelerating text-to-image diffusion models by selectively updating a subset of tokens during the denoising process. The authors introduce Cluster-Aware Token Pruning (CAT Pruning), which leverages the relative noise magnitude of tokens, their selection frequencies, and spatial clustering to achieve significant computational savings while maintaining the quality of generated images. They demonstrate that CAT Pruning can achieve up to a 50% reduction in computational costs with minimal impact on image quality, making diffusion models more efficient for generating high-resolution images. The paper also provides extensive experimental results on popular datasets and pretrained diffusion models, comparing CAT Pruning to existing methods and highlighting its superior performance.\", \"key_contributions_of_the_paper_include\": \"\", \"proposing_a_token_importance_ranking_procedure\": \"The paper establishes a method for ranking token importance that considers not only noise magnitude but also selection frequencies across timesteps, ensuring consistent token selection.\", \"a_cluster_aware_pruning_method\": \"The authors propose a unique pruning method that integrates spatial clustering, leveraging positional encoding to maintain spatial coherence and detail preservation in generated images. This approach improves the quality of outputs compared to simple sequential token selection strategies.\", \"making_the_case_for_distributional_balance\": \"The paper emphasizes the importance of distributional balance within clusters. This balance is achieved by considering both noise magnitude and selection frequencies when selecting tokens within each cluster. This contributes to a more nuanced pruning process that avoids over-emphasizing certain features at the expense of others.\", \"soundness\": \"2\", \"presentation\": \"2\", \"contribution\": \"2\", \"strengths\": \"Originality: The paper presents a novel approach called CAT Pruning, which combines token-level pruning with caching techniques to accelerate text-to-image diffusion models. While previous works have explored caching and reuse mechanisms to reduce inference time, CAT Pruning focuses on optimizing at the intra-kernel level by reducing latency within individual kernel executions. The authors introduce the concept of \\u201cRelative Noise Magnitude\\u201d to identify significant token changes across denoising iterations. This concept is defined as the difference between the current predicted noise and the noise at step t0, which is defined as nt\\u2212nt0 and quantifies the relative change in noise They also incorporate spatial clustering and ensure distributional balance to enhance token selection, further improving efficiency and preserving model performance.\", \"quality\": \"The paper demonstrates a high level of quality through a reasonable amount of experimentation and analysis. The authors evaluate CAT Pruning on standard datasets like MS-COCO 2017 and PartiPrompts, using established pretrained diffusion models such as Stable Diffusion v3 and Pixart-\\u03a3. They compare their method against relevant baselines, including the standard diffusion model output and AT-EDM, another token pruning technique. The results show significant reductions in computation costs (up to 50% reduction in MACs at 28 denoising steps and 60% at 50 denoising steps\\u2014although the authors should actually define the acronym MACs) while maintaining comparable or even superior CLIP scores. The authors provide visualizations of generated images at different sparsity levels, demonstrating the effectiveness of CAT Pruning in preserving image quality even with significant pruning. They also offer insights into the correlation between predicted noise and historical noise, justifying their token selection strategy.\", \"clarity\": \"The paper is relatively well-written and structured, presenting the proposed method in a clear and concise manner. The authors provide a reasonable overview of the problem and related work, highlighting the limitations of existing approaches. They clearly define some key notation in Table 1 and describe the algorithm using illustrative examples and figures. The experimental setup is detailed, allowing for reproducibility and a clear understanding of the evaluation process. The results are presented in tables and visualized through figures, facilitating interpretation and analysis.\", \"significance\": \"The paper addresses a crucial challenge in the field of text-to-image synthesis: the high computational cost of diffusion models. By significantly accelerating inference time without compromising image quality, CAT Pruning has the potential to make these powerful generative models more accessible for various applications. This work contributes to the growing body of research on optimizing diffusion models and could inspire further advancements in efficiency and scalability. The authors\\u2019 insights into token-level pruning and the exploitation of feature redundancy could benefit other generative tasks beyond text-to-image synthesis.\", \"weaknesses\": \"The paper has limited theoretical justification: The paper primarily relies on empirical observations and intuitions to justify the effectiveness of CAT Pruning. While the authors present Proposition 1 and provide a simplified proof in the appendix, a more rigorous theoretical analysis could strengthen the paper's contribution. A deeper theoretical understanding of the relationship between relative noise magnitude, token staleness, and spatial clustering could lead to more informed design choices and potentially improved performance. For example, exploring the convergence properties of the algorithm or deriving bounds on the error introduced by pruning would provide valuable insights.\\n\\nThere is a lack of comparison with other pruning techniques, and other techniques in general: The paper compares CAT Pruning only with AT-EDM, another token pruning technique. However, a comprehensive comparison with a wider range of pruning methods for diffusion models, such as those leveraging model distillation, quantization, or low-rank factorization, would provide a more complete picture of the proposed method's strengths and limitations. This would allow for a more informed assessment of the relative performance and efficiency of CAT Pruning compared to other state-of-the-art techniques. In particular the paper seems to ignore the highly influential VQVAE and VQGAN based methods for leveraging compressed latent representations of data. These methods are extremely popular ways for reducing the computational load of diffusion models. See Gu et al., (2022) for example (among many other examples), i.e.\\n\\nGu, S., Chen, D., Bao, J., Wen, F., Zhang, B., Chen, D., Yuan, L. and Guo, B., 2022. Vector quantized diffusion model for text-to-image synthesis. In Proceedings of the IEEE/CVF conference on computer vision and pattern recognition (pp. 10696-10706).\\n\\n\\\"CAT Pruning\\\" focuses on optimizing token processing within a U-Net architecture. However, VQ-Diffusion demonstrates that utilizing a VQVAE to learn a compressed, discrete latent representation can lead to significant computational savings. By shifting the diffusion process to this lower-dimensional latent space, VQ-Diffusion achieves notable speed improvements.\\nThe \\\"CAT Pruning\\\" paper does not acknowledge or compare its approach to this architectural shift towards latent space diffusion using VQVAEs, which constitutes a notable weakness. Similarly, the paper on \\\"High-Resolution Image Synthesis with Latent Diffusion Models\\\" of\\n\\nRombach, R., Blattmann, A., Lorenz, D., Esser, P. and Ommer, B., 2022. High-resolution image synthesis with latent diffusion models. In Proceedings of the IEEE/CVF conference on computer vision and pattern recognition (pp. 10684-10695).\\n\\ndiscusses the popularity and advantages of VQGANs, particularly their ability to learn compressed latent representations that can be used for high-resolution image synthesis. VQGANs, in conjunction with autoregressive models, have emerged as powerful tools for high-resolution image synthesis. These models operate on a compressed, discretized latent space learned by a VQGAN, potentially offering significant computational advantages over pixel-based approaches. The \\\"High-Resolution Image Synthesis\\\" paper uses VQ-regularization as one method for training the autoencoder that produces the latent space for their LDMs. They discuss how their model \\\"can be interpreted as a VQGAN but with the quantization layer absorbed by the decoder.\\\"\\n\\nSince the proposed CAT Pruning technique emphasizes reducing computational costs as a primary goal, comparing this CAT token pruning method with VQVAE and VQGAN style approaches in a much more direct manner would be very helpful. These methods inherently operate in a compressed latent space, and understanding the relationships between these kinds of methods and the proposed method would be very helpful, comparing empirically would be strongly desired and it could demonstrate the relative efficiency of CAT Pruning much more clearly.\\n\\nIn summary, with respect to the issue of comparing the work here to these popular methods, the paper would be strengthened by:\\n1.\\tExplicitly at least acknowledging the popularity of VQVAE and VQGAN-based approaches for diffusion model acceleration.\\n2.\\tDiscussing the potential trade-offs between their token pruning within the U-Net architecture and the use of VQGANs and other approaches for latent space diffusion.\\n3.\\tIdeally, conducting more direct experiments to compare the performance, efficiency, and image quality of CAT Pruning against a VQGAN-based diffusion model.\", \"questions\": \"Questions:\", \"regarding_vqvaes_and_latent_space_diffusion\": [\"The \\\"Vector Quantized Diffusion Model for Text-to-Image Synthesis\\\" paper presents VQ-Diffusion, a method that uses a VQVAE to perform diffusion in a compressed latent space. This approach achieves significant speed improvements.\", \"Given the potential efficiency gains of VQVAEs for diffusion, could the authors explain their rationale for focusing on token pruning within the U-Net architecture and not comparing with those methods, conceptually or emprically?\", \"What are the perceived advantages and disadvantages of each approach?\", \"Considering the importance of VQGANs in this domain, why weren't they included as a baseline for comparison in \\\"CAT Pruning\\\"?\", \"A key focus of \\\"CAT Pruning\\\" is computational efficiency.\", \"Could the authors provide a more direct comparison of the efficiency gains of CAT Pruning against VQGAN-based diffusion models and LDMs?\", \"This would involve metrics like inference time, memory usage, and the number of floating-point operations.\"], \"suggestions\": \"While Proposition 1 is presented, a more comprehensive theoretical foundation for CAT Pruning would strengthen the paper. Pfdiff provides a very detailed analytical explanation for why their approach takes the decisions that it does. Brining the work here closer to that level of analytical analysis would be helpful. Some ideas for how that might be achieved include: \\nDeriving bounds on the error introduced by pruning.\\nExploring the relationship between noise magnitude, staleness, and clustering in more depth.\\n\\nAs a point of comparison \\\"Deep Cache\\\" emphasizes that the high-level features generated during the reverse diffusion process exhibit significant temporal consistency. This observation forms the basis for their caching mechanism, which avoids redundant computations. This work could benefit from explicitly acknowledging and discussing the role of temporal redundancy in the effectiveness of their method. Perhaps one could explain how the relative stability of certain tokens across timesteps (as captured by the \\\"staleness\\\" metric) might relate to the temporal consistency observed in \\\"Deep Cache.\\\" \\\"Deep Cache\\\" includes comparisons with various baselines, including pruning and distillation methods. \\\"CAT Pruning\\\" could benefit from a similarly more comprehensive evaluation. For example the work here could directly compare \\\"CAT Pruning\\\" with \\\"Deep Cache\\\" to assess their relative performance and efficiency.\\n\\nAT-EDM introduces a Denoising-Steps-Aware Pruning (DSAP) schedule that adjusts pruning ratios across different denoising timesteps. This schedule prunes fewer tokens in early steps when attention maps are less informative and more aggressively in later steps when redundancy is higher. CAT Pruning also acknowledges the varying importance of denoising steps and implements a prune-less schedule in early steps. Some kind of discussion and comparison of these different approaches and their motivations could be helpful.\\n\\nWhile the paper mentions the use of existing caching techniques, a more in-depth discussion of token recovery strategies, particularly in the context of subsequent convolutional layers, would strengthen the paper. Exploring alternative methods, such as the similarity-based copy technique proposed in AT-EDM, could further improve the effectiveness and generalizability of CAT Pruning.\", \"flag_for_ethics_review\": \"['No ethics review needed.']\", \"rating\": \"5\", \"confidence\": \"3\", \"code_of_conduct\": \"Yes\"}", "{\"metareview\": \"This paper studies the inference efficiency issue for the diffusion model. The main idea is to identify the important tokens in the diffusion steps and only updates those tokens during the inference time. This observes a remarkable speedup gain.\", \"the_reviewers_praise_this_paper_for\": \"1. notable speedup and important topic\\n2. easy to follow writing.\", \"the_reviewers_argue_that\": \"1. lacking enough comparison / baselines.\\n2. lacking enough discussion b/w links to the previous token pruning works.\\n3. presentation issue (the background / context of this paper is not fully explained / introduced, which makes it hard to read in the beginning)\\n4. CLIP based benchmark is not thorough to guarantee the quality of the generated results.\\n\\nGiven the lack of supports from the reviewers, I would suggest reject.\", \"additional_comments_on_reviewer_discussion\": \"There is no rebuttal provided by the authors.\"}" ] }

[ "Yuzhou Gu", "Zhao Song", "Lichen Zhang" ]

[ "interior point method", "support vector machine", "data structure" ]

{ "note_id": [ "w8aS0epXdQ", "uJh51jWpOi", "nl1nwQOQtm", "kgKCMipDQL", "fhgSnatOtz", "cdKxtNiMZJ", "a60nGajEoW", "Umv0k8MOSs", "TuPfW7QgMy", "RGR4UcZ7zC", "PKuOh8s6Rc", "P0czmykofK", "O8pvaK2ZmI", "Ia8bpWHWRC", "HK4v2lXj16", "8aCvIK3UaX" ], "note_type": [ "official_comment", "official_comment", "official_review", "official_comment", "decision", "official_comment", "meta_review", "official_review", "official_comment", "official_comment", "official_review", "official_comment", "official_comment", "official_comment", "official_review", "official_comment" ], "note_created": [ 1732071110538, 1732560197722, 1732547934325, 1732331887995, 1737523714033, 1732682396591, 1734586600081, 1730322406986, 1732410617433, 1732071126140, 1730612357413, 1732071151488, 1732071209892, 1732545363726, 1729461142295, 1732978052376 ], "note_signatures": [ [ "ICLR.cc/2025/Conference/Submission5565/Authors" ], [ "ICLR.cc/2025/Conference/Submission5565/Authors" ], [ "ICLR.cc/2025/Conference/Submission5565/Reviewer_Vy1p" ], [ "ICLR.cc/2025/Conference/Submission5565/Reviewer_CgdP" ], [ "ICLR.cc/2025/Conference/Program_Chairs" ], [ "ICLR.cc/2025/Conference/Submission5565/Reviewer_6s2J" ], [ "ICLR.cc/2025/Conference/Submission5565/Area_Chair_am4n" ], [ "ICLR.cc/2025/Conference/Submission5565/Reviewer_6s2J" ], [ "ICLR.cc/2025/Conference/Submission5565/Authors" ], [ "ICLR.cc/2025/Conference/Submission5565/Authors" ], [ "ICLR.cc/2025/Conference/Submission5565/Reviewer_WSha" ], [ "ICLR.cc/2025/Conference/Submission5565/Authors" ], [ "ICLR.cc/2025/Conference/Submission5565/Authors" ], [ "ICLR.cc/2025/Conference/Submission5565/Reviewer_WSha" ], [ "ICLR.cc/2025/Conference/Submission5565/Reviewer_CgdP" ], [ "ICLR.cc/2025/Conference/Submission5565/Authors" ] ], "structured_content_str": [ "{\"comment\": \"We thank the reviewer for their insightful comments and for pointing out the reference that establishes an $O(\\\\epsilon^{-1})$ iteration complexity for first-order methods. We have incorporated a discussion of this work into our updated manuscript, with the changes highlighted in red. Regarding your questions:\\n\\n---\\n\\n### Q: The lower bound for SVM also gives a lower bound for QP. How does this compare to other existing lower bounds for QPs?\\n\\n**A:** We are not aware of any direct lower bounds specifically for QPs. However, in addition to the work of Backurs, Indyk, and Schmidt (2017) and our own, there are lower bounds established for linear programs, such as those in Kyng, Wang, and Zhang (2020) and Ding, Kyng, and Zhang (2022). These works show that any linear program with polynomially bounded integer entries can be converted into a 2-commodity flow instance with $O(\\\\mathrm{nnz}(A))$ edges. Consequently, for any $a > 1$, if one can solve an integer-capacitated 2-commodity flow in $O(|E|^a \\\\mathrm{poly} \\\\log(\\\\epsilon^{-1}))$ time, this would imply the existence of an LP solver with a runtime of $O(\\\\mathrm{nnz}(A)^a \\\\mathrm{poly} \\\\log(\\\\epsilon^{-1}))$. Since LPs are a subclass of QPs, this provides a type of lower bound for QPs, albeit without directly addressing the quadratic objective matrix $Q$.\\n\\n---\\n\\n### Q: Is there a reference for the result on $T$ in line 291?\\n\\n**A:** Yes, this result is standard in the primal-dual IPM literature. See, for instance, Ye (2020), Dong, Lee, and Song (2021), Gu and Song (2022), and it is also implicit in Cohen, Lee, and Song (2019).\\n\\n---\\n\\n### Q: What is the graph structure of the bags mentioned in line 310?\\n\\n**A:** A \\\"bag\\\" is simply a collection of vertices satisfying the following properties:\\n\\n1. The union of all the bags equals $V$. \\n2. For any edge $(u, v) \\\\in E$, there exists a bag that contains both $u$ and $v$. \\n3. If each bag is treated as a supervertex and edges are added accordingly (i.e., for two bags $B_1$ and $B_2$, if there exists $u \\\\in B_1$, $v \\\\in B_2$, and $(u, v)$ is an edge, then $B_1$ and $B_2$ are connected in the resulting tree), the induced graph is a tree. \\n\\nThis structure explains the term \\\"tree decomposition.\\\" Furthermore, for any vertex $u \\\\in V$, all the bags containing $u$ must form a subtree. For more details, please refer to Definition A.1 in the appendix.\\n\\n---\\n\\n### Q: Can the authors provide references on the Cholesky factorization mentioned in line 318?\\n\\n**A:** Sparse Cholesky factorization for matrices with sparsity patterns corresponding to graphs of small treewidth was first proposed in Schreiber (1982) and later developed in Davis and Hager (1999). More recent applications of this procedure appear in Ye (2020) for linear programs, Dong, Lee, and Ye (2021), and Gu and Song (2022) for semidefinite programs. For further exposition, see Section A.3.\\n\\n---\\n\\n### Q: Regarding $d$ and $\\\\log n$: Must $d$ grow with $n$? Can the authors explain the assumption $d = \\\\Theta(\\\\log n)$?\\n\\n**A:** Thank you for highlighting this. Upon review, we recognize this as an oversight. The correct assumptions are as follows:\\n\\n- For our almost-linear time algorithm, we require $d = O(\\\\log n)$. \\n- For our hardness result, we require $d = \\\\Omega(\\\\log n)$. \\n\\nOur lower-bound instance has a dimension $\\\\Omega(\\\\log n)$. The origin of this lower bound traces back to Alman and Williams (2015), which establishes hardness results for Bichromatic Hamming Closest-Pair using Orthogonal Vectors. The precise hardness result we used is from Rubinstein (2018). We have revised all occurrences of $d = \\\\Theta(\\\\log n)$ to $d = O(\\\\log n)$ or $d = \\\\Omega(\\\\log n)$, and these changes have been marked in red.\\n\\n---\\n\\n### References\\n\\n- Backurs, Indyk, and Schmidt (2017): On the Fine-Grained Complexity of Empirical Risk Minimization: Kernel Methods and Neural Networks. *NeurIPS 2017*. \\n- Kyng, Wang, and Zhang (2020): Packing LPs are Hard to Solve Accurately, Assuming Linear Equations are Hard. *SODA 2020*. \\n- Ding, Kyng, and Zhang (2022): Two-Commodity Flow Is Equivalent to Linear Programming Under Nearly-Linear Time Reductions. *ICALP 2022*. \\n- Ye (2020): Fast Algorithm for Solving Structured Convex Programs. 2020. \\n- Dong, Lee, and Ye (2021): A Nearly-Linear Time Algorithm for Linear Programs with Small Treewidth: A Multiscale Representation of Robust Central Path. *STOC 2021*. \\n- Gu and Song (2022): A Faster Small Treewidth SDP Solver. 2022. \\n- Cohen, Lee, and Song (2019): Solving Linear Programs in the Current Matrix Multiplication Time. *STOC 2019*. \\n- Schreiber (1982): A New Implementation of Sparse Gaussian Elimination. *TOMS 1982*. \\n- Davis and Hager (1999): Modifying a Sparse Cholesky Factorization. *SIAM Journal on Matrix Analysis and Applications 1999*. \\n- Alman and Williams (2015): Probabilistic Polynomials and Hamming Nearest Neighbors. *FOCS 2015*. \\n- Rubinstein (2018): Hardness of Approximate Nearest Neighbor Search. *STOC 2018*.\"}", "{\"comment\": \"We appreciate the reviewer for their thoughtful comments. We address your concerns below.\\n\\n---\\n\\n### Concern: The result works for linear SVM and Gaussian kernels; however, the analysis on other kernel options, such as polynomial kernels, is missing.\\n\\n**Answer:** Our technique can indeed be extended to other kernels. As indicated in Alman, Chu, Schild, and Song (2020), as long as the kernel function takes the form ${\\\\sf K}(u, v) = f(\\\\\\\\|u - v\\\\\\\\|_2^2)$ and $f$ can be approximated by a low-degree polynomial of degree $o(\\\\log n)$, there exists a rank-$n^{o(1)}$ factorization of the kernel matrix that can be computed in $O(n^{1+o(1)})$ time. This family includes a large subclass of polynomial kernels called $p$-convergent kernels (Song, Woodruff, Yu, and Zhang, 2021).\\n\\n---\\n\\n### Concern: What if the kernel is a combination of kernels, such as $K_{\\\\rm new} = K_1 + K_2$, where both $K_1$ and $K_2$ are Gaussian kernels?\\n\\n**Answer:** In this case, we could run our algorithm separately on $K_1$ and $K_2$. Suppose $K_1$ has width $\\\\sigma_1$, $K_2$ has width $\\\\sigma_2$, and let $R$ denote the radius of the dataset. As long as $\\\\frac{R^2}{2\\\\sigma_1^2}, \\\\frac{R^2}{2\\\\sigma_2^2} \\\\leq o(\\\\frac{\\\\log n}{\\\\log\\\\log n})$, our algorithm can solve each individual kernel in $O(n^{1+o(1)})$ time. The results for $K_1$ and $K_2$ can then be combined.\\n\\n---\\n\\n### Question: The inequality constraint should be generalized into $Ax \\\\leq b$ instead of $x \\\\leq 0$.\\n\\n**Answer:** We are using the slack form of convex quadratic programming, where the constraint region is the intersection of a linear subspace ($Ax = b$) and the non-negative orthant ($x \\\\geq 0$). The formulation with $Ax \\\\leq b$ that you are referring to is called the standard form, where the constraint region is the intersection of the polytope $Ax \\\\leq b$ and the non-negative orthant $x \\\\geq 0$. \\n\\nOne can reduce a standard form constraint to the slack form by increasing the dimension from $n$ to $2n$ and introducing slack variables: $Ax + s = b$, $x \\\\geq 0$, $s \\\\geq 0$. Slack form is commonly used for designing algorithms, such as the simplex method. Here, we also adopt the slack form and note that this formulation is without loss of generality.\\n\\n---\\n\\n### Question: When $\\\\epsilon = 10^{-3}$, the best first-order algorithm takes time $\\\\widetilde{O}(\\\\epsilon^{-1} d)$, so it would take $10^3$ iterations rather than $10^6$.\\n\\n**Answer:** Thank you for pointing this out. We have corrected this in our updated manuscript.\\n\\n---\\n\\n### Question: It would be better if you could perform some experiments and compare against LIBSVM.\\n\\n**Answer:** We agree that it is important to evaluate the performance of a theoretical algorithm on real-world datasets. However, due to limited time and computational resources, we were unable to perform experiments for our algorithm. \\n\\nWe note that this line of works (Cohen, Lee and Song, 2019; Lee, Song and Zhang, 2019; Jiang, Song, Weinstein and Zhang, 2021; Dong, Lee and Ye, 2021; Gu and Song, 2022) are all theoretical studies without experimental evaluations. In fact, a common belief in this area is that the robust interior point method studied in these works, as well as our work, is efficient in practice. However, this remains a significant open question due to the nontrivial interplay of linear algebraic data structures. We leave the practical implementation of the algorithm as an open problem.\\n\\n---\\n\\n### References\\n\\n- Alman, Chu, Schild, and Song (2020): *Algorithms and Hardness for Linear Algebra on Geometric Graphs*. FOCS 2020. \\n- Song, Woodruff, Yu, and Zhang (2021): *Fast Sketching of Polynomial Kernels of Polynomial Degree*. ICML 2021. \\n- Cohen, Lee and Song (2019): *Solving Linear Programs in the Current Matrix Multiplication Time*. STOC 2019. \\n- Lee, Song and Zhang (2019): *Solving Empirical Risk Minimization in the Current Matrix Multiplication Time*. COLT 2019. \\n- Jiang, Song, Weinstein and Zhang (2021): *Faster Dynamic Matrix Inverse for Faster LPs*. STOC 2021. \\n- Dong, Lee and Ye (2021): *A Nearly-Linear Time Algorithm for Linear Programs with Small Treewidth*. STOC 2021. \\n- Gu and Song (2022): *A Faster Small Treewidth SDP Solver*. 2022.\"}", "{\"summary\": \"The authors design the first nearly-linear time algorithm for solving SVM problems via quadratic programs whenever the quadratic objective admits a low-rank factorization, and the number of linear constraints is small. They have derived the algorithm complexity analysis with different cases, which improves the existing result.\", \"soundness\": \"3\", \"presentation\": \"3\", \"contribution\": \"3\", \"strengths\": \"The paper clearly states the contribution, the story is easy to follow. This is a solid work on solving SVM dual problem based on quadratic programming.\", \"weaknesses\": \"1. No experiment to demonstrate the superiority to validate the new claimed contributions.\\n2. The result works for vanilla SVM and Gaussian Kernel, however, the analysis on other kernel options such as polynomial is blank, thus, whether it can be generalized into broader applications remains unknown. \\n3. What if the kernel is a combination of kernels, say K_new=K1+K2 where K1 and K2 are Guassian kernel?\", \"questions\": \"1. I know Eq. (1) is quadratic programming, but I believe the inequality constraint should be generalized into $Ax \\\\le 0$, instead of simple $x\\\\le 0$, though it is a special case.\\n2. For example, when \\u03b5 is set to be 10^{\\u22123} to account for the usual machine precision errors, these algorithms would require at least 10^6 iterations to converge. I don't understand this, as the complexity is O(d/\\u03b5), I thought it should be 1000*d. \\n3. I know this is a theoretic paper, but I still hope the authors can compare the convergence with others which will be more convincing to reviewers and audiences. My experience told me that though libsvm is old, the speed is amazingly fast. I definitely hope the proposed algorithm can outperform libsvm.\", \"flag_for_ethics_review\": \"['No ethics review needed.']\", \"rating\": \"6\", \"confidence\": \"4\", \"code_of_conduct\": \"Yes\"}", "{\"comment\": \"We would like to sincerely thank the authors for their detailed and insightful responses. The authors' provision of relevant references and clear explanations on each point has addressed several concerns in my review.\\n\\n> As for $d=O(\\\\log(n))$ condition: \\n\\nI understand that this represents the best theoretical evaluation under the Strong Exponential Time Hypothesis (SETH), and I consider it an outstanding theoretical achievement. However, from the perspective of practical application to real-world problems, it seems reasonable to assume that the condition $d = O(\\\\log(n))$ may not always be satisfied. To address this gap, possible directions could include conducting theoretical evaluations of average-case complexity (using smoothed analysis, etc.) or demonstrating, from a practical perspective, that the algorithm performs effectively even when this condition is violated in real-world data. I look forward to further advancements in this research.\\n\\n> Extension of Gaussian kernel: \\n\\nIt is wonderful to hear that a broader class of kernel functions also works within the theoretical framework presented in this paper. The condition regarding the dependency on the kernel width also appears reasonable, as the commonly used median heuristic approximately results in $\\\\sigma = O(\\\\sqrt{\\\\text{data-dimension}})$ [Ramdas+('15)]. My concern on this point has been fully addressed thanks to the authors' insightful comments. Therefore, I am now ready to raise my score. \\n\\nRamdas+, On the Decreasing Power of Kernel and Distance Based Nonparametric Hypothesis Tests in High Dimensions, AAAI 2015. \\n\\n> Practical Performance: \\n\\nIt is well known that the theoretical analysis of deep neural networks (DNNs) is challenging and is currently an area of intensive research. At the same time, it is also widely recognized that DNNs demonstrate excellent performance from a practical perspective. Personally, I would like to evaluate the usefulness of theoretical methods from a practical standpoint. Even if a method has strong theoretical properties, it does not necessarily guarantee high performance when applied to real-world problems. I strongly encourage efficient implementations of algorithms as well as their evaluation on real-world data.\"}", "{\"title\": \"Paper Decision\", \"decision\": \"Accept (Poster)\"}", "{\"title\": \"Reply to the Authors\", \"comment\": \"1. Thanks for the update.\\n\\n2. The authors can later try to see if the lower bound can be strengthened to $B = \\\\Omega(\\\\log n)$. At this point, no action is needed.\\n\\n3. Thanks for adding a paragraph to give the readers a better intuition.\\n\\n4. Thanks for cleaning the typos.\\n\\nThanks for your hard work, I've raised my score.\"}", "{\"metareview\": \"This paper investigates solving SVMs via quadratic programming and proposes a novel, efficient, nearly-linear time algorithm for cases where the quadratic objective admits a low-rank factorization and the number of linear constraints is small\\u2014settings that are typical for SVMs. The results presented are of broad interest to the ML and optimization communities.\\n\\nThe reviewers reached a consensus that the contribution of this work is significant, and I therefore recommend accepting the paper. However, as suggested by **all** reviewers, it would be beneficial if the authors could provide numerical results, in some form, to demonstrate the practical numerical advantages of the proposed algorithm. \\nIncluding such results would likely enhance the paper\\u2019s impact within the community.\", \"additional_comments_on_reviewer_discussion\": \"The reviewers raised the following points:\\n\\n- Lack of empirical support (raised by **all** reviewers): While the authors have chosen **not** to include **any** experimental evaluations in this paper, the reviewers appear generally satisfied with the authors\\u2019 response on this matter.\\n- Clarifications on specific aspects: These include the application to general kernels (raised by Reviewers Vy1p and CgdP), the assumption of $d = \\\\Theta(\\\\log n)$ (raised by Reviewers WSha and CgdP), and comparisons to existing results (raised by Reviewers 6s2J and CgdP). The authors successfully addressed these concerns during the rebuttal, leading to improved scores from the reviewers.\\n\\nI have carefully considered all of the above points in making my final decision.\"}", "{\"summary\": \"The paper proposed a nearly-linear time algorithm for solving quadratic programming problems, especially designed for kernel SVMs. It combines the robust interior point method, low-treewidth setting, low-rank factorization and low-rank kernel matrix approximation techniques to enable the almost-linear time convergence. Though the assumptions to achieve this convergence rate is relatively strong, it is the first almost-linear convergence algorithm for quadratic programming problems or kernel SVMs.\", \"soundness\": \"4\", \"presentation\": \"3\", \"contribution\": \"3\", \"strengths\": \"Novel Approach: The paper proposes an innovative nearly-linear time algorithm for solving quadratic programming problems with applications to kernel SVMs. The use of robust interior point method, low-rank factorization and low-rank matrix approximation make the approach computationally appealing.\", \"relevance\": \"Given the broad usage of SVMs in machine learning, the proposed methodology could provide substantial computational improvements if the assumptions of the method are satisfied.\", \"complexity_analysis\": \"The paper includes a rigorous complexity analysis and explores different scenarios for kernel SVMs under various dataset radius conditions. These insights provide a clear understanding of the expected performance under different cases. It also adheres to previous literature.\", \"weaknesses\": \"Empirical Validation: While the theoretical contribution is significant, empirical results demonstrating the practical runtime improvements and accuracy on real datasets would be beneficial. This would help validate the theoretical findings and highlight the algorithm\\u2019s scalability and precision.\", \"assumptions_and_constraints\": \"The assumptions, especially regarding the squared radius, may limit applicability in some scenarios. The paper could benefit from discussing the practical implications of these assumptions on dataset characteristics.\", \"comparison_with_existing_methods\": \"Though the theoretical basis is sound, a more detailed comparison with existing SVM solvers (e.g., LIBSVM, SVM-Light) in terms of computational complexity and memory usage could strengthen the contribution by illustrating the specific benefits and trade-offs of the proposed algorithm.\", \"questions\": \"1.\\tIn section 1, the authors denote $B$ as the squared radius, then in section 2, the authors redefine $B = Q + t H$. Please make sure the notation is constant.\\n\\n2.\\tThough the theoretical results of this paper are very strong, it is highly recommended that the authors could do some experiments to verify the theoretical results.\\n\\n3.\\tIt seems the assumption that square radius $B = O(log(n)/loglog(n))$ is very strong. It would be great if the authors could share some kernel SVM problems which satisfy this assumption. \\n\\n4.\\tOverall, in section 2, The technical details are very heavy but not clear. It would great if the authors could give more intuitions about these approaches. For example, consider a more detailed discussion on how the low-rank factorization impacts specific types of SVM problems or datasets.\\n\\n5.\\tSmall typos: for example, in line 1540, is it \\u201cmemebers\\u201d or \\u201cmembers\\u201d? Please double check.\", \"flag_for_ethics_review\": \"['No ethics review needed.']\", \"rating\": \"8\", \"confidence\": \"3\", \"code_of_conduct\": \"Yes\"}", "{\"comment\": \"Thank you for your followup. We have updated our manuscript with a discussion on kernel width and the commonly used choice suggested by [Ramdas et al., 2015]. Regarding experiments, we agree with you that it's important to evaluate the performance of a theoretical algorithm on real-world datasets. Due to limited time and computational resources, we are not able to perform experiments for our algorithm. However, we note that this line of works [Cohen et al., 2019; Lee et al., 2019; Jiang et al., 2021; Dong et al., 2021; Gu and Song, 2022] are all theoretical works without experimental evaluations. In fact, a common belief in this area is that the robust interior point method studied in this line of works and our work is efficient in practice, yet it remains a major open question due to the nontrivial interplay of linear algebraic data structures. We leave the practical implementation of the algorithm as an open question as well.\\n\\nReferences\\n\\nRamdas et al., 2015: On the Decreasing Power of Kernel and Distance Based Nonparametric Hypothesis Tests in High Dimensions, AAAI 2015.\\n\\nCohen et al., 2019: Solving Linear Programs in the Current Matrix Multiplication Time. STOC 2019.\\n\\nLee et al., 2019: Solving Empirical Risk Minimization in the Current Matrix Multiplication Time. COLT 2019.\\n\\nJiang et al., 2021: Faster Dynamic Matrix Inverse for Faster LPs. STOC 2021.\\n\\nDong et al., 2021: A Nearly-Linear Time Algorithm for Linear Programs with Small Treewidth: A Multiscale Representation of Robust Central Path. STOC 2021.\\n\\nGu and Song, 2022: A Faster Small Treewidth SDP Solver. 2022.\"}", "{\"comment\": \"We thank the reviewer for their thoughtful comments and insights. Regarding your suggestion to compare with algorithms such as LIBSVM or SVM-Light, it is worth noting that these algorithms are all first-order methods with runtime dependence polynomially on $\\\\epsilon^{-1}$. As we illustrated in the manuscript, this leads to a significant runtime discrepancy even when $\\\\epsilon = 10^{-4}$. Below, we address your questions in detail:\\n\\n---\\n\\n### Q: In Section 1, the authors used $B$ as the squared radius, while in Section 2, it was used as $B = Q + tH$. It would be good to make them consistent.\\n\\n**A:** Thank you for pointing this out. We have updated the notation for $Q + tH$ to $M$ to avoid confusion and ensure consistency.\\n\\n---\\n\\n### Q: It seems the assumption that the squared radius $B = O(\\\\log n / \\\\log\\\\log n)$ is very strong.\\n\\n**A:** Indeed, this assumption might appear restrictive at first glance. However, as our lower bound result shows, assuming the Strong Exponential Time Hypothesis, even for $B = \\\\Omega(\\\\log^2 n)$, there is no algorithm that solves the Gaussian kernel SVM in $O(n^{2-o(1)})$ time. This implies that one would need to explicitly form the kernel matrix before running a downstream algorithm to solve the SVM. We conjecture that the lower bound can be strengthened to $B = \\\\Omega(\\\\log n)$, which would reflect a phase transition for fast algorithms in kernel linear algebra, as indicated by the works of Alman, Chu, Schild, and Song (2020) and Aggarwal and Alman (2022).\\n\\n---\\n\\n### Q: Section 2 is very heavy in technical details. Could the authors provide some intuitions behind these techniques?\\n\\n**A:** Thank you for this suggestion. The current structure of Section 2 highlights the challenges in solving the primal-dual central path equations of QPs efficiently. We further demonstrate that, if the quadratic objective matrix has certain structures, such as low-rank or low-treewidth, it is possible to overcome these obstacles and design efficient algorithms. These techniques rely on crafting nontrivial maintenance data structures and performing robustness analyses to ensure that the approaches converge to a solution.\\n\\nWe believe that Section 1 provides a comprehensive summary of our results, including comparisons with other works and potential applications. Additionally, Section 2.1 offers a high-level overview of the generic framework for solving the program, while Section 2.4 discusses how these techniques extend to the kernel SVM setting. To address your feedback, we have added a paragraph recommending readers to skip Sections 2.2 and 2.3 on their first read, as they are highly technical. We hope this adjustment will make the manuscript more accessible without sacrificing the necessary details.\\n\\n---\\n\\n### Q: There are typos such as on line 1540, where \\u201cmemebers\\u201d should be \\u201cmembers.\\u201d\\n\\n**A:** We appreciate you pointing this out. We have corrected the typos and conducted a thorough proofread of the manuscript to ensure it is free of errors.\\n\\n---\\n\\n### References\\n\\n- Alman, Chu, Schild, and Song (2020): Algorithms and Hardness for Linear Algebra on Geometric Graphs. *FOCS 2020*. \\n- Aggarwal and Alman (2022): Optimal-degree polynomial approximations for exponentials and Gaussian kernel density estimation. *CCC 2022*.\"}", "{\"summary\": \"The authors develop faster quadratic program solvers using interior point methods for problems where the quadratic form matrix has low rank. The technique is then applied to yield SVM solvers with complexity linearly/nearly-linearly in the number of samples for linear/kernel SVMs.\", \"soundness\": \"4\", \"presentation\": \"4\", \"contribution\": \"4\", \"strengths\": \"SVMs are classical subjects in machine learning, and thoroughly understanding the time complexity of optimizing SVMs is important. This paper takes an important step toward this. The technique for solving QP faster using IPM with the efficient Hessian updates could be beneficial for other problems in machine learning.\", \"weaknesses\": \"While this paper addresses a theoretical problem in complexity of SVMs, it'd still be interesting to see some actual experimental results.\", \"questions\": \"The $O(\\\\epsilon^{-2})$ time copmlexity mentioned on Line 121 was sharpened to $O(\\\\epsilon^{-1})$ in [1]. Of course the point that the author makes about the logarithmic dependency still stands, but I think the improvement in [1] should be mentioned since the issue raised on line 124 is alleviated to some degree.\\n\\nThe complexity lower bound on the SVMs considered also implies complexity lower bound on QPs, correct? How does this compare to existing complexity lower bounds for QPs, if any?\\n\\nIs there a reference for the result on $T$ on line 291?\\n\\nWhat is the graph structure on the bags on line 310?\\n\\nCan the authors give references for the sparse Cholesky factory result on Line 318?\\n\\nWhat happens in the kernel SVM case when $d$ is constant (both for the upper bound and lower bound)? Why must $d$ grow with $n$ in order for the result to hold? For the lower bound, I presume it has to do with leveraging hardness results in [2]. Can the authors explain more about the $d = \\\\Theta (\\\\log n)$ assumption?\\n\\n---\\n\\n[1] Shalev-Shwartz, Shai, Yoram Singer, and Nathan Srebro. \\\"Pegasos: Primal estimated sub-gradient solver for svm.\\\" Proceedings of the 24th international conference on Machine learning. 2007.\\n\\n[2] Alman, Josh, and Ryan Williams. \\\"Probabilistic polynomials and hamming nearest neighbors.\\\" 2015 IEEE 56th Annual Symposium on Foundations of Computer Science. IEEE, 2015.\", \"flag_for_ethics_review\": \"['No ethics review needed.']\", \"rating\": \"8\", \"confidence\": \"4\", \"code_of_conduct\": \"Yes\"}", "{\"comment\": \"We appreciate the reviewer for their insightful comments, and we would like to address your concerns. Before doing so, we would like to highlight one important contribution that may have been overlooked.\\n\\nWe develop a generic algorithm for convex quadratic programming, with a runtime of $O(n(d+m)^{(\\\\omega+1)/2}\\\\log(1/\\\\epsilon))$, assuming the quadratic objective matrix $Q$ has a rank-$d$ factorization and $m$ is the number of linear constraints. To the best of our knowledge, this is the first algorithm for convex quadratic programming that has linear dependence on $n$ and solves the program to high precision. \\n\\nAs a direct application, we adapt this algorithm to linear SVM: given a size-$n$ dataset in $\\\\mathbb{R}^d$, we can solve the linear SVM in $O(nd^{(\\\\omega+1)/2}\\\\log(1/\\\\epsilon))$ time. Prior fastest algorithms with $\\\\log(1/\\\\epsilon)$ dependence all have super-linear dependence on $n$, making them inefficient for large datasets. Moreover, our approach can be generalized to various kernel SVM schemes where the kernel matrix can be low-rank factored in subquadratic time. While we agree it is important to evaluate the practical performance of the algorithm, we also wish to highlight its theoretical contribution.\\n\\n---\\n\\n### Q: The paper states that the dimension $d=O(\\\\log n)$ seems to be very restrictive for real-world data analysis.\\n\\n**A:** As proven in our hardness result (Theorem 1.5), there exists some $d=\\\\Omega(\\\\log n)$ such that the corresponding kernel SVM cannot be solved in $O(n^{2-o(1)})$ time unless the Strong Exponential Time Hypothesis is false. In fact, our proof of Theorem 1.5 explicitly constructs an instance of Gaussian kernel SVM with $d = C\\\\log n$ for some large constant $C$, such that solving it efficiently is hard. Essentially, this implies that the best one can hope for in the $d = \\\\Omega(\\\\log n)$ regime is to explicitly form the kernel matrix by filling all $n^2$ entries. Therefore, we respectfully disagree that our assumption is \\u201crestrictive,\\u201d as it represents the theoretical best-case scenario.\\n\\n---\\n\\n### Q: The application to the Gaussian kernel seems narrow. Can it be extended to other kernels? How does the width of the Gaussian kernel affect the runtime?\\n\\n**A:** Yes, our technique can indeed be extended to a large family of kernels, as parametrized in Alman, Chu, Schild, and Song (2020). Specifically, their work shows that as long as the kernel function takes the form ${\\\\sf K}(u, v) = f(\\\\|u-v\\\\|_2^2)$ and $f$ can be approximated by a low-degree polynomial of degree $o(\\\\log n)$, one can compute a rank-$n^{o(1)}$ factorization of the kernel matrix in $n^{1+o(1)}$ time. This family includes polynomial kernels and $p$-convergent kernels (Song, Woodruff, Yu, and Zhang, 2021).\\n\\nRegarding the width parameter of the Gaussian kernel, it directly impacts the squared radius of the dataset. Let $R$ denote the original squared radius, and $\\\\sigma$ the width. Then the new squared radius is $\\\\frac{R^2}{2\\\\sigma^2}$. As long as $\\\\frac{R^2}{2\\\\sigma^2} \\\\leq O(\\\\frac{\\\\log n}{\\\\log\\\\log n})$, our algorithm can be applied.\\n\\n---\\n\\n### Q: How do your methods compare to the Nystr\\u00f6m approximation, which also provides a low-rank approximation to the kernel matrix?\\n\\n**A:** The Nystr\\u00f6m method does indeed produce good low-rank approximations to kernel matrices. For instance, Musco and Musco (2017) show that one can construct a rank-$s$ factorization of the kernel matrix using $O(ns)$ kernel function evaluations and an additional $O(ns^{\\\\omega-1})$ time. However, there are two significant challenges in applying the Nystr\\u00f6m approximation and then solving the SVM:\\n\\n1. **Rank-Approximation Tradeoff**: If one desires a small rank (e.g., $s=n^{o(1)}$), a large regularization parameter $\\\\lambda$ is required, leading to poor approximation.\\n2. **Impact of Regularization**: The additional $\\\\lambda I$ term complicates the downstream SVM algorithm, introducing an error term dependent on the $\\\\ell_2$ norm squared of the optimal solution and $\\\\lambda$. This increases runtime by a factor of $\\\\log(\\\\lambda)$, and there is no clear theoretical guideline for selecting $\\\\lambda$.\\n\\n---\\n\\n### Q: For large-scale datasets, deep neural networks practically offer better computational complexity. How does your method compare with deep neural networks?\\n\\n**A:** Theoretically, deep neural networks are non-convex models, making their convergence analysis challenging. The fastest known algorithms for training over-parameterized networks with $m$ neurons per layer require $m \\\\sim n^4$, and the runtime is $O(m^{1.93})$ (Song, Zhang, and Zhang, 2024). Since $m = n^4$, this leads to $O(n^{7.72})$ time\\u2014significantly more expensive than our approach, which runs in $O(n^{1+o(1)})$ time. Additionally, kernel SVMs are much simpler and easier to analyze compared to deep neural networks. We believe simpler, convex methods like kernel SVMs are preferable in many settings and designing theoretically sound and efficient algorithms for them is valuable.\"}", "{\"comment\": [\"---\", \"### References\", \"Alman, Chu, Schild, and Song (2020): Algorithms and Hardness for Linear Algebra on Geometric Graphs. *FOCS 2020*.\", \"Song, Woodruff, Yu, and Zhang (2021): Fast Sketching of Polynomial Kernels of Polynomial Degree. *ICML 2021*.\", \"Musco and Musco (2017): Recursive Sampling for the Nystr\\u00f6m Method. *NeurIPS 2017*.\", \"Song, Zhang, and Zhang (2024): Training Multi-Layer Over-Parameterized Neural Networks in Subquadratic Time. *ITCS 2024*.\"]}", "{\"comment\": \"Thanks, I've raised my score. Sounds like hardness results for $d = O ( \\\\log n )$, and in particular, constant $d$, is still open (please correct me if I'm wrong). I think that is also an interesting case, and I'd highly encourage the authors to briefly touch upon this (one sentence) if possible. Also, it sounds to me like this open problem is common to other complexity theoretic results.\"}", "{\"summary\": \"This paper studies fast algorithms for structured linear and kernel support vector machines (SVMs). SVMs are a type of machine learning model used for tasks such as classification and regression. The main contribution of the paper is to provide an algorithm with almost linear time for solving SVM problems with low tree width or low-rank structure. This is related to sparse patterns in the Cholesky decomposition of a matrix, etc. The paper also considers how to apply the proposed method to SVMs using Gaussian kernels, and provides an estimate of the computational complexity. No numerical investigation is given into the effectiveness of the method for real-world problems, etc.\", \"soundness\": \"3\", \"presentation\": \"2\", \"contribution\": \"2\", \"strengths\": [\"The authors provide intensive mathematical analysis of robust interior point methods for quadratic optimization problems.\"], \"weaknesses\": [\"The paper states that the dimensionality constraint is d=O(log(n)), but this seems like a very strict assumption for real-world data analysis. It would be good to consider how the computational complexity changes when this constraint is relaxed.\", \"The effectiveness of the proposed method is unclear because there are no numerical experiments. It would be useful for practitioners to see things like implementation ideas and estimates of the data size that can actually be handled.\", \"As only the Gaussian kernel is used as the kernel, the range of applicability is narrow. Is it possible to apply the algorithm to other kernels, while maintaining the computational efficiency? How does the computation time of the algorithm relate to the kernel width of the Gaussian kernel?\", \"For kernel methods, low-rank approximation methods such as the Nystrom approximation have been developed. In addition, it is known that when there are a large number of data points, it is more computationally efficient to use deep neural networks, which have developed significantly in recent years. Given this situation, it is necessary to explain the situations in which the proposed method in this paper is effective based on real-world problems.\"], \"questions\": \"see strengths and weaknesses.\\n\\n**Comment after the rebuttal period**: the authors' sincere responses resolved some of my concerns. I would like to express my gratitude for their efforts. Therefore, I decided to raise my score. However, I still believe that adding numerical experiments is necessary to ensure acceptance.\", \"flag_for_ethics_review\": \"['No ethics review needed.']\", \"rating\": \"5\", \"confidence\": \"3\", \"code_of_conduct\": \"Yes\"}", "{\"title\": \"Thanks reviewer for the comments, feedback and discussions\", \"comment\": \"We sincerely thank the reviewers for their time, efforts, and constructive feedback on our manuscript. The comments have been invaluable in enhancing the clarity and presentation of the paper. We have addressed each of the reviewer comments and reflected the changes in red in the manuscript. We hope these revisions address your concerns. We remain available to any further feedback or clarifications and look forward to more discussions until the end of the discussion period.\"}" ] }

[ "Amir Mohammad Karimi Mamaghan", "Samuele Papa", "Karl Henrik Johansson", "Stefan Bauer", "Andrea Dittadi" ]

[ "Object-centric Learning", "Foundation Models" ]

{ "note_id": [ "yofsqinSg7", "w3sEp1Z3IB", "vPvwNYn8qA", "uHyIphEoV4", "syoN8vfBtf", "qiFpOvFf1S", "q5DiclG9CH", "q2astKyLgC", "pqPpJ1Tq9C", "oDxlZrJvHj", "nsUWXnXRFR", "nXMxtXNsnF", "nQprll8IH0", "nP2M7cYa9I", "lE2zL30okW", "fiutV2pBJq", "fiKvoAeJvu", "dEw2NrM7rG", "Z0uqvNhCuu", "TXhXChDNiO", "SyGP2JQvff", "PjjOuKHtks", "OrVgzStfRe", "Obk3K0StkJ", "MAkXNrnA9N", "KAPIWZwQjs", "GqXpPa1hae", "EkTGAYZNbW", "DfXZoYgihi", "BreFliufDq", "4o0O3CEkRc", "3VM4lZr9xe", "1VSHYJMSk0" ], "note_type": [ "official_comment", "official_comment", "official_comment", "official_comment", "official_comment", "official_comment", "official_comment", "official_comment", "official_comment", "official_comment", "official_comment", "official_review", "official_review", "official_comment", "official_comment", "official_comment", "official_comment", "official_comment", "decision", "official_review", "official_comment", "official_comment", "official_comment", "official_comment", "official_comment", "official_comment", "meta_review", "official_review", "official_comment", "official_comment", "official_comment", "official_comment", "official_comment" ], "note_created": [ 1732185480571, 1732533558673, 1733300864842, 1732604153178, 1732555841977, 1732535390118, 1732533570048, 1732533486159, 1731665173830, 1732554329116, 1732535131133, 1730644275546, 1730463203736, 1732185193643, 1732608203606, 1733299914663, 1731665280780, 1732185474860, 1737523746492, 1730624378206, 1732516105060, 1732185442891, 1732555495891, 1731664038302, 1732534897825, 1731665445623, 1735146749058, 1730703490771, 1731664763638, 1731664991053, 1731665059732, 1732530433670, 1732185459368 ], "note_signatures": [ [ "ICLR.cc/2025/Conference/Submission6138/Authors" ], [ "ICLR.cc/2025/Conference/Submission6138/Authors" ], [ "ICLR.cc/2025/Conference/Submission6138/Authors" ], [ "ICLR.cc/2025/Conference/Submission6138/Reviewer_rPSW" ], [ "ICLR.cc/2025/Conference/Submission6138/Authors" ], [ "ICLR.cc/2025/Conference/Submission6138/Reviewer_HU9k" ], [ "ICLR.cc/2025/Conference/Submission6138/Authors" ], [ "ICLR.cc/2025/Conference/Submission6138/Authors" ], [ "ICLR.cc/2025/Conference/Submission6138/Authors" ], [ "ICLR.cc/2025/Conference/Submission6138/Authors" ], [ "ICLR.cc/2025/Conference/Submission6138/Reviewer_HU9k" ], [ "ICLR.cc/2025/Conference/Submission6138/Reviewer_7see" ], [ "ICLR.cc/2025/Conference/Submission6138/Reviewer_feeJ" ], [ "ICLR.cc/2025/Conference/Submission6138/Authors" ], [ "ICLR.cc/2025/Conference/Submission6138/Authors" ], [ "ICLR.cc/2025/Conference/Submission6138/Authors" ], [ "ICLR.cc/2025/Conference/Submission6138/Authors" ], [ "ICLR.cc/2025/Conference/Submission6138/Authors" ], [ "ICLR.cc/2025/Conference/Program_Chairs" ], [ "ICLR.cc/2025/Conference/Submission6138/Reviewer_HU9k" ], [ "ICLR.cc/2025/Conference/Submission6138/Reviewer_7see" ], [ "ICLR.cc/2025/Conference/Submission6138/Authors" ], [ "ICLR.cc/2025/Conference/Submission6138/Authors" ], [ "ICLR.cc/2025/Conference/Submission6138/Authors" ], [ "ICLR.cc/2025/Conference/Submission6138/Reviewer_feeJ" ], [ "ICLR.cc/2025/Conference/Submission6138/Authors" ], [ "ICLR.cc/2025/Conference/Submission6138/Area_Chair_WGch" ], [ "ICLR.cc/2025/Conference/Submission6138/Reviewer_rPSW" ], [ "ICLR.cc/2025/Conference/Submission6138/Authors" ], [ "ICLR.cc/2025/Conference/Submission6138/Authors" ], [ "ICLR.cc/2025/Conference/Submission6138/Authors" ], [ "ICLR.cc/2025/Conference/Submission6138/Authors" ], [ "ICLR.cc/2025/Conference/Submission6138/Authors" ] ], "structured_content_str": [ "{\"comment\": \"Dear reviewer, thank you once again for taking the time to review our submission. We\\u2019d appreciate it if you could let us know whether the additional experiments and our responses address your concerns and if you might consider adjusting your score accordingly. We\\u2019re also open to any further feedback or questions you may have during the discussion period.\"}", "{\"comment\": \"Dear Reviewer,\\n\\nThank you for the time and effort you have dedicated to reviewing our work. Your thoughtful feedback has been instrumental in enhancing the clarity and rigor of our paper.\\n\\nAs the discussion period is coming to a close, we wanted to ensure that our responses along with the additional experiments on the GQA dataset have addressed your concerns. If we have successfully addressed your points, we would be grateful if you could kindly consider increasing your score. Of course, we remain happy to address any additional points if needed.\\n\\nThank you once again for your valuable feedback.\"}", "{\"title\": \"Summary of Discussion Outcomes and Manuscript Improvements\", \"comment\": [\"Dear AC and Reviewers,\", \"As the rebuttal period approaches its end, we would like to offer a brief summary of the discussion outcomes and highlight the improvements made to our manuscript based on the valuable feedback we received:\", \"**Request for an additional real-world dataset (raised by all reviewers as a major concern)**: We added experimental results on GQA during the discussion period, which fully supported our claims in the paper. The new results and the required effort were acknowledged by all the reviewers, however only reflected in the scores of rPSW and HU9k.\", \"**Suggestion of using transformer decoders instead of transformer encoders as the downstream model (rPSW)**: We explained why the current pipeline is suitable and sufficient for our goal. This explanation was acknowledged by rPSW and reflected in their updated score.\", \"**Some of the conclusions, whether it be major or minor, are intuitive or well-known (7see and HU9k)**:\", \"**7see raised concerns about the intuitive nature of conclusions, such as the combination of the OC inductive bias and a foundation model improving performance over the foundation model alone**: We emphasized that while intuitive to some, this has not been systematically tested for OC models in downstream reasoning tasks like VQA. Additionally, by analyzing performance, explicitness of representations, and computational requirements, we provide insights beyond performance alone to enhance understanding of OC representations and their applicability.\", \"**Later, 7see raised a broader concern about the intuitiveness of most conclusions and maintained their score.**\", \"**HU9k raised concerns about the intuitiveness of specific conclusions, such as \\\"Consistency of the Results Across Question Types\\\"**: We explained that while it is a minor takeaway, this conclusion has not been definitively demonstrated for OC models. Additionally, the differences in model training approaches make it plausible that certain representations might perform better on specific question types.\", \"**HU9k later expressed concerns about the intuitiveness of some or most of the overall conclusions in the paper, referencing the final concern raised by 7see**: We further raised two main points: (1) it is not sufficient to overlook the analysis of an idea simply because it is intuitive, and (2) intuition does not always align with reality in the literature after proper investigation, as demonstrated e.g. in the disentanglement literature. This response was acknowledged by HU9k, as reflected in their updated score. While we were responding to HU9k, we believe this response also effectively addresses the concern raised by 7see, although this was not explicitly acknowledged.\", \"**Confusion about the core question of our study (HU9k)**: We clarified the core question of our study, which was accepted by HU9k, as indicated by their increased score.\", \"**Missing analysis of the applications of the findings (feeJ)**: We explained the main contributions of our study and the takeaway messages for the community. According to feeJ\\u2019s response, this addressed the reviewer\\u2019s concern to some extent but did not affect the final score.\", \"**Effect of fine-tuning the foundation model on the downstream VQA task to make comparisons more fair (feeJ)**: We described our initial experiments of fine-tuning DINOv2 on VQA and explained that while downstream performance improved slightly, the gains were not significant and introduced substantial computational costs, making comparisons with OC models less fair in terms of compute requirements. Although the reviewer acknowledged our efforts, this did not lead to an increase in the final score.\", \"We believe we have addressed all major concerns raised by the reviewers during the rebuttal. Reviewers rPSW and HU9k notably increased their scores from 3 to 6 and from 5 to 6, respectively, recognizing the improvements made to our manuscript and expressing a positive inclination towards its acceptance. On the other hand, reviewers 7see and feeJ maintained their initial scores, without raising any further concerns or questions.\", \"In conclusion, we are deeply grateful to the Area Chair for their guidance and support throughout the review and discussion process. We also sincerely thank the reviewers for their valuable time and constructive feedback, which have significantly improved our manuscript. We hope this summary provides helpful context regarding the efforts and progress made during the rebuttal phase.\", \"Best regards,\", \"The Authors\"]}", "{\"comment\": \"Thank you to the authors for their responses. I really appreciate the additional experiments on GQA, and the authors' responses address most of my concerns. Therefore, I am slightly leaning towards acceptance and will increase my score.\"}", "{\"comment\": \"> According to the findings and takeaway messages, I am sure they are correct (based on the experimental results you provided), but I agree with 7see that some (or most) conclusions are intuitive and well-known, which minimize their contribution to the community.\\n\\nWe completely understand your point regarding the intuitive nature of some of the conclusions, and we appreciate your perspective.\\n\\nTL;DR: 1) We believe it is not sufficient to overlook the analysis of an idea simply because it is intuitive, and 2) In the literature, intuition hasn't always aligned with reality after proper investigation.\\n\\nIn science, even conclusions that seem intuitive or well-known benefit from being examined carefully through a systematic approach. Many important concepts in machine learning started out as intuitive but required thorough investigation and empirical validation to fully appreciate their significance. For example, the idea of transfer learning initially seemed intuitive\\u2014that knowledge from one task could be transferred to another\\u2014but it wasn\\u2019t until systematic studies were conducted that its potential, limitations, and practical applications were fully understood.\\n\\nFurthermore, in the OC community, the idea of DINOSAUR \\u2014 which applies the object-centric (OC) inductive bias to high-level features rather than low-level pixels\\u2014 may seem intuitive at first glance. However, despite its intuitive nature, this idea has been rigorously explored and has become an influential work in the field.\\n\\nAn additional, more nuanced example is disentanglement. Intuitively, it was believed that disentanglement is a key factor in representation learning and would generally improve generalization and performance across tasks [1]. However, subsequent research, including [2] and other follow-up studies such as [3-5] challenged this intuition and showed that disentanglement does not always result in better generalization and improved downstream task performance, and factors like hyperparameters and inductive biases on the model and data play a more significant role than previously assumed.\\n\\nTo be more specific on one of our main findings, it is indeed intuitive to expect that, particularly on synthetic data, the OC models such as DINOSAURv2 have more explicit representations compared to the foundation model backbone alone. However, based on existing knowledge and literature in the field, it remains unclear how these representations perform on downstream reasoning tasks such as VQA and how performance trends evolve with varying downstream model capacities.\\n\\nThus, in our humble opinion, intuitive ideas must still be explored and validated through careful analysis to ensure their robustness, understand the deeper implications, and provide a ground for future research. \\n\\nWe hope this clarifies the motivation behind the analysis, and we truly appreciate your constructive comments.\\n\\n[1] Bengio, Yoshua, et al. \\\"Representation Learning: A Review and New Perspectives.\\\" arXiv, 24 June 2012, doi:10.48550/arXiv.1206.5538.\\n\\n[2] Locatello, Francesco, et al. \\\"Challenging Common Assumptions in the Unsupervised Learning of Disentangled Representations.\\\" arXiv, 29 Nov. 2018, doi:10.48550/arXiv.1811.12359.\\n\\n[3] Montero, Milton Llera, et al. \\\"The role of disentanglement in generalisation.\\\" International Conference on Learning Representations. 2020.\\n\\n[4] Montero, Milton L., et al. \\\"Lost in latent space: Disentangled models and the challenge of combinatorial generalisation.\\\" arXiv preprint arXiv:2204.02283 (2022).\\n\\n[5] Tr\\u00e4uble, Frederik, et al. \\\"On disentangled representations learned from correlated data.\\\" International conference on machine learning. PMLR, 2021.\"}", "{\"comment\": \"According to the findings and takeaway messages, I am sure they are correct (based on the experimental results you provided), but I agree with 7see that some (or most) conclusions are intuitive and well-known, which minimize their contribution to the community.\"}", "{\"comment\": \"Dear Reviewer,\\n\\nThank you for the time and effort you have dedicated to reviewing our work. Your thoughtful feedback has been instrumental in enhancing the clarity and rigor of our paper.\\n\\nAs the discussion period is coming to a close, we wanted to ensure that our responses along with the additional experiments on the GQA dataset have addressed your concerns. If we have successfully addressed your points, we would be grateful if you could kindly consider increasing your score. Of course, we remain happy to address any additional points if needed.\\n\\nThank you once again for your valuable feedback.\"}", "{\"comment\": \"Dear Reviewer,\\n\\nThank you for the time and effort you have dedicated to reviewing our work. Your thoughtful feedback has been instrumental in enhancing the clarity and rigor of our paper.\\n\\nAs the discussion period is coming to a close, we wanted to ensure that our responses along with the additional experiments on the GQA dataset have addressed your concerns. If we have successfully addressed your points, we would be grateful if you could kindly consider increasing your score. Of course, we remain happy to address any additional points if needed.\\n\\nThank you once again for your valuable feedback.\"}", "{\"comment\": \"Thank you for your review of our work and the detailed feedback. We answer your questions and concerns below:\\n\\n### Weaknesses\\n\\n> The question that this paper wants to answer is: whether OC, fixed-region or global representation is better for VQA. To answer this question, the authors need to provide a model with the same architecture, model size and pre-training data. The only variant in the model is the feature representation way, i.e., OC, fixed-region or global. However, I didn't find this experiment in the paper. Maybe I missed it. Please point it out and highlight it in the rebuttal.\\n\\nThank you for pointing this out. We completely agree that the fairest way to compare these different representations would be to maintain the same factors of variation such as model architecture, size, and pre-training data while varying only the representation type (OC, fixed-region, or global). However, implementing such a controlled experiment would require substantial engineering effort and computational resources to ensure all factors except the representation type remain consistent, and everything works as expected. In our study, we instead took a best-effort approach by utilizing existing models with minimal modifications, which allowed us to assess the effectiveness of different representations without setting up the entire experiment from scratch. While we acknowledge this as a limitation, we have made efforts to minimize the impact of other factors, particularly by comparing a foundation model with and without the OC inductive bias (DINOv2 and DINOSAURv2), ensuring as fair a comparison as possible within our available resources.\\n\\n> Synthetic data such as CLEVR and CLEVRTex are not challenging enough since the objects can be easily detected (and even hard-coded).\\n\\nWe agree that solely using these synthetic datasets might not be enough for our study and therefore, we have included VQA-v2 to confirm our results in real-world settings. We have selected these datasets mainly because they are some of the traditional synthetic datasets that have been popular in the OC community in the past years.\\nFurthermore, we kindly refer you to our general response to all reviewers, where we explain that we are incorporating the GQA dataset as an additional real-world dataset into our study and will share the results as soon as they are ready.\\n\\n> Many symbolic methods have solved these datasets with 100% accuracy.\\n\\nCan you please elaborate on which methods have achieved the perfect performance, and on which tasks?\\n\\nNonetheless, we would like to highlight that this is not directly relevant to our study. The fact that some models can achieve perfect accuracy indicates that those models are effective at solving all the specific challenges presented by the dataset. However, for our study, the objective is not to solely push the boundaries of performance but to investigate how different model representations, including OC representations, behave on the VQA tasks defined on these datasets. In fact, our goal is not to solve the VQA task and achieve state-of-the-art results but to analyze the benefits and trade-offs of OC representations compared to other types of representations, with VQA serving as the downstream task for this evaluation. Therefore, as long as we observe a difference in the performance of models on these datasets and not all of the models achieve perfect accuracy, they would be suitable datasets for this goal.\"}", "{\"comment\": \"Thank you for acknowledging our rebuttal and confirming your positive assessment of our work. We sincerely appreciate the time and effort you dedicated to reviewing our paper and providing valuable feedback.\"}", "{\"comment\": \"Thank you for the detailed rebuttal and clarifications.\\n\\nI appreciate that your study has a different focus, and I did not reject the paper based on prior results. However, I remain concerned about the use of datasets like CLEVR and other synthetic data. These datasets are not sufficiently challenging for modern methods, and this raises questions about whether your conclusions can be generalised to broader Visual Question Answering (VQA) domains. For instance, CLEVR's leaderboard (https://paperswithcode.com/sota/visual-question-answering-on-clevr) shows that research interest has significantly declined since 2021, likely because the dataset no longer provides meaningful differentiation among state-of-the-art methods. As you noted, there are already models achieving near-perfect accuracy on CLEVR, such as Neural-Symbolic VQA (99.8%) and another approach (https://arxiv.org/pdf/2104.12763v2) with 99.7% on CLEVR and 100% on CLEVR-REF+. \\n\\nThe results on GQA (provided in the rebuttal phase) addressed the above concerns.\\n\\nReturning to Weakness One, I do not find engineering effort and computational resources acceptable justifications for avoiding additional experiments. Considering the core research question of your paper, a fair and robust evaluation is essential to substantiate your claims. I believe this is feasible, as smaller foundation models are now accessible and can be trained or fine-tuned with modest resources, including a single GPU. Incorporating such experiments would significantly strengthen the validity of your conclusions and address concerns regarding generalisability.\"}", "{\"summary\": \"This paper presents a comprehensive empirical study of Object-Centric (OC) representations in VQA task. The study evaluates 15 different upstream models across three synthetic datasets and one real-world dataset. The authors draw conclusions on the comparison foundation models and OC models, the relation of VQA performance and intermediate tasks or metrics, the training data efficiency and so on.\", \"soundness\": \"3\", \"presentation\": \"4\", \"contribution\": \"3\", \"strengths\": \"I appreciate the authors' great efforts (and also their GPU cluster's) of this empirical study. The paper shows empirical rigor through its extensive experimental design, with multiple trials across various models and datasets. The experiments brings credibility to the conclusions, while the conclusions themselves could provide valuable insights for the field.\", \"weaknesses\": [\"Some findings align with existing intuitions. For example, it is not suprising that large foundation models perform comparably to specialized OC models, and that their combination yields better performance. While valuable, these conclusion is intuitive and somehow obvious to the maching learning field.\", \"The correlation between property/attribute accuracy and overall VQA performance may be due to the characteristics or preference of the selected 4 datasets, rather than a fundamental relationship. This correlation might not generalize well to relational or reasoning or logical questions, potentially make the conclusion less convincing.\", \"While there are many real-world QA datasets like VCR, GQA, DAQUAR which would capture more general data intrinsics of QA question, only one real-world dataset (VQA-v2) was used in this work. The three synthetic datasets is quantitatively extensive, but might exhibit construction biases or preferences and not capture the full complexity of real-world scenarios. Focusing on more diverse real-world datasets would strengthen the conclusions\"], \"questions\": \"Minor: I wonder how is the \\\"640\\\" computed on Line 315? And the \\\"640 models\\\" is slightly misleading, as they are actually different are experimental configurations rather than distinct model architectures.\", \"flag_for_ethics_review\": \"['No ethics review needed.']\", \"rating\": \"6\", \"confidence\": \"3\", \"code_of_conduct\": \"Yes\"}", "{\"summary\": \"This paper explores the effectiveness of object-centric (OC) representations in the Visual Question Answering (VQA) task and compares them with traditional large-scale pretrained foundation models.\", \"soundness\": \"3\", \"presentation\": \"3\", \"contribution\": \"3\", \"strengths\": \"1. The experimental design is rigorous, considering the impact of multiple factors on the task.\\n2. The writing is fluent, and the conclusions are clear.\\n3. The finding that object-centric representations are effective in VQA tasks is insightful for the community.\", \"weaknesses\": \"1. As stated in the paper, the datasets would have included more real-world data.\\n2. Some analysis of the application of the findings is lacking.\", \"questions\": \"1. What makes me curious is what the performance would be after fine-tuning the foundation models on the specific VQA tasks, since other models have been fitted on the data. I suppose this would make it more fair for the comparison of different models and may inspire more insights.\\n2. Could you give some more insights on the application of the findings in the paper? I'm wondering if the conclusions would be applied in other domains out of VQA.\", \"flag_for_ethics_review\": \"['No ethics review needed.']\", \"rating\": \"6\", \"confidence\": \"3\", \"code_of_conduct\": \"Yes\"}", "{\"title\": \"Additional Results on GQA\", \"comment\": [\"Based on the reviewers\\u2019 concerns about the need for experiments on additional real-world datasets, we have updated our submission by adding the results on the GQA dataset (highlighted in blue color). The updates in the submission are as follows:\", \"Added three new plots for the results on GQA: two in Figure 4 and one in Figure 14. Additionally, the \\u201cReal-world Data\\u201d paragraph in Section 4.1 is updated accordingly.\", \"Figure 4 (left) shows the overall accuracies of different models w.r.t. downstream GFLOPS on GQA.\", \"Figure 4 (middle) shows the average accuracies of different models on GQA, with T-15 as the downstream model.\", \"Figure 14 (right) shows the average accuracies of different models w.r.t. downstream model sizes on GQA.\", \"Added the table with the average accuracies of models on GQA, with T-15 as the downstream model (Table 14 in Appendix D).\", \"Updated \\u201cDatasets\\u201d section (Section 3.3) with a brief description of GQA, and a more detailed description is added to Appendix B.\", \"Added upstream and downstream training details of GQA to Appendix A.\", \"Adjusted several minor parts of the main text and the appendix to include the addition of GQA.\"], \"we_provide_a_summary_of_the_updates_below\": \"On GQA, we repeat the VQA experiments using the same pipeline on a subset of best-performing OC models and all foundation models. We use the balanced version of the dataset, with the \\u201ctrain\\u201d split used for training and \\u201ctestdev\\u201d split used for evaluation. The new results align perfectly with our main findings:\\n* **Performance Comparison**: Large foundation models, together with DINOSAURv2, outperform other models while other OC models do not perform well on GQA (see Figure 4, middle). This trend matches the results observed for VQA-v2 (see Figure 4, right).\\n* **Effect of OC Bias**: We observe in Figure 14 (right) and Figure 4 (left) that DINOSAURv2 outperforms DINOv2 on T-2. On T-5, DINOv2 starts catching up and on T-15, it performs on par with DINOSAURv2. Furthermore, for all downstream model sizes, DINOSAURv2 requires significantly less downstream compute than DINOv2 (see Figure 4, left).\\n\\nThese findings on GQA are consistent with those from other datasets, confirming our main claims (Section 4.1): Applying the OC inductive bias on top of a foundation model provides a compelling approach to get the best of both worlds. This approach achieves comparable or superior results to foundation models while significantly reducing compute requirements and providing the advantage of explicit object representations.\"}", "{\"comment\": \"Thank you for acknowledging our responses and additional experiments on GQA. We sincerely appreciate your time and effort in reviewing our work and providing constructive feedback.\"}", "{\"comment\": \"Thank you for acknowledging our rebuttal and reflecting your positive assessment through an updated score. We sincerely appreciate the time and effort you dedicated to reviewing our paper and providing valuable feedback.\"}", "{\"comment\": \"> I am not sure how these takeaway messages could contribute to the community.\\n\\nWe would like to highlight that the role of OC models in downstream tasks has been partially underexplored and our empirical study tries to cover this gap in the literature. We have summarised some of the takeaways of our study and their contribution to the community below:\\n\\n* We\\u2019ve empirically clarified the trade-offs of foundation models vs OC models and found out that foundation models will perform the same or better than standard OC models on complex or real-world data without any training or hyperparameter tuning. However, they require much more downstream compute and they have less explicit representations compared to OC models. However, applying the OC bias on top of a foundation model (DINOSAUR) will benefit us with the best of both worlds, leveraging general vision capabilities of foundation models and thus, showing strong performance on hard synthetic and real-world datasets while having explicit object representations. The main downside is that the OC bias should be trained on the downstream dataset. Therefore, depending on the settings at hand, one can select the proper type of model based on these insights.\\n\\n* For evaluation, the focus of the OC community has been mainly on unsupervised object discovery tasks and segmentation metrics while downstream evaluation of representations has often been overlooked. We\\u2019ve empirically shown that representations that perform well in downstream tasks do not necessarily excel in segmentation tasks, and that segmentation accuracy (ARI) or reconstruction error (MSE) are not reliable predictors of downstream performance. We hope this highlights the importance of incorporating downstream evaluation as a key aspect of model assessment in the OC community.\\n\\n> Some conclusions are already known such as : ' Consistency of the Results Across Question Types.'\\n\\nTo the best of our knowledge, this conclusion has not been definitively demonstrated for OC models. We agree that the finding might not be surprising, but it\\u2019s not entirely obvious either. Specifically, given that the representations in our study are learned in very different ways, it could also be plausible that certain representations would perform better on specific question types, while others might excel on different types. This possibility makes the consistency of results across question types relevant. Even though it\\u2019s a relatively minor insight, we felt it was important to include, as we believe it adds value to the overall understanding and provides helpful documentation.\\n\\nWe are happy to answer any further questions you may have.\"}", "{\"comment\": \"Dear reviewer, thank you once again for taking the time to review our submission. We\\u2019d appreciate it if you could let us know whether the additional experiments and our responses address your concerns and if you might consider adjusting your score accordingly. We\\u2019re also open to any further feedback or questions you may have during the discussion period.\"}", "{\"title\": \"Paper Decision\", \"decision\": \"Accept (Poster)\"}", "{\"summary\": \"This is an experimental paper that examines how object-centric (OC) representations, which treat scenes as compositions of objects, compare with large pre-trained foundation models in Visual Question Answering (VQA) tasks.\", \"soundness\": \"2\", \"presentation\": \"4\", \"contribution\": \"2\", \"strengths\": \"Using object features to represent images to solve VQA has become quite popular since the bottom-up attention (from Peter Anderson et al.). However, there have been many debates about whether the object-level feature makes it work or whether it is just because the image representation model used in BUTD was better trained (with more data). This paper tried to solve this problem by running many experiments.\", \"weaknesses\": \"1. The question that this paper wants to answer is: whether OC, fixed-region or global representation is better for VQA. To answer this question, the authors need to provide a model with the same architecture, model size and pre-training data. The only variant in the model is the feature representation way, i.e., OC, fixed-region or global. However, I didn't find this experiment in the paper. Maybe I missed it. Please point it out and highlight it in the rebuttal.\\n\\n2. Synthetic data such as CLEVR and CLEVRTex are not challenging enough since the objects can be easily detected (and even hard-coded). Many symbolic methods have solved these datasets with 100% accuracy.\\n\\n3. I am not sure how these takeaway messages could contribute to the community. Some conclusions are already known such as : ' Consistency of the Results Across Question Types.'\", \"questions\": \"See weakness, I would like to see the responses to the above three weaknesses.\", \"flag_for_ethics_review\": \"['No ethics review needed.']\", \"rating\": \"6\", \"confidence\": \"5\", \"code_of_conduct\": \"Yes\"}", "{\"comment\": \"Thanks. I have read the revised draft and the authors' and other reviewers' comments, where our reviewers' concerns are suprisingly aligned. I really appreciate the authors' early responses, and also the additional experiments on GQA, which shows the authors\\u2018 serious attitude on this work.\\n\\nNow, some of my concerns are well addressed. The experments on GQA make the empirical study more solid and robust. The authors also give sufficient detauils on the experiment settings. However, some major ones still exist. As also mentioned by other reviewers, some (or most) conclusions are intuitive and well-known, which minimize their contribution to the community.\\n\\nOverall, I slightly lean towards acceptance due to the solid empirical experiments and potential contributions. Since I have already given a positive rating, I would keep my score.\"}", "{\"comment\": \"Dear reviewer, thank you once again for taking the time to review our submission. We\\u2019d appreciate it if you could let us know whether the additional experiments and our responses address your concerns and if you might consider adjusting your score accordingly. We\\u2019re also open to any further feedback or questions you may have during the discussion period.\"}", "{\"comment\": \"We greatly appreciate your constructive feedback and your elaboration on the CLEVR dataset. We are pleased to hear that the new results on GQA have successfully addressed one of your concerns.\\n\\n> Returning to Weakness One, I do not find engineering effort and computational resources acceptable justifications for avoiding additional experiments. Considering the core research question of your paper, a fair and robust evaluation is essential to substantiate your claims. I believe this is feasible, as smaller foundation models are now accessible and can be trained or fine-tuned with modest resources, including a single GPU. Incorporating such experiments would significantly strengthen the validity of your conclusions and address concerns regarding generalizability.\\n\\nThank you for your detailed comment. We completely agree that fairness is a crucial aspect in deciding which type of representation is better for tasks like VQA. However, we would like to clarify the core question of our study: **it is not to directly compare different representation types for VQA** or to claim the superiority of any specific representation type over others. Our main goal is to analyze the relevance of OC representations in the current era of foundation models. Specifically, our goal is to evaluate how well OC representations perform in downstream visual reasoning tasks, such as VQA, and to investigate the benefits and trade-offs of OC models compared to alternative approaches, including foundation models, as baselines. In essence, we aim to answer the question: \\u201cIn a visual reasoning task at hand, which model to use; an OC model or a foundation model?\\u201d by analyzing these trade-offs.\\n\\nTo achieve this, we designed a large-scale empirical study that explores the effectiveness of various existing models\\u2019 representations, as outlined in the literature, without significant modifications. We also aim to fill a gap in the literature by specifically evaluating OC representations in downstream reasoning tasks, an area that has received limited attention to date.\\n\\nTherefore, while fairness is an important aspect of comparative studies, especially when making direct comparisons between different representation types, it is not central to our study and is not necessary for our findings and takeaways.\\n\\nWe apologize for the confusion and hope this clarifies the core question of our work.\"}", "{\"title\": \"General Response to All Reviewers\", \"comment\": \"We thank all reviewers for their helpful feedback. We are happy to see that the reviewers find our paper well-written (feeJ), with important insights for the community (7see, feeJ) supported by extensive experimentation (rPSW, 7see, HU9k, feeJ).\\n\\nCommon concerns were raised regarding the need for experiments on additional real-world datasets. We appreciate this valuable feedback and fully acknowledge its importance. To address this, we have started integrating the GQA dataset into our framework. Given the effort and computational resources needed, we expect to have the initial results ready a few days before the discussion deadline. We will post an update here and hope the reviewers will consider this in their assessment.\\n\\nIn the meantime, we will address your other concerns and questions in our responses to each review.\"}", "{\"comment\": \"I thank the authors for their efforts and their response has addressed my concerns to some extent. Hence, I decide to keep my original score and am leaning to accept this paper.\"}", "{\"comment\": \"Thank you for your review and your positive assessment of our work. We answer your questions and concerns below:\\n\\n### Weaknesses and Questions\\n\\n> As stated in the paper, the datasets would have included more real-world data.\\n\\nWe kindly refer you to our general response to all reviewers, where we explain that we are incorporating the GQA dataset as an additional real-world dataset into our study and will share the results as soon as they are ready.\\n\\n> Some analysis of the application of the findings is lacking.\\n\\n> Could you give some more insights on the application of the findings in the paper?\\n\\nWe would like to highlight that the role of OC models in downstream tasks has been partially underexplored and our empirical study tries to cover this gap in the literature. We have summarised some of the takeaways of our study and their contribution to the community below:\\n\\n* We\\u2019ve empirically clarified the trade-offs of foundation models vs OC models and found out that foundation models will perform the same or better than standard OC models on complex or real-world data without any training or hyperparameter tuning. However, they require much more downstream compute and they have less explicit representations compared to OC models. However, applying the OC bias on top of a foundation model (DINOSAUR) will benefit us with the best of both worlds, leveraging the general vision capabilities of foundation models and thus, showing strong performance on hard synthetic and real-world datasets while having explicit object representations. The only downside is that the OC bias should be trained on the downstream dataset. Therefore, depending on the settings at hand, one can select the proper type of model based on the insights of our study.\\n\\n* For evaluation, the focus of the OC community has been mainly on unsupervised object discovery tasks and segmentation metrics while downstream evaluation of representations has often been overlooked. We\\u2019ve empirically shown that representations that perform well in downstream tasks do not necessarily excel in segmentation tasks, and that segmentation accuracy (ARI) or reconstruction error (MSE) are not reliable predictors of downstream performance. We hope this highlights the importance of incorporating downstream evaluation as a key aspect of model assessment in the OC community.\\n\\n> I'm wondering if the conclusions would be applied in other domains out of VQA.\\n\\nWe would like to emphasize that VQA involves a diverse range of questions that require understanding and reasoning about the visual scene. Demonstrating that the methods work effectively on this task suggests that the results can be extended to other tasks that require similar levels of understanding and reasoning.\\n\\n> What makes me curious is what the performance would be after fine-tuning the foundation models on the specific VQA tasks, since other models have been fitted on the data. I suppose this would make it more fair for the comparison of different models and may inspire more insights.\\n\\nThat\\u2019s a good point. In our initial set of experiments, we analyzed the effect of fine-tuning DINOv2 on the VQA task, and as expected, we observed that the downstream performance improved but the gain was not significant and came with a substantial computational burden. This made the comparison with OC models less fair in terms of computational requirements. Thus, we decided not to pursue fine-tuning further.\"}", "{\"metareview\": \"The submission conducts an empirical study on the impact of object-centric representations for visual question answering, and aims to put the observations into perspective with \\\"foundation models\\\". The original submission primarily relied on synthetic datasets for their analysis, and the authors provided additional results on GQA, on which the main observations align with the original claims. After rebuttal, the submission received four borderline accept (6) ratings. All reviewers appreciate the GQA experiments as demonstration on the generalizability of the empirical study on real world benchmarks. While some of the observations might be intuitive or partially demonstrated by prior work, as pointed out by reviewer HU9k, the AC agrees with the authors' response that the systematic study presented by the submission, and the take-away messages summarized by the authors (in response to the question \\\"I am not sure how these takeaway messages could contribute to the community\\\") are valuable to the ICLR research community. The AC therefore agrees with the consensus reached by the reviewers and recommends acceptance of the submission to ICLR 2025.\", \"additional_comments_on_reviewer_discussion\": \"Please find above.\"}", "{\"summary\": \"This paper presents a comprehensive empirical study comparing object-centric (OC) representations with foundation models on Visual Question Answering tasks. Through extensive experiments involving 15 different upstream models, the authors demonstrate that combining object-centric bias with foundation models can achieve strong performance while reducing computational costs compared to using foundation models alone.\", \"soundness\": \"2\", \"presentation\": \"2\", \"contribution\": \"2\", \"strengths\": [\"Extensive empirical evaluation across different upstream and downstream models and datasets\", \"Experimental results thoroughly support and validate each insight presented\"], \"weaknesses\": [\"While the study includes VQA-v2, it primarily relies on synthetic datasets. The evaluation would be more compelling if it included additional established real-world VQA datasets such as GQA or CRIC. Each image in the GQA and CRIC datasets is associated with a scene graph describing the image's objects, attributes, and relations. Moreover, questions in these datasets involve multiple reasoning skills, spatial understanding, and multi-step inference, making them ideal for analyzing object-centric models.\", \"The majority of claims and findings are based on synthetic datasets, which feature simpler scenes with clear object-background separation. This raises concerns about the generalizability of the findings to more complex real-world scenarios. It would be great if the author can provide additional analysis on the challenging datasets such as GQA and CRIC\", \"The downstream architecture is limited to BERT-style transformer encoders. The authors should explore decoder-based transformer architectures, which have become increasingly popular and achieved more favorable results than BERT-style encoders on VQA tasks in recent research.\", \"While the authors claim they evaluated 640 downstream models, the paper lacks sufficient detail and analysis regarding these experiments. They should provide comprehensive information about these models in the paper\"], \"questions\": [\"How would the proposed approach perform on more challenging real-world datasets like GQA or CRIC?\", \"How would the findings about the benefits of object-centric representations translate to more challenging scenarios in real datasets?\", \"Why did the authors choose to focus on transformer encoder architectures for downstream models? Would incorporating decoder-based architectures potentially lead to different conclusions?\", \"Could the authors provide more detailed analysis of experiments with 640 downstream models?\"], \"flag_for_ethics_review\": \"['No ethics review needed.']\", \"rating\": \"6\", \"confidence\": \"4\", \"code_of_conduct\": \"Yes\"}", "{\"comment\": \"Thank you for your review of our work and the detailed feedback. We answer your questions and concerns below:\\n\\n### Weaknesses and Questions\\n\\n> While the study includes VQA-v2, it primarily relies on synthetic datasets. The evaluation would be more compelling if it included additional established real-world VQA datasets such as GQA or CRIC. Each image in the GQA and CRIC datasets is associated with a scene graph describing the image's objects, attributes, and relations. Moreover, questions in these datasets involve multiple reasoning skills, spatial understanding, and multi-step inference, making them ideal for analyzing object-centric models.\\n\\n> The majority of claims and findings are based on synthetic datasets, which feature simpler scenes with clear object-background separation. This raises concerns about the generalizability of the findings to more complex real-world scenarios. It would be great if the author can provide additional analysis on the challenging datasets such as GQA and CRIC\\n\\n> How would the proposed approach perform on more challenging real-world datasets like GQA or CRIC?\\n\\n> How would the findings about the benefits of object-centric representations translate to more challenging scenarios in real datasets?\\n\\nWe kindly refer you to our general response to all reviewers, where we explain that we are incorporating the GQA dataset as an additional real-world dataset into our study and will share the results as soon as they are ready.\\n\\n> The downstream architecture is limited to BERT-style transformer encoders. The authors should explore decoder-based transformer architectures, which have become increasingly popular and achieved more favorable results than BERT-style encoders on VQA tasks in recent research.\\n\\n> Why did the authors choose to focus on transformer encoder architectures for downstream models? Would incorporating decoder-based architectures potentially lead to different conclusions?\\n\\nIn our work, we frame VQA as a classification task and adopt an encoder-decoder architecture with a transformer encoder to process the input and a classification head applied to the [CLS] token. A transformer encoder is well-suited for this setup because its bidirectional attention mechanism enables it to integrate and contextualize information from both the vision and language representations into the [CLS] token, which is specifically designed to represent the aggregated information required for classification tasks. However, if we were to shift to a token generation approach for the VQA task, using a transformer decoder could indeed improve the performance. On the other hand, handling VQA as a classification task helps avoid the potential influence of language variability, open-ended outputs, and other confounding factors. Despite its simplicity, this approach still aligns with our goal and effectively captures what we aim to measure: the models\\u2019 understanding of the visual scene and their relational reasoning abilities, rather than merely solving the VQA task. Moreover, it avoids the added complexity of language generation, ensuring that the results remain clearer and easier to interpret.\\n\\n> While the authors claim they evaluated 640 downstream models, the paper lacks sufficient detail and analysis regarding these experiments. They should provide comprehensive information about these models in the paper\\n\\n> Could the authors provide more detailed analysis of experiments with 640 downstream models?\\n\\nWe apologize for the confusion. This number corresponds to the total number of VQA downstream models we trained for the study. Given the number of datasets (4) and the number of different split sizes of Multi-dSprites (4; 40k, 80k, 160k, and 320k images. So 7 different datasets in total), number of models (15), number of seeds (1 for pre-trained models, 3 for other models), and the number of downstream model sizes (3; T-2, T-5, and T-15), the total number of downstream models can be calculated as:\\n\\n* For Foundation models, we will have: 6 * 7 * 1 * 3 (#foundation models * #datasets * #seeds * #downstream_models) = 126\\n* For other models on all datasets excluding VQA-v2: 9 * 6 * 3 * 3 (#models * #datasets excluding VQA-v2 * #seeds * #downstream_models) = 486\\n* And for other models on VQA-v2: 3 * 1 * 3 * 3 (#models * #datasets * #seeds * #downstream_models) = 27\\n\\nAdditionally, for each dataset, we have one baseline with only the information about the questions, which will add 7 more downstream models to our study. Therefore, in total, we\\u2019ve trained 646 downstream models.\\n\\nRegarding the request for a \\u201cmore detailed analysis of experiments,\\u201d we\\u2019d be happy to provide this and will address any specific aspects you\\u2019d like clarified. As long as it does not involve new experiments with significant runtime, we should be able to include the results before the discussion deadline.\\n\\n\\n\\nWe are happy to answer any further questions you may have.\"}", "{\"comment\": \"Thank you for your review and your positive assessment of our work. We answer your questions and concerns below:\\n\\n### Weaknesses\\n\\n> Some findings align with existing intuitions. For example, it is not suprising that large foundation models perform comparably to specialized OC models, and that their combination yields better performance. While valuable, these conclusion is intuitive and somehow obvious to the maching learning field.\\n\\nThank you for your comment. We would like to highlight the following points: \\n\\n1. We appreciate the reviewer\\u2019s observation that some findings align with existing intuitions. However, we emphasize that scientific progress relies on rigorous validation, even for results that might seem obvious. While it may seem intuitive that large foundation models perform comparably to specialized OC models and that their combination further improves the performance, such outcomes have not been systematically shown on downstream reasoning tasks. Additionally, not everyone in the field shares the same intuition\\u2014some may expect the combination to perform worse and view the OC inductive bias as a potential bottleneck. By empirically testing these assumptions, we believe our work provides a strong basis for future research and offers valuable insights for the community.\\n2. We would like to highlight that despite their improvement in recent years, OC models still lag behind other types of models and foundation models in several tasks such as unsupervised segmentation in real-world settings [1]. Furthermore, the comparison between OC representations and other types of representations is still partially underexplored. The closest work that addresses this is [2] which evaluates OC representations in specific RL tasks that are significantly simpler than our VQA tasks. Therefore, it\\u2019s hard to predict how OC representations perform on harder tasks that require reasoning such as VQA without conducting a proper study to analyze it.\\n3. We would like to clarify that our focus is not solely on performance, but also on other important aspects such as the explicitness of representations and computational requirements. While performance is a key consideration, it is not the only relevant metric, and its significance depends on the specific setting and objectives at hand. Measuring other factors alongside performance is crucial for gaining a more comprehensive understanding of model behavior and evaluating their practical applicability in different contexts.\\n\\n> The correlation between property/attribute accuracy and overall VQA performance may be due to the characteristics or preference of the selected 4 datasets, rather than a fundamental relationship. This correlation might not generalize well to relational or reasoning or logical questions, potentially make the conclusion less convincing.\\n\\nWe agree that there is a possibility that this correlation is due to the properties of the datasets. However, we would like to clarify that many generated questions for synthetic datasets do in fact involve relational reasoning. For example:\\n* \\u201cIs the shape of the small object that is on the right side of the medium cube the same as the large thing that is behind the medium block?\\u201d\\n* \\u201cHow many other things are there of the same shape as the large cyan thing?\\u201d\\n\\n> While there are many real-world QA datasets like VCR, GQA, DAQUAR which would capture more general data intrinsics of QA question, only one real-world dataset (VQA-v2) was used in this work. The three synthetic datasets is quantitatively extensive, but might exhibit construction biases or preferences and not capture the full complexity of real-world scenarios. Focusing on more diverse real-world datasets would strengthen the conclusions\\n\\nWe kindly refer you to our general response to all reviewers, where we explain that we are incorporating the GQA dataset as an additional real-world dataset into our study and will share the results as soon as they are ready.\"}", "{\"comment\": \"### Questions\\n\\n> Minor: I wonder how is the \\\"640\\\" computed on Line 315? And the \\\"640 models\\\" is slightly misleading, as they are actually different are experimental configurations rather than distinct model architectures.\\n\\nWe apologize for the confusion. We will clarify this in the final version of the paper. This number corresponds to the total number of VQA downstream models we trained for the study. Given the number of datasets (4) and the number of different split sizes of Multi-dSprites (4; 40k, 80k, 160k, and 320k images. So 7 different datasets in total), number of models (15), number of seeds (1 for pre-trained models, 3 for other models), and the number of downstream model sizes (3; T-2, T-5, and T-15), the total number of downstream models can be calculated as:\\n\\n* For Foundation models, we will have: 6 * 7 * 1 * 3 (#foundation models * #datasets * #seeds * #downstream_models) = 126\\n* For other models on all datasets excluding VQA-v2: 9 * 6 * 3 * 3 (#models * #datasets excluding VQA-v2 * #seeds * #downstream_models) = 486\\n* And for other models on VQA-v2: 3 * 1 * 3 * 3 (#models * #datasets * #seeds * #downstream_models) = 27\\n\\nAdditionally, for each dataset, we have one baseline with only the information about the questions, which will add 7 more downstream models to our study. Therefore, in total, we\\u2019ve trained 646 downstream models.\\n\\n\\n[1] Seitzer, Maximilian, et al. \\\"Bridging the gap to real-world object-centric learning.\\\" arXiv preprint arXiv:2209.14860 (2022).\\n\\n[2] Yoon, J., Wu, Y. F., Bae, H., & Ahn, S.. \\u201cAn investigation into pre-training object-centric representations for reinforcement learning.\\u201d arXiv preprint arXiv:2302.04419 (2023).\\n\\n\\nWe are happy to answer any further questions you may have.\"}", "{\"comment\": \"Thank you for your constructive discussion and valuable feedback, which have greatly contributed to improving our work. We appreciate you acknowledging our early responses, the additional experiments on GQA, and the robustness and solidity of our empirical results and contributions. Your positive score and recognition of these aspects are greatly appreciated.\"}", "{\"comment\": \"Dear reviewer, thank you once again for taking the time to review our submission. We\\u2019d appreciate it if you could let us know whether the additional experiments and our responses address your concerns and if you might consider adjusting your score accordingly. We\\u2019re also open to any further feedback or questions you may have during the discussion period.\"}" ] }

[ "Jianhua Sun", "Yuxuan Li", "Liang Chai", "Cewu Lu" ]

[ "Human Trajectory Prediction" ]

{ "note_id": [ "vMzq8O8JXh", "v8fDg30yqI", "sYpIvSrnWQ", "pcEzG5QcA2", "ltHt73iIJa", "gwcQX0mYOO", "cgIrk7VCdm", "UGdh724SYW", "TjPpIuOcFZ", "TPVgaSBWMf", "PZAHaAAnTn", "ONd7YJ5kd0", "IVebY1gEEr", "Gwwi2N05G0", "GaAxaifTSg", "Dh9X6NAF0p", "DWe1kjGoaC", "CeM00oSJyy", "B3teZO4kmd", "8CkXcfoYV9", "6uTR8p1dKm", "2jbgjD1hmz" ], "note_type": [ "official_comment", "official_comment", "official_review", "official_comment", "official_comment", "official_comment", "official_comment", "official_comment", "official_comment", "official_review", "meta_review", "official_comment", "official_review", "official_comment", "official_comment", "official_comment", "official_comment", "official_review", "decision", "official_comment", "official_comment", "official_comment" ], "note_created": [ 1733311800811, 1732663700115, 1730542937946, 1732570916059, 1733033321700, 1733313728169, 1733313596671, 1732726428211, 1733114452710, 1730659626063, 1734871600771, 1733311136832, 1730509926071, 1732433332619, 1732416359086, 1732416081563, 1733310363771, 1730577256575, 1737523823667, 1732416578717, 1733201568480, 1732415930379 ], "note_signatures": [ [ "ICLR.cc/2025/Conference/Submission7210/Authors" ], [ "ICLR.cc/2025/Conference/Submission7210/Reviewer_Bpfi" ], [ "ICLR.cc/2025/Conference/Submission7210/Reviewer_ncs6" ], [ "ICLR.cc/2025/Conference/Submission7210/Reviewer_dXFb" ], [ "ICLR.cc/2025/Conference/Submission7210/Area_Chair_CMSG" ], [ "ICLR.cc/2025/Conference/Submission7210/Authors" ], [ "ICLR.cc/2025/Conference/Submission7210/Authors" ], [ "ICLR.cc/2025/Conference/Submission7210/Reviewer_ncs6" ], [ "ICLR.cc/2025/Conference/Submission7210/Reviewer_ykSs" ], [ "ICLR.cc/2025/Conference/Submission7210/Reviewer_ykSs" ], [ "ICLR.cc/2025/Conference/Submission7210/Area_Chair_CMSG" ], [ "ICLR.cc/2025/Conference/Submission7210/Authors" ], [ "ICLR.cc/2025/Conference/Submission7210/Reviewer_Bpfi" ], [ "ICLR.cc/2025/Conference/Submission7210/Authors" ], [ "ICLR.cc/2025/Conference/Submission7210/Authors" ], [ "ICLR.cc/2025/Conference/Submission7210/Authors" ], [ "ICLR.cc/2025/Conference/Submission7210/Authors" ], [ "ICLR.cc/2025/Conference/Submission7210/Reviewer_dXFb" ], [ "ICLR.cc/2025/Conference/Program_Chairs" ], [ "ICLR.cc/2025/Conference/Submission7210/Authors" ], [ "ICLR.cc/2025/Conference/Submission7210/Authors" ], [ "ICLR.cc/2025/Conference/Submission7210/Authors" ] ], "structured_content_str": [ "{\"title\": \"Thank You for Your Efforts in Reviewing Our Submission\", \"comment\": \"Dear Reviewer dXFb,\\n\\nAs the discussion period has come to an end, we would like to express our gratitude for the time you devoted to reviewing our paper. We are particularly grateful for your detailed suggestions to improve our presentation as they require a thorough reading of the entire paper, and are more than glad to see your recognition of our responses. Your increase in the rating means a lot to us.\\n\\nBest regards,\\n\\nAuthors of Submission 7210\"}", "{\"comment\": \"Thank you for providing the response. All my questions are answered!\"}", "{\"summary\": \"In this paper, an individual feedback framework (termed IAN) for Trajectory Prediction is proposed that dynamically adjusts the confidence score conditioned on prediction consistency between prediction and GT trajectories. Through addtional feedback generator during training, a consistency score could be derived through attention in supervising the prediction condifence. Comprehensive experiment results demonstrate the effectiveness of IAN module when collaborating with a series of state-of-the-art predictors.\", \"soundness\": \"3\", \"presentation\": \"2\", \"contribution\": \"2\", \"strengths\": \"1. Novel design for trajectory prediction pipeline considering closed-loop decoding (or individual feedback). Through proposed feedback generater and adjuster model in IAN, the multi-modal prediction garners extra feedback consistency supervisions in prediction confidence.\\n\\n2. Comprehensive experimental evaluations. 1) Broad improvements are reported across various datasets when integrating IAN with several SOTA motion prediction frameworks; 2) Clear comparison with other decoding strategies.\", \"weaknesses\": \"1. Unclear writings in methodology: It is partly clear to understand the feedback mechanism by Figure 2, However, by simply go through the content the reviewer could hardly understand the feedback generation process between training and testing. Hence, it is better to provide additional Algorithm part for clearer understanding.\\n\\n2. Additional evaluation for the feedback. In Tab1-2, minADE/minFDE is a direct metric in mearusing the best-case similarity for multi-modal predicted trajectory. However, it is unclear whether the confidence are well-performed by the feedback enhancement. Hence, several extra results measured by Brier-minADE/FDE, MissRate, or mAP seems needed.\", \"questions\": \"1. How is the feedback being connected (with A_F for example) in Eq3-4 and Eq9-10, and being differentiated between training and testing stage?\", \"flag_for_ethics_review\": \"['No ethics review needed.']\", \"rating\": \"6\", \"confidence\": \"3\", \"code_of_conduct\": \"Yes\"}", "{\"title\": \"Response to author (reviewer: dXFb)\", \"comment\": \"Dear author(s), thank you very much for the efforts put into answering my questions/clarifying the weakness. After going through the response to my comment (and to the comments of the other reviewers) and the updated version of the paper, I have decided to change my score to 6 (marginally above the acceptance threshold).\"}", "{\"comment\": \"Dear Reviewer,\\n\\nCould you please look at authors feedback and see if your concerns (esp. the novelty / first work / comparison to prior literature) are addressed?\\n\\nThanks,\\nAC\"}", "{\"title\": \"Thank You for Your Efforts in Reviewing Our Submission\", \"comment\": \"Dear Reviewer ykSs,\\n\\nAs the discussion period has come to an end, we would like to express our gratitude for the time you devoted to reviewing and discussing our paper. While it appears that we had some differences of opinion regarding the novelty of our work, we sincerely hope you find our responses to your latest comments helpful.\\n\\nBest regards,\\n\\nAuthors of Submission 7210\"}", "{\"title\": \"Updates on the Waymo experiments\", \"comment\": \"We provide our evaluation on the Waymo Open Dataset, **while emphasizing that we should not be criticized for not evaluating on such datasets as discussed in our previous responses**.\\n\\n| | minADE / minFDE |\\n|:--:|:--:|\\n|Baseline|0.6341 / 1.2595|\\n|w/ IAN|0.6227 / 1.2379|\\n|*Impr.*|1.8% / 1.7% |\\n\\nTo conduct the experiment on the Waymo Open Dataset, we had to create our own data split since the official validation and test splits do not support the evaluation of IAN. We explain in detail below.\\n\\n- IAN requires the feedback from previous predictions on a specific agent to adjust current predictions for the same agent. However, given the Waymo motion prediction setting (*i.e.* 1s observation and 8s prediction), each data sample in the validation set is trimmed to exactly 9 seconds long (1s + 8s) whereas those in test set only contain one-second observations. It is clear that neither the validation nor the test set supports the acquisition of individual feedback, therefore, we cannot evaluate IAN on them.\\n\\n- Unlike the validation and test sets, the official training set of the Waymo Dataset contains 20-second segments, allowing agents within these segments to appear long enough for individual feedback to be available. \\n\\n- Based on the explanations above, we split the official training set (1000 `training_20s` records) of the Waymo Dataset to create our own training (first 800 records) and test (last 200 records) sets to conduct this experiment. We use the new training set to train both the baseline network and IAN, and evaluate on the new test set, resulting in the results shown above.\\n\\nThe experiment shows that our proposed IAN achieved a 1.8% / 1.7% improvement over the baseline. We suggest that this is a substantial improvement on the Waymo dataset. For reference, MTR++[1] (TPAMI 2024) achieved a 0.46% / 0.96% improvement over the previous SOTA HDGT[2] (TPAMI 2023) on Waymo's test set. \\n\\n### **References**\\n1. S. Shi, L. Jiang, D. Dai and B. Schiele, \\\"MTR++: Multi-Agent Motion Prediction with Symmetric Scene Modeling and Guided Intention Querying,\\\" IEEE Transactions on Pattern Analysis and Machine Intelligence, 2024.\\n2. X. Jia, P. Wu, L. Chen, Y. Liu, H. Li and J. Yan. \\\"HDGT: Heterogeneous Driving Graph Transformer for Multi-Agent Trajectory Prediction via Scene Encoding,\\\" IEEE Transactions on Pattern Analysis and Machine Intelligence, 2023.\"}", "{\"comment\": \"Dear authors,\\n\\nThanks for your response. I would like to maintain my current scoring.\"}", "{\"title\": \"Response to author feedback\", \"comment\": \"I thank the authors for their thorough response. To dive deeper into the two significant differences between the proposed approach and [1,2] (focusing in on the comparison to [2]):\\n\\n1. Individual feedback is agent-specific, which differs from the scene-specific adaptation in [1,2].\\n\\nAgent-specific feedback is a special case of the update equation (3) in the correction step of [2] ($w_{t+1|t+1} = w_{t+1|t} + K_{t+1}e_{t+1}$ is agent-specific when $K_{t+1}$ is diagonal)\\n\\n2. [1,2] use data from the test domain to train or fine-tune the prediction model. In comparison, we only use the data from the train domain to train IAN as a separate model and do not use any data from the test domain for training. We also discussed about why our approach is different with test-time fine-tuning and why test-time fine-tuning is not suitable for agent-specific adjustments in Sec.D.2 (L806) of the original version.\\n\\nThe original writing (and author feedback) states that \\\"Such trait indicates that when actually deployed, a distinct model for each of the individuals present in the scene needs to be stored and updated, which can be extremely costly for online deployment on embodied agents such as autonomous vehicles and robots.\\\" However, one of the core points of [2] is that, rather than updating the weights of the entire neural network (which indeed would be extremely costly), one only needs to update the last layer of the neural network (which entails a single prediction and correction step as detailed in Equations (2) and (3) of [2], which are akin to the prediction and correction step of a Kalman filter, which are extremely efficient to execute and are already executed, for example, as part of onboard robotic state estimation algorithms). To state this directly: _there is no backpropagation happening onboard in [2]!_\\n\\nFor these reasons, I am maintaining my original review score.\"}", "{\"summary\": \"In this work, an online learning methodology is proposed for trajectory prediction based on the insight that ground truth observations checking past predictions (named feedback) can be collected as time goes on. To leverage this insight, the authors propose an interactive adjustment network (IAN) and evaluate its efficacy using a variety of trajectory prediction algorithms on a set of pedestrian and athlete motion datasets.\", \"soundness\": \"3\", \"presentation\": \"3\", \"contribution\": \"1\", \"strengths\": \"The idea is sound and sensible.\\n\\nThe writing is clear and it is easy to follow the core idea being proposed.\\n\\nThere are a wide variety of baseline approaches used to demonstrate the core idea.\", \"weaknesses\": \"In contrast to the claims in the paper, this work is not the first to study feedback in trajectory predictions. Accordingly, the primary weakness of this work is a lack of discussion and comparisons to prior adaptive prediction work that investigates this same idea. Notable examples (which focus on both temporal adaptation, equivalent to individual feedback, and geographic adaptation) include:\\n* Y. Xu, L. Wang, Y. Wang, and Y. Fu, \\\"Adaptive trajectory prediction\\nvia transferable GNN,\\\" in IEEE Conf. on Computer Vision and Pattern\\nRecognition, 2022.\\n* B. Ivanovic, J. Harrison, and M. Pavone, \\\"Expanding the deployment envelope of behavior prediction via adaptive meta-learning,\\\" in IEEE Conf. on Robotics and Automation, 2023.\\n\\nThe experimental setup relies primarily on small-scale pedestrian-only datasets. Further, these datasets are quite old (ETH/UCY are 10-15 years old, GCS is more than 10 years old, the NBA dataset is almost 10 years old), meaning performance has largely saturated on them and it is difficult to tell if the proposed method significantly improves upon baselines.\\n\\nAs stated in Section 5.4, a prediction model and the IAN are _consecutive_ modules, meaning they have to run one after the other (and not simultaneously as stated in Line 523). This means that there is a 20ms overall runtime increase as a result of adding the IAN.\", \"questions\": \"The most important question: How does this approach compare to prior works on adaptive trajectory prediction? Why is IAN better or more preferable to use by practitioners?\\n\\nHow does this approach perform on modern large-scale datasets with multiple types of agents and varying dynamics, e.g., Waymo Open Motion Dataset, nuPlan? These datasets also have less saturated metrics which should make it easier for the IAN's performance improvements to stand out.\", \"flag_for_ethics_review\": \"['No ethics review needed.']\", \"rating\": \"3\", \"confidence\": \"5\", \"code_of_conduct\": \"Yes\"}", "{\"metareview\": \"This paper investigates the human trajectory prediction via the perspective of individual feedback. Specifically, authors propose interactive adjustment network to model and leverage the feedback. Experiments look promising on several benchmarks. The major points to be summarized are as follows:\", \"positive\": [\"easy to follow / good motivation\", \"comprehensive experiments\"], \"negative\": [\"Lack of some theoretical justification / missing technical details\", \"Elaboration on the key module, IAN\", \"Additional ablations / evaluation\", \"Unclear writing / typos\", \"After rebuttal, authors did a good job to address most of the concerns. Most of the reviewers (4), out of 5 in total, are convincing that the manuscript is polished to great extent. All key issues (e.g. W1 by Reviewer dXFb on the assumption of ground truth, novelty compared to [1,2] by Reviewer ykSs, addiontal experiments Waymo, etc.) have been well addressed. In AC's view, the overall good merits over-weigh the downside of the manuscript. Please incorporate all the comments and elevate the paper for camera-ready version.\"], \"additional_comments_on_reviewer_discussion\": \"During rebuttal, there are sufficient improvement provided by the authors. In particular, there remains one reviewer that holds a negative rating on the manuscript. The core concern is the differences (thus novelty) between this method with [1,2], esp [2]. AC has read the orginal paper [2], there is no clear or evident overlap with this paper to [2].\"}", "{\"title\": \"Thank You for Your Efforts in Reviewing Our Submission\", \"comment\": \"Dear Reviewer ncs6,\\n\\nAs the discussion period has come to an end, we would like to express our gratitude for the time you devoted to reviewing our paper. We are particularly grateful for your suggestions on improvements for better understanding and additional metrics, and we are also pleased to see your acknowledgment of our response.\\n\\nBest regards,\\n\\nAuthors of Submission 7210\"}", "{\"summary\": \"This paper introduces the concept of individual feedback in trajectory prediction problems by designing an Interaction Adjustment Network (IAN). The IAN, comprising a feedback generator, an adjuster, and a filtering process, is designed to be an external module that can be seamlessly integrated with other trajectory prediction models. To ensure its adaptability, the authors have designed a displacement loss function to train the IAN. Experiments have shown the IAN's efficacy on widely adopted benchmarks for trajectory prediction.\", \"soundness\": \"3\", \"presentation\": \"3\", \"contribution\": \"3\", \"strengths\": \"Following are the strengths of this paper:\\n1. The introduction of individual feedback to enhance trajectory prediction by integrating agent-specific past trajectories with groundtruth is promising.\\n2. Evaluation of the proposal IAN network on trajectory prediction benchmarks highlights their claim.\\n3. As an external module, IAN can be integrated with various trajectory prediction methods.\\n4. The presentation of results is good.\", \"weaknesses\": \"However, this paper provides a promising way to improve the trajectory prediction method by incorporating the agent-specific past trajectories and groundtruths, here are some comments that need to be addressed\\n1. Since the authors introduced the individual feedback in the paper and provided the intuition, it would be good to see any theoretical justification for why it is important.\\n2. It would be good to see if the authors can address that incorporating the agent-specific previous trajectories may not lead to overfitting the base-model prediction. \\n3. Another important concern is that, since the IAN is heavily dependent on the base-model prediction if there are accumulated errors in the base-model prediction, then the proposal generated from the IAN would also be spurious. What kind of risk assessment should be incorporated into the IAN?\\n4. It would be good to see if there is more explanation on the architecture of IAN, including the feature generation network, what kind of encoder architecture is used, and the rationale behind it.\\n5. Another thing that would be good is for the authors to include at least some description of the process happening in the figures to help the reader understand the figures.\\n6. In the conclusion, the authors should include the limitations of their work and possible future directions. It would also be good to see if authors can report the failure cases.\", \"questions\": \"However, this paper provides a promising way to improve the trajectory prediction method by incorporating the agent-specific past trajectories and groundtruths, here are some comments that need to be addressed\\n1. Since the authors introduced the individual feedback in the paper and provided the intuition, it would be good to see any theoretical justification for why it is important.\\n2. It would be good to see if the authors can address that incorporating the agent-specific previous trajectories may not lead to overfitting the base-model prediction. \\n3. Another important concern is that, since the IAN is heavily dependent on the base-model prediction if there are accumulated errors in the base-model prediction, then the proposal generated from the IAN would also be spurious. What kind of risk assessment should be incorporated into the IAN?\\n4. It would be good to see if there is more explanation on the architecture of IAN, including the feature generation network, what kind of encoder architecture is used, and the rationale behind it.\\n5. Another thing that would be good is for the authors to include at least some description of the process happening in the figures to help the reader understand the figures.\\n6. In the conclusion, the authors should include the limitations of their work and possible future directions. It would also be good to see if authors can report the failure cases.\", \"flag_for_ethics_review\": \"['No ethics review needed.']\", \"rating\": \"8\", \"confidence\": \"5\", \"code_of_conduct\": \"Yes\"}", "{\"title\": \"Responses to Reviewer Bpfi\", \"comment\": \"We deeply appreciate the reviewer for the positive feedback and the thoughtful questions, and are glad to provide answers below. We have also revised the paper according to the suggestions. We have uploaded the revised version of our submission and highlighted changes in the main paper. The original version (P21-36) is attached below the Technical Appendices of the revised version as reference.\\n\\n>Q1: Theoretical justification.\\n\\nWe are glad to provide a theoretical justification as follows. We consider the base prediction model $\\\\mathcal{M}$ learns a distribution $P _\\\\mathcal{M}$ and makes predictions for **a specific novel agent $\\\\mathcal{A}$** at time step $T$ according to $P _\\\\mathcal{M}$ given the observation of agent $\\\\mathcal{A}$. Since $\\\\mathcal{M}$ is optimized on a full set of training samples involving numerous individuals **other than $\\\\mathcal{A}$**, there could be a gap between its learned distribution $P _\\\\mathcal{M}$ and the real future trajectory distribution $P _\\\\mathcal{R}$ of the agent $\\\\mathcal{A}$. Therefore, we introduce individual feedback $\\\\mathbf{F}$ of the agent $\\\\mathcal{A}$, and our approach IAN as a function $f$, to produce $P _\\\\mathcal{A} = f(P _\\\\mathcal{M}, \\\\mathbf{F})$ as a better approximation to the real distribution $P _\\\\mathcal{R}$.\\n\\n>Q2: Overfitting the base model prediction.\\n\\nWe thank the reviewer for raising this thoughtful question. In this paper we use individual feedback to adjust base model's predictions so that they are more consistent to the target agent's specific patterns. During such process, the base model's parameters are not updated and therefore has no risk of overfitting.\\n\\n>Q3: Errors in base model prediction.\\n\\nWe would like to highlight that in IAN, the proposals are generated based on **both** base model predictions and individual feedback $\\\\mathbf{F}$. It is our intention that the adjuster **uses the individual feedback to** generate proposals aiming at correcting potential errors of the base model predictions and therefore improve the performance. \\n\\nWe deeply appreciate the reviewer's suggestion on incorporating risk assessment measures. By assuming that risk assessment means \\\"evaluating and managing uncertainties and potential hazards that could arise from predicted movements of agents\\\", we suggest that one possible aspect of risk assessment is to check the predictions against collision with other agents.\\n\\n>Q4: More Explanations on IAN's architecture.\\n\\nWe thank the reviewer for the suggestion and kindly remind that such discussions are already provided in Sec.B of the Technical Appendices in the original version.\\n\\n>Q5: Description of figures.\\n\\nWe appreciate the reviewer for raising the concern and have added more descriptions of the process in the captions.\\n\\n>Q6: Limitation and future works.\\n\\nThank you for the suggestion! We have added discussion on limitations, failure cases and future works in Sec.E.5 of the Technical Appendices in the revised version.\"}", "{\"title\": \"Responses to Reviewer dXFb\", \"comment\": \"We thank the reviewer for the comments and especially the detailed suggestions to improve our presentation. In the responses below we address to the reviewer's concerns in detail and welcome any further discussions. We have uploaded the revised version of our submission and highlighted changes in the main paper. The original version (P21-36) is attached below the Technical Appendices of the revised version as reference.\\n\\n>W1 & Q1: Access to ground truths of previous predictions.\\n\\nWe believe that **as long as an agent appears continuously in the scene for a duration longer than $\\\\tau_{obs} + \\\\tau_{pred}$**, it is feasible **in all practical scenarios** for the ground-truth trajectories of the agent's **previous** predictions to be available for computing the agent's individual feedback. Here, $\\\\tau_{obs}$ denotes the observation horizon and $\\\\tau_{pred}$ denotes the prediction horizon.\\n\\nWe justify this point by clarifying that, according to the formulation of individual feedback in **L156-183** of the original version, the ground-truth trajectories of **previous** predictions have already become **the observation trajectories at the current timestep**. \\n\\n- Specifically, assuming an agent appears at time step 1 and $T$ denotes the current timestep, the ground-truth trajectories of \\\"previous predictions made from time step $\\\\tau_{obs}$ to $T-\\\\tau_{pred}$\\\" are actually the observation trajectory of the agent from time step $\\\\tau_{obs} + 1$ to $T$. \\n\\n- For example, the ground-truth trajectory of previous prediction made at time step $T-\\\\tau_{pred}$ is the observation trajectory from time step $T-\\\\tau_{pred}+1$ to $T$. \\n\\nTherefore, the ground truths of previous predictions are **naturally available** through the progression of time in practical scenarios.\\n\\n\\n>W2 & Q2: Differences from online learning approaches.\\n\\nThe essential difference between IAN and online learning approaches is that IAN **does not update its parameters** at test stage, as opposed to the very essential feature of online learning or test-time training approaches. This point fundamentally distinguishes IAN and online learning approaches, making them inherently different.\\n \\nWe have provided discussions about our differences with online learning/test-time training approaches and why the online learning approaches are not suitable for agent-specific adjustments in Section D.2 of the original version, and have further extended the discussions to adaptive works in Section E.3 of the Technical Appendices in the revised version.\\n\\n>W3: Analysis of loss function.\\n\\nWe thank the reviewer for the reminder and have added loss analysis in Section D.6 of the revised version.\\n\\n>W4: Moving Table 3 to the main paper.\\n\\nWe thank the reviewer for this suggestion! We have added a reference to Table 3 at the beginning of Section 3 to help address the notation issues, since we find it challenging to move Table 3 to the main paper due to the page limitations.\\n\\n>W5: Presentation.\\n\\nWe greatly appreciate the detailed suggestions provided in the comments and have improved these points in our revised version.\\n\\n>Q3: The inference time of IAN.\\n\\nThe average inference time of IAN is 0.02 seconds (L525). Assuming that the speed of a human is 1.5 m/s on average, he/she can travel only about 3 cm in such a short time (0.02s). Therefore, we suggest that the additional inference time is negligible.\\n\\n>Q4-1: Experiments on component isolation.\\n\\nCurrently our IAN features three main components, namely the feedback generator, the adjuster and the confidence network. Among these components, both the adjuster and the confidence network are essential to the pipeline and removing them would make IAN inoperable. Therefore, only the feedback generator can be removed from the pipeline as an ablation study, which we have provided in Table 2 (column \\\"IAN w/o feedback\\\").\\n\\n>Q4-2: Confidence Intervals.\\n\\nWe thank the reviewer for the suggestion, and have added confidence intervals of the main experiments in Table 4 of the Technical Appendices in the revised version.\\n\\n>Q5: For agents no feedback data is available.\\n\\nIf individual feedback is unavailable for an agent (meaning that the agent appears continuously in the scene for a duration *shorter* than $\\\\tau_{obs} + \\\\tau_{pred}$), IAN will not be applied to the agent. In such cases, the outputs of the prediction model will be used directly as the final outputs.\"}", "{\"title\": \"Responses to Reviewer ykSs (Part 2)\", \"comment\": \">W2 & Q2: Datasets for evaluation.\\n\\nWe respectfully argue that we should **not** be blamed for using datasets such as ETH/UCY for evaluation, since they have been widely adopted as benchmarks in many latest papers [3-13] in top conferences for **human** trajectory prediction, including those used as baseline prediction models in our paper, *e.g.* SingularTrajectory and TUTR. Hence, it is imperative to evaluate on these same benchmarks for fair comparisons.\\n\\nIn addition, as the performances on the benchmark has saturated, performance improvements tend to be more difficult to achieve. Therefore, we also suggest that the improvements on these datasets clearly demonstrate the effectiveness of our method. \\n\\nWe greatly appreciate the suggestion to evaluate on modern large-scale datasets. We are currently working on implementing our approach on MTR++ using Waymo. We will provide such results as soon as they are available. \\n\\nNevertheless, we also respectfully suggest that our paper, as is stated in the title, focuses on **human** trajectory prediction. Therefore, as is done in [1] (used by the reviewer as reference) as well as many similar latest studies [3-13], it is justified to not use datasets like Waymo Open Motion Dataset, which includes non-human agents such as vehicles, for evaluation. Therefore, we should not be penalized for not evaluating on such datasets. \\n\\n>W3: 20ms overall runtime increase.\\n\\nWe thank the reviewer for pointing this out. We suggest that a typical human would only travel about 3cm (at 1.5m/s) within 20ms, and therefore we consider the additional runtime a negligible delay. \\n\\nWe also make a clarification of the term \\\"simultaneously\\\" in our revised version. Please refer to Sec.E.1 of the revised version.\\n\\n### **References**\\n\\n1. Y. Xu, L. Wang, Y. Wang, and Y. Fu, \\\"Adaptive trajectory prediction via transferable GNN,\\\" 2022 IEEE/CVF Conference on Computer Vision and Pattern Recognition (CVPR).\\n2. B. Ivanovic, J. Harrison, and M. Pavone, \\\"Expanding the deployment envelope of behavior prediction via adaptive meta-learning,\\\" 2023 IEEE Conf. on Robotics and Automation.\\n3. I. Bae, Y. -J. Park and H. -G. Jeon, \\\"SingularTrajectory: Universal Trajectory Predictor Using Diffusion Model,\\\" 2024 IEEE/CVF Conference on Computer Vision and Pattern Recognition (CVPR).\\n4. C. Wong, B. Xia, Z. Zou, Y. Wang and X. You, \\\"SocialCircle: Learning the Angle-based Social Interaction Representation for Pedestrian Trajectory Prediction,\\\" 2024 IEEE/CVF Conference on Computer Vision and Pattern Recognition (CVPR).\\n5. Lin, X., Liang, T., Lai, J., and Hu, J.-F., \\\"Progressive Pretext Task Learning for Human Trajectory Prediction,\\\" 2024 European Conference on Computer Vision (ECCV).\\n6. I. Bae, J. Lee and H. -G. Jeon. \\\"Can Language Beat Numerical Regression? Language-Based Multimodal Trajectory Prediction,\\\" 2024 IEEE/CVF Conference on Computer Vision and Pattern Recognition (CVPR)\\n7. S. Kim, H. -g. Chi, H. Lim, K. Ramani, J. Kim and S. Kim, \\\"Higher-order Relational Reasoning for Pedestrian Trajectory Prediction,\\\" 2024 IEEE/CVF Conference on Computer Vision and Pattern Recognition (CVPR).\\n8. Lee, S., Lee, J., Yu, Y., Kim, T., and Lee, K., \\\"MART: MultiscAle Relational Transformer Networks for Multi-agent Trajectory Prediction,\\\" 2024 European Conference on Computer Vision (ECCV).\\n9. Y. Su, Y. Li, W. Wang, J. Zhou, and X. Li, \\\"A Unified Environmental Network for Pedestrian Trajectory Prediction,\\\" AAAI 2024. \\n10. W. Xiang, H. YIN, H. Wang, and X. Jin, \\\"SocialCVAE: Predicting Pedestrian Trajectory via Interaction Conditioned Latents,\\\" AAAI 2024.\\n11. E. Weng, H. Hoshino, D. Ramanan and K. Kitani, \\\"Joint Metrics Matter: A Better Standard for Trajectory Forecasting,\\\" 2023 IEEE/CVF International Conference on Computer Vision (ICCV).\\n12. Y. Dong, L. Wang, S. Zhou and G. Hua, \\\"Sparse Instance Conditioned Multimodal Trajectory Prediction,\\\" 2023 IEEE/CVF International Conference on Computer Vision (ICCV).\\n13. I. Bae, J. Oh and H. -G. Jeon, \\\"EigenTrajectory: Low-Rank Descriptors for Multi-Modal Trajectory Forecasting,\\\" 2023 IEEE/CVF International Conference on Computer Vision (ICCV).\"}", "{\"comment\": \"Dear Reviewer Bpfi,\\n\\nAs the discussion period has come to an end, we would like to express our gratitude for the time you devoted to reviewing our paper. We deeply appreciate your thought-provoking questions, which have been very helpful in improving our submission. We also take great pride in having effectively answered them.\\n\\nBest regards,\\n\\nAuthors of Submission 7210\", \"title\": \"Thank You for Your Efforts in Reviewing Our Submission\"}", "{\"summary\": \"The paper proposes an Interactive Adjustment Network (IAN) that leverages individual feedback from previous predictions to improve human trajectory prediction models. The idea is to use the differences between earlier predictions and actual trajectories (ground truths) to adjust future predictions for the same agent. The authors claim that their method can be applied as an external module to various existing prediction models and that it significantly boosts performance on datasets.\", \"soundness\": \"3\", \"presentation\": \"2\", \"contribution\": \"2\", \"strengths\": [\"The concept of utilizing individual feedback from previous predictions is interesting.\", \"The proposed method is designed to be model-agnostic and can be applied to various trajectory prediction frameworks.\", \"Experiments are conducted on multiple datasets and with several baseline models.\"], \"weaknesses\": [\"Major issues:\", \"The paper's biggest assumption is the fact is that IAN relies on having immediate access to the ground truth trajectories of agents to compute feedback. In real-world applications, example autonomous driving or robotics, such ground truth data is usually never available in real-time.\", \"The concept of using feedback from previous predictions is not entirely new. Adaptive models and online learning techniques have long incorporated past errors to improve future predictions. The bigger issue is the lack of adequate differentiation of IAN from existing methods i.e., a thorough literature review that situates its contributions within the broader context.\", \"While the authors introduced a new loss function, there is no analysis of the properties of the displacement expectation loss or proofs of convergence and stability.\", \"There is a lot of poorly defined notation, making it difficult to understand the proposed method fully. It would make sense to move the table 3 from the appendix (which has the notation!) to the main paper.\", \"There are some issues with the presentation.\"], \"writing\": [\"Section 3, Trajectory Prediction (just before equation 1): \\\\hat{Y} of \\\"him\\\"\", \"Section 4.5, \\\"At the beginning of this paragraph\\\"\", \"Section 5.4, Last sentence: Our approach can \\\"inference\\\" at a high frequency\", \"Personal preference: please use \\\"Figure X represents ...\\\" (not abbreviation) instead of \\\"Fig. X represents...\\\" because your captions have the former.\"], \"images\": [\"The image labels for Figure 2 are too small to read -- had to Zoom 150% to read it\", \"Figure 2, it is hard to tell the difference between Train Path and Test Path, the arrows look very similar, please consider a different color.\", \"Figure 4, 5, it is hard to see lighter colors.\"], \"questions\": \"1. How do you justify the assumption that ground truth trajectories are available in real-time for computing feedback? In what practical scenarios would this be feasible?\\n2. How does your method differ from existing online learning approaches that adapt models based on prediction errors?\\n3. How does the computational cost of IAN affect inference time in real-world applications (even a small delay in prediction can go a long way)?\\n4. Are there experiments to isolate the effects of each component of your model? If so, please provide detailed results.\", \"statistical_significance\": \"Are the reported improvements statistically significant? Can you include variance measures or confidence intervals?\\n5. How does your model handle agents for whom no feedback data is available?\", \"flag_for_ethics_review\": \"['No ethics review needed.']\", \"rating\": \"6\", \"confidence\": \"4\", \"code_of_conduct\": \"Yes\"}", "{\"title\": \"Paper Decision\", \"decision\": \"Accept (Poster)\"}", "{\"title\": \"Responses to Reviewer ncs6\", \"comment\": \"We thank the reviewer for the positive feedback as well as suggestions for improvements, and gladly provide responses below. We have uploaded the revised version of our submission and highlighted changes in the main paper. The original version (P21-36) is attached below the Technical Appendices of the revised version as reference.\\n\\n>W1: Unclear writings.\\n\\nWe thank the reviewer for the suggestion and have added the algorithm parts in Sec.B of the Technical Appendices in the revised version for clearer understanding.\\n\\n>W2: Additional evaluation.\\n\\nThank you for the suggestion and we have added MissRate and Brier-ADE/FDE into the evaluation metrics. The results are shown in Tab.5 and Tab.6 in the Technical Appendices of the revised version. Here we only evaluate Brier-ADE/FDE using TUTR as base prediction model since only TUTR (among all base prediction models used in our paper) is capable of outputting confidence with its predictions.\\n\\n>Q1: Connecting the feedback.\\n\\nAs stated in L265-267 and L677-678 of our original version, we connect individual feedback, *i.e.* $\\\\mathbf{F}$, into the networks by using it as the parameters of the adjuster. Such approach is naturally differentiable in both training and testing stages.\"}", "{\"title\": \"Responses to Reviewer ykSs\", \"comment\": \"We thank the reviewer for sharing his/her views on our posts. However, we humbly suggest that it is unjustified to question the novelty of our submission based on such viewpoints.\\n\\n> 1: Agent-specific feedback is a special case of the update equation (3) in the correction step of [2] when $K_{t+1}$ is diagonal.\\n\\nAfter carefully studying [2], we have discovered that the reviewer's viewpoint, *i.e.* \\\"$w_{t+1|t+1} = w_{t+1|t} + K_{t+1}e_{t+1}$ is agent-specific when $K_{t+1}$ is diagonal\\\", has **not been mentioned** in this referenced publication. As such, we suggest that\\n- [2] focuses on scene-specific adaptations, and therefore, this is consistent with our argument on novelty: \\\"Individual feedback is agent-specific, which differs from the scene-specific adaptation in [1,2].\\\"\\n- The value of our work should not be penalized based on a viewpoint that has not been peer-reviewed or published.\\n\\nIn addition, we would be very grateful if the reviewer could share his/her opinion on *how to make $K_{t+1}$ diagonal in practice, given that it is calculated as $K_{t+1} = S_{t+1|t}\\\\Phi_{t+1}^\\\\top P_{t+1}^{-1}$ in equation (3) of [2]*.\\n\\n> 2: In [2], one only needs to update the last layer of the neural network. There is no backpropagation happening onboard in [2].\\n\\nWe highlight that\\n- As the reviewer stated, [2] updates the last layer of the neural network. \\n- As stated in our previous response, our proposed IAN works in a very different way from [2] and does not update parameters using data from the test scene. \\n\\nThis is in fact a clear indication of the essential differences between our approach and [2], proving our novelty.\\n\\nIt has come to our attention that the reviewer highlighted the sentence \\\"there is no backpropagation happening onboard in [2]\\\" in the comments. And we would like to clarify that we **did not use the term 'backpropagation'** in our previous response. What we actually wrote was '**update its** (the prediction model's) **parameters**', which is consistent with [2].\\n\\n***\\n\\nAs the discussion period is coming to an end, please do not hesitate to let us know if there are any further questions and we are glad to answer them.\"}", "{\"title\": \"Responses to Reviewer ykSs (Part 1)\", \"comment\": \"We deeply appreciate the reviewer's effort on reviewing our submission. Yet we respectfully suggest that there may have some misconceptions regarding our paper. We explain in detail below and are happy to answer any further questions. We have uploaded the revised version of our submission and highlighted changes in the main paper. The original version (P21-36) is attached below the Technical Appendices of the revised version as reference.\\n\\n>W1 & Q1: IAN *v.s.* prior works on adaptive trajectory prediction\\n\\nWe respectfully refute the comments since we have found **some erroneous statements in the comments** of this weakness and question, which may stem from some misunderstandings by the reviewer regarding our paper. Therefore, we believe **it is unjustified to reject our submission based on this point**.\\n\\nWe will address the comments systematically in the following order and rectify the inaccuracies within.\\n\\n1. The comments say \\\"this work is not the first to study feedback in trajectory predictions\\\", however, we actually write \\\"we are the first to adopt **such agent-specific information** into trajectory prediction tasks\\\" in L112 of the original version.\\n\\n Here, *such agent-specific information* refers to \\\"**individual** feedback, which reveals the prediction model\\u2019s performance in predicting **a specific agent** (an agent means a pedestrian or athlete)\\\" in L108 of the original version. Please refer to the paragraph beginning from L155 of the original version for the mathematical formulation of individual feedback.\\n\\n Having conducted a thorough and comprehensive literature review, we are confident that our claim of being the first to study individual feedback (**as distinct from other types of feedback or adaptation**) is not overstated.\\n\\n2. The statement \\\"prior adaptive prediction work [1,2] that investigates *this same idea*\\\" and \\\"[1,2] focus on *both temporal adaptation, equivalent to individual feedback*, and geographic adaptation\\\" is inaccurate. \\n\\n As suggested in the first point, we refute this statement by stating that our proposed individual feedback is very different from the temporal adaptation used in [1,2].\\n\\n By clarifying basic concepts that \\\"a training/test domain\\\" as \\\"a specific scene with multiple moving agents\\\" to avoid confusion, we explain how [1,2] and ours operate\\n\\n - [1,2]: The temporal adaptation actually uses the past trajectories of **all the agents in the test scene as a whole** to **train or fine-tune** the prediction model and **update its parameters**. Then, the prediction model trained or fine-tuned with the past trajectories of **all the agents in the test scene** is applied to predict the future trajectories of **all the agents**.\\n\\n - Ours: We collect individual feedback of each **specific (single)** agent and use IAN to adjust the **output** of the prediction model (**not** fine-tune the prediction model and update its parameter) for each agent **respectively**, *i.e.* individual feedback of a specific agent is only used to adjust the predictions on itself.\\n\\n Therefore, there are two significant differences between ours and [1,2]\\n\\n - Individual feedback is **agent-specific**, which differs from the **scene-specific** adaptation in [1,2]. \\n\\n - [1,2] use data from the test domain to train or fine-tune the prediction model. In comparison, we **only** use the data from the train domain to train IAN as a separate model and do not use any data from the test domain for training. *We also discussed about why our approach is different with test-time fine-tuning and why test-time fine-tuning is not suitable for agent-specific adjustments in Sec.D.2 (L806) of the original version.*\\n\\nFinally, we draw the following conclusions and answer the questions in the comments based on the responses above.\\n \\n1. We suggest that our **agent-specific** individual feedback is a novel idea, different from previous work that studies **scene-specific** adaptations. Further, we do not use data from the test domain to train the IAN, which is different from prior adaptive works such as [1,2] that use data from the test domain to train the prediction model.\\n\\n2. *Why is IAN better or more preferable to use by practitioners?*\\n\\n When we adopt approaches like [1,2], which are originally designed for scene-specific adaptation, for agent-specific adjustments, we need to train many separate prediction models with their own parameters for every agent in the scene. This is extremely costly for online deployment on autonomous vehicles and robots. \\n\\n In comparison, we propose IAN as an innovative solution to agent-specific adjustment, which brings little computational overhead.\\n\\n3. *How does this approach compare to prior works on adaptive trajectory prediction?*\\n\\n As mentioned above, prior works like [1,2] are originally designed for scene-specific adaptation and not suitable for agent-specific adjustment, we suggest that this comparison is unnecessary and of limited significance.\"}" ] }

[ "Varun Chandra Jammula", "Jeffrey Wishart", "Junfeng Zhao", "Yezhou Yang" ]

[ "Formal Verification", "Automated Driving", "Imitation Learning", "Robustness", "Safety" ]

{ "note_id": [ "eIEBU6Qg2Y", "YMCF9DrZDR", "FUjhNzg3NN", "DvMuQnwTn5", "5zkpSNstrc" ], "note_type": [ "official_review", "official_review", "official_review", "official_review", "comment" ], "note_created": [ 1729425277029, 1730061447886, 1730586218956, 1730412684083, 1731448054443 ], "note_signatures": [ [ "ICLR.cc/2025/Conference/Submission11281/Reviewer_9dh3" ], [ "ICLR.cc/2025/Conference/Submission11281/Reviewer_omF3" ], [ "ICLR.cc/2025/Conference/Submission11281/Reviewer_uaU4" ], [ "ICLR.cc/2025/Conference/Submission11281/Reviewer_Qfvu" ], [ "ICLR.cc/2025/Conference/Submission11281/Authors" ] ], "structured_content_str": [ "{\"summary\": \"The paper focuses on reinforcement learning with STL constraints. The Responsibility-Sensitive Safety model is described by STL specification and the robustness score is defined to provide a safety loss in RL.\", \"soundness\": \"2\", \"presentation\": \"1\", \"contribution\": \"1\", \"strengths\": \"This paper considers the safety of autonomous driving which is an important problem.\", \"weaknesses\": \"There are several major issues in writing and novelty.\\n\\n1. Why do the authors encode the minimum safety distance requirement into STL specifications? First, there are no real-time constraints in the specifications given in this paper. Thus, they are actually LTL rather than STL. In fact, these can be simply modeled as propositional logic specifications, where the equations in Lines 152, 153, and 154 are already sufficient. Please clarify why they have to be described as STL.\\n2. Why do the authors define the new robustness score? The robustness of a trajectory in terms of an STL specification was proposed a decade ago [1] and has been extensively studied [2]. Please clarify the motivation of proposing a new definition of robustness here.\\n3. Encoding STL robustness into loss function for RL has also been widely discussed since 2020 [2,3,4]. This paper does not discuss these works either theoretically or empirically, which raises a major concern about the contribution of this work. Please clarify the main differences and contributions compared with these works.\\n\\n\\n[1] Donz\\u00e9, Alexandre, Thomas Ferrere, and Oded Maler. \\\"Efficient robust monitoring for STL.\\\" In Computer Aided Verification: 25th International Conference, CAV 2013, Saint Petersburg, Russia, July 13-19, 2013. Proceedings 25, pp. 264-279. Springer Berlin Heidelberg, 2013.\\n\\n[2] K. Leung, N. Ar\\u00e9chiga, and M. Pavone, \\\"Back-propagation through STL specifications: Infusing logical structure into gradient-based methods,\\\" in Workshop on Algorithmic Foundations of Robotics, Oulu, Finland, 2020.\\n\\n[3] Kapoor, Parv, Anand Balakrishnan, and Jyotirmoy V. Deshmukh. \\\"Model-based reinforcement learning from signal temporal logic specifications.\\\" arXiv preprint arXiv:2011.04950 (2020).\\n\\n[4] Kalagarla, Krishna C., Rahul Jain, and Pierluigi Nuzzo. \\\"Model-free reinforcement learning for optimal control of Markov decision processes under signal temporal logic specifications.\\\" In 2021 60th IEEE Conference on Decision and Control (CDC), pp. 2252-2257. IEEE, 2021.\", \"questions\": \"Please see the weaknesses.\", \"flag_for_ethics_review\": \"['No ethics review needed.']\", \"rating\": \"1\", \"confidence\": \"4\", \"code_of_conduct\": \"Yes\"}", "{\"summary\": \"This paper studies how to train a safe and robust policy for autonomous driving in the end-to-end fashion. Specifically, the responsibility sensitive safety (RSS) requirements are considered and encoded into signal temporal logic (STL) formula. Then, the authors use STL robustness value as another training loss term to encourage the trained policy to be robust as well. The authors discuss three types of robustness scores depending on what other vehicles are considered. Finally, the simulated results in NAVSIM with data from OpenScene help demonstrate the proposed framework.\", \"soundness\": \"2\", \"presentation\": \"2\", \"contribution\": \"2\", \"strengths\": \"1. I find the paper is generally well-presented and easy to follow.\\n2. It is meaningful to observe the ablation study w.r.t. alpha and different types of robustness score.\", \"weaknesses\": \"I am mainly concerned about the novelty/significance of this work. This paper mainly studies how to incorporate formal specifications into policy learning such that the trained driving policy can be robust and safe. And the authors use STL to encode RSS requirements so the STL robustness can serve as part of the objective function.\\n\\nHowever, formal methods (e.g., STL, MTL, LTL) have been widely considered in policy learning to improve the safety and robustness, in both the imitation learning (IL) setting and reinforcement learning (RL) setting, see [1-3]. Note that some other approaches to optimize STL robustness scores rather than IL/RL methods have also been proposed extensively [4-5]. Thus, adding STL robustness term into the training loss and then formulate an IL training problem to learn the policy is not novel.\\nIn addition, the integration of STL and the RSS framework is also not new, which was first proposed in [6].\\n\\nThe experimental validation part is also not very convincing from my perspective. For example, the evaluated metrics (e.g., comfort, score, ego progress, compliance) are not well specified and I am not sure what do these metrics mean. This is critical as the readers cannot understand the experimental significance of the approach if the metrics are not well-defined or cited from the literature. Also, the experiment is only conducted on one benchmark (NAVSIM) and compared with one baseline (TransFuser). I am concerned about its performance w.r.t. other baselines (e.g., [7], [8]) and generalizability to other benchmarks (e.g., the Longest6 Benchmark).\\n\\nPlease see more concerns and questions from my side in the \\\"Questions\\\" part.\\n\\n[1] A formal methods approach to interpretable reinforcement learning for robotic planning. Science Robotics.\\n\\n[2] Temporal Logic Specification-Conditioned Decision Transformer for Offline Safe Reinforcement Learning. arXiv preprint arXiv:2402.17217.\\n\\n[3] Learning from demonstrations using signal temporal logic in stochastic and continuous domains. IEEE Robotics and Automation Letters, 6(4), pp.6250-6257.\\n\\n[4] Backpropagation through signal temporal logic specifications: Infusing logical structure into gradient-based methods. The International Journal of Robotics Research, 42(6), pp.356-370.\\n\\n[5] Smooth operator: Control using the smooth robustness of temporal logic. In 2017 IEEE Conference on Control Technology and Applications (CCTA) (pp. 1235-1240). IEEE.\\n\\n[6] Encoding and monitoring responsibility sensitive safety rules for automated vehicles in signal temporal logic. In Proceedings of the 17th ACM-IEEE International Conference on Formal Methods and Models for System Design.\\n\\n[7] Think twice before driving: Towards scalable decoders for end-to-end autonomous driving. In Proceedings of the IEEE/CVF Conference on Computer Vision and Pattern Recognition.\\n\\n[8] Trajectory-guided control prediction for end-to-end autonomous driving: A simple yet strong baseline. Advances in Neural Information Processing Systems.\", \"questions\": \"1. I am a bit confused by the loss term (6): isn't it be (1-alpha)*L - alpha*robustness instead of (1-alpha)*L + alpha*robustness? My understanding is that the authors would like to minimize the task imitation loss and maximize the STL robustness score such that STL satisfaction is more robust.\\n\\n2. I recommend that the authors should explain the evaluation metrics more formally such as comfort, score, compliance, etc. In the current version, the readers are unable to find the definitions/intuitions of these metrics, which prevent them from understanding the simulation results.\\n\\n3. I would like to bring a relevant paper to the authors' attention, please see [6]. To my knowledge, [6] is the first paper to encode RSS specifications into STL formula. I think the authors did the similar thing in this paper, so I suggest that the authors can compare with [6] on the RSS-STL encoding techniques and have some discussions.\\n\\n4. The Related Work section is too broad and the authors should dive deeper into the review of those papers on how to use formal methods to enable learning-based autonomous driving (or generally robotic systems) trustworthy, safe, and robust.\\n\\n5. I would suggest the authors to formally introduce STL syntax and (quantitative) semantics before encoding RSS into STL. Currently formal definitions of syntax and semantic are missing, and those readers unfamiliar with STL may get confused when reading RSS-STL part.\\n\\n6. The current experiment is only conducted on one benchmark and compared with one baseline. I suggest the authors to compare with more methods (like [7, 8]) and test on more benchmarks (e.g., Longest6 or Town05 Long).\\n\\n7. The authors can use figures with higher resolutions (especially Figure 2 as it is the overall framework figure but not very clear visually).\", \"flag_for_ethics_review\": \"['No ethics review needed.']\", \"rating\": \"3\", \"confidence\": \"4\", \"code_of_conduct\": \"Yes\"}", "{\"summary\": \"This paper proposes to add a safety loss module for safer imitation learning for automated driving. The safety loss module is based on the robustness score from STL expression with RSS requirements.\", \"soundness\": \"3\", \"presentation\": \"1\", \"contribution\": \"1\", \"strengths\": \"The approach seems reasonable to me, as various existing works introduce STL robustness loss to enforce formal properties in training modules.\", \"weaknesses\": \"The approach is not novel at all. As stated above, it now becomes a very common way to introduce STL robustness score into some training modules, to enforce/optimize the corresponding formal properties.\\n\\nThe presentation is bad. \\n1. The paper is titled with formal verification guided end-to-end automated driving. This work only focuses on the trajectory planning/prediction side and does not cover perception, localization, low-level tracking control, etc. Therefore, the term 'end to end automated driving' is too big for this paper. \\n2. The writing and visualization could be improved a lot, for instance, I can barely see the difference in figure 1.\", \"questions\": \"Have you ever tried this as a baseline?\\nFilter out those \\\"unsafe\\\" data from the dataset by using the RSS rules and train the planning/prediction policy with the filtered data. How does it compare to your approach in the paper?\", \"flag_for_ethics_review\": \"['No ethics review needed.']\", \"rating\": \"3\", \"confidence\": \"5\", \"code_of_conduct\": \"Yes\"}", "{\"summary\": \"This paper proposes a framework to improve the safety of end-to-end autonomous driving algorithms, in the presence of training data that may contain unsafe behavior. They use Responsibility-Sensitive Safety (RSS) model to encode a set of guidelines and rules for ensuring safety of the performance, specifically for maintaining a minimum safety distance between vehicles in longitudinal and lateral directions. Given the RSS safety guidelines, they use Signal Temporal Logic (STL) to formulate the rules and measure their robustness score to evaluate safety. The robustness values are included as an additional loss term into the loss function of TransFuser method, which is an imitation learning approach from literature, to learn safe behavior from expert trajectories. Their framework, called STL-Drive, is trained on real-world data from OpenScene and is evaluated on NAVSIM simulator. They showcase the effectiveness of their framework through multiple scenarios and compare the performance of the method by considering different weighted combination of the loss terms. The results confirm the advantage of including the robustness loss term in improving the performance of the car.\", \"soundness\": \"2\", \"presentation\": \"2\", \"contribution\": \"1\", \"strengths\": \"This paper raises up an interesting problem about ensuring safe learning from expert demonstrations, in an imitation learning framework. This is a significant concern as the data collection for specific tasks and scenarios can be expensive and all of the recorded traces in the existing datasets might not necessarily reflect safe behaviors, which makes the performance of agents trained by imitation learning prone to error. Using RSS safety metrics, formulated as STL formulas and imposed as a robustness loss term into the imitation learning's objective seems a valid idea, specifically for end-to-end autonomous driving. The method has been evaluated on real-world data from OpenScene dataset that is based on nuScene, which ensures the applicability of the suggested framework to real-world scenarios. In addition, the performance of the framework has been examined under various robustness weight $\\\\alpha$, which clearly represents its importance in improving the performance of the learned trajectories. Overall, the paper is written well-organized, and the limitations of the framework have been discussed comprehensively.\", \"weaknesses\": \"Although this paper has raised a significant problem about safe imitation learning in autonomous driving, there are some drawbacks and missing points that need to be addressed:\\n1) In introduction, there are some arguments about imitation learning and RSS applications in automated driving; however, they don't explain what's the motivation for using STL formulas and how that is going to improve the performance of the framework, specifically in an imitation learning manner.\\n2) The relevant references included in the introduction and related works are mostly from 2020's, while there have been many works in the area of end-to-end autonomous driving over the last two-three years. In addition to that, the results have been compared only with respect to TransFuser baseline and there isn't any comparison with the latest works in this area. Although the idea of employing RSS in an end-to-end manner sounds interesting, the technical contributions of the proposed method are not well established.\\n\\nAlso, there are some minor issues about the structure of the paper:\\n1) In section 2.1 \\\"Imitation Learning\\\", the loss term $\\\\mathcal{L}_{tpp}$ and set $\\\\mathcal{X}$ are not defined.\\n2) In section 2.1 \\\"Signal Temporal Logic\\\", it could be better to include a very brief description of STL operators and its quantitative semantics as they are used in the next subsections. Also, a reference for the robustness degree of STL formulas is missing, for example:\\nDonz\\u00e9, Alexandre, and Oded Maler. \\\"Robust satisfaction of temporal logic over real-valued signals.\\\" International Conference on Formal Modeling and Analysis of Timed Systems. Berlin, Heidelberg: Springer Berlin Heidelberg, 2010.\\n3) In section 2.1 \\\"Responsibility-Sensitive Safety\\\", in the mathematical formulas representing the minimum safe distance requirements, the time bounds of the always operator $\\\\square$ are missing.\\n4) In section 2.1 \\\"Responsibility-Sensitive Safety\\\", It's not specified where the parameters of Table 1 are used. In addition, the values of $d_{min, lat}$ and $d_{min,lon}$ are not reported. Also, I believe the paragraph starting with \\\"where, $d_{lat}$ is the lateral distance ... \\\" is misplaced and it should be right after the equations in this subsection.\\n5) In section 3.1, in Figure 2, the TransFuser architecture has very poor resolution and it's not readable.\\n6) In section 4, it could be better to include a subsection about application of formal methods, specifically STL formulas, in autonomous driving.\", \"questions\": \"1) Why STL-Drive is a promising framework for autonomous driving, compared to the state-of-the-art algorithms for end-to-end autonomous driving?\\n\\n2) Besides the idea of employing RSS in an end-to-end driving framework, what are the major technical contributions of this paper?\", \"flag_for_ethics_review\": \"['No ethics review needed.']\", \"rating\": \"3\", \"confidence\": \"4\", \"code_of_conduct\": \"Yes\"}", "{\"withdrawal_confirmation\": \"I have read and agree with the venue's withdrawal policy on behalf of myself and my co-authors.\", \"comment\": \"I am withdrawing this submission. We thank the reviewers and the conference for the review and informative feedback.\"}" ] }

[ "Yihang Chen", "Qianyi Wu", "Mengyao Li", "Weiyao Lin", "Mehrtash Harandi", "Jianfei Cai" ]

[ "3DGS", "compression", "optimization-free" ]

{ "note_id": [ "w6dDb70dCj", "vJ8maqv42D", "thHtXGYteB", "s9AgGrvGcU", "relCWd4cIx", "pZcoAL8ll4", "m40TfsQ4BM", "hy6iOA5aOG", "auiBRbgaGI", "aOiFROup0M", "YWRWi2Z21D", "WN8jarZqq6", "VZY7JOie14", "S3jy7TZQaf", "PopoMhiElp", "LqLvPiVems", "KnSVhvETdh", "IKL0Q3lN05", "Hd1MTTy8Be", "HPIX43AazP", "7ZmyYuwZjC", "6sbUAW2VXb", "63mSaAGT1v", "4MG5wR8uup" ], "note_type": [ "official_comment", "official_comment", "official_comment", "official_comment", "official_comment", "official_comment", "official_comment", "official_comment", "decision", "official_comment", "official_comment", "official_comment", "official_comment", "official_review", "official_comment", "meta_review", "official_comment", "official_comment", "official_review", "official_review", "official_review", "official_comment", "official_comment", "official_comment" ], "note_created": [ 1732639475372, 1732260445806, 1732260728413, 1732260579025, 1732260282647, 1732260900042, 1732458427823, 1732524146722, 1737523411341, 1732601073471, 1732685363398, 1732594183673, 1732601107551, 1729717228630, 1732260640116, 1734659397540, 1732260688208, 1732594444026, 1730478165022, 1730274789044, 1730492405228, 1732528604463, 1732259957270, 1732260150316 ], "note_signatures": [ [ "ICLR.cc/2025/Conference/Submission702/Reviewer_SkMb" ], [ "ICLR.cc/2025/Conference/Submission702/Authors" ], [ "ICLR.cc/2025/Conference/Submission702/Authors" ], [ "ICLR.cc/2025/Conference/Submission702/Authors" ], [ "ICLR.cc/2025/Conference/Submission702/Authors" ], [ "ICLR.cc/2025/Conference/Submission702/Authors" ], [ "ICLR.cc/2025/Conference/Submission702/Authors" ], [ "ICLR.cc/2025/Conference/Submission702/Reviewer_VFpS" ], [ "ICLR.cc/2025/Conference/Program_Chairs" ], [ "ICLR.cc/2025/Conference/Submission702/Authors" ], [ "ICLR.cc/2025/Conference/Submission702/Authors" ], [ "ICLR.cc/2025/Conference/Submission702/Reviewer_SSjz" ], [ "ICLR.cc/2025/Conference/Submission702/Authors" ], [ "ICLR.cc/2025/Conference/Submission702/Reviewer_SkMb" ], [ "ICLR.cc/2025/Conference/Submission702/Authors" ], [ "ICLR.cc/2025/Conference/Submission702/Area_Chair_sk1U" ], [ "ICLR.cc/2025/Conference/Submission702/Authors" ], [ "ICLR.cc/2025/Conference/Submission702/Reviewer_xSne" ], [ "ICLR.cc/2025/Conference/Submission702/Reviewer_VFpS" ], [ "ICLR.cc/2025/Conference/Submission702/Reviewer_SSjz" ], [ "ICLR.cc/2025/Conference/Submission702/Reviewer_xSne" ], [ "ICLR.cc/2025/Conference/Submission702/Authors" ], [ "ICLR.cc/2025/Conference/Submission702/Authors" ], [ "ICLR.cc/2025/Conference/Submission702/Authors" ] ], "structured_content_str": [ "{\"comment\": \"Thanks for your response. This has addressed most of my concerns. I will maintain my positive rating.\"}", "{\"title\": \"Response to Reviewer 2 (VFpS)\", \"comment\": \"**W1: Complexity of the method.**\\n\\nOur method is well structured for compression, which consists of both MEM and context models to achieve efficient compression. MEM selectively projects Gaussians to a latent space to balance the fidelity and size; While we adapt the common idea of context models in traditional data compression to 3DGS compression, which uses decoded parameters as context to predict remaining parameters. Both MEM and context models are critical and serve for different purposes to achieve a good compression performance, as stated by Reviewer 1 (xSne): \\u201cIt introduces a Multi-path Entropy Module (MEM) to adaptive control the compression size and quality. It also designs inter- and intra-Gaussian context models to enhance compression efficiency.\\u201d Moreover, the batch dividing strategy has been stated in **Line 370** in the implementation details, and additional ablation studies on various splitting strategies for our context models are presented in **Appendix Section C** and **Appendix Section I**. Overall, rather than adding complexity, these two components are methodically organized to achieve effective compression performance.\\n\\n**W2: Compression speed versus PSNR/size.** \\n\\nAs discussed in **Line 82-88**, the two pipelines of per-scene optimization-based compression (ours) and generalizable optimization-free compression (others) cater to distinct use cases. Selecting the appropriate compression pipeline depends on specific application requirements. For scenarios where compression speed is less critical (*i.e.*, your example), such as offline processing, optimization-based compression can be advantageous. However, FCGS supports the compression of 3DGS from both optimization and feed-forward models, as demonstrated in Subsection 4.2. **Moreover, generalizable optimization-free compression offers many other advantages**:\\n- Independence from ground-truth supervision: Unlike optimization-based approaches that rely on costly, image-based guidance, optimization-free methods operate directly on 3DGS representations without the need for such supervision.\\n- Speed sensitivity: This is crucial for 3DGS generated by feed-forward models. Such models produce 3DGS rapidly, and applying per-scene optimization compression in these 3DGSes incurs significant computational and time overhead.\\n- Suitability for lightweight devices: Devices like mobile phones lack the computational power for resource-intensive per-scene optimization.\\n\\nOverall, our FCGS can operate in all situations and its advantages become more pronounced when compressing 3DGS generated by feed-forward models. \\n\\n**W3: More qualitative evaluation compression to other baselines.** \\n\\nThank you for your suggestion. We have incorporated additional baseline methods for qualitative comparison:\\n- Figure 5 in the main paper now includes qualitative results of the baselines.\\n- Figure E in **Appendix Section N** further extends these comparisons.\\n\\nThese updates can be found in the revised version of the paper. Additionally, we have added a note in the caption of Figure 5 to guide readers to Figure E in **Appendix Section N** for a more detailed qualitative comparison.\\n\\n**Q1: Analysis transform and synthesis transform.**\", \"they_are_implemented_as_simple_mlps\": \"$g_a$ and $g_s$ consist of 4 layers each, while $h_a$ and $h_s$ have 3 layers each. This description has now been added to the caption of Figure 2.\\n\\n**Q2: Potential nonlinearity of MLPs.** \\n\\nThe forward pass of MLPs is inherently non-invertible due to non-linear activation functions, which means that projecting an input (*i.e.*, $x$) into latent space (*i.e.*, $y$) via an MLP does not allow for exact recovery of the original input from the latent. As a result, MLP-decoded attributes (*i.e.*, $\\\\hat{x}$) cannot always align precisely with the original attributes (*i.e.*, $x$) for each Gaussian. This misalignment would be amplified in rendering, leading to a significant fidelity drop in the rendered images. We have clarified and polished the writing in **Line 221-226**.\\n\\n**Q3: Split of Gaussians.** \\n\\nThe split criterion is in the implementation details (**Line 370**), where we utilize a random split with 4 steps. Note that a consistent randomness is applied between the encoder and decoder to ensure accurate decoding. Importantly, this randomness minimally impacts performance\\u2014experiments with different seeds yielded similar results, as discussed in **Appendix Section C**. We also tested Farthest Point Sampling (FPS) for splitting but found that it underperformed our random splitting, likely because FPS does not distribute samples evenly. Furthermore, as discussed in **Appendix Section I**, we explored various numbers of splits; While more steps bring slight benefits, 4 steps already achieve strong performance.\\n\\n**If you have any further questions or concerns, please feel free to reach out to us for discussion.**\"}", "{\"title\": \"Response to Reviewer 3 (SSjz)\", \"comment\": \"**Q3: Number of scenes to acquire a feasible compression performance.**\\n\\nWe design FCGS to train on massive 3DGS representations to acquire sufficient prior information for compression, enabling it to conduct a feedforward-based compression using the learned prior information. Although preparing this training data is time-intensive, it is a one-time investment\\u2014once trained, FCGS can be directly applied for compression without requiring further optimization, making the effort highly valuable. To evaluate FCGS\\u2019s performance when trained on significantly less data, we conducted experiments using only $100$ scenes, as shown in the table below. Even with this reduced training set, FCGS still delivers strong results, achieving comparable fidelity metrics with only $12.9$% increase in size. This robustness is due to FCGS\\u2019s compact and efficient architecture, with a total model size of less than $10$ MB. Discussions of this evaluation has been added to **Appendix Section L**.\\n\\n---\\n**Table 8:** Results of **training with less data**. Experiments are conducted on the *DL3DV-GS* dataset with $\\\\lambda=1e-4$.\\n\\n| \\\\# Training data | SIZE (MB) \\u2193 | PSNR (dB) \\u2191 | SSIM \\u2191 | LPIPS \\u2193 |\\n|----------------------------|-------------|-------------|--------|---------|\\n| Full (\\\\# $6670$ scenes) | 27.440 | 29.264 | 0.897 | 0.148 |\\n| Subset (\\\\# $100$ scenes) | 30.981 | 29.256 | 0.897 | 0.148 |\\n\\n**Q4: Regarding ContextGS.** \\n\\nThanks for your advice. \\nContextGS proposes structuring anchors into multiple levels to model entropy. However, its anchor location quantization process introduces deviations, which impacts fidelity and requires finetuning. Differently, our inter-Gaussian context model overcomes this limitation by creating grids in a feed-forward manner for context modeling, without modifying Gaussian locations, eliminating the need of finetuning.\\nWe have now added this discussion to **Line 262-266**.\\n\\n**Q5: Open-source of the DL3DV-GS dataset.**\\n\\nThe *DL3DV-GS* dataset will be open-source. However, the *DL3DV-GS* dataset is derived from *DL3DV*, which requires access permissions. To facilitate open-source access to *DL3DV-GS*, we will coordinate with the *DL3DV* authors to establish a legal and compliant method for release.\\n\\n**If you have any further questions or concerns, please feel free to reach out to us for discussion.**\"}", "{\"title\": \"Response to Reviewer 3 (SSjz)\", \"comment\": \"**W1: Show relations of Gaussians.**\\n\\nThanks for your suggestion. To show relations of Gaussians, we visualize bit allocation conditions of both inter- and intra-Gaussian context models. Please refer to **Appendix Section J** for a comprehensive analysis. Below, we provide an example table of the result, which shows per-parameter bit allocation conditions of color attributes ($m=1$) over different parts using context models. This table highlights the effectiveness of the context models. \\n\\n- For the inter-Gaussian context model, from a statistical perspective, each Gaussian in different batches is expected to hold similar amounts of information on average due to the random splitting strategy, which ensures an even distribution of Gaussians across the 3D space. Thus, as batches progress deeper (*i.e.*, B1 $\\\\rightarrow$ B4), the bits per parameter decrease. The most significant reduction occurs between B1 and B2, since B1 lacks inter-Gaussian context, leading to less accurate probability estimates. For subsequent batches, the reduction is less pronounced, as B1 already includes $1/6$ of the total Gaussians, providing sufficient context for accurate prediction. Adding more Gaussians from later batches yields diminishing benefits. This finding validates our approach of splitting batches with varying proportions of Gaussians, where the first two batches contain fewer Gaussians.\\n- For the intra-Gaussian context model, different from that in the inter-Gaussian context model, the information distribution among different chunks is not guaranteed to be equal, as the latent space is derived from a learnable MLP. As a result, C1 receives the least information because it lacks intra-Gaussian context, leading to less accurate probability predictions. Therefore, allocating more information to C1 would make entropy reduction challenging. To counter this, the neural network compensates by assigning minimal information to C1, thereby saving bits. Conversely, C2 receives the most information as it plays a pivotal role in predicting subsequent chunks (*i.e.*, C3 and C4), while its own entropy can be reduced by leveraging C1. As a result, the bits per parameter decrease consistently from C2 to C4 due to the increasingly rich context.\\n\\nA full comprehensive analysis of more tables and discussions covering all attributes (color and geometry) can be found in **Appendix Section J**.\\n\\n**Table 1:** Per-parameter bit consumption of color attributes ($m$=1) over different parts using context models. Values are scaled by 100x for readability. B1 $\\\\rightarrow$ B4 and C1 $\\\\rightarrow$ C4 indicate batches and chunks of inter- and intra-Gaussian context models, respectively.\\n\\n| | B1 | B2 | B3 | B4 |\\n|----------------------------|-------|-------|-------|-------|\\n| C1 | 2.45 | 2.24 | 2.21 | 2.20 |\\n| C2 | 11.19 | 10.27 | 10.16 | 10.09 |\\n| C3 | 8.94 | 8.15 | 8.10 | 8.08 |\\n| C4 | 5.80 | 5.61 | 5.59 | 5.59 |\\n\\n\\n**W2: Ablation over the strategy for dividing chunks.** \\n\\nThank you for your suggestion. We have conducted ablation studies on the split-dividing strategies for both inter- and intra-Gaussian context models and included a detailed analysis in **Appendix Section I**. Increasing the number of splits does not consistently lead to improved performance and may increase the model\\u2019s complexity. Our experiments confirm that the default splitting strategy strikes a good balance between performance and complexity. For a more comprehensive discussion, please refer to **Appendix Section I**. Below are the tables of the ablation studies for both inter- and intra-Gaussian context models.\\n\\n---\\n\\n**Table 2:** Ablation study on the number of splits in the **inter-Gaussian context model** on the *DL3DV-GS* dataset with $\\\\lambda=1e-4$.\\n\\n| Split Batches | SIZE (MB) \\u2193 | PSNR (dB) \\u2191 | SSIM \\u2191 | LPIPS \\u2193 |\\n|---------------------------|--------------|--------------|----------|----------|\\n| 95%, 5% (2) | 28.685 | 29.264 | 0.897 | 0.148 |\\n| 25%, 25%, 50% (3) | 27.667 | 29.264 | 0.897 | 0.148 |\\n| 17%, 17%, 33%, 33% (4) | 27.440 | 29.264 | 0.897 | 0.148 |\\n| 13%, 13%, 25%, 25%, 25% (5) | 27.379 | 29.264 | 0.897 | 0.148 |\\n\\n---\\n\\n**Table 3:** Ablation study on the number of splits in the **intra-Gaussian context model** on the *DL3DV-GS* dataset with $\\\\lambda=1e-4$. \\n\\n| Split Chunks | SIZE (MB) \\u2193 | PSNR (dB) \\u2191 | SSIM \\u2191 | LPIPS \\u2193 |\\n|--------------|--------------|--------------|----------|----------|\\n| 2 | 28.562 | 29.267 | 0.897 | 0.148 |\\n| 4 | 27.440 | 29.264 | 0.897 | 0.148 |\\n| 8 | 27.516 | 29.264 | 0.897 | 0.148 |\\n| 16 | 27.649 | 29.265 | 0.897 | 0.148 |\"}", "{\"title\": \"Response to Reviewer 1 (xSne)\", \"comment\": \"**Q1: Visualization of inter- and intra-Gaussian context models.**\\n\\nFor visualization of inter- and intra-Gaussian context models, please refer to **Appendix Section J** for a comprehensive analysis. Below, we provide an example table of the result, which shows per-parameter bit allocation conditions of color attributes ($m=1$) over different parts using context models. This table highlights the effectiveness of the context models. \\n\\n- For the inter-Gaussian context model, from a statistical perspective, each Gaussian in different batches is expected to hold similar amounts of information on average due to the random splitting strategy, which ensures an even distribution of Gaussians across the 3D space. Thus, as batches progress deeper (*i.e.*, B1 $\\\\rightarrow$ B4), the bits per parameter decrease. The most significant reduction occurs between B1 and B2, since B1 lacks inter-Gaussian context, leading to less accurate probability estimates. For subsequent batches, the reduction is less pronounced, as B1 already includes $1/6$ of the total Gaussians, providing sufficient context for accurate prediction. Adding more Gaussians from later batches yields diminishing benefits. This finding validates our approach of splitting batches with varying proportions of Gaussians, where the first two batches contain fewer Gaussians.\\n- For the intra-Gaussian context model, different from that in the inter-Gaussian context model, the information distribution among different chunks is not guaranteed to be equal, as the latent space is derived from a learnable MLP. As a result, C1 receives the least information because it lacks intra-Gaussian context, leading to less accurate probability predictions. Therefore, allocating more information to C1 would make entropy reduction challenging. To counter this, the neural network compensates by assigning minimal information to C1, thereby saving bits. Conversely, C2 receives the most information as it plays a pivotal role in predicting subsequent chunks (*i.e.*, C3 and C4), while its own entropy can be reduced by leveraging C1. As a result, the bits per parameter decrease consistently from C2 to C4 due to the increasingly rich context.\\n\\nA full comprehensive analysis of more tables and discussions covering all attributes (color and geometry) can be found in **Appendix Section J**.\\n\\n**Table 2:** Per-parameter bit consumption of color attributes ($m$=1) over different parts using context models. Values are scaled by 100x for readability. B1 $\\\\rightarrow$ B4 and C1 $\\\\rightarrow$ C4 indicate batches and chunks of inter- and intra-Gaussian context models, respectively.\\n\\n| | B1 | B2 | B3 | B4 |\\n|----------------------------|-------|-------|-------|-------|\\n| C1 | 2.45 | 2.24 | 2.21 | 2.20 |\\n| C2 | 11.19 | 10.27 | 10.16 | 10.09 |\\n| C3 | 8.94 | 8.15 | 8.10 | 8.08 |\\n| C4 | 5.80 | 5.61 | 5.59 | 5.59 |\\n\\n**Q2: Open-source of the code and dataset.** \\n\\nBoth the code and the *DL3DV-GS* dataset will be open-source. The *DL3DV-GS* dataset is derived from *DL3DV*, which requires access permissions. To facilitate open-source access to *DL3DV-GS*, we will coordinate with the *DL3DV* authors to establish a legal and compliant method for release.\\n\\n**If you have any further questions or concerns, please feel free to reach out to us for discussion.**\\n\\n**Reference:**\\n\\n[1] Chen Y, Xu H, Zheng C, et al. Mvsplat: Efficient 3d gaussian splatting from sparse multi-view images[C] ECCV 2024.\"}", "{\"title\": \"Response to Reviewer 4 (SkMb)\", \"comment\": \"**W1: Figure for performance comparison.**\\n\\nThanks for pointing this out. Using curves to compare compression performance (*i.e.*, RD performance) is a widely adopted practice in the compression field [1][2]. Curves provide an intuitive visualization of the relative performance variances among different compression approaches, where a curve closer to the upper-left indicates better performance. Meanwhile, Table C to Table E in **Appendix Section F** serves as a necessary supplement, presenting precise numerical data for a detailed comparison. In future versions, we will strive to incorporate more quantitative data into the main paper without significantly changing the current content.\\n\\n**W2: Running time of 3DGS.** \\n\\nThanks for your comments. We have now added a parenthesis indicating the training time of 3DGS in front of the time consumption of finetuning-based approaches and our approach in Tables C to Table E.\\n\\n**W3: Comparison with SoTA methods.**\\n \\nSince we configure FCGS without per-scene optimization, this setup naturally puts it at a disadvantage when compared with optimization-based methods, and indeed, there is a performance gap compared to SoTA methods like HAC [3] and ContextGS [4]. However, these two approaches employ anchor-based structures [5], whose representations diverge from the standard 3DGS structure and are inherently about 5X smaller than the vanilla 3DGS. In this paper, we target FCGS at the standard 3DGS structure, same as the comparative methods in our experiment. It is also promising to extend FCGS to anchor-based 3DGS variants [5] to achieve better RD performance, which we leave for future work. We have added this discussion to **Appendix Section D** and pointed out the SoTA of per-scene optimization-based 3DGS compression methods.\\n\\n**Q1: Regarding $MLP_m$ and Figure 2.** \\n\\nThanks for pointing this out. \\n\\n- We have now re-formulated Equation (3) to clarify the process of generating $m$ using $MLP_m$ and updated it in the paper. The updated formulation is as follows: $$m_i = \\\\text{Sig}(MLP_m(f^\\\\text{gau}_i)) > \\\\epsilon_m, $$where $\\\\epsilon_m$ is a hyperparameter that defines the threshold for binarizing the mask, and gradients of the binarized mask $m$ are backpropagated using STE [6][7].\\n- We have also improved Figure 2 to show the process of generating $m$ by $MLP_m$, and also make the pathway of the mask $m$ easier to understand.\\n\\nPlease find them in our revised paper.\\n\\n\\n**If you have any further questions or concerns, please feel free to reach out to us for discussion.**\\n\\n\\n**Reference:**\\n\\n[1] Ball\\u00e9 J, Minnen D, Singh S, et al. Variational image compression with a scale hyperprior [C]. *ICLR 2018*.\\n\\n[2] He D, Zheng Y, Sun B, et al. Checkerboard context model for efficient learned image compression [C]. *CVPR 2021*.\\n\\n[3] Chen Y, Wu Q, Lin W, et al. HAC: Hash-grid Assisted Context for 3D Gaussian Splatting Compression [C]. *ECCV 2024*.\\n\\n[4] Wang Y, Li Z, Guo L, et al. ContextGS: Compact 3D Gaussian Splatting with Anchor Level Context Model [C]. *NIPS 2024*.\\n\\n[5] Lu T, Yu M, Xu L, et al. Scaffold-GS: Structured 3D Gaussians for View-Adaptive Rendering [C]. *CVPR 2024*.\\n\\n[6] Bengio Y, L\\u00e9onard N, Courville A. Estimating or propagating gradients through stochastic neurons for conditional computation[J]. *arXiv preprint, 2013*.\\n\\n[7] Lee J C, Rho D, Sun X, et al. Compact 3d gaussian representation for radiance field[C]. *CVPR 2024*.\"}", "{\"title\": \"Kind Request for Discussions and Feedback for Paper 702\", \"comment\": \"Dear Reviewers,\\n\\nWe would like to express our sincere gratitude for the time and effort you have dedicated to reviewing our paper and for sharing your valuable suggestions.\\n\\nAs the discussion phase approaches its conclusion, we hope that our responses have sufficiently addressed your concerns and questions.\\n\\nYour thoughtful feedback plays a crucial role in refining our work, and we deeply appreciate your insights. We look forward to your continued engagement and any further thoughts you may wish to share.\\n\\nThank you once again for your time and consideration.\\n\\nBest regards,\\n\\nThe Authors of Paper 702\"}", "{\"comment\": \"Thank you for the detailed comments. Your responses resolved most of my concerns (W1,W3,Q1,Q2,Q3). Regarding W2, I'm still questioning the usefulness of generalizable optimization-free compression if it is worse than the optimization based approaches. However, forward-looking, I see potential impact in combination with feed-forward 3DGS methods. Hence, I increase my rating to 6.\"}", "{\"title\": \"Paper Decision\", \"decision\": \"Accept (Poster)\"}", "{\"title\": \"Response to Reviewer 1 (xSne)\", \"comment\": \"Thank you for your thoughtful engagement and valuable suggestions, which have been instrumental in improving our paper. We sincerely appreciate your support and the time you dedicated to reviewing our work!\"}", "{\"title\": \"Response to Reviewer 4 (SkMb)\", \"comment\": \"Thank you for your thoughtful engagement and valuable suggestions, which have been instrumental in improving our paper. We sincerely appreciate your support and the time you dedicated to reviewing our work! Please feel free to reach out if you have any further concerns.\"}", "{\"comment\": \"I appreciate the authors for addressing all my concerns during the discussion period. I will maintain my positive rating.\"}", "{\"title\": \"Response to Reviewer 3 (SSjz)\", \"comment\": \"Thank you for your thoughtful engagement and valuable suggestions, which have been instrumental in improving our paper. We sincerely appreciate your support and the time you dedicated to reviewing our work!\"}", "{\"summary\": \"This paper introduces an optimization-free model, called FCGS, for 3D Gaussian Splatting (3DGS) compression, which allows compressing an optimized 3DGS representation in a feed-forward process. The model incorporates both intra- and inter-Gaussian context information. The authors project most Gaussian attributes into a latent space and utilize arithmetic encoding and decoding for data compression. Additionally, they employ an end-to-end progressive training scheme for the proposed pipeline.\", \"soundness\": \"3\", \"presentation\": \"2\", \"contribution\": \"3\", \"strengths\": \"As far as I know, this is the first generalizable optimization-free 3DGS compression pipeline. Without the need of original training images, this generalizable compression method enables the compression of 3DGS, expanding the application scope of 3DGS compression algorithms.\\n\\nThis article provides a novel approach to context modeling for exploring the correlations between Gaussians.\", \"weaknesses\": \"I find the experimental content of this paper somewhat disorganized and difficult to follow. The authors present the main comparative experimental results using figures, but there are no numerical comparisons in the main paper. Although detailed data is provided in the Appendix, the absence of tables in the main paper causes some inconvenience for readers.\\n\\nAdditionally, in Tables C-D, the authors report the running time, but I believe this comparison may not be entirely reasonable. The running time for methods that involve training from scratch includes the time for reconstruction. FCGS also requires a pre-trained 3DGS, and the time spent pre-training the 3DGS should be reflected in the table. \\n\\nIn the comparative experiments, the authors only compare methods with worse rendering quality than FCGS. However, there are existing 3DGS compression methods that offer better rendering quality and higher compression rates than FCGS. While these methods are not generalizable, readers should still be informed of the current gap between FCGS and the state-of-the-art.\", \"questions\": \"It seems that the process of generating m by MLP_m is not illustrated in Figure 2. By reading the method section, it is somewhat difficult for readers to understand the role and position of m in the pipeline (although there is a formula provided). It is suggested to draw a more detailed pathway in Figure 2.\", \"flag_for_ethics_review\": \"['No ethics review needed.']\", \"rating\": \"6\", \"confidence\": \"4\", \"code_of_conduct\": \"Yes\"}", "{\"title\": \"Response to Reviewer 3 (SSjz)\", \"comment\": \"**W3&Q1: Regarding the coding efficiency of arithmetic coding.**\\n\\nThanks for your suggestion. We have implemented a CUDA-based arithmetic codec which is fast. The total time for encoding is presented in Figure 4. In **Appendix Section H**, we now provide a comprehensive analysis of both the encoding and decoding time of each single component. Here are the two tables in **Appendix Section H**, which indicate **Encoding time** and **Decoding time**, respectively. During encoding, the GPCC takes most of the time to compress Gaussian locations due to its complex RD search process. During decoding, the model is much faster. Please refer to **Appendix Section H** for more details.\\n\\n**Table 4:** **Encoding time** of different components on the *DL3DV-GS* dataset,which has over $1.57$ million Gaussians on average in the testing set. All times are measured in seconds, with each component\\u2019s percentage share of the total encoding time provided in parentheses. The mask rate indicates the proportion of color attributes $f^{\\\\text{col}}$ assigned to the $m=1$ path (*i.e.*, compressed via the autoencoder). Results are obtained using a single GPU.\\n\\n| $\\\\lambda$ | Total time | $\\\\mu^\\\\text{g}$ | $f^{\\\\text{col}}$ ($m=1$) | $f^{\\\\text{col}}$ ($m=0$) | $f^{\\\\text{geo}}$ | Mask | Others | Mask rate |\\n|-------------|--------------|---------------------|--------------------------|--------------------------|------------------|------------|------------|-----------|\\n| $1e-4$ | 20.47 | 9.48 (46%) | 2.81 (14%) | 4.41 (22%) | 2.35 (11%) | 0.02 (0%) | 1.41 (7%) | 0.62 |\\n| $2e-4$ | 18.33 | 9.46 (52%) | 2.97 (16%) | 2.63 (14%) | 1.83 (10%) | 0.02 (0%) | 1.42 (8%) | 0.67 |\\n| $4e-4$ | 17.17 | 9.50 (55%) | 3.09 (18%) | 1.67 (10%) | 1.46 (8%) | 0.02 (0%) | 1.44 (8%) | 0.74 |\\n| $8e-4$ | 16.44 | 9.49 (58%) | 3.34 (20%) | 1.01 (6%) | 1.10 (7%) | 0.02 (0%) | 1.48 (9%) | 0.82 |\\n| $16e-4$ | 15.86 | 9.44 (60%) | 3.21 (20%) | 0.68 (4%) | 1.00 (6%) | 0.02 (0%) | 1.51 (10%) | 0.89 |\\n\\n---\\n\\n**Table 5:** **Decoding time** of different components on the *DL3DV-GS* dataset, which has over $1.57$ million Gaussians on average in the testing set. All times are measured in seconds, with each component\\u2019s percentage share of the total decoding time provided in parentheses. The mask rate indicates the proportion of color attributes $f^{\\\\text{col}}$ assigned to the $m=1$ path (*i.e.*, compressed via the autoencoder). Results are obtained using a single GPU.\\n\\n| $\\\\lambda$ | Total time | $\\\\mu^\\\\text{g}$ | $f^{\\\\text{col}}$ ($m=1$) | $f^{\\\\text{col}}$ ($m=0$) | $f^{\\\\text{geo}}$ | Mask | Others | Mask rate |\\n|-------------|--------------|---------------------|--------------------------|--------------------------|------------------|------------|------------|-----------|\\n| $1e-4$ | 15.93 | 3.53 (22%) | 3.85 (24%) | 5.07 (32%) | 2.51 (16%) | 0.02 (0%) | 0.95 (6%) | 0.62 |\\n| $2e-4$ | 14.16 | 3.52 (25%) | 4.21 (30%) | 3.28 (23%) | 2.14 (15%) | 0.02 (0%) | 0.99 (7%) | 0.67 |\\n| $4e-4$ | 12.84 | 3.52 (27%) | 4.33 (34%) | 2.16 (17%) | 1.77 (14%) | 0.02 (0%) | 1.04 (8%) | 0.74 |\\n| $8e-4$ | 12.13 | 3.53 (29%) | 4.68 (39%) | 1.40 (12%) | 1.39 (11%) | 0.02 (0%) | 1.10 (9%) | 0.82 |\\n| $16e-4$ | 11.47 | 3.52 (31%) | 4.67 (41%) | 0.87 (8%) | 1.24 (11%) | 0.02 (0%) | 1.15 (10%) | 0.89 |\"}", "{\"metareview\": \"This paper presents an efficient 3D Gaussian Splatting (3DGS) compression method. The proposed approach is novel, offering an optimization-free pipeline for 3DGS compression in a feed-forward manner. A multi-path entropy module controls the tradeoff between size and quality, while inter- and intra-Gaussian context models further enhance compression performance. The method demonstrates strong compression rates across multiple datasets while significantly reducing execution time.\\n\\nThe main weakness is that the compression size and quality may not surpass optimization-based methods. However, the proposed method compresses 3DGS in a feed-forward manner and reduces per-scene compression time. It is the first generalizable optimization-free 3DGS compression method and offers potential applications that previous methods cannot address.\", \"additional_comments_on_reviewer_discussion\": \"Several issues were raised in the initial reviews, and the rebuttal effectively addressed most of them.\\n\\nFirst, the primary goal of the proposed method is to accelerate compression. While there were concerns about whether compression time is a critical factor compared to size and quality, the rebuttal clarified that some applications prioritize speed over size or quality. It also emphasized that the method\\u2019s feed-forward approach offers unique advantages. In addition, direct comparisons with optimization-based methods are somewhat unfair. This also addressed the concern about comparisons being limited to methods with worse rendering quality.\\n\\nSecond, a significant concern was the large amount of training data required, which could take considerable time to prepare and train. The rebuttal argued this is a one-time effort, as subsequent applications do not require expensive optimization. Furthermore, an additional experiment demonstrated that substantially reduced training data can still deliver reasonable performance. This also responded to another review's question about the number of scenes needed to acquire a feasible compression performance. \\n\\nFinally, some reviewers requested visualizations and an ablation study related to the inter-/intra-Gaussian context model. The rebuttal addressed this by providing them in the appendix.\"}", "{\"title\": \"Response to Reviewer 3 (SSjz)\", \"comment\": \"**Q2: storage size of each attribute.**\\n\\nThanks for your suggestion. We now provide a detailed analysis of the storage size for each attribute in **Appendix Section G**. This includes two tables: one showing the total storage size of each attribute and the other detailing the per-parameter bits, offering a comprehensive breakdown. These two tables also allow for the calculation of the compression ratio for each component before and after compression. With increasing $\\\\lambda$, the sizes of both color and geometry attributes decrease. Within the color attributes, the conditions for paths $m=1$ and $m=0$ differ due to the rising mask rate as $\\\\lambda$ increases. A more comprehensive analysis is available in **Appendix Section G**.\\n\\n**Table 6:** **Storage size** of different components on the *DL3DV-GS* dataset. All sizes are measured in **MB**. The mask rate indicates the proportion of color attributes $f^{\\\\text{col}}$ assigned to the $m=1$ path (*i.e.*, compressed via the autoencoder).\\n\\n| $\\\\lambda$ | Total size | $\\\\mu^\\\\text{g}$ | $f^{\\\\text{col}}$ ($m=1$) | $f^{\\\\text{col}}$ ($m=0$) | $f^{\\\\text{geo}}$ | Mask size | Mask rate |\\n|-------------|--------------|----------------|--------------------------|--------------------------|------------------|------------|-----------|\\n| $1e-4$ | 27.44 | 3.25 | 2.61 | 10.92 | 10.50 | 0.17 | 0.62 |\\n| $2e-4$ | 24.15 | 3.25 | 2.72 | 8.10 | 9.93 | 0.16 | 0.67 |\\n| $4e-4$ | 21.12 | 3.25 | 2.77 | 5.67 | 9.29 | 0.14 | 0.74 |\\n| $8e-4$ | 18.14 | 3.25 | 3.01 | 3.42 | 8.34 | 0.12 | 0.82 |\\n| $16e-4$ | 15.83 | 3.25 | 2.94 | 1.76 | 7.80 | 0.08 | 0.89 |\\n\\n---\\n\\n**Table 7:** **Per-parameter bits** of different components on the *DL3DV-GS* dataset. All sizes are measured in **bit**. The mask rate indicates the proportion of color attributes $f^{\\\\text{col}}$ assigned to the $m=1$ path (*i.e.*, compressed via the autoencoder).\\n\\n\\n| $\\\\lambda$ | Weighted AVG | $\\\\mu^\\\\text{g}$ | $f^{\\\\text{col}}$ ($m=1$) | $f^{\\\\text{col}}$ ($m=0$) | $f^{\\\\text{geo}}$ | Mask size | Mask rate |\\n|-------------|--------------|----------------|--------------------------|--------------------------|------------------|------------|-----------|\\n| $1e-4$ | 2.51 | 5.92 | 0.45 | 3.29 | 6.94 | 0.94 | 0.62 |\\n| $2e-4$ | 2.21 | 5.92 | 0.43 | 2.92 | 6.56 | 0.89 | 0.67 |\\n| $4e-4$ | 1.94 | 5.92 | 0.40 | 2.58 | 6.14 | 0.81 | 0.74 |\\n| $8e-4$ | 1.67 | 5.92 | 0.39 | 2.32 | 5.51 | 0.66 | 0.82 |\\n| $16e-4$ | 1.45 | 5.92 | 0.36 | 2.10 | 5.15 | 0.48 | 0.89 |\"}", "{\"comment\": \"The rebuttal solves my concerns, i will raise my score.\"}", "{\"summary\": \"This paper presents a novel, optimization-free compression pipeline for 3D Gaussian Splatting (3DGS) representations, called FCGS (Fast Compression of 3D Gaussian Splatting). FCGS uses a single feed-forward model to compress 3DGS representations, drastically reducing compression time compared to pruning and optimization-based approaches. The paper further details the Multi-path Entropy Module (MEM) and context models that FCGS employs to balance size and fidelity during compression. Finally, the authors demonstrate the efficacy of FCGS through extensive experiments, achieving a compression ratio exceeding 20x while preserving high fidelity.\", \"soundness\": \"3\", \"presentation\": \"3\", \"contribution\": \"2\", \"strengths\": [\"The paper provides a complete overview of related works on 3DGS with compression and structure it according to the methodology, see Section 1 and 2.\", \"The overall goal of the paper is clear and the authors motivate compression potential for 3DGS scenes well.\", \"The quantitative evaluation is very good, as the authors provide a comparison to several relevant methods, like light gaussians and Niedermayr etal., on three different datasets (MipNeRF360, T&T and DL3DV-GS) and present results in expressive graphs that highlight the trade-off of size and quality, see Figure 4.\", \"In addition to comparisons to compression works, the author further extent t0 feed forward reconstruction models and find a more efficient representation of their approach.\", \"Overall the experiments indicate that the proposed methods is an effective approach for compression performs favourable to most other approaches in terms of (PSNR/SIZE), however less effective than, Niedermayr et al.. See Figure 4.\"], \"weaknesses\": [\"The methodology is very complex and the respective section in the paper is hard to understand even for someone familiar with 3DGS. The reason is that there is information missing at the appropriate position in the text. For example, figure 2 in line 262 is is unclear how the Gaussians are divided into batches (randomly, per grid cell stays unclear). Hence it appears to hard to reproduce. Please see the Questions sections for more open points.\", \"The method's focus lies very much on increasing the compression speed and it does not improve over existing methods in terms of PSNR/Size, see Figure 4 (Simon*). One could argue that there is limited interests in compression speed, since a 3D GS reconstruction takes several minutes to hours and a follow up compression of a few minutes (e.g. Niedermayr et al.) does not impact the overall reconstruction time significantly.\", \"For qualitative evaluation, I'd have expected more visual comparisons to baseline methods. There is only comparisons to 3DGS in paper and supplementary material. Please provide more qualitative evidence.\"], \"questions\": [\"What are the analysis transform and synthesis transform exactly? Architecture? Space?\", \"Why can \\\"the potential nonlinearity of the MLPs still cause considerable deviations in decoded gaussians\\\", line 222?\", \"How are the the set of Gaussian split and what is the criterion to split them?\"], \"flag_for_ethics_review\": \"['No ethics review needed.']\", \"details_of_ethics_concerns\": \"No concerns\", \"rating\": \"6\", \"confidence\": \"3\", \"code_of_conduct\": \"Yes\"}", "{\"summary\": \"This paper proposes a generalizable 3D Gaussian compression framework incorporated with an effective entropy minimization module inspired by 2D image compression. The main contribution of this work is compressing 3D Gaussians within a minute, using a feed-forward pipeline. To achieve this, the authors first divide Gaussian attributes into a) geometry attributes, and b) color attributes. Then, these attributes are encoded and decoded using hyper-priors from inter-/intra-Gaussian context models, along with context design from the image compression approach. Consequently, this paper achieves a compact size and comparable rendering quality compared to the existing compression method, while requiring only several seconds.\", \"soundness\": \"3\", \"presentation\": \"4\", \"contribution\": \"3\", \"strengths\": [\"This paper suggests a novel framework that efficiently compresses the 3D Gaussian in a feed-forward manner, whereas existing optimization-based compression methods require additional adaptation steps.\", \"Experimental results demonstrate that the framework achieves high compression performance with comparable rendering quality with existing compression methods.\", \"The authors validate that the proposed hyper-prior design, including inter-/intra-Gaussian context models, further improves the compression performance.\"], \"weaknesses\": [\"Despite the effectiveness, the design of context models comes from heuristic priors that the Gaussians share inter-/intra-information. It could be helpful to show those relations of Gaussians to understand the justification of the proposed hyper-prior designs.\", \"There is no ablation on the strategy for dividing chunks in the inter-/intra-Gaussian context model. It could be helpful to show the results for several splitting designs.\", \"Due to arithmetic coding-based compression, it might yield notable computational costs to encode and decode the parameters.\"], \"questions\": [\"How much time is needed for encoding and decoding parameters?\", \"It could be helpful to add compression performance for each attribute by demonstrating the storage size of each attribute before and after compression. (or storage size of color attributes and geometry attributes)\", \"How many scenes are required to acquire a feasible compression performance?\", \"An optimization-based compression work, ContextGS [1], has already applied an image compression-based pipeline for 3DGS using hyper-prior similar to the design of inter-Gaussian context models. However, the authors do not need to consider it, since ContextGS has not been published yet, accepted to NeurIPS 2024. Therefore, it would be helpful to mention this paper as a concurrent work.\", \"(+minor question)\", \"Do you have any plans to release DL3DV-GS, which is a training dataset for this work? This could be helpful for various generalizable 3DGS approaches, including compression.\", \"---\", \"### Reference\", \"[1] Wang et al., ContextGS: Compact 3D Gaussian Splatting with Anchor Level Context Model, NeurIPS 2024\"], \"flag_for_ethics_review\": \"['No ethics review needed.']\", \"rating\": \"6\", \"confidence\": \"4\", \"code_of_conduct\": \"Yes\"}", "{\"summary\": \"The paper proposes a new compression model for 3D Gaussian Splatting (3DGS) representations. It aims to reduce compression time in an optimization-free pipeline, which is different from existing work. It introduces a Multi-path Entropy Module (MEM) to adaptive control the compression size and quality. It also designs inter- and intra-Gaussian context models to enhance compression efficiency. Experiments on multiple datasets show a large compression rate and high image quality.\", \"soundness\": \"3\", \"presentation\": \"3\", \"contribution\": \"3\", \"strengths\": \"1. It proposes a novel optimization-free pipeline for 3DGS-based compression.\\n2. MEM module to adaptively control size and fidelity.\\n3. It also designs inter- and intra-Gaussian context models to enhance compression efficiency. \\n4. The proposed method achieves a high compression rate and surpasses the existing optimized-based methods in various experiments.\", \"weaknesses\": \"1. The training data is very large, and it takes 60 GPU days to get. Per-scene optimization does not need such an amount of training data. Will smaller data hurt the effectiveness of the feedforward model?\\n2. More discussion of failure cases. it could be useful to discuss / show scenarios where the method performs poorly.\", \"questions\": \"1. Can authors provide visualization of inter- and intra-Gaussian context models on real input data. It would help reader better understand how this method work.\\n\\n2. Will the code or data open-source for reproduction ? the training set is interesting and would benefit many other tasks.\", \"flag_for_ethics_review\": \"['No ethics review needed.']\", \"rating\": \"8\", \"confidence\": \"4\", \"code_of_conduct\": \"Yes\"}", "{\"title\": \"Response to Reviewer 2 (VFpS)\", \"comment\": \"Thank you for your thoughtful engagement and valuable suggestions, which have been instrumental in improving our paper. We sincerely appreciate your support and the time you dedicated to reviewing our work!\"}", "{\"title\": \"General Response\", \"comment\": \"We sincerely thank all reviewers for their detailed and constructive comments. We are encouraged to see that, in general, clear motivations and novel technical contributions are recognized by reviewers: \\u201cIt proposes a novel optimization-free pipeline for 3DGS-based compression.\\u201d (Reviewer xSne), \\u201cThis paper presents a novel, optimization-free compression pipeline \\u2026 The overall goal of the paper is clear and the authors motivate compression potential for 3DGS scenes well.\\u201d (Reviewer VFpS), \\u201cThis paper suggests a novel framework that efficiently compresses the 3D Gaussian in a feed-forward manner\\u201d (Reviewer SSjz), \\u201cThis article provides a novel approach to context modeling for exploring the correlations between Gaussians.\\u201d (Reviewer SkMb).\\n\\nBased on the suggestions provided, we have now offered comprehensive and thorough responses. Below, we summarize the content of our responses:\\n\\n- **Clarity Issues**: For concerns regarding unclear expressions in equations, figures, sentences, or paragraphs, we have provided one-to-one responses addressing each issue raised.\\t\\n- **Missing Experiments or Visualizations**: Where questions about additional experiments or visualization results were raised, we have addressed them with concise explanations in the following chatboxes. Furthermore, we have included comprehensive analyses in newly **added sections of the Appendix** in the revised paper, and you can refer to it for more detailed results.\\n- **Other Questions**: For all other concerns, we have provided detailed responses one by one.\\n\\nFor revisions made to the paper, we have updated the content in the revised version and **marked changes in blue** for visibility (including updates to the main paper and the Appendix in the supplementary materials). __*Unless otherwise specified, all Line, Figure and Section numbers mentioned in the following responses refer to the revised version of the paper and Appendix.*__ We hope these answers and the revisions have properly addressed all the review concerns and will be grateful to see further feedback from the reviewers.\"}", "{\"title\": \"Response to Reviewer 1 (xSne)\", \"comment\": \"**W1: Amount of the Training data.**\\n\\nWe design FCGS to train on massive 3DGS representations to acquire sufficient prior information for compression, enabling it to conduct a feedforward-based compression using the learned prior information. Although preparing this training data is time-intensive, it is a one-time investment\\u2014once trained, FCGS can be directly applied for compression without requiring further optimization, making the effort highly valuable. To evaluate FCGS\\u2019s performance when trained on significantly less data, we conducted experiments using only $100$ scenes, as shown in the table below. Even with this reduced training set, FCGS still delivers strong results, achieving comparable fidelity metrics with only $12.9$% increase in size. This robustness is due to FCGS\\u2019s compact and efficient architecture, with a total model size of less than $10$ MB. Discussions of this evaluation has been added to **Appendix Section L**.\\n\\n---\\n**Table 1:** Results of **training with less data**. Experiments are conducted on the *DL3DV-GS* dataset with $\\\\lambda=1e-4$.\\n\\n| \\\\# Training data | SIZE (MB) \\u2193 | PSNR (dB) \\u2191 | SSIM \\u2191 | LPIPS \\u2193 |\\n|----------------------------|-------------|-------------|--------|---------|\\n| Full (\\\\# $6670$ scenes) | 27.440 | 29.264 | 0.897 | 0.148 |\\n| Subset (\\\\# $100$ scenes) | 30.981 | 29.256 | 0.897 | 0.148 |\\n\\n**W2: Analysis of failure cases.** \\n\\nThanks for pointing this out. Failure cases and limitations of FCGS had been discussed in **Appendix Section B**. We now add indicators in the main paper to this content and also polish it for clearer expression. Failures mainly arise from incorrect selections of $m$ by MEM due to the domain gap: a Gaussian that should have been assigned to the $m=0$ path for fidelity preservation may be mistakenly assigned to $m=1$, and the autoencoder in this path fails to recover these Gaussian values properly from their latent space, leading to significant fidelity degradation. This issue becomes noticeable for 3DGS from feed-forward models such as MVSplat [1], due to a distribution gap between our training data (3DGS from optimization) and those from feed-forward models like MVSplat [1]. We mitigate this problem by enforcing all Gaussians to the $m=0$ path for compressing 3DGS from feed-forward models, thereby prioritizing fidelity. For instance, to compress 3DGS from MVSplat, $m$ deduced from MEM may not be correct, which would result in a PSNR drop of approximately $0.7$dB at a slightly smaller compression size compared to setting all $m$ as 0s. \\nOverall, this is our major limitation, which points out an interesting problem for future work: __*how to design optimization-free compression models that can be well generalized to 3DGS with different value characteristics*__. Please refer to **Appendix Section B** for a more detailed analysis.\"}" ] }

[ "Gabriel Wu", "Jacob Hilton" ]

[ "low probabilities", "adversarial training", "importance sampling" ]

{ "note_id": [ "nqXFf9ZEL7", "kEJg7Xw7WF", "h1mwWQoNgL", "fTt97xO2ZC", "Zdm4OTwkMU", "U7tR8WBvl3", "RS7LV79w05", "PddiUJDMXH", "MTA5faKPX4", "DmrUWcvGVf", "9u5AzcnH1G", "9lFxhSxRjm", "4dBeVs3YZf" ], "note_type": [ "official_comment", "official_review", "official_comment", "official_comment", "official_comment", "official_comment", "official_comment", "official_comment", "official_review", "official_review", "official_review", "decision", "meta_review" ], "note_created": [ 1732070433013, 1730642355074, 1732726181932, 1732070662289, 1732070819275, 1732070877790, 1732474009842, 1732070491130, 1730599998470, 1730703790062, 1729169624560, 1737524207849, 1734925520188 ], "note_signatures": [ [ "ICLR.cc/2025/Conference/Submission12679/Authors" ], [ "ICLR.cc/2025/Conference/Submission12679/Reviewer_D4d5" ], [ "ICLR.cc/2025/Conference/Submission12679/Reviewer_sH4y" ], [ "ICLR.cc/2025/Conference/Submission12679/Authors" ], [ "ICLR.cc/2025/Conference/Submission12679/Authors" ], [ "ICLR.cc/2025/Conference/Submission12679/Authors" ], [ "ICLR.cc/2025/Conference/Submission12679/Reviewer_fKZ4" ], [ "ICLR.cc/2025/Conference/Submission12679/Authors" ], [ "ICLR.cc/2025/Conference/Submission12679/Reviewer_fKZ4" ], [ "ICLR.cc/2025/Conference/Submission12679/Reviewer_DbYe" ], [ "ICLR.cc/2025/Conference/Submission12679/Reviewer_sH4y" ], [ "ICLR.cc/2025/Conference/Program_Chairs" ], [ "ICLR.cc/2025/Conference/Submission12679/Area_Chair_Cy4r" ] ], "structured_content_str": [ "{\"title\": \"Summary of changes\", \"comment\": \"We would like to thank all of the reviewers for their insightful comments. We have released a new version of the paper incorporating many suggestions. The main changes are:\\n- Added a discussion of Latent Adversarial Training (Casper et al., 2024; Sheshadri et al. 2024) in the Related Works section. Like activation extrapolation, LAT can work even when finding explicit inputs that cause the behavior is hard because it searches over activation space instead of input space.\\n- Added pseudocode to all of the algorithms in Appendix B.\\n\\nStephen Casper, Lennart Schulze, Oam Patel, and Dylan Hadfield-Menell. Defending against unforeseen failure modes with latent adversarial training, 2024. URL https://arxiv.org/abs/2403.05030.\\n\\nAbhay Sheshadri, Aidan Ewart, Phillip Guo, Aengus Lynch, Cindy Wu, Vivek Hebbar, Henry Sleight, Asa Cooper Stickland, Ethan Perez, Dylan Hadfield-Menell, and Stephen Casper. Latent adversarial training improves robustness to persistent harmful behaviors in llms, 2024. URL https://arxiv.org/abs/2407.15549.\"}", "{\"summary\": \"This paper introduces methods for estimating the probability of sampling certain outputs when conditioned on an input distribution in cases where naive sampling is infeasible. Specifically, they introduce four methods (two based on importance sampling and two based on extrapolating model activations) for the special case where the input distribution is independent per token and the output is a single token.\", \"soundness\": \"3\", \"presentation\": \"4\", \"contribution\": \"3\", \"strengths\": \"I am not familiar with prior work in this domain, but it appears as if the paper introduces novel methods for trying to estimate the probabilities of certain outputs given an input distribution.\\n\\nMany intuitions are described in prose and are very clear/helpful:\\n- Why MHIS may be needed, why this is better for higher capacity models\\n- Why activation extrapolation methods could be better in certain scenarios.\\n- Why formally defined distribution can be relevant.\\n\\nThe experiments are sound and the results show that the proposed methods are clearly better than the naive sampling baseline.\\n\\nGraphics are generally clear!\", \"weaknesses\": \"To my understanding, the main motivation described for this problem stems from using these methods to reduce the probability of rare but undesirable outputs. Although a reasonable motivation, there are limited results in this direction because, as the authors point out, doing this for importance sampling reduces to adversarial training, and the activation extrapolation methods are currently worse than the importance sampling methods.\\n- A more thoroughly description of how you would do this for activation extrapolation methods would be good.\\n\\nThe current problem as formulated is restricted (ie. single token output detection) and not practically useful. However the authors recognize this, and I agree that it is a good first step.\\n\\nThe description of the activation extrapolation methods in the main text could be made more clear, for example the motivation for why the QLD directions could be summarized in the main text (without this, it is hard to understand the method).\", \"nits\": [\"Add lines of best fit for figure 1 and 3.\"], \"questions\": \"Is there any concrete benefit that the proposed methods add to the overall motivation of minimizing adversarial outputs (ex. based on the activation extrapolation)?\", \"flag_for_ethics_review\": \"['No ethics review needed.']\", \"rating\": \"6\", \"confidence\": \"2\", \"code_of_conduct\": \"Yes\"}", "{\"title\": \"Response to Clarifications\", \"comment\": \"I thank the reviewers for their clarifications.\\n\\na. I can see that this limitation is clearly stated in the limitations section and I apologise for having missed it. I would still suggest to make it somewhat clear in the introduction. This work does not solve the problem of estimating rare/harmful outputs probability for most settings of practical relevance, but it is a good starting point to then develop more advanced solutions that could scale to these settings. If possible, I would also suggest ways to extend this to multi-token outputs and semantic meanings.\\n\\nb. I agree that success in this task even only for accessible models is still useful. I still suggest adding this as a limitation. I disagree about the fact that it would not be useful for black-box models. Many systems currently rely on proprietary API endpoints for a range of applications, e.g., customer service providers using openAI endpoints. As a service provider consuming a black-box model, knowing how likely it is to, e.g., be rude to customers, would be very helpful to chose which LLM provider and particular model to use.\\n\\nGiven the Authors clarifications, I Raise my score.\"}", "{\"comment\": \"We thank the reviewer for their detailed comments on both the strengths and weaknesses of the paper.\\n\\nWe agree with the reviewer that the current state of activation extrapolation methods do not immediately offer a new method for reducing the probability of rare but undesirable outputs, as they currently underperform standard importance sampling. However, if future work identifies more successful LPE methods (whether through activation extrapolation or some other technique), we believe they may be useful for preventing worst-case model behaviors in the following ways:\\n- As stated in the paper, if the low probability estimate is a differentiable function of the model's parameters, we could apply gradient descent against this estimate. For example, with Quadratic Logit Decomposition we could draw a batch of $n$ activation samples, mix-and-match them to generate $n^2$ synthetic samples, then backprop against a loss function defined on these $n^2$ synthetic samples (note that for a fixed draw of inputs, each synthetic sample is differentiable w.r.t. the model\\u2019s parameters). We do not expect this particular algorithm to work well in practice because the independence assumption made by QLD is poor.\\n- We could use LPE to get a sense of worst-case model behaviors even if we don\\u2019t train against it. For example, a safety-conscious AI developer could apply a LPE method to each new model they train, and commit to taking special precautions if it returns a > 1e-20 chance of executing a catastrophic action on a random input. These \\u201cspecial precautions\\u201d could include: not deploying the model, auditing the training process, alerting regulators, or retraining the model with a different random seed.\\n\\nMore broadly, we note that current adversarial training methods rarely make use of model internals (besides gradient access), and we think there is value in exploring techniques that take advantage of our ability to understand or manipulate internal activations, such as activation extrapolation. One other good example of this is Latent Adversarial Training, which we added to our Related Works.\\n\\nRegarding the clarity of the description of QLD, we have added a small clarification on how the two principles relate to the bias and variance of the estimator. Unfortunately, the pagecount limit prevents us from moving more from the appendix into the main body. We also have added pseudocode for all of the methods in the appendix.\\n\\nFinally, regarding the nit: we worry that lines of best fit would be misleading on Figures 1 and 3 because many of the points are at $y=-\\\\infty$. Additionally, the affine fits we use are of the form $ax^c + b$, which don\\u2019t necessarily correspond to lines on a log-log plot (unless $b = 0$). Thus, having a line of best fit that is close to the ground truth diagonal $y=x$ wouldn\\u2019t tell us much about the overall performance of that method.\", \"title\": \"Response to Reviewer D4d5\"}", "{\"title\": \"Response to Reviewer fKZ4\", \"comment\": \"We thank the reviewer for their criticism.\\n\\nWe discuss applications of low probability estimation in the Discussion section. Namely, we are interested in using low probability estimation as an alternative to standard adversarial training to limit rare but unacceptable model outputs, for example by directly training against the output of a LPE method to drive that probability down. Our response to Reviewer D4d5 goes into more details about how this could be accomplished.\\n\\nWe agree with the reviewer that, at the moment, the activation extrapolation methods are not strong enough to offer immediate applications that outperform what can already be done with importance sampling methods. However, we think this paper makes an important first step by 1) motivating and defining the problem of low probability estimation as an alternative to adversarial training, and 2) introducing activation extrapolation as a novel class of methods. Our empirical results demonstrate that activation extrapolation methods handily beat baselines.\\n\\nIf the reviewer feels that our elaboration has mitigated their concerns, we respectfully ask that they increase their score.\"}", "{\"title\": \"Response to Reviewer sH4y\", \"comment\": \"We thank the reviewer for their detailed feedback. We share the reviewer\\u2019s opinion that addressing the possibility of rare but harmful model outputs is a key problem in advancing adversarial robustness and reinforcement learning.\", \"a\": \"Regarding the reviewer\\u2019s first point about the limitations of behaviors defined by a single token, we acknowledge that this is one of the two major limitations of our current setup (see Section 6.4). However, we\\u2019d also like to point out that single-token behaviors can be somewhat expressive. For example, you could measure the probability that a language model misclassifies offensive text as benign by specifying an input distribution of offensive text (surrounded by the prompt \\u201cIs this text harmful or benign? [TEXT] Answer:\\u201d), then estimating the probability that the model outputs \\\"BENIGN\\\". Of course, this still fails to capture more behaviors that may arise over the course of multiple forward passes of chain-of-thought.\", \"b\": \"Regarding the reviewer\\u2019s second point about our methods requiring full model access: While a black-box setting may be interesting to consider, we are primarily focused on the setting in which a model developer applies low probability estimation (as a complement to adversarial training) to prevent harmful model outputs; in this case, the developer should have full (white-box) access to their own model. None of these methods (including standard adversarial training) would be useful in this regard unless the model can be appropriately updated or secured, which presupposes full access. One of our primary motivations for this work is the intuition that model internals can be leveraged to improve model robustness beyond what can be done with black-box techniques.\\n\\n(Minor, but we also point out that our activation extrapolation methods don\\u2019t require gradients, and only make use of samples of the final-layer model activations. For these methods, the entire model up until the unembedding layer can be black-boxed.)\\n\\nFinally, we have accepted the reviewer\\u2019s suggestion to convert the full algorithms into pseudocode, which are now included in Appendix B. Unfortunately, we lack space to promote this pseudocode into the main body of the paper.\"}", "{\"comment\": \"I thank the authors for their response. I went through all the reviews and their responses.\\n\\nMy concern about the goal of the paper still remains. As also described by reviewer D4d5, the importance sampling method for LPE simply reduces to adversarial training, hence, does not add any helpful new method of training. On the other hand, the activation extrapolation method does provide a novel method but its performance is poor compared to importance sampling. \\n\\nThe authors also claim that better methods may appear for LPEs in the future (in response to reviewer D4d5), which could help improve the worst-case behavior of models, but, I don't think this justifies the limited usefulness of the proposed methods in this paper.\\n\\nI think the paper does have a good motivation and even the activation extrapolation method seems interesting and novel, but more effort is needed to make that direction more useful than naive importance sampling/adversarial training.\\n\\nDespite the drawbacks, I am happy to increase the score for the potential future usefulness of the activation extrapolation direction as discussed by the authors in response to reviewer D4d5. But overall, I feel this paper needs more work to make the methods useful to the research community.\"}", "{\"comment\": \"We are grateful to the reviewer for their generous review and comments.\\n\\nWe agree that a significant limitation of this work is that the models we tested were all quite small. To answer the reviewer's question, we believe that some of our current methods -- in particular QLD and MHIS -- could work just as well on large models as they do for the 1- to 4-layer models. In particular, we have no reason to believe that the distributional assumption on the logit vector made by QLD is worse on larger models. Hopefully, future work can extend our methods to larger models with larger compute budgets. We are also excited about extending the methods to handle more realistic input distributions and more complex behaviors (beyond just a single-token output).\\n\\nRegarding the reviewer's comment on adversarial training, we have added some discussion in the related works section on Latent Adversarial Training (Casper et al., 2024; Sheshadri et al. 2024). Like activation extrapolation, LAT can work even when finding explicit inputs that cause the behavior is hard because it searches over activation space instead of input space.\\n\\nStephen Casper, Lennart Schulze, Oam Patel, and Dylan Hadfield-Menell. Defending against unforeseen failure modes with latent adversarial training, 2024. URL https://arxiv.org/abs/2403.05030.\\n\\nAbhay Sheshadri, Aidan Ewart, Phillip Guo, Aengus Lynch, Cindy Wu, Vivek Hebbar, Henry Sleight, Asa Cooper Stickland, Ethan Perez, Dylan Hadfield-Menell, and Stephen Casper. Latent adversarial training improves robustness to persistent harmful behaviors in llms, 2024. URL https://arxiv.org/abs/2407.15549.\", \"title\": \"Response to Reviewer DbYe\"}", "{\"summary\": \"This work focus on probability estimation of low probability outputs in LLMs with argmax decoding. The paper explores the use of importance sampling and activation extrapolation for better estimate of these rare output events. The paper also provides experiments showing the relative performance of the various proposed algorithms.\", \"soundness\": \"3\", \"presentation\": \"3\", \"contribution\": \"2\", \"strengths\": [\"The paper is well written.\", \"The paper provides simple methods for low probability estimation in LLMs.\", \"Empirical results validate the working of their proposed methods (the importance sampling works better as shown by the authors).\"], \"weaknesses\": [\"One major drawback I find is the lack of clear goal of the paper. The paper seems to provide some interesting algorithm for low probability estimation and high level discussion of how they can be used in practice. But there is no clear application or experiment that shows the usefulness of the contribution. I would urge the authors to kindly provide some clear applications and experiments to show its usefulness.\"], \"questions\": \"Please see the weaknesses.\", \"flag_for_ethics_review\": \"['No ethics review needed.']\", \"rating\": \"5\", \"confidence\": \"4\", \"code_of_conduct\": \"Yes\"}", "{\"summary\": \"This paper studies low-probability estimation - the problem of estimating the probability that model outputs will satisfy a certain criteria on inputs sampled from some distribution. The authors are primarily concerned with models/behaviors where the probability is hard to estimate empirically using unbiased samples from the input distribution, due to the event being rare.\\n\\nMore specifically, the authors study the task of estimating the percentage of inputs on which a transformer model predicts a certain token $t$ as being the most likely next token. Three methods are tested - two importance sampling methods, which leverage gradients with respect to the target logit, and an activation extrapolation method, which uses an empirical distribution over the final hidden states to estimate the probability that $t$ will have the highest logit.\\n\\nThe authors show that importance sampling methods currently dominate activation extrapolation on all tasks, but provide strong arguments for why they might be relevant in more complex models, where finding any particular input that gives rise to a behavior is computationally intractable.\", \"soundness\": \"3\", \"presentation\": \"4\", \"contribution\": \"4\", \"strengths\": [\"The paper has a novel framing of low probability estimation as a concrete approach to understanding and improving worst-case model performance. It is the first paper to explore extrapolation-based methods that don't require finding explicit examples of rare behaviors.\", \"The best performing method presented in the paper, MHIS, is motivated using existing work in automated redteaming. By adapting the Greedy Coordinate Gradient technique (previously used for finding jailbreaks) into a proposal distribution for Metropolis-Hastings sampling, the paper shows how adversarial attack methods can be leveraged for low-probability estimation. This innovative connection between adversarial attacks and probability estimation shows how existing attack methods can be repurposed for studying the probability of rare behaviors on the normal input distribution.\"], \"weaknesses\": [\"The models tested are small, and it's unclear whether these methods can be scaled up to actual models of interest. However, the decision to use smaller models is justified, as it would be otherwise impossible to compute the true probability on all 2^32 input samples, which is necessary for measuring the performance of the methods.\", \"Given that adversarial training is stated as a part of the motivation for developing low probability estimation methods, there is a gap in the discussion around automated red teaming and adversarial training approaches for language models. The related works section would benefit from an extended discussion on this area. This context would help readers better understand how this work relates to and advances existing techniques for improving model robustness.\"], \"questions\": [\"Do you have preliminary thoughts or analysis on how these methods might scale to larger language models?\"], \"flag_for_ethics_review\": \"['No ethics review needed.']\", \"rating\": \"10\", \"confidence\": \"4\", \"code_of_conduct\": \"Yes\"}", "{\"summary\": \"The paper studies the problem of estimating the probabilities of rare outputs of transformer models. The authors explore two ways to estimate these probabilities: i) importance sampling and ii) activation extrapolation, which is more novel, but less effective. For each method, they propose two sub-strategies. Results show that importance sampling performs best at estimating the probability of rare outputs and both proposed methods perform better than random sampling.\", \"soundness\": \"3\", \"presentation\": \"2\", \"contribution\": \"3\", \"strengths\": \"The paper focuses on an important and, in my opinion, understudied problem of deep learning in general, which is estimating the probability of rare, but potentially catastrophic outputs in deep learning models, and by so doing also capturing the distribution of inputs that would cause them. As stated by the authors correctly, solving this problem is key in advancing adversarial training and even reinforcement learning in many settings.\\n\\nThe approaches tested are principled and thoroughly derived and, while limited in the current applicability (see weaknesses), provide a starting point for further studies and developments of new methods to quantify the probability of rare outputs and all its applications.\", \"weaknesses\": \"Two main weaknesses:\\n\\n1) The methods provided are quite limited in their application to larger models and real-world scenarios, and not just because the authors chose to test with small models, but also because the methods themselves perform computations that restrict their use. Specific points that introduce restrictions to be clarified:\\na. The proposed method can only work with target behaviours defined as single token generation, i.e., define specific tokens that are considered rare for the next generation. This is quite limiting, as in language models target/dangerous behaviours are more often associated with semantic meaning of entire sentences and not with a single next token prediction, e.g., alignment for harmfulness.\\nb. Both methods involve computing the gradient of the rare token generation probability wrt the input tokens/sequence. This reinforces point a. above and further necessitates to have full access to the model, as we need to be able to compute this gradient and propagate it through the model, which is not trivial if the target behaviour is not simply a single specific token or the model is black-box.\\n\\n2) The technical section describing the two method could be clearer. I suggest converting the point-by-point methods descriptions of supplementary B into pseudo-codes to make it clear what are the exact procedures to implement the different proposed methods and, if possible, put some of them in the main text. In the current form, the methods are given little space and I could not follow them without carefully reading supplementary B.\", \"questions\": \"In short, I believe this paper to be a good contribution to the community, providing a starting point to address the problem of rare output probability estimation. However, referencing the weaknesses above, I advise to address the following two points:\\n\\n1) State more clearly that proposed methods are restricted in their applicability to different models and more complex scenario, in particular wrt the need to compute and propagate the gradient of the output probability.\\n\\n2) detail more clearly the proposed strategies, ideally with pseudo-codes.\", \"flag_for_ethics_review\": \"['No ethics review needed.']\", \"rating\": \"8\", \"confidence\": \"3\", \"code_of_conduct\": \"Yes\"}", "{\"title\": \"Paper Decision\", \"decision\": \"Accept (Spotlight)\"}", "{\"metareview\": \"All four reviewers recognize the importance and novelty of the paper\\u2019s core problem: estimating low-probability (rare) outputs of language models on a formally-specified input distribution. This problem is non-trivial and has significant implications for understanding worst-case model behaviors, improving adversarial training, and enhancing the robustness of language models.\", \"key_strengths\": \"1.\\tNovel Problem Framing: The paper articulates the problem of low probability estimation (LPE) in language models, providing a clear motivation and framing it as a critical step towards mitigating rare but harmful outputs. This viewpoint offers a useful alternative perspective to standard adversarial training.\\n\\t2.\\tMethods and Empirical Results: The authors propose and evaluate multiple approaches\\u2014two based on importance sampling and two based on activation extrapolation. Reviewers appreciate the introduction of activation extrapolation as a novel class of methods. Although importance sampling methods currently outperform activation extrapolation, both classes of methods outperform naive random sampling, demonstrating the relevance of the proposed techniques.\\n\\t3.\\tThorough Empirical Evaluation: The paper grounds its theoretical claims in empirical evaluations on small transformer models, where the exact ground-truth probability of certain outputs can be computed. While this is a simplified setting, the experiments are well-designed, and results show that even these first-step methods significantly improve upon naive baselines.\\n\\t4.\\tClarity and Presentation Improvements: The authors have addressed reviewers\\u2019 requests by adding more discussion (e.g., on Latent Adversarial Training), incorporating pseudocode in the appendix, and clarifying the limitations and potential future directions.\", \"additional_comments_on_reviewer_discussion\": \"Main Limitations and Responses:\\n\\t1.\\tScalability and Complexity of Tasks: Reviewers noted that the proposed methods were tested only on small models and simplified settings (e.g., single-token outputs). The authors acknowledged these limitations, stating that their work should be viewed as a first step. They also point out that single-token proxies can be meaningful for certain tasks, and future research could extend these methods to larger models and more complex, multi-token behaviors.\\n\\t2.\\tComparative Performance of Activation Extrapolation: Some reviewers highlighted that while activation extrapolation is intriguing, it currently underperforms importance sampling. The authors note that importance sampling can be seen as an instance of adversarial search and that future research might improve upon activation extrapolation or develop better LPE approaches to surpass these baselines.\\n\\t3.\\tPractical Applications and Black-Box Settings: There were concerns that these methods are mainly applicable in scenarios with white-box model access and may not directly translate to black-box settings. The authors clarified that the primary use-case is for model developers who have full access to their models (e.g., to improve safety before deployment). Still, the authors note that the conceptual framework can inspire techniques for more limited-access settings in the future.\", \"conclusion\": \"All reviewers improved their opinions after the author responses, with the majority expressing that the paper\\u2019s contributions, novelty, and well-grounded motivation justify its acceptance. While the paper\\u2019s methods are currently best suited as a starting point\\u2014especially for small models and single-token events\\u2014it is precisely such foundational work that paves the way for future innovation. The activation extrapolation approach, even if not currently outperforming importance sampling, adds conceptual breadth to the toolkit available for LPE and may inspire subsequent improvements.\"}" ] }

[ "Georgy Derevyanko", "Petr Popov" ]

[ "molecule", "deep learning", "structure prediction", "chemistry", "biology", "biomolecules", "bioinformatics" ]

{ "note_id": [ "qmPhhvQYTI", "pXegueMzKi", "oxfzoTIDpQ", "S82UWDcYJF", "LSZVN2aUz3", "JZaMUp2tyb", "0xcdTRi2wQ" ], "note_type": [ "official_review", "official_review", "comment", "official_comment", "official_review", "official_review", "official_review" ], "note_created": [ 1730693393817, 1730740316746, 1732730517341, 1732621188096, 1730683784007, 1730738054208, 1729577872010 ], "note_signatures": [ [ "ICLR.cc/2025/Conference/Submission4380/Reviewer_SwGk" ], [ "ICLR.cc/2025/Conference/Submission4380/Reviewer_teKc" ], [ "ICLR.cc/2025/Conference/Submission4380/Authors" ], [ "ICLR.cc/2025/Conference/Submission4380/Reviewer_yZ5c" ], [ "ICLR.cc/2025/Conference/Submission4380/Reviewer_Ki62" ], [ "ICLR.cc/2025/Conference/Submission4380/Reviewer_yZ5c" ], [ "ICLR.cc/2025/Conference/Submission4380/Reviewer_Xmpf" ] ], "structured_content_str": [ "{\"summary\": \"The authors propose a method called AlphaMol, which represents molecular structures as rigid bodies to predict small molecule ground-state structures. AlphaMol defines a rigid body as a set of atoms connected by covalent bonds. The structural information of the rigid body is predefined, and AlphaMol predicts the orientations of the rigid bodies to reconstruct the 3D structure of the complete molecule. The method was evaluated on the Molecule3D dataset and showed comparable performance with other competitive methods.\", \"soundness\": \"2\", \"presentation\": \"2\", \"contribution\": \"2\", \"strengths\": \"The idea of representing molecular structures as rigid bodies is novel. The authors also provided an in-depth overview of relevant methods for molecular structure generation and a detailed explanation of the AlphaMol method.\", \"weaknesses\": [\"For Table 1, are the results averaged over multiple runs? Including the standard deviation or confidence interval would improve clarity. Why is the RMSD value missing for RDKit and other methods? Since structure prediction is a long-standing task, incorporating additional methods for comparison would be beneficial.\", \"In Appendix Table 6, the molecule visualization is incomplete. Some parts of the molecule are missing, making it difficult to interpret the results.\", \"Figure 7: Quantitatively measuring the correlation between RMSD and LDDT using Spearman's correlation or Kendall's tau might provide better insight than a figure alone.\", \"Given the multiple possible pairings between two adjacent rigid bodies, how computationally efficient is the proposed method? Can you provide runtime comparisons to existing methods or discuss the computational complexity of their approach relative to the number of rigid bodies or molecule size?\"], \"questions\": [\"I appreciate the detailed overview of relevant methods for structure generation. Since this is also a long-standing task in the scientific community, it might be useful to comment on (or compare with) the performance of widely used tools such as Auto3D (https://auto3d.readthedocs.io/en/latest/index.html), CREST (https://crest-lab.github.io/crest-docs/), OpenBabel (https://open-babel.readthedocs.io/en/latest/index.html), or Orca (https://www.faccts.de/docs/orca/5.0/tutorials/). Some of these tools are computationally expensive, so it's fine to compare on a small subset of molecules.\", \"The paper might benefit from clearer formula statements and naming conventions. For example, definitions for several symbols are missing from lines 247 to 260.\", \"It might be clearer for readers if Figure 6 were split into two separate figures.\"], \"flag_for_ethics_review\": \"['No ethics review needed.']\", \"details_of_ethics_concerns\": \"NA\", \"rating\": \"3\", \"confidence\": \"2\", \"code_of_conduct\": \"Yes\"}", "{\"summary\": \"The primary objective of the paper is to establish a robust architecture for modeling diverse molecular types, ultimately aiming to create a generalized framework capable of managing various molecular modalities. The authors address the small molecule conformer generation challenge by conceptualizing it as a connected set of rigid bodies. They extract commonly available rigid bodies that serve as fundamental building blocks for the majority of molecules in their dataset. A featurization scheme is introduced, incorporating aspects of chirality and symmetry, with these features subsequently processed through modified sequential Evoformer blocks to produce 2D molecular geometries.\", \"soundness\": \"2\", \"presentation\": \"1\", \"contribution\": \"2\", \"strengths\": [\"The conceptual framing of small molecule conformations as sets of rigid bodies is interesting and offers a new perspective on molecular modeling.\", \"The integration of a featurization scheme that considers chirality and symmetry enhances the model's relevance in accurately representing molecular structures.\"], \"weaknesses\": [\"**Clarity Issues**:\", \"The clarity of the manuscript is notably poor; the introduction is overly condensed into a single paragraph, and the writing is characterized by terse sentences. A comprehensive rewrite is essential to enhance clarity, including the use of shorter sentences and multiple paragraphs to delineate contributions clearly.\", \"The algorithms are inadequately formatted, rendering them challenging to read. Simplistic implementations need not be presented as formal algorithms; a descriptive narrative suffices.\", \"The manuscript lacks descriptions of adequate motivation for the addressed problem, leading to insufficient context for readers. There is a disconnection between the problem statement and the proposed solutions.\", \"Methodological explanations, particularly in Section 2, lack clarity and rigor, often employing casual language. Figure 2, in its current state, requires significant improvement to convey its intended message effectively.\", \"**Comparative Analysis**:\", \"The comparisons with existing algorithms are insufficient. While the authors mention RDKit and ETKDG, there is a notable absence of comparisons with more recent methodologies, such as Torsional Diff [1].\", \"Furthermore, standard evaluation metrics such as Precision and Recall are not reported, which are routinely used in evaluation of small molecule conformer generation models.\", \"The rational for using PubChemQC as the target dataset is not convincingly justified over alternatives like GEOM-DRUGS[2], which are commonly used in this domain.\", \"[1] Jing, Bowen, et al. \\\"Torsional diffusion for molecular conformer generation.\\\"\\u00a0*Advances in Neural Information Processing Systems*\\u00a035 (2022): 24240-24253.\", \"[2] Simon Axelrod and Rafael G\\u00f3mez-Bombarelli. Geom, energy-annotated molecular conformations for property prediction and molecular generation. Scientific Data, 2022.\"], \"questions\": \"1. Given that small molecules exhibit considerable conformational diversity, how does the model generate multiple conformers for a given structure? Are the baselines or evaluations accounting for this variability? Diffusion based generative models have explicit consideration for learning a conditional distribution of the conformers, which enables sampling, how does the current method handle this ?\\n2. Has the potential overlap with AlphaFold 3[3] been considered, as it appears to address similar objectives? Does this render the current approach somewhat redundant? Could the authors clearly articulate the main contributions and motivation of the paper under this context ? \\n\\n[3] Abramson, Josh, et al. \\\"Accurate structure prediction of biomolecular interactions with AlphaFold 3.\\\"\\u00a0*Nature*\\u00a0(2024): 1-3.\", \"flag_for_ethics_review\": \"['No ethics review needed.']\", \"rating\": \"3\", \"confidence\": \"4\", \"code_of_conduct\": \"Yes\"}", "{\"withdrawal_confirmation\": \"I have read and agree with the venue's withdrawal policy on behalf of myself and my co-authors.\", \"comment\": \"We thank the reviewers for their valuable feedback. Unfortunately, changes needed to address the drawbacks of the manuscript include additional training runs, as well as extensive rewriting of the text. Therefore we are withdrawing this work to make necessary improvements.\"}", "{\"title\": \"Do you have any response\\uff1f\", \"comment\": \"as the title\"}", "{\"summary\": \"This study introduces a novel approach for predicting ground-state structures of small molecules. The author used a distinctive representation based on rigid neighborhoods. The proposed method computes loss functions over all molecular isomorphisms and addresses chirality constraints\\u2014an important consideration in biological molecules, where structural differences between enantiomers can have substantial impacts on bioactivity. A key innovation is the factorization of molecular isomorphisms, which allows the model to handle complex, long-tail molecules like lipids with extended carbohydrate chains, an area where other methods often fall short. The authors also enhanced training stability by modifying the Evoformer block, incorporating the Reparam method, a scalarization approach for equivariance, and the Gram-Schmidt process to manage rotations, which removed the need for learning rate scheduling and running exponential averaging.\", \"soundness\": \"3\", \"presentation\": \"3\", \"contribution\": \"3\", \"strengths\": \"The study\\u2019s unique approach to molecular structure representation via rigid neighborhoods and isomorphism factorization is innovative and well-suited for handling complex structures in biological molecules. By explicitly incorporating chirality, the model addresses crucial aspects of molecular bioactivity, making it particularly valuable for biological and pharmaceutical applications. Additionally, the adjustments to the Evoformer block significantly improve model stability, underscoring the technical soundness of this work.\", \"weaknesses\": \"The evaluation could be expanded to strengthen the model\\u2019s applicability. Currently, the study only benchmarks the AlphaMol model on Molecular 3D tasks, and while various tasks in structure generation are summarized, these benchmarks do not include comparisons to other established models. Evaluating the new model against benchmark models, such as graph-based methods like DimeNet [1], would provide a more comprehensive assessment of its strengths. Including a wider array of molecular representation tasks, such as property prediction or drug-drug interaction prediction, in recent molecular representation surveys [2], would also enhance the study\\u2019s impact.\\n\\n[1] Gasteiger, et al. \\\"Directional message passing on molecular graphs via synthetic coordinates.\\\" Advances in Neural Information Processing Systems 34 (2021): 15421-15433.\\n[2] Guo, Zhichun, et al. \\\"Graph-based molecular representation learning.\\\" arXiv preprint arXiv:2207.04869 (2022).\", \"questions\": \"Could the model\\u2019s performance be further validated by comparing it to other benchmark models, especially graph-based methods like DimeNet, across a variety of molecular representation tasks?\\nHow would the model perform on additional tasks that assess molecular representations, such as property prediction or drug-drug interaction prediction, which could offer a broader understanding of its capabilities?\\nAre there any specific challenges or computational constraints when applying this model to large or highly complex compound libraries?\\nHow does the model handle the challenge of molecular conformation ensembles, which are critical for accurately capturing the dynamic and flexible nature of molecules in real environments? Since conformation ensembles are increasingly recognized as essential for describing realistic molecular behavior [1], further explanation on this aspect could strengthen the model\\u2019s relevance, particularly in applications requiring a comprehensive representation of molecular flexibility and bioactivity.\\n\\n[1] Zhu, Yanqiao, et al. \\\"Learning Over Molecular Conformer Ensembles: Datasets and Benchmarks.\\\" The Twelfth International Conference on Learning Representations. 2023.\", \"flag_for_ethics_review\": \"['No ethics review needed.']\", \"rating\": \"8\", \"confidence\": \"3\", \"code_of_conduct\": \"Yes\"}", "{\"summary\": \"This paper attempts to extend the methods of AlphaFold2 to small molecule systems, making two main modifications: 1. Constructing rigid body representations; 2. Modifying the Evoformer block. Additionally, it addresses the issue of improving the chirality of structures by factorizing isomorphisms of the molecules.\", \"soundness\": \"3\", \"presentation\": \"3\", \"contribution\": \"3\", \"strengths\": \"The article is very clear in its writing and organization. It introduces a representation based on rigid bodies, which demonstrates a certain level of originality. The design addressing the chirality of structures provides a reference for future work.\", \"weaknesses\": \"Although the writing structure of the article is clear, its focus is on the construction of rigid representation, which is not clearly described in the main text, making it somewhat difficult to read. The experimental results in the article are overly simplistic; for example, improvements were made to the Evoformer block, but detailed comparative results were not provided. The explanation of the results is not clear enough; for instance, Table 1 shows the HOMO-LUMO values but does not provide an explanation. Overall, the extension of AlphaFold2 is not a very innovative idea.\", \"questions\": \"1. The rigid body used is related to the molecular structures in the dataset. Will this method perform consistently on other datasets? How will it handle new molecular structures that are not within the coverage? What hyperparameters can be adjusted in the division of the rigid body? How is the reasonableness of this assumption ensured?\\n\\n2. What are the effects of the two improvements made to the Evoformer block? Are there any ablation studies conducted?\\n\\n3.Figure 1 did not clearly explains the entire process, and Figure 4 did not highlight the most important representation part of this article.\\n\\n4. Will the effect of using rigid body representation be the same as using a pooling layer along with the chirality correction?\\n\\n5. When comparing RDKit ETKDG, DeeperGCN-DAGNN, and AlphaMol, was the impact of model complexity taken into account?\", \"flag_for_ethics_review\": \"['No ethics review needed.']\", \"rating\": \"5\", \"confidence\": \"2\", \"code_of_conduct\": \"Yes\"}", "{\"summary\": \"This work proposes a method to predict ground state small molecule structures based on novel representation of molecular structures as a set of rigid neighborhoods, which manages to tackle the equivariance and chirality issues during the prediction.\", \"soundness\": \"2\", \"presentation\": \"1\", \"contribution\": \"2\", \"strengths\": \"1. Inspired by AF2, this work leverages the concept of rigid body and pairwise representations for small molecules and provides a way to encode bonds between rigid bodies.\\n2. This work specifically addresses issues related to chirality and equivariance in structural prediction, aligning with the intrinsic properties of molecular systems.\", \"weaknesses\": \"1. The writing of the paper is messy, including the lack of emphasis on key points and paragraph divisions, some formulas without serial numbers, incorrect in-paragraph citation format, etc.\\n2. Though AlphaMol innovates in molecular representation, it completely stacks the architecture of EvoFormer to form its own network and does not compare with general molecular representation by ablation experiments, thus the conclusion may not seem convincing.\\n3. The experiments are insufficient since no other stronger baselines are chosen for fair comparison, for instance, DGSM [1], DMCG [2], GeoDiff [3], etc. In addition, the more recognized dataset for evaluation in the field of small molecule structure prediction should be the Geom benchmark [4].\", \"questions\": \"1. Please reorganize the article with necessary paragraph divisions, use the correct in-paragraph citation format and provide serial numbers of all formulas.\\n2. AF2 treats residues as rigid bodies, which can simplify protein representation. However, small molecules that are much smaller than proteins can be represented at the atomic level with little overhead. Please further give the reason for using rigid body representation in this work.\\n3. Could you provide further details on the method of splitting the molecule into different rigid bodies? I also wonder about the size of the vocabulary of all different rigid bodies.\\n4. Please explain why the results of the baselines on RMSD and FAPE were not reported in Table 1.\\n5. For fair comparison, it is encouraged to add stronger baselines like DGSM, DMCG, GeoDiff, etc. Moreover, please show me the reason for using Molecule3D rather than the more frequently used benchmark Geom.\\n\\n**Reference**\\n\\n[1] Luo, S., Shi, C., Xu, M., & Tang, J. (2021). Predicting molecular conformation via dynamic graph score matching. Advances in Neural Information Processing Systems, 34, 19784-19795.\\n\\n[2] Zhu, J., Xia, Y., Liu, C., Wu, L., Xie, S., Wang, Y., ... & Liu, T. Y. (2022). Direct molecular conformation generation. arXiv preprint arXiv:2202.01356.\\n\\n[3] Xu, M., Yu, L., Song, Y., Shi, C., Ermon, S., & Tang, J. (2022). Geodiff: A geometric diffusion model for molecular conformation generation. arXiv preprint arXiv:2203.02923.\\n\\n[4] Axelrod, S., & Gomez-Bombarelli, R. (2022). GEOM, energy-annotated molecular conformations for property prediction and molecular generation. Scientific Data, 9(1), 185.\", \"flag_for_ethics_review\": \"['No ethics review needed.']\", \"details_of_ethics_concerns\": \"No concerns.\", \"rating\": \"3\", \"confidence\": \"5\", \"code_of_conduct\": \"Yes\"}" ] }

[ "Wensen Mao", "Wenjie Qiu", "Yuanlin Duan", "He Zhu" ]

[ "Reinforcement learning", "Large language models", "Robotics" ]

{ "note_id": [ "yRhJPh7dtl", "vJVQSVPj0c", "q1CexL8FEk", "oVX1zvcE7C", "o7u9ew19uJ", "nutQhfCSlG", "nBE2qExlT1", "lDM785tkdg", "kAqot0Y6lH", "iNALt9htqG", "cp9Xn84O0Z", "bpHj5njp93", "YUOfT5t3FO", "VyDvauNo3j", "U3XezrWKg4", "TIzkakXyAz", "SmUtj4Qunk", "R3jJaBL9bJ", "QSU3IgALL8", "PdYQEJvSie", "IvOJWCboYu", "IMN302Lalx", "FfyA8Kowuy", "ANTXUPc508", "8qksjWxexw", "7QIh2cpS34" ], "note_type": [ "official_review", "official_comment", "official_comment", "official_comment", "official_comment", "official_comment", "official_comment", "official_comment", "meta_review", "official_comment", "official_comment", "official_review", "official_comment", "official_comment", "official_review", "official_comment", "official_comment", "decision", "official_comment", "official_review", "official_comment", "official_comment", "official_comment", "official_comment", "official_comment", "official_comment" ], "note_created": [ 1729713093743, 1732479436757, 1732478980402, 1732479567360, 1732820960670, 1732644735615, 1732737346476, 1732553876213, 1734441305931, 1732552896004, 1732686657723, 1730660611644, 1732853785346, 1732645754188, 1730685025680, 1732737636402, 1732917690151, 1737523916944, 1732644714629, 1729529069164, 1732724085646, 1732478932785, 1732479800949, 1732491510275, 1732872139752, 1732553901688 ], "note_signatures": [ [ "ICLR.cc/2025/Conference/Submission8541/Reviewer_1Mn6" ], [ "ICLR.cc/2025/Conference/Submission8541/Authors" ], [ "ICLR.cc/2025/Conference/Submission8541/Authors" ], [ "ICLR.cc/2025/Conference/Submission8541/Authors" ], [ "ICLR.cc/2025/Conference/Submission8541/Reviewer_jBGA" ], [ "ICLR.cc/2025/Conference/Submission8541/Authors" ], [ "ICLR.cc/2025/Conference/Submission8541/Authors" ], [ "ICLR.cc/2025/Conference/Submission8541/Authors" ], [ "ICLR.cc/2025/Conference/Submission8541/Area_Chair_ENxe" ], [ "ICLR.cc/2025/Conference/Submission8541/Authors" ], [ "ICLR.cc/2025/Conference/Submission8541/Reviewer_kCBF" ], [ "ICLR.cc/2025/Conference/Submission8541/Reviewer_jBGA" ], [ "ICLR.cc/2025/Conference/Submission8541/Authors" ], [ "ICLR.cc/2025/Conference/Submission8541/Reviewer_1Mn6" ], [ "ICLR.cc/2025/Conference/Submission8541/Reviewer_pFie" ], [ "ICLR.cc/2025/Conference/Submission8541/Authors" ], [ "ICLR.cc/2025/Conference/Submission8541/Reviewer_1Mn6" ], [ "ICLR.cc/2025/Conference/Program_Chairs" ], [ "ICLR.cc/2025/Conference/Submission8541/Authors" ], [ "ICLR.cc/2025/Conference/Submission8541/Reviewer_kCBF" ], [ "ICLR.cc/2025/Conference/Submission8541/Authors" ], [ "ICLR.cc/2025/Conference/Submission8541/Authors" ], [ "ICLR.cc/2025/Conference/Submission8541/Authors" ], [ "ICLR.cc/2025/Conference/Submission8541/Reviewer_1Mn6" ], [ "ICLR.cc/2025/Conference/Submission8541/Authors" ], [ "ICLR.cc/2025/Conference/Submission8541/Authors" ] ], "structured_content_str": [ "{\"summary\": \"This paper proposes L2S (Language to Skills) to leverage LLMs to decompose tasks into reusable skills with parameterized rewards and termination conditions\\u200b. With parameterized rewards and termination conditions, L2S can train parameter-conditioned skill policies and then autonomously accumulates a skill library for guiding continual skills learning.\\n\\nHowever, the high-level idea of L2S is almost the same as a previous ICLR LLMAgent Workshop paper [1]. It limits the contribution of this paper. Also, this paper even didn't cite the previous paper. **The author needs to give sufficient explanation to show that it's just inadequate reference or any more serious problem.**\\n\\n[1]. Li et al., LEAGUE++: EMPOWERING CONTINUAL ROBOT LEARNING THROUGH GUIDED SKILL ACQUISITION WITH LARGE LANGUAGE MODELS, 2024\", \"soundness\": \"2\", \"presentation\": \"3\", \"contribution\": \"1\", \"strengths\": \"1. Skill reuse between tasks can enhance the training efficiency for continual learning on new tasks.\\n\\n2. Decompose tasks into smaller reusable skills reduce the difficulties to generate multi-stage dense rewards and enhance training efficiency.\\n\\n3. The experimental results show that L2S not only solves continuously presented tasks much faster but also achieves higher success rates compared to state-of-the-art methods.\", \"weaknesses\": \"1. The high-level idea of this paper is almost the same as a previous ICLR Workshop paper [1]. League++ integrates LLMs, Task and Motion Planning (TAMP), and RL to guide continual skill acquisition through task decomposition, reward generation, and continual learning with skills library. Then, League++ can do autonomous training for long-horizon task and enhance training efficiency in other tasks. The overall ideas and contributions are very similar to L2S. However, This paper even didn't cite League++. **The author needs to give sufficient explanation to show that it's just inadequate reference or any more serious problem.** Anyway, the author needs to highlight the difference and show the novelty of this paper. On the other hand, Gen2Sim [2] is also utilizes LLMs to do task generation, task decomposition, and reward generations for skill learning. Please add more related work.\\n\\n2. In the previous work Text2Reward [3], the reward generation requires human-in-loop training for generating better rewards. Although L2S uses methods similar to Text2Reward, this paper didn't show anything about it. \\n\\n3. In the previous work Text2Reward [3], the generated reward code can be incorrect. As shown in the table 7 of this previous paper, the success rate is just 90%. Since L2S will generate several reward functions for different skills, the failure rates will exponential growth. (For example, if you have five skills, the success rate will be 90%^5=59%, which is pretty low) This paper didn't show how do they resolve this problem. Adding more explanations and ablation studies is helpful.\\n\\n4. It's not convincing that only optimize the last skill parameters is enough. (For example, you have a task with three skills: open the cabinet, pick a hammer, and place the hammer to the cabinet. If the cabinet is not opened far enough, you cannot place the hammer successfully. At the moment, you need to update the parameters and termination of the first skill, not the last skill.) Some previous work refine all the skills start from the beginning.\\n\\n5. The most long-horizon task in the experiments only has three stages: OpenDrawer, PlaceCubeDrawer and CloseDrawer. Since the idea for task decomposition and skill library are designed for long-horizon tasks, more experiments on them should benefit.\\n\\n[1]. Li et al., LEAGUE++: EMPOWERING CONTINUAL ROBOT LEARNING THROUGH GUIDED SKILL ACQUISITION WITH LARGE LANGUAGE MODELS, 2024\\n\\n[2]. Katara et al., Gen2Sim: Scaling up Robot Learning in Simulation with Generative Models, 2024\\n\\n[3]. Xie et al., TEXT2REWARD: REWARD SHAPING WITH LANGUAGE MODELS FOR REINFORCEMENT LEARNING, 2024\", \"questions\": \"1. In the previous work Text2Reward [1], the reward generation requires human-in-loop training for generating better rewards. It's hard to generate usable reward functions in one-shot. Although L2S uses methods similar to Text2Reward, this paper didn't show anything about it. How can you generate usable reward codes in one shot?\\n\\n2. The comparison with Eureka [2] is confused for me. Different from T2R, Eureka is a two-stage method, which learns a dense rewards at first and then use it for RL training. How do you compare the training efficiency directly? Also, why the performance of a single skill like OpenDrawer is pretty low? (It shows great performance in much more complex tasks.)\\n\\n3. The potential assumption of the skill library is that the similar skills' semantic description are similar. It's might be a correct assumption that skill with similar semantic description can be reused. However, it might not be sufficient. How about those skills have similar motions? (like place and insert might have similar motion somehow) How can we utilize them as reuse skills?\\n\\nIf the author can address those limitations and give enough explanation to the novelty, I will consider improve my score.\\n\\n[1]. Xie et al., TEXT2REWARD: REWARD SHAPING WITH LANGUAGE MODELS FOR REINFORCEMENT LEARNING, 2024\\n\\n[2]. Ma et al., Eureka: Human-Level Reward Design via Coding Large Language Models, 2024\", \"flag_for_ethics_review\": \"['No ethics review needed.']\", \"details_of_ethics_concerns\": \".\", \"rating\": \"6\", \"confidence\": \"5\", \"code_of_conduct\": \"Yes\"}", "{\"title\": \"Reply to Questions part (Part 1)\", \"comment\": \"Thank you for your dedication to reading our work thoroughly and providing thoughtful feedback. Your insights have been instrumental in helping us refine and improve our research. Below are our responses to the weaknesses and questions you raised.\", \"we_provide_our_essential_code_base_at_https\": \"//anonymous.4open.science/r/L2S_basecode-F5D4.\\n\\n## Questions\\n\\n> **Few-shot prompting with examples**\\n\\nThank you for pointing out the missing part. We provide the content of our few-shot examples here and will include them in Appendix E. These few-shot examples serve two purposes: 1) to provide workflows for task decomposition, and 2) to constrain the LLM from generating overly fine-grained or meaningless skills that contribute little to the task.\\n\\n```markdown\", \"instances_of_few_shot_examples\": \"1.Task to be fulfilled: Turn an object with a handle left.\", \"corresponding_skills_and_sequence_of_skills_for_accomplishing_the_task\": \"Skill 1. Navigate gripper to the box.\\n Skill 2. Grasp the box and move the box to the goal position and hold it.\", \"skill_1\": \"Align the robot arm end-effector to a 3D position on the right of the object handle with some offset.\", \"skill_2\": \"Move robot arm end-effector and turn the object handle left.\", \"the_sequence_for_accomplishing_the_task_could_be\": \"Skill 1 -> Skill 2.\\n```\\n\\n> **Policy Termination**\\n\\nAs is common in reinforcement learning methods, a policy terminates either when the termination condition is met or when the maximum number of action steps is reached. The state distribution after the policy terminates, regardless of the termination reason, is then considered as the initial state distribution for training the next skill.\\n\\n> **Why make the assumption that the parameters for each skill only depend on the skill after them?**\\n\\nRepeatedly optimizing the parameters of previously learned skills can be inefficient, as it enlarges the search space. More importantly, optimizing the parameters of all prior skills simultaneously can degrade the performance of some skills, as each skill is trained based on an initial state distribution conditioned on the optimized parameter values of the preceding skills. Updating these parameters for earlier skills may lead to suboptimal behavior.To support this explanation, we conducted additional evaluations using the \\\"Open Drawer\\\" task from LORL and the \\\"Pick Cube\\\" task from ManiSkill2, each of which involves three decomposed skills. In these evaluations, we optimized the parameters of both the first two skills while training the third skill. Results indicate that optimizing all prior parameters incurs higher training costs to maintain a similar success rate:\\n\\n***Training of third skill in LORL-Open Drawer***\\n\\n| | Success Rate | Training Cost on 3rd skill (Timesteps) |\\n| --------------------------------- | ------------ | -------------------------------------- |\\n| Default | 0.95(0.014) | 4e5 |\\n| Optimizing all the previous skill | 0.96(0.011) | 1e6 |\\n\\n***Training of third skill in ManiSkill2-Pick Cube***\\n\\n| | Success Rate | Training Cost on 3rd skill (Timesteps) |\\n| --------------------------------- | ------------ | -------------------------------------- |\\n| Default | 0.87(0.04) | 2e6 |\\n| Optimizing all the previous skill | 0.813(0.01) | 3e6 |\\n\\nGiven a subtask sequence of 1) move to button, 2) close fingers, and 3) push button, we assume that the reward and termination functions for skill 2 developed by the LLM encourage and require the end effector to be fully closed around the button.\\n\\n> **Why optimize the parameters and the policy separately in an iterative process rather than together?**\\n\\nWhen the parameters and policy are optimized together, changes to the policy might invalidate the parameters, leading to potential suboptimal behavior. Optimizing them separately allows for the preservation of previously learned behaviors while still refining the system.\"}", "{\"title\": \"Reply to Weaknesses part (Part 2)\", \"comment\": \"## Weaknesses\\n\\n> **Comparison with League++** \\n\\nThank you for highlighting the related work we missed. In League++, the reward functions are generated by the LLM through selecting and weighting pre-defined metric functions provided by human experts. This approach simplifies the problem and minimizes irrelevant outputs by constraining the solution space. However, L2S differs from League++ in the following key aspects:\\n\\n1. **Free-form Reward Generation:** Unlike League++, L2S enables the LLM to generate free-form reward functions directly from the environment knowledge, rather than being limited to a predefined set of metric functions.\\n\\n2. **Reduced Human Expert Effort:** L2S requires less human effort, as it only needs natural language examples of task decomposition. Providing these examples is significantly easier than designing specialized metric functions.We will include a discussion of League++ in the related work section of our paper to address this comparison.\\n\\n> **As shown in Table 7 of Text2Reward, the success rate of generating executable reward functions is just 90%. Since L2S generates several reward functions for different skills, the failure rates grow exponentially.** \\n\\nL2S achieves a higher execution success rate for each generated skill compared to the whole-task reward function generated in Text2Reward. This is because generating free-form function code for individual skills is inherently simpler than generating a single function for the entire task. Each skill represents only a portion of the overall task, reducing complexity. To substantiate this claim, we evaluated the LLM's performance in generating correct function code for both LORL and ManiSkill2 environments more than 100 samples each:\\n\\n| LLM(GPT-4) | LORL | ManiSkill2 |\\n| ------------------ | ---- | ---------- |\\n| Correct | 92% | 87% |\\n| Syntax/Shape Error | 8% | 13% |\\n\\nThe results highlight the effectiveness of L2S in breaking down complex tasks into manageable components and improving the reliability of code generation.\\n\\n> **It's not convincing that only optimize the last skill parameters is enough.** \\n\\nRepeatedly optimizing the parameters of previously learned skills can be inefficient, as it enlarges the search space. More importantly, optimizing the parameters of all prior skills simultaneously can degrade the performance of some skills, as each skill is trained based on an initial state distribution conditioned on the optimized parameter values of the preceding skills. Updating these parameters for earlier skills may lead to suboptimal behavior. To support this explanation, we conducted additional evaluations using the \\\"Open Drawer\\\" task from LORL and the \\\"Pick Cube\\\" task from ManiSkill2, each of which involves three decomposed skills. In these evaluations, we optimized the parameters of both the first two skills while training the third skill. Results indicate that optimizing all prior parameters incurs higher training costs to maintain a similar success rate:\\n\\n***Training of third skill in LORL-Open Drawer***\\n\\n| | Success Rate | Training Cost on 3rd skill (Timesteps) |\\n| --------------------------------- | ------------ | --------------------------------------- |\\n| Default | 0.95(0.014) | 4e5 |\\n| Optimizing all the previous skill | 0.96(0.011) | 1e6 |\\n\\n***Training of third skill in ManiSkill2-Pick Cube***\\n\\n| | Success Rate | Training Cost on 3rd skill (Timesteps) |\\n| --------------------------------- | ------------ | --------------------------------------- |\\n| Default | 0.87(0.04) | 2e6 |\\n| Optimizing all the previous skill | 0.813(0.01) | 3e6 |\\n\\n> **More experiments for long-horizon tasks**. \\n\\nTo address the reviewer\\u2019s concern, we provided additional results on complex, meaningful tasks in both the LORL and ManiSkill2 benchmarks. Notably, we prompted GPT-4 in both L2S and Text2Reward to reuse policies learned from prior single tasks whenever possible, ensuring a fair comparison between the two approaches.\\n\\n| Benchmark | Task | Text2Reward(Std) | L2S(Std) |\\n| ---------- | ------------------------------------------------ | ----------- | ---------------- |\\n| LORL | PushMugBack-OpenDrawer | 0.91(0.043) | 0.93(0.030) |\\n| | OpenDrawer-TurnFaucetRight | 0.89(0.096) | 0.93(0.062) |\\n| | MugBack-OpenDrawer-TurnFaucetRight | 0.76(0.071) | 0.90(0.044) |\\n| ManiSkill2 | OpenDrawer-Place**TwoCubes**Drawer-CloseDrawer | 0.01(0.002) | 0.72(0.056) |\\n| | OpenDrawer-Place**ThreeCubes**Drawer-CloseDrawer | 0.01(0.001) | 0.54(0.032) |\"}", "{\"title\": \"Reply to Questions part (Part 2)\", \"comment\": \"> **In equation 1, wouldn\\u2019t optimizing \\\\phi_{i-1} and \\\\varphi_{i-1} potentially lead those variables to be out of distribution for the frozen policy \\\\pi_{i-1}?**\\n\\nWhen training the $i$-th skill $\\\\pi_i$, optimizing the parameters $\\\\phi_{i-1}$ and $\\\\varphi_{i-1}$ from the previous $(i-1)$-th skill does not lead to initial states outside the distribution of the frozen policy $\\\\pi_{i-1}$. In L2S, the skill policies are parameter-conditioned, meaning that, during training, they are trained to handle a range of parameter values well (similar to goal-conditioned RL). When optimizing $\\\\pi_i$, these parameter values $\\\\phi_{i-1}$ and $\\\\varphi_{i-1}$ from $\\\\pi_{i-1}$ are adjusted within the same range, maintaining stability during training.\\n\\n> **How are the \\u201cuser-selected\\u201d variances for the skill parameters determined?**\\n\\nAs we provided information about the environment and additional knowledge that connects the semantics of real-world instructions to the robot environment and specifies the task's successful conditions (see Appendix E), the LLM gains some understanding of the environment's scale and selects reasonable (though not necessarily optimal) parameter mean values. By default, we set the variance of the parameters to be twice the maximum mean value generated by the LLM for the current task (a heuristic). We conducted experiments with varying alternative parameter value variances, while keeping the parameter mean value fixed:\\n\\n***LORL-Turn faucet left***\\n\\nFor this task, we examined three different parameter variance combinations\\u2014variants 1, 2, and 3\\u2014to analyze their effects on reward and termination parameters. The first skill in the task is trained to position the end effector around the faucet handle, with the reward function parameter defining the acceptable distance to the handle. The termination condition parameter specifies how close the end effector must be to the target position to transition to the next skill.\\n\\n- **Variant 1**: The variance of the termination condition parameter is increased.\\n- **Variant 2**: The variance of the reward function parameter is increased.\\n- **Variant 3**: The variance of both parameters is increased.\\n\\n| [Reward Func Parameters]/[Termination Func Parameters] | Initial Parameters Mean Value | Initial Parameters Variance | Optimized Params/(Std) | Success Rate/(std) | Training Cost (Timesteps) |\\n| ------------------------------------------------------ | ----------------------------- | --------------------------- | ------------------------------ | ------------------ | ------------------------- |\\n| Default | [0.01]/[0.01] | [0.2]/[0.02] | [0.107/(0.02)]/[0.013/(0.001)] | 0.99/(0.01) | 1e6 |\\n| **Variant1** | [0.01]/[0.01] | [0.2]/**[0.05]** | [0.118/(0.04)]/[0.027/(0.005)] | 0.89/(0.13) | 1.5e6 |\\n| **Variant2** | [0.01]/[0.01] | **[0.5]**/[0.02] | [0.16/(0.01)]/[0.015/(0.0003)] | 0.97/(0.04) | 1e6 |\\n| **Variant3** | [0.01]/[0.01] | **[0.5]/[0.05]** | [0.114/(0.01)]/[0.031/(0.001)] | 0.93/(0.05) | 1e6 |\\n\\nThe results were obtained using three different random seeds and demonstrate that L2S consistently achieves optimal parameter values across the default setting and all tested variants.\\n\\n***ManiSkill2-Open drawer***\\n\\nFor this task, the parameter in the termination condition of the first skill specifies the required proximity of the robot's end effector to the target position above the drawer handle. In the variant, we increase the variance of this parameter from the default value of 0.02 to 0.05 to evaluate its impact on performance.\\n\\n| [Termination Func] | Initial Params Mean Value | Initial Params Variance | Optimized Params(std) | Success Rate/(Std) | Training Cost (Timesteps) |\\n| ------------------ | ------------------------- | ----------------------- | --------------------- | ------------------ | ------------------------- |\\n| Default | [0.01] | [0.02] | [0.026(0.003)] | 0.94/(0.06) | 1e6 |\\n| **Variant** | [0.01] | **[0.05]** | [0.031(0.006)] | 0.97/(0.02) | 1e6 |\\n\\nThe results, obtained using three different random seeds, consistently demonstrate the robustness of L2S in handling various parameter variance configurations while maintaining effective performance.\"}", "{\"comment\": \"Thank you for addressing my questions. I have no further inquiries and am happy to stick with my original score!\"}", "{\"title\": \"Reply to questions and suggestions (Part 2)\", \"comment\": \"> **I am not quite understand the details about the reward generation ablation.**\\n\\nFor the reward generation experiment in the LORL and ManiSkill2 environments, we selected 5 simple tasks from each environment(LORL: \\\"OpenDrawer, TurnFaucetLeft, TurnFaucetRight, PushMugBack, PushMugLeft\\\"; ManiSkill2: \\\"OpenDrawer, CloseDrawer, PickCube, StackCube, PlaceCubeDrawer\\\"), as shown in Figure 5 in the paper, and queried the LLM for 20 samples per task. Across these 10 tasks, the number of skills generated ranged from 2 to 5. The reported results reflect the success rate for completing the entire tasks.\\n\\nGenerating free-form function code for individual skills proved to be inherently simpler than generating a single function for the entire task. As a result, within individual skill functions, we did not encounter errors such as \\\"Wrong package,\\\" \\\"Attribute hallucination,\\\" or \\\"Class attribute misuse,\\\" which were observed in Text2Reward. The syntax errors we experienced were primarily due to the increased difficulty for the LLM in constructing a sequence of function codes that adhered to the required specific format.\"}", "{\"comment\": \"Thank you once again for your time and thoughtful review of our work. As the deadline of discussion phase approaches, please don\\u2019t hesitate to let us know if there are any additional questions we can address to further strengthen our submission.\"}", "{\"title\": \"Reply to Weaknesses (Part 1)\", \"comment\": \"We sincerely thank you for your valuable feedback and thoughtful comments! We truly appreciate the time and effort you have dedicated to reviewing our submission. Below, we provide detailed responses to your questions.\\nWe have updated the flaws mentioned in Minor Corrections in paper and will upload it shortly.\\n\\n## Weaknesses\\n\\n> **Who determines the semantic meaning of the parameters?**\\n\\nL2S leverages LLMs to decompose a task into subtasks and generates reward and termination functions for each subtask. We prompt the LLM that when it lacks high confidence in determining a task-specific numerical threshold, it introduces a parameter to represent the uncertainty. For instance, in the task \\\"turn faucet left,\\\" one subtask involves positioning the end effector near the faucet handle. The threshold for how close the end effector should be to the handle is task-specific, so the LLM introduces a parameter to define this distance. These parameters are *tied to specific concepts within the reward and termination functions generated by the LLM*. Consequently, optimizing these parameters directly enhances the overall reward performance, as it aligns with the structure and objectives defined by the generated reward functions.\"}", "{\"metareview\": [\"Scientific Claims and Findings:\", \"The paper introduces L2S, a method that uses LLMs to decompose natural language task descriptions into reusable skills\", \"Each skill is defined by LLM-generated dense reward functions and termination conditions\", \"L2S builds a skill library progressively, using existing skills to reach states for learning new skills\"], \"strengths\": [\"Progressively building a skill library and using LLM to define their rewards are elegant ideas.\", \"Strong empirical results across multiple challenging robotic manipulation tasks\", \"Thorough ablation studies and evaluation methodology\"], \"weaknesses\": [\"The core technical novelty is limited - the main contribution is replacing LEAGUE++'s pre-defined metric functions with LLM-generated rewards, while keeping the same fundamental approach of progressive skill learning and chaining.\", \"Heavy reliance on task-specific prompt engineering\", \"Lack of theoretical analysis for state abstraction method\", \"Given ICLR's high standards for technical novelty, the incremental nature of the improvements over prior work (particularly LEAGUE/LEAGUE++) does not meet the bar. While the empirical results are strong and the engineering is solid, the paper lacks fundamental technical advances.\"], \"additional_comments_on_reviewer_discussion\": [\"Initial Main Comments:\", \"Reviewer pFie raised serious concerns about the dependence on LLM-generated functions and limited experimental scenarios\", \"Reviewer jBGA questioned aspects of parameter optimization and variance selection\", \"Reviewer 1Mn6 highlighted significant overlap with prior work (League++) and concerns about LLM reliability\", \"Reviewer kCBF noted issues with prompt engineering requirements and limitations of the parameter optimization approach\", \"The authors provided detailed responses addressing some concerns, including:\", \"Additional ablation studies on parameter distributions\", \"Clarification of the parameter optimization strategy\", \"New experiments on longer-horizon tasks\", \"Analysis of LLM function generation reliability\", \"While these responses improved the technical clarity, they did not fully address the fundamental concerns about novelty relative to League++, the extensive prompt engineering requirements, and scalability limitations.\"]}", "{\"comment\": \"Thank you for your dedication to reading our work and providing valuable feedback. Below are our responses to the weaknesses and questions you raised.\\n\\n## Questions\\n\\n> **How is the baseline being compared\\uff1f**\\n\\nWe compare our approach, L2S, against two baselines, Text2Reward and Eureka, using all available environment-related information. This includes an environment description, additional environment-specific knowledge, and few-shot examples. The \\\"additional environment knowledge\\\" component serves to bridge the semantics of real-world instructions with the simulated environment and clarify task success criteria. Specifically, this involves:\\n\\n1. Mapping the 3D coordinate system of the environment to the human-provided task descriptions.\\n2. Defining the success conditions of tasks, which may vary based on human preferences.\\n\\nFor example, in the LORL environment, a human instruction such as \\\"move an object forward\\\" is interpreted as:\\n\\n1. Moving the object along the positive y-axis in the simulated environment.\\n2. Considering the task successful if the object is moved at least 0.1 meters along the positive y-axis.\\n\\n> **How to generalize to new environments\\uff1f**\\n\\nTo generalize to new environments, all environment-specific information in the prompt must be updated to align with the new environment, as the assets, supported tasks, and corresponding success conditions differ across environments. However, the \\\"Instruction Hint\\\" section remains consistent. For further details, please refer to the prompt blocks provided in Appendix E.\\n\\n## Weaknesses\\n\\n> **L2S depends heavily on the accuracy of LLM-generated reward and termination functions. No evolutionary search**\\n\\nThe primary contribution of L2S lies in its framework for leveraging LLMs to perform task decomposition and facilitate the efficient reuse of subtask policies across related task domains. In this work, we use few-shot examples to guide the LLM in generating accurate and stable free-form code for reward and termination functions. This design choice is inspired by related work, such as Text2Reward, which, however, does not address task decomposition or composition. Alternatively, we could replace the few-shot examples in our prompts with evolutionary search to guide the generation of reward and termination functions, as in Eureka. We believe that L2S would support skill discovery and reuse under Eureka's design strategy. However, our core contribution focuses on enabling skill discovery and policy reuse, rather than on the specific method\\u2014whether few-shot examples or evolutionary search\\u2014used for reward and termination function generation for subtask policies.\\n\\n> **The experimental scenarios are simple.**\\n\\nOur experiments prioritize tasks with compositional structures rather than the complexity of environment dynamics, as prior work (e.g., Text2Reward) has already demonstrated LLMs' capability to generate rewards in such environments. To this end, we compositionalized environments from Text2Reward, including robotics manipulation tasks in LORL and ManiSkill2, to highlight L2S's effectiveness in leveraging task compositionality for continuously presented tasks. For example, one of the long-horizon tasks in our experiments involves opening a drawer, placing a cube from the table into the drawer, and then closing the drawer. During the rebuttal phase, we further showcased an even more complex scenario where the agent must place three blocks into the drawer as part of the process (see our response to Reviewer 1Mn6). L2S not only solves these tasks significantly faster but also achieves higher success rates compared to Text2Reward.\\n\\n> **The approach has only been evaluated in state-based environments.**\\n\\nOur results demonstrate that L2S effectively decomposes complex tasks and generates accurate reward and termination functions for subtasks, which is the main focus of this paper. These reward and termination functions can principally be used by RL agents to train control policies using visual inputs and to terminate when specific visual conditions satisfy the termination criteria. Extending L2S to vision-based environments is left for future work.\"}", "{\"title\": \"Reply\", \"comment\": \"Thanks to the authors for answering my questions, providing the codebase, and including error bars in their experimental results, and including the missing appendix section.\\n\\nRegarding the assumption that each skill only depend on the skill after them, it is clear from the experiments that the assumption holds for the tasks that were evaluated on. However, I don't think this assumption holds in a lot of other tasks. The fact that \\\"optimizing the parameters of all prior skills simultaneously can degrade the performance of some skills\\\" is a limitation of this particular method on tasks where the assumption doesn't hold. This is maybe a direction for future work, but should probably be listed as a limitation.\\n\\n> The user-provided \\u201cadditional environment knowledge\\u201d is meant to bridge the semantics of real-world instructions to the robotics environment and define the task's overall success conditions\\n\\nThis is reasonable for some of the \\\"additional environment knowledge\\\" and not as reasonable for others. For example \\\"3. Tasks about moving mug are considered successful when mug is moved at least 0.1 meter towards the correct direction compared with the object's initial position.\\\" This is an extremely task-specific piece of context. I think the extensive prompt engineering required to get this system to work should be listed as one of the limitations.\\n\\nLastly, the abstract remains unchanged and continues to contain somewhat vague terminology such as \\\"uncertainty surrounding the parameters used by the LLM agent\\\" that is hard to understand without first understanding the paper.\\n\\nOverall, I think the paper has improved and I have increased my score accordingly.\"}", "{\"summary\": \"The paper introduces **L2S (Language to Skills)**, a novel framework that utilizes large language models (LLMs) for skill discovery and reuse in robotics. Unlike prior approaches requiring predefined skill sets, L2S enables robots to autonomously generate skills from task descriptions, defined by LLM-generated dense reward functions and termination conditions. Each skill is parameter-conditioned to adapt across a range of conditions, with suitable parameters chosen during training of subsequent skills. This adaptive approach mitigates the challenge of incorrect parameter settings.\\n\\nL2S builds a skill library progressively as it encounters new tasks, allowing it to efficiently tackle novel tasks by reusing previously learned skills. Experimentally, L2S demonstrates superior performance on sequential robotic manipulation tasks compared to baseline methods, achieving faster convergence and higher success rates in complex, multi-step tasks in *LORL-Meta-World* and *ManiSkill2* environments.\", \"soundness\": \"3\", \"presentation\": \"3\", \"contribution\": \"3\", \"strengths\": [\"The proposed framework, which involves training a set of primitive skills and planning on top of them, is novel.\", \"The performance improvements over previous state-of-the-art methods, such as T2R(Xie et al., 2023) and Eureka(Ma et al., 2023), are significant, particularly for tasks in the ManiSkill2 environment.\", \"The reusability of learned skills facilitates faster learning for downstream tasks, as demonstrated notably in the PickCube and StackCube tasks. The explanation behind these results is clear and intuitive.\"], \"weaknesses\": [\"**Questions about the Parameters**\", \"Based on my understanding, the parameters for each skill play a crucial role in both the reusability of learned skills and in chaining these skills to solve tasks. However, certain aspects remain unclear, raising concerns about the generalizability of the proposed framework. I have the following questions:\", \"**Who determines the semantic meaning of the parameters?**\", \"In the *\\u201cturn faucet left\\u201d* task, one possible semantic meaning of a parameter could be the distance to the handle. My question is: who chooses this dimension? Is it determined by a human or by the language model (LLM)? If decided by the LLM, what happens if the LLM produces unhelpful dimensions? Do you have any mechanism to prevent this from happening? For instance, the semantic dimension could be something less-related for solving the task, like the rotation of the handle or its distance from the ground. In such cases, trying out different parameters for parameter-conditioned policy might not accelerate training but could instead decrease sample efficiency. Additionally, could you clarify how the total number of parameters for each skill is determined and how this might impacts the training speed of L2S? I think including these details in the paper would be beneficial for better understanding.\", \"**How is the parameter range chosen for the experimental results in Section 4?**\", \"According to the paper, the parameter distributions must be specified by the user. However, it seems challenging to determine the optimal mean and variance for training skills efficiently, especially since users need to specify these values prior to training. How can a user accurately define the parameter range before training begins?\", \"I understand that L2S can select the best values from the provided distribution during training using Equation (2) in line 305, even if the distribution is not perfectly chosen. However, I believe that choosing the right distribution would significantly reduce the sample needed to reach a certain performance level during training. Since the experiments section lacks detailed information on how the specific distributions \\\\( q_{\\\\phi_k} \\\\), even though this choice greatly impacts training speed, I wonder how these distributions were chosen. I have a concern that if the distribution is chosen manually to have high mean and low variance distrubition around the ground-truth(or best performing) value, we have a possibility that increased training speed partly comes from this.\", \"**Minor Corrections**\", \"*Line 230-232:* The term *\\u201cprocesses\\u201d* is somewhat vague and colloquial, making it difficult to understand precisely what it refers to.\", \"*Line 374:* Instead of *\\u201cconverged,\\u201d* it might sound more natural to say *\\u201cthe task is considered solved\\u201d* or *\\u201cthe policy is considered converged.\\u201d*\", \"*Figure 5:* Adding standard deviation would be helpful.\"], \"questions\": \"Questions are provided in the weaknesses section. Please address these questions if possible!\\\"\", \"flag_for_ethics_review\": \"['No ethics review needed.']\", \"rating\": \"6\", \"confidence\": \"2\", \"code_of_conduct\": \"Yes\"}", "{\"comment\": \"Thank you once again for your thoughtful response, suggestions, and the score increase! We have included \\u201coptimizing the required previous skills (not just the immediate one)\\u201d as a limitation and potential extension in the paper.\\n\\nRegarding the concern that some additional knowledge appears highly task-specific\\u2014such as the example, *\\u201cTasks involving moving a mug are considered successful when the mug is moved at least 0.1 meters in the correct direction compared to its initial position\\u201d*\\u2014this type of success condition can be provided as input alongside the task description. That said, Algorithm 1 (line 7-9) in the paper can utilize sparse reward feedback from the environment to automatically infer such termination conditions, even if they are not explicitly specified in the prompt. We hope this explanation helps mitigate the concern.\", \"we_will_update_the_abstract_of_our_paper_as_follows\": \"\\\"... Each skill is defined by an LLM-generated dense reward function and a termination condition, which in turn lead to effective skill policy training and chaining for task execution. **However, LLMs lack detailed insight into the specific low-level control intricacies of the environment, such as threshold parameters within the generated reward and termination functions. To address this uncertainty,** L2S trains parameter-conditioned skill policies that performs well across a broad spectrum of parameter values. ...\\\"\"}", "{\"comment\": \"Thanks for giving more detailed explanations and more experimental results. Although I would like to see more comparsion in reducing LLMs Hallucinations with limited symbolic operaters & metrics functions and using freeform generations for planning and long-horizon tasks, I understand it might not be the main contents of this paper. I don't have any other questions now and would like to increase my score.\"}", "{\"summary\": \"This work introduces an LLM-guided skill discovery framework for solving robotic tasks. For each given task, LLM decomposes into sub-tasks, and writes reward and terminate functions for the RL agent to learn the corresponding policy.\", \"soundness\": \"2\", \"presentation\": \"3\", \"contribution\": \"2\", \"strengths\": \"The skills are designed with parameters, which have the flexibility to be reusable for other tasks.\", \"weaknesses\": [\"L2S depends heavily on the accuracy of LLM-generated reward and termination functions. Without evolutionary search or some kind of verification method, I doubt the effectiveness of this method on new tasks --- the current success relies on the expert few-shot prompt enumerating successful termination conditions.\", \"Since the aim of the method is to solve given tasks by decomposing them into sub-tasks, \\\"skill discovery\\\" may not be proper here.\", \"The experimental scenarios are simple. It would be valuable if diverse environments were shown.\", \"The approach has only been evaluated in state-based environments, limiting its applicability in vision-based or real-world robotic settings without additional adjustments.\"], \"questions\": [\"How is the baseline being compared? Is the \\\"Listing 3 Additional environment knowledge\\\" also available to those baselines? If not, the comparison would be far from fair for Eureka.\", \"How to generalize to new environments, e.g. what effort do users have to put in?\"], \"flag_for_ethics_review\": \"['No ethics review needed.']\", \"rating\": \"3\", \"confidence\": \"4\", \"code_of_conduct\": \"Yes\"}", "{\"comment\": \"Dear Reviewer pFie, we hope this message finds you well. We hope the previous response would address the concerns and whether there is anything further we could clarify or elaborate on. Thank you.\"}", "{\"comment\": \"Thanks for the adding more details and your reminding. Since the current version has addressed my questions and added some related works and experiments, I would like to increase my score to boardline accept now. Please remember to include the complete comparison into the paper accordingly\"}", "{\"title\": \"Paper Decision\", \"decision\": \"Reject\"}", "{\"title\": \"Reply to questions and suggestions (Part 1)\", \"comment\": \"> **For Text2Reward, based on my personal experience, the one-shot reward generations are usually even not usable**\\n\\nText2Reward can fail when combining reward components from different steps, which is avoided in our method. For example, in the ManiSkill2 \\\"PickCube\\\" task, Text2Reward may sample the following reward function:\\n\\n**\\\"**\\n\\n**r1 = distance_gripper_cube**\\n\\n**r2 = gripper_grasp_cube**\\n\\n**r3 = distance_gripper_pickgoal**\\n\\n**reward = - w1 * r1 + w2 * r2 - w3 * r3**\\n\\n**\\\"**\\n\\nwhere w1, w2, and w3 are positive values.\\n\\nWhile each individual reward term might seem reasonable, combining them in this way can make the overall reward function unusable. L2S avoids this issue by ensuring that reward terms from different steps are not mixed together. Instead, they are trained and composed as individual skills, which prevents potential conflicts and maintains the integrity of each skill's reward function.\\n\\n> **Adding more details for implementing Eureka for fair comparison in the draft is important**\\n\\nWe updated the paper to include additional details about implementing Eureka for a fair comparison, as explained in our response above.\\n\\n> **Adding more comparison/analysis between L2S and League++[3] is helpful.**\\n\\nWe could not locate an open-source implementation of League++, so we implemented it based on our understanding to conduct additional experiments for comparison.\\n\\n- During the implementation, we limited the LLM to selecting from a set of Metric Functions similar to those explicitly listed in the League++ paper. Here are the Metric Functions we designed for this comparison: \\n\\n | **Metrics Function** | **Definition** |\\n | -------------------------- | --------------------------------------------------------- |\\n | *dis_to_obj* | Distance between the gripper and the object |\\n | *perpendicular_dis* | Distance between object and gripper along the normal line |\\n | *in_grasp* | If the object is grasped by the gripper |\\n | drawer_opened (LORL) | The drawer is opened enough or not. |\\n | faucet_turned (LORL) | The faucet handle is turned away enough or not. |\\n | mug_pushed (LORL) | The mug is pushed away enough or not. |\\n | *cube_placed* (ManiSkill2) | The cube is placed in the drawer or not. |\\n\\n - Due to the lack of open-sourced code, we were unable to implement the feedback loop described in League++. Instead, we manually selected high-quality LLM-generated skill samples for RL training, which might not fully replicate the intended process in League++.\\n\\nOur evaluation includes the 1) \\\"Open Drawer,\\\" 2) \\\"Turn Faucet Left,\\\" and 3) \\\"Push Mug Back\\\" tasks from the LORL benchmark, as well as the \\\"Place Cube Drawer\\\" task from the ManiSkill2 benchmark. Skill policies are learned using League++ generated reward functions, together with parameter optimizing method from L2S. All results were obtained using three different random seeds to ensure reliability. League++ underperforms compared to L2S in our implementation:\\n\\n| **Tasks** | **League++ Success Rate(Std)** | **L2S Success Rate(Std)** |\\n| ---------------------------- | ------------------------------ | ------------------------- |\\n| LORL-Open Drawer | 0.83(0.06) | 0.95(0.02) |\\n| LORL-Turn Faucet Left | 0.58(0.15) | 0.99(0.01) |\\n| LORL-Push Mug Back | 0.13(0.13) | 0.96(0.04) |\\n| ManiSkill2-Place Cube Drawer | 0.78(0.07) | 0.92(0.07) |\\n\\nLeague++'s reliance on predefined Metric Functions may limit its ability to capture the full complexity of tasks or appropriately penalize suboptimal behavior, potentially reducing overall performance. This result reinforces the advantage of using free-form reward functions to improve the effectiveness and adaptability of skill training.\\n\\n> **It's necessary to figure out which skill required to be optimized.**\\n\\nThank you for the insightful suggestion! Algorithm 1 in L2S can indeed be extended to support this approach. If optimizing the parameters for the immediately preceding skill does not yield a satisfactory success rate, the algorithm can iteratively optimize the parameters of earlier skills. These earlier skills are selected based on their interaction with a subset of the objects (as identified from environment information) involved in the current skill.\"}", "{\"summary\": \"This paper presents an approach called Language2Skills that decomposes a natural language task description into reusable skills. Each skill is defined by an LLM generated dense reward function, which can be used for skill policy training. L2S aims to make it easier for RL practitioners to develop reward and termination functions for training RL agents in multi-step problems.\", \"soundness\": \"3\", \"presentation\": \"2\", \"contribution\": \"3\", \"strengths\": [\"The proposed method is a novel extension of previous works like T2R and Eureka to the multi-step setting, which was a nontrivial extension due to the dependencies between skills which required an additional optimization step.\", \"The results show that the proposed method (L2S) outperforms those baselines in many multi-step RL problems.\", \"The problem formulation and method/algorithm were clearly described and mathematically precise.\"], \"weaknesses\": [\"The abstract was somewhat difficult to understand. Specifically the following sentence: \\u201cTo address the uncertainty surrounding the parameters used by the LLM agent in the generated reward and termination functions, L2S trains parameter-conditioned skill policies that performs well across a broad spectrum of parameter values.\\u201d \\u2014 What are the parameters being referred to here? Why is there uncertainty over them? I was able to understand the abstract after reading the paper, but it wasn\\u2019t a strong introduction to the material.\", \"I\\u2019m not following the author\\u2019s critique of existing skill chaining literature: \\u201cFor example, learning a skill \\u03c01 to move an object towards a goal region cannot be learned well before mastering the skill \\u03c02 for object grasping, but skill chaining would require learning \\u03c01 first\\u201d. Why is this the case? Since all learning is done in a simulator, presumably the block could simply be initialized in the hand for training \\u03c01 before training \\u03c02.\", \"No error bars in figure 5 and no statistical analysis for any of the results.\", \"It looks like getting this to work required a considerable amount of task-specific prompt engineering. I\\u2019m concerned that such a system is not able to generalize to new tasks without significant additional \\u201ctips and tricks\\u201d added into the prompt:\", \"\\u201c1.) Tasks about moving mug are considered successful when mug is moved at least 0.1 meter towards the correct direction compared with the object's initial position. 2.) Tasks about turning faucet are considered successful when faucet is turned at least np.pi/4 radian towards the correct direction compared with the object initial position. 3.) Tasks about opening or closing drawer are considered successful when drawer box is fully open or fully closes. Drawer fully open means drawer box position is smaller than -0.15 meter. Drawer fully closed means drawer box position is greater than -0.01 meter.\\u201c\", \"I\\u2019m concerned that the trial-and-error process required to create these sorts of prompts might be more difficult than directly writing the reward and termination functions.\", \"There is no supplementary code, as encouraged by ICLR, which makes reproducibility difficult to assess.\"], \"grammatical_issues\": [\"Abstract: \\\"Large Language models (LLMs) possess remarkable ability\\\" should be \\\"Large Language Models (LLMs) possess a remarkable ability\\\" (article \\\"a\\\" is needed before \\\"remarkable ability\\\").\", \"Abstract: \\\"short of Language2Skills\\\" should be \\\"short for Language2Skills.\\u201d\", \"Page 1: \\\"However, it is known prone to inefficient task decomposition...\\\" should be \\\"However, it is known to be prone to inefficient task decomposition...\\u201d known prone -> known to be prone\", \"Page 2: \\\"L2S adopts a strategy of training a skill policy that performs well across a broad spectrum of parameter values and select the most suitable parameter value during the training of subsequent skills.\\\" select -> selects\", \"Page 2: \\\"turn fauccet left\\\" -> \\\"turn faucet left\\u201d\"], \"questions\": [\"In section 3.2 the authors state that they do few-shot prompting with examples, pointing to Appendix E for details. However, I don\\u2019t see any examples in Appendix E. Appendix F is titled \\u201cExamples of Reward Functions and Termination Condition Functions\\u201d, but it seems like those are examples of the LLM output rather than examples used in the prompt?\", \"How are the \\u201cuser-selected\\u201d variances for the skill parameters determined? Wouldn\\u2019t the variances be task and subtask-specific? I would imagine if the variances are too big, the policy may not learn anything and if the variances are too small the skill would not generalize.\", \"In equation 1, wouldn\\u2019t optimizing \\\\phi_{i-1} and \\\\varphi_{i-1} potentially lead those variables to be out of distribution for the frozen policy \\\\pi_{i-1}?\", \"In the unnumbered equation between equations 1 and 2, how do you handle policies that don\\u2019t terminate? It looks like i(\\\\tao, \\\\beta) is undefined in that case. Is there an implicit assumption that all policies will eventually terminate? How is that enforced?\", \"Why make the assumption that the parameters for each skill only depend on the skill after them? What if there are constraints across non-adjacent skills in the chain? For example, if the fingers needed to be closed to push a button, the sequence may be 1.) move to button, 2.) Close fingers, 3.) Push button. However, the \\u201cmove to button\\u201d parameters could not be changed when training the push button skill.\", \"Why optimize the parameters and the policy separately in an iterative process rather than together?\", \"Overall, the paper introduces a novel and interesting approach with favorable comparisons to baselines. I would be happy to increase my score if the authors address my questions, include error bars or statistical analysis in their comparisons, improve readability, and provide code for reproducibility.\"], \"flag_for_ethics_review\": \"['No ethics review needed.']\", \"rating\": \"6\", \"confidence\": \"4\", \"code_of_conduct\": \"Yes\"}", "{\"comment\": \"Thank you again for your thoughtful response and willingness to consider increasing the score for our paper. We greatly appreciate your insights, particularly regarding the potential of domain-specific knowledge and metric functions to constrain the solution space and reduce LLM hallucinations. We will incorporate your advice into future work and update our paper to include a discussion on this topic. It would be greatly appreciated if the score in the main review could be updated to reflect your current assessment.\"}", "{\"title\": \"Reply to Questions part (Part 1)\", \"comment\": \"We sincerely appreciate the time and effort you have dedicated to carefully reading our paper, and we sincerely thank you for your valuable feedback. Below are our responses to the weaknesses and questions you raised.\\n\\n## Questions\\n\\n> **How can you generate usable reward codes in one shot?**\\n\\nL2S generates usable reward functions in one shot by leveraging task decomposition into subtasks (skills) through the LLM. Each subtask requires simpler reward functions, making them easier to define accurately compared to the more complex reward functions needed in Text2Reward, which must handle entire tasks and are more challenging to get right.\\n\\n> **How do you compare the training efficiency with Eureka directly? Why the performance of a single skill like OpenDrawer is pretty low in Eureka? (It shows great performance in much more complex tasks.)** \\n\\nEureka incorporates a feedback loop where successful RL reward function samples from the previous step are used as input to generate new samples from the LLM. For our benchmarks, we ran Eureka for 3 rounds with 8 samples per round. This process resulted in significantly higher training costs compared to L2S, measured by the environment steps required for agent training. While increasing the number of rounds or samples per round could potentially improve Eureka's performance on our benchmarks, we observed that L2S remains more sample-efficient overall. For Eureka, we conducted multiple runs and reported results only from those that had at least one successful sample in each round. Eureka achieves strong performance in the ManiSkill2 OpenDrawer environment but struggles in the LORL OpenDrawer environment. In contrast, L2S performs consistently well in both environments, demonstrating its robustness across a diverse range of tasks and settings.\\n\\n> **How can we manage skills with distinct semantic descriptions but similar motion patterns (e.g., \\\"place\\\" and \\\"insert\\\")? Additionally, how can we effectively utilize such skills for reuse across tasks?** \\n\\nL2S decomposes complex tasks into subtasks, enabling skill reuse. For instance, it may break down tasks like \\\"place\\\" and \\\"insert\\\" into common subtasks such as \\\"moving closer to the object,\\\" \\\"grasping the object,\\\" and \\\"moving closer to the target.\\\" The final steps, however\\u2014such as \\\"putting it on the target position\\\" for \\\"place\\\" and \\\"putting it into the target position\\\" for \\\"insert\\\"\\u2014are task-specific and less reusable. Nonetheless, L2S can effectively reuse the shared first 3 subtasks across different tasks, demonstrating its strength in leveraging compositional structures.\"}", "{\"title\": \"Reply to Weaknesses part (Part 3)\", \"comment\": \"> **The abstract was somewhat difficult to understand.**\\n\\n We will update the paper to reflect the role of parameters in policies in the abstract.\\n\\n> **The critique of existing skill chaining literature**\\n\\nWe will clarify in the paper that we do not assume the system can be reset to any state, as this would be a strong assumption for the learning algorithm in the real-world setting.\\n\\n> **No error bars in figure 5 and no statistical analysis for any of the results.**\\n\\nThanks for pointing out the inadequacy of result analysis! We will add error bars in Fig. 5 and update the statistical analysis for Fig. 4 and Fig. 5 in the article as follows:\\n\\n\\u201cFor the performance on the task sequence of 6 tasks, as shown in Fig. 4: 1) In LORL, L2S solved an average of 5.44 tasks in a total of 1.1e7 time steps, while L2S-fixed solved 4.98 tasks, and Text2Reward solved 4.9 tasks in a total of 1.5e7 time steps. 2) In ManiSkill2, L2S solved an average of 5.33 tasks in a total of 1e7 time steps, while L2S-fixed solved 4.14 tasks, and Text2Reward solved only 2.68 tasks in a total of 1.5e7 time steps. Overall, L2S showed an improvement of 11.0% in LORL and 98.8% in ManiSkill2, while requiring 26.7% and 33.3% less training cost compared to the baseline Text2Reward.For the performance on single simple or complex tasks, as shown in Fig. 5, L2S outperformed the baseline Text2Reward by 18.7% and 98.7% on average success rate in LORL and ManiSkill2 environments, respectively, demonstrating a significant performance improvement with L2S.\\u201d\\n\\n>**I'm concerned that the trial-and-error process required to create task-specific prompts might be more difficult than directly writing the reward and termination functions.**\\n\\nThe meaning and intention of this part of the prompt seem to have been misunderstood. The user-provided \\u201cadditional environment knowledge\\u201d is meant to bridge the semantics of real-world instructions to the robotics environment and define the task's overall success conditions. Specifically, it involves: 1) mapping the real-world directions (e.g., Cartesian coordinate axes) to the task description, and 2) specifying the success criteria for the task, which can vary based on human preferences. For example, in the LORL environment, the human instruction \\\"moving an object forward\\\" should correspond to moving the object along the positive y-axis in the simulation, and the task would be considered successful if the object is moved 0.1 meters along the positive y-axis.\"}", "{\"comment\": \"Thanks for the response. With more explanations and experiments, the current version should be better now. I would like to consider increasing my score.\\n\\nFor this version, I still have some questions and suggestions: \\n\\n1. For Text2Reward[1], based on my personal experience, the one-shot reward generations are usually even not usable (the generated values and components are unresonable without human-in-loop prompting.) I understand that subtask requires simpler reward functions, making them easier to define accurately, but it would be helpful if you can provide more analysis, examples, or even ablation studies between them.\\n\\n2. I think adding more details for implenting Eureka[2] for fair comparison in the draft is important, since it has different training progress rather than L2S and T2R[1].\\n\\n3. I think adding more comparsion/analysis between L2S and League++[3] is helpful. I might be curious about the following aspects:\\n\\n a. League++[3] combines symbol operators with LLM for skills decompositions and terminal conditions generation, which might be able to increasing the planning success rates but requires more human efforts. I think comparing it with the method used in L2S is also needed. Add some experiments to test the success rates of skill decomposition with L2S is also helpful.\\n\\n b. Adding more analysis about the trade-off with higher success rate in generating rewards with human-defined metrics functions (maybe helpful for long-horizon task) or with free-form reward generation with lower success rate in generating reward is helpful. Also, in League++[3], actually the \\\"skills\\\" shown in the L2S are similar to the \\\"metrics functions\\\". Adding some analysis regarding this choice is helpful.\\n\\n c. Since the ideas have a lot of similarity, change the story and highlight the contribution will enhance the novelty.\\n\\n4. For only optimizing the last skill, it's impressive to see that optimizing all prior parameters incurs higher training costs to maintain a similar success rate. However, with my example shown before (you have a task with three skills: open the cabinet, pick a hammer, and place the hammer to the cabinet. If the cabinet is not opened far enough, you cannot place the hammer successfully. At the moment, you require to update the parameters and termination of the first skill, not the last skill), I think it's necessary to figure out which skill required to be optimized. To let the framework figure out which skills need to be optimized might be a great extension\\n\\n5. I am not quite understand the details about the reward generation ablation. For reward generation experiment in LORL and ManiSkill2 environments, what are the tasks you use? How many stage/skills do they have? The success rate is for single skills or the entire tasks? Also, looks like the shape/syntax errors in T2R is only 3%. How about the other errors shown in T2R?\\n\\n[1]. Xie et al., TEXT2REWARD: REWARD SHAPING WITH LANGUAGE MODELS FOR REINFORCEMENT LEARNING, 2024\\n\\n[2]. Ma et al., Eureka: Human-Level Reward Design via Coding Large Language Models, 2024\\n\\n[3]. Li et al., LEAGUE++: EMPOWERING CONTINUAL ROBOT LEARNING THROUGH GUIDED SKILL ACQUISITION WITH LARGE LANGUAGE MODELS, 2024\"}", "{\"title\": \"Score Update\", \"comment\": \"Dear Reviewer 1Mn6,\", \"we_have_included_this_in_the_limitation_section_of_the_paper\": \"*\\\"Lastly, LLM hallucinations present challenges in generating robust free-form reward and termination function code. Constraining code generation within a structured representation, possibly defined by a domain-specific language, might offer a balance between generation stability and the exploration of the reward space.\\\"* \\n\\nWe will also include a complete comparison with League++ extending the response above into the paper (or the appendix, if space is constrained): \\n1. **We will design a more diverse set of metric functions** to show how much manual design effort is needed to match the success rate of the free-form reward generation in L2S. \\n2. **We will compare the reward function executability** between League++ and L2S, where League++ yields a better success rate due to the introduction of symbolic operators that reduce the reward search space to some extent. This will help highlight the trade-offs between manual design and generative flexibility.\\n\\nThank you so much for your comment that you would like to increase the score for our paper. Please let us know if you are satisfied with these proposed revisions and could update the score in your main review to more explicitly reflect your current assessment of the paper. We appreciate your review, comments, suggestions, and help!\"}", "{\"title\": \"Reply to Weaknesses (Part 2)\", \"comment\": \"> **How is the parameter range chosen for the experimental results in Section 4?**\\n\\nAs we provided information about the environment and additional knowledge that connects the semantics of real-world instructions to the robot environment and specifies the task's successful conditions (see Appendix E), the LLM gains some understanding of the environment's scale and selects reasonable (though not necessarily optimal) parameter mean values. By default, we set the variance of the parameters to be twice the maximum mean value generated by the LLM for the current task (a heuristic). We conducted experiments with varying alternative parameter value variances, while keeping the parameter mean value fixed:\\n\\n***LORL-Turn faucet left***\\n\\nFor this task, we examined three different parameter variance combinations\\u2014variants 1, 2, and 3\\u2014to analyze their effects on reward and termination parameters. The first skill in the task is trained to position the end effector around the faucet handle, with the reward function parameter defining the acceptable distance to the handle. The termination condition parameter specifies how close the end effector must be to the target position to transition to the next skill.\\n\\n- **Variant 1**: The variance of the termination condition parameter is increased.\\n- **Variant 2**: The variance of the reward function parameter is increased.\\n- **Variant 3**: The variance of both parameters is increased.\\n\\n| [Reward Func Parameters]/[Termination Func Parameters] | Initial Parameters Mean Value | Initial Parameters Variance | Optimized Params/(Std) | Success Rate/(std) | Training Cost (Timesteps) |\\n| ------------------------------------------------------ | ----------------------------- | --------------------------- | ------------------------------ | ------------------ | ------------------------- |\\n| Default | [0.01]/[0.01] | [0.2]/[0.02] | [0.107/(0.02)]/[0.013/(0.001)] | 0.99/(0.01) | 1e6 |\\n| **Variant1** | [0.01]/[0.01] | [0.2]/**[0.05]** | [0.118/(0.04)]/[0.027/(0.005)] | 0.89/(0.13) | 1.5e6 |\\n| **Variant2** | [0.01]/[0.01] | **[0.5]**/[0.02] | [0.16/(0.01)]/[0.015/(0.0003)] | 0.97/(0.04) | 1e6 |\\n| **Variant3** | [0.01]/[0.01] | **[0.5]/[0.05]** | [0.114/(0.01)]/[0.031/(0.001)] | 0.93/(0.05) | 1e6 |\\n\\nThe results were obtained using three different random seeds and demonstrate that L2S consistently achieves optimal parameter values across the default setting and all tested variants.\\n\\n***ManiSkill2-Open drawer***\\n\\nFor this task, the parameter in the termination condition of the first skill specifies the required proximity of the robot's end effector to the target position above the drawer handle. In the variant, we increase the variance of this parameter from the default value of 0.02 to 0.05 to evaluate its impact on performance.\\n\\n| [Termination Func] | Initial Params Mean Value | Initial Params Variance | Optimized Params(std) | Success Rate/(Std) | Training Cost (Timesteps) |\\n| ------------------ | ------------------------- | ----------------------- | --------------------- | ------------------ | ------------------------- |\\n| Default | [0.01] | [0.02] | [0.026(0.003)] | 0.94/(0.06) | 1e6 |\\n| **Variant** | [0.01] | **[0.05]** | [0.031(0.006)] | 0.97/(0.02) | 1e6 |\\n\\nThe results, obtained using three different random seeds, consistently demonstrate the robustness of L2S in handling various parameter variance configurations while maintaining effective performance.\"}" ] }

[ "Xingyue Huang", "Miguel Romero Orth", "Pablo Barcelo", "Michael M. Bronstein", "Ismail Ilkan Ceylan" ]

[ "link prediction", "relational hypergraphs", "expressivity study" ]

{ "note_id": [ "yrVpPezExq", "sQuLLcj92t", "pxeJ6lCo7g", "mqW5ZI3bvp", "lx19zPbFim", "jDugHn2Qlr", "iV6Gl0yfMQ", "YXVTEOef5p", "UgOrQwF1Bk", "T3IU7PNjCY", "Pw1yHpkBO7", "OpgZTjWXqd", "Lkte26kuBu", "KOePo8DJTS", "JBUq78jYxG", "I5cl2M2QNW", "HuqjingY1a", "Hob92jJPxw", "HTSXqHyXjb", "CYiNMdh7Ed", "A26yaaXQHV", "8U0wSI1ExC", "8MTRD8AKXu", "4xBYA97ZM6", "4F4gVVZPFi", "2OM3ct5Ghp", "0vqk69Jq3f", "0RFinv7GSo" ], "note_type": [ "official_comment", "official_comment", "meta_review", "official_comment", "official_comment", "official_comment", "official_comment", "official_comment", "official_comment", "official_comment", "official_comment", "official_comment", "official_review", "official_review", "official_comment", "official_comment", "official_comment", "official_comment", "official_comment", "official_comment", "official_review", "decision", "official_review", "official_comment", "official_comment", "official_comment", "official_comment", "official_comment" ], "note_created": [ 1732527691618, 1731955973532, 1734541120375, 1732532476331, 1731954708931, 1732527738918, 1732527715145, 1731955181969, 1731955355423, 1731956056809, 1732533443796, 1732905089846, 1730010731085, 1731169072902, 1731955530301, 1732527754103, 1732803297310, 1731954631230, 1732548280978, 1732453781777, 1730713086867, 1737524162235, 1730721415903, 1732549473358, 1732756854745, 1731956568045, 1731954120384, 1731954208589 ], "note_signatures": [ [ "ICLR.cc/2025/Conference/Submission12037/Authors" ], [ "ICLR.cc/2025/Conference/Submission12037/Authors" ], [ "ICLR.cc/2025/Conference/Submission12037/Area_Chair_s8qC" ], [ "ICLR.cc/2025/Conference/Submission12037/Reviewer_mmja" ], [ "ICLR.cc/2025/Conference/Submission12037/Authors" ], [ "ICLR.cc/2025/Conference/Submission12037/Authors" ], [ "ICLR.cc/2025/Conference/Submission12037/Authors" ], [ "ICLR.cc/2025/Conference/Submission12037/Authors" ], [ "ICLR.cc/2025/Conference/Submission12037/Authors" ], [ "ICLR.cc/2025/Conference/Submission12037/Authors" ], [ "ICLR.cc/2025/Conference/Submission12037/Authors" ], [ "ICLR.cc/2025/Conference/Submission12037/Authors" ], [ "ICLR.cc/2025/Conference/Submission12037/Reviewer_dikX" ], [ "ICLR.cc/2025/Conference/Submission12037/Reviewer_t9zR" ], [ "ICLR.cc/2025/Conference/Submission12037/Authors" ], [ "ICLR.cc/2025/Conference/Submission12037/Authors" ], [ "ICLR.cc/2025/Conference/Submission12037/Authors" ], [ "ICLR.cc/2025/Conference/Submission12037/Authors" ], [ "ICLR.cc/2025/Conference/Submission12037/Reviewer_tZJo" ], [ "ICLR.cc/2025/Conference/Submission12037/Authors" ], [ "ICLR.cc/2025/Conference/Submission12037/Reviewer_mmja" ], [ "ICLR.cc/2025/Conference/Program_Chairs" ], [ "ICLR.cc/2025/Conference/Submission12037/Reviewer_tZJo" ], [ "ICLR.cc/2025/Conference/Submission12037/Authors" ], [ "ICLR.cc/2025/Conference/Submission12037/Reviewer_t9zR" ], [ "ICLR.cc/2025/Conference/Submission12037/Authors" ], [ "ICLR.cc/2025/Conference/Submission12037/Authors" ], [ "ICLR.cc/2025/Conference/Submission12037/Authors" ] ], "structured_content_str": [ "{\"comment\": \"We thank you for your time and for your initial review that allowed us to strengthen the paper. Since the author-reviewer discussion period is closing soon, we would highly appreciate your feedback on our response. We are keen to take advantage of the author-reviewer discussion period to clarify any additional concerns.\"}", "{\"comment\": \">\\u201cQ2. Since your method is transductive on relations, can we simply treat each relation as an independent node, and use the hyper relation position as edge attribute between a node and the relation node (e.g., $r(u_k)$ becomes $u_k \\\\xleftrightarrow{k} r$), thus we can convert this task into a classifition task over multiple edges on conventional graph? Is there any baselines corresponding to this idea?\\u201d\\n\\nUnfortunately, the proposed conversion does not work because it will confuse two hyper-edges with the same relations and entities, but with the entities being in a different order. For instance, given a relational hypergraph $G = (V, E, R)$, assume we have a relation $r \\\\in R$ and $x,y,z \\\\in V$, and two hyper-edges $r(x,y,z)$ and $r(z,y,x) \\\\in E$. According to the described transformation, we will obtain the following (undirected) edges: $x \\\\xleftrightarrow{1} r, y \\\\xleftrightarrow{2} r, z \\\\xleftrightarrow{3} r, z \\\\xleftrightarrow{1} r, y \\\\xleftrightarrow{2} r, x \\\\xleftrightarrow{3} r$. Now, note that another pair of hyper-edges, $r(x,y,x)$ and $r(z,y,z)$, will generate the same set of edges using the described transformation. This counter-example shows that the conversion described will lose a lot of information for individual hyper-edges, and thus cannot be used to convert the task of link prediction with relational hypergraph. \\n\\n>\\u201cQ3. Is the order essential in hyper relations? I think it is possible to permute some node positions while not hurts the hyper relation? If so, isn't your definition too strict?\\u201d\\n\\nYes, the order is essential in hyper-relations. This is because, for each hyper-relation, each position stands for a different meaning. For instance, take a hyper-relational that describes Mr. Tahta\\u2019s math tutorship for Hawking: *Tutoring(Tahta, Maths, Hawking)*. Surely it is impossible to permute the node positions without changing the meaning of this fact. This is exactly the reason why we consider positional encodings.\\n\\n>\\u201cQ4. I think predicting the relation also falls into link prediction catalog, but your link prediciton only focuses on nodes, is it defined only for this work?\\u201d\\n\\nThe task of predicting the missing relation between given entities is commonly referred to as *relation prediction* in the literature, and while it is related to link prediction (on entities), it is out of the scope of this paper and thus we opt not to dive into this. The proposed HR-MPNNs and HC-MPNNs frameworks are only defined on link prediction on nodes settings.\\n\\n>\\u201cQ5. In refinement, I think you want to define $\\\\xi$ is more expressive than $\\\\xi\\u2019$ (can distinguish more cases), thus isn't $\\\\xi\\u2019 \\\\prec \\\\xi$ better than $\\\\xi \\\\prec \\\\xi\\u2019$ in representing which one is more expressive?\\u201d\", \"here_we_followed_the_usual_notation_regarding_partition_refinements\": \"for two partitions $P$ and $P\\u2019$, we have $P \\\\prec P\\u2019$ if $P$ is a refinement of $P\\u2019$. Indeed, in our case $\\\\xi \\\\prec \\\\xi\\u2019$ corresponds to the case when $\\\\xi$ distinguishes more cases than $\\\\xi\\u2019$, that is, when $\\\\xi$ is \\u201cmore expressive\\u2019\\u2019 than $\\\\xi\\u2019$. If this is considered too confusing by the reviewer, we are open to update the notation accordingly in the final version.\"}", "{\"metareview\": \"This submission violated the anonymity policy. In the provided link (https://anonymous.4open.science/r/HCNet/README.md), when clicking the blue-colored text, Link Prediction with Relational Hypergraphs, the arXiv version of the paper is shown, which reveals all authors' information: https://arxiv.org/abs/2402.04062\\n\\nThis submission should have been desk-rejected.\\u00a0It was difficult to expect a redirection to the arXiv paper, so this clear violation was not found during the desk-rejecting period.\\n\\nIn addition to some of the reviewers' remaining concerns, I also found some critical issues based on my own reading:\\n\\n1. **Misunderstandings of the relationship between relational hypergraphs and n-ary relational graphs.**\\\\\\nThe authors argue that \\\"link prediction with relational hypergraphs is a more general problem setup\\\" than that with n-ary relational graphs. However, I'm afraid I have to disagree with it. While a relational hyperedge can be transformed into an n-ary relational fact without loss of information, the reverse transformation is not always lossless. Given a hyperedge $r(u_1,u_2,u_3, u_4)$, it can be transformed into a 4-ary relational fact $\\\\\\\\{r_1:u_1, r_2:u_2, r_3:u_3, r_4:u_4\\\\\\\\}$ without loss of information. However, when we transform $\\\\\\\\{r_1:u_1, r_2:u_2\\\\\\\\}$ and $\\\\\\\\{r_1:u_3, r_2:u_4, r_3:u_5\\\\\\\\}$ into hyperedges, they are transformed into $r\\u2019_1(u_1, u_2)$ and $r\\u2019_2(u_3,u_4,u_5)$. In this conversion, the information loss occurs: the facts that $u_1$ and $u_3$ are both involved in $r_1$ and that $u_2$ and $u_4$ are both involved in $r_2$ are lost. Therefore, n-ary relational graphs are a more general form than relational hypergraphs.\\n\\n2. **Mismatch of the concept of the relational hypergraph and benchmark datasets**\\\\\\nThe authors claim to \\\"opt out datasets of hyper-relational knowledge graphs\\\" and to \\\"focus only on the datasets designed for relational hypergraphs\\\". However, the datasets the authors used are extracted from knowledge bases such as Wikidata or Freebase, none of which are originally relational hypergraphs but in the form of n-ary relational graphs or hyper-relational knowledge graphs. While these datasets may have been adopted for evaluating methods targeting relational hypergraphs, their original structures do not perfectly align with the definition of relational hypergraphs. This mismatch renders these datasets unsuitable for evaluating methods designed specifically for relational hypergraphs. The authors should instead conduct experiments on datasets extracted from relational hypergraphs.\\n\\n3. **Misunderstanding of the literature**\\\\\\nThe authors stated, \\\"We also highlight the evaluation differences as experiments on hyper-relational knowledge graphs only corrupt entities in the main triplets, whereas, in link prediction with relational hypergraphs setting, all entities mentioned at all positions are corrupted\\\". However, this claim is inaccurate. For example, GRAN [1], a model for hyper-relational knowledge graphs, includes an evaluation setting where all entities mentioned at all positions can be corrupted.\\n\\n4. **Missing literature**\\\\\\nThe manuscript does not include recent baseline methods, such as HJE [2] (Published on February 13, 2024). HJE demonstrates superior performance compared to the proposed method. For instance, regarding MRR on the WikiPeople dataset, HCNet achieves 0.421, whereas HJE achieves 0.450.\\n\\n5. **Incorrectly reporting baseline's performance**\\\\\\nThis manuscript incorrectly reports ReAlE's performance [3]. For example, on the FB-AUTO dataset, the original ReAlE paper reports an MRR of 0.873, whereas this manuscript reports it as 0.861.\\n\\n6. **Misunderstanding on JF17K**\\\\\\nIn the rebuttal, the authors included experiments on the JF17K dataset to compare with baseline methods designed for hyper-relational knowledge graphs. However, the JF17K dataset is an n-ary relational graph dataset, not a hyper-relational knowledge graph dataset in its original form. Thus, the authors should instead conduct experiments on datasets such as WD50K to facilitate a valid comparison with baseline methods targeting hyper-relational knowledge graphs.\\n\\n[1] Wang et al., 2021. Link Prediction on N-ary Relational Facts: A Graph-based Approach. ACL Findings.\\\\\\n[2] Li et al., 2024. HJE: Joint Convolutional Representation Learning for Knowledge Hypergraph Completion. TKDE.\\\\\\n[3] Fatemi et al., 2023. Knowledge Hypergraph Embedding Meets Relational Algebra. JMLR.\", \"additional_comments_on_reviewer_discussion\": \"This submission should have been desk-rejected since an embedded hyperlink in the provided link reveals the authors' information. Also, the manuscript has significant issues that should be resolved before publishing, as detailed in the metareview.\"}", "{\"comment\": \"I thank the authors for addressing my concerns. I will raise my score.\"}", "{\"comment\": \"> \\u201cC3. Many of the methods presented in Table 1 were published in or before 2020, which may imply that the inductive setting is not currently a major research focus. The authors may need to emphasize the significance of the inductive setting more in the paper.\\u201d\\n\\n**Recent baseline.** We indeed considered a rather recent baseline RD-MPNNs in **Table 1**, which was proposed in 2023. To the best of our knowledge, the only existing works on inductive link prediction over relational hypergraphs are G-MPNNs and RD-MPNNs (with slight modification on initialization), and in particular, RD-MPNNs is a model under the HR-MPNN framework and we showed that HCNet also outperforms RD-MPNNs in inductive link prediction. \\n\\n**Importance of inductive setting.** The importance of the inductive setting is already widely acknowledged in the literature on knowledge graphs [2-4], and the same arguments apply to relational hypergraphs with high-arity relations. In fact, we believe that this leaves an important gap in the literature. With that being said, we agree with the reviewer that the significance of the inductive setting is currently not made explicit enough in the paper, and we will further highlight this aspect in the camera-ready version.\\n\\n\\n\\n\\n> \\u201cQ1. I would like the authors to continue discussing the disagreement over C2, explaining why they insist that relational hypergraphs and hyper-relational graphs have irreconcilable differences. In my view, even if their structures are not identical, small modifications could allow format conversion. The benefits of doing so include: 1. Making the proposed method more generalized and applicable to a broader range of scenarios. 2. Aligning with many previous studies in the field.\\u201d\\n\\nPlease refer to the response of C2 and we are more than happy to discuss further, as we strongly believe that this process has made our paper stronger. We also deeply appreciate the feedback.\\n\\n\\n[1] Barcelo, et al. The logical expressiveness of graph neural networks, ICLR 2020\\n\\n[2] Teru, K. K., Denis, E. G., and Hamilton, W. L. Inductive relation prediction by subgraph reasoning. In ICML, 2020 \\n\\n[3] Zhu, Z., Zhang, Z., Xhonneux, L.-P., and Tang, J. Neural bellman-ford networks: A general graph neural network framework for link prediction. In NeurIPS, 2021\\n\\n[4] Zhu et al. A*net: A scalable path-based reasoning approach for knowledge graphs. NeurIPS 2023\"}", "{\"comment\": \"We thank you for your time and for your initial review that allowed us to strengthen the paper. Since the author-reviewer discussion period is closing soon, we would highly appreciate your feedback on our response. We are keen to take advantage of the author-reviewer discussion period to clarify any additional concerns.\"}", "{\"comment\": \"We thank you for your time and for your initial review that allowed us to strengthen the paper. Since the author-reviewer discussion period is closing soon, we would highly appreciate your feedback on our response. We are keen to take advantage of the author-reviewer discussion period to clarify any additional concerns.\"}", "{\"comment\": \">\\u201cW1. **Computational Complexity**: The paper acknowledges that the proposed HC-MPNNs may be computationally intensive, particularly for large hypergraphs. An in-depth analysis of the computational costs compared to baseline models is needed to assess scalability better.\\u201d\\n\\nWe have provided an in-depth analysis of computational complexity in **Appendix J** of the original manuscript. We also provided the execution time for baseline models and HCNets in **Table 19** of the original manuscript. \\n\\n\\n>\\u201cW2. **Limited Scope**: The model is focused solely on link prediction. Exploring its applicability to other tasks, such as node classification or hypergraph-based query answering, would provide more versatility and impact.\\u201d\\n\\nWe acknowledge that exploring applicability to other tasks would be beneficial, but it is out of the scope of the current submission. \\n\\n>\\u201cW3. **Assumptions on Data Structure**: The approach assumes that hypergraph structures are available and complete, which may not always be feasible in real-world scenarios. The limitations of applying this method to noisy or partially observed hypergraphs are not discussed.\\u201d\\n\\nWe kindly disagree with the reviewer as the proposed approach does not assume that the hypergraphs are complete. In fact, the task of link prediction is exactly to discover these missing links in partially observed hypergraphs. \\n\\n>\\u201cQ1. **Expressiveness Limitations**: Could the authors provide more details on situations or graph structures where the expressive power of HC-MPNNs might fall short, even with the enhanced encoding?\\u201d\\n\\nAs shown in our paper, the expressive power of HC-MPNNs is upper bounded by the hypergraph relational 1-WL test, and hence, whenever this test cannot distinguish two nodes, HC-MPNNs cannot distinguish them either. For instance, consider a relational hypergraph $G = (V,E,R)$ where $V = \\\\\\\\{x,u\\u2019,u,v\\\\\\\\}, E = \\\\\\\\{r(x,u\\u2019)\\\\\\\\}, R = \\\\\\\\{r\\\\\\\\}$. Then even HC-MPNNs cannot distinguish between $r(u,v)$ and $r(u\\u2019,v)$, where it is clear that $u$ and $u\\u2019$ are not isomorphic. \\n\\n>\\u201cQ2. **Impact of Hypergraph Structure**: How does the structure or density of a hypergraph affect the model\\u2019s performance, especially in cases of sparse or highly connected hypergraphs?\\u201d\\n\\nIn the experimental section, we have shown that HCNets excel on all datasets, especially in the inductive experiments. To further analyze the impact on the structure and density, we present the average degree of (training) datasets in the following table. \\n\\n\\n\\n| Dataset | WP-IND | JF-IND | MFB-IND | FB-AUTO | WikiPeople |\\n|----------------|--------|--------|---------|---------|------------|\\n| Average degree | 1.03 | 1.36 | 104.5 | 2.16 | 6.06 |\\n\\n\\nObserve that even though MFB-IND is a very dense hypergraph, our HCNets can still manage to double the metrics compared to existing models. We also show that under sparse hypergraph settings, HCNets still achieve competitive performance. We will present a detailed discussion on the impacts of the structure and density of hypergraphs in the camera-ready version. \\n\\n\\n>\\u201cQ3. **Generalization to Noisy Data**: How robust is HC-MPNN to noisy or incomplete hypergraph data, and are there mechanisms in place to handle such cases?\\u201d\\n\\n\\nYes, there are a few mechanisms to handle noisy and incomplete hypergraph data, similar to the ones for normal graphs. One potential mechanism is DropEdge [1], i.e., randomly dropping (hyper-)edges during training, which helps alleviate overfitting issues on a small portion of noisy hyper-edges. We believe it is an important future work to study the robustness of HC-MPNNs. \\n\\n\\n>\\u201cQ4. **Positional Encoding Variants**: The ablation studies show sinusoidal positional encoding as the best choice. Could the authors elaborate on why this is effective in hypergraph contexts compared to other embeddings?\\u201d\", \"we_observe_that_sinusoidal_encoding_performs_much_better_in_experiments_and_this_can_be_attributed_to_its_ability_to_encode_relative_positions\": \"it ensures that the node $u$ gets a different position in $r(u,v)$ than in $s(u,v,w)$ since even though the node appears in the first arity position in both facts, there is a difference between being in the first arity position of a binary fact vs a ternary fact. This difference is captured by sinusoidal encodings and so is the relative distance between $u$ and $v$ in the respective facts.\"}", "{\"comment\": \"> \\u201cQ5. **Use of Meta-Paths**: Given that meta-paths are important structures in relational (non-hypergraph) graphs [1, 2, 3], could there be advantages to incorporating them in hypergraph contexts?\\u201d\\n\\nThank you for raising this point! Indeed, we believe that incorporating additional structures such as meta-paths would be beneficial for the task of link prediction with relational hypergraphs, and strategies presented in the provided literature could be adapted into a hypergraph context. This is beyond the scope of the current paper, but it is an interesting direction for future studies. \\n\\n> \\u201cQ6. **Scalability of the Model**: Is the model feasible to apply in very large-scale hypergraphs (e.g., millions of nodes)?\\u201d\\n\\nScalability is generally a concern for inductive link prediction since link prediction between a given pair of nodes relies heavily on the structural properties of these nodes (due to the lack of node features) which necessitates strong encoders that go beyond the power of $1$-WL. This is more dramatic for relational hypergraphs since the prediction now relies on the structural properties of $k$ nodes and any model will suffer from scalability issues if $k$ becomes large. With that being said, our approach remains feasible for the benchmark datasets, but we think it is important for future work to scale up these models for larger datasets, much like it has been done for classical GNNs [2, 3]. \\n\\n**Potential strategies.** There are several strategies to alleviate the scalability issues. One potential strategy is to take $k$-hop subgraph samplings of source nodes and potential targets to limit the size of the input hypergraphs, thus allowing HC-MPNNs to run on larger data. Furthermore, to resolve this practically, we have included custom implementation via Triton kernel in the submitted codebase to account for the message-passing process on relational hypergraphs, which on average halved the training times and dramatically reduced the space usage of the algorithm (5 times reduction on average). The idea is to not materialize all the messages explicitly as in PyTorch geometric, but directly write the neighboring features into the corresponding memory addresses. Compared with materializing all hyperedge messages which takes $O(k|E|)$ where $k$ is the maximum arity, computing with Triton kernel only is $O(|V|)$ in memory. This will enable fast and scalable message passing on relational hypergraphs, both on HR-MPNNs and HC-MPNNs. \\n\\n[1] Yu et al. DropEdge: Towards Deep Graph Convolutional Networks on Node Classification. ICLR 2020\\n\\n[2] Hamilton et al. Inductive representation learning on large graphs. NIPS 2017\\n\\n[3] Zhu et al. A*net: A scalable path-based reasoning approach for knowledge graphs. NeurIPS 2023\"}", "{\"comment\": \">\\u201cQ6. How is your method runtime in real-world training and inference? NBFNet is already expensive since the graph convolution has to be redo if the query change, and in your case, hyperedge may introduce exponential increase on the amount of neighbors.\\u201d\\n\\nWe agree with the reviewer that HC-MPNNs in general suffer from scalability issues. We have provided the full table of runtime for real-world training and inference in **Table 19** of the original submission. We have also provided an in-depth analysis of computational complexity in **Appendix J**. Indeed, any model will suffer from scalability issues if the number of arities becomes large. With that being said, our approach remains feasible for the benchmark datasets, but we think it is important for future work to scale up these models for larger datasets, much like it has been done for classical GNNs [3,4]. \\n\\n**Potential strategies.** There are several strategies to alleviate the scalability issues. One potential strategy is to take $k$-hop subgraph samplings of source nodes and potential targets to limit the size of the input hypergraphs, thus allowing HC-MPNNs to run on larger data. Additionally, we have included custom implementation via Triton kernel in the submitted codebase to account for the message passing process on relational hypergraphs, which on average halved the training times and dramatically reduced the space usage of the algorithm (5 times reduction on average). The idea is to not materialize all the messages explicitly as in PyTorch geometric, but directly write the neighboring features into the corresponding memory addresses. Compared with materializing all hyperedge messages which takes $O(k|E|)$ where $k$ is the maximum arity, computing with Triton kernel only is $O(|V|)$ in memory. This will enable fast and scalable message passing on relational hypergraphs, both on HR-MPNNs and HC-MPNNs. \\n\\n[1] Rosso et al. Beyond Triplets: Hyper-Relational Knowledge Graph Embedding for Link Prediction. WWW 20\\n\\n[2] Wen et al., On the Representation and Embedding of Knowledge Bases Beyond Binary Relations. IJCAI 2016\\n\\n[3] Hamilton et al. Inductive representation learning on large graphs. NIPS 2017\\n\\n[4] Zhu et al. A*net: A scalable path-based reasoning approach for knowledge graphs. NeurIPS 2023\"}", "{\"comment\": \"Thank you for going through our rebuttal and for raising your score. We appreciate all the feedback.\"}", "{\"comment\": \"We thank the reviewer for their initial review. In our rebuttal, we aimed to address all of the concerns of the reviewer. In particular, we have provided concrete queries that cannot be expressed in HGML in the appendix (as requested). Further to this, we have also shown that the link prediction problem on relational hypergraphs cannot be solved by the method proposed by the reviewer (further justifying our approach). In terms of the scalability, we included a detailed analysis and provided strategies on how to scale up the models.\\n\\nWe would greatly appreciate the reviewers feedback on our rebuttal so that we can integrate this feedback to our paper.\"}", "{\"summary\": \"This work proposes HCNet, which extends state-of-the-art NBFNet and C-MPNN of conventional graph for link prediction to relational hypergraphs for hyper-relation predictions. It first follows the schema of conventional graph neural network works, defines the invariance under relational hypergraph and proves the expressivity of their proposal using proposed WL test for relational hypergraph. Then, it follows the schema of knowledge graph works, proves that the logical reasoning ability of HCNet is same as grade model logic on hypergraph. Besides, this work achieves better empirical results on relational hypergraph benchmarks.\", \"soundness\": \"3\", \"presentation\": \"3\", \"contribution\": \"2\", \"strengths\": [\"This works have concrete theoretical justifications on both graph representation and knowledege graph domains including WL test (for relational hypergraph) and power of logical reasoning.\", \"The empirical result looks pretty good in compare to related works on relational hypergraph baselines.\"], \"weaknesses\": [\"Although this work made enough refinement to adpat NBFNet and C-MPNN design onto relational hypergraph, there isn't significiant novelty introduced in the refinement: they are simply directly replace the concepts from conventional graph to relational hypergraph.\", \"For logical reasoning, I believe it should focus more on explainability to people, but the concept of graded modal logic for hypergraph (the definition and examples) in this paper is too abstract for people to understand their power. I think more evidence of HGML should be provided (in appendix), e.g., is it able to represent all logics or answer all logical queries on relational hypergraph? If not, what's the limitation?\", \"Since this is a neural network work and link prediction work (where negative sampling is necessary), they will be a lot randomness in experiments, thus it is essential to provide confidence interval at least to your works (I understand that some baselines do not have confidence interval).\"], \"questions\": [\"I am not familiar with the background of link prediction on relational hypergraph, thus I have questions to the necessity of this problem: It seems that the hyper relation prediction can be decomposed into prediction over a relational path or subgraph, and all three benchark you used seems to built from conventional knowledege graph, thus I am wondering is there a real-world dataset or task where only relational hypergraph methods can handle, and can not be decomposed into conventional relational graph methods?\", \"Since your method is transductive on relations, can we simply treat each relation as an independent node, and use the hyper relation position as edge attribute between a node and the relation node (e.g., $r(u_k)$ becomes $u_k \\\\overset{k}{\\\\leftrightarrow} r$), thus we can convert this task into a classifition task over multiple edges on conventional graph? Is there any baselines corresponding to this idea?\", \"Is the order essential in hyper relations? I think it is possible to permute some node positions while not hurts the hyper relation? If so, isn't your definition too strict?\", \"I think predicting the relation also falls into link prediction catalog, but your link prediciton only focuses on nodes, is it defined only for this work?\", \"In refinement, I think you want to define $\\\\xi$ is more expressive than $\\\\xi'$ (can distinguish more cases), thus isn't $\\\\xi' \\\\prec \\\\xi$ better than $\\\\xi \\\\prec \\\\xi'$ in representing which one is more expressive?\", \"How is your method runtime in real-world training and inference? NBFNet is already expensive since the graph convolution has to be redo if the query change, and in your case, hyperedge may introduce exponential increase on the amount of neighbors.\"], \"flag_for_ethics_review\": \"['No ethics review needed.']\", \"rating\": \"6\", \"confidence\": \"3\", \"code_of_conduct\": \"Yes\"}", "{\"summary\": \"This paper proposes a new method for link prediction in relational hypergraphs, where the task focuses on k-ary relations. It first investigates the expressive power of existing GNNs for relational hypergraphs, and then introduces the hypergraph conditional message passing neural network (HC-MPNN) by utilizing and extending the techniques from conditional message passing neural networks (C-MPNNs) (Huang et al., 2023). The HC-MPNN is further extended to an inductive setting, and show good experimental results.\", \"soundness\": \"2\", \"presentation\": \"3\", \"contribution\": \"2\", \"strengths\": \"1. The paper is written in a good structure. Although the definition of the relational hypergraph is a little bit complex; the descriptions in the paper is not difficult to understand. The organization of the paper is good. From the theoretic analysis to model improvement, the techniques are quite clear.\\n\\n2. Extending the C-MPNN and HR-MPNN to HC-MPNN is technically sound. And the extension to inductive link prediction is interesting.\\n\\n3. Both theoretic analysis and experiments are comprehensive. It has with both inductive and transductive settings, and the analysis of the initialization and positional encoding is also useful.\", \"weaknesses\": \"1. First, I have a concern about the practicality of the method. From my understanding, the relational hyperedge is just like a sentence, and it has fixed directions and positions for entities. So, why do not people just use Transformers for NLP by regarding the relational hyperedge as a sentence? And the query based approach is just like a BERT-based model? I do not see much benefit from modeling it as a hypergraph. I am actually curious to see the results of BERT on the same datasets if possible.\\n\\n2. Second, although the paper is technically sound and the analysis is complete/rigorious; but every step in the model is not surprising and a little bit trivial. Without the analysis part, the HC-MPNN is like just a migration of C-MPNN to hypergraphs. The inductive link prediction part is more interesting. \\n\\n3. I do not fully understand the training. Since the message passing is query dependent, there must be a lot of queries in the training data. How do you select such queries for training? And for each query, the node representation is different, does not it increase the computational complexity a lot?\", \"questions\": \"1. Does a relational hyperedge have a fixed number of entities? For example, can we have r(e1, e2) and r(e1, e2, e3) at the same time?\\n2. How to train the model with queries?\", \"flag_for_ethics_review\": \"['No ethics review needed.']\", \"rating\": \"6\", \"confidence\": \"4\", \"code_of_conduct\": \"Yes\"}", "{\"comment\": \"> \\u201cW1. Although this work made enough refinement to adpat NBFNet and C-MPNN design onto relational hypergraph, there isn't significiant novelty introduced in the refinement: they are simply directly replace the concepts from conventional graph to relational hypergraph.\\u201d\\n\\nHC-MPNNs can be viewed as an adaptation of C-MPNNs to relational hypergraphs, but this adaptation is non-trivial and the presented theory requires very different techniques. One crucial ingredient behind HC-MPNNs is the positional encoding of the arity positions, which is not present in C-MPNNs. This choice is not merely conceptual and leads to technical differences. The precise relation between HC-MPNN and C-MPNN is discussed in **Appendix H**, and further supported by **Theorem H.4**. The fundamental take-away is the following: **HC-MPNNs remain more expressive than C-MPNNs even on knowledge graphs**. This holds because HC-MPNNs on knowledge graphs can emulate the power C-MPNNs have on inverse-augmented knowledge graphs. Our theory shows that there is no need for such augmentation if we use a positional encoding, as we do in the paper.\\n\\n\\n> \\u201cW2. For logical reasoning, I believe it should focus more on explainability to people, but the concept of graded modal logic for hypergraph (the definition and examples) in this paper is too abstract for people to understand their power. I think more evidence of HGML should be provided (in appendix), e.g., is it able to represent all logics or answer all logical queries on relational hypergraph? If not, what's the limitation?\\u201d\\n\\nHGML is not able to represent all logical queries, which hints at the fundamental limitations of our studied models. For example, formulas in HGML can only express the local properties of nodes. That is, properties of the form \\u201ca node is connected (via hyper-edges) to other nodes satisfying other (local) properties\\u201d. This reflects the message-passing nature of our models. Following the suggestion of the reviewer, we will extend the discussion regarding HGML in the camera-ready version. \\n\\n> \\u201cW3. Since this is a neural network work and link prediction work (where negative sampling is necessary), they will be a lot randomness in experiments, thus it is essential to provide confidence interval at least to your works (I understand that some baselines do not have confidence interval).\\u201d\\n\\nWhile we do not directly provide the confidence interval, we indeed provide the standard deviation over five different runs for experiments presented in the main body of the paper, shown in **Table 13** and **Table 16** of the original submission.\\n\\n> \\u201cQ1. I am not familiar with the background of link prediction on relational hypergraph, thus I have questions to the necessity of this problem: It seems that the hyper relation prediction can be decomposed into prediction over a relational path or subgraph, and all three benchark you used seems to built from conventional knowledege graph, thus I am wondering is there a real-world dataset or task where only relational hypergraph methods can handle, and can not be decomposed into conventional relational graph methods?\\u201d\\n\\nAll datasets were originally built from Wikidata and Freebase, which come in the format of knowledge graphs with additional qualifiers involving other entities. Thus, technically they are also forms of hypergraphs. One could argue that any relational hypergraphs can be decomposed into predictions over relational paths or via reifications. In fact, earlier approaches such as [1] and [2] have considered these approaches and showcased that conversion from relational hypergraphs to knowledge graphs will distract the knowledge graph models from capturing the essential information for link prediction over high-arity facts. We are happy to elaborate on this topic.\"}", "{\"comment\": \"We thank you for your time and for your initial review that allowed us to strengthen the paper. Since the author-reviewer discussion period is closing soon, we would highly appreciate your feedback on our response. We are keen to take advantage of the author-reviewer discussion period to clarify any additional concerns.\"}", "{\"comment\": \"Thank you for acknowledging the additional experiments in our rebuttal, and for raising your score!\\n\\nWe notice that we were not very explicit in our initial response regarding inductive learning and the limitations of BERT in the inductive setup. Let us elaborate on this further and more concretely:\\n\\n1. **Encoding hyper-edges using BERT**: Since each hyper-edge is of the form $r(u_1,\\u2026,u_k)$, they can also be interpreted as paths or sentences, as the reviewer suggests. In other words, BERT learns to encode hyper-edges over a set $V$ of nodes which are all the nodes that are *observed* during the training.\\n2. **Test Time**: We are given a fact of the form $r(v_1,\\u2026,v_k)$, where $v_1,\\u2026,v_k$ are unseen during training. First, observe that we only have access to the **node IDs** in this setup and there is *no meaningful textual information* available regarding the nodes. Given this, the only way to make an inductive prediction is by relying on structural similarities. Specifically, if the model learns from the structural properties of the existing hyper-edges (i.e., their local structure in the graph) then the model can transfer this knowledge to make a prediction on the new hyper-edge $r(v_1,\\u2026,v_k)$. Since BERT ignores the structural role of the hyper-edge in the graph, this model cannot make inductive predictions in this setup.\\n\\nThat being said, BERT-based model can make transductive predictions but we observe that the performance of the BERT-based model is substantially below of HCNets even in this restricted setup. We are happy to elaborate further on this and hope that this addresses the concern of the reviewer.\"}", "{\"comment\": \"> \\u201cC1. The theoretical proof in this paper is unrelated to the inductive setting. Previously, I hoped the authors would compare more transductive settings. This time, **Table 2 has addressed this concern quite well.** Thus, I decided to raise my score.\\u201d\\n\\nWe thank the reviewer for keeping an open mind, for acknowledging the improvement, and for raising their score. \\n\\n\\n> \\u201cC2. I previously argued that hyper-relational graphs and relational hypergraphs can be converted with small tricks, which is why many prior studies conducted experiments on datasets like WD50K, WIKIPEOPLE, JF17K, and FBAuto. Therefore, I also suggested that the authors consider experimenting on other hyper-relational graphs. However, the authors hold a different view, and the explanation provided in lines 145-153 is not sufficient to alleviate my concern. Thus, I will retain my suggestion for this submission and discuss it further with other reviewers.\\u201d\\n\\n**\\u201cSmall tricks\\u2019\\u2019 for conversion.** We would like to stress that we are in full agreement with the reviewer here. Indeed, with small tricks, hyper-relational knowledge graphs and relational hypergraphs can be transformed into each other. Specifically, any hyper-relational knowledge graph can be transformed into relational hypergraphs by hashing the main relation and the qualifiers (with some order), whereas any relational hypergraph can be transformed into a hyper-relational knowledge graph by creating a brand new qualifier for each relation at each position. We also agree that HCNet could be applied to a broader range of scenarios following these transformations, and align better with many previous studies.\\n\\n**Relational hypergraphs are more general.** With that being said, we want to highlight that relational hypergraphs are still a more general set-up compared to hyper-relational knowledge graphs, because the converted hyper-relational knowledge graph from relational hypergraphs, according to the small trick we described above, must satisfy the property that qualifiers can only appear together with their corresponding relation in the main triplet, i.e., transforming $r(u_1,u_2,u_3, u_4)$ to $(u_1, r, u_4, \\\\\\\\{ r_2: u_2, r_3: u_3 \\\\\\\\} )$ will enforce the newly introduced qualifiers $r_2$ and $r_3$ to appear together with each other and with the main relation $r$. As a result, the expressiveness results in the paper also upper bound the hyper-relational knowledge graphs. We will modify the claims appropriately in the main body of the submission to make this point clear. \\n\\n\\n**Requested experiments.** As suggested by the reviewer, we have experimented on JF17K under such transformation, comparing selected baselines with models defined on hyper-relational knowledge graphs, despite the well-known problems with JF17K, e.g., redundant entries and main triplet leakages. In fact, the hyper-relational knowledge graph version of JF17K is exactly transformed from the relational hypergraph version by the described trick above.\", \"it_is_crucial_to_highlight_the_differences_in_evaluation\": \"in the evaluation of hyper-relational knowledge graphs, only the head and tail entities in the main triplet are corrupted. In our setup, we follow the evaluation convention of relational hypergraphs and corrupt all positions. We report the results here and will include the full table of baselines in the final version.\\n\\n| JF17K | MRR | Hits@1 | Hits@10 | Hits@10 |\\n|--------|--------|--------|---------|---------|\\n| RAE | 0.310 | 0.219 | 0.504 | 0.854 |\\n| HINGE | 0.517 | 0.436 | 0.675 | 0.850 |\\n| StarE | 0.542 | 0.454 | 0.685 | 0.856 |\\n| HCNet | 0.540 | 0.440 | 0.730 | 0.922 |\\n\\n\\nThe results of HCNet are better than existing baselines, including models designed for relational hypergraphs and models designed for hyper-relational knowledge graphs. In particular, HCNet marginally outperforms StarE according to Hits@10. StarE is one of the state-of-the-art models on link prediction with hyper-relational knowledge graphs, but StarE is a transductive method and is inherently limited to transductive datasets, whereas HCNets do not have such limitations. In this sense, HCNets also lift the capabilities of methods designed for hyper-relational knowledge graphs to the inductive setup, which is substantially more challenging. We thank the reviewer for helping us to enlighten this aspect, and we are happy to include more experiments as time allows.\"}", "{\"title\": \"ACK\", \"comment\": \"The authors addressed one of my major concerns. I read the rebuttal carefully and appreciate the authors' clarification. I would like to keep the positive review unchanged.\"}", "{\"comment\": \"We thank the reviewers for taking their time to review our paper. We have now integrated all the feedback and additional findings from the rebuttal to the paper (highlighted in blue). We would deeply appreciate any additional feedback and looking forward to discuss further.\"}", "{\"summary\": \"The paper introduces HC-MPNNs, a novel GNN architecture for link prediction on relational hypergraphs, achieving state-of-the-art results in both inductive and transductive tasks. While highly expressive, the model faces scalability challenges due to its computational complexity.\", \"soundness\": \"3\", \"presentation\": \"3\", \"contribution\": \"3\", \"strengths\": [\"**Innovative Approach**: The paper introduces Hypergraph Conditional Message Passing Neural Networks (HC-MPNNs), which generalize existing GNN architectures and target the complex task of k-ary link prediction on relational hypergraphs, moving beyond traditional binary link prediction tasks.\", \"**Theoretical Rigor**: The authors provide a detailed analysis of HC-MPNNs' expressive power through Weisfeiler-Leman tests and logical expressiveness, which significantly adds to the theoretical foundation of GNNs on hypergraphs.\", \"**State-of-the-Art Performance**: Empirical results demonstrate that HC-MPNNs outperform existing models for both inductive and transductive link prediction tasks across multiple datasets, showcasing substantial improvements.\"], \"weaknesses\": [\"**Computational Complexity**: The paper acknowledges that the proposed HC-MPNNs may be computationally intensive, particularly for large hypergraphs. An in-depth analysis of the computational costs compared to baseline models is needed to assess scalability better.\", \"**Limited Scope**: The model is focused solely on link prediction. Exploring its applicability to other tasks, such as node classification or hypergraph-based query answering, would provide more versatility and impact.\", \"**Assumptions on Data Structure**: The approach assumes that hypergraph structures are available and complete, which may not always be feasible in real-world scenarios. The limitations of applying this method to noisy or partially observed hypergraphs are not discussed.\"], \"questions\": [\"**Expressiveness Limitations**: Could the authors provide more details on situations or graph structures where the expressive power of HC-MPNNs might fall short, even with the enhanced encoding?\", \"**Impact of Hypergraph Structure**: How does the structure or density of a hypergraph affect the model\\u2019s performance, especially in cases of sparse or highly connected hypergraphs?\", \"**Generalization to Noisy Data**: How robust is HC-MPNN to noisy or incomplete hypergraph data, and are there mechanisms in place to handle such cases?\", \"**Positional Encoding Variants**: The ablation studies show sinusoidal positional encoding as the best choice. Could the authors elaborate on why this is effective in hypergraph contexts compared to other embeddings?\", \"**Use of Meta-Paths**: Given that meta-paths are important structures in relational (non-hypergraph) graphs [1, 2, 3], could there be advantages to incorporating them in hypergraph contexts?\", \"**Scalability of the Model**: Is the model feasible to apply in very large-scale hypergraphs (e.g., millions of nodes)?\", \"[1] Seongjun, Y. et al., Graph Transformer Networks: Learning meta-path graphs to improve GNNs, 2022\", \"[2] Ferrini, F. et al., Meta-Path Learning for Multi-relational Graph Neural Networks, LOG 2023\", \"[3]Fu, Xinyu, et al. \\\"Magnn: Metapath aggregated graph neural network for heterogeneous graph embedding.\\\" Proceedings of the web conference 2020. 2020.\"], \"flag_for_ethics_review\": \"['No ethics review needed.']\", \"rating\": \"8\", \"confidence\": \"3\", \"code_of_conduct\": \"Yes\"}", "{\"title\": \"Paper Decision\", \"decision\": \"Reject\"}", "{\"summary\": \"The authors first give an understanding of the expressive power and limitations of HR-MPNNs and propose the HC-MPNN structure based on HR-MPNN. Compared with current HR-MPNN models, the HC-MPNN structured model HCNet carries out a novel query-specific node initialization method. With the Weisfeiler-Leman test, the author proves that this model can better model isomorphic nodes since it maintains a better expressiveness than the HR-MPNN structured models in the relational hypergraphs.\", \"soundness\": \"3\", \"presentation\": \"3\", \"contribution\": \"3\", \"strengths\": \"S1. Clear and well-organized presentation of the whole paper.\\n\\nS2. Solid proof of the theoretical expressiveness of the proposed method.\\n\\nS3. Available code.\\n\\nS4. Transductive experiments have been added.\", \"weaknesses\": \"Unfortunately for the authors, I am the reviewer who held a negative opinion on this paper for NeurIPS 2024. Here, I summarize my previous negative feedback:\\n\\n**Major Concerns:**\\n\\nC1. The theoretical proof in this paper is unrelated to the inductive setting. Previously, I hoped the authors would compare more transductive settings. This time, **Table 2 has addressed this concern quite well**. Thus, I decided to raise my score.\\n\\nC2. I previously argued that hyper-relational graphs and relational hypergraphs can be converted with small tricks, which is why many prior studies conducted experiments on datasets like WD50K, WIKIPEOPLE, JF17K, and FBAuto. Therefore, I also suggested that the authors consider experimenting on other hyper-relational graphs. However, the authors hold a different view, and the explanation provided in lines 145-153 is not sufficient to alleviate my concern. Thus, I will retain my suggestion for this submission and discuss it further with other reviewers.\\n\\n**Minor Concerns:**\\n\\nC3. Many of the methods presented in Table 1 were published in or before 2020, which may imply that the inductive setting is not currently a major research focus. The authors may need to emphasize the significance of the inductive setting more in the paper.\", \"questions\": \"I would like the authors to continue discussing the disagreement over C2, explaining why they insist that relational hypergraphs and hyper-relational graphs have irreconcilable differences. In my view, even if their structures are not identical, small modifications could allow format conversion. The benefits of doing so include:\\n\\n\\t1.\\tMaking the proposed method more generalized and applicable to a broader range of scenarios.\\n\\t2.\\tAligning with many previous studies in the field.\", \"flag_for_ethics_review\": \"['No ethics review needed.']\", \"rating\": \"6\", \"confidence\": \"4\", \"code_of_conduct\": \"Yes\"}", "{\"comment\": \"Thank you for acknowledging the rebuttal and the clarifications. We found the feedback very helpful and also appreciate your continued positive evaluation.\"}", "{\"comment\": \"Thanks for the response. I am still not convinced of the practicality of the method (e.g. the inductive learning problem can also be solved by adapting the path sentence), but considering the clarification and additional good results, I am willing to raise the score to 6.\"}", "{\"title\": \"Global response\", \"comment\": [\"We thank the reviewers for their comments. We respond to each concern in detail in our individual responses, and we provide a summary of our rebuttal based on the feedback from the reviewers:\", \"**Additional Baseline.** We add an additional baseline model BERT as an instance of transductive embedding methods (**Reviewer t9zR**).\", \"**Additional Dataset.** We experimented with an additional transductive dataset (JF17K) and compared our model with the baseline model including models operating on hyper-relational knowledge graphs. (**Reviewer tZJo**).\", \"**Extended discussions on Design Choices.** We highlight the delicate design choices behind HC-MPNNs which are crucial in applying conditional message passing on relational hypergraphs. (**Reviewer t9zR, Reviewer dikX**)\", \"**Implications of Expressiveness Results.** In addition to quantifying the precise expressive power of HC-MPNNs, we also elaborate on the induced expressiveness limitations (**Reviewer mmja, Reviewer dikX**).\", \"**Scalability.** We discuss the scalability of HCNets and provide a strategy to apply HCNets on much larger graphs. (**Reviewer mmja, Reviewer dikX**)\", \"We hope that our answers address your concerns, and we are looking forward to a fruitful discussion period.\"]}", "{\"comment\": \"> \\u201cW1. First, I have a concern about the practicality of the method. From my understanding, the relational hyperedge is just like a sentence, and it has fixed directions and positions for entities. So, why do not people just use Transformers for NLP by regarding the relational hyperedge as a sentence? And the query based approach is just like a BERT-based model? I do not see much benefit from modeling it as a hypergraph. I am actually curious to see the results of BERT on the same datasets if possible.\\u201d\\n\\n**Limitation of modeling as sentences.** Indeed, in principle, one can model each relational hyperedge as a sentence of entities plus a relation, and at inference time, the user can input the query and rely on a transformer-based model to decode the probability that the queried hyperedge exists. However, these approaches are inherently **transductive**, meaning that the model cannot make predictions on unseen entities and is thus limited, much like traditional relational hypergraph embedding methods. In other words, transformer-based models like BERT still rely on explicitly storing learned entity embeddings, making them essentially a more complex form of transductive embedding methods, which do not apply in the inductive setting.\\n\\n**The benefit of modeling as a hypergraph.** By explicitly modeling these relational hyperedges as a relational hypergraph and learning over the structure instead of standalone sentences, both HR-MPNNs and HC-MPNNs, can leverage the power of message-passing and generalize over unseen entities and even unseen relational hypergraphs. This is the key idea behind the inductivity of these models. \\n\\n**Additional transductive experiments.** Following the reviewer\\u2019s advice, we conducted additional experiments with BERT on one of the transductive datasets, FB-AUTO. Observe that BERT performs better than earlier transductive embedding models such as RAE but falls behind recent transductive embedding models like HypE. It is also significantly behind the performance of HCNet. We will provide the full experiment results on all datasets in the final version of the paper.\\n\\n\\n| FB-AUTO | MRR | Hits@1 | Hits@3 | Hits@10 |\\n|-----------|-----------|-----------|-----------|-----------|\\n| RAE | 0.703 | 0.614 | 0.764 | 0.854 |\\n| BERT | 0.776 | 0.735 | 0.802 | 0.850 |\\n| HypE | 0.804 | 0.774 | 0.823 | 0.856 |\\n| **HCNet** | **0.871** | **0.842** | **0.892** | **0.922** |\\n\\n\\n\\n> \\u201cW2. Second, although the paper is technically sound and the analysis is complete/rigorious; but every step in the model is not surprising and a little bit trivial. Without the analysis part, the HC-MPNN is like just a migration of C-MPNN to hypergraphs. The inductive link prediction part is more interesting.\\u201d\\n\\n\\nWe thank the reviewer for highlighting the inductive link prediction part as well as the soundness and completeness of our analysis. We want to stress that the contribution of this paper is not to develop a specific model on relational hypergraphs but rather to propose a general framework (HC-MPNNs) and conduct an analysis to study its expressive power rigorously. The generality of the proposed framework allows us to study the theoretical properties of a broader range of model architectures following the same setup.\\n\\nWhile HC-MPNNs can be viewed as a natural adaptation of C-MPNNs to relational hypergraphs, this adaptation is non-trivial and the presented theory requires substantially different techniques. One crucial ingredient in HC-MPNNs is the positional encoding of the arity positions, which is not present in C-MPNNs. Please note that this choice is not merely conceptual and leads to technical differences. The precise relation between HC-MPNN and C-MPNN is discussed in **Appendix H**, and further supported by **Theorem H.4**. The fundamental take-away is the following: **HC-MPNNs remain more expressive than C-MPNNs even on knowledge graphs.** This holds because HC-MPNNs on knowledge graphs can emulate the power C-MPNNs have on inverse-augmented knowledge graphs. Our theory shows that there is no need for such augmentation if we use a positional encoding, as we do in the paper.\"}", "{\"comment\": \"> \\u201cW3. I do not fully understand the training. Since the message passing is query dependent, there must be a lot of queries in the training data. How do you select such queries for training? And for each query, the node representation is different, does not it increase the computational complexity a lot?\\u201d\\n\\nWe follow the same convention and select all possible hyperedges in the training relational hypergraph as queries. More precisely, given a training relational hypergraph $G = (V,E,R,c)$, we pick each hyperedge $r(e_1,..., e_t,\\u2026 e_k) \\\\in E$ from the given relational hypergraph, and for each position $1 \\\\leq t \\\\leq k$, we treat this chosen hyperedge as positive with label 1, and randomly generate $n$ negative hyperedges $r(e_1,..., e\\u2019,\\u2026 e_k)$ with label 0 where $e\\u2019$ is a corrupted entity at position $t$, and $n$ is a hyper-parameter indicating the number of negative samples. \\n\\nIndeed, HC-MPNNs have higher amortized computational complexity per query than HR-MPNNs, which is thoroughly discussed in **Appendix J** of the original manuscript. Nevertheless, we would like to highlight that HC-MPNNs and HR-MPNNs have the same computational complexity for a single forward pass. \\n\\n\\n> \\u201cQ1. Does a relational hyperedge has a fixed number of entities? For example, can we have r(e1, e2) and r(e1, e2, e3) at the same time?\\u201d\\n\\nIf the reviewer is asking whether for a fixed relation $r \\\\in R$, can hyperedges of the form $r(e1,e2)$ and $r(e1,e2,e3)$ both exist, then the answer is no: for each fixed relation $r$, it can only take exactly $\\\\text{arity}(r)$ of entities, which is predefined. Thus, if $\\\\text{arity}(r)$ = 3, then only the hyperedge $r(e1,e2,e3)$ can exist but $r(e1,e2)$ can not. \\n\\nIf the reviewer is asking whether all hyperedges in relational hypergraphs have a fixed number of entities, then the answer is again no: each hyperedge can have a different number of entities, depending on the arity of the relation $r$, determined by the function $\\\\text{arity}$. \\n\\n\\n\\n> \\u201cQ2. How to train the model with queries?\\u201d\\n\\nPlease refer to the response of W3 above.\"}" ] }

[ "Luca Masserano", "Abdul Fatir Ansari", "Boran Han", "Xiyuan Zhang", "Christos Faloutsos", "Michael W. Mahoney", "Andrew Gordon Wilson", "Youngsuk Park", "Syama Sundar Rangapuram", "Danielle C. Maddix", "Bernie Wang" ]

[ "time series forecasting", "foundation models", "wavelets", "tokenization", "frequency", "pretrained model", "nonstationary time series" ]

{ "note_id": [ "u85T8973da", "sWu4tjJZZR", "q5oEtdopFb", "oE2qegwmgh", "lVNQIBUJuQ", "hfwVukAO6e", "cberetrxYA", "c2eXOPHQPL", "bfygZDwI6i", "Ya3tvpXVx2", "Xcknj46x21", "XAa2bdiZQX", "V8rA01FIOe", "Tk8zjFh3Nv", "TgLRwoWThZ", "T71fxoSneD", "SV8p7k4Z76", "ST2IaFq0yV", "Oa5RkaHPho", "NBsbWyteuv", "I1vqwTe4nK", "G66X1NajzE", "EOTJMnxEBG", "E79Tz4yDHE", "Do0XOaqyCh", "89a3W27X0W", "7qxNxKL67C", "7JxpOjC9KO", "7IBsllFU8T", "6ft6BWmP2M", "60mMUNvcDy", "1xI6T9x2cD" ], "note_type": [ "official_comment", "official_comment", "official_comment", "official_comment", "decision", "official_comment", "official_comment", "official_comment", "official_comment", "official_comment", "official_comment", "official_comment", "official_review", "official_comment", "official_comment", "official_comment", "official_review", "meta_review", "official_review", "official_comment", "official_comment", "official_comment", "official_comment", "official_comment", "official_comment", "official_comment", "official_comment", "official_review", "official_comment", "official_comment", "official_comment", "official_comment" ], "note_created": [ 1732829562719, 1732206908580, 1732208999890, 1732495598063, 1737523908212, 1732210807071, 1732208021047, 1732210728664, 1732521179038, 1732209976134, 1732670325635, 1733226224496, 1730504702168, 1732495521111, 1732495429131, 1732829297647, 1730044989105, 1734752044721, 1729951060488, 1732209382771, 1733223563528, 1733111182915, 1732988297244, 1732740159117, 1732207138111, 1732209553794, 1733157176755, 1730268463915, 1732495347268, 1732988159824, 1732210188743, 1732670264720 ], "note_signatures": [ [ "ICLR.cc/2025/Conference/Submission8429/Authors" ], [ "ICLR.cc/2025/Conference/Submission8429/Authors" ], [ "ICLR.cc/2025/Conference/Submission8429/Authors" ], [ "ICLR.cc/2025/Conference/Submission8429/Authors" ], [ "ICLR.cc/2025/Conference/Program_Chairs" ], [ "ICLR.cc/2025/Conference/Submission8429/Authors" ], [ "ICLR.cc/2025/Conference/Submission8429/Authors" ], [ "ICLR.cc/2025/Conference/Submission8429/Authors" ], [ "ICLR.cc/2025/Conference/Submission8429/Reviewer_KBzW" ], [ "ICLR.cc/2025/Conference/Submission8429/Authors" ], [ "ICLR.cc/2025/Conference/Submission8429/Authors" ], [ "ICLR.cc/2025/Conference/Submission8429/Authors" ], [ "ICLR.cc/2025/Conference/Submission8429/Reviewer_zVkm" ], [ "ICLR.cc/2025/Conference/Submission8429/Authors" ], [ "ICLR.cc/2025/Conference/Submission8429/Authors" ], [ "ICLR.cc/2025/Conference/Submission8429/Authors" ], [ "ICLR.cc/2025/Conference/Submission8429/Reviewer_KBzW" ], [ "ICLR.cc/2025/Conference/Submission8429/Area_Chair_XhKp" ], [ "ICLR.cc/2025/Conference/Submission8429/Reviewer_qSp1" ], [ "ICLR.cc/2025/Conference/Submission8429/Authors" ], [ "ICLR.cc/2025/Conference/Submission8429/Reviewer_qSp1" ], [ "ICLR.cc/2025/Conference/Submission8429/Area_Chair_XhKp" ], [ "ICLR.cc/2025/Conference/Submission8429/Authors" ], [ "ICLR.cc/2025/Conference/Submission8429/Reviewer_zVkm" ], [ "ICLR.cc/2025/Conference/Submission8429/Authors" ], [ "ICLR.cc/2025/Conference/Submission8429/Authors" ], [ "ICLR.cc/2025/Conference/Submission8429/Authors" ], [ "ICLR.cc/2025/Conference/Submission8429/Reviewer_uEP1" ], [ "ICLR.cc/2025/Conference/Submission8429/Authors" ], [ "ICLR.cc/2025/Conference/Submission8429/Authors" ], [ "ICLR.cc/2025/Conference/Submission8429/Authors" ], [ "ICLR.cc/2025/Conference/Submission8429/Authors" ] ], "structured_content_str": [ "{\"title\": \"Official Response to Remaining Concerns of Reviewer zVkm (cont.)\", \"comment\": \"As to\\n> 3. Concerns about the general-purpose utility of the wavelet tokenizer\\n\\nTo clarify, we never claimed to provide a general representation method for time series (in the sense of representation learning), but only demonstrated that a wavelet-based tokenizer \\u2013 embedded into a foundation model for time series \\u2013 results in a robust, general-purpose **forecasting** model, which is demonstrated by our quantitative and qualitative results.\", \"responding_point_by_point\": \"- The **decomposition level** for a wavelet transform is *always* chosen empirically and the optimal level depends on the downstream task. In our case, the tokenizer is applied to forecast an *extremely wide variety of time series* in terms of frequencies, seasonalities, history and forecast lengths. As such, the tokenizer must strike an empirical balance between decomposing the high- and low-frequency structures in the inputs while providing a compact and easily learnable structure to the model architecture. Multiple resolution levels may be useful for some time series but can also be redundant for others. One could potentially tune the decomposition level individually if the model was trained on a single dataset, but on ~900K diverse time series \\u2013 the cumulative size of our training set \\u2013 a single scale can already explain much of the signal variance to produce accurate forecasts, which is the task we consider. Even a single decomposition level adds more information about the time series than just quantizing the values directly, as done in Chronos. Note also that increasing the decomposition level can potentially be harmful as it exacerbates boundary effects due convolution with wavelet filters of fixed size, which require non-trivial signal extension techniques [1].\\n\\n- Wavelets inherently capture both time and frequency information in a single step, and **specific wavelet bases** have been studied for decades to provide both compression and feature extraction functionalities, which *simpler techniques cannot achieve neither simultaneously nor as efficiently*. Trends, localized changes and sudden spikes, fixed-resolution features and more can all be detected and analyzed by wavelets via a unified framework that naturally adapts to the complexity of the underlying signal, instead of having to combine multiple tools. Note also that the discrete wavelet transform runs in linear time with respect to the input size, hence it does not add *computational complexity*.\\n\\n- Finally, our work only proposes **one possible tokenizer**. We understand and agree that there might be better solutions yet to be developed. With WaveToken, we aim at opening promising avenues and foster research in foundation models for time series towards this exciting direction. \\n\\n[1] Usevitch, Bryan E. \\\"A tutorial on modern lossy wavelet image compression: foundations of JPEG 2000.\\\" IEEE signal processing magazine 18.5 (2001): 22-35.\\n\\n---\\nThank you again for your time and engagement on this. We hope our responses above have satisfactorily addressed your additional concerns. If so, we request you to consider raising your score to reflect that. If you have further questions, we would be happy to respond to them.\"}", "{\"title\": \"OFFICIAL RESPONSE TO REVIEWER zVkm\", \"comment\": \"Thank you for your comments and questions that helped improve our paper. We have summarized our main revisions and answers in response to all reviewers in a separate comment above. Below we provide point-by-point answers to each section in your review.\\n\\n---\\nRegarding\\n> Core idea of wavelet-based tokenization for large models has been explored in previous work, e.g., Wave-ViT (Zhu ETL. 2024), though in different domains. Insufficient discussion of how this approach differs fundamentally from or improves upon prior works in wavelet-based tokenizer\\n\\nand\\n> How does your wavelet-based tokenization fundamentally differ from prior approaches like Wave-ViT, particularly in handling temporal vs spatial data? Are concepts like \\\"pixel-space token embedding\\\" fundamentally different from the wavelet-based tokens in TS?\\n\\nThank you for bringing this very recent paper to our attention. We have added a citation to this work in the Related Work section. Nonetheless, this work has been developed with a *completely different motivation* than ours and addresses a *different problem on another domain* (as you have pointed out), i.e., image classification via Vision Transformers. As such, the conceptual similarity of WaveToken with the tokenizer introduced by Zhu. et al (2024) does not diminish the contribution or significance of our work. Furthermore, while conceptually similar, the image tokenizer in Zhu et al. (2024) is substantially different and cannot be directly compared to our work, which instead \\n1. proposes a tokenizer specifically tailored for time series forecasting with large foundation models based on the T5 architecture. The proposed design in Zhu et al. (2024) can\\u2019t be applied directly for T5 because 2D wavelet filters cannot be applied to time series;\\n2. leverages quantization of the wavelet coefficients in bins according to the coefficients\\u2019 distribution; and \\n3. preserves the length of the input and output sequences regardless of the decomposition level applied, thanks to the use of a maximally decimated wavelet transforms (see Appendix A.2).\\n\\n---\\nRegarding\\n> The marginal improvement over Chronos raises questions about whether the gains justify the additional benefits of wavelet-based tokenization. An ablation study comparing against simpler tokenization approaches would help validate the necessity of wavelets.\\n\\nand \\n> Could you provide ablation studies comparing against simpler tokenization approaches to justify the added complexity of wavelets?\\n\\nThe *core motivation of our work* was to develop a general purpose tokenizer that seamlessly captures global and local patterns in the time series. Our **qualitative results** (Figure 1 and Section 4.3) demonstrate the impressive performance of WaveToken on complex edge cases where existing foundation models fail, almost completely. These results highlight the remarkable ability of a wavelet-based tokenizer to capture nonstationary signals \\u2013 which are pervasive in practical applications. Nevertheless, as outlined in the paper, **WaveToken also improves quantitatively** on Chronos 75% of the times and 83% of the times on the in-domain (15 datasets) and zero-shot (27 datasets) benchmarks, respectively, while employing a vocabulary one-quarter the size of Chronos. In addition, WaveToken achieves the *best average rank across all metrics for both Benchmarks I and II* (Figures 10 and 11). \\n\\nNote that our comparison with Chronos, which uses a simple uniform quantization scheme directly on the time series values, readily serves as an ablation against a simpler tokenization scheme (the simplest possible scheme in this context).\\n\\nWe believe that in the natural progression of the field, different works make different types of contributions, and not every work brings (or needs to bring) a paradigm-shifting accuracy improvement. In the case of WaveToken, our findings position it as a promising avenue for developing general-purpose, information-efficient forecasting models, and it should therefore be evaluated independently in addition to its accuracy.\"}", "{\"title\": \"OFFICIAL RESPONSE TO REVIEWER KBzW\", \"comment\": \"Thank you for your comments and questions that helped improve our paper. We have summarized our main revisions and answers in response to all reviewers in a separate comment above. Below we provide point-by-point answers to each section in your review.\\n\\n---\\nRegarding\\n> There are some overclaims: WaveToken claimed to be a foundation model, however, being limited to a fixed context length is a pronounced defect.\\n\\nWaveToken is only **trained** with a fixed context and prediction length, but during inference one is free to use arbitrary context and prediction lengths. This setup is not special to WaveToken and is also used by other foundation models for forecasting such as Chronos and TimesFM. We opted for training context and prediction lengths of 512 and 64, respectively, as they are sufficient for many practical use cases, as shown by our extensive evaluation on 42 datasets that cover different history lengths, prediction lengths, seasonalities, and domains.\\n\\n---\\nRegarding\\n> Limited refinement over previous works: From the experimental results, the performance of the proposed model is not significant. The overall promotions (Table 3 and Table 4) are close to that of Chronos. Besides, the model seems to have a disadvantage in efficiency compared with the straightforward quantizing tokenization of Chronos.\\n\\nFirstly, as noted in our response to a similar comment from reviewer zVkm, the *core motivation of our work* was to develop a general purpose tokenizer that seamlessly captures global and local patterns in the time series. Our **qualitative results** (Figure 1 and Section 4.3) demonstrate the impressive performance of WaveToken on complex edge cases where existing foundation models fail, almost completely. These results highlight the remarkable ability of a wavelet-based tokenizer to capture nonstationary signals \\u2013 which are pervasive in practical applications. Nevertheless, as outlined in the paper, **WaveToken also improves quantitatively** on Chronos 75% of the times and 83% of the times on the in-domain (15 datasets) and zero-shot (27 datasets) benchmarks, respectively, while employing a vocabulary one-quarter the size of Chronos. In addition, WaveToken achieves the *best average rank across all metrics for both Benchmarks I and II* (Figures 10 and 11). Note that our comparison with Chronos, which uses a simple uniform quantization scheme directly on the time series values, readily serves as an ablation against a simpler tokenization scheme (the simplest possible scheme in this context).\\n\\nWe believe that in the natural progression of the field, different works make different types of contributions, and not every work brings (or needs to bring) a paradigm-shifting accuracy improvement. In the case of WaveToken, our findings position it as a promising avenue for developing general-purpose, information-efficient forecasting models, and it should therefore be evaluated independently in addition to its accuracy.\\n\\nSecondly, *WakeToken does not have a disadvantage in terms of* **efficiency** as the wavelet tokenization is a convolution-and-downsampling operation which runs in linear time and the inference speed differences are not perceivable even when the wavelet transform is done in the CPU, as in our current implementation. Below we report running times (averaged over 10 repetitions) for both Chronos (Base) and WaveToken (Base) when forecasting a batch of 32 time series, with context length equal to 512 and prediction length equal to 64:\\n- Chronos: 6.56s +- 1.02ms\\n- WaveToken: 6.86s +- 1.14ms\\n\\nThe difference in inference times is negligible, and could be further reduced by applying the wavelet decomposition in parallel on the GPU.\"}", "{\"title\": \"A Gentle Reminder\", \"comment\": \"Dear Reviewer qSp1,\\n\\nThank you again for the useful comments and questions that helped improve our paper. As the end of the discussion period is approaching, we would like to gently remind you to take into account our responses and the updated version of the manuscript into your evaluation. \\n\\nWe hope that we have satisfactorily addressed your questions and concerns. If so, we request you to consider raising your score to reflect that. If you have further questions, we will be happy to respond to them.\\n\\nThank you. \\n\\nBest Regards,\\nThe Authors\"}", "{\"title\": \"Paper Decision\", \"decision\": \"Reject\"}", "{\"comment\": \"### **Usage of cross-entropy loss when forecasting continuous data via next-token prediction**\\n\\nSome reviewers asked questions regarding the meaning, advantages and possible pitfalls of using the cross-entropy loss when forecasting continuous data. \\n\\nWhile unconventional, using the cross-entropy loss for continuous data is not a new idea and is known in the literature as **regression via classification** [1, 2]. Previous works have shown the benefits of this approach across tasks, such as audio modeling (Wavenet [3]), Deep RL [4], and recently in the context of forecasting (Chronos [5]). Although the cross-entropy loss removes topological information, the model implicitly learns the topology from the data through large scale training. Using a categorical distribution allows the model to be flexible to accommodate multimodalities, strong asymmetries, sudden shifts, and more, as the distribution is not constrained to a specific shape.\\n\\nAdditionally, the use of cross-entropy loss allows to sidestep common issues with standard forecasting objectives (like MSE or quantile loss) such as their dependence on the scale of the inputs and on the presence of outliers, which can significantly degrade learning. Conversely, other approaches \\u2013 e.g., DeepAR or more recent foundation models like Moirai \\u2013 impose restrictive assumptions on the output forecasts via parametric distributions (usually Gaussian or Student\\u2019s-t), which are often not empirically valid. In our comparisons with these models, we already compare WaveToken against these alternative objective functions.\\n\\n[1] Torgo, L., & Gama, J. (1997). Regression using classification algorithms. Intelligent Data Analysis, 1(4), 275-292\\n\\n[2] Stewart, L., Bach, F., Berthet, Q., & Vert, J. P. (2023, April). Regression as classification: Influence of task formulation on neural network features. In International Conference on Artificial Intelligence and Statistics (pp. 11563-11582). PMLR\\n\\n[3] Van den Oord A., Dieleman S., Zen H., Simonyan K., Vinyals O., Graves A., Kalchbrenner N., Senior A., Kavukcuoglu K. (2016), WaveNet: A Generative Model for Raw Audio, arXiv preprint arXiv:1609.03499 \\n\\n[4] Farebrother, J., Orbay, J., Vuong, Q., Ta\\u00efga, A. A., Chebotar, Y., Xiao, T., ... & Agarwal, R. (2024). Stop regressing: Training value functions via classification for scalable deep rl. arXiv preprint arXiv:2403.03950\\n\\n[5] Ansari, A. F., Stella, L., Turkmen, C., Zhang, X., Mercado, P., Shen, H., ... & Wang, Y. (2024). Chronos: Learning the language of time series. arXiv preprint arXiv:2403.07815\\n\\n---\\n### **Code Release**\\nWe plan to release a user-friendly research package complete with details on how to train and evaluate our tokenizer and models. Unfortunately, we could not share our code for review at this stage due to pending legal approvals.\", \"title\": \"Summary of Responses and Revisions (cont.)\"}", "{\"title\": \"OFFICIAL RESPONSE TO REVIEWER uEP1\", \"comment\": \"Thank you for your useful comments and suggestions that helped improve our paper. We have summarized our main revisions and answers in response to all reviewers in a separate comment above. Below we provide point-by-point answers to each section in your review.\\n\\n---\\nRegarding\\n> The practical impact of the thresholding decisions on model generalization is uncertain. For example, aggressive thresholding could obscure subtle patterns, which could limit the model's robustness across diverse datasets. So, how do you ensure such an effect would not happen?\\n\\nWe did not explicitly threshold the coefficients as thresholding did not significantly improve the forecasting performance (see Section 4.4). As noted in lines 509-513, this can be attributed to the quantization step of the tokenizer: all wavelet coefficients close to 0 are mapped to the bin centered at 0. This value is then used at inference time to forecast tokens mapped to this bin, thereby *implicitly* thresholding small coefficients. Nevertheless, we agree that aggressive thresholding, or quantization in our context, may obscure subtle patterns. However, when coupled with instance normalization (i.e., standardization), this is a limited cause of concern on most real-world datasets, as demonstrated by the excellent quantitative and qualitative performance of WaveToken on 42 benchmark datasets.\\n\\n---\\nRegarding\\n> Using cross-entropy loss for next-token prediction in a continuous-data domain is unconventional, as it aligns more with the categorical outputs. So, how it guides learning for continuous variables is still ambiguous for me. Is it possible to compare with other loss functions, e.g. MSE?\\n\\nWhile unconventional, using the cross-entropy loss for continuous data is not a new idea and is known in the literature as **regression via classification** [1, 2]. Previous works have shown the benefits of this approach across tasks, such as audio modeling (Wavenet [3]), Deep RL [4], and recently in the context of forecasting (Chronos [5]). Although the cross-entropy loss removes topological information, the model implicitly learns the topology from the data through large scale training. Using a categorical distribution allows the model to be flexible to accommodate multimodalities, strong asymmetries, sudden shifts, and more, as the distribution is not constrained to a specific shape.\\n\\nAdditionally, the use of cross-entropy loss allows to sidestep common issues with standard forecasting objectives (like MSE or quantile loss) such as their dependence on the scale of the inputs and on the presence of outliers, which can significantly degrade learning. Conversely, other approaches \\u2013 e.g., DeepAR or more recent foundation models like Moirai \\u2013 impose restrictive assumptions on the output forecasts via parametric distributions (usually Gaussian or Student\\u2019s-t), which are often not empirically valid. In our comparisons with these models, we already compare WaveToken against these alternative objective functions.\\n\\n[1] Torgo, L., & Gama, J. (1997). Regression using classification algorithms. Intelligent Data Analysis, 1(4), 275-292\\n\\n[2] Stewart, L., Bach, F., Berthet, Q., & Vert, J. P. (2023, April). Regression as classification: Influence of task formulation on neural network features. In International Conference on Artificial Intelligence and Statistics (pp. 11563-11582). PMLR\\n\\n[3] Van den Oord A., Dieleman S., Zen H., Simonyan K., Vinyals O., Graves A., Kalchbrenner N., Senior A., Kavukcuoglu K. (2016), WaveNet: A Generative Model for Raw Audio, arXiv preprint arXiv:1609.03499\\n\\n[4] Farebrother, J., Orbay, J., Vuong, Q., Ta\\u00efga, A. A., Chebotar, Y., Xiao, T., ... & Agarwal, R. (2024). Stop regressing: Training value functions via classification for scalable deep RL. arXiv preprint arXiv:2403.03950\\n\\n[5] Ansari, A. F., Stella, L., Turkmen, C., Zhang, X., Mercado, P., Shen, H., ... & Wang, Y. (2024). Chronos: Learning the language of time series. arXiv preprint arXiv:2403.07815\\n\\n---\\nRegarding\\n> Will the code be released?\\n\\nYes, we plan to release a user-friendly research package complete with details on how to train and evaluate our tokenizer and models. Unfortunately, we could not share our code for review at this stage due to pending legal approvals.\"}", "{\"title\": \"Summary of Responses and Revisions\", \"comment\": \"We thank all the reviewers for their useful comments, suggestions and questions, which helped improve the quality of this work. Below we provide a summary of our answers and updates to the manuscript.\\n\\n---\\n### **Concerns about \\u201cmarginal improvements\\u201d over existing models**\\n\\nSome reviewers raised concerns about \\u201cmarginal improvements\\u201d in terms of forecasting metrics with respect to existing models, especially Chronos. \\n\\nThe *core motivation of our work* was to develop a general purpose tokenizer that seamlessly captures global and local patterns in the time series. Our **qualitative results** (Figure 1 and Section 4.3) demonstrate the impressive performance of WaveToken on complex edge cases where existing foundation models fail, almost completely. These results highlight the remarkable ability of a wavelet-based tokenizer to capture nonstationary signals \\u2013 which are pervasive in practical applications. Nevertheless, as outlined in the paper, **WaveToken also improves quantitatively** on Chronos 75% of the times and 83% of the times \\u2013 considering all model sizes and metrics \\u2013 on the in-domain (15 datasets) and zero-shot (27 datasets) benchmarks, respectively, while employing a vocabulary one-quarter the size of Chronos. In addition, WaveToken achieves the **best average rank across all metrics** for both Benchmarks I and II (Figures 10 and 11). \\n\\nWe believe that in the natural progression of the field, different works make different types of contributions, and not every work brings (or needs to bring) a paradigm-shifting accuracy improvement. In the case of WaveToken, our findings position it as a promising avenue for developing general-purpose, information-efficient forecasting models, and it should therefore be evaluated independently in addition to its accuracy.\\n\\n---\\n### **Performance on Long-Horizon Forecasting**\\nReviewer KBzW asked to investigate the performance of WaveToken on long-horizon forecasting. \\n\\nWe conducted **additional experiments** (see the new Figure 12 and Appendix E in the paper) on a **long-horizon benchmark** constructed by increasing the forecast length $H$ of each dataset in Benchmark II (Zero-Shot, 27 datasets) by a factor of 2 and 3 (see Table 9 for original forecast lengths), so that the long horizon varies accordingly to the time series frequency. The datasets in Benchmark II without sufficient history in all time series to allow for longer horizons have been skipped, resulting in 27 and 20 datasets for the $H \\\\times 2$ and $H \\\\times 3$ settings, respectively. **WaveToken outperforms other foundation models across all three metrics** in the $H \\\\times 2$ setting. When $H \\\\times 3$, TimesFM performs better with respect to WQL only. All results for Chronos and WaveToken are averaged across three different seeds.\"}", "{\"comment\": \"Thank you for the detailed response and additional empirical experiments, which addressed my concerns regarding the performance brought by wavelet tokenization and the difference from previous LLM-based time series models. The results of long-term forecasting are inspiring. The response regarding the discussion of discrete/continuous tokenization is convincing to me, which highlights that discrete vocabulary can be more adaptive to the distributions of time series. Thus, the proposed wavelet-based approach may shield light on this community.\\n\\nAfter reading all the comments and responses, I'd like to raise my score to the acceptance level.\"}", "{\"title\": \"OFFICIAL RESPONSE TO REVIEWER qSp1\", \"comment\": \"Thank you for your useful comments and suggestions that helped improve our paper. We have summarized our main revisions and answers in response to all reviewers in a separate comment above. Below we provide point-by-point answers to each section in your review.\\n\\n---\\nRegarding\\n> In their qualitative analysis and their conclusion, the authors claim \\\"excellent forecasting accuracy\\\" as well as \\\"superior generalization capabilities\\\". However, the results in Figure 3 and 4 reveal that using wavelet-based features does not improve downstream performance with respect to weighted quantile loss (WQL) and mean absolute scaled error (MASE), in both in-distribution and zero-shot settings. In the former setting, wavelet-based tokenisation even hurts performance compaired to the adapted Chronos model. Only in the newly introduced visual relative squared error (VRSE) [7], the results indicate incremental improvements compared to the baselines.\\n\\nThe *core motivation of our work* was to develop a general purpose tokenizer that seamlessly captures global and local patterns in the time series. Our **qualitative results** (Figure 1 and Section 4.3) demonstrate the impressive performance of WaveToken on complex edge cases where existing foundation models fail, almost completely. These results highlight the remarkable ability of a wavelet-based tokenizer to capture nonstationary signals \\u2013 which are pervasive in practical applications. Nevertheless, as outlined in the paper, **WaveToken also improves quantitatively** on Chronos 75% of the times and 83% of the times on the in-domain (15 datasets) and zero-shot (27 datasets) benchmarks, respectively, while employing a vocabulary one-quarter the size of Chronos. In addition, *WaveToken achieves the best average rank across all metrics* for both Benchmarks I and II (Figures 10 and 11). \\n\\nWe believe that in the natural progression of the field, different works make different types of contributions, and not every work brings (or needs to bring) a paradigm-shifting accuracy improvement. In the case of WaveToken, our findings position it as a promising avenue for developing general-purpose, information-efficient forecasting models, and it should therefore be evaluated independently in addition to its accuracy.\\n\\n---\\nRegarding\\n> The authors do not report their results across multiple seeds to ensure robustness.\\n\\nAll results for WaveToken and Chronos are reported by averaging metrics across 3 different training runs (as mentioned in Appendix D), in order to draw reliable and reproducible conclusions. In hindsight, we realize we should have mentioned this in the main text as well. We have updated our manuscript accordingly.\\n\\n--- \\nRegarding\\n> The authors do not elaborate on the limitations of their work.\\n\\nThanks for pointing this out, we have added the paragraph below at the end of Section 5.\\n\\nSpecifically, WaveToken exploits an autoregressive model on wavelet coefficients. As such, it suffers from slower decoding and inference time relative to recently proposed alternatives, such as patch-based models. Applying WaveToken to patch-based architectures represents an interesting area for future research.\\n\\n--- \\nRegarding\\n> The authors neither provide configurations for hyperparamter tuning (including the final hyperparameter setting) nor share their code to support reproducibility\\n\\nSection 4.1 provides all the details on our model, including parameter counts, architecture used, context and prediction length, training and evaluation strategies. In addition, Appendix F reports all the hyper-parameters used for each model, including all the baselines.\\n\\nAs for code, we plan to release a user-friendly research package complete with details on how to train and evaluate our tokenizer and models. Unfortunately, we could not share our code for review at this stage due to pending legal approvals. \\n\\n--- \\nRegarding\\n> How do the authors determine the \\\"average rank\\\" (l. 395) reported e.g. in Figure 10?\\n\\nThe average rank is computed by calculating the rank of each model on each dataset according to its forecasting performance relative to the other baselines, for a specific metric. The ranks are then averaged across all the datasets within a benchmark, i.e. separately for in-domain and zero-shot datasets.\"}", "{\"title\": \"Follow-up Reminder\", \"comment\": \"Dear Reviewer qSp1,\\n\\nThank you again for your review. We kindly remind you to take into account our responses and the updated version of the manuscript into your evaluation. \\n\\nWe hope that we have satisfactorily addressed your questions and concerns. If so, we request you to consider raising your score to reflect that. If you have further questions, we will be happy to respond to them.\\n\\nThank you.\\n\\nBest Regards,\\\\\\nThe Authors\"}", "{\"comment\": \"Thank you for your response and follow-up comments.\\n\\nWe agree with the reviewer that wavelet-based methods have been used previously in the context of time series forecasting. However, WaveToken uses it in the completely new context of tokenization for time series foundation models. These foundation models, such as Chronos, have received considerable attention from the time series community of late and our work addresses a critical component (tokenization) of these models. \\n\\nWe respectfully disagree with reviewer's assertion that \\\"the proposed approach does not offer clear advantages for downstream applications\\\". On the contrary, WaveToken improves quantitatively over Chronos 75% of the times and 83% of the times on the in-domain (15 datasets) and zero-shot (27 datasets) benchmarks, respectively. In the long-horizon experiments that we have added to the revision (Fig. 12) too, WaveToken shows its edge over Chronos. Furthermore, in the qualitative analysis (Figure 1 and Section 4.3), the difference between WaveToken and Chronos is stark, where Chronos completely fails on spiky and non-stationary data. \\n\\n> Additionally, the rebuttal does not address my points related to other non-regressive forecasting models or general time series models, which could potentially benefit from wavelet-based features.\\n\\nIndeed, wavelet-based features could potentially help other time series models. However, our work is NOT about wavelet features in general, but about _wavelet-based tokenization_ which is applicable to autoregressive methods that employ tokenization (such as Chronos) and not directly relevant to non-autoregressive models. \\n\\n> The study also lacks an analysis of the learned vocabulary to explore whether patterns can be leveraged to improve the downstream performance. \\n\\nIt is unclear what kind of analysis the reviewer is referring to here. In the context of WaveToken, the vocabulary are the bins of the wavelet coefficients obtained upon quantization. As such, the vocabulary is neither learned nor it is a vocabulary of patterns.\\n\\nWe hope that the reviewer reconsiders their score in the light of our response above.\"}", "{\"summary\": \"The paper introduces a novel tokenizer, WaveToken, to time series analysis via wavelet transforms. The method first normalizes input time series using z-score scaling, then applies a maximally decimated Discrete Wavelet Transform using the Biorthogonal-2.2 wavelet family. This decomposition separates signals into approximation coefficients (low-frequency) and detail coefficients (high-frequency) while preserving input length. The coefficients are quantized into discrete tokens using Freedman-Diaconis binning, creating a compact 1024-token vocabulary that captures both global and local patterns. The tokenized coefficients are concatenated and fed into a T5 encoder-decoder architecture trained via next-token prediction. During inference, the model autoregressively generates tokens representing future wavelet coefficients, which are then inverse-transformed to produce forecasts. The model shows strong zero-shot generalization across domains.\", \"soundness\": \"2\", \"presentation\": \"1\", \"contribution\": \"2\", \"strengths\": \"1. Introduces wavelet-based tokenizer which bridges classical signal processing with modern deep learning.\\n2. Gets comparable or better performance with a smaller vocabulary (1024 vs 4096 tokens), demonstrating better information density\\n3. Comprehensive empirical evaluation on multiple datasets\", \"weaknesses\": [\"1. Novelty issue:\", \"Core idea of wavelet-based tokenization for large models has been explored in previous work, e.g., Wave-ViT (Zhu ETL. 2024), though in different domains. Insufficient discussion of how this approach differs fundamentally from or improves upon prior works in wavelet-based tokenizer\", \"2. Design justification:\", \"The marginal improvement over Chronos raises questions about whether the gains justify the additional benefits of wavelet-based tokenization. An ablation study comparing against simpler tokenization approaches would help validate the necessity of wavelets.\", \"Mismatch between extensive thresholding theory (Section 3.2) and empirical findings that no thresholding works best in the 8-gpu case.\", \"3. Minor issues:\", \"The main text lacks a clear mathematical formulation of problem setup and wavelet decomposition, making it harder to understand the key transformation.\", \"Insufficient explanation of unexpected results in other normalization choices (Line 221)\", \"No clear shape information for approximation ($a_k$) and detail ($d_k$) coefficients (Line 225).\", \"Unclear explanation of length preservation in DWT (Line 227). It takes time to think if it is due to the downsampling.\", \"[1] Zhu, Zhenhai, and Radu Soricut. \\\"Wavelet-Based Image Tokenizer for Vision Transformers.\\\"\\u00a0arXiv preprint arXiv:2405.18616\\u00a0(2024).\"], \"questions\": \"1. How does your wavelet-based tokenization fundamentally differ from prior approaches like Wave-ViT, particularly in handling temporal vs spatial data? Are concepts like \\\"pixel-space token embedding\\\" fundamentally different from the wavelet-based tokens in TS?\\n2. The finding that single-level decomposition is optimal seems to contradict the motivation for using wavelets. Could you explain this apparent contradiction? Does this undermine the motivation for using wavelets?\\n3. Could you provide ablation studies comparing against simpler tokenization approaches to justify the added complexity of wavelets?\\n4. How sensitive is the model's performance to different batch sizes and computing configurations, given the significant difference between single-GPU and 8-GPU results?\", \"flag_for_ethics_review\": \"['No ethics review needed.']\", \"rating\": \"3\", \"confidence\": \"3\", \"code_of_conduct\": \"Yes\"}", "{\"title\": \"A Gentle Reminder\", \"comment\": \"Dear Reviewer KBzW,\\n\\nThank you again for the useful comments and questions that helped improve our paper. As the end of the discussion period is approaching, we would like to gently remind you to take into account our responses and the updated version of the manuscript into your evaluation. \\n\\nWe hope that we have satisfactorily addressed your questions and concerns. If so, we request you to consider raising your score to reflect that. If you have further questions, we will be happy to respond to them.\\n\\nThank you. \\n\\nBest Regards,\\nThe Authors\"}", "{\"title\": \"A Gentle Reminder\", \"comment\": \"Dear Reviewer uEP1,\\n\\nThank you again for the useful comments and questions that helped improve our paper. As the end of the discussion period is approaching, we would like to gently remind you to take into account our responses and the updated version of the manuscript into your evaluation. \\n\\nWe hope that we have satisfactorily addressed your questions and concerns. If you have further questions, we will be happy to respond to them.\\n\\nThank you. \\n\\nBest Regards,\\nThe Authors\"}", "{\"title\": \"Official Response to Remaining Concerns of Reviewer zVkm\", \"comment\": \"Thank you for your response. We understand that *one of your primary concerns in the original review* was regarding the novelty of our work in the context of VIT models that use wavelets. We hope our initial reply has sufficiently addressed your concerns on this matter. If you have any further questions or require additional clarification, we would be more than happy to provide it. Otherwise, we would greatly appreciate it if you could kindly acknowledge our response regarding the novelty. Below, we address the follow-up points you raised.\\n\\n---\\nAs to\\n> 1. The normalization choice remains unanswered\\n\\nWe apologize for the confusion in this matter, as the term translation-invariance can be ambivalently used for shifts in time and shifts in value. We agree that translation-invariance in **time** refers to coefficients being stable when the input signal is shifted in time domain, but in our work we referred to translation-invariance with respect to **values**. That is, when a signal $f(x)$ is shifted by a constant $c$, in which case the wavelet (approximation) coefficients also change. Z-score scaling makes the approximation coefficients \\u2013 which capture low frequency content including the mean \\u2013 insensitive to additive constants thanks to centering. In addition, z-score scaling makes sure that the time series has unit variance, thereby standardizing the magnitude of detail coefficients, which only capture relative variations. Overall, these effects ensure that the model is learning from representations of the inputs that are as consistent as possible for signals that effectively carry the same time-localized frequency content. \\n\\nWe will update the manuscript accordingly to clarify these points.\\n\\n---\\nAs to\\n> 2. The justification for the benefits of the wavelet transform remains unconvincing\\n\\nOur work proposes a **novel tokenizer**, which by definition is a *combination of pre- and post-processing operations*. As such, normalization, wavelet transform and quantization should all be considered as part of a unique tokenization scheme, not separately. We argue and demonstrate that our combination of operations can be more effective to capture complex edge cases where existing foundation models fail almost completely, and to deliver an overall excellent performance on In-Domain and Zero-Shot benchmarks. This is the same terminology used in the Chronos paper.\\n\\nRegarding the **impact of the normalization choice**, we conducted an **additional experiment** to dispel any doubt. The table below compares the performance of Chronos (Small) using mean absolute scaling (MeanAbs) versus z-score scaling (ZScore). The latter clearly performs worse across all benchmarks and metrics, hence the ZScore scaling in itself cannot be deemed to be the source of the performance improvement we observe for WaveToken.\\n\\n| Benchmark | Metric | Chronos (Small, MeanAbs) | Chronos (Small, ZScore) |\\n|------------|--------|--------------------------|--------------------------|\\n| In Domain | WQL | **0.596** | 0.610 |\\n| In Domain | MASE | 0.726 | **0.724** |\\n| In Domain | VRSE | **0.537** | 0.571 |\\n| Zero Shot | WQL | **0.661** | 0.674 |\\n| Zero Shot | MASE | **0.819** | 0.820 |\\n| Zero Shot | VRSE | **0.581** | 0.596 |\\n\\nRegarding the **impact of the quantization scheme**, we note that the implicit thresholding effect is happening both for WaveToken and Chronos, which maps raw time series values to bin centers, thereby removing noise too. As such, even this mechanism cannot be deemed to be the source of the performance improvement we observe for WaveToken. Finally, we also note that the implicit removal of noise is not the central point of either method (Chronos or WaveToken), and in our case we only offered it as a potential justification for the empirical observation that various thresholding techniques were not found to be effective.\"}", "{\"summary\": \"This paper aims to develop foundation models for time series forecasting. The authors have delved into the tokenization approach for real-valued time series inputs and propose WaveToken, a wavelet-based tokenizer that involves scaling, decomposing, and quantizing the wavelet coefficients on time series. An autoregressive language model is adapted to generate future tokens of wavelet coefficients. Experimental results demonstrate that the model performs well across diverse datasets in both in-distribution and zero-shot settings, using a smaller vocabulary compared with the previous tokenization method.\", \"soundness\": \"3\", \"presentation\": \"2\", \"contribution\": \"2\", \"strengths\": \"1. The paper proposes a novel tokenization from the perspective of the frequency domain.\\n2. The model is pre-trained on a large corpus of diverse datasets, with evaluations showing its effectiveness in capturing local and global patterns.\", \"weaknesses\": \"1. There are some overclaims: WaveToken claimed to be a foundation model, however, being limited to a fixed context length is a pronounced defect.\\n2. Limited refinement over previous works: From the experimental results, the performance of the proposed model is not significant. The overall promotions (Table 3 and Table 4) are close to that of Chronos. Besides, the model seems to have a disadvantage in efficiency compared with the straightforward quantizing tokenization of Chronos.\\n3. Learning autoregressive models on the wavelet coefficients, which do not preserve the temporal transitions, does not make sense to me. The author also noticed the counter-intuition. However, the insignificance of experimental results and lack of theoretical proof amplifies this irrationality. Can the author give more explanations and proofs in this respect? I am not denying the wavelet tokens, which have been extensively explored in previous works before. It might be more reasonable to learn the diffusion process on the decomposition-based coefficients. Whether the author has tried in this regard?\\n4. About the experiments to support wavelet tokenization: As previously stated, the main evidence in the paper supporting wavelet tokenization comes from the performance of in-domain and zero-shot generalization. However, recent work has shown that there is a risk of overfitting these smaller time series datasets with the LLM [1]. It is recommended that the author provide more comparisons on diverse benchmarks. \\n5. Being able to use a smaller vocabulary does not seem like a particularly appealing advantage at present. Could the authors provide more results to verify whether the wavelet-based vocabulary can be extremely small?\\n\\n[1] Are Language Models Actually Useful for Time Series Forecasting?\", \"questions\": \"1. How does WaveToken perform in long-term forecasting? Recent work has shown that Chronos can be less effective at predicting long horizons than models that adopt patch tokens (such as TimesFM). It may be due to the multi-step error accumulation caused by its point-wise tokenization. I wonder if WaveToken can effectively solve this problem.\\n2. WaveToken and Chronos both adopt the LLM-style discrete vocabulary, which can naturally support probabilistic forecasting. Meanwhile, deep forecasters using continuous embeddings (linear layers or MLPs) can also support it by introducing a probabilistic head (such as TimesFM and Moirai). What other advantages do you think discrete vocabularies have over continuous embeddings in time series forecasters?\", \"flag_for_ethics_review\": \"['No ethics review needed.']\", \"rating\": \"6\", \"confidence\": \"3\", \"code_of_conduct\": \"Yes\"}", "{\"metareview\": \"The paper proposes a wavelet-based tokenized to facilitate the learning of \\\"complex representations directly in the space of time-localized frequencies\\u201d. The method uses wavelet decomposition and trains an autoregressive model to predict the wavelet coefficients. The authors have shown that their method performs on par or better than deep learning models on a benchmark of 42 datasets.\\n\\nDuring the discussion phase, issues were raised about the improvements brought by WaveToken, to which the authors responded by pointing to the qualitative results, and to improvements over Chronos in many of the datasets. \\nReviewer zVkm remained unconvinced about the merits of the tokenizer, due to the method being built on Chronos itself and that some of the performance gains can be attributed to the choice of normalization. The authors did provide experiments showing the impact of the normalization choice showing that ZScore is actually worse than MeanAbs for Chronos. The experiments still show that normalization can affect performance, though presumably the authors have used the best normalization scheme possible for each method. My assessment is that there is still a lack of clarity as to where the performance gain comes from.\\n\\nReviewer qSp1 also expressed concerns about the actual performance improvements by the method, the lack of statistical significance (obtained through repeated experiments or bootstrapping), and certain over claims made by the authors with respect to their results.\\n\\nWhile it is clear that no time series method can win on all benchmarks, it is not clear when exactly this method is expected to work well. Are there any settings/assumptions under which it is guaranteed (or at least more likely) that it will outperform contenders? Without this, it is just one of the many time series methods out there that works marginally better on a random set of the benchmarks. \\n\\nI also agree with the reviewer\\u2019s ascertainment that, if one of the advantages of the method comes from using a compact vocabulary, then some advantage of learning this vocabulary should be presented (beyond just the alleged performance gain). \\n\\nOverall, while this paper has some merits, I do not deem it ready for publication at this time.\", \"additional_comments_on_reviewer_discussion\": \"The main points raised by the reviewers during the discussion period were the lack of clarity in terms of where performance gains come from with this method, the statistical significance of the results, and the benefits brought from the compact vocabulary.\\n\\nAlthough the authors provided some additional experiments, these did not sufficiently alleviate the reviewers' concerns.\"}", "{\"summary\": \"The paper introduces WaveToken, a tokeniser that equips a time series model with wavelet-based features for uni-variate forecasting applications. The authors adapt an existing Transformer-based forecasting model, namely Chronos, by extracting features from a discrete wavelet transform during tokenisation. Evaluations in both in-distribution and zero-shot settings indicate that the use of wavelet-based features during tokenisation might be benfecial across uni-variate forecasting applications.\", \"soundness\": \"3\", \"presentation\": \"3\", \"contribution\": \"2\", \"strengths\": \"1. The paper is well structured.\\n2. The paper is clearly written.\\n3. The authors conduct extensive forecasting experiments, including 15 in-distribution and 27 zero-shot applications, to evaluate their method.\\n4. The authors perform a simple qualitative analysis using attention maps and conduct ablation studies to provide insights into their approach.\", \"weaknesses\": \"1. Time series models utilising wavelet-based features have been well studied for time series analysis [1,2,3,4,5,6]. As the work under review combines wavelet-based feature extraction with an existing time series model, namely Chronos, for a very specific task, i.e. uni-variate forecasting, it offers a limited technical contribution to the field of time series analysis.\\n\\n2. In their qualitative analysis and their conclusion, the authors claim \\\"excellent forecasting accuracy\\\" as well as \\\"superior generalization capabilities\\\". However, the results in Figure 3 and 4 reveal that using wavelet-based features does not improve downstream performance with respect to weighted quantile loss (WQL) and mean absolute scaled error (MASE), in both in-distribution and zero-shot settings. In the former setting, wavelet-based tokenisation even hurts performance compaired to the adapted Chronos model. Only in the newly introduced visual relative squared error (VRSE) [7], the results indicate incremental improvements compared to the baselines. \\n\\n3. The authors only analyse wavelet-based features for autoregressive models, i.e. Chronos. It would be worth exploring WaveToken in combination with other forecasting models, e.g. non-autoregressive models, or even general time series models. This would provide detailed insight whether wavelet-based features may be beneficial for other architectures or for other tasks such as classification, regression, or imputation.\\n\\n4. The authors do not report their results across multiple seeds to ensure robustness.\\n\\n5. The authors do not elaborate on the limitations of their work.\\n\\n6. The authors neither provide configurations for hyperparamter tuning (including the final hyperparameter setting) nor share their code to support reproducibility.\\n\\n7. The terminology of the paper lacks clarity. For instance, the authors use the term \\\"language model\\\" throughout their work, which might be confusing since the model is trained from scratch on a large collection of time series. The term time series model would be more appropriate. Additionally, the authors alternate between forecasting \\\"accuracy\\\" and \\\"performance\\\", with the latter being the more suitable term. It should be used consistently throughout the paper to avoid confusion. While technical terms such as \\\"time-localized frequencies\\\" (ll. 14-15) may be familiar in the signal processing community, a brief explanation would help make these concepts accessible to a broader time series audience. In line 415, the authors state \\\"Both Chronos, TimesFM, and Moirai\\\" where I believe they intended to say \\\"~~Both~~ Chronos, TimesFM, and Moirai\\\".\\n\\n[1] Torrence et al. \\\"A practical guide to wavelet analysis.\\\" Bulletin of the American Meteorological Society (1998).\\n\\n[2] Percival, D. B. \\\"Wavelet Methods for Time Series Analysis.\\\" Cambridge University Press (2000).\\n\\n[3] Cazelles et al. \\\"Wavelet analysis of ecological time series.\\\" Oecologia (2008).\\n\\n[4] Pandey et al. \\\"Intelligent hybrid wavelet models for short-term load forecasting.\\\" IEEE Transactions on Power Systems (2010).\\n\\n[5] Wang et al. \\\"Multilevel wavelet decomposition network for interpretable time series analysis.\\\" ACM SIGKDD International Conference on Knowledge Discovery & Data Mining (2018).\\n\\n[6] Sasal et al. \\\"W-transformers: a wavelet-based transformer framework for univariate time series forecasting.\\\" IEEE international conference on machine learning and applications (2022).\\n\\n[7] Posam et al. \\\"DiffFind: Discovering Differential Equations from Time Series.\\\" Pacific-Asia Conference on Knowledge Discovery and Data Mining. Springer Nature Singapore (2024).\", \"questions\": \"1. Have the authors analysed the learned vocabulary? Are there any patterns present in the vocabulary that can be leveraged to further improve tokenisation and ideally downstream performance?\\n\\n2. The authors state that existing time series models which preserve the natural temporal dependency \\\"tend to focus more either on the recent history or uniformly over all time steps\\\" (ll. 78-79), however, without providing any ground for this claim. Existing time series models [8,9,10,11,12] employ attention-based Transformers, that are known for their attention-weighted (i.e., non-uniform) focus on time steps. Could the authors therefore elaborate further on their statement?\\n\\n3. How do the authors determine the \\\"average rank\\\" (l. 395) reported e.g. in Figure 10?\\n\\n4. The authors state that the cross-entropy loss \\\"lends itself well to forecasting applications, where it is often important to capture the correct shape or pattern of the time series without imposing structural limitations such as those inherent in traditional loss functions like MSE and MAE\\\" (ll. 295-298). Could the authors elaborate further on this statement? \\n\\n5. Why would the authors \\\"use the last $H$ observations of each time series as a held-out test set\\\" (l. 357) even for zero-shot benchmarking? Are they training or evaluating on the remaining time steps? Why not evaluate the entire time series in the established rolling window fashion [13]?\\n\\n[8] Ansari et al. \\\"Chronos: Learning the language of time series.\\\" arXiv (2024).\\n\\n[9] Woo et al. \\\"Unified training of universal time series forecasting transformers.\\\" ICML (2024).\\n\\n[10]\\u00a0Goswami et al. \\\"Moment: A family of open time-series foundation models.\\\" ICML (2024).\\n\\n[11] Yang et al. \\\"Biot: Biosignal transformer for cross-data learning in the wild.\\\" NeurIPS (2024).\\n\\n[12] Jiang et al. \\\"Large brain model for learning generic representations with tremendous EEG data in BCI.\\\" ICLR (2024).\\n\\n[13] Zhou et al. \\\"Informer: Beyond efficient transformer for long sequence time-series forecasting.\\\" AAAI (2021).\", \"flag_for_ethics_review\": \"['No ethics review needed.']\", \"rating\": \"5\", \"confidence\": \"4\", \"code_of_conduct\": \"Yes\"}", "{\"title\": \"OFFICIAL RESPONSE TO REVIEWER KBzW (cont.)\", \"comment\": \"Regarding\\n> Learning autoregressive models on the wavelet coefficients, which do not preserve the temporal transitions, does not make sense to me. The author also noticed the counter-intuition. However, the insignificance of experimental results and lack of theoretical proof amplifies this irrationality. Can the author give more explanations and proofs in this respect? I am not denying the wavelet tokens, which have been extensively explored in previous works before. It might be more reasonable to learn the diffusion process on the decomposition-based coefficients. Whether the author has tried in this regard?\\n\\nTo clarify, *temporal dependencies are preserved within each coefficient group*. In other words, with a one-level wavelet decomposition, WaveToken is simply providing additional structure (namely, high-frequency versus low-frequency coefficients, divided in two concatenated groups) that the attention-based mechanism can leverage. The autoregressive model is still consistent within each coefficient group, and the attention mechanism allows it to determine when to switch from an autoregressive regime appropriate for low frequencies to an autoregressive regime appropriate for high frequencies.\", \"this_phenomenon_is_also_highlighted_in_the_attention_maps_presented_in_figure_5\": \"by decomposing the input sequence into approximation (low-frequency) and detail (high-frequency) coefficients, the model learns more easily to focus on the important portions to effectively forecast complex time series of practical relevance such as sparse spikes or non-stationary frequencies evolving over time, as can be seen in Figure 1.\\n\\n---\\nRegarding\\n> About the experiments to support wavelet tokenization: As previously stated, the main evidence in the paper supporting wavelet tokenization comes from the performance of in-domain and zero-shot generalization. However, recent work has shown that there is a risk of overfitting these smaller time series datasets with the LLM [1]. It is recommended that the author provide more comparisons on diverse benchmarks.\\n\\nWaveToken is trained on a large corpus of real and synthetic time series from diverse sources, NOT small individual time series datasets as studied in [1]. Our remarkable zero-shot results on 27 datasets showing that WaveToken performs better or on par with models trained on these datasets (e.g., DeepAR, TFT, PatchTST), despite never having seen these datasets, demonstrates that the risk of overfitting is non-existent. Furthermore, the models and evaluation settings considered in [1] have been superseded by the large-scale zero-shot evaluations in other recent works such as Chronos and TimesFM.\\n\\n[1] Tan, M., Merrill, M. A., Gupta, V., Althoff, T., & Hartvigsen, T. (2024, June). Are language models actually useful for time series forecasting?. In The Thirty-eighth Annual Conference on Neural Information Processing Systems.\\n\\n---\\nRegarding\\n> How does WaveToken perform in long-term forecasting? Recent work has shown that Chronos can be less effective at predicting long horizons than models that adopt patch tokens (such as TimesFM). It may be due to the multi-step error accumulation caused by its point-wise tokenization. I wonder if WaveToken can effectively solve this problem.\\n\\nThank you for suggesting this additional setting. We conducted **new experiments** (see the new Figure 12 and Appendix E in the paper) on a **long-horizon benchmark** constructed by increasing the forecast length $H$ of each dataset in Benchmark II (Zero-Shot) by a factor of 2 and 3 (see Table 9 for original forecast lengths). The datasets in Benchmark II without sufficient history in all time series to allow for longer horizons have been skipped. **WaveToken outperforms other foundation models across all three metrics** in the $H \\\\times 2$ setting. When $H \\\\times 3$, TimesFM performs better with respect to WQL only. All results for Chronos and WaveToken are averaged across three different seeds.\"}", "{\"title\": \"Reviewer Response\", \"comment\": \"Thank you very much for the response and the revised manuscript. I have carefully read both the rebuttal and the updated version of the study.\\n\\nThe authors have conducted an interesting investigation on whether wavelet-based features can enhance time series foundation models, such as Chronos [1]. \\n\\nWhile I find the contribution of this work to be limited, given that wavelet-based approaches have been extensively studied in the literature, including the field of time series analysis [2][3][4][5][6][7][8], this would not be a concern if the method demonstrated clear benefits for downstream performance. However, the experimental results indicate that the proposed approach does not offer clear advantages for downstream applications, especially when compared to the model it builds upon, i.e. Chonos [1]. \\n\\nAdditionally, the rebuttal does not address my points related to other non-regressive forecasting models or general time series models, which could potentially benefit from wavelet-based features. The study also lacks an analysis of the learned vocabulary to explore whether patterns can be leveraged to improve the downstream performance. \\n\\nGiven these considerations, I cannot recommend accepting the study at this time, and thus leave my scores unchanged. However, I encourage the authors to refine and expand upon this work, as the conceptual idea of wavelet-based tokenisation is interesting.\\n\\n---\\n[1] Ansari et al. \\\"Chronos: Learning the language of time series.\\\" arXiv (2024).\\n\\n[2] Torrence et al. \\\"A practical guide to wavelet analysis.\\\" Bulletin of the American Meteorological Society (1998).\\n\\n[3] Percival, D. B. \\\"Wavelet Methods for Time Series Analysis.\\\" Cambridge University Press (2000).\\n\\n[4] Cazelles et al. \\\"Wavelet analysis of ecological time series.\\\" Oecologia (2008).\\n\\n[5] Pandey et al. \\\"Intelligent hybrid wavelet models for short-term load forecasting.\\\" IEEE Transactions on Power Systems (2010).\\n\\n[6] Wang et al. \\\"Multilevel wavelet decomposition network for interpretable time series analysis.\\\" ACM SIGKDD International Conference on Knowledge Discovery & Data Mining (2018).\\n\\n[7] Sasal et al. \\\"W-transformers: a wavelet-based transformer framework for univariate time series forecasting.\\\" IEEE international conference on machine learning and applications (2022).\\n\\n[8] Posam et al. \\\"DiffFind: Discovering Differential Equations from Time Series.\\\" Pacific-Asia Conference on Knowledge Discovery and Data Mining. Springer Nature Singapore (2024).\"}", "{\"title\": \"Please respond to the authors of submission 8429\", \"comment\": \"Dear Reviewer qSp1,\\n\\nThe authors of submission 8429 have provided an extensive response to your review.\\n\\nAs the discussion period is almost over, please go over their response and determine which of your comments are addressed.\\n\\nPlease explain your decision to update (or not update) your score.\\n\\nAll the best,\\n\\nThe AC\"}", "{\"title\": \"Reminder before End of Discussion Period\", \"comment\": \"Dear Reviewer qSp1,\\n\\nThank you again for your helpful review. As you know, the discussion period will end in two days on Monday December 2nd. We would like to gently remind you to take into account our responses to your questions and concerns.\\n\\nWe hope our answers above have satisfactorily addressed your comments. If so, we request you to consider raising your score to reflect that. If you have further questions, we would be happy to respond to them.\\n\\nThank you.\"}", "{\"comment\": \"Thank you for your response. I still have some concerns about isolating and validating the core contribution of the wavelet-based tokenization approach. The current evaluation does not convincingly isolate the benefits of the wavelet tokenizer. And the proposed model heavily builds on Chronos, inheriting much of its structure while introducing modifications on scaling and quantization methods. Therefore, it becomes difficult to attribute the performance gains solely to the wavelet tokenizer. While the authors claim the wavelet tokenizer is a general-purpose solution, the reliance on single-level decomposition and its entanglement with other key components (scaling and quantization) raises questions about its universal utility. Without fully leveraging the multi-resolution analysis traditionally associated with wavelets, the wavelet tokenizer\\u2019s contribution may not justify the added complexity, especially when compared to simpler alternatives (simpler means and differences).\\n\\n1. The normalization choice remains unanswered\\n\\nThe authors stated that the specific wavelet transform we adopt is not translation-invariant, hence a shift in the input signal can lead to different coefficients. However, I believe this statement may be somewhat misleading:\\n\\n- Scaling ensures consistent results across varying input scales but does not address or influence the translation-invariance of the wavelet transform itself. Translation-invariance refers to whether wavelet coefficients remain stable when the input signal is shifted **in time**, which is independent of scaling.\\n- The wavelet transform inherently operates on the shape of the input signal, not its absolute amplitude. While scaling (such as z-score) adjusts the signal amplitude, it does not change the underlying time-frequency structure of the wavelet coefficients.\\n\\nFurthermore, the authors claimed that other popular normalization techniques could therefore yield unexpected results for similar inputs. Can this statement be interpreted as evidence that other normalization choices were tested and found less effective than z-score scaling? If so, how significant were the performance differences? If z-score scaling provides optimal results, it should also be acknowledged as an important component of the model\\u2019s performance.\\n\\n2. The justification for the benefits of the wavelet transform remains unconvincing\\n\\n- Using Chronos as an ablation experiment to justify the additional gains from wavelet-based tokenization is less fair, as the two models differ not only in the use of wavelets but also in their scaling and quantization methods:\\n - Chronos employs mean scaling and a simple uniform quantization scheme.\\n - The proposed model uses z-score scaling and the Freedman-Diaconis rule for quantization.\\n- These differences in vocabulary construction and preprocessing make it challenging to disentangle the specific contributions of the wavelet transform.\\n\\nAdditionally, the authors claim that their quantization approach implicitly thresholds noise by mapping wavelet coefficients close to zero into a bin centered at zero. This property indicates that the quantization method plays a significant role in improving model performance by reducing the impact of noise. However, this adds another layer of complexity, as the observed gains may stem from the quantization method rather than the wavelet transform itself.\\n\\nThe normalization choice also contributes to this complexity. Prior research, such as RevIN (Kim et al., 2021), has shown that z-score normalization is critical for time-series forecasting, particularly for datasets affected by distribution shifts. Given the importance of z-score normalization, it is reasonable to consider it as an independent factor contributing to the model\\u2019s performance. In contrast, Chronos relies on mean scaling, which is less effective in addressing distribution shifts. Consequently, the performance gains attributed to the wavelet tokenizer might instead result from the improved scaling method.\\n\\n3. Concerns about the general-purpose utility of the wavelet tokenizer\\n\\nThe reliance on single-level decomposition undermines the claim that the wavelet tokenizer is a general-purpose solution for time-series representation. By limiting the decomposition to a single level, this tokenizer reduces the wavelet transform\\u2019s functionality to a fixed filter size, restricting the model's ability to adaptively analyze global and local patterns, as it provides only one resolution to detect features. Moreover, the use of a single-level decomposition makes the tokenizer\\u2019s functionality easily replaceable by simpler approaches. For example, moving averages could effectively detect trends, differencing could identify localized changes, and direct filtering methods could extract fixed-resolution features\\u2014all without the added complexity of wavelet transforms.\"}", "{\"title\": \"OFFICIAL RESPONSE TO REVIEWER zVkm (cont.)\", \"comment\": \"Regarding\\n> Mismatch between extensive thresholding theory (Section 3.2) and empirical findings that no thresholding works best in the 8-gpu case.\\n\\nWe believe there is no mismatch between Section 3.2 and empirical findings. Section 3.2 presents several thresholding methods commonly leveraged in the signal processing literature. These techniques, while useful, are usually developed for different downstream tasks such as compression or denoising, which are only tangential to time series forecasting. As explained in Section 4.4, lines 509-513, the empirical observation that thresholding does not improve performance is to be attributed to the quantization step of the tokenizer: all wavelet coefficients close to 0 are mapped to the bin centered at 0. This value is then used at inference time to forecast tokens mapped to this bin, thereby implicitly thresholding small coefficients. As such, there is no mismatch between our discussion of Section 3.2 and the empirical results. Nonetheless, we have clarified this point in the revision. \\n\\n---\\nRegarding\\n> The finding that single-level decomposition is optimal seems to contradict the motivation for using wavelets. Could you explain this apparent contradiction? Does this undermine the motivation for using wavelets?\\n\\nThe optimality of single-level decomposition in our context does not contradict the motivation for using wavelets, as the first-level wavelet coefficients already decompose the time series into high- and low-frequency components capturing global and local patterns. In the signal processing literature, the number of levels for a wavelet decomposition is usually chosen empirically, and can also depend on the length of the input and output sequence. See also [1] for another application of a single-level wavelet decomposition to signal denoising. \\n\\nGoing deeper into the decomposition provides finer granularity, but also imposes unnecessary structure in the concatenated coefficients used as input to the architecture. We indeed observed that the attention mechanism did not benefit from deeper decompositions, which may be a consequence of the autoregressive modeling setup which is forced to learn to attend to more groups of wavelet coefficients (see Section 4.4) making the modeling task more challenging.\\n\\n[1] Papakostas G. et al. (2015), \\u201cTwo-Stage Evolutionary Quantification of In Vivo MRS Metabolites\\u201d\\n\\n---\\nRegarding\\n> How sensitive is the model's performance to different batch sizes and computing configurations, given the significant difference between single-GPU and 8-GPU results?\\n\\nTraining on 8 GPUs effectively means that the model sees 8 times more data, so the improved performance is a completely expected outcome. This is a standard observation, especially in the context of modern foundation models which are trained for only a few epochs (often even a single epoch), equivalent to an (almost) infinite data regime.\"}", "{\"title\": \"OFFICIAL RESPONSE TO REVIEWER KBzW (cont.)\", \"comment\": \"Regarding\\n> WaveToken and Chronos both adopt the LLM-style discrete vocabulary, which can naturally support probabilistic forecasting. Meanwhile, deep forecasters using continuous embeddings (linear layers or MLPs) can also support it by introducing a probabilistic head (such as TimesFM and Moirai). What other advantages do you think discrete vocabularies have over continuous embeddings in time series forecasters?\\n\\nA **discrete vocabulary**, in conjunction with the categorical cross-entropy loss, offers the following advantages:\\n- No assumptions are made about the shape of the distribution and the model is free to learn and generate arbitrary distributions. As such, this makes the model flexible to accommodate multimodalities, strong asymmetries, sudden shifts, and more. This is especially critical in the context of a pretrained model such as WaveToken which may be used with arbitrary downstream datasets.\\n- It allows the model to sidestep common issues with standard forecasting objectives (like MSE or Quantile loss) such as their dependence on the scale of the inputs and on the presence of outliers, which can significantly degrade learning. \\n\\nNevertheless, a discrete vocabulary loses the topological information of the continuous domain. However, this is a limited cause of concern as the model learns this information from the data through large scale training as shown by WaveToken\\u2019s empirical performance.\"}", "{\"title\": \"Final Reminder\", \"comment\": \"Dear Reviewer zVkm,\\n\\nThank you again for your review and follow-up questions. This is a gentle reminder that today is the final day for reviewers to provide comments on the forum. We hope our initial and follow-up responses have sufficiently addressed your concerns regarding our submission. Below, we summarize your main comments and our corresponding responses:\\n\\n- **Novelty of Our Work**: In your initial review, you expressed concerns about the novelty of our approach, noting that wavelets have been used in the context of vision tokenizers. However, this does not diminish the significance of WaveToken as it was developed with a distinct motivation and for a completely different domain\\u2014time series. We also highlighted several technical differences between WaveToken and Zhu et al. (2024). Please refer to our initial response for details.\\n- **Normalization and Benefits of Wavelet Transform**: In your follow-up, you raised questions about the role of normalization and the benefits of using the wavelet transform. To address this, we conducted an additional ablation study using z-score normalization in Chronos. The results show that simply applying this normalization does not enhance Chronos' performance. This demonstrates that WaveToken's effectiveness stems from the entire tokenization pipeline\\u2014normalization, wavelet transform, and quantization\\u2014not just the normalization method.\\n\\nIf our responses have addressed your concerns, we would greatly appreciate it if you could reconsider your initial score of 3. Thank you again for your time and feedback.\"}", "{\"summary\": \"This paper proposes a wavelet-based tokenization approach (WaveToken) to enhance time series forecasting using language models. It discusses one critical issue, i.e., tokenizing continuous, real-valued time series data, which hinders handling it using LLMs.\", \"soundness\": \"3\", \"presentation\": \"4\", \"contribution\": \"3\", \"strengths\": \"In overall, I agree with the importance of the problem. The paper is well-motivated and well-written. The mathematical formulations and methodological steps are sound.\", \"weaknesses\": \"Minor clarifications that could enhance the understanding and applicability of the approach.\", \"questions\": [\"The practical impact of the thresholding decisions on model generalization is uncertain. For example, aggressive thresholding could obscure subtle patterns, which could limit the model's robustness across diverse datasets. So, how do you ensure such an effect would not happen?\", \"Using cross-entropy loss for next-token prediction in a continuous-data domain is unconventional, as it aligns more with the categorical outputs. So, how it guides learning for continuous variables is still ambiguous for me. Is it possible to compare with other loss functions, e.g. MSE?\", \"Will the code be released?\"], \"flag_for_ethics_review\": \"['No ethics review needed.']\", \"rating\": \"8\", \"confidence\": \"4\", \"code_of_conduct\": \"Yes\"}", "{\"title\": \"A Gentle Reminder\", \"comment\": \"Dear Reviewer zVkm,\\n\\nThank you again for the useful comments and questions that helped improve our paper. As the end of the discussion period is approaching, we would like to gently remind you to take into account our responses and the updated version of the manuscript into your evaluation. \\n\\nWe hope that we have satisfactorily addressed your questions and concerns. If so, we request you to consider raising your score to reflect that. If you have further questions, we will be happy to respond to them.\\n\\nThank you. \\n\\nBest Regards,\\nThe Authors\"}", "{\"title\": \"Reminder before End of Discussion Period\", \"comment\": \"Dear Reviewer zVkm,\\n\\nThank you again for your time and engagement. As you know, the discussion period will end in two days on Monday December 2nd. We would like to gently remind you to take into account our responses to your additional concerns. \\n\\nWe hope our responses above have satisfactorily addressed your additional questions. If so, we request you to consider raising your score to reflect that. If you have further questions, we would be happy to respond to them.\\n\\nThank you.\"}", "{\"title\": \"OFFICIAL RESPONSE TO REVIEWER qSp1 (cont.)\", \"comment\": \"Regarding\\n> The authors state that the cross-entropy loss \\\"lends itself well to forecasting applications, where it is often important to capture the correct shape or pattern of the time series without imposing structural limitations such as those inherent in traditional loss functions like MSE and MAE\\\" (ll. 295-298). Could the authors elaborate further on this statement?\\n\\nWhile unconventional, using the cross-entropy loss for continuous data is not a new idea and is known in the literature as **regression via classification** [1, 2]. Previous works have shown the benefits of this approach across tasks, such as audio modeling (Wavenet [3]), Deep RL [4], and recently in the context of forecasting (Chronos [5]). Although the cross-entropy loss removes topological information, the model implicitly learns the topology from the data through large scale training. Using a categorical distribution allows the model to be flexible to accommodate multimodalities, strong asymmetries, sudden shifts, and more, as the distribution is not constrained to a specific shape.\\n\\nAdditionally, the use of cross-entropy loss allows to sidestep common issues with standard forecasting objectives (like MSE or quantile loss) such as their dependence on the scale of the inputs and on the presence of outliers, which can significantly degrade learning. Conversely, other approaches \\u2013 e.g., DeepAR or more recent foundation models like Moirai \\u2013 impose restrictive assumptions on the output forecasts via parametric distributions (usually Gaussian or Student\\u2019s-t), which are often not empirically valid. In our comparisons with these models, we already compare WaveToken against these alternative objective functions.\\n\\n[1] Torgo, L., & Gama, J. (1997). Regression using classification algorithms. Intelligent Data Analysis, 1(4), 275-292\\n\\n[2] Stewart, L., Bach, F., Berthet, Q., & Vert, J. P. (2023, April). Regression as classification: Influence of task formulation on neural network features. In International Conference on Artificial Intelligence and Statistics (pp. 11563-11582). PMLR\\n\\n[3] Van den Oord A., Dieleman S., Zen H., Simonyan K., Vinyals O., Graves A., Kalchbrenner N., Senior A., Kavukcuoglu K. (2016), WaveNet: A Generative Model for Raw Audio, arXiv preprint arXiv:1609.03499 \\n\\n[4] Farebrother, J., Orbay, J., Vuong, Q., Ta\\u00efga, A. A., Chebotar, Y., Xiao, T., ... & Agarwal, R. (2024). Stop regressing: Training value functions via classification for scalable deep rl. arXiv preprint arXiv:2403.03950\\n\\n[5] Ansari, A. F., Stella, L., Turkmen, C., Zhang, X., Mercado, P., Shen, H., ... & Wang, Y. (2024). Chronos: Learning the language of time series. arXiv preprint arXiv:2403.07815\\n\\n---\\nRegarding\\n> Why would the authors \\\"use the last H observations of each time series as a held-out test set\\\" (l. 357) even for zero-shot benchmarking? Are they training or evaluating on the remaining time steps? Why not evaluate the entire time series in the established rolling window fashion [13]?\\n\\nWe follow the evaluation protocol reported in the Chronos paper to provide a fair evaluation of our wavelet-based tokenizer. Similar protocols have been used in other works [6, 7, 8]. While rolling evaluation may help provide accurate performance estimates when fewer datasets are involved (e.g., in [13] which uses 4 datasets), our larger scale evaluation on 42 datasets is comprehensive enough to provide an accurate aggregate performance of the models even with a single evaluation window per task. Furthermore, the evaluation protocols for several datasets are a standard in the forecasting community as they have been derived from the respective competitions. These include M1, M3, M4, M5, KKD Cup 2018, NN5 and CIF 2016 competition datasets. \\n\\n[6] Gruver N., Finzi M., Qiu S., Wilson A.G. (2023), Large language models are zero-shot time series forecasters\\n\\n[7] Das A., Kong W., Sen R., Zhou Y. (2023), A decoder-only foundation model for time-series forecasting \\n\\n[8] Godahewa R., Bergmeir C., Webb G.I., Hyndman R.J., Montero-Manso P. (2021), Monash Time Series Forecasting Archive\"}", "{\"title\": \"Follow-up Reminder\", \"comment\": \"Dear Reviewer zVkm,\\n\\nThank you again for your review. We kindly remind you to take into account our responses and the updated version of the manuscript into your evaluation. \\n\\nWe hope that we have satisfactorily addressed your questions and concerns. If so, we request you to consider raising your score to reflect that. If you have further questions, we will be happy to respond to them.\\n\\nThank you.\\n\\nBest Regards,\\\\\\nThe Authors\"}" ] }

[ "Pascal Iversen", "Simon Witzke", "Katharina Baum", "Bernhard Y Renard" ]

[ "uncertainty", "explainability", "trustworthy ML", "probabilistic methods", "transfer learning" ]

{ "note_id": [ "pRgcYIiGaO", "bH7k0HQbAe", "YR1DqhzR7h", "VFnSyEEcBq", "JZC4I7MkfI" ], "note_type": [ "official_review", "official_review", "official_review", "official_review", "comment" ], "note_created": [ 1730689703823, 1730946245424, 1729600455945, 1730718284445, 1732728980300 ], "note_signatures": [ [ "ICLR.cc/2025/Conference/Submission3044/Reviewer_2qst" ], [ "ICLR.cc/2025/Conference/Submission3044/Reviewer_TNHY" ], [ "ICLR.cc/2025/Conference/Submission3044/Reviewer_KkVo" ], [ "ICLR.cc/2025/Conference/Submission3044/Reviewer_C7vt" ], [ "ICLR.cc/2025/Conference/Submission3044/Authors" ] ], "structured_content_str": [ "{\"summary\": \"The authors propose a method for explaining predictive aleatoric uncertainties (uncertainties due to the inherent variability of the training data) in heteroscedastic regression settings (where aleatoric uncertainty is interesting). Their method generates variances as well as point predictions from the regression NN, then explains the variances using existing XAI methods. They compare to CLUE and InfoSHAP, and also provide a benchmark using synthetic data, real data, and synthetically augmented data.\", \"soundness\": \"3\", \"presentation\": \"3\", \"contribution\": \"2\", \"strengths\": \"The method is mathematically straightforward and simple to grasp. Figure 1 is a nice conceptual overview. The methods and metrics are well explained (and therefore replicable), and the provided formulas and definitions are appropriately conceptual for understanding the method. In general, the paper organization is very good.\\n\\nThe experimental results, especially on the synthetic data where the noise process is known, are strong compared to the other methods. Results figures are also well-presented; I appreciated the other experimental conditions such as simple vs. complex noise model, or mixed features given in the Appendix.\", \"weaknesses\": \"My main concern is about originality: how to quantify a contribution that is simply combining existing concepts from explainability and uncertainty quantification, albeit in an appealingly simple and well-presented way. Is good presentation, fairly complete experiments, and mathematical appeal sufficient to call this a major contribution? I\\u2019ll say yes because of the performance improvement in identifying noise features and the usability/accessibility of the approach.\\n\\nThere may be a few more experiments that would strengthen this contribution--see Questions.\", \"questions\": \"Are there quantitative metrics or other methods you can compare with for the age detection explainability task? I agree that the explanations focusing on the eyes, mouth, nose, and forehead is promising.\\n\\nYou present your approach as \\u201cstraightforward and scalable.\\u201d Is there an easy benchmark you can do to demonstrate usability (lower compute) against BNNs? Or even an anecdote of the computational improvement (can cite from elsewhere).\\n\\nLakshminarayanan et al., 2017 also proposed ensembles as an alternative non-Bayesian approach for uncertainty quantification. Why is your approach (network learned variance parameter) better?\", \"flag_for_ethics_review\": \"['No ethics review needed.']\", \"rating\": \"6\", \"confidence\": \"3\", \"code_of_conduct\": \"Yes\"}", "{\"summary\": \"The paper proposes a novel method for explaining predictive aleatoric uncertainty by explaining the variance output in a heteroscedastic regression model. Their method identifies which input features contribute to model uncertainty (i.e., the variance output). Further, they propose benchmarks for evaluation of uncertainty explainers. Lastly, they empirically evaluate their method against existing approaches and demonstrate that the proposed method identifies the noise features driving the model's aleatoric uncertainty.\", \"soundness\": \"3\", \"presentation\": \"2\", \"contribution\": \"2\", \"strengths\": [\"The paper proposes a novel method for explaining predictive aleatoric uncertainty by explaining the variance output in a heteroscedastic regression model.\", \"The paper empirically demonstrates that the proposed method VFA-SHAP identifies noise features driving the model's aleatoric uncertainty.\"], \"weaknesses\": [\"A limitation of this method is its computational complexity; can the authors elaborate on the computational cost of their method, relative to existing approaches?\", \"For the real-world dataset evaluation, the authors show the output explanations of VFA. It is hard to understand the performance of the method on this dataset, since the ground-truth explanations are unknown (which I understand is not available) and only the performance of VFA is presented. It would be useful to show the performance of the other baselines on this real-world task to at least evaluate the performance of this method w.r.t. them.\"], \"questions\": [\"Empirical evaluation is done against only two baselines (CLUE, InfoSHAP); are these the best performing existing methods?\"], \"flag_for_ethics_review\": \"['No ethics review needed.']\", \"details_of_ethics_concerns\": \"NA\", \"rating\": \"5\", \"confidence\": \"3\", \"code_of_conduct\": \"Yes\"}", "{\"summary\": \"The presented work addressed explainable uncertainty. Previous work on this exists, but no comparative analysis has been done. The authors propose a dataset and a set of metrics where they apply RRA and RMA for uncertainty. They do this by inserting heteroscedastic uncertainty on a tabular dataset. The authors show that methods based on fine-tuning a Gaussian NLL and then running explainability on the variance-head (VFA) outperforms two existing methods (CLUE, InfoSHAP). Authors also show some results where they apply VFA to age regression.\", \"soundness\": \"2\", \"presentation\": \"3\", \"contribution\": \"1\", \"strengths\": [\"The setup of the method (VFA) and experiments are easy to follow. It is fairly clear what the metrics are measuring and that relevance-accuracy, faithfulness and robustness are desirable properties of an explanation.\", \"Applying various explainability methods for VFA gives a nice overview of advisable ways to do VFA.\", \"The language is consistently appropriate and has little to no grammatical/spelling errors.\", \"The results on the tabular data are persuasive and show strongly that VFA-based methods outcompete InfoSHAP and CLUE for this kind of data, with this type of noise on these metrics.\"], \"weaknesses\": [\"The proposed benchmark only concerns regression with tabular data. I suspect the metrics do not extend well to high dimensional problems such as the age regression example. Additionally, the method (VFA) may not extend very well to classification (though formulations exist, they have limitations), which gives a limitation to the scope of the findings. From your results the conclusion of the comparative analysis is limited to regression on tabular data (where faithfulness is specifically even only for continuous features).\", \"Since the main contribution is the comparative analysis / benchmark, the choices for how the dataset is made and how the metrics work are important, but these are not sufficiently elaborated. Specifically, it needs to be very clear why the heteroscedastic noise is introduced in these ways (1-S, 50-C) and not in some other ways, and how that might impact the results. The metrics are sufficiently understandable, but a more thorough explanation of their properties and potential limitations will make them more persuasive. The choice of datasets used should also be further elaborated (why these datasets and not others / more?).\", \"The results from the Faithfulness analysis are not in the main body of the paper. Particularly because these results conflict with other results, they should be in the main body.\", \"The results on face-age regression are not particularly informative. The established criteria (Relevance Rank, Faithfulness and Robustness) are not applied, and the explanations are not comparative between methods and not showing a difference between mean-variance explanations. Additionally, since the \\u201creasonableness\\u201d of explanation is determined post-hoc, many possible results could be considered reasonable. If the model would\\u2019ve identified uncertainty at the glasses/hair we might conclude that it\\u2019s finding occlusion. The suggestion that the highlighted areas relate to emotion are unfounded. High uncertainty is shown in the 3rd, 5th and last face, even though they do not show substantial emotion (other than smiling for a picture), while the second face has clear emotion but a relatively low uncertainty. I\\u2019d find the findings from 3.3 as they are uninformative. I\\u2019d consider removing them, or expanding substantially by creating a comparative analysis similar to what is done with the tabular data.\", \"While the authors give some reasoning that aleatoric uncertainty explanations are important (Lines 60-65), the reasoning is not particularly strong or supported by some evidence. There is no evidence that this might be useful in a decision support system for domain experts. The example of minority status presenting a bias in the model seems shaky. A common problem where I might expect this is that facial recognition works poorer on black faces (so high uncertainty attribution to African facial features, or all of the skin tone), but this should be due to epistemic uncertainty not aleatoric uncertainty.\", \"## Additional Feedback (minor comments)\", \"It should be considered a substantial limitation that the prediction of uncertainty only (theoretically) reflects aleatoric uncertainty and would neglect epistemic uncertainty. This means that some factors that may drive uncertainty in a general sense are ignored. I think this is something that should be discussed in the limitations section of the paper.\", \"On line 74 \\u201cLocal or Global\\u201d explanations are explained by their purpose, not by how they\\u2019re created. A simple definition of local=per sample, global=per dataset would help a reader not familiar with this concept.\", \"Section 1.1 reads like a list of papers, but does not read as a narrative. After reading the rest it makes sense that this section introduce CLUE and InfoSHAP, but this is not clear when reading the paragraph first. Structuring 1.1 into a narrative (with paragraphs) and extracting the meaningful parts will make it easier to read.\", \"A visualizations of the synthetic data in 2.4.1 and even the synthetic noises would greatly improve interpretability, even if simplified in 2 dimensions. This could be put in an appendix.\", \"The results from Figure 2 are interesting, but quite hard to interpret. It\\u2019s not clear what is \\u201cgood\\u201d behavior for the SHAP values. (large spread, or positive values?), and the plots in C are missing x/y axes labels and a legend (red=uncertainty related feature). The corresponding a-o letters with long caption are also difficult to connect. Perhaps C can be explained by rows=high/mid/low uncertainty samples, columns=Explainable Uncertainty-method, and then discussing the results without referring to the individual subplots.\", \"There\\u2019s a typo in bottom right Table 2 in the appendix.\", \"The definition for epistemic uncertainty (Lines 39-44) is not entirely accurate. This is not the main point of the paper, but might lead to confusion elsewhere. This definition ignores contributions of model misspecification and approximation error, and does not do good justice to covariate shift. The definition for aleatoric could also be more specific, \\u201crandomness in the data\\u201d could mean many things. A possible definition for aleatoric uncertainty is stochasticity in the true relationship between X and Y.\"], \"questions\": \"How good are the regression predictions of the different methods? I understand this is not the primary goal, but it might be relevant (especially if MSE for VFA-methods is substantially higher than for InfoSHAP/CLUE)\", \"flag_for_ethics_review\": \"['No ethics review needed.']\", \"rating\": \"3\", \"confidence\": \"3\", \"code_of_conduct\": \"Yes\"}", "{\"summary\": \"The paper combines deep heteroscedastic regression with model explainability methods to identify potential reasons for aleatoric uncertainty. A framework is built, where to estimate uncertainty, neural regression networks with Gaussian output distribution are used. Explainability methods such as Kernel SHAP, Integrated Gradients, and Layer-Wise Relevance Propagation are then used to explain variance. Based on the synthetic and real-world datasets, the methods are compared to InfoSHAP and CLUE based on a set of metrics. The SHAP-based variance feature attribution method consistently outperforms other approaches.\", \"soundness\": \"2\", \"presentation\": \"2\", \"contribution\": \"2\", \"strengths\": \"The idea of understanding reasons behind the aleatoric uncertainty is interesting. The paper picks a specific controllable case and studies it.\\nMultiple evaluation metrics are introduced and both synthetic and real-world datasets are considered for evaluation.\\nIn total, the paper compares five different methods, including two baselines.\", \"weaknesses\": \"1. The paper introduction is built around understanding aleatoric uncertainty; however, it is not clear from the paper what \\\"understanding uncertainty\\\" is. In general, one would expect that understanding uncertainty means identifying the sources of it. For the case of heteroscedastic regression, the explanations are built by identifying features that contribute to output uncertainty. More discussion is needed on why this method is effective and scalable. The worry is that the methods can be misleading in multiple other cases, for example, when the sources of uncertainty are outputs and not inputs.\\n\\n2. While applying model explanation methods to estimate uncertainty is an interesting idea, the explainability methods were designed for providing reasons for decision making; therefore, depending on the context, these two problems can be different in nature. More discussion is needed on laying a foundation for why the methods are effective for uncertainty estimation.\\n\\n3. When the number of uncertainty sources is low (e.g., 5 out of 70) and there is no feature correlation, as in the synthetic dataset, the VFA methods identify the uncertain features. However, it is not clear if this approach will work as well in more realistic scenarios, when the number of uncertainty sources is higher and there are correlations between features.\\n\\n4. For the synthetic dataset, the ground-truth features are known; for non-synthetic cases, the correlation between the squared residuals and the uncertainty estimates is considered. However, by its nature, this is a post-hoc method that can favor some methods over others. Can you please comment on the reliability of the ground-truth computation?\\n\\n5. Could you please provide errors in the performance estimates, for example by performing cross-validation over different train and test folds.\", \"minor\": \"\", \"line_11\": \"\\u201care two pillars\\u201d -> \\\"two of the pillars,\\\" as there are many pillars of trustworthy AI that are not mentioned, including interpretability, fairness, robustness, reliability, and so on.\", \"line_14\": \"Understanding reasons for decision making or uncertainty does not necessarily create trust and can create distrust.\", \"questions\": \"1. Line 286-287: Could you please elaborate on the need for prior knowledge since the metrics were introduced in Section 2.3?\\n\\n2. For Figure 4, could you please provide the explanation of the prediction as well? The question is how different the decision explanation and the uncertainty explanation maps are.\\n\\n3. If XGBoost for InfoSHAP was regularized, it might not choose the uncertainty features for Figure 2. Could you please comment on whether the model contains the uncertainty features?\", \"flag_for_ethics_review\": \"['No ethics review needed.']\", \"rating\": \"3\", \"confidence\": \"4\", \"code_of_conduct\": \"Yes\"}", "{\"withdrawal_confirmation\": \"I have read and agree with the venue's withdrawal policy on behalf of myself and my co-authors.\", \"comment\": \"Dear reviewers,\\nthank you for taking the time to review our submission. We greatly appreciate your detailed feedback. To fully incorporate your suggestions, we will need more time than the current timeline at ICLR allows. Therefore, we plan to revise the manuscript further and resubmit it to another venue.\"}" ] }

[ "Yuan Gao", "Zujing Liu", "WEIZHONG ZHANG", "Bo Du", "Gui-Song Xia" ]

[ "Optimization-based Pruning", "Back-Propagation-Free", "Structural Pruning", "Large Language Models" ]

{ "note_id": [ "vhdwn51dO3", "svUyIoILqB", "b0hCDSj9aJ", "RsDeNNOE40", "O2qJOgP2j4", "MQNfCdK8Rz", "BQdz1yUPOW", "7cjliZXTYr", "3XbrRDDQbg" ], "note_type": [ "meta_review", "official_review", "official_review", "decision", "official_review", "official_comment", "official_review", "official_review", "official_comment" ], "note_created": [ 1734759962422, 1730386086617, 1730309785973, 1737523413284, 1730691102582, 1732643661778, 1730692790997, 1730214544075, 1732644018160 ], "note_signatures": [ [ "ICLR.cc/2025/Conference/Submission745/Area_Chair_z6xk" ], [ "ICLR.cc/2025/Conference/Submission745/Reviewer_scBN" ], [ "ICLR.cc/2025/Conference/Submission745/Reviewer_iXeF" ], [ "ICLR.cc/2025/Conference/Program_Chairs" ], [ "ICLR.cc/2025/Conference/Submission745/Reviewer_1Xw7" ], [ "ICLR.cc/2025/Conference/Submission745/Authors" ], [ "ICLR.cc/2025/Conference/Submission745/Reviewer_22xP" ], [ "ICLR.cc/2025/Conference/Submission745/Reviewer_pAjX" ], [ "ICLR.cc/2025/Conference/Submission745/Authors" ] ], "structured_content_str": [ "{\"metareview\": \"The paper titled \\\"Bypass Back-propagation: Optimization-based Structural Pruning for Large Language Models via Policy Gradient\\\" proposes a novel method for pruning large language models (LLMs) that bypasses traditional back-propagation techniques. The authors introduce an optimization-based approach that utilizes policy gradient methods to identify and remove less significant model parameters, thereby reducing model size and improving efficiency without significantly sacrificing performance. The key claims include that this method can lead to effective pruning while maintaining the integrity of model performance, and it is particularly beneficial for deployment in resource-constrained environments.\\n\\nThe findings suggest that the proposed pruning technique not only achieves comparable results to existing methods but also offers advantages in terms of computational efficiency during the pruning process. However, reviewers raised concerns regarding the empirical validation of these claims and the overall effectiveness of the proposed approach. Given the weaknesses, I recommend rejecting this paper. Further work is required to address the issues proposed by reviewers for the next version of this work.\", \"additional_comments_on_reviewer_discussion\": [\"**Points Raised by Reviewers**\", \"During the review process, several key points were raised:\", \"Need for Robust Empirical Results: Reviewers requested more extensive experiments to validate the effectiveness of the proposed method.\", \"Comparative Analysis: There was a strong recommendation for including comparisons with existing state-of-the-art pruning techniques.\", \"Theoretical Insights: Reviewers sought a deeper theoretical explanation for the proposed approach's expected advantages over traditional back-propagation methods.\", \"Experimental Detail: Concerns were raised about insufficient details regarding experimental protocols and reproducibility.\", \"**Authors' Responses**\"], \"the_authors_addressed_these_concerns_during_the_rebuttal_period_but_did_not_sufficiently_strengthen_their_submission\": [\"They provided additional experimental results; however, these were still deemed inadequate by reviewers as they did not significantly enhance the robustness of their claims.\", \"While some comparisons with existing methods were included in their response, they remained limited and did not convincingly demonstrate superior performance.\", \"The theoretical justification provided was minimal and did not adequately clarify why their approach would yield better results than traditional methods.\", \"The authors attempted to clarify experimental details but still left several aspects vague, particularly concerning hyperparameter settings.\", \"**Weighing Each Point**\"], \"in_weighing_these_points_for_my_final_decision\": [\"The lack of robust empirical validation remained a critical issue that overshadowed any potential strengths of the proposed method.\", \"Inadequate comparative analysis with existing techniques hindered the ability to assess the true value of their contributions.\", \"Insufficient theoretical grounding left significant questions unanswered regarding the efficacy and applicability of their approach.\", \"The unresolved reproducibility issues further diminished confidence in their findings.\"]}", "{\"summary\": \"The paper introduces an optimization-based structural pruning method for LLMs that eliminates the need for back-propagation. By employing Bernoulli distributions to learn pruning masks, the authors optimize these masks using a policy gradient estimator, enabling gradient estimation solely through the forward pass. This approach enhances efficiency in memory and computation compared with methods requiring back-propagation, and it achieves performance superior to heuristic-based pruning metric methods.\", \"soundness\": \"2\", \"presentation\": \"3\", \"contribution\": \"3\", \"strengths\": \"1. The paper presents a novel pruning method that leverages policy gradient estimators instead of back-propagation, addressing key computational challenges in gradient-based LLM pruning methods.\\n2. The method supports multiple structural granularities (channels, heads, layers), providing flexibility in how the model is pruned. It also allows for global and heterogeneous pruning, which is more aligned with the varying redundancy across layers in LLMs.\", \"weaknesses\": \"1. While the paper suggests using a policy gradient estimator to bypass back-propagation, policy gradient methods can suffer from high variance, which may lead to unstable training. The paper does propose a variance-reduction technique, but the effectiveness of this could be further elaborated or validated with more ablation studies. For example, how is the performance of the proposed methods compared with the results of using back-propagation?\\n2. Following up on Weakness 1, could you clarify the exact speedup over direct back-propagation? A runtime comparison on a specific model and hardware or a theoretical analysis of computational complexity would be helpful.\\n3. The proposed method requires 120K samples with a sequence length of 128, whereas baseline methods like LLM-Pruner, SliceGPT, and Wanda-SP use significantly smaller calibration data, such as 128 samples with a sequence length of 2048. Are the results for the baseline methods obtained with the same calibration data as yours? If not, this may lead to unfair comparisons. Please clarify if all methods used the same calibration data in the reported results. If not, provide results with all methods using the same calibration data, or explain why this is not feasible\\n4. The sparsity ratios used in the experiments exceed 30%, which may be excessive for structured pruning, as the high PPL results may not be meaningful in practice and could significantly degrade real inference performance, such as in question answering tasks. Therefore, it is important to report performance under lower sparsity levels, such as 10% and 20%.\\n5. The experiments primarily compare the proposed method with other non-weight-updating pruning techniques. While this makes sense in terms of efficiency, it would be interesting to see how the method stacks up against pruning methods that do involve weight updates, such as [1], especially in terms of final model performance.\\n\\n[1] Xuan Shen, Pu Zhao, Yifan Gong, Zhenglun Kong, Zheng Zhan, Yushu Wu, Ming Lin, Chao Wu, Xue Lin, and Yanzhi Wang. Search for efficient large language models. arXiv preprint arXiv:2409.17372, 2024.\", \"questions\": \"In addition to the questions regarding weaknesses, I recommend including the results of dense models in your tables to highlight the performance degradation resulting from pruning.\", \"flag_for_ethics_review\": \"['No ethics review needed.']\", \"rating\": \"5\", \"confidence\": \"4\", \"code_of_conduct\": \"Yes\"}", "{\"summary\": \"This paper presents a novel approach to structural pruning of LLMs that bridges the gap between optimization-based and metric-based pruning methods. The key innovation lies in the use of Bernoulli distributions to sample binary pruning masks, coupled with a policy gradient estimator that eliminates the need for back-propagation through the LLM. This is a clever solution that maintains the benefits of optimization-based approaches while achieving the efficiency typically associated with metric-based methods.\", \"soundness\": \"3\", \"presentation\": \"2\", \"contribution\": \"3\", \"strengths\": \"- The proposed method is both theoretically sound and practically implementable, requiring only forward passes through the LLM during optimization.\\n(1) The efficiency claims are impressive (2.7 hours, 35GB memory for 13B models on a single A100)\\n(2) The approach is flexible, supporting multiple structural granularities (channels, heads, and layers)\\n(3) The method automatically handles heterogeneous pruning across layers, addressing a key limitation of existing approaches\\n(4) Extensive experimental validation across multiple LLM architectures and datasets\", \"weaknesses\": \"The paper could benefit from more detailed ablation studies on the impact of different structural granularities.\", \"the_main_weaknesses_of_this_llm_pruning_work_include\": \"(1) limited evaluation beyond perplexity and basic zero-shot tasks, particularly lacking analysis of inference speed improvements and downstream task performance, \\n(2) methodological constraints of using basic REINFORCE rather than more advanced policy gradient methods, \\n(3) heavy reliance on the C4 dataset with some cross-dataset performance issues on specific zero-shot tasks like WinoGrande and Hellaswag. \\n(4) While the method is more efficient than traditional back-propagation approaches, it still requires longer training time compared to metric-based methods (2.7 hours for LLaMA-2-13B) and significant memory usage (35GB).\", \"questions\": [\"While the method avoids back-propagation through the LLM, how does the efficiency-accuracy trade-off compare when scaling to much larger models beyond 13B parameters? This is crucial for understanding the method's practical applicability.\", \"Is there any patterns among the structures pruned through using this method ?\"], \"flag_for_ethics_review\": \"['No ethics review needed.']\", \"rating\": \"6\", \"confidence\": \"3\", \"code_of_conduct\": \"Yes\"}", "{\"title\": \"Paper Decision\", \"decision\": \"Reject\"}", "{\"summary\": \"This paper proposes an optimization-based structural pruning method for Large Language Models (LLMs) which notably does not require any gradient back-propogation. The method works by casting the binary pruning mask over structural components as a bernoulli variable. This reparametrization allows us to solve the pruning problem via policy gradient. The authors conduct thorough experimental evaluation on open-sourced LLMs and demonstrate the effectiveness of the proposed pruning method.\", \"soundness\": \"3\", \"presentation\": \"3\", \"contribution\": \"4\", \"strengths\": [\"This paper proposes a novel method, which casts the optimization problem of selecting optimal pruning mask as a reinforcement learning problem. This allows us to avoid the inefficiency for performing computationally intensive back-propogation.\", \"The authors have conducted extensive experimental evaluation and compare with many existing baseline methods for structural pruning. The results show that the proposed method is a promising approach for structural pruning.\"], \"weaknesses\": [\"It might be good to evaluate a larger LLM model, e.g., LLaMA-3-70B.\", \"The authors stress the memory efficiency of optimizating without back-propogation. It would be good to dedicate one section comparing the resource consumptions of different pruning approaches, especially to those with gradient computation.\"], \"questions\": [\"Could the proposed approach be used for width pruning [1]?\", \"In principle, could we solve problem 4 via back-propogation? For this setting, is it expected that the solver with gradient information be better?\", \"Could iterative pruning be beneficial for this approach? By iterative pruning, I mean doing the pruning procedure multiple times until the target prune ratio is reached.\", \"[1] LLM Pruning and Distillation in Practice: The Minitron Approach. NVIDIA 2024.\"], \"flag_for_ethics_review\": \"['No ethics review needed.']\", \"rating\": \"6\", \"confidence\": \"4\", \"code_of_conduct\": \"Yes\"}", "{\"title\": \"[Second Round Response] Part 1\", \"comment\": \"The authors respectfully disagree with the comments from Reviewer pAjX. \\\\\", \"reviewer_pajx_gave_an_extremely_low_score_of_3_justified_by_only_one_weakness\": \"\\\"*Lack of Comparison with Recent Baselines*\\\", which **violates the ICLR 2025 instruction** and **contradicts both comments from the same reviewer and strengths from Reviewers 1Xw7 and iXeF**. \\\\\\n**The second round review from Reviewer pAjX is erroneous**.\\n\\n***\\n\\n[**Violation of ICLR 2025 Review Instruction**]\\n\\n1. Per the latest instructions from PCs: \\\"*Reviewers are instructed to not ask for significant experiments, and area chairs are instructed to discard significant requests from reviewers.*\\\" \\\\\\n**Performing novel experiments on MMLU and GSM8K qualifies as *significant***, because:\\n\\n1a. **Nether** MMLU **nor** GSM8K remains a standard benchmark for LLM pruning evaluation. GSM8K is absent from most state-of-the-art pruning methods [1-22] (including the five papers suggested by Reviewer pAjX [18-22]), and MMLU is only evaluated in ShortGPT [20], Gromov et al. [21], and MKA [22], however, none of [20-22] have released their code yet.\\n\\n1b. As a consequence of 1a, it is difficult to find an LLM pruning method releasing the evaluation code on MMLU or GSM8K, nor were the authors specifically instructed by Reviewer pAjX about which setting is desirable.\\n\\n1c. Despite 1a and 1b well justified that novel experiments on MMLU and GSM8K are **significant**, the author still made every effort to perform this for a rebuttal with the best quality. \\\\\\nAs a consequence of 1b, the authors implemented the evaluation code for MMLU and GSM8K themselves. During the intense rebuttal period, the authors adhered to the same challenging experimental settings as those in their main experiments **for all the methods**, including:\\n- Severe pruning rates of 30% to 50%,\\n- Cross-dataset pruning + evaluation with calibration using an independent dataset (C4),\\n- Keeping model weights unchanged/un-finetuned.\\nThese challenging settings result in less satisfactory performance on MMLU and GSM8K **for all the methods**.\\n\\n***\\n\\n[**Contradictions/Errors in (Original, Round 1) Reviews**]\\n\\n2. [**Contradictions**] The only weakness indicated by Reviewer pAjX is \\\"*Lack of Comparison with Recent Baselines*\\\". Despite that the proposed method achieves the best results for the majority cases over various SOTAs on both Perplexity and the most widely used zero-shot tasks of PIQA, HellaSwag, WinoGrande, ARC-e, ARC-c, this review contradicts with:\\n\\n2a. The comments in the Summary Section from the same reviewer (Reviewer pAjX): \\\"**Extensive experiments** on **various LLMs** demonstrate strong performance while maintaining efficiency\\\".\\n\\n2b. Strength from Reviewer 1Xw7: \\\"The authors have conducted **extensive experimental evaluation** and **compare with many existing baseline methods** for structural pruning.\\n\\n2c. Strength from Reviewer iXeF: \\\"**Extensive experimental validation** across **multiple LLM architectures** and **datasets**\\\".\\n\\n***\\n\\n3. [**Errors**] Five methods [18-22] were suggested for comparison, however, \\n\\n3a. **1 out of 5** (i.e., [18], LayerwisePPL) has already been extensively compared in the original manuscript in Table 2 (now Figure 4 in the updated manuscript) and Table A11.\\n\\n3b. **3 out of 5** (i.e., [20-22]) have not yet released their codes, making meaningful comparisons infeasible.\\n\\n3c. Only [19] is applicable for comparison. The authors conducted this comparison during the rebuttal phase, which demonstrated that **the proposed method performs comparably to [19] while offering more flexible module pruning capabilities** (e.g., prune heads of multi-head attention, and prune channels of MLP), which [19] does not support.\\n\\n***\\n\\n[**Errors in (Round 2) Reviews**]\\n\\n4. [\\\"*Performance is one-sided*\\\"] Despite the challenges in 1c, the proposed method achieves the best results (among various SOTAs) in most cases on MMLU and GSM8K for head, channel, and layer pruning. If Reviewer pAjX finds this \\\"*one-sided*\\\", it would be necessary to consult ACs and other reviewers if the importance of LLM pruning as a research area should be reassessed.\\n\\n5. [\\\"*Performance is lower than dense model*\\\"] Professional researchers in the network pruning field understand that it is inappropriate to directly compare pruned performance with a 100% dense model (upper bound), particularly with severe pruning rates of 30% to 50% without weights finetuning.\\n\\n6. [\\\"*Performance is lower than dense model*\\\"] If insisting on comparing with the dense model, the vanilla LLaMA-3-8B achieves 79.6 on GSM8K (8-shot) is **NOT TRUE**. 79.6 is from [LLaMA-3-8B-Instruction-Tuned](https://github.com/EleutherAI/lm-evaluation-harness/issues/1896).\\n\\n\\n***\\n\\nThe authors reply here solely for 100% transparency, the authors would like to draw the attention of ACs and other reviewers for this reply. The authors will not engage in discussion here further if consistently unprofessional reviews are received from Reviewer pAjX.\\n\\nAuthors of Submission 745\"}", "{\"summary\": \"In this work, the authors leverage policy gradient estimation to optimize pruning masks without relying on backpropagation. They validate the efficacy of their approach on various pre-trained models and compare it with several heuristic-based baselines.\", \"soundness\": \"4\", \"presentation\": \"2\", \"contribution\": \"3\", \"strengths\": [\"The performance gain is significant.\", \"The idea of leveraging policy gradient for pruning is novel and insightful.\"], \"weaknesses\": [\"The tables are hard to read. Using a figure instead will help the visualization.\", \"How does the method compare in performance with Gumbel-Softmax approaches? The authors primarily focus on heuristic-based comparisons, leaving out Gumbel-Softmax methods. For example, [1] employs Gumbel-Softmax but focus on semi-structured sparsity. Although the objectives differ slightly, including a performance and cost comparison with Gumbel-based methods would strengthen the study.\", \"Additionally, the comparison between Gumbel-Softmax and the proposed method in Section 3.2 is unclear. Adding a formulation-based comparison would clarify the differences. Will leveraging gumbel-softmax leads to more accurate gradient calculation? More detailed discuss on the trade-off will be beneficial.\", \"The probabilistic modeling of pruning masks is not entirely novel, as it has been applied in various Gumbel-based pruning methods [1].\", \"A comparison and analysis of the pruning masks generated by different methods would be beneficial, such as evaluating the Hamming distance between the masks.\", \"[1] MaskLLM: Learnable Semi-Structured Sparsity for Large Language Models\"], \"questions\": \"N/A\", \"flag_for_ethics_review\": \"['No ethics review needed.']\", \"rating\": \"5\", \"confidence\": \"4\", \"code_of_conduct\": \"Yes\"}", "{\"summary\": \"This paper proposes a novel optimization-based structural pruning method for Large Language Models (LLMs) that avoids expensive back-propagation through the LLM. The key idea is to formulate pruning as learning binary masks sampled from underlying Bernoulli distributions. By decoupling the Bernoulli parameters from the LLM loss, the method enables efficient optimization using policy gradient estimation that only requires forward passes. The approach supports different structural granularities (channels, heads, layers) and enables global/heterogeneous pruning across the model. Extensive experiments on various LLMs demonstrate strong performance while maintaining efficiency.\", \"soundness\": \"2\", \"presentation\": \"2\", \"contribution\": \"2\", \"strengths\": [\"Clear writing and good organization of the paper\", \"The paper presents a novel methods for structural pruning that leverages policy gradient estimation, bypassing the need for back-propagation through large models.\", \"The method supports multiple pruning granularities (channels, heads, layers) and can be initialized using metric-based methods, showcasing its adaptability and potential for widespread application.\"], \"weaknesses\": \"1. **Lack of Comparison with Recent Baselines**:\\n The paper does not compare the proposed method with recent pruning techniques such as Shortened LLaMA ([arXiv:2402.02834](https://arxiv.org/abs/2402.02834)) and SLEB ([arXiv:2402.09025](https://arxiv.org/abs/2402.09025)), which were published prior to ShortGPT ([arXiv:2403.03853](https://arxiv.org/abs/2403.03853)) and Gromov et al.'s work ([arXiv:2403.17887](https://arxiv.org/abs/2403.17887)). Additionally, MKA ([arXiv:2406.16330](https://arxiv.org/abs/2406.16330)) is also not included. Including comparisons with these methods on benchmarks like MMLU and GSM8K, using metrics like accuracy and perplexity, would provide a more comprehensive evaluation of the method's performance relative to the latest advancements in the field.\", \"questions\": \"1. Does the paper include accuracy (ACC) results on more advanced benchmarks like MMLU or GSM8K? If not, could the authors provide such evaluations to demonstrate the method's effectiveness on tasks that require higher reasoning capabilities?\\n\\n2. The proposed method exhibits longer training times compared to metric-based pruning methods. Are there potential optimizations or strategies that the authors are considering to reduce the training duration without compromising performance?\", \"flag_for_ethics_review\": \"['No ethics review needed.']\", \"rating\": \"3\", \"confidence\": \"4\", \"code_of_conduct\": \"Yes\"}", "{\"title\": \"[Second Round Response] Part 2\", \"comment\": \"**References:**\\n\\n1. Ashkboos et al. SliceGPT: Compress Large Language Models by Deleting Rows and Columns. ICLR, 2024\\n2. Zhang et al. Plug-and-Play: An Efficient Post-training Pruning Method for Large Language Models. ICLR, 2024\\n3. Zhang et al. Dynamic Sparse No Training: Training-Free Fine-Tuning for Sparse LLMs. ICLR, 2024\\n4. Yin et al. Outlier Weighed Layerwise Sparsity (OWL): A Missing Secret Sauce for Pruning LLMs to High Sparsity. ICML, 2024\\n5. Ma et al. LLM-Pruner: On the Structural Pruning of Large Language Models. NeurIPS, 2023\\n6. Frantar et al. SparseGPT: Massive Language Models Can Be Accurately Pruned in One-Shot. ICML, 2023\\n7. Wei et al. Assessing the Brittleness of Safety Alignment via Pruning and Low-Rank Modifications. ICML, 2024\\n8. Ko et al. NASH: A Simple Unified Framework of Structured Pruning for Accelerating Encoder-Decoder Language Models. Findings of EMNLP, 2023\\n9. An et al. Fluctuation-based Adaptive Structured Pruning for Large Language Models. AAAI, 2024\\n10. Zeng et al. Multilingual Brain Surgeon: Large Language Models Can Be Compressed Leaving No Language Behind. COLING, 2024\\n11. Shao et al. One-Shot Sensitivity-Aware Mixed Sparsity Pruning for Large Language Models. ICASSP, 2024\\n12. van der Ouderaa et al. The LLM Surgeon. arXiv:2312.17244, 2023\\n13. Bo\\u017ea. Fast and Effective Weight Update for Pruned Large Language Models. arXiv:2401.02938, 2024\\n14. Chen et al. LoRAShear: Efficient Large Language Model Structured Pruning and Knowledge Recovery. arXiv:2310.18356, 2023\\n15. Li et al. E-Sparse: Boosting the Large Language Model Inference through Entropy-based N:M Sparsity. arXiv:2310.15929, 2023\\n16. Xu et al. BESA: Pruning Large Language Models with Blockwise Parameter-Efficient Sparsity Allocation. arXiv:2402.16880, 2024\\n17. Das et al. Beyond Size: How Gradients Shape Pruning Decisions in Large Language Models. arXiv:2311.04902, 2023\\n18. Kim et al. Shortened LLaMA: A Simple Depth Pruning for Large Language Models. ICLR Workshop, 2024\\n19. Song et al. SLEB: Streamlining LLMs through Redundancy Verification and Elimination of Transformer Blocks. ICML 2024\\n20. Men et al. ShortGPT: Layers in Large Language Models are More Redundant Than You Expect. arXiv:2403.03853, 2024\\n21. Gromov et al. The Unreasonable Ineffectiveness of the Deeper Layers. arXiv:2403.17887, 2024\\n22. Liu et al. Pruning via Merging: Compressing LLMs via Manifold Alignment Based Layer Merging. arXiv:2406.16330, 2024\"}" ] }

[ "Yizhi Song", "Liu He", "Zhifei Zhang", "Soo Ye Kim", "He Zhang", "Wei Xiong", "Zhe Lin", "Brian L. Price", "Scott Cohen", "Jianming Zhang", "Daniel Aliaga" ]

[ "diffusion model; inpainting; generative artifacts; image editing; image synthesis; artifacts refinement" ]

{ "note_id": [ "kZ0dPFyuyb", "jX0kwHd2Hq", "hCphFHYoP7", "ftw0lLQTkZ", "dojuMBgIyx", "ZmG6BED8RY", "XPAxlDYrPM", "TSlLtGYHLo", "THgsELVK1C", "OmlAzgtrN9", "LP8ySkdMH9", "KOrbhINyuB", "K1wMft87sA", "JqcRB96qR2", "GoHpFqVCK7", "GCl3jikOai", "ATYeJoPaMX", "5qXrPyZIgJ", "0KwDz3JA39" ], "note_type": [ "official_comment", "official_comment", "official_comment", "official_review", "official_review", "official_comment", "official_comment", "official_comment", "official_review", "official_comment", "official_comment", "meta_review", "official_comment", "decision", "official_review", "official_comment", "official_comment", "official_comment", "official_comment" ], "note_created": [ 1732561889135, 1733029628750, 1732542103926, 1730391042559, 1730613158845, 1732609912488, 1732743448249, 1732561985663, 1729867313584, 1733029549854, 1732541785223, 1733922288066, 1732541897096, 1737523432615, 1730928815691, 1733121569832, 1732743595613, 1732743576239, 1733029590898 ], "note_signatures": [ [ "ICLR.cc/2025/Conference/Submission1040/Authors" ], [ "ICLR.cc/2025/Conference/Submission1040/Authors" ], [ "ICLR.cc/2025/Conference/Submission1040/Authors" ], [ "ICLR.cc/2025/Conference/Submission1040/Reviewer_Hbs1" ], [ "ICLR.cc/2025/Conference/Submission1040/Reviewer_bn5t" ], [ "ICLR.cc/2025/Conference/Submission1040/Reviewer_bn5t" ], [ "ICLR.cc/2025/Conference/Submission1040/Authors" ], [ "ICLR.cc/2025/Conference/Submission1040/Authors" ], [ "ICLR.cc/2025/Conference/Submission1040/Reviewer_azdH" ], [ "ICLR.cc/2025/Conference/Submission1040/Authors" ], [ "ICLR.cc/2025/Conference/Submission1040/Authors" ], [ "ICLR.cc/2025/Conference/Submission1040/Area_Chair_wdue" ], [ "ICLR.cc/2025/Conference/Submission1040/Authors" ], [ "ICLR.cc/2025/Conference/Program_Chairs" ], [ "ICLR.cc/2025/Conference/Submission1040/Reviewer_FAkR" ], [ "ICLR.cc/2025/Conference/Submission1040/Reviewer_azdH" ], [ "ICLR.cc/2025/Conference/Submission1040/Authors" ], [ "ICLR.cc/2025/Conference/Submission1040/Authors" ], [ "ICLR.cc/2025/Conference/Submission1040/Authors" ] ], "structured_content_str": [ "{\"title\": \"Rebuttal\", \"comment\": \"We appreciate the helpful comments from the reviewer and provide our responses below.\\n\\n**In this reply, we provide new results for view synthesis in Fig. 18, and carefully specify the requested implementation details.**\\n\\n> The order of Fig.3,4,5 is also confusing, while Fig.5 should be mentioned before Fig.4.\\n\\nWe will swap Fig.4 and Fig.5, and move Fig.3,4,5 to Sec. 3.\\n\\n> More details about MVObj should be discussed in the paper.\\n\\nMVObj is an object-centric multi-view dataset, and the images come from the Internet. When there is a sequence of high-quality images which contains the same object captured from multiple views, we will manually choose 2-5 images to form a group of our training set. As a result, we collected more than 50k groups. We then run segmentation and obtain the binary mask of the most prominent object in the image. This dataset covers a wide range of categories, which we classified into animals, art department stores, clothing department stores, digital electronics, furniture appliances, plants and transportation. We display several examples in **Fig. 13**, and will revise the paper with the details above.\\n\\n> More examples of novel view synthesis should be considered as the paper claims.\\n\\nPlease refer to **Sec. A12** and **Fig. 18** in the revised Appendix.\\n\\n> The experiments in this paper are not solid and fair enough. Artifact removal is a new task proposed in this paper, while all other competitors are not specially trained for this.\\n\\nSince we define a new task of reference-guided artifacts refinement, there are not many relevant works. However, we still tried our best to achieve fair comparison:\\n\\n**(1)** We compare Refine-by-Align with the SDXL version of PAL, which is the most relevant model for artifacts removal.\\n\\n**(2)** We also evaluate MimicBrush, which has the most similar setting with our pipeline.\\n\\n**(3)** For the other reference-guided object inpainting models (Paint-by-Example, ObjectStitch), we did not use their original versions; instead, we **adapted them for our task** by tuning their checkpoints on our training data. We will revise our paper and explain that we used the adapted versions as the baselines.\\n\\n> Will the benchmark and MVObj be open-released?\\n\\nCurrently we do not have a plan to release MVObj (it is not claimed as a contribution either); but we will fully release the benchmark upon acceptance.\\n\\n> The authors should provide more novel view synthesis examples.\\n\\nPlease refer to **Fig. 18** in the revised Appendix.\\n\\n> It is interesting to explore whether a larger target image with more DINOv2 tokens would benefit the final performance.\\n\\nWe would like to thank the reviewer for this advice. It is a good idea but with the following trade-off:\\n\\n**Pros:** The image encode can encode more low-level details from the reference image, and they are better preserved in the refined image. We can simply increase the input resolution from 224x224 to 448x448, and double the number of the image tokens.\\n\\n**Cons:** It will increase both the memory cost and the inference time.\"}", "{\"title\": \"Kind Reminder\", \"comment\": \"Hi Reviewer azdH, We sincerely appreciate the efforts you have dedicated to reviewing our submission. We have submitted our **response and new results**, and would like to follow up to inquire whether our response has addressed your concerns.\\n\\nPlease let us know if you have any remaining questions. We look forward to hearing from you and we are eager to address them promptly before the discussion deadline.\\n\\nThank you again.\"}", "{\"title\": \"Rebuttal\", \"comment\": \"We thank the reviewer for the helpful comments and provide our responses below:\\n\\n**In this reply, we add several new experiments: Fig. 15 as an evaluation of the model robustness, an additional user study to validate our two-stage pipeline, and Fig. 16,17 as a degradation simulation pipeline. We also provide more implementation details.**\\n\\n> For the alignment stage, will the performance degrade if the input artifact images contain different contents (though still sharing the common object) compared to the reference image?\\n\\nPlease refer to **Sec. A.10** and **Fig. 15** in the revised Appendix. We show the results of correspondence matching when the input artifacts image and the reference have very different appearances. Our alignment model will still work under this case, since it finds correspondences based on semantic features, not just from low-level features. This is accomplished by the training strategy under the alignment mode (see **Sec. 3.4**).\\n\\n> For the refinement stage, will the performance degrade if the ROI of the input artifact images is not very similar to that in the reference image (possibly due to structural distortion from image-guided generation algorithms)?\", \"there_are_two_cases\": \"**(1)** If the domain gap in **color** is large (e.g., the input object with artifacts is blue but the reference object is red), then the refined results may look unrealistic around the transition area. During the training, the color perturbation we introduced is within a specific range (10%), so the model\\u2019s ability to change color is limited. However, the texture details can still be improved.\\n\\n**(2)** If the domain gap in **structure** within the ROI is large, then the performance will not degrade. The ROI will simply be replaced by the reference (see the bottom-left in **Fig. 1**, the last example of **Fig. 6**, and the middle row of **Fig. 12**).\\n\\n> The importance of the two-stage method is validated in a less convincing manner. It would be stronger if a user study were provided, i.e., a comparison between the full method and the model trained only with the alignment mode using the full reference image directly.\\n\\nWe conducted an additional user study as suggested and the results below show the user preference (in percentage):\\n\\n| | Identity \\u2191| Quality \\u2191|\\n| --- | --- | --- |\\n| One stage | 44.17 | 38.33 |\\n| Full model | **55.83** | **61.67** |\\n\\nWhere we designed two problems to measure identity preservation and realism. It further demonstrates the effectiveness of our two-stage method.\\n\\n> It is unclear which parts of the model are trained. How do you avoid the issue of overfitting or damaging the capability of the pre-trained Anydoor when the U-Net is trained on the collected dataset?\\n\\nWe finetuned the whole U-Net, the cross-attention modules and the MLP connecting DINOv2 and the backbone. We will revise our paper and add these details. Actually we find the original AnyDoor checkpoint tends to overfit by copy-and-pasting the reference onto the artifacts region (see **Fig. 6**). To resolve this issue, we introduce color and spatial perturbations to our single image dataset (Pixabay) and also train the model with a large multi-view dataset (MVObj, see **Fig. 13** for examples). We did not observe overfitting during our training.\\n\\n> It is crucial to design a comprehensive image degradation simulation pipeline. Can you elaborate on the data perturbation used in preparing the training dataset?\\n\\nWe would like to thank the reviewer for this advice. Currently we use color and spatial/perspective perturbation in our training data, and also include a multi-view dataset containing natural perturbations. Following this advice, we further design a pipeline to simulate the artifacts in **Sec. A.11** and **Fig. 16** of the revised Appendix. Example training pairs generated by this pipeline can be found in **Fig. 17**.\"}", "{\"summary\": \"This paper proposed a reference-guided artifacts refinement method, which follows the Refine-by-Align. Specifically, the proposed method can be divided into two stages: the alignment stage and the refinement stage. The alignment stage leverages the cross-attention maps to locate the artifact region in DINOv2 features (target view). Then the target view would be filtered by the mask and then refines the final results through the reference-guided inpainting. The authors present a new GenArtifactBench dataset to verify the effectiveness of the proposed method. The proposed method outperforms other competitors in artifact refinement. Moreover, this paper proposed a manually annotated dataset called MVObj for training.\", \"soundness\": \"3\", \"presentation\": \"2\", \"contribution\": \"2\", \"strengths\": \"1. The newly proposed task, reference-guided artifacts refinement is interesting, which could facilitate many tasks, such as reference-guided editing and novel view synthesis.\\n2. The solution of Refine-by-Align is reasonable.\\n3. The manually collected MVObj is interesting, including multi-view scenes with non-rigid objects, such as animals shown in Fig.13. Unfortunately, no more details are discussed to clarify how to collect this dataset in this paper.\", \"weaknesses\": \"1. The overall typesetting of this paper is confusing. For example, Fig.3, Fig.4, and Fig.5 are displayed in completely unrelated paragraphs. Moreover, the order of Fig3,4,5 is also confusing, while Fig.5 should be mentioned before Fig.4.\\n2. More details about MVObj should be discussed in the paper.\\n3. As discussed in the limitation, the proposed method struggles to repair artifacts with large viewpoint changes, which largely restricts its application. Most cases shown in the paper could be addressed as a simple homography warping. More examples of novel view synthesis should be considered as the paper claims.\\n4. Actually, the experiments in this paper are not solid and fair enough. Artifact removal is a new task proposed in this paper, while all other competitors are not specially trained for this. As shown in Fig.6, all other methods are completely failed.\", \"questions\": \"1. Will the benchmark and MVObj be open-released?\\n2. The authors should provide more novel view synthesis examples and clarify it. Otherwise, the claim to address novel view synthesis would conflict with the limitation of \\\"large disparity\\\".\\n3. It is interesting to explore whether larger target image with more DINOv2 tokens would benefit the final performance.\", \"flag_for_ethics_review\": \"['No ethics review needed.']\", \"rating\": \"5\", \"confidence\": \"4\", \"code_of_conduct\": \"Yes\"}", "{\"summary\": \"This paper addresses an intriguing problem where a guidance image is used to restore artifacts in local regions of generated images. To achieve this, a two-stage approach is proposed: (i) an alignment stage that extracts the target region from the reference by computing correlation with the input ROI content; and (ii) a refinement stage that utilizes features from the reference patch to address the artifacts in the input ROI. Experiments demonstrate the superiority of the proposed method over several baselines, and ablation studies validate the importance of the design choices.\", \"soundness\": \"3\", \"presentation\": \"3\", \"contribution\": \"3\", \"strengths\": [\"The proposed task is well-motivated and interesting, potentially benefiting practical scenarios in reference-guided image generation applications.\", \"The idea of the proposed two-stage pipeline is simple yet effective, contributing valuable insights to the community.\", \"The experiments are comprehensive, effectively justifying the major claims and the significance of the proposed innovation.\"], \"weaknesses\": [\"As claimed in the paper, the proposed method is model-agnostic and applicable to diverse tasks. Therefore, it is crucial to study the robustness of the input data. Although stated as a limitation, a comprehensive study is still needed to show the milestones the proposed method has achieved and what remains for future work.\", \"For the alignment stage, will the performance degrade if the input artifact images contain different contents (though still sharing the common object) compared to the reference image?\", \"For the refinement stage, will the performance degrade if the ROI of the input artifact images is not very similar to that in the reference image (possibly due to structural distortion from image-guided generation algorithms)?\", \"As the major contribution, the importance of the two-stage method is validated in a less convincing manner. In Table 3, the metrics may not effectively capture the local artifacts. It would be stronger if a user study were provided, i.e., a comparison between the full method and the model trained only with the alignment mode using the full reference image directly.\"], \"questions\": [\"The training scheme should be clarified more clearly. In its current form, it is unclear which parts of the model will be trained. For example, if the model of Anydoor is adopted, will the full trainable parameters of Anydoor and the newly added modules by the proposed method be trained jointly? If so, how do you avoid the issue of overfitting or damaging the capability of the pre-trained Anydoor when the U-Net is trained on the collected dataset?\", \"For the proposed task, one key consideration should be the generalization ability to diverse artifacts induced by different task-specific models. Therefore, it is crucial to design a comprehensive image degradation simulation pipeline. Can you elaborate on the data perturbation used in preparing the training dataset?\"], \"flag_for_ethics_review\": \"['No ethics review needed.']\", \"rating\": \"6\", \"confidence\": \"3\", \"code_of_conduct\": \"Yes\"}", "{\"comment\": \"Thanks for the updated results. I have no more questions and will maintain my current rating.\"}", "{\"title\": \"A kind reminder\", \"comment\": \"We sincerely appreciate the time and effort you have dedicated to reviewing our submission. We have submitted our response and would like to follow up to inquire whether our response has addressed your concerns.\\n\\nPlease do not hesitate to let us know if you have any remaining questions or clarification. We look forward to hearing from you. We are eager to address them promptly before the discussion deadline.\\n\\nThank you again for your valuable insights and comments.\"}", "{\"title\": \"Rebuttal\", \"comment\": \"We thank the reviewer for careful comments on our work and provide our responses below:\\n\\n**In this reply, we provide new results for novel view synthesis in Fig. 18.**\\n\\n> The paper mostly showcases examples where the target region in the reference and the artifacts in the given image have little difference in angle and position.\\n\\nPlease refer to **Fig. 18** in the revised Appendix for the results with larger view changes.\\n\\n> Why not simultaneously annotate the corresponding mask regions in the reference image, instead of relying on feature matching?\", \"we_design_this_workflow_based_on_the_following_reasons\": \"**(1)** Our pipeline is not the only one using this design. E.g., MimicBrush uses exactly the same input format as ours.\\n\\n**(2)** We try to automate the whole editing process as much as possible to simplify it for the users in the real-world use case. Directly providing the correspondence mask as an additional input is also supported in our pipeline.\"}", "{\"summary\": \"This paper introduces Refine-by-Align, a novel model for reference-guided artifact refinement in personalized image generation. It employs a two-stage diffusion-based framework to enhance image fidelity and identity without requiring test-time tuning, significantly improving fine details across various applications.\", \"soundness\": \"2\", \"presentation\": \"3\", \"contribution\": \"3\", \"strengths\": \"1.This paper is clearly written and easy to understand.\\n\\n2.The authors conducted extensive experiments to demonstrate the effectiveness of the method.\\n\\n3.It is meaningful for the practical applications of customized generation.\", \"weaknesses\": \"The visual results presented in the paper mostly showcase examples where the target region in the reference image and the corresponding region in the given image with artifacts have little difference in angle and position. The reviewer would like to see the effectiveness across a broader range of tests, which is important for practical applications.\", \"questions\": \"The reviewer raised concerns about the task workflow design. Since it is necessary to annotate the artifact mask regions in the image with artifacts during inference, why not simultaneously annotate the corresponding mask regions in the reference image, instead of relying on feature matching?\", \"flag_for_ethics_review\": \"['No ethics review needed.']\", \"rating\": \"6\", \"confidence\": \"3\", \"code_of_conduct\": \"Yes\"}", "{\"title\": \"Kind Reminder\", \"comment\": \"Hi Reviewer FAkR,\\nWe sincerely appreciate the efforts you have dedicated to reviewing our submission. We have submitted our **response and new results**, and would like to follow up to inquire whether our response has addressed your concerns.\\n\\nPlease let us know if you have any remaining questions. We look forward to hearing from you and we are eager to address them promptly before the discussion deadline.\\n\\nThank you again.\"}", "{\"title\": \"Rebuttal (part 1/2)\", \"comment\": \"We thank the reviewer for the insightful comments and provide our responses to the reviewer's questions one by one below.\\n\\n**To summarize, our method significantly differs from the reference-based inpainting methods (proved by an additional experiment in Fig. 14) and other feature matching methods with cross attention; our model can be applied on top of any generative models, including T2I personalization, virtual try-on and 3D tasks such as view synthesis.**\\n\\n> The overall pipeline is still quite similar to previous reference-based image inpainting methods (Paint-by-Example, ObjectStitch). Using cross attention to localize matches is also already prevalent in the community. Could the authors please explain more why this is more effective? What is the component that distinguishes the method from previous ones?\", \"there_are_two_components_that_distinguish_our_method_from_the_previous_works_that_contribute_to_the_effectiveness\": \"**(1)** Removing the irrelevant information from the reference via correspondence matching. As proved by the first row of **Fig. 3**, using a cropped local area from the reference can significantly improve the fidelity and identity.\\n\\n**(2)** The zoom-in strategy. As verified by **Fig. 10** in Perceptual Artifacts Localization (PAL, Zhang et al., 2022), images generated using zoom-in have better quality and less artifacts.\\n\\n\\\\\", \"the_main_differences_between_our_method_and_reference_based_inpainting_methods_are_as_follows\": \"**(1)** Our model focuses on a task that is totally different with the previous reference-based image editing. While these methods aim to insert or blend an object into a background, our method aims at a general improvement for any generated images. In other words, our method can be built on top of these methods.\\n\\n**(2)** Paint-By-Example (PbE), ObjectStitch (OS) and IMPRINT are **unable** to perform semantic alignment. They all start by converting the reference to 256 patch tokens (which contains the spatial information), but then either discard the patch tokens (PbE) or reduce 256 to 77 (OS and IMPRINT). As a result, the spatial information has been lost in the reference embeddings. However, in our model, we preserve the spatial information by feeding all 256 patch tokens to the cross attention layers.\\n\\n**(3)** Although AnyDoor can perform semantic alignment, the accuracy is much worse than our model, since our model has been tuned with carefully-designed training pairs (see **Sec 3.4**) to improve the correspondence-matching ability. Additional results of using AnyDoor for the alignment are shown in **Sec. A.9** and **Fig. 14** of the revised Appendix, demonstrating the weakness of AnyDoor in alignment.\\n\\n\\\\\\nTo the best of our knowledge, methods using cross attention for feature matching are not very common, as there are recently only two related works: Cross Image Attention (Alaluf et al., 2023) and LDM Correspondences (Hedlin et al., 2023). The latest methods for correspondence matching includes DIFT (Tang et al., 2023), Diffusion Hyperfeatures (Luo et al., 2023) and A Tale of Two Features (Zhang et al., 2023), where the intermediate diffusion features are mainly leveraged for semantic matching. Nonetheless, our method still differs from Cross Image Attention and LDM Correspondences in the following aspects:\\n\\n**(1)** Application scope. Cross Image Attention and LDM Correspondences are mainly used for key-point matching, while our method is mainly aiming at free-form region matching (see **Fig. 2**).\\n\\n**(2)** Efficiency. Although Cross Image Attention is zero-shot, the correspondence matching has to be repeated across multiple timesteps. In LDM Correspondences, the embeddings need to be optimized before inference. In contrast, our method only takes 1 denoising timestep to find the correspondence.\\n\\n**(3)** Architecture. We calculate the cross attention between the latent features and DINOv2 embedding; in LDM Correspondences, this operation is between the latent features and the text embedding; in Cross Image Attention, the operation is between two latent features and additional efforts such as AdaIN and a contrast operation.\\n\\n**(4)** Our method greatly outperforms Cross Image Attention, as shown in **Tab. 1, Tab. 2** and **Fig. 6**.\"}", "{\"metareview\": \"The paper receives mixed but mostly positive reviews by the reviewers after the rebuttal. Reviewers appreciate the interesting task, the simple yet effective design, and the extensive experiments. Reviewer Hbs1 raised several concerns regarding the details of MVObj, missing novel view examples, and unfair comparisons. However, most of them are addressed in the authors' rebuttal. AC did not find any major remaining concerns to reject the paper and agrees with other reviewers.\", \"additional_comments_on_reviewer_discussion\": \"During the discussion, reviewer Hbs1 did not respond to the rebuttal or express new opinions. AC checked the rebuttal and agrees the major concerns have been addressed by the authors' response.\"}", "{\"title\": \"Rebuttal (part 2/2)\", \"comment\": \"> I wonder if there are any advantages of the method given an object level inpainting? If so, why? If not, then I feel the scope of the method may not be not general enough.\\n\\nWe leverage a reference-based inpainting framework as our basic architecture, so that we can take advantage of a pretrained checkpoint (e.g., AnyDoor) and the post-training is easier to converge. Another advantage is that we do not have to compute the correspondence or train it from scratch, since the spatial correspondence is already contained in the cross-attention layers of such frameworks and we only extract this information (inspired by Prompt-to-Prompt, Hertz et al., 2022).\\nThe application scope of our method is not reference-guided inpainting, it can be applied on **the results of any general image generation task**. E.g., **Fig. 1, Fig. 6** also show extensive examples of applying our model on text-to-image personalization, virtual try-on and 3D tasks such as novel view synthesis.\\n\\n> For evaluation, I wonder if it is possible to also evaluate the CLIP score on the masked region only, which potentially may be a better metric for the task.\\n\\nAlthough not specified in the paper, the current results are already evaluated **only over the masked region**. We will add this information in the revised paper.\"}", "{\"title\": \"Paper Decision\", \"decision\": \"Accept (Poster)\"}", "{\"summary\": \"The paper proposes an artifacts refinement framework to refine the artifacts (e.g., logos, details) in the generated image by leveraging the corresponding details from a reference image. The method is evaluated qualitatively and quantitatively on a new benchmark, GenArtifactBench, consisting of artifacts generated by several well-known models, reference images, and dense human annotations.\", \"soundness\": \"3\", \"presentation\": \"2\", \"contribution\": \"2\", \"strengths\": \"1.The visual results are interesting and show the effectiveness of the method for fixing different types of details.\\n\\n2.The proposed benchmark could be a good complementary dataset to facilitate studies on the reference-based image inpainting.\", \"weaknesses\": \"1.I feel like the overall pipeline is still quite similar to previous reference-based image inpainting methods (Paint-by-Example, ObjectStitch). Using cross attention to localize matches is also already prevalent in the community. So the technical novelty is a bit limited. Could the authors please explain more why this is more effective? What is the component that distinguishes the method from previous ones? Is it mainly because of the zoom-in of the reference image?\\n\\n2.The method focuses on the details of the reference-based inpainting results, I wonder if there are any advantages of the method given an object level inpainting? If so, why? If not, then I feel the scope of the method may not be not general enough.\\n\\n3.For evaluation, I wonder if it is possible to also evaluate the CLIP score on the masked region only, which potentially may be a better metric for the task.\", \"questions\": \"I think the paper adds values to better reference-based inpainting literature, but the significance of the scope and technical differences may require further explanation.\", \"flag_for_ethics_review\": \"['No ethics review needed.']\", \"rating\": \"6\", \"confidence\": \"2\", \"code_of_conduct\": \"Yes\"}", "{\"comment\": \"I appreciate the authors\\u2019 response and will maintain my score. Thank you.\"}", "{\"title\": \"A kind reminder\", \"comment\": \"We sincerely appreciate the time and effort you have dedicated to reviewing our submission. We have submitted our response and would like to follow up to inquire whether our response has addressed your concerns.\\n\\nPlease do not hesitate to let us know if you have any remaining questions or clarification. We look forward to hearing from you. We are eager to address them promptly before the discussion deadline.\\n\\nThank you again for your valuable insights and comments.\"}", "{\"title\": \"A kind reminder\", \"comment\": \"We sincerely appreciate the time and effort you have dedicated to reviewing our submission. We have submitted our response and would like to follow up to inquire whether our response has addressed your concerns.\\n\\nPlease do not hesitate to let us know if you have any remaining questions or clarification. We look forward to hearing from you. We are eager to address them promptly before the discussion deadline.\\n\\nThank you again for your valuable insights and comments.\"}", "{\"title\": \"Kind Reminder\", \"comment\": \"Hi Reviewer Hbs1,\\nWe sincerely appreciate the efforts you have dedicated to reviewing our submission. We have submitted our **response and new results**, and would like to follow up to inquire whether our response has addressed your concerns.\\n\\nPlease let us know if you have any remaining questions. We look forward to hearing from you and we are eager to address them promptly before the discussion deadline.\\n\\nThank you again.\"}" ] }

[ "Jingye Chen", "Zhaowen Wang", "Nanxuan Zhao", "LI ZHANG", "Difan Liu", "Jimei Yang", "Qifeng Chen" ]

[ "Graphic Design", "Layered Image Generation" ]

{ "note_id": [ "wKHwaKsYsj", "aNIvVFrSeZ", "IY5L1VIHxS", "19l5qasYNv" ], "note_type": [ "official_review", "official_review", "official_review", "comment" ], "note_created": [ 1730513049404, 1730354495645, 1730445413980, 1731478729335 ], "note_signatures": [ [ "ICLR.cc/2025/Conference/Submission32/Reviewer_RPLH" ], [ "ICLR.cc/2025/Conference/Submission32/Reviewer_VF8x" ], [ "ICLR.cc/2025/Conference/Submission32/Reviewer_rr7V" ], [ "ICLR.cc/2025/Conference/Submission32/Authors" ] ], "structured_content_str": [ "{\"summary\": \"This paper presents a workflow for generating layered graphic designs using visual language models (VLMs). The workflow involves three stages from generating reference, design planning, and layers. The proposed workflow can facilitate creation of design variations.\", \"soundness\": \"3\", \"presentation\": \"3\", \"contribution\": \"2\", \"strengths\": [\"the overall workflow successfully generate nice layered graphic design.\", \"the workflow is versatile for different design scenario\", \"the proposed method is straightforward as long as the training data is provided.\"], \"weaknesses\": [\"Although the results seem better than other compared method, it is not clear whether this is because the better image generative model. I recommend to have a fair comparison, e.g., applying the planning and layering method to the design image generated by other image generative models.\", \"the novelty of the method seems limited. I think the main contribution is the process of generating design planning before layering decomposition. But I think it lacks the comparison on combining different previous works with the proposed unified workflow.\", \"lack of experiment and results on applying the proposed method on graphic design in the wild.\"], \"questions\": [\"it is still very unclear to me why the method need to generate the reference image in the first place instead of using an existing deisgn?\", \"I think it makes the overall proposed workflow like a system or a product, without a concentrated technical contribution.\", \"I think the second and the third stages can be achieved by combining other existing works. Therefore, I want to ask is there any specific reason why those existing works for text de-rendering and layer decomposition or code generation from a given design cannot work?\"], \"flag_for_ethics_review\": \"['No ethics review needed.']\", \"rating\": \"5\", \"confidence\": \"3\", \"code_of_conduct\": \"Yes\"}", "{\"summary\": \"Based on existing Vision Language Model, the paper presented a layers-aware graphics design system, named Accordion. The system can be used for reference creation, design planning, and layer generation. The pipeline is comprised of three stages: reference creation, design planning, and layer generation. The experiments demonstrate applications of text to template, adding text to background, text de-rendering, and design variation creation.\", \"soundness\": \"3\", \"presentation\": \"3\", \"contribution\": \"2\", \"strengths\": \"The system is comprised of various existing components, and seems to work well. It is able to ease the graphics design work.\\n\\nThe result images are delightful. I hope the system could be accessed publicly in the future.\", \"weaknesses\": \"The innovation is limited. The work integrates various existing tools and large models, such as SAM, VLM, to compose the system. In the Section 3 (Methodology), there is no specific content describing the work, but there is only high-level summary. Hence, I cannot find enough specific academic contribution.\\n\\nThis is an engineering work. I consider it is not suitable for an ICLR research paper.\", \"questions\": \"I'd like to see the runtime table for Stage 1, 2, 3 and various editing tasks, as waiting time highly has a big impact on an editing system.\\n\\nIs the system adaptable to different resolution images. If given a high resolution image (>5M pixels), how about the running performance.\", \"flag_for_ethics_review\": \"['Yes, Discrimination / bias / fairness concerns']\", \"rating\": \"3\", \"confidence\": \"4\", \"code_of_conduct\": \"Yes\", \"details_of_ethics_concerns\": \"The system may be used to generate fake images.\"}", "{\"summary\": \"This paper proposes some components for visual designs. It has stages for layer extraction, background processing, element planning, etc, to help the design generation.\", \"soundness\": \"2\", \"presentation\": \"2\", \"contribution\": \"2\", \"strengths\": \"The problem and research direction seem solid and has many real-world applications. Some recent commercial products like ChatGPT Canvas also validate the importance of these research directions.\\n\\nThe paper has shown many results with different application types.\", \"weaknesses\": \"It is not very clear which part is proposed by this paper: The Reference Creation is an existing Vision LLM. (This paper proposed a prompt that works well for it). The OCR, background removal, SAM, inpainting are all existing models. The Vision LLM is trained with an internal dataset Design39K, which seems the contribution of this work. But this contribution (presenting a finetuned VLM) seems relatively weak.\", \"questions\": \"I think this paper may need a major revision to make the exposition much clearer. The authors may want to show at the very beginning that the intended use case of this application is mainly converting AI-generated design images into real design files with layers and texts, as a post-processing for image generators like Flux and SD.\\n\\nCurrently the first stage of this method is \\u201creference creation\\u201d, making readers to think that the references are outputs. But the intended application is mainly using existing reference as inputs.\", \"flag_for_ethics_review\": \"['No ethics review needed.']\", \"details_of_ethics_concerns\": \"N/A\", \"rating\": \"5\", \"confidence\": \"3\", \"code_of_conduct\": \"Yes\"}", "{\"withdrawal_confirmation\": \"I have read and agree with the venue's withdrawal policy on behalf of myself and my co-authors.\", \"comment\": \"We appreciate all the reviewers' efforts and valuable feedback on our manuscript, and decided to withdraw the manuscript.\"}" ] }

[ "Yaxuan Zhu", "Zehao Dou", "Haoxin Zheng", "Andrew Lizarraga", "Yasi Zhang", "Ying Nian Wu", "Ruiqi Gao" ]

[ "Inverse problem", "diffusion", "MCMC sampling", "generative model" ]

{ "note_id": [ "uj69GTE74q", "uaJ6gD0jOv", "qNccWea85k", "KT5BeSWMMS", "2cgApgu4z8" ], "note_type": [ "comment", "official_review", "official_review", "official_review", "official_review" ], "note_created": [ 1732051166508, 1730331300854, 1730655968692, 1731258834687, 1730093040108 ], "note_signatures": [ [ "ICLR.cc/2025/Conference/Submission5720/Authors" ], [ "ICLR.cc/2025/Conference/Submission5720/Reviewer_Zv1M" ], [ "ICLR.cc/2025/Conference/Submission5720/Reviewer_pK1v" ], [ "ICLR.cc/2025/Conference/Submission5720/Reviewer_7SHa" ], [ "ICLR.cc/2025/Conference/Submission5720/Reviewer_Y3XZ" ] ], "structured_content_str": [ "{\"withdrawal_confirmation\": \"I have read and agree with the venue's withdrawal policy on behalf of myself and my co-authors.\", \"comment\": \"We sincerely appreciate the reviewers' valuable comments and suggestions. While we have confidence in our proposed method, unforeseen circumstances during the rebuttal period have made it challenging for our main authors to complete the requested experiments and analyses within the limited timeframe. Therefore, we have decided to withdraw our submission at this time. We will carefully consider the feedback and incorporate it to improve our work for future submissions.\"}", "{\"summary\": \"Diffusion Posterior Sampling (DPS) is a versatile algorithm for solving inverse problems with pre-trained diffusion models. However, DPS suffers from bias due to the Dirac delta approximation of the noise-conditional posterior $p(x_0|x_t) \\\\approx \\\\delta(x_0 - E[x_0|x_t]),$ which can lead to large errors even for a simple mixture of Gaussians. To address this, the authors propose Diffusion Posterior MCMC (DPMC), which reduces bias by defining a series of intermediate distributions inspired by the approximated conditional distributions in DPS.\\nIn its simplest form, DPMC can be viewed as performing multiple DPS steps with added noise. Through annealed MCMC sampling, the intermediate latents closely follow the carefully constructed intermediate distributions before moving to the next noise level. Extensive experiments on FFHQ 256x256 and ImageNet 256x256 demonstrate DPMC\\u2019s effectiveness on five inverse problems: super-resolution, box inpainting, random inpainting, Gaussian deblurring, and motion deblurring.\", \"soundness\": \"2\", \"presentation\": \"3\", \"contribution\": \"2\", \"strengths\": \"1. This paper aims to reduce the bias in diffusion posterior sampling by incorporating MCMC sampling into the intermediate steps of the reverse diffusion process.\\n\\n2. The experimental results are promising across a range of inverse tasks, including super-resolution (4x), random inpainting, motion deblurring, Gaussian deblurring, and box inpainting.\", \"weaknesses\": \"1. In the Line 6 of Algorithm 1, the update follows Eq 10. The second term in Eq 10 requires $\\\\nabla \\\\log p_t(x_t)$ and the gradient of the measurement error. How is the score function $\\\\nabla \\\\log p_t(x_t)$ computed using the pre-trained neural network? Since the NN expects the state and time as inputs, and time changes after every update, how is the time step (or equivalently the noise level) chosen while computing the score?\\n\\n2. The proposed DPMC sampler is a stochastic equivalent of RB-Modulation (Algorithm 1). Substituting the gradient of the proposal distribution in Eq. (10):\\n$$x_{t-1}^{k+1} = x_{t-1}^k + \\\\eta_{t-1} \\\\nabla_{x_{t-1}^k} \\\\log p_{t-1}(x_{t-1}^k) - \\\\rho \\\\eta_{t-1} \\\\nabla_{x_{t-1}^k} || y - A \\\\hat{x}(x_{t-1}^k) ||^2 + \\\\sqrt{2 \\\\eta_{t-1}} w.$$\\nWithout the noise term $w$, DPMC is equivalent to RB-Modulation (Algorithm 1, https://arxiv.org/pdf/2405.17401 ). While $w$ helps in exploration, it slows down the inference process due to large mixing time. On the other hand, RB-Modulation aims for the maximum likelihood estimate and converges much faster. Both the algorithms make certain approximations to reduce inference time but the core idea remains the same. The authors are encouraged to clarify the distinction between these two algorithms and highlight the algorithmic novelty of DPMC over prior work RB-Modulation. \\n\\n3. Contributions 2 and 3 could be combined, as they convey a similar message.\\n\\n4. The first equality in Eq. (2) is incorrect. It should be properly factorized to accurately represent the probabilities.\\n\\n5. Inconsistent notation used in Line 136 for $p_t(x_t)$. With Bayes rule, it should just be a marginal of $p$.\\n\\n6. Typo: Missing log in Line 269.\\n\\n7. The primary motivation of this paper is that $p(x_0|x_t)$ may be multi-modal; hence, replacing $x_0 \\\\sim p(x_0|x_t)$ with its conditional expectation $\\\\hat{x}_0$ at higher noise levels could produce misleading results. However, the authors still use $\\\\hat{x}_0$ in the first 30\\\\% of the reverse process, which corresponds to high noise levels \\u2013 contradicting the main motivation.\\n\\n8. What happens if these initial 30\\\\% steps mislead the generation process? Does the proposed sampling mechanism rectify this issue in subsequent steps? If not, the technical benefits of these MCMC steps must be clearly explained, rather than better storytelling via MCMC sampling.\", \"questions\": \"Please see the weaknesses above.\", \"flag_for_ethics_review\": \"['No ethics review needed.']\", \"rating\": \"5\", \"confidence\": \"4\", \"code_of_conduct\": \"Yes\"}", "{\"summary\": \"The paper addresses an interesting topic: solving inverse problems using diffusion models. The authors argue that the performance of the popular DPS algorithm is limited by inaccuracies in the posterior approximation, particularly at high noise levels. To address this, they propose an MCMC algorithm to sample more accurately from the posterior distribution.\", \"soundness\": \"3\", \"presentation\": \"2\", \"contribution\": \"2\", \"strengths\": \"1. The theoretical bound presented in the appendix is insightful.\\n2. The paper is well-structured and easy to follow (altough there are some problems with writing as I explained in the weakness part).\\n3. The experimental results demonstrate the superiority of the proposed method over state-of-the-art alternatives, both quantitatively and qualitatively.\\n4. The experiments are thorough and consider relevant datasets and settings.\", \"weaknesses\": \"1. **Marginal Contribution**: The contribution of the paper appears limited, as it primarily applies the established MCMC algorithm within diffusion models for solving inverse problems. Specifically, the novelty seems to lie in the use of Equation (10) atop standard diffusion models, where Equation (10) serves as the MCMC update step.\\n\\n2. **Method Clarity**: The authors should dedicate more space to clearly explaining their method in Section 3, especially detailing the deployment of MCMC in posterior sampling. Currently, the description on page 5 is divided into two parts (Proposal Stage and Exploration Stage), which makes the algorithm challenging to follow. Mathematical expressions should be used alongside explanations to clarify each step. Specific areas for improvement include:\\n \\n a) **Proposal Stage Description**: The description of the proposal stage is vague. For instance, the phrase \\\"..we first denoise them to \\\\( t-1 \\\\) following...\\\" is unclear. Does \\\\( t-1 \\\\) refer to \\\\( x_{t-1} \\\\)?\\n \\n b) **Standard Diffusion Step**: When the authors mention the \\\"standard diffusion step,\\\" are they referring to using a pre-trained diffusion model to estimate \\\\( x_t \\\\)?\\n \\n c) **Understanding of the Sampling Process**: My understanding is that the method first uses an unconditional pre-trained diffusion model to estimate \\\\( x_{t-1} \\\\) and then modifies \\\\( x_{t-1} \\\\) to sample from the posterior. If this is correct, the writing should be adjusted to make this process explicitly clear in the paper.\\n\\n3. **Terminology on Line 248**: On line 248, the authors state that \\\"..The samples \\\\( \\\\tilde{x}_{t-1} \\\\) might not fully adhere to the target distribution \\\\( \\\\tilde{p}_{t-1}(x_{t-1}|y) \\\\).\\\" Given that samples drawn from the unconditional distribution would indeed differ significantly from those conditioned on \\\\( y \\\\), the use of \\\"might not fully adhere\\\" is imprecise. The terminology should be refined here to convey a more scientifically rigorous statement.\", \"questions\": \"Please see my comments above.\", \"flag_for_ethics_review\": \"['No ethics review needed.']\", \"rating\": \"5\", \"confidence\": \"4\", \"code_of_conduct\": \"Yes\"}", "{\"summary\": \"The authors propose a new algorithm for solving inverse problems with pre-trained diffusion models. The proposed algorithm is a variation of Diffusion Posterior Sampling (DPS) where instead of taking one gradient step to match the measurements, the authors propose running Langevin dynamics to sample from the approximate conditional distribution. The authors demonstrate the empirical performance of their algorithm for linear and non-linear inverse problems.\", \"soundness\": \"3\", \"presentation\": \"2\", \"contribution\": \"2\", \"strengths\": \"1) The empirical results are quite strong. The authors demonstrate that their method outperforms natural baselines across different inverse problems such as mask inpainting, box inpainting, super-resolution, deblurring, and phase retrieval.\\n\\n2) The algorithmic modification is simple, which might allow for wide adoption from the community.\\n\\n3) The research direction of developing algorithms for solving inverse problems with diffusion models is relevant and interesting.\", \"weaknesses\": \"1) I believe that the presentation of the paper could be improved. There are several examples. In Line 43, I believe that measure should be changed to measurement. In Lines 46-47, I believe that the authors want to say that the posterior is intractable (it is always defined, but it is intractable to sample from it or write down an explicit formula for its density). I also believe that it is a little confusing to what former and later refer to in lines 158-159. The theoretical result is not clearly stated, there is no mention in the main paper of the assumptions and on what epsilon depends to and how.\\n\\n2) Apart from not being clearly stated, the theoretical result is very weak (it has very strong assumptions such as strong convexity) and I do not understand the value it offers to the paper. My guess is that under all these strong assumptions on the data distribution, DPS would also converge to the true distribution (given properly tuned learning rates and a small enough discretization step). \\n\\n3) I believe that the authors overcomplicate the presentation of their algorithm and as far as I understand what's happening is an inner loop of Langevin Dynamics that is getting interleaved between the denoising steps. Langevin Dynamics is the simplest algorithm in the MCMC family. Having an inner loop that enforces measurement consistency in the diffusion sampling has been proposed previously in the literature. For example, the papers Beyond First Order Tweedie and Resample also seem to solve an inner optimization problem between each denoising step. \\n\\n4) The fact that the authors only use the proposed method for a subset of the steps makes the evaluation harder. \\n\\n5) I believe that the paper would benefit from some latent diffusion experiments since there are powerful latent diffusion models available that can/should be leveraged to solve inverse problems.\", \"questions\": \"See also weaknesses above. Explicit questions:\\n\\n1) It is not clear whether this method performs better for high corruption or for low corruption. Could the authors provide a plot where the horizontal axis is the corruption level and the vertical axis the performance and show how their method compares with DPS across these different regimes?\\n\\n2) Could the authors provide comparisons of what happens if both DPS and the proposed method have big enough computational budget? If NFEs are not a concern, does the method still outperform DPS?\\n\\n3) Could the authors clarify whether the theoretical results would also hold for DPS under similar assumptions and learning rate tuning?\\n\\n4) Could the authors compare with other methods that perform similar inner loop optimizations (such as Resample and Beyond First Order Tweedie)?\", \"flag_for_ethics_review\": \"['No ethics review needed.']\", \"rating\": \"3\", \"confidence\": \"5\", \"code_of_conduct\": \"Yes\"}", "{\"summary\": \"The authors present a method based on annealed MCMC for solving inverse problems using diffusion models. The motivation for this work stems from the fact that existing methods like DPS [Chung et al.] rely on overly simplistic approximations of the diffusion posterior $p(x_0|x_t)$ throughout the diffusion sampling procedure when solving inverse problems. In this work, alternatively, the authors propose to sample from intermediate distributions by introducing additional MCMC correction steps. Empirical results are presented on different linear and non-linear inverse problems on the FFHQ and ImageNet datasets at 256x256 resolution.\", \"soundness\": \"3\", \"presentation\": \"3\", \"contribution\": \"2\", \"strengths\": \"**Originality**: While the proposed idea of using annealed MCMC has been utilized for unconditional diffusion sampling in several prior works [Song et al.], its application to solving inverse problems combined with existing posterior approximation methods is novel.\\n\\n**Quality and Clarity**: The paper is written clearly, and the choice of baselines is adequate. The empirical results in Tables 1 and 2 are comprehensive regarding the selection of datasets and inverse problems. The ablation studies take into account the impact of different design choices in the method.\\n\\n**Significance**: Though the computational overhead of introducing MCMC corrections as an inner loop in iterative diffusion sampling seems much, the method has significance in terms of yielding better quality generations at similar sampling budgets as DPS, which could be useful in scenarios when a large sampling budget is available.\", \"weaknesses\": \"**Requested Changes/Questions**\\n\\n1. **On the choice of the intermediate distribution in Eq. 9**: The authors use the posterior approximation from DPS to define the intermediate distributions as stated in Eq. 9. In principle, the approximation from Pi-GDM can also be used to formulate the same. What is the rationale behind sticking with the approximation in DPS since Pi-GDM can perform better with fewer NFE? It would be great if the authors could clarify this choice in the main text.\\n\\n2. **On the choice of the proposal**: The authors propose to initialize MCMC sampling by generating a sample from a single denoising step from the diffusion model without guidance. Intuitively, it looks like initializing the MCMC chain with denoising + guidance could yield better samples since the latter might be closer to the target intermediate distribution. Is this choice motivated by reducing the computational overhead incurred by initializing using denoising + guidance, as the guidance term requires computing a Jacobian-vector product? It would be great if the authors could clarify more on this or share some experimental evidence that justifies the choice of their current proposal over the one mentioned here.\\n\\n3. In Eq. 11, the authors suggest to use the l2-norm over the squared l2-norm. How critical is this choice? Moreover, it is unclear if the same choice is also used for the vanilla DPS baseline for a fair comparison since the authors specify using a squared l2 norm in Eq. 7. It would be nice if the authors could present a small ablation for one inverse problem on the dataset of their choice.\\n\\n4. **Computational Overhead**: By introducing an inner MCMC loop, the computational overhead of this method increases significantly, especially since each MCMC correction step requires a Jacobian-vector product through the score network. The authors propose to counteract this by reducing the number of intermediate distributions to around 200, which results in a total number of NFE to around 700. Though this is smaller than DPS, it is quite a lot compared to some recent work [1,2] in solving inverse problems in diffusion. While I won't stress on comparing DPMC to these methods, it would be nice to discuss this aspect of inverse problems in the paper (maybe in the main text or the appendix) as a possible extension of this work. Moreover, can the authors extend the results in Table 4b to say T=25 or 50 to assess the impact on performance at lower sampling budgets? Lastly, I would expect K to decrease as the signal-to-noise ratio increases in diffusion sampling since lower MCMC corrections should be required as sampling progresses. Did the authors experiment with a schedule on K, or is the choice of a fixed K in the paper primarily motivated by simplicity constraints? Perhaps the last section of the paper can benefit from this discussion.\\n\\n[1] Fast Samplers for Inverse Problems in Iterative Refinement Models, Pandey et al.\\n\\n[2] Accelerating Diffusion Models for Inverse Problems through Shortcut Sampling, Liu et al.\\n\\n**Minor Comments/Corrections**\\n\\n1. In some places, like Line 354, method names and citations are hard to decipher. I think readability can be improved by using a different color for citation links.\\n\\n2. Tables 1 and 2 can benefit from indicating that lower is better for lpips and fid.\\n\\n3. Line 369, the link to the appendix is broken.\\n\\n4. There are a lot of missing entries in Table 1. Can the authors clarify in the caption if the results were unavailable for these cases or if the methods were unstable?\", \"questions\": \"See the above section.\", \"flag_for_ethics_review\": \"['No ethics review needed.']\", \"rating\": \"6\", \"confidence\": \"4\", \"code_of_conduct\": \"Yes\"}" ] }

[ "Lequan Lin", "Dai Shi", "Andi Han", "Zhiyong Wang", "Junbin Gao" ]

[ "graph neural networks", "generative diffusion models", "network generation", "hyperparameter tuning", "node classification", "link prediction" ]

{ "note_id": [ "zhvS9bh94l", "xZziwmSK8W", "tDDnm2s0B5", "swgFk7ehWr", "roByhFMgeC", "mBTIS2UsFt", "lieFtAlsbl", "j3LJlyctnN", "i7Bc40Jdnl", "i0FA5JRhKi", "fe7Usk1uKx", "dD17aKrXXd", "bf1fRBvCNb", "b9I5NQjA92", "ZHMimagOSt", "VQaQn6dOHh", "SDhWO30BxQ", "QPUfQBTq0o", "PVwekd1g4s", "O7EGOn33Eo", "N2jBn0ZedL", "MahaoFxRel", "EFsBFNcpPy", "D23tTWVBdL", "CkP0LZxKrD", "9uKoGuhilN", "7wpFgEDYyD", "7dQYBgItl5", "7CcODt36VS", "43G1TI9upI", "3fW49LdAB4", "38CUhupL9Z", "0JaYg4YBlv" ], "note_type": [ "official_review", "official_review", "official_review", "official_comment", "official_comment", "official_comment", "meta_review", "official_comment", "official_comment", "official_comment", "official_comment", "decision", "official_comment", "official_comment", "official_comment", "official_comment", "official_comment", "official_comment", "official_review", "official_comment", "official_comment", "official_comment", "official_comment", "official_comment", "official_comment", "official_comment", "official_comment", "official_comment", "official_comment", "official_comment", "official_comment", "official_comment", "official_comment" ], "note_created": [ 1730677716156, 1730330348250, 1730463120526, 1733076468970, 1732321243306, 1732319319192, 1734786710062, 1733200069834, 1732321574362, 1732320645085, 1733086382835, 1737523637502, 1732318865057, 1733216846302, 1732321902718, 1732785561619, 1732322573166, 1732794293764, 1730568004735, 1732321104337, 1733214227886, 1732320063314, 1732772085086, 1732322236841, 1732651637486, 1732321839869, 1733214779154, 1732323153731, 1732322794472, 1732786854330, 1732652634206, 1732773643439, 1732322957592 ], "note_signatures": [ [ "ICLR.cc/2025/Conference/Submission4397/Reviewer_8AwD" ], [ "ICLR.cc/2025/Conference/Submission4397/Reviewer_ti8E" ], [ "ICLR.cc/2025/Conference/Submission4397/Reviewer_gdji" ], [ "ICLR.cc/2025/Conference/Submission4397/Reviewer_8AwD" ], [ "ICLR.cc/2025/Conference/Submission4397/Authors" ], [ "ICLR.cc/2025/Conference/Submission4397/Authors" ], [ "ICLR.cc/2025/Conference/Submission4397/Area_Chair_Pfap" ], [ "ICLR.cc/2025/Conference/Submission4397/Reviewer_gdji" ], [ "ICLR.cc/2025/Conference/Submission4397/Authors" ], [ "ICLR.cc/2025/Conference/Submission4397/Authors" ], [ "ICLR.cc/2025/Conference/Submission4397/Authors" ], [ "ICLR.cc/2025/Conference/Program_Chairs" ], [ "ICLR.cc/2025/Conference/Submission4397/Authors" ], [ "ICLR.cc/2025/Conference/Submission4397/Authors" ], [ "ICLR.cc/2025/Conference/Submission4397/Authors" ], [ "ICLR.cc/2025/Conference/Submission4397/Authors" ], [ "ICLR.cc/2025/Conference/Submission4397/Authors" ], [ "ICLR.cc/2025/Conference/Submission4397/Authors" ], [ "ICLR.cc/2025/Conference/Submission4397/Reviewer_TruH" ], [ "ICLR.cc/2025/Conference/Submission4397/Authors" ], [ "ICLR.cc/2025/Conference/Submission4397/Authors" ], [ "ICLR.cc/2025/Conference/Submission4397/Authors" ], [ "ICLR.cc/2025/Conference/Submission4397/Reviewer_8AwD" ], [ "ICLR.cc/2025/Conference/Submission4397/Authors" ], [ "ICLR.cc/2025/Conference/Submission4397/Authors" ], [ "ICLR.cc/2025/Conference/Submission4397/Authors" ], [ "ICLR.cc/2025/Conference/Submission4397/Authors" ], [ "ICLR.cc/2025/Conference/Submission4397/Authors" ], [ "ICLR.cc/2025/Conference/Submission4397/Authors" ], [ "ICLR.cc/2025/Conference/Submission4397/Area_Chair_Pfap" ], [ "ICLR.cc/2025/Conference/Submission4397/Authors" ], [ "ICLR.cc/2025/Conference/Submission4397/Authors" ], [ "ICLR.cc/2025/Conference/Submission4397/Authors" ] ], "structured_content_str": [ "{\"summary\": \"The paper introduces GNN-Diff, a latent diffusion model designed to enhance GNN training while minimizing the need for hyperparameter tuning. The author claim that this approach not only improves GNN performance but also demonstrates significant stability across various tasks.\", \"soundness\": \"2\", \"presentation\": \"3\", \"contribution\": \"3\", \"strengths\": \"1.\\tThe overall motivation is clear: improving hyperparameter search strategies can save time and enhance performance. This is an area that has not been explored too much in GNN training so far.\\n\\n2.\\tThe presentation is clear, with well-organized results and analysis provided for better interpretability.\", \"weaknesses\": \"1.\\tThe reported performance is a significant concern, as many results are noticeably lower than expected. For instance, nearly all results in Table 2 fall substantially short of those reported in existing literature and on the OGBN leaderboard: for example, I believe that GCN on OGBN-Arxiv can achieve 71.6% (as opposed to the reported 69.2%), APPNP can reache 71.8% (versus the reported 55.05%), and GraphSAGE can easily achieve around 79% on OGBN-Products, compared to the reported 75.6%. This discrepancy raises questions about whether the authors adhered to standard settings, whether the reported accuracy is reliable, and, if not, how the experimental setup was configured. Clearer details on these aspects would help clarify the validity of the reported results.\\n\\n2.\\tThe motivation for certain components is unclear. For instance, why do the authors choose to incorporate GAE in the training process?\\n\\n3.\\tAn ablation study illustrating the impact of the proposed techniques would strengthen the findings.\\n\\n4.\\tThe authors use classical GNNs for downstream tasks, but employing SOTA GNNs are necessary. For example, RevGAT[1], SAGN[2] and LazyGNN[3]. Many advanced architectures perform well without extensive parameter tuning, and using these models could better showcase the contributions of this work.\\n\\n5.\\tFigure 7 reports only running time, without any indication of memory cost. Additionally, if three different models are trained in this work, I am wondering how the runtime remains lower than that of a random search? A comparison with coarse search would also be useful.\\n\\n6.\\tCan the proposed techniques be applied to graph classification?\\n\\n[1] Training Graph Neural Networks with 1000 Layers\\n\\n[2] Scalable and Adaptive Graph Neural Networks with Self-Label-Enhanced training\\n\\n[3] LazyGNN: Large-Scale Graph Neural Networks via Lazy Propagation\", \"questions\": \"1. Could you explain the reason of the claim that concatenating different receptive fields in message passing can handle both homophilic and heterophilic graphs?\", \"flag_for_ethics_review\": \"['No ethics review needed.']\", \"rating\": \"6\", \"confidence\": \"4\", \"code_of_conduct\": \"Yes\"}", "{\"summary\": \"This paper proposes GNN-Diff, a graph-conditioned latent diffusion model designed to enhance Graph Neural Networks (GNNs) by generating effective parameters with minimal hyperparameter tuning. This is achieved by utilizing a coarse search strategy that identifies a subset of viable hyperparameters, which then guides the model\\u2019s parameter generation. GNN-Diff claims to reduce tuning time and computational cost by creating high-performance GNN parameters through diffusion in a latent space conditioned on graph data. The authors validate GNN-Diff through extensive experiments on various tasks including node classification and link prediction with numerous model backbones, showing improved efficiency and stability.\", \"soundness\": \"3\", \"presentation\": \"4\", \"contribution\": \"3\", \"strengths\": [\"The idea of using the diffusion framework to help with hyperparameter tuning seems novel and reasonable.\", \"The experiments are thorough, spanning a diverse set of tasks and backbone models, with results that are both convincing and reproducible.\", \"The proposed method effectively enhances both speed and performance across most cases, showcasing its practical value.\"], \"weaknesses\": [\"The heterophily datasets used in this paper have faced criticism for extensive duplicate nodes as noted in [1]. It would be beneficial for the authors to consider experimenting with the datasets proposed in [1] for a more robust evaluation of heterophilic cases.\", \"Table 5 shows that, compared to p-Diff, the improvements with GNN-Diff are relatively marginal and often inconsistent, with many results falling within one standard deviation. This brings into question the effectiveness of the GNN-Encoder design (Eq. 2).\", \"There is a lack of theoretical analysis.\", \"[1] A critical look at the evaluation of GNNs under heterophily: Are we really making progress?\"], \"questions\": \"Have the authors tried other forms of G-Encoders other than Eq. (2) and conducted ablation studies about it?\", \"flag_for_ethics_review\": \"['No ethics review needed.']\", \"details_of_ethics_concerns\": \"NA\", \"rating\": \"6\", \"confidence\": \"3\", \"code_of_conduct\": \"Yes\"}", "{\"summary\": \"This article introduces an interesting hyperparameter search architecture that learns graph embedding information for specific graph tasks through a designed GNN architecture. This information is then integrated into conditional latent denoising diffusion probabilistic models, using a parameter encoding module to flexibly convert the input and output dimensions of the parameters.\", \"soundness\": \"3\", \"presentation\": \"3\", \"contribution\": \"3\", \"strengths\": \"1. The overall expression of the article is clear and easy to understand.\\n2. The experiments are comprehensive, and the performance of the algorithm is impressive.\\n3. It connects model parameter tuning with the data itself.\", \"weaknesses\": \"Simply using GNNs for embedding learning on graph-structured data and adding it to the G-LDM module does not analyze why this part of the graph embedding works for the method.\", \"questions\": \"1. There is a spelling error at line 126 of the article, \\\"P-Eecoder()\\\".\\n2. Why use such a GNN architecture? Would using classical graph embedding frameworks like GAT or GCN be effective?\\n3. Clearly, graph data structures are diverse, and using just one type of GNN makes it difficult to effectively embed all types of graph data. When GNNs become ineffective, or when increasing the number of GNN layers causes the graph embeddings to become too smooth, what impact will that have on the method? Since this paper proposes a parameter tuning method, which can be considered a fundamental approach, we need to focus more on when it will fail or the lower limits of the method\\u2019s capabilities.\", \"flag_for_ethics_review\": \"['No ethics review needed.']\", \"rating\": \"6\", \"confidence\": \"1\", \"code_of_conduct\": \"Yes\"}", "{\"comment\": \"Thank you for your response. I think the advantages outweigh the disadvantages given comprehensive results provided, so I have increased my score to a positive value. However, I recommend revising the experiments section to use the commonly reported values from other baselines.\\n\\nAdditionally, I found the results of the ablation study in Appendix I.5 interesting and have some questions:\\n\\n1. Did you experiment with more than two GCN layers (hops) on the current or other heterophilic datasets?\\nDoes including additional hops introduce issues such as over-smoothing?\\n\\n2. Why does SAGE perform best on heterophilic graphs when using an MLP? Since SAGE is quite similar to GCN except for the pooling mechanism, if the MLP performs best, does that imply that incorporating neighbor information is not beneficial for certain heterophilic graphs? I find this intriguing and believe it would be valuable to provide more results on this topic.\\n\\n3. Did you consider or experiment with other strategies for heterophilic graphs instead of skip connection/concatenation?\"}", "{\"title\": \"Thank you letter to Reviewer TruH\", \"comment\": \"Thank you very much for the time and effort you dedicated to reviewing our paper, as well as for your valuable suggestions. We especially appreciate your insights on strengthening the technical contributions of our work. In the revised paper, we have added additional experiments and discussions to further clarify and enhance our work. Here, we would like to take this opportunity to address your concerns and clarify some potential misunderstandings. If possible, we sincerely hope that you could consider increasing the rating. Again, we greatly appreciate your expertise and support in the review process.\"}", "{\"title\": \"Thank you letter to Reviwer 8AwD\", \"comment\": \"Thank you for your thoughtful review and valuable feedback. Based on your comments, we recognize your expertise in large-scale graphs and appreciate your insights. We have revised our paper to address your concerns, clarified potential misunderstandings, and made improvements as detailed below. We hope these revisions demonstrate the soundness of our work. We also hope you could kindly reconsider the rating. Thank you again for all the constructive suggestions and your time.\"}", "{\"metareview\": \"The paper introduces a method for improving the performance of GNNs with minimal hyperparameter tuning. It propose a graph-conditioned generative model to generate (better) hyperparameter configurations based on lightly-tuned suboptimal parameters. This approach to parameter tuning is novel as far as I know. While the combination of techniques is compelling, the lack of a fundamentally new contribution limits the overall impact. The experimental evaluation is decent. Although some strongly-relevant baselines were missing, the authors added one such baseline in the rebuttal.\\n\\nThe biggest weakness of the paper is that the majority of the results are shown with \\\"cluster\\\" training, due to a lack of computational resources. Since, cluster training yields significantly worse performance than full training, the hyperparameters matter more and thus the proposed method looks better than it is. In response to the reviewers' request the authors included results with full training, where the gap to the baselines here is smaller. In my opinion this weakness is almost enough for a rejection, but I still recommend acceptance because the idea is interesting. However, I strongly advise the authors to include a prominent limitation section to highlight the issue.\", \"additional_comments_on_reviewer_discussion\": \"Some reviewers (e.g., Reviewer TruH) noted insufficient justification of claims, and their concerns were not fully resolved during the rebuttal period. Reviewer 8AwD was initially critical of performance reporting and ablation studies but raised their score after additional experiments and clarifications. The authors conducted additional experiments (e.g., 120 with Bayesian optimization) and renamed the GAE module to avoid .\"}", "{\"comment\": \"Thank you for your feedback, which has been very helpful in addressing my concerns. However, I must admit that I am not very familiar with this field, and after reading the responses from other reviewers, I noticed several issues that I hadn\\u2019t initially anticipated. As a result, I decided to adjust my rating to a more conservative score. Nonetheless, I still believe the paper has merit and recommend it for acceptance.\"}", "{\"title\": \"[Response to Weakness 1 & 2] Technical contribution and supplementary experiments.\", \"comment\": \"**[Response to Weakness 1]** Technical contribution.\\n\\nThank you for raising this concern. In this response, we will first highlight the novelty and contribution of our method, and then discuss the modifications we have made in the revised paper to better improve the technical contribution. \\n\\nTo start with, we would like to clarify that the main contribution of our work is not to propose a new model component that has never been adopted before in relevant literature; but to explore an efficient and novel training strategy for GNNs with the minimal hyperparameter tuning, which has not been sufficiently studied so far. We agree with your concern that LDM and the GAE architecture are not new, and we have cited relevant works in our paper. However, lowering the hyperparameter tuning costs for GNNs with a parameter generative model is a brand new area for GNN research. The relationship between model components and our novelty is just like the ingredients and the recipe. The ingredients such as LDM, the graph convolution in GAE, and the sample collection are easy to obtain, but the design of the recipe (i.e., what ingredients to include and how to combine them for effectiveness and efficiency) is the true value of our work.\\n\\nThen, to better improve the technical contribution of our work, we carefully considered the suggestion of more baselines for comparison. We will discuss more details in the response to Weakness 2. \\n\\n**[Response to Weakness 2-1]** 120 supplementary experiments with Bayesian optimization as a baseline.\\n\\nThank you for the suggestion. We have revised the paper accordingly. Here are a few key points that we would like to highlight:\\n\\n- In \\\"Advanced Methods for Hyperparameter Tuning\\\", we mentioned 3 types of techniques: parameter-free optimization, Bayesian optimization, and Hyperband. For Hyperband, we have used one of its variants, the coarse-to-fine (C2F) search. So, our revision majorly focused on parameter-free optimization and Bayesian optimization.\\n\\n- Parameter-free optimization: While parameter-free optimization is a useful tool for tuning hyperparameters related to neural network training, such as the learning rate, this method is incapable of handling model hyperparameters such as the ChebNet K and APPNP alpha. So it is not considered as our baseline. We further clarify this limitation in Appendix A - Advanced Methods for Hyperparameter Tuning.\\n\\n- Bayesian optimization: Bayesian optimization was not chosen as our comparison baseline because it is not common to apply Bayesian optimization for GNN tuning in GNN-related research. However, it indeed can be applied. Given that our paper is related to hyperparameter tuning, we do find your suggestion very valuable, and we have added experiments of Bayesian optimization. Please refer to **Appendix I.4** in the revised paper for more details.\\n\\n**[Response to Weakness 2-2]** Clarification on the coarse search results.\\n\\nWe suppose here is some misunderstanding. We will provide an explanation on why this is not an issue - and maybe even the \\\"advantage'' of our method. But please kindly advise if our explanation does not address your question :)\\n\\nFirstly, we agree with your observation that the coarse search underperforms compared to random and grid search in most cases. This is expected, as the coarse search operates over a very limited search space, which sacrifices exploration for tuning efficiency. However, our method, GNN-Diff, uses the coarse search as an initial step, then improves upon it through parameter generation.\\n\\nBased on our experimental results, we make two key observations:\\n\\n- GNN-Diff is able to outperform both random and grid search, even when starting from a relatively weak point provided by the coarse search;\\n\\n- GNN-Diff requires significantly less time than both random and grid search.\\n\\nThese findings together demonstrate that GNN-Diff is an effective method for enhancing GNN performance within a short time frame. The coarse search provides a reasonable starting point, and GNN-Diff is able to build upon that to achieve superior results efficiently.\"}", "{\"title\": \"[Response to Weakness 2, 3, & 4] Motivation of the graph autoencoder (GAE), ablation study, and SOTA GNNs.\", \"comment\": \"**[Response to Weakness 2]** Motivation of GAE.\\n\\nThank you for the question; it\\u2019s an excellent point. We previously put the motivation of GAE in Section 5.3 - Ablation Study on the Graph Condition. However, we recognize that placing it in Section 4.2 - Graph Autoencoder, where GAE is formally introduced, will make it clearer for readers. We have made this adjustment accordingly. Please see **line 194-197** in the revised paper.\\n\\nTo answer the question, the motivation for including GAE is threefold. (1) Contribution: The role of specific data characteristics in parameter generation still remains underexplored. To fill this gap, GNN-Diff leverages the graph data and structural information as the generative condition. (2) Usage: GAE is used to construct the graph condition, which is considered as a data and graph structure-aware guidance on the GNN parameter generation. (3) Accuracy \\\\& Stability: We show with the ablation study in Table 5 that GNN parameters generated with the graph condition generally lead to better average accuracy and higher stability across various tasks. \\n\\nFurther, in terms of the training process, we train the three components one by one in a consecutive training flow. The training of GAE is prior to the training of G-LDM, because its encoder will be used to construct one of the inputs of G-LDM, that is, the graph condition. \\n\\n**[Response to Weakness 3]** Ablation Study.\\n\\nWe appreciate this suggestion and have enriched the ablation study accordingly. Please refer to **Appendix I.5** for detailed experiment results and analyses.\\n\\n**[Response to Weakness 4]** SOTA GNNs.\\n\\nThank you for highlighting three very intriguing papers on large-scale graphs. As a matter of fact, we originally considered such works during our experiment design, but we eventually decided to focus on exploring \\\"graph convolution architectures'' rather than \\\"efficient GNN training algorithms'' (i.e., these papers share the same characteristic in emphasizing efficient training strategies rather than proposing new convolutions). Nevertheless, we appreciate your reminder of their relevance, and we acknowledge their importance for scalability in real-world challenges. To address this, we have cited these papers and added a discussion on the potential of combining our method with these algorithms. Please find the discussion in **Appendix I.7** of the revised paper.\\n\\nTo further clarify, please see below for more explanations of why the three papers all focus on efficient training algorithms rather than proposing new architectures:\\n\\n- [Training Graph Neural Networks with 1000 Layers] This paper proposes reversible connections to enable the training of very deep or very wide GNNs for large graphs. The proposed algorithm is generic and can be theoretically applied to any GNNs, including GCN, SAGE, GAT, etc.\\n\\n- [Scalable and Adaptive Graph Neural Networks with Self-Label-Enhanced Training] SAGN proposed in this paper gathers multiple-hop representations with the attention mechanism. This is very similar to one of our target model, MixHop. Since MixHop is not included in the large graph experiments due to its computational complexity, this paper can be a very good direction for our future work. This paper also proposes Self-Label-Enhanced training, which is also a generic training algorithm. \\n\\n- [LazyGNN: Large-Scale Graph Neural Networks via Lazy Propagation] This paper introduces lazy propagation and combines it with generic sampling strategies. Lazy propagation can be regarded as a way to organize and compute GNN layers, and the graph convolutional layers of LazyGNN are very similar to one of our target model, APPNP.\\n\\nAccordingly, we did not include these works as target models in our main experiments but have discussed GNN-Diff's extension to SOTA training algorithms in **Appendix I.7**.\"}", "{\"title\": \"Thank You for Increasing the Score :)\", \"comment\": \"Dear Reviewer,\\n\\nThank you very much for further increasing the score of our submission and for your thoughtful questions! We also find these questions very interesting and inspiring to explore. While we are unable to revise the paper at this stage, we are committed to investigating these points and will share any notable findings through an anonymous GitHub link (the updated findings can be included in the camera-ready version of the paper if it is accepted). We will follow up as soon as possible.\\n\\nThank you once again for your valuable feedback and support.\\n\\nWarm regards,\\nThe Authors\"}", "{\"title\": \"Paper Decision\", \"decision\": \"Accept (Poster)\"}", "{\"title\": \"Response to Area Chair and All reviewers\", \"comment\": \"We would like to express our sincere gratitude to the area chair and all reviewers for their efforts and time in evaluating our paper. Your constructive comments and suggestions have been invaluable in improving the quality and clarity of our work.\\n\\nOur paper introduces GNN-Diff, a generative diffusion framework designed to boost the performance of GNNs through efficient hyperparameter tuning. Through extensive experiments, we demonstrate that GNN-Diff consistently enhances GNN performance, achieves high stability, and generalizes effectively to unseen data.\\n\\nIn response to the reviewers\\u2019 insightful comments, we have made revisions to the paper. Some major changes include:\\n\\n- Extension to graph classification tasks with pilot experiment results (Appendix I.3, pages 30-31)\\n\\n- Comparison with Bayesian optimization in 120 experiments (Appendix I.4, page 32)\\n\\n- Further ablation and analyses on GAE to show the effectiveness of the current architecture and explore other potential architectures (Appendix I.5, pages 33-34)\\n\\nWe hope these updates address the concerns raised and further highlight the significance of our contributions. We sincerely hope the reviewers will reconsider increasing their ratings in light of these revisions, as we believe this work provides a meaningful advancement in making GNNs more efficient and robust for real-world applications. Your support would be greatly appreciated in promoting this work to the broader research community.\\n\\nThank you again for your efforts and consideration.\"}", "{\"title\": \"A Sincere Request to Reviewers for Kindly Increasing Your Score\", \"comment\": \"Dear Reviewers 8AwD, TruH, and ti8E,\\n\\nWe are writing to kindly seek your continued support for the acceptance of our work. As you may have noticed, one reviewer has recently decreased the score and confidence due to limited familiarity with this research area, though the merit of our work is still acknowledged. While we greatly respect the opinions and decisions of all reviewers, we feel deeply sorry to see this situation, as it may have an unintended adverse impact on the final decision.\\n\\n**We sincerely hope you could kindly revisit and potentially increase your score considering the efforts we have devoted during the discussion period.** We remain fully committed to addressing any further questions or suggestions you may have within the remaining discussion time and are grateful for your engagement throughout this process.\\n\\nThank you for your consideration.\\n\\nBest regards,\\n\\nThe Authors\"}", "{\"title\": \"Thank you letter to Reviewer gdji\", \"comment\": \"We sincerely thank you for your positive feedback and high evaluation of our work. We are delighted that you found our contributions valuable and appreciate your recognition of their significance. We have carefully considered your suggestions to enhance the clarity and completeness of our paper. Particularly, your suggestion on using other graph embedding frameworks such as GAT helped us to enhance the analysis on the graph condition. Below, we address your points in detail.\"}", "{\"title\": \"Response to Unresolved Issues\", \"comment\": \"We sincerely appreciate the time and effort you have invested in reviewing our work and providing valuable feedback. Below we address the unresolved issues one-by-one.\\n\\n**[Response to Unresolved Issue Point 1]** Memory limitaion & further explanations\\n\\nThank you for raising this concern. We deeply appreciate the opportunity to clarify and address your question. Below are some key points:\\n\\n- **Limited computational resources**: While our proposed method is not a big concern for a single 4090 GPU, full-graph training can be time-consuming for baseline methods like grid search. To address this challenge and maintain consistency, we used cluster training for time efficiency and applied it across all large graph datasets.\\n\\n- **Out-of-memory (OOM) issue for OGBN-Products**: We revisited the OGBN-Products dataset on our 4090 GPU and unfortunately encountered OOM errors again. While we cannot fully explain this behavior, we are happy to share screenshots or additional evidence if needed.\\n\\n- **Supplementary experiments**: To complete the supplementary experiments within the rebuttal period, we rented multiple GPUs online. This allowed us to execute these experiments more quickly compared to those conducted on our own device.\\n\\nWe hope these clarifications address your concerns. If additional details or evidence are required, we would be more than willing to provide them. Moreover, we would like to emphasize that, despite some resource limitations, our experiments effectively validate the proposed method, even if they do not achieve the same results as full-training benchmarks.\\n\\n**[Response to Unresolved Issue Point 2]** Memory is a concern, or not?\\n\\nWe apologize for any confusion caused by our previous response, and we sincerely thank you for pointing this out. To clarify, when we mentioned that \\\"memory cost is not a significant concern,\\\" we were specifically referring to the experiments presented in our paper, where cluster training was employed. For full-graph training, however, memory limitations remain a challenge.\\n\\nPlease let us know if any confusion persists, and we will be happy to provide further clarification.\\n\\n**[Response to Unresolved Issue Point 3]** Name of GAE\\n\\nThank you for the thoughtful suggestion. After careful consideration, we have decided to rename \\\"Graph Autoencoder (GAE)\\\" to \\\"Graph Feature Encoder (GFE).\\\" This new name better reflects the purpose of the module, which is to encode information from both the graph structure and node/graph features. We have updated the paper accordingly, with all changes highlighted in red for clarity.\\n\\n**[Response to Unresolved Issue - Ablation]**\\n\\nThank you for your question. Based on our understanding, you are requesting an ablation study on the number of hops or the number of graph convolutions in the GFE-encoder. Please let us know if we have misunderstood your request.\\n\\nWe would like to clarify that such an ablation study is included in **Appendix I.5 - Ablation Study of GFE Components (page 33)**. In this section, we compare the GFE with no graph convolution (MLP), 1-hop (MLP \\\\& GCN1), and 2-hop (MLP \\\\& GCN2). Additionally, we provide other combinations, such as solely GCN1 or GCN2, and GCN1 \\\\& GCN2. This analysis is conducted using both homophilic (Cora) and heterophilic (Actor) graphs.\\n\\nIf you would like us to include more ablation studies, we are happy to do so. However, due to the limited time available for paper revision, we may only be able to provide additional results via anonymous GitHub links initially. These results could then be incorporated into the final camera-ready version if the paper is accepted. Please advise if further ablation analyses are expected.\\n\\n**[A Sincere Request for Further Increasing the Score]**\\n\\nIf you feel that our responses and the improvements to the paper sufficiently address your concerns, we would be truly grateful if you could provide us with a more favorable score. Your support and acknowledgment would mean a lot to us and would further encourage our efforts in advancing this research direction.\\n\\nThank you again for your thoughtful review and consideration.\"}", "{\"title\": \"[Response to Question 1 & 3] Typo & GNN-Diff for low-capability scenarios.\", \"comment\": \"**[Response to Question 1]** Typo.\\n\\nThank you for pointing this out. The typo has been fixed.\\n\\n**[Response to Question 3]** GNN-Diff for low-capability scenarios.\\n\\n\\nThank you for raising the important issue of model capability\\u2014this is a good perspective we had not previously considered. It indeed represents a practical challenge when implementing GNNs. However, we would like to emphasize that our proposed method, GNN-Diff, is well-equipped to address these challenges in the following ways:\\n\\n- **Challenge of GNNs Becoming Ineffective**: We agree that graph data are diverse, and there is rarely a single GNN that outperforms all others across all datasets and tasks. To address this, one can conduct an efficient coarse search as an architecture search to identify promising GNNs while filtering out those that clearly underperform. The generation process can then be applied to the well-performing GNNs identified during the coarse search, further enhancing their performance.\\n\\n- **Challenge of Oversmoothing**: Oversmoothing is a common issue in GNNs, but our method effectively addresses it by including the number of layers as a hyperparameter. This approach is considered in our experiments on long-range graphs and can be smoothly extended to other tasks.\\n\\nWe have also conducted experiments to evaluate whether GNN-Diff can boost the performance of ineffective GNNs. Using GCN for node classification on Cora and addressing the oversmoothing issue as an example, the results are presented in the table below. These results demonstrate that GNN-Diff not only improves accuracy but also enhances stability in terms of lowering the standard deviation, even when the target GNN is significantly affected by oversmoothing. However, the best accuracy is still achieved with an appropriate choice of the number of layers. Therefore, we recommend treating the number of layers as an important hyperparameter to tune when oversmoothing becomes a critical concern.\\n\\n| Number of layers | Coarse | GNN-Diff |\\n|------------------|-----------------|------------|\\n| 2-layers | 81.89 \\u00b1 0.48 | 82.33 \\u00b1 0.17 |\\n| 4-layers | 78.10 \\u00b1 1.15 | 78.32 \\u00b1 0.14 |\\n| 6-layers | 70.02 \\u00b1 3.03 | 73.62 \\u00b1 0.24 |\\n| 8-layers | 25.61 \\u00b1 5.90 | 27.22 \\u00b1 3.57 |\\n| 10-layers | 21.30 \\u00b1 6.69 | 27.94 \\u00b1 4.74 |\"}", "{\"title\": \"Clarification on \\\"GAE\\\" and \\\"GFE\\\"\", \"comment\": \"Dear Area Chair and Reviewers,\\n\\nThe name \\\"Graph Autoencoder (GAE)\\\" has been updated to \\\"Graph Feature Encoder (GFE)\\\" in the latest version of the revised paper, following the suggestion of Reviewer 8AwD. This change aims to better distinguish the module from traditional Graph Autoencoders that use reconstruction loss. However, please feel free to use \\\"GAE\\\" and \\\"GFE\\\" interchangeably in the discussion.\\n\\nBest regards,\\n\\nThe Authors\"}", "{\"summary\": \"In summary\\uff0c this paper proposes a strategy for tuning hyper-parameters of GNNs to maximize their potential. It is achieved by collecting a set of model parameters, encoding graphs, and then learning to generate parameters for GNNs. Extensive methods have been conducted in this paper to verify the designed method.\", \"soundness\": \"2\", \"presentation\": \"3\", \"contribution\": \"2\", \"strengths\": [\"This paper is well-organized.\", \"Extensive experiments are conducted in this paper.\"], \"weaknesses\": \"1. The technical contribution is limited given the related works.\\nIt seems that GNN-diff is a combination of LDM and graph techniques. The sample collection method described in Section 4.1 is trivial, and the designed encoder is also widely used in existing methods. It would be better to highlight the technical contributions in comparison with the different methods mentioned in the related work section.\\n\\n2. The experiments seem somewhat unrigorous and fail to adequately highlight the efficiency and effectiveness of GNN-diff. \\n- Baseline selection: While numerous target GNNs and datasets are utilized, the paper employs only a few comparable baselines. It appears that methods from \\\"Advanced Methods for Hyperparameter Tuning\\\" should be incorporated to validate the designed parameter tuning strategy more effectively. \\n- Evaluations of the effectiveness of Coarse search: In Tables 1-4, the \\\"Coarse\\\" variant struggles to outperform the \\\"Random\\\" and \\\"Grid\\\" baselines. With these results, justifying the effectiveness of the coarse search approach is challenging.\\n\\n3. The transferability of GNN-Diff is limited due to its hyper-parameter tuning being tailored for a specific dataset, relying on parameter collection and the GAE model.\", \"questions\": \"The upper bound of the proposed method remains unclear. It is uncertain how a well fine-tuned GCN compares to lightly fine-tuned, more expressive models.\", \"flag_for_ethics_review\": \"['No ethics review needed.']\", \"rating\": \"5\", \"confidence\": \"3\", \"code_of_conduct\": \"Yes\"}", "{\"title\": \"[Response to Weakness 5 & 6, and Question 1] Memory & time, graph classification, and explanation of G-Encoder architecture.\", \"comment\": \"**[Response to Weakness 5]** Memory and time concerns.\\n\\nThank you for your questions and suggestions. Below, we address them point by point:\\n\\n- **Memory Costs**: Memory costs were not reported as they were not a significant issue in our experiments. All experiments were conducted on a single NVIDIA 4090 GPU with 24GB memory, which was sufficient for all tasks. For large datasets, such as large graphs and long-range graphs, we employed clustering and batch training to mitigate memory usage. Most experiments required far less than the available memory.\\n\\n- **Why GNN-Diff is Faster Than Random Search**: GNN-Diff outperforms random search in efficiency for two main reasons:\\n\\n - **Reduced Search Space**: GNN-Diff uses coarse search, which has a search space only half the size of the random search.\\n\\n - **Minimal Training Overhead**: Although GNN-Diff involves three trainable components, their training time is very short compared to the coarse search. The GAE training is equivalent to one run of GNN training, while search methods involve many more runs depending on the search space. The PAE and G-LDM training are computationally efficient due to the partial generation technique in our implementation. This approach considers only the last layer parameters, significantly reducing computational costs. Additionally, PAE encodes parameters into a low-dimensional space, which enhances the training and inference efficiency of G-LDM.\\n\\n- **Comparison with Coarse Search**: Following your suggestion, we have updated **Figure 7** to include the coarse search time. The revised figure clearly demonstrates that the coarse search accounts for the majority of GNN-Diff's time, supporting our claim that the training and inference time of GNN-Diff is relatively short.\\n\\nWe hope these clarifications could address your concerns.\\n\\n**[Response to Weakness 6]** Graph classification.\\n\\nYes, our method can be adapted to graph classification. In most cases, the major difference between graph-level and node-level classification tasks is the graph pooling process. So, we may extend to graph classification by adding a pooling layer to the GAE architecture and also the target models. The pooling layer obtains global graph representations for downstream tasks. In **Appendix I.3**, we discuss more details related to graph classification along with the experiment results on Fake News datasets [4] to show the effectiveness of our method in graph classification.\\n\\n[4] User Preference-aware Fake News Detection\\n\\n**[Response to Question 1]** Explanation of G-Encoder architecture.\\n\\nThank you for the question, and here is the explanation. As we know, graph convolutions such as $\\\\mathbf A\\\\mathbf X\\\\mathbf W$ and $\\\\mathbf A^2\\\\mathbf X\\\\mathbf W$ aggregate neighboring node features to construct more informative representations, which inevitably similarizes neighboring node representations. This is useful for homophilic graphs, where connected nodes are usually from the same class. As similar representations better map the connected nodes to the same class. However, this may be harmful for heterophilic graphs, where connected nodes are usually from different classes. This is why some GNNs may perform even worse than MLP on heterophilic graphs. \\n\\nGNNs that can handle both homophilic and heterophilic graphs well typically incorporate dynamics that can bring the variations of features back, e.g., through adding the source terms in a similar way as skip connection [5, 6]. In this way, the model can choose to smoothen or differentiate node representations in the learning process. Accordingly, we adopt equation (2) with the concatenation of different receptive fields (e.g., graph convolutions $\\\\mathbf A^2\\\\mathbf X\\\\mathbf W_1,\\\\mathbf A\\\\mathbf X\\\\mathbf W_2$, and the source term $\\\\mathbf X\\\\mathbf W_3$). Furthermore, we note that our message passing structure (e.g., equation (2)) is also aligned with some recently developed GNNs, such as H2GCN [7], which serves as one of the state-of-the-art models in terms of learning with both homophilic and heterophilic graphs. \\n\\n\\n[5] From Continuous Dynamics to Graph Neural Networks: Neural Diffusion and Beyond.\\n\\n[6] GREAD: Graph Neural Reaction-Diffusion Networks.\\n\\n[7] Beyond Homophily in Graph Neural Networks.\"}", "{\"title\": \"Follow-up Response to Ablation Study-related Questions\", \"comment\": \"Thank you for your thoughtful questions and support. Please find our detailed responses below. Additionally, we have conducted supplementary experiments to further support our discussions. Please find all supplementary materials in https://anonymous.4open.science/r/Follow_up_responses-B7C8/README.md.\\n\\n**[Response to Revision of Large Graph Experiment Results]**\\n\\nThank you for your valuable suggestion. We are actively working on the revision. As previously mentioned, performing a grid search with full training requires significant time, and we may not be able to finalize the results and the revised paper before the discussion deadline. We sincerely hope for your understanding and appreciate your patience.\\n\\n**[Response to Ablation Study - Question 1]** More hops \\n\\nThis is indeed an intriguing aspect to explore. To build on our previous analysis, where we experimented with GFE using \\\"GCN1\\\" and \\\"GCN2\\\", we conducted additional experiments by increasing the number of GCN layers from 3 to 5. The results, presented in **Supplementary Material 1**, indicate that the number of GCN layers has minimal impact on generative quality and may even improve model accuracy.\\n\\nWe hypothesize that over-smoothing is less of a concern for GFE, as its primary role is to extract and provide graph information. As long as the graph features and structural information are effectively captured, over-smoothing appears to be mitigated. Furthermore, the inclusion of an MLP enhances the architecture, enabling the model to dynamically adjust the feature variations within the graph condition, thereby further alleviating potential over-smoothing issues.\\n\\n**[Response to Ablation Study - Question 2]** SAGE\\n\\nThis is an excellent observation. Does this suggest that incorporating neighbor information may not always be beneficial for certain heterophilic graphs? In short, yes. As discussed, smoothing node features can sometimes be detrimental for heterophilic graphs. In such cases, even a single linear layer (MLP) can outperform traditional GNNs like SAGE, GCN, and GAT.\\nTo support this statement, we have included experimental results from [1] in **Supplementary Material 2**. These findings indicate that this behavior is typically observed when the heterophilic level of a graph is particularly high.\\n\\n**In Supplementary Material 3**, we have included an additional experiment: SAGE-Actor with MLP2 as the GFE encoder, where MLP2 consists of two linear layers. The results indicate that the generative performance improves compared to using a single-layer MLP. This suggests that feature representation, rather than graph structure, plays a more critical role in this specific task.\\n\\nThe tricky part of this problem is - we don't really know (or it takes quite a lot efforts to measure) whether a graph is very heterophilic or not. For this reason, we designed the GFE to be generic, ensuring it performs effectively on both homophilic and heterophilic graphs in practice. While this decision prioritizes better generalization, it may lead to sub-optimal performance in specific cases like SAGE-Actor. Nevertheless, the architecture still achieves promising results.\\n\\n[1] Understanding convolution on graphs via energies\\n\\n**[Response to Ablation Study - Question 3]** Other strategies for heterophilic graphs\\n\\nWhile including the source term (e.g., skip connection or concatenation) is the most commonly adopted approach in the relevant literature, other strategies exist as well. For instance, the heterophily level of graphs can be modified through adjacency re-weighting or re-wiring methods [2, 3]. These approaches address the issue of inter-class connections by directly altering the adjacency structure, such as reducing edge weights or removing connections between nodes of different classes.\\n\\nIn our work, we chose not to adopt this strategy as we aimed to preserve the original adjacency matrices provided with the datasets. Nevertheless, we emphasize that the GFE architecture is highly flexible and can naturally extend to incorporate such strategies for handling heterophilic graphs, offering opportunities for future exploration.\\n\\n[2]: Neural Sheaf Diffusion: A Topological Perspective on Heterophily and Oversmoothing in GNNs.\\n\\n[3]: CurvDrop: A Ricci Curvature-Based Approach to Prevent Graph Neural Networks from Over-Smoothing and Over-Squashing.\"}", "{\"title\": \"[Response to Weakness 1] Factors lead to the gap in the experiment results.\", \"comment\": \"Thank you for highlighting this point. We also had the same observation during our experiments. As discussed in Section 5.1 - Reproducibility and comparability, this discrepancy is primarily due to differences in data split and model architectures. We would like to emphasize that our experimental settings mostly align with standard practices in the original paper of OGBN datasets [1], except for the following aspects:\\n\\n- Cluster vs. Full training: As mentioned in Section 5.1 - Experiment details, we conducted all experiments on NVIDIA 4090 GPU with 24GB memory. Given the limited memory, the large graphs are split into clusters following [2]. This may not be necessary for relatively smaller datasets such as Flickr, but we apply the same setting to maintain consistency. Clusters sometimes lead to inferior performance especially comparing with the full graph training adopted by most Leaderboard GNNs. However, this does not affect the validity of experiments to show GNN-Diff's ability in boosting GNN performance on large graphs. \\n\\n- No tricks vs. Tricks applied: We didn't apply tricks such as skip connection, which is considered in GraphSAGE [1]. The inititial goal of our experiments is to investigate the top potential of vanilla GNNs.\\n\\n- 2-layer GNN vs. 3 or more layers: We adopted 2-layer GNNs in large graph experiments following the same setting as the basic node classification experiments. In comparison, GNNs in [1] adopt 2-3 layers, while GNNs in [3] adopt 2-10 layers. This factor may not be as influential as the previous two, but we suppose it may still cause some differences in accuracy. \\n\\nTo further validate the effectiveness of our method, we repeat the experiment for GCN and SAGE on OGB-arXiv strictly following the settings in [1]. In the table below, we present the result, and it is shown that GNN-Diff can achieve better accuracy with lower standard deviation than the result reported in [1] (GCN 71.74\\\\% $\\\\pm$ 0.29\\\\% and SAGE 71.49\\\\% $\\\\pm$ 0.27\\\\%).\\n\\n| Method-Dataset | Grid | Random | Coarse | C2F | GNN-Diff |\\n|-----------------|------------|------------|------------|------------|------------|\\n| **GCN-arXiv** | 71.90 \\u00b1 0.24 | 71.39 \\u00b1 0.27 | 71.38 \\u00b1 0.26 | 71.74 \\u00b1 0.27 | 72.04 \\u00b1 0.18 |\\n| **SAGE-arXiv** | 71.83 \\u00b1 0.24 | 71.42 \\u00b1 0.33 | 71.12 \\u00b1 0.21 | 71.46 \\u00b1 0.19 | 71.96 \\u00b1 0.12 |\\n\\n[1] Open Graph Benchmark: Datasets for Machine Learning on Graphs\\n\\n[2] Cluster-GCN: An Efficient Algorithm for Training Deep and Large Graph Convolutional Networks\\n\\n[3] Classic GNNs are Strong Baselines: Reassessing GNNs for Node Classification\"}", "{\"comment\": \"Thank you for your response. Most of my concerns have been addressed, and I have increased my score accordingly. However, a few issues remain unresolved:\\n\\n1. In the response to Weakness 1, the author states that GPU memory limitations necessitated the use of subgraph sampling in the original experiments. However, the performance table provided in the response appears to report accurate performance metrics without memory concerns. Based on my experience, a GPU with 24GB of memory is sufficient for most datasets used, including ogbn-products. Therefore, I am still unclear why the author chose to report significantly lower performance in the original submission.\\n\\n2. In the response to Weakness 5, the author mentions that memory cost is not a significant issue for the experiments.\\nThis statement seems contradictory to the explanation provided in Weakness 1, where GPU memory limitations were cited as a reason for using subgraph sampling.\\n\\n3. Regarding the question, based on the response, it appears that the author employed a specialized GNN that concatenates different receptive fields and simply adds a linear classifier on top for supervised learning. Since GAE is designed for self-supervised learning with a reconstruction objective, I think the proposed method does not qualify as a GAE. I recommend that the author avoid using the term GAE to prevent misunderstandings.\\n\\nBesides, i am wondering if the author could provide an ablation study regarding the number of receptive fields in that GNN with of performance on heterophilic graphs to see the reason why the author chooses to include it from 0 hop to 2 hops.\\n\\nI hope these remaining concerns can be addressed to further improve the quality of the work.\"}", "{\"title\": \"[Response to Weakness 1 & Question 2] Concerns related to the graph autoencoder and graph condition.\", \"comment\": \"**[Reponse to Weakness 1 & Question 2]** Concerns related to the graph autoencoder and graph condition.\\n\\nThank you for your questions. Please allow us to address *Weakness 1 and Question 2* together because they are both related to the graph autoencoder and the graph condition.\\n\\n**Why such a GNN architecture?**\\n\\nFor the basic node classification, we designed the GNN architecture to effectively handle both homophilic and heterophilic graphs. Usually, graph convolution such as $\\\\mathbf{AXW}$ aggregate neighboring nodes to integrate information in related samples and form more informative representations. However, this inevitably similarizes the neighboring node representations. This is helpful for homophilic graphs where connected nodes are generally from the same class. Since more similar representations better classify the connected nodes to the same class. However, for heterophilic graphs, where connected nodes may be from different classes, the similar representations make it hard to distinguish them to various labels. This is why we add MLP, $\\\\mathbf{XW}$, known as the source term in relevant literature, to add back some variation in node features. The concatenation of the graph convolution and MLP is shown to be effective on both homophilic and heterophilic graphs in [1], because it allows the model to automatically decide the similarity (or smoothness) among node representations.\\n\\n[1]: Beyond Homophily in Graph Neural Networks.\\n\\n**Would GAT or GCN be effective?**\\n\\nThe short answer is yes, compared to having no graph condition, but they may not perform as effectively as the current architecture. To validate this, we have included a comprehensive analysis of the GAE architecture in the revised paper (**Appendix I.5**). This includes an ablation study on components of the current GAE architecture and an evaluation of alternative graph convolutions such as GATConv, SAGEConv, and APPNP. The results confirm the effectiveness of the current architecture, establishing it as a reasonable default for all target GNNs. However, exploring alternative graph convolutions could also be beneficial if computational resources and time permit.\"}", "{\"title\": \"Follow-up Letter from the Authors\", \"comment\": \"Dear Reviewer,\\n\\nThank you for your thoughtful and constructive feedback on our paper. We sincerely appreciate the time and effort you have devoted to reviewing our work and have carefully considered your comments and suggestions.\\n\\nTo assist in reviewing our explanations and revisions, we have provided a brief summary of our previous response below:\\n\\n- We have addressed several of your concerns through revisions to the paper and additional experiments, particularly focusing on **the motivation for GAE (Section 4.2, page 4), the ablation study (Appendix I.5, pages 33-34), and graph classification (Appendix I.3, pages 30-31)**. These updates aim to improve the clarity and contributions of our work, and we hope they align with your expectations.\\n\\n- Some of your other recommendations, such as including additional SOTA GNNs on large graphs, extend beyond the immediate scope of this study. However, we have included discussions on these directions as potential future work in our revised submission (**Appendix I.7, page 35**) to illustrate how our approach could be further expanded.\\n\\nIf you have any additional comments or suggestions, we would be happy to address them promptly. Thank you again for your valuable feedback and engagement with our work.\\n\\nSincerely,\\n\\nThe Authors\"}", "{\"title\": \"[Response to Weakness 3 & Question 1] Transferability & upper bound of GNN-Diff.\", \"comment\": \"**[Response to Weakness 3]** Transferibility and potential extension.\\n\\nThank you for bringing the transferability to our attention. We understand your concern as the transferability is indeed not in the scope of our work. Yet, we would like to emphasize that our method is designed for the scenario in which one would like to boost GNN performance for a specific task to achieve the top potential. If transferability is taken into account, it may lead to a sacrifice of accuracy. In addition, the current design of GNN-Diff shows strong ability to boost various GNN models across diverse tasks and datasets. Thus, we expect that, with some adjustments, it is possible for it to gain transferability. We plan to explore further generalizations of our approach in future work, which may involve the method proposed in [1]. We appreciate your insights, and we will take them into consideration for future improvements.\\n\\n[1] Diffusion-based Neural Network Weights Generation.\\n\\n**[Response to Question 1]** Clarification on the upper bound of GNN-Diff.\\n\\nThank you - this is a good question. The global upper bound of our method for a specific task or dataset is indeed hard to measure, but we would like to clarify two key points regarding the intention of our method.\\n\\nFirstly, our method is designed to be model-agnostic. The primary goal is to enhance the performance of any given GNN model, allowing it to reach its maximum potential. As such, the upper bound is not tied to any particular GNN but to how well our method can help fine-tune the performance of various models across different tasks and datasets.\\n\\nSecondly, it is important to note that different GNNs may be better suited for different types of tasks or datasets. Some models may excel in certain scenarios, but underperform in different contexts. So, a more expressive model may not necessarily exist for all graph tasks. Classic GNNs, such as GCN, may even serve as strong baselines as shown in [2]. Therefore, rather than focusing on determining which GNN is inherently the most powerful, our method aims to optimize the performance of the target GNN on a specific task, helping it achieve its best possible results.\\n\\n[2] Classic GNNs are Strong Baselines: Reassessing GNNs for Node Classification\"}", "{\"title\": \"Thank You Letter to Reviewer gdji\", \"comment\": \"Dear Reviewer,\\n\\nThank you for your engagement with our response and for the feedback you have provided throughout the review process. We sincerely appreciate the time and effort you have dedicated to evaluate our paper. While we feel deeply sorry to hear that you decrease the score, we are still very grateful for your support.\\n\\nIf there are any following questions or concerns, we would be happy to provide further clarifications. Thank you again for your time and acknowledgment on our efforts.\\n\\nSincerely,\\n\\nThe Authors\"}", "{\"title\": \"[Response to Weakness 3 & Question 1] Theoretical analysis & G-Encoder ablation study.\", \"comment\": \"**[Response to Weakness 3]** Theoretical analysis.\\n\\nThank you for the feedback. We acknowledge the importance of theoretical analysis in advancing understanding in many areas. However, as this work is designed as an empirical study, our primary focus is on demonstrating the practical effectiveness, stability, and generalizability of GNN-Diff across diverse tasks, models, and datasets. Given that hyperparameter tuning is a practical challenge in graph neural networks, our goal was to validate the utility of GNN-Diff through extensive experiments rather than theoretical derivations. We believe that this practical focus aligns with the study's objectives and provides meaningful insights for both research and application. Nonetheless, we appreciate your suggestion and will consider including theoretical perspectives in future work.\\n\\n**[Response to Question 1]** G-Encoder ablation study.\\n\\nThis is an excellent question which leads to a valuable suggestion. When designing the implementation code, we conducted comprehensive trials for the G-Encoder architecture and selected the current version as a generally promising default option for GNN-Diff. However, we recognize the importance of including such analyses in the paper to validate this choice. To address this, we have added **Appendix I.5**, which includes two analyses: \\n\\n- An ablation study on the components of the current G-Encoder;\\n\\n- Comparison of alternative graph convolutions beyond GCN and their integration with MLP as the G-Encoder. \\n\\nPlease refer to the revised paper for further details.\"}", "{\"title\": \"Thank you letter to Reviewer ti8E\", \"comment\": \"Thank you for your detailed review and for providing constructive feedback on our work. We appreciate your assessment and acknowledge the concerns raised. Your comments have helped us identify areas for improvement, and we have added more analyses on the graph condition to our paper accordingly. Below, we provide detailed responses to your comments. We hope these clarifications will address your concerns and please feel free to ask any further questions. If possible, we kindly hope that you could consider increasing to a more favourable rating, as your support will be very helpful with the acceptance of our work. Thank you again for your time and efforts.\"}", "{\"comment\": \"I would like to encourage the reviewers to engage with the author's replies if they have not already done so. At the very least, please\\nacknowledge that you have read the rebuttal.\"}", "{\"title\": \"Follow-up Letter from the Authors\", \"comment\": \"Dear Reviewer,\\n\\nThank you for your thoughtful and constructive feedback on our paper. We greatly appreciate the time and effort you have dedicated to reviewing our work and have carefully addressed your comments and suggestions.\\n\\nTo facilitate your review of our explanations and revisions, we have summarized our previous response below:\\n\\n- We have conducted 120 additional experiments to further strengthen the technical contributions of our work. These include **a detailed comparison of GNN-Diff with Bayesian optimization implemented using Optuna (Appendix I.4, page 32)**.\\n\\n- For other concerns, such as the underperformance of coarse search, we have provided clarifications to demonstrate how it reflects the effectiveness of GNN-Diff. However, further suggestions are always welcome if our current explanation does not meet your expectations.\\n\\nIf you have any further comments or suggestions, we would be happy to address them promptly. Thank you again for your valuable feedback and thoughtful engagement with our work.\\n\\nSincerely,\\n\\nThe Authors\"}", "{\"title\": \"Thank You for Valuable Further Suggestions\", \"comment\": \"Dear Reviewer,\\n\\nWe would like to extend our warmest thanks to you for taking the time to review our responses and for increasing our score. We deeply appreciate your constructive suggestions and insights, which will undoubtedly contribute to the further improvement of our work.\\n\\nWe are committed to addressing the concerns you have raised and will follow up with our detailed responses as soon as possible. We believe it won't take long and thanks in advance for your patience.\\n\\nBest regards,\\n\\nThe Authors\"}", "{\"title\": \"[Response to Weakness 1 & 2] Heterophilic datasets & clarifiacation of Table 5 results.\", \"comment\": \"**[Response to Weakness 1]** Heterophilic datasets.\\n\\nThank you for your valuable suggestion. We would like to clarify that 4 datasets proposed in [1] have been included in our experiments. Detailed results and analyses for these datasets are provided in **Appendix I.2**. We hope this addresses your concern, and we appreciate your attention to ensuring a robust evaluation of heterophilic cases in our study.\\n\\n**[Response to Weakness 2]** Clarification of Table 5 results.\\n\\nThis is a good point. However, we would like to clarify the main benefit of the graph condition: it provides significantly more stable generation quality while achieving comparably higher average accuracy. During our experiments, we observed that while the average accuracy of GNN-Diff is not always significantly better than p-diff, its standard deviation is consistently lower. This can be attributed to the following reasons:\\n\\n- Similar Parameter Distributions: GNN-Diff and p-diff are trained on the same set of samples, leading them to approximate similar parameter distributions when properly trained. As a result, their average accuracies are close, although GNN-Diff generally achieves better accuracy in most cases.\\n\\n- Guidance from the Graph Condition: The graph condition in GNN-Diff serves as guidance to regions of promising parameters within the overall distribution. This allows GNN-Diff to generate more centered and consistently high-performing parameters. The newly added analyses in **Appendix I.5** further support this hypothesis.\\n\\nThus, while the average accuracy of GNN-Diff may overlap with the variation seen in p-diff results, the primary advantage of the graph condition lies in producing dense, high-performing parameters. This contributes to the practical value of our method, especially in scenarios where reducing the impact of randomness is crucial.\"}" ] }

[ "Xuannan Liu", "Zekun Li", "Pei Pei Li", "Huaibo Huang", "Shuhan Xia", "Xing Cui", "Linzhi Huang", "Weihong Deng", "Zhaofeng He" ]

[ "multimodal misinformation detection", "large vision language models" ]

{ "note_id": [ "zU31Q84F5u", "yp5Suyy0Kj", "yCgXm9UqD0", "xHobmCToPs", "v55HVRCgVl", "smk2F6KXm0", "raMPkKGK1z", "q5tYAvkPJn", "nE07HkNhUH", "n7VO287AVT", "l9OTpHyA24", "jQJvxJdkrG", "aY3WtKTSl6", "a6y4fVp7Yl", "YOoZbpUUu8", "UujjeKqCRs", "UUHMPwXsQB", "TsGZz7kViW", "PU7Sr1UaTR", "OGchT47636", "MHfytFJ7di", "LRV5fBYwYt", "HSx9fFutqu", "Ga0GVhTPQ9", "GWRunHpBfV", "FfapzOntz4", "DoexRR4cNJ", "De9R3CM4ko", "8Oh7u3ftrK", "1XAitNgod6", "1JuEHK7JHR", "0ZQwZKfu9h" ], "note_type": [ "official_comment", "official_comment", "official_comment", "official_review", "official_comment", "official_comment", "official_comment", "official_review", "official_comment", "official_comment", "decision", "official_comment", "official_comment", "official_comment", "official_comment", "official_comment", "official_comment", "official_comment", "official_comment", "official_comment", "official_comment", "official_comment", "official_review", "official_comment", "official_comment", "official_comment", "official_comment", "official_comment", "official_review", "official_comment", "official_review", "meta_review" ], "note_created": [ 1732356409505, 1732357299410, 1732357005445, 1730627071493, 1732525891813, 1732356501088, 1733035796358, 1730017311815, 1732356964534, 1733119531425, 1737523775221, 1732355956612, 1732357133311, 1732355572706, 1732357366845, 1732632305472, 1732525944460, 1732356317698, 1732525980695, 1732357387039, 1732357161291, 1732356737115, 1730420937749, 1732356668225, 1732609604932, 1732355976838, 1732612081671, 1732356628151, 1730651961373, 1732357081944, 1730555438400, 1734593127768 ], "note_signatures": [ [ "ICLR.cc/2025/Conference/Submission6524/Authors" ], [ "ICLR.cc/2025/Conference/Submission6524/Authors" ], [ "ICLR.cc/2025/Conference/Submission6524/Authors" ], [ "ICLR.cc/2025/Conference/Submission6524/Reviewer_yehn" ], [ "ICLR.cc/2025/Conference/Submission6524/Authors" ], [ "ICLR.cc/2025/Conference/Submission6524/Authors" ], [ "ICLR.cc/2025/Conference/Submission6524/Reviewer_x4j6" ], [ "ICLR.cc/2025/Conference/Submission6524/Reviewer_RALP" ], [ "ICLR.cc/2025/Conference/Submission6524/Authors" ], [ "ICLR.cc/2025/Conference/Submission6524/Authors" ], [ "ICLR.cc/2025/Conference/Program_Chairs" ], [ "ICLR.cc/2025/Conference/Submission6524/Authors" ], [ "ICLR.cc/2025/Conference/Submission6524/Authors" ], [ "ICLR.cc/2025/Conference/Submission6524/Authors" ], [ "ICLR.cc/2025/Conference/Submission6524/Authors" ], [ "ICLR.cc/2025/Conference/Submission6524/Reviewer_jzRM" ], [ "ICLR.cc/2025/Conference/Submission6524/Authors" ], [ "ICLR.cc/2025/Conference/Submission6524/Authors" ], [ "ICLR.cc/2025/Conference/Submission6524/Authors" ], [ "ICLR.cc/2025/Conference/Submission6524/Authors" ], [ "ICLR.cc/2025/Conference/Submission6524/Authors" ], [ "ICLR.cc/2025/Conference/Submission6524/Authors" ], [ "ICLR.cc/2025/Conference/Submission6524/Reviewer_x4j6" ], [ "ICLR.cc/2025/Conference/Submission6524/Authors" ], [ "ICLR.cc/2025/Conference/Submission6524/Reviewer_RALP" ], [ "ICLR.cc/2025/Conference/Submission6524/Authors" ], [ "ICLR.cc/2025/Conference/Submission6524/Authors" ], [ "ICLR.cc/2025/Conference/Submission6524/Authors" ], [ "ICLR.cc/2025/Conference/Submission6524/Reviewer_jzRM" ], [ "ICLR.cc/2025/Conference/Submission6524/Authors" ], [ "ICLR.cc/2025/Conference/Submission6524/Reviewer_onkv" ], [ "ICLR.cc/2025/Conference/Submission6524/Area_Chair_8hJP" ] ], "structured_content_str": [ "{\"title\": \"response to reviewer yehn (2)\", \"comment\": \"> *Q4 What is the precise scope of this work? For example, does deepfake detection fall within its scope? If so, how does the work address multi-modal detection challenges, such as face reenactment or face swapping?\\n\\nThanks. We address your concerns concerning the precise scope of this work as follows:\\n\\n- **The scope of this work**. Our dataset is specifically designed as a **content-centric** multimodal misinformation benchmark. Its primary objective is to evaluate the veracity of visual and textual content, as well as the consistency between image and text modalities.\\n \\n- **The Characteristics of the Deepfake methods**. Deepfake detection methods primarily focus on identifying **content-agnostic artifact traces**, which is why this work **does not** **assign a specific forgery type exclusively for deepfakes**. In fact, our dataset includes examples of abnormal facial manipulations in PS-edited images and AI-generated scenarios featuring celebrities in fictional contexts. More visualized examples of visual veracity distortions can be found in **Appendix Fig. 15 of the updated paper**.\\n \\n- **Unique** mixed-source multimodal misinformation detection benchmark. There are a wealth of existing datasets [r11], [r12] and benchmarks [13] dedicated to deepfake scenarios. In contrast, our proposed multimodal misinformation benchmark addresses a significant gap in the field by focusing on mixed-source misinformation. If incorporating deepfake-related works is necessary, existing datasets can be utilized to supplement such requirements.\\n \\n\\n> *Q5 How do Vision-Language Models (VLMs), which incorporate both language and vision modules, perform within the proposed benchmark?\\n\\nThanks. We would like to clarify that VLMs perform within the proposed benchmark have already been included in the **Table 2 and** **Appendix Table 9 of the paper**. For convenience, we present the results in **Table r3**. The evaluated LVLMs in our paper, such as LLaVA, inherently integrate both visual and language modules, and thus can be considered a subset of VLM models. To ensure a more comprehensive evaluation, we also conducted experiments on VLM models that are not based on large-scale foundational models. Specifically, we perform experiments on the proposed benchmark on the HAMMER [r2] model, which utilizes a traditional dual-tower VLM architecture, ALBEF [r14]. HAMMER is initially trained on the DGM4 [r2] and we fine-tune it on the MMFakeBench validation set incrementally with 10, 100, and 1000 examples. We report the results on both the DGM4 dataset and the MMFakeBench test set. The results indicate that:\\n\\n(1) **Tuning-based models are hard to generalize to unseen forgery data.** For off-the-shelf dedicated detectors without fine-tuning, their performance on the proposed benchmark dataset is notably poor. With the rapid development of generative models, new forgery techniques and synthesized data continue to emerge. Models trained on limited samples face significant challenges in generalizing to unseen types of forgery data, highlighting a critical issue in the field of fake detection [r3], [r4], [r1].\\n\\n(2) **Catastrophic forgetting issues are inevitable.** Fine-tuning on new data improves performance on MMFakeBench but simultaneously leads to a decline in performance on the original dataset. This degradation underscores the phenomenon of catastrophic forgetting, where previously acquired knowledge, such as that from the DGM4 dataset, is progressively lost.\", \"table_r3\": \"Performance (F1 score \\u2191) on different models when under few-shot fine-tuning.\\n\\n| | DGM4 | MMFakeBench |\\n| --- | --- | --- |\\n| HAMMER before tuning | 83.2 | 44.1 |\\n| HAMMER after tuning on 10 | 78.7 | 46.8 |\\n| HAMMER after tuning on 100 | 70.1 | 60.8 |\\n| HAMMER after tuning on 1000 | 63.2 | 72.4 |\"}", "{\"title\": \"response to reviewer RALP (1)\", \"comment\": \"Thank you for your thoughtful and constructive feedback. We are encouraged that you find the proposed benchmark addresses a previously unexplored field of multimodal misinformation detection, which is aligned with the core contribution in this work. Here is our response to address your concerns.\\n\\n> W1 and Q1 Limited exploration of external knowledge sources: explore its impact on detection performance and possible solutions. External knowledge sources: Have you considered other external knowledge bases besides Wikipedia to enhance the detection of complex rumors?*\\n\\nThanks. We have incorporated additional experiments in **Table 3 (b) of the updated paper** and discussed analysis in **Section 5.3 (Ablation Study on Hierarchical Decomposition and Reasoning Knowledge) of the updated paper**. For convenience, we present the results in **Table r1**. Specifically,\\n\\n- Impact of external knowledge on detection performance. We conduct a comparative analysis of model performance with and without the integration of external knowledge sources (Wikipedia API). The detection performance (F1 score) of models without external knowledge exhibits a significant decrement in textual veracity distortion, decreasing from 37.6 to 18.0. This underscores **the critical role of external knowledge in validating textual veracity**.\\n \\n- Other external knowledge bases. To further evaluate the impact of alternative knowledge sources, we incorporated an additional resource: the Google Knowledge Graph API. The results also show that models **leveraging external knowledge outperform those relying solely on internal reasoning** for text checks, as the retrieved information provides essential context for assessing the veracity of claims.\\n \\n- Possible solutions. Developing robust, domain-specific external knowledge sources is essential. While general-purpose knowledge bases, such as those accessed via search engines like Wikipedia or Google, provide valuable context, their scope and depth are often limited when addressing the nuances of domain-specific misinformation. These limitations underscore the need for **curating more specialized knowledge repositories tailored to specific fields or applications**.\", \"table_r1\": \"Ablation studies on the retrival external knowledge.\\n\\n| | Real | TVD | VVD | CCD | Overall |\\n| --- | --- | --- | --- | --- | --- |\\n| With External Knowledge (Wikipedia) | 51.1 | **37.6** | 61.7 | 49.2 | 49.9 |\\n| Without External Knowledge | 49.7 | **18.0** | 61.0 | 46.3 | 43.8 |\\n| With External Knowledge (Google) | 50.2 | **33.4** | 62.2 | 48.1 | 48.5 |\\n\\n> W2 and Q2 Fine-tune LVLMs on a subset of MMFakeBench\\n\\nThanks. We have included the experimental results of fine-tuning LVLMs on a subset of MMFakeBench in **Appendix Table 9 (b) of the updated paper**. For convenience, we present the results in **Table r2**. Specifically, we selected existing powerful specialized detectors, FKA-Owl [r1] which integrates LVLMs with two learnable networks for fine-tuning. FKA-Owl is initially trained on the DGM4 [r2] and we fine-tune it on the MMFakeBench validation set incrementally with 10, 100, and 1000 examples. We reported the results on both the DGM4 dataset and the MMFakeBench test set. The results indicate that:\\n\\n- **Tuning-based models can be hard to generalize to unseen forgery data.** For off-the-shelf dedicated detectors without fine-tuning, their performance on the proposed benchmark dataset is notably poor. With the rapid development of generative models, new forgery techniques and synthesized data continue to emerge. Models trained on limited samples face significant challenges in generalizing to unseen types of forgery data, highlighting a critical issue in the field of fake detection [r3], [r4], [r1].\\n \\n- **Catastrophic forgetting issues are inevitable.** Fine-tuning on new data improves performance on MMFakeBench but simultaneously leads to a decline in performance on the original dataset. This degradation underscores the phenomenon of catastrophic forgetting, where previously acquired knowledge, such as that from the DGM4 dataset, is progressively lost.\", \"table_r2\": \"Performance (F1 score \\u2191) on different models when under few-shot fine-tuning.\\n\\n| | MMFakeBench | DGM4 |\\n| --- | --- | --- |\\n| FKA-Owl before fine-tuning | 44.6 | 78.5 |\\n| FKA-Owl after fine-tuning using 10 examples | 46.9 | 78.3 |\\n| FKA-Owl after fine-tuning using 100 examples | 61.1 | 66.4 |\\n| FKA-Owl after fine-tuning using 1000 examples | 76.2 | 64.8 |\"}", "{\"title\": \"response to reviewer x4j6 (2)\", \"comment\": \"> *Q2 This paper did not present a summary of mainstream methods for detecting multimodal misinformation and summarize the classifications of these methods\\uff1f*\\n\\nThanks. We have presented a summary of mainstream methods for detecting multimodal misinformation in **Section 2 of the updated paper**. Multimodal misinformation detection methods adhere to fuse cross-modal features to extract semantic representations, enabling robust identification of inconsistencies across modalities. Based on their model frameworks, these methods can be divided into two categories:\\n\\n- **Small-scale Attention-based Networks.** Early research primarily focus on designing attention-based networks [r12], [r13], [r14] with diverse learning strategies [r15], [r16] to effectively capture cross-modal interactions. For instance, Coattention network [r12], contextual attention network [r13] and improved Multi-gate Mixture-of-Expert networks (iMMoE) [r14] are proposed to better refine and fuse textual and visual features. Ambiguity learning [r15] and causal reasoning [r16] are separately introduced to address the issue of modal disagreement decisions and spurious correlation in data bias.\\n \\n- **Vision-Language Pretraining as Foundation Models.** With the advancements of large-scale vision-language pretraining (e.g., CLIP, ALIGN, and recent LVLMs), recent research [r9], [17], [18] has shifted towards leveraging these pre-trained architectures as foundational models for multimodal misinformation detection. These methods benefit from the broad world knowledge and robust cross-modal reasoning learned during pretraining.\\n \\n\\n> *Q3 The experimental analysis lacks depth; for example, it only addresses some performance limitations of LLaVA-1.6-34B and GPT (as mentioned in the Error Analysis), while other models are evaluated solely on their performance. I hope the authors can conduct a more thorough analysis of the experimental section and consider analyzing the shortcomings of larger models as well.*\\n\\nThanks. We have **included more error analyses in Section A.1.7 of the updated Appendix**. These case studies span four models of different scales (i.e., GPT-4V, LLaVA-1.6-34B, BLIP2-FLAN-T5-XXL, and VILA-13B) and on three distinct forgery sources of textual veracity distortions, visual veracity distortion and cross-modal consistency distortion. Based on these cases, we provide a deep analysis of the shortcomings of both largely and moderately sized models when encountering different sources of multimodal misinformation. Specifically,\\n\\n(1) textual veracity distortion:\\n\\n- **Reliance on external knowledge.** While Largly sized models like LLaVA-1.6-34B and GPT-4V exhibit strong reasoning capabilities, **they are challenging to infer the factual correctness of a statement without access to a broader context**. For instance, when faced with factually incorrect statements that appear linguistically accurate, such as the GPT-generated rumor, these four models may lack the capability to question the information without retrieving corroborative evidence.\\n\\n(2) Visual Veracity Distortion.\\n\\n- **Limited Sensitivity to Abnormal Physical Features**: Models including GPT-4V, LLaVA-1.6-34B, BLIP2-FLAN-T5-XXL, and VILA-13B, **face challenges in discerning abnormal physical characteristics**. For instance, in the PS-edited examples, these four models fail to detect subtle yet unrealistic manipulations, such as swollen necks or distorted facial features in images of Donald Trump. Instead, they are frequently distracted by more prominent visual elements, such as facial expressions or gestures, resulting in misjudgments when identifying these manipulations.\\n\\n(3) Cross-modal Consistency Distortion.\\n\\n- **Distraction by global consistent semantics.** When confronted with scenarios where images and text exhibit only subtle inconsistencies while other aspects remain largely consistent, large-scale models such as LLaVA-1.6-34B and GPT-4V often struggle to detect these discrepancies. **These models can be distracted by the dominant presence of consistent content**, which obscures the subtle mismatches critical for accurate misinformation detection. For instance, in the case of repurposed inconsistency, all four models focus on global semantics, such as a person delivering a speech, which divert attention from deeper, subtle inconsistencies in the scenario.\"}", "{\"summary\": \"This work proposes the first benchmark in mixed-source multimodal misinformation detection (MMD). The authors provide comprehensive evaluations and analysis under the proposed evaluation settings, providing a new baseline for future research.\", \"soundness\": \"3\", \"presentation\": \"3\", \"contribution\": \"3\", \"strengths\": \"1. It is important to create such a benchmark and baseline for the detection of multi-source fakes.\\n\\n2. The proposed three types based on the sources of falsified content are new to the field and technical sound.\\n\\n3. The designed MMD-Agent is well-designed and novel.\", \"weaknesses\": \"1. Lack of comparison with related detection methods: This work includes two detectors within the visual veracity distortion (VDD) field, both relying solely on visual modules for detection. Why not include comparisons with recent methods that integrate both visual and language modules, which are more directly relevant to this research?\\n\\n2. Insufficient comparison with deepfake detection methods: If \\\"misinformation\\\" encompasses any fake content, it would be beneficial for the authors to compare their method with established deepfake detectors. Given the high profile and potential danger of deepfakes, adding such comparisons would strengthen the paper\\u2019s impact and comprehensiveness.\\n\\n3. Lack of intuitive visualizations for the proposed method: It is recommended that the authors use visualization tools like GradCAM to provide clearer, more intuitive insights into their detection results. Additionally, the current t-SNE visualizations could be improved to more clearly convey their underlying meaning.\", \"questions\": \"1. What is the precise scope of this work? For example, does deepfake detection fall within its scope? If so, how does the work address multi-modal detection challenges, such as face reenactment or face swapping?\\n\\n2. How do Vision-Language Models (VLMs), which incorporate both language and vision modules, perform within the proposed benchmark?\\n\\nMore questions can be seen in the \\\"Weakness\\\" part.\", \"flag_for_ethics_review\": \"['Yes, Legal compliance (e.g., GDPR, copyright, terms of use)']\", \"details_of_ethics_concerns\": \"It appears that the authors directly use and collect real data from the original datasets. However, they do not specify whether they have obtained permission (or copyright) to distribute this real data or mention any measures in place to ensure its legal distribution.\", \"rating\": \"6\", \"confidence\": \"4\", \"code_of_conduct\": \"Yes\"}", "{\"title\": \"Looking forward to the response from Reviewer yehn\", \"comment\": \"Dear Reviewer yehn,\\n\\nWe have tried our best to address all the concerns and provided as much evidence as possible. May we know if our rebuttals answer all your questions? We truly appreciate it.\\n\\nBest regards,\\n\\nAuthor #6524\"}", "{\"title\": \"response to reviewer yehn (3)\", \"comment\": \"> Q6 It appears that the authors directly use and collect real data from the original datasets. However, they do not specify whether they have obtained permission (or copyright) to distribute this real data or mention any measures in place to ensure its legal distribution.\\n\\nThanks. The real dataset is constructed by sampling from Visual News [r15], MS-COCO [r16], and Fakeddit [r17]. We would like to clarify that we have proactively contacted the respective authors of the datasets to obtain explicit permission for their integration and potential distribution within our work. These communications are conducted via email to ensure proper documentation and full compliance with copyright and licensing requirements.\\n\\n[r1] Liu X, et al. FKA-Owl: Advancing Multimodal Fake News Detection through Knowledge-Augmented LVLMs. ACM MM, 2024.\\n\\n[r2] Shao R, et al. Detecting and Grounding Multi-Modal Media Manipulation. CVPR, 2023.\\n\\n[r3] Akhtar M, et al. MDFEND: Multi-domain Fake News Detection. CIKM, 2021.\\n\\n[r4] Ojha U, et al. Towards Universal Fake Image Detectors That Generalize Across Generative Models. CVPR, 2023.\\n\\n[r5] Ni Y, et al. CORE: COnsistent REpresentation Learning for Face Forgery Detection. CVPRW, 2022.\\n\\n[r6] Cao J, et al. End-to-End Reconstruction-Classification Learning for Face Forgery Detection. CVPR, 2022.\\n\\n[r7] Yan Z, et al. UCF: Uncovering Common Features for Generalizable Deepfake Detection. ICCV, 2023.\\n\\n[r8] Yao K, et al. Towards Understanding the Generalization of Deepfake Detectors from a Game-Theoretical View. ICCV, 2023.\\n\\n[r9] Lin L, et al. Preserving Fairness Generalization in Deepfake Detection. CVPR, 2024.\\n\\n[r10] Gabriela Ben Melech Stan, et al. LVLM-Interpret: An Interpretability Tool for Large Vision-Language Models. 2024.\\n\\n[r11] Rossler A, et al. Faceforensics++: Learning to detect manipulated facial images. CVPR, 2019.\\n\\n[r12] Li Y, et al. Celeb-df: A new dataset for deepfake forensics. CVPR, 2020.\\n\\n[r13] Yan Z, et al. DeepfakeBench: A Comprehensive Benchmark of Deepfake Detection. NeurIPS, 2023.\\n\\n[r14] Li J, et al. Align before Fuse: Vision and Language Representation Learning with Momentum Distillation. NeurIPS, 2021.\\n\\n[r15] Liu F, et al. Visual News: Benchmark and Challenges in News Image Captioning. EMNLP, 2021.\\n\\n[r16] Lin T, et al. Microsoft COCO: Common Objects in Context, 2015.\\n\\n[r17] Nakamura K, et al. r/Fakeddit: A New Multimodal Benchmark Dataset for Fine-grained Fake News Detection. LREC, 2020.\"}", "{\"title\": \"Keep my rating\", \"comment\": \"Thanks for your detailed response, which addresses partial concerns. I still keep my original rating. Thanks.\"}", "{\"summary\": \"This paper proposed MMFakeBench, a benchmark for multimodal disinformation detection from mixed sources. Unlike existing benchmarks focusing on single-source forgery, MMFakeBench approximates the real-world by encompassing three key sources: textual truthfulness distortions, visual truthfulness distortions, and cross-modal consistency distortions. complex disinformation. The benchmark contains 12 sub-categories of forgery types, totaling 3300 samples. The authors evaluate 6 current state-of-the-art detection methods and 15 LVLMs in a zero-shot setting, revealing the challenges faced by current methods in this mixed-source environment. To improve the detection accuracy, they propose MMD-Agent, which is based on the framework of LVLMs and divides the detection process into 2 phases, i.e., Hierarchical decomposition and Integration of internal and external knowledge.\", \"soundness\": \"3\", \"presentation\": \"4\", \"contribution\": \"3\", \"strengths\": \"1. Originality: The introduction of MMFakeBench addresses a previously unexplored field of multimodal false information detection, making it more representative of real-world scenarios.\\n\\n2. Quality: The benchmark is carefully constructed, covering 12 types of forgery under three main categories, providing a robust evaluation platform.\\n\\n3. Clarity: The structure of the paper is reasonable, and the categories included in the benchmark, the evaluation process, and the explanation of the proposed framework are clear and concise.\\n\\n4. Significance: By revealing the limitations of current detection methods and proposing new frameworks, the paper has the potential to drive future research and improvement in this field.\", \"weaknesses\": \"1. Limited exploration of external knowledge sources: The paper acknowledges that reliance on sources such as Wikipedia is a limitation but can further explore its impact on detection performance and possible solutions.\\n\\n2. Evaluation depth: Although the paper evaluated multiple models, it mainly focused on the zero-shot setting. If fine-tuning models or more ablation experiments are added, the experimental results may be more convincing.\\n\\n3. The handling of rumors generated by GPT: The paper points out the challenges of detecting rumors generated by GPT, but further analysis or solutions can be proposed. There is no analysis of why GPT-generated Rumor is closer to Natural Rumor, or in other words, why is GPT-generated Rumor about as difficult to detect as Natural Rumor? After all, Artificial Rumor is also written by humans, so it should be about the same difficulty as Natural Rumor, but the experimental result is that Natural Rumor is the easiest to detect.\\n\\n4. It is suggested to discuss and compare more related works such as [1] in this paper.\\n\\n[1] Detecting and Grounding Multi-Modal Media Manipulation and Beyond. TPAMI 2024.\", \"questions\": \"1. External knowledge sources: Have you considered other external knowledge bases besides Wikipedia to enhance the detection of complex rumors?\\n\\n2. Model tuning: Have you attempted to fine tune LVLMs on a subset of MMFakeBench to observe their performance improvement?\\n\\n3. Practical application: How does MMD Agent perform in real-time detection scenarios? What is its computational requirement?\\n\\n4. Scalability: Can your method be extended to other modalities, such as audio or video, to address more complex types of false information?\", \"flag_for_ethics_review\": \"['No ethics review needed.']\", \"details_of_ethics_concerns\": \"N/A\", \"rating\": \"8\", \"confidence\": \"5\", \"code_of_conduct\": \"Yes\"}", "{\"title\": \"response to reviewer x4j6 (1)\", \"comment\": \"We want to express our great thanks for your valuable suggestions and patience regarding our work. We have carefully addressed each of your comments and provided a point-by-point response below.\\n\\n> *Q1 This paper did not present the existing high-impact multimodal misinformation detection benchmarks or compare them to the proposed benchmark concerning the three critical sources.. Could the authors list some relevant multimodal misinformation benchmarks, multimodal misinformation benchmarks detection methods, and SOTA\\uff1f*\\n\\nThanks. We have compared existing misinformation datasets with proposed benchmarks in **Table 1 of the main paper**. Additionally, we have listed some detection methods and their performance concerning the three critical sources.\\n\\n**Textual Veracity Distortion**: We reference **Politifact** [r1] and **Gossipcop** [r1], two widely used datasets that primarily evaluate veracity of textual claims. We also list three corresponding methods UPFD [r2], DECOR [r3] and current SOTA CPNM [r4].\", \"table_r1\": \"Performance (F1 score \\u2191) of different models on textual veracity distortion dataset including Politifact and Gossipcop.\\n\\n| | UPFD | DECOR | CPNM |\\n| --- | --- | --- | --- |\\n| Politifact | 84.65 | 94.79 | 98.10 |\\n| Gossipcop | 97.22 | 90.31 | 97.30 |\\n\\n**Visual Veracity Distortion:** Existing methods in Synthetic Image Detection typically detect uni-modal images generated by various diffusinon models such as LDM [r5]. We also list three corresponding methods UnivFD [r6], RINE [r7] and current SOTA FatFormer [r8].\", \"table_r2\": \"Performance (ACC score \\u2191) of different models on images generated by latent diffusion models (LDM).\\n\\n| | UnivFD | RINE | FatFormer |\\n| --- | --- | --- | --- |\\n| LDM | 87.4 | 95.0 | 97.4 |\\n\\n**Cross-modal Consistency Distortion:** For multimodal misinformation that spans across modalities, existing methods focus on capturing cross-modal inconsistency. We consider the DGM4 dataset [r9], which manipulates on both images and text. Additionally, we list three corresponding methods HAMMER [r9], UFAormer [r10] and current SOTA EMSF [r11].\", \"table_r3\": \"Performance (AUC score \\u2191) of different models on HAMMER dataset.\\n\\n| | HAMMER | UFAFormer | EMSF |\\n| --- | --- | --- | --- |\\n| DGM4 | 93.19 | 93.81 | 95.11 |\\n\\nBased on the relevant benchmarks mentioned above, the key distinctions are summarized as follows:\\n\\n- **Mixed-source multimodal misinformation.** Existing datasets primarily focus on single-source misinformation including text-based rumors (e.g., Politifact [r1] and Gossipcop [r1]) or cross-modal inconsistencies (e.g., DGM4 [r9]). While useful for addressing specific tasks, these datasets can not handle the mixed-source scenarios, which are prevalent in real-world settings. To bridge this gap, our proposed benchmark integrates three primary forgery categories: textual veracity distortion, visual veracity distortion, and cross-modal consistency distortion, encompassing 12 subcategories of forgery types.\\n \\n- **Integration of text-image rumors.** Textual veracity distortion datasets (e.g., Politifact [r1] and Gossipcop [r1]), typically focus exclusively on text-based rumors. In contrast, our dataset incorporates text-image rumors using highly relevant real or AI-generated images to simulate real-world scenarios.\\n \\n- **Advanced generative models.** Current datasets often overlook the evolving threat posed by advanced generative models. Our dataset construction actively employs a diverse range of generative models and AI tools to create sophisticated forgeries.\\n \\n\\nWe would like to inquire whether the dataset and detection methods we have provided align with your specific requirements. If not, we would greatly appreciate any concrete examples you could share to better illustrate your needs.\"}", "{\"title\": \"Thanks for the time and efforts invested by all reviewers and AC\", \"comment\": \"Dear AC and Reviewers,\\n\\nFirstly, we wish to express our profound gratitude for your time, effort, and insightful feedback on our manuscript. We deeply appreciate the recognition our work has received: Reviewer jzRM and Reviewer RALP emphasize the novelty of our proposed benchmark, Reviewer yehn acknowledges its significant contribution, Reviewer onkv highlights the comprehensive types covered by our benchmark and Reviewer x4j6 praises the state-of-the-art performance by the proposed method.\\n\\nThroughout the review process, several concerns are raised, primarily related to technical details, enhanced result presentation, and the necessity for additional ablations and comparisons. We have addressed most of these concerns during the rebuttal stages.\\n\\nThe reviewer onkv raises **concerns regarding the novelty of our work**, to which we have responded with detailed clarifications, but unfortunately, we have not received further feedback. To address this, we would like to highlight two points here. Firstly, our work addresses the **real-world critical yet underexplored issue** of the con-existence of multiple forgery sources. These mixed-source scenarios necessitate detection methods capable of generalizing **beyond single-source constraints**, which **existing datasets and detectors fail to support**. Secondly, **we emphasize the importance and comprehensiveness of our dataset**. Our MMFakeBench is the **first** benchmark explicitly designed for **evaluating mixed-source multimodal misinformation**, encompassing three primary forgery categories and twelve subcategories of forgery types.\\n\\nWe believe that this mixed-source multimodal misinformation benchmark proposed in our paper are of significant value to this field, marking a significant step toward addressing misinformation in practical applications.\\n\\nWe sincerely appreciate the time and efforts invested by all reviewers and AC in evaluating our work.\\n\\nBest regards,\\n\\nAuthors of paper submission 6524\"}", "{\"title\": \"Paper Decision\", \"decision\": \"Accept (Poster)\"}", "{\"title\": \"response to reviewer jzRM (1)\", \"comment\": \"Thank you for your thoughtful and constructive feedback. We are encouraged that you find our proposed dataset is unique compared to existing datasets and provide thorough experimental results for evaluating LVLMs. Below are our responses to your concerns.\\n\\n> *Q1 Currently the dataset size seems somewhat low when comparing it to other datasets mentioned in the paper. However I do recognize that this is specifically meant to be an evaluation dataset.*\\n\\nThanks. We sincerely appreciate your acknowledgment that our dataset has been specifically designed as an evaluation benchmark. As an evaluation dataset, MMFakeBench is **comparable in scale to other LVLM-based evaluation datasets** (such as a representative dataset MMMU [r1] with 11,500 samples) and is well-suited for assessing model performance. Although its size is not exceptionally large, we have meticulously designed the dataset to **ensure comprehensive diversity**, encompassing a wide range of multimodal misinformation types. This diversity is achieved by identifying three critical sources of multimodal misinformation and incorporating twelve distinct forgery types, each driven by varying intents, themes, and tools. For each forgery type, we carefully examine and incorporate different generative techniques to simulate real-world misinformation scenarios. The result is a comprehensive and challenging dataset that serves as a valuable resource for advancing research in the critical field of multimodal misinformation detection.\"}", "{\"title\": \"response to reviewer x4j6 (4)\", \"comment\": [\"> *Q7 Whether the accuracy of all GPT-generated rumors has been manually verified is necessary.*\", \"Thanks. We would like to clarify that GPT-generated rumors included in our dataset have undergone manual verification to ensure their accuracy. The verification process was designed with two primary objectives:\", \"**Ensuring the presence of false statements.** To guarantee that the generated rumors indeed contain statements that contradict objective facts, we employ 10 experienced annotators which can utilize online tools such as web searches and fact-checking platforms. For each rumor, the annotators cast their votes on its veracity, and only examples with a majority consensus indicating false information is included in the final dataset.\", \"**Reducting social harm.** The annotators are also tasked with meticulously reviewing the generated rumors to identify and exclude high-risk texts, such as those involving sensitive topics such as politics and race. This process was essential to ensure the safety, ethical integrity, and responsible use of the final dataset.\", \"> *Q8 Has the impact of dataset imbalance (between real and fake, as well as imbalances among different subclasses) been validated? This makes it difficult to reuse the dataset.*\", \"Thanks. Since our benchmark is designed to support a multi-class evaluation, we ensured a balanced distribution of data across the different forgery sources and forgery sub-methods, as illustrated in **Fig. 2 of the main paper**. Specifically, we **proportionally distribute the data across the four sources based on the number of forgery subtypes**. Specifically, the dataset comprises 30% real data, 30% textual veracity distortion with five forgery subtypes, 10% visual veracity distortion with two forgery subtypes, and 30% cross-modal consistency distortion with five forgery subtypes.\", \"Specifically, the dataset composition is as follows:\", \"**Balance between six data sources to constitute real data:** The real dataset is constructed by equally sampling from six corresponding data sources, including The Guardian, BBC, USA TODAY, The Washington Post, MS-COCO, and Fakeddit.\", \"**Balance between three types of textual rumors to constitute textual veracity distortion:** This category comprises three key types of textual rumors: natural rumor, artificial rumor and GPT-generated rumor, paired with two types of supporting images. To ensure balance, equal proportions of samples are allocated among the three textual rumor types.\", \"**Balance between two visual forgery subtypes to constitute visual veracity distortion**: This category includes two types of forgery subtypes: PS-edited and AI-generated images. The dataset was evenly split between these two types to maintain a balanced representation of visual distortions.\", \"**Balance between two types of cross-modal inconsistency to constitute cross-modal consistency distortion**: This category encompasses two primary inconsistency types: repurposed inconsistency and edited inconsistency. To maintain balance, the dataset is evenly distributed between repurposed and edited inconsistencies. Additionally, repurposed inconsistency encompasses three query-based subtypes in balance.\", \"> *Q9 The authors should provide further analysis of the experimental results in Figure 5, comparing their performance differences to better illustrate the distinctions between different categories(Natural Rumor, Artificial Rumor and GPT-generated Rumor).*\", \"Thanks. **We have expanded our analysis in Section 5.3 (Analysis of Misinformation Sources and Types) of the updated paper**. The key analyses are summarized as follows:\", \"**Rule-based nature of artificial rumors**. Artificial rumors are constructed by manually applying specific rules (such as sentence negation and key entity substitution) to modify Wikipedia sentences. Larger models like LLaVA-1.6-34B and GPT-4V perform relatively well on artificial rumors. This can be attributed to the fact that these rule-based patterns provide identifiable points of falsification, enabling verification through external knowledge sources, such as authoritative databases.\", \"**Challenging nature of natural and GPT-generated rumors**. Natural rumors often originate from real-world news websites and social media while GPT-Generated Rumors contain deceptive styles [r19] in domains, intentions and errors. These rumors leverage ambiguous language or vague claims that make detection particularly challenging, as they lack the structured inconsistencies seen in artificial rumors. Due to limited reasoning capabilities, open-source models even LLaVA-1.6-34B, are challenging to perform contextual reasoning to establish logical relationships and assess situational plausibility.\"]}", "{\"title\": \"general response to reviewers\", \"comment\": [\"Dear reviewers,\", \"We would like to express our sincere gratitude for your invaluable suggestions and patience regarding our work. We appreciate the recognition of key contributions in this work by (reviewers jzRM, yehn, x4j6, and RALP): addressing the real-world critical yet underexplored issue of the con-existence of multiple forgery sources, and proposes the first benchmark explicitly designed for evaluating mixed-source multimodal misinformation.\", \"We have been dedicated to enhancing our paper based on your feedback. We have improved our paper in the following aspects:\", \"Updated Experiments:\", \"Conducting ablation experiments on external knowledge sources.\", \"Fine-tuning vision-language detectors on the proposed dataset.\", \"Revisions Based on Feedback: We have made thoughtful revisions in line with your suggestions, corrections in citations, references, experimental analysis, etc.\", \"Enhanced Result Presentation:\", \"Providing more error analysis.\", \"Providing interpretable visualization of the model's decision-making process.\", \"Improved TSNE visualization.\", \"Providing more visualization examples within the dataset.\", \"**All revision text is marked with blue.** We believe these revisions significantly strengthen our paper and hope they adequately address your concerns and suggestions. We look forward to your further feedback and thank you once again for your valuable contributions to our work.\", \"Best regards,\", \"Authors of paper submission 6524\"]}", "{\"title\": \"response to reviewer RALP (2)\", \"comment\": \"> W3 The handling of rumors generated by GPT: The paper points out the challenges of detecting rumors generated by GPT, but further analysis or solutions can be proposed. There is no analysis of why GPT-generated Rumor is closer to Natural Rumor, or in other words, why is GPT-generated Rumor about as difficult to detect as Natural Rumor? After all, Artificial Rumor is also written by humans, so it should be about the same difficulty as Natural Rumor, but the experimental result is that Natural Rumor is the easiest to detect.\\n\\nThanks. We have expanded our analysis in **Section 5.3 (Analysis of Misinformation Sources and Types) of the updated paper**. The key analyses are summarized as follows:\\n\\n- **Rule-based nature of artificial rumors**. Artificial rumors are constructed by manually applying specific rules (such as sentence negation and key entity substitution) to modify Wikipedia sentences. Larger models like LLaVA-1.6-34B and GPT-4V perform relatively well on artificial rumors. This can be attributed to the fact that these rule-based patterns provide identifiable points of falsification, enabling verification through external knowledge sources, such as authoritative databases.\\n \\n- **Challenging nature of natural and GPT-generated rumors**. Natural rumors often originate from real-world news websites and social media while GPT-generated rumors contain human-like content with deceptive styles [r5] in domains, intentions and errors. These rumors leverage ambiguous language or vague claims that make detection particularly challenging, as they lack the structured inconsistencies seen in artificial rumors. Due to limited reasoning capabilities, open-source models even LLaVA-1.6-34B, are challenging to perform contextual reasoning to establish logical relationships and assess situational plausibility.\\n \\n\\n> W4 It is suggested to discuss and compare more related works such as [1] in this paper.\\n\\nThanks. We will include [Rui Shao, et al, Detecting and Grounding Multi-Modal Media Manipulation and Beyond] and any other relevant methods that may have been overlooked in the **Section 2 of the updated paper**. Specifically, recent research including [Detecting and Grounding Multi-Modal Media Manipulation and Beyond, TPAMI 2024], [SNIFFER: Multimodal Large Language Model for Explainable Out-of-Context Misinformation Detection. CVPR, 2024.], [FKA-Owl: Advancing Multimodal Fake News Detection through Knowledge-Augmented LVLMs. ACM MM 2024], has leveraged these pre-trained vision-language models which benefit from large-scale pre-training for reasoning context cues.\\n\\n> Q3 Practical application: How does MMD Agent perform in real-time detection scenarios? What is its computational requirement?\\n\\nThanks. We would like to clarify that a discussion on the computational requirement of MMD-Agent has been included in **Appendix Section A.1.5 of the paper**. For convenience, the corresponding results are presented in **Table r4**. Specifically, we compare the inference time and computational resource usage of MMD-Agent with standard prompting methods. The detailed analysis are summarized as follows:\\n\\n- MMD-Agent introduces higher inference time compared to standard prompt methods, primarily due to the additional reasoning steps, such as extracting key entities from the text.\\n \\n- MMD-Agent does not lead to additional GPU memory consumption. This is because the Agent method does not affect the model parameter deployment and dataset storage.\\n \\n\\nWhile the increased inference time is a consideration, **the substantial gains brought by the MMD-Agent should not be overlooked**:\\n\\n- **Significant performance gain.** The MMD-Agent method greatly enhances the multimodal misinformation detection performance, with F1 score improving from 25.7 to 49.9.\\n \\n- **Excellent interpretability.** The MMD-Agent method offers stronger interpretability since MMD-Agent offers a detailed analysis of the misinformation rather than only providing classification labels as used in standard prompt methods. Specifically, as shown in Fig.3 of the main paper, the content of the intermediate rationales such as Thought 2, Thought 3, and Thought 4 accurately analyzes the specific reasons for misinformation from different sources.\", \"table_r4\": \"Computational requirement of different methods on LLaVA-1.6-34B.\\n\\n| | Standard Prompting | MMD-Agent |\\n| --- | --- | --- |\\n| Average Inference Time (s) \\u2193 | 5.97s | 49.04s |\\n| Memory (GB)\\u00a0\\u2193 | 82G | 82G |\\n| Performance (F1 score) \\u2191 | 25.7 | 49.9 |\"}", "{\"comment\": \"Thank you for your detailed response! I thought this work was quite interesting to read and is an important field of study considering the wide utilization of LVLM's for varying tasks and it is interesting to see how they work in this setting. Most of my concerns are met I recommend acceptance . Good luck in the review process!\"}", "{\"title\": \"Looking forward to the response from Reviewer onkv\", \"comment\": \"Dear Reviewer onkv,\\n\\nWe have tried our best to address all the concerns and provided as much evidence as possible. May we know if our rebuttals answer all your questions? We truly appreciate it.\\n\\nBest regards,\\n\\nAuthor #6524\"}", "{\"title\": \"response to reviewer yehn (1)\", \"comment\": \"Thanks for the thorough review and constructive feedback on our paper. We appreciate the recognition of the importance of the MMFakeBench benchmark, particularly serving as a baseline for the detection of multiple-source fakes. Below, we address the specific concerns raised in the review:\\n\\n> *Q1 Lack of comparison with related detection methods: Why not include comparisons with recent methods that integrate both visual and language modules.*\\n\\nThanks. We would like to clarify that the comparisons with methods integrating both visual and language models have already been included in the **Table 3 of the main paper**. For convenience, we present the required results **in Table r1**. These multimodal method evaluation specifically examines the performance of FakeNewsGPT4 [r1] and HAMMER [r2]. The results show that the LLaVA-1.6-34B model performs better than single-source detectors for both binary and multiclass classification by a large margin. This performance gap highlights a critical challenge in specialized detectors: tuning-based models often struggle to generalize to unseen forgery methods and data, which serve as a critical issue in fake detection [r3], [r4], [r1]. These findings highlight that LVLMs can serve as potential general detectors in achieving robust detection of multimodal misinformation.\", \"table_r1\": \"Performance (F1 score \\u2191) comparison of selected models on the proposed dataset.\\n\\n| | F1 (Binary) | F1 (Multiclass) |\\n| --- | --- | --- |\\n| FakeNewsGPT4 | 41.7 | / |\\n| HAMMER | 43.0 | / |\\n| LLaVA-1.6-34B | 67.2 | 49.9 |\\n\\n> *Q2 Insufficient comparison with deepfake detection methods*\\n\\nThanks. As suggested, we conduct experiments using three representative deepfake detection methods, including **Core** [r5], **RECCE** [r6], and **UCF** [r7], on our proposed dataset. The results are summarized in **Table r2. These methods, while performing well on existing deepfake datasets, showed significantly reduced generalization capabilities when applied to our dataset. We attribute this observation to the following factors:\\n\\n- **Mixed-source Nature of Our Dataset**. Unlike traditional deepfake datasets, which primarily focus on image-based forgeries, our dataset introduces forgeries across multiple modalities, including textual veracity, visual veracity, and cross-modal consistency. For instance, a given sample may involve false textual claims paired with real images or repurposed inconsistencies between the real text and real image. This mixed-source complexity poses additional challenges that single-modal deepfake detection methods are not designed to address.\\n \\n- **Challenging Generalization.** Deepfake detection methods often perform well on datasets and forgery techniques they have been trained on. However, their generalization capability remains challenging to unseen, AI-generated content [r8], [r9], particularly when datasets are diverse and forgery methods are novel or underexplored. Our dataset includes samples generated using a wide range of advanced generative techniques, which represent more complex and diverse scenarios than conventional deepfake datasets, further exposing the limitations of existing methods.\", \"table_r2\": \"Performance (F1 score \\u2191) of deepfake detection methods on the proposed benchmark dataset.\\n\\n| | F1 (Binary) | F1 (Multiclass) |\\n| --- | --- | --- |\\n| Core | 44.5 | / |\\n| RECCE | 46.9 | / |\\n| UCF | 44.9 | / |\\n| LLaVA-1.6-34B | 67.2 | 49.9 |\\n\\n> *Q3 Lack of intuitive visualizations for the proposed method. Additionally, the current t-SNE visualizations could be improved to more clearly convey their underlying meaning.\\n\\nThanks. We have included LVLM inpretation results of the proposed method in **Appendix Fig. 9 of the updated paper** and improved t-SNE visualizations in **Appendix Fig. 10 of the updated paper**.\\n\\n- **Interpretation Results.** We have incorporated the recent LVLM-interpret [r10] as a visualization tool to provide a more transparent understanding of the model's decision-making process. This method adapts the calculation of relevancy maps to LVLM, thus providing a detailed representation of the regions of the image most relevant to each generated token. Specifically, as shown in **Appendix Fig. 10 (e) of the updated paper** for cross-modal consistency distortion, the relevancy map focuses on the clapping action of the characters in the image. Clapping typically signifies recognition or approval of an event, conveying semantics that differ from the meaning of the associated text. This observation aligns with the model's detection output, providing intuitive explanations for the identified inconsistency.\\n \\n- **Improved t-SNE Visualizations.** We include color-coded annotations that correspond to specific forgery sources, making it easier to interpret the distribution of samples. The revised visualizations better illustrate that each distinct source is distinctly dispersed across the feature space, revealing the diversity of our proposed dataset.\"}", "{\"title\": \"Looking forward to the response from Reviewer x4j6\", \"comment\": \"Dear Reviewer x4j6,\\n\\nWe have tried our best to address all the concerns and provided as much evidence as possible. May we know if our rebuttals answer all your questions? We truly appreciate it.\\n\\nBest regards,\\n\\nAuthor #6524\"}", "{\"title\": \"response to reviewer RALP (3)\", \"comment\": \"> Q4 Can your method be extended to other modalities, such as audio or video, to address more complex types of false information?\\n\\nThanks. Our current benchmark focuses on image and text modalities. However, as you insightly suggested, audio and video play crucial roles in real-world misinformation dissemination. **We plan to explore incorporating audio and video data samples in future work to expand our benchmark**, making the task more reflective of real-world scenarios. Additionally, with the advancement of multimodal generative models such as ChatGPT and EMU3 [r6], these models have demonstrated the ability to simultaneously process multiple data modalities. Our method can **make it well-suited for integration with emerging multimodal generative models** to address complex misinformation scenarios that involve multimodal data.\\n\\n[r1] Liu X, et al. FKA-Owl: Advancing Multimodal Fake News Detection through Knowledge-Augmented LVLMs. ACM MM, 2024.\\n\\n[r2] Shao R, et al. Detecting and Grounding Multi-Modal Media Manipulation. CVPR, 2023.\\n\\n[r3] Akhtar M, et al. MDFEND: Multi-domain Fake News Detection. CIKM, 2021.\\n\\n[r4] Ojha U, et al. Towards Universal Fake Image Detectors That Generalize Across Generative Models. CVPR, 2023.\\n\\n[r5] Chen C, et al. Can LLM-Generated Misinformation Be Detected?. ICLR, 2024.\\n\\n[r6] Wang X, et al. Emu3: Next-Token Prediction is All You Need. 2024.\"}", "{\"title\": \"response to reviewer x4j6 (5)\", \"comment\": \"> *Q10 I believe that mixing human-generated and LLM-generated misinformation is very meaningful; however, other datasets, such as Twitter and GossipCop, also contain three critical categories. How are the limitations of the different datasets in Table 1 assessed?*\\n\\nThanks. We would like to clarify that **Table 1 in our paper** explicitly annotates the number of rumor types present in different datasets. Existing datasets are limited by their focus on a single type of textual rumor. In Table r6, We also show the specific types of rumors in the relevant datasets. Specifically, the **FEVER dataset exclusively contains artificial rumors** generated through manual modification of Wikipedia sentences. The **Politifact and Gossipcop datasets include only natural rumors**, derived from political and gossip news. The **LLMFake dataset is specifically designed to address misinformation generated by LLMs**.\\n\\nIn contrast, our proposed dataset **encompasses three distinct types of textual veracity distortions**\\u2014artificial, natural and LLM-generated misinformation\\u2014providing a more comprehensive framework for evaluation and analysis.\", \"table_r6\": \"Rumor types are incorporated in existing datasets.\\n\\n| Dataset | Artificial Rumor | Natural Rumor | GPT-generated Rumor |\\n| --- | --- | --- | --- |\\n| FEVER | \\u221a | \\u00d7 | \\u00d7 |\\n| Politifact | \\u00d7 | \\u221a | \\u00d7 |\\n| Gossipcop | \\u00d7 | \\u221a | \\u00d7 |\\n| Snopes | \\u00d7 | \\u221a | \\u00d7 |\\n| MOEHEG | \\u00d7 | \\u221a | \\u00d7 |\\n| LLMFake | \\u00d7 | \\u00d7 | \\u221a |\\n| MMFakeBench | \\u221a | \\u221a | \\u221a |\\n\\n[r1] Shu K, et al. FakeNewsNet: A Data Repository with News Content, Social Context, and Spatiotemporal Information for Studying Fake News on Social Media. Big Data, 2020.\\n\\n[r2] Dou Y, et al. User Preference-aware Fake News Detection. SIGIR, 2021.\\n\\n[r3] Wu J, et al. DECOR: Degree-Corrected Social Graph Refinement for Fake News Detection. KDD, 2023.\\n\\n[r4] Donabauer G, et al. Challenges in Pre-Training Graph Neural Networks for Context-Based Fake News Detection: An Evaluation of Current Strategies and Resource Limitations. COLING, 2024.\\n\\n[r5] Rombach R, et al. High-Resolution Image Synthesis With Latent Diffusion Models. CVPR, 2022.\\n\\n[r6] Ojha U, et al. Towards Universal Fake Image Detectors That Generalize Across Generative Models. CVPR, 2023.\\n\\n[r7] Koutlis C, et al. Leveraging Representations from\\u00a0Intermediate Encoder-Blocks for\\u00a0Synthetic Image Detection. ECCV, 2024.\\n\\n[r8] Liu H, et al. Forgery-aware Adaptive Transformer for Generalizable Synthetic Image Detection. CVPR, 2024.\\n\\n[r9] Shao R, et al. Detecting and Grounding Multi-Modal Media Manipulation. CVPR, 2023.\\n\\n[r10] R, et al. Unified Frequency-Assisted Transformer Framework for Detecting and Grounding Multi-modal Manipulation. IJCV, 2024.\\n\\n[r11] Wang J, et al. Exploiting Modality-Specific Features for Multi-Modal Manipulation Detection and Grounding. ICASSP, 2024.\\n\\n[r12] Wu Y, et al. Multimodal fusion with co-attention networks for fake news detection. ACL Findings, 2021.\\n\\n[r13] Qian S, et al. Hierarchical multi-modal contextual attention network for fake news\\n\\ndetection. SIGIR, 2021.\\n\\n[r14] Qian S, et al. Bootstrapping Multi-view Representations for Fake News Detection. AAAI, 2023.\\n\\n[r15] Chen Y, et al. Cross-modal ambiguity learning for multimodal fake news detection. WWW, 2022.\\n\\n[r16] Chen Z, et al. Causal intervention and counterfactual reasoning for multi-modal fake news detection. ACL, 2023.\\n\\n[r17] Liu, X, et al. FKA-Owl: Advancing Multimodal Fake News Detection through Knowledge-Augmented LVLMs. ACM MM, 2024.\\n\\n[r18] Qi P, et al. SNIFFER: Multimodal Large Language Model for Explainable Out-of-Context Misinformation Detection. CVPR, 2024.\\n\\n[r19] Chen C, et al. Can LLM-Generated Misinformation Be Detected?. ICLR, 2024.\"}", "{\"title\": \"response to reviewer onkv (3)\", \"comment\": \"> Q4 *For detecting outputs from generative models, a CNN often achieves better detection performance than an LVLM. Consider including performance results using foundation models paired with a fine-tuned network.*\\n\\nThanks. We have included the experimental results of training foundation models paired with a fine-tuned network in **Appendix Table 9 (b) of the updated paper**. For convenience, we present the results in **Table r2**. Specifically, we selected existing powerful specialized detectors, FKA-Owl [r5] which integrates LVLMs with two learnable networks for fine-tuning. FKA-Owl is initially trained on the DGM4 [r1] and we fine-tune it on the MMFakeBench validation set incrementally with 10, 100, and 1000 examples. We report the results on both the DGM4 dataset and MMFakeBench test set. The results indicate that:\\n\\n(1) **Tuning-based model can be hard to generalize to unseen forgery data.** For off-the-shelf dedicated detectors without fine-tuning, their performance on the proposed benchmark dataset is notably poor. With the rapid development of generative models, new forgery techniques and synthesized data continue to emerge. Models trained on limited samples face significant challenges in generalizing to unseen types of forgery data, highlighting a critical issue in the field of fake detection [r10], [r11], [r5].\\n\\n(2) **Catastrophic forgetting issues are inevitable.** Fine-tuning on new data improves performance on MMFakeBench but simultaneously leads to a decline in performance on the original dataset. This degradation underscores the phenomenon of catastrophic forgetting, where previously acquired knowledge, such as that from the DGM4 dataset, is progressively lost.\", \"table_r2\": \"Performance (F1 score \\u2191) on different models when under few-shot fine-tuning.\\n\\n| | MMFakeBench | DGM4 |\\n| --- | --- | --- |\\n| FKA-Owl before fine-tuning | 44.6 | 78.5 |\\n| FKA-Owl after fine-tuning using 10 examples | 46.9 | 78.3 |\\n| FKA-Owl after fine-tuning using 100 examples | 61.1 | 66.4 |\\n| FKA-Owl after fine-tuning using 1000 examples | 76.2 | 64.8 |\\n\\n> *Q5 Some details in Table 1 are unclear. For instance, why do MEIR and DGM4, which involve text editing, lack Textual Veracity Distortion? Edited texts are essentially a type of rumour.*\\n\\nThanks. We would like to clarify that edited texts may sometimes contribute to rumors. **This depends on the intent behind the editing and whether the edited content has undergone verification**. Specifically, in the MEIR and DGM4 datasets, text editing is primarily designed to generate text-image inconsistencies rather than to create fact-conflicting content. Moreover, these edits are not subjected to fact-check verification by annotators. To provide greater clarity, we provide three examples from the DGM4 in Table r3 to illustrate situations where original and edited texts do not constitute a rumor. By judging the edited text in these examples, there is lack of sufficient evidence to debunk them.\\n\\nAdditionally, recognizing that edited texts in MEIR and DGM4 could potentially produce rumor, **we have included circle-cross annotations in Table 1 of the updated paper** to clearly indicate datasets that unintentionally introduce unverified misinformation.\", \"table_r3\": \"Examples of edited texts in DGM4 which do not bring misinformation.\\n\\n| Original Text | Edited Text |\\n| --- | --- |\\n| Many thousands of people **celebrate** the change on Monday. | Several thousand people **protested against** the change on Monday. |\\n| Phone boxes in three villages have been **blocked** by their communitie. | Phone boxes in three villages have been **revamped** by their communities. |\\n| Clinton of the Sanders campaign **praised** about me. | Clinton **so sick** of the Sanders campaign **lying** about me. |\\n\\n[r1] Shao R, et al. Detecting and Grounding Multi-Modal Media Manipulation. CVPR, 2023.\\n\\n[r2] Long L, et al. On LLMs-Driven Synthetic Data Generation, Curation, and Evaluation: A Survey. 2024.\\n\\n[r3] Zeng F, et al. Multimodal Misinformation Detection by Learning from Synthetic Data with Multimodal LLMs. EMNLP Findings, 2024.\\n\\n[r4] Qi P, et al. SNIFFER: Multimodal Large Language Model for Explainable Out-of-Context Misinformation Detection. CVPR, 2024.\\n\\n[r5] Liu X, et al. FKA-Owl: Advancing Multimodal Fake News Detection through Knowledge-Augmented LVLMs. ACM MM, 2024.\\n\\n[r6] Luo G, et al. NewsCLIPpings: Automatic Generation of Out-of-Context Multimodal Media. EMNLP, 2021.\\n\\n[r7] Yue X, et al. MMMU: A Massive Multi-discipline Multimodal Understanding and Reasoning Benchmark for Expert AGI. CVPR, 2024.\\n\\n[r8] Liu X, et al. MM-SafetyBench: A Benchmark for\\u00a0Safety Evaluation of\\u00a0Multimodal Large Language Models. ECCV, 2024.\\n\\n[r9] Liu Y, et al. OCRBench: On the Hidden Mystery of OCR in Large Multimodal Models. 2024.\\n\\n[r10] Akhtar M, et al. MDFEND: Multi-domain Fake News Detection. CIKM, 2021.\\n\\n[r11] Ojha U, et al. Towards Universal Fake Image Detectors That Generalize Across Generative Models. CVPR, 2023.\"}", "{\"summary\": \"This paper proposed a new benchmark of multimodal misinformation detection, and the authors constructed a multimodal misinformation data generation pipeline by integrating characteristics from previous multimodal misinformation benchmarks. Additionally, the authors proposed a novel framework named MMd-Agent, which decomposes the multimodal misinformation detection task into three sub-tasks based on the three critical sources (textual veracity distortion,visual veracity distortion, and cross-modal consistency distortion) identified in this paper and processes them in a step-by-step manner, this method finally achieved good results.\", \"soundness\": \"3\", \"presentation\": \"3\", \"contribution\": \"3\", \"strengths\": \"1.\\tFrom a mixed-source perspective, this paper proposes a new benchmark for multimodal misinformation detection, addressing some weaknesses in existing datasets.\\n2.\\tThe authors proposed a novel framework named MMd-Agent, which achieved impressive performance.\\n3.\\tThe paper is written in an easily understandable manner, and the experimental evaluations are thorough.\", \"weaknesses\": \"1.\\tThis paper did not present the existing high-impact multimodal misinformation detection benchmarks or compare them to the proposed benchmark concerning the three critical sources.. Could the authors list some relevant multimodal misinformation benchmarks, multimodal misinformation benchmarks detection methods, and SOTA\\uff1f\\n2.\\tThis paper did not present a summary of mainstream methods for detecting multimodal misinformation and summarize the classifications of these methods\\uff1f\\n3.\\tThe experimental analysis lacks depth; for example, it only addresses some performance limitations of LLaVA-1.6-34B and GPT (as mentioned in the Error Analysis), while other models are evaluated solely on their performance. I hope the authors can conduct a more thorough analysis of the experimental section and consider analyzing the shortcomings of larger models as well.\\n4.\\tThe novelty of the proposed MMd-Agent is somewhat limited.\", \"questions\": \"1.\\tWhat\\u2019s the distinction between Natural Rumor and Artificial Rumor?\\n2.\\tDo the definitions of the three critical sources apply to other publicly available datasets?\\n3.\\tThe generation style of the visual veracity distortion data is relatively uniform. Does this meet the benchmark's intended purpose?\\n4.\\tWhether the accuracy of all GPT-generated rumors has been manually verified is necessary.\\n5.\\tHas the impact of dataset imbalance (between real and fake, as well as imbalances among different subclasses) been validated? This makes it difficult to reuse the dataset.\\n6.\\tThe authors should provide further analysis of the experimental results in Figure 5, comparing their performance differences to better illustrate the distinctions between different categories(Natural Rumor, Artificial Rumor and GPT-generated Rumor).\\n7.\\tI believe that mixing human-generated and LLM-generated misinformation is very meaningful; however, other datasets, such as Twitter and GossipCop, also contain three critical categories. How are the limitations of the different datasets in Table 1 assessed?\", \"flag_for_ethics_review\": \"['Yes, Discrimination / bias / fairness concerns']\", \"rating\": \"5\", \"confidence\": \"4\", \"code_of_conduct\": \"Yes\"}", "{\"title\": \"response to reviewer onkv (2)\", \"comment\": \"> *Q2 The dataset size is relatively small. While recent benchmarks like DGM4 contain over 200k samples, MMFakeBench includes only about 10k. This raises concerns about whether each misinformation type is represented with enough diversity to support model generalization.*\\n\\nThanks. Unlike DGM4 [r1], which is commonly used as a training dataset, **MMFakeBench is explicitly designed as an evaluation dataset**, a distinction also recognized by Reviewer jzRM.\\n\\n- **Comparable in scale to other LVLM-based evaluation datasets**. Notably, there are numerous carefully designed evaluation datasets specifically developed to benchmark the capabilities of LVLMs across various tasks. In Table r1, we compare the scales of different evaluation datasets, including test sets from two multimodal misinformation datasets (DGM4 [r1] and NewsCLIPpings [r6]) and three representative LVLM-based evaluation datasets (MMMU [r7], MMSatetyBench [r8], OCRBench [r9]). As an evaluation dataset, **MMFakeBench is comparable in scale to other evaluation datasets and is well-suited for assessing model performance**.\\n \\n- **Enough diversity to evaluate model generalization.** MMFakeBench comprises **12 distinct forgery types** across textual, visual, and cross-modal forgery sources. Each forgery type is carefully curated to represent **a wide range of real-world misinformation scenarios**. Textual Veracity Distortion: Includes natural rumors **sourced from fact-checking platforms**, artificially generated rumors through **manual edits**, and GPT-generated rumors created **using diverse prompting strategies across multiple domains**. Visual Veracity Distortion: Combines high-quality AI-generated images (e.g., MidJourney) with rigorously selected Photoshop-edited images. Cross-Modal Consistency Distortion: Features mismatched text-image pairs derived from **repurposed text/images** or generated via **InstructPix2Pix**, simulating subtle and complex inconsistencies to test advanced reasoning capabilities.\", \"table_r1\": \"Evaluation data size on different datasets.\\n\\n| | DGM4 (Training) | NewsCLIPpings (Training) | MMMU (Evaluation) | MMSafetyBench (Evaluation) | OCRBench (Evaluation) | MMFakeBench (Evaluation) |\\n| --- | --- | --- | --- | --- | --- | --- |\\n| Evaluation Data Size | 50,705 | 7,264 | 11,500 | 5,040 | 1,000 | 11,000 |\\n\\n> *Q3 It is unclear whether the misinformation types included are meaningful. For example, the Cross-modal Consistency Distortion example in Figure 2 \\u2014 \\u201cAn old man reading a book on a park bench\\u201d versus \\u201cAn old man reading a newspaper on a park bench\\u201d \\u2014 lacks practical relevance. Emphasis should be placed on edits involving named entities, such as celebrities, to ensure sufficient impact and deception. Similarly, the Visual Veracity Distortion example with \\u201cVeracious Text & AI-generated Image\\u201d lacks sufficient misleading potential; the reader\\u2019s first impression might be that the image is obviously edited, which fails to show it can lead viewers into perceiving falsified content as authentic.*\\n\\nThanks. We have included **more visualized examples in Appendix Fig. 14, Fig. 15 and Fig. 16 of the updated paper**. Specifically, we address your concerns on the misinformation types in this work:\\n\\n- The examples in Fig. 2 are carefully selected to to **intuitively illustrate the key characteristics of misinformation** with reduced social harm. Furthermore, our dataset includes many examples with practical relevance and significant misleading potential, emphasizing its applicability to real-world misinformation scenarios. More visualized examples can be found in the in Fig. 14, Fig. 15 and Fig. 16 of the updated Appendix.\\n \\n- Inclusion of Celebrity-related edits. Our dataset encompasses misinformation scenarios involving celebrities, which is included in **celebrity-based query** for repurposed inconsistency, and **entity-edited artificial rumors**. In repurposed inconsistency, these cases create out-of-context mismatches by leveraging celebrities as query conditions. Additionally, our artificially generated rumors include entity substitutions, such as altered celebrity-related information.\\n \\n- Significance of the \\\"Old Man Reading\\\" Example. The example \\u201cOld man reading a book\\u201d versus \\u201cOld man reading a newspaper\\u201d in Figure 2 **exemplifies fine-grained inconsistencies**. It is specifically designed to **assess a model's ability to identify localized object-level differences**, such as distinguishing between a book and a newspaper. While seemingly simple, this example challenges models to detect subtle semantic conflicts, a capability essential for uncovering nuanced and sophisticated misinformation in professional fact-checking and real-world scenarios.\"}", "{\"comment\": \"Thanks for your response. Most of my concerns are solved. I recommend the acceptance.\"}", "{\"title\": \"response to reviewer jzRM (2)\", \"comment\": \"> *Q2 Can the authors possibly give further examples of evaluation type datasets that look at evaluation in a zero-shot setting for misinformation detection.*\\n\\nThanks. We have conducted an experiment to compare the performance of selected models on the proposed benchmark against existing benchmarks (datasets) in **Appendix Section A.1.4 of the paper**. For convenience, we have presented results in **Table r1**. Additonally, we have provide more evaluation examples to conduct a deep analysis in **Appendix Section A.1.7 of the updated paper**.\\n\\n- **Evaluation results on existing datasets.** Two widely-used multimodal misinformation datasets, **NewsClippings** [r2] and **Fakeddit** [r3] have been utilized to evaluate LVLMs [r4], [r5]. We employ four models: two powerful open-source LVLM models, LLaVA-1.6-34B and BLIP2-FLANT5-XXL with two open-source multimodal specialized detectors, HAMMER [r6] and FKA-Owl [r7]. All these models are evaluated on two multimodal misinformation datasets, NewsClippings and Fakeddit. The results indicate that our MMFakeBench poses a greater challenge in binary classification compared to the other two datasets. More importantly, the primary challenge of our benchmark lies in **its capacity to perform fine-grained assessments of misinformation sources in real-world scenarios where multiple forgery types coexist**. This mirrors the complexity of real-world environments, where misinformation stems from diverse, overlapping sources. This capability is essential for addressing real-world challenges and underscores the importance of MMFakeBench in advancing multimodal misinformation detection.\\n- **More case studies**. We have presented more case studies that span four models of different scales and on three distinct forgery sources. The key findings are summarized as follows: (1) Existing models exhibit **reliance on external knowledge** and are challenging to infer the factual correctness of a statement without access to a broader context. (2) Existing LVLM models GPT-4V face **challenges in discerning abnormal physical characteristics**. (3) When addressing subtle inconsistencies, existing models **may be distracted by the dominant presence of consistent content**, thereby failing to discern subtle mismatches critical for accurate misinformation detection.\", \"table_r1\": \"Performance (F1 score \\u2191) comparison of selected models on the proposed benchmark and existing benchmarks (datasets).\\n\\n| | NewsCLIPpings (Binary) | NewsCLIPpings (Multiclass) | Fakeddit (Binary) | Fakeddit (Multiclass) | MMFakeBench (Binary) | MMFakeBench (Multiclass) |\\n| --- | --- | --- | --- | --- | --- | --- |\\n| BLIP2-FLANT5-XXL | 33.6 | - | 40.5 | - | 31.6 | 16.7 |\\n| LLaVA-1.6-34B | 65.6 | - | 71.4 | - | 62.9 | 25.7 |\\n| FKA-Owl | 52.0 | - | 55.0 | - | 41.7 | - |\\n| HAMMER | 55.0 | - | 52.6 | - | 43 | - |\\n\\n[r1] Yue X, et al. MMMU: A Massive Multi-discipline Multimodal Understanding and Reasoning Benchmark for Expert AGI. CVPR, 2024.\\n\\n[r2] Luo G, et al. NewsCLIPpings: Automatic Generation of Out-of-Context Multimodal Media. EMNLP, 2021.\\n\\n[r3] Nakamura K, et al. r/Fakeddit: A New Multimodal Benchmark Dataset for Fine-grained Fake News Detection. LREC, 2020.\\n\\n[r4] Qi P, et al. SNIFFER: Multimodal Large Language Model for Explainable Out-of-Context Misinformation Detection. CVPR, 2024.\\n\\n[r5] Xuan K, et al. LEMMA: Towards LVLM-Enhanced Multimodal Misinformation Detection with External Knowledge Augmentation. 2024.\\n\\n[r6] Shao R, et al. Detecting and Grounding Multi-Modal Media Manipulation. CVPR, 2023.\\n\\n[r7] Liu X, et al. FKA-Owl: Advancing Multimodal Fake News Detection through Knowledge Augmented LVLMs. ACM MM, 2024\"}", "{\"title\": \"Response to Official Comment by Reviewer RALP\", \"comment\": \"Thanks for your comment! We are glad that our answer addresses your question! Based on your suggestions, we have revised our paper to further enhance its clarity and quality.\"}", "{\"title\": \"response to reviewer onkv (1)\", \"comment\": \"We want to express our great thanks for your feedback and patience regarding our work. We have carefully addressed each of your comments and provided a point-by-point response below.\\n\\n> *Q1 The contributions of this work are relative limited. Compared to prior benchmarks like DGM4, the primary difference lies in the use of large models to generate data, without introducing novel, highly deceptive misinformation generation methods. Additionally, the proposed MMD-Agent framework contributes minimally to the field, relying heavily on the use of LVLMs.*\\n\\nThanks. The key contribution of this work lies in addressing the **real-world critical yet underexplored issue** of the con-existence of multiple forgery sources, and proposes **the first benchmark explicitly designed for evaluating mixed-source multimodal misinformation**. We compare our benchmark with the prior dataset like DGM4 to further highlight the contributions of this work:\\n\\n- **Mixed forgery sources**. Existing datasets typically assume that the forgery source is predefined and confined to a single source, such as text-only rumors, image-only fabrications or image-text inconsistencies (e.g., DGM4) , as identified by **Table 1 of the main paper**. **These assumptions overlook the real-world scenarios, where the multiple forgery source is often co-exist**.\\n \\n- **Comprehensive forgery types.** The DGM4 dataset implements edit-based manipulation to alter the cross-modal inconsistencies. The proposed dataset encompasses 12 subcategories of forgery types, covering methods including **text/image editing**, **text/image repurposing**, **text/image generation using LLMs or Diffusion models**, as well as forgery samples collected from real-world platforms.\\n \\n- **Collaborative generation with large-scale generative models.** Small-scale models in the DGM4 dataset are often applied to specific tasks, limiting style diversity in forgery data. In contrast, large-scale generative models have revolutionized data generation with high fidelity and diversity. To increase controllability in producing application-specific misinformation datasets, we propose an **innovative data generation pipeline** that integrates state-of-the-art generative models and AI tools. This pipeline systematically generates diverse misinformation data, including **textual rumors**, **enriched contextual descriptions**, **fact-conflicting elements**, and **high-fidelity images**, aligned with various **intents, topics, and real-world scenarios**. It is noted that the use of large-scale generative models for data generation is a cutting-edge research area[r2], [r3]. The data generation method we propose offers valuable inspiration and practical utility for similar domains, producing valuable data that advances multimodal misinformation detection tasks.\\n \\n\\n**The Advancement of MMD-Agent.** With broad pretraining and strong reasoning capabilities, LVLMs demonstrate notable generalizability in misinformation detection [r3], [r4], [r5]. However, their application often **lacks the task-specific precision** required for addressing mixed-source multimodal misinformation. To tackle this, we present MMD-Agent, a modular framework that **decomposes detection into three smaller subtasks** to textual, visual, and cross-modal checks. Each subtask is **addressed through an interleaved sequence of reasoning and action**, and integrating external knowledge sources like Wikipedia, ensuring accurate and reliable detection. MMD-Agent is the **first approach to leverage Agent-based methods** for addressing multimodal misinformation detection. As a result, MMD-Agent significantly improves the F1-score for all selected models. Notably, **LLaVA-1.6-34B using MMD-Agent achieves an F1-score of 49.9%, approaching the 51% score of GPT-4V** with the standard prompting. These innovations establish MMD-Agent as a benchmark solution on MMFakeBench.\\n\\nIn summary, our benchmark incorporates comprehensive and realistic misinformation scenarios, marking a significant step toward addressing misinformation in practical applications.\"}", "{\"summary\": \"This paper looks at creating a multimodal misinformation dataset called MMFakeBench that can be used to evaluate detection methods and Large-Vision Models (LVLMs) under a zero-shot setting. For the dataset a validation set is created for hyperparameter selection and also used to conduct a human evaluation of the proposed MMFakeBench dataset. Utilizing the MMFakeBench dataset, 15 LVLMs are evaluated on the test set of the dataset and highlights the shortcomings of these LVLMs when compared to the human evaluation results.\", \"soundness\": \"3\", \"presentation\": \"4\", \"contribution\": \"3\", \"strengths\": [\"Utilizing a human evaluation helped strengthen the claim that currently LVLMs models have room for improvement when it comes to tackling the tasks proposed with the MMFakeBench dataset.\", \"Table 2 was a well thought out table that coverages a wide range of LVLMs\", \"The proposed dataset is unique as it proposes different tasks related to mixed-source multimodal misinformation detection, as it shows in Table 1 the difference between its dataset and previous multimodal misinformation datasets.\"], \"weaknesses\": [\"Currently the dataset size seems somewhat low when comparing it to other datasets mentioned in the paper. However I do recognize that this is specifically meant to be an evaluation dataset.\"], \"questions\": [\"Can the authors possibly give further examples of evaluation type datasets that look at evaluation in a zero-shot setting for misinformation detection.\"], \"flag_for_ethics_review\": \"['No ethics review needed.']\", \"rating\": \"8\", \"confidence\": \"4\", \"code_of_conduct\": \"Yes\"}", "{\"title\": \"response to reviewer x4j6 (3)\", \"comment\": \"> *Q4 The novelty of the proposed MMd-Agent is somewhat limited.*\\n\\nThanks. We highlight the novelty of the proposed MMD-Agent as follows:\\n\\n- **Unique design for addressing mixed-source multimodal misinformation**. Current LVLMs lack the task-specific precision required for addressing mixed-source multimodal misinformation. To tackle this, we present MMD-Agent, a modular framework that **decomposes detection into three smaller subtasks**: textual, visual, and cross-modal checks. **Each subtask is addressed through an interleaved sequence of reasoning and action, and integrating external knowledge sources like Wikipedia,** ensuring accurate and reliable detection. These innovations establish MMD-Agent as a benchmark solution for the complexities of mixed-source misinformation on MMFakeBench. As a result, MMD-Agent significantly improves the F1-score for all selected models. Notably, **LLaVA-1.6-34B using MMD-Agent achieves an F1-score of 49.9%, approaching the 51% score of GPT-4V with the standard prompting**.\\n \\n- **Interpretability.** MMD-Agent **offers stronger interpretability since it offers a detailed analysis** of the misinformation rather than only providing classification labels as used in standard prompting. Specifically, as shown in Fig.4 of the main paper, the content of the intermediate rationales such as Thought 2, Thought 3 and Thought 4 accurately analyzes the specific reasons for misinformation from different sources.\\n \\n- **Scability.** The scalable MMD-Agent allows the framework to **add domain-specific reasoning components or task-specific acting modules** without significantly increasing system complexity. This scalability enables the system to **reason over dynamically updated knowledge bases**, ensuring adaptability to evolving information landscapes. Additionally, MMD-Agent **operates independently of model fine-tuning**, making it well-suited for integration with emerging multimodal generative models.\\n \\n\\n> *Q5 What\\u2019s the distinction between Natural Rumor and Artificial Rumor?*\\n\\nThanks. We address the distinction between natural rumor and artificial rumor as follows:\\n\\n- Artificial Rumors are intentionally constructed by **manually applying specific rules to modify statements**, thereby creating deviations from objective truth. In our benchmark, this type of data is generated by modifying Wikipedia sentences using techniques such as sentence negation, key entity substitution, and word replacement etc.\\n \\n- Natural Rumors, such as those commonly found on news websites and social media platforms, are inherently challenging to detect **due to their lack of strict rules or predefined patterns**. These rumors frequently **draw on current events or trending topics, giving them an appearance of relevance and authenticity**. Our benchmark includes fabricated political rumors or entertainment news that have been widely shared online.\\n \\n\\nAll of them serve as valuable test cases for evaluating the robustness and generalizability of misinformation detection systems.\\n\\n> *Q6 The generation style of the visual veracity distortion data is relatively uniform. Does this meet the benchmark's intended purpose?*\\n\\nThanks. Our dataset is designed with a high degree of diversity, ensuring it to meet the benchmark's intended purpose. To better illustrate style diversity, we have incorporated **more visualized examples of visual veracity distortions in Appendix Fig. 15 of the updated paper**. Specifically, Visual veracity distortion in our benchmark incorporates two primary techniques: PS-edited and AI-generated content. These techniques are deliberately guided by diverse themes, intentions, or scenarios, ensuring that the generation styles are far from uniform\\uff1a\\n\\n- PS-edited manipulations involve the deliberate alteration of visual content to mislead or misrepresent reality by targeting specific elements within an image. These manipulations can categorized into **person-based adjustments** and **object-based modifications**. Person-based adjustments include changes to physical attributes, such as altering facial features, expressions, or postures. Object-based modifications, involve inserting, removing, or altering elements within the scene to misrepresent its content.\\n \\n- AI-generated images are meticulously crafted by creating **fabricated scenarios with well-known entities** or **counterfactual elements**. Well-known entities including celebrities and landmarks, are depicted in ways that contradict social norms (e.g., violence, arrest), attributes, and events. Counterfactual elements, meanwhile, are incorporated to reinforce these fabrications, creating a false sense of plausibility or dramatic impact by embedding elements that conflict with the real-world context.\"}", "{\"summary\": \"The authors introduce MMFakeBench, presented as a benchmark for evaluating mixed-source multimodal misinformation detection (MMD). They develop a multi-class evaluation metric and conduct evaluations of six state-of-the-art detection methods and 15 large vision-language models on MMFakeBench. Additionally, the authors propose an LVLM-based framework, MMD-Agent, which is intended to enhance detection performance in mixed-source MMD tasks.\", \"soundness\": \"2\", \"presentation\": \"3\", \"contribution\": \"2\", \"strengths\": \"The paper offers relatively comprehensive coverage of misinformation types, utilizes a diverse set of detection methods, and includes clear figures explaining the dataset and workflow.\", \"weaknesses\": \"1. The contributions of this work are relative limited. Compared to prior benchmarks like DGM4, the primary difference lies in the use of large models to generate data, without introducing novel, highly deceptive misinformation generation methods. Additionally, the proposed MMD-Agent framework contributes minimally to the field, relying heavily on the use of LVLMs.\\n\\n2. The dataset size is relatively small. While recent benchmarks like DGM4 contain over 200k samples, MMFakeBench includes only about 10k. This raises concerns about whether each misinformation type is represented with enough diversity to support model generalization.\\n\\n3. It is unclear whether the misinformation types included are meaningful. For example, the Cross-modal Consistency Distortion example in Figure 2 \\u2014 \\u201cAn old man reading a book on a park bench\\u201d versus \\u201cAn old man reading a newspaper on a park bench\\u201d \\u2014 lacks practical relevance. Emphasis should be placed on edits involving named entities, such as celebrities, to ensure sufficient impact and deception. Similarly, the Visual Veracity Distortion example with \\u201cVeracious Text & AI-generated Image\\u201d lacks sufficient misleading potential; the reader\\u2019s first impression might be that the image is obviously edited, which fails to show it can lead viewers into perceiving falsified content as authentic.\", \"questions\": \"1. For detecting outputs from generative models, a CNN often achieves better detection performance than an LVLM. Consider including performance results using foundation models paired with a fine-tuned network.\\n\\n2. Some details in Table 1 are unclear. For instance, why do MEIR and DGM4, which involve text editing, lack Textual Veracity Distortion? Edited texts are essentially a type of rumour.\\n\\nBased on the clarification regarding the proposed dataset as an evaluation resource and the additional explanations provided, I believe you have addressed most of my concerns and I have decided to raise my rating to 6. However, as MMFakeBench is mix-sourced, compared to NewsCLIPpings, which focuses on OOC detection, more data is needed to achieve sufficient diversity and ensure the validity of experimental results. I look forward to your future work.\", \"flag_for_ethics_review\": \"['No ethics review needed.']\", \"rating\": \"6\", \"confidence\": \"4\", \"code_of_conduct\": \"Yes\"}", "{\"metareview\": \"This work introduces a mixed-source multimodal misinformation detection dataset (MMD). The authors provide comprehensive evaluations on the proposed evaluation settings, and introduce a new baseline for this dataset. Most of the reviewers have agreed that the authors have successfully addressed their concerns and raised their initial ratings. Overall, the comments of the reviewers are positive, and based on the positive comments and the increased ratings after rebuttal, AC recommends to accept this work.\", \"additional_comments_on_reviewer_discussion\": \"Most of the reviewers agreed their concerns have been fully addressed by the authors. There is no strong argument to reject this paper. Although reviewer x4j6 still kept the initial rating as the rebuttal only address the concerns partially, AC reads the rebuttal and thinks the rebuttal is convincing.\"}" ] }

[ "Felipe Maia Polo", "Seamus Somerstep", "Leshem Choshen", "Yuekai Sun", "Mikhail Yurochkin" ]

[ "scaling law", "LLM", "benchmark", "skill" ]

{ "note_id": [ "wUy9GhqvkG", "wBytsSYABg", "h6cTnEs22Z", "f1Yp1v7Iez", "YzEOXP0U6S", "YMPeQFHw8n", "Uz7TncHl76", "O04qu8LdRC", "MSUSu1w0DE", "G5Ym8qfG7z", "G4WhevTst4", "CKgs1Jgm8I", "AcaQBPoy9p", "91Znpfb8D2", "7bKaSpaQQ1", "7Xdh4GhRbH", "5ZLqWYxrfq", "3orNefDUFx", "2S9GLKleSV", "1Ya9SlnbM5", "0SY4eAtdAA" ], "note_type": [ "official_comment", "official_comment", "official_comment", "official_comment", "official_comment", "decision", "official_comment", "official_review", "meta_review", "official_comment", "official_review", "official_comment", "official_review", "official_review", "official_comment", "official_comment", "official_comment", "official_comment", "official_comment", "official_comment", "official_comment" ], "note_created": [ 1732418738098, 1732232298343, 1731909984788, 1731909387649, 1732232316638, 1737523605651, 1732383085365, 1730557533064, 1734974115243, 1731909407628, 1730674799942, 1732746334196, 1730494891947, 1730617041951, 1731909609094, 1732745175647, 1731931035149, 1731909793560, 1731981510442, 1732232331607, 1732232275634 ], "note_signatures": [ [ "ICLR.cc/2025/Conference/Submission3900/Reviewer_Kd1V" ], [ "ICLR.cc/2025/Conference/Submission3900/Authors" ], [ "ICLR.cc/2025/Conference/Submission3900/Authors" ], [ "ICLR.cc/2025/Conference/Submission3900/Authors" ], [ "ICLR.cc/2025/Conference/Submission3900/Authors" ], [ "ICLR.cc/2025/Conference/Program_Chairs" ], [ "ICLR.cc/2025/Conference/Submission3900/Reviewer_FcQk" ], [ "ICLR.cc/2025/Conference/Submission3900/Reviewer_Kd1V" ], [ "ICLR.cc/2025/Conference/Submission3900/Area_Chair_8PVF" ], [ "ICLR.cc/2025/Conference/Submission3900/Authors" ], [ "ICLR.cc/2025/Conference/Submission3900/Reviewer_FcQk" ], [ "ICLR.cc/2025/Conference/Submission3900/Authors" ], [ "ICLR.cc/2025/Conference/Submission3900/Reviewer_DNEX" ], [ "ICLR.cc/2025/Conference/Submission3900/Reviewer_gVuh" ], [ "ICLR.cc/2025/Conference/Submission3900/Authors" ], [ "ICLR.cc/2025/Conference/Submission3900/Authors" ], [ "ICLR.cc/2025/Conference/Submission3900/Reviewer_DNEX" ], [ "ICLR.cc/2025/Conference/Submission3900/Authors" ], [ "ICLR.cc/2025/Conference/Submission3900/Authors" ], [ "ICLR.cc/2025/Conference/Submission3900/Authors" ], [ "ICLR.cc/2025/Conference/Submission3900/Authors" ] ], "structured_content_str": [ "{\"comment\": \"Thanks for the authors' response. I have no further questions. After reading the comments from other reviewers and considering the current version of the paper, I will maintain my evaluation score.\"}", "{\"comment\": \"With the discussion period concluding in a few days, we want to ensure we address any remaining questions or concerns you might have about our paper. During the rebuttal process, we have updated the manuscript to (i) clarify how our work differs from Ruan et al.'s and highlight that they do not explore performance prediction from compute (see lines 134-139 and 471-475 in the revised paper), (ii) include a list of the models and families used (Appendix F), and (iii) emphasize that the intercept $\\\\alpha_i$ accounts for hidden factors such as post-training adjustments (lines 184-187). For a detailed explanation of the rationale behind our family-specific intercept, please refer to our response to reviewer DNEX.\"}", "{\"comment\": \"**Thank you for your work on our paper!** We have responded to your concerns below and have updated the paper with some of your suggestions. Please let us know if you have any questions.\\n\\n------------------\\n\\n**Regarding Ruan et al (2024):** The ideas proposed by Ruan et al (2024) **cannot** be used to predict skills or performance from compute and we consider that to be the main difference between our papers; see below for a detailed explanation. As we comment in our Section 3.1, LLMs low-dimensional latent skills have been studied before by many papers but we are the first ones to propose and successfully achieve a scaling law for those skills. For example, the focus of Ruan et al (2024) is building a scaling law for complex downstream tasks from latent skills instead.\\n\\nIn this paragraph, we explain why Ruan et al (2024) scaling cannot be used to predict skills or performance from compute, implying a major difference from our work. The observational scaling law proposed by Ruan et al (2024) is used to predict the performance of LLMs in complex downstream tasks from their PC scores (extracted from observed benchmark data); please check their Section 3.4 for more details. This implies that, for example, to predict the performance of LLaMa-3-70B in a certain downstream task, they first have to observe the scores of LLaMa-3-70B in a bunch of benchmarks. That is, it is not possible to predict the performance of LLaMa-3-70B in downstream tasks using their approach before the LLM is released (i.e., making predictions from compute); this is one of the gaps we attack in our paper. This limitation was confirmed by Tatsunori Hashimoto in a conversation we had at ICML 2024 (T. Hashimoto, personal communication, July 2024). Moreover, based on Hashimoto's suggestion, we tried to extend their method to make performance prediction from computing possible; as we show in Figure 1, that approach (\\\"PCA+FLOPs\\\") did not work well.\\n\\n\\n**Section 3.1:** \\n\\n- Economics model: We use that specific formulation for two main reasons. First, it is a generalization of models previously used in the scaling law literature (e.g., the model used by Owen(2024)). Second, it accounts for the interaction of log(s)log(t), which we found to work well (check our Appendix D), and incorporates family effects (intercepts) in a parsimonious manner.\\n\\n- Family-specific intercept: We use family-specific intercept and not slopes mainly because of a practical reason: our model has three covariates in $x$, therefore it would be impossible to fit a scaling law with family-specific slopes without observing many models from the same family in our training set. The family-specific intercept ends up being a parsimonious way of dealing with models produced with better technology (e.g., algorithms, data formatting/quality) and has good predictive power as we see from Figures 1 and 2. \\n\\n- \\\"why does x(s,t) not include log(st)?\\\": it includes. This is because log(st)=log(s)+log(t).\\n \\n\\n**Sections 3.2 and 3.3:** \\n\\n- Assumption 3.1: This assumption is only used to describe to what degree the model's parameters are identifiable. This type of assumption is widely used and accepted in the field of Psychometrics (please see [1], for example).\\n\\n- Design matrix and $p$: the design matrix $X\\\\in \\\\mathbb{R}^{n \\\\times p}$ is a matrix of covariates $x(s,t)$ specified in Eq 3.2 concatenated with a matrix of zeros and ones (to account for the family intercepts). Each row of $X$ represents a different LLM and $p=3 +$ #families. We made this explicit in Section 3.2.\\n\\n- Huber loss: this loss is a smoothed version of the $l_1$ loss. Please check https://pytorch.org/docs/stable/generated/torch.nn.HuberLoss.html\\n\\n**Section 4:** \\n- Figure 1 vs Figure 2: Both figures show the average column. We did not display the full Figure 2 in the main text because we thought it was redundant and we lacked space. However, its full version can be found in Appendix F.\\n- Ruan et al (2024): Please check the response \\\"Regarding Ruan et al (2024)\\\" above.\\n\\n**References**\\n\\n[1] Yunxiao Chen, Xiaoou Li, and Siliang Zhang. Joint maximum likelihood estimation for high-dimensional exploratory item factor analysis. Psychometrika, 84:124\\u2013146, 2019.\"}", "{\"comment\": \"**Thank you for your work on our paper!** We have responded to your concerns below and have updated the paper with some of your suggestions. Please let us know if you have any questions.\\n\\n------------------\\n**Comments about your summary of our paper:** We believe two statements in the summary of our work are inaccurate and would like to clarify them below:\\n1. \\\"The proposed scaling law is as performant as previously proposed approaches\\\": this sentence understates the performance prediction of our method; as we see in Figure 1, our methods offer *much better prediction results when compared with baselines*.\\n2. \\\"(...) to improve a previously proposed scaling law\\\": we do not only improve previous scaling laws but propose a model that can model the scaling of abstract LLM skills using data from multiple benchmarks and LLMs, which is something no one proposed before.''\\n\\n**Concerns about presentation:** We worked (and will work) hard to make our paper as polished and readable as possible, which seems to be the impression that other reviewers got from our work. Please let us know which points you think are not polished enough and we will update the paper with your suggestions. We note that \\\"interaction term\\\", for example, is an expression frequently used in regression analysis within machine learning and statistics; in spite of that, we included more explanation in the text.\\n\\n**Concerns about model families:** We have included Table 1 in Appendix F detailing all families and models used in our paper. We consider two models to be in the same family if the (main) difference between them is the number of parameters; please check Table 1 for precise categorization. Model sizes and training token information were taken from the original papers that released the models, their Hugging Face model cards, and data collected by Ruan et al (2024); our data collection effort resulted in a more comprehensive study when compared to previous works.\\n\\n**Concerns about overfitting and generalization:** In our paper, we show that *training the activation function does not lead to poor generalization*. In fact, from Figure 1 we see that the neural net model (\\\"Sloth\\\") performs better than any other option in terms of lower test error, including the sigmoid model (\\\"Sloth basic\\\"). In this experiment, the test error is computed using a cross-validation approach; that is, for each test LLM family (e.g., Qwen 2) we: (i) only include only the smallest model in the training set (e.g., Qwen 2 0.5B), (ii) fit the scaling laws using all the LLMs in the training set, (iii) predict the performance of larger models from that family (e.g., Qwen 2 1.5/7/72B) in all benchmarks, and (iv) compute the prediction error by comparing the predictions with the ground truth. We repeat these steps for all test families and average the prediction errors, which are the numbers reported in Figure 1. To make our assessment even more realistic, we do not test older versions of recent families if they are available in the training set, e.g., we do not test on LLaMa 2 models when LLaMa 3 is present in the training set.\\n\\n**Concerns regarding plots and table:** In the main text, we include two plots like the ones you are suggesting in Figure 7. For the other results, we do not think this type of plot is the most suitable; the reason is that we run a higher number of experiments when compared to other papers and the heatmaps help us summarize our results better. For example, to show the predictive power of our method (8 variations) compared to the other 7 baselines across 12 benchmarks, a heatmap is more suitable, and if we choose to go with the \\\"extrapolation\\\" plots, at least 15x12 = 180 plots would be needed, which is not informative for the reader. If we consider that each one of the test families needs a different plot (due to cross-validation), 19x180=3420 plots are needed just for Open LLM Leaderboard v1.\\n\\n**\\\"(Ruan et al) is not well-suited for performance prediction from compute\\\":** The observational scaling law proposed by Ruan et al (2024) is used to predict the performance of LLMs in complex downstream tasks from their PC scores (extracted from observed benchmark data); please check their Section 3.4 for more details. This implies that, for example, to predict the performance of LLaMa-3-70B in a certain downstream task, they first have to observe the scores of LLaMa-3-70B in a bunch of benchmarks. That is, it is not possible to predict the performance of LLaMa-3-70B in downstream tasks using their approach before the LLM is released (i.e., making predictions from compute); this is one of the gaps we attack in our paper. This limitation was confirmed by Tatsunori Hashimoto in a conversation we had at ICML 2024 (T. Hashimoto, personal communication, July 2024). Moreover, based on Hashimoto's suggestion, we tried to extend their method to make performance prediction from computing possible; as we show in Figure 1, that approach (\\\"PCA+FLOPs\\\") did not work well.\"}", "{\"comment\": \"With the discussion period concluding in a few days, we want to ensure we address any remaining questions or concerns you might have about our paper. During the rebuttal process, we have updated the manuscript to (i) clarify how our work differs from Ruan et al.'s and highlight that they do not explore performance prediction from compute (see lines 134-139 and 471-475 in the revised paper), (ii) include a list of the models and families used (Appendix F), and (iii) emphasize that the intercept $\\\\alpha_i$ accounts for hidden factors such as post-training adjustments (lines 184\\u2013187). For a detailed explanation of the rationale behind our family-specific intercept, please refer to our response to reviewer DNEX.\"}", "{\"title\": \"Paper Decision\", \"decision\": \"Reject\"}", "{\"comment\": \"I thank the authors for the detailed response and apologize for my late answer.\\n\\n-------------\\n\\n**About my summary.** The sentence *\\\"(...) to improve a previously proposed scaling law\\\"* was due to an understanding that your work utilizes as a base the work from *Ruan et al.* if this is not accurate, it could be useful to rewrite part of Section 3 to better express how you differentiate from them.\\n\\n**About my weakness n.4:** I probably should have been more specific: in general, I would have appreciated an increased number of plots showing the extrapolation capabilities of your scaling law. I understand the difficulties in expressing all the content from Figure 1, but I was curious about the behavior of your activation function. \\nThis could be done by fixing a specific task and subset of families, thus providing a more qualitative intuition of your approach. Indeed, these plots might then be used to extract useful insights and/or a more intuitive visualization of your scaling laws.\\nAnother important factor to consider regarding your plots is that figures tend to have captions that are sometimes too short and not descriptive. In my opinion, Figures 5, 6, and 7 suffer from this problem.\\n\\n**About comparing with different scaling laws:** A useful experiment for the paper is a comparison with previous scaling laws (*Ruan et al.* and *Owen*) in *their* respective training settings. For example, with *Ruan et al.*, it would be interesting to see how much it differs from your approach when compute is available. I understand that this experiment might be difficult to perform, due to the necessary computational requirements--however--it could strengthen the article. \\n\\n-----\\n\\nAs a final comment, I would like to say that the proposed scaling law might be a useful contribution to the LLM community, for example in predicting which hyper-parameters and/or families utilize for a given task. However, as it currently stands, I believe that the paper still needs major improvements in its presentation.\"}", "{\"summary\": \"This paper focuses on predicting performance of down-stream tasks across LLM families and benchmarks by leveraging their intrinsic interactive structures. Specifically, this paper applies factor analysis models in Economics to explore low-dimensional latent skills (e.g., reasoning and instruction following) as key predictors of performance. Extensive experiments demonstrate the effectiveness of the proposed model compared with a set of baselines.\", \"soundness\": \"3\", \"presentation\": \"2\", \"contribution\": \"3\", \"strengths\": \"1. The idea of adopting factor analysis models in Economics to analyze multi-benchmark performance across model families is intriguing.\\n2. The authors provide the theoretical justification to consolidate the proposed method.\\n3. The authors conduct experiments across several downstream tasks to validate the effectiveness of the proposed method.\", \"weaknesses\": \"The paper is well-structured and effectively conveys its main points. How to understand and predict multi-benchmark performance is an important problem within the domain of Large Language Models (LLMs) and the authors propose the corresponding method to address this problem. I have the following suggestions to further improve the manuscript of this paper:\\n\\n1. The authors conduct experiments using only three open-source dense LLMs, showing competitive performance on several benchmarks. Recently, the sparse Mixture-of-Experts (MOE) LLMs have achieved impressive results across various tasks and represent an essential model family in the LLM landscape. The authors should address how the proposed method could be adapted for MoE architectures, given their distinct structural characteristics compared to dense models. Additionally, the authors should perform experiments with sparse MOE LLMs (e.g., Mixtral[1], DeepSeekMoE[2]) to comprehensively assess the predictive abilities of multi-benchmark performance across LLM families.\\n2. As illustrated in Figure 5, reasoning ability is primarily influenced by model size rather than the number of training tokens. I recommend that the authors discuss how their model might be extended or modified to account for the effects of instruction tuning separately from pre-training. Recent studies, including Skywork-Math [3] and OpenMathInstruct-2 [4], demonstrate a clear scaling law with instruction data, showing that model performance significantly improves as the amount of supervised fine-tuning (SFT) data increases. This finding appears to contradict the observations reported in the current experiments. Therefore, I suggest that the authors address any limitations in their current approach that might explain this discrepancy in findings compared to recent studies on instruction data scaling.\\n\\n[1] Jiang A Q, Sablayrolles A, Roux A, et al. Mixtral of experts[J]. arXiv preprint arXiv:2401.04088, 2024.\\n\\n[2] Dai D, Deng C, Zhao C, et al. Deepseekmoe: Towards ultimate expert specialization in mixture-of-experts language models[J]. arXiv preprint arXiv:2401.06066, 2024.\\n\\n[3] Zeng L, Zhong L, Zhao L, et al. Skywork-Math: Data Scaling Laws for Mathematical Reasoning in Large Language Models--The Story Goes On[J]. arXiv preprint arXiv:2407.08348, 2024.\\n\\n[4] Toshniwal S, Du W, Moshkov I, et al. OpenMathInstruct-2: Accelerating AI for Math with Massive Open-Source Instruction Data[J]. arXiv preprint arXiv:2410.01560, 2024.\", \"questions\": \"1.\\tCould you involve a broader range of LLMs, specifically sparse MOE LLMs like Mixtra and DeepSeekMoE, to provide a more holistic demonstration of the proposed method\\u2019s effectiveness?\\n2.\\tSee the second point in the Weaknesses section.\", \"flag_for_ethics_review\": \"['No ethics review needed.']\", \"rating\": \"6\", \"confidence\": \"4\", \"code_of_conduct\": \"Yes\"}", "{\"metareview\": \"This paper presents an interesting idea of a unified scaling law across model families. Such a scaling law is able to predict the performance of down-stream tasks across LLM families and benchmarks by leveraging their intrinsic interactive structures. Specifically, this paper applies Exploratory Factor Analysis to explore \\\"low-dimensional latent skills\\\" (e.g., reasoning and instruction following) of trained LLMs as key predictors of their performance of downstream tasks. Empirical results show that the proposed method demonstrates improved predictive accuracy.\\n\\nOverall the reviewers think this is a very promising direction, and the author's insights are generally confirmed by empirical data. However, concerns are raised regarding its difference and claimed novelty contribution from Ruan et al. 2024, and whether the trained activation function overfits the performance demonstrated. More thorough analyzes are needed before we can be sure of the significance of such a scaling law. We also encourage the authors to work on improving the presentation of the work.\", \"additional_comments_on_reviewer_discussion\": \"A generally healthy discussion. No reviewer was convinced to update their scores.\"}", "{\"comment\": \"**Concerns regarding Figure 7:** We use the logistic link for downstream performance prediction because the intersection of our main dataset and the code completion/emotional intelligence datasets is quite small, i.e., there is not enough data (model performances) to fit link/activation functions for these benchmarks (recall that our scaling law allows each benchmark to use a different link function for predicting performance from the latent abilities).\\n\\n**Level curves:** For each one of the $k$ skills, the level curves are obtained from the function $g_k(s,t)=\\\\hat{\\\\beta}_k^\\\\top x(s,t)$ from Eq 3.2. Here, $g_k(s,t)$ represents the level of skill $k$ of a certain LLM with covariates $x(s,t)$ discounted by the family-specific intercept term.\"}", "{\"summary\": \"The paper proposes a novel scaling law to predict the performance of various LLM families on multiple benchmarks.\\nThe authors borrow methodologies from Exploratory Factor Analysis to improve a previously proposed scaling law.\\nFactor Analysis allows the model to find interpretable latent factors to help the scaling model generalize.\\nFurthermore, a learnable activation function is used instead of the sigmoid, leading to an improved fit.\", \"the_experimental_results_reported_in_the_article_show\": [\"The proposed scaling law is as performant as previously proposed approaches.\", \"The proposed scaling law is able to extract (possibly) explanatory factors for the various benchmark results.\"], \"soundness\": \"2\", \"presentation\": \"1\", \"contribution\": \"2\", \"strengths\": \"The proposed method is uses an interesting mixture of scaling laws and interpretability to propose an improved benchmark prediction model. The use of a latent subspace \\\"identifying\\\" key skills to solve task is similar to what was proposed in Ruan et al, but the usage of exploratory factor analysis allows for a more insightful understanding.\", \"weaknesses\": \"1) The paper presentation can be sometimes confusing and/or unpolished. There are some terms are used without a proper introduction (e.g. interaction term), thus hindering the overall article. In general, I feel that the overall presentation could be improved.\\n\\n2) To my knowledge, the model families seems to not be clearly stated in the main paper, they can only be speculated from looking at figure 17 in the appendix. How are models from the leaderboard categorized into a family? Furthermore, where are model size and training token information taken from? \\n\\n3) The use of a neural-network to model the activation function \\u03c3 can lead to overfitting and poor generalization, especially considering the few data used for training (to my understanding it is trained on benchmark evaluations). I would have preferred a more focused experiment on showing if using a trainable activation can lead to a worse generalization.\\n\\n4) I find the tables, plots, and in general the experiments to be somewhat lacking; In previous work, to show the capabilities of their respective work Ruan et al, and Owen make use of plots, showcasing the extrapolation capabilities of their models (e.g. Figure 4 in Ruan et al). I think that the proposed work would benefit from using more of these visualizations (some are shown in the appendix, but are otherwise not included in the main discussion).\", \"questions\": \"1) Why was logistic regression used for Figure 7 instead of the learned activation \\u03c3? Is there something that I am missing?\\n2) In line 137 and 138 you state that \\\"(Ruan et al) is not well-suited for performance prediction from compute\\\" why is that the case? can you expand on this?\\n3) How are the level curves in Figure 5 computed? Can you give an intuitive explanation?\", \"flag_for_ethics_review\": \"['No ethics review needed.']\", \"rating\": \"3\", \"confidence\": \"3\", \"code_of_conduct\": \"Yes\"}", "{\"comment\": \"Dear reviewer, thank you for your suggestions! We have updated the paper accordingly and included details in the general response below. We hope to solve the issues you brought up and explain the changes in the paper, but please do not hesitate to contact us for further discussion!\\n\\n**Presentation:** Thank you for your comments. We have updated the captions of Figures 5, 6, and 7, making them more informative. We are open to more suggestions are promise we will continue polishing the presentation for the next version of the paper based on them.\\n\\n**About your summary:** Besides the different model formulations (ours vs previous work), the main differences when compared with Owen (2024) and Ruan et al (2024) is that these works consider different setups; we have included a discussion about this at the end of Section 2. In summary, Owen (2024) does not use family information at prediction time, making their scaling law less accurate but more generalizable, and Ruan et al (2024) assume families are important at prediction time but consider that the target model has already been trained, making their scaling law less applicable in practice and more interesting from an interpretability point of view. In our work, we wish to instead predict the performance of a larger LLM without having to train it but taking family information into account, thus allowing practitioners to make decisions regarding investing resources into scaling their training recipes to larger LLMs based on the performance of smaller LLMs. Moreover, our formulation also allows interpretable insights from the data. Despite different setups, we made comparisons with Owen (2024) and Ruan et al (2024) throughout our work by considering adaptations of their methods as baselines in our setting and comparing our method to theirs in their settings. We also reformulated our writing in lines 134-139 and 471-475 to better position our work in the context of previous research.\\n\\n**About your weakness n.4:** We have included an extra analysis in Appendix J exploring the behavior of our two link functions and comparing our approaches with two main baselines. In summary, we see that: (i) training the link function can produce a much more flexible scaling law that can better predict performance saturation better than other methods (e.g., see results for Yi-1.5 in ARC, HellaSwag), (ii) training no family-specific parameters at all (\\u2018\\u2019FLOPs (shared intercept)\\u2018\\u2019 from Owen (2024)) usually produce poor prediction results, and (iii) PCA+FLOPs (method derived from Ruan et al (2024)) often produces flatter curves that underestimate the performance of bigger models, e.g., see results for Yi-1.5 in TruthfulQA, GSM8k, and MMLU.\\n\\n**About comparing with different scaling laws in their own setup:** In our original version of the paper, we compared our scaling law with Owen (2024)'s in their own setting by not including any family-specific parameter in our model, which let the scaling laws generalize to arbitrary families. Please check Figures 3 and 11. In summary, we show that our method excels in their own setting when compared to the baseline. In the new version of the paper, we have included a comparison with Ruan et al (2024) in their setting in Appendix K. We have adapted our initial downstream task performance prediction experiment to Ruan et al (2024)\\u2018s setup by including the target model\\u2019s (LLaMa-3-70B) performance on the leaderboard benchmarks into the training data. In summary, both methods behaved similarly regarding out-of-sample prediction, despite our method fitting better to the data overall. We will include more comparisons for the camera-ready version of the paper.\"}", "{\"summary\": \"The paper presents a novel approach to model LLM performance on different benchmarks starting from the number of training tokens and model size. This \\\"scaling law\\\" can be fitted by using existing benchmark results across various LLMs of different families. They assume some of the parameters of the scaling laws are shared across model families, while others are family-specific. Previous work assumed all parameters are either shared or family-specific, which can be respectively too unrestrictive or lead to too many parameters, and thus impossible to fit with limited observation data. Moreover, in contrast to previous work, they assume that model size and number of training tokens independently affect performance, and they also have the option of learning the shape of the sigmoid function used to transform (modelled via a neural network). The experiments included in the paper confirm the strong predictive power of the obtained scaling law.\", \"soundness\": \"2\", \"presentation\": \"3\", \"contribution\": \"2\", \"strengths\": [\"## originality\", \"The introduced scaling law has elements of novelty over previously presented ones, in particular that in Ruan et al 2024 and Owen 024.\", \"The latent skills interpretation is interesting.\", \"## quality\", \"The experiments presented in Section 4 are extensive.\", \"## clarity\", \"The text is well-written\", \"## significance\", \"Leveraging information across model families is indeed beneficial to predict performance for families for which a few observations are available.\", \"removing the assumption of relying on model size and training tokens only their product is meaningful.\"], \"weaknesses\": [\"I don't think the paper gives a proper characterisation of Ruan et al 2024. In particular, the introduction and abstract seem to claim that assuming \\\"LLM performance is driven by low-dimensional latent skills [...] influenced by computational resources\\\" is a significant novelty of the paper, while that was actually the key value proposition of Ruan et al. 2024. Moreover, Section 2.2 claims that Ruan et al only uses two parameters per model family directly connecting compute to observed performance; however, my understanding of the method in Ruan et al. 2024 is that it is closer to what is presented in this paper in 3.1, i.e., Ruan et al. also learns a set of low-dimensional capabilities for each LLM, which is then transformed into model performance using \\\"loading factors\\\" specific to each benchmark.\", \"The paper could provide more clarifications on the choices made to come up with the model in Sec 3.1, see questions below.\", \"The notation in Sec 3.2 is confusing (see questions below). Moreover, it is unclear how much assumption 3.1 is realistic or verifiable.\", \"Some of the choices related to how the results are presented in Sec 4 seem arbitrary, as they are not explained (see questions below)\", \"Finally, I don't understand where the name \\\"Sloth\\\" comes from: I am not a native speaker, but it seems weird to pronounce \\\"SSLaws\\\" as Sloth, even though I see the joke.\"], \"questions\": [\"Related to Sec 3.1:\", \"why was that specific model used in economics taken as inspiration?\", \"why is the skill slope shapred across family and the intercept fixed, and not the converse? The choice by the authors seems to be counterintuitive to me, as saying that increases in model size and number of training tokens give the same improvement, and the only thing that changes is the startin value of each skil.\", \"why does x(s,t) not include log(st)?\", \"Related to Sec 3.2:\", \"how is the design matric defined?\", \"what is the dimension p?\", \"Related to Sec 3.3:\", \"What is the Huber loss?\"], \"related_to_sec_4\": [\"why does Fig 2 show average over benchmarks while figure 1 does not?\", \"What is the substantial difference that makes their method so that (as stated in Sec 4.4): \\\"Unlike Ruan et al. (2024)\\u2019s observational scaling law, Sloth can be used to estimate the latent skills of hypothetical LLMs and then used to predict the performance of those LLMs in downstream tasks\\\"? I thought that was also possible for Ruan et al, as long as the model belongs to a family for which a few other models were already observed, which seems to be a necessary condition for the method in this paper too.\"], \"flag_for_ethics_review\": \"['No ethics review needed.']\", \"rating\": \"5\", \"confidence\": \"4\", \"code_of_conduct\": \"Yes\"}", "{\"summary\": \"In this paper, the authors propose fitting scaling laws on existing benchmark data for various LLM families, utilizing results from OpenLLM v1 and v2. Unlike prior work on LLM scaling laws, which generally explores scaling across parameters and data, this paper primarily focuses on latent skills, such as reasoning abilities, that can be simultaneously evaluated by multiple benchmarks like GSM8K and MATH. In contrast to previous works on benchmark scaling laws (e.g., Owen, 2024; Ryan et al., 2024), which fit Equation 2.2 using the number of training tokens and parameters, this study introduces a lower-dimensional assumption to reduce the number of parameters required for fitting. The final objective function is presented in Section 3.3. Empirical results indicate that the proposed method, SLOTH, demonstrates improved predictive accuracy in terms of prediction error.\", \"soundness\": \"2\", \"presentation\": \"3\", \"contribution\": \"2\", \"strengths\": \"Overall, the paper is well-structured and easy to follow. The authors propose a model mapping s (LLM size) and t (number of training tokens) to benchmark performance. Additionally, they employ several techniques to reduce the model\\u2019s parameter count while maintaining flexibility. The experimental results appear promising.\", \"weaknesses\": \"I have several concerns:\\n\\n1. If an LLM\\u2019s skill is knowledge-based, I agree that the proposed model would likely offer good predictive accuracy, as such skills depend on training tokens and model size. However, when it comes to reasoning skills (focusing specifically on mathematical reasoning), my experience suggests that these skills heavily rely on post-training factors, such as the extent of computation on reinforcement learning during fine-tuning. Such hidden factors are difficult to capture using the model\\u2019s inputs alone, and to my knowledge, these are not commonly reported by open-source models.\\n\\n2. It appears that some LLM benchmarks may be contaminated, whether intentionally or not. This raises the question: can we fully trust benchmark values as indicators of skill?\\n\\n3. Finally, how can this scaling law be practically applied? Does it offer guidance for pre-training or post-training phases?\", \"questions\": \"See my comments on the weakness\", \"flag_for_ethics_review\": \"['No ethics review needed.']\", \"rating\": \"3\", \"confidence\": \"3\", \"code_of_conduct\": \"Yes\"}", "{\"comment\": \"**Thank you for your dedication to our paper!** We have responded to your concerns below and have updated the paper to accommodate suggestions by reviewers. Please let us know if you have any questions.\\n\\n------------------\\n**Post-training factors:** We agree that post-training factors are not captured by our measures of compute $x(s,t)$. However, our formulation guarantees that such hidden factors are taken into account by the family-specific intercepts, i.e., $\\\\alpha_i$\\u2019s. For example, if a certain family went through a post-training procedure that made these models strong in reasoning, their values for $\\\\alpha_i$ in reasoning will be relatively large (recall that we consider base and instruct models to be from different families). Your observations are observable in Figures 5 and 6. For example, from our text \\u201cContrasting with Reasoning, Figure 5 shows that Knowledge is highly influenced by both model size and number of training tokens. Moreover, we can see that the range of standard deviations in the middle plot is much greater than in the other two plots, giving us evidence that this skill might be more sensitive to increases in compute resources and less dependent on the LLM families themselves\\u201d (verbatim). In Figure 6, we show that instruction following is highly influenced by instruction tuning when compared to reasoning and knowledge. Thank you for your observation! We have included some discussion regarding post-training in Section 3.1.\\n\\n**Contamination:** You are right that some LLMs can have their training contaminated with benchmark data. Fortunately, the Open LLM Leaderboards (v1/v2) have an indicator of contamination, which can be used to filter contaminated models. Like all papers in the scaling law literature for LLM benchmarks, we are assuming no contamination.\\n\\n**Practical applications of our model:** Our scaling law can guide practitioners in many instances. For example: (i) choosing the right size of the next (to be released) pre-trained models for a desired level of performance on benchmarks of interest, (ii) allocating resources between training tokens and number of parameters (e.g., from Fig 5, if the practitioner wants a model with better reasoning, it might be better to invest on bigger models with less training data vs smaller models with more training data), and (iii) predicting performance of hypothetical LLMs on complex downstream tasks, such as coding. We added some extra sentences at the beginning of Section 4 regarding applications explored in experiments.\"}", "{\"title\": \"General comment to reviewers and area chairs\", \"comment\": \"We want to thank you all for the discussion and the opportunity to polish our paper.\\n\\nSeveral reviewers asked for additional explanations and comparisons to the prior scaling laws, i.e., Owen (2024) and Ruan et al (2024), and we have revised the paper to make this point clearer. Besides the different model formulations (ours vs previous work), the main difference when compared with Owen (2024) and Ruan et al (2024) is that these works consider different setups; we have included a discussion about this at the end of Section 2. In summary, Owen (2024) does not use family information at prediction time, making their scaling law less accurate but more generalizable, and Ruan et al (2024) assume families are important at prediction time but consider that the target model has already been trained, making their scaling law less applicable in practice and more interesting from an interpretability point of view. In our work, we wish to instead predict the performance of a larger LLM without having to train it but taking family information into account, thus allowing practitioners to make decisions regarding investing resources into scaling their training recipes to larger LLMs based on the performance of smaller LLMs. Moreover, our formulation also allows interpretable insights from the data. Despite different setups, we made comparisons with Owen (2024) and Ruan et al (2024) throughout our work by considering adaptations of their methods as baselines in our setting and comparing our method to theirs in their settings. We also reformulated our writing in lines 134-139 and 471-475 to better position our work in the context of previous research.\\n\\nMoreover, we made other main improvements in the paper (blue text) based on your suggestions:\\n1. We have updated the captions of Figures 5, 6, and 7, making them more informative.\\n2. We included more details about our family-specific formulation and interaction term in lines 184-187;\\n3. We have included an extra analysis in Appendix J exploring the behavior of our two link functions and comparing our approaches with two main baselines. In summary, we see that: (i) training the link function can produce a much more flexible scaling law that can better predict performance saturation better than other methods (e.g., see results for Yi-1.5 in ARC, HellaSwag), (ii) training no family-specific parameters at all (\\u2018\\u2019FLOPs (shared intercept)\\u2018\\u2019 from Owen (2024)) usually produce poor prediction results, and (iii) PCA+FLOPs (method derived from Ruan et al (2024)) often produces flatter curves that underestimate the performance of bigger models, e.g., see results for Yi-1.5 in TruthfulQA, GSM8k, and MMLU.\\n4. We have included a comparison with Ruan et al (2024) in their setting in our Appendix K. We have adapted our initial downstream task performance prediction experiment to Ruan et al (2024)\\u2018s setup by including the target model\\u2019s (LLaMa-3-70B) performance on the leaderboard benchmarks into the training data. In summary, both methods behaved similarly regarding out-of-sample prediction, despite our method fitting better to the data overall. We will include more comparisons for the camera-ready version of the paper.\\n\\nWe believe the revisions and additional results presented here significantly strengthen our work and adequately address the reviewers\\u2019 concerns. We hope our responses and updates are satisfactory, and we kindly request the reviewers to reconsider their ratings. Should there be any further questions or concerns, we would be more than happy to provide additional clarification.\"}", "{\"comment\": \"I thank the authors for their response. A couple of further comments on my side below.\\n\\n**Comparison to Ruan et al 2024**: I am unconvinced by the explanation as to why Ruan et al cannot be used to predict performance from computing. Indeed, in their section 3.4, after Eq 7, they discuss how, from the inferred values of capabilities ($S_m$) for a few models in a considered family, they can learn coefficients of a linear relation mapping those to training compute metric. Thus, that relation can be used to predict the coefficients for a new model of the same family, starting from its training compute. Even if Ruan et al did not do this in their paper, I believe it is incorrect to say that their method cannot do so. Indeed, I believe what I described is extremely similar to the PCA+FLOP approach which the authors implemented following Ruan et al.\\n\\nThis point does not impact on the strengths of the approach which I identified, chiefly in the proposed method being more general than those previously proposed.\\n\\n**Family-specific intercept** I understand the technical point, but the resulting model still seems unintuitive to me. If one has more data, I believe having family-specific slopes makes more intuitive sense, even though that would make the scaling law closer to that of Ruan et al. It would be interesting to see how such a scaling law would perform in practice for an increasing number of data points (ie performance of more LLMs).\"}", "{\"comment\": \"**Thank you for your time and dedication to our paper!** We have responded to your concerns below and have updated the paper to accommodate suggestions by reviewers. Please let us know if you have further questions.\\n\\n------------------\\n\\n**\\\"The authors conduct experiments using only three open-source dense LLMs\\\":** We use 30 LLM families in our paper; please check Section 4.1 for more details.\\n\\n**Inclusion of MoE models:** We do not include MoE models because of data limitations. For example, training tokens for Mixtral models are unknown and DeepSeekMoE is only available at one size on HuggingFace.\\n\\n**Post-training factors (STF, RLHF, etc):** Our findings do not contradict the referenced papers; the reason is the following. In our analysis, the number of tokens and parameters are only related to pre-training. All the post-training factors, including more training tokens during SFT, have their effect taken into account by the family-specific intercepts, i.e., $\\\\alpha_i$\\u2019s. For example, if a certain family went through a post-training procedure that made these models strong in reasoning, their values for $\\\\alpha_i$ in reasoning will be relatively large (recall that we consider base and instruct models to be from different families). We made this point clear in Section 3.1.\"}", "{\"comment\": \"Dear reviewer DNEX, thank you for your prompt response! We elaborate more on some points below and hope to reach an agreement. Please let us know what you think or if you have more questions/points to discuss.\\n\\n--------------------------\\n\\n**About Ruan et al (2024):** We agree that the approach by Ruan et al (2024) could be adapted to make performance predictions from compute. The approach \\u201cPCA+FLOPs\\u201d represents exactly that but, as our experiments in Figures 1 and 2 show, it does not work well. Following your suggestion, we have rephrased references to Ruan et al to acknowledge that their method can be applied to predicting the performance of larger LLMs, but it was not explored in their paper (see lines 134-139 and 471-475 of the updated paper).\\n\\n**Intuition behind our formulation with family-specific intercepts:** As discussed in the text, this type of model has long been utilized in Economics to assess the efficiency of firms and their production outputs; so our interpretation should directly connect with that. One way to make the model more intuitive is to interpret the intercept as a measure of efficiency, which directly influences how the input levels $s$ and $t$ translate into outputs. Specifically, if a particular family has a high $\\\\alpha_i$, the inputs $s$ and $t$ will yield a bigger impact on performance compared to a model with a lower $\\\\alpha_i$. To illustrate this, let us consider the performance of LLMs on a specific benchmark (let us forget about $\\\\Lambda$ for now) and assume that $\\\\gamma_j$ and the interaction term are omitted from the model. In this simplified scenario, the model can be expressed as:\\n\\\\begin{equation}\\n\\\\sigma(\\\\alpha_i + \\\\beta^\\\\top x(s, t)) = \\\\frac{e^{\\\\alpha_i + \\\\beta_1 \\\\log s + \\\\beta_2 \\\\log t}}{1 + e^{\\\\alpha_i + \\\\beta_1 \\\\log s + \\\\beta_2 \\\\log t}} = \\\\frac{e^{\\\\alpha_i}s^{\\\\beta_1}t^{\\\\beta_2}}{1 + e^{\\\\alpha_i}s^{\\\\beta_1}t^{\\\\beta_2}} = \\\\frac{A_i s^{\\\\beta_1}t^{\\\\beta_2}}{1 + A_i s^{\\\\beta_1}t^{\\\\beta_2}},\\n\\\\end{equation}\\nwhere $A_i = e^{\\\\alpha_i}$ represents the efficiency of family $i$. This formulation highlights how the impact of inputs $s$ and $t$ on performance depends on the value of $\\\\alpha_i$.\\n\\n**Including family-dependent slopes:** We present a comparison of our method to prior scaling laws (Ruan et al and Owen) that utilize family-specific slopes in Figure 2 (see also lines 366-375 for a discussion). Our results demonstrate that family-specific slopes are detrimental to the performance. In the case of our scaling law, to be able to fit a good model with family-specific slopes, the number of models of different sizes and training tokens per family needs to be high (at least 4 in our case, which is the case for only a single family). As one of our goals is to allow practitioners to make decisions regarding investing resources into training large LLMs based on their results with a smaller LLM, a scaling law requiring 4 models per family would be impractical. We emphasize that an important advantage of our scaling law is the ability to utilize evaluation data across **both** LLM families and benchmarks, which benefits from parameter sharing. It is possible to fit our scaling law with family-specific slopes and some regularization for identifiability, but we do not expect it to perform well. However, if such experiment would help to address your question, we are happy to try it. Please let us know.\"}", "{\"comment\": \"With the discussion period concluding in a few days, we want to ensure we address any remaining questions or concerns you might have about our paper. During the rebuttal process, we have updated the manuscript to (i) clarify how our work differs from Ruan et al.'s and highlight that they do not explore performance prediction from compute (see lines 134-139 and 471-475 in the revised paper), (ii) include a list of the models and families used (Appendix F), and (iii) emphasize that the intercept $\\\\alpha_i$ accounts for hidden factors such as post-training adjustments (lines 184-187).\"}", "{\"comment\": \"With the discussion period concluding in a few days, we want to ensure we address any remaining questions or concerns you might have about our paper. During the rebuttal process, we have updated the manuscript to (i) clarify how our work differs from Ruan et al.'s and highlight that they do not explore performance prediction from compute (see lines 134-139 and 471-475 in the revised paper), (ii) include a list of the models and families used (Appendix F), and (iii) emphasize that the intercept $\\\\alpha_i$ accounts for hidden factors such as post-training adjustments (lines 184\\u2013187). For a detailed explanation of the rationale behind our family-specific intercept, please refer to our response to reviewer DNEX.\"}" ] }

[ "Sanghyuk Chun", "Wonjae Kim", "Song Park", "Sangdoo Yun" ]

[ "vision-langauge-pretraining", "vision-language-model", "probabilistic-embeddings" ]

{ "note_id": [ "zBcTrW7QIv", "xAF6td2y0r", "wo3P1nVZnM", "wPApyjhxiH", "uFBmXlCIIr", "u4PnK2F7RZ", "skXgbfbR2T", "rpUCfPLL2d", "rkOM50jMgX", "qv49IkjTzw", "pggfK0oeuF", "pZgi85CsM7", "o7QnS9rrw2", "kKAQyiD87w", "jVjDMfuZAl", "icQUACZLeR", "hH91TMU6ni", "gdCshK6esI", "fxSzxE5fJd", "fQMpLHTWYk", "eHGPmmu7TR", "dqek9K0FWk", "bHwqX3p4Gl", "b27GCS47q2", "aP0qkVfdeS", "WcUl2Yv6x7", "WJXx1LrLmF", "VYiWkkRpdq", "VSASSsFotI", "VCiXxgygfE", "V9zDAjm1hp", "TZZBvnsffz", "RVX2NOOtij", "Quf0AJ3Osf", "Mrx0XsdFf3", "Lb8OTmo3vK", "LH7o9FldTC", "L9rtge5I2O", "FhCuYvDmmW", "FfJFSn44RR", "EVo7jI8jCJ", "DRXs8MwR9V", "COklK1n3xa", "BbFCwohhgm", "9lUvATAlak", "9gul3WIKn5", "9LHqS5hzJS", "9JCGzbjayc", "6JfhzmfkXr", "5MeJ8eqcdw", "5MSn8QXKQT", "2VsmwNB5Bl", "24CuHED5YO", "1rT0aFslPq" ], "note_type": [ "official_comment", "official_comment", "official_comment", "official_comment", "official_comment", "official_comment", "official_comment", "official_comment", "official_comment", "decision", "official_comment", "official_comment", "official_review", "official_comment", "official_comment", "official_comment", "official_comment", "official_comment", "official_comment", "official_comment", "official_comment", "official_comment", "official_review", "official_comment", "official_comment", "official_comment", "official_comment", "official_comment", "official_comment", "official_comment", "official_comment", "official_comment", "official_comment", "official_comment", "meta_review", "official_comment", "official_comment", "official_comment", "official_comment", "official_comment", "official_comment", "official_comment", "official_comment", "official_review", "official_comment", "official_comment", "official_comment", "official_review", "official_review", "official_comment", "official_comment", "official_comment", "official_comment", "official_comment" ], "note_created": [ 1732847184563, 1733122094448, 1732107128772, 1732630386270, 1732424857994, 1733204502230, 1732233831622, 1731935899181, 1733204492004, 1737523378183, 1731934399688, 1732758645304, 1730700271076, 1731935185629, 1731935707481, 1732630422089, 1732629726580, 1732107087658, 1731934899698, 1731935355230, 1733066643433, 1733204449686, 1730727183726, 1731935989918, 1733208414248, 1731934303530, 1731936052858, 1733121495225, 1732246654040, 1732107105990, 1732232508824, 1732107035447, 1731935773672, 1732847443098, 1734706502646, 1733204395984, 1732847552866, 1731934556097, 1732107062226, 1731934711518, 1733209936799, 1732246674217, 1732724488946, 1730519933329, 1731935228886, 1731934841793, 1731934502926, 1730260049625, 1730967592528, 1733204412766, 1732847538770, 1732847570847, 1731934629252, 1731935037686 ], "note_signatures": [ [ "ICLR.cc/2025/Conference/Submission115/Authors" ], [ "ICLR.cc/2025/Conference/Submission115/Authors" ], [ "ICLR.cc/2025/Conference/Submission115/Authors" ], [ "ICLR.cc/2025/Conference/Submission115/Authors" ], [ "ICLR.cc/2025/Conference/Submission115/Reviewer_8Wie" ], [ "ICLR.cc/2025/Conference/Submission115/Authors" ], [ "ICLR.cc/2025/Conference/Submission115/Reviewer_RZmV" ], [ "ICLR.cc/2025/Conference/Submission115/Authors" ], [ "ICLR.cc/2025/Conference/Submission115/Authors" ], [ "ICLR.cc/2025/Conference/Program_Chairs" ], [ "ICLR.cc/2025/Conference/Submission115/Authors" ], [ "ICLR.cc/2025/Conference/Submission115/Authors" ], [ "ICLR.cc/2025/Conference/Submission115/Reviewer_t6Gq" ], [ "ICLR.cc/2025/Conference/Submission115/Authors" ], [ "ICLR.cc/2025/Conference/Submission115/Authors" ], [ "ICLR.cc/2025/Conference/Submission115/Authors" ], [ "ICLR.cc/2025/Conference/Submission115/Authors" ], [ "ICLR.cc/2025/Conference/Submission115/Authors" ], [ "ICLR.cc/2025/Conference/Submission115/Authors" ], [ "ICLR.cc/2025/Conference/Submission115/Authors" ], [ "ICLR.cc/2025/Conference/Submission115/Authors" ], [ "ICLR.cc/2025/Conference/Submission115/Authors" ], [ "ICLR.cc/2025/Conference/Submission115/Reviewer_N1uc" ], [ "ICLR.cc/2025/Conference/Submission115/Authors" ], [ "ICLR.cc/2025/Conference/Submission115/Reviewer_1UQo" ], [ "ICLR.cc/2025/Conference/Submission115/Authors" ], [ "ICLR.cc/2025/Conference/Submission115/Authors" ], [ "ICLR.cc/2025/Conference/Submission115/Authors" ], [ "ICLR.cc/2025/Conference/Submission115/Authors" ], [ "ICLR.cc/2025/Conference/Submission115/Authors" ], [ "ICLR.cc/2025/Conference/Submission115/Reviewer_t6Gq" ], [ "ICLR.cc/2025/Conference/Submission115/Authors" ], [ "ICLR.cc/2025/Conference/Submission115/Authors" ], [ "ICLR.cc/2025/Conference/Submission115/Authors" ], [ "ICLR.cc/2025/Conference/Submission115/Area_Chair_ESuS" ], [ "ICLR.cc/2025/Conference/Submission115/Authors" ], [ "ICLR.cc/2025/Conference/Submission115/Authors" ], [ "ICLR.cc/2025/Conference/Submission115/Authors" ], [ "ICLR.cc/2025/Conference/Submission115/Authors" ], [ "ICLR.cc/2025/Conference/Submission115/Authors" ], [ "ICLR.cc/2025/Conference/Submission115/Authors" ], [ "ICLR.cc/2025/Conference/Submission115/Authors" ], [ "ICLR.cc/2025/Conference/Submission115/Reviewer_N1uc" ], [ "ICLR.cc/2025/Conference/Submission115/Reviewer_RZmV" ], [ "ICLR.cc/2025/Conference/Submission115/Authors" ], [ "ICLR.cc/2025/Conference/Submission115/Authors" ], [ "ICLR.cc/2025/Conference/Submission115/Authors" ], [ "ICLR.cc/2025/Conference/Submission115/Reviewer_8Wie" ], [ "ICLR.cc/2025/Conference/Submission115/Reviewer_1UQo" ], [ "ICLR.cc/2025/Conference/Submission115/Authors" ], [ "ICLR.cc/2025/Conference/Submission115/Authors" ], [ "ICLR.cc/2025/Conference/Submission115/Authors" ], [ "ICLR.cc/2025/Conference/Submission115/Authors" ], [ "ICLR.cc/2025/Conference/Submission115/Authors" ] ], "structured_content_str": [ "{\"comment\": \"Dear Reviewer 1UQo,\\n\\nWe would like to note that the reviewer-author discussion period will be closed in three days (2nd Dec). As mentioned in our previous comments, we tried to resolve all your concerns and suggestions in our response and revision.\\n\\nAgain, we would like to ask the reviewer to be willing to update their score in a more positive direction from borderline (6) to accept (8). If the reviewer thinks that there still exists room for improvement, please let us know. We will do our best to improve our submission.\"}", "{\"comment\": \"Dear Reviewer N1uc,\\n\\nAs we approach the end of the author-reviewer discussion period **today**, we kindly request the reviewer to consider updating their score from borderline (6) to a more positive direction, such as accept (8). In our latest comment, we have provided clarification regarding the ViT-H experiments, addressing the concerns raised.\"}", "{\"title\": \"Any follow-up question?\", \"comment\": \"Dear Reviewer 1UQo,\\n\\nWe sincerely appreciate your efforts and time for the community. As we approach the close of the author-reviewer discussion period in one week, we wonder whether the reviewer is satisfied with our response. It will be pleasurable if the reviewer can give us the reviewer's thoughts on the current revision to give us an extra valuable chance to improve our paper. We summarized our revision in the \\\"Revision summary\\\" comment.\\n\\nAgain, we thank the reviewer's valuable commitment and their help to strengthen our submission. We will address all the raised concerns by reviewers if there remain any.\"}", "{\"comment\": \"Dear Reviewer N1uc,\\n\\nWe want to bring your attention to our submission. We tried to resolve your concerns via the comment and the revision. In the revised paper Table 1 and C.1, we report the fine-tuned ViT SO400M/14 (427M parameters -- similar to ViT-L/16 but it has much more parameters for vision encoder while having a relatively small text encoder) result which is more efficient than the ViT-H model (632M parameters). In the table, we can observe that SO400M/14 shows a stronger average performance than L/16 (SO400M: 66.6 vs. L/16: 65.9). Again, our goal is not to achieve a new state-of-the-art VLM, but we aim to learn a sufficiently strong novel PrVLM. We clarify that, for the sake of simplicity, we slightly modified the original architecture (excluding the attention pooling module), which does not guarantee the same performance as the original architecture. We clarified the details of fine-tuning in Section B.2.\\n\\nWe would like to ask the reviewer to be willing to update their score in a more positive direction. If the reviewer thinks that there still exists room for improvement, please let us know. We will do our best to improve our submission.\"}", "{\"comment\": \"Thank you for your detailed response. I will update my score.\"}", "{\"comment\": \"Dear Reviewer 8Wie,\\n\\nThis is a gentle reminder that **only 6 hours remain** for reviewers to respond to comments. We are still awaiting your response and would greatly appreciate it if you could provide your feedback. Additionally, we kindly ask if the reviewer would consider updating your score based on our clarification.\"}", "{\"comment\": \"Thank you for the detailed response and clarification. Most of my questions are now resolved, and I\\u2019ve updated my score accordingly.\"}", "{\"comment\": \"**Uncertainty by image manipulation**\\n\\nWe additionally show the relationship between image manipulation and uncertainty. We evaluate ImageNet 1k zero-shot accuracy by applying a center occlusion. We applied 0% to 10% occlusion ratio, and got the following results:\\n\\n| Occlusion ratio | ImageNet ZS | avg($\\\\sigma_v$) |\\n|---|---|---|\\n| 0% | 74.6 | 0.0148 |\\n| 2.5% | 74.1 | 0.0149 |\\n| 5% | 73.8 | 0.0152 |\\n| 7.5% | 73.5 | 0.0153 |\\n| 10% | 73.2 | 0.0153 |\\n\\nWe also tested optimized noise by the PGD attack [D] with sampled ImageNet (1000 images):\\n\\n| Attack | ImageNet ZS (1000 images) | avg($\\\\sigma_v$) |\\n|---|---|---|\\n| - | 72.9 | 0.0147 |\\n| PGD(iter=1) | 20.0 | 0.0149 |\\n| PGD(iter=5) | 3.8 | 0.0167 |\\n| PGD(iter=10) | 2.6 | 0.0175 |\\n| PGD(iter=40) | 2.5 | 0.0190 |\\n\\n- [D] M\\u0105dry, Aleksander, et al. \\\"Towards deep learning models resistant to adversarial attacks.\\\" ICLR 2018\\n\\nHere, we observe that the image uncertainty is increased by more severe manipulation. Note that as we discussed in the previous application (**Understanding image dataset**), converting ProLIP\\u2019s image uncertainty to image qualification would be an interesting topic, but we remain this for future work.\\n\\n**[Q1] normalized means**\\n\\nCLIP uses normalized vectors for both training and inference to compute cosine similarity. ProLIP also uses normalized means due to the computational advantage of normalized means. For example, normalized vectors can compute pairwise distance very efficiently by using cosine distance. This is a rule-of-thumb for retrieval models (or metric learning methods) not only for CLIP, but also for Recommender systems (e.g., Matrix Factorization), document embeddings (e.g., ColBERT) and image retrieval.\\n\\nAlso, conceptually, we can estimate the Gaussian distribution by using the estimated mean and covariance (i.e., $\\\\mathcal N(\\\\mu, \\\\Sigma)$). In practice, because we use the closed-form solution for calculating distance (closed-form sampled distance) and loss functions (inclusion loss, PPCL), no sampling based on the re-parameterization trick is required. We specified this in Appendix A.3\\n\\n**[Q2] Classification with variance**\\n\\nConceptually, zero-shot classification is an image-to-text retrieval, where the database texts are the class names. CLIP also uses this approach by using cosine similarity as the distance. ProLIP uses the same concept, but we use CSD as the distance. Since CSD is computed by $\\\\mu$ and $\\\\Sigma$: $\\\\mu_v^\\\\top \\\\mu_t - \\\\frac{1}{2}tr(\\\\Sigma_v + \\\\Sigma_t)$, the estimated variances are used for computing the distance between image and text. We clarify this in Section B.2.\\n\\n**[Q3] KL(p1 || p2) - KL(p2 || p1)**\\n\\nThanks for your suggestion. Let the proposed metric be named \\u201cDKL\\u201d. We add the related discussion in Section A.6 of the revised paper. As shown in Fig A.2, the most significant problem with DKL is that it cannot correctly represent the \\u201cinclusion\\u201d relationship. For example, consider two random variables $Z_1$ and $Z_2$ where they do not include each other. In this case, although $Z_1$ and $Z_2$ do not include each other, because $DKL(Z_1, Z_2) = -DKL(Z_1, Z_2)$, one of $DKL(Z_1, Z_2)$ or $DKL(Z_2, Z_1)$ will become positive, while the other will become negative. Namely, DKL cannot correctly capture the inclusion relationship. On the other hand, in the same scenario, our inclusion test always returns negative values as shown in Fig A.2, which correctly represents the inclusion relationship.\\n\\n**[Q4] Inclusion loss misunderstanding**\\n\\nIn the answer for **[Q8]**, we clarified that an embedding with higher uncertainty will have a larger variance. Here, a \\u201cpartial\\u201d instance will have higher uncertainty than \\u201call\\u201d because the hidden part of the instance can be potentially matched to various inputs. For example, partial information \\u201cA person is walking [MASK] [MASK]\\u201d can be either \\u201cA person is walking in rain\\u201d or \\u201cA person is walking on sunshine\\u201d, therefore \\u201call\\u201d should be included by \\u201cpartial\\u201d. Similarly, we will clarify the relationship between $Z_t$ and $Z_v$ in the following response for **[Q5]**.\"}", "{\"comment\": \"Dear Reviewer RZmV,\\n\\nThis is a gentle reminder that **only 6 hours remain** for reviewers to respond to comments. We are still awaiting your response and would greatly appreciate it if you could provide your feedback. Additionally, we kindly ask if the reviewer would consider updating your score based on our clarification.\"}", "{\"title\": \"Paper Decision\", \"decision\": \"Accept (Poster)\"}", "{\"comment\": \"**Understanding image dataset**\\n\\nFirst, we emphasize that ProLIP\\u2019s image uncertainty is not the same as the \\u201cimage uncertainty\\u201d of classification tasks. In classification tasks, an image has a high uncertainty if it can be matched to \\u201cmultiple classes\\u201d, while the ProLIP case assigns a high uncertainty if an image can be described in \\u201cmultiple different and various captions\\u201d. However, ProLIP has a different mechanism with classification uncertainty.\", \"an_ideal_prvlm_should_capture_three_potential_input_uncertainties\": \"(1) uncertainty from the text modality, (2) uncertainty from the image modality, and (3) uncertainty from the text-image cross-modality. Uni-modal uncertainty is straightforward; if an input has more detailed information (e.g., describing more detailed information in text, or capturing a very detailed and complex scene by photography), then it will have smaller uncertainty, otherwise, it will have larger uncertainty (e.g., providing very high-level caption, such as \\u201cperson\\u201d, or only a part object with white background is taken by picture).\\n\\nThe cross-modal uncertainty should capture \\u201chow many possible instances can be matched to this input?\\u201d. We can think this in two different viewpoints: text-to-image and image-to-text. The text-to-image relationship is straightforward. If we have a caption \\u201cphoto\\u201d, then it will be matched to all photographs, and if we have a caption with a very detailed description (e.g., the full description of the hotel room), then it will be only matched to specific images. Image-to-text relationships are often determined by the dataset. For example, if we have a caption dataset exactly describing which objects are in the image, then we can think that an image with fewer objects will have larger uncertainty. However, if we consider a caption dataset where an image has multiple captions each caption focuses on completely different objects, then an image with more objects will have larger uncertainty. In other words, unlike text uncertainty originating from a text-to-image relationship, image uncertainty originating from an image-to-text relationship is highly affected by the property of the training dataset.\\n\\nIn practice, because our datasets have a mixed property and their captions are somewhat noisy, our image uncertainty will have a mixed property, namely, unlike text uncertainty, there could be no strong relationship between the absolute uncertainty value and the number of objects (or complexity of images). However, empirically, we have more captions that exactly describe the scene (because of the dataset filtering strategy), therefore, a more simple image tends to have larger uncertainty and a more complex image tends to have smaller uncertainty.\\n\\nFor example, assume we have an image with a white background and a very clear overall object shape. In terms of classification, it will have low uncertainty because there is no confounder to the classification. However, ProLIP will assign a high uncertainty for this case.\\n\\nFrom this, we can divide the image classification tasks into two different scenarios: (1) When all images have homogeneous backgrounds and only the quality of the image determines the classification performance, (2) When images are natural images and the task is inherently multi-object classification, but the labels are single-labeled (e.g., ImageNet [B, C])\\n\\n- [B] Beyer, Lucas, et al. \\\"Are we done with imagenet?.\\\" arXiv preprint arXiv:2006.07159 (2020).\\n- [C] Yun, Sangdoo, et al. \\\"Re-labeling imagenet: from single to multi-labels, from global to localized labels.\\\" CVPR 2021.\\n\\nAs the first example, we choose MNIST. Here, we observe that the learned image uncertainty and the MNIST accuracy show a strong negative correlation, (-0.98), namely, if an image is more uncertain then ProLIP tends to estimate a wrong label. It aligns with our intuition.\\n\\nAs the second example, we choose ImageNet-1k, which shows a strong positive correlation (+0.98), i.e., a certain image tends to be wrongly classified by ProLIP. This could be counterintuitive in terms of \\u201cclassification task\\u201d, but actually it is a correctly estimated value. For example, ImageNet contains various image distributions. Some images are thumbnail images with white backgrounds (high uncertainty) and some images are in-the-wild images with complex backgrounds and multiple objects (low uncertainty). In this case, a certain image (more complex image) will be a more \\u201cdifficult\\u201d image.\\n\\nOverall, ProLIP\\u2019s image uncertainty tendency can be used for understanding the properties of the given dataset. Converting ProLIP\\u2019s image uncertainty to image classification uncertainty would be an interesting topic, but we remain this for future work.\"}", "{\"comment\": \"Dear Reviewer N1uc,\\n\\n1. Our work is invariant to openclip and Cherti, Mehdi, et al. We did not compare our work with them (their main contributions are mainly around the scalability beyond tens of billion seen samples and very large backbone, such as ViT-H or ViT-g) and we do not think that our results are directly comparable with them. Our main contribution is to enable from-scratch training of PrVLMs, which was not possible by the previous PrVLMs (in terms of from-scratch training) and previous VLM works, including openclip and Cherti, Mehdi, et al (they are not probabilistic representations).\\n2. We already provided the results that show by increasing the parameter size ViT-B/16 (46.44GFlops) $\\\\rightarrow$ ViT-L/16 (136.41GFlops, fine-tuned) $\\\\rightarrow$ ViT-SO400M/14 (233.54GFlops, fine-tuned), the overall performance is improved (63.3 $\\\\rightarrow$ 65.9 $\\\\rightarrow$ 66.6). ViT-H has 381.68GFlops, which is not easy to fit with our limited resources (model profiles are from the official openclip model profile document: https://github.com/mlfoundations/open_clip/blob/main/docs/model_profile.csv). We are now trying to fine-tune ViT-H, and if we have any additional results, we will inform you. \\n3. Again, scaling up beyond ViT-H is not our main contribution, and we do think it is not fair to compare our work with big research groups with hundreds of GPUs. Our work is even larger scale than other vision language representation works. For example, we bring two recent ICML papers [B,C] as examples (there are indeed more than two papers, but we take only two in this comment). Meru [B], a hyperbolic embedding-based CLIP model, only showed their results on a limited number of seen samples (approximately 245M seen samples). Their ImageNet zero-shot accuracy is only 34.3%, while ProLIP achieves more than a double score of Meru (74.6% for ViT-B/16). Similarly, OT-CLIP [C] was only trained with approximately 90M seen samples, and achieved only 16~17% ImageNet zero-shot accuracies. Although they didn't show ViT-H results or billion-scale seen samples as ours, their works still bring value to the community by showing that a different paradigm (hyperbolic embedding) or a different optimization technique (OT) can be helpful to CLIP training. We think that our work is also a similar to [B] and [C], rather than showing ViT-H which is not accessible by most researchers (again, it takes 279 hours with 824 A100s [A]).\\n\\n- [B] Desai, Karan, et al. \\\"Hyperbolic image-text representations.\\\" ICML 2023.\\n- [C] Shi, Liangliang, Jack Fan, and Junchi Yan. \\\"OT-CLIP: Understanding and Generalizing CLIP via Optimal Transport.\\\" ICML 2024\\n\\nFrom these three reasons (**1** our work is not comparable to openclip and [A], **2** we already show that more params lead to better performance, **3** there are already many research papers not showing ViT-H appeared in top-tier ML conferences [B, C and more]), we would like to ask the reviewer to adjust their score if the reviewer's only concern is the lack of ViT-H experiment.\"}", "{\"summary\": \"The paper works on a probabilistic CLIP that can model the uncertainty of the data. The model measures the uncertainty with a multi-dimensional Gaussian distribution, and it is trained with proposed novel inclusion loss. The paper also simplified the sampled distance loss from previous paper. Given that, the paper first shows some analysis that the estimated uncertainty aligns with several intuitions. Lastly, it shows two applications of image traversals (find a more concrete caption for the original caption iteratively) and prompt enhancement for the zero-shot image classification task.\", \"soundness\": \"3\", \"presentation\": \"2\", \"contribution\": \"3\", \"strengths\": \"1. The paper constructs a probabilistic VLM that can capture of uncertainty from the multimodal dataset.\\n\\n2. The paper proposes the inclusion loss and also provide intuitive understanding of it. \\n\\n3. The paper contains interesting analysis of the uncertainty. \\n\\n4. The paper proposes to utilize the uncertainty to conduct prompt rewriting.\", \"weaknesses\": \"1. The intuition behinds the paper is that multimodal paired data can be actually many-to-many mapping. I think that this intuition would lead to a multi-modes representation intuitively, as different text can be assigned to a single image, e.g., \\\"A dog is walking\\\" and \\\"A man is looking at the building\\\". However, the modeling in this paper is a Gaussian distribution with a single mean that can not conduct good mode coverage.\\n\\n1. (Minor) The basic behinds contrastive learning is that the positive pair is sampled from the joint distribution $P(x, y)$ while the negative pairs are sampled independently $P(x)P(y)$. Given that, contrastive learning does not force a 1-1 mapping from its maths intuition. Practically, the behavior might be different from the above as model learning might force 1-1. The motivation in Abs/Intro and Sec 2.1 might need a revision. The current claim is a little bit stronger to me and this might be fixed by writing or explanations. Also, in Sec 2.2, it claims that \\\"VL tasks suffer from uncertainty as shown in Sec 2.1\\\". This is a little bit beyond the context of Sec 2.1, as Sec 2.1 does not have strong VL task experimental evidence. I treated it as over-claim now but I think that it can be solved by writing revision. \\n\\n1. The two applications (image caption traversals and prompt enhancement) of the estimated uncertainty are not representative, and it would be better if more applications (more concretely, proof of concepts) are presented. For example, the data filtering, error estimation, etc.\", \"questions\": \"1. Please specify the context why $\\\\mu_1$ and $\\\\mu_2$ are norm-1 vectors (i.e., because CLIP normalizes them during training?)? I think that the original CLIP only normalizes when calculating the contrastive loss, maybe there is a re-parameterization here. Also please include them in text which would be friendly to reader.\\n\\n2. I wonder how the estimated variance from the model is used in the classification task? \\n\\n2. I appreciate the comparisons to KL divergence in Sec 3.3. The paper only measures KL(p1||p2) which has a different form to the proposed inclusion metric. How about adding a comparison to metric KL(p1 || p2) - KL(p2 || p1)? \\n\\n3. The inclusion loss is defined as $L(Z1, Z2)$ = $Z1 \\\\in Z2$. Thus, in Line 259 and Line 264, should that be $L(t, v)$ and $L(partial, all)$ instead the current $L(v, t)$ and $L(all, partial)$? \\n\\n4. In Fig 5, it shows that the estimated variance of image is smaller than text. The loss defined in Eqn (6) is unsymmetrical for image and text (because of the hyperparemeters and the text VIB loss). Would that be possible that the smaller image variance is from this loss design? \\n\\n4. Please specify the exact formulation (i.e., implementation) of VIB in main text or in appendix.\\n\\n4. Please specify how the uncertainty information is utilized when conducting the image traversals task. \\n\\n5. (An open question; no concrete answer required) What would be the golden uncertainty of a particular data in the PrVLM? I.e., the best distribution that a model should converge to?\", \"flag_for_ethics_review\": \"['No ethics review needed.']\", \"rating\": \"6\", \"confidence\": \"3\", \"code_of_conduct\": \"Yes\"}", "{\"comment\": \"**[W2/Q1] UNC token efficiency**\\n\\nIn practice, Transformer with a relatively short context length (e.g., a few hundred) and small network capacity (e.g., ViT-B) does not show a quadratic complexity on the input length. Following the reviewer\\u2019s comment, we compare three different design choices (deterministic, UNC token, and multi-head uncertainty estimate module) on five different architectures (ViT-B/32, ViT-B/16, ViT-B/16 with 768 width, ViT-L/16, and ViT-L/14). Here, we only compare image encoders because image encoders always take the same image token length, which makes it easier to compare the impact of different design choices. We report (1) the number of input image tokens for each architecture (if we choose the \\u201c[UNC] token architecture\\u201d, it will be added by one), (2) the base parameters when we use deterministic, (3) inference time for 50k ImageNet validation images (lower is faster), and (4) additional parameters compared to the deterministic baseline.\\n\\n| | ViT-B/32 | ViT-B/16 | ViT-B/16-768 | ViT-L/16 | ViT-L/14 |\\n|---|---|---|---|---|---|\\n| # img tokens | 49 | 196 | 196 | 196 | 256 |\\n| Base param | 151.7M | 150.0M | 197.3M | 428.5M | 428.4M |\\n| Deterministic | 75.18s | 76.68s | 78.53s | 137.77s | 176.95s |\\n| UNC (proposed) | 75.24s (+0.3M) | 76.84s (+0.3M) | 78.61s (+0.6M) | 137.99s (+0.6M) | 177.82s (+0.6M) |\\n| Multi-head | 75.75s (+20.7M) | 78.18s (+20.7M) | 80.08s (+28.9M) | 146.12s (+40.0M) | 191.68s (+40.0M) |\\n\\nWe have three findings from the table.\\n\\n- Even if we increase the input token length, the actual inference speed is not quadratically slow -- ViT-B/32 and ViT-B/16 have the same Transformer capability but only input lengths are different (49 vs. 196), but their inference times are 75.18s and 76.68s, which is an almost neglectable change. If we choose a larger model (e.g., ViT-L), the difference becomes larger, e.g., 137.77s vs. 176.95s, but it is still not a quadratic order.\\n- [UNC] token adds almost neglectable parameters (0.3M for B and 0.6M for L) and inference time compared to the deterministic one.\\n- Multi-head architecture needs a large number of additional parameters (e.g., 20M for B and 40M for L) and shows slower inference time, especially for a larger network (e.g., 176.95s vs. 191.68s for ViT-L/14).\\n\\nFurthermore, in practice, multi-head architecture requires more memory than [UNC] token, which makes it difficult to use a large batch size and scale up to a larger backbone. On the other hand, [UNC] token only needs almost neglectable additional parameters, inference speed and memory size, which makes it easier to scale up.\\n\\nWe add the related discussion in Appendix C.3.\\n\\n**[W3] Novelty compared to PCME++**\\n\\nContinuing from the response for W2, ProLIP has a huge contribution in terms of scaling up probabilistic representations. Namely, we cannot scale up PCME++ to CLIP level training dataset. First, as shown in the previous response, ProLIP is significantly more efficient than PCME++\\u2019s architecture (multi-head architecture) in terms of inference speed, parameter size, and memory. It makes ProLIP easier to be scaled up to a larger backbone while PCME++ suffers from the scalability issue. Namely, our architectural contribution is significant compared to PCME++ in terms of scaling up.\\n\\nSecond, as shown in Table C.3 of the paper, a model will not be converged if we solely use PCME++ loss. We need additional deterministic loss, such as CLIP loss or SigLIP loss for a stable convergence of PCME++ loss. Even if we use additional deterministic loss, we can find that it performs worse than a model trained solely with ProLIP\\u2019s PPCL loss. It is because as we discussed in Sec A.2 of the paper, PCME++ loss uses binary cross entropy (BCE) loss, and PPCL loss is based on log-sigmoid loss. To compute BCE loss, we have to compute the squared L2 distance between two $\\\\mu$s. If the difference between $\\\\mu$s is extremely small, computing $\\\\sum_{i=1}^D ((\\\\mu_v^i)^2 - (\\\\mu_t^i)^2)$ will suffer from a numerical error. On the other hand, PPCL loss directly uses the cosine similarity between $\\\\mu$s, which is more numerically stable than the squared summation. Moreover, our inclusion loss is sufficiently novel which enforces a desired behavior; which was not able to PCME++. It supports that our loss function design is crucial to scaling up probabilistic representations.\\n\\nFinally, our main contribution is to train the first PrVLM comparable to the deterministic baselines (e.g., CLIP, SigLIP). Again, previous PrVLMs were not able to pre-train (i.e., they fine-tune the pre-trained CLIP models). PCME++ shows a small-scale pre-training result, but it still needs deterministic loss. Furthermore, as we mentioned before, even if we use additional CLIP loss, PPCL-only ProLIP performs better than PCME++ (Table C.3). It shows that ProLIP has a significant novel contribution to PrVLM.\"}", "{\"comment\": \"**[W1] Mixture of Gaussian**\\n\\nThanks for the interesting question. Mixture of Gaussian (MoG) is an intuitive approach to tackle the multi-mode problem. However, if we have a sufficiently large dimensionality, MoG is not a mandatory option. Intuitively, we can break D-dimensional unimodal Gaussian probabilistic embedding space into multiple subspaces with smaller dimensions (e.g., D/2-dimensional space) and consider each space as a different Gaussian embedding space. More formally and rigorously, in our framework (using CSD as the probabilistic distance), using k-MoG (MoG with k number of Gaussians) is equivalent to using k^2 D-dimensional embedding space.\\n\\nConsider a probabilistic embedding with 2-MoG, namely $Z \\\\sim \\\\frac{1}{2}\\\\mathcal N(\\\\mu_1, \\\\Sigma_1)$ with probability 0.5 and $Z \\\\sim \\\\frac{1}{2}\\\\mathcal N(\\\\mu_2, \\\\Sigma_2)$ with probability 0.5. We can compute the expected CSD between two $Z$s (where $Z_1$ is parameterized by $\\\\mu^1_1, \\\\mu^1_2, \\\\Sigma^1_1, \\\\Sigma^1_2$ and $Z_2$ is parameterized by $\\\\mu^2_1, \\\\mu^2_2, \\\\Sigma^2_1, \\\\Sigma^2_2$) by computing \\n\\n$$\\\\frac{1}{4} \\\\left[ d(\\\\mu^1_1, \\\\mu^2_1, \\\\Sigma^1_1, \\\\Sigma^2_1) + d(\\\\mu^1_1, \\\\mu^2_2, \\\\Sigma^1_1, \\\\Sigma^2_2) + d(\\\\mu^1_2, \\\\mu^2_1, \\\\Sigma^1_2, \\\\Sigma^2_1) + d(\\\\mu^1_2, \\\\mu^2_2, \\\\Sigma^1_2, \\\\Sigma^2_2) \\\\right],$$\\n\\nwhere $d(\\\\cdot)$ is CSD, i.e, $d(\\\\mu_1, \\\\mu_2, \\\\Sigma_1, \\\\Sigma_2) = \\\\| \\\\mu_1 - \\\\mu_2 \\\\|_2^2 + tr(\\\\Sigma_1 + \\\\Sigma_2)$. To simplicity, we omit $\\\\frac{1}{4}$ for the remaining derivation. Now, consider two virtual unimodal Gaussian embeddings \\n\\n$$W_1 \\\\sim \\\\mathcal N(\\\\mu^1_1 \\\\oplus \\\\mu^1_1 \\\\oplus \\\\mu^1_2 \\\\oplus \\\\mu^1_2, \\\\Sigma^1_1 \\\\oplus \\\\Sigma^1_1 \\\\oplus \\\\Sigma^1_2 \\\\oplus \\\\Sigma^1_2)$$\\n$$W_2 \\\\sim \\\\mathcal N(\\\\mu^2_1 \\\\oplus \\\\mu^2_2 \\\\oplus \\\\mu^2_1 \\\\oplus \\\\mu^2_2, \\\\Sigma^2_1 \\\\oplus \\\\Sigma^2_2 \\\\oplus \\\\Sigma^2_1 \\\\oplus \\\\Sigma^2_2),$$\\n\\nwhere $\\\\oplus$ denotes the \\u201cconcatenation\\u201d operation, i.e, $W_1$ and $W_2$ have four times larger dimensionality than $Z_1$ and $Z_2$.\\n\\nInterestingly, we can easily show that the above equation equals CSD between $W_1$ and $W_2$. Note that this derivation is invariant to the diagonal covariance, but also holds for the full covariance. In other words, using MoG is mathematically equivalent to using a larger dimensionality (as much as the square of the number of modes); therefore, if we have a sufficiently large dimensionality that can capture the ambiguity of the dataset, MoG is not a mandatory option.\\n\\nOur revised paper includes the related discussion in Section D.\\n\\n**[W2] Contrastive loss can solve many-to-many?**\\n\\nFrom the response for **[Q8]**, we clarify that our purpose is to capture the inherent input uncertainty that cannot be captured by a deterministic embedding space. Since this is the fundamental limitation of a deterministic space, this problem is agnostic to the choice of objective function. We partially agree that contrastive learning less penalizes plausible matching than other loss functions, such as triplet loss with hard negative mining, but it still shares the limitation of deterministic embeddings.\\n\\nWe cite Appendix A.1 in Section 2.1 and 2.2. If the reviewer thinks the current version is still insufficient, please let us know.\\n\\n**[W3] Other downstream tasks**\\n\\nWe do not think our applications are not representative as the reviewer's comment, but we also agree that it would be better to show more applications of the learned uncertainty. Here, we show 3 applications.\\n\\n**Dataset filtering**\\n\\nBelow, we show the DataComp CLIP filtering small track (filtering 12.8B noisy web-crawled image-text pairs) by using our method and baselines provided by DataComp [A]\\n\\n- [A] Gadre, Samir Yitzhak, et al. \\\"Datacomp: In search of the next generation of multimodal datasets.\\\" NeurIPS 2024.\\n\\n| | Dataset size | ImageNet | ImageNet dist. shifts | VTAB | Retrieval | Average |\\n|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|\\n| No filtering | 12.8M | 0.025 | 0.033 | 0.145 | 0.114 | 0.132 |\\n| Random subset (25%) | 3.2M | 0.022 | 0.032 | 0.130 | 0.099 | 0.126 |\\n| LAION-2B filtering | 1.3M | 0.031 | 0.040 | 0.136 | 0.092 | 0.133 |\\n| English (fasttext), caption length, and image size | 3M | 0.038 | 0.043 | 0.150 | 0.118 | 0.142 |\\n| Image-based & CLIP score (L/14 30%) | 1.4M | 0.039 | 0.045 | 0.162 | 0.094 | 0.144 |\\n| CLIP L14 (20%) | 2.6M | 0.042 | 0.051 | 0.165 | 0.100 | 0.151 |\\n| ProLIP B16 (20%) | 2.3M | 0.042 | 0.047 | 0.167 | 0.117 | **0.154** |\\n\\nHere, we can observe that by using ProLIP uncertainty-aware features, we can achieve a better filtering performance compared to the other baselines. However, we would like to note that ProLIP is not specifically designed for dataset filtering; proposing a new dataset filtering method using ProLIP will be an interesting future work, but not the scope of the current paper.\"}", "{\"comment\": \"Thank you for your update! Could you kindly share the reasons behind your decision to raise the score to 6 (marginally above the acceptance threshold) rather than 8 (accept)? If there are specific aspects we can improve, we would be happy to update our paper accordingly.\"}", "{\"comment\": \"Dear Reviewer 1UQo,\\n\\nWe want to bring your attention to our submission. We tried to resolve your concerns via the comment and the revision. In the revised paper Section C.6 (page 27), we clarify how the experiments on HierarCaps can be used as a proxy of human study. We provide additional experiments in C.6 accordingly.\\n\\nWe also added a new visualization result in Figure B.1 following the reviewer's suggestion. Section C.8 shows that our uncertainty is also beneficial to other downstream tasks, following the reviewer's comment.\\n\\nWe would like to ask the reviewer to be willing to update their score in a more positive direction. If the reviewer thinks that there still exists room for improvement, please let us know. We will do our best to improve our submission.\"}", "{\"title\": \"Any follow-up question?\", \"comment\": \"Dear Reviewer t6Gq,\\n\\nWe sincerely appreciate your efforts and time for the community. As we approach the close of the author-reviewer discussion period in one week, we wonder whether the reviewer is satisfied with our response. It will be pleasurable if the reviewer can give us the reviewer's thoughts on the current revision to give us an extra valuable chance to improve our paper. We summarized our revision in the \\\"Revision summary\\\" comment.\\n\\nAgain, we thank the reviewer's valuable commitment and their help to strengthen our submission. We will address all the raised concerns by reviewers if there remain any.\"}", "{\"comment\": \"**[Q2] Image uncertainty**\", \"an_ideal_prvlm_should_capture_three_potential_input_uncertainties\": \"(1) uncertainty from the text modality, (2) uncertainty from the image modality, and (3) uncertainty from the text-image cross-modality. Uni-modal uncertainty is straightforward; if an input has more detailed information (e.g., describing more detailed information in text, or capturing a very detailed and complex scene by photography), then it will have smaller uncertainty, otherwise, it will have larger uncertainty (e.g., providing very high-level caption, such as \\u201cperson\\u201d, or only a part object with white background is taken by picture).\\n\\nThe cross-modal uncertainty should capture \\u201chow many possible instances can be matched to this input?\\u201d. We can think this in two different viewpoints: text-to-image and image-to-text. The text-to-image relationship is straightforward. If we have a caption \\u201cphoto\\u201d, then it will be matched to all photographs, and if we have a caption with a very detailed description (e.g., the full description of the hotel room), then it will be only matched to specific images. Image-to-text relationships are often determined by the dataset. For example, if we have a caption dataset exactly describing which objects are in the image, then we can think that an image with fewer objects will have larger uncertainty. However, if we consider a caption dataset where an image has multiple captions each caption focuses on completely different objects, then an image with more objects will have larger uncertainty. In other words, unlike text uncertainty originating from a text-to-image relationship, image uncertainty originating from an image-to-text relationship is highly affected by the property of the training dataset.\\n\\nIn practice, because our datasets have a mixed property and their captions are somewhat noisy, our image uncertainty will have a mixed property, namely, unlike text uncertainty, there could be no strong relationship between the absolute uncertainty value and the number of objects (or complexity of images). However, empirically, we have more captions that exactly describe the scene (because of the dataset filtering strategy), therefore, a more simple image tends to have larger uncertainty and a more complex image tends to have smaller uncertainty.\\n\\nFurthermore, since there is no \\u201cuni-modal\\u201d uncertainty supervision, a PrVLM trained only with image-text relationships will have no guarantee to represent proper image uni-modal uncertainty. To enforce a proper uni-modal image uncertainty, we first propose the uni-modal uncertainty supervision by proposing the inclusion loss, namely, the original image embedding should be included by an image embedding from the masked image.\\n\\nWe also clarify that the dataset used for the analysis is a very large-scale dataset with 3.5M image-text pairs (which follows the training distribution of DataComp1B). If we choose a more restricted dataset with selective images or captions, we may have a different observation, but we don\\u2019t think it truly represents the embedding space learned by ProLIP.\\n\\nOur revised paper includes the related discussion in Section A.1.\"}", "{\"comment\": \"We thank the reviewer for their positive feedback and constructive comments. In the following comment and the revised paper, we address all the raised concerns by the reviewer. The overview of the revised paper is clarified in the common comment (\\u201cRevision summary\\u201d). If the reviewer still has any concerns, please let us know.\\n\\n**[Q8] What is the desired probabilistic embedding space?**\\n\\nBefore addressing the other concerns, we would like to first clarify the purpose of our probabilistic embedding space and its desired embedding space. The main purpose of the probabilistic embedding space is to model the inherent uncertainty of inputs (i.e., aleatoric uncertainty), which is not able to be captured by deterministic embeddings regardless of the choice of the objective function. For example, consider four captions, A: \\u201cPerson\\u201d, B: \\u201cA person is walking\\u201d, C: \\u201cA person is walking in the rain\\u201d and D: \\u201cA person is walking on sunshine\\u201d. Conceptually, C and D have completely different semantics hence they should be located far away. However, B can be matched to C and D, and A can be matched to B, C, and D. If we use a deterministic embedding space, we cannot find a stable solution to satisfy the condition (i.e., let d() be a distance function, then d(C, D) is large, but d(B, C) and d(B, D) are small -- similar condition can be derived by A). Furthermore, we can consider a more complicated scenario by considering a new caption E: \\u201cA person hugging a cat\\u201d; E should have large distances with B, C, and D but a small distance with A, while A should be close to B~E.\\n\\nOn the other hand, as shown in Figure A.1 in the revised paper, a probabilistic embedding space can naturally capture the inherent uncertainty of inputs by representing the uncertainty by using variance; more uncertain inputs will be mapped to a random variable with a larger variance. Namely, if we need to make a positive relationship for (B, C) and (B, D), while keeping a negative relationship for (C, D), we first map C and D separately then map B to \\u201ccover\\u201d or \\u201cinclude\\u201d C and D by assigning a larger uncertainty value (i.e., variance).\", \"an_ideal_prvlm_should_capture_three_potential_input_uncertainties\": \"(1) uncertainty from the text modality, (2) uncertainty from the image modality, and (3) uncertainty from the text-image cross-modality. Uni-modal uncertainty is straightforward; if an input has more detailed information (e.g., describing more detailed information in text, or capturing a very detailed and complex scene by photography), then it will have smaller uncertainty, otherwise, it will have larger uncertainty (e.g., providing very high-level caption, such as \\u201cperson\\u201d, or only a part object with white background is taken by picture).\\n\\nThe cross-modal uncertainty should capture \\u201chow many possible instances can be matched to this input?\\u201d. We can think this in two different viewpoints: text-to-image and image-to-text. The text-to-image relationship is straightforward. If we have a caption \\u201cphoto\\u201d, then it will be matched to all photographs, and if we have a caption with a very detailed description (e.g., the full description of the hotel room), then it will be only matched to specific images. Image-to-text relationships are often determined by the dataset. For example, if we have a caption dataset exactly describing which objects are in the image, then we can think that an image with fewer objects will have larger uncertainty. However, if we consider a caption dataset where an image has multiple captions each caption focuses on completely different objects, then an image with more objects will have larger uncertainty. In other words, unlike text uncertainty originating from a text-to-image relationship, image uncertainty originating from an image-to-text relationship is highly affected by the property of the training dataset.\\n\\nIn practice, because our datasets have a mixed property and their captions are somewhat noisy, our image uncertainty will have a mixed property, namely, unlike text uncertainty, there could be no strong relationship between the absolute uncertainty value and the number of objects (or complexity of images). However, empirically, we have more captions that exactly describe the scene (because of the dataset filtering strategy), therefore, a more simple image tends to have larger uncertainty and a more complex image tends to have smaller uncertainty.\\n\\nOur revised paper includes the related discussion in Section A.1.\"}", "{\"title\": \"Reminder\", \"comment\": \"Dear reviewers,\\n\\nThank you for your constructive and positive feedback! We are encouraged by the positive consensus reached among the reviewers, with all scores indicating \\\"6: marginally above the acceptance threshold\\\".\\n\\nAs the discussion phase will be closed shortly (within a day), we would like to kindly remind you to acknowledge our latest responses:\\n- We are still awaiting Reviewer 1UQo's response. We have addressed all the concerns raised by the reviewer and updated the paper accordingly. Following the reviewer's suggestion, we add a new visualization (Figure B.1), a proxy of human study (Section C.6), and more downstream tasks of uncertainty (Section C.8)\\n- We clarified to Reviewer N1uc that (1) our work is not directly comparable to openclip or Cherti, Mehdi, et al (2) We have already provided results demonstrating performance improvements as parameter size increases (ViT-B/16 $\\\\rightarrow$ ViT-L/16 $\\\\rightarrow$ ViT-SO400M/14) (3) ViT-H experiments have not been conducted by prior vision-language representation works. In contrast, our approach operates at an even larger scale compared to other VLM works published in top-tier ML conferences, and (4) we are now running ViT-H fine-tuning, which is currently 60% complete and shows promising results (77.4% IN top-1, while SO400M at the same iteration achieved 77.3%). Note that we chose SO400M rather than ViT-H to fit the original author-reviewer discussion deadline which was planned to be closed last week.\\n- We are also waiting for the responses from Reviewer t6Gq, RZmV, and 8Wie. We kindly requested insights into why your scores are 6 (marginally above acceptance) rather than 8 (accept). If there are specific areas for improvement, we are eager to address them to strengthen our submission further. We would like to ask the reviewer to be willing to update their score in a more positive direction from marginally above the acceptance threshold (6) to accept (8).\\n\\nThank you once again for your valuable contributions to the community. We look forward to your positive feedback and responses.\\n\\nAuthors\"}", "{\"comment\": \"Dear Reviewer t6Gq,\\n\\nThis is a gentle reminder that **only 6 hours remain** for reviewers to respond to comments. We are still awaiting your response and would greatly appreciate it if you could provide your feedback. Additionally, we kindly ask if the reviewer would consider updating your score based on our clarification.\"}", "{\"summary\": \"This paper introduces ProLIP, a fully probabilistic approach to language-image pre-training. The authors begin by noting that CLIP's loss function oversimplifies the complex relationships between real-world images and texts. In response, ProLIP proposes a novel loss function that better captures the distributional relationships between these modalities. Extensive experiments were conducted to demonstrate the effectiveness of the proposed method.\", \"soundness\": \"3\", \"presentation\": \"2\", \"contribution\": \"3\", \"strengths\": [\"This paper is well-motivated, starting from the many-to-many matching relationships within a batch of images and texts. It is also well-structured and easy to follow.\", \"The authors provided strong mathematical support for the proposed learning objective.\", \"Extensive experiments were conducted to demonstrate the effectiveness of the proposed method.\", \"The proposed method has been proven effective on datasets containing billions of image-text pairs.\"], \"weaknesses\": [\"The proposed method was trained only on ViT-B and ViT-L vision encoders. Scaling up to ViT-H and comparing with other methods are important to further demonstrate the scalability of ProLIP.\", \"As shown in Table 1, ProLIP introduces a more complex loss design and training process compared to CLIP, yet it achieves only a 0.9% improvement in ImageNet zero-shot classification and an average gain of 0.7%. Also in Table C.1, ProLIP with ViT-L also just exhibits slight improvement over CLIP. This modest improvement may indicate scalability challenges for the proposed method.\"], \"questions\": \"Please refer to weaknesses.\", \"flag_for_ethics_review\": \"['No ethics review needed.']\", \"rating\": \"6\", \"confidence\": \"5\", \"code_of_conduct\": \"Yes\"}", "{\"comment\": \"**[Q5] $tr(\\\\Sigma_v)$ vs. $tr(\\\\Sigma_t)$**\\n\\nWe first clarify that Eqn (6) is asymmetric due to the last term, $\\\\mathcal L_\\\\text{inclusion} (Z_v, Z_t)$. The other terms are symmetric for image and text. VIB loss is applied to both image and text and the hyperparameters are the same for each modality.\\n\\nThe smaller image variance can indeed be from the asymmetric loss design due to $\\\\mathcal L_\\\\text{inclusion} (Z_v, Z_t)$. It enforces that image distribution is included in text distribution; which naturally implies images have smaller variance than texts. We use this asymmetric formulation from our intuition and previous observations from the other papers.\\n\\nFirst, our intuition is that while an image exhaustively captures visual information by a photographic sensor, a text description is a conscious product of the dominant concepts in the image. Namely, a text is more selective and vague, which naturally implies more uncertainty. The previous PrVLM works also assume the same scenario [E, F] Second, this assumption (text is more vague than image) is a widely used assumption in VL training. For example, Meru [G] assumes that a text \\u201centails\\u201d an image. The following works on hyperbolic embeddings also share the same assumption [H, I]. Our work aligns with these works by assuming that text is more uncertain than image. This is clarified in L260-261 in the main paper.\\n\\n- [E] Chun, Sanghyuk, et al. \\\"Probabilistic embeddings for cross-modal retrieval.\\\" CVPR 2021\\n- [F] Chun, Sanghyuk. \\\"Improved probabilistic image-text representations.\\\" ICLR 2024\\n- [G] Desai, Karan, et al. \\\"Hyperbolic image-text representations.\\\" International Conference on Machine Learning. ICML, 2023\\n- [H] Alper, Morris, and Hadar Averbuch-Elor. \\\"Emergent visual-semantic hierarchies in image-text representations.\\\", CVPR 2024\\n- [I] Kim, Wonjae, et al. \\\"HYPE: Hyperbolic Entailment Filtering for Underspecified Images and Texts.\\\" ECCV 2024\\n\\n**[Q6] VIB formulation**\\n\\nSorry. We clarified it in Section A.7 of the revised paper. Also, we will release the code implementation publicly which includes the implementation of VIB loss.\\n\\n**[Q7] Image traversal with uncertainty**\", \"the_traversal_task_needs_two_information\": \"the closed text embedding and [Root] embedding for the given image. Once the closed text embedding and [Root] embedding are chosen, we interpolate them with 50 equally spaced steps and find the closest text from the database for each interpolated caption.\\n\\nUncertainty information is used for the traversal task in two perspectives. First, we use CSD to retrieve captions. As clarified in **[Q2]**, it uses uncertainty.\\n\\nMore importantly, we estimate the [Root] embedding using uncertainty. Previous approaches use the average text embedding or null text embedding as [Root] embedding. Instead of using average or null text embedding, we propose to use uncertainty-based [Root] embedding. As clarified in Section 4.4, we first retrieve the most similar caption of the given image (this is the common protocol for this task). Then, we search the most inclusive caption of the retrieved caption in the database using the inclusion measure that we proposed. Then, we use the most inclusive caption as the [Root] embedding, which is a more plausible \\u201croot\\u201d compared to the average or null embedding.\\n\\nWe re-clarify this in Section B.3 of the revised paper.\"}", "{\"comment\": \"Thanks a lot for your detailed response. My questions and concerns have been well addressed. I have increased my score.\"}", "{\"comment\": \"We thank the reviewer for their positive feedback and constructive comments. In the following comment and the revised paper, we address all the raised concerns by the reviewer. The overview of the revised paper is clarified in the common comment (\\u201cRevision summary\\u201d). If the reviewer still has any concerns, please let us know.\\n\\n**[W1] More visualization**\\n\\nThanks for the suggestion. We added a new visualization result of image traversal as the reviewer suggested. As shown in Figure B.1, the [ROOT] embedding of CLIP is always closest to the \\u201cumbrella\\u201d, which makes the image traversal by CLIP inaccurate. On the other hand, the [ROOT] embedding of ProLIP correctly estimates the true hierarchy of the given image query.\\n\\n**[W2] How uncertainty contributes to other downstream tasks**\\n\\nWe also agree with that it would be better to show more applications of the learned uncertainty. Here, we show 3 applications.\\n\\n**Dataset filtering**\\n\\nBelow, we show the DataComp CLIP filtering small track (filtering 12.8B noisy web-crawled image-text pairs) by using our method and baselines provided by DataComp [A]\\n\\n- [A] Gadre, Samir Yitzhak, et al. \\\"Datacomp: In search of the next generation of multimodal datasets.\\\" NeurIPS 2024.\\n\\n| | Dataset size | ImageNet | ImageNet dist. shifts | VTAB | Retrieval | Average |\\n|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|\\n| No filtering | 12.8M | 0.025 | 0.033 | 0.145 | 0.114 | 0.132 |\\n| Random subset (25%) | 3.2M | 0.022 | 0.032 | 0.130 | 0.099 | 0.126 |\\n| LAION-2B filtering | 1.3M | 0.031 | 0.040 | 0.136 | 0.092 | 0.133 |\\n| English (fasttext), caption length, and image size | 3M | 0.038 | 0.043 | 0.150 | 0.118 | 0.142 |\\n| Image-based & CLIP score (L/14 30%) | 1.4M | 0.039 | 0.045 | 0.162 | 0.094 | 0.144 |\\n| CLIP L14 (20%) | 2.6M | 0.042 | 0.051 | 0.165 | 0.100 | 0.151 |\\n| ProLIP B16 (20%) | 2.3M | 0.042 | 0.047 | 0.167 | 0.117 | **0.154** |\\n\\nHere, we can observe that by using ProLIP uncertainty-aware features, we can achieve a better filtering performance compared to the other baselines. However, we would like to note that ProLIP is not specifically designed for dataset filtering; proposing a new dataset filtering method using ProLIP will be an interesting future work, but not the scope of the current paper.\"}", "{\"title\": \"Revision summary\", \"comment\": \"We truly appreciate all the reviewers and the chairs for their commitment to the community and thoughtful reviews. We are highly encouraged that the reviewers found that the proposed ProLIP is novel (Reviewer 1UQo, t6Gq, RZmV, 8Wie), the [UNC] architecture is creative (Reviewer 1UQo, RZmV), the inclusion loss and PPCL are novel and well supported (Reviewer 1UQo, N1uc, t6Gq), our manuscript is clear, well-written and well-motivated (Reviewer 1UQo, N1uc, 8Wie) and the conducted experiments are extensive and interesting (Reviewer 1UQo, N1uc, t6Gq, RZmV). We luckily have a chance to make our work stronger, with constructive and valuable comments from the reviewers. We have addressed all the raised concerns by the reviewers in the revised paper. The revised contents are highlighted in blue (if we modify the existing text) or red (if we add new text).\\n\\nHere, we would like to clarify the changes since the last submission, and how they resolve the concerns raised by the reviewers.\\n\\nFirst, we would like to clarify that while we addressed the concern raised by Reviewer RZmV, we found that our original experiments on 1.28B seen samples had a fair comparison issue; we made a mistake on data augmentation setting (we specified that we use 0.8-1.0 crop size, but we found that CLIP and ProLIP with 1.28B seen samples were trained with different crop sizes, e.g., 0.4-1.0 not 0.8-1.0). For a fair comparison, we re-evaluated ProLIP, CLIP and SigLIP on 1.28B seen samples and here is the result (also see revised paper Table 1):\\n\\n| Method | # seen samples | IN | IN dist. | VTAB | Retrieval | Average |\\n|--------|-------|------|------|------|------|------|\\n| CLIP | 1.28B | 67.2 | 55.1 | 56.9 | 53.4 | 57.1 |\\n| SigLIP | 1.28B | 67.4 | 55.4 | 55.7 | 53.4 | 56.7 |\\n| ProLIP | 1.28B | 67.8 | 55.3 | 58.5 | 53.0 | 57.9 |\\n\\nSecond, we found that we used the incorrect notation for \\u201cinclusion\\u201d. It should be $\\\\subset$, rather than $\\\\in$. We fixed all the notations in the revision.\\n\\nFinally, we named the proposed prompt re-weighting method \\u201cBayesian Prompt Re-Weighting (BPRW)\\u201d to make our contribution clearer.\\n\\nTo address the reviewers\\u2019 concerns, our revision also includes:\\n\\n- We slightly revise the introduction and the related work to emphasize our contribution and avoid misunderstanding (Reviewer t6Gq [W2] [Q8])\\n- We add additional discussion of the desired probabilistic embedding space in Appendix A.1. This section addressed concerns by Reviewer N1uc [W2], Reviewer t6Gq [W2] [Q8], Reviewer RZmV [Q2] and Reviewer 8Wie [W1].\\n- We clarify the questions by Reviewer t6Gq [Q1] in Section A.3 (re-parameterization and l2 normalization) and Reviewer t6Gq [Q2] in Section B.2 (classification with variance)\\n- Section A.3 also clarifies the novelty of ProLIP compared to PCME++ to resolve the concern by Reviewer 8Wie [W2]\\n- We add more discussions and formulations for our loss function in Appendix A.6 and A.7 (Reviewer 1UQo [Q2], Reviewer t6Gq [Q3] [Q6])\\n- We add more details of image traversal and more visualization in Appendix B.3 (Reviewer 1UQo [W1] [W3] [Q3], Reviewer t6Gq [Q7])\\n- We add an architecture efficiency comparison experiment in Section C.3 and Table C.6 to address Reviewer 8Wie [W2] [Q1].\\n- Section C.7 contains more applications of uncertainty (Reviewer 1UQo [W2] and Reviewer t6Gq [W3])\\n- We add more discussion and limitation related to ProLIP in Appendix D (Reviewer t6Gq [W1], Reviewer 8Wie [Q2])\"}", "{\"comment\": \"Dear Reviewer 1UQo,\\n\\nAs we approach the end of the author-reviewer discussion period **today**, we kindly request the reviewer to consider updating their score from borderline (6) to a more positive direction, such as accept (8). If the reviewer thinks that there still exists room for improvement, please let us know. We will do our best to improve our submission.\"}", "{\"comment\": \"Thank you for your update! Could you kindly share the reasons behind your decision to raise the score to 6 (marginally above the acceptance threshold) rather than 8 (accept)? If there are specific aspects we can improve, we would be happy to update our paper accordingly.\"}", "{\"title\": \"Any follow-up question?\", \"comment\": \"Dear Reviewer N1uc,\\n\\nWe sincerely appreciate your efforts and time for the community. As we approach the close of the author-reviewer discussion period in one week, we wonder whether the reviewer is satisfied with our response. It will be pleasurable if the reviewer can give us the reviewer's thoughts on the current revision to give us an extra valuable chance to improve our paper. We summarized our revision in the \\\"Revision summary\\\" comment.\\n\\nAgain, we thank the reviewer's valuable commitment and their help to strengthen our submission. We will address all the raised concerns by reviewers if there remain any.\"}", "{\"title\": \"Towards Positive\", \"comment\": \"Thanks for the detailed response and further analysis. Most of my questions are resolved, and I have updated my score towards positive. I also appreciate the open-sourcing decision from the paper, which would be broadly beneficial to the community. -- Reviewer\"}", "{\"title\": \"Any follow-up question?\", \"comment\": \"Dear Reviewer 8Wie,\\n\\nWe sincerely appreciate your efforts and time for the community. As we approach the close of the author-reviewer discussion period in one week, we wonder whether the reviewer is satisfied with our response. It will be pleasurable if the reviewer can give us the reviewer's thoughts on the current revision to give us an extra valuable chance to improve our paper. We summarized our revision in the \\\"Revision summary\\\" comment.\\n\\nAgain, we thank the reviewer's valuable commitment and their help to strengthen our submission. We will address all the raised concerns by reviewers if there remain any.\"}", "{\"comment\": \"**Understanding image dataset**\\n\\nFirst, we emphasize that ProLIP\\u2019s image uncertainty is not the same as the \\u201cimage uncertainty\\u201d of classification tasks. In classification tasks, an image has a high uncertainty if it can be matched to \\u201cmultiple classes\\u201d, while the ProLIP case assigns a high uncertainty if an image can be described in \\u201cmultiple different and various captions\\u201d. However, ProLIP has a different mechanism with classification uncertainty.\", \"an_ideal_prvlm_should_capture_three_potential_input_uncertainties\": \"(1) uncertainty from the text modality, (2) uncertainty from the image modality, and (3) uncertainty from the text-image cross-modality. Uni-modal uncertainty is straightforward; if an input has more detailed information (e.g., describing more detailed information in text, or capturing a very detailed and complex scene by photography), then it will have smaller uncertainty, otherwise, it will have larger uncertainty (e.g., providing very high-level caption, such as \\u201cperson\\u201d, or only a part object with white background is taken by picture).\\n\\nThe cross-modal uncertainty should capture \\u201chow many possible instances can be matched to this input?\\u201d. We can think this in two different viewpoints: text-to-image and image-to-text. The text-to-image relationship is straightforward. If we have a caption \\u201cphoto\\u201d, then it will be matched to all photographs, and if we have a caption with a very detailed description (e.g., the full description of the hotel room), then it will be only matched to specific images. Image-to-text relationships are often determined by the dataset. For example, if we have a caption dataset exactly describing which objects are in the image, then we can think that an image with fewer objects will have larger uncertainty. However, if we consider a caption dataset where an image has multiple captions each caption focuses on completely different objects, then an image with more objects will have larger uncertainty. In other words, unlike text uncertainty originating from a text-to-image relationship, image uncertainty originating from an image-to-text relationship is highly affected by the property of the training dataset.\\n\\nIn practice, because our datasets have a mixed property and their captions are somewhat noisy, our image uncertainty will have a mixed property, namely, unlike text uncertainty, there could be no strong relationship between the absolute uncertainty value and the number of objects (or complexity of images). However, empirically, we have more captions that exactly describe the scene (because of the dataset filtering strategy), therefore, a more simple image tends to have larger uncertainty and a more complex image tends to have smaller uncertainty.\\n\\nFor example, assume we have an image with a white background and a very clear overall object shape. In terms of classification, it will have low uncertainty because there is no confounder to the classification. However, ProLIP will assign a high uncertainty for this case.\\n\\nFrom this, we can divide the image classification tasks into two different scenarios: (1) When all images have homogeneous backgrounds and only the quality of the image determines the classification performance, (2) When images are natural images and the task is inherently multi-object classification, but the labels are single-labeled (e.g., ImageNet [B, C])\\n\\n- [B] Beyer, Lucas, et al. \\\"Are we done with imagenet?.\\\" arXiv preprint arXiv:2006.07159 (2020).\\n- [C] Yun, Sangdoo, et al. \\\"Re-labeling imagenet: from single to multi-labels, from global to localized labels.\\\" CVPR 2021.\\n\\nAs the first example, we choose MNIST. Here, we observe that the learned image uncertainty and the MNIST accuracy show a strong negative correlation, (-0.98), namely, if an image is more uncertain then ProLIP tends to estimate a wrong label. It aligns with our intuition.\\n\\nAs the second example, we choose ImageNet-1k, which shows a strong positive correlation (+0.98), i.e., a certain image tends to be wrongly classified by ProLIP. This could be counterintuitive in terms of \\u201cclassification task\\u201d, but actually it is a correctly estimated value. For example, ImageNet contains various image distributions. Some images are thumbnail images with white backgrounds (high uncertainty) and some images are in-the-wild images with complex backgrounds and multiple objects (low uncertainty). In this case, a certain image (more complex image) will be a more \\u201cdifficult\\u201d image.\\n\\nOverall, ProLIP\\u2019s image uncertainty tendency can be used for understanding the properties of the given dataset. Converting ProLIP\\u2019s image uncertainty to image classification uncertainty would be an interesting topic, but we remain this for future work.\"}", "{\"comment\": \"Dear Reviewer N1uc,\\n\\nWe are now running a 1.28B fine-tuning experiment for a ViT-H model. We expect that it will end 6 days later, i.e., after the discussion period. When we check the intermediate result, we expect that the new result will be sufficiently strong (now it shows 74.3 ImageNet top-1 accuracy, while at the same iteration, ViT-SO400M shows 72.5).\\n\\nAgain, we would like to ask the reviewer to be willing to update their score in a more positive direction from borderline (6) to accept (8) considering our latest comment and this new result. If the reviewer thinks that there still exists room for improvement, please let us know. We will do our best to improve our submission.\"}", "{\"metareview\": \"The paper introduces Probabilistic Language-Image Pre-training (ProLIP), an approach to vision-language models that integrates probabilistic modelling to capture the inherent uncertainty in image-text relationships. ProLIP departs from conventional deterministic embeddings by mapping inputs as random variables, estimating uncertainty using an \\\"uncertainty token,\\\" and enforcing an inclusion loss to maintain distributional relationships between image-text pairs and between original and masked inputs. Lastly, it shows two applications of image traversals (find a more concrete caption for the original caption iteratively) and prompt enhancement for the zero-shot image classification task. Extensive experiments were conducted to demonstrate the effectiveness of the proposed method.\", \"strengths\": [\"This paper is well-motivated, starting from the many-to-many matching relationships within a batch of images and texts. It is also well-structured and easy to follow.\", \"The paper contains a detailed analysis of the sources and levels of uncertainty. Meanwhile, the authors provided strong mathematical support for the proposed learning objective.\", \"Extensive experiments were conducted to demonstrate the effectiveness of the proposed method.\", \"The proposed method has been proven effective on datasets containing billions of image-text pairs.\"], \"weaknesses\": [\"More experimental results on large model sizes are expected.\", \"The improvements over the baselines are limited.\", \"ProLIP requires the use of CSD to perform zero-shot prediction, which increases its complexity and makes it less straightforward than CLIP.\", \"Discussions about the limitations are needed.\"], \"additional_comments_on_reviewer_discussion\": \"After the rebuttal, most of the concerns have been addressed, and all reviewers have raised their ratings to positive ratings.\"}", "{\"comment\": \"Dear Reviewer 1UQo,\\n\\nThis is a gentle reminder that **only 6 hours remain** for reviewers to respond to comments. We are still awaiting your response and would greatly appreciate it if you could provide your feedback. Additionally, we kindly ask if the reviewer would consider updating your score based on our revision and rebuttal comment.\"}", "{\"comment\": \"Dear Reviewer RZmV,\\n\\nWe would like to note that the reviewer-author discussion period will be closed in three days (2nd Dec). We would like to ask the reviewer to be willing to update their score in a more positive direction from borderline (6) to accept (8). If the reviewer thinks that there still exists room for improvement, please let us know. We will do our best to improve our submission.\"}", "{\"comment\": \"**[Q2] Inclusion loss details**\\n\\nSection 3.3 and Figure 3 explain the intuition behind the inclusion loss. In terms of the formula, our purpose is to design a measure $d(Z_1, Z_2)$ that has a high value if $Z_1$ is \\u201cincluded\\u201d in $Z_2$ and a low value otherwise. How can we define $Z_1$ is \\u201cincluded\\u201d in $Z_2$? We define this by measuring the \\u201coverlapped area\\u201d between $Z_1$ and $Z_2$, but emphasizing the area with high $p_1$. As shown in Fig3, the squared pdf of $Z_1$ emphasizes the area where $Z_1$ has high probability; by computing $\\\\int p_1^2 p_2$, we can determine whether $Z_1$ is included in $Z_2$ or not.\\n\\nWe also already compared our inclusion loss and other metrics like Bhattacharyya distance (BD), Wasserstein distance (WD) and KL divergence in Section 3.3 and Figure 3. The most significant difference between our inclusion measure and BD, WD is asymmetricity. BD and WD are symmetric, namely, $WD(Z_1, Z_2) = WD(Z_2, Z_1)$, which cannot be used for measuring \\u201cinclusion\\u201d. On the other hand our inclusion measure has asymmetricity, $inc(Z_1, Z_2) > inc(Z_2, Z_1)$ if $Z_1$ is included in $Z_2$. KL is also asymmetric, but it is for measuring the equivalence between two distances, and cannot represent \\u201cinclusiveness\\u201d as shown in Figure 3. We additionally compare our inclusion loss with the difference of KL and reverse KL in Appendix A.6. We can observe that this measure is also not proper to estimate the amount of \\u201cinclusion\\u201d.\\n\\n**[Q4] Few-shot learning**\\n\\nThanks for the suggestion. In fact, our prompt tuning with uncertainty estimates (Section 3.4 and Table 3) already includes the concept of few-shot learning. Our method, named Bayesian Prompt Re-Weighting (BPRW), is a fully Bayesian approach to estimating the best weight for each prompt; by treating given M image embeddings as \\u201cobservations\\u201d, we seek the best weight of each text prompt Gaussian distribution by maximizing posterior. For example, assume that we have a class label \\u201cTench\\u201d and 80 prompts (e.g., a photo of Tench, a good photo of Tench, \\u2026). Our purpose is to find the weight of each text prompt to aggregate 80 prompts into one text embedding (i.e., $\\\\mu = \\\\sum_{i=1}^{80} w_i \\\\mu_i$).\\n\\nThis task can be either zero-shot or few-shot by the way to select K image embeddings. If we set a \\u201cfew-shot\\u201d scenario, then we choose M image embeddings from ground truth \\u201cTench\\u201d images, it will be a few-shot. If we do not use the image label, but sample image embeddings in a different way, it will be a \\u201czero-shot\\u201d scenario. As shown in Table 3, the few-shot learning scenario significantly improves the classification performance compared to the naive average of 80 prompts (74.6 $\\\\rightarrow$ 75.8).\"}", "{\"title\": \"Any follow-up question?\", \"comment\": \"Dear Reviewer RZmV,\\n\\nWe sincerely appreciate your efforts and time for the community. As we approach the close of the author-reviewer discussion period in one week, we wonder whether the reviewer is satisfied with our response. It will be pleasurable if the reviewer can give us the reviewer's thoughts on the current revision to give us an extra valuable chance to improve our paper. We summarized our revision in the \\\"Revision summary\\\" comment.\\n\\nAgain, we thank the reviewer's valuable commitment and their help to strengthen our submission. We will address all the raised concerns by reviewers if there remain any.\"}", "{\"comment\": \"**[W2] Modest improvement**\\n\\nFirst, we want to emphasize that +0.9% ImageNet zero-shot accuracy is not a marginal improvement. As shown in [A], it is almost close to a gap when using a larger backbone (e.g., ViT-H/14 (75.6%) $\\\\Rightarrow$ ViT-g/14 (76.7%) when the number of seen samples is 13B). However, we also want to clarify that our purpose is not to achieve a significantly stronger ImageNet zero-shot performance, but to achieve a better understanding of the input uncertainty (i.e., aleatoric uncertainty).\\n\\nEven if we consider the improvement to be marginal, we argue that the modest improvement against CLIP and the scalability challenge of PrVLM are not at the same level. As already clarified in Section A.3, our ablation study (Table C.3) empirically shows that the PCME++ loss fails to be converged when it is used in a stand-alone way without any deterministic loss (e.g., CLIP loss). On the other hand, PPCL loss converges well even without any additional loss function. Our first contribution is to enable a fully end-to-end scalable pre-training of PrVLM by proposing (1) new loss functions -- PPCL and inclusion loss, (2) new [UNC] token architecture, which is extremely efficient. Table C.3 and C.6 support that our new loss function and architecture outperform the previous PrVLM design choice (PCME++ loss + CLIP loss & multi-head uncertainty estimation module). Our main contribution is to train the first PrVLM (which has the advantage of correctly representing aleatoric uncertainty -- please see the newly added Section A.1 for more detailed discussion) comparable to the deterministic baselines (e.g., CLIP, SigLIP). Again, previous PrVLMs were not able to pre-train (i.e., they fine-tune the pre-trained CLIP models). PCME++ shows a small-scale pre-training result, but it still needs deterministic loss. Furthermore, as we mentioned before, even if we use additional CLIP loss, PPCL-only ProLIP performs better than PCME++ (Table C.3). It shows that ProLIP has a significant novel contribution to PrVLM.\\n\\nFurthermore, the proposed loss design and training process are not specifically complex than CLIP. In terms of the training process, we use the same training process to openclip, except for the \\u201cpartial\\u201d inclusion loss. Similarly, if we only consider PPCL, the loss design is not specifically complex than the original contrastive loss (CLIP) or log sigmoid loss (SigLIP). As shown in Table C.3, solely using PPCL is sufficient for achieving performance; we use additional loss functions (inclusion loss, VIB loss) to ensure the learned embedding space has our desired properties (e.g., showing inclusive relationship between text and image / partial and whole instance, and preventing variance collapse). Our purpose is to train a fully end-to-end scalable pre-training of PrVLM, not outperform CLIP with a large gap.\\n\\nWe also would like to clarify that, in Table C.1., ProLIP ViT-L is not a fair comparison with other backbones. It is a fine-tuned backbone from SigLIP ViT-L (ImageNet zero-shot 80%), not fully from scratch training. Even more, we would like to emphasize that its improvement is never modest against ViT-B/16 CLIP; The fine-tuned ProLIP ViT-L achieves 79.4% ImageNet zero-shot accuracy, while CLIP ViT-B/16 achieves 67.2% in our setting (1.28B seen samples), and 73.5% by openclip (13B seen samples). Even openclip ViT-L and ViT-H achieved 75.3% and 78.0%, respectively, while our ViT-L/14 shows 79.4%, outperforming expensive ViT-H training (Remark that openclip ViT-H took 279 hours with 824 A100s). We argue that the difference is not as modest as the reviewer\\u2019s comment. Again, we clarify that searching hyperparameters for fine-tuning is out of our main contribution, hence, we did not exhaustively search the fine-tuning hyperparameters and there will be a large room for performance improvements by hyperparameter search.\"}", "{\"comment\": \"Thanks!\"}", "{\"comment\": \"Thank you for your update! Could you kindly share the reasons behind your decision to raise the score to 6 (marginally above the acceptance threshold) rather than 8 (accept)? If there are specific aspects we can improve, we would be happy to update our paper accordingly.\"}", "{\"title\": \"Comments to Authors' Responses\", \"comment\": \"Thank you for your comprehensive responses. After careful consideration, I will maintain my initial scores for the following reasons. While the responses address my concerns regarding the complexity of the proposed method, and I acknowledge the challenges of training ViT-H with limited resources and time, I believe it remains unfair to compare ProLIP with previous works like OpenCLIP or [A] Cherti, Mehdi, et al. This is because ProLIP is trained on the DataComp dataset, which is significantly better than previously available datasets. Furthermore, while I agree that achieving state-of-the-art results is not the primary goal of this paper, demonstrating the scalability of ProLIP under more parameter setups is crucial. I encourage the authors to include scalability experiments in future revisions.\"}", "{\"summary\": \"The paper proposes a probabilistic VLM model that accounts for the many-to-many relationships between images and text. This model introduces an uncertainty token to estimate uncertainty without significantly increasing the parameter count. Additionally, the inclusion loss enhances interpretability by enforcing consistency between image-text pairs and between original and masked inputs.\", \"soundness\": \"3\", \"presentation\": \"2\", \"contribution\": \"3\", \"strengths\": \"The paper creatively applies probabilistic modeling to VLMs to better capture the many-to-many relationships between image and text pairs. It introduces a straightforward setup by adding an uncertainty token, effectively minimizing additional parameters. The paper provides a detailed analysis of the sources and levels of uncertainty in both image and text modalities, and explores various applications of this approach.\", \"weaknesses\": \"The paper primarily evaluates the model's performance on single-object scenarios, as seen with ImageNet in the main results (Table 1). While Table C.1 provides metrics for datasets with longer, more complex queries, such as Flickr, ProLIP shows a significant drop compared to CLIP. Including performance metrics and a detailed analysis of datasets with complex queries involving multiple objects and interactions in the main results would offer a more comprehensive evaluation of the model's capabilities.\", \"questions\": \"1. In Table C.1, ProLIP underperforms compared to CLIP on several datasets, such as Flickr. Could the authors provide a detailed analysis to explore the reasons behind this discrepancy?\\n2. The paper suggests that images with a single object are more uncertain than those with complex scenes. Intuitively, one might expect complex scenes to have higher uncertainty due to the variety of possible descriptions. Could the observed uncertainty levels be influenced by the choice of dataset used in the analysis?\", \"flag_for_ethics_review\": \"['No ethics review needed.']\", \"rating\": \"6\", \"confidence\": \"2\", \"code_of_conduct\": \"Yes\"}", "{\"comment\": \"**[W4] CSD efficiency**\\n\\nCSD does not increase computational complexity. For given extracted $\\\\mu_v, \\\\Sigma_v, \\\\mu_t, \\\\Sigma_t$, the cosine similarity (by CLIP) is computed by $\\\\mu_v^\\\\top \\\\mu_t$ (assuming that $\\\\mu$s are l2-normalized). CSD is computed by $\\\\mu_v^\\\\top \\\\mu_t - \\\\frac{1}{2}tr(\\\\Sigma_v + \\\\Sigma_t)$. Here, $tr(\\\\Sigma_v + \\\\Sigma_t)$ is simply computed by $\\\\sum_{i=1}^D ((\\\\sigma_v^i)^2 + (\\\\sigma_t^i)^2)$ (because we use diagonal covariances), which is a simple summation operation. Since our architecture estimates $\\\\mu$ and $\\\\Sigma$ with almost neglectable inference speed (see **[W2/Q1] UNC token efficiency** for more details), the only additional computation will be the summation of $\\\\sigma^2$. Furthermore, in practice, if we can pre-extract the uncertainty scalar $u=\\\\sum_{i=1}^D (\\\\sigma^i)^2$ for each instance, we can simply compute CSD by computing $\\\\mu_v^\\\\top \\\\mu_t - 0.5 * (u_v + u_t)$. Interestingly, in terms of \\u201cretrieval\\u201d, this score is invariant to the uncertainty of the query. For example, assume an image-to-text retrieval scenario. In this case, $u_v$ will be the same for the same image query. Therefore, we do not need an image uncertainty value, but only text uncertainty affects the retrieval ranking. Using this property, PCME++ (Chun 2024) showed that CSD is also possible to use an efficient approximated KNN (see Table C.7 of Chun 2024 for more details).\\n\\nWe tried to measure the inference speed difference between cosine similarity and CSD, but we observed that there is no meaningful inference speed difference between the two methods. Even more, if one really needs cosine similarity-based retrieval (e.g., due to the limitation of the existing retrieval indexing system), ProLIP also supports cosine similarity retrieval.\\n\\n**[Q2] Limitation**\\n\\nProLIP is a PrVLM, which shares a common limitation with other PrVLMs. For example, PCME++ (Chun 2024) discussed the possible limitation of assuming embeddings as normal distributions with diagonal covariance. This is highly related to W1 by Reviewer t6Gq. In addition, if we use a different probability distribution rather than Gaussian, the closed-form solutions derived in this paper will not work anymore and a Monte-Carlo approximation will be required. In the revised paper Section D, we added a discussion related to the limitation as the reviewer\\u2019s suggestion.\"}", "{\"comment\": \"We thank the constructive feedback from the reviewer. In the following comment and the revised paper, we address all the raised concerns by the reviewer. The overview of the revised paper is clarified in the common comment (\\u201cRevision summary\\u201d). If the reviewer still has any concerns, please let us know.\\n\\nBefore addressing each comment, we would like to clarify that while we addressed the concern raised by Reviewer RZmV, we found that our original experiments on 1.28B seen samples had a fair comparison issue; we made a mistake on data augmentation setting (we specified that we use 0.8-1.0 crop size, but we found that CLIP and ProLIP with 1.28B seen samples were trained with different crop sizes, e.g., 0.4-1.0 not 0.8-1.0). For a fair comparison, we re-evaluated ProLIP, CLIP and SigLIP on 1.28B seen samples and here is the result (also see revised paper Table 1):\\n\\n| Method | # seen samples | IN | IN dist. | VTAB | Retrieval | Average |\\n|--------|-------|------|------|------|------|------|\\n| CLIP | 1.28B | 67.2 | 55.1 | 56.9 | 53.4 | 57.1 |\\n| SigLIP | 1.28B | 67.4 | 55.4 | 55.7 | 53.4 | 56.7 |\\n| ProLIP | 1.28B | 67.8 | 55.3 | 58.5 | 53.0 | 57.9 |\\n\\n**[W1/Q1] Subtask performance**\\n\\nWith the revised experimental results, we found that the difference between CLIP, SigLIP and ProLIP in Flickr (as well as MSCOCO) is almost neglectable (also see revised paper Table C.1)\\n\\n| Method | # seen samples | Flickr | MSCOCO |\\n|--------|-------|------|------|\\n| CLIP | 1.28B | 71.09 | 45.49 |\\n| SigLIP | 1.28B | 71.76 | 45.47 |\\n| ProLIP | 1.28B | 71.13 | 45.73 |\\n\\nFrom this observation, we believe that the assumption made by the reviewer (ProLIP performs worse in longer, more complex queries than CLIP) would not be true.\\n\\nWhen we compare CLIP and ProLIP task-wise, we can observe that the following datasets show \\u201csignificant\\u201d performance difference (> 1.0%)\\n\\n| Dataset | CLIP | ProLIP | diff |\\n|------------|--------|--------|--------|\\n| PatchCamelyon | 56.7 | 65.8 | 9.1 |\\n| Camelyon17 | 56.0 | 64.3 | 8.3 |\\n| KITTI Vehicle Distance | 30.8 | 39.1 | 8.3 |\\n| CLEVR Counts | 18.0 | 22.4 | 4.4 |\\n| SVHN | 59.7 | 62.6 | 2.9 |\\n| Stanford Cars | 83.1 | 85.7 | 2.6 |\\n| MNIST | 73.0 | 74.8 | 1.8 |\\n| Oxford Flowers-102 | 69.7 | 71.2 | 1.5 |\\n| GTSRB | 50.3 | 51.3 | 1.1 |\\n| FGVC Aircraft | 20.8 | 21.8 | 1.0|\\n| iWildCam | 11.2 | 10.1 | -1.0 |\\n| Food-101 | 86.6 | 85.3 | -1.3 |\\n| WinoGAViL | 43.5 | 42.1 | -1.3 |\\n| Pascal VOC 2007 | 81.4 | 80.0 | -1.4 |\\n| FMoW | 10.6 | 9.0 | -1.6 |\\n| EuroSAT | 45.1 | 40.2 | -4.9 |\\n\\nOverall, ProLIP performs better than CLIP more than +1.0pp in 10 over 38 datasets, while only performing worse in 6 over 38 datasets. Furthermore, ProLIP outperforms CLIP in several datasets, such as PatchCamelyon (very difficult medical images indicating the presence of metastatic tissue), Camelyon17 (similarly, medical images), KITTI Vehicle Distance (real road images where the task is to classify how a car is close in four levels) and CLEVR Counts (counting objects in the image among 3~10). It supports that ProLIP has a higher capability to understand complex scenes (e.g., road and vehicle images), multiple objects (counting task), or images (medical images) compared to deterministic embeddings. Meanwhile, ProLIP performs worse than CLIP in EuroSAT. We presume that it is because the EuroSAT images are satellite images that look highly similar to each other and \\u201cuncertain\\u201d representations compared to other benchmarks. However, when we sufficiently train probabilistic representations, the EuroSAT ZS accuracy becomes 60.9 from 40.2 (+20.7pp), while the average enhancement is only +5.4pp.\\n\\nIn addition, we would like to emphasize that we did not selectively evaluate the mode performance in a specific scenario. We follow the evaluation protocol by DataComp [A], which evaluates models on 38 different zero-shot tasks, including classification and retrieval. This contains vast scenarios, such as image-text cross-modal retrieval (MS-COCO, Flickr) clean single object (CIFAR, Flowers, Cars, \\u2026), a somewhat noisy single object (ImageNet, ImageNet variants, ObjectNet, \\u2026) -- although we evaluate on a single label, their images are not a single object, but actually multi objects [B, C] --, counting tasks (CLEVR Counts), OCR tasks (Rendered SST2), distance estimation tasks (CLEVR distance, KITTI Vehicle Distance), texture identification tasks (Describable Textures), medical tasks (PatchCamelyon, Camelyon17), satellite images (EuroSAT) and in-the-wild image classification tasks (iWildCAM, GTSRB, \\u2026).\\n\\n- [A] Gadre, Samir Yitzhak, et al. \\\"Datacomp: In search of the next generation of multimodal datasets.\\\" NeurIPS 2024.\\n- [B] Beyer, Lucas, et al. \\\"Are we done with imagenet?.\\\" arXiv preprint arXiv:2006.07159 (2020).\\n- [C] Yun, Sangdoo, et al. \\\"Re-labeling imagenet: from single to multi-labels, from global to localized labels.\\\" CVPR 2021.\"}", "{\"comment\": \"**Uncertainty by image manipulation**\\n\\nWe additionally show the relationship between image manipulation and uncertainty. We evaluate ImageNet 1k zero-shot accuracy by applying a center occlusion. We applied 0% to 10% occlusion ratio, and got the following results:\\n\\n| Occlusion ratio | ImageNet ZS | avg($\\\\sigma_v$) |\\n|---|---|---|\\n| 0% | 74.6 | 0.0148 |\\n| 2.5% | 74.1 | 0.0149 |\\n| 5% | 73.8 | 0.0152 |\\n| 7.5% | 73.5 | 0.0153 |\\n| 10% | 73.2 | 0.0153 |\\n\\nWe also tested optimized noise by the PGD attack [D] with sampled ImageNet (1000 images):\\n\\n| Attack | ImageNet ZS (1000 images) | avg($\\\\sigma_v$) |\\n|---|---|---|\\n| - | 72.9 | 0.0147 |\\n| PGD(iter=1) | 20.0 | 0.0149 |\\n| PGD(iter=5) | 3.8 | 0.0167 |\\n| PGD(iter=10) | 2.6 | 0.0175 |\\n| PGD(iter=40) | 2.5 | 0.0190 |\\n\\n- [D] M\\u0105dry, Aleksander, et al. \\\"Towards deep learning models resistant to adversarial attacks.\\\" ICLR 2018\\n\\nHere, we observe that the image uncertainty is increased by more severe manipulation. Note that as we discussed in the previous application (**Understanding image dataset**), converting ProLIP\\u2019s image uncertainty to image qualification would be an interesting topic, but we remain this for future work.\\n\\n**[W3/Q3] Human evaluation**\\n\\nThanks for your great idea. We strongly agree with this idea and actually have a similar result to the reviewer\\u2019s idea. The HierarCaps dataset [E] is a human-validated caption dataset where each image has four levels of captions. For example, \\u201cwater sports\\u201d $\\\\Rightarrow$ \\u201ckite surfing\\u201d $\\\\Rightarrow$ \\u201ckite surfer on top of the board\\u201d $\\\\Rightarrow$ \\u201ckite surfer in the air on top of a red board\\u201d. These captions are human-validated, namely, we already have the \\u201chierarchical perception\\u201d of humans.\\n\\n[E] Alper, Morris, and Hadar Averbuch-Elor. \\\"Emergent visual-semantic hierarchies in image-text representations.\\\" ECCV 2024.\\n\\nIn Fig7 of the main paper, we already showed that a more general caption (e.g., \\u201cwater sports\\u201d in the previous example) has a larger uncertainty value and a more specific caption (e.g., \\u201ckite surfer in the air on top of a red board\\u201d) has a smaller uncertainty value. It supports that human understanding of hierarchical information is well aligned with the learned uncertainty.\\n\\nWe can find a similar observation in the image modality. In Fig8, we showed that the masked image only containing sub-objects of the original image tends to \\u201cinclude\\u201d the original image. Namely, if we mask an image and retain partial information, the new embedding will include the original embedding. We do not have a concrete human study that supports \\u201chumans think a partial image is more uncertain than the whole image\\u201d, but if we accept this argument, Fig8 supports this claim.\\n\\nWe clarify this in Section B.3 of the revised paper. If the reviewer thinks that the current result and revision are insufficient, we will conduct a human study to support the claim for the image-level uncertainty.\\n\\n**[Q1] PPCL design choice**\\n\\nPPCL design choice can be divided into two parts. The first one is to use the LogSigmoid operation, and the other is to use closed-form sampled distance (CSD) as the probabilistic distance.\\n\\nWe ablated PPCL with binary cross entropy (BCE) loss used for PCME++ (Chun 2024). As shown in Table C.3 of the paper, a model will not be converged if we solely use PCME++ loss. We need additional deterministic loss, such as CLIP loss or SigLIP loss for a stable convergence of PCME++ loss. Even if we use additional deterministic loss, we can find that it performs worse than a model trained solely with ProLIP\\u2019s PPCL loss.\\n\\nThe second ablation (the choice of CSD) is already done by PCME++ (Chun 2024). As shown in Table 4 of Chun 2024, CSD is the best method for probabilistic representation learning, while KL divergence, JS divergence, Wasserstein 2-distance (WD) even did not converge. This is because our desired probabilistic embeddings should have the following properties. (1) if an image-text pair is \\u201ccertain\\u201d, each instance should have a small variance, (2) if an image-text pair is \\u201cuncertain\\u201d, each instance should have a large variance, and (3) the used probabilistic distance should satisfy proper properties of \\u201cdistance\\u201d. As shown in Chun 2024, CSD satisfies all three criteria. KL, JS, WD, or other probabilistic \\u201cdistance\\u201d do not satisfy the criterion because their purpose is to compare whether two distributions are the same or not. Namely, even if two instances have a \\u201ccertain\\u201d correspondence if two instances have very similar $\\\\mu$ and $\\\\Sigma$, these distances cannot minimize their $\\\\Sigma$ because the distance between two instances will be almost zero regardless of the intensity of $\\\\Sigma$.\"}", "{\"summary\": \"The paper introduces **Probabilistic Language-Image Pre-training** (ProLIP), an approach to vision-language models that integrates probabilistic modelling to capture the inherent uncertainty in image-text relationships. ProLIP departs from conventional deterministic embeddings by mapping inputs as random variables, estimating uncertainty using an \\\"uncertainty token,\\\" and enforcing an inclusion loss to maintain distributional relationships between image-text pairs and between original and masked inputs.\", \"soundness\": \"3\", \"presentation\": \"3\", \"contribution\": \"2\", \"strengths\": [\"This paper is well-written.\", \"The research problem and motivation are well-defined, highlighting that CLIP-like models tend to oversimplify image-text alignment by assuming a one-to-one relationship.\", \"ProLIP is claimed to be the first approach to pre-training probabilistic VLMs on a billion-scale image-text dataset, a feat that requires extensive computational resources.\"], \"weaknesses\": [\"The improvement over deterministic VLMs like CLIP is limited, with only a marginal gain of around 0.9% in ImageNet accuracy (Table 1) when models are exposed to the same number of samples.\", \"While the paper introduces the uncertainty token for efficient uncertainty estimation, it lacks empirical evidence demonstrating the claimed efficiency.\", \"Compared to PCME++, ProLIP incorporates an uncertainty token and an inclusion loss, scaling the training dataset to CLIP\\u2019s level, yet the observed improvement remains modest, limiting the paper\\u2019s overall contribution.\", \"ProLIP requires the use of CSD to perform zero-shot prediction, which increases its complexity and makes it less straightforward than CLIP.\"], \"questions\": [\"Although the authors claim ProLIP efficiently estimates uncertainty by incorporating an \\\"uncertainty token\\\" without adding parameters, this approach effectively increases the input length. Given that transformer complexity is quadratic relative to the input length, this addition likely increases the computation required for multi-head attention. How does the \\\"uncertainty token\\\" quantitatively compare to previous probabilistic VLMs in terms of training efficiency and inference speed? For example, the authors can report training time per epoch, inference latency on standard hardware, or FLOPs compared to baseline models.\", \"Is there any limitation discussed in the paper? (e.g. computational requirements)\"], \"flag_for_ethics_review\": \"['No ethics review needed.']\", \"rating\": \"6\", \"confidence\": \"4\", \"code_of_conduct\": \"Yes\"}", "{\"summary\": [\"The paper proposes a novel approach for vision-language models (VLMs) that leverages probabilistic embeddings to capture better the inherent many-to-many relationships between images and text descriptions.\", \"In general, the contribution includes\", \"Novel Probabilistic Embeddings: The paper introduces a fully probabilistic VLM that assigns each image-text pair a probability distribution rather than a deterministic embedding, addressing the inherent ambiguity in real-world image-text matching. This approach shows promise in capturing a richer semantic alignment by allowing multiple captions to represent an image and vice versa.\", \"Efficient Uncertainty Estimation: Unlike prior probabilistic VLMs, ProLIP efficiently estimates uncertainty by introducing an \\u201cuncertainty token\\u201d ([UNC]). This no-parameter simplification is computationally efficient and effectively captures the variance within embeddings, enhancing interpretability.\", \"Inclusion Loss: This paper introduces a novel inclusion loss, which enforces distributional inclusion relationships, and strengthens ProLIP\\u2019s interpretability by aligning learned uncertainties with human expectations (e.g., general captions should cover more specific ones).\", \"Performance on Zero-Shot Classification: ProLIP demonstrates strong results in zero-shot classification tasks, such as outperforming a CLIP baseline with similar architecture. The improvement in ImageNet classification accuracy (from 74.6% to 75.8%) with the use of uncertainty highlights the approach\\u2019s practical advantages.\"], \"soundness\": \"3\", \"presentation\": \"2\", \"contribution\": \"2\", \"strengths\": [\"1. Originality\", \"The paper introduces a novel Probabilistic Vision-Language Model (PrVLM), named ProLIP, which represents a shift from deterministic vision-language models to probabilistic embeddings. This approach innovatively captures the natural ambiguity in image-text relationships, where multiple captions may describe a single image, and a single caption may match multiple images.\", \"The concept of an uncertainty token ([UNC]) is a creative contribution, allowing the model to quantify uncertainty in a computationally efficient way, without additional parameters. This method differentiates ProLIP from previous probabilistic VLMs, which typically rely on additional modules to estimate uncertainty.\", \"The inclusion loss is another novel component of the paper. By enforcing a distributional inclusion relationship, the loss function allows the model to create more interpretable representations that respect hierarchical relationships within image-text pairs. This focus on hierarchical embedding structures is an innovative step for VLMs.\", \"2. Quality\", \"The authors have conducted a thorough and robust set of experiments to validate ProLIP's effectiveness. These include zero-shot classification tasks across multiple datasets, evaluations of ProLIP\\u2019s uncertainty estimation, and comparisons with both deterministic (e.g., CLIP) and probabilistic baselines.\", \"The paper is methodologically sound and clearly specifies the assumptions, architectures, and loss functions. The experiments are carefully controlled, with baseline comparisons and ablation studies that effectively illustrate ProLIP\\u2019s strengths in various contexts.\", \"3. Clarity\", \"The paper is written in a clear and accessible manner. Technical terms and novel concepts (e.g., inclusion loss, uncertainty token) are well-defined, with explanations that make the content readable.\", \"Figures, such as the visualizations, are well-crafted and effectively illustrate key points.\", \"4. Significance\", \"The introduction of probabilistic embeddings and inclusion loss contributes to the broader AI field\\u2019s understanding of how uncertainty modeling can enhance interpretability and generalization in multi-modal tasks. This may inspire further work in this direction.\"], \"weaknesses\": \"1. Interpretability and Visualization:\\n* Although the inclusion loss aligns with human intuitions, the visualization methods could be improved. For example, it would be interesting to see more direct comparisons with non-probabilistic models in terms of how well ProLIP aligns visual and textual hierarchies in practice.\\n\\n2. Limited Exploration of Task-Specific Uncertainties: \\n* The paper briefly touches on using uncertainty for image-to-text retrieval but could expand by exploring how uncertainty contributes to other downstream tasks. For instance, analyzing ProLIP\\u2019s impact on retrieval diversity or specificity could further highlight its advantages.\\n\\n3. Human evaluation\\n* While the experiments indicate that ProLIP\\u2019s learned uncertainties align with human intuitions, a concrete user study or human evaluation would reinforce these claims.\", \"questions\": \"1. Could you clarify the design choice of the probabilistic pairwise contrastive loss (PPCL) over simpler alternatives, like KL divergence-based objectives? Have you tested how PPCL compares with other probabilistic loss functions in terms of training stability and final performance?\\n\\n2. The inclusion loss is an interesting addition. Could you explain in more detail the intuition behind using this specific formulation, and how it compares with other metrics like Wasserstein distance?\\n\\n3. The paper shows that ProLIP\\u2019s uncertainty estimates align well with general human expectations, such as more uncertainty for shorter text descriptions. Did you conduct any quantitative or qualitative user studies to validate this alignment? If not, how would you suggest evaluating the alignment between model uncertainty and human perception in future work?\\n\\n4. You demonstrated ProLIP\\u2019s zero-shot classification ability, but could it also support a few-shot learning approach? What further modifications would be needed to explore few-shot learning capabilities and potentially improve its applicability in low-resource settings?\", \"flag_for_ethics_review\": \"['No ethics review needed.']\", \"rating\": \"8\", \"confidence\": \"3\", \"code_of_conduct\": \"Yes\"}", "{\"comment\": \"Dear Reviewer N1uc,\\n\\nThis is a gentle reminder that **only 6 hours remain** for reviewers to respond to comments. We are still awaiting your response and would greatly appreciate it if you could provide your feedback. Additionally, we kindly ask if the reviewer would consider updating your score based on our clarification.\"}", "{\"comment\": \"Dear Reviewer t6Gq,\\n\\nWe would like to note that the reviewer-author discussion period will be closed in three days (2nd Dec). We would like to ask the reviewer to be willing to update their score in a more positive direction from borderline (6) to accept (8). If the reviewer thinks that there still exists room for improvement, please let us know. We will do our best to improve our submission.\"}", "{\"comment\": \"Dear Reviewer 8Wie,\\n\\nWe would like to note that the reviewer-author discussion period will be closed in three days (2nd Dec). We would like to ask the reviewer to be willing to update their score in a more positive direction from borderline (6) to accept (8). If the reviewer thinks that there still exists room for improvement, please let us know. We will do our best to improve our submission.\"}", "{\"comment\": \"We thank the reviewer for their positive feedback and constructive comments. In the following comment and the revised paper, we address all the raised concerns by the reviewer. The overview of the revised paper is clarified in the common comment (\\u201cRevision summary\\u201d). If the reviewer still has any concerns, please let us know.\\n\\n**[W1] ViT-H**\\n\\nThanks for your suggestion. We indeed aspire to train a ViT-H model. However, we first clarify that we only have a limited resource which is not feasible to train ViT-H even for deterministic models. For example, training a ViT-H/14 CLIP model with 34B seen samples (achieving 78.0% ImageNet zero-shot accuracy) task 279 hours with **824 A100s** [A], while we only have 32 GPUs. In theory, we need 7184 hours, almost 300 days for training this. Note that it is not for ProLIP, but for the baseline CLIP.\\n\\n- [A] Cherti, Mehdi, et al. \\\"Reproducible scaling laws for contrastive language-image learning.\\\" Proceedings of the IEEE/CVF Conference on Computer Vision and Pattern Recognition. 2023.\\n\\nEven for ViT-L/14 12.8B seen samples, we need almost 30 days with our resources. It is not the problem of ProLIP, but the fundamental computational limitation of CLIP models. Overall, we do not have enough resources to train ViT-H.\\n\\nFurthermore, we remark that ImageNet zero-shot accuracy achieved by our ViT-L/14 (79.4%) is stronger than even the g/14 model with 34B seen samples in [A]:\\n\\n| H/14 (13B) | g/14 (13B) | G/14 (13B) | H/14 (34B) | g/14 (34B) | G/14 (34B) |\\n|--|--|--|--|--|--|\\n| 75.6 | 76.7 | 78.3 | 78.0 | 79.1 | 80.5 |\\n\\nNote that g/14 with 13B seen samples took 137 hours with 800 A100s, therefore, we can estimate the training time of g/14 with 34B seen samples might take 358 hours. On the other hand, our ViT-L/14 fine-tuning took approximately 3 days with 32 GPUs.\\n\\nWe are now trying to fine-tune a pre-trained deterministic ViT-H/14 CLIP model (which even still takes weeks with our resources). However, we are not certain that it is possible to find a proper fine-tuning setting that is beyond our original contribution. We will inform the reviewer when we get a new result.\"}", "{\"comment\": \"We thank the constructive feedback from the reviewer. In this comment, we address all the raised concerns by the reviewer; the revised paper is uploaded now. We list all the revised content in the \\u201cRevision overview\\u201d comment. If any concern remains, please let us know.\\n\\n**[W1] Marginal improvement over CLIP**\\n\\nFirst, we want to emphasize that +0.9% ImageNet zero-shot accuracy is not a marginal improvement. As shown in [A], it is almost close to a gap when using a larger backbone (e.g., ViT-H/14 (75.6%) $\\\\Rightarrow$ ViT-g/14 (76.7%) when the number of seen samples is 13B). However, we also want to clarify that our purpose is not to achieve a significantly stronger ImageNet zero-shot performance, but to achieve a better understanding of the input uncertainty (i.e., aleatoric uncertainty).\\n\\n- [A] Cherti, Mehdi, et al. \\\"Reproducible scaling laws for contrastive language-image learning.\\\" Proceedings of the IEEE/CVF Conference on Computer Vision and Pattern Recognition. 2023.\\n\\nEven if we consider the improvement to be marginal, we argue that learning probabilistic representations comparable to deterministic representations itself is sufficiently valuable. The main purpose of the probabilistic embedding space is to model the inherent uncertainty of inputs (i.e., aleatoric uncertainty), which is not able to be captured by deterministic embeddings regardless of the choice of the objective function. For example, consider four captions, A: \\u201cPerson\\u201d, B: \\u201cA person is walking\\u201d, C: \\u201cA person is walking in the rain\\u201d and D: \\u201cA person is walking on sunshine\\u201d. Conceptually, C and D have completely different semantics hence they should be located far away. However, B can be matched to C and D, and A can be matched to B, C, and D. If we use a deterministic embedding space, we cannot find a stable solution to satisfy the condition (i.e., let d() be a distance function, then d(C, D) is large, but d(B, C) and d(B, D) are small -- similar condition can be derived by A). Furthermore, we can consider a more complicated scenario by considering a new caption E: \\u201cA person hugging a cat\\u201d; E should have large distances with B, C, and D but a small distance with A, while A should be close to B~E.\\n\\nOn the other hand, as shown in Figure A.1 in the revised paper, a probabilistic embedding space can naturally capture the inherent uncertainty of inputs by representing the uncertainty by using variance; more uncertain inputs will be mapped to a random variable with a larger variance. Namely, if we need to make a positive relationship for (B, C) and (B, D), while keeping a negative relationship for (C, D), we first map C and D separately then map B to \\u201ccover\\u201d or \\u201cinclude\\u201d C and D by assigning a larger uncertainty value (i.e., variance). Our experimental results on pg8-10 in the main paper, as well as Appendix C show the advantage of proper uncertainty estimates. \\n\\nOur main contribution is to train the first PrVLM (which has the advantage of correctly representing aleatoric uncertainty) comparable to the deterministic baselines (e.g., CLIP, SigLIP). As already clarified in Section A.3, our ablation study (Table C.3) empirically show that the PCME++ loss fails to be converged when it is used in a stand-alone way without any deterministic loss (e.g., CLIP loss). On the other hand, PPCL loss converges well even without any additional loss function. Our first contribution is to enable a fully end-to-end scalable pre-training of PrVLM by proposing (1) new loss functions -- PPCL and inclusion loss, (2) new [UNC] token architecture, which is extremely efficient. Table C.3 and C.6 support that our new loss function and architecture outperform the previous PrVLM design choice (PCME++ loss + CLIP loss & multi-head uncertainty estimation module). Again, previous PrVLMs were not able to pre-train (i.e., they fine-tune the pre-trained CLIP models). PCME++ shows a small-scale pre-training result, but it still needs deterministic loss. Furthermore, as we mentioned before, even if we use additional CLIP loss, PPCL-only ProLIP performs better than PCME++ (Table C.3). It shows that ProLIP has a significant novel contribution to PrVLM.\\n\\nOur revised paper includes the related discussion in Section A.1.\"}" ] }

[ "Huan Ren", "Wenfei Yang", "Xiang Liu", "Shifeng Zhang", "Tianzhu Zhang" ]

[ "category-level object pose estimation", "spherical representations", "shape-independence", "correspondence prediction" ]

{ "note_id": [ "wInGvK8fND", "s9YoUjzPbW", "nwE3FwOAwo", "kj5KBAqnzg", "hkWDKRei1f", "bGUYyQwaAw", "XKS0YxLOas", "XEBBgdKC7N", "UNgEeSoxO8", "RpANjAjw0o", "P1fE61smwR", "LVGtMe7r4R", "JfeJYYrc2F", "FS8T5r0pXQ", "FQ6ZKFKOYW", "F9fepFay3S", "DdZV7KpBwN", "BckVYJGvIr", "88NC5lz3gl", "7tqbjTbJ1w", "3EuA6lbACh", "2FvfVpjyly", "23xjAGbHnp", "1CaryBVK4P" ], "note_type": [ "meta_review", "official_comment", "official_review", "official_comment", "official_comment", "official_comment", "official_comment", "official_comment", "official_comment", "official_comment", "official_comment", "decision", "official_review", "official_comment", "official_comment", "official_comment", "official_comment", "official_comment", "official_comment", "official_comment", "official_comment", "official_review", "official_review", "official_comment" ], "note_created": [ 1734960721310, 1732468068185, 1730562452159, 1732713331251, 1732467480673, 1732736099036, 1732467534953, 1732687874987, 1732526324853, 1732467976957, 1732467845220, 1737523394056, 1730710007309, 1732687336574, 1732467938860, 1732467644419, 1732467352122, 1732693757455, 1732687715771, 1732468092877, 1732468010319, 1730305829250, 1730737584252, 1732467777114 ], "note_signatures": [ [ "ICLR.cc/2025/Conference/Submission403/Area_Chair_6GB2" ], [ "ICLR.cc/2025/Conference/Submission403/Authors" ], [ "ICLR.cc/2025/Conference/Submission403/Reviewer_v4xt" ], [ "ICLR.cc/2025/Conference/Submission403/Reviewer_rB6i" ], [ "ICLR.cc/2025/Conference/Submission403/Authors" ], [ "ICLR.cc/2025/Conference/Submission403/Authors" ], [ "ICLR.cc/2025/Conference/Submission403/Authors" ], [ "ICLR.cc/2025/Conference/Submission403/Authors" ], [ "ICLR.cc/2025/Conference/Submission403/Reviewer_p4nq" ], [ "ICLR.cc/2025/Conference/Submission403/Authors" ], [ "ICLR.cc/2025/Conference/Submission403/Authors" ], [ "ICLR.cc/2025/Conference/Program_Chairs" ], [ "ICLR.cc/2025/Conference/Submission403/Reviewer_rB6i" ], [ "ICLR.cc/2025/Conference/Submission403/Authors" ], [ "ICLR.cc/2025/Conference/Submission403/Authors" ], [ "ICLR.cc/2025/Conference/Submission403/Authors" ], [ "ICLR.cc/2025/Conference/Submission403/Authors" ], [ "ICLR.cc/2025/Conference/Submission403/Authors" ], [ "ICLR.cc/2025/Conference/Submission403/Authors" ], [ "ICLR.cc/2025/Conference/Submission403/Authors" ], [ "ICLR.cc/2025/Conference/Submission403/Authors" ], [ "ICLR.cc/2025/Conference/Submission403/Reviewer_p4nq" ], [ "ICLR.cc/2025/Conference/Submission403/Reviewer_LyLo" ], [ "ICLR.cc/2025/Conference/Submission403/Authors" ] ], "structured_content_str": [ "{\"metareview\": \"The paper addresses the task of object pose estimation in 3D space, overcoming the limitations of existing methods that rely heavily on 3D model shapes. The proposed method uses a sphere as a shared proxy shape for objects, enabling the learning of shape-independent transformations from spherical representations. To enhance the precision of correspondences on the sphere, it incorporates three core components, including SO(3)-invariant point-wise feature extraction, spherical feature interaction, and a hyperbolic correspondence loss function. Empirical validation shows superior performance against state-of-the-art methods.\\nAll reviewers appreciated the novelty of the proposed approach and its good empirical performance. The main concerns were unclear writings/details and missing experiments/analyses. The authors\\u2019 detailed rebuttal addressed most of them, resulting in unanimous acceptance at the end of the discussion. AC thus recommends acceptance.\", \"additional_comments_on_reviewer_discussion\": \"The main concerns were unclear writings/details and missing experiments/analyses. The authors\\u2019 rebuttal addressed most of them, providing detailed point-to-point explanations and additional experiments.\"}", "{\"title\": \"Response to Reviewer p4nq (Part 1)\", \"comment\": \"We appreciate the reviewer for the constructive comments of our work. We hope our following responses can address your concerns.\\n\\n------\\n\\n**W1. ColorPointNet++ is not Impressive**\\n\\n> The presented ColorPointNet++ is not impressive. There are many alternatives [1,2,3] in the literature which can be used to extract SO(3)-invariant features.\\n>\\n> [1] Deng, Congyue, et al. \\\"Vector neurons: A general framework for so (3)-equivariant networks.\\\" Proceedings of the IEEE/CVF International Conference on Computer Vision. 2021.\\n>\\n> [2] Zhao, Chen, et al. \\\"Rotation invariant point cloud analysis: Where local geometry meets global topology.\\\" Pattern Recognition 127 (2022): 108626.\\n>\\n> [3] Fei, Jiajun, and Zhidong Deng. \\\"Rotation invariance and equivariance in 3D deep learning: a survey.\\\" Artificial Intelligence Review 57.7 (2024): 168.\\n\\n* **This work aims to validate the importance of SO(3)-invariance for correspondence prediction, rather than focusing on specific network architectures.** To ensure fair comparisons with prior works, we maintain the widely used PointNet++ architecture and parameter count, making minimal adjustments to transform it from SO(3)-sensitive to SO(3)-invariant. The ablation studies in Table 4 demonstrate the effectiveness of this insight.\\n\\n* **Other SO(3)-invariant point cloud backbones could also be adopted.** We leave this exploration for future work.\\n\\n------\\n\\n**W2. Rotation Invariance of DINOv2**\\n\\n> The effectiveness of DINOv2 towards rotation invariance is questionable. The authors mentioned that it is \\u201capproximately\\u201d SO(3)-invariant, which is quite vague. It would be more convincing if the authors could provide some experimental results about the invariance of DINOv2 towards 3D rotations.\\n\\nThanks for the suggestion. Please refer to **Figure 6** in the **Appendix** of our revised manuscript for more details.\\n\\n* **We have included an analysis of the SO(3)-invariance of DINOv2 [7] features in Figure 6 in the Appendix.**\\n* **SecondPose [11] also points out that DINOv2 features are approximately SO(3)-invariant**. We adopt the same description in our work.\\n\\n------\\n\\n**W3. Comparison with Methods based on Sphere Representations**\\n\\n> The difference compared with some previous methods that also use sphere representations, such as SpherePose, is unclear. What is the major superiority compared with these methods?\\n\\n* **We have already discussed the differences and advantages of our approach compared to existing category-level object pose estimation methods using spherical representations in Section 3.4.** For more details, please refer to Section 3.4 in the main text.\\n* **SpherePose refers to our proposed method.** We are unsure which specific work you are asking us to compare against. Please let us know if you have more questions.\\n\\n------\\n\\n**W4. Missing Ablation Studies**\\n\\n> Some important ablation studies are missing. For instance, the authors present a spherical feature interaction module to handle the challenges of self-occlusion. However, an ablation study on the effectiveness of this module is missing. Moreover, an experiment regarding the importance of SO(3)-invariant features for category-level object pose estimation is missing.\\n\\n* **The effectiveness of spherical feature interaction is demonstrated in Table 5.** When the number of encoder layers is set to 0, indicating no spherical feature interaction is used, the network struggles to handle occluded anchors effectively, resulting in a significant performance drop (from 58.2% to 20.7% in 5\\u00b02cm). This highlights the importance of spherical feature interaction. For more detailed discussions on how it aids in reasoning about the features of occluded anchors, please refer to the common response **R3** above.\\n* **The effectiveness of SO(3)-invariant features is validated in Table 4.** The original PointNet++ lacks SO(3)-invariance, while our ColorPointNet++ is designed to be SO(3)-invariant. With comparable parameter counts and architecture, ColorPointNet++ achieves 1.9% higher performance in 5\\u00b02cm and 3.8% in 10\\u00b05cm. These results demonstrate the importance of SO(3)-invariant features.\"}", "{\"summary\": \"This paper addresses the task of category-level object pose and size estimation, introducing a novel method called SpherePose. This method uses a sphere as a shared proxy shape for objects, enabling the learning of shape-independent transformations from spherical representations. To enhance the precision of correspondences on the sphere, SpherePose incorporates three core components, including SO(3)-invariant point-wise feature extraction, spherical feature interaction, and a hyperbolic correspondence loss function. Experiments conducted on the CAMERA25, REAL275, and HouseCat6D datasets validate the effectiveness of SpherePose.\", \"soundness\": \"3\", \"presentation\": \"3\", \"contribution\": \"3\", \"strengths\": [\"Unlike point-based representations, SpherePose uses a sphere as a shared proxy shape for objects and employs spherical representations to learn shape-independent transformations.\", \"Three core components are introduced based on spherical representations to enhance the precision of correspondences.\", \"SpherePose achieves state-of-the-art results on the CAMERA25, REAL275, and HouseCat6D datasets.\"], \"weaknesses\": [\"Are the spherical NOCS coordinates derived by normalizing the original NOCS coordinates to unit vectors? If so, it would be beneficial to provide results for regressing the original NOCS coordinates.\", \"Are the resulting poses obtained from the observed anchors or all sampled anchors on the sphere? If it\\u2019s the former, how can we verify that the spherical feature interaction aids in reasoning about the features of occluded anchors?\", \"Unlike most existing methods that use the Umeyama algorithm, SpherePose incorporates RANSAC for solving rotations. For a fair comparison, results without RANSAC for SpherePose should be included in Table 1.\", \"It is recommended to include results that do not use RGB or radius values as inputs in Table 4.\"], \"questions\": \"See Weaknesses.\", \"flag_for_ethics_review\": \"['No ethics review needed.']\", \"rating\": \"6\", \"confidence\": \"4\", \"code_of_conduct\": \"Yes\"}", "{\"comment\": \"The author rebuttal has successfully addressed my concerns regarding S1, S2, W3, W4, W6, and W7. Additionally, please ensure that the manuscript updates revisions based on Q1 and Q2.\\n\\nHowever, the justification for using a spherical proxy in this paper is not sufficiently established solely based on its usage in other works (W1). The reliance on off-the-shelf models for estimating $S$ increases the overall model complexity (W2). Furthermore, when projecting onto the HEALPix-based spherical proxy, there is no clear guarantee that objects of the same category will be consistently projected (W5).\\n\\nDespite the unclearness in W1, W2, and W5, my concerns regarding S1, S2, W3, W4, W6, W7, Q1, and Q2 have been resolved. Therefore, I am raising my score.\"}", "{\"title\": \"Common Response to All Reviewers (Part 1)\", \"comment\": \"**R1. Clarifications on Rotation-Invariance/Equivariance**\\n\\n* **Rotation estimation network must maintain SO(3)-equivariance between its input and output.** The rotation estimation task is formulated as $R = \\\\operatorname{Net}(P)$, where the input $P \\\\in \\\\mathbb{R}^{N \\\\times 3}$ is the observed point cloud, and the output $R \\\\in \\\\mathrm{SO(3)}$ is the estimated rotation. The SO(3)-equivariance between input and output is formulated as: $\\\\operatorname{Net}(\\\\psi_G(P)) = \\\\psi_G( \\\\operatorname{Net}(P) )$.\\n\\n* **Correspondence predictor in correspondence-based methods must ensure SO(3)-invariance.** This group of methods can be expressed as $R = \\\\operatorname{Net}(P) = \\\\Phi(P, \\\\operatorname{Corr}(P))$, where $\\\\Phi$ is the rotation solver and $\\\\operatorname{Corr}$ is the correspondence (NOCS) predictor. The SO(3)-equivariance between the network input and output is formulated as: $\\\\Phi(\\\\psi_G(P), \\\\operatorname{Corr}(\\\\psi_G(P))) = \\\\psi_G( \\\\Phi(P, \\\\operatorname{Corr}(P)) )$.\\n * The primary target of these methods is to predict the NOCS coordinates for each observed point and then solve the final rotation using the point-wise correspondences between camera coordinates $P$ and canonical object coordinates $\\\\operatorname{Corr}(P) \\\\in \\\\mathbb{R}^{N \\\\times 3}$ via the rotation solver (e.g., the Umeyama [1] algorithm).\\n * Given fixed reference coordinates $\\\\operatorname{Corr}(P)$, the rotation solver is SO(3)-equivariant with respect to the other input $P$: $\\\\Phi (\\\\psi_G(P), \\\\operatorname{Corr}(P)) = \\\\psi_G(\\\\Phi (P, \\\\operatorname{Corr}(P)))$. Consequently, the correspondence predictor needs to be designed to ensure SO(3)-invariance: $\\\\operatorname{Corr}(\\\\psi_G(P)) = \\\\operatorname{Corr}(P)$. It means that no matter how an object is rotated, a specific point on that object should be mapped to a static coordinate in NOCS.\\n* **Features extracted in correspondence-based methods must ensure SO(3)-invariance.** Since the NOCS predictor is defined as $\\\\operatorname{Corr}(P) = \\\\operatorname{MLP}(f(P))$, where $f(P)$ is the point-wise feature extractor, $f(P)$ also needs to be SO(3)-invariant.\\n\\n------\\n\\n**R2. Robustness to Translation and Scale**\\n\\n* **Translation estimation is relatively straightforward.** For instance, translation can be initialized as the centroid of the observed point cloud, with a residual predicted subsequently. Following VI-Net [2], we utilize a lightweight PointNet++ [3] for translation prediction, which already achieves sufficient accuracy.\\n\\n| Translation Error | < 2cm | < 5cm |\\n| ----------------- | ----- | ----- |\\n| SpherePose | 80.5% | 97.2% |\\n\\n* **Rotation estimation is robust to perturbations in translation.** The rotation estimation network first centralizes the observed point cloud using the predicted translation. When the translation used for centralizing is perturbed, the rotation estimation performance remains mostly unaffected.\\n\\n| Translation Perturbation | 5\\u00b02cm | 5\\u00b05cm | 10\\u00b02cm | 10\\u00b05cm |\\n| ------------------------ | ----- | ----- | ------ | ------ |\\n| None | 58.2 | 67.4 | 76.2 | 88.2 |\\n| < 2cm | 57.9 | 67.1 | 76.1 | 87.9 |\\n| < 5cm | 55.8 | 64.7 | 75.3 | 87.1 |\\n\\n* **Rotation estimation is robust to perturbations in scale.** When the scale used for normalization is perturbed, the rotation estimation performance also exhibits minimal impact.\\n\\n| Scale Perturbation | 5\\u00b02cm | 5\\u00b05cm | 10\\u00b02cm | 10\\u00b05cm |\\n| ------------------ | ----- | ----- | ------ | ------ |\\n| None | 58.2 | 67.4 | 76.2 | 88.2 |\\n| [0.8, 1.25] | 58.0 | 67.1 | 76.1 | 88.0 |\\n| [0.5, 2.0] | 55.8 | 64.4 | 74.3 | 86.1 |\"}", "{\"comment\": \"We sincerely appreciate the reviewer's support for the acceptance of our work. As suggested, we have incorporated additional explanations and discussions regarding **Q1** (in the **Appendix A.1**) and **Q2** (in the **Appendix A.4**) in the revised manuscript. For the remaining concerns, **W1**, **W2**, and **W5**, we have further posted our point-to-point responses. We hope our replies effectively resolve your concerns. If you have any further questions or suggestions, we would be grateful for your comments to help us improve our work.\\n\\n------\\n\\n**W1. Justification for Spherical Proxy**\\n\\n> Justification for Spherical Proxy: Why is the 2-sphere an optimal proxy shape for this task? While the paper adopts the spherical representation, a more thorough explanation of the choice of spherical shapes would be helpful.\\n\\n> The justification for using a spherical proxy in this paper is not sufficiently established solely based on its usage in other works.\\n\\nThe core insight of this work is to learn shape-independent transformation using a shared proxy shape. To achieve this, it is crucial to select an appropriate proxy shape that satisfies two key properties:\\n\\n1. **Uniform Sampling**: The proxy shape should capture the object shapes as uniformly as possible.\\n2. **Consistency of Sampling Density Under Rotation**: The proxy shape must ensure that the sampling density remains consistent for a certain object part under different object rotations. This is important to avoid introducing a biased distribution of sampled data when the object is rotated.\\n\\nFor a 2-sphere, the use of uniformly sampled grids, such as the HEALPix grids, achieves area-uniform sampling. Furthermore, due to the isotropic nature of a sphere, the sampling density remains consistent under varying object rotations. For instance, the grids responsible for capturing the camera lens structure will remain within a fixed spherical cone, and its corresponding sampling density on the sphere will not change, regardless of the camera\\u2019s rotation.\\n\\nIn contrast, for other classic proxy shapes like ellipsoids, cylinders, or cubes, although it is possible to achieve uniform sampling through specific rules (e.g., equidistant grids on the surface of a cube), these shapes are not isotropic. The sampling density within a particular viewing cone for a certain object part will vary under different object rotations. For instance, when the camera lens rotates from facing a flat face of a cube to facing one of its corners, the corresponding sampling density on the cube will change. This can lead to biased distribution of the sampled data, making them less suitable for capturing the point cloud structures.\\n\\n------\\n\\n**W2. Size Estimation Despite Normalization**\\n\\n> Size Estimation Despite Normalization:\\n Section 3.1 mentions that the point cloud utilizes normalized coordinates, yet the method predicts the size parameter \\u201cs\\u201d. How is accurate size estimation achieved despite normalization? Clarification on this aspect is necessary.\\n\\n> The reliance on off-the-shelf models for estimating S increases the overall model complexity.\\n\\nThe translation and size are estimated using a lightweight PointNet++ network, introducing minimal additional model complexity.\\n\\n| Network | Parameters (M) |\\n| ------------------------------ | -------------- |\\n| Rotation Estimator | 24.9 |\\n| Translation and Size Estimator | 1.6 |\\n| SpherePose | 26.5 |\\n\\n------\\n\\n**W5. Shape-Independence and HEALPix Projection**\\n\\n> Shape-Independence and HEALPix Projection: In section 3.1. HEALPix Spherical projection, does that anchor-based projection guarantee to preserve shape-independence? Even if the spherical projection is already proposed in VI-Net (Lin et al., 2023), ensuring its effectiveness in preserving shape-independence is critical in this framework.\\n\\n> When projecting onto the HEALPix-based spherical proxy, there is no clear guarantee that objects of the same category will be consistently projected.\\n\\nIndeed, objects of the same category with different shapes cannot guarantee consistent projections. For example, when cameras with varying lens lengths project onto a sphere, the cone of the lens corresponding to the sphere will differ. However, the primary goal of our spherical proxy shape design is to decouple shape variations from the transformation learning process. Since the transformation exists between the unit spheres in camera and object spaces, the network does not need to focus on the specific object shapes. Instead, it only needs to focus on the rotation information. Therefore, even though the size of the cone corresponding to the camera lens may vary, its direction remains consistent and capable of encoding rotation information.\", \"title\": \"Response to Further Concerns by Reviewer rB6i\"}", "{\"title\": \"Common Response to All Reviewers (Part 2)\", \"comment\": \"**R3. Generalization to Occluded Objects**\\n\\n* **Spherical feature interaction aids in reasoning about the features of occluded anchors.** As shown in the table, using correspondences from even only occluded anchors achieves fitting accuracy comparable to that of using only visible anchors. This result indicates that spherical feature interaction enables reasoning about the features of occluded anchors from a holistic perspective, leading to consistent correspondence predictions. In our approach, correspondences from all anchors are used by default for rotation fitting.\\n\\n| Correspondences for Rotation Fitting | 5\\u00b02cm | 5\\u00b05cm | 10\\u00b02cm | 10\\u00b05cm |\\n| ------------------------------------ | ----- | ----- | ------ | ------ |\\n| from All Spherical Anchors | 58.2 | 67.4 | 76.2 | 88.2 |\\n| from Visible Spherical Anchors | 58.2 | 67.4 | 76.3 | 88.2 |\\n| from Occluded Spherical Anchors | 58.1 | 67.3 | 76.2 | 88.2 |\\n\\n* **Spherical feature interaction demonstrates a certain degree of generalization to varying levels of occlusion.** First, we analyze the distribution of object visibility ratios on the REAL275 dataset, observing that most objects have more than half of their parts occluded, with visible ratios typically between 0.3 and 0.5. Next, we limit the max visible ratio for all objects, and the results show that our method maintains good generalization performance when the visible ratio exceeds 0.3. However, when the visible ratio drops significantly, such as to 0.1, the limited available object information hampers spherical feature interaction, making it challenging to reason about the features of the heavily occluded anchors.\\n\\n| Visible Ratio Distribution | [0.0, 0.1] | (0.1, 0.2] | (0.2, 0.3] | (0.3, 0.4] | (0.4, 0.5] | (0.5, 1.0] |\\n| -------------------------- | ---------- | ---------- | ---------- | ---------- | ---------- | ---------- |\\n| REAL275 | 0.20% | 0.26% | 6.59% | 40.73% | 45.12% | 7.10% |\\n\\n| Max Visible Ratio | 5\\u00b02cm | 5\\u00b05cm | 10\\u00b02cm | 10\\u00b05cm |\\n| ----------------- | ----- | ----- | ------ | ------ |\\n| Raw | 58.2 | 67.4 | 76.2 | 88.2 |\\n| 0.5 | 58.1 | 67.3 | 76.2 | 88.2 |\\n| 0.4 | 58.0 | 67.1 | 76.4 | 88.3 |\\n| 0.3 | 56.4 | 65.6 | 76.4 | 88.4 |\\n| 0.2 | 53.1 | 61.5 | 75.3 | 87.3 |\\n| 0.1 | 39.4 | 45.0 | 69.3 | 80.7 |\\n\\n------\\n\\n**R4. Details about Spherical Anchors and NOCS Coordinates**\\n\\n* **Spherical anchor positions are defined as the unit spherical coordinates of grid centers.** Specifically, the unit sphere is first divided into $M$ equal-area grids using the HEALPix [4] grids. The unit sphere coordinate of each grid center is then regarded as the corresponding anchor position $A_m \\\\in \\\\mathbb{R}^3$.\\n* **Spherical anchor position encoding does not affect rotation invariance, as it is not injected into the anchor features.** Instead, the role of anchor position encoding is to provide relative positional information during spherical feature interaction to assist in attention computation. Thus, anchor position encoding only influences the *query* and *key* in the attention mechanism, leaving the *value* unchanged, thereby preserving rotation invariance: $Q=F+E^{pos},K=F+E^{pos},V=F$.\\n* **Spherical NOCS coordinates are inherently unit vectors.** Since the spherical anchor positions are defined as unit vectors on the unit sphere, applying the ground-truth rotation transformation to these anchors results in corresponding NOCS coordinates that remain unit vectors. Therefore, the predicted NOCS coordinates are also normalized to unit vectors. Regarding the original definition of NOCS [5] within a unit cube, which constrains the coordinates with a range of [\\u22120.5, 0.5], we can easily adapt by scaling the unit sphere to have a radius of 0.5, aligning with this convention.\"}", "{\"title\": \"Looking Forward to Feedback\", \"comment\": \"We sincerely thank you for your time in reviewing our paper and your constructive comments. We have posted our point-to-point responses in the review system. Since the public discussion phase will end soon, we appreciate if you could read our responses and let us know your feedback and further comments.\"}", "{\"comment\": \"I thank the authors for the rebuttal. My concerns about invariance and equivariance have been addressed, so I am glad to keep my positive rating. Since the authors also agree that this paper does not focus on network architectures, it is better to rewrite the part about ColorPointNet++, which is not an impressive contribution to me. Moreover, I still cannot entirely agree the DINOv2 feature is rotation-invariant. It might be better to claim that it is robust to rotations.\"}", "{\"title\": \"Response to Reviewer rB6i (Part 4)\", \"comment\": \"**Q2. Related Work and Citations**\\n\\n> Related Work and Citations:\\nThere are two concurrent works leveraging spherical grids for pose estimation\\u2014correspondence-based [B] and regression-based [C]. Please cite and discuss these works to position your method within the broader context.\\n>\\n> [B] Improving Semantic Correspondence with Viewpoint-Guided Spherical Maps (Mariotti et al., CVPR 2024 ): https://arxiv.org/abs/2312.13216\\n>\\n> [C] 3D Equivariant Pose Regression via Direct Wigner-D Harmonics Prediction (Lee et al., NeurIPS 2024 ): https://arxiv.org/abs/2411.00543\\n\\nThanks for the suggestion. We have discussed the distinctions between our method and them [13, 14] in the **Appendix A.4**. Please refer to our revised manuscript for more details.\\n\\n------\\n\\n**References**\\n\\n[2] Lin J, Wei Z, Zhang Y, et al. Vi-net: Boosting category-level 6d object pose estimation via learning decoupled rotations on the spherical representations[C]//Proceedings of the IEEE/CVF International Conference on Computer Vision. 2023: 14001-14011.\\n\\n[6] Alexa M. Super-fibonacci spirals: Fast, low-discrepancy sampling of so (3)[C]//Proceedings of the IEEE/CVF Conference on Computer Vision and Pattern Recognition. 2022: 8291-8300.\\n\\n[8] Lin J, Wei Z, Ding C, et al. Category-level 6d object pose and size estimation using self-supervised deep prior deformation networks[C]//European Conference on Computer Vision. Cham: Springer Nature Switzerland, 2022: 19-34.\\n\\n[9] Lin X, Yang W, Gao Y, et al. Instance-adaptive and geometric-aware keypoint learning for category-level 6d object pose estimation[C]//Proceedings of the IEEE/CVF Conference on Computer Vision and Pattern Recognition. 2024: 21040-21049.\\n\\n[10] Lin J, Wei Z, Li Z, et al. Dualposenet: Category-level 6d object pose and size estimation using dual pose network with refined learning of pose consistency[C]//Proceedings of the IEEE/CVF International Conference on Computer Vision. 2021: 3560-3569.\\n\\n[11] Chen Y, Di Y, Zhai G, et al. Secondpose: Se (3)-consistent dual-stream feature fusion for category-level pose estimation[C]//Proceedings of the IEEE/CVF Conference on Computer Vision and Pattern Recognition. 2024: 9959-9969.\\n\\n[12] Lin H, Liu Z, Cheang C, et al. Sar-net: Shape alignment and recovery network for category-level 6d object pose and size estimation[C]//Proceedings of the IEEE/CVF conference on computer vision and pattern recognition. 2022: 6707-6717.\\n\\n[13] Mariotti O, Mac Aodha O, Bilen H. Improving semantic correspondence with viewpoint-guided spherical maps[C]//Proceedings of the IEEE/CVF Conference on Computer Vision and Pattern Recognition. 2024: 19521-19530.\\n\\n[14] Lee J, Cho M. 3D Equivariant Pose Regression via Direct Wigner-D Harmonics Prediction[C]//The Thirty-eighth Annual Conference on Neural Information Processing Systems.\"}", "{\"title\": \"Response to Reviewer rB6i (Part 2)\", \"comment\": \"**W3. Focus on SO(3) Over SE(3)**\\n\\n> Focus on SO(3) Over SE(3): \\nThe method predicts rotation \\u201cR\\u201d and translation \\u201ct\\u201d, focusing on SO(3) invariance. Why is roto-translation-invariance (SE(3)) not considered? (and scale-invariance) This oversight could limit the method\\u2019s robustness in varying spatial contexts.\\n\\nPlease refer to our common response **R2** above for more details.\\n\\n* **Translation estimation is relatively straightforward.** For instance, translation can be initialized as the centroid of the observed point cloud, with a residual predicted subsequently.\\n* **Rotation estimation is robust to perturbations in translation.**\\n* **Rotation estimation is robust to perturbations in scale.**\\n\\n------\\n\\n**W4. SO(3)-Invariant Features and Rotation Discrimination**\\n\\n> SO(3)-Invariant Features and Rotation Discrimination: In Section 3.1, if point-wise features are SO(3)-invariant, how does the method differentiate between different rotations? Wouldn't rotation-\\u201cinvariant\\u201d features cause the model to lose rotational information? An explanation on how SO(3)-equivariant features are maintained would be insightful.\\n\\nPlease refer to our common response **R1** above for more details.\\n\\n* **Rotation estimation network must maintain SO(3)-equivariance between its input and output.**\\n* **Correspondence predictor in correspondence-based methods must ensure SO(3)-invariance.**\\n* **Features extracted in correspondence-based methods must ensure SO(3)-invariance.**\\n\\n------\\n\\n**W5. Shape-Independence and HEALPix Projection**\\n\\n> Shape-Independence and HEALPix Projection: In section 3.1. HEALPix Spherical projection, does that anchor-based projection guarantee to preserve shape-independence? Even if the spherical projection is already proposed in VI-Net (Lin et al., 2023), ensuring its effectiveness in preserving shape-independence is critical in this framework.\\n\\n* **The spherical proxy shape is consistent and shared across different objects, enabling the network to focus solely on shape-independent rotation transformation.** Regardless of the observed object shape, it is projected onto a unit sphere, represented by spherical anchors. This replaces the original object shape with a coherent spherical proxy shape shared across objects, allowing the network to concentrate on learning rotation transformation without being affected by variations in object shapes.\\n\\n------\\n\\n**W6. Correspondence-Based Loss in Linear Space**\\n\\n> Correspondence-Based Loss in Linear Space: In lines 357-358, the paper claims that learning correspondence-based loss is easier in linear space. Why is this the easier case? Would direct regression provide a better supervisory signal? Providing supporting evidence would strengthen this claim.\\n\\n* **The ablation studies on different rotation representations in Table 4 of SAR-Net [12] demonstrates that learning is easier in Euclidean space compared to SO(3) space.**\\n* **Removing the correspondence loss and directly regressing rotation from features leads to network divergence.** Since the extracted features of our network are SO(3)-invariant, directly regressing rotation from these features suffers from their lack of awareness to rotational information. Even when concatenating SO(3)-equivariant observed coordinates to the point-wise features, the network still fails to converge.\\n* **Retaining the correspondence loss and regressing rotation from correspondences leads to reduced performance.** Using a deep estimator, as proposed by DPDN [8], to directly regress rotation from correspondence pairs provides a direct supervisory signal. However, due to its reliance on the precision of correspondence predictions, this approach slightly underperforms compared to fitting rotations using the Umeyama algorithm.\\n\\n| Rotation Fitting | 5\\u00b02cm | 5\\u00b05cm | 10\\u00b02cm | 10\\u00b05cm |\\n| ---------------- | ----- | ----- | ------ | ------ |\\n| Umeyama | 58.2 | 67.4 | 76.2 | 88.2 |\\n| Deep Estimator | 57.7 | 66.8 | 76.5 | 88.2 |\"}", "{\"title\": \"Paper Decision\", \"decision\": \"Accept (Poster)\"}", "{\"summary\": \"This paper addresses the challenge of category-level object pose estimation by proposing a shape-independent representation using spherical features. Starting with an RGB-D image and instance masks, the method processes \\\"N\\\" partial point clouds to estimate object pose parameters: rotation R \\\\in SO(3), translation t \\\\in R^3, and size s \\\\in R^3 of the observed instance. The spherical feature construction on the SO(3) HEALPix grid, combined with a hyperbolic correspondence loss, significantly improves pose estimation performance. The paper categorizes pose estimation into correspondence-based vs. regression-based and point-based vs. spherical-based approaches. The proposed method, correspondence-based/spherical-based SpherePose, demonstrates state-of-the-art results on REAL275 and HouseCat6D benchmarks.\", \"soundness\": \"3\", \"presentation\": \"2\", \"contribution\": \"3\", \"strengths\": \"1. Strong motivation: The proposed shape-independent proxy representation addresses a crucial need in category-level pose estimation, enhancing generalizability across different object instances.\\n\\n2. Good analysis of correspondence errors: The method effectively identifies correspondences, as shown in Table 3, where accurate correspondence significantly enhances pose estimation accuracy. \\nHowever, consistency of correspondence errors should be validated on another dataset, such as HouseCat6D.\\n\\n3. Comprehensive Ablation Studies: \\tThe authors provide a detailed analysis of different feature extractors (DINOv2, ColorPointNet++) and loss functions (L2 vs. hyperbolic L2). While not the primary contribution, Table 4 highlights the role of backbone networks in performance improvement. Table 6 effectively isolates the impact of the hyperbolic L2 loss, validating its importance. \\nHowever, the authors should clearly differentiate the contribution of the backbone networks from the main innovations of the paper (spherical-based proxy and correspondence-based loss), by comparing with existing methods under the same configurations.\", \"weaknesses\": \"1. Justification for Spherical Proxy:\\nWhy is the 2-sphere an optimal proxy shape for this task? While the paper adopts the spherical representation, a more thorough explanation of the choice of spherical shapes would be helpful.\\n\\n2. Size Estimation Despite Normalization:\\nSection 3.1 mentions that the point cloud utilizes normalized coordinates, yet the method predicts the size parameter \\u201cs\\u201d. How is accurate size estimation achieved despite normalization? Clarification on this aspect is necessary.\\n\\n3. Focus on SO(3) Over SE(3):\\nThe method predicts rotation \\u201cR\\u201d and translation \\u201ct\\u201d, focusing on SO(3) invariance. Why is roto-translation-invariance (SE(3)) not considered? (and scale-invariance) This oversight could limit the method\\u2019s robustness in varying spatial contexts.\\n\\n4. SO(3)-Invariant Features and Rotation Discrimination:\\nIn Section 3.1, if point-wise features are SO(3)-invariant, how does the method differentiate between different rotations? Wouldn't rotation-\\u201cinvariant\\u201d features cause the model to lose rotational information? An explanation on how SO(3)-equivariant features are maintained would be insightful.\\n\\n5. Shape-Independence and HEALPix Projection:\\nIn section 3.1. HEALPix Spherical projection, does that anchor-based projection guarantee to preserve shape-independence? Even if the spherical projection is already proposed in VI-Net (Lin et al., 2023), ensuring its effectiveness in preserving shape-independence is critical in this framework.\\n\\n6. Correspondence-Based Loss in Linear Space:\\nIn lines 357-358, the paper claims that learning correspondence-based loss is easier in linear space. Why is this the easier case? Would direct regression provide a better supervisory signal? Providing supporting evidence would strengthen this claim.\\n\\n7. HEALPix vs. Other Grids:\\nIt is convinced that the choice of the HEALPix grid over random rectangular SO(3) grids is explained by the drawbacks of equirectangular grids near the poles. \\nHowever, could a random SO(3) grid serve as a viable alternative? \\nAdditionally, in Table 7, evaluating other SO(3) spherical grids, such as SuperFibonacci spirals [A], would provide a comprehensive comparison, given its fast construction properties.\\n\\n[A] Super-Fibonacci Spirals: Fast, Low-Discrepancy Sampling of SO(3) (Marc Alexa, CVPR 2022)\\n\\n8. Clarification of this paper\\u2019s contribution: Please organize Sections 3 and 4 to focus on the main contribution of this paper.\", \"questions\": \"1. Rotational Invariance/Equivariance in HEALPix Projection:\\nHow does the HEALPix spherical projection in Section 3.1 maintain rotational invariance or equivariance between input and output?\\n\\n2. Related Work and Citations:\\nThere are two concurrent works leveraging spherical grids for pose estimation\\u2014correspondence-based [B] and regression-based [C]. Please cite and discuss these works to position your method within the broader context.\\n\\n[B] Improving Semantic Correspondence with Viewpoint-Guided Spherical Maps (Mariotti et al., CVPR 2024 ): https://arxiv.org/abs/2312.13216\\n\\n[C] 3D Equivariant Pose Regression via Direct Wigner-D Harmonics Prediction (Lee et al., NeurIPS 2024 ): https://arxiv.org/abs/2411.00543\", \"flag_for_ethics_review\": \"['No ethics review needed.']\", \"rating\": \"6\", \"confidence\": \"4\", \"code_of_conduct\": \"Yes\"}", "{\"title\": \"Looking Forward to Feedback\", \"comment\": \"We sincerely thank you for your time in reviewing our paper and your constructive comments. We have posted our point-to-point responses in the review system. Since the public discussion phase will end soon, we appreciate if you could read our responses and let us know your feedback and further comments.\"}", "{\"title\": \"Response to Reviewer rB6i (Part 3)\", \"comment\": \"**W7. HEALPix vs. Other Grids**\\n\\n> HEALPix vs. Other Grids:\\nIt is convinced that the choice of the HEALPix grid over random rectangular SO(3) grids is explained by the drawbacks of equirectangular grids near the poles. However, could a random SO(3) grid serve as a viable alternative? Additionally, in Table 7, evaluating other SO(3) spherical grids, such as SuperFibonacci spirals [A], would provide a comprehensive comparison, given its fast construction properties.\\n>\\n> [A] Super-Fibonacci Spirals: Fast, Low-Discrepancy Sampling of SO(3) (Marc Alexa, CVPR 2022)\\n\\nThanks for the suggestion. Please refer to **Table 7** of our revised manuscript for more details.\\n\\n* **Random SO(3) grids are not suitable alternatives.** These grids fail to ensure uniform sampling and lack a fixed set of anchor positions, leading to increased storage costs for positional embedding.\\n* **We have included comparison with Super-Fibonacci Spirals grids in Table 7.** While Super-Fibonacci Spirals [5] grids outperform Equirectangular grids, the performance is slightly inferior to HEALPix grids.\\n\\n| Spherical Grids | 5\\u00b02cm | 5\\u00b05cm | 10\\u00b02cm | 10\\u00b05cm |\\n| ----------------------- | ----- | ----- | ------ | ------ |\\n| HEALPix | 58.2 | 67.4 | 76.2 | 88.2 |\\n| Equirectangular | 55.7 | 64.7 | 72.1 | 83.6 |\\n| Super-Fibonacci Spirals | 56.5 | 65.0 | 75.8 | 87.2 |\\n\\n------\\n\\n**W8. Clarification of this paper\\u2019s contribution**\\n\\n> Clarification of this paper\\u2019s contribution: Please organize Sections 3 and 4 to focus on the main contribution of this paper.\\n\\nThanks for the suggestion. We have reorganized **Table 4** in the main text to emphasize the importance of SO(3)-invariant point-wise features rather than backbone networks.\\n\\n------\\n\\n**Q1. Rotational Invariance/Equivariance in HEALPix Projection**\\n\\n> Rotational Invariance/Equivariance in HEALPix Projection: How does the HEALPix spherical projection in Section 3.1 maintain rotational invariance or equivariance between input and output?\\n\\nPlease refer to our common response **R1** and **R4** above for more details.\\n\\n* **Rotation estimation network must maintain SO(3)-equivariance between its input and output.**\\n* **HEALPix spherical projection maintains SO(3)-equivariance between its input and output.** Specifically, the observed point cloud coordinates in the camera space are projected onto the sphere, resulting in spherical anchor coordinates that remain within the camera space but represent a different shape. This projection preserves SO(3)-equivariance between the observed point cloud and spherical anchors.\\n* **Correspondence predictor in correspondence-based methods must ensure SO(3)-invariance.** Subsequently, correspondence-based methods learn the transformation from observed coordinates in the camera space to NOCS coordinates in the canonical object space. This transformation should be SO(3)-invariant.\"}", "{\"title\": \"Response to Reviewer LyLo\", \"comment\": \"We appreciate the reviewer for the constructive comments of our work. We hope our following responses can address your concerns.\\n\\n------\\n\\n**W1. Point Cloud Occlusion and Center Alignment**\\n\\n> The point cloud patches are occluded. The center of a point cloud patch may not be the corresponding object's center. The projection results changed a lot when the center moved. Besides, different object point cloud patches have various occlusions. The correspondence by the spherical proxy, whether a real semantic correspondence of objects, could have more evidence or qualitative results.\\n\\nPlease refer to our common response **R2** and **R3** above for more details.\\n\\n* **Translation estimation is relatively straightforward.** For instance, translation can be initialized as the centroid of the observed point cloud, with a residual predicted subsequently.\\n* **Rotation estimation is robust to perturbations in translation.**\\n* **Spherical feature interaction demonstrates a certain degree of generalization to varying levels of occlusion.**\\n\\n------\\n\\n**W2. Explanation about Anchor Position Encoding**\\n\\n> The positional encoding of the anchors needs more explanation. The way to describe the anchor position is vague, spherical coordinates or something else. The position of an anchor could influence the rotation invariance, making the results sensitive to rotation.\\n\\nPlease refer to our common response **R4** above for more details.\\n\\n* **Spherical anchor positions are defined as the unit spherical coordinates of grid centers.**\\n\\n* **Spherical anchor position encoding does not affect rotation invariance, as it is not injected into the anchor features.**\\n\\n-------\\n\\n**Q1. Robustness to Visual Variations**\\n\\n> Given that the method relies on SO(3)-invariant feature extraction and RGB-based features, how robust is the approach to diverse lighting conditions and texture variations across different objects?\\n\\n* **During training, we apply data augmentation on RGB colors.** Specifically, following prior works such as DPDN [8] and VI-Net [2], we enhance the robustness to diverse visual variations by applying color perturbations to RGB images using PyTorch: $\\\\operatorname{ColorJitter}(\\\\textrm{brightness} = 0.2, \\\\textrm{contrast} = 0.2, \\\\textrm{saturation} = 0.2, \\\\textrm{hue} = 0.05)$.\\n\\n- **During testing, our method demonstrates robustness to color perturbations.** The table below provides results under various levels of color perturbations applied to RGB images during testing. This robustness can also be partially attributed to the generalization capability of the large-scale pretrained vision model, DINOv2 [7].\\n\\n| Color Perturbation During Testing | 5\\u00b02cm | 5\\u00b05cm | 10\\u00b02cm | 10\\u00b05cm |\\n| --------------------------------- | ----- | ----- | ------ | ------ |\\n| None | 58.2 | 67.4 | 76.2 | 88.2 |\\n| (0.2, 0.2, 0.2, 0.05) | 57.9 | 67.1 | 76.2 | 88.0 |\\n| (0.5, 0.5, 0.5, 0.2) | 56.0 | 65.8 | 74.8 | 87.4 |\\n\\n------\\n\\n**Q2. Generalization to Occluded Objects**\\n\\n> Can the spherical feature interaction using attention mechanisms generalize well to objects with high self-occlusion or cluttered environments, and how is this tested?\\n\\nPlease refer to our common response **R3** above for more details.\\n\\n* **Spherical feature interaction demonstrates a certain degree of generalization to varying levels of occlusion.** However, when the occlusion ratio is too high, spherical feature interaction struggles to reason about the features of heavily occluded anchors due to the extremely limited available object information.\\n\\n------\\n\\n**Q3. Hyperbolic Correspondence Loss Comparison**\\n\\n> The hyperbolic correspondence loss function is designed to improve gradient behavior near zero. How does this compare quantitatively with traditional loss functions in terms of convergence speed and accuracy?\\n\\nPlease refer to **Figure 7** in the **Appendix** of our revised manuscript for more details.\\n\\n* .**The hyperbolic correspondence loss function not only accelerates convergence but also achieves higher accuracy.**\\n\\n------\\n\\n**References**\\n\\n[2] Lin J, Wei Z, Zhang Y, et al. Vi-net: Boosting category-level 6d object pose estimation via learning decoupled rotations on the spherical representations[C]//Proceedings of the IEEE/CVF International Conference on Computer Vision. 2023: 14001-14011.\\n\\n[7] Oquab M, Darcet T, Moutakanni T, et al. DINOv2: Learning Robust Visual Features without Supervision[J]. Transactions on Machine Learning Research.\\n\\n[8] Lin J, Wei Z, Ding C, et al. Category-level 6d object pose and size estimation using self-supervised deep prior deformation networks[C]//European Conference on Computer Vision. Cham: Springer Nature Switzerland, 2022: 19-34.\"}", "{\"title\": \"Common Response to All Reviewers\", \"comment\": [\"We thank all reviewers for their thoughtful comments and valuable feedback. Here, we provide a common response to some of the recurring issues, and summarize the revisions made to the manuscript according to the reviewers' suggestions, along with the references cited during the response process. Reviewer-specific responses are left as direct comments.\", \"------\", \"**Summary of Changes**\", \"As suggested by **Reviewer p4nq**, we have refined the description about ColorPointNet++ and DINOv2 features in **Section 1** and **Section 3**.\", \"As suggested by **Reviewer rB6i**, we have reorganized **Table 4** in Section 4 to emphasize the importance of SO(3)-invariant point-wise features.\", \"As suggested by **Reviewer rB6i**, we have included comparison with Super-Fibonacci Spirals [6] grids in **Table 7** in Section 4.\", \"As suggested by **Reviewer rB6i** and **Reviewer p4nq**, we have included a detailed explanation of SO(3)-invariance/equivariance in the **Appendix A.1**.\", \"As suggested by **Reviewer p4nq**, we have included an analysis of the SO(3)-invariance of DINOv2 [7] features in **Figure 5** in the Appendix.\", \"As suggested by **Reviewer v4xt**, we have included results that exclude RGB or radius values in **Table 10** in the Appendix.\", \"As suggested by **Reviewer LyLo**, we have included comparison of convergence speed and accuracy for the hyperbolic correspondence loss function in **Figure 7** in the Appendix.\", \"As suggested by **Reviewer rB6i**, we have discussed the distinctions between our method and two concurrent works [13, 14] in the **Appendix A.4**.\", \"We have made minor adjustments to the structure of the Appendix for better readability.\", \"We have refined the alignment of tables to enhance clarity and visual appeal.\", \"------\", \"**References**\"], \"here_are_references_cited_in_all_responses\": \"[1] Umeyama S. Least-squares estimation of transformation parameters between two point patterns[J]. IEEE Transactions on Pattern Analysis & Machine Intelligence, 1991, 13(04): 376-380.\\n\\n[2] Lin J, Wei Z, Zhang Y, et al. Vi-net: Boosting category-level 6d object pose estimation via learning decoupled rotations on the spherical representations[C]//Proceedings of the IEEE/CVF International Conference on Computer Vision. 2023: 14001-14011.\\n\\n[3] Qi C R, Yi L, Su H, et al. Pointnet++: Deep hierarchical feature learning on point sets in a metric space[J]. Advances in neural information processing systems, 2017, 30.\\n\\n[4] Gorski K M, Hivon E, Banday A J, et al. HEALPix: A framework for high-resolution discretization and fast analysis of data distributed on the sphere[J]. The Astrophysical Journal, 2005, 622(2): 759.\\n\\n[5] Wang H, Sridhar S, Huang J, et al. Normalized object coordinate space for category-level 6d object pose and size estimation[C]//Proceedings of the IEEE/CVF Conference on Computer Vision and Pattern Recognition. 2019: 2642-2651.\\n\\n[6] Alexa M. Super-fibonacci spirals: Fast, low-discrepancy sampling of so (3)[C]//Proceedings of the IEEE/CVF Conference on Computer Vision and Pattern Recognition. 2022: 8291-8300.\\n\\n[7] Oquab M, Darcet T, Moutakanni T, et al. DINOv2: Learning Robust Visual Features without Supervision[J]. Transactions on Machine Learning Research.\\n\\n[8] Lin J, Wei Z, Ding C, et al. Category-level 6d object pose and size estimation using self-supervised deep prior deformation networks[C]//European Conference on Computer Vision. Cham: Springer Nature Switzerland, 2022: 19-34.\\n\\n[9] Lin X, Yang W, Gao Y, et al. Instance-adaptive and geometric-aware keypoint learning for category-level 6d object pose estimation[C]//Proceedings of the IEEE/CVF Conference on Computer Vision and Pattern Recognition. 2024: 21040-21049.\\n\\n[10] Lin J, Wei Z, Li Z, et al. Dualposenet: Category-level 6d object pose and size estimation using dual pose network with refined learning of pose consistency[C]//Proceedings of the IEEE/CVF International Conference on Computer Vision. 2021: 3560-3569.\\n\\n[11] Chen Y, Di Y, Zhai G, et al. Secondpose: Se (3)-consistent dual-stream feature fusion for category-level pose estimation[C]//Proceedings of the IEEE/CVF Conference on Computer Vision and Pattern Recognition. 2024: 9959-9969.\\n\\n[12] Lin H, Liu Z, Cheang C, et al. Sar-net: Shape alignment and recovery network for category-level 6d object pose and size estimation[C]//Proceedings of the IEEE/CVF conference on computer vision and pattern recognition. 2022: 6707-6717.\\n\\n[13] Mariotti O, Mac Aodha O, Bilen H. Improving semantic correspondence with viewpoint-guided spherical maps[C]//Proceedings of the IEEE/CVF Conference on Computer Vision and Pattern Recognition. 2024: 19521-19530.\\n\\n[14] Lee J, Cho M. 3D Equivariant Pose Regression via Direct Wigner-D Harmonics Prediction[C]//The Thirty-eighth Annual Conference on Neural Information Processing Systems.\"}", "{\"title\": \"Response to Further Suggestions by Reviewer p4nq\", \"comment\": \"We sincerely thank you for your constructive suggestions. In the revised manuscript, we have rewritten the part about ColorPointNet++, emphasizing the importance of SO(3)-invariance rather than focusing on the specifics of the network architecture. Additionally, we have refined the description of DINOv2 features, referring to them as \\\"robust to rotations\\\" rather than rotation-invariant. If you have any further questions or suggestions, we would be grateful for your comments to help us improve our work.\"}", "{\"title\": \"Looking Forward to Feedback\", \"comment\": \"We sincerely thank you for your time in reviewing our paper and your constructive comments. We have posted our point-to-point responses in the review system. Since the public discussion phase will end soon, we appreciate if you could read our responses and let us know your feedback. Please let us know if you have any further questions or if our clarifications and paper updates are satisfactory for an improved rating.\"}", "{\"title\": \"Response to Reviewer p4nq (Part 2)\", \"comment\": \"**Q1. Explanation about SO(3)-Invariance/Equivariance**\\n\\n> I am a bit confused about the SO(3)-invariant features in the field of object rotation estimation. We could formulate the rotation estimation problem as R = f(g(x)|w). g(x) means the feature extractor. If the extracted features are rotation-invariant, it would be g(R(x))=g(x). If this is the case, it means f(.) would be unaware of the rotation information. Why is the network able to make the prediction related to rotations? To me, SO(3)-equivariant features seem more reasonable.\\n\\nPlease refer to our common response **R1** above for more details.\\n\\n* **Rotation estimation network must maintain SO(3)-equivariance between its input and output.**\\n* **Correspondence predictor in correspondence-based methods must ensure SO(3)-invariance.**\\n* **Features extracted in correspondence-based methods must ensure SO(3)-invariance.**\\n\\n------\\n\\n**Q2. Generalization to Novel Categories**\\n\\n> The proposed spherical representation is designed to be object-agnostic across different categories. What factors limit the method\\u2019s ability to generalize to objects from novel categories?\\n\\n* **Definition of the canonical poses for novel categories and identification for new objects.** The key factor limiting generalization to novel categories in category-level object pose estimation task is the definition of their canonical poses, as the standard poses for new categories is unknown. Additionally, the ability to detect and segment objects from novel categories also affects the generalization capability.\\n\\n------\\n\\n**Q3. IoU75 Performance Comparison**\\n\\n> Why is the IoU75 worse than that of a point-based method AG-Pose on REAL275?\\n\\n* **This work focuses on rotation estimation, while the IoU metric is jointly influenced by rotation, translation, and size estimation.** Following VI-Net [2], our primary focus is on the more challenging task of rotation estimation, while translation and size are estimated using a lightweight PointNet++, which may lead to slightly lower performance in translation and size.\\n\\n------\\n\\n**References**\\n\\n[2] Lin J, Wei Z, Zhang Y, et al. Vi-net: Boosting category-level 6d object pose estimation via learning decoupled rotations on the spherical representations[C]//Proceedings of the IEEE/CVF International Conference on Computer Vision. 2023: 14001-14011.\\n\\n[7] Oquab M, Darcet T, Moutakanni T, et al. DINOv2: Learning Robust Visual Features without Supervision[J]. Transactions on Machine Learning Research.\\n\\n[11] Chen Y, Di Y, Zhai G, et al. Secondpose: Se (3)-consistent dual-stream feature fusion for category-level pose estimation[C]//Proceedings of the IEEE/CVF Conference on Computer Vision and Pattern Recognition. 2024: 9959-9969.\"}", "{\"title\": \"Response to Reviewer v4xt\", \"comment\": \"We appreciate the reviewer for the constructive comments of our work. We hope our following responses can address your concerns.\\n\\n------\\n\\n**W1. Derivation of Spherical NOCS Coordinates**\\n\\n> Are the spherical NOCS coordinates derived by normalizing the original NOCS coordinates to unit vectors? If so, it would be beneficial to provide results for regressing the original NOCS coordinates.\\n\\nPlease refer to our common response **R4** above for more details.\\n\\n* **Spherical NOCS coordinates are inherently unit vectors.**\\n\\n------\\n\\n**W2. Pose Determination from Anchors**\\n\\n> Are the resulting poses obtained from the observed anchors or all sampled anchors on the sphere? If it\\u2019s the former, how can we verify that the spherical feature interaction aids in reasoning about the features of occluded anchors?\\n\\nPlease refer to our common response **R3** above for more details.\\n\\n* **Spherical feature interaction aids in reasoning about the features of occluded anchors.** In our method, correspondences from all anchors are used by default for rotation fitting. Through an in-depth analysis, we observe that even using correspondences from only occluded anchors achieves comparable fitting performance. This result demonstrates the capability of spherical feature interaction to effectively reason about the features of occluded anchors.\\n\\n------\\n\\n**W3. Umeyama without RANSAC**\\n\\n> Unlike most existing methods that use the Umeyama algorithm, SpherePose incorporates RANSAC for solving rotations. For a fair comparison, results without RANSAC for SpherePose should be included in Table 1.\", \"we_are_sorry_for_the_potential_confusion\": \"- **Existing methods using the Umeyama algorithm typically rely on RANSAC for outlier removal.** For example, the pioneering work on category-level object pose estimation, NOCS [5], employs the Umeyama algorithm with RANSAC for pose fitting. Subsequent works that adopt the Umeyama algorithm have also used RANSAC by default for outlier removal.\\n- **RANSAC is not essential for our SpherePose.** The spherical feature interaction, conducted from a holistic perspective, ensures consistent correspondence predictions among spherical anchors, mitigating the interference of noise. As shown in the table below, SpherePose achieves comparable performance even without RANSAC.\\n\\n| Umeyama | 5\\u00b02cm | 5\\u00b05cm | 10\\u00b02cm | 10\\u00b05cm |\\n| ---------- | ----- | ----- | ------ | ------ |\\n| w/ RANSAC | 58.2 | 67.4 | 76.2 | 88.2 |\\n| w/o RANSAC | 58.2 | 67.4 | 76.2 | 88.2 |\\n\\n------\\n\\n**W4. Additional Results in Table 4**\\n\\n> It is recommended to include results that do not use RGB or radius values as inputs in Table 4.\\n\\nThanks for the suggestion. We have included results that exclude RGB or radius values. Please refer to **Table 11** in the **Appendix** of our revised manuscript for more details.\\n\\n------\\n\\n**References**\\n\\n[5] Wang H, Sridhar S, Huang J, et al. Normalized object coordinate space for category-level 6d object pose and size estimation[C]//Proceedings of the IEEE/CVF Conference on Computer Vision and Pattern Recognition. 2019: 2642-2651.\"}", "{\"summary\": \"This paper introduces a new method for category-level object pose estimation. The authors argue that the shape-dependent representations in previous approaches lead to semantic inconsistencies across different objects within the same category. To handle this issue, a shape-independent transformation is presented, transforming features to a sphere. The authors also introduce the importance of SO(3)-invariant features for category-level object pose estimation. Multiple SO(3)-invariant features extracted from RGB images and point clouds are combined to learn the NOCS coordinates on a sphere. Experimental results show SpherePose outperforms state-of-the-art methods on benchmarks like CAMERA25, REAL275, and HouseCat6D, showing its effectiveness in handling category-level pose estimation challenges.\", \"soundness\": \"3\", \"presentation\": \"3\", \"contribution\": \"3\", \"strengths\": \"The idea of leveraging an object-agnostic representation to handle the problem of semantic inconsistencies is technically sound and interesting. The authors propose to combine multiple deep feature extractors, and its effectiveness is demonstrated in the ablation studies. The paper conducts extensive experiments on multiple benchmarks, showing better performance compared with existing methods. The paper is well-written and easy to understand.\", \"weaknesses\": [\"The presented ColorPointNet++ is not impressive. There are many alternatives [1,2,3] in the literature which can be used to extract SO(3)-invariant features.\", \"The effectiveness of DINOv2 towards rotation invariance is questionable. The authors mentioned that it is \\u201capproximately\\u201d SO(3)-invariant, which is quite vague. It would be more convincing if the authors could provide some experimental results about the invariance of DINOv2 towards 3D rotations.\", \"The difference compared with some previous methods that also use sphere representations, such as SpherePose, is unclear. What is the major superiority compared with these methods?\", \"Some important ablation studies are missing. For instance, the authors present a spherical feature interaction module to handle the challenges of self-occlusion. However, an ablation study on the effectiveness of this module is missing. Moreover, an experiment regarding the importance of SO(3)-invariant features for category-level object pose estimation is missing.\", \"[1] Deng, Congyue, et al. \\\"Vector neurons: A general framework for so (3)-equivariant networks.\\\" Proceedings of the IEEE/CVF International Conference on Computer Vision. 2021.\", \"[2] Zhao, Chen, et al. \\\"Rotation invariant point cloud analysis: Where local geometry meets global topology.\\\" Pattern Recognition 127 (2022): 108626.\", \"[3] Fei, Jiajun, and Zhidong Deng. \\\"Rotation invariance and equivariance in 3D deep learning: a survey.\\\" Artificial Intelligence Review 57.7 (2024): 168.\"], \"questions\": [\"I am a bit confused about the SO(3)-invariant features in the field of object rotation estimation. We could formulate the rotation estimation problem as R = f(g(x)|w). g(x) means the feature extractor. If the extracted features are rotation-invariant, it would be g(R(x))=g(x). If this is the case, it means f(.) would be unaware of the rotation information. Why is the network able to make the prediction related to rotations? To me, SO(3)-equivariant features seem more reasonable.\", \"The proposed spherical representation is designed to be object-agnostic across different categories. What factors limit the method\\u2019s ability to generalize to objects from novel categories?\", \"Why is the IoU75 worse than that of a point-based method AG-Pose on REAL275?\"], \"flag_for_ethics_review\": \"['No ethics review needed.']\", \"rating\": \"6\", \"confidence\": \"4\", \"code_of_conduct\": \"Yes\"}", "{\"summary\": \"The paper addresses the challenge of object pose estimation in 3D space, specifically overcoming the limitations of existing methods that rely heavily on 3D model shapes. It proposes an approach called SpherePose, which utilizes spherical representations to create shape-independent transformations, thereby improving correspondence prediction accuracy. The method incorporates three core innovations: SO(3)-invariant feature extraction, spherical feature interaction using attention mechanisms, and a hyperbolic correspondence loss function for precise supervision. This paper mainly introduces a new proxy shape for objects and a robust architecture for category-level pose estimation. Empirical validation shows superior performance against state-of-the-art methods.\", \"soundness\": \"3\", \"presentation\": \"3\", \"contribution\": \"3\", \"strengths\": [\"This paper uses a sphere as a proxy to implement category-level object pose estimation. It transforms the 3D shape to a uniform sphere via HEALPix spherical representations, which leads the network to focus on the semantic consistency between different objects instead of shape deviation.\", \"The architecture for category-level object pose estimation that achieves precise different objects in one category correspondence prediction.\", \"The experiments show that the proposed methods achieve the SOTA results on 6D pose estimation tasks in several datasets.\"], \"weaknesses\": [\"The point cloud patches are occluded. The center of a point cloud patch may not be the corresponding object's center. The projection results changed a lot when the center moved. Besides, different object point cloud patches have various occlusions. The correspondence by the spherical proxy, whether a real semantic correspondence of objects, could have more evidence or qualitative results.\", \"The positional encoding of the anchors needs more explanation. The way to describe the anchor position is vague, spherical coordinates or something else. The position of an anchor could influence the rotation invariance, making the results sensitive to rotation.\"], \"questions\": [\"Given that the method relies on SO(3)-invariant feature extraction and RGB-based features, how robust is the approach to diverse lighting conditions and texture variations across different objects?\", \"Can the spherical feature interaction using attention mechanisms generalize well to objects with high self-occlusion or cluttered environments, and how is this tested?\", \"The hyperbolic correspondence loss function is designed to improve gradient behavior near zero. How does this compare quantitatively with traditional loss functions in terms of convergence speed and accuracy?\"], \"flag_for_ethics_review\": \"['No ethics review needed.']\", \"rating\": \"8\", \"confidence\": \"4\", \"code_of_conduct\": \"Yes\"}", "{\"title\": \"Response to Reviewer rB6i (Part 1)\", \"comment\": \"We appreciate the reviewer for the constructive comments of our work. We hope our following responses can address your concerns.\\n\\n------\\n\\n**S1. Validation of Correspondence Errors on HouseCat6D**\\n\\n> Good analysis of correspondence errors: The method effectively identifies correspondences, as shown in Table 3, where accurate correspondence significantly enhances pose estimation accuracy. However, consistency of correspondence errors should be validated on another dataset, such as HouseCat6D.\\n\\n* **Results on HouseCat6D are consistent with those on REAL275.** Thanks for the suggestion. We provide additional comparisons on the HouseCat6D dataset, evaluating the correspondence errors and pose estimation accuracy of our method against the state-of-the-art correspondence-based method, AG-Pose [9]. The results are consistent with those on the REAL275 dataset, demonstrating that the precise correspondence predictions of our approach contribute to superior pose estimation performance.\\n\\n| Method | NOCS Angle Error ($^{\\\\circ}$) | 5\\u00b02cm | 5\\u00b05cm | 10\\u00b02cm | 10\\u00b05cm |\\n| -------------------- | ----------------------------- | ----- | ----- | ------ | ------ |\\n| AG-Pose (reproduced) | 40.25 | 11.7 | 12.9 | 32.7 | 37.2 |\\n| SpherePose | 25.28 | 19.3 | 25.9 | 40.9 | 55.3 |\\n\\n------\\n\\n**S2. Clarification of Backbone vs. Main Innovations**\\n\\n> Comprehensive Ablation Studies: The authors provide a detailed analysis of different feature extractors (DINOv2, ColorPointNet++) and loss functions (L2 vs. hyperbolic L2). While not the primary contribution, Table 4 highlights the role of backbone networks in performance improvement. Table 6 effectively isolates the impact of the hyperbolic L2 loss, validating its importance. However, the authors should clearly differentiate the contribution of the backbone networks from the main innovations of the paper (spherical-based proxy and correspondence-based loss), by comparing with existing methods under the same configurations.\\n\\n* **SpherePose demonstrates superior performance with the same visual backbone.** Thanks for the suggestion. In the revised manuscript, we have updated **Table 4** in the main text to isolate the contribution of backbone networks, highlighting the importance of SO(3)-invariant features. Additionally, we compare our method with existing state-of-the-art approaches under the same visual backbone configuration. SpherePose achieves higher pose estimation accuracy with fewer parameters.\\n\\n| Method | Backbone | 5\\u00b02cm | 5\\u00b05cm | 10\\u00b02cm | 10\\u00b05cm | Parameters (M) | Speed (FPS) |\\n| ---------- | ------------------------ | ----- | ----- | ------ | ------ | -------------- | ----------- |\\n| SecondPose | DINOv2 & HP-PPF | 56.2 | 63.6 | 74.7 | 86.0 | 60.2 | 14.3 |\\n| AG-Pose | DINOv2 & PointNet++ | 57.0 | 64.6 | 75.1 | 84.7 | 33.1 | 25.5 |\\n| SpherePose | DINOv2 & ColorPointNet++ | 58.2 | 67.4 | 76.2 | 88.2 | 26.5 | 25.3 |\\n\\n------\\n\\n**W1. Justification for Spherical Proxy**\\n\\n> Justification for Spherical Proxy: Why is the 2-sphere an optimal proxy shape for this task? While the paper adopts the spherical representation, a more thorough explanation of the choice of spherical shapes would be helpful.\\n\\n* **The spherical proxy is a widely adopted representation.** Due to its intuitive nature in representing object shapes from various viewpoints, many prior works, such as DualPoseNet [10], VI-Net [2], and SecondPose [11], have also utilized spherical representations.\\n\\n* **The specific choice of proxy shape is not the focus of this work.** Instead, the emphasis lies on leveraging a shared proxy shape to learn shape-independent transformation. Other reasonable proxy shapes may also be applicable, which we leave for future exploration.\\n\\n------\\n\\n**W2. Size Estimation Despite Normalization**\\n\\n> Size Estimation Despite Normalization:\\n Section 3.1 mentions that the point cloud utilizes normalized coordinates, yet the method predicts the size parameter \\u201cs\\u201d. How is accurate size estimation achieved despite normalization? Clarification on this aspect is necessary.\\n\\n* **Size and translation are pre-estimated.** As described in Section 3.3 (\\\"Inference\\\"), following VI-Net [2], we first utilize a lightweight PointNet++ to predict the translation and size from the raw point cloud. The predicted translation and size are then used to normalize the point cloud, which is subsequently fed into our network for rotation estimation.\"}" ] }

[ "Mingxin Guo", "Qianpeng Li", "Yaoyao li", "Jian Cheng", "Liang Chen" ]

[ "Spiking Neural Networks", "Quantization", "ANN-SNN Conversion" ]

{ "note_id": [ "zE0DqZJeBe", "yXYBXAZ1Bn", "soKIC1I3Nf", "piYHabL2bi", "mOIsgDDxfY", "l3FYiFbyjM", "jvyy5tDSe8", "h11qj0mkwQ", "gq5BHVHTY4", "cIe5CpbLOg", "bDPQZISuWI", "alK99yaXGC", "XS36wypMl5", "Wj1oL1Md3g", "VP8RXMBoqF", "UornSorK8I", "UehnAjtJsd", "UDcE7rdA9U", "TW2pnMxaih", "ImeMLVlJlJ", "Hj16lAxQz7", "CF6yrcvYOl", "ABvE2VgW9W", "9ZWUyRvgHd", "7egXBDTJon", "07L24g7Vyj" ], "note_type": [ "official_comment", "official_review", "official_comment", "official_comment", "official_comment", "official_comment", "official_comment", "official_review", "official_comment", "official_comment", "official_comment", "official_review", "official_comment", "official_comment", "official_comment", "official_comment", "official_comment", "official_review", "official_comment", "official_comment", "official_comment", "official_comment", "meta_review", "official_comment", "official_comment", "decision" ], "note_created": [ 1732384333305, 1730645820400, 1732783563897, 1732380405823, 1733152966099, 1732392926950, 1732694489354, 1730040427372, 1733114068103, 1732392898414, 1733148506213, 1730567091558, 1732407753967, 1732391933071, 1733215358364, 1733216822814, 1732371841928, 1730181526976, 1733204837786, 1732804859010, 1732380869515, 1732372139527, 1734838290854, 1733149765291, 1733149748425, 1737523931339 ], "note_signatures": [ [ "ICLR.cc/2025/Conference/Submission8774/Authors" ], [ "ICLR.cc/2025/Conference/Submission8774/Reviewer_sfK2" ], [ "ICLR.cc/2025/Conference/Submission8774/Reviewer_sfK2" ], [ "ICLR.cc/2025/Conference/Submission8774/Authors" ], [ "ICLR.cc/2025/Conference/Submission8774/Authors" ], [ "ICLR.cc/2025/Conference/Submission8774/Authors" ], [ "ICLR.cc/2025/Conference/Submission8774/Reviewer_6VHG" ], [ "ICLR.cc/2025/Conference/Submission8774/Reviewer_ejRD" ], [ "ICLR.cc/2025/Conference/Submission8774/Reviewer_sfK2" ], [ "ICLR.cc/2025/Conference/Submission8774/Authors" ], [ "ICLR.cc/2025/Conference/Submission8774/Authors" ], [ "ICLR.cc/2025/Conference/Submission8774/Reviewer_cCZ2" ], [ "ICLR.cc/2025/Conference/Submission8774/Authors" ], [ "ICLR.cc/2025/Conference/Submission8774/Authors" ], [ "ICLR.cc/2025/Conference/Submission8774/Reviewer_6VHG" ], [ "ICLR.cc/2025/Conference/Submission8774/Authors" ], [ "ICLR.cc/2025/Conference/Submission8774/Authors" ], [ "ICLR.cc/2025/Conference/Submission8774/Reviewer_6VHG" ], [ "ICLR.cc/2025/Conference/Submission8774/Authors" ], [ "ICLR.cc/2025/Conference/Submission8774/Authors" ], [ "ICLR.cc/2025/Conference/Submission8774/Authors" ], [ "ICLR.cc/2025/Conference/Submission8774/Authors" ], [ "ICLR.cc/2025/Conference/Submission8774/Area_Chair_XX3g" ], [ "ICLR.cc/2025/Conference/Submission8774/Authors" ], [ "ICLR.cc/2025/Conference/Submission8774/Authors" ], [ "ICLR.cc/2025/Conference/Program_Chairs" ] ], "structured_content_str": [ "{\"comment\": \"### **2. Whether this can be implemented in hardware? and whether the asynchronous nature of the SNN can be maintained simultaneously?**:\\n\\nThanks for your comments. The QAC method can be implemented on SNN accelerator while maintaining the asynchronous properties of SNNs. The detailed discussion can be found in the appendix F7.7. There are two mainstream implementations of SNN hardware: ANN accelerator variants and non-Von Neumann decentralized multi-core architectures (e.g., TrueNorth [1], Loihi [2]) [3].\\n\\n1. The ANN accelerator variants [4] primarily achieve asynchronous computation by sending non-zero inputs to processing element (PE) arrays and performing spike matrix computations. These accelerators compute only a portion of the neural network at a time and process the entire network through iterative loops. The averaging alignment operations do not alter the original data flow, enabling such SNNs to run on this type of hardware.\\n\\n2. On the other hand, multi-core brain-inspired hardware requires deploying the neurons of all layers across different cores. Neurons execute spike-based computations immediately upon receiving spike events, thereby achieving asynchronous execution. The network operates on the hardware in a pipelined manner. Although mixed-timestep SNNs can operate on such hardware, pipeline stalls may occur, introducing computational delays and potentially preventing the hardware from achieving optimal performance.\\n\\n[1] Loihi: A neuromorphic manycore processor with on-chip learning.\\n\\n[2] TrueNorth: Design and Tool Flow of a 65 mW 1 Million Neuron Programmable Neurosynaptic Chip.\\n\\n[3] Brain-Inspired Computing: A Systematic Survey and Future Trends.\\n\\n[4] FireFly v2: Advancing Hardware Support for High-Performance Spiking Neural Network With a Spatiotemporal FPGA Accelerator.\\n\\n>w3: In the experiments, the authors only tested on static datasets without using dynamic datasets. Could this be related to the question of asynchronous behavior mentioned previously? 4.Some figures in the paper take up considerable space while conveying limited information, and in some figures, the text is too small to read clearly. It is recommended to rearrange these figures for better clarity and efficiency of space.\\n\\n### **1. The authors only tested on static datasets without using dynamic datasets. Could this be related to the question of asynchronous behavior mentioned previously?**:\\n\\nThanks for your comments. We agree that dynamic datasets could more comprehensively validate the asynchronous characteristics of SNNs. However, the primary objective of this paper is to demonstrate the performance of the QAC method in standard ANN-to-SNN conversion scenarios, particularly focusing on achieving low timesteps and high accuracy in static image classification tasks.\\n\\nTo the best of our knowledge, most of current ANN-SNN conversion frameworks (e.g., [1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 8, 9, 10]) predominantly address classification tasks on static datasets. This limitation arises because ANN-SNN conversion aims to utilize pretrained weights from ANNs, which are typically trained on static datasets. Consequently, the conversion framework processes static datasets only, independent of asynchronous behavior.\\n\\nIn future work, we plan to extend the QAC method to dynamic datasets (e.g., DVS128-Gesture), thereby further verifying its applicability to temporal tasks. This extension will allow us to explore the method's potential for broader applications, including those involving dynamic or spatiotemporal data.\\n\\n[1] Optimal ANN-SNN Conversion for High-accuracy and Ultra-low-latency Spiking Neural Networks\\n\\n[2] Optimal ANN-SNN Conversion for Fast and Accurate Inference in Deep Spiking Neural Networks\\n\\n[3] Optimal Conversion of Conventional Artificial Neural Networks to Spiking Neural Networks\\n\\n[4] Optimized Potential Initialization for Low-Latency Spiking Neural Networks\\n\\n[5] A Unified Optimization Framework of ANN-SNN Conversion: Towards Optimal Mapping from Activation Values to Firing Rates\\n\\n[6] Reducing ANN-SNN Conversion Error through Residual\\n\\n[7] A Free Lunch From ANN: Towards Ef\\ufb01cient, Accurate Spiking Neural Networks Calibration\\n\\n[8] Error-Aware Conversion from ANN to SNN via Post-training Parameter Calibration\\n\\n[9] SPATIO-TEMPORAL APPROXIMATION: A TRAINING- FREE SNN CONVERSION FOR TRANSFORMERS\\n\\n[10] Towards High-performance Spiking Transformers from ANN to SNN Conversion\\n\\n### **2. It is recommended to rearrange these figures for better clarity and efficiency of space.**:\\nThank you for your suggestions . In the revised manuscript, we have made the following optimizations:\\n\\n1. Rearranged the layout of the figures, compressing those that occupied excessive space. For example, Figure 2 was reduced from four images to two.\\n\\n2. Increased the font size of all figure text to ensure clarity and readability.\\n\\n3. Merged closely related figures in Figure 3 to improve space utilization and redrew Figure 3 accordingly.\"}", "{\"summary\": \"This paper proposes a novel Quantization-Aware Conversion (QAC) algorithm to optimize Spiking Neural Networks (SNNs). Based on the theorem that the quantization bit-width in ANN activations is equivalent to the timesteps in SNNs with a soft reset, the authors introduce a mixed-precision quantization-based conversion method. This approach enables ANNs to be efficiently converted into mixed-timestep SNNs, significantly reducing the required timesteps and improving accuracy during inference. Additionally, the paper presents a calibration method for the initial membrane potential and thresholds, further enhancing performance. Experimental results demonstrate that this method outperforms existing approaches on the several static image classification datasets.\", \"soundness\": \"3\", \"presentation\": \"2\", \"contribution\": \"3\", \"strengths\": \"The proposed method enables ANNs to be efficiently converted into mixed-timestep SNNs through mixed-precision quantization, reducing the average timesteps during inference while maintaining accuracy.\", \"weaknesses\": \"1. This work lacks sufficient innovation, as it primarily combines existing ANN mixed-precision quantization and ANN-SNN conversion methods to transform an ANN into a mixed-timestep SNN. Although the authors integrate these techniques, the approach remains largely unchanged, offering limited novelty. For example, their discussion of various gradient cases in QAT parameter selection closely aligns with previously referenced work [1]. Additionally, while the authors claim in their contributions to reveal that the ANN activation quantization bit-width is equivalent to the timestep in SNNs with a soft reset, similar insights have already been discussed in prior researches [2][3].\\n2. The authors convert an ANN into a mixed-timestep SNN, where different layers in the SNN may have different timesteps. However, they do not explain how data flows within such a mixed-timestep structure, how modules with different timesteps are connected, whether this can be implemented in hardware, and whether the asynchronous nature of the SNN can be maintained simultaneously.\\n3. In the experiments, the authors only tested on static datasets without using dynamic datasets. Could this be related to the question of asynchronous behavior mentioned previously?\\n4.Some figures in the paper take up considerable space while conveying limited information, and in some figures, the text is too small to read clearly. It is recommended to rearrange these figures for better clarity and efficiency of space.\", \"references\": \"[1] UHLICH S, MAUCH L, CARDINAUX F, et al. Mixed Precision DNNs: All you need is a good parametrization[J]. arXiv: Learning,arXiv: Learning, 2019.\\n[2] You K, Xu Z, Nie C, et al. SpikeZIP-TF: Conversion is All You Need for Transformer-based SNN[J]. arXiv preprint arXiv:2406.03470, 2024.\\n[3] Shen G, Zhao D, Li T, et al. Are Conventional SNNs Really Efficient? A Perspective from Network Quantization[C]//Proceedings of the IEEE/CVF Conference on Computer Vision and Pattern Recognition. 2024: 27538-27547.\", \"questions\": \"Please see weaknesses.\", \"flag_for_ethics_review\": \"['No ethics review needed.']\", \"rating\": \"6\", \"confidence\": \"5\", \"code_of_conduct\": \"Yes\"}", "{\"comment\": \"Thank you for your detailed response and the updates to the manuscript. I appreciate the effort you have made to address the concerns raised in the initial review. However, while the temporal averaging expansion method demonstrates the best performance, I am concerned that averaging across the temporal dimension could convert spike data into fractional values, potentially undermining the inherent spiking nature of the SNN.\"}", "{\"comment\": \"> w1:This work lacks sufficient innovation, as it primarily combines existing ANN mixed-precision quantization and ANN-SNN conversion methods to transform an ANN into a mixed-timestep SNN. Although the authors integrate these techniques, the approach remains largely unchanged, offering limited novelty. For example, their discussion of various gradient cases in QAT parameter selection closely aligns with previously referenced work [1]. Additionally, while the authors claim in their contributions to reveal that the ANN activation quantization bit-width is equivalent to the timestep in SNNs with a soft reset, similar insights have already been discussed in prior researches [2][3].\\n\\nThank you for your thoughtful comments. We would like to address your concerns and your questions in the following.\\n\\n\\n### **1. The discussion of various gradient cases in QAT parameter selection closely aligns with previously referenced work [1].**\\n\\nThanks for your observation regarding the relationship between our work and reference [1]. Work [1] identify optimal parameterizations such as \\\"U3\\\" and \\\"P3\\\" for gradient descent in quantization optimization. While these insights inspired our use of gradient-based methods. \\n\\nOur work leverages the QAT parameterization strategy and gradient approximation techniques outlined in [1], but extends and adapts these ideas into to a new context, with distinct innovations and contributions. Specifically, our contribution lies in the theoretical quantification of timestep and bit width relationships and its implementation in mixed-timestep SNN conversion algorithms. The differences between our work and [1] are as follows:\\n\\n- **Focus on SNN Conversion**:\\n Reference [1] primarily investigates the impact of mixed-precision quantization on both activations and weights in ANNs, proposing a general QAT optimization framework. In contrast, our work focuses on using quantization-aware training specifically for ANN-to-SNN conversion, limiting quantization to activations only to better align with the sparse spike-based computation in SNNs.\\n\\n- **Introduction of a New Parameter Combination Scheme**:\\n We propose a novel parameterization scheme, [t,\\u03b1] and demonstrate through theoretical and experimental analysis that it achieves superior performance in the SNN conversion context, resulting in higher accuracy and fewer timesteps compared to existing schemes, such as [n, d], explored in [1].\\n\\n### **2. The ANN activation quantization bit-width is equivalent to the timestep in SNNs with a soft reset, similar insights have already been discussed in prior researches [2][3].**\\n\\nThank you for referencing papers [2, 3] and acknowledge their valuable contributions to the study of neural network quantization and SNN efficiency. Below, we will outline the distinctions between these works and ours, highlighting the unique contributions and significance of our research.\\n\\n#### **2.1 Discussion About work[3]**\\n- Work [3] proposed a \\u201cBit Budget\\u201d framework to analyze resource allocation between weight and activation quantization bit-widths and SNN timesteps. This framework focuses on **empirical analyses**, primarily exploring the energy-efficiency and accuracy trade-offs under different quantization conditions , but does not propose specific methods for timestep optimization..\\n- Our Distinction: \\n1. We **quantified the specific relationship** between ANN quantization bit-width and SNN timesteps for the first time, expressed as **$T_{SNN} = 2^n_{ANN}$**. This formula provides a solid theoretical foundation for timestep optimization in SNN design, significantly extending the qualitative insights in [3] and providing a quantitative foundation for timestep optimization in ANN-to-SNN conversion.\\n2. It also directly guides the design of mixed-timestep SNNs. We developed a Quantization-Aware Conversion (QAC) algorithm based on our theoretical findings, which enables **layer-wise timestep optimization**. This approach reduces the required timesteps for inference while maintaining or even improving model accuracy. Our hierarchical optimization strategy, grounded in theory and practice, is a novel contribution not previously addressed in other work.\\n3. We validated our contributions through extensive experiments, demonstrating a superior balance between accuracy and efficiency.\\n\\n#### **2.2 Discussion About work[2]**\\n- Work [2] focuses on ANN-to-SNN conversion, specifically for Transformer architectures. Work [2] identifies a specific timestep, referred to as $T_{up}$, beyond which the model's accuracy improves sharply. Notably, as shown in Figure 5(c)(d) of [2], $T_{up}$ is proportional to the quantization level. However, similar to word [3], work [2] only provides an **empirical relationship**. While it indicates a proportional relationship between $T_{up}$ and the quantization level, it does not establish a quantified model or provide further theoretical support.\"}", "{\"comment\": \"We would like to sincerely thank the reviewer for reconsidering their rating of our paper. Your comments have significantly helped us improve the quality of our work. We truly appreciate the time and effort you spent in reviewing our work.\"}", "{\"comment\": \"- **From the perspective of accuracy and timestep efficiency**, our conversion framework shows either superior performance or comparable performance to directly trained SNNs using surrogate gradient methods.\\n - **From the perspective of training cost**, direct training methods require significant computational and memory overhead due to the temporal dimension in the training process. Forward propagation, backpropagation, and gradient calculations during direct training have memory requirements that are at least $O(T)$ times higher than those for training quantized ANNs (QAT), along with substantial computational costs. In contrast, the first step of the QAC method, which uses QAT, significantly reduces memory and computation costs, greatly shortening the training time.\\n\\nIn the revised manuscript, we have included these experimental results in the appendix, along with a comprehensive analysis of the QAC method\\u2019s strengths and weaknesses in terms of accuracy, timestep efficiency, and training cost. This additional data aims to help readers better understand the specific advantages of QAC compared to other training and conversion methods.\\n\\n---\\nWe believe these analyses clearly explain the positioning of our method and its advantages over direct training approaches, helping the reviewer understand the value of this design decision.\"}", "{\"comment\": \"Thank you for your reply. My concerns have been addressed. However, I didn't find a corresponding revision in the paper. I would raise my rating if the authors could add comparisons with quantized ANNs to highlight the advantages of converted SNNs.\"}", "{\"summary\": \"This paper proposes Quantization-Aware Conversion (QAC) algorithm, which is a new ANN-SNN Conversion scheme based on mixed precision quantization and calibrating the membrane-related parameters (e.g. initial membrane potential and firing threshold).\", \"soundness\": \"2\", \"presentation\": \"2\", \"contribution\": \"2\", \"strengths\": \"1. In Eqs.(7)-(10) and Fig.2, the authors' analysis for four cases regarding parameter settings is interesting.\\n2. The authors calibrate the initial membrane potential and threshold under the condition of freezing pretrained weights.\", \"weaknesses\": \"1. In Fig.1, it seems that the inference time-steps of the converted SNN in different layers are various. Therefore, I would like to know if the authors choose vanilla IF model that emits binary spikes during the inference phase? Assume that the $l$-th layer adopts $T_l$ time-steps, when $T_l\\\\neq T_{l+1}$, how do the IF neurons in the $l+1$-th layer receive the spike seqence $[\\\\boldsymbol{s}^l(1),...,\\\\boldsymbol{s}^l(T_l)]$ from the previous layer?\", \"questions\": \"See Weakness Section.\", \"flag_for_ethics_review\": \"['No ethics review needed.']\", \"rating\": \"5\", \"confidence\": \"4\", \"code_of_conduct\": \"Yes\"}", "{\"comment\": \"Thank you for your response and revisions. My primary concerns have been addressed, so I am raising my score.\"}", "{\"comment\": \"- **Clarifying Positioning:**\\nFirst, we would like to clarify that the QAC method is not just a training approach but a framework for converting quantized neural networks (QNNs) into mixed-timestep SNNs. The goal of QAC is to enable SNNs to achieve efficient computational performance and high accuracy under low-timestep scenarios by introducing the quantitative relationship between quantization levels and timesteps. Although QAC employs QAT for QNN training, its **core contribution lies in the ANN-to-SNN conversion framework**, with the added capability of supporting SNNs with mixed timesteps.\\n- **Advantages Over Direct Training Methods:**\\nWe have conducted experiments comparing the QAC method with traditional SNN direct training approaches (e.g., surrogate gradient-based methods) to demonstrate the differences in performance across various datasets. The results are as follows:\\n### Table 8: Comparison with other directly training methods\\n\\n#### CIFAR-10\\n\\n| Method | Type | Architecture | Time-steps | Accuracy (%) |\\n|--------------------------|--------------------|---------------------|-----------------|-------------------------|\\n| tdBN (Zheng et al., 2021) | Surrogate Gradient | ResNet-18 | 4 | 92.92 |\\n| Dspike (Li et al., 2021b) | Surrogate Gradient | ResNet-18 | 4 | 93.66 |\\n| TET (Deng et al., 2022) | Surrogate Gradient | ResNet-19 | 4 | 94.44 |\\n| GLIF (Yao et al., 2022) | Surrogate Gradient | ResNet-19 | 2, 4, 6 | 94.15, 94.67, 94.88 |\\n| RMP-Loss (Guo et al., 2023) | Surrogate Gradient | ResNet-20 | 20 | 91.89 |\\n| PSN (Fang et al., 2024) | Surrogate Gradient | Modified PLIF Net | 4 | 95.32 |\\n| TAB (Jiang et al., 2024a) | Surrogate Gradient | VGG-9 | 4 | 93.41 |\\n| TAB | Surrogate Gradient | ResNet-19 | 2, 4, 6 | 94.73, 94.76, 94.81 |\\n| **QAC (Ours)** | ANN-to-SNN | ResNet-18 | 2.76 | 95.29 |\\n| | ANN-to-SNN | ResNet-20 | 3.74 | 91.13 |\\n| | ANN-to-SNN | VGG-16 | 2.33 | 94.78 |\\n\\n---\\n\\n#### CIFAR-100\\n\\n| Method | Type | Architecture | Time-steps | Accuracy (%) |\\n|--------------------------|--------------------|---------------------|-----------------|-------------------------|\\n| Dspike (Li et al., 2021b) | Surrogate Gradient | ResNet-18 | 4 | 73.35 |\\n| TET (Deng et al., 2022) | Surrogate Gradient | ResNet-19 | 4 | 74.47 |\\n| GLIF (Yao et al., 2022) | Surrogate Gradient | ResNet-19 | 2, 4, 6 | 75.48, 77.05, 77.35 |\\n| RMP-Loss (Guo et al., 2023) | Surrogate Gradient | ResNet-19 | 2, 4 | 74.66, 78.28, 78.98 |\\n| TAB (Jiang et al., 2024a) | Surrogate Gradient | VGG-9 | 4 | 75.89 |\\n| **QAC (Ours)** | ANN-to-SNN | ResNet-20 | 4.58 | 65.39 |\\n| | ANN-to-SNN | VGG-16 | 3.67 | 76.37 |\\n\\n---\\n\\n#### ImageNet-1k\\n\\n| Method | Type | Architecture | Time-steps | Accuracy (%) |\\n|--------------------------|--------------------|---------------------|-----------------|-------------------------|\\n| tdBN (Zheng et al., 2021) | Surrogate Gradient | SEW ResNet-34 | 6 | 63.72 |\\n| SEW ResNet (Fang et al., 2021)| Surrogate Gradient| SEW ResNet-34 | 6 | 67.04 |\\n| TET (Deng et al., 2022) | Surrogate Gradient | SEW ResNet-34 | 6 | 68.00 |\\n| GLIF (Yao et al., 2022) | Surrogate Gradient | SEW ResNet-34 | 6 | 67.52 |\\n| TAB (Jiang et al., 2024a) | Surrogate Gradient | SEW ResNet-34 | 4, 24 | 65.94, 67.78 |\\n| PSN (Fang et al., 2024) | Surrogate Gradient | SEW ResNet-34 | 6 | 70.54 |\\n| **QAC (Ours)** | ANN-to-SNN | VGG-16 | 3.47 | 66.38 |\"}", "{\"comment\": \"Thank you for your willingness to reconsider your rating of our paper. To address your concerns regarding the performance advantages of **Quantized ANNs (QANNs)** versus the converted **SNNs**, we conducted experiments using VGG-16, ResNet-18, and ResNet-20 on CIFAR-10 and CIFAR-100. The results demonstrate that **SNNs** achieve several times greater energy efficiency compared to **QANNs**, as shown in Table 2. Due to the PDF submission time constraints, only partial results were included in Appendix 7.8 of the submitted version. We will submit the full version of the paper on arXiv, which includes the complete experimental analysis and data.\\n\\n## **Please find our detailed responses below.**\\n\\nIn ANNs, the output activations are obtained by performing a multiplication and accumulation operation between the input activations and the weights. This operation is referred to as **multiply-accumulate operation (MACs)**. For example, $ x^l = W^l \\\\cdot x^{l-1} $, where $ x^{l-1} $ is the output activation from the previous layer, and $ W^l $ is the weight matrix of the current layer. The elements of $ x^{l-1} $ and $ W^l $ are typically multi-bit fixed-point or floating-point values. \\n\\nIn SNNs, the activations are represented by binary spikes, as a result, the **MACs** in SNN can be simplified to an **accumulation operation (ACs)** over the weights . For example, given an activation from $l-1$-th layer $ x^{l-1} = [0, 1, 0, 1]^T $ and weights $ W^l = [w_1, w_2, w_3, w_4] $ in $l$-th layer, the output activation of $l$-th layer is $ x^l = W^l \\\\cdot x^{l-1} = w_2 + w_4 $. Therefore, SNNs can perform only addition operations which typically consume less energy and chip area than multiplication operations in hardware. This is because multiplication involves more complex computational logic and requires more hardware resources (e.g., multipliers), while addition only requires simple adder units. The specific energy consumption [1] is shown in Table 1.\\n### **Table 1. Energy Table for 45nm CMOS Process**\\n\\n| **Operation** | **Energy (pJ)** |\\n|--------------------|-----------------|\\n| 8b ADD (INT) | 0.03 |\\n| 32b ADD (INT) | 0.1 |\\n| 8b MULT (INT) | 0.2 |\\n| 32b MULT (INT) | 3.1 |\\n| 8b MAC (INT) | 0.23 |\\n| 16b ADD (FP) | 0.4 |\\n| 32b ADD (FP) | 0.9 |\\n| 16b MULT (FP) | 1.1 |\\n| 32b MULT (FP) | 3.7 |\\n| 1b-8b MULT (INT)* | 0.025 |\\n| 2b-8b MULT (INT)* | 0.05 |\\n| 3b-8b MULT (INT)* | 0.075 |\\n\\n**Note: * means the data is derived from [2][3] [Nagendra et al., 1996](https://doi.org/10.1109/EDL.1996.535059) and [Potipireddi et al., 2013](https://doi.org/10.1109/TCAD.2012.2233991).**\\n\\nTo compare the energy efficiency of **SNN** and **quantized ANN (QANN)**, we conducted experiments using VGG-16 , ResNet-18 and ResNet-20 on CIFAR-10 and CIFAR-100. We assume that the weights are all 8-bit fixed-point quantized (this assumption does not affect the final comparison, as both SNN and QANN use the same weights). The energy consumption of multiplication and addition operations is provided in Table 1 [1]. Using this data, we can calculate the energy required for MACs. For example, for 8-bit fixed-point quantized activations and weights, the energy consumption of a multiply-accumulate operation is 0.23 pJ. \\n\\n## **1. Energy Computation for Mixed-Width MACs.**\\nHowever, because the activations of **QANN** in our work QAC are mixed-precision quantized, the **bit width of activations varies across different layers**, which results in multiply-accumulate operations **(MACs)** with different bit-width activations and weights, such as INT2 activations and INT8 weights, for which energy consumption values are not provided in [1] . \\n\\nTo address this, we refer to the approach in [2][3], which states that the power consumption of an **adder** is **linearly** related to bitwidth[2], while the power consumption of a **multiplier** is **quadratic** with respect to bit width [3]. This allows us to compute the energy of **MACs** for different bit widths (as shown by the * data in Table 1). For instance, a 2-bit fixed-point multiplication (INT2) consumes 1/16 of the energy of an 8-bit fixed-point multiplication (INT8). \\n\\nSince SNN use binary spikes for activations, only accumulation operations **(ACs)** are required. Therefore, we can directly utilize the data from [1] without needing additional energy data from [2][3].\"}", "{\"summary\": \"The paper presents a Quantization-Aware Conversion (QAC) method tailored for training Spiking Neural Networks (SNNs). A significant innovation highlighted is the establishment of a theoretical equivalence between the quantization bit-width of activations in Quantized Neural Networks (QNNs) and the timesteps used in SNNs. This equivalence forms the basis for a new training approach that optimizes both the computational efficiency and accuracy of SNNs. The paper substantiates these claims through experimental validation on standard datasets, including CIFAR-10, CIFAR-100, and ImageNet. Results indicate that the QAC method surpasses existing ANN-to-SNN conversion techniques in terms of both accuracy and operational efficiency\", \"soundness\": \"3\", \"presentation\": \"3\", \"contribution\": \"3\", \"strengths\": [\"Introduction of a novel insight that links the quantization bit-width in ANNs to the timesteps in SNNs, supporting the use of mixed-timestep strategies for SNNs.\", \"Development of a mixed-precision quantization-based conversion algorithm that translates ANNs into mixed-timestep SNNs, optimizing for both accuracy and computational efficiency.\", \"Experimental results on various image recognition datasets, demonstrating improvements over traditional conversion methods in terms of both accuracy and timestep efficiency.\"], \"weaknesses\": [\"The training procedure for the Quantization-Aware Conversion (QAC) includes two distinct phases, necessitating an additional training step to calibrate the membrane potentials' initial values and thresholds. This essentially doubles the training cost. It is crucial that the paper assesses the impact of this calibration step both before and after its application. Including ablation studies to highlight the effects of this calibration would provide a clearer picture of its necessity and impact, which should be explicitly stated for a fair comparison with other methods.\", \"The QAC method appears to employ a Quantization-Aware Training (QAT) approach to train a Quantized Neural Network (QNN) before converting it to an SNN, rather than supporting the direct conversion of existing ANNs into SNNs. This positions QAC more as a specialized training method rather than a straightforward conversion technique. To fairly evaluate the efficacy and practicality of QAC, comparative experiments against direct training methods should be conducted. These comparisons would effectively showcase the trade-offs involved, helping to better position QAC in the landscape of SNN training methodologies and underline its specific advantages and limitations.\"], \"questions\": \"See Weaknesses.\", \"flag_for_ethics_review\": \"['No ethics review needed.']\", \"rating\": \"6\", \"confidence\": \"3\", \"code_of_conduct\": \"Yes\"}", "{\"comment\": \"> w1: The motivation for this technique is unclear. This paper reveals the equivalence between the quantization bit-width of ANN activations and the timesteps in SNNs with soft-threshold resets. However, if the quantized ANNs are equivalent to SNNs with soft reset, why don't we just use the quantized ANNs? I suggest the authors highlight the advantages of SNNs compared to the quantized ANNs.\\n\\n### **1. I suggest the authors highlight the advantages of SNNs compared to the quantized ANNs**\\nThank you for raising this important question. While we acknowledge that the equivalence between quantized ANNs and SNNs is a key theoretical contribution of our work, the primary motivation for SNNs lies in their unique computational paradigm that offers significant energy efficiency, which quantized ANNs cannot match.\\n\\nQuantized ANNs, despite being efficient, still rely on fixed-point multiplications for their forward propagation. In contrast, SNNs use 0/1 spike activations, replacing multiplications with additions in hardware, which is inherently less energy-intensive.\\nThis efficiency stems from the fact that the energy cost of integer multiplication (INT8 MUL) is approximately 6.7\\u00d7 higher than integer addition (INT8 ADD), as supported by [1]. Therefore, SNNs offer a mechanism to transform multiplication-heavy operations into addition-based ones, making them highly advantageous in energy-constrained scenarios, such as edge computing and IoT devices.\\n\\n> The performance of the converted SNNs by the QAC method lags behind the state-of-the-art methods with more timesteps.\\n\\n### **2. The performance of the converted SNNs by the QAC method lags behind the state-of-the-art methods with more timesteps.**\\nWe appreciate this constructive comment. The primary focus of QAC is to achieve competitive accuracy with as few timesteps as possible, optimizing latency and computational efficiency. While we acknowledge that some state-of-the-art methods may achieve higher accuracy under high-timestep settings, our study prioritizes performance trade-offs under low-timestep constraints.\\nTo address this concern, we conducted additional temporal scalability analyses on CIFAR-10 and CIFAR-100 datasets for ResNet-18, ResNet-20, and VGG-16, as shown in Figure 3 and Table 5. Key findings include:\\n1. Optimal Accuracy at 3T: Our method achieves the highest accuracy at three times the original timesteps (3T). For example:\\n - ResNet-18: On CIFAR-10, the accuracy reaches 95.99%, comparable to or surpassing the original ANN.\\n - ResNet-20: On CIFAR-100, the accuracy improves to 91.76%, significantly higher than with fewer timesteps.\\n - VGG-16: On CIFAR-10 and CIFAR-100, the accuracy trends are similar, achieving optimal performance at 3T.\\n2. Performance Saturation: Beyond 3T, the accuracy saturates and shows negligible improvement. This indicates that QAC efficiently utilizes time information under low-timestep conditions and demonstrates strong temporal scalability.\\n\\nTo further strengthen our comparative analysis, we would like to kindly ask the reviewer to clarify which specific works you consider state-of-the-art (SOTA) for ANN-to-SNN conversion or direct SNN training. While we have compared our method with several recent approaches (e.g., SlipReLU, SGDND, QCFS), additional comparisons with your suggested SOTA methods can provide valuable insights and further contextualize our contributions.\\n\\nWe will revise our paper to include this temporal scalability analysis and acknowledge limitations, while also incorporating comparisons with the SOTA methods highlighted by the reviewer if feasible.\"}", "{\"comment\": \"> w1: The training procedure for the Quantization-Aware Conversion (QAC) includes two distinct phases, necessitating an additional training step to calibrate the membrane potentials' initial values and thresholds. This essentially doubles the training cost. It is crucial that the paper assesses the impact of this calibration step both before and after its application. Including ablation studies to highlight the effects of this calibration would provide a clearer picture of its necessity and impact, which should be explicitly stated for a fair comparison with other methods.\\n\\n### **1. Including ablation studies to highlight the effects of this calibration would provide a clearer picture of its necessity and impact, which should be explicitly stated for a fair comparison with other methods.**\\n\\nThank you for your valuable suggestions regarding the training cost and the calibration step. We understand your concern about the additional training cost and agree that a clearer analysis and ablation study of the impact of the calibration step are necessary.\\n\\nFirst, we would like to clarify the necessity of the calibration step: One of the core innovations of the QAC method is the use of quantization-aware training (QAT) to generate quantized neural networks (QNNs), which are then converted into SNNs. The purpose of calibrating the membrane potential and thresholds is to optimize the initial membrane potential and thresholds, significantly reducing conversion error, especially in low-timestep scenarios, ensuring that the SNN achieves accuracy close to that of the QNN.\\n- **Comparison from Ablation Studies:**\\n In the revised manuscript, we have included additional detailed ablation experiments to quantitatively evaluate the performance differences of SNNs before and after the calibration step. These ablation studies clarify the necessity of the calibration step for improving model performance and help reviewers and readers better understand the role of this additional step in the QAC method. Specifically, we conducted ablation experiments on ResNet18, ResNet20, and VGG-16 models across CIFAR-10, CIFAR-100, and ImageNet datasets. Detailed results can be found in Section 5.4 and Table 3 of the manuscript.\\n### Calibration Results: CIFAR-10 / CIFAR-100 / ImageNet\\n\\n| Calibration | ResNet-18 (%) | ResNet-20 (%) | VGG-16 (%) |\\n|--------------------|---------------------|---------------------|--------------------|\\n| QAC (Base) | 95.31 / 76.56 / - | 90.29 / 65.80 / - | 94.45 / 76.24 / 63.21 |\\n| QAC (Base+CAL) | 95.29 / 77.81 / - | 91.13 / 65.39 / - | 94.78 / 76.37 / 66.38 |\\n\\nThe results indicate that the calibration step (Base+CAL) improves accuracy by approximately 1% across datasets, with a 3% improvement on ImageNet. This demonstrates the effectiveness of the calibration step.\\n\\n### **2. The training procedure for the Quantization-Aware Conversion (QAC) includes two distinct phases, necessitating an additional training step to calibrate the membrane potentials' initial values and thresholds. This essentially doubles the training cost. .**\\n\\n- **Analysis of the Additional Training Cost:**\\nThe calibration process is highly efficient. It does not rely on the original training dataset and is performed using the ANN outputs as targets during a lightweight optimization process lasting only a few dozen epochs. Therefore, the additional training cost is relatively low. Furthermore, we suggest that membrane potential and threshold calibration can be considered an optional component, to be applied based on specific needs in practical applications. Although the calibration step adds some training cost, we believe the resulting improvement in inference phase performance, particularly for applications requiring ultra-high accuracy, is worthwhile.\\n\\n> w2:The QAC method appears to employ a Quantization-Aware Training (QAT) approach to train a Quantized Neural Network (QNN) before converting it to an SNN, rather than supporting the direct conversion of existing ANNs into SNNs. This positions QAC more as a specialized training method rather than a straightforward conversion technique. To fairly evaluate the efficacy and practicality of QAC, comparative experiments against direct training methods should be conducted. These comparisons would effectively showcase the trade-offs involved, helping to better position QAC in the landscape of SNN training methodologies and underline its specific advantages and limitations.\\n\\n### **1. To fairly evaluate the efficacy and practicality of QAC, comparative experiments against direct training methods should be conducted.**\\n\\nWe appreciate your thoughtful considerations regarding the positioning of the QAC method. We understand your concerns about QAC being seen as a training method rather than a direct conversion technique, and we agree that comparisons with direct training methods are necessary to comprehensively evaluate the effectiveness of QAC.\"}", "{\"comment\": \"Thank you for your detailed reply. My concerns have been addressed. I have raised my rating.\"}", "{\"comment\": \"Thank you for your thoughtful and constructive feedback. I greatly appreciate your time and effort in reviewing my submission. Your positive evaluation motivates me to continue improving my work.\\n\\nWishing you all the best\"}", "{\"comment\": \"> w1:In Fig.1, it seems that the inference time-steps of the converted SNN in different layers are various. Therefore, I would like to know if the authors choose vanilla IF model that emits binary spikes during the inference phase? Assume that the\\n-th layer adopts \\n time-steps, when \\n, how do the IF neurons in the \\n-th layer receive the spike sequence \\n from the previous layer?\\n\\nThank you for pointing out this important question. We would like to address your concerns and your questions in the following.\\n\\n**Neuron Model**:\\nYes, we use the vanilla Integrate-and-Fire (IF) neuron model in our SNN conversion framework. The IF neuron fires binary spikes during the inference phase and has been widely adopted due to its simplicity and hardware-friendly implementation.\\n\\n**Data Transmission Between Layers**:\\nIn mixed-timestep SNNs, the timestep discrepancies between layers are addressed through **Temporal Alignment** operations. A detailed explanation of this process is provided in Section 4.3 of the revised manuscript, along with ablation experiments (Table 4) that demonstrate the effectiveness of our temporal alignment methods.\\n\\nThe final temporal alignment mechanism we adopted can be summarized as follows. Assuming the timestep of the $l-th$ layer is $T_l$, and the timestep of the $(l+1)-th$ layer is $T_{l+1}$, $T_l \\\\neq T_{l+1}$, there are two cases:\\n\\n1. Temporal Expansion: When $T_l < T_{l+1}$, the spike sequence from the $l-th$ layer is expanded to match $T_{l+1}$ by using tempora expansion alignment techniques.\\n2. Temporal Reduction: When $T_l > T_{l+1}$, the spike sequence from the $l-th$ layer is reduced to $T_{l+1}$ by using temporal reduction to ensure consistency with the next layer.\\n\\nTo achieve temporal alignment for temporal expansion and reduction, we propose using the **temporal averaging expansion** method to adjust the input time dimensions. This method averages over the time dimension, and then replicates the result to match the desired time step length, which allows both temporal expansion and reduction to be performed using the same operation. we compute $ \\\\bar{X}_l $ by averaging over the time dimension $T_l $, obtaining a tensor of shape $\\\\bar{X}_l \\\\in \\\\mathbb{R}^{B \\\\times C_l \\\\times H_l \\\\times W_l}$:\\n\\n\\\\begin{align}\\n\\\\bar{X}^l = \\\\frac{1}{T_l} \\\\sum_{t=1}^{T_l} X^l[t]\\n\\\\end{align}\\n\\nwhere, $ X^l{[t]}$ represents the input activation at time step $t$, and $ \\\\bar{X}^l $ denotes the average result.\\nThen, replicate $ \\\\bar{X}^l $ along the time dimension to match the required timestep $ T_{l+1} $, expanding $\\\\bar{X}^l$ to the required timesteps $T_{l+1} $, resulting in a tensor $ X_{l+1} \\\\in \\\\mathbb{R}^{T_{l+1} \\\\times B \\\\times C_l \\\\times H_l \\\\times W_l} $:\\n\\n\\\\begin{align}\\nX_{l+1} = \\\\bar{X}^l \\\\otimes 1_{T_{l+1}, 1}\\n\\\\end{align}\\n\\nwhere, $1_{T_{l+1}, 1}$ represents a tensor of length $T_{l+1} $, which replicates $\\\\bar{X}^l $ across $ T_{l+1} $ time steps.\\nAdditionally, we also validated the **temporal averaging expansion**method on QCFS [1], where only a few lines of code were modified, resulting in an impressive accuracy improvement of over 10\\\\%. The experimental results can be found in the appendix.\\n\\n[1] Tong Bu, Wei Fang, Jianhao Ding, PengLin Dai, Zhaofei Yu, and Tiejun Huang. Optimal ann-\\nsnn conversion for high-accuracy and ultra-low-latency spiking neural networks. arXiv preprint\", \"arxiv\": \"2303.04347, 2023.\"}", "{\"summary\": \"This paper presents an ANN-to-SNN conversion method, called Quantization-Aware Conversion (QAC). It reveals the relationship between the quantization levels of activations in ANNs and the timesteps in SNNs. Drawing inspiration from the mixed precision quantization technique used in ANNs, QAC allows for converting ANNs to SNNs with varying timesteps. Experimental results demonstrate that QAC achieves competitive performance compared to state-of-the-art methods with few timesteps.\", \"soundness\": \"3\", \"presentation\": \"3\", \"contribution\": \"2\", \"strengths\": \"1. This paper is technically solid. It details the equivalence between the quantization levels of activations in ANNs and the timesteps in SNNs, the four cases of gradient estimation, and the calibration of initial membrane potential.\\n2. The proposed QAC method yields SNNs with few timesteps.\", \"weaknesses\": \"1. The motivation for this technique is unclear. This paper reveals the equivalence between the quantization bit-width of ANN activations and the timesteps in SNNs with soft-threshold resets. However, if the quantized ANNs are equivalent to SNNs with soft reset, why don't we just use the quantized ANNs? I suggest the authors highlight the advantages of SNNs compared to the quantized ANNs.\\n2. The performance of the converted SNNs by the QAC method lags behind the state-of-the-art methods with more timesteps.\", \"questions\": \"Please refer to the weaknesses.\", \"flag_for_ethics_review\": \"['No ethics review needed.']\", \"rating\": \"6\", \"confidence\": \"4\", \"code_of_conduct\": \"Yes\"}", "{\"comment\": \"Dear Reviewer,\\n\\nAs the rebuttal deadline is approaching , I would be extremely grateful if you could take a moment to review the changes and responses we have provided to your feedback. Your insights and suggestions have been invaluable, and we want to ensure that we\\u2019ve addressed all of your concerns to the best of our ability.\\n\\nIf you have any remaining questions or comments, I would be happy to clarify or elaborate further. Thank you again for your time and effort in reviewing our paper, and I look forward to hearing from you.\\n\\nBest regards\"}", "{\"comment\": \"Thank you for your feedback and concern regarding the averaging operation. Your question is very valuable, and here is my response to clarify the issue: The averaging operation does not convert spikes into floating-point values, and it does not disrupt the discrete spike nature of SNNs.\\n\\nThis is because the averaging alignment operation is not performed after the IF activation layer, but rather after the convolutional or fully connected layer and before the IF activation function. Therefore, the spike information is still passed between adjacent layers.\\n\\nTo better explain this, let\\u2019s consider a two-layer network as an example. \\n\\nFor a vanilla SNN, the inference process is: \\n**Conv1|IF1 \\u2192 Conv2|IF2** \\nIn this case, the timesteps of the IF neurons in adjacent layers 1 and 2 are the same $T_1 = T_2$ and information is passed between the layers through spike activations.\\n\\nIn QAC, the averaging alignment operation occurs before the IF layer: \\n**Conv1|aver1|IF1 \\u2192 Conv2|aver2|IF2** \\nAlthough $T_1 \\\\neq T_2$, meaning that the output from **IF1** in the first layer, $[T_1, B_1, C_1, H_1, W_1]$, does not match the expected timestep $T_2$ in **IF2** of the second layer, the averaging operation **aver2** aligns $T_1$ to $T_2$ before **IF2** . This ensures that the information is still passed in the form of spikes between the two adjacent layers.\\n\\nWe will open-source the code. The code will make it easy to understand and verify this process.\"}", "{\"comment\": \"Compared to the above works [1, 2, 3], our study introduces a more comprehensive and systematic theoretical framework.\\n1. For the first time, we explicitly establish the **direct mathematical relationship** between ANN activation quantization bit-width and SNN timesteps, and we quantify this relationship in Theorem 1: $T = 2^n$, where n represents the bit-width of activation quantization, and T denotes the SNN timesteps. This explicit quantitative relationship has not been explored in References [2], [3], or other related works. Through this theoretical framework, we provide a solid foundation for timestep optimization based on quantization, laying the groundwork for future SNN conversion method development.\\n\\n2. By connecting mixed-precision quantization with our theoretical insights, we demonstrate that mixed-precision quantization not only enhances efficiency during the training phase but also enables timestep optimization during the SNN inference phase. This **layer-wise timestep optimization** approach is introduced for the first time in the literature.\\n\\n> w2:The authors convert an ANN into a mixed-timestep SNN, where different layers in the SNN may have different timesteps. However, they do not explain how data flows within such a mixed-timestep structure, how modules with different timesteps are connected, whether this can be implemented in hardware, and whether the asynchronous nature of the SNN can be maintained simultaneously.\\nThank you for pointing out this important question. We would like to address your concerns and your questions in the following.\\n\\n\\n### **1. How data flows within such a mixed-timestep structure? How modules with different timesteps are connected?**:\\n\\nIn mixed-timestep SNNs, the timestep discrepancies between layers are addressed through **Temporal Alignment** operations. A detailed explanation of this process is provided in Section 4.3 of the revised manuscript, along with ablation experiments (Table 4) that demonstrate the effectiveness of our temporal alignment methods.\\n\\nThe final temporal alignment mechanism we adopted can be summarized as follows. Assuming the timestep of the $l-th$ layer is $T_l$, and the timestep of the $(l+1)-th$ layer is $T_{l+1}$, $T_l \\\\neq T_{l+1}$, there are two cases:\\n\\n1. Temporal Expansion: When $T_l < T_{l+1}$, the spike sequence from the $l-th$ layer is expanded to match $T_{l+1}$ by using tempora expansion alignment techniques.\\n2. Temporal Reduction: When $T_l > T_{l+1}$, the spike sequence from the $l-th$ layer is reduced to $T_{l+1}$ by using temporal reduction to ensure consistency with the next layer.\\n\\nTo achieve temporal alignment for temporal expansion and reduction, we propose using the **temporal averaging expansion** method to adjust the input time dimensions. This method averages over the time dimension, and then replicates the result to match the desired time step length, which allows both temporal expansion and reduction to be performed using the same operation. we compute $ \\\\bar{X}_l $ by averaging over the time dimension $T_l $, obtaining a tensor of shape $\\\\bar{X}_l \\\\in \\\\mathbb{R}^{B \\\\times C_l \\\\times H_l \\\\times W_l}$:\\n\\n\\\\begin{align}\\n\\\\bar{X}^l = \\\\frac{1}{T_l} \\\\sum_{t=1}^{T_l} X^l[t]\\n\\\\end{align}\\n\\nwhere, $ X^l{[t]}$ represents the input activation at time step $t$, and $ \\\\bar{X}^l $ denotes the average result.\\nThen, replicate $ \\\\bar{X}^l $ along the time dimension to match the required timestep $ T_{l+1} $, expanding $\\\\bar{X}^l$ to the required timesteps $T_{l+1} $, resulting in a tensor $ X_{l+1} \\\\in \\\\mathbb{R}^{T_{l+1} \\\\times B \\\\times C_l \\\\times H_l \\\\times W_l} $:\\n\\n\\\\begin{align}\\nX_{l+1} = \\\\bar{X}^l \\\\otimes 1_{T_{l+1}, 1}\\n\\\\end{align}\\n\\nwhere, $1_{T_{l+1}, 1}$ represents a tensor of length $T_{l+1} $, which replicates $\\\\bar{X}^l $ across $ T_{l+1} $ time steps.\\nAdditionally, we also validated the **temporal averaging expansion**method on QCFS [1], where only a few lines of code were modified, resulting in an impressive accuracy improvement of over 10\\\\%. The experimental results can be found in the appendix F7.6.\\n\\n[1] Tong Bu, Wei Fang, Jianhao Ding, PengLin Dai, Zhaofei Yu, and Tiejun Huang. Optimal ann-\\nsnn conversion for high-accuracy and ultra-low-latency spiking neural networks. arXiv preprint\", \"arxiv\": \"2303.04347, 2023.\"}", "{\"comment\": \"### Comparison of QCFS Results with and without Temporal Averaging Expansion Alignment\\n\\n#### ResNet-20 on CIFAR-10\\n\\n| L | Method | T=1 | T=2 | T=3 | T=4 | T=8 | T=16 | T=32 | T=64 |\\n|------|----------------|---------|---------|---------|---------|---------|---------|---------|---------|\\n| L=2 | QCFS | 78.85% | 83.94% | 86.43% | 87.9% | 89.69% | 90.06% | 89.97% | 89.8% |\\n| | QCFS+(ave) | 78.85% | 88.58% | 89.25% | 89.31% | 89.57% | 88.96% | 88.27% | 89.77% |\\n| L=4 | QCFS | 62.32% | 71.67% | 78.21% | 82.5% | 89.48% | 91.83% | 92.5% | 92.59% |\\n| | QCFS+(ave) | 62.32% | 87.30% | 90.78% | 91.90% | 92.39% | 92.54% | 92.62% | 92.61% |\\n| L=8 | QCFS | 52.68% | 65.58% | 73.48% | 78.64% | 88.31% | 92.32% | 93.21% | 93.50% |\\n| | QCFS+(ave) | 52.69% | 83.47% | 89.67% | 91.54% | 93.21% | 93.54% | 93.64% | 93.70% |\\n| L=16 | QCFS | 36.45% | 47.72% | 56.95% | 65.9% | 84.12% | 91.71% | 93.22% | 93.48% |\\n| | QCFS+(ave) | 36.45% | 75.29% | 87.59% | 91.13% | 93.05% | 93.59% | 93.58% | 93.57% |\\n\\n#### VGG-16 on CIFAR-10\\n\\n| L | Method | T=1 | T=2 | T=3 | T=4 | T=8 | T=16 | T=32 | T=64 |\\n|------|----------------|---------|---------|---------|---------|---------|---------|---------|---------|\\n| L=2 | QCFS | 61.45% | 71.38% | 74.57% | 75.92% | 77.38% | 77.79% | 77.79% | 77.87% |\\n| | QCFS+(ave) | 61.45% | 77.61% | 77.5% | 77.91% | 77.89% | 77.98% | 77.84% | 77.88% |\\n| L=4 | QCFS | 10.89% | 77.20% | 84.35% | 88.49% | 93.33% | 95.08% | 95.76% | 95.90% |\\n| | QCFS+(ave) | 10.89% | 91.02% | 94.44% | 95.33% | 95.75% | 95.94% | 96.01% | 95.99% |\\n| L=8 | QCFS | 72.03% | 86.62% | 92.03% | 93.46% | 95.07% | 95.70% | 95.74% | 95.77% |\\n| | QCFS+(ave) | 72.03% | 93.32% | 95.22% | 95.64% | 95.77% | 95.83% | 95.83% | 95.84% |\\n| L=16 | QCFS | 29.02% | 86.02% | 89.38% | 91.91% | 94.65% | 95.77% | 96.03% | 96.07% |\\n| | QCFS+(ave) | 29.02% | 92.84% | 94.66% | 95.39% | 95.85% | 96.04% | 96.03% | 96.04% |\\n\\n#### ResNet-20 on CIFAR-100\\n\\n| L | Method | T=1 | T=2 | T=3 | T=4 | T=8 | T=16 | T=32 | T=64 |\\n|------|----------------|---------|---------|---------|---------|---------|---------|---------|---------|\\n| L=2 | QCFS | 43.71% | 44.68% | 55.64% | 58.17% | 61.18% | 62.09% | 61.93% | 61.56% |\\n| | QCFS+(ave) | 43.71% | 58.97% | 60.34% | 61.17% | 60.92% | 61.32% | 61.14% | 61.14% |\\n| L=4 | QCFS | 25.64% | 36.00% | 44.10% | 50.36% | 62.02% | 66.33% | 67.26% | 67.05% |\\n| | QCFS+(ave) | 25.64% | 56.56% | 63.66% | 64.67% | 66.11% | 66.55% | 66.76% | 66.50% |\\n| L=8 | QCFS | 11.48% | 17.11% | 23.46% | 29.94% | 51.29% | 64.65% | 68.03% | 68.62% |\\n| | QCFS+(ave) | 11.48% | 43.82% | 59.06% | 64.47% | 67.96% | 68.06% | 68.52% | 68.62% |\\n| L=16 | QCFS | 7.26% | 11.15% | 15.47% | 20.54% | 41.95% | 61.81% | 68.07% | 69.02% |\\n| | QCFS+(ave) | 7.26% | 32.49% | 53.15% | 61.61% | 68.28% | 69.13% | 69.23% | 69.32% |\\n\\n#### VGG-16 on CIFAR-100\\n\\n| L | Method | T=1 | T=2 | T=3 | T=4 | T=8 | T=16 | T=32 | T=64 |\\n|------|----------------|---------|---------|---------|---------|---------|---------|---------|---------|\\n| L=2 | QCFS | 65.06% | 68.97% | 71.13% | 72.3% | 74.34% | 75.13% | 75.43% | 75.60% |\\n| | QCFS+(ave) | 65.06% | 73.85% | 74.34% | 74.96% | 75.56% | 75.39% | 75.54% | 75.54% |\\n| L=4 | QCFS | 57.57% | 64.33% | 67.93% | 70.13% | 74.75% | 76.33% | 77.01% | 77.15% |\\n| | QCFS+(ave) | 57.57% | 73.01% | 75.53% | 76.30% | 76.90% | 77.03% | 77.08% | 77.24% |\\n| L=8 | QCFS | 45.47% | 55.55% | 60.53% | 64.93% | 72.42% | 76.02% | 77.22% | 77.44% |\\n| | QCFS+(ave) | 45.47% | 69.88% | 74.58% | 75.7% | 75.58% | 77.15% | 77.14% | 77.11% |\\n| L=16 | QCFS | 28.98% | 41.11% | 48.66% | 54.41% | 67.02% | 74.39% | 76.87% | 77.56% |\\n| | QCFS+(ave) | 28.98% | 66.23% | 73.58% | 75.48% | 76.86% | 77.71% | 77.68% | 77.69% |\"}", "{\"metareview\": \"This paper combines Quantization-Aware Conversion (QAC) algorithm with membrane-related parameter calibration to achieve the inference of converted SNNs on mixed time-steps. Reviewers acknowledge the authors' detailed analysis in establishing the connection between quantization ANN and SNN, but express concerns about the specific calculation process and cost of the mixed-timestep network structure in the inference stage. After the discussion period, three reviewers rate 6 and one reviewer rates 5. None of the reviewers strongly argue for acceptance. Therefore, the final decision is not to accept the paper.\", \"additional_comments_on_reviewer_discussion\": \"Reviewer sfK2 and ejRD express concern about how mixed time-steps are connected between different layers of the converted SNNs, while Reviewer cCZ2 and 6VHG argue about the fairness and performance of this work in terms of accuracy comparison. The authors conduct extensive supplementary discussion and experiments during the response phase. Overall, this paper would benefit from further clarification and analysis about the inference performance and computational overhead of QAC. In addition, I notice that some results reported by the authors in Table 8, ImagNet-1k seem to be inconsistent with the results in the original text (e.g. the inference time-step of SEW, TET, GLIF, TAB, PSN in their original text is 4 rather than 6).\"}", "{\"comment\": \"## **3. Experimental Results and Data.**\\nTable 2 presents a comparison of energy efficiency between **QANN** and **SNN** on CIFAR-10 and CIFAR-100, as well as the ratio of energy consumption between **QANN** and **SNN** (denoted as $E_{QANN}$ / $E_{SNN}$ ) for various models.\\n\\n- For the **CIFAR-10** dataset, the energy consumption of **SNN** is significantly lower than that of **QANN** across all models, with the **VGG-16** model having the highest ratio of energy efficiency (6.23x).\\n- For the **CIFAR-100** dataset, similar trends are observed, with **SNN** being more energy-efficient than **QANN** and the ResNet-18 model showing a ratio of 4.94x.\\n\\n\\n### **Table 2. Comparison of Energy Efficiency Between Quantized ANN and SNN**\\n\\n| **Dataset** | **Model** | **Energy (mJ) QANN** | **Energy (mJ) SNN** | **$E_{QANN}$ / $E_{SNN}$** |\\n|--------------|--------------|----------------------|---------------------|---------------------------|\\n| **CIFAR-10** | VGG-16 | 0.0229 | 0.0037 | 6.23x |\\n| | ResNet-18 | 0.0409 | 0.0071 | 5.79x |\\n| | ResNet-20 | 0.0031 | 0.00098 | 3.15x |\\n| **CIFAR-100**| VGG-16 | 0.0256 | 0.0051 | 5.03x |\\n| | ResNet-18 | 0.0428 | 0.0087 | 4.94x |\\n| | ResNet-20 | 0.0034 | 0.0012 | 2.75x |\\n\\nTables 3 and 4 provide the necessary data to calculate the energy consumption of QANN and SNN, including the **activation quantization bit-widths** for different layers, the number of **time steps**, and the **spike firing rates**. Using these data, along with **Equations (3) and (4)**, the values in **Table 2** can be derived.\\n\\n### **Table 3. ANN Activations Quantization Bit Width.**\\n\\n| **Dataset** | **Model** | **Activations Quantization Bit Width** |\\n|--------------|--------------|---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------|\\n| **CIFAR-10** | VGG-16 | 2, 2, 2, 2, 2, 2, 1, 1, 1, 1, 1, 1, 1, 1, 1 |\\n| | ResNet-18 | 2, 2, 2, 2, 2, 2, 2, 2, 2, 2, 2, 2, 2, 1, 1, 1, 1 |\\n| | ResNet-20 | 2, 2, 2, 2, 2, 1, 2, 2, 2, 2, 2, 1, 2, 2, 2, 2, 2, 2, 1 |\\n| **CIFAR-100**| VGG-16 | 2, 2, 2, 2, 2, 2, 2, 2, 2, 2, 1, 1, 1, 1, 1 |\\n| | ResNet-18 | 2, 2, 2, 2, 2, 2, 2, 1, 2, 2, 2, 2, 2, 2, 2, 2, 1 |\\n| | ResNet-20 | 3, 2, 2, 2, 2, 1, 2, 2, 2, 2, 2, 1, 2, 2, 3, 3, 2, 2, 2 |\\n### **Table 4. SNN Time Steps and Firing Rate**\\n\\n| **Dataset** | **Model** | **Time Steps / Firing Rate** |\\n|--------------|--------------|----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------|\\n| **CIFAR-10** | VGG-16 | 3, 3, 3, 3, 3, 3, 3, 3, 2, 1, 1, 1, 2, 2, 2 |\\n| | | 0.3 / 0.14 / 0.14 / 0.08 / 0.12 / 0.08 / 0.07 / 0.07 / 0.1 / 0.18 / 0.45 / 0.4 / 0.29 / 0.19 / 0.47 |\\n| | ResNet-18 | 3, 3, 3, 3, 3, 3, 3, 3, 3, 3, 3, 3, 3, 2, 2, 2, 2 |\\n| | | 0.36 / 0.22 / 0.20 / 0.13 / 0.22 / 0.14 / 0.14 / 0.08 / 0.19 / 0.11 / 0.11 / 0.05 / 0.15 / 0.09 / 0.12 / 0.17 / 0.19 |\\n| | ResNet-20 | 4, 4, 4, 3, 4, 3, 4, 4, 4, 4, 4, 3, 4, 4, 4, 4, 4, 3, 3 |\\n| | | 0.35 / 0.23 / 0.32 / 0.17 / 0.36 / 0.12 / 0.38 / 0.24 / 0.27 / 0.09 / 0.30 / 0.09 / 0.33 / 0.17 / 0.17 / 0.09 / 0.19 / 0.08 / 0.22 |\\n| **CIFAR-100**| VGG-16 | 4, 4, 4, 5, 5, 5, 5, 5, 5, 3, 3, 2, 3, 2, 2 |\\n| | | 0.29 / 0.14 / 0.14 / 0.09 / 0.11 / 0.09 / 0.06 / 0.07 / 0.05 / 0.07 / 0.26 / 0.41 / 0.24 / 0.21 / 0.21 |\\n| | ResNet-18 | 4, 4, 3, 3, 3, 3, 3, 3, 3, 4, 4, 4, 4, 4, 5, 4, 2 |\\n| | | 0.32 / 0.23 / 0.24 / 0.12 / 0.23 / 0.15 / 0.20 / 0.08 / 0.25 / 0.13 / 0.13 / 0.07 / 0.15 / 0.08 / 0.06 / 0.03 / 0.07 |\\n| | ResNet-20 | 6, 4, 5, 3, 5, 3, 5, 4, 5, 3, 5, 4, 5, 5, 5, 6, 6, 5, 3 |\\n| | | 0.27 / 0.24 / 0.31 / 0.15 / 0.35 / 0.13 / 0.39 / 0.21 / 0.31 / 0.10 / 0.38 / 0.07 / 0.40 / 0.14 / 0.16 / 0.09 / 0.21 / 0.10 / 0.20 |\"}", "{\"comment\": \"## **2. Energy consumption Calculation Method**\\nWe follow the energy calculation formula from [4] to compute the energy consumption of both the quantized ANN and the SNN, With $N$ input channels, $M$ output channels, weight kernel size $k \\\\times k$, and output size $O \\\\times O$, the total FLOPS for ANN and SNN are as described in the equations below.\\n\\n$$\\nFLOPS_{ANN} = O^2 \\\\times N \\\\times k^2 \\\\times M \\\\tag{1}\\n$$\\n$$\\nFLOPS_{SNN} = O^2 \\\\times N \\\\times k^2 \\\\times M \\\\times f_r \\\\tag{2}\\n$$\\n\\n\\nWhere $f_r$ is the firing rate, representing the total number of firing neurons per layer, and usually $f_r\\\\ll 1$ in SNNs.\\n\\nFor energy calculation, each **MAC (for QANN)** or **AC (Addition operation, for SNN)** is considered, as below:\\n\\n$$\\nE_{ANN} = \\\\left( \\\\sum_{l=1}^{N} FLOPS_{ANN} \\\\right) \\\\times E_{MAC}^{l}\\\\tag{3}\\n$$\\n$$\\nE_{SNN} = \\\\left( \\\\sum_{l=1}^{N} FLOPS_{SNN} \\\\right) \\\\times E_{AC} \\\\times T_l \\\\tag{4}\\n$$\\n\\nWhere $E_{MAC}^{l}$ represents the energy per MAC operation in l-th layer, **the $E_{MAC}^{l}$ vary across layers** due to the different quantization bit-widths of activations in each layer, $E_{AC}$ represents the energy consumed by addition operations, which is 0.03 pJ for INT8 quantized weights, **the $E_{AC}$ value is the same across all layers**. $ T_l $ denotes the time step of the $ l $-th layer in the SNN, and the **time steps may vary across different layers**.\\n\\n\\n[1]. 1.1 computing\\u2019s energy problem (and what we can do about it). In 2014 IEEE international solid-state circuits conference digest of technical papers (ISSCC).\\n\\n[2]. Area-time-power tradeoffs in parallel adders. IEEE Transactions on Circuits and Systems II: Analog and Digital Signal Pro-\\ncessing, 43(10):689\\u2013702, 1996.\\n\\n\\n[3]. Automated hdl generation of two\\u2019s complement dadda multiplier with parallel prefix adders. Int J Adv Res Electr Electron Instrum Eng, 2, 2013.\\n\\n\\n[4]. Toward scalable, efficient, and accurate deep spiking neural networks with backward residual connections, stochastic softmax, and hybridization. Frontiers in Neuroscience, 14:653, 2020.\"}", "{\"title\": \"Paper Decision\", \"decision\": \"Reject\"}" ] }

[ "Aditya Sanghi", "Aliasghar Khani", "Pradyumna Reddy", "Arianna Rampini", "Derek Cheung", "Kamal Rahimi Malekshan", "Kanika Madan", "Hooman Shayani" ]

[ "3D generative modelling", "Diffusion models", "wavelet encoding" ]

{ "note_id": [ "kw0lpbFzWD", "VWFMP3P5Xo", "Sv6H3NAUVZ", "RQbXKPucFj", "50PO2c7caW" ], "note_type": [ "official_review", "official_review", "official_review", "official_review", "comment" ], "note_created": [ 1731187008636, 1730660103236, 1730807176937, 1730241745499, 1733502231907 ], "note_signatures": [ [ "ICLR.cc/2025/Conference/Submission480/Reviewer_SWVj" ], [ "ICLR.cc/2025/Conference/Submission480/Reviewer_JQNj" ], [ "ICLR.cc/2025/Conference/Submission480/Reviewer_xqvp" ], [ "ICLR.cc/2025/Conference/Submission480/Reviewer_M8Ju" ], [ "ICLR.cc/2025/Conference/Submission480/Authors" ] ], "structured_content_str": [ "{\"summary\": \"This paper presents an approach to encode 3D shapes (TSDF) into a latent space using Wavelet representation via VQ-VAE. Additionally, it trains several latent diffusion models capable of generating latent codes under different conditions, such as single image, multiple images, point cloud, and voxels. The method is trained on a large dataset comprising 10 million 3D shapes collected from 19 different sources. While there are minor weaknesses in the presentation of the paper, the proposed latent wavelet tree representation is efficient and well-suited for 3D shape generation. Therefore, I recommend acceptance of the paper but reserve the right to lower the score if the concerns are not adequately addressed.\", \"soundness\": \"4\", \"presentation\": \"3\", \"contribution\": \"4\", \"strengths\": \"This paper proposes encoding the wavelet representation into a latent space. While the concepts of the wavelet tree and VQ-VAE latent space are not novel contributions of the paper, the efficiency of the combined solution is compelling. The authors validate the proposed representation by training a generative model, which appears to achieve good results and demonstrates training efficiency (notably, only 1 H100 GPU for training on 10 million shapes\\u2014authors, please confirm and include the training time). These aspects represent the strengths of the paper.\", \"weaknesses\": \"After carefully reading the submission and supplementary material, i found following weaknesses:\\n\\n1. The limitations and broader impact of the proposed method are not discussed in the paper.\\n2. The lack of hyperlinks for citations makes reading and navigation difficult.\\n3. Typo: Line 130: \\\"WaLaallows\\\" should be corrected to \\\"Wala allows.\\\"\\n4. Overclaiming in the text-to-3D capability: The method performs text-to-multiview depth generation, followed by multiview depth to 3D reconstruction. It is not a true text-to-3D model.\\n5. Training details are missing, including the resources and time required for the VQ-VAE model and the training time for the latent generative model.\\n6. The method cannot generate realistic textures, whereas the baselines in Table 3 are capable of novel view synthesis.\", \"questions\": \"I have several questions regarding the submission:\\n\\n1. The model appears to support multiple conditioning inputs. Why doesn\\u2019t it support direct text-to-latent generation? Is this not feasible, or was it omitted due to time constraints?\\n2. The inclusion of SMPL and SMIL in the training dataset is confusing to me. To my knowledge, these are parametric mesh models, and the training scan data for them is not publicly available. How do they contribute to the training data?\\n3. The results on the anonymous page show a last update on October 10th (according to the Git commit history), which is after the ICLR deadline. Do the authors have evidence that the results were uploaded before the deadline? If the results were updated after the deadline, this would be unfair to other submissions.\", \"flag_for_ethics_review\": \"['No ethics review needed.']\", \"rating\": \"6\", \"confidence\": \"4\", \"code_of_conduct\": \"Yes\"}", "{\"summary\": \"The paper introduces Wavelet Latent Diffusion (WaLa), a method for 3D shape generation that employs wavelet-based latent encodings. By compressing a 256\\u00b3 signed distance field into a 12\\u00b3 \\u00d7 4 latent grid, the authors claim a 2,427\\u00d7 compression ratio with minimal detail loss. This compression purportedly facilitates the training of large-scale generative networks, enabling the generation of high-quality 3D shapes at 256\\u00b3 resolution. The models, both conditional and unconditional, contain approximately one billion parameters and are reported to generate shapes within 2\\u20134 seconds. The authors intend to open-source the code and model weights upon acceptance.\", \"soundness\": \"3\", \"presentation\": \"3\", \"contribution\": \"1\", \"strengths\": \"The authors have addressed computational challenges in 3D shape generation by employing wavelet-based latent encodings. This method compresses the model size, contributing to the field by facilitating the training of large-scale generative networks. The focus on 3D generation is relevant, given the demand for high-quality 3D models in various applications. The experimental setup appears reasonable, with models containing approximately one billion parameters and generating shapes within 2\\u20134 seconds. This indicates a practical approach to balancing model complexity and inference time.\", \"weaknesses\": \"\\u2022\\tInsufficient Justification for Wavelet Choice: The paper does not provide a compelling rationale for selecting wavelet-based encodings over other decomposition methods, such as spherical harmonics, which are commonly used in 3D shape representation.\\n\\t\\u2022\\tLack of Parameter Sensitivity Analysis: There is no discussion on how sensitive the model\\u2019s performance is to the parameters controlling the wavelet transform\\u2019s frequency domain decomposition. This omission raises concerns about the robustness and generalizability of the approach.\\n\\t\\u2022\\tReconstruction Accuracy Concerns: The paper does not thoroughly address potential challenges in achieving accurate reconstruction from the compressed wavelet coefficients. Without empirical evaluations demonstrating reconstruction fidelity, the effectiveness of the compression technique remains uncertain.\", \"questions\": \"1.\\tChoice of Wavelets: What is the specific rationale behind selecting wavelet-based encodings over other decomposition methods, such as spherical harmonics, for 3D shape generation?\\n\\t2.\\tParameter Sensitivity: How does the model\\u2019s performance vary with different parameters controlling the wavelet transform\\u2019s frequency domain decomposition? Have experiments been conducted to assess this sensitivity?\\n\\t3.\\tReconstruction Fidelity: What measures have been implemented to ensure accurate reconstruction from the compressed wavelet coefficients? Are there scenarios where reconstruction errors become significant, and how are they mitigated?\", \"flag_for_ethics_review\": \"['No ethics review needed.']\", \"details_of_ethics_concerns\": \"None\", \"rating\": \"3\", \"confidence\": \"5\", \"code_of_conduct\": \"Yes\"}", "{\"summary\": \"The paper proposes a wavelet latent diffusion (WaLa) model for conditional and unconditional 3D shape generation. In general, the proposed method first uses wavelet tree conversion to convert a given shape, which could be of high resolution, into a wavelet tree; then, a wavelet vq-vae is utilized to reconstruct the wavelet tree. This is the first stage during which we can get latent vectors $Z$. In the second stage, a (conditional) diffusion model is adopted to generate the latent vectors $Z$ using a diffusion model. The inference is straightforward, as we first generate a latent vector using the reverse process of a diffusion model and then decode the latent vector to a 3D shape using the trained vq-vae in the first training stage. The experiments are conducted of different conditional (e.g., point cloud, images, sketches, texts, etc) and unconditional 3D shape generation tasks, and achieve the superior performance over the compared methods.\", \"soundness\": \"3\", \"presentation\": \"3\", \"contribution\": \"1\", \"strengths\": \"There are two key strengths of this paper:\\n1. As claimed by the authors, the proposed method is efficient in saving billion-parameters in 3D shape generation.\\n2. The quantitative and qualitative generation results are good.\", \"weaknesses\": \"The main concern of this paper is the novelty is very limited.\\n1. The wavelet tree conversion and the wavelet tree structure are proposed by [1], which is also mentioned in the paper. It is unclear if there are any improvements or modifications made to the wavelet tree proposed in [1] to adapt to the task of this paper.\\n\\n2. Though parameter-saving is an advantage claimed by the authors, it is well-known that wavelet transformation can be used in signal compression by removing (certain) high-frequency coefficients. So, it weakens the contributions of this paper.\\n\\n3. The vq-vae is also a well-known variant of the conventional vae, as proposed in [2]. It is also unclear whether any adaption of vq-vae has been proposed to make it more suitable for this 3D generation task.\\n\\n4. The training stage 2 is nothing more than a well-known DDPM-based generation process. The only difference is not directly generating 3D shapes, but to generate wavelet coefficients. It also shares some similarities (though not exactly the same) as stable diffusion [3].\\n\\nIn short, this paper combines different well-known techniques without any adaptation or modification, so I failed to see any novel things in this paper, though the experimental results are good.\\n\\n[1] Hui KH, Sanghi A, Rampini A, Malekshan KR, Liu Z, Shayani H, Fu CW. Make-a-shape: a ten-million-scale 3d shape model. InForty-first International Conference on Machine Learning 2024 Jan 20.\\n\\n[2] Van Den Oord A, Vinyals O. Neural discrete representation learning. Advances in neural information processing systems. 2017;30.\\n\\n[3] Rombach R, Blattmann A, Lorenz D, Esser P, Ommer B. High-resolution image synthesis with latent diffusion models. InProceedings of the IEEE/CVF conference on computer vision and pattern recognition 2022 (pp. 10684-10695).\", \"questions\": \"The method proposed in this paper is relatively straightforward, as a combination of different existing approaches, so I have no questions.\", \"flag_for_ethics_review\": \"['No ethics review needed.']\", \"rating\": \"3\", \"confidence\": \"5\", \"code_of_conduct\": \"Yes\"}", "{\"summary\": \"This paper introduces an extension to Make-a-Shape [1] to reduce computational cost and improve overall generative performance by incorporating a vector-quantized variational autoencoder (VQ-VAE). The pipeline consists of first converting a truncated signed distance function to a wavelet-tree representation, autoencoding this representation with a VQ-VAE that emits a low-dimensional latent grid in the bottleneck and training a latent diffusion model (LDM) in this latent space. As shown in the original LDM paper [2], this approach enables larger diffusion models, higher quality and faster inference. The authors evaluate their model on a variety of conditional generative tasks such as point cloud to mesh, single and multi-view RGB images to mesh, sketches to mesh or text to mesh. Furthermore, experiments show superior results to various previous methods, both qualitatively and quantitatively.\\n\\n[1] Hui, Ka-Hei, et al. \\\"Make-a-shape: a ten-million-scale 3d shape model.\\\" Forty-first International Conference on Machine Learning. 2024.\\n[2] Rombach, Robin, et al. \\\"High-resolution image synthesis with latent diffusion models.\\\" Proceedings of the IEEE/CVF conference on computer vision and pattern recognition. 2022.\", \"soundness\": \"4\", \"presentation\": \"3\", \"contribution\": \"2\", \"strengths\": \"In general, the paper is well written, with a clear structure and concise visualizations. The main originality and contribution comes from the combination of the existing wavelet-tree representation with a VQ-VAE. This is a very logical step following existing approaches in diffusion-based generative literature. The VQ-VAE is trained similarly to [1] using an adaptive sampling strategy and allows the LDM to focus solely on the general shape quality and thus improving overall performance. The experimental section clearly confirms the overall performance boost in various tasks.\", \"weaknesses\": \"I have several concerns that are relevant for my overall rating, but the lack of contribution is certainly the most important one and is the main reason for my overall negative rating. The entire technical aspects of wavelet-based diffusion models have been explored in previous work [1, 3]. Scaling and improving diffusion models and lowering computational cost by combining VAEs and latent diffusion models has been studied extensively [2, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9]. Could you clarify what the novelty is, besides improved performance and how it differs from existing approaches, besides using a VAE? While I really acknowledge and appreciate the authors' effort in implementing and training the entire model, it reads more as an extension of [1] and seems too little of a contribution for ICLR, but rather a very good fit for a journal extension. This should really not be understood as a critique of the general paper's quality, but rather about its suitability to this specific conference. Nevertheless, I am happy to be convinced of the contrary and ready to raise my rating if the authors and other reviewers provide legit reasons and arguments.\\nAdditionally, while the experimental section is quite elaborated, it is missing basic comparisons: (1) how much improves the latent diffusion model over simply using the VQ-VAE in the unconditional setting; (2) only conditional tasks are evaluated quantitatively, but unconditional comparisons are completely missing, in particular metrics like 1-nearest neighbor accuracy (1-NNA), maximum mean distance (MMD), coverage (COV) and FID from randomly rendered images. Adding these unconditional experiments in a revised version would strengthen the evaluation and allow for comparison with existing unconditional 3D generative models. \\n\\nLastly, there are some minor weaknesses that should be easy to resolve. They can be viewed as (subjective) recommendations to (possibly) improve paper quality.\\n(1) The evaluation datasets are not well documented. It is not clear how many samples there are in total for each of them and how they relate to the extensive training set, e.g. how diverse are they? Could you provide the exact numbers and describe how these datasets (e.g. the categories) relate to the training set.\\n(2) The title and abstract suggest that the model uses a billion parameters, one page 6, line 310 it is billions of parameters but I cannot find an actual number of parameters and the actual model architecture neither in the main paper nor in the supplementary material. \\n(3) The section of the VQ-VAE seems to be too extensive, while the section on the wavelet-tree is definitely underrepresented and should be explained in more detail.\\n\\n[3] Hui, Ka-Hei, et al. \\\"Neural wavelet-domain diffusion for 3d shape generation.\\\" SIGGRAPH Asia 2022 Conference Papers. 2022.\\n[4] Vahdat, Arash, Karsten Kreis, and Jan Kautz. \\\"Score-based generative modeling in latent space.\\\" Advances in neural information processing systems 34 (2021): 11287-11302.\\n[5] Sinha, Abhishek, et al. \\\"D2c: Diffusion-decoding models for few-shot conditional generation.\\\" Advances in Neural Information Processing Systems 34 (2021): 12533-12548.\\n[6] Vahdat, Arash, et al. \\\"Lion: Latent point diffusion models for 3d shape generation.\\\" Advances in Neural Information Processing Systems 35 (2022): 10021-10039.\\n[7] Gao, Ruiqi, et al. \\\"Cat3d: Create anything in 3d with multi-view diffusion models.\\\" arXiv preprint arXiv:2405.10314 (2024).\\n[8] Zhang, Bowen, et al. \\\"Compress3D: a compressed latent space for 3D generation from a single image.\\\" European Conference on Computer Vision. Springer, Cham, 2025.\\n[9] Gupta, Anchit, et al. \\\"3dgen: Triplane latent diffusion for textured mesh generation.\\\" arXiv preprint arXiv:2303.05371 (2023).\", \"questions\": \"I have described the main questions, suggestions and concerns in the weakness section. I am certainly open to raising my rating if, especially, the main concern is addressed and the authors (and possibly other reviewers) can convince me of the contribution to the broad ICLR community.\\n\\nAdditionally, I have a few short questions:\\n(1) Why is WaLa depth 4 and RGB 4 of different speed in Table 3? If I understood it correctly, those models should be the same architecture wise.\\n(2) What is the reason for depth metrics being higher than the RGB ones? \\n(3) How is the ground truth data generated, i.e. the actual TSDFs from the meshes and how compute intense is this?\\n(4) How does your VAE fine-tuning strategy using 10k samples of each dataset actually help? If you randomly sample from each dataset, then the overall data distribution will be the same, right?\\n\\nThere are spaces missing on page 3 line 130, page 4 line 164, page 4 line 187 and a capital letter is used on page 8 line 425.\\n\\n___\\n\\n***After rebuttal*** \\n\\nI will keep my initial score since authors did not reply.\", \"flag_for_ethics_review\": \"['No ethics review needed.']\", \"rating\": \"3\", \"confidence\": \"5\", \"code_of_conduct\": \"Yes\"}", "{\"withdrawal_confirmation\": \"I have read and agree with the venue's withdrawal policy on behalf of myself and my co-authors.\", \"comment\": [\"We sincerely thank all the reviewers for a thorough and constructive feedback.\", \"While we are working on improving the current version and are considering a more relevant venue for our work, we wanted to highlight and summarize some of the main contributions and benefits of our proposed approach, **WaLa**, as follows:\", \"**Relation to previous wavelet-based methods:** Building on prior wavelet-based decompositions [1, 2], we introduce an additional compression on the wavelet coefficients using VQ-VAE, which allows compressing a $256^{3}$ signed distance field into a $12^{3} \\\\times 4 $ latent grid, achieving $2,427 \\\\times$ compression ratio with minimal loss of detail. This efficient compression allows training large-scale generative models without increasing their inference time.\", \"**Large-scale 3D generative models:** By leveraging VQ-VAE compression we scale our diffusion model to 1 billion parameters while maintaining training efficiency.\", \"**Maintaining competitive inference times:** Despite larger models, the inference times stay highly competitive, within 2-4 seconds.\", \"**Better generation quality, diversity and computational efficiency:** Our method shows significant improvements across the quality and diversity of the generated samples, while maintaining computational efficiency.\", \"**Multiple-modalities:** We expand beyond unconditional generation and add multiple modalities such as single/multi-view images, voxels, point clouds, depth data, sketches, and textual descriptions, to showcase the versatility of our work.\", \"Additionally, some of the other contributions include:\", \"Demonstrating successful scaling strategies for training on massive 3D datasets.\", \"Creating open-source models that can serve as strong baselines for future research.\", \"Contributing detailed documentation and implementation insights for the broader research community.\", \"Through this work, we show how existing methods and approaches can be enhanced and scaled up in an efficient manner by improving the compression of the representations and by combining diffusion-based diffusion methods on these compressed representations. We hope the 3D generation community will find our work helpful and will benefit from our open-sourced large-scale models and code, which remain publicly available.\", \"Finally, we thank the reviewers again for taking time to provide thoughtful feedback, which will help us further improve our work. \\\\\", \"[1] Hui, Ka-Hei, et al. \\\"Neural wavelet-domain diffusion for 3d shape generation.\\\" \\\\\", \"[2] Hui KH, Sanghi A, Rampini A, Malekshan KR, Liu Z, Shayani H, Fu CW. \\u201cMake-a-shape: a ten-million-scale 3d shape model.\\u201d\"]}" ] }

[ "Hui Yuan", "Zhigang Hua", "Zihao Li", "Weilin Cong", "Yan Xie", "Rong Jin", "Shuang Yang", "Bo Long", "Mengdi Wang" ]

[ "combinatorial optimization", "diffusion model", "guidance" ]

{ "note_id": [ "yEFExqvUWS", "ufrzHk8cS5", "pPk914KwqX", "aROnhIFP8G", "ODmYacNpX2" ], "note_type": [ "comment", "official_review", "official_review", "official_review", "official_review" ], "note_created": [ 1733154251218, 1730467089762, 1730661885450, 1730644260728, 1730123712205 ], "note_signatures": [ [ "ICLR.cc/2025/Conference/Submission8862/Authors" ], [ "ICLR.cc/2025/Conference/Submission8862/Reviewer_HeiH" ], [ "ICLR.cc/2025/Conference/Submission8862/Reviewer_zQTz" ], [ "ICLR.cc/2025/Conference/Submission8862/Reviewer_vEQu" ], [ "ICLR.cc/2025/Conference/Submission8862/Reviewer_rPmF" ] ], "structured_content_str": [ "{\"withdrawal_confirmation\": \"I have read and agree with the venue's withdrawal policy on behalf of myself and my co-authors.\"}", "{\"summary\": \"This paper presents a novel approach, GuideCO, designed to address challenges in training diffusion models for combinatorial optimization problems. Diffusion models often require large amounts of high-quality, near-optimal training data to perform well, which can be costly and difficult to obtain. GuideCO mitigates this by enabling effective training on imperfect or sub-optimal data through an objective-guided diffusion model enhanced by classifier-free guidance. This two-stage generate-then-decode framework allows for high-quality solution generation across tasks like the TSP and MIS, demonstrating superior performance to existing diffusion solvers, particularly in data-scarce scenarios. Experimental results show GuideCO\\u2019s ability to achieve competitive or better performance even when trained with less optimal data, offering a scalable solution for CO problems where perfect data is not accessible.\", \"soundness\": \"3\", \"presentation\": \"3\", \"contribution\": \"3\", \"strengths\": \"This paper established a new framework for solving combinatorial optimization problems when the label quality is low. This topic is interesting as low quality labels are easier to obtain. The proposed solver performs better than DIFUSCO, demonstrating its effectiveness in this scenario.\", \"weaknesses\": \"1.\\tThe decode process should be elaborated in detail. Besides, are there any reasons for selecting greedy methods? It seems that MCTS works better in most cases for TSP.\\n2.\\tThe experimental results are weak. More comparisons with other CO methods on larger datasets are needed. Besides, runtime comparisons are also needed.\\n3.\\tI cannot find practical meanings of the proposed method. On TSP-50, the optimal solutions can be obtained easily, but GuideCO still has over 10% gaps. On TSP-1000, the gap is even 37%, which is totally meaningless.\", \"questions\": \"1.\\tWhat is the difference between Q1 and Q2 in Introduction?\\n2.\\tThe value of f_tar is set as the average optimal objective value in validation set. But you under the scenario when labels are obtained by heuristic and there is no optimal. Where does the optimal objective value come from?\\n3.\\tOn such small scale graphs, why 12 layers of GNN are needed?\\n4.\\tThe citations seem to be incorrect. There are no hyperlinks to the corresponding references.\", \"flag_for_ethics_review\": \"['No ethics review needed.']\", \"rating\": \"3\", \"confidence\": \"4\", \"code_of_conduct\": \"Yes\"}", "{\"summary\": \"The paper \\u00a0introduces\\u00a0GuideCO, a diffusion-based framework designed to solve combinatorial optimization (CO) problems efficiently, with imperfectly labeled data. Traditional diffusion solvers for CO require high-quality, exact or near-optimal solutions to perform well, which can be costly and challenging to obtain. GuideCO addresses this by introducing a\\u00a0two-stage generate-then-decode framework\\u00a0that guides solution generation using sub-optimal data.\", \"soundness\": \"3\", \"presentation\": \"2\", \"contribution\": \"2\", \"strengths\": \"The exponetial scaling law is interesting. The authors identify a scaling relationship between optimality gap and data quantity. GuideCO attempts to bridge this gap by introducing objective-guided generation.\", \"weaknesses\": \"1.The technical contribution is limited. The guidance that the proposed method adopts on diffusion models is similar with diffusion model as plug-and-play priors [1]. Please correct me if I make any mistakes.\\n\\n2.The empirical performance improvement is limited.\\n\\n2.1In comparison with the baseline DIFUSCO: solving small instances takes very cheap time for the exact solver, thus we could assume it's actionable to directly generate huge amount of training data labeled with the exact optimal solution. In this case, there remains a huge gap between the DIFUSCO+exact and GuideCO when one has enough training data. \\nMoreover, when solving larger instances, instead of training DIFUSCO with the exact optimal solution, LKH-3 is also a much powerful heuristic to label the training data with the size of 500, 1000, 10000[2]. According to Table4, on large instances there is still a gap between GuideCO and DIFUSCO. When one wants to train a solver that could solve real-world problems, using LKH-3 with DIFUSCO seems still to be the first choice. It would be beneficial to show the superiority of GuideCO over DIFUSCO when labeling the optimal solution is impractical, (e.g. on TSPs with the size of at least 10,000) .\\n\\n2.2 It would be interesting to investigate: Can GuideCO further improve the performance when trained on exact labels? \\n\\n2.3 (Following 2.1) Though trained on imperfect labels, the paper still does not consider scalability issues, the method only conducts experiments up to 1000 nodes. If GuideCO shows superiority over existing baselines on large scale data where labeling the exact labels are impractical, the proposed method would then significantly illustrate its potential for practical application.\\n\\n[1] Diffusion models as plug-and-play priors. Alexandros Graikos, Nikolay Malkin, Nebojsa Jojic, Dimitris Samaras. Neurips 2022.\\n\\n[2]DIFUSCO: Graph-based Diffusion Solvers for Combinatorial Optimization. Zhiqing Sun, Yiming Yang. Neurips 2023.\", \"questions\": \"There is a typo in line 227.\\n\\nPlease refer to the weakness.\", \"flag_for_ethics_review\": \"['No ethics review needed.']\", \"details_of_ethics_concerns\": \"N/A\", \"rating\": \"3\", \"confidence\": \"4\", \"code_of_conduct\": \"Yes\"}", "{\"summary\": \"This paper introduces GuideCO, an objective-guided diffusion solver designed to address limitations in existing diffusion models for combinatorial optimization (CO) tasks. While recent diffusion-based generative models can generate near-optimal solutions for CO problems like the Traveling Salesman Problem (TSP) and Maximum Independent Set (MIS), they typically require large amounts of high-quality, optimally-labeled training data. GuideCO overcomes this limitation by employing a two-stage generate-then-decode framework with an objective-guided diffusion model, which utilizes classifier-free guidance to produce high-quality solutions even with imperfectly labeled data. Experimental results demonstrate the effectiveness of the proposed method.\", \"soundness\": \"3\", \"presentation\": \"2\", \"contribution\": \"1\", \"strengths\": \"1. Introducing objective guidance through the conditional training of generative models is an interesting approach that is intuitively expected to enhance effectiveness.\\n\\n2. The paper is easy to follow.\", \"weaknesses\": \"1. Some design elements lack novelty. The generate-then-decode framework has long been established as a default pipeline for non-autoregressive neural solvers, e.g. [1] [2] [3], which first generate a solution heatmap and then decode a feasible solution from that heatmap.\\n\\n2. The main methodological proposal\\u2014introducing objective guidance through the conditional training of generative models\\u2014has already been explored for diffusion models in other related contexts [4][5]. This diminishes the technical contribution of the paper, particularly given that the empirical results do not adequately compare to previous state-of-the-art approaches.\\n\\n3. The empirical results do not support the claim that this method can enhance the performance of state-of-the-art models. The authors claim that \\\"Please note experiments are conducted for scenarios where training data is labeled by heuristics but not exact solvers.\\\" However, the authors still have to show evidence that the proposed method can improve upon the current advanced results in this field, especially when the proposed method can be directly applied to near-optimal supervision.\\n\\n[1] DIMES: A Differentiable Meta Solver for Combinatorial Optimization Problems. NeurIPS 2022.\\n\\n[2] DIFUSCO: Graph-based Diffusion Solvers for Combinatorial Optimization. NeurIPS 2023.\\n\\n[3] T2T: From Distribution Learning in Training to Gradient Search in Testing for Combinatorial Optimization. NeurIPS 2023.\\n\\n[4] Is Conditional Generative Modeling all you need for Decision Making? ICLR 2023.\\n\\n[5] Diffusion model for data-driven black-box optimization. 2024.\", \"questions\": \"1. How is the proposed generate-then-decode framework different from previous methods inluding DIMES, DIFUSCO?\\n\\nPlease also see respond to the points listed in the weaknesses section.\", \"flag_for_ethics_review\": \"['No ethics review needed.']\", \"details_of_ethics_concerns\": \"No ethics review needed.\", \"rating\": \"5\", \"confidence\": \"4\", \"code_of_conduct\": \"Yes\"}", "{\"summary\": \"The authors proposed GuideCO, a method that uses diffusion models to solve two CO problems: MIS and TSP. The authors proposed a training and inference algorithm with guidance that encode the problem instance information. Furthermore, GuideCO maps the the output of the diffusion model at time 0 (logits) using an adopted greedy decoding procedure.\", \"soundness\": \"2\", \"presentation\": \"2\", \"contribution\": \"2\", \"strengths\": [\"The paper is generally well-written and easy to follow.\", \"The observation of the exponential scaling law between the optimality gap and the amount of training data needed for training DM-based CO solvers.\", \"Evaluation on on two distinct and challenging CO problems: MIS and TSP.\", \"Employing the \\\"Objective-Aware Graph-Based Denoiser\\\" architecture for CO problems.\"], \"weaknesses\": [\"Recognizing that DIFUSCO (or any other NN-based supervised CO solver) as \\\"trained\\\" with optimally labeled data is not accurate. For example, DIFUSCO uses KaMIS (or ReduMIS [6]) to label their graphs. This method is a heuristic that does not guarantee an optimal MIS. The optimality and perfectly labelled claims here need to be revisited. This is a major issue with the paper as the authors develop their method based on this observation. For the MIS problem with ER graphs, the only difference between how DIFUSCO and GuideCO label graphs is using a different hueristic. DIFUSCO uses KaMIS whereas GuideCO uses a faster matlab function that cites [11].\", \"The link between the proposed framework and their bi-level optimization formulation is weak. It is not wrong with the (not very justified) approximation assumption of the lower level problem, but I don't see the benefit. Further clarification is needed here in addition to the \\\"approximation\\\" assumed for solving the lower level problem. To me, the lower level problem is just ensuring that the solution is a valid one (within the feasible set of the original problem constraints).\", \"Missing OOD generalization evaluation: DIFUSCO is known to have weak generalization at inference time (see Table 5 in [8] for an example). Can the authors report similar results to evaluate the generalization of the proposed solver?\", \"Missing several baselines for comparisons such as [2,4,8,10,13].\"], \"questions\": [\"### Major Comments/Questions:\", \"The amount of data in training is not a challenge if the proposed solver can generalize and is capable of performing well when trained on imperfectly labelled graphs as we can always use graph random generators to generate training graphs.\", \"In lines 48 and 48, the authors say that DIFUSCO had achieved SOTA results which is not entirely true as DIFUSCO's best configuration achieved on par results with CONCORDE.\", \"The simplicity of training DMs for CO problems is not supported. How is it simple? It is very time-consuming. Further discussion is needed here.\", \"The paper is missing discussions on unsupervised data-centric (such as [1]) and data-less solvers (such as [2] and [3]). This motivates the question: Why do we need supervised learning when unsupervised methods are performing well?\", \"DIFUSCO is no longer the SOTA supervised DM CO solver. T2T in [4] is. Furthermore, consistency models have also been recently employed in [5].\", \"Results to understand the impact of the solution generated by the diffusion model (first step) is needed. For example, if we initialize the greedy decoding procedure with any Maximal independent set (or their logits), do we still see the same results? If not, then how much improvement do we gain from the solution provided by the DM?\", \"The proposed method aims at merging a DM-based solution (or its logits) with heuristics. If the combined method (i.e., GuideCO) still can **not** outperform a problem-specific heuristics solver (in this case KaMIS or Concorde), what is the benefit of using GuideCO?\", \"For Table 5, why Gurobi is not reported for ER? Gurobi achieves an average MIS size of 41.38 in total runtime of 50 minutes from DIFUSCO's Table 2. Why there are no ER results for the last two rows? Furthermore, it seems that two different sets of GPUs were used here. Additionally, KaMIS has a heuristic solver specifically for the weighted MIS problem (See [12]).\", \"How scalable is the proposed solver? For example, can GuideCO solve the TSP instances in [9]? Or the larger graphs reported in Table 3 of LwD [10]?\", \"Run-time (in this case inference run-time) results are not reported for the TSP problem (Tables 2, 3, and 4).\", \"### Minor Comments/Questions:\", \"Is there reason why GuideCO with $\\\\gamma=0$ not reported in the MIS table (like was done for the TSP tables)?\", \"How sensitive is training the DM to the value of $p$?\", \"I is undefined in (1).\", \"To seek in line 181.\", \"Missing comas in line 212. It should be i = 1,...,n-1.\", \"\\\"In pracThe\\\" in line 227\", \"In line 248, is $E^x_{1:T}$ a set or a sequence?\", \"Shouldn't there be a transpose for $\\\\bar{Q}_{t-1}$ in (5)? Also, $\\\\odot$ is not defined until the subsequent subsubsection.\", \"### References:\", \"[1] UNSUPERVISED LEARNING FOR COMBINATORIAL OPTIMIZATION NEEDS META LEARNING\", \"[2] Combinatorial Optimization with Physics-Inspired Graph Neural Networks\", \"[3] A differentiable approach to the maximum independent set problem using dataless neural networks\", \"[4] T2T: From Distribution Learning in Training to Gradient Search in Testing for Combinatorial Optimization\", \"[5] OptCM: The Optimization Consistency Models for Solving Combinatorial Problems in Few Shots\", \"[6] Finding near-optimal independent sets at scale\", \"[7] Fast local search for the maximum independent set problem\", \"[8] Dataless Quadratic Neural Networks for the Maximum Independent Set Problem\", \"[9] Solving the Large-Scale TSP Problem in 1 h: Santa Claus Challenge 2020\", \"[10] Learning What to Defer for Maximum Independent Sets\", \"[11] A simple algorithm to optimize maximum independent set (Advanced Modeling and Optimization 2010).\", \"[12] Finding Near-Optimal Weight Independent Sets at Scale (https://arxiv.org/pdf/2208.13645)\", \"[13] Google, Inc. Google or-tools. 2022. URL https://developers.google.com/optimization.\"], \"flag_for_ethics_review\": \"['No ethics review needed.']\", \"details_of_ethics_concerns\": \"N/A\", \"rating\": \"3\", \"confidence\": \"5\", \"code_of_conduct\": \"Yes\"}" ] }

[ "Cooper Lorsung", "Amir Barati Farimani" ]

[ "Multimodal", "Partial Differential Equation", "Neural Operator" ]

{ "note_id": [ "Sr2R9M4ZDg", "PAhhHeXPjG", "MrRiDOfEa4", "8FWw1CtlNE", "6nAvJzkBsW" ], "note_type": [ "comment", "official_review", "official_review", "official_review", "official_review" ], "note_created": [ 1732563891203, 1730077872595, 1729787117619, 1730369204513, 1730717394005 ], "note_signatures": [ [ "ICLR.cc/2025/Conference/Submission12193/Authors" ], [ "ICLR.cc/2025/Conference/Submission12193/Reviewer_sKQv" ], [ "ICLR.cc/2025/Conference/Submission12193/Reviewer_E1kX" ], [ "ICLR.cc/2025/Conference/Submission12193/Reviewer_5NvZ" ], [ "ICLR.cc/2025/Conference/Submission12193/Reviewer_dkhU" ] ], "structured_content_str": [ "{\"withdrawal_confirmation\": \"I have read and agree with the venue's withdrawal policy on behalf of myself and my co-authors.\", \"comment\": \"After careful consideration, we have decided to withdraw the paper. Thank you to the reviewers who took time to carefully review our submission. The comments offer good suggestions for ways to improve this work going forward.\"}", "{\"summary\": \"This work introduces a multimodal framework for solving partial differential equations by embedding numerical data with FactFormer and encoding textual information (such as governing equations, boundary conditions, or coefficient information) through a pre-trained language model. The framework employs a cross-attention module to fuse embeddings from both modalities, facilitating the integration of system information into the numerical surrogate model. The authors provide several numerical experiments to validate the performance of the proposed method.\", \"soundness\": \"1\", \"presentation\": \"2\", \"contribution\": \"1\", \"strengths\": \"The paper tackles the integration of textual and numerical data within PDE surrogate models. By using a cross-attention module to combine FactFormer\\u2019s numerical embeddings with language model embeddings of system information, the framework provides a structured approach to incorporate diverse sources of information. The experiments demonstrate improvements in next-step prediction and autoregressive rollout tasks, showing the potential of multimodal frameworks for PDE applications.\", \"weaknesses\": \"1. The approach does not compare with existing state-of-the-art methods for solving PDEs, such as the Fourier Neural Operator and DeepONet. Additionally, numerous transformer-based methods have been developed for PDEs, but these are not referenced or compared here.\\n2. Multimodal models for solving PDEs already exist. For instance, the Unified PDE Solver (https://arxiv.org/abs/2403.07187) leverages both numerical and textual embeddings to solve PDEs. The lack of a direct comparison with existing models makes it challenging to assess the effectiveness of the proposed method over prior multimodal approaches.\\n3. The testing data includes only five relatively simple PDEs, which restricts the evaluation of the model\\u2019s capabilities. The paper would benefit from testing on more complex PDE data, such as those in the PDEBench, PDEArena, or CFDBench datasets, to better validate its performance and generalizability.\\n4. There are other multimodal approaches (numerical and textual data) that solve differential equations, such as FMint (https://arxiv.org/abs/2404.14688) and PROSE-FD (https://www.arxiv.org/abs/2409.09811). A discussion of such related work would enhance the impact of this paper\\u2019s contributions.\", \"questions\": \"Please see weaknesses.\", \"flag_for_ethics_review\": \"['No ethics review needed.']\", \"rating\": \"3\", \"confidence\": \"5\", \"code_of_conduct\": \"Yes\"}", "{\"summary\": \"This paper proposes leveraging a large language model (LLM) to incorporate multimodal information in training a machine learning (ML) surrogate model for partial differential equations (PDEs). Unlike prior studies that provided only brief or limited text descriptions of the target system, the authors argue that a more comprehensive text description enhances model performance. Their claims are partially supported by experimental results on various 2D datasets.\", \"soundness\": \"2\", \"presentation\": \"2\", \"contribution\": \"2\", \"strengths\": \"S1: The paper attempts to include more detailed text descriptions of the target system compared to previous work, such as PDE parameters, PDE descriptions, and boundary conditions.\", \"s2\": \"The effectiveness of the comprehensive text descriptions is at least partially validated by experimental results.\", \"weaknesses\": \"Major Concerns: The following issues should be addressed before acceptance:\\n\\nW1. $\\\\textbf{The parameter ranges used to generate data may not be adequately described for the chosen resolution.}$ The authors employ relatively small diffusion-type coefficients for the heat equation and Navier\\u2013Stokes equation, even at a low resolution of 64x64. Generally, numerical viscosity is estimated using the system's Reynolds number, and the resolution should exceed the Reynolds number to accurately capture physical viscosity or diffusion coefficients. Based on this principle, the chosen viscosity and diffusion coefficients are too small for the current resolution, meaning the generated data may reflect numerical rather than physical viscosity. The authors should provide a convergence check results for all the generated data (or at least small dissipation coefficient regime) to ensure that the generated data are resolution-independent and properly reflect the used PDE parameters.\\n\\nW2. $\\\\textbf{The analysis of the impact of the text descriptions is insufficient.}$ According to Appendix A, only one type of sentence description was explored. This makes it difficult to assess the contribution of the text description, which is a key claim of the paper. A more systematic investigation of how the detailed system descriptions affect the model's performance is needed, such as testing different sentence formats, identifying important words, and exploring how shorter or longer descriptions influence outcomes.\\n\\nW3. $\\\\textbf{A more systematic ablation study is needed.}$ Related to W2, the ablation study (Section 5.4) lacks depth in analyzing sentence descriptions. While Table 2 offers interesting information (e.g., BCQ is ineffective in most cases), the authors provide only a brief discussion (one sentence). A more thorough analysis of this part would strengthen the paper's impact and rigor.\", \"minor_concerns\": \"The following are suggestions for improvement:\\n\\nW4. It would be beneficial to include another backbone model. Currently, only FactFormer is used, and it is unclear whether the results are specific to this architecture. Testing with different backbones would allow for a more general analysis.\\n\\nW5. FactFormer is not a conditional model and does not accept PDE parameters, which weakens the baseline comparison with the proposed model. A more convincing evaluation would include comparisons with recent models, such as UPS or a conditional model like the Neural PDE Solver (Brandstetter et al., 2022).\\n\\nW6. Internal author comments (e.g., at line 165 [height] and line 444 [analyze further?]) remain in the manuscript. These should be removed before submission.\\n\\nW7. In the introduction, the final sentence of the first paragraph lacks citation and the term \\\"optimally\\\" is unclear. Additionally, in the second paragraph, it is unclear if the phrase \\\"these models\\\" includes physics-informed neural networks (PINNs), which are not data-driven models. The authors should refine the English and provide appropriate citations.\", \"questions\": \"Q1. Figure 3: Why does BCQ information not work for the Navier\\u2013Stokes case? Does performance change with different text descriptions? It is also unclear why the more challenging autoregressive case in Table 1 does not follow the trend seen in Figure 1 (BCQ improved performance in the Navier\\u2013Stokes case in Table 1, which is difficult to reconcile with the present explanation).\\n\\nQ2. Figure 6: How do the authors conclude that the embedding of \\\"Equation + BCQ\\\" is superior to \\\"Equation\\\" alone based on this figure? The distribution of different equation embeddings appears uniform, which could confuse downstream task layers.\\n\\nQ3. Section 5: The definition of \\\"transfer learning\\\" is missing in the main body. It would be helpful to include a brief explanation of what was done for transfer learning in the main body.\\n\\nQ4. Page 3, line 159 (Sec 3.1): What is meant by \\\"2 seconds\\\"? Does this refer to physical time or computational time unit? If the former, why is 2 seconds considered a meaningful timescale?\\n\\nFor additional comments, please refer to the \\\"Weaknesses\\\" section.\", \"flag_for_ethics_review\": \"['No ethics review needed.']\", \"rating\": \"3\", \"confidence\": \"4\", \"code_of_conduct\": \"Yes\"}", "{\"summary\": \"This submission follows the line of work on neural-network-based surrogate models. The proposal is a technique for enhancing neural PDE solvers with large language models, called a \\\"multimodal surrogate model\\\".\\nConcretely, the algorithm goes as follows: the LLM is prompted with a textual description of the PDE and generates embeddings. These embeddings are combined with the data (via cross-attention) and a FactFormer architecture.\\n\\nThe driving question for assessing this new method is now whether or not the LLM-generated embeddings improve the reconstruction, compared to (i) a \\\"raw\\\" FactFormer and (ii) existing methods for combining LLMs and neural PDE solvers.\", \"soundness\": \"2\", \"presentation\": \"1\", \"contribution\": \"1\", \"strengths\": \"The submission's biggest strength is that the LLM embeddings consistently improve the reconstruction compared to the FactFormer without LLM augmentation. For example, Figure 3 and Table 1 demonstrate how the LLM-generated embeddings improve the reconstruction error for both next-step prediction and autoregressive rollout compared to the FactFormer.\\nIn other words, point (i) from my summary above is answered with a strong \\\"yes\\\".\\n\\nHowever, the answer to point (ii) is less clear. I discuss this under \\\"Weaknesses\\\" below.\", \"weaknesses\": \"The submission's strength is that the algorithm improves the reconstruction compared to a FactFormer. However, I consider the following weakness to be significant enough so that I recommend rejection:\\n\\nEven though the idea of combining LLMs with PDE solvers has not been explored much in the literature, it is not new; for example, Shen et al. (2024) proposed something similar to the submitted manuscript.\\nI find that the main weakness of the submission is that it does not compare thoroughly to Shen et al.'s (2024) work on \\\"Universal Physics Solver\\\" (UPS). \\nThe only mention of UPS is in Line 044 on page 1; however, I believe that a thorough discussion in Section 2 and direct comparisons in all experiments is essential to assessing the performance of the suggested algorithm.\\nOther related works are also not discussed prominently enough, like Zhou et al.'s (2024) Unisolver, but the lack of discussion of UPS stood out the most.\\nSimilarly, the context of other state-of-the-art surrogate models, e.g., the Fourier Neural Operator, would be helpful for the experiments but is omitted in the submission. \\n\\nIn other words, the comparison to the FactFormer is relevant, but more baselines are needed. Concretely, I would like to see methods similar to those reported by Takamoto et al. (2023b) or Shen et al. (2024). Without benchmarks involving those algorithms, I cannot recommend acceptance. \\n\\nTo change my mind, I would have to be convinced that I misunderstood something in that UPS or Unisolver did something fundamentally different to the submission and that neural operators and other neural-network-based surrogate models are not meaningful comparisons. Another way to change my assessment would be to run these benchmarks with a competitive performance of the submitted algorithm. I suspect that re-running the benchmarks thoroughly using all these new baselines is too much work for a revision period. However, I am looking forward to possibly being proven wrong.\", \"questions\": [\"Sometimes, I find the presentation a bit difficult to follow. For example, Section 4.2 is difficult to contextualise to prior work: how much of Section 4.2 is the FactFormer, and how much is new? The section might be easier to read if it came with a figure or an algorithm box. However, since this stylistic point is subjective (and would be relatively easy to fix if the authors agree with me), it is less relevant to my acceptance/rejection decision than the weakness outlined above.\", \"If time and rebuttal space allow, I would also like to see the answers to the following questions.\", \"They are less critical for my recommendation than everything written above, but I think their answers might improve the paper's clarity.\", \"Why are there no whitespaces before all \\\\citep's? E.g. Lines 041f\", \"Figure 1: Is it on purpose that data input and data output are identical?\", \"Line 074: To me, it is not apparent whether more instances of PDE problems make the dataset harder or easier. What is the motivation for this statement?\", \"Figure 3: What does the figure look like with a logarithmic y-axis?\", \"Line 307: Are three random seeds sufficient? There seems to be significant variation in Figure 3.\", \"Line 304: Is the autoregressive rollout error MSE normalised in any way? The accumulated RMSEs are surprisingly large. Related:\", \"Table 1: Why is the 10^2 removed from the table values? It simply shifts the comma by two digits, and it seems that no digits are saved.\", \"Table 1 (again): Since the MSEs are so large, can we say anything's been learned reliably? It would be interesting to see plots of the predicted PDE solutions (for a test data point, for example, using all involved methods).\", \"Line 345: Where do these percentages come from? I might be missing something obvious, but I struggle to link them to the values in Tabe 1.\"], \"flag_for_ethics_review\": \"['No ethics review needed.']\", \"rating\": \"3\", \"confidence\": \"3\", \"code_of_conduct\": \"Yes\"}", "{\"summary\": \"Solving PDEs is crucial in science and engineering, yet high computational demands have driven the adoption of machine learning for faster solutions. Traditional methods lack system-specific information, but recent LLMs allow text-based data integration. This study uses pretrained LLMs to embed system information into PDE learning, outperforming the FactFormer baseline in predictive tasks across multiple equations. Analysis shows that pretrained LLMs create structured latent spaces aligned with system data.\", \"soundness\": \"3\", \"presentation\": \"3\", \"contribution\": \"2\", \"strengths\": \"Completed work: The article is well-written, with clear explanations that make the complex material accessible. The charts and visuals used effectively enhance the presentation, making the findings easy to follow and engaging.\", \"well_organized_structure\": \"The paper is structured thoughtfully, particularly in the methodology section. The clear separation of system descriptions and model details adds clarity, as does the organization of the experimental setup, which is presented in four different experiment setting clearly.\", \"sufficient_experiments\": \"The experiments are extensive and thorough, as sufficient support for the method.\", \"weaknesses\": \"Data generation graph: It would be helpful to clarify why the data generation section appears so early in the paper. Explaining the rationale behind its positioning could improve readability and guide the reader through the study\\u2019s flow.\", \"mathematical_support\": \"The paper only illustrates the method part in section 4.2 which makes it hard for me to understand the whole theory behind the proposed method. More detailed mathematical backing could provide readers with a deeper understanding of the methods and strengthen the study\\u2019s credibility.\", \"notation_formatting\": \"There are some inconsistencies and minor errors in notation and formatting that could be polished. For example,\\n\\n(1) In line 184, the notation $256x256$ is represented as character \\\"$x$\\\" which looks not professional. Instead, it should be $256\\\\times256$. \\n\\n(2) The text descriptions in Section 4.1 are middle, where I think left-aligned might enhance readability. \\n\\n(3) In line 250 has a typo where \\u201cleaning\\u201d should be \\u201clearning.\\u201d\", \"experiment_labeling\": \"In the experiment section, it would be clearer if your method were explicitly labeled with \\\"Ours\\\", making it easier for readers to identify and interpret the results related to your approach.\", \"questions\": \"In line 52, the author claims that \\u201cwe aim to more fully utilize LLM understanding in PDE surrogate modeling and incorporate text information into neural operators.\\u201d suggests a comprehensive integration of LLM capabilities in PDE modeling. However, based on my understanding, the role of the LLM is limited to converting text descriptions into embeddings. How this step \\\"fully utilized LLM\\\"? I may ask for more illustrations about that.\\n\\nIn section 4, The paper gives an example of \\\"full sentence descriptions of systems\\\" for Burger's equation, then what about not \\\"full description\\u201d within this context? How would the model handle cases where only partial or incomplete information is available for an equation?\", \"flag_for_ethics_review\": \"['No ethics review needed.']\", \"rating\": \"5\", \"confidence\": \"2\", \"code_of_conduct\": \"Yes\"}" ] }

[ "Putra Manggala", "Atalanti A. Mastakouri", "Elke Kirschbaum", "Shiva Kasiviswanathan", "Aaditya Ramdas" ]

[ "Calibration", "Language Models" ]

{ "note_id": [ "kc4bQsxkv3", "gTE7JO1mRY", "QLzY1ASBN2", "Mo8bWF7B52", "Az83Kg7tcN", "9MwjgZ2cha", "5TKbepfGgu" ], "note_type": [ "official_comment", "official_review", "decision", "official_review", "meta_review", "official_review", "official_review" ], "note_created": [ 1732781507974, 1730671132513, 1737524030701, 1731032199719, 1734963617868, 1731132645424, 1730693733875 ], "note_signatures": [ [ "ICLR.cc/2025/Conference/Submission10170/Reviewer_snQU" ], [ "ICLR.cc/2025/Conference/Submission10170/Reviewer_iAXj" ], [ "ICLR.cc/2025/Conference/Program_Chairs" ], [ "ICLR.cc/2025/Conference/Submission10170/Reviewer_cg5J" ], [ "ICLR.cc/2025/Conference/Submission10170/Area_Chair_rpPG" ], [ "ICLR.cc/2025/Conference/Submission10170/Reviewer_snQU" ], [ "ICLR.cc/2025/Conference/Submission10170/Reviewer_YLZ3" ] ], "structured_content_str": [ "{\"title\": \"Thanks for the response\", \"comment\": \"Thank you for the detailed response, which has addressed most of my concerns. I appreciate the effort put into clarifying the points I raised. However, I would like to offer two additional suggestions to further enhance the paper. While I do not expect the authors to address these during the rebuttal period, I hope they can be incorporated into the final version if the paper is accepted.\\n\\n1. **Alternative Partitioning Strategies**: While the current focus on semantic similarity is valid, I believe exploring alternative partitioning strategies instead of different embedding models, such as domain-based, event-based, topic-based, or difficulty-based partitions, could provide valuable insights. These approaches, based on entirely different logics from semantic similarity, may better align with real-world applications. I recommend including a discussion on the potential relevance of these partitions, how they might integrate with the proposed framework (or why they might not), and whether they could influence the framework\\u2019s effectiveness. Ideally, one experiment using a partitioning logic entirely distinct from semantic similarity would further strengthen the paper. \\n2. **Partition-Based Metric Analysis**: While I understand that the number of partitions might be large, it would be helpful to present a partition-based metric, such as the percentage of partitions that show significant improvement, no improvement, or degradation. This would provide readers with a clearer understanding of whether the proposed method improves most partitions or primarily benefits a few, potentially at the expense of others. Such an analysis would offer a more nuanced view of the method\\u2019s overall impact, ensuring it aligns with practical expectations.\\n\\nThe points I raised are more of a bonus for consideration. Given that the current version already feels complete and addresses my primary concerns, I have raised my score accordingly. Happy Thanksgiving!\"}", "{\"summary\": \"The paper introduces a stronger form of calibration which requires that subgroups also be calibrated. It then presents a set of techniques for achieving this form of calibration, first by binning *within* the subgroups and then introducing two improvements: scaling by replacing the labels with predicted labels during the calibration step (s-beta-binning) and then replacing the predictor with a hierarchical classifier to get pooling across groups.\\n\\nThe main theoretical result is that these methods can achieve bounded calibration error with high probability, using a bound in which the error rate grows as $O(\\\\log b / (2b - 1))$ with $b$ equal to the number of bins. \\n\\nEmpirically, these techniques improve calibration error over reasonable baselines on a suite of five question answering tasks; they sometimes improve selection prediction as well.\", \"soundness\": \"4\", \"presentation\": \"3\", \"contribution\": \"3\", \"strengths\": \"This is a solid contribution that offers a novel and useful new perspective on post-hoc calibration. The methods are well motivated and extend prior work in sensible but interesting ways, which will likely be of interest to other researchers working on calibration. The exposition is unusually clear and theoretical results are helpful.\", \"weaknesses\": \"The empirical results may not be strong enough to motivate adoption by practitioners -- while the method outperforms baselines in table 2, over the full suite of tasks the selective prediction performance is often worse than or statistically indistinguishable from elicited confidence scores (tables 6 & 7).\\n\\nA related point from the practitioner's perspective is that the utility of beta-calibration seems to depend on the meaningfulness of the groups -- if the questions really are partitioned by users as suggested by figure 1, then these stronger guarantees seem crucial; but if the groups are not intuitively meaningful then it's not clear why a practitioner would be motivated to pursue these stronger guarantees.\", \"questions\": \"While the paper is focused on language model confidence and generative QA, is there anything in the method that is specific to this application? It seems like it could be applied to any prediction task over examples that can be partitioned by a KD tree in which recalibration might be required.\\n\\nSo I would love to know more about (a) which examples end up in which bins in these datasets; (b) the relationship between recalibrated confidence scores with and without beta-binning (e.g. something like a scatterplot of confidence scores with \\\"B\\\" vs \\\"BB\\\").\", \"flag_for_ethics_review\": \"['No ethics review needed.']\", \"rating\": \"8\", \"confidence\": \"3\", \"code_of_conduct\": \"Yes\"}", "{\"title\": \"Paper Decision\", \"decision\": \"Accept (Poster)\"}", "{\"summary\": \"This work presents a beta calibration error, a calibration metric which partitioning the test set and computing calibration error over each partition individually. Partitioning is done based on sentence representations from a pretrained LM. The authors then present methods for post-hoc calibrating existing confidence estimates from an LM. Their approach involves partitioning training data using the same partitioning function as is used during evaluation and fitting calibrators for each partition.\", \"soundness\": \"2\", \"presentation\": \"3\", \"contribution\": \"2\", \"strengths\": \"This work defines a generalization of calibration error metrics.\\n\\nThe work introduces methods for optimizing for their proposed calibration metric and theoretical results backing up their methods.\", \"weaknesses\": \"W1. One concern with its work is a possible mischaracterization of how expected calibration error (ECE) is used to evaluate calibration. In the toy example in Table 1, the authors note that standard calibration error is 0; however, the often used ECE metric (from [1]) involves binning examples during test time by sorting and partitioning examples based on their predicted confidence. In the Toy example in Figure 1, ECE (with 2 bins) and beta-calibration are equivalent. While Beta-Calibration can be framed as a generalization of the standard ECE binning method, it's unclear why it's better motivated or more useful.\\n\\n[1] Obtaining Well Calibrated Probabilities Using Bayesian Binning\\nMahdi Pakdaman Naeini, Gregory F. Cooper, Milos Hauskrecht\\n\\nW2. Following up on point 1, while it can make sense to introduce alternative binning when computing ECE, by using different beta-calibration functions, it is not made clear why the proposed binning method is inherently better and why methods should be optimized for the specific binning function used during evaluation.\\n\\nW3. Another weakness is in using only one base calibration method. Furthermore, while the authors use verbalized confidence scores as their base confidence scores, citing them as a SOTA method, it's unclear whether this is true for the scale of model evaluated in this work (side note, work also lacks core modeling details like the size of pretrained LMs evaluated and whether they use instruction-tuned variants).\", \"questions\": \"As an additional note MCE (noted in related work) was also introduced by [1]. Frequently used metrics like AUROC and other metrics should be also included in related work and discussed, many are summarized by [2].\\n\\n[2] Plex: Towards Reliability using Pretrained Large Model Extensions\\nDustin Tran, Jeremiah Liu, Michael W. Dusenberry, Du Phan, Mark Collier, Jie Ren, Kehang Han, Zi Wang, Zelda Mariet, Huiyi Hu, Neil Band, Tim G. J. Rudner, Karan Singhal, Zachary Nado, Joost van Amersfoort, Andreas Kirsch, Rodolphe Jenatton, Nithum Thain, Honglin Yuan, Kelly Buchanan, Kevin Murphy, D. Sculley, Yarin Gal, Zoubin Ghahramani, Jasper Snoek, Balaji Lakshminarayanan\", \"flag_for_ethics_review\": \"['No ethics review needed.']\", \"rating\": \"5\", \"confidence\": \"4\", \"code_of_conduct\": \"Yes\"}", "{\"metareview\": \"This paper introduces the concept of beta-calibration, a novel framework for calibrating confidence scores across user-defined subgroups in generative QA tasks. The paper proposes post-hoc calibration methods, scaling-beta-binning (S-BB) and hierarchical scaling beta-binning (HS-BB), which are theoretically supported with distribution-free guarantees. The empirical evaluation demonstrates the methods' efficacy across several QA datasets.\\n\\n*Strengths*: \\n-Novelty: The concept of \\u03b2-calibration provides an extension of standard calibration metrics, allowing for subgroup-specific evaluation that aligns with practical applications. \\n-Theoretical results: The paper provides distribution-free guarantees for the proposed methods/ \\n-Empirical results: Comprehensive experiments demonstrate the methods' effectiveness across various datasets, models, and metrics, including selective QA. \\n-The selective QA metric provides some insight into the practical benefit of improved calibration. \\n-Clarity: The paper is well-written and logically structured, with clear mathematical formulations and notations.\\n\\n*Weaknesses*: \\n-Limited exploration of partitioning strategies and the approach being limited to smaller/older models (snQU, iAXj, YLZ3) \\n-Limited analysis \\n-Evaluation using a metric tied to the proposed framework \\n-The approach assumes access oracle\\n\\nOverall, the author response seems to address all the major concerns, and the paper makes strong contributions on post-hoc calibration with a novel perspective.\", \"additional_comments_on_reviewer_discussion\": \"The major concern was about generalizability of results. To address this the author response provides additional experiments with XLNet embeddings and k-means binning to demonstrate the framework's generalizability beyond DistilBERT. The response also includes additional experiments to address remaining concerns. Examples:\\n-Including results on Isotonic regression \\n-Experiments simulating weaker oracles showed the framework's robustness even with noisy or imperfect calibration targets.\"}", "{\"summary\": \"The paper introduces a novel concept called $\\\\beta$-calibration, which calculates calibration errors across various QA groups to enhance user decision-making. It then proposes post-hoc calibration techniques specifically tailored for $\\\\beta$-calibration, establishing guarantees without additional assumptions. Experimental results highlight the effectiveness of $\\\\beta$-calibration across a range of tasks and models, demonstrating improvements in calibration performance.\", \"soundness\": \"3\", \"presentation\": \"3\", \"contribution\": \"3\", \"strengths\": \"1. The problem of calibration dependency on the dataset is highly significant. The QA pairs in different subsets can exhibit vastly different subset calibration errors, affecting the user's experience. To the best of my knowledge, this is the first paper to identify and directly address this issue. While the proposed methods are relatively straightforward adaptations of existing approaches, they represent an essential first step in tackling this problem. Although initial, this approach is an important contribution.\\n2. The paper is well-structured and easy to follow. Notations are defined with clarity and rigor, enhancing overall comprehension.\\n3. The experiments are thoughtfully designed, evaluating not only calibration error but also the utility of $\\\\beta$-calibration in selective answering, demonstrating that the model is both calibrated and practically useful. Experiments are conducted across diverse models and tasks, with results showing significant improvements over baseline methods. Additionally, the inclusion of rigorously proven distribution-free guarantees completes the study.\", \"weaknesses\": \"1. **Generalizability of $\\\\beta$:** The paper is motivated by the idea that users may have specific interests in different groups of QAs, necessitating calibration that is tailored to user needs. However,\\n- The paper demonstrates the method\\u2019s effectiveness using only one type of $\\\\beta$ (partitioning based on DistillBERT embeddings), leaving it unclear how well these methods generalize to other partitioning strategies. Showing results with other partitioning methods or justifying this choice\\u2019s relevance to user interests would strengthen the paper. \\n- The framework assumes each question belongs exclusively to one group. However, in real-world scenarios, a single question could naturally align with multiple groups, as users with differing interests may ask the same question. It is unclear how the framework would function under this condition. Discussing this limitation or proposing a solution for handling questions that span multiple user-interest groups would enhance the paper\\u2019s practical value.\\n2. **Method Choice Motivation:** The framework, which partitions then calibrates each subset, could work with various post-hoc methods (e.g., isotonic regression, Platt scaling), yet only binning is tested. Including experiments to test the framework with different post-hoc strategies or discuss the reasons for this choice could strengthen the paper by demonstrating its generalizability. Additionally, it is unclear why isotonic regression\\u2014a common baseline\\u2014is excluded.\\n3. **Limited Result Analysis:** While partition-specific calibration errors are a focus, results are only reported on average. Reporting variance across partitions, or providing results for each partition in an additional table, along with identifying and discussing those showing the most improvement, would offer valuable insights.\", \"questions\": \"1. In Equation (5), how are the fixed and random intercepts/slopes calculated separately? It appears possible to compute an intercept-slope pair for each partition, so how do you differentiate between fixed and random components? Additionally, how does this approach differ from simply calculating an intercept-slope pair for each partition?\\n2. What value of $\\\\alpha$ was used when plotting Figure 2 and how is that chosen?\\n3. When calculating calibration error, how are the bins constructed? Do you use the same binning strategy as the binning method in the paper, or is a fixed-width re-binning applied?\\n4. How tight is the bound compared with the actual results? How does the bound informs the selection of hyper-parameter? It seems like the choice of B follows prior work rather than leveraging the newly calculated bound.\\n\\nOverall, I think this is a good paper. I\\u2019m open to raising the score if my concerns are addressed.\", \"flag_for_ethics_review\": \"['No ethics review needed.']\", \"rating\": \"8\", \"confidence\": \"3\", \"code_of_conduct\": \"Yes\"}", "{\"summary\": \"This paper deals with post-hoc calibration of \\u201cverbalized\\u201d confidences from LLMs, which are typically not well-calibrated out-of-the-box. The paper uses as a subroutine, uniform-mass double-dipping histogram binning (UMD) (Gupta & Ramdas, 2021) to perform this post-hoc calibration. A further scaling version is explored in S3.2 based on the scaling procedure from Kumar et al. (2019). The proposed approach is compared to existing (general purpose) post-hoc calibration methods on standard QA benchmarks.\", \"soundness\": \"3\", \"presentation\": \"2\", \"contribution\": \"3\", \"strengths\": [\"The paper tackles an important problem (LLM confidence estimation)\", \"The approach is validated on 5 different QA datasets.\", \"The \\u201cselective\\u201d QA metric provides some insight into the practical benefit of improved calibration.\"], \"weaknesses\": [\"The approach assumes access to an \\u201coracle\\u201d to measure semantic equivalence between a predicted and reference answer. I\\u2019m not sure if Llama-3.1 is such an oracle, unless perhaps it has memorized the QA datasets in question, which raises some other concerns.\", \"The approach requires dataset-specific calibration sets. I\\u2019m not sure if it\\u2019s fair to compare to baselines such as out-of-the-box prompts that don\\u2019t use this information. It\\u2019s also a bit of a limitation since it presumably makes it difficult (impossible) to apply the proposed approach to novel problems.\", \"Overall, the approach seems to largely be an application of existing methods to post-hoc calibration of a particular QA problem with LLMs. The adaptation to LLMs does not appear to involve any significant technical innovations.\", \"The paper evaluates the results using the very calibration metric that is optimised by the proposed method. This is fraught and it\\u2019s unclear why further calibration metrics (such as one or more variations of ECE, Brier score, etc.) are not also reported.\", \"The approach relies on a smaller/older model DistilBERT which seems like a key limitation.\", \"While there is a short paragraph addressing the limitation of choosing \\\\Beta, I would have liked to see further more in-depth discussion of the limitations of the paper.\"], \"questions\": [\"Why not include additional metrics such as ECE and Brier score?\"], \"flag_for_ethics_review\": \"['No ethics review needed.']\", \"rating\": \"6\", \"confidence\": \"5\", \"code_of_conduct\": \"Yes\"}" ] }

[ "Songhua Liu", "Weihao Yu", "Zhenxiong Tan", "Xinchao Wang" ]

[ "Linear Attention", "Diffusion Models", "Image Generation" ]

{ "note_id": [ "pGBYUwPPLX", "p2Bl3L6NYN", "k0COB8nQl7", "jC5OmCt54I", "fm8d1c6Nr5", "dcvfVPbWYF", "aJdirdgR7V", "ZmMC7NYA9L", "XQd47luiIa", "WtNIG4740c", "V6k1luvlxy", "Tc3dREwIzS", "OSiJRn5ek4", "MV7V8JRgtr", "IzQf36fIkh", "IPFEzX5h7S", "FpNOGxgK2X", "D0DiutyGtZ", "8WOr80DgFb", "6zSH1j17tY", "2b4c0VXRSp", "0UfEMJiYbi" ], "note_type": [ "official_comment", "official_comment", "official_comment", "official_comment", "official_comment", "official_comment", "official_comment", "official_comment", "official_comment", "official_comment", "decision", "official_comment", "official_comment", "official_review", "official_comment", "official_review", "official_comment", "official_review", "official_review", "meta_review", "official_comment", "official_comment" ], "note_created": [ 1732869974779, 1732764334932, 1732699952916, 1732795173992, 1733196698539, 1732699985818, 1732795130922, 1732795108921, 1733118184712, 1732700034304, 1737523457756, 1732700079851, 1733117987817, 1729928627249, 1732795192446, 1729775901292, 1732700110077, 1730645687218, 1730702439593, 1734402761273, 1733063884442, 1733118316017 ], "note_signatures": [ [ "ICLR.cc/2025/Conference/Submission1552/Reviewer_s1Gn" ], [ "ICLR.cc/2025/Conference/Submission1552/Reviewer_cB7B" ], [ "ICLR.cc/2025/Conference/Submission1552/Authors" ], [ "ICLR.cc/2025/Conference/Submission1552/Authors" ], [ "ICLR.cc/2025/Conference/Submission1552/Authors" ], [ "ICLR.cc/2025/Conference/Submission1552/Authors" ], [ "ICLR.cc/2025/Conference/Submission1552/Authors" ], [ "ICLR.cc/2025/Conference/Submission1552/Authors" ], [ "ICLR.cc/2025/Conference/Submission1552/Authors" ], [ "ICLR.cc/2025/Conference/Submission1552/Authors" ], [ "ICLR.cc/2025/Conference/Program_Chairs" ], [ "ICLR.cc/2025/Conference/Submission1552/Authors" ], [ "ICLR.cc/2025/Conference/Submission1552/Authors" ], [ "ICLR.cc/2025/Conference/Submission1552/Reviewer_cB7B" ], [ "ICLR.cc/2025/Conference/Submission1552/Authors" ], [ "ICLR.cc/2025/Conference/Submission1552/Reviewer_uBFm" ], [ "ICLR.cc/2025/Conference/Submission1552/Authors" ], [ "ICLR.cc/2025/Conference/Submission1552/Reviewer_WZLt" ], [ "ICLR.cc/2025/Conference/Submission1552/Reviewer_s1Gn" ], [ "ICLR.cc/2025/Conference/Submission1552/Area_Chair_YwAd" ], [ "ICLR.cc/2025/Conference/Submission1552/Reviewer_uBFm" ], [ "ICLR.cc/2025/Conference/Submission1552/Authors" ] ], "structured_content_str": [ "{\"comment\": \"Thanks for the detailed response and the updates on the revised version, which have addressed my concerns. I have no more questions at this stage and will increase my score to 6.\"}", "{\"comment\": \"Thanks for the detailed response and additional experiments, which have addressed my concerns. I decide to keep my score.\"}", "{\"title\": \"Response to Reviewer s1Gn (Part 1)\", \"comment\": \"We would like to express our sincere gratitude to Reviewer s1Gn for the insightful comments and feel glad that the reviewer finds our motivation well-founded, experiments supportive, and writing fluent. We would like to address the reviewer's concerns and questions as below.\\n\\n* > The comparisons are conducted only during the sampling stage. Since the proposed LinFusion module may also provide similar benefits during training, are there any metrics available for this stage?\\n\\n Thanks for the insightful point regarding the training efficiency. In fact, since our main method is using a self-attention-based teacher network to guide the linear-attention-based student, the training speed, in this default setting, is not distinctive. After all, the forward time for the teacher network is non-neglectable.\\n\\n However, if we do not apply this distillation paradigm and follow the standard fashion of training diffusion models, there are indeed similar advantages on the training speed for LinFusion, especially when training at higher resolutions. The following table shows the backward time for a single attention layer of SD-v1.5 at various resolutions. Evaluation is conducted on a single RTX6000Ada GPU.\\n\\n | Resolution | LinFusion | SD-v1.5 |\\n | :--------------: | :-------: | :-----: |\\n | $512\\\\times512$ | 0.065 | 0.042 |\\n | $1024\\\\times1024$ | 0.074 | 0.212 |\\n | $2048\\\\times2048$ | 0.314 | 2.028 |\\n | $4096\\\\times4096$ | 1.192 | 28.565 |\\n | $8192\\\\times8192$ | 4.723 | 747.047 |\\n\\n* > Related to the previous point, the paper includes only fine-tuning experiments. It would be valuable to investigate whether training a diffusion model from scratch with LinFusion replacing self-attention results in any performance drop. If so, what is the extent of this drop? Experiments on a class-conditional image generation task would be informative, even without a large-scale text-to-image model.\\n\\n We would like to thank the reviewer for the valuable suggestion on training from scratch and are definitely willing to explore the performance in this case. Specifically, we adopt SiT [a] as a base model and replace the self-attention layers with the proposed LinFusion layers. We train and evaluate models on the widely adopted ImageNet 256x256 benchmark. As shown in the following results, the overall performances are at least compable, demonstrating the potential of the proposed linear attention method.\\n\\n | Method | IS | FID | sFID | Precision | Recall |\\n | :-------: | :--------: | :------: | :------: | :-------: | :------: |\\n | SiT | 146.56 | 8.15 | **5.65** | 0.72 | 0.58 |\\n | LinFusion | **157.16** | **7.09** | 5.75 | **0.73** | **0.59** |\\n\\n* > The memory and efficiency comparisons primarily utilize PyTorch 1.13, which does not incorporate memory-efficient methods like flash-attention or flash-attention v2. How significant is the difference in memory consumption and sampling efficiency when these newer techniques are considered?\\n\\n Thanks for the good question regarding memory-efficient implementations. We mainly report the efficiency of naive implementations for both self-attention and LinFusion to reflect their complexities in principle. Here, we study the performance of memory-efficient implementation for a more thorough exploration. Specifically, we adopt flash-attention v2 as suggested by the reviewer for self-attention and implement the generalized linear attention in LinFusion with Triton. We find that the GPU memory consumptions are similar, since tiling strategy is adopted in flash-attention, which reduces the memory complexity to linear. For the sampling efficiency, results on SD-v1.5 at various resolutions are shown below:\\n\\n | | LinFusion | SD-v1.5 |\\n | :--------------: | :-------: | :-----: |\\n | $512\\\\times512$ | 0.19 | 0.16 |\\n | $1024\\\\times1024$ | 0.53 | 0.76 |\\n | $2048\\\\times2048$ | 2.23 | 6.37 |\\n | $4096\\\\times4096$ | 10.13 | 82.83 |\\n | $8192\\\\times8192$ | 47.79 | 1902.33 |\\n\\n Evaluation is conducted on a single RTX6000Ada GPU. Results indicate that the sampling speeds are comparable at relatively low resolutions. However, the acceleration by LinFusion would grow dramatically with the increasing of image resolutions.\"}", "{\"title\": \"Revised Manuscript and Thanks for the feedback\", \"comment\": \"Dear Reviewer cB7B,\\n\\nThanks for the reviewer's feedback on our response, and we are glad to see that our response has addressed the reviewer's concerns.\\n\\nCurrently, we have uploaded our revised manuscript, where points in our above response have been included:\\n\\n* Comparisons with more related linear attention methods in computer vision.\\n* Comparisons on the HPSv2 benchmark.\\n* Insights and experiments on MM-DiT-based models.\\n\\nThanks again for the time and effort in reviewing our work again. We are open to continuing the conversation with the reviewer to address any lingering questions.\"}", "{\"comment\": \"Dear Reviewer WZLt,\\n\\nWe would like to extend our gratitude to Reviewer WZLt for taking the time to review our work and provide your valuable comments. As the discussion period is approaching its end, we would like to inquire if our previous response has addressed the concerns. We truly value the comments and would greatly appreciate the opportunity to discuss any possible remaining questions or clarifications. We look forward to the reviewer's response and hope to engage in further discussion.\\n\\nThanks again for the insightful review and consideration.\\n\\nBest Regards,\\n\\nAuthors of Submission 1552\"}", "{\"title\": \"Response to Reviewer s1Gn (Part 2)\", \"comment\": \"* > The method by which LinFusion generates ultra-high-resolution images is somewhat unclear. Can LinFusion directly generate 16K-resolution images, thereby avoiding patch-wise splitting, or does it produce a lower-resolution image that is later upsampled with techniques like SDEdit?\\n\\n Thanks for the question and sorry for the unclarity. In our main manuscript, we generate high-resolution images by producing lower-resolution images first and then upsampling them with SDEdit. We have demonstrated through experiments that LinFusion is also compatible with other high-resolution generation pipelines like Demofusion.\\n\\n Since LinFusion is fine-tuned only on the native resolution of the diffusion model itself, it would produce repetitive patterns when generating high-resolution images directly, as shown in a lot of related works like Multifusion. Fine-tuning on larger-scale images with more computational resources could alleviate this issue, which is not the main purpose of this work and is left as a valuable future direction.\\n\\n* > Why does removing the patchification operation in DemoFusion in Table 5 (A -> B) increase the sampling speed? Since patchification typically reduces training and sampling costs, it seems counterintuitive.\\n\\n Thanks for the good question. In fact, DemoFusion by default processes each image patch sequentially, which is slower than processing the image as a whole at the $2048\\\\times2048$ resolution. We will add this clarification in the revision to avoid confusion.\\n\\n* > How the 25% of unremoved self-attention layers in PixArt-Sigma selected? Are they from shallow layers, deep layers or just randomly sampled? Can distillation twice alleviate this problem (e.g., replace 50% in the first time and train the model as described, followed by replacing the other half in the second time)?\\n\\n We would like to thank the reviewer sincerely for the valuable question and raising a possible direction for exploration. In fact, we leave one self-attention layer every four layers in order for PixArt-Sigma. We will supplement this detail in the revision.\\n\\n We have tried the strategy of distilling twice mentioned by the reviewer. Unfortunately, it still results in distorted local tectures. We delve into the reason by analyzing the attention maps and find that the attention interactions for pre-trained DiTs are not low-rank in fact. Thus, it is indeed challenging to replace all the self-attention layers, which the only mechanisms for token interactions in DiTs, with low-rank linear attention. \\n\\n Currently, based on the above analysis, we have figured out a successful and elegant solution for adapting LinFusion to PixArt-Sigma. Specifically, we use the linear attention in LinFusion together with sliding window attention such as [b], which also results in a linear-complexity diffusion model since the size of sliding window would not change with the increasing of image resolutions. The insight is that a large amount of attention scores are concentrated on local regions in pre-trained Diffusion Transformers. Local attention can handle these local interactions effectively, while global interactions are processed by linear attention. We will provide illustrative examples in the revision, which will be uploaded as soon as possible.\\n\\n* > Minor typo: In Table 3, it should read \\\"Bi-Directional Mamba2 w/o Gating & RMS-Norm + Normalization.\\\"\\n\\n Thanks for the detailed inspection. We will definitely fix it in the revision. \\n\\nThanks again for the thorough reviews. All these additional discussions would be included in our revised manuscript, which will be uploaded as soon as possible. We are definitely willing to interact with the reviewer if there are any further questions.\\n\\n***\\n\\n[a] Exploring Flow and Diffusion-based Generative Models with Scalable Interpolant Transformers, Ma et al., arXiv 2024.\\n\\n[b] Neighborhood attention transformer, Hassani et al., CVPR 2023.\"}", "{\"title\": \"Revised Manuscript\", \"comment\": \"Dear Reviewer WZLt,\\n\\nWe sincerely appreciate the reviewer's valuable feedback on our manuscript. A revised version has been uploaded, incorporating the points discussed above. Specifically, we have updated the following aspects:\\n\\n- More qualitative high-resolution examples generated using the proposed LinFusion.\\n- Discussions on the data size and model parameters.\\n- Analysis of degradation on the FID performance.\\n\\nWe remain fully committed to addressing any further concerns throughout the discussion period and look forward to your continued feedback.\"}", "{\"title\": \"Revised Manuscript\", \"comment\": \"Dear Reviewer s1Gn,\\n\\nWe would like to express our sincerest gratitude for the valuable feedback on our manuscript. We have uploaded a revision including the above discussions. Specifically, we update the following contents in the revision:\\n\\n* Speed comparisons during both forward and backward time using efficient implementations.\\n* Results of training from scratch.\\n* Clarification and revision of necessary details.\\n\\nWe are fully committed to addressing any remaining concerns in the rest of the discussion period. Look forward to your following feedback.\"}", "{\"title\": \"Thanks again for the thorough review\", \"comment\": \"Dear Reviewer s1Gn,\\n\\nWe are encouraged to see that the concerns of the reviewer have been addressed. Thanks again for the instrumental feedback to improve our manuscript.\\n\\nBest Regards,\\n\\nAuthors of Submission 1552\"}", "{\"title\": \"Response to Reviewer WZLt\", \"comment\": \"We deeply thank Reviewer WZLt for the pertinent comments and are more than glad that the reviewer finds the improvement on efficiency of generating high-resolution images significant and the reproducibility sound. We address the concerns of the reviewer as below.\\n\\n* > The comparison experiments in the paper are not comprehensive; for instance, the experimental section lacks an analysis of parameters and data size.\\n\\n Thanks for the pertinent comments. In fact, the parameters introduces by LinFusion are on the two MLPs handling non-linear query-key transformations, whose numbers of parameters are small. For example, on SD-XL, there are merely 25.8M parameters totally. Comparing with the original 2.6B parameters, they only contribute to less than 1% of the total parameters.\\n\\n As for the data size, as mentioned in Line 396, we merely use 169K images for training, while the training data sizes for SD-v1.5 and SD-XL are 4800M and unpublished respectively. Overall, the training is much more efficient than the original models.\\n\\n* > It is unclear whether LinFusion can outperform the latest lightweight diffusion methods, such as BK-SDM[1], on the COCO 256\\u00d7256 30K dataset.\\n\\n Thanks for the comments. In the manuscript, we indeed evaluate BK-SDM and the proposed LinFusion on the COCO 256\\u00d7256 30K dataset following the protocol in GigaGAN [a]. The metrics shown in Tab. 2 indicate a better performance of our approach.\\n\\n Here, we additionally evaluate the performance using the official codebase of BK-SDM. The results are shown in the following table and the conclusion is consistent.\\n\\n | Method | IS | FID | CLIP-T |\\n | :----------: | :-------: | :-------: | :--------: |\\n | BK-SDM-Base | 33.79 | 15.76 | 0.2878 |\\n | BK-SDM-Small | 31.68 | 16.98 | 0.2677 |\\n | BK-SDM-Tiny | 30.09 | 17.12 | 0.2653 |\\n | LinFusion | **38.20** | **12.88** | **0.3007** |\\n\\n* > In Table 7, LinFusion shows a significant decrease in FID scores. In contrast, LinFusion exhibits better compatibility with other components and pipelines of SD, which would be better to analyze why this occurs.\\n\\n Thanks for raising the concern. In fact, the zero-shot generalization from the LinFusion trained on the original SD-v1.5 to LCM-lora is not straightforward since they adopt various training objectives. That's why its generalization performance is relatively worse in this case comparing to other settings. We will include this analysis to our revision.\\n\\n* > The visual quality of the generated images does not seem particularly impressive.\\n\\n Thanks for pointing this out. In fact, the primary argument in the article is on the comparable performance with original models. We thus do not focus on generating impressive qualitative results.\\n\\n Nevertheless, we agree with the reviewer that including more fancy results is helpful to demonstrate the capability of the proposed method. We will add a figure of image gallery in the revision for this.\\n\\nWe would like to express our gratitude again to Reviewer WZLt for the constructive feedback to improve this article. We will definitely highlight these points in the revision, which will be uploaded as soon as possible. Please feel free to let us know if there are any follow-up suggestions.\\n\\n***\\n\\n[a] Scaling up GANs for Text-to-Image Synthesis, Kang et al, CVPR 2023.\"}", "{\"title\": \"Paper Decision\", \"decision\": \"Reject\"}", "{\"title\": \"Response to Reviewer cB7B\", \"comment\": \"We sincerely thank Reviewer cB7B for the thorough reviews and are happy that the reviewer finds the model innovative, the method effective, the validation thorough, and the writing clear and methodical. We would like to address the concerns as below.\\n\\n* > While LinFusion demonstrates significant improvements in computational efficiency, mamba2 is designed for language models. Could you give more comparison with state-of-the-art linear attention methods[1,2,3] in computer vision.\\n\\n Thanks for pointing some related works out. Here, we replace the self-attention layers in SD-v1.5 with them separately and get the following results on the COCO-30K benchmark:\\n\\n | Method | FID | Ours |\\n | :--------------: | :-------: | :-------: |\\n | EfficientViT [1] | 17.54 | **0.310** |\\n | DiG [2] | 17.51 | 0.309 |\\n | Vision Mamba [3] | 18.36 | 0.307 |\\n | LinFusion | **17.07** | 0.309 |\\n\\n [1] mentioned by the reviewer propose a multi-scale linear attention strategy, and we achieve comparable results with it. Note that the technical designs between [1] and LinFusion are orthogonal, it is promising to combine the methods together and use the multi-scale approach to enhance the native LinFusion module.\\n\\n [2] proposes to use various scanning directions in each layer. We find that it achieves inferior results in this exerpiment since the reception field of each token is limited by the scanning order.\\n\\n [3] adopts bi-directional scanning strategy like the Bi-Mamba2 studied in the manuscript. Similar to the analysis in Sec. 3.2, due to the non-causal nature of self-attention in pre-trained diffusion models, LinFusion outperforms Vision Mamba in this case.\\n\\n We will include these discussion to the revision for a more comprehensive comparison.\\n\\n* > The results of the experiment are unconvincing. Could provide a more holistic assessment of LinFusion's performance across different aspects of image generation., such as HPSv2\\uff0cT2I_Combench\\uff0cDPG\\uff1f\\n\\n Thanks for the valuable suggestion. As mentioned by the reviewer, we evaluate the performance using HPSv2 with the images generated on the COCO-30K benchmark. The results are as follows. Overall, we achieve at least comparable and even slightly better performance with the original SD-v1.5 model.\\n\\n | Method | Concept-art | Paintings | Photo | Anime | Average |\\n | :-------: | :---------: | :-------: | :-------: | :-------: | :-------: |\\n | SD-v1.5 | 24.00 | 23.89 | **25.00** | 24.82 | 24.43 |\\n | LinFusion | **24.38** | **24.36** | 24.92 | **25.16** | **24.71** |\\n\\n* > Could the linear attention combined with the MM-DiT blocks\\uff0cwhich are popular in state-of-the-art diffusion models\\uff0cSD3 and FLUX?\\n\\n Thanks for the good question. According to our experiments, directly replacing the multi-modal attention with the proposed linear attention fails to generate reasonable results. This is because the attention maps inherent in pre-trained MM-DiTs are not low-rank. \\n\\n However, we reveal that, using linear attention together with sliding window attention such as [a] is a feasible solution, which also results in a linear-complexity diffusion model since the size of sliding window would not change with the increasing of image resolutions. The insight is that a large amount of attention scores are concentrated on local areas in pre-trained MM-DiTs. Local attention can handle these local interactions effectively, while global interactions are processed by linear attention. We will provide illustrative examples in the revision, which will be uploaded as soon as possible.\\n\\n* > The training cost of this method is low. Is the training sufficient? Will longer training or increasing the training resolution (1k or 2k) further improve the model effect?\\n\\n Thanks for the insightful question. In fact, our initial exploration is conducted on SD-v1.5 and find that 50K iterations are sufficient for the training on it. We then adopt the same training configuration to other models like SD-v2.1, SD-XL, etc. Indeed, for these larger models, the training may not be sufficient. Moreover, as discussed in Lines 966~760, the low-resolution training data are naively resized to 1k scale for training SD-XL. Even in this setting, LinFusion demonstrates competitive performance. We agree with the reviewer that longer training or including more high-quality data could further enhance the performance for these more advanced models.\\n\\nOur sincere hope is that our response will alleviate the reviewer's concern. We are looking forward to having further discussion with the reviewer if there are remaining concerns.\\n\\n***\\n\\n[a] Neighborhood attention transformer, Hassani et al., CVPR 2023.\"}", "{\"title\": \"Thanks again for the insightful feedback\", \"comment\": \"Dear Reviewer WZLt,\\n\\nWe would like to express our sincere appreciation for Reviewer WZLt's insightful feedback and thorough review of our submission. The comments have been instrumental in enhancing our work and refining the proposed LinFusion. Here, we would like to inquire if our response and revision address the reviewer's concerns. If not, we are fully committed to addressing any remaining issues. \\n\\nWe deeply appreciate the reviewer's dedication throughout this process and eagerly anticipate your further feedback.\\n\\nBest Regards,\\n\\nAuthors of Submission 1552\"}", "{\"summary\": \"This paper introduces a novel text-to-image model named LinFusion, addressing the challenge of generating high-resolution visual content with diffusion models. To optimize this, the authors propose to ultilize the popular linear attention and present methods for normalization-aware and non-causal operations, achieving performance on par with or even superior\\nto the original diffusion model while significantly reducing time and memory complexity. Experiments demonstrate that LinFusion achieves comparable or superior performance to the original Stable Diffusion on tasks like zero-shot cross-resolution generation, with excellent results on MS COCO.\", \"soundness\": \"3\", \"presentation\": \"4\", \"contribution\": \"3\", \"strengths\": [\"The paper presents an efficient text-to-image model, LinFusion, which innovatively addresses the computational inefficiencies inherent in high-resolution image generation with diffusion models.\", \"Two notable innovations of LinFusion are normalization-aware mamba and non-causal mamba, which significantly improving the model's performance.\", \"The authors have conducted an extensive set of experiments, demonstrating LinFusion's effectiveness across various resolutions and showcasing its superior capability in generating ultra-high-resolution images like 16K on a single GPU.\", \"The writing is clear and methodical, effectively guiding readers through the complex technical details while maintaining a focus on the practical implications of the research.\", \"The paper stands out for its thorough experimental validation, which not only benchmarks LinFusion against existing models but also integrates it with various components and pipelines, highlighting its versatility and compatibility in real-world applications.\"], \"weaknesses\": [\"While LinFusion demonstrates significant improvements in computational efficiency, mamba2 is designed for language models. Could you give more comparison with state-of-the-art linear attention methods[1,2,3] in computer vision.\", \"The results of the experiment are unconvincing. Could provide a more holistic assessment of LinFusion's performance across different aspects of image generation., such as HPSv2\\uff0cT2I_Combench\\uff0cDPG\\uff1f\", \"Could the linear attention combined with the MM-DiT blocks\\uff0cwhich are popular in state-of-the-art diffusion models\\uff0cSD3 and FLUX?\", \"The training cost of this method is low. Is the training sufficient? Will longer training or increasing the training resolution (1k or 2k) further improve the model effect?\", \"[1] Cai, Han, et al. \\\"Efficientvit: Multi-scale linear attention for high-resolution dense prediction.\\\" arXiv preprint arXiv:2205.14756 (2022).\", \"[2] Zhu, Lianghui, et al. \\\"DiG: Scalable and Efficient Diffusion Models with Gated Linear Attention.\\\" arXiv preprint arXiv:2405.18428 (2024).\", \"[3] Zhu, Lianghui, et al. \\\"Vision mamba: Efficient visual representation learning with bidirectional state space model.\\\" arXiv preprint arXiv:2401.09417 (2024).\"], \"questions\": \"Please referring to the Weaknesses above.\", \"flag_for_ethics_review\": \"['No ethics review needed.']\", \"rating\": \"6\", \"confidence\": \"4\", \"code_of_conduct\": \"Yes\"}", "{\"title\": \"Revised Manuscript\", \"comment\": \"Dear Reviewer uBFm,\\n\\nWe would like to sincerely thank the reviewer for taking the time to provide valuable feedback on our manuscript. In response, we have submitted a revised version that addresses the reviewer's comments. The updates include:\\n\\n- Grid search on hyper-parameters.\\n- Analysis of degradation on the FID performance.\\n- Detailed clarifications and revisions to important sections.\\n\\nWe are fully committed to resolving any additional issues and look forward to your continued input.\"}", "{\"summary\": \"This paper presents a new method for efficient image generation in linear computation complex. To achieve this goal, a generalized linear attention paradigm is introduced. For training, they distill the knowledge from the pre-trained SD. This distilled LinFusion model achieves better or on-par performance than the original teacher. This model also enables many down-streaming plugins, which makes this paper far more interesting.\", \"soundness\": \"3\", \"presentation\": \"3\", \"contribution\": \"4\", \"strengths\": \"1. The usage of linear attention and network distillation is an interesting direction in efficient text-to-image generation.\\n2. Different Mamba architecture is considered and ablated, providing a reference for other related topics. \\n3. This paper is well-written. The detailed experiments show the advantages of the proposed method and even some down-streaming plug-and-play applications.\", \"weaknesses\": \"My main concern about his paper is the experiments.\\n\\n1. This paper introduces three loss functions, i.e., $\\\\mathcal{L}_{simple}$.\\n $\\\\mathcal{L}{kd}$, $\\\\mathcal{L}{feat}$ and two hyper-parameters ($\\\\alpha$, $\\\\beta$). However, there is no ablation study for each of them.\\n2. Several down-streaming extensions (LoRA, ControlNet, etc.) have been evaluated. However, there is no further discussion of why the original network extensions work and why some of the results are better than the baseline and others are not.\", \"questions\": \"1. What about the influences of each loss in the training objective?\\n2. In L512 - L516, LinFusion uses SDEdit tricks for higher-resolution generation, and comparing with DemoFusion. Is this comparison fair? LinFusion is a specific base model. A better comparison should be to use the same settings as DemoFusion.\", \"flag_for_ethics_review\": \"['No ethics review needed.']\", \"rating\": \"8\", \"confidence\": \"4\", \"code_of_conduct\": \"Yes\"}", "{\"title\": \"Response to Reviewer uBFm\", \"comment\": \"We appreciate the valuable comments by Reviewer uBFm and are more than happy that the reviewer finds our idea intersting, paper well-written, and experiments detailed. We would like to address the questions raised by the reviewer as below.\\n\\n* > W1: This paper introduces three loss functions, i.e., $L_{simple}$, $L_{kd}$, $L_{feat}$, and two hyper-parameters ($\\\\alpha$, $\\\\beta$). However, there is no ablation study for each of them. | Q1: What about the influences of each loss in the training objective?\\n\\n Thanks for the pertinent comment. In fact, the additional loss terms, $L_{kd}$ and $L_{feat}$, along with their corresponding loss weights are adapted from related work [a]. Thus, we do not include detailed ablation studies on the specific values of them. Nevertheless, we are willing to study their effects in this period through a grid search to the two hyper-parameters across various values. Given that computational recources required by this grid search are extensive, the experiments are still ongoing. We will upload a revision as soon as poosible on this.\\n\\n* > W2: Several down-streaming extensions (LoRA, ControlNet, etc.) have been evaluated. However, there is no further discussion of why the original network extensions work and why some of the results are better than the baseline and others are not.\\n\\n Thanks for the insightful comment. Overall, the generalization performance of LinFusion is comparable to the original down-streaming extensions, except LCM-lora, which is not straightforward since they adopt various training objectives. That's why its generalization performance is relatively worse in this case comparing to other settings. We will include this analysis to our revision.\\n\\n* > Q2: In L512 - L516, LinFusion uses SDEdit tricks for higher-resolution generation, and comparing with DemoFusion. Is this comparison fair? LinFusion is a specific base model. A better comparison should be to use the same settings as DemoFusion.\\n\\n Thanks for the valuable question. As shown in the first 3 rows of Tab. 5, we emperically find that combining DemoFusion together with SDEdit, without LinFusion here, may yield better performance comparing with the original DemoFusion. We thus choose to add LinFusion on this enhanced setting to validate the performance of LinFusion. Since both settings adopt SDEdit, the comparison is in fact fair.\\n\\n Here, we also report the results on the original DemoFusion setting. As shown in the following table, the conclusion is consistent with that in the main manuscript, that LinFusion achieves at least comparable quality with the original model while accelerates high-resolution generation significantly.\\n\\n | Method | FID | CLIP-T | Time (sec.) |\\n | :-------------------: | :-------: | :-------: | :---------: |\\n | Demofusion (wo Patch) | 65.44 | **0.340** | 57.56 |\\n | +LinFusion | **65.40** | 0.333 | 33.69 |\\n\\nWe would like to thank the reviewer again for the constructive feedback. Our sincere hope is that our response could clear the concerns raised by the reviewer.\"}", "{\"summary\": \"This work introduces a generalized linear attention paradigm and extracts knowledge from Stable Diffusion to develop a distilled model called LinFusion. LinFusion avoids the quadratic increase in complexity associated with traditional attention mechanisms as the number of tokens grows, enabling the efficient generation of high-resolution visual content. Extensive experiments demonstrate that LinFusion achieves satisfactory and efficient zero-shot cross-resolution generation.\", \"soundness\": \"3\", \"presentation\": \"3\", \"contribution\": \"2\", \"strengths\": \"\\uf06c\\tCompared to the original SD-v1.5, LinFusion offers significant advantages in speed and GPU memory usage for generating high-resolution images.\\n\\uf06c\\tThe extensive amount of open-sourcing and experiment reproducibility is greatly appreciated.\", \"weaknesses\": \"\\uf06c\\tThe comparison experiments in the paper are not comprehensive; for instance, the experimental section lacks an analysis of parameters and data size.\\n\\uf06c\\tIt is unclear whether LinFusion can outperform the latest lightweight diffusion methods, such as BK-SDM[1], on the COCO 256\\u00d7256 30K dataset.\\n\\uf06c\\tIn Table 7, LinFusion shows a significant decrease in FID scores. In contrast, LinFusion exhibits better compatibility with other components and pipelines of SD, which would be better to analyze why this occurs.\\n\\uf06c\\tThe visual quality of the generated images does not seem particularly impressive.\\n[1]Kim B K, Song H K, Castells T, et al. Bk-sdm: A lightweight, fast, and cheap version of stable diffusion[J]. arXiv preprint arXiv:2305.15798, 2023.\", \"questions\": \"\\uf06c\\tPlease address questions in \\\"Weaknesses\\\".\", \"flag_for_ethics_review\": \"['No ethics review needed.']\", \"rating\": \"5\", \"confidence\": \"4\", \"code_of_conduct\": \"Yes\"}", "{\"summary\": \"This paper introduces LinFusion, a versatile pipeline designed to enhance GPU memory efficiency and boost sampling speed across various diffusion models for image generation. Specifically, LinFusion investigates recent linear-attention mechanisms to identify key factors that enable their effectiveness in diffusion models and subsequently proposes an improved, generalized linear attention to replace standard self-attention. To simplify training, the models are not trained from scratch; instead, LinFusion selectively distills its linear attention module from the original diffusion models, keeping all other weights fixed. Additional supervision is applied to align both the final output and intermediate feature representations. Extensive experiments demonstrate that LinFusion can be effectively integrated with different diffusion models, significantly accelerating image generation.\", \"soundness\": \"3\", \"presentation\": \"3\", \"contribution\": \"3\", \"strengths\": [\"The motivation is clear and well-founded, with a thorough analysis of existing linear attention mechanisms to identify the key factors contributing to their effectiveness in diffusion.\", \"Extensive experiments across various applications support the claims that LinFusion is both efficient and generalizable to different diffusion models as well as existing training and testing pipelines.\", \"Overall, the writing is fluent and easy to follow, with informative figures that provide ample supporting information.\"], \"weaknesses\": [\"The comparisons are conducted only during the sampling stage. Since the proposed LinFusion module may also provide similar benefits during training, are there any metrics available for this stage?\", \"Related to the previous point, the paper includes only fine-tuning experiments. It would be valuable to investigate whether training a diffusion model from scratch with LinFusion replacing self-attention results in any performance drop. If so, what is the extent of this drop? Experiments on a class-conditional image generation task would be informative, even without a large-scale text-to-image model.\", \"The memory and efficiency comparisons primarily utilize PyTorch 1.13, which does not incorporate memory-efficient methods like flash-attention or flash-attention v2. How significant is the difference in memory consumption and sampling efficiency when these newer techniques are considered?\", \"The method by which LinFusion generates ultra-high-resolution images is somewhat unclear. Can LinFusion directly generate 16K-resolution images, thereby avoiding patch-wise splitting, or does it produce a lower-resolution image that is later upsampled with techniques like SDEdit?\"], \"questions\": [\"Why does removing the patchification operation in DemoFusion in Table 5 (A -> B) increase the sampling speed? Since patchification typically reduces training and sampling costs, it seems counterintuitive.\", \"How the 25% of unremoved self-attention layers in PixArt-Sigma selected? Are they from shallow layers, deep layers or just randomly sampled? Can distillation twice alleviate this problem (e.g., replace 50% in the first time and train the model as described, followed by replacing the other half in the second time)?\", \"Minor typo: In Table 3, it should read \\\"Bi-Directional Mamba2 w/o Gating & RMS-Norm + Normalization.\\\"\"], \"flag_for_ethics_review\": \"['No ethics review needed.']\", \"rating\": \"6\", \"confidence\": \"5\", \"code_of_conduct\": \"Yes\"}", "{\"metareview\": \"This paper introduces LinFusion, a versatile pipeline designed to enhance GPU memory efficiency and accelerate sampling speeds in various diffusion models for image generation. LinFusion investigates recent linear-attention mechanisms to identify key factors contributing to their effectiveness in diffusion models. It then proposes a generalized and improved linear attention module as a replacement for standard self-attention. To simplify training, LinFusion avoids training models from scratch. Instead, it selectively distills the linear attention module from existing diffusion models, keeping all other weights fixed. Additional supervision is applied to align both the final outputs and intermediate feature representations.\", \"this_work_received_mixed_reviews_from_four_reviewers_before_rebuttal\": \"one reviewer supported acceptance, one reviewer leaned toward borderline acceptance, and two reviewers gave a borderline rejection. After rebuttal, one reviewer raise their score to borderline acceptance and one reviewer maintain their score as borderline rejection.\\n\\nAfter carefully evaluating the reviews, rebuttal, and refined draft, the Area Chair (AC) agrees with the concerns raised by Reviewer WZLt and the weaknesses highlighted by Reviewer cB7B, particularly regarding unconvincing experimental results. Furthermore, the quality of high-resolution generated images remains subpar, weakening the submission despite the demonstrated improvements in inference speed through linear attention.\\n\\nThus, AC recommends rejection to this work.\", \"additional_comments_on_reviewer_discussion\": \"No\"}", "{\"title\": \"Thanks for the feedback\", \"comment\": \"The authors' rebuttal addresses most of my concerns. After reading the revised version and the opinions from other reviewers, I keep my score unchanged.\"}", "{\"title\": \"Thanks again for the valuable review\", \"comment\": \"Dear Reviewer uBFm,\\n\\nWe are encouraged to see that most of the concerns have been addressed. We would like to express of gratitude again for the insightful comments and suggestions offered by the reviewer.\\n\\nBest Regards,\\n\\nAuthors of Submission 1552\"}" ] }

[ "Yanshu Wang", "Dayu Wang", "Wang Li", "Zhaoqian YAO", "Dan Li", "Tong Yang" ]

[ "matrix quantization; LLMs; heterogeneous distribution; Product quantization" ]

{ "note_id": [ "rYyaIbZnFI", "mlgWIkhvlg", "BLIdxO75K8", "0BJi5K3IUM" ], "note_type": [ "official_review", "official_review", "official_review", "comment" ], "note_created": [ 1730135409154, 1730620312358, 1730131370963, 1731843032132 ], "note_signatures": [ [ "ICLR.cc/2025/Conference/Submission4670/Reviewer_fwGZ" ], [ "ICLR.cc/2025/Conference/Submission4670/Reviewer_Y5vz" ], [ "ICLR.cc/2025/Conference/Submission4670/Reviewer_a4kD" ], [ "ICLR.cc/2025/Conference/Submission4670/Authors" ] ], "structured_content_str": [ "{\"summary\": \"The paper proposes a non-uniform quantization method to quantize the matrix data which have the data values within a same column drawn from a same distribution, but have the distributions varying across different columns. Empirically, the proposed method achieves obvious performance improvement compared to existing methods.\", \"soundness\": \"1\", \"presentation\": \"1\", \"contribution\": \"2\", \"strengths\": \"The performance improvement reported by the authors is remarkable.\", \"weaknesses\": \"The paper falls short in offering a comprehensive description of its method. The procedures pertaining to matrix partition and subspace generation remain ambiguous and devoid of thorough analysis. Furthermore, the regularized MSE, as outlined in Definition 1, has not been analyzed for the proposed method. In summary, the method requires substantial enhancements both in terms of its methodological description and theoretical foundation.\", \"questions\": \"1) Matrix partition (Line 207)\\uff1aHow are the columns of a matrix grouped, and what criteria are used for this grouping?\\n\\n\\n2) Subspace generation (Line 213): What is the rationale for extracting and combining the columns from different subgroups (with the same position coordinates)?\\n\\n3) Synthetic dataset (Line 359): How to ensure that the distributions between columns differ when synthesizing data?\\n\\n4) It appears unfair to compare the proposed method with PQ, given that the former employs non-uniform quantization while the latter uses uniform quantization. The authors should consider examining related non-uniform quantization methods for a more comprehensive comparison.\\n\\n5) For the three contributions summarized ( in Line 116), the first contribution concerning column distributions is empirical and superficial, lack of in-depth analysis; and the third contribution, which mentions \\\"dynamically adjusting the **intervals**\\\" , is unclear and ambiguous.\", \"minor_comments\": \"1) Line: 209: what does the \\u201cexponential explosion\\u201d mean?\\n\\n2) Line 310: what does \\u201cthe **effective** variance reduction parameter\\u201d mean?\\n\\n3) Line 517: As can be seen from the data in the figure, DQT remains relatively stable while QT decreases.\\n\\n4) Line 522: It should be the stability of DQT.\\n\\n5) line 523: The errors MAE and MSE increase (not decrease).\", \"flag_for_ethics_review\": \"['No ethics review needed.']\", \"rating\": \"3\", \"confidence\": \"4\", \"code_of_conduct\": \"Yes\"}", "{\"summary\": \"This paper proposes a new method for matrix quantization, which accounts for the heterogeneous distribution of matrix columns. Compared with the PQ algorithm for matrix quantization, the new algorithm chooses different quantization codebooks for different (sets of) columns, which can be optimized for different distributions. Comparison in quantization error and time complexity against PQ is analyzed, and experiments on various datasets show the proposed algorithm outperforms baseline PQ-family algorithms in accuracy and efficiency.\", \"soundness\": \"2\", \"presentation\": \"3\", \"contribution\": \"2\", \"strengths\": [\"The presentation of the paper is generally clear.\", \"Experiments and comparisons with baseline algorithms are clearly presented.\"], \"weaknesses\": [\"The paper proposes to exploit heterogeneous column distributions, but fails to provide sufficient insights. Certain key questions such as how to appropriately select columns for joint quantization are eluded. This makes the overall contribution rather limited, and is the main weakness of this paper.\", \"The introduction of related work, such as the PQ algorithms, is missing. The current Problem Setting section feels empty.\"], \"questions\": [\"The current way of grouping columns is arbitrary, i.e. just based on index, but if the key idea of this paper is leveraging distribution heterogeneity, how can this grouping be improved to make the algorithm more efficient?\", \"When using different quantizations for different columns, there is extra overhead for storing and processing the codebooks. How does that factor in the comparison with basic PQ algorithms?\", \"In Figure 1, what are the dashed-line distributions supposed to show? I fail to see how the distribution of half of the data randomly sampled conveys any new information.\", \"Where does the name HyperChr come from? While I do believe naming is immaterial to an algorithm, this name covers up the close relationship with PQ algorithm and can be misleading in terms of its novelty.\", \"Notations introduced in Section 2 are almost never used again. Are these really necessary?\", \"In Introductions is the paragraph on lines 94-96 redundant with its next paragraph?\"], \"flag_for_ethics_review\": \"['No ethics review needed.']\", \"rating\": \"3\", \"confidence\": \"4\", \"code_of_conduct\": \"Yes\"}", "{\"summary\": \"In the paper, the authors find that the matrix data typically studied tends to exhibit similar distributions within individual columns, but varies across different columns. Based on this observation, they propose a column-wise, non-uniform quantization method that surpasses the widely-used PQ method.\", \"soundness\": \"1\", \"presentation\": \"1\", \"contribution\": \"2\", \"strengths\": \"Given the variability in distribution across different columns, the study incorporates non-uniform quantization into matrix quantization, resulting in lower quantization errors compared to the PQ method.\", \"weaknesses\": \"The presentation of the paper is inadequate, and it is not yet in a suitable state for publication.\\n\\n1) The proposed method lacks clear description in section 3.1. Specifically, regarding matrix partition, what criteria are used to group the columns? Are they grouped randomly? Additionally, in the process of subspace generation, how is the subspace actually created? Moreover, how can we ensure that columns belonging to different subgroups but having the same indices possess similar distributions?\\n\\n2) Many arguments presented in the study lack theoretical support. For example, the assumption that the samples in each column should be drawn from the same or similar distribution solely based on the observation that half of the samples exhibit similar density maps to the whole population, while this is statistically unfounded.\", \"questions\": \"1) In my understanding, the row size $n$ of the matrix (mentioned on Line 131) represents the number of data points, while the column size $d$ denotes the data dimension. The authors should clarify the meanings of these two concepts. In this context, it is plausible to assume that the data values within the same column are drawn from the same distribution, as in data feature representation, each data dimension (column) typically corresponds to a specific data attribute. In this view, the authors should describe their quantization method using data attributes rather than matrix columns.\\n\\n2) In Definition 1, the paper establishes the objective of minimizing the memory-regularized Mean Squared Error (MSE). However, this particular goal is not explored further in the subsequent theoretical analysis. Instead, the theoretical focus shifts to a comparison with the Product Quantization (PQ) method.\", \"flag_for_ethics_review\": \"['No ethics review needed.']\", \"rating\": \"3\", \"confidence\": \"4\", \"code_of_conduct\": \"Yes\"}", "{\"withdrawal_confirmation\": \"I have read and agree with the venue's withdrawal policy on behalf of myself and my co-authors.\"}" ] }

[ "Ege Erdogan", "Radoslav Ralev", "Mika Rebensburg", "Céline Marquet", "Leon Klein", "Hannes Stark" ]

[ "free energy", "flow matching", "free energy perturbation", "computational biology" ]

{ "note_id": [ "yZRJTIaZ8V", "wLqSqh8TDe", "w2rREw4HKT", "vm6g8ecjUi", "truz11w61g", "mEfoOna5wE", "iXAh1V9qMW", "fo8sEBYrxf", "egclZ775nA", "eetJwjqpx6", "bwUjEaBRoq", "ZbXClAa9Hk", "FmmkVwXHCZ", "CWaNZroaCd", "5W3UQS4WEI" ], "note_type": [ "official_comment", "official_comment", "official_comment", "official_comment", "official_comment", "official_comment", "official_comment", "official_review", "decision", "meta_review", "official_review", "official_review", "official_comment", "official_review", "official_comment" ], "note_created": [ 1732385569923, 1732385979472, 1732385818496, 1732627121565, 1733083145046, 1732385608684, 1732385229428, 1730683981044, 1737524277814, 1734744263456, 1730623164934, 1730716484154, 1732385725135, 1730468139208, 1732546211296 ], "note_signatures": [ [ "ICLR.cc/2025/Conference/Submission13714/Authors" ], [ "ICLR.cc/2025/Conference/Submission13714/Authors" ], [ "ICLR.cc/2025/Conference/Submission13714/Authors" ], [ "ICLR.cc/2025/Conference/Submission13714/Reviewer_yw5g" ], [ "ICLR.cc/2025/Conference/Submission13714/Authors" ], [ "ICLR.cc/2025/Conference/Submission13714/Authors" ], [ "ICLR.cc/2025/Conference/Submission13714/Authors" ], [ "ICLR.cc/2025/Conference/Submission13714/Reviewer_ZU4w" ], [ "ICLR.cc/2025/Conference/Program_Chairs" ], [ "ICLR.cc/2025/Conference/Submission13714/Area_Chair_oGzp" ], [ "ICLR.cc/2025/Conference/Submission13714/Reviewer_pMxg" ], [ "ICLR.cc/2025/Conference/Submission13714/Reviewer_rKcy" ], [ "ICLR.cc/2025/Conference/Submission13714/Authors" ], [ "ICLR.cc/2025/Conference/Submission13714/Reviewer_yw5g" ], [ "ICLR.cc/2025/Conference/Submission13714/Reviewer_ZU4w" ] ], "structured_content_str": [ "{\"title\": \"Official Comment by Authors (Part 1/2)\", \"comment\": \"Thank you for the review! We hope we are able to address the questions raised. Our response is in two parts due to the character limit:\\n\\n---\\n**\\u201cThe authors argue that FreeFlow learns more expressive maps between molecular distributions compared to previous normalizing flows solutions. It is not clear that this claim is supported in the experiments.\\u201d**\\n\\nWe have updated our explanation in the Introduction to reflect that by \\u201cexpressive\\u201d we refer mainly to the less restricted design space enabled by flow matching compared to previous normalizing flows which depended on architectures with tractable Jacobians and fast invertibility. Flow matching and continuous normalizing flows on the other hand can be used with any typical neural network architecture. \\n\\n**\\u201cIt is not clear how or if avoiding the use of non-physical modifications leads to improved free energy difference estimation. How does FreeFlow compare to methods that use such non-physical modifications?\\u201d**\\n\\nFree Energy Perturbation (FEP) which we compare with uses such \\u201cnon-physical\\u201d alchemical intermediates and dummy atoms. A main benefit of our method is that it can be faster because it does not require the intermediate states and because it transforms the distributions in a lower dimensional space. \\n\\n**Comparisons to other baselines such as those described in Figure 2**\\n\\nWe have compared FreeFlow with a normalizing flow consisting of coupling layers as in TFEP [2] on our alanine dipeptide task and observed significantly larger estimation errors with estimates on the order of 1,000 kj/mol compared to the reference value of 20.87 kj/mol, as well as unstable likelihood-based training due to the force-field-based potential energies.\\n\\nIn our paper, we compare FreeFlow against alchemical FEP in our main results due to the practical relevance of the method and because there exist works that provide reference \\u0394F values for the solvent leg (between two unbound ligands) of the thermodynamic cycle. \\n\\n**\\u201cLines 232-233: Could the authors provide some explanation/justification an optimal transport map between \\u03c1A and \\u03c1B is needed in this setting? What happens if you were to assume independent marginals?\\u201d**\\n\\nWe thank you for your suggestion and now clarify in Section 3.1 that the primary benefit of approximating an OT map is that the vector field learned with mini-batch OT couplings will have straighter trajectories compared to one learned with independent couplings, and this will reduce the integration error. Specifically for free energy estimation, it has been shown using lower-dimensional systems in [1] that approximating an OT map between \\u03c1A and \\u03c1B leads to paths with lower free energy compared to linear interpolation, improving the convergence of the estimator. \\n\\n**Auto-Encoders: Validation of over-fitting and reasonable representations & decision on hyper-parameters**\\n\\nWe have explained more clearly in Section 3.2 that we train separate autoencoders for each molecule until the mean-squared reconstruction loss on training data converges, since we will be using the training data to estimate \\u0394F. Additionally for the hyperparameters, we performed validation runs on alanine dipeptide and kept the best-performing ones. \\n\\n**\\u201cHow do you think the results would change if a different architecture is used, for examples a graph neural network or transformer, which have become de facto architectures for learning molecular representations?\\u201d**\\n\\nThank you for pointing out the significance of comparisons against graph neural networks. We have now added Figure 7 in Appendix A showing that an MLP achieves an almost an order of magnitude lower reconstruction loss than an EGNN with a similar number of parameters. Furthermore, the training time for the MLP is significantly lower (2 min.) compared to the EGNN (17 min.). \\n\\nWe believe this to be because we can overfit on the samples and we have sufficient data, not requiring us to have a more complex geometry-aware model. The EGNN is a more complex function and there\\u2019s some optimization error introduced by using it. Furthermore, using a GNN significantly slows down the training procedure (over eight times slower than the MLP) which is detrimental to our approach since our main goal is to speed-up drug screening.\"}", "{\"comment\": [\"We would like to thank the reviewers for their valuable feedback, which has helped us improve our paper. As we explain in more detail in the individual responses, we have made the following key revisions which are highlighted blue in the paper:\", \"Provided code for Gaussian example: added a link to our code to help readers test our method (https://anonymous.4open.science/r/freeflow-example-26D4)\", \"Clarified trans-dimensional change of variables: expanded explanations in Sections 4.1 and 4.2 about how autoencoder loss affects our estimates.\", \"Explained pairwise distance D(*,*)): clarified in Section 4.2 that D(A,B) represents distances between samples from A and B.\", \"Justified optimal transport map: added reasoning in Section 3.1 for approximating an optimal transport map to improve our estimator.\"], \"detailed_autoencoder_training\": [\"described our training process and compared MLPs with EGNNs, showing MLPs perform better (see Figure 7 in Appendix A).\", \"Removed uninformative plots: eliminated Figures 4(a) and 4(c).\", \"Addressed accuracy concerns: acknowledged limitations but emphasized our contribution as a promising initial approach.\"]}", "{\"comment\": \"Thank you for the detailed review!\\n\\n---\\n**\\u201cThe paper [...] doesn't develop an entirely new method, but rather combines existing methodologies into a framework for free energy difference estimation.\\u201d**\\n\\nThe technical novelty of our work lies not in using a flow to bridge the distributions, but rather in using a latent flow that employs a trans-dimensional change of variables formula to account for dimensionality changes between systems with different numbers of atoms, eliminating the need for dummy atoms and enabling efficient free energy difference estimation in molecular systems. We see our work as an initial and early, yet important step towards enabling free energy estimations through a latent space framework.\\n\\n**\\u201cI wonder if there could be benefits to learning a \\\"representation learning\\\" autoencoder in the classical sense\\u2014one that can generalize and thus be used for all densities rather than requiring separate autoencoders for each molecular system.\\u201d**\\n\\nThanks for sharing this idea. Exploring a generalizable autoencoder could be an exciting direction for future research. An autoencoder accurate across a set of molecules would save the time to train separate autoencoders and therefore speed up the free energy difference calculations. Nevertheless, this could be challenging as such an autoencoder would need to learn a more complex mapping, requiring a large-scale molecular dataset and costly training. Our current approach focuses on overfitting to maximize accuracy and efficiency for specific pairs of molecules.\\n\\n**\\u201cIn Figure 4(a), the true target and the estimated target distributions differ significantly. In fact, the true target seems to coincide with the source. Could this be a labeling mistake?\\u201d**\\n\\nThanks for pointing this out. Upon closer examination, we found that this was not a labeling mistake. The observed phenomenon arises because points sampled from different same-dimensional isotropic Gaussian distributions inherently exhibit the same energy distribution when evaluated using their respective energy functions. As a result, our plots were inappropriate to measure the quality of the map. To address this issue, we decided to remove this plot.\\n\\n**Theory (or implications) of the trans-dimensional change of variable**\\n\\nIt is indeed true that the map is not lossless, and the change of variables formula is an approximation (for similar work see [1]). This approximation error is minimized to the extent that our data manifold (points we compute the change of variables for) overlaps with the decoder manifold (image of the decoder). We try to minimize this approximation error by overfitting the autoencoders to the data and our results show that this is a promising approach to evaluating free energy differences. \\n\\n---\\n[1] Gemici, M. C., Rezende, D., & Mohamed, S. (2016). Normalizing Flows on Riemannian Manifolds (No. arXiv:1611.02304). arXiv. https://doi.org/10.48550/arXiv.1611.02304\"}", "{\"comment\": \"I thank the authors for addressing some of my concerns. However, I asked some more detailed questions in the \\\"Questions\\\" section that were only very approximately touched upon. I look forward to a more detailed discussion.\"}", "{\"comment\": \"Thank you for following up on the discussion. We are happy to provide further clarifications for the questions raised.\\n\\n**\\\"The Jacobian is $J_f(x) = (\\\\frac{\\\\partial f}{\\\\partial x_1}, \\\\frac{\\\\partial f}{\\\\partial x_2})$, so the volume form is simply the square root (the determinant being irrelevant since this is one-dimensional) of $\\\\sum_i \\\\left( \\\\frac{\\\\partial f}{\\\\partial x_i} \\\\right)^2$, correct?\\\"**\\n\\nYes. There is no Jacobian determinant and the square root of the gradient vector is not the volume change. The change in density can again be computed using Equation 14.\\n\\n**\\\"Given these assumptions, is the equation in Figure 3 valid for all x? This seems counterintuitive, as for generic \\n and $\\\\rho_A$ and $f$, the mapping won't be lossless. For instance, the equation in the top part of Figure 3 holds if \\n is a bijection.\\n\\\"**\\n\\nYes, the equation in Figure 3 (top) only holds if $f$ is a bijection, and we had intended to show this in the figure. \\n\\nSince the encoder cannot be a bijection and will be lossy, the change of density is also an approximation. Intuitively, an encoding $z$ collects the probability mass of all $x$ such that $f(x) = z$. This means that we can obtain a meaningful density function over the latent space just using the encoder. \\n\\nHowever, if we want to obtain an ambient density from a latent density, the best we can get is a density defined over the fibers $\\\\mathcal{F}(z)$ of the decoder (Equation 13, note that input to $p_X$ is $\\\\mathcal{F}(z)$), where $\\\\mathcal{F}(z) := \\\\{x : f(x) = z\\\\}$. \\n\\nThe decoder change of variables is then an approximation as we are not able to distinguish the densities of the points within the same fiber. This is not an issue if the decoder manifold (decoder\\u2019s image) overlaps perfectly with the data manifold, i.e. the autoencoder reconstructs the data samples perfectly, because then we could have a density function defined for each point we will be evaluating it on. \\n\\nOf course this is hard to achieve in practice. There will then be data points outside the decoder manifold, and the density function we get will not be able to distinguish between them. \\n\\n**\\\"For a surjective $f$, does the reverse equation hold true?\\\"**\\n\\nIn the case of a surjective mapping, the fibers $F(z) = \\\\{x : f(x) = z\\\\}$ will have multiple elements. In this scenario, the density $p_B(f(x))$ in the latent space accounts for the aggregated probability mass of all points $x$ that map to the same $z$. The equation will be exact even though $f$ is lossy, since each latent $z$ will aggregate the probabality mass in $F(z)$.\"}", "{\"title\": \"Official Comment by Authors (Part 2/2)\", \"comment\": \"**Figure 4.a: Estimated target distribution is far from true target (equidimensional case)**\\n\\nWe agree that the figures are not informative and removed them.\\n\\nFirstly, the first plot showed almost the same energy distribution for both source and target which is correct but not useful for our analysis. This is because points sampled from different same-dimensional isotropic Gaussian distributions exhibit the same energy distribution when evaluated using their respective energy functions. It would be better to plot the points from the source Gaussian under the target Gaussian\\u2019s energy function as we do for the mapped and target samples. However, this is not possible for the trans-dimensional case because the source points are of different dimensionality.\\n\\nWe do not have a good explanation for why the energy of the mapped samples in the equi-dimensional case is matching the distribution of the target worse than in the trans-dimensional case. Because of the above and because we are mainly interested in the final free energy difference accuracy, we decided to remove these plots.\\n\\n**\\u201cIn Figure 5, what is the distribution pairwise distance D(\\u22c5,\\u22c5)?\\u201d**\\n\\nWe have made it clearer in the Section 4.2 that by D(A,B) we denote the distribution of distances for all pairs (a,b) from A and B; i.e. the set {d(a, b) : a \\\\in A, b \\\\in B}. \\n\\n**\\u201cLines 419-420: How do you observe the distances between B and the mapped sampled M(B) ? In Figure 5, only D(A,B), D(B,B), and D(M(A),B) are reported.\\u201d**\\n\\nThe \\u201cM(B)\\u201d in lines 419-420 is indeed a typo and we have now fixed this. Since we map the samples from A with our flow, we only observe D(M(A), B) and not D(M(B), B). \\n\\n---\\n[1] Decherchi, S., and A. Cavalli. \\\"Optimal Transport for Free Energy Estimation.\\\" The journal of physical chemistry letters 14.6 (2023): 1618-1625.\\n\\n[2] Wirnsberger, Peter, et al. \\\"Targeted free energy estimation via learned mappings.\\\" The Journal of Chemical Physics 153.14 (2020).\"}", "{\"comment\": \"We thank the reviewer for the valuable comments and questions!\\n\\n---\\n**Toy system code to test the method**\", \"we_added_the_link_to_our_paper_pointing_to_an_example_application_of_freeflow_to_gaussian_distributions__https\": \"//anonymous.4open.science/r/freeflow-example-26D4\\n\\n**Comparisons with other methods**\\n\\nThe primary used methods for FED calculations involve the BAR estimate and Free Energy Perturbation (FEP) which are time-costly because they rely on intermediate transformations between the source and target state for accurate estimates. In our work we compare our estimates against values derived through the common FEP method. Flow-based FEP solutions like FreeFlow optimize the process of FED calculations by reducing the reliance on extensive intermediate transformations which we model through a CNF.\\n\\nWe also trained a normalizing flow consisting of coupling layers as in TFEP [1] for our alanine dipeptide task and obtained significantly less accurate estimates for \\u0394F. The estimated values were on the order of 1,000 kj/mol compared to the reference value of 20.87 kj/mol. We also observed that the training was highly unstable due to the likelihood training using force-field-based potential energies. \\n\\n**\\u201cIn Figure 4, the mean of equidimensional gaussians seems to converge to the true mean, but not for the trans dimensional one.\\u201d**\\n\\nWe have added to the discussion in Section 4.1 that free energy difference estimates obtained from our trans-dimensional change of variables only hold to an approximation, since the encoders are lossy compressors. More specifically, unless we can obtain a zero-loss autoencoder that perfectly recovers the data points, there will be points outside its decoder\\u2019s image (the decoder manifold) and particularly for those points the change of variables formula will not hold exactly.\\n\\n**\\u201cIn Figure 5, the D(B,B) and D(M(A),B) do not completely overlap\\u201d**\\n\\nWe now clarify in Section 4.2 that the trans-dimensional change of variables formula being an approximation is likely also the reason behind this slight mismatch between D(M(A), B) and D(B, B). However, while we try to learn a map that accurately samples the target distribution, we (and TFEP more generally) can tolerate slightly inaccurate maps since the ultimate goal is to estimate \\u0394F via importance sampling. In fact, the importance sampling reweighting holds for any map (provided the energy functions are defined everywhere) and results in an unbiased estimator, but our goal is to learn a reasonably accurate map that leads to fast convergence of the \\u0394F estimate. \\n\\n---\\n[1] Wirnsberger, Peter, et al. \\\"Targeted free energy estimation via learned mappings.\\\" The Journal of Chemical Physics 153.14 (2020).\"}", "{\"summary\": \"The authors present FreeFlow, a novel method for learning normalizing flows between distributions of arbitrary dimensions. FreeFlow achieves this using flow matching to learn an invertible map between distributions embedded into a lower dimensional latent space. The authors demonstrate the use-case of FreeFlow in application to estimating free energy differences for molecular systems. Through empirical experiments, FreeFlow is shown to efficiently estimate free energy differences for molecular systems.\", \"soundness\": \"2\", \"presentation\": \"3\", \"contribution\": \"3\", \"strengths\": [\"This work addresses the challenging problem of estimating free energy differences between molecular systems. In doing so, the authors devise a framework for learning normalizing flows between distributions of arbitrary dimensions. The introduced method (FreeFlow) has two key strengths:\", \"FreeFlow leverages advancements in flow matching to learn more expressive maps between molecular distributions.\", \"FreeFlow does not require the use of non-physical modifications on molecules to match dimensions between distributions.\"], \"weaknesses\": \"A central limitation of this work is that there appears to be a lack of comparisons with existing approaches that estimate free energy differences between molecular systems. Without comparison to other methods, it is hard to assess the validity of some of the claims and contributions of this work. For example:\\n- The authors argue that FreeFlow learns more expressive maps between molecular distributions compared to previous normalizing flows solutions. It is not clear that this claim is supported in the experiments. What are the previous normalizing flows solutions that FreeFlow is compared against? \\n- One argued advantage of FreeFlow is that the method does not require the use of non-physical modifications, such as the use of dummy variables on molecules to match the dimensions between distributions. It is not clear how or if avoiding the use of non-physical modifications leads to improved free energy difference estimation. How does FreeFlow compare to methods that use such non-physical modifications? Likewise, why not compare to other baselines in that address the problem of free energy difference estimation (such as those described in Figure 2)?\\n\\nIn addition, there are several areas in the manuscript that contain some unaddressed items (see questions below) that at times make it difficult to follow the work. I believe that adding fair comparison to existing approaches for estimating free energy differences between molecular systems and addressing the questions I outlined below would strongly improve this work.\", \"questions\": [\"Lines 232-233: Could the authors provide some explanation/justification an optimal transport map between $\\\\rho_A$ and $\\\\rho_B$ is needed in this setting? What happens if you were to assume independent marginals?\", \"Regarding the latent representations:\", \"Do you validate that the auto-encoders are in fact over-fitting? Do you validate that the auto-encoders learn reasonable representations?\", \"How did you decide on hyper-parameters for the auto-encoders?\", \"The authors justify choice of MLP for the auto-encoder architecture as \\\"not needing to generalize\\\" (lines 257-259). How do you think the results would change if a different architecture is used, for examples a graph neural network or transformer, which have become de facto architectures for learning molecular representations?\", \"In Figure 4.a, is the objective to match the estimated target distribution (green) to the true target distribution (orange)? In which case, it appears this the estimate does not match the target. Is there intuition on why the estimated target distribution is so far from the true target distribution in the Equidimensional Gaussian Energy setting compared to the Transdimensional Gaussian Energy setting? I would assume that the Equidimensional setting should be easier?\", \"In Figure 5, what is the distribution pairwise distance $D(\\\\cdot, \\\\cdot)$?\", \"Lines 419-420: How do you observe the distances between $B$ and the mapped sampled $M(B)$? In Figure 5, only $D(A, B)$, $D(B, B)$, and $D(M(A), B)$ are reported.\"], \"flag_for_ethics_review\": \"['No ethics review needed.']\", \"rating\": \"6\", \"confidence\": \"3\", \"code_of_conduct\": \"Yes\"}", "{\"title\": \"Paper Decision\", \"decision\": \"Reject\"}", "{\"metareview\": \"This paper introduces FreeFlow, a method for estimating the free energy of a molecular system. This is a crucial problem, as free energy calculations are commonly performed in approximating / understanding protein-ligand binding strength and other molecular tasks. Different from common methods which require MD simulations online at test time, FreeFlow encodes the molecular systems in low dimensional continuous latent spaces and then uses flow matching in the latent space. The overall idea in the paper seems quite interesting, as it circumvents the need to add non-physical \\\"dummy atoms\\\" to one of the system in order to match dimensionality and, once trained, the model promises much better computational efficiency.\\n\\nThe primary thing missing from the paper seems to be experimental validation that shows the authors method estimates free energy in a reliable enough fashion that it is useful in some downstream task. Absent a large existing body of work using machine learning to estimate free energy, many of the results in the paper exist \\\"in a vacuum\\\" so to speak, where the authors' method is primarily evaluated through stand-alone MAE and correlation measures. As Reviewer pMxg points out, the absolute MAEs are relatively large. I fully agree with the authors point that rank correlation is in theory the more interesting metric here compared to absolute error, but rank correlation is also flawed in a vacuum -- it is possible to achieve relatively good rank correlation but still being able to resolve large absolute differences, the value of which is less clear in downstream tasks like protein-ligand binding prediction.\\n\\nMy proposal to resolve this reviewer concern in a resubmission would be to simply evaluate FreeFlow in a downstream task. Showing that FreeFlow's predictions are correlated with in silico oracles used in downstream tasks to solve problems like binding and that it could therefore be used as a proxy in these settings if we imagined the existing specialized ML oracles didn't exist would silence these concerns.\", \"additional_comments_on_reviewer_discussion\": \"In response to reviewer questions, the authors made a number of substantial updates to their paper as helpfully detailed in their own summary comment. I think the remaining unaddressed concerns deal primarily with experimental validation, as I detail above.\"}", "{\"summary\": \"In this paper, the authors focus on estimating the free energy difference between two molecular systems. They propose to use a neural network to learn a mapping between these two systems, which can reduce the variance of free energy estimation based on TFEP, providing more accurate result compared to FEP. The experiments on several simple cases demonstrate the effectiveness of proposed method. On the large molecules, the authors also claim that the result from proposed method is close to the reference data.\", \"soundness\": \"2\", \"presentation\": \"3\", \"contribution\": \"2\", \"strengths\": \"1. Using neural networks to represent the mapping between different distributions may bring more flexibility to the solution.\\n2. The authors give a lot of examples that help to understand the proposed method.\\n3. The writing is good.\", \"weaknesses\": \"1. The accuracy of the proposed method is not good enough. In the experiments of large molecules, the MAE between the proposed method and the baseline method is about tens of or even hundreds of kJ/mol. As a comparison, the error of free energy should be within 10kcal/mol (~42kJ/mol) to give a qualitatively correct prediction. Such a large difference means that the proposed method may not be reliable in practice. The authors should consider how to improve the accuracy of the proposed method.\\n2. The cost of the proposed method is relatively large. The training data includes molecular dynamics simulation of the related systems. Thus, when applying the proposed method to new systems, one should perform additional molecule dynamics simulation to collect training data. Given the poor accuracy of the proposed method, the reviewer believes the training cost is larger than expected.\", \"questions\": \"Suggestions are listed in weakness.\", \"flag_for_ethics_review\": \"['No ethics review needed.']\", \"rating\": \"3\", \"confidence\": \"4\", \"code_of_conduct\": \"Yes\"}", "{\"summary\": \"They propose a method for estimating free energy differences between molecular systems. Traditional free energy estimation methods rely on simulating intermediate states between two systems. FreeFlow addresses this by mapping both systems to a common latent space via autoencoders and applying a neural flow model to estimate free energy differences without intermediate simulations. This latent-space approach leverages flow matching to track density changes between systems, allowing FreeFlow to handle trans-dimensional mappings.\", \"soundness\": \"3\", \"presentation\": \"3\", \"contribution\": \"3\", \"strengths\": \"They propose a transdimensional mapping for free energy estimates. Super cool.\\nTheir theory seems to directly relate to their implementation methods.\", \"weaknesses\": \"I would like to see way more comparisons with other methods!\\nAlso in Figure 4, the mean of equidimensional gaussians seems to converge to the true mean, but not for the trans dimensional one. \\nIn Figure 5, the D(B,B) and D(M(A),B) do not completely overlap. \\nFigure 6 is important, but more important is the comparison to existing methods. Free energy estimation is extremely difficult, so it is more interesting to see how much it improves upon other methods vs absolute accuracy.\", \"questions\": \"Why do the figures differ as mentioned in weaknesses?\\nCould you write out the proof of equation 13?\\nAlso, please give at least a toy system code to test the method. Otherwise, it is difficult to interpret accurately.\", \"flag_for_ethics_review\": \"['No ethics review needed.']\", \"rating\": \"5\", \"confidence\": \"5\", \"code_of_conduct\": \"Yes\"}", "{\"comment\": \"Thank you for your feedback!\\n\\n---\\n**Accuracy of the proposed method**\\n\\nWhile the absolute error of our method is high, we would like to highlight that our work is an early attempt at estimating free energy differences using ML approaches, to alleviate the shortcomings of the classical methods. Our main contribution is that using a latent flow to address the problem of systems with different dimensionalities is a promising direction as an alternative to using dummy atoms. There is certainly more work needed to make the approach applicable and useful in practice. \\n\\nAdditionally, we model our systems using an implicit solvent rather than modeling the solvent atoms explicitly as that would lead to systems with an extremely high dimensionality and thus a harder learning problem. Using an implicit solvent introduces an additional source of error, and that is one the reasons why we focus on correlations rather than absolute errors in our evaluation. Correlations are still useful as free energy differences are often used to compare binding affinities which rely on the relative values between two candidates. \\n\\n**\\u201cThe cost of the proposed method is relatively large. The training data includes molecular dynamics simulation of the related systems. Thus, when applying the proposed method to new systems, one should perform additional molecule dynamics simulation to collect training data.\\u201d**\\n \\nWe have clarified in our Introduction that FreeFlow indeed still requires simulation but the amount required is an order of magnitude lower than for alchemical FEP for which one needs to perform simulations for multiple intermediate states connecting the two states.\"}", "{\"summary\": \"The authors propose a strategy to estimate free energy differences between molecular systems. Their approach relies on performing latent diffusion (flow matching) instead of diffusion in data space. The main advantage is that, due to the change in dimensionality required to match different molecular systems, diffusion in data space requires the addition of dummy atoms. In contrast, diffusion in latent space is dimension-agnostic. The trade-off is the need to track all the change-of-variable factors that come with the steps to match the two distributions: encoding, diffusion, and decoding.\\n\\nThe authors provide experiments to demonstrate the validity of their approach, using both toy distributions of multi-dimensional Gaussians and more real-world applications.\", \"soundness\": \"3\", \"presentation\": \"3\", \"contribution\": \"3\", \"strengths\": \"The paper is well-written with clear and consistent notation, and the topic is of relevance in the field of drug discovery. The authors effectively explain existing methods while clearly stating and motivating their contribution.\", \"weaknesses\": \"The paper's main weakness is that it doesn't develop an entirely new method, but rather combines existing methodologies into a framework for free energy difference estimation. In the conclusions, the authors mention plans to apply this methodology to learn a mapping between bound protein-ligand complexes in future work. From a drug discovery perspective, this would be a more significant goal. I wonder if it's feasible for the authors to present the full thermodynamic cycle in this work.\\n\\nAdditionally, while instructive, the experiments are based on a limited set of examples. A broader set of experiments to evaluate their method on a large-scale dataset would definitely improve the paper.\", \"questions\": [\"I understand that overfitting the autoencoder for density reconstruction is auxiliary to performing flow matching in latent space. However, I wonder if there could be benefits to learning a \\\"representation learning\\\" autoencoder in the classical sense\\u2014one that can generalize and thus be used for all densities rather than requiring separate autoencoders for each molecular system.\", \"In Figure 4(a), the true target and the estimated target distributions differ significantly. In fact, the true target seems to coincide with the source. Could this be a labeling mistake?\", \"I'm not entirely clear on the theory (or implications) of the trans-dimensional change of variable. Let's consider a simple case, as depicted in Figure 3 (bottom). We have an encoder (in the paper's terminology) $f:\\\\mathbf{R}^2 \\\\rightarrow \\\\mathbf{R}$, and we'll omit the decoder, leaving only this mapping.\", \"The Jacobian is $J_f(x) = (\\\\frac{\\\\partial f}{\\\\partial x_1}, \\\\frac{\\\\partial f}{\\\\partial x_2})$, so the volume form is simply the square root (the determinant being irrelevant since this is one-dimensional) of $\\\\sum_i \\\\left(\\\\frac{\\\\partial f}{\\\\partial x_i}\\\\right)^2$, correct?\", \"Given these assumptions, is the equation in Figure 3 valid for all x? This seems counterintuitive, as for generic $\\\\rho_A$ and $f$, the mapping won't be lossless. For instance, the equation in the top part of Figure 3 holds if $f$ is a bijection.\", \"If that's not the case, what's the most general statement we can make for this scenario (namely, $f:\\\\mathbf{R}^2 \\\\rightarrow \\\\mathbf{R}$ with no decoding)?\", \"For a surjective $f$, does the reverse equation hold true? That is, $\\\\rho_B(f(x)) = \\\\rho_A(x) |\\\\det J^T J|^{1/2}$? This seems more plausible, as even if $f$ isn't lossless, I should be able to make a statement about $\\\\rho_B(f(x))$ knowing $f$ and $\\\\rho_A$.\"], \"flag_for_ethics_review\": \"['No ethics review needed.']\", \"rating\": \"8\", \"confidence\": \"4\", \"code_of_conduct\": \"Yes\"}", "{\"comment\": \"I thank the authors for their detailed responses to my comments, questions, and concerns. Thank you for clarifying my questions. In general, I am happy with the authors' rebuttal and the amendments made to the manuscript. With this, I am happy to raise my score.\"}" ] }

[ "Kefan Dong", "Arvind V. Mahankali", "Tengyu Ma" ]

[ "formal theorem proving", "large language models", "reinforcement learning" ]

{ "note_id": [ "wAs6xolc7A", "uscGUb5tV5", "s4Xym6xDiX", "nppw8vKtg2", "nb8KqtAjRm", "k4ME4bPfAZ", "fjQqbNh7Ql", "b7yUFGRobk", "ZIFWYEvKv8", "ZFyKWnQgsl", "X6yEH2Pnxi", "VrvWv9dqUR", "UlJv6jrLvA", "SJ5IQ0As5p", "Pr1v9gM8t1", "J5WGbXdhO4", "DThhmIG6GP", "CvmBveKFK1", "CjqDZ2bk8Q", "CWCPDdbx9M", "5qApYsInK9", "5mOdg0G3Ra", "1iv345zFBu" ], "note_type": [ "official_review", "official_comment", "official_comment", "official_comment", "official_comment", "decision", "meta_review", "official_comment", "official_review", "official_comment", "official_review", "official_comment", "official_review", "official_comment", "official_comment", "official_comment", "official_comment", "official_comment", "official_comment", "official_comment", "official_comment", "official_comment", "official_comment" ], "note_created": [ 1730566458781, 1732007515044, 1731976409046, 1731976570567, 1732340810706, 1737524117199, 1735222742926, 1731976681443, 1729731006442, 1731976934715, 1730559643628, 1733122527935, 1730440755366, 1732604275921, 1732686996505, 1732350950692, 1731976901747, 1732326055167, 1732216328097, 1732166851717, 1732666224907, 1732216453822, 1732150048181 ], "note_signatures": [ [ "ICLR.cc/2025/Conference/Submission11318/Reviewer_kLVh" ], [ "ICLR.cc/2025/Conference/Submission11318/Reviewer_kLVh" ], [ "ICLR.cc/2025/Conference/Submission11318/Authors" ], [ "ICLR.cc/2025/Conference/Submission11318/Authors" ], [ "ICLR.cc/2025/Conference/Submission11318/Authors" ], [ "ICLR.cc/2025/Conference/Program_Chairs" ], [ "ICLR.cc/2025/Conference/Submission11318/Area_Chair_BczD" ], [ "ICLR.cc/2025/Conference/Submission11318/Authors" ], [ "ICLR.cc/2025/Conference/Submission11318/Reviewer_vahD" ], [ "ICLR.cc/2025/Conference/Submission11318/Authors" ], [ "ICLR.cc/2025/Conference/Submission11318/Reviewer_CLmw" ], [ "ICLR.cc/2025/Conference/Submission11318/Authors" ], [ "ICLR.cc/2025/Conference/Submission11318/Reviewer_CALz" ], [ "ICLR.cc/2025/Conference/Submission11318/Reviewer_vahD" ], [ "ICLR.cc/2025/Conference/Submission11318/Reviewer_vahD" ], [ "ICLR.cc/2025/Conference/Submission11318/Reviewer_CLmw" ], [ "ICLR.cc/2025/Conference/Submission11318/Authors" ], [ "ICLR.cc/2025/Conference/Submission11318/Reviewer_CLmw" ], [ "ICLR.cc/2025/Conference/Submission11318/Authors" ], [ "ICLR.cc/2025/Conference/Submission11318/Reviewer_vahD" ], [ "ICLR.cc/2025/Conference/Submission11318/Authors" ], [ "ICLR.cc/2025/Conference/Submission11318/Authors" ], [ "ICLR.cc/2025/Conference/Submission11318/Authors" ] ], "structured_content_str": [ "{\"summary\": [\"According to my understanding, this paper has the following two main contributions:\", \"1. **A Setting for Theorem Proving without the Help of Human-Written Lemmas**\", \"**Contribution**: This paper introduces a new, more challenging evaluation setting in theorem proving, focusing on the use of human-written code libraries but with minimal reliance on human-proven lemmas.\", \"**Motivation**: This setting arises from the observation that proofs in human-written projects display strong modularity: proofs are often broken down into lemmas, making final theorems relatively easy to prove by combining these intermediate steps. While efficient, this approach may obscure a prover's ability to handle full-scale proofs of original theorems independently, limiting evaluation of the prover's core capabilities.\", \"**Method**: To address this, lemmas referenced in the proof of each selected theorem are excluded from the evaluation (however, the authors describe this as removing those \\\"not referred to in the remaining file contents,\\\" which seems intended to remove only redundancies). Additionally, the test set is split by dependency\\u2014ensuring that no theorem in the test set is refered by any theorem in the training set.\", \"**Soundness**: Experiments show that the pass rate under the \\\"without lemma proposal\\\" setting is lower than in the \\\"with lemmas proposal\\\" setting, demonstrating the increased difficulty of this approach.\", \"2. **An Interface for Actively Proposing Lemmas during Proof Generation**\", \"**Contribution**: This work offers a solution for language models to comply with the above lemma minimalism setting (in my words), enabling models to actively propose lemmas during theorem proving while relying minimally on human-written lemmas.\", \"**Method**: The theorem proving process is structured as a hierarchical tree search. During proof generation for a specific statement, the model actively proposes lemmas and leverages them in subsequent proof steps, with the proofs of these lemmas deferred to a lower hierarchical level. For model training, reinforcement learning is applied to the supervised-fine-tuned model. By distinguishing between global and local rewards, the model is optimized both to propose provable lemmas that help solve the original theorem and to complete the proofs of proposed lemmas. Special tokens are used to guide the model in deciding when to propose lemmas, effectively controlling exploration.\", \"**Soundness**: Experimental results indicate that the RL-trained model achieves a higher pass rate than the SFT model, with a 4.7% absolute improvement. Additionally, some proposed lemmas are successfully proved. Experiments over multiple rounds of RL further demonstrate the effectiveness of this approach.\"], \"soundness\": \"3\", \"presentation\": \"2\", \"contribution\": \"4\", \"strengths\": \"1. While the concept of splitting test sets based on file dependencies has been explored in the LeanDojo project ([arXiv:2306.15626](https://arxiv.org/abs/2306.15626)), the minimalist lemma approach introduced here is novel, with comparative experiments validating its challenges.\\n\\n2. The RL training framework designed to enhance lemma-proposing capabilities is both innovative and practical. The global and local reward design can be generalized to other tree search tasks. Notably, the use of special tokens to control lemma exploration is an exceptional feature.\", \"weaknesses\": \"1. Although the test set split is restricted by file dependencies, the risk of lemma proposal leakage has not been fully addressed. It is possible that some theorems in the training and test sets rely on the same lemmas, which may have been learned during the supervised-finetuning phase. Furthermore, splitting the test set based on file dependencies might introduce bias. These isolated AFP files could be separated precisely because they are experimental or less widely used, which may not accurately represent the average difficulty of the AFP. The challenges observed in dependency-splitting experiments might instead arise from unfamiliar or unseen knowledge and proving skills specific to these isolated files. An alternative approach would be to train and test on an out-of-domain benchmark, such as miniF2F, which has fewer dependencies and reduces the risk of lemma proposal leakage.\\n\\n2. The comparison between the SFT and RL models, though straightforward, might be insufficient. It seems that the RL model\\u2019s advantages arise from additional exploration and feedback on successful lemma proposals during the online training. A more fair comparison might involve comparing the RL model with an SFT model trained with additional expert iterations, where the SFT model also attempts lemma proposals while without the hierarchical reward.\\n\\n3. The comparison between proving with and without lemma proposals might also be unfair. In lemma proposal mode, the difficulty of proving theorems is deferred to lemma proving, which has more computational resources than direct theorem proving.\\n\\n4. *Figure 4* demonstrates that extra lemma proposals may not benefit proofs of higher difficulty. Instead of highlighting the hierarchical approach\\u2019s advantages for difficult problems, this approach may exacerbate concerns that its benefits stem from unequal computational budgets.\", \"questions\": \"1. Regarding *Weakness 4*, the advantages of lemma proposal for more challenging proofs are not immediately clear in *Figure 4*, as the data only presents absolute counts, and the relative advantage is not obvious. Could it be that the relative advantage for proofs with at least 5 steps is indeed more significant?\\n\\n2. It appears that the tree search depth is limited to 2 or 3. Why have deeper experiments not been conducted? Would increasing the depth help tackle more difficult proofs by allowing finer-grained decomposition, thereby making each lemma more manageable for the model?\", \"flag_for_ethics_review\": \"['No ethics review needed.']\", \"rating\": \"8\", \"confidence\": \"4\", \"code_of_conduct\": \"Yes\"}", "{\"title\": \"Further Remarks and Score Revision\", \"comment\": \"Thank you for your detailed discussion. While there are many aspects that could be further developed, the paper deserves acceptance for its outstanding originality. Below are some additional comments.\\n\\n> (b) we also observe that when tested on miniF2F theorems, our model failed to propose meaningful lemmas. This may be because proving to miniF2F-level mathematics questions typically does not require hierarchical decomposition.\\n\\nI generally disagree with this hypothesis. In fact, miniF2F includes challenging competition problems sourced from AMC, AMIE, and IMO, which often exhibit clear hierarchical decompositions of immediate conclusions in their natural language solutions. Therefore, I suspect this failure is due to the model\\u2019s inability to fully learn how to actively decompose complex mathematical problems and plan sequential solution steps, rather than simply imitating patterns demonstrated in AFP.\\n\\nHowever, this limitation generally does not stem from any shortcomings on the part of the authors but instead reflects the broader need for progress in training LLMs for both formal and natural language mathematics. Considering the paper\\u2019s significant contributions in terms of motivation and methodology, I have raised my score to 8 (accept).\"}", "{\"title\": \"Thank you for the comments.\", \"comment\": \"We thank Reviewer kLVh for their comments, and for noting \\u201cthe minimalist lemma approach introduced here is novel\\u201d, and \\u201cRL training framework \\u2026 is both innovative and practical\\u201d. In the following, we address the reviewer\\u2019s question in detail.\\n\\n> It is possible that some theorems in the training and test sets rely on the same lemmas, which may have been learned during the supervised-finetuning phase \\u2026 An alternative approach would be to train and test on an out-of-domain benchmark, such as miniF2F, which has fewer dependencies and reduces the risk of lemma proposal leakage.\\n\\nWe test on the miniF2F benchmark and find that our method does not have significant improvement over the baselines. We hypothesize the reasons to be: (a) the theorems are very different from theorems in the training dataset, and (b) we also observe that when tested on miniF2F theorems, our model failed to propose meaningful lemmas. This may be because proving to miniF2F-level mathematics questions typically does not require hierarchical decomposition. In contrast, the AFP datasets work with abstract mathematical objects and theorems, which intrinsically have hierarchical decompositions.\\n\\nWe also agree with the reviewer that, even if we split the training and test set by the file dependencies, or even by the submission date like our AFP 2023 test set, theorems in the training and test set may rely on the same lemma. Such dependency cannot be eliminated easily even if we test on the miniF2F benchmark because the proof still depends on some basic lemmas such as the properties of prime numbers.\\n\\nNonetheless, we believe that our train/test split serves as a step toward building rigorous benchmarks for testing the fundamental reasoning capabilities of LLMs.\\n\\n> Regarding Weakness 4, the advantages of lemma proposal for more challenging proofs are not immediately clear in Figure 4, as the data only presents absolute counts, and the relative advantage is not obvious. Could it be that the relative advantage for proofs with at least 5 steps is indeed more significant?\\n\\nWe are not sure whether we understand the reviewer\\u2019s question correctly (please kindly let us know if not). In Figure 4, we show the pass rate of the theorems grouped by the depth of their ground-truth proof trees. Taking the right-most stacked bar as an example, there are 336 theorems with ground-truth depth >= 4 in the test set, and our model proves 14 of them. Therefore the pass rate is 4.17% as shown in Figure 4. Among the 14 proved theorems, 1 of the theorems is proved with a proof tree of depth 2, and 1 of the theorems is proved with a proof tree of depth 3. Similarly, the baseline model proves 10 theorems with direct proofs only, which translates to a pass rate 2.98%. The relative advantage for theorems with ground-truth depth >= 4 is then 40%, subject to a non-negligible statistical error due to the small sample size.\\n\\n> It appears that the tree search depth is limited to 2 or 3. Why have deeper experiments not been conducted? Would increasing the depth help tackle more difficult proofs by allowing finer-grained decomposition, thereby making each lemma more manageable for the model?\\n\\nWe thank the reviewer for the suggestion. First, at the risk of being redundant, we would like to point out that our current algorithm does not involve tree search. We construct the proof tree merely by sampling the proof for each proposed lemma once. While combining our proof tree structure with search algorithms such as MCTS is an interesting question, we leave it as a future work and mostly focus on the effect of proposing new lemmas during training in this paper.\\n\\nWhile allowing finer-grained decomposition may make each lemma easier, proposing more lemmas may not always increase the pass rate of the model due to the definition of global correctness \\u2014 a theorem is proved only if all the proposed lemmas are also proved. As a concrete example, even if each proposed lemma can be proved with probability 50%, with tree depth 5, the overall pass rate drops to about 3% even if only one lemma is proposed in every conditional proof. This is consistent with our empirical observation in Figure 4, where only a very small amount of theorems can be proved with tree depth > 3. To handle deeper proof trees, we might need a fundamentally better model by scaling up either the model size or the dataset, which are unfortunately out of our compute budget.\"}", "{\"title\": \"Thank you for the comments.\", \"comment\": \"We thank Reviewer CLmw for their comments, and for noting \\u201cThe motivation for this work is strong, addressing a critical problem in the domain of neural theorem proving\\u201d. In the following, we address the reviewer\\u2019s question in detail.\\n\\n> Why does the performance of RL w/o lemma proposal fare worse than SFT w/o lemma proposal? Does the RL loop function as an alternative to expert iteration, serving as an advanced version of it? If so, expert iteration has been shown to be effective for neural theorem proving in previous works such as GPT-f and PACT. Why does the current proposed RL loop fail to improve upon these results?\\n\\nYes, the RL method is an alternative to expert iteration. Regarding the performance of RL vs. SFT, we note that an important difference between our experiment setups and prior works, such as GPT-f and PACT, is that we let the model generate a complete proof directly without looking at the verifier\\u2019s proof state. In the MDP language, the state in our setup is the theorem\\u2019s statement and the action is the whole proof, while in GPT-f and PACT, the state is the verifier\\u2019s internal proof state (plus some contexts) and the action is a single proof step. Therefore, running RL in GPT-f\\u2019s setup can generate data with new MDP states because different proofs may lead to different verifier\\u2019s proof states, whereas RL in our setup without lemma proposal cannot generate data with new MDP states. Therefore, the naive RL algorithm on top of the SFT model in our setup cannot collect fundamentally new data, since the ground-truth action for every MDP state in the dataset is already given, and may simply cause overfitting problems. In contrast, with lemma proposals, we can generate data with new MDP states (i.e., the novel lemma statements) and therefore boost the performance of the SFT model.\\n\\n> Why has the miniF2F result been removed in this submission, despite being presented in the previous NeurIPS submission?\\n\\nAfter the NeurIPS deadline, we conducted more extensive parameter tuning and found a better learning rate schedule that significantly improves the performance of both our methods and the baselines (as we pointed out during the NeurIPS rebuttal phase) \\u2014 we found that models trained with constant learning rates have much better pass@k performance than those trained with cosine learning rate decay because learning rate decay causes more deterministic behavior. As a result, with the new hyperparameters, we do not observe significant improvement on miniF2F compared with the improved performance of the baseline models.\"}", "{\"comment\": \"We thank the reviewer for the additional comments. Indeed the RL w/o lemma proposal can generate additional actions and increase the diversity of the dataset. However, we believe that the proofs in the AFP files have much higher quality in general since they are written by human experts. In addition, the generated proofs also have a different distribution. Therefore, mixing the generated data may confuse the model because of its limited capacity, or even lower the quality of the dataset.\\n\\nAs a more direct comparison, we curated a larger dataset by combining the SFT dataset with all the new proofs generated by the RL w/o lemma proposal algorithm. We trained a new model with the exact same setup as the SFT w/o lemma proposal model. We found that this model performs worse than the original SFT w/o lemma proposal model, with only 42.2% on AFP test and 35.7% on AFP 2023. The results indicate that the generated proofs in general do not enhance the performance of the model.\\n\\nWe hope that our response addressed the reviewer\\u2019s concerns, and we are happy to answer any follow-up questions.\"}", "{\"title\": \"Paper Decision\", \"decision\": \"Reject\"}", "{\"metareview\": \"This paper focuses on neural theorem proving in contexts where the relevant premises are unavailable. The authors propose Proof Decomposer (ProD), a RL approach that utilizes hindsight experience replay to reward a LLM in hierarchically decomposing a given theorem into lemmas, and subsequently proving these lemmas to prove the theorem. Experiments on the AFP dataset indicate that the proposed method (ProD-RL) outperforms several baseline approaches, including those relying solely on supervised fine-tuning (SFT), as well as methods without lemma proposal.\\n\\nReviewers generally agree that the paper is well-written (Reviewers CLmw, vahD) and find the new task both challenging and interesting (Reviewers kLVh, CLmw). They also note that the method is well-motivated (Reviewers kLVh, CLmw). However, as pointed out by Reviewers CALz and vahD, ProD shares notable similarities with existing methods, albeit in a slightly different setting. A key point raised by multiple reviewers (CLmw, CALz, vahD) is the lack of experiments on the miniF2F dataset, which appeared to be selectively omitted. \\n\\nIn summary, while the motivation and setup of the proposed method are compelling, the novelty and especially the generalization performance of ProD-RL remain concerns. The authors are encouraged to conduct further experiments to strengthen generalization on miniF2F and to include these extended results in the revised paper.\", \"additional_comments_on_reviewer_discussion\": \"During the rebuttal, the authors address most of the concerns raised by reviewers kLVh and CLmw and provide additional experiments on the miniF2F dataset (Reviewers CALz, vahD). However, ProD-RL underperforms compared to basic SFT on miniF2F, revealing limited generalization capabilities\\u2014an issue of critical importance. The authors also present additional experiments leveraging ProD-RL in another setting, yet the ProD-SFT-aug approach either underperforms or only matches the performance of basic SFT methods. These results underscore the need for further improvements to enhance the method\\u2019s generalization performance.\"}", "{\"title\": \"Thank you for the comments.\", \"comment\": \"We thank Reviewer CALz for their comments. In the following, we address the reviewer\\u2019s question in detail.\\n\\n> Could the authors address the large experimental difference between ProD-RL (45.5%) and MagnusHammer\\u2019s 71% on the PISA benchmark [2]?\\n\\nFirst, there are two major differences between ours and PISA\\u2019s evaluation setup:\\n\\n- We split the test set based on the dependency of the files, while PISA splits the test theorems randomly. As a result, for the theorems in the PISA test set, there may exist proofs of similar theorems in the PISA training set.\\n- When testing on a theorem, we do not allow the proof to directly use lemmas in the same AFP file. Instead, we let the model propose and prove every lemma it needs in the proof. In comparison, MagnusHammer focuses on training a retrieval model that selects useful lemmas from the context, including those in the same AFP file.\\n\\nAs a result, our test setup is fundamentally harder than PISA. As shown in Table 1, the *same* model has much worse performance on our setup.\\n\\nSecond, we also test the pass@64 performance of our baseline model on $D_{val}^{w/l}$, our reproduction of the PISA test set. The baseline model achieves 63.9% on the test set with Sledgehammer. In comparison, Thor with MagnusHammer archives 71%. We\\u2019d also like to emphasize that, according to First et al., (2023), whole-proof generation with 64 examples is 6x faster than search methods like Thor.\\n\\nFinally, the contribution of MagnusHammer is orthogonal to ours. In fact, combining our methods with MagnusHammer is straightforward, as we can simply replace Sledgehammer with MagnusHammer. We leave this direction as future work.\\n\\n> Why is \\u201cMiniF2F\\u201d only in the licensing section without experiment inclusion? This benchmark is a robust test for theorem-proving tasks. it could be better to add the evaluation PutnamBench [1] which assesses the methods on hard competition level problems.\\n\\nWe use MiniF2F benchmark in the early development of this work. We find that our method does not have significant improvement over the baselines. We hypothesize the reasons to be: (a) the theorems are very different from theorems in the training dataset, and (b) we also observe that when tested on miniF2F theorems, our model failed to propose meaningful lemmas. This may be because proving to miniF2F-level mathematics questions typically does not require hierarchical decomposition. In contrast, the AFP datasets work with abstract mathematical objects and theorems, which intrinsically have hierarchical decompositions.\\n\\n> There is limited exploration of scalability to higher-complexity proofs. It's better to address whether ProD-RL is viable for deeper proof trees.\\n\\nWe thank the reviewer for the suggestion. We observe that in AFP test sets, theorems that require deeper proof trees are too challenging for our current model since the pass@64 performance is below 10%, as shown in Figure 4. It might require scaling up the model or the dataset before we can test the scalability of our methods. Unfortunately, we are currently limited by the compute budget and therefore cannot perform a larger scale experiment.\\n\\nWe hope that our response addressed the reviewer\\u2019s concerns, and we are happy to answer any follow-up questions.\"}", "{\"summary\": \"This paper explores neural theorem proving in a setting where existing lemmas cannot be used and proposes a RL-based approach that encourages the model to decompose proofs into multiple subgoals and propose new lemmas to prove. The authors demonstrate that their approach, which combines supervised fine-tuning with reinforcement learning, achieves superior performance on the AFP dataset compared to baseline methods, including those that do not propose new lemmas or rely solely on supervised fine-tuning.\", \"soundness\": \"2\", \"presentation\": \"3\", \"contribution\": \"1\", \"strengths\": [\"The paper is well-written, clearly structured, and easy to follow.\", \"The proposed method is well-motivated. Experiments on the AFP dataset effectively demonstrate the advantages of lemma proposal with reinforcement learning.\"], \"weaknesses\": \"* The idea of decomposing proofs into subgoals and proposing new lemmas is not entirely novel, as it has been explored in previous work. For instance, LEGO-Prover [1] uses informal proofs to break down proofs into manageable subgoals and leverages language models to either propose new lemmas or retrieve existing ones from a growing library. While the proposed setting of excluding relevant premises is indeed challenging, I believe it does not always reflect practical scenarios. Incorporating both lemma selection and lemma proposal would present a more generalized and realistic approach.\\n\\n* The experiments are conducted exclusively on the AFP dataset, which may not provide a thorough evaluation of the method's robustness, particularly in out-of-distribution scenarios like the miniF2F dataset, a more commonly used benchmark. As a result, it is unclear how well the proposed approach generalizes beyond the training set. Additionally, in Case 2, there seems to be evidence that the model may be memorizing lemmas from the training data rather than proposing genuinely novel ones, which raises concerns about its ability to generate useful new lemmas in unseen contexts.\\n\\n* Minor Points: There are some missing references to works that share similar ideas or components with this paper [2,3,4]. For instance, POETRY [4] introduces a recursive approach that decomposes proofs into subgoals and generates lemmas in a hierarchical, level-by-level manner. A broader overview of related work can be found in [5]. Additionally, the statement in Line 80 (\\\"the best method along this line of research requires more than 1k GPU days with A100s to train a model with 600M parameters\\\") may not be entirely accurate. More recent methods, such as InternLM-Step Prover [6], appear to have surpassed HTPS in both efficiency and requiring less computational resources.\\n\\n[1] LEGO-Prover: Neural Theorem Proving with Growing Libraries\\n\\n[2] TacticZero: Learning to Prove Theorems from Scratch with Deep Reinforcement Learning\\n\\n[3] Proving Theorems Using Incremental Learning and Hindsight Experience Replay\\n\\n[4] Proving Theorems Recursively\\n\\n[5] A Survey on Deep Learning for Theorem Proving\\n\\n[6] LEAN-GitHub: Compiling GitHub LEAN Repositories for a Versatile LEAN Prover\", \"questions\": [\"Could you evaluate the proposed method on the miniF2F benchmark? This dataset is more commonly used and would help assess the generalization of your approach beyond AFP.\", \"The paragraph starting at Line 270 suggests that the reward in the RL setting is based on the conditional proof, with its weight influenced by the conditional proof as well. However, in practice (as described in Line 277), it appears that the proposed method uses a language model as a value network to predict True/False, and the probability is used as the reward score, without incorporating any information from the conditional proof. Could you clarify why the conditional proof is discarded for the value function? Additionally, in the RL w/o lemma proposal, what rewards or weights are used in the absence of lemmas?\", \"Why does RL w/o lemma proposal underperform SFT w/o lemma proposal? For ProD-RL, you first apply SFT, followed by RL, which (almost) ensures that ProD-RL always outperforms ProD-SFT. Does RL w/o lemma proposal also involve an initial SFT stage? If so, it seems that RL w/o lemma proposal negatively impacts performance, and I would like more details on why this happens (since there are no details provided). If not, the comparison between RL w/o lemma proposal and ProD-RL may not be entirely fair.\"], \"flag_for_ethics_review\": \"['No ethics review needed.']\", \"rating\": \"3\", \"confidence\": \"4\", \"code_of_conduct\": \"Yes\"}", "{\"title\": \"Thank you for the comments (2/2)\", \"comment\": \"> Why does RL w/o lemma proposal underperform SFT w/o lemma proposal? For ProD-RL, you first apply SFT, followed by RL, which (almost) ensures that ProD-RL always outperforms ProD-SFT. Does RL w/o lemma proposal also involve an initial SFT stage? If so, it seems that RL w/o lemma proposal negatively impacts performance, and I would like more details on why this happens (since there are no details provided). If not, the comparison between RL w/o lemma proposal and ProD-RL may not be entirely fair.\\n\\nYes, the RL w/o lemma proposal involves an initial SFT stage. In our MDP setup, the state is the theorem\\u2019s statement and the action is the whole proof. Therefore, running RL in our setup without lemma proposal cannot generate data with new MDP states. In other words, the naive RL algorithm on top of the SFT model in our setup cannot collect fundamentally new data, since the ground-truth action for every MDP state in the dataset is already given in the SFT dataset. Further RL training may simply cause overfitting problems. In contrast, with lemma proposals, we can generate novel data MDP states (i.e., the lemma statements) and therefore boost the performance of the SFT model.\\n\\nTo reconcile prior works that show naive RL can further improve the SFT model, such as GPT-f [1] and PACT [2], we note that in GPT-f and PACT, the state is the verifier\\u2019s internal proof state (plus some contexts) and the action is a single proof step (and they rely on an additional search algorithm to find a correct multi-step proof). Therefore, running RL in GPT-f\\u2019s setup can generate data with new MDP states because different proofs may lead to different verifier\\u2019s proof states, and therefore enriches the dataset.\\n\\nWe hope that our response addressed the reviewer\\u2019s concerns, and we are happy to answer any follow-up questions.\\n\\n[1] Polu, Stanislas, and Ilya Sutskever. \\\"Generative language modeling for automated theorem proving.\\\" arXiv preprint arXiv:2009.03393 (2020).\\n\\n[2] Han, Jesse Michael, et al. \\\"Proof artifact co-training for theorem proving with language models.\\\" arXiv preprint arXiv:2102.06203 (2021).\"}", "{\"summary\": \"The paper proposes a novel paradigm in neural theorem proving. Previous methods assume pre-provided lemmas during the proving stage. In contrast, this paper encourages the model to decompose the theorem into lemmas, prove the lemmas, and then use these lemmas to prove the theorem. This approach more closely resembles a real-world theorem-proving process. And the effectiveness of the proposed framework is demonstrated by the experiments.\", \"soundness\": \"4\", \"presentation\": \"3\", \"contribution\": \"3\", \"strengths\": [\"The motivation for this work is strong, addressing a critical problem in the domain of neural theorem proving. The proposed framework is highly useful for this task.\", \"The experimental results demonstrate its effectiveness in creating lemmas during the theorem-proving process.\", \"The paper is well-written and easy to follow.\"], \"weaknesses\": [\"The primary concern with the proposed method is its performance. While effective, the enhancement offered by the framework is marginal when compared to the baseline scenario, with a modest 2.1% increase in the AFP test and a negligible 0.1% improvement in the AFP 2023 set.\", \"One drawback of the lemma proposal mechanism is that the model\\u2019s performance can be hindered by meaningless proposed lemmas. This issue is evident in the case study section. The key challenge lies in the ability to refine the proposed method to be able to generate lemmas that are genuinely beneficial.\"], \"questions\": [\"Why does the performance of `RL w/o lemma proposal` fare worse than `SFT w/o lemma proposal`? Does the RL loop function as an alternative to expert iteration, serving as an advanced version of it? If so, expert iteration has been shown to be effective for neural theorem proving in previous works such as GPT-f and PACT. Why does the current proposed RL loop fail to improve upon these results?\", \"Why has the miniF2F result been removed in this submission, despite being presented in the previous NeurIPS submission?\"], \"flag_for_ethics_review\": \"['No ethics review needed.']\", \"details_of_ethics_concerns\": \"N/A\", \"rating\": \"8\", \"confidence\": \"4\", \"code_of_conduct\": \"Yes\"}", "{\"comment\": \"We thank the reviewer for their clarification and the additional comments. Regarding the performance on miniF2F, we conducted the following experiments.\\n\\nIf we focus on the performance on miniF2F, and given the fact that the questions in miniF2F are sufficiently different from AFP, we suggest that it is better to use our RL training pipeline as a data augmentation procedure. Specifically, we collect all the new lemmas proposed and proved by our model during RL, and combine them with the original SFT dataset (in other words, we discard the ProD-RL model but keep the generated data). Then, we train a new model with the combined dataset with the same hyperparameter as ProD-SFT. We call this new model ProD-SFT-aug.\\n\\nNote that ProD-SFT-aug will unavoidably underperform ProD-RL on in-domain test sets AFP test and AFP 2023. This is because the ProD-RL model is trained in an on-policy manner using RL. However, without the RL training, ProD-SFT-aug generalizes better to out-of-domain test sets miniF2F, as shown in the following table.\\n\\n| | miniF2F valid | miniF2F test |\\n|:----------------------:|:-------------:|:------------:|\\n| SFT w/o lemma proposal | 46.3 | 40.6 |\\n| ProD-SFT | 44.7 | 39.3 |\\n| ProD-RL | 41.4 | 39.3 |\\n| ProD-SFT-aug | 45.1 | 41.4 |\\n\\nOn both miniF2F valid and miniF2F test, ProD-SFT-aug improves ProD-SFT, showing that the additional lemmas proposed by our model is indeed useful. We\\u2019d also like to note that the comparison between ProD-SFT-aug and the baseline model SFT w/o lemma proposal shows mixed signals. On the one hand, proposing correct lemmas itself is challenging, which may distract the ProD-SFT-aug model from learning to generate direct proofs. On the other hand, ProD-SFT-aug benefits from the additional training data generated by proposing and proving new lemmas.\"}", "{\"summary\": \"This paper introduces ProD-RL, an RL method to enhance LLM\\u2019s theorem-proving capabilities by encouraging them to decompose proofs into lemmas. It avoids oversimplifying the task by removing direct lemma support from the training setup, requiring the model to independently propose intermediate steps in the proof process. The paper evaluates the model\\u2019s performance on the Isabelle AFP dataset and shows 45.5%/39.5% accuracy on AFP-test/AFP-2023, which outperforms SFT baselines.\", \"soundness\": \"3\", \"presentation\": \"2\", \"contribution\": \"2\", \"strengths\": \"1. This work proposes an RL-driven approach to proof decomposition without lemma reliance, an original contribution that aligns with similar ideas in [3], [4]\\n2. ProD-RL\\u2019s methodology yields improvements over SFT, highlighting the model\\u2019s capability to generalize beyond pre-existing lemmas, and trains on a more realistic dataset, splitting by dependency rather than at random.\\n3. The work contributes to LLM for theorem proving, an important direction for mathematical reasoning research.\", \"weaknesses\": \"1. Clarity and Readability: The paper is a little bit difficult to follow, especially in algorithmic explanations and conditional proof notation. The baseline and proposed methods are not clearly differentiated in the results. Improved organization, clearer definitions, and visuals would make the methodology more accessible.\\n2. Generalization and Complexity: There is limited exploration of scalability to higher-complexity proofs. It's better to address whether ProD-RL is viable for deeper proof trees.\\n3. Comparative Benchmarks and Dataset Exclusion: The absence of benchmarks like minif2f in experiments raises questions, given its mention in the license section. Also, there could be more comparisons with other theorem-proving techniques in the experiment section.\", \"questions\": \"1. Could the authors address the large experimental difference between ProD-RL (45.5%) and MagnusHammer\\u2019s 71% on the PISA benchmark [2]? A direct comparison/discussion of scalability/ablation study could strengthen the work.\\n\\n2. Why is \\u201cMiniF2F\\u201d only in the licensing section without experiment inclusion? This benchmark is a robust test for theorem-proving tasks.\\nit could be better to add the evaluation PutnamBench [1] which assesses the methods on hard competition level problems.\\n\\n\\n\\n[1] Tsoukalas, George, et al. \\\"PutnamBench: Evaluating Neural Theorem-Provers on the Putnam Mathematical Competition.\\\" arXiv preprint arXiv:2407.11214 (2024).\\n[2] Miku\\u0142a, Maciej, et al. \\\"Magnushammer: A transformer-based approach to premise selection.\\\" arXiv preprint arXiv:2303.04488 (2023).\\n[3] Wang, Haiming, et al. \\\"Lego-prover: Neural theorem proving with growing libraries.\\\" arXiv preprint arXiv:2310.00656 (2023).\\n[4] Ayg\\u00fcn, Eser, et al. \\\"Proving theorems using incremental learning and hindsight experience replay.\\\" International Conference on Machine Learning. PMLR, 2022.\", \"flag_for_ethics_review\": \"['No ethics review needed.']\", \"rating\": \"3\", \"confidence\": \"4\", \"code_of_conduct\": \"Yes\"}", "{\"comment\": \"Thank you for your response. I appreciate the detailed discussion and insights provided by the authors. However, I believe the paper, in its current form, still requires significant improvement in clarity and a more comprehensive analysis and refinement of the experimental results, to be considered for acceptance. While the proposed method is intuitive and well-motivated, I could hardly find it \\\"novel\\\" as the core ideas (decomposing theorems into lemmas, Hindsight Experience Replay) appear to overlap with existing work. Additionally, the authors emphasize that their approach operates entirely in formal language, in contrast to some related methods that leverage natural language. However, if leveraging natural language can yield better results, as demonstrated in [1], why not explore its use as a means to guide formal proofs to achieve better performance? Another critical concern is the generalization ability of the proposed method. The authors acknowledge that their model struggles to propose meaningful lemmas for problems in the miniF2F dataset and even underperforms basic SFT approaches. This suggests that even simple SFT exhibits better generalization than the proposed method. Without presenting a strategy to address this critical limitation or additional experiments demonstrating potential improvements in generalization, simply labeling it as a limitation feels insufficient for acceptance. In my opinion, achieving the best performance is not always necessary for a method to be considered impactful. However, underperforming compared to basic SFT makes it difficult to view this work as a \\\"significant contribution\\\" to the field in its current state.\\n\\n[1] Lean-STaR: Learning to Interleave Thinking and Proving\"}", "{\"comment\": \"I appreciate the authors' quick response and would like to address my concerns in detail.\\n\\n- Regarding the novelty\\n\\nWhile I understand that assessing novelty can be subjective, I find the core idea of the proposed method overlaps with existing works. As you acknowledge, decomposing theorems into lemmas and using Hindsight Experience Replay are established techniques *within theorem proving research*, even if applied to different settings (e.g., alternative logics or LLMs). However, combining previously known approaches in a somewhat distinct setup does not, in my view, qualify as entirely ''novel''.\\n\\n- Regarding the generalization ability\\n\\nI appreciate the motivation to rely solely on formal verifiers like Isabelle without the assistance of powerful teacher models (i.e., \\\"weak-to-strong generalization\\\"). However, I find it unconvincing to downplay the limitations in generalization by stating that MiniF2F is not a major focus, especially considering this dataset is the most widely used benchmark in this field. Furthermore, the proposed method underperforms even simple SFT on the formal proof of the AFP dataset when testing on the MiniF2F. If the goal is to improve the reasoning abilities of weak LLMs, performance on problems beyond similar training instances is also crucial. This concern is amplified by the fact that problems in MiniF2F, which consist of high-school competition-level math, may be less challenging than those in the AFP dataset, which spans diverse mathematical research topics.\\n\\nIn my view, while proposing entirely novel approaches is very commendable but not always essential, addressing generalization remains a critical factor. If the authors can present strategies to overcome these limitations and provide additional experiments showing potential improvements in generalization (better than simple SFT), I would like to reassess and raise my score.\"}", "{\"comment\": \"Thank you for your further clarification. This is a fascinating and counterintuitive result. Normally, we expect that more diverse proof data would help with the proving process.\\n\\nI\\u2019m now more convinced that this is a really challenging task, and this work demonstrates a solid start in this direction. Current theorem-proving frameworks like AlphaProof have already shown their capability in solving very complex IMO-level problems. Therefore, I believe the direction of attempting the lemma generation task is very important as a future step. I\\u2019ve raised my score to 8.\"}", "{\"title\": \"Thank you for the comments (1/2)\", \"comment\": \"We thank Reviewer vahD for their comments. In the following, we address the reviewer\\u2019s question in detail.\\n\\n> While the proposed setting of excluding relevant premises is indeed challenging, I believe it does not always reflect practical scenarios. Incorporating both lemma selection and lemma proposal would present a more generalized and realistic approach.\\n\\nWe thank the reviewer for the constructive comments. In fact, combining our methods with premise selection tools such as MagnusHammer is straightforward, as we can simply replace Sledgehammer with MagnusHammer. Since we cannot find an open-sourced implementation of MagnusHammer, we leave this direction as future work.\\n\\n> In Case 2, there seems to be evidence that the model may be memorizing lemmas from the training data rather than proposing genuinely novel ones, which raises concerns about its ability to generate useful new lemmas in unseen contexts.\\n\\nWe acknowledge that the model may memorize lemmas in some cases. However, in both Cases 1 and 3, the lemma proposed by our model is indeed useful since the proposed lemmas are not present in the training dataset. Figure 4 also demonstrates that, with lemma proposals, our ProD-RL model outperforms baseline methods by proposing lemmas in the test dataset where the context of theorems is never seen by the model during training.\\n\\n> There are some missing references to works that share similar ideas or components with this paper\\u2026\\n\\nWe thank the reviewer for the additional references. We will update our paper accordingly upon revision.\\n\\n> The experiments are conducted exclusively on the AFP dataset, which may not provide a thorough evaluation of the method's robustness, particularly in out-of-distribution scenarios like the miniF2F dataset, a more commonly used benchmark. \\u2026 Could you evaluate the proposed method on the miniF2F benchmark?\\n\\nOn miniF2F, we find that our method does not have significant improvement over the baselines. We hypothesize the reasons to be: (a) the theorems are very different from theorems in the training dataset, and (b) we also observe that when tested on miniF2F theorems, our model failed to propose meaningful lemmas. This may be because proving to miniF2F-level mathematics questions typically does not require hierarchical decomposition. In contrast, the AFP datasets work with abstract mathematical objects and theorems, which intrinsically have hierarchical decompositions.\\n\\nNonetheless, our results on miniF2F are shown in the following table:\\n\\n| | SFT w/o lemma proposal | RL w/o lemma proposal | ProD-SFT | ProD-RL |\\n|:-------------:|:----------------------:|:---------------------:|:--------:|:-------:|\\n| miniF2F valid | 46.3 | 40.6 | 44.7 | 41.4 |\\n| miniF2F test | 40.6 | 38.9 | 39.3 | 39.3 |\\n\\n> The paragraph starting at Line 270 suggests that the reward in the RL setting is based on the conditional proof, with its weight influenced by the conditional proof as well. However, in practice (as described in Line 277), it appears that the proposed method uses a language model as a value network to predict True/False, and the probability is used as the reward score, without incorporating any information from the conditional proof. Could you clarify why the conditional proof is discarded for the value function? \\n\\nWe do not discard the conditional proof when computing the reward. For a theorem with conditional proof `p`, we only use the value function to compute the probability that the current model can prove the proposed lemmas.\\n\\nAs a concrete example, suppose the conditional proof to the theorem proposes two lemmas `l1, l2` and the conditional proof itself is locally correct (meaning that it proves the theorem using lemmas `l1` and `l2`, assuming both lemmas are correct). Then the reward of this conditional proof is `V(l1) * V(l2)` times the additional discount factor.\\n\\nIn comparison, we can also simply set a binary reward whose value depends on whether the proofs to lemmas `l1` and `l2` are also correct. If the value function is perfect, the two ways of computing the reward have the same expected value, and using the value function is a common trick to reduce the variance of the reward estimation.\\n\\n> Additionally, in the RL w/o lemma proposal, what rewards or weights are used in the absence of lemmas?\\n\\nWithout lemma proposal, the reward of a conditional proof is simply the correctness of the proof.\"}", "{\"comment\": \"Thank you for your detailed clarifications.\\n\\n> Therefore, the naive RL algorithm on top of the SFT model in our setup cannot collect fundamentally new data, since the ground-truth action for every MDP state in the dataset is already given, and may simply cause overfitting problems.\\n\\nApologies for not being an RL expert here. Doesn\\u2019t the RL process involve sampling additional actions (proofs) for each MDP state (i.e., each problem in the training set) using the current model, and subsequently utilizing these newly sampled actions for RL updates? While I understand that the MDP state (the problems) remains fixed in this context, wouldn\\u2019t increasing the diversity of actions used for training improve model performance? From an expert iteration perspective, providing the model with more varied solutions for each problem could potentially enhance performance, even if the effect is less pronounced than in setups like GPT-f.\"}", "{\"title\": \"Thank you for your additional comments (1/2)\", \"comment\": \"We thank reviewer vahD for their additional constructive comments and suggestions. In the following, we address the reviewer\\u2019s comments in detail.\\n\\n> Has Sledgehammer been used into the proposed approach? Specifically, is it used to fill proof gaps for the proposed lemmas? If Sledgehammer is indeed part of the method, I recommend providing additional details about its integration.\\n\\nYes, Sledgehammer is used in our proof for both the original theorem and the proposed lemmas. For both the theorems and the proposed lemmas, we use the language model to generate a complete proof that may have sledgehammer commands in the middle of the proof.\\n\\nTo use Sledgehammer, we mostly follow the methodology in Thor [1] \\u2014 we first augment the proofs in the SFT dataset to replace tactics like `meson`, `smt`, and others like `by simp` by a single word `Sledgehammer` (intuitively, these are the tactics that can be found by Sledgehammer), and then the model can directly generate a whole-proof with Sledgehammer commands in the middle. When testing the correctness of a proof, we simply call the Sledgehammer tool to complete a single-step proof. Unlike Thor, we don\\u2019t interactively call the LLM and the Isabelle prover because we generate a whole proof once and then test its correctness.\\n\\nWe will update the paper accordingly upon revision.\\n\\n[1] Jiang, Albert Qiaochu, et al. Thor: Wielding hammers to integrate language models and automated theorem provers.\\\" \\n\\n> Furthermore, rather than independently proposing every lemma, have you considered leveraging existing lemma retrieval techniques like those in [1]? This approach could potentially address a broader range of cases and enhance the method's generality.\\n\\nWe thank the reviewer for the suggestion! Yes, this direction is something we are actively considering. We believe that retrieval techniques like LEGO-Prover or MagnusHammer can indeed enhance the model\\u2019s performance and even boost its generalization. Our framework is naturally compatible with retrieval techniques since we can either use RAG by prepending the retrieved lemmas in the context, or directly replace Sledgehammer by MagnusHammer. For this particular paper, however, we decided to leave this direction for future work since our contribution is mostly orthogonal.\\n\\n> [\\u2026] why not consider modeling each proof step as an individual action in the RL framework? This would better align with existing RL approaches to theorem proving.\\n\\nWe choose to use REINFORCE instead of RL algorithms mostly for the conceptual and implementation simplicity. In addition, we\\u2019d also like to explore the potential of whole-proof generation instead of search + single step generation because of its efficiency and compatibility to common LLM infrastructures. Incorporating the step-level feedback from Isabelle in RL training is an interesting direction for future works.\\n\\n> If the action in your RL w/o lemma proposal setup is defined as generating the entire proof, this reduces the RL problem to a bandit-like setting, as there is no exploration during the proving process. [...] These challenges likely contribute to the observed underperformance of RL w/o lemma proposal compared to SFT w/o lemma proposal. The lack of intermediate structure or guidance in this setup may also have a negative impact on the learning process.\\n\\nWe agree with the reviewer that it essentially reduces the RL problem to a bandit-like setting. The resulting algorithm is actually almost equivalent to expert iteration in the recent literature. In fact, even for ProD-RL, we use REINFORCE to update the policy, which is also almost equivalent to expert iteration (except that we use a different way to assign the reward). Therefore, we generally don\\u2019t think the training algorithm is the key factor that causes the difference between RL w/o lemma proposal and *ProD-RL*. However, it is indeed possible that, by using the intermediate feedbacks, both RL w/o lemma proposal and Prod-RL could have a better performance, and RL w/o lemma proposal could outperforms SFT w/o lemma proposal.\\n\\nWe will add a detailed discussion on the performance of RL w/o lemma proposal upon revision.\\n\\n> However, I believe miniF2F does exhibit hierarchical decomposition (albeit different from AFP), which is why methods like LEGO-Prover perform well in this domain. I posit that the underperformance of your approach may be more related to its generalization ability. Including these results in your paper to clearly illustrate the limitations of your method would be beneficial and add transparency.\\n\\nThank you for the comments! Yes, we agree that the generalization ability might be a key reason to explain ProD-RL\\u2019s performance on miniF2F. We will include these results in the final version of our paper accordingly.\"}", "{\"comment\": [\"Thank you for your detailed response. I have a few follow-up questions and suggestions for clarification and improvements to the paper.\", \"1. Regarding the Use of Sledgehammer\", \"Has Sledgehammer been used into the proposed approach? Specifically, is it used to fill proof gaps for the proposed lemmas?\", \"If Sledgehammer is indeed part of the method, I recommend providing additional details about its integration, as the current description includes very limited discussion. Furthermore, rather than independently proposing every lemma, have you considered leveraging existing lemma retrieval techniques like those in [1]? This approach could potentially address a broader range of cases and enhance the method's generality.\", \"If Sledgehammer is not used, and proof steps are still predicted by LLMs, why not consider modeling each proof step as an individual action in the RL framework? This would better align with existing RL approaches to theorem proving.\", \"[1] LEGO-Prover: Neural Theorem Proving with Growing Libraries\", \"2. On the RL Formulation\", \"If the action in your RL w/o lemma proposal setup is defined as generating the entire proof, this reduces the RL problem to a bandit-like setting, as there is no exploration during the proving process. This formulation faces significant challenges:\", \"The action space is almost infinite.\", \"Correct proofs often involve lengthy token sequences but rewards are extremely sparse.\", \"These challenges likely contribute to the observed underperformance of RL w/o lemma proposal compared to SFT w/o lemma proposal. The lack of intermediate structure or guidance in this setup may also have a negative impact on the learning process. I suggest adding a more detailed settings of the baseline methods and discussing these challenges explicitly to provide further clarity.\", \"3. Performance on miniF2F\", \"You mention that your method does not show significant improvement (and indeed has a negative impact) over baselines on miniF2F, potentially due to the lack of hierarchical decomposition in these problems. However, I believe miniF2F does exhibit hierarchical decomposition (albeit different from AFP), which is why methods like LEGO-Prover perform well in this domain.\", \"I posit that the underperformance of your approach may be more related to its generalization ability. Including these results in your paper to clearly illustrate the limitations of your method would be beneficial and add transparency.\", \"4. Insights on Novelty and Contributions\", \"From my understanding, decomposing theorems into lemmas is intuitive for declarative proof assistants like Isabelle and has been extensively explored in the literature. The main contribution of your work appears to be the use of RL to train a lemma proposal mechanism. Beyond this, can the authors provide additional insights into the novelty or other valuable aspects of the proposed approach?\", \"One potential reason for your improved performance on AFP could be that RL facilitates the generation of more diverse intermediate lemmas compared to purely SFT approaches. This diversity could better guide the proving process. I suggest analyzing and comparing the diversity of lemmas generated by ProD-RL and SFT without lemma proposal to evaluate this potential advantage.\"]}", "{\"comment\": \"We thank the reviewer for the additional comments.\\n\\nFirst, we would like to point out that, in our opinion, there is a fundamental difference between this paper and the research that leverages powerful external LLMs. That is, where the training signal comes from.\\n\\n- First, since the miniF2F benchmark is created by translating natural language math questions into formal proofs, and existing LLMs are extensively trained on natural language data, it is not a surprise that leveraging natural language can improve the models\\u2019 performance on miniF2F. Therefore, if the goal is to advance the performance on miniF2F, leveraging natural language data/reasoning is a strong method.\\n- However, with this approach, it is unclear whether the improvement comes from the adaptation of the knowledge (that the models already have) to formal languages, or the improvement of their mathematical and reasoning capability. The research question in the former case is, while of interest on its own, orthogonal to this paper. There is no doubt that finetuning/prompt-engineering GPT4 is a way to improve the state-of-the-art performance on miniF2F.\\n- In contrast, this paper aims to explore the possibility of the latter case, where the training signal does not rely on any powerful teacher model and solely comes from the formal verifier like Isabelle. This direction resonates with the weak-to-strong generalization question, where the weak training signal is the correctness of the proofs which can be determined in polynomial time, and the strong capability we are aiming to achieve is generating correct proofs, which is even harder than NP-hard. \\n- Therefore we explicitly choose to not use any strong LLMs to perform reasoning steps in natural language. We carefully curated the AFP test datasets to make sure that the improvement of the performance is independent of potential knowledge leakage. On AFP datasets, our methods show significant improvement over baseline methods. MiniF2F, on the other hand, is not the major focus of this paper.\\n\\nRegarding the novelty of this paper, we kindly ask the reviewer to clarify the comments:\\n> I could hardly find it \\\"novel\\\" as the core ideas (decomposing theorems into lemmas, Hindsight Experience Replay) appear to overlap with existing work. \\n\\nDoes the reviewer mean that using Hindsight Experience Replay in the field of formal proofs overlaps with existing work? To the best of our knowledge, [2] is the closest related work in this field, which only works for first-order logics that have a well-structured format. Similarly, [1] decomposes theorems into lemmas by ChatGPT, but no training is involved; [3] trains a new model to search proofs hierarchically without HER.\\n\\n[1] Wang, Haiming, et al. Lego-prover: Neural theorem proving with growing libraries.\\n\\n[2] Ayg\\u00fcn, Eser, et al. Proving theorems using incremental learning and hindsight experience replay.\\n\\n[3] Wang, Haiming, et al. Proving Theorems Recursively.\"}", "{\"title\": \"Thank you for your additional comments (2/2)\", \"comment\": \"> From my understanding, decomposing theorems into lemmas is intuitive for declarative proof assistants like Isabelle and has been extensively explored in the literature. The main contribution of your work appears to be the use of RL to train a lemma proposal mechanism. Beyond this, can the authors provide additional insights into the novelty or other valuable aspects of the proposed approach?\\n\\nIn addition to the RL training pipeline, our contributions are:\\n\\n- Our reward design can be seen as an instantiation of the Hindsight Experience Replay (HER) algorithm, which is specifically designed for sparse reward RL problems. In particular, even if the theorem is not proved, we can still train on the correct proofs of proposed lemmas. This algorithm somewhat imitates a mathematician\\u2019s process when facing an extremely challenging open question, though our model is trained on simpler questions due to its limited size. \\n- Although the idea of using HER with formal proofs is explored before [2], it was limited to synthetic questions where hindsight trajectories can be generated easily. Our method provides a more elegant/natural way of generating the hindsight trajectories.\\n- To the best of our knowledge (please kindly let us know of any missing related works in this direction otherwise), prior works like LEGO-Prover require a strong model such as GPT4 to decompose the theorems into lemmas, and its reasoning steps are performed in natural language so that it\\u2019s closer to the pretraining dataset. In contrast, our method designs a framework of hierarchical decomposition purely in formal language, and is not restricted to synthetic statements with good proof structures. \\n\\n[2] Ayg\\u00fcn, Eser, et al. \\\"Proving theorems using incremental learning and hindsight experience replay.\\\" International Conference on Machine Learning. PMLR, 2022.\\n\\n> One potential reason for your improved performance on AFP could be that RL facilitates the generation of more diverse intermediate lemmas compared to purely SFT approaches. This diversity could better guide the proving process. I suggest analyzing and comparing the diversity of lemmas generated by ProD-RL and SFT without lemma proposal to evaluate this potential advantage.\\n\\nThank you for the comments! We indeed find that our RL algorithm generates 37% more novel lemmas after deduplication with exact match and the Isabelle built-in `solve_direct` method. We also agree with the reviewer that this is one of the main reasons for its improvement over SFT. In general, accessing the diversity of generated lemmas on the semantic level is not an easy task because it is hard to determine the similarity between lemmas. The best way we can think of right now is the case study in Section 4.4, plus some simple statistics with exact match deduplication. \\n\\nA potential evaluation method is to look at the cosine similarity of embeddings of the lemmas, but then the quality of the analysis highly depends on the embedding model itself, which is less ideal. Please kindly let us know if there are better ways to approach this question.\\n\\nFinally, we thank reviewer vahD again for this constructive discussion, and we are happy to answer any follow-up questions.\"}", "{\"title\": \"Thank you for the comments!\", \"comment\": \"We thank reviewer kLVh for the additional comments, and for raising the score.\\n\\n> I suspect this failure is due to the model\\u2019s inability to fully learn how to actively decompose complex mathematical problems and plan sequential solution steps, rather than simply imitating patterns demonstrated in AFP.\\n\\nThis is a good point! Decomposing theorems from the miniF2F dataset could be quite different from decomposing theorems in AFP, as the difficulty of math competition problems is also somewhat different from the difficulty of the abstract theorems in AFP. It is indeed possible that the decomposition ability of our model does not generalize well to miniF2F. We will include a detailed discussion regarding this point upon revision of the paper.\"}" ] }

[ "Shyam Nandan Rai", "Massimiliano Mancini", "Marco Ciccone", "Iuliana Georgescu", "Zeynep Akata", "Barbara Caputo", "Carlo Masone" ]

[ "Adapters", "Anomaly Segmentation" ]

{ "note_id": [ "zUdTbdRztX", "xrPBcqsIYZ", "x7fVb7lziD", "tVPi87T1nD", "LSCFB5Frsi", "LHZJuB5nIH", "ITxb0yDwBp", "Ffeslv7LQS", "DRznxtiXwq", "Ad5Y8TssRV", "4Csy4AVCBK", "45gKgeduGs", "2rJmv9LRGR" ], "note_type": [ "official_comment", "official_comment", "official_comment", "meta_review", "official_comment", "official_review", "decision", "official_comment", "official_comment", "official_review", "official_comment", "official_comment", "official_review" ], "note_created": [ 1732621811169, 1732621835090, 1732621265665, 1734386112186, 1732682245916, 1730711008164, 1737523870724, 1732621282877, 1732621409951, 1730363402465, 1733182252113, 1733216840278, 1729655136118 ], "note_signatures": [ [ "ICLR.cc/2025/Conference/Submission7865/Authors" ], [ "ICLR.cc/2025/Conference/Submission7865/Authors" ], [ "ICLR.cc/2025/Conference/Submission7865/Authors" ], [ "ICLR.cc/2025/Conference/Submission7865/Area_Chair_Mrhs" ], [ "ICLR.cc/2025/Conference/Submission7865/Reviewer_R2z4" ], [ "ICLR.cc/2025/Conference/Submission7865/Reviewer_wmG8" ], [ "ICLR.cc/2025/Conference/Program_Chairs" ], [ "ICLR.cc/2025/Conference/Submission7865/Authors" ], [ "ICLR.cc/2025/Conference/Submission7865/Authors" ], [ "ICLR.cc/2025/Conference/Submission7865/Reviewer_R2z4" ], [ "ICLR.cc/2025/Conference/Submission7865/Reviewer_wmG8" ], [ "ICLR.cc/2025/Conference/Submission7865/Authors" ], [ "ICLR.cc/2025/Conference/Submission7865/Reviewer_Wr5a" ] ], "structured_content_str": [ "{\"comment\": \"**Q1, Q3, and W1 - task definition, metrics, and benchmarks:** We agree with the reviewer that the concept of anomaly is very broad and open to different interpretations depending on the context and field of application. In this work, we consider specifically the task of anomaly segmentation in driving scenes, a task with a precise definition adopted by a plethora of works [A,B,C,D,E,F,G,H,I,J,K,L,M,N]. In autonomous driving applications, image segmentation is an important functionality that aims to precisely classify all the pixels according to a set of in-distribution categories that a model is exposed to during training. In this context, anomaly segmentation aims to detect and locate, with pixel-level granularity, objects belonging to previously unseen categories that are present in road scenes. This task definition is supported by several well-established benchmarks: Fishyscapes [K], Segment Me If You Can [J], Road Anomaly [M], StreetHazards [L], and BDD-Anomaly [L]. All these benchmarks assume a closed set of in-distribution categories, typically following the Cityscapes taxonomy (e.g., car, pedestrian, bicycle, etc.), and the anomalies are out-of-distribution categories that do not belong to this taxonomy (e.g., wildlife).\\nThe metrics used across these benchmarks to measure the model performance, as mentioned in Section 5 and in Appendix A.2, are $AuPRC$ and $FPR_{95}$. Using these two metrics is a common practice in this line of research [J,K,M,L], as they provide a good insight into different aspects: the AuPRC puts emphasis on detecting the minority class and it is generally considered to evaluate the separability of the pixel-wise anomaly scores, whereas the $FPR_{95}$ metric indicates how many false positive predictions must be made to reach the desired true positive rate. A well-performing anomaly segmentation will have high $AuPRC$ with lower $FPR_{95}$. \\nWe recognize that the terminology anomaly segmentation may be misleading, but we simply adhered to the terminology already in use in this field. To make the task definition and context more clear, we rephrased the lines between 028-030 in the introduction.\\n\\n**W2 and Q2 - multimodal large language models:** It is true that multimodal large language models have shown impressive performance on general computer vision tasks, particularly tasks that require interactivity (e.g., task prompted segmentation) or reasoning. However, the task of anomaly segmentation for road scenes, as defined above, is a domain-specific task that requires a separation of the in-distribution categories (as provided by a training dataset) and out-of-distribution elements. It is also a task that does not have an interactive user component, which may warrant textual prompting. This is a task that can be addressed effectively by models that are specifically trained for the domain, and ours is particularly capable not only of segmenting anomalies but also retaining excellent in-distribution performance. Moreover, relying on an additional model, such as a multimodal LLM, besides the segmentation model deployed to segment the in-distribution classes is not a practical solution. Indeed, to the best of our knowledge, **there are no works that address anomaly segmentation in driving scenes using a multimodal large language model**, as suggested by the Reviewer. \\nWe are only aware of one arxiv preprint (currently listed as work in progress) titled _Towards Generic Anomaly Detection and Understanding: Large-scale Visual-linguistic Model (GPT-4V) Takes the Lead_, which provides a first qualitative exploration on the use of GPT-4V for anomaly detection. However, that method **does not provide pixel-level predictions of anomalies**. \\nThe level of reasoning that can be achieved by multimodal LLM can be very useful when moving towards a general formulation of anomaly detection in driving scenes, as in the examples given by the Reviewer. Yet, that is not the aim of this paper and we are not aware of any benchmarks or datasets that currently support that kind of more general research in the driving setting.\"}", "{\"comment\": \"**W3 - novelty:** As the Reviewer recognizes (in **S1**), our paper contributes \\u201c_a novel adapter architecture for anomaly segmentation_\\u201d. Indeed, although several adapter methods have been presented for different computer vision tasks, **none of them are specifically intended for anomaly segmentation tasks**. Our dual-stream adapter is specifically designed for that purpose, thus differing from other more general ViT adapters. Please, also note that the novelty of our design lies not only in the architectural components of the adapter but also in the training procedure, using an uncertainty-based hyperbolic loss. The various components that we introduce in our design are shown to be beneficial for their intended purpose (anomaly segmentation):\\nWe propose an *anomaly prior module* that learns in-distribution and out-of-distribution features through distinct feature-level encodings. Table 5 (a) shows utilizing the anomaly prior module significantly improves the anomaly segmentation performance.\\nWe introduce a *dual-stream feature refinement module* that improves the in-distribution and out-of-distribution features by combining frozen ViT features. In Table 5 (a), we can observe that the absence of a dual-stream feature refinement module drastically lowers the anomaly segmentation performance.\\nWe presented *uncertainty-based hyperbolic loss* that makes the network separate the in-distribution with out-of-distribution features in hyperbolic space. Figure 6 (b) and Table 5 (a) show the effectiveness of this loss. \\n\\n**Q4 - generalization and adaptability:** Indeed, the problem of the generalization and adaptability of anomaly segmentation methods for driving scenes is still an open research direction. We observed a certain level of variability of ours and other methods across different datasets, due to the domain gap between training and test domain. As also shown in Table 3, there is not a single method performing the best on all datasets, possibly due to this problem. Addressing such a domain shift is an interesting direction, one that we will try to pursue in the future. However, the currently available datasets are relatively small and are not designed to analyze this problem, so it will be necessary to establish a new benchmark suitable for this purpose, with well-defined training and testing protocols. \\n\\n[A] Zhitong Gao, Shipeng Yan, and Xuming He. Atta: Anomaly-aware test-time adaptation for out-of-distribution detection in segmentation, NeurIPS 2024.\\n\\n[B] Shyam Nandan Rai, Fabio Cermelli, Barbara Caputo, and Carlo Masone. Mask2anomaly: Mask transformer for universal open-set segmentation. T-PAMI 2024\\n\\n[C] Nazir Nayal, Misra Yavuz, Joao F Henriques, and Fatma G\\u00fcney. Rba: Segmenting unknown region rejected by all. ICCV 2023\\n\\n[D] Matej Grcic \\u0301, Josip S\\u02c7aric \\u0301, and Sinis\\u02c7a S\\u02c7egvic \\u0301. On advantages of mask-level recognition for outlier- aware segmentation. CVPRw 2023.\\n\\n[E] Denis Gudovskiy, Tomoyuki Okuno, and Yohei Nakata. Concurrent misclassification and out-of- distribution detection for semantic segmentation via energy-based normalizing flow, UAI 2023\\n\\n[F] Jan Ackermann, Christos Sakaridis, and Fisher Yu. Maskomaly: Zero-shot mask anomaly segmentation. In 34th British Machine Vision Conference 2022, BMVC 2022.\\n\\n[G] Matej Grcic \\u0301, Petra Bevandic \\u0301, and Sinis\\u02c7a S\\u02c7egvic \\u0301. DenseHybrid: Hybrid anomaly detection for dense open-set recognition, ECCV 2022.\\n\\n[H] Robin Chan, Matthias Rottmann, and Hanno Gottschalk. Entropy maximization and meta classification for out-of-distribution detection in semantic segmentation, ICCV 2021.\\n\\n[I] Giancarlo Di Biase, Hermann Blum, Roland Siegwart, and Cesar Cadena. Pixel-wise anomaly detection in complex driving scenes, CVPR 2021.\\n\\n[J] Robin Chan, Krzysztof Lis, Svenja Uhlemeyer, Hermann Blum, Sina Honari, Roland Siegwart, Pascal Fua, Mathieu Salzmann, and Matthias Rottmann. SegmentMeIfYouCan: A benchmark for anomaly segmentation. NeurIPS 2021\\n\\n[K] Hermann Blum, Paul-Edouard Sarlin, Juan Nieto, Roland Siegwart, and Cesar Cadena. The Fishyscapes benchmark: Measuring blind spots in semantic segmentation. IJCV, 2021\\n\\n[L] Dan Hendrycks, Steven Basart, Mantas Mazeika, Andy Zou, Joe Kwon, Mohammadreza Mostajabi, Jacob Steinhardt and Dawn Song. Scaling Out-of-Distribution Detection for Real-World Settings. ICML 2022\\n\\n[M] Krzysztof Lis, Krishna Nakka, Pascal Fua and Mathieu Salzmann. Detecting the Unexpected via Image Resynthesis. ICCV 2019\\n\\n[N] Matteo Sodano, Federico Magistri, Lucas Nunes, Jens Behley and Cyrill Stachniss. Open-World Semantic Segmentation Including Class Similarity. CVPR 2024\"}", "{\"comment\": \"**W1 - Mixed results:** We thank the Reviewer for the attentive observation. We observed that there is a certain variability among different datasets, not just for our method but also for the competitors. Indeed, the results in Table 3 show that there is no single method that is the best in all datasets. We conjecture that this variation in performance is to be attributed to two primary factors: a) the size of the evaluation datasets and b) the domain shift between the training and evaluation datasets. The presence of such attributes among the anomaly evaluation datasets makes a method perform well on certain anomaly datasets while underperforming on others. For instance, methods like Mask2Anomaly perform exceptionally well on the SMIYC RA-21 dataset but fail to segment anomalies effectively on the SMIYC RO-21 dataset. Maskomaly is the best on SMIYC RA-21, but gives much lower results on FS-Static. A similar observation holds for the comparative analysis between various adapter types and anomaly segmentation methods presented in Table 1,2,3. We note that no method performs best in all datasets.\\n\\nFor these reasons, we believe that it is important to look at the average performance across all datasets. In average, the dual-stream adapter demonstrates the best performance across all anomaly segmentation methods and adapter types, being the most robust to the different types of benchmarks and anomalies.\\n\\n**W2 - Self-supervision:** We appreciate the reviewer\\u2019s insightful observation. We used the term self-supervised to indicate that we train our model without requiring another dataset aside from the one used to train for the in-distribution categories, i.e., Cityscapes. However, this may indeed be inaccurate since we assume the presence of a void/background class to provide explicit supervision to the network. So, we will follow the advice and remove the term\\\"self-supervised\\\" in our revised draft. In the revised draft we write that our method uses void/background labels as supervision. We think it is best to not refer to the void/background class as auxiliary data to avoid confusion with respect to the existing literature, because in the context of anomaly segmentation \\\"auxiliary data\\\" typically refers to additional datasets, such as MS-COCO or ADE-20K, whose objects are used during the outlier-exposure phase. In contrast, the supervision in our case comes from the same dataset, i.e., Cityscapes. To avoid any confusion between these two kinds of supervision, in Table 3 we have introduced two symbols: one to indicate the methods that require void labels for training (our method), and another symbol to denote the methods that utilize extra data to perform outlier-exposure.\\n\\n**W3 - Missing method:** Thank you for highlighting the overlooked method. We observe that UNO [a] uses Mapillary Vistas as additional inlier data to boost anomaly segmentation performance and ADE-20K as an outlier exposure dataset. To ensure fairness and consistency, we use the same training protocol as in our draft. Namely, we trained UNO using Cityscapes as the inlier dataset and incorporated MS-COCO image objects during the outlier-exposure phase. The table below presents the performance comparison across all validation datasets. We can observe that DSA-Large consistently outperforms UNO across all datasets. All the results are on the validation dataset due to the limited rebuttal time duration. We have included the results in the manuscript's appendix.\\n\\n\\n\\n| | SMIYC RA-21 || SMIYC RO-21 || FS L\\\\&F || FS Static || Road Anomaly ||\\n|--------------------|---------|---------|---------|---------|---------|---------|---------|---------|---------|----------|\\n| Method | AuPRC | FPR$_{95}$ | AuPRC| FPR$_{95}$ | AuPRC | FPR$_{95}$ | AuPRC | FPR$_{95}$ | AuPRC | FPR$_{95}$ |\\n| UNO | 62.7 | 33.1 | 12.5 | 25.6 | 35.0 | 42.8 | 82.3 | 12.2 | 54.1 | 17.0 |\\n| DSA-Large | 73.3 | 45.3 | 92.6 | 0.72 | 71.0 | 9.4 | 85.4 | 10.6 | 89.1 | 9.8 |\"}", "{\"metareview\": \"The paper proposes a ViT adapter for anomaly detection in semantic segmentation. The proposal uses two streams for in-distribution and out-of-distribution, respectively. The model is trained using an uncertainty-based hyperbolic loss.\", \"strengths\": [\"Simple method\", \"Uses fewer parameters than existing outlier detection methods\", \"Clear and well-organized paper\"], \"weaknesses\": [\"Mixed results for OOD detection\", \"The baselines used for comparison are questionable since they do not align with reports in the literature\", \"The setup is not self-supervised as there is explicit supervision by labeling pixels into the additional class\", \"The experimental setup is unclear, and the differences between the presented results and those in the literature are not clearly explained.\", \"While the paper received a wide range of recommendations and the understanding of the problem varies among reviewers, there are major concerns regarding the validity of the experimental results. Despite the authors' efforts during the rebuttal, there are still concerns about the validity of the experiments, and it is unclear why the setups differ from the literature, leading to different results. Moreover, the strengths raised do not outweigh these concerns. The proposal is borderline, but due to the lack of stronger reasons to accept the paper, I lean towards rejecting it.\"], \"additional_comments_on_reviewer_discussion\": \"Reviewer wmG8 mentions that the results are mixed for OOD detection and raises concerns regarding the lack of clear training setups (self-supervised vs. supervised) given the labels. Moreover, the experiments are missing current methods for comparison. The authors presented several clarifications during the rebuttal, and the reviewer raised the score to a weak accept based on them.\\n\\nReviewer R2z4 mentions that the motivation of the proposal is clear. However, the reviewer complains that the experiment results do not align with the original publications, raising questions about the validity of the experiments. The authors responded to the reviewer's concerns and explained the misconceptions. The reviewer offered to review the scores after the rebuttal phase.\\n\\nReviewer Wr5a mentioned that the definition of the task is unclear. It is unclear what the rationale of the reviewer was for obtaining a definition of the task by asking ChatGPT about a figure of the paper. The reviewer also raises concerns about limited technical contributions since the proposal mainly combines existing methodologies. The authors provided the reviewer with additional details and explanations. After the rebuttal, the reviewer maintains that the tasks require more than segmentation masks.\\n\\nDuring the post-rebuttal discussion, Reviewer Wr5a briefly replied that the task is still unclear and did not comment on whether the task as defined by the authors is sound. The reviewer maintains that the paper is solved by large multimodal language models. Reviewer R2z4 also commented back and maintains a conservative weak reject, given the inconsistent results and lack of clarification from the authors.\\n\\nGiven the lack of understanding from Reviewer Wr5a, I would like to weigh that recommendation the least. Similarly, given the lack of engagement from Reviewer wmG8, it is hard to know if the strengths outweigh the raised problems by Reviewer R2z4. Overall, the paper is borderline, and the problems with the experiments make me lean towards rejecting the paper.\"}", "{\"title\": \"Respond to the Rebuttal\", \"comment\": \"Thanks to the author's effort in providing a rebuttal, as it has offered me additional information. I would like to finalize my scoring after checking the comments from other reviewers.\"}", "{\"summary\": \"This paper introduces a ViT adapter designed specifically for anomaly detection in semantic segmentation. The approach begins by extracting multi-scale features using a ResNet convolutional stem. Two distinct sets of learnable encodings are added to these features to specialize them for in-distribution (ID) and out-of-distribution (OOD) learning. These initial features are then fused with ViT backbone activations through a series of cross-attention layers and feed-forward networks, maintaining separate streams for ID and OOD features throughout the entire downstream path. The model is trained using an uncertainty-based hyperbolic loss function, where features are projected into hyperbolic space: OOD features are attracted towards the origin of the Poincar\\u00e9 ball, while ID features are repelled away from it.\\n\\nThe authors evaluate their dual-stream adapter on road-driving anomaly detection benchmarks, comparing its performance to other ViT adapters and alternative outlier detection methods. Additionally, they conduct an ablation study to assess the impact of individual components of their proposed method.\", \"soundness\": \"3\", \"presentation\": \"3\", \"contribution\": \"3\", \"strengths\": \"1) Method is simple and more parameter efficient than existing outlier detection methods.\\n2) The method preserves ID performance well.\", \"weaknesses\": \"1) Mixed results in terms of OOD detection on different datasets, both in comparison to fully fine-tuned models, but also different adapter types.\\n2) I do not agree that using void/background class makes this training self-supervised, as there is explicit supervision in terms of labelling pixels into this additional class. Furthermore, the method could not be used on datasets that do not have ignore regions. It would maybe be better to follow the convention of using the term \\\"auxiliary data\\\". It would be useful if this was reflected in the organization of Table 3. \\n3) Missing methods in ood-detection tables. e.g. [a] is the current leader on SMIYC-RA\\n4) Some things about the method are still not clear -> see questions.\\n\\n[a] Delic et al., Outlier detection by ensembling uncertainty with negative objectness, BMVC 2024\", \"questions\": \"1) How are the encoder and adapter features integrated before being passed to the decoder as described in Equation 3?\\n2) Is the background class utilized in the computation of L_{mask} and L_{class}\\u200b?\\n3) Is the convolutional module within the anomaly prior module also fine-tuned? Was it pretrained, and if so, how? What specific ResNet variant is used?\\n4) Can you provide detailed specifications of the Cross-Attention and Feed-Forward Network (FFN) modules used in the adapters?\\n5) How is the void/background class incorporated into L_{ubhl}? At what stage is the ground truth label applied?\", \"flag_for_ethics_review\": \"['No ethics review needed.']\", \"rating\": \"6\", \"confidence\": \"4\", \"code_of_conduct\": \"Yes\"}", "{\"title\": \"Paper Decision\", \"decision\": \"Reject\"}", "{\"comment\": \"**Q1- Equation 3 :** We integrate the encoder and adapter features with the help of a feature interaction module. In Dual-Stream adapters, dual stream feature refinement module is utilized for fusing the features. We have added these details between lines 762-764.\\n\\n**Q2 - Background Class:** No, we only utilize in-distribution classes while computing $L_{mask}$ and $L_{class}$.\\n\\n**Q3 - Anomaly Prior Module:** Yes, the convolutional module within the anomaly prior module is trained before the outlier exposure step. During the outlier exposure step, the entire anomaly prior module is kept frozen. The details can be found between lines 785-789.\\n\\n**Q4 - Cross-Attention and Feed-Forward Network specifications:** The FFN consists of two MLP layers having a GELU activation layer between them. We used deformable attention architecture as a cross-attention in our architecture. We have clarified these details in the manuscript's appendix.\\n\\n**Q5 - $L_{ubhl}$ :** Thank you for pointing out the missing details. In $L_{ubhl}$, we use the background/void class as the anomalous region. We added details in Equation 9 for better clarity.\"}", "{\"comment\": \"**W1 - experimental results:** The Reviewer is correct in observing that the competitors' results in Table 3 are not the same as those in their original publications, and this is not by mistake. In fact, one of the biggest problems we have encountered in this line of research and in benchmarks such as SMIYC is that even though the testing protocol is well-defined, the training protocol used by different methods can vary a lot, resulting in unfair and not informative comparisons. For instance, if one checks carefully the methods in the SMIYC leaderboard would find that there are a lot of discrepancies among them:\", \"additional_inlier_datasets\": \"there are methods (e.g. UNO) that instead of training solely on Cityscapes, leverage additional inlier data from datasets such as Mapillary Vistas, which can significantly enhance anomaly segmentation performance.\", \"variation_in_backbones\": \"Different backbones are used in these methods\\u2014for instance, RbA uses Swin-B while EAM utilizes Swin-L. It was shown that using larger backbones often leads to improved performance [B, C], thus such unregulated comparisons are unfair.\", \"outlier_exposure\": \"It has been observed the choice of outlier exposure datasets like ADE20K or MS-COCO can significantly vary the model\\u2019s anomaly segmentation performance.\\nThese are just a few of the things we observed and we believe that this kind of _apples to oranges_ comparison is unfair and may hide the real contribution of different methods. For this reason, for all most recent competitors using mask-based architectures (which are the current SOTA), we did not simply report the results from their papers, but we re-evaluated them following the same training protocol for all methods, using Cityscapes as inlier dataset, Swin-L as the backbone, and MS-COCO as the choice of outlier exposure datasets. We did not stress this as a contribution because it is not the goal of the paper to establish a fair benchmark, but we firmly believe that this kind of rigorous evaluation is necessary and valuable for this field. To make things more clear in the paper, we added a symbol in Table 3 and further details between lines 468-473 to indicate which methods have been re-trained.\\n\\n**W2 - Fig3 & Eq 6,7:** We thank the reviewer for pointing out the discrepancy. We have changed the equation and figure accordingly. \\n\\n**W3 - training time:** Our dual-stream adapters take ~65 Hours for the full training of the network. On the other hand, without the adapters, the full finetuning of the network requires ~77 hours of training time. \\n\\n**W4 - missing citations:** Thank you for suggesting the citations. _Image-Consistent Detection of Road Anomalies as Unpredictable Patches_ proposes DaCUP, a method that uses a novel embedding bottleneck and image-conditioned distance features to improve anomaly segmentation. _Self-Supervised Likelihood Estimation with Energy Guidance for Anomaly Segmentation in Urban Scenes_ introduces two estimators to model anomaly likelihood where one is a task-agnostic binary estimator and the other gives the likelihood as residual of task-oriented joint energy. Differently from ours, these works are based on per-pixel architectures that are not well suited for anomaly segmentation and they require the entire network to be fine-tuned. We have added them to the related work of the draft.\"}", "{\"summary\": \"The paper aims to reduce the high training cost of the transformer-based anomaly segmentation model. The authors introduce the Dual-Stream Adapter (DSA) to tackle this issue, specifically designed for anomaly segmentation tasks. The DSA comprises two main components: an anomaly prior module and a dual-stream feature refinement module. The anomaly prior module is responsible for learning both in-distribution and out-of-distribution features through separate feature-level encodings. Meanwhile, the dual-stream feature refinement module enhances and integrates these features with the robust representations derived from a frozen Vision Transformer backbone. Additionally, the architecture employs a hyperbolic loss function to guide the learning process effectively. The authors carried out extensive experiments across five datasets, demonstrating their proposed model's effectiveness.\", \"soundness\": \"3\", \"presentation\": \"3\", \"contribution\": \"3\", \"strengths\": [\"The paper is clearly structured, featuring well-organized paragraphs and accessible figures that enhance comprehension.\", \"The design of the proposed Dual-Stream Adapter is sound and well-motivated.\"], \"weaknesses\": [\"The experiments conducted were compared to several competitors; however, the values reported in Table 3 do not align with those in the original publications. This inconsistency raises questions about the validity of the experimental outcomes. It is highly advisable for the authors to verify the accuracy of the reported experiments to ensure reliable results.\", \"It appears that there is an inconsistency between Figure 3 and equations (6) and (7). It would be beneficial to verify their accuracy.\", \"It would be interesting to analyze the amount of training time that can be saved due to the reduction in trainable parameters.\", \"There are some related papers [A-B] that have not yet been cited in the current version.\", \"[A] Yuanpeng Tu, Yuxi Li, Boshen Zhang, Liang Liu, Jiangning Zhang, Yabiao Wang, Cairong Zhao: Self-Supervised Likelihood Estimation with Energy Guidance for Anomaly Segmentation in Urban Scenes. AAAI 2024: 21637-21645\", \"[B] Tom\\u00e1s Voj\\u00edr, Jir\\u00ed Matas: Image-Consistent Detection of Road Anomalies as Unpredictable Patches. WACV 2023: 5480-5489\"], \"questions\": \"This paper is well-structured and has a clear motivation. However, a significant concern arises from the experiments reported, as the values presented appear inconsistent with those in the original publications. At this stage, I prefer to take a cautious approach to the rating and await the author's response before reaching a final conclusion.\", \"flag_for_ethics_review\": \"['No ethics review needed.']\", \"rating\": \"5\", \"confidence\": \"4\", \"code_of_conduct\": \"Yes\"}", "{\"title\": \"Final score\", \"comment\": \"I would like to thank the authors for the clarifications.\\n\\nI have therefore decided to increase my rating.\"}", "{\"comment\": \"We thank all the reviewers for their suggestions and comments. In our responses, we tried to address all the concerns. Please, let us know if any questions should remain, we are available for further clarification.\"}", "{\"summary\": \"This paper introduces a novel adapter architecture for anomaly segmentation. The architecture incorporates two key architectural components: anomaly prior modules and dual-stream feature refinement tailored to improve anomaly segmentation. The anomaly prior\\nmodule learns to extract the initial ID and OOD features that are refined and improved by passing through a set of dual-stream feature refinement blocks. It introduces an uncertainty-based hyperbolic loss to explicitly learn the ID and OOD features. The results on several datasets in terms of some metrics show the effectiveness.\", \"soundness\": \"2\", \"presentation\": \"3\", \"contribution\": \"1\", \"strengths\": [\"a novel adapter architecture for anomaly segmentation. It designs anomaly prior modules and dual-stream feature refinement tailored to improve anomaly segmentation.\", \"The results on several datasets in terms of some metrics are the SOTA.\"], \"weaknesses\": \"- The definaton of this task is unclear. How to define the Anomaly regions. For example, I put the first input of Fig. 5 into the ChatGPT and ask it to indicate the abnormal regions. It responses: \\\"\\nFrom the image, it appears to show a traffic checkpoint or roadblock scene with a few police officers, some cones marking the road, and vehicles either being stopped or passing through the checkpoint. To analyze any potential abnormal regions, I would need specific criteria for identifying abnormalities, such as:\", \"traffic_flow\": \"Are there any unusual movements or traffic behavior?\", \"objects\": \"Are there any misplaced cones, vehicles, or people?\", \"security_concerns\": \"Is there anything out of place, like suspicious behavior or unmarked vehicles?\\nIf you're looking for more detailed insights, could you clarify what type of abnormality you're focused on\\u2014whether it's safety, traffic irregularities, or something else?\\\"\\nThis answer is more reasonable, since the anomaly regions can be different in different settings.\\n\\n-The above example gives another question. The current multimodal large language model already achieves better responses.\\n\\n- The preposed method lacks novelty, and it is mainly combined by Vit adaptors with cross-attention.\", \"questions\": \"Based on the above the weaknesses, I have the following questions:\\n\\n- What are the key criteria or benchmarks used to evaluate anomaly detection in your scenario?\\nDefining the task clearly with precise criteria is critical. How do you plan to measure the model's success in detecting abnormal regions?\\n\\n- What are the distinguishing features of your method compared to existing multimodal models?\\n\\n- How does the model handle the contextual differences in anomaly definitions?\\nSince anomalies are highly context-dependent, is your model trained to recognize such context? How does it deal with shifting or ambiguous definitions of normalcy versus anomaly?\\n\\n- Are there plans for improving the generalization and adaptability of the model?\\nFor instance, using domain adaptation techniques or fine-tuning the model on specific datasets related to the task could improve its performance in different scenarios.\", \"flag_for_ethics_review\": \"['No ethics review needed.']\", \"rating\": \"3\", \"confidence\": \"4\", \"code_of_conduct\": \"Yes\"}" ] }

[ "Marine Le Morvan", "Gael Varoquaux" ]

[ "imputation", "missing" ]

{ "note_id": [ "w7Mk9yn9Ff", "uKPhvbD8ab", "rt8hklz31d", "oGuYrAIpHq", "gX6dDNiD7f", "bys9t52Tgc", "WQl9kvClCD", "G57EvGEU3R", "CB8MiupMdC", "C8HiIFFYAq", "9DveHyNEZw", "93yhYyZBuF", "6rkMfzBLCc", "4oGJRArKkT", "1Ghl1AgVvZ" ], "note_type": [ "decision", "official_review", "official_comment", "meta_review", "official_comment", "official_comment", "official_review", "official_review", "official_review", "official_review", "official_comment", "official_comment", "official_comment", "official_comment", "official_comment" ], "note_created": [ 1737524032500, 1731223120175, 1732662152859, 1734771995765, 1732554523416, 1732223199148, 1730371670307, 1729701210743, 1730676798168, 1730285158302, 1732222950015, 1732873418405, 1732224031670, 1732662372027, 1732536738260 ], "note_signatures": [ [ "ICLR.cc/2025/Conference/Program_Chairs" ], [ "ICLR.cc/2025/Conference/Submission10201/Reviewer_ETS8" ], [ "ICLR.cc/2025/Conference/Submission10201/Authors" ], [ "ICLR.cc/2025/Conference/Submission10201/Area_Chair_Sku4" ], [ "ICLR.cc/2025/Conference/Submission10201/Authors" ], [ "ICLR.cc/2025/Conference/Submission10201/Authors" ], [ "ICLR.cc/2025/Conference/Submission10201/Reviewer_RyBn" ], [ "ICLR.cc/2025/Conference/Submission10201/Reviewer_NNbq" ], [ "ICLR.cc/2025/Conference/Submission10201/Reviewer_JGDK" ], [ "ICLR.cc/2025/Conference/Submission10201/Reviewer_9esu" ], [ "ICLR.cc/2025/Conference/Submission10201/Authors" ], [ "ICLR.cc/2025/Conference/Submission10201/Authors" ], [ "ICLR.cc/2025/Conference/Submission10201/Authors" ], [ "ICLR.cc/2025/Conference/Submission10201/Authors" ], [ "ICLR.cc/2025/Conference/Submission10201/Reviewer_9esu" ] ], "structured_content_str": [ "{\"title\": \"Paper Decision\", \"decision\": \"Accept (Spotlight)\"}", "{\"summary\": \"This paper empirically studies the effects of various missing value imputation methods, in particular whether better imputation accuracy yields higher prediction performance. The authors conduct experiments on nineteen benchmark datasets using four imputation methods, three different models, as well as variations such as missingness indicators and semi-synthetic linear labels. They conclude that imputation accuracy does affect prediction performance, although the gains are quite small, and the effect is further reduced if the model is more expressive, missing value indicators are used, or the target variable has a non-linear relationship to the covariates.\", \"soundness\": \"2\", \"presentation\": \"3\", \"contribution\": \"2\", \"strengths\": \"The paper presents an empirical study that can help us better understand the effect of various imputation techniques for different model/problem scenarios, which is an important question as missing values are ubiquitous and often handled by imputation. The paper specifically considers the link between imputation accuracy and prediction performance, which have been studied theoretically in some scenarios but not empirically for real-world problems.\\n\\nThe experimental setup is clearly described in detail for reproducibility, and the authors mention that code will also be available upon publication. The experiments are also thorough in terms of datasets, models, and imputation methods.\\n\\nRelated work discussion is clear, including both theoretical and empirical studies about missing value imputation methods.\", \"weaknesses\": \"Many claims/conclusions in the paper are based on small differences in average values with overlapping confidence intervals, and there are no statistical tests for significance. For example, the authors claim that the imputation techniques considered in the experiments show diverse imputation performance (Figure 2), but apart from mean imputation being worse than others, there doesn\\u2019t seem to be a definitive difference in quality by the other three imputers.\\n\\nIn addition, the claim about correlation of imputation accuracy and prediction performance is made based on the small but positive slope of the regression line (Figure 4). However, the slope seems very small in most cases to suggest this, especially in the 20% missing case, and the correlation may still be very weak (small correlation coefficient). On the other hand, the authors suggest that good imputations matter more in the linear response case (semi-simulated data), based on the slightly higher correlation (Fig 5), but the slope seems still very small (Fig 11).\\n\\nIn about a third of the benchmark datasets, the dimension is small such that 20% missing means just one missing feature. I would expect the difference between simple and more complex imputation techniques to be pretty small in such cases. \\n\\nThe experiment in MNAR scenario (Section 4.4) didn\\u2019t feel very connected to the rest of the paper. As the authors also noted, it is well known that most imputation methods (without considering causal structures) are not valid under MNAR.\\n\\n-------------\", \"post_rebuttal\": \"Thanks to the authors for the detailed response and revision. I think the additional experiments and statistical tests made the results of this paper much more convincing, and I am happy to raise my score to 6.\", \"questions\": \"The observation about good imputations having less effect when using missingness indicators was very interesting. To test the intuition mentioned in Section 4.5, I think it would be interesting to use explainability techniques on these models trained with missingness indicators to see if the importance/weights of features drop when they are missing (i.e. inputs with the corresponding missingness indicator on).\\n\\nDoes the correlation of prediction performance and imputation accuracy (e.g, Figures 3 and 4) also show any difference by imputation method?\\n\\nWould larger missingness rates show more significant correlations?\", \"flag_for_ethics_review\": \"['No ethics review needed.']\", \"rating\": \"6\", \"confidence\": \"3\", \"code_of_conduct\": \"Yes\"}", "{\"comment\": \"We thank the reviewer for their time and feedback.\\n\\n> Line 140: what do you mean by a \\\"universally consistent\\\" algorithm?\\n\\nIt refers to a learning algorithm that achieves asymptotically optimal performance (i.e., minimal possible error) for all data distribution (X, Y) [Gyorfi 2002]. For example, partitioning estimates of the regression function, kernel regression or k-NN regression, are universally consistent.\\n\\n> Why is the 'semi-synthetic' data (top of page 5) 'semi'? Can you elaborate on that?\\n\\nWe call it semi-synthetic because the response $Y$ is synthetic, but not the design matrix $X$. Specifically, $X$ is derived from real datasets in our benchmarks, while the response variable $Y$ is simulated as a linear function of $X$.\\n\\n> Line 341 uses the word \\\"nuanced\\\" in a strange way - so strange I couldn't figure out what the sentence in which it appears actually means.\", \"we_changed_the_original_sentence\": \"*However, this observation should be nuanced by the size of the effects.*\", \"to_this_one\": \"*However, this observation should be interpreted with nuance in light of the effect sizes.*\", \"we_hope_this_clarifies_the_intended_meaning\": \"effect sizes should be considered to avoid overemphasizing the positive impact of imputation on prediction.\\n\\n**About imputer comparison**\\n\\n> Perhaps these results should not be downplayed?\\n\\nThank you for this comment. We initially chose not to emphasize these results, as they are not central to our main message. It could also be argued that the mean imputers' poorer performance is expected. Based on the reviewer\\u2019s feedback, we removed one of the sentences that downplayed this result.\\n\\n**About the writing**\\n\\nWe thank the reviewer for their advice. We fixed the acronym definitions, added the definition of the missingness indicator, removed some redundancies, removed some unnecessary words such as \\u2018really\\u2019 and \\u2018interestingly, and went through the manuscript to try to linearize sentences.\\n\\n[Gyorfi 2002] A distribution-free theory of nonparametric regression.\"}", "{\"metareview\": \"The paper proposes an empirical study that analyses the effectiveness of advanced imputation methods for missing values.\\nAll reviewers are happy about the findings of the paper and agree to accept the paper.\", \"additional_comments_on_reviewer_discussion\": \"Reviewers were happy about the rebuttals and some of them raised their evaluation of the paper\"}", "{\"comment\": \"We thank the reviewer for their time and feedback.\\n\\n> I suggest exploring the correlation between reconstruction error and gain from adding the indicator.\\n\\n**Figure 14 in the updated pdf shows the effect of imputation accuracy on the gain from adding the indicator.** We see that most effects are negative, indicating that using the missingness indicator brings the largest boost in prediction performance when imputations have low accuracy. Moreover, effects are strongest for the MLP and smallest for XGBoost, meaning that with more powerful models, prediction boosts due to the missingness indicator are less pronounced. This is coherent with the prediction performances presented in Figure 1. In terms of correlation, the strongest association occurs for the MLP (20% missing rate), with a correlation of -0.5 on average across datasets, and a high dispersion (some datasets have a correlation close to -1, and 3 datasets have a positive correlation).\\n\\n> Additionally, an experiment with a random mask appended would demonstrate that this result is not just a product of a larger number of parameters in the model or some regularisation.\\n\\n**We conducted experiments with a shuffled missingness indicator appended (see Figure 15 in the updated pdf)**.\\nThe columns of the indicator were shuffled for each sample. This preserves the total number of missing values per sample but removes information about which specific features are missing.\\nFig. 15a demonstrates that using a shuffled missingness indicator harms prediction performance, except for XGBoost for which performances are unchanged. In contrast, the true missingness indicator improves performances (fig. 1). Furthermore, the shuffled indicator does not affect the relationship between imputation accuracy and prediction accuracy (fig. 15b), whereas the true indicator reduces the effect size (fig.4).\\nThese results confirm that the benefit of the missingness indicator is not due to a regularization or merely encoding the number of missing values. Prediction models effectively leverage information about which features are missing, even though under MCAR, this information is unrelated to the unobserved values.\\n\\n**Relation to Bertsimas (2024)**\\nThank you for highlighting this work. On the theoretical side, Bertsimas (2024) shows that mean imputation is Bayes optimal while mode imputation is not, and clarifies the meaning of \\\"almost all\\\" in the theorem of Le Morvan (2021) regarding the Bayes consistency of Impute-then-Regress procedures. On the experimental side, they compare mean imputation to mode imputation (for categorical features) and MICE (for numerical features) in terms of downstream prediction accuracy. Their findings do not lead to a single conclusion, as the results vary depending on the experimental setting: real vs. (semi-)synthetic data, or linear vs. non-linear outcomes.\\nIn contrast, we employ multiple imputers to quantify the association between imputation and prediction accuracy, and identify how various factors modulate this relationship (e.g., downstream prediction model, use of the mask, linear vs. non-linear outcomes). Additionally, we explore the effect of using the mask, which was not considered in Bertsimas 2024.\"}", "{\"title\": \"Details about the statistical tests\", \"comment\": \"**Statistical significance of the small positive effects of imputation on prediction (Fig.4)**\\n\\nWe investigated the p-values associated with each coefficient, testing the hypothesis (T-test): is the estimated coefficient > 0? For all tests, we used a significance level of 0.05 with a Bonferroni correction for multiple testing, thus obtaining conservative conclusions. \\n\\nTo summarize these results, we did a one-sided Wilcoxon signed-rank test, testing whether the median of each boxplot in Fig.4 is significantly greater than 0 (significance level of 0.05 with Bonferroni correction). At 20% (resp 50%) missing rate, the impact of imputation on prediction is NOT significantly greater than 0 across datasets for SAINT and XGBoost (resp. SAINT, XGBOOST, XGBoost + mask) but significant for all other models and mask combinations.\\n\\n**Statistical significance of the real versus linear outcome case**\\n\\n>The authors suggest that good imputations matter more in the linear response case (semi-simulated data), based on the slightly higher correlation (Fig 5), but the slope seems still very small (Fig 11).\\n\\nA Wilcoxon signed-rank test (pval=1e-19) shows that correlations are significantly larger for linear outcomes than for matched real outcomes. This means that there is significantly less noise in the relationship between imputation and prediction accuracies, which translates into more coefficients that are significantly greater than 0 in the linear case than in the real outcome case (see Fig. 4 vs Fig 11 in the updated pdf). This is why we say that \\u201cGood imputations matter less when the response is non-linear.\\u201d\\n\\n\\n**Statistical significance of imputation quality differences (Fig. 2)** \\n\\n* p-values for the Wilcoxon signed-rank test - 20% missing rate:\\n\\n| | condexp | iterativeBR | mean | missforest |\\n|--------------|---------|-------------|-----------|------------|\\n| condexp | | 0.418041 | 0.000004 | 0.000072 |\\n| iterativeBR | | | 0.000004 | 0.000336 |\\n| mean | | | | 0.000004 |\\n| missforest | | | | |\\n\\nOnly the difference between condexp and iterativeBR is not statistically significant (these two were described as tied in the paper).\\n\\n* p-values for the Wilcoxon signed-rank test - 50% missing rate:\\n\\n| | condexp | iterativeBR | mean | missforest |\\n|--------------|---------|-------------|-----------|------------|\\n| condexp | | 0.000004 | 0.000004 | 0.054573 |\\n| iterativeBR | | | 0.000038 | 0.312408 |\\n| mean | | | | 0.000126 |\\n| missforest | | | | |\\n\\niterativeBR is not statistically different from missforest, which was also expected from a visual inspection. The hypothesis that condexp and missforest are on par cannot be rejected either. All other pairs have significantly different performances.\"}", "{\"summary\": \"This paper explores the link between imputation quality and downstream performance. Through multiple experiments, the paper demonstrates that under MCAR patterns, the quality of reconstruction error is not always linked with performance, depending upon modelling strategies.\", \"soundness\": \"3\", \"presentation\": \"4\", \"contribution\": \"3\", \"strengths\": \"The paper is well written and easy to read, presenting novel results even under the simple MCAR setting.\", \"weaknesses\": \"The critical insight that adding missing indicators can be beneficial, even under MCAR, needs more justification (with a potential theoretical justification). Intuitively, I suggest exploring the correlation between reconstruction error and gain from adding the indicator. I believe the correlation should be strong as the model is able to 'discard' badly imputed data. Additionally, an experiment with a random mask appended would demonstrate that this result is not just a product of a larger number of parameters in the model or some regularisation.\\n\\nOther works have explored this relation. I would recommend comparing the results with work such as Bertsimas 2024, where the authors conclude, \\\"While common sense suggests that a 'good' imputation method produces datasets that are plausible, we show, on the contrary, that, as far as prediction is concerned, crude can be good.\\\"\\n\\nBertsimas D, Delarue A, Pauphilet J. Simple Imputation Rules for Prediction with Missing Data: Theoretical Guarantees vs. Empirical Performance. Transactions on Machine Learning Research. 2024 Jun 5.\", \"questions\": \"None\", \"flag_for_ethics_review\": \"['No ethics review needed.']\", \"rating\": \"8\", \"confidence\": \"4\", \"code_of_conduct\": \"Yes\"}", "{\"summary\": \"This study quantifies the relationship between imputation accuracy and prediction performance across various datasets, showing that improvements in prediction are typically only 10% or less of the gains in imputation \\\\(R^2\\\\). It finds that advanced imputation methods are less beneficial with more flexible models (e.g., XGBoost) and when using missingness indicators, which improve predictions even in MCAR scenarios. The authors highlight that in MNAR settings, the impact of better imputation is likely even smaller.\", \"soundness\": \"4\", \"presentation\": \"3\", \"contribution\": \"3\", \"strengths\": \"The paper effectively bridges theoretical work on the minimal impact of imputation in asymptotic settings with empirical studies of the \\\"impute-then-predict\\\" pipeline in supervised learning, offering a rigorous evaluation of when imputation accuracy affects prediction. The authors position their work within the existing literature by addressing both empirical evaluations of imputation methods and theoretical frameworks. The evaluation spans 19 datasets, multiple imputation methods, and prediction models across MCAR and MNAR settings, with detailed analysis of relative prediction performance and imputation time. The use of critical difference plots establishes upper bounds on the benefits of imputation, particularly in best-case MCAR scenarios.\", \"weaknesses\": [\"When drawing conclusions from Figs. 1 and 2 (last paragraph of Sec. 4.1), the authors could address the conditions under which advanced imputers do provide a benefit. For example, while XGBoost might not benefit much from MissForest, other less flexible models like MLP show greater improvements when paired with more advanced imputations.\", \"The authors might also explore non-linear or hierarchical relationships within the datasets where advanced imputations could outperform simpler methods more consistently. In cases where feature interactions are complex, MissForest could have greater effects.\", \"Regarding \\u201cGood imputations matter less when the response is non-linear\\u201d (pgs. 7-8), the authors could strengthen the argument about non-linearities disrupting the relationship between imputation quality and prediction performance by incorporating insights from Le Morvan et al. (2021), which shows that *even with high-quality imputation*, non-linear functions can introduce discontinuities, making them harder to learn optimally. They could further illustrate how the *non-continuous nature of the regression function* after conditional imputation (as discussed in the paper) increases the complexity of the learning process in non-linear settings, which explains why non-linearities amplify the noise in the imputation-prediction relationship.\", \"On the question of whether the missingness indicator is the optimal way to represent missingness (pg. 9), the authors could discuss specific limitations of the indicator in more detail, such as potential over-reliance on the indicator or the risk of introducing additional noise into the model. The authors cite the polar encoding paper of Lenz et. al. 2024, but could suggest additional methods to represent missingness more effectively, such as embedding missingness directly within the model architecture or using neural architectures like NeuMiss that incorporate missing patterns in a more structured way (Le Morvan et al., 2021).\"], \"questions\": [\"Pg. 2., line 70: The MNAR definition could be clarified by stating that missingness is related to the unobserved values themselves, making it informative. In this case, the probability of missing data is related to the actual values that are missing. Also, the MAR and MNAR abbreviations should be spelled out in the first instance.\", \"Pg. 2, line 103: the sentence could be clarified, e.g., Wo\\u017anica & Biecek (2020) trained imputers separately for the training and test datasets, which led to an 'imputation shift'\\u2014a situation where the imputation patterns between the two datasets differ, causing inconsistencies in the data used for model training versus model evaluation.\", \"Pg. 5, it may be informative to state in the \\u201cComputational resources\\u201d section or in the Appendix the computational hardware (e.g,. number of CPUs) used to conduct the experiments.\", \"**Typos/grammar**:\", \"Pg. 1, line 52: missing parentheses\", \"Pg. 2, line 85: \\u201cmportant\\u201d\", \"Pg. 5, line 223: It\\u2019s been previously stated that for XGBoost and the MLP, hyperparameters are optimized using Optuna (Akiba et al., 2019)\", \"Pg. 7, line 348: proper casing for figures (\\u201cfig. 2\\u201d)\", \"Pg. 8, line 415: citation for Pereira 2024 not included in the reference list\"], \"flag_for_ethics_review\": \"['No ethics review needed.']\", \"rating\": \"8\", \"confidence\": \"4\", \"code_of_conduct\": \"Yes\"}", "{\"summary\": \"The authors use an empirical approach to investigate whether advanced imputation techniques significantly improve predictive accuracy in models with missing data. The study finds that while sophisticated imputation can enhance prediction in certain contexts, the benefits are modest, especially when more expressive models and/or missingness indicators are used. They conclude with the assertion that resources might be better allocated to models that inherently handle missing data rather than focusing extensively on imputation improvements.\", \"soundness\": \"3\", \"presentation\": \"1\", \"contribution\": \"3\", \"strengths\": \"The value of this paper arises from its significance, not its originality. What I mean by this is that the paper effectively reports a \\\"null\\\" result: something that *doesn't* work. This kind of work is valuable because it saves the community time by not re-inventing square wheels. We need to know what doesn't work.\\n\\nIf you count papers that provide evidence that a method doesn't work (I do) as original, then yes this paper is original. This definition of originality fits under the notion of originality as \\\"a new definition or problem formulation,\\\" because the authors are recommending that the data imputation research solves the wrong problem if the goal is improved prediction.\\n\\nThe quality of the work was adequate, they performed a comprehensive study using several different models and many different datasets to arrive at a convincing analysis of model performance.\", \"weaknesses\": \"I did not mention clarity in the Strengths section because the paper needs a lot of stylistic work. The authors would benefit from reading Strunk & White's \\\"Elements of Style\\\" as well as Steven Pinker's \\\"A Sense of Style.\\\" There were many redundant sentences, unnecessary adverbs (\\\"really\\\", \\\"interestingly\\\", etc), unnecessary metadiscourse (e.g., let me tell you what I'm going to tell you) and acronyms that were defined not on their first occurrence (or never at all). Missingness indicators, which are a prominent concept in the paper, should be defined in one sentence in the introduction. In addition, different paragraphs seemed to have different authors, where at least one author appears to not have an adequate grasp of English. I'm not judging that (I don't speak any other language, hats of to them if that is the case) but there are resources to help non-native English speakers (even ChatGPT now does a reasonably decent job: write a paragraph, input it along with \\\"improve:\\\" and then see how the output paragraph is written- I find this helpful for succinctness but it can also help with sentence structure/word choices). All of these weaknesses combined to make reading the paper feel arduous.\", \"questions\": \"Please eliminate redundant sentences, remove unnecessary adverbs (\\\"really\\\", \\\"interestingly\\\", etc), remove unnecessary metadiscourse (e.g., let me tell you what I'm going to tell you- the end of section 1 ) and acronyms that were defined not on their first occurrence (or never at all). Missingness indicators, which are a prominent concept in the paper, should be defined in one sentence in the introduction. Also, the quality and clarity of the writing varies greatly from paragraph to paragraph - can you make it more consistent?\", \"line_140\": \"what do you mean by a \\\"universally consistent\\\" algorithm?\\n\\nWhy is the 'semi-synthetic' data (top of page 5) 'semi'? Can you elaborate on that?\\n\\nLine 341 uses the word \\\"nuanced\\\" in a strange way - so strange I couldn't figure out what the sentence in which it appears actually means.\\n\\nYou say 'comparing imputers is not our main objective' (twice), but it is an important set of results, right? Clearly, it is a salient result that a mean imputer does worse than other methods for both 20% and 50% missingness rates, and you could envision people citing this paper for that result. Perhaps these results should not be downplayed? \\n\\nPlease re-read and consider linearizing the order/structure of your sentences. For example, line 456 reads \\\"For prediction, imputation matters but marginally.\\\" You will minimize the amount of cognitive bandwidth / patience of your readers if you linearize the sentence structure, e.g.: 'Imputation matters marginally for prediction.\\\" If that is too much of a change of meaning, then consider 'Imputation matters for prediction, but only marginally.' These kinds of reverse-order sentences occur throughout the manuscript and, in aggregate, bog down the reader.\", \"flag_for_ethics_review\": \"['No ethics review needed.']\", \"rating\": \"8\", \"confidence\": \"4\", \"code_of_conduct\": \"Yes\"}", "{\"summary\": \"The paper investigates the empirical importance of accurate imputation in tabular, continuous data with MCAR missingness. It compares four common imputation techniques and three model architectures (2x NN, 1x tree-based) across 19 real-world, medium-sized (<50,000 samples), fully-observed datasets augmented with simulated missingness.\\n\\nThe authors conclude that good imputation yields marginal improvements in terms of prediction performance and that missingness indicators may be beneficial even in MCAR scenarios.\", \"soundness\": \"3\", \"presentation\": \"3\", \"contribution\": \"2\", \"strengths\": \"The study performs an extensive experiment across a variety of imputation methods, prediction models, and datasets.\", \"weaknesses\": \"The authors conclude that both better imputations and missingness indicators improve prediction performance. Neither of these findings is particularly surprising if we consider the optimal prediction with MCAR data:\\n\\n$\\\\mathbb{E}[Y \\\\mid X_o, M] = \\\\int_{X_m} f^\\\\star(X_m, X_o)p(X_m \\\\mid X_o)dX_m,$\\n\\nwhere, in line with Le Morvan et al. (2021), $Y$ is the outcome, $X_o$ and $X_m$ are the observed respectively missing covariates, and $f^\\\\star$ is the underlying full-data function. For the type of conditional mean imputation used in this work, we do not target $p(X_m \\\\mid X_o)$ but instead estimate $\\\\mathbb{E}[X_m \\\\mid X_o]$. In the extreme, we have perfect knowledge of this expectation through an oracle, and Le Morvan et al. (2021) in their Figure 4 already demonstrated that the performance of such an oracle > imputation via chained equations > mean impute. In the same figure, they also show that missing indicators are beneficial even in MCAR settings. The authors must be aware of this work, since they cite it as their main reference in their section \\\"4.5 WHY IS THE INDICATOR BENEFICIAL, EVEN WITH MCAR DATA?\\\", where they exclusively lean on Le Morvan et al. (2021) to explain why missingness indicators, even if they contain no information about the outcome, may still aid learning an often discontinuous optimal predictor.\", \"references\": \"Marine Le Morvan, Julie Josse, Erwan Scornet, and Gael Varoquaux. What\\u2019s a good imputation to predict with missing values? Advances in Neural Information Processing Systems, volume 34, pp. 11530\\u201311540. 2021.\", \"questions\": \"Given that both key findings are consistent with established theory and have been described before empirically, what are the novel contributions that would justify acceptance of the paper?\", \"flag_for_ethics_review\": \"['No ethics review needed.']\", \"rating\": \"6\", \"confidence\": \"5\", \"code_of_conduct\": \"Yes\"}", "{\"comment\": \"We thank the reviewer for their time and feedback.\\n\\n**Regarding the weaknesses reported**\\n\\nThe reviewer is concerned by the small effect sizes reported, and questions the statistical significance of some conclusions. We acknowledge that the reported effect sizes of imputation on prediction accuracy are small\\u2014this is indeed one of our key messages. The reviewer rightly highlights the need for statistical support for finer-grained claims (e.g., effects are small but non-zero). We confirm that our conclusions are supported by statistically significant differences (details of the tests provided in a separate comment):\\n\\n* **Small but non-zero effect sizes**: Effects are significantly greater than 0 across datasets for less powerful models (e.g. MLP) but not for more powerful ones (e.g. XGBoost). Looking at individual datasets reveals heterogeneity: some datasets show statistically significant effects, while others do not. In an updated Figure 4 (see updated pdf), round shapes indicate coefficients significantly greater than 0 (one-sided T-tests, pval < 0.05, Bonferroni correction), while triangles denote non-significant coefficients. Overall, in the best case (MLP, no mask, 20% missing rate), the effect of imputation on prediction is significantly > 0 for 13/19 datasets. In the worst case (XGBoost, no mask, 50% missing rate), this holds for 6/19 datasets.\\n\\n* **Higher correlation with linear outcomes**: Wilcoxon signed-rank test pval=1e-19. This translates into more coefficients significantly > 0 in the linear case than in the real outcome case.\\n\\n* **Larger effects without the mask**: Wilcoxon signed-rank test pval=1e-10.\\n\\nThese findings are consistent across experiments and statistically significant, reinforcing our overall message about the diminishing returns of imputation.\\n\\n**Regarding the missing rates**\\n\\n> In about a third of the benchmark datasets, the dimension is small such that 20% missing means just one missing feature.\\n\\nEach entry has a 20% chance of being missing, rather than each sample has 20% of its entries missing, we will clarify this in the paper. Therefore the number of missing features in a sample varies according to a binomial distribution. This creates more diversity than forcing a 20% of missing values per sample.\\n\\n> Would larger missingness rates show more significant correlations?\\n\\nWe ran supplementary experiments at a 70% missing rate on all datasets (on top of the 20% and 50% missing rates), and added **a new figure in appendix which plots the effects and correlations as a function of the missing rates** (Figure 12 in the updated pdf) for the various models. We see that effects are larger for higher missing rates: this is particularly clear for linear outcomes, but less for real outcomes. This suggests that imputation matters more at higher missing rates, although for real outcomes and powerful models, these effects are still very small. By contrast, correlations decrease when the missing rate increases, i.e, the association is noisier (less likely to be significant).\\n\\n**Regarding feature importances**\\n\\n> \\u201cuse explainability techniques on these models trained with missingness indicators to see if the importance/weights of features drop when they are missing\\u201d\\n\\nWe computed feature importances using feature permutation (scikit-learn's permutation_importance). For each dataset, we identified the two most important features on the test set. For each feature, we then re-calculated its importance across the subset of test samples for which the feature was missing, and across the subset where it was observed. This allows comparing the importance of a feature when it is missing versus when it is observed. This experiment was conducted using XGBoost with condexp or missforest imputation, both with and without the mask.\\n\\n**Results are shown on a new Figure (Figure 13 in the updated pdf)**, and indicate that on average, a feature is half as important when imputed compared to when observed, with considerable variability (i.e., many features are 10 times less important when imputed, and some features remain as important when imputed). When a mask is used, importances drop significantly more with missforest imputation compared to when no mask is used (Wilcoxon signed-rank test p-value < 0.01). However, this effect is not observed with condexp imputation.\\n\\n> Does the correlation of prediction performance and imputation accuracy (e.g, Figures 3 and 4) also show any difference by imputation method?\\n\\nA given imputation method gives very similar accuracies when repeated on the same dataset with a new sampling of missing values, therefore looking at the correlation between imputation and prediction per imputation methods is not informative: there is too little variability in the imputation accuracy.\"}", "{\"comment\": \"In our rebuttal, we have provided new experiments addressing the reviewer\\u2019s questions:\\n\\n* On the feature importances of imputed vs. observed features.\\n* On the effect of the missing rate.\\n* On the significance of the observed effects.\\n\\nWe would be grateful if the reviewer could share their updated opinion of our work based on this additional evidence.\\n\\nThank you again for your time and consideration.\"}", "{\"comment\": \"We thank the reviewer for their time and feedback.\\n\\n**TL;DR:** Our keys findings **have not been described empirically before**. The experiments in [Le Morvan 2021] are on synthetic data and can only serve as illustrations of their theory. They cannot support general practical conclusions, and they do not even reach the same conclusions as ours because of a narrow synthetic focus.\\n\\n> The authors conclude that both better imputations and missingness indicators improve prediction performance. Neither of these findings is particularly surprising [...]\\n\\nOur results actually differ from previously published findings, including Le Morvan 2021. Our conclusion is that the impact of imputation on prediction is **very small**, rather than \\u201cbetter imputations improve prediction performances\\u201d. The heart of this work is in the estimation of the effect sizes, and observing that in some important cases (powerful models + mask), better imputations do not even improve predictions.\\n\\n> Le Morvan et al. (2021) in their Figure 4 already demonstrated that the performance of such an oracle > imputation via chained equations > mean impute.\\n\\nAs the reviewer points out, Le Morvan et al. (2021) highlight in their Figure 4 a rather strong positive effect of imputation on prediction, as the prediction performance satisfies: mean imputation < MICE imputation < oracle imputation. This actually contradicts our main message, according to which the effect of imputation accuracy on prediction accuracy is very small. This contradiction is because **their setting is favourable** for imputation to improve prediction:\\n\\n* The different imputations are combined with a **MLP only** => this is the least powerful model in our study, for which we showed that the potential benefit of imputation is greatest.\\n\\n* **They work on synthetic data**, where X is Gaussian, and $Y = f(w^\\\\top X) + noise$, with f the square function for example. Although it is not a linear function, it has a specific structure as it is a simple transformation of a linear function, and it is probably closer to our linear setting than to our real data setting. => In our study, linear outcomes yield larger effects than real outcomes.\\n\\n* Since their data is Gaussian, the imputation task is easier than with real data, leading to large gaps in imputation performance (mean vs oracle).\\n\\nThese points show that their experiments correspond to our most favourable setting for imputation to have an impact on prediction (and even more favourable since they use Gaussian data). We show that in more realistic settings (powerful models + real data), the effect of imputation is greatly minored.\\n\\n> Given that both key findings are consistent with established theory and have been described before empirically, what are the novel contributions that would justify acceptance of the paper?\\n\\nThanks for this important question. The important novel contributions are:\\n\\n* **Synthetic data illustration versus Extensive real-data benchmark** The main contributions of [Le Morvan 2021] are theoretical results, their empirical results are very limited (only synthetic Gaussian data, with a MLP as prediction model, one missing rate). They cannot support empirical conclusions as our work does.\\n\\n* **Different empirical conclusions** Because they focus on a synthetic and favourable setting, they report an effect of imputation on prediction that is very optimistic compared to what can be obtained in reality, as we show in our study.\\n\\n* **An asymptotic theoretical result does not necessarily hold in practice in finite samples** [Le Morvan 2021] conclude \\u201cIn further work, it would be useful to theoretically characterize the learning behaviors of Impute-then-Regress methods in finite sample regimes.\\u201d, as their main theorem (Theorem 3.1 - Bayes consistency of Impute-then-regress procedures) is asymptotic. This work answers this question with a rigorous empirical study. The fact that our key findings are consistent with established theory is a result, because we did not know what to expect in finite samples.\\n\\n* **Identification of the factors that modulate the importance of imputation for prediction** Contrary to existing works, we show that more powerful models, appending the mask, and non-linearity of outcomes, all tend to decrease the importance of imputation for better prediction. This is important as focusing on too narrow experimental settings, or averaging over all settings, do not allow to draw actionable and consistent conclusions. \\n\\n* **Mask in MCAR** Concerning the result that the mask improves prediction even under MCAR data, [Le Morvan 2021] did not report this as a result. The effect of the mask in MCAR with MICE is unclear in their Figure 4, and again the experiments are too limited to allow for empirical conclusions.\\n\\nPlease let us know whether our message and positioning relative to [Le Morvan 2021] makes more sense to you in light of these clarifications. Thanks again for your time.\"}", "{\"comment\": \"We thank the reviewer for their time and feedback.\\n\\nWe appreciate the suggested clarifications for various concepts and have incorporated them into our revised manuscript, along with corrections to the identified typos.\"}", "{\"title\": \"Response to the author's comment\", \"comment\": \"I thank the authors for elaborating on their contributions.\\n\\n**Synthetic data illustration versus Extensive real-data benchmark** and **An asymptotic theoretical result does not necessarily hold in practice in finite samples**: Le Morvan's conclude that \\\" almost all imputations lead asymptotically to the optimal prediction, whatever the missingness mechanism\\\". A range of the cited existing benchmarks support this result in the finite samples, showing a limited benefit of imputation and competitive results using simple imputation methods. Papers that come to this conclusion include: Paterakis (2024), Shadbahr (2023), Perez-Lebel (2022), J\\u00e4ger (2021), and Woznica (2020).\\n\\n**Different empirical conclusions**: I disagree with the authors that Le Morvan 2021 argues for a strong effect of imputation on prediction performance. On the contrary, the best performing model is NeuMiss, a complex model that does not perform imputation, agreeing with the conclusions of this work. \\n\\n**Identification of the factors that modulate the importance of imputation for prediction**: \\n* More powerful models: Shadbahr (2023) investigated the use of more powerful models. \\n* Appending the mask: Paterakis (2024) and Perez-Lebel (2022) mention the importance of appending a missingness mask. \\n* Non-linearity of outcomes: The special case of linear vs. non-linear outcomes has indeed only been discussed theoretically in Le Morvan (2021), but may be of limited interested in real applications. \\n\\n**Mask in MCAR**: Besides Le Morvan (2021), the benefit of missing indicators in MCAR data has also been reported in Paterakis (2024). Although this too was in simulated data, this still demonstrates that a mask can be beneficial in MCAR settings. The general usefulness of missingness indicators in real-world datasets was also shown in Paterakis and Perez-Lebel (2022). \\n\\n\\n\\nIn summary, I still do not agree with the authors that their results haven't been described before. Taken in the context of existing works, both theoretical and empirical, their results are not suprising. However, I've come around on the idea that there is sufficient benefit to revisit these questions in a clear and focused way, which the authors have managed in their work. I've changed my score accordingly.\"}" ] }

[ "Yushu Li", "Yongyi Su", "Adam Goodge", "Kui Jia", "Xun Xu" ]

[ "Vision-Language Model", "Label Propagation", "Training-Free" ]

{ "note_id": [ "yi4HU5MwA6", "yWUPbLSh3n", "utp9ZOObFr", "tF8KRs7HJw", "sopYcVooc7", "pdCkQgiV4H", "oYO9qiMDLD", "h2qptyNLdt", "dvywjyEOAC", "daj9RYwHMy", "bRcTT2gBLW", "ZsiA2ftqTF", "YbIo47Eg9Y", "WTos63etRu", "V1CSZP2y0S", "GGszRBO3D4", "CSVXCP65VM", "As5xCiqs6E", "7eAkaZnf6J" ], "note_type": [ "official_review", "official_review", "official_comment", "meta_review", "official_comment", "official_comment", "official_comment", "official_comment", "official_comment", "official_comment", "official_comment", "official_comment", "official_review", "official_comment", "official_comment", "official_comment", "official_comment", "decision", "official_review" ], "note_created": [ 1730484549210, 1730010769722, 1732213089003, 1734606900184, 1732332975155, 1732244936309, 1732207322980, 1732207240021, 1732245115082, 1732207422918, 1732206911998, 1732207388330, 1730610927787, 1732523405058, 1732238241915, 1732523790143, 1732336856933, 1737523446208, 1730607288877 ], "note_signatures": [ [ "ICLR.cc/2025/Conference/Submission1297/Reviewer_uWXi" ], [ "ICLR.cc/2025/Conference/Submission1297/Reviewer_9AGk" ], [ "ICLR.cc/2025/Conference/Submission1297/Reviewer_9D8M" ], [ "ICLR.cc/2025/Conference/Submission1297/Area_Chair_Cc4H" ], [ "ICLR.cc/2025/Conference/Submission1297/Reviewer_qcpB" ], [ "ICLR.cc/2025/Conference/Submission1297/Authors" ], [ "ICLR.cc/2025/Conference/Submission1297/Authors" ], [ "ICLR.cc/2025/Conference/Submission1297/Authors" ], [ "ICLR.cc/2025/Conference/Submission1297/Authors" ], [ "ICLR.cc/2025/Conference/Submission1297/Authors" ], [ "ICLR.cc/2025/Conference/Submission1297/Authors" ], [ "ICLR.cc/2025/Conference/Submission1297/Authors" ], [ "ICLR.cc/2025/Conference/Submission1297/Reviewer_9D8M" ], [ "ICLR.cc/2025/Conference/Submission1297/Reviewer_uWXi" ], [ "ICLR.cc/2025/Conference/Submission1297/Reviewer_9AGk" ], [ "ICLR.cc/2025/Conference/Submission1297/Authors" ], [ "ICLR.cc/2025/Conference/Submission1297/Authors" ], [ "ICLR.cc/2025/Conference/Program_Chairs" ], [ "ICLR.cc/2025/Conference/Submission1297/Reviewer_qcpB" ] ], "structured_content_str": [ "{\"summary\": \"The paper proposes a approach for adapting vision-language models (VLMs) using efficient, context-aware label propagation. It introduces dynamic graph construction to improve inference accuracy without task-specific tuning, and employs context-aware feature re-weighting for better task adaptation. The method demonstrates superior performance and efficiency across various downstream tasks, highlighting its potential in zero-/few-shot scenarios.\", \"soundness\": \"3\", \"presentation\": \"3\", \"contribution\": \"3\", \"strengths\": \"1. The introduction of dynamic graph expansion is innovative, allowing for real-time adaptation and efficient use of test samples.\\n2. The method enhances feature relevance by re-weighting based on context, which is a novel approach to improving model adaptability to downstream tasks. This can potentially lead to better performance in diverse scenarios.\\n3. Employing an iterative solution rather than a closed-form one reduces computational costs and enhances scalability. This is particularly beneficial for handling large datasets.\", \"weaknesses\": \"1. More detailed motivation behind the model design is preferred. It is important to explain why the authors propose the method in this work.\\n2. The method may be complex to implement, particularly for large-scale or varied tasks. Detailed guidelines for implementation would be beneficial.\\n3. The approach assumes that the context-aware feature re-weighting will generalize well across different tasks, but this might not hold true for all types of data or in cases with significant domain shifts.\", \"questions\": \"Please refer to the weakness.\", \"flag_for_ethics_review\": \"['No ethics review needed.']\", \"rating\": \"6\", \"confidence\": \"4\", \"code_of_conduct\": \"Yes\"}", "{\"summary\": \"This paper proposes graph-based efficient adaption and inference for vision-language models. Specifically, the paper maximizes the use of test samples through iterative label propagation without the need for task-specific tuning. Additionally, the paper introduces a novel method to mitigate biases in VLMs through context-aware re-weighting and a interesting approach for identifying KNNs within each modality. Extensive experiments on various downstream tasks demonstrate the effectiveness of the proposed graph-based method.\", \"soundness\": \"4\", \"presentation\": \"4\", \"contribution\": \"4\", \"strengths\": \"1. The proposed use of K-nearest neighbors within each modality and context-aware edge re-weighting are novel approaches that align well with the property of pre-trained VLMs.\\n2. The paper is well-written and easy to understand.\\n3. Extensive experiments were fairly conducted with recent baselines across a range of datasets and architectures. \\n4. The paper improves the feasibility of the proposed method by using dynamic graph expansion, supported by a practical analysis of wall-clock time in Table 6 and time complexity in Appendix A.1.\", \"weaknesses\": \"I think the paper has no significant weaknesses.\\n1. Evaluating the performance degradation when using one-step label propagation instead of iterative label propagation could provide valuable insights for practitioners. This analysis would shed light on the trade-off between reduced complexity and potential accuracy decline, assisting in making informed decisions for applications where computational efficiency is crucial.\\n2. When utilizing an additional 16-shot training samples in Table 2, it appears that ECALP uses the training data as a component of the graph rather than for training. Wouldn\\u2019t it be possible to apply ECALP in addition to traditional prompt learning methods such as CoOp and CoCoOp?\", \"questions\": \"1. In Figure 1, it seems that the second image encoder and text encoder should be switched.\\n2. In Line 161, how can we obtain multiple textual prompts $z_{cm}$ for the $c$-th class? It seems that the value of $M$ can vary from class to class.\", \"flag_for_ethics_review\": \"['No ethics review needed.']\", \"rating\": \"8\", \"confidence\": \"5\", \"code_of_conduct\": \"Yes\"}", "{\"title\": \"Thank you for your detailed response.\", \"comment\": \"Thank you to the authors for your detailed response. I appreciate the additional analysis on few-shot performance of ECALP, as well as the explanation of its contribution in comparison with ZLap, which effectively addressed most of my concerns.\\n\\nOverall, great rebuttal. I will maintain my original positive overall rating, and add one point to the soundness rating.\"}", "{\"metareview\": \"This paper proposes a novel framework, called ECALP, an approach designed to efficiently adapt vision-language models (VLMs) through the construction of a graph over text prototypes. ECALP can dynamically construct a graph over text prompts, few-shot examples, and test samples, using label propagation for inference without task-specific tuning. The experiments of this work is extensive and solid, with remarkable performance on several downstream tasks. Overall, I found the methodological design novel and the experimental results solid, and therefore would like to suggest accept this work.\", \"additional_comments_on_reviewer_discussion\": \"There are some minor concerns raised, primarily regarding the limited performance improvement in specific tasks (e.g., few-shot scenarios) and the computational overhead compared to state-of-the-art methods. In their rebuttal, the authors effectively addressed these concerns and discussed the potential enhancements of their approach in areas such as fine-grained recognition, style transfer, and out-of-distribution scenarios. The reviewers are all positive toward the rebuttal.\"}", "{\"comment\": \"Thank you for your response. I will keep the positive score.\"}", "{\"comment\": \"Thank you for your thoughtful review and positive feedback. We're pleased that our clarifications have effectively addressed your concerns.\"}", "{\"title\": \"Response to Reviewer qcpB\", \"comment\": \"## Response to Weaknesses\\n\\n1. **Limited Performance Improvement & Highlight Second-highest Performance** \\n\\n We appreciate the reviewer's feedback on performance gains. Enhancing VLMs in a training-free setting is inherently challenging. Despite this, ECALP achieves a 1-2% accuracy improvement over state-of-the-art methods in tasks like fine-grained recognition, style transfer, and out-of-distribution scenarios. These improvements are notable given the absence of hyperparameter tuning, highlighting ECALP's robustness and practicality.\\n\\n Additionally, we have underlined the second-highest performance in **Tab. 1, 2, and 3** for improved clarity. Thank you for this suggestion.\\n\\n2. **Clarify the Computational Efficiency Measurement** \\n\\n In **Tab. 6**, the testing time for ECALP includes the entire process: dynamic graph construction, label propagation, data loading, and CLIP encoder operations. This comprehensive measurement demonstrates our method's computational efficiency in practical scenarios.\\n\\n\\n## Response to Questions\\n\\n1. **CUDA Memory Comparison** \\n\\n ECALP is designed to be memory-efficient. On the DTD dataset, ECALP requires approximately 2.4 GB of CUDA memory per test image, compared to 2.3 GB for the CLIP ResNet 50 baseline and 3.0 GB for ZlaP. In contrast, training-required methods like TPT consume about 21.9 GB during training. Our efficiency is primarily due to: (1) being training-free; (2) storing only the image features as graph nodes, each occupying just 4 KB of CUDA memory; and (3) implementing label propagation with sparse operations, which conserves memory. \\n\\n2. **Robustness to Incorrect Adjacency Graph Initialization**\\n\\n To evaluate the robustness of our dynamically constructed graph for label propagation, we conducted experiments under various data-stream conditions, as detailed in **Appendix A.2.7**. We test ECALP's performance with three different test set configurations: Standard Random Sampling: A typical random sample of the test stream. Hard Samples First: The initial 5% of the test stream consists of only hard samples (those misclassified by CLIP baseline), followed by a random sampling for the remaining 95%. 10% Hard Samples First: The initial 10% of the test stream contains hard samples, with the rest being randomly sampled.\\n\\n The results below suggest a minimal performance drop, with less than a 0.4% decrease in accuracy even with a 10% hard sample initialization. This resilience is due to our graph's dynamic nature, where edge connections between data points are continuously updated as the test sequence progresses. This adaptability ensures that our method remains robust against poor initializations, preventing cumulative errors and maintaining high accuracy even under challenging conditions.\\n\\n| Initialization Method | Accuracy |\\n|----------------------------|----------|\\n| Random Initialization | 54.49 |\\n| 5% Hard Samples First | 54.31 |\\n| 10% Hard Samples First | 54.14 |\\n\\n3. **Performance on Different Corruption Severities**\\n\\n ECALP remains effective at different severity levels in corrupted downstream tasks. As detailed in **Appendix A.2.6**, we examined ECALP's performance using the ImageNet-C dataset across severity levels from 1 to 5. ECALP consistently outperforms CLIP-ResNet50 by approximately 3%-5% across all severity levels. This demonstrates ECALP's robustness and effectiveness regardless of the corruption severity.\\n\\n4. **Impact of Label Propagation Iterations**\\n\\n The performance of ECALP is related to the number of label propagation iterations \\\\( T \\\\). As detailed in **Appendix A.2.5**, we explored varying T from 1 to 6 on the DTD dataset. The results suggest that slightly more iterations may improve the accuracy. This is due to a larger receptive field by more propagation iterations, which better utilize the test data's manifold structure. However, increasing T also increases computational costs, and we chose T = 3 to strike a balance between efficiency and accuracy.\", \"the_table_below_shows_the_accuracy_at_different_iterations\": \"| Iterations ( T ) | Accuracy (%) |\\n|----------------------|--------------|\\n| 1 | 53.31 |\\n| 2 | 54.37 |\\n| 3 | 54.49 |\\n| 4 | 54.73 |\\n| 5 | 54.96 |\\n| 6 | 54.96 |\\n \\nWe hope these additions address your concerns thoroughly and demonstrate the robustness and practicality of our approach. Thank you again for your feedback, which has significantly contributed to improving our manuscript.\\n\\nKind regards, \\nThe Authors\"}", "{\"title\": \"Response to Reviewer 9D8M\", \"comment\": \"## Response to Weaknesses\\n\\n1. **Mistake in Figure 1** \\n We appreciate your careful review and apologize for the oversight. In **Fig. 1**, we have corrected the error by swapping the positions of the second image encoder and the text encoder. Thank you for bringing this to our attention.\\n\\n2. **Contribution Relative to ZLaP** \\n While ECALP shares a similar foundational idea with ZLaP, specifically in leveraging data manifolds via label propagation, our approach introduces several novel contributions. These include i) reduced data requirements, ii) supporting few-shot adaptation, iii) context-aware edge re-weighting, iv) improved label propagation strategy, and v) improved performance. Notably, our zero-shot ECALP does not require an additional support set for graph construction, enhancing feasibility and memory efficiency in real-world applications. In contrast, a separate support set is required by ZLaP. ECALP also supports **Few-shot Adaptation** by incorporating few-shot samples into the graph with reweighting, unlike ZLaP, which is limited to zero-shot adaptation. To address modality differences and reduce irrelevant information impact, we introduce a **Context-aware Edge Re-weighting**. Our approach enhances label propagation efficiency through **Iterative Label Propagation** and **Dynamic Graph Expansion**, enabling low-cost inductive inference. We demonstrate superior performance across diverse tasks, including fine-grained datasets, style-transfer datasets, and OOD datasets.\\n \\n3. **Few-shot Performance on OxfordPets and Food101** \\n We appreciate the observation regarding performance variations on the Oxford Pets and Food101 datasets. We analyze the causes for the relatively poorer few-shot results on these datasets through a qualitative visualization of testing data features in **Appendix A.4**. Two datasets, Flowers102 and EuroSAT, are brought in for comparative studies. The testing sample features are projected into 2D space via t-SNE. We make the following observations. The testing samples are more cluttered and mixed up in OxfordPets and Food101 than in Flowers102 and EuroSAT. There are more separated sub-classes, i.e. isolated clusters within each semantic class, for OxfordPets and Food101. This suggests having a few-shot labeled samples is less effective for OxfordPets and Food101 datasets. In certain cases, an inappropriate selection of few-shot samples may even bias the adaptation.\\n\\n## Response to Questions\\n\\n1. **Analysis of Text Reweighting on ImageNet** \\n In zero-shot scenarios, text re-weighting effectively bridges modality differences between text and image embeddings by mitigating the impact of irrelevant features. However, in few-shot adaptation scenarios, feature selection is mainly carried out by the few-shot samples which share the same representation space with other testing samples. This explains why improvement is mainly brought in by few-shot reweighting, rather than text reweighting. An insignificant drop of performance on ImageNet might be caused by the conflict between few-shot and text reweighting. Nevertheless, they are complementary to each other on DTD and UCF datasets.\\n\\nWe hope these clarifications comprehensively address your concerns and underscore the robustness and applicability of our approach. We are grateful for your insightful feedback, which has greatly contributed to enhancing our manuscript.\\n\\nKind regards, \\nThe Authors\"}", "{\"comment\": \"Thank you for recognizing our work. We appreciate your positive feedback.\"}", "{\"title\": \"Response to Reviewer 9AGk\", \"comment\": \"## Response to Weaknesses\\n\\n1. **Performance of One-step Label Propagation** \\n\\n Thank you for the suggestion on evaluating one-step versus iterative label propagation. As detailed in **Appendix A.2.5**, ECALP demonstrates increased accuracy with more iterations, as shown by our results on the DTD dataset. While a single iteration achieves 53.31% accuracy, three iterations enhance this to 54.49%, balancing efficiency and performance. This analysis highlights the trade-off between computational simplicity and accuracy, aiding practitioners in making informed choices for applications where computational resources are limited.\\n\\n2. **Combination with CoOp**\\n\\n Thank you for your insightful question. In **Appendix A.2.4**, we explored integrating ECALP with traditional prompt learning methods like CoOp, using 1 to 16-shot samples as part of the graph rather than for training. Our results showed that combining ECALP with CoOp significantly enhances CoOp performance, demonstrating that ECALP can effectively complement traditional methods, further validating its applicability and versatility.\\n\\n## Response to Questions\\n\\n1. **Mistake in Figure 1** \\n We appreciate your careful review and apologize for the oversight. In **Fig. 1**, we have corrected the error by switching the positions of the second image encoder and the text encoder. Thank you for bringing this to our attention.\\n \\n2. **Multiple Textual Prompts**\\n \\n For each category, multiple textual prompts are generated using various templates, such as 'a photo of a {}', 'a sculpture of a {}', and 'a rendering of a {}'. These templates are suggested by the original CLIP paper. This method produces multiple text embeddings, which we then average to achieve a robust text representation. Crucially, we apply the same set of templates to all categories within a dataset, ensuring consistency across classes.\\n \\nWe hope these additions address your concerns thoroughly and demonstrate the robustness and practicality of our approach. Thank you again for your feedback, which has significantly contributed to improving our manuscript.\\n\\nKind regards, \\nThe Authors\"}", "{\"title\": \"General Response to Reviewers' Comments on Manuscript Revision\", \"comment\": \"We appreciate the constructive feedback provided by the reviewers, which has significantly helped us enhance the clarity and depth of our manuscript. Below, we outline the specific revisions made in response to each comment:\\n\\n1. **Combination with CoOp**\\n\\n In **Appendix A.2.4**, we explored integrating our method, ECALP, with the traditional prompt learning approach CoOp. This combination was tested with varying numbers of training samples from 1 to 16 shots. Our results showed that CoOp combined with ECALP further enhances CoOp's performance significantly. This demonstrates that ECALP can be seamlessly integrated with traditional prompt learning methods to boost their performance, further validating our applications.\\n\\n2. **Impact of Label Propagation Iterations**\\n\\n In **Appendix A.2.5**, we investigated how varying the number of label propagation iterations affects performance. Increasing iterations generally improved accuracy by better utilizing the data manifold but also increased computational demands. We found an optimal balance by selecting a moderate number of iterations to maintain efficiency without sacrificing much accuracy. This illustrates the trade-off between computational cost and performance enhancement. Moreover, multiple iterations of label propagation show significant advantages over a single iteration, indicating the effectiveness of our propagation approach.\\n\\n3. **Performance on Different Corruption Severities**\\n\\n In **Appendix A.2.6**, we tested our method on tasks with various levels of data corruption. ECALP consistently outperformed the CLIP baseline by 3% to 5%, demonstrating robust handling of corrupted data. This robustness is crucial for real-world applications where data quality may vary significantly.\\n\\n4. **Robustness to Bad Initialization**\\n\\n In **Appendix A.2.7**, we evaluated how well our approach handles poor initial conditions during testing. By dynamically updating relationships between data points, our method shows minimal performance drop even when starting with challenging data samples. This robustness is vital for deploying the method across diverse and unpredictable real-world tasks.\\n\\n5. **Visualization Samples for Corruption Task**\\n\\n In **Appendix A.2.8**, we provide visualizations of sample images subjected to various types of corruption from the ImageNet-C dataset. These visualizations are intended to illustrate the types of distortions and challenges posed by severe corruption conditions.\\n\\n6. **Correction in Figure 1**\\n\\n In **Fig. 1**, we corrected a mistake by swapping the positions of the second image encoder and text encoder. We thank the reviewers for pointing this out.\\n\\n7. **Highlighting Second-highest Performance**\\n\\n In **Tab. 1, 2, and 3**, we have underlined the second-highest performance for clarity. Thanks for this suggestion.\"}", "{\"title\": \"Response to Reviewer uWXi\", \"comment\": \"## Response to Weaknesses\\n\\n1. **Motivation of ECALP** \\n\\n Our method is motivated by the need to enhance VLMs without task-specific tuning, leveraging test samples more effectively. We propose a graph-based approach for label-efficient adaptation, dynamically constructing graphs over text prompts, few-shot examples, and test samples. This allows for inference without the need for additional support sets, improving feasibility and memory efficiency. Our model includes context-aware feature re-weighting to address modality differences and enhance task adaptation accuracy. By supporting efficient graph expansion and iterative label propagation, our method enables real-time inductive inference. Extensive evaluations demonstrate superior performance across various tasks, including fine-grained categorization, style-transfer classification, and out-of-distribution generalization.\\n\\n2. **Method Implementation**\\n\\n Thank you for your suggestion regarding implementation complexity. Our method is designed to be straightforward and does not require task-specific tuning. We have provided detailed implementation guidelines in **Section 3.5**, along with Algorithm 1. Additionally, we promise to release the source code upon acceptance, aiming to contribute to the community and foster the development of more advanced methods in the future.\\n\\n\\n\\n3. **Generalization to Significant Domain Shifts** \\n\\n We appreciate the concern regarding the generalization of context-aware feature re-weighting across different tasks. Our approach leverages robust text and few-shot re-weighting, which combines prompt text embeddings with target distribution information, minimizing the impact of domain shifts. As shown in **Appendix A.2.8**, we provide visualizations of severe corruption from the ImageNet-C dataset, illustrating our method's resilience. Furthermore, as detailed in **Appendix A.2.6**, ECALP consistently outperforms CLIP-ResNet50 by 3%-5% across all corruption severity levels, including minimal levels, demonstrating its robustness and effectiveness even under significant domain shifts.\\n \\nWe hope these additions address your concerns thoroughly and demonstrate the robustness and practicality of our approach. Thank you again for your feedback, which has significantly contributed to improving our manuscript.\\n\\nKind regards, \\nThe Authors\"}", "{\"summary\": \"The paper proposes ECALP, a novel graph-based framework for training-free adaptation of vision-language models. The proposed method constructs a graph over text prototypes, optional training samples and testing samples in a simple, dynamic fashion, and adopts label propagation for inference. Furthermore, edge re-weighting is carefully designed to take into account the semantic context of different classes. Throughout training and inference, the framework introduces little augmentation and hyper-parameter search, showing its efficiency and practicality. Finally, comprehensive experimental results over a wide range of datasets on zero-shot/few-shot fine-grained classification, style-transfer and out-of-distribution detection tasks show significant improvement in performance of the proposed approach over previous methods.\", \"soundness\": \"4\", \"presentation\": \"4\", \"contribution\": \"3\", \"strengths\": \"1. Comprehensive experiments and great results:\\n\\nThe paper provides a comprehensive comparison of ECALP against a number of highly competitive prior works, and carried out experiments on a variety of datasets as well as visual tasks, which is sufficient to validate the approach. The empirical results clearly demonstrate that ECALP achieves significantly better performance than previous methods. The experimental design, including the main setting, comparison baselines as well as ablation studies, are well justified. Moreover, the method proves to be computationally efficient.\\n\\n2. Nice presentation and clear structure\\n\\nThe figures in this paper are well-designed and effectively highlight the pipeline as well as advantages of the proposed framework. The formulation, presentation of the results as well as the visuals are aesthetically pleasing and easy to follow.\\n\\n3. Clear motivation and good writing\\n\\nThe introduction and abstract are well written and lays a good foundation for the paper. It is easy to see the motivation behind the work.\", \"weaknesses\": \"1. In Figure 1, the inputs to the second image encoder and the text encoder seem to be mixed up.\\n\\n2. As is discussed in the paper, ECALP builds upon similar ideas with ZLaP (i.e. label propagation), and although I acknowledge that the proposed method achieves improvement in performance and eliminates the need for additional unlabelled datasets, the contribution seems somewhat limited.\\n\\n3. In the detailed few-shot results provided in the appendix, it seems that ECALP does not always achieve the best performance. Especially on datasets like OxfordPets and Food101, the accuracy of ECALP even goes down as the number of samples per class increases. This weakens the claim of ECALP\\u2019s robustness in low-shot scenarios.\", \"questions\": \"1. As is mentioned above, I wonder if the authors could offer some explanation on ECALP\\u2019s behavior on certain datasets in low-shot settings.\\n\\n2. In the ablation study, in Table 4, it\\u2019s interesting to see that without Text Reweight, the model achieves slightly better performance under the 16-shot setting on ImageNet. It would be nice if the authors could shed some light on this phenomenon.\", \"flag_for_ethics_review\": \"['No ethics review needed.']\", \"rating\": \"6\", \"confidence\": \"3\", \"code_of_conduct\": \"Yes\"}", "{\"comment\": \"Thanks for the authors' responses. The authors have addressed my concerns and I will maintain my score.\"}", "{\"comment\": \"Thank you for your detailed response. The combination results with CoOp are also interesting. I plan to retain the score.\"}", "{\"comment\": \"Thank you for recognizing our work. We appreciate your positive feedback.\"}", "{\"comment\": \"Thank you for recognizing our work. We appreciate your positive feedback.\"}", "{\"title\": \"Paper Decision\", \"decision\": \"Accept (Poster)\"}", "{\"summary\": \"This paper proposes a graph-based approach for label-efficient adaptation and inference. The method dynamically constructs a graph based on available samples to enable real-time inductive inference.\", \"soundness\": \"3\", \"presentation\": \"3\", \"contribution\": \"2\", \"strengths\": \"1. The method requires no additional unlabeled support set and effectively leverages the test sample manifold through dynamic graph expansion.\\n2. This paper is clear and easy to follow.\\n3. This paper conducts extensive evaluations on diverse downstream tasks.\", \"weaknesses\": \"1. Compared to the SOTA methods, the performance improvement seems limited. Additionally, the second-highest performance can be highlighted with an underline for clarity.\\n2. In the computational efficiency section, does the testing time for ECALP include the dynamic graph construction process, or does it only account for the label propagation time?\", \"questions\": \"1. It appears that ECALP requires additional storage. How does its CUDA memory compare to that of previous methods?\\n2. If the initial testing samples are used to create an incorrect adjacency graph, will this lead to a cumulative error?\\n3. In corrupted downstream tasks, is ECALP still effective when the severity is low (e.g., at level 1)?\\n4. Is the method sensitive to the label propagation iterations T?\", \"flag_for_ethics_review\": \"['No ethics review needed.']\", \"rating\": \"6\", \"confidence\": \"3\", \"code_of_conduct\": \"Yes\"}" ] }

[ "Jiayu Zhang", "Xinyi Wang", "Zhibo Jin", "Zhiyu Zhu", "Jiahao Huang", "Xinyi Zhang", "Huaming Chen" ]

[ "Out-of-Distribution Detection", "Adversarial Gradient Attribution", "Safety" ]

{ "note_id": [ "ywkNlIK1Mc", "yVeBc12Awx", "vUFhoOYUBP", "umxoL4IA5E", "s1sbaZu4Ww", "ogmuynPVlL", "m8jwipfxZm", "l8Hm90Afgv", "l4u6ooA9VU", "kiOPOhRPEg", "hGgs9UkkiI", "h8rnQfPy4q", "e3y3aQOeKi", "cltdtBmj2Z", "ZehQgotvPl", "Vrabu7wNKr", "VXwXCwmrAF", "UyWDGhrPwv", "SRAW3lPAkV", "SBxQM3yfIp", "SBpgmr46iT", "PXjUNf1vJW", "OsNJ2GgKT1", "N8br8BNZUU", "KQt67vhmD0", "IQ9t0I28zR", "HWMEgLYOQq", "HDT87qjX5G", "EImnZQ83xB", "C9jQDhvuMn", "8fmFnHKNzl", "6kMRnMJimn", "6Mtq0KS1Fc", "2tEogXhZ3W", "0PTHJ480tE" ], "note_type": [ "official_comment", "official_comment", "official_review", "official_comment", "official_comment", "official_comment", "decision", "official_comment", "official_comment", "official_comment", "official_comment", "official_comment", "meta_review", "official_comment", "official_review", "official_comment", "official_comment", "official_comment", "official_comment", "official_comment", "official_comment", "official_review", "official_comment", "official_comment", "official_comment", "official_comment", "official_comment", "official_comment", "official_comment", "official_comment", "official_review", "official_comment", "official_comment", "official_comment", "official_comment" ], "note_created": [ 1733110060370, 1732412014500, 1730172877688, 1732718278310, 1732886319633, 1732882433620, 1737523982734, 1733211947336, 1732631530928, 1732347819742, 1732340240681, 1733146461958, 1734765078772, 1732805359160, 1730636618618, 1732696972503, 1733220422579, 1732340217039, 1733212942821, 1732771347505, 1732631863572, 1730595861459, 1732898820526, 1732168050700, 1733219780158, 1733212625417, 1733064719229, 1732168116105, 1732525790474, 1733146706036, 1730132115055, 1732167648062, 1732685021998, 1732692981080, 1732167962548 ], "note_signatures": [ [ "ICLR.cc/2025/Conference/Submission9432/Reviewer_rQF8" ], [ "ICLR.cc/2025/Conference/Submission9432/Authors" ], [ "ICLR.cc/2025/Conference/Submission9432/Reviewer_rQF8" ], [ "ICLR.cc/2025/Conference/Submission9432/Authors" ], [ "ICLR.cc/2025/Conference/Submission9432/Reviewer_rQF8" ], [ "ICLR.cc/2025/Conference/Submission9432/Authors" ], [ "ICLR.cc/2025/Conference/Program_Chairs" ], [ "ICLR.cc/2025/Conference/Submission9432/Authors" ], [ "ICLR.cc/2025/Conference/Submission9432/Authors" ], [ "ICLR.cc/2025/Conference/Submission9432/Reviewer_rQF8" ], [ "ICLR.cc/2025/Conference/Submission9432/Authors" ], [ "ICLR.cc/2025/Conference/Submission9432/Authors" ], [ "ICLR.cc/2025/Conference/Submission9432/Area_Chair_TuzA" ], [ "ICLR.cc/2025/Conference/Submission9432/Authors" ], [ "ICLR.cc/2025/Conference/Submission9432/Reviewer_bTVY" ], [ "ICLR.cc/2025/Conference/Submission9432/Reviewer_WCKD" ], [ "ICLR.cc/2025/Conference/Submission9432/Authors" ], [ "ICLR.cc/2025/Conference/Submission9432/Authors" ], [ "ICLR.cc/2025/Conference/Submission9432/Authors" ], [ "ICLR.cc/2025/Conference/Submission9432/Reviewer_WCKD" ], [ "ICLR.cc/2025/Conference/Submission9432/Authors" ], [ "ICLR.cc/2025/Conference/Submission9432/Reviewer_8iu4" ], [ "ICLR.cc/2025/Conference/Submission9432/Authors" ], [ "ICLR.cc/2025/Conference/Submission9432/Authors" ], [ "ICLR.cc/2025/Conference/Submission9432/Reviewer_rQF8" ], [ "ICLR.cc/2025/Conference/Submission9432/Authors" ], [ "ICLR.cc/2025/Conference/Submission9432/Authors" ], [ "ICLR.cc/2025/Conference/Submission9432/Authors" ], [ "ICLR.cc/2025/Conference/Submission9432/Reviewer_WCKD" ], [ "ICLR.cc/2025/Conference/Submission9432/Authors" ], [ "ICLR.cc/2025/Conference/Submission9432/Reviewer_WCKD" ], [ "ICLR.cc/2025/Conference/Submission9432/Authors" ], [ "ICLR.cc/2025/Conference/Submission9432/Reviewer_WCKD" ], [ "ICLR.cc/2025/Conference/Submission9432/Authors" ], [ "ICLR.cc/2025/Conference/Submission9432/Authors" ] ], "structured_content_str": [ "{\"title\": \"Some issues have been addressed.\", \"comment\": \"Thank you very much for the author's response! The concerns regarding the ablation experiments have been addressed, and I have increased my score from 3 to 5. I am pleased that the author has identified a significant application scenario, i.e., the out-of-distribution detection of plant. If the author can provide experimental data for this scenario and offer some reasonable explanations, I would be inclined to accept the paper.\"}", "{\"title\": \"Response to the reviewer\", \"comment\": \"Thank you for your in-depth review and feedback on our work. Regarding the limited improvement in AUROC you mentioned, we would like to explain via the perspective of consistency of performance improvement with a horizontal view:\\n\\nAlthough our performance improvement is limited in absolute terms compared to the baseline, our experimental results show that our method has achieved consistent improvement in comparison with each baseline method. This comprehensive and consistent improvement fully demonstrates the robustness of our method. Especially on complex large-scale datasets such as ImageNet, while it is very difficult to maintain such consistent improvement across various benchmarking methods, our results technically reflect its capability to be a universal and robust method across the board.\"}", "{\"summary\": \"This paper proposes the S&I method to enhance the performance of OOD detection.\", \"soundness\": \"2\", \"presentation\": \"2\", \"contribution\": \"2\", \"strengths\": \"1 The structure is clear.\", \"weaknesses\": \"1 The experimental results are suboptimal, with an average improvement of no more than 0.5% (AUROC metric) across different datasets. If the improvement is not significant, it suggests that the problem addressed in this paper may not be highly important. Please provide an experiment that can significantly enhance performance.\\n\\n2 In Figure 2, the meanings of the x and y axes are not explained; the two histograms on GAIA lack subtitles to distinguish them. Please clarify these details.\\n\\n3 The first two contributions summarized in the last paragraph of Chapter 1 require an ablation study to demonstrate their effectiveness separately.\", \"questions\": \"See weaknesses.\", \"flag_for_ethics_review\": \"['No ethics review needed.']\", \"rating\": \"5\", \"confidence\": \"2\", \"code_of_conduct\": \"Yes\"}", "{\"title\": \"Official Reply by Authors\", \"comment\": \"Thank the reviewer for the reply. Your comments and feedback are of great significance to our work! We have supplemented the experimental results of non-adversarial+non-layer splitting according to your request, as shown in Table 4:\\n\\n\\n## Table4. OOD Dataset (Non-adversarial + Non-layer splitting)\\n\\n| Dataset | FPR95 (%) | AUROC (%) |\\n|---------------|-----------|-----------|\\n| iNaturalist | 47.05 | 88.92 |\\n| Textures | 60.11 | 80.76 |\\n| Sun | 46.35 | 86.62 |\\n| Places | 67.00 | 79.57 |\\n| **Average** | **55.13** | **83.97** |\\n\\nIt can be seen that compared with Table 1 of **Non-adversarial + layer splitting**, Table 4 (**Non-adversarial + Non-layer splitting**) achieved a performance reduction of 16.32% and 8.05% on FPR95 and AUROC, respectively, and performed worse on each dataset, which shows the effectiveness of the layer splitting module. Compared with Table 2 of **adversarial + Non-layer splitting**, Table 4 (**Non-adversarial + Non-layer splitting**) achieved a performance reduction of 10.37% and 5.17% on FPR95 and AUROC, respectively, and performed worse on other datasets except the FPR95 indicator of Textures, which strongly shows the effectiveness of the adversarial module.\\n\\nWe sincerely hope that our above response has adequately addressed the reviewer\\u2019s concerns. We would be truly grateful if the reviewer could consider the possibility of a score adjustment.\"}", "{\"title\": \"Thanks\\uff01\", \"comment\": \"If you can provide an experiment that demonstrates the significance of your method, I would be very happy to raise my score. Although performance improvements on existing benchmarks have become difficult, the authors could find a scenario that benefits the proposed method (explaining the rationale of the scenario) to highlight the significance of the proposed approach.\"}", "{\"title\": \"Request for further possible discussion\", \"comment\": \"Dear Reviewer rQF8, thank you very much for your detailed review and valuable feedback on our work. We truly appreciate your insights and have given further thought to your suggestions, especially regarding the issue of limited performance improvement. We would be delighted to discuss your feedback and our responses further. If there are any aspects that require additional clarification or if you have any further suggestions, we would be more than happy to provide a timely response.\"}", "{\"title\": \"Paper Decision\", \"decision\": \"Reject\"}", "{\"title\": \"Request any possible follow-up due to the rebuttal deadline\", \"comment\": \"Dear Reviewer rQF8\\n\\nWe hope this message finds you well. We are writing to kindly follow up on our recent response to your review comments regarding the experimental details. As the rebuttal deadline for ICLR is today, we wanted to ensure that you had the opportunity to review the additional information we provided.\\n\\n**We deeply value your constructive feedback, and we believe the details we shared address your concerns and could enhance your assessment of our work**. Please let us know if there are any further clarifications or additional information you would need from us before the deadline.\\n\\nThank you for your time and effort in reviewing our submission.\\n\\nBest regards,\\n\\nAuthors of Submission 9432\"}", "{\"title\": \"Official Reply by Authors (Part 1)\", \"comment\": \"Thanks to the reviewer for the reply.\\nFor W1\\nWhat we want to clarify is that since non-zero gradient represents a high confidence OOD sample probability (as expressed by GAIA), it is obvious that the accuracy of calculating non-zero gradient will significantly affect the accuracy of OOD detection. This is the starting point for designing our method, and the performance improvement in extensive experiments (especially on large-scale ImageNet) has proven that our method can more accurately calculate the attribution gradient (i.e., we can obtain more accurate non-zero and zero gradient distribution) to obtain better OOD detection performance.\\n\\nFor the ablation experiment, we thank the reviewer for inspiring us, although we believed in our previous reply that our method is integrated (adversarial attack is the prerequisite for adversarial attribution, and we need to perform layer splitting technology when attribution to ensure that the attribution gradient calculation on each layer is accurate because changes in the input of the previous layer will affect the attribution gradient on the subsequent layer), but it is true that separate ablation studies of the adversarial attack module and the layer splitting module can help us know the role of each module. We conducted the three ablation experiments a), b), and c) as the reviewer proposed, and the results are as follows:\\n\\n\\n## Table 1. OOD Detection Method: Ours (Without Changes on Baseline)\\n\\n| OOD Dataset | FPR95 (%) | AUROC (%) |\\n|---------------|-----------|-----------|\\n| iNaturalist | 34.75 | 92.48 |\\n| Textures | 55.05 | 88.73 |\\n| Sun | 24.85 | 95.38 |\\n| Places | 40.60 | 91.47 |\\n| **Average** | **38.81** | **92.02** |\\n\\n## Table 2. OOD Detection Method: Ours (Without Layer Splitting)\\n\\n|OOD Dataset | FPR95 (%) | AUROC (%) |\\n|---------------|-----------|-----------|\\n| iNaturalist | 28.70 | 93.82 |\\n| Textures | 61.79 | 85.72 |\\n| Sun | 32.75 | 92.90 |\\n| Places | 55.80 | 84.12 |\\n| **Average** | **44.76** | **89.14** |\\n\\n## Table 3. OOD Detection Method: Ours\\n\\n| Dataset | FPR95 (%) | AUROC (%) |\\n|---------------|-----------|-----------|\\n| iNaturalist | 28.15 | 93.76 |\\n| Textures | 39.17 | 92.90 |\\n| Sun | 33.23 | 92.68 |\\n| Places | 46.98 | 88.33 |\\n| **Average** | **36.88** | **91.92** |\\n\\nWe are also willing to provide some heuristic explanations for the results of ablation experiments. Comparing Table 3 with Table 2 (without layer splitting technology), we can find that both the FPR95 and AUROC indicators have experienced a huge performance degradation, which is consistent with our motivation, because if layer splitting is not performed, the input of the previous layer will interfere the attribution gradient calculation on the latter layer. Comparing Table 3 with Table 1 (without changes to the baseline), we can find that the difference in AUROC between the two is very small (only 0.1), but on FPR95, our method is about 2% lower than Table 1, which strongly proves that introducing adversarial sample as the baseline to attribution can significantly improve the accuracy of attribution gradient calculation. Therefore, by integrating these two modules, we can obtain better OOD detection performance.\"}", "{\"title\": \"Thank your responses.\", \"comment\": \"The authors' response has not addressed my concerns. I still believe that the algorithm proposed in this paper provides only a very marginal improvement in the AUROC metric, with an increase of less than 0.5% even on ImageNet. This suggests that the problem addressed by the proposed method is either not very significant or overlaps with problems already solved by existing methods. If that is not the case, the authors could provide compatibility experiments to demonstrate the orthogonality of their method with existing approaches.\"}", "{\"title\": \"Table for W5\", \"comment\": \"| Method | FPS |\\n|------------|----------|\\n| our | 4.9019 |\\n| GAIA | 6.3572 |\\n| msp | 16.9090 |\\n| odin | 6.6613 |\\n| energy | 16.3934 |\\n| gradnorm | 8.7750 |\\n| rankfeat | 4.8416 |\\n| react | 15.8378 |\"}", "{\"title\": \"Thanks for rasing the score! & Experiment provision of plant OOD detection (part 1)\", \"comment\": \"Dear Reviewer rQF8,\\n\\nThanks for rasing the socre and your feedback is of great significance to our work! We promise to include the ablation study in the revised manuscript. Regarding the out-of-distribution (OOD) detection task for plants, we are happy to share the relevant experimental data and provide further explanations.\\n\\nFirstly, we selected the ImageNet dataset as the in-distribution (ID) dataset. To perform the plant OOD detection task, we chose the iNaturalist dataset as the OOD dataset. Specifically, we manually selected 110 plant categories from the iNaturalist dataset and randomly sampled 10,000 images for these categories. The related experimental codes and results can be found in our anonymous GitHub repository (https://anonymous.4open.science/r/S-I-F6F7/additional_OOD_samples/). The entire work is fully open-source.\\n\\nThe detected OOD samples are stored in the \\\"additional_OOD_samples\\\" folder. Interestingly, the OOD samples detected from the iNaturalist dataset are all plant species that are not present in the ImageNet dataset, demonstrating the effectiveness of our method in plant OOD detection tasks. This result can be further explained by the dataset characteristics: ImageNet is a general-purpose image classification dataset, while iNaturalist focuses on biodiversity and covers a wide range of fine-grained species. For certain visually similar plant categories, such as the Violet category in ImageNet and the Viola sororia category in iNaturalist, conventional OOD detection methods like MSP, ODIN, and GradNorm struggle to distinguish them and often classify OOD samples as ID categories. However, our method can accurately distinguish fine-grained plant species, as evidenced in the additional_OOD_samples folder.\\n\\nWe provide the following example for the reviewers\\u2019 reference:\", \"detection_of_angiosperms\": \"The following link shows an OOD sample detected from the iNaturalist dataset, belonging to the Lotus corniculatus category (https://anonymous.4open.science/r/S-I-F6F7/additional_OOD_samples/b51107eaf0608d345a265f623c776706.jpg). The corresponding ID sample from the ImageNet dataset, belonging to the Rapeseed category, is available at this link: (https://anonymous.4open.science/r/S-I-F6F7/ImageNet_rapeseed/1.png).\\n\\nBy comparing these two images, it becomes evident that the visual differences between them are minimal, making it challenging for humans to distinguish visually similar plant species. **However, our method effectively identifies fine-grained plant species, which has significant real-world implications, such as discovering new plant species or protecting endangered plant populations.**\"}", "{\"metareview\": \"This paper studies out-of-distribution detection. It improves the existing gradient-based OOD detection method GAIA (NeurIPS 2023) by introducing adversarial examples and proposing layer splitting and gradient Integration.\\n\\nThe reviewers share significant concerns about the effectiveness of the proposed method, as its experimental improvement is quite marginal compared to GAIA. On CIFAR100, the performance is almost the same as that of GAIA. On ImageNet, the performance improvements are also quite marginal. Although experimental results are not the only criterion for judgment, the presented experiments do not effectively support the proposed arguments and raise serious concerns about the effectiveness of the proposed method. The authors' responses help to address some other concerns, however, after rebuttal, there is still significant concern about its effectiveness. \\n\\nConsidering all reviews, the paper does not yet meet the acceptance threshold before these significant issues are adequately addressed.\", \"additional_comments_on_reviewer_discussion\": \"The authors' responses help to address some other concerns, however, after rebuttal, there is still significant concern about its effectiveness.\"}", "{\"title\": \"Thanks to the reviewer\", \"comment\": \"We sincerely appreciate the reviewer\\u2019s consideration in raising our score. Your feedback and suggestions have been incredibly helpful for improving our work. If you have any further suggestions or questions you would like to discuss, please feel free to let us know!\"}", "{\"summary\": \"The paper proposes the Splitting and Integration methods for out-of-distribution detection. It is based on the method GAIA (Chen et al. 2023) and compares the proposed method with GAIA and other algorithms. Splitting is a simple division of network layers into parts (as indicated in line 118), and integration is based on gradient splitting. The integrated gradient is based on the IG method. The experimental results are comparable to GAIA but do not significantly surpass GAIA's performance in order to be a new state of the art.\", \"soundness\": \"2\", \"presentation\": \"2\", \"contribution\": \"2\", \"strengths\": \"The paper proposes a modification to GAIA (Chen et al. 2023). GAIA uses image x = 0 as a baseline for Integrated Gradient attribution, whereas the proposed method uses adversarial image $x_{adv}$). The results of the experiments slightly improve to GAIA in few cases.\", \"weaknesses\": \"The paper experiment results are almost the same as GAIA except for a slight improvement on one dataset (SVHN).\\nThe paper writing in most places is full of authors' assumptions, or at least the sentences give such an impression (see lines 115, 202, 311). These statements rather should be backed by evidence or citations. There are questions about the use of variables and their definition in many equations. (see Question section). Proof 2 appears to be based on the assumption that $x_adv$ of $x_out$ will exhibit overly confidence.\", \"questions\": \"Define the term \\\"overly confident\\\" or not overly confident.\\n\\nClarify the score OOD score in Algo 1 as $\\\\tau$. This appears for the first time in the paper and is not used anywhere else. \\n\\nIn Eq. confidence score, $\\\\Omega(x)$ is, and $\\\\xi$ is the threshold. The confidence score is not mentioned in Eq. 1 anywhere else. This disconnects the latter discussion. This should be referred to elsewhere in order to keep the concept flowing. \\n\\nDefine the boundary of threshold $\\\\xi$.\\n\\nThe author mentions this is the first time the authors use adversarial attribution. However, Sec in line 172 suggested that they are using the Integrated Gradient (IG) method by Sundarajan et al. 2017. Clerfy explicitly whether they are applying IG methods from literature when they take image $x=0$ to $x_{adv}$ as baseline. \\n\\nDefine indices $x_{(r,s)}$. Are they pixel-wise features or indicate a feature of image x with the same dimension? This could also be related to Fig. 1 for more clarity.\\n\\nVariable $T$ in line 188 indicates this is the number of intervals; in line 216, it is iteration. Rectify or clarify. \\n\\nFigure 2 text should be made legible. \\nFigure 2 caption should explain what is in the image rather than stating the method in general. Not explaining the figure properly makes this irrelevant. \\n\\nTable 1 text is too small- should be made large, or the Table should be re-arranged.\", \"flag_for_ethics_review\": \"['No ethics review needed.']\", \"rating\": \"3\", \"confidence\": \"4\", \"code_of_conduct\": \"Yes\"}", "{\"comment\": \"Thanks to the authors for the clarification and most of the confusion has been resolved.\\nHowever, my original request was for the authors to provide experimental results for **non-adversarial+non-layer splitting** as the baseline. If possible, please provide this. Since the discussion time is close to the end, the authors can just provide some simple results.\"}", "{\"title\": \"The comparison results\", \"comment\": \"Dear reviewer rQF8,\\n\\nThank you for your reply. Under the experimental setup we described, we conducted a comprehensive evaluation of various methods in terms of the FPR95 and AUROC metrics. The results are summarized in the table below:\\n\\n| Methods | iNaturalist (FPR95\\u2193) | iNaturalist (AUROC\\u2191) |\\n|-----------|-----------------------|----------------------|\\n| MSP | 63.93 | 87.57 |\\n| ODIN | 62.69 | 89.36 |\\n| Energy | 64.91 | 88.48 |\\n| GradNorm | 50.03 | 90.33 |\\n| Rankfeat | 46.54 | 81.49 |\\n| React | 44.52 | 91.81 |\\n| GAIA | 29.49 | 93.51 |\\n| **Our** | **28.59** | **93.67** |\\n\\nAs shown in the table, our method achieves the best performance across both metrics, **with the lowest FPR95 (28.59) and the highest AUROC (93.67)**. Compared to the strongest baseline, GAIA, our method reduces FPR95 by 0.90 and improves AUROC by 0.16. These results demonstrate the effectiveness of our approach in the plant OOD detection task, showcasing its potential for practical applications.**For traditional methods such as MSP, ODIN, and GradNorm, our method demonstrates more significant improvements in both FPR95 and AUROC metrics**. **Additionally, we have provided an anonymous link containing one OOD image from the iNaturalist dataset and one ID image from the ImageNet dataset**. The experimental results show that our method can effectively identify the finer-grained OOD category from a set of visually similar plant images and correctly classify it as the OOD sample.\\n\\nWe hope these results address your concerns and further validate the contributions of our work. If this resolves your concerns, we would kindly request that you could consider raising the score.\"}", "{\"title\": \"Official Comment by Authors\", \"comment\": \"W1(a): Thanks to the reviewer for the suggestion. We would like to clarify that this view is one of the motivations of our paper. In lines 194-197, we explained that the attribution-based OOD detection method such as GAIA is developed based on the baseline selection of x'=0. GAIA checks OOD samples by counting the distribution of non-zero attribution gradients, so the highly OOD nature represented by non-zero attribution gradients has been proven. However, using the black image with x=0 as the baseline will make it difficult to retain the original semantic information of the sample when attributing, and it is easily disturbed by noise, which will cause deviations when counting non-zero attribution gradients, reducing the accuracy of OOD detection. Adversarial samples can retain the semantic information of samples while introducing minimal perturbations, so we designed an adversarial attribution-based OOD detection method by layer splitting and attribution integration, corresponding to the pseudo code of lines 409-414. It is worth mentioning that since our method is a whole, we did not split the algorithm for verification, and extensive experiments, especially the performance on the ImageNet dataset, have proved the effectiveness of our algorithm, that is, it can more accurately count the distribution of non-zero attribution gradients and thus improve the OOD detection effect.\\n\\nW1(b): Thanks to the reviewer for the suggestion. We would like to clarify that the first two contributions summarized in the introduction are iterative, and the first contribution (Introducing adversarial examples in OOD detection) paves the way for the second contribution (Layer-splitting technology and integration using adversarial attribution). They are a whole, which can be seen from our pseudo code. So the ablation cannot be done separately.\", \"w2\": \"The purpose of adversarial attacks is to detect the stability around the input sample points, especially in the case of noise. As we mentioned in the response to Weakness 1 (a), GAIA uses x=0 as the baseline. For different datasets, this choice is often complex and ad-hoc, and x=0 is not suitable for all datasets. Adversarial attacks can use existing samples to generate adversarial samples with semantic similarity to the input point samples through a small number of iterations, which is more suitable for different datasets and is not affected by differences in dataset distribution.\", \"w3\": \"We would like to clarify that this task is beyond the scope of OOD detection and belongs to a different setting. In fact, the definitions of adversarial samples and OOD samples are also different, as can be seen in lines 143-157 and 210-234. The current methods for distinguishing adversarial examples from clean examples are common in adversarial defense, which is not relevant to the task of this article. OOD detection is more focused on identifying out-of-distribution data, that is, detecting whether the test sample comes from outside the distribution of the training data, so as to avoid the model from making unreliable predictions on unfamiliar inputs. Adversarial sample detection targets adversarial samples generated by adversarial attacks that are disguised as within the distribution. We believe that the question raised by the reviewer may be feasible in theory, but it needs to be further verified in combination with the nature of the adversarial attack.\", \"w4\": \"Thanks to the reviewer for the insight into our paper, we agree that an ideal robust system should be able to handle all inputs, including adversarial samples, and not just reject adversarial samples. However, OOD detection is still indispensable in safety-critical applications such as autonomous driving, medical care, finance and other fields. As an additional safety mechanism, OOD detection ensures that inputs that differ significantly from the training distribution do not lead to potentially dangerous decisions. Although rejection-based adversarial defense methods are being revisited, OOD detection can be used as an auxiliary mechanism to identify unknown distributions and help achieve robust processing. Therefore, we believe that OOD detection can still play a significant role in scenarios where system reliability, security, and adaptability to novel data are crucial.\", \"w5\": \"Thanks to the reviewer's suggestion, we provide a time consumption comparison between our method and other baselines, with the evaluation indicator FPS, that is, the number of image frames generated per second. It can be seen that on the ImageNet dataset, although our method is slightly slower than GAIA, it has achieved a significant performance improvement. For Rankfeat, our method can not only achieve faster running efficiency but also perform more accurate OOD detection. Therefore, we believe that the running cost is an acceptable price.\"}", "{\"title\": \"Thanks and request any possible follow up due to the rebuttal deadline\", \"comment\": \"Dear Reviewer 8iu4,\\n\\nThank you for your thoughtful review and the valuable feedback on our submission. We greatly appreciate the time and effort you\\u2019ve dedicated to evaluating our work.\\n\\nWe have provided detailed responses to address your comments and would be grateful if you could kindly consider them before the rebuttal phase ends today. Please let us know if there is anything further we can clarify\\uff01Thank you again for your support and consideration.\\n\\nBest regards,\\n\\nAuthors of Submission 9432\"}", "{\"comment\": \"Thanks for the response. The above results have effectively addressed my concern (W1b). Additionally, I think these are important experiments that should be added to the manuscript.\\n\\nOverall, considering that the authors addressed most of my concerns (W1b, W4, W5) well and explained others (W1a, W2&3), I decided to increase my rating from 5 to 6.\"}", "{\"title\": \"Official Reply by Authors (Part 2)\", \"comment\": \"For W2&3\\nWe want to clarify that the role of the adversarial attack itself is to use the trained adversarial samples as the attribution baseline, so as to obtain a more accurate attribution gradient distribution (we have cited the literatures in lines 202-206 to illustrate the feasibility). GAIA has stated that non-zero attribution gradients represent the probability of OOD samples with high confidence. This observation serves OOD detection. Therefore, the purpose of using adversarial attacks is still to obtain accurate attribution gradient distribution for OOD detection. This is not related to the tasks of conventional adversarial attacks. Let's take an example, I need to use a large language model to perform image tasks, but I do not absolutely need to train a large language model. For not using noisy examples, the reason we use adversarial samples is that adversarial samples can retain the semantic information of the original samples with minimal perturbations, which is defined by the properties of adversarial samples (this is also one of the reasons why we introduced the definition of adversarial samples in the submission, which serves our subsequent mathematical proof). In addition, although the adversarial samples use manipulated labels, the labels are still selected from the label set of ID samples. According to the definition of OOD samples, we can consider them to be ID samples. This is very important and is the premise of our proof in lines 304-316. Noisy examples do not have this property because we cannot guarantee that their labels are still in the label set of ID samples.\"}", "{\"summary\": \"The paper addresses the problem of out-of-distribution (OOD) detection, crucial for enhancing the robustness of deep learning models. The authors propose a novel method called S & I (Splitting & Integrating) that improves on existing gradient-based OOD detection approaches like GAIA by introducing adversarial examples and integrating gradient attribution across split intermediate layers of the neural network. The S & I algorithm smooths gradient fluctuations and identifies true explanation patterns, outperforming state-of-the-art (SOTA) methods on CIFAR100 and ImageNet benchmarks, as shown through extensive experiments.\", \"soundness\": \"3\", \"presentation\": \"2\", \"contribution\": \"2\", \"strengths\": [\"The introduction of layer splitting combined with adversarial gradient attribution integration is innovative.\", \"The method demonstrates superior performance on CIFAR100 and ImageNet benchmarks, achieving lower FPR95 and higher AUROC compared to baselines.\", \"The paper provides a mathematical basis and proofs for the concepts introduced.\", \"The authors evaluate their approach against multiple baseline methods, showcasing clear advantages.\"], \"weaknesses\": [\"On CIFAR100, the performance gains over GAIA are not substantial, suggesting limited effectiveness in smaller label space datasets.\", \"The algorithm's complexity, involving iterative adversarial updates and integration across multiple layers, may hinder scalability or applicability to extremely large models.\"], \"questions\": [\"Have you considered the potential security risks introduced by using adversarial examples as baselines, and how might this affect deployment?\"], \"flag_for_ethics_review\": \"['No ethics review needed.']\", \"rating\": \"6\", \"confidence\": \"4\", \"code_of_conduct\": \"Yes\"}", "{\"comment\": \"Dear Reviewer rQF8,\\n\\nThank you for your constructive feedback and the opportunity to elaborate further on the significance of our work. \\n\\nIn the context of out-of-distribution (OOD) detection, even seemingly marginal performance improvements in percentage terms can have substantial practical implications, particularly in large-scale datasets. For instance, in our experiments on a dataset containing 10,000 samples, our method detected 90 additional OOD samples compared to the state-of-the-art GAIA method. Scaling this up to 1,000,000 samples, our approach could potentially detect nearly 10,000 additional OOD samples.\", \"the_significance_of_detecting_these_additional_ood_samples_becomes_clear_when_considering_real_world_applications\": [\"**Financial fraud detection**: Missing even a few anomalous transactions could result in significant financial losses.\", \"**Network security**: A small number of undetected abnormal traffic instances could lead to major breaches.\", \"**Industrial manufacturing**: Undetected defective products could trigger quality crises.\", \"**Autonomous driving**: Missing the detection of a few pedestrians or vehicles could result in severe accidents.\", \"By enhancing OOD detection capabilities on large-scale datasets, our method improves system reliability and mitigates potential risks in specific domains.\", \"Furthermore, we have uploaded the additional OOD samples detected by our method to an anonymous code repository [https://anonymous.4open.science/r/S-I-F6F7/additional_OOD_samples/](https://anonymous.4open.science/r/S-I-F6F7/additional_OOD_samples/) for detailed analysis. Interestingly, these extra detections predominantly belong to the \\\"plant\\\" category. This suggests that our model exhibits superior detection performance for certain OOD sample categories.\"], \"such_insights_are_critical_for_applications_where_specific_categories_of_ood_samples_hold_particular_significance\": \"- In **autonomous driving**, accurate detection of pedestrians or unexpected obstacles is crucial for preventing accidents. \\n- In **medical diagnostics**, identifying specific lesions or abnormalities is vital for timely treatment. \\n\\nThese findings highlight that improvements in OOD detection methods are not only about enhancing overall performance but also about addressing high-stakes, real-world scenarios where accurate detection can significantly reduce risks and improve system robustness. \\n\\nWe hope this additional explanation provides further clarity on the importance and applicability of our method. Thank you again for your valuable feedback, and we remain open to any further discussion or suggestions. \\n\\nBest regards, \\n\\nAuthors of Submission 9432\"}", "{\"comment\": \"W1: We thank the reviewer for the valuable comments. We would like to clarify that the insignificant improvement of our method on CIFAR100 does not mean limited effect, but means that our method can achieve the same or even slightly better performance than GAIA on small datasets. Besides, we would like to emphasize that our approach demonstrates significant improvements on the larger-scale ImageNet dataset. This distinction highlights the strength of our method in addressing the challenges of OOD detection in large-scale environments, which is a critical focus of our work. We also want to clarify that current OOD detection metrics such as FPR95 and AUROC have already achieved promising performance across many benchmark datasets. However, our approach prioritizes robustness and reliability in large-scale scenarios like ImageNet, where these challenges become more pronounced.\", \"w2\": \"We thank the reviewer for the valuable comments. In fact, we want to clarify that each model can be layered, which is not a problem and will not affect its scalability. In addition, when GAIA calculates the gradient, it also calculates the corresponding gradient for each layer. Our layered operation is not much more complicated than GAIA. We are applicable to all scenarios where GAIA is applicable, and the gradients of these layers can also be split.\", \"q1\": \"We thank the reviewer for the valuable comments. We would like to clarify that the introduction of adversarial attack in this paper does not affect AI security. The purpose of introducing adversarial samples is to create a data point that deviates a lot from the current input point to improve the accuracy of OOD detection and increase the adaptability of the model when it is perturbed by adversarial perturbations. In addition, according to the definition of OOD samples, adversarial samples are still ID samples, so no additional OOD samples will be generated to pollute the dataset.\"}", "{\"title\": \"Experimental setup is reasonable, but the comparison results in terms of FPR95 and AUROC are required!\", \"comment\": \"Your experimental setup is reasonable, i.e., \\\"we selected the ImageNet dataset as the in-distribution (ID) dataset. To perform the plant OOD detection task, we chose the iNaturalist dataset as the OOD dataset. Specifically, we manually selected 110 plant categories from the iNaturalist dataset and randomly sampled 10,000 images for these categories.\\\".\\n\\nPlease provide a comparison of different methods under this experimental setup in terms of the FPR95 and AUROC metrics. A significant improvement in these metrics would be persuasive to me.\"}", "{\"title\": \"Request any possible follow-up due to the rebuttal deadline\", \"comment\": \"Dear Reviewer bTVY,\\n\\nWe hope this message finds you well. We are writing to kindly follow up regarding our rebuttal to your comments on our submission.\\n\\nWe have made our best effort to address the concerns you raised, and we believe our responses provide clarity and additional insights that may help in your evaluation. As the rebuttal phase concludes today, we wanted to check if there is any additional information or clarification we could provide to further assist your review.\\n\\nThank you very much for your time and effort in reviewing our work. We sincerely appreciate your feedback and consideration.\\n\\nBest regards,\\n\\nAuthors of Submission 9432\"}", "{\"title\": \"Thanks and request for any possible discussion due to approaching rebuttal deadline\", \"comment\": \"Dear reviewer rQF8,\\n\\nThank you again for your thoughtful feedback on our work and for giving us the opportunity to address your comments. In our previous rebuttal, we gave examples to illustrate the importance of OOD detection in real-world tasks such as finance, network security, and medical diagnosis. In addition, to specifically illustrate the effectiveness of our method, we conducted experiments on the iNaturalist dataset and saved the detected OOD samples in the provided anonymous link. \\n\\niNaturalist, as a dataset containing 10,000 animal and plant samples, we can detect about 100 more OOD samples than the SOTA baseline GAIA, and the performance gap will be larger if it is extended to a larger dataset. Interestingly, we found that these OOD samples mainly belong to the \\\"plant\\\" category. This phenomenon shows that our method has excellent performance in tasks such as agricultural anomaly monitoring. Since it is necessary to accurately distinguish between crop and non-crop plants (such as weeds or diseased plants), the detected OOD samples may be unknown diseases, abnormal weeds, or unregistered plants, providing support for precision agriculture. Expanding to environmental monitoring and disaster warning tasks, detecting abnormal vegetation phenomena in the environment can also provide early warning signals, such as the impact of environmental pollution and climate change on plant communities.\\n\\nIn addition to the comparative experiments, we also conducted ablation experiments on the first two contributions of our method, namely the adversarial module and the layer splitting module, to verify the effectiveness of our method.\\n\\nTable 1. OOD Detection Method: Ours (Non-adversarial + layer splitting)\\n\\n| **OOD Dataset** | **FPR95 (%)** | **AUROC (%)** |\\n|------------------|---------------|---------------|\\n| iNaturalist | 34.75 | 92.48 |\\n| Textures | 55.05 | 88.73 |\\n| Sun | 24.85 | 95.38 |\\n| Places | 40.60 | 91.47 |\\n| **Average** | **38.81** | **92.02** |\\n\\nTable 2. OOD Detection Method: Ours (Adversarial + Non-layer splitting)\\n\\n| **OOD Dataset** | **FPR95 (%)** | **AUROC (%)** |\\n|------------------|---------------|---------------|\\n| iNaturalist | 28.70 | 93.82 |\\n| Textures | 61.79 | 85.72 |\\n| Sun | 32.75 | 92.90 |\\n| Places | 55.80 | 84.12 |\\n| **Average** | **44.76** | **89.14** |\\n\\nTable 3. Detection Method: Ours (Non-adversarial + Non-layer splitting)\\n\\n| **Dataset** | **FPR95 (%)** | **AUROC (%)** |\\n|-------------------|---------------|---------------|\\n| iNaturalist | 47.05 | 88.92 |\\n| Textures | 60.11 | 80.76 |\\n| Sun | 46.35 | 86.62 |\\n| Places | 67.00 | 79.57 |\\n| **Average** | **55.13** | **83.97** |\\n\\nIt can be seen that compared with Table 1 of **Non-adversarial + layer splitting**, Table 3 (**Non-adversarial + Non-layer splitting**) achieved a performance reduction of 16.32% and 8.05% on FPR95 and AUROC, respectively, and performed worse on each dataset, which shows the effectiveness of the layer splitting module. Compared with Table 2 of **adversarial + Non-layer splitting**, Table 3 (**Non-adversarial + Non-layer splitting**) achieved a performance reduction of 10.37% and 5.17% on FPR95 and AUROC, respectively, and performed worse on other datasets except the FPR95 indicator of Textures, which strongly shows the effectiveness of the adversarial module.\\n\\nWe sincerely hope that our above response has adequately addressed the reviewer\\u2019s concerns. We would be truly grateful if the reviewer could consider the possibility of a score adjustment.\"}", "{\"comment\": \"W1: We thank the reviewer for the valuable comment. We would like to clarify that the insignificant improvement of our method on CIFAR100 does not mean limited effect, but means that our method can achieve the same or even slightly better performance than GAIA on small datasets. Besides, we would like to emphasize that our approach demonstrates significant improvements on the larger-scale ImageNet dataset. This distinction highlights the strength of our method in addressing the challenges of OOD detection in large-scale environments, which is a critical focus of our work. We also want to clarify that current OOD detection metrics such as FPR95 and AUROC have already achieved promising performance across many benchmark datasets. However, our approach prioritizes robustness and reliability in large-scale scenarios like ImageNet, where these challenges become more pronounced.\", \"w2\": \"We thank the reviewer for the valuable comment. We hope that the following clarifications can alleviate the reviewer's doubts. The x and y in Figure 2 represent the attribution gradient values \\u200b\\u200band frequency values \\u200b\\u200bin the frequency histogram, respectively. The GAIA frequency histogram above represents the attribution gradient distribution before using GAIA for OOD detection. It can be seen that it is difficult to distinguish which value of the attribution gradient represents the OOD sample. After performing GAIA, as shown in the frequency histogram below, the OOD samples represented by non-zero attribution gradients can be distinguished. For our method, by performing multiple adversarial attacks to analyze the feature distribution shifts from ID adversarial samples to OOD input samples, we can progressively identify high-confidence non-zero gradients, thereby obtaining the true explanation pattern representations denoted by the shaded regions.\", \"w3\": \"Thank you for the reviewer's valuable suggestion. We would like to clarify that the first two contributions summarized in the introduction are iterative, and the first contribution paves the way for the second contribution. They are a whole, which can be seen from our pseudo code. So the ablation cannot be done separately.\"}", "{\"comment\": \"Thanks for the responses. Some of my concerns (W4, W5) have been addressed, but I still have concerns (W1, W2, W3) following:\", \"for_response_1\": \"Thanks for the further explanation, and I have noted the related descriptions in the original manuscript. However, my concern is that the existing experiments do not effectively support the claims in the paper, and some key experimental results are missing. Hence, in my previous review, I would like to see more experiments specifically considering non-zero gradient behaviors and ablation studies. Also, I believe that the current architecture allows for ablation studies, such as using a) a baseline model without any changes, b) a model without layer-splitting technology, and c) the final proposed model. If there is any error in my understanding, please point it out.\\n\\nFor response 2&3: \\nTo better discuss, I further summarize my two questions: First, the model is trained with adversarial examples but is not applied to tasks with adversarial attacks. Instead, it is used for OOD detection in traditional, non-attack scenarios.\", \"a_natural_question_arises\": \"Why use adversarial examples for training? Is it feasible to train with noisy examples (not adversarial perturbations, but common corruptions)? And what are the differences between the two? The second question is, why has not the proposed model trained with adversarial examples been applied to adversarial detection tasks, e.g., treating adversarial examples as a special case of OOD?\\nYour responses partially addressed my questions. However, the original manuscript introduces the concept of adversarial examples in many places, yet the final goal is completely unrelated to adversarial tasks. I believe this somewhat reduces the readability of the paper. \\n\\nIn summary, the W2&3 are not the main reason for my borderline rejection of the paper, but I strongly recommend that the authors clarify these two concepts and their corresponding analyses more clearly in the paper. More importantly, if the authors can further provide the experiments mentioned in W1 and more discussion, I am willing to increase my score.\"}", "{\"title\": \"Thanks for rasing the score! & Experiment provision of plant OOD detection (part 2)\", \"comment\": \"In this section we list the category names of plants in the inaturalist dataset, most of which are composed of Latin:\\n\\nCoprosma lucida, Cucurbita foetidissima, Mitella diphylla, Selaginella bigelovii, Toxicodendron vernix, Rumex\\nobtusifolius, Ceratophyllum demersum, Streptopus amplexifolius, Portulaca oleracea, Cynodon dactylon, Agave lechuguilla,\\nPennantia corymbosa, Sapindus saponaria, Prunus serotina, Chondracanthus exasperatus, Sambucus racemosa, Polypodium\\nvulgare, Rhus integrifolia, Woodwardia areolata, Epifagus virginiana, Rubus idaeus, Croton setiger, Mammillaria dioica,\\nOpuntia littoralis, Cercis canadensis, Psidium guajava, Asclepias exaltata, Linaria purpurea, Ferocactus wislizeni, Briza\\nminor, Arbutus menziesii, Corylus americana, Pleopeltis polypodioides, Myoporum laetum, Persea americana, Avena fatua,\\nBlechnum discolor, Physocarpus capitatus, Ungnadia speciosa, Cercocarpus betuloides, Arisaema dracontium, Juniperus\\ncalifornica, Euphorbia prostrata, Leptopteris hymenophylloides, Arum italicum, Raphanus sativus, Myrsine australis, Lupinus stiversii, Pinus echinata, Geum macrophyllum, Ripogonum scandens, Echinocereus triglochidiatus, Cupressus macrocarpa, Ulmus crassifolia, Phormium tenax, Aptenia cordifolia, Osmunda claytoniana, Datura wrightii, Solanum rostratum,\\nViola adunca, Toxicodendron diversilobum, Viola sororia, Uropappus lindleyi, Veronica chamaedrys, Adenocaulon bicolor,\\nClintonia uniflora, Cirsium scariosum, Arum maculatum, Taraxacum officinale officinale, Orthilia secunda, Eryngium yuccifolium, Diodia virginiana, Cuscuta gronovii, Sisyrinchium montanum, Lotus corniculatus, Lamium purpureum, Ranunculus repens, Hirschfeldia incana, Phlox divaricata laphamii, Lilium martagon, Clarkia purpurea, Hibiscus moscheutos,\\nPolanisia dodecandra, Fallugia paradoxa, Oenothera rosea, Proboscidea louisianica, Packera glabella, Impatiens parviflora, Glaucium flavum, Cirsium andersonii, Heliopsis helianthoides, Hesperis matronalis, Callirhoe pedata, Crocosmia\\n\\u00d7 crocosmiiflora, Calochortus albus, Nuttallanthus canadensis, Argemone albiflora, Eriogonum fasciculatum, Pyrrhopappus pauciflorus, Zantedeschia aethiopica, Melilotus officinalis, Peritoma arborea, Sisyrinchium bellum, Lobelia siphilitica,\\nSorghastrum nutans, Typha domingensis, Rubus laciniatus, Dichelostemma congestum, Chimaphila maculata, Echinocactus\\ntexensis.\\n\\nWe hope the information would allow future research to reproduce our results.\"}", "{\"summary\": \"Due to the non-zero gradient behaviors of OOD samples, which do not exhibit significant distinguishability, this negatively impacts the accuracy of OOD detection. Considering this issue, the paper proposes a novel OOD detection method called S & I based on layer Splitting and gradient Integration via Adversarial Gradient Attribution. The proposed method incorporates adversarial attacks into attribution to explore the distributional characteristics of ID and OOD samples. Experiments demonstrate that S & I algorithm achieves state-of-the-art results.\", \"soundness\": \"2\", \"presentation\": \"2\", \"contribution\": \"2\", \"strengths\": \"The proposed method has been evaluated on multiple datasets.\\nThe paper provides theoretical proof to ensure the rationality of the method.\", \"weaknesses\": \"1. The experiments conducted in the paper do not effectively support the proposed arguments.\\na) The paper mentions that \\\"we argue that the non-zero gradient behaviors of OOD samples do not exhibit significant distinguishability, especially when ID samples are perturbed by random noise in high-dimensional spaces, which negatively impacts the accuracy of OOD detection.\\\" However, the experiments in the paper are just some general evaluations and do not highlight the points argued above. There is no experiment to discuss detecting the non-zero gradient behaviors of OOD samples. \\nb) There is a lack of ablation studies to verify the importance of each part.\\n\\n2. The distributional differences caused by adversarial attacks are completely different from the differences between various datasets. Why can introducing adversarial attacks enhance OOD detection across different datasets?\\n\\n3. Can the proposed OOD detection be applied to distinguish between adversarial examples and clean examples?\\n\\n4. Is OOD detection still important in current deep learning? For example, in classification tasks with adversarial examples, one approach to avoid outputting the incorrect labels is to use detectors to refuse adversarial examples and only allow clean examples to be classified. However, these methods are gradually being abandoned because a robust system should be able to output correct labels for any input, not just simply refuse to output labels for adversarial examples. Therefore, under the settings of this paper, I am curious about which specific scenarios the OOD method is applicable or necessary to at present.\\n\\n5. Due to the presence of adversarial attacks and layer-splitting technology, will this lead to the consumption of a large amount of computational cost in the whole process?\\n\\nSince I am not completely familiar with this task, I have set the confidence as 2.\", \"questions\": \"See Weaknesses.\", \"flag_for_ethics_review\": \"['No ethics review needed.']\", \"rating\": \"6\", \"confidence\": \"2\", \"code_of_conduct\": \"Yes\"}", "{\"comment\": \"W1: We appreciate the reviewer\\u2019s observation regarding the performance. While it is true that our method achieves comparable results to GAIA on CIFAR-100, we would like to emphasize that our approach demonstrates significant improvements on the larger-scale ImageNet dataset. This distinction highlights the strength of our method in addressing the challenges of OOD detection in large-scale environments, which is a critical focus of our work. We also want to clarify that current OOD detection metrics such as FPR95 and AUROC have already achieved promising performance across many benchmark datasets. However, our approach prioritizes robustness and reliability in large-scale scenarios like ImageNet, where these challenges become more pronounced.\\nIn addition, we would like to clarify that the arguments pointed out by the reviewers, such as lines 202 and 311, are not our assumptions, but in fact they are based on evidence. For example, for line 202, we first explain at the beginning of the paragraph that gradient attribution-based OOD detection methods like GAIA are based on baseline selection with x'=0 (this is pointed out in GAIA), and the current attribution methods that use adversarial samples as baseline selection (such as Pan et al., 2021; Zhu et al., 2024b;a, which we cited) have been shown to achieve SOTA attribution performance. And the baseline selection of x'=0 in GAIA does not take into account the scenario of adversarial perturbations. We are the first to apply the concept of adversarial attribution to OOD detection. **This is one of our contributions and we have added the correct reference in line 205.**\\n\\n**For line 311, this is our logical reasoning based on the fact that OOD samples will be given overconfident predictions (see the description of Figure 2 in GAIA), not our assumption. We have cited GAIA in line 269 and explained the argument that \\\"OOD samples typically exhibit overconfident predictions\\\".** Since the label of the adversarial sample belongs to the label set of the input sample, if the input sample is an ID sample, according to the definition of the OOD sample, the adversarial sample is obviously still an ID sample. Therefore, we believe in Proof 2 that $f (x_{adv} ; \\\\theta)$ will not show overly confidence. As for the reviewer's statement that \\\"Proof 2 appears to be based on the assumption that $x_{adv}$ of $x_{out}$ will exhibit overly confidence.\\\", it is obvious that if the input sample is an OOD sample, according to this logic, $f (x_{adv} ; \\\\theta)$ will show overly confidence. **In short, this is our logical reasoning based on the viewpoint that GAIA has proved, not a temporary assumption we made.**\\n\\n---\", \"q1\": \"As we answered in Weakness, GAIA has already explained the argument that OOD samples will be given Overconfident Prediction in Figure 2 of the paper. In addition, GAIA also cited the work [1] and [2] in related work to show the argument that \\\"Networks tend to display overconfident softmax scores when predicting OOD inputs\\\". **We would like to clarify that we need this proven argument as the basis for our proof, and we have cited this argument in line 269. The concept of \\\"overly confident\\\" does not require additional definition, and its definition or not will not affect the reasoning of our paper.**\\n\\n[1] Anh Nguyen, Jason Yosinski, and Jeff Clune. Deep neural networks are easily fooled: High confidence predictions for unrecognizable images. In Proceedings of the IEEE Conference on Computer Vision and Pattern Recognition, pages 427\\u2013436, 2015.\\n\\n[2] Matthias Hein, Maksym Andriushchenko, and Julian Bitterwolf. Why relu networks yield high-confidence predictions far away from the training data and how to mitigate the problem. In Proceedings of the IEEE/CVF Conference on Computer Vision and Pattern Recognition, pages 41\\u201350, 2019.\", \"q2\": \"The OOD score \\u03c4 in the pseudocode is the score that we need the algorithm to return to determine whether the input sample is an OOD sample. This score is what we need in the end. The higher the score, the higher the possibility that the input sample is OOD. Therefore, it only needs to be returned at the end of the pseudocode, just like the confidence score representing the predicted category will be returned at the end of the binary classification task.\", \"q3\": \"We would like to clarify that Eq. 1 is only an explanation of the ID and OOD sample classification method in our problem definition. Here we refer to the problem definition in GAIA and compare the ID and OOD sample classification to a binary classification task. \\u03a9(X) represents the classification method, such as GAIA or Rankfeat baselines, and \\u03be is the threshold of the binary classification task, which can be adjusted by the developer. **Therefore, the discussion here is just to give readers who are not familiar with or do not understand the OOD detection task a mathematical understanding. Whether \\u03a9(X) and \\u03be are mentioned later does not affect the introduction of our method.**\"}", "{\"comment\": \"Thanks for the further responses. In the experiments provided, there are two points of concern:\\n1. Comparing Tables 1 and 2, it is evident that after introducing adversarial examples, the performance of the model declines on both FPR95 and AUROC. This seems to indicate that the first contribution has a negative impact.\\n2. Although the proposed method slightly outperforms the baseline on average performance, when observed separately across four datasets: On FPR95, the proposed method performs better on only two datasets, and on AUROC, it also outperforms on just two datasets. Therefore, the current experimental results do not adequately support the claims.\"}", "{\"title\": \"Official Reply by Authors\", \"comment\": \"Thanks for the reviewer's reply. For the first point, we would like to clarify that we think **Table 1 and Table 2 are not comparable** because they control different variables. Table 1 corresponds to **non-adversarial + layer splitting**, while Table 2 corresponds to **adversarial+ non-layer splitting**. Therefore, if we want to understand the role of each module, we suggest comparing Table 1 and Table 2 with Table 3 respectively. The experimental results of Table 2 and Table 3 have strongly proved the necessity of layer splitting technology. For the experimental results of Table 1 and Table 3, we will discuss at the second point.\\n\\nFor the second point, first of all, the average performance is a key indicator to measure the overall performance of the method. We have achieved the best results on the average performance (especially for FPR95, and in the anomaly detection task, low false positive rate is particularly important for practical applications because it directly affects the false alarm rate of the system). Although the performance of individual datasets may not be as good as the baseline, this can be attributed to the characteristics of the dataset rather than the defects of the method itself. Secondly, we would like to emphasize that for FPR95, our improvement on the Textures dataset is close to 16%, while for the dataset Sun with the largest performance drop, it is only within 10%. The complex textures and high variability of the Textures dataset can better reflect the advantages of the adversarial module in complex scenarios. Finally, we would like to point out that we emphasized the integrity and synergy of adversarial attack and layer splitting in our previous response. We provided ablation experiments at the request of the reviewer. Since the connection between each part of our method is very close, forcibly splitting them for analysis may lead to the destruction of their synergy, resulting in the result failing to reflect the true potential of the method. Even so, our method still dropped 1.93% in average FPR. We believe that this result is enough to illustrate the importance of the adversarial module.\"}", "{\"comment\": \"Q4: Please see the answer to Q3\", \"q5\": \"Thanks for the reviewer's suggestion. We are confused about what you meant by \\\"Clerfy explicitly\\\". It seems that the reviewer thought that we used the attribution method in IG and wanted us to clarify our contribution of adversarial attribution and whether we used the baseline of $x=0$ to $x=x_{adv}$ in IG. First of all, we are indeed the first to introduce the concept of adversarial attribution into OOD detection. Second, IG is not an adversarial attribution method, and its baseline is $x=0$, not $x=x_{adv}$. The purpose of introducing IG in line 172 is to provide readers with the mathematical background of IG, because GAIA performs attribution based on the choice of IG baseline $x=0$, and our attribution method is completely different from IG (see Eq. 9-10) and the baseline is $x=x_{adv}$. **Therefore, our contribution is original, not using the attribution theory of IG and is different from the GAIA method based on IG.**\", \"q6\": \"We want to clarify that $\\\\underset{(rs)}{x}$ is a pixel-level feature, and we have defined it in detail in lines 161-164, corresponding to an input sample x with width S and height R.\", \"q7\": \"We would like to clarify that the T in lines 188 and 216 represents the same meaning, namely \\\"interval\\\" or \\\"iteration\\\". Since the baseline of IG is $x=0$, it divides the path into T intervals and performs T iterations when iterating from $x=0$ to $x=x_{input}$. Since our adversarial attribution requires T gradient ascents to generate adversarial samples as the baseline, each round of iteration is equivalent to an interval of IG. Since T in lines 188 and 216 represents the same parameter, we use the same symbol to avoid confusion. We promise to add the description of T in the revised version.\", \"q8\": \"Thanks to the reviewer\\u2019s suggestion, we would like to clarify that the purpose of the title of Figure 2 is to help readers understand the difference in the OOD sample distribution between GAIA and our method in Figure 2, namely, \\u201cBy performing multiple adversarial attacks to analyze the feature distribution shifts from ID adversarial samples to OOD input samples, we can progressively identify high-confidence non-zero gradients, thereby obtaining the true explanation pattern representations denoted by the shaded regions.\\u201d We will modify Figure 2 to make it clearer to read.\", \"q9\": \"We thank the reviewer for the suggestion, and we will update the table in the revised version to make it clearer to read.\"}" ] }

[ "Tim Pearce", "Tabish Rashid", "David Bignell", "Raluca Georgescu", "Sam Devlin", "Katja Hofmann" ]

[ "world modeling", "imitation learning", "scaling laws" ]

{ "note_id": [ "v4nM9Sk3y0", "sBlID6wvx6", "ooJ7j0ZOAT", "nSliSM2JDO", "fP2ZcqxfTE", "cibNv6hkhH", "bD1sQVq8i1", "UaXZUjNfPQ", "FoacQKx2cb", "CGR13hm0nf", "Bori62Qwsz", "4E2ZZKtGdA", "11Xra1kiOg", "0P2s6FqRwT" ], "note_type": [ "official_comment", "official_comment", "official_comment", "official_review", "official_comment", "official_review", "decision", "official_comment", "official_comment", "official_review", "meta_review", "official_review", "official_comment", "official_comment" ], "note_created": [ 1732707110291, 1733158304287, 1732707224140, 1731220752505, 1732706642766, 1730665432799, 1737523966702, 1733225291290, 1732707346490, 1731000808350, 1735025495763, 1730663531694, 1732706982894, 1732706897183 ], "note_signatures": [ [ "ICLR.cc/2025/Conference/Submission9184/Authors" ], [ "ICLR.cc/2025/Conference/Submission9184/Reviewer_QYZ4" ], [ "ICLR.cc/2025/Conference/Submission9184/Authors" ], [ "ICLR.cc/2025/Conference/Submission9184/Reviewer_7k6m" ], [ "ICLR.cc/2025/Conference/Submission9184/Authors" ], [ "ICLR.cc/2025/Conference/Submission9184/Reviewer_QYZ4" ], [ "ICLR.cc/2025/Conference/Program_Chairs" ], [ "ICLR.cc/2025/Conference/Submission9184/Authors" ], [ "ICLR.cc/2025/Conference/Submission9184/Authors" ], [ "ICLR.cc/2025/Conference/Submission9184/Reviewer_sTyb" ], [ "ICLR.cc/2025/Conference/Submission9184/Area_Chair_AiSB" ], [ "ICLR.cc/2025/Conference/Submission9184/Reviewer_Qufp" ], [ "ICLR.cc/2025/Conference/Submission9184/Authors" ], [ "ICLR.cc/2025/Conference/Submission9184/Authors" ] ], "structured_content_str": [ "{\"title\": \"Response to Reviewer sTyb\", \"comment\": \"Thanks for your feedback. We respond to your queries below, in particular pointing out one issue is simple matter of miscommunication. We hope this might be sufficient to consider upgrading your score.\\n\\n## Relationship between loss and dataset size not described\\n\\nWe apologize for not making this clear. It's true that in the paper text we focus on presenting the relationship between optimal parameters $N$ and compute $C$, $N \\\\propto C^a$. However, since we use the approximation $C=6ND$ throughout the paper, the relationship between optimal dataset size $D$ and compute is implied -- $N \\\\propto C^a \\\\to C/D \\\\propto C^a \\\\to D \\\\propto C^{1\\u2212a}$. So for example in Figure 1, when we wrote $N_\\\\text{optimal} \\\\propto C^{0.49}$, this implies, $D_\\\\text{optimal} \\\\propto C^{0.51}$. To avoid future confusion, we have added the dataset size relationships to all plots, and added a further explanation to the paper. Thank you for drawing our attention to this.\\n\\n## Frozen VQGAN visual encoder\\n\\nIt's true that the quality of the final policies and world models are limited by the amount of information in the representation from the VQGAN. At no point, do we make comparisons between the quality of policy or world model using different encoders -- the pre-training losses are only compared between models using the same encoders.\\n\\n## Lack of CNN encoder with WM task\\n\\nWe chose to use the most popular generative modeling approaches to world modeling and BC. It is possible to consider a world modeling architecture with a single continuous embedding as input, but it is not clear what the reconstruction target and loss be -- use VQGAN tokens, or an MSE error in pixel space? To our knowledge, this is not a common world modeling architecture, so we have excluded it from our tested architectures. \\nPlease share a paper title or link to open source code to specific examples you would like to see included?\"}", "{\"comment\": \"Thank you for the detailed response.\\n\\nThe clarification on training loss is really helpful. And the meta-analysis on the pretraining loss is somewhat helpful as is the addition of the robotics data. I\\u2019ve increased my score to reflect these clarifications/improvements. \\n\\nI still remain wary of relying so much on the proxy metric here and even with the robotics task, it\\u2019s still hard for me to really see now two domains as sufficient to make general statements about scaling laws in environments. I think the paper would be strengthened by evaluating on a suite of tasks (eg on offline RL datasets which incorporate many different environments).\"}", "{\"title\": \"Response to Reviewer QYZ4\", \"comment\": \"Thank you for your feedback, which evidently was written with a good deal of care. We have taken great efforts to accommodate your three main feedback points.\\n1) We were able to straightforwardly clarify our simple miscommunication of the train loss vs validation loss issue. \\n2) We have responded at length to your query about why pre-training loss is a useful thing to focus a scaling study on -- a point we agree the original paper version did not justify in sufficient detail. \\n3) We have incorporated new experiments on world modeling on a new robotics dataset.\\n\\nWe hope you might feel this is sufficient to consider an uplift in your score.\\n\\n## Focus on scaling pre-training loss rather than downstream task performance\\n\\nPlease see our global response 1.1.\\n\\n## Train loss rather than test loss\\n\\nApologies for not making this more clear -- this indeed is common practice in scaling law analyses, for example [3] explain `the smoothed training loss is an unbiased estimate of the test loss, as we are in the infinite data regime (the number of training tokens is less than the number of tokens in the entire corpus)'. Since each training batch has never been seen previously, the loss recorded on it is equivalent to the loss of some held out test dataset.\\n\\nTo check that we are not significantly repeating data usage in our training runs, we conduct an analysis in Appendix B.3.1, which estimates the maximum FLOPs for a given model size and dataset that would remain in the infinite data regime.\\n\\n## Lack of task diversity\\n\\nPlease see our global response 1.2.\\n\\n## Models on the smaller side\\n\\nWe agree that our models are smaller relative to those studied in the language domain. We point out that smaller model sizes are common in world modeling and BC, and our largest world models are only around one order of magnitude less than recent state-of-the-art world models -- Genie 2.3B [1], Unisim 5.6B [2]. \\n\\n## Contributions over prior work\\n\\nPlease see our global response 1.3.\\n\\n## References\\n\\n[1] Genie: Generative Interactive Environments \\n[2] Learning Interactive Real-World Simulators \\n[3] Training Compute-Optimal Large Language Models\"}", "{\"summary\": \"## Summary\\nThis paper investigates the impact of model size, dataset size, and compute on embodied AI tasks like behavior cloning (BC) and world modeling (WM). Using transformers with tokenized inputs or CNN embeddings, the authors explore scaling behavior using 8.6 years of gameplay data from *Bleeding Edge*. They find that scaling laws\\u2014typically observed in language modeling\\u2014also apply to embodied AI tasks, with different trade-offs influenced by task, architecture, and tokenization. For instance, in the WM task with 540-token representations, optimal model size scales as $N(optimal) \\u221d C^{0.62}$, whereas BC tasks see optimal model size scaling as $ N(optimal) \\u221d C^{0.32} $ with the same tokenized setup.\\n\\n## Quality & Clarity\\nThe paper is written clearly, with effective visualizations such as Figures 3 and 4 showing the loss curves and power law fits for scaling laws across various model sizes. The methodology in Table 1 provides fitted coefficients across model-dataset configurations. In Section 5, several design choices, such as the comparison of architectural choices for BC-Token versus BC-CNN, are explored, and explanations are provided for why specific scaling trends arise in each architecture.\\n\\n## Recommendation\\nThe paper contributes to the understanding of scaling laws for embodied AI, particularly with evidence of model-dataset trade-offs for BC and world modeling tasks on a single dataset. However, the contributions are limited by their similarity to previous work (e.g., Tuyls et al.) and the relatively narrow focus on architectural adjustments rather than task diversity or downstream metrics. I currently recommend rejection but would be willing to change my stance if the aforementioned weaknesses are addressed.\", \"soundness\": \"2\", \"presentation\": \"3\", \"contribution\": \"2\", \"strengths\": \"## Strengths\\n1. **Visual Encoder Architecture Exploration:** The study explores scaling laws across various visual encoding architectures and pre-training tasks including BC and WM, showing that model scaling behavior in embodied AI resembles language modeling. For example, WM tasks with 256-token representations require scaling model and dataset sizes equally $N(optimal) \\u221d C^{0.49}$ and $ D(optimal) \\u221d C^{0.51} $.\\n2. **Tokenizer compression:** The authors find that tokenizer compression rates significantly affect scaling laws. For instance, increasing token compression from 256 to 540 tokens per image in the WM task shifts optimal model scaling to $N(optimal) \\u221d C^{0\\u00b762}$, favoring larger model sizes.\", \"weaknesses\": \"## Weaknesses\\n1. **Lack of real-world data:** The scaling insights are based on a single simulation task. Previous studies have demonstrated that simulation performance often does not correlate well with real-world robot performance [1]. The analysis would benefit from validation on openly available real-world datasets such as OpenX[2] and DROID[3].\\n2. **Downstream task performance:** The paper focuses exclusively on scaling pre-training loss without examining generalization or performance on downstream tasks, which is crucial for embodied AI applications. Including evaluations on even a select set of downstream tasks would significantly strengthen the practical relevance of the findings.\\n\\n## References\\n1. An Unbiased Look at Datasets for Visuo-Motor Pre-Training: Dasari et al.\\n2. Open X-Embodiment: Robotic learning datasets and RT-X models: OXE Collaboration\\n3. DROID: A Large-Scale In-the-Wild Robot Manipulation Dataset: Khazatsky et al.\", \"questions\": \"## Questions\\n1. Would incorporating large-scale real-world robotics data help validate the paper's scaling law claims beyond simulation environments? The current findings, while valuable, are limited to the simulation world.\\n2. Could the authors demonstrate the practical value of lower pre-training losses by evaluating a subset of pre-trained models on downstream tasks? This would help establish a clear correlation between pre-training performance and downstream task effectiveness.\", \"flag_for_ethics_review\": \"['No ethics review needed.']\", \"rating\": \"3\", \"confidence\": \"4\", \"code_of_conduct\": \"Yes\"}", "{\"title\": \"Global response part 1\", \"comment\": \"Thanks to all reviewers for the valuable feedback.\\nHere we address points that were common to two or more reviewers. We respond to points raised by individuals in separate responses. \\n\\n## 1.1 Pre-training loss vs. downstream task performance\\n\\nSeveral reviewers queried the core premise of our work -- that pre-training loss is a useful thing to analyze and optimize for. Instead they requested a focus on online performance.\\n\\nWe begin by presenting two new pieces of evidence showing that pre-training loss is closely related to model quality. These have been incorporated into the paper (currently Appendix E).\\n\\n- 1. __World model evidence.__ We use metrics commonly used to assess the quality of the world models, e.g. [3], originally developed in the video generation literature. Conditioned on an initial real frame and a sequence of real actions, we compare the observations generated by the world model, with the real sequence of observations, measuring FVD, LPIPS and PSNR. Specifically, we generate 1024 videos of 10 seconds each. We perform this for various checkpoints on each model size of our WM-Token-256. This allows a plot of the checkpoint pre-training loss vs world model quality metric to be assessed (e.g. https://ibb.co/gScQQ2S). We find correlations of 0.77, -0.57, 0.83 for LPIPS, PSNR, FVD respectively. This evidences the strong relationship between pre-training loss and world model quality.\\n- 2. __BC evidence.__ We conducted a meta-analysis of [1] to quantify the strength of relationship between pre-training loss and online return. This is possible in their set up for two reasons. 1) They use a simple environment that could be run cheaply as a gym environment, so all checkpoints could be evaluated. 2) Their data generating policy was an expert rules-based policy, so BC necessarily leads to an expert agent. By taking data points from their Figure 5a and b, we created a plot of pre-training loss vs. online return. This comes out with a correlation coefficient of -0.97 (https://ibb.co/wL0C4kq). This provides strong evidence that in the infinite data regime, pre-training loss is a good proxy for online performance.\\n\\nIn general, we agree with reviewers that when online performance can be measured, this is preferable to pre-training loss. \\nHowever, scaling law analyses require evaluating a large number of checkpoints over multiple training runs. This is not usually feasible for two reasons. \\n1) For complex environments and applications, such as real robotics or modern video games (our work), measuring online performance is costly. Testing a single BC policy (following finetuning) in the Bleeding Edge environment in our work requires around half a day. Testing the ability to plan using a world model is even more expensive.\\n2) When pre-training datasets contain a mixture of skill-levels (our work) it is not clear that pre-trained models are 'out-the-box' aligned with high-skill behavior. Hence the name __pre-training__ stage -- models require further fine-tuning or steering to elicit the desired behaviors. This further increases the cost of assessing online performance.\\n\\nGiven these reasons making online performance broadly inaccessible, we now outline qualitative arguments for why pre-training loss __is__ a valuable metric to focus on.\\n\\n- 1. __Pre-training loss has proven valuable in LLM research.__ LLMs face a similar problem to embodied AI -- one cares about metrics such as factual correctness, reasoning capability, and user engagement, not pre-training loss. Yet these are expensive to measure, and the LLM community has made much progress by focusing on the optimization of the clean intermediate signal of pre-training loss. Why should this not hold for the embodied AI community?\\n- 2. __Next-token prediction intuition.__ To improve at next-token prediction in world modeling and BC, models intuitively must know more about the environment and behaviors. In BC, better predicting a human's next action requires a model to better understand things about the game objectives the human's are trying to complete, the skill level of individual trajectories, and a variety of alternative behaviors that humans may choose to perform. All these things should create a better pre-trained checkpoint for specialization to a particular downstream task.\\n- 3. __Validation loss vs. infinite data.__ Previous work has sometimes reported a imperfect relationship between validation loss and performance, e.g. [2]. However, such studies have been performed on datasets of limited size, with held-out validation sets, finding that some amount of over-fitting might be beneficial. Our work is conducted in the infinite data regime, where over-fitting is not possible, so previous insights may not be applicable.\\n\\n[1] Scaling Laws for Imitation Learning in Single-Agent Games \\n[2] Hyperparameter Selection for Imitation Learning\"}", "{\"summary\": \"This paper studies scaling laws in the context of agents (specifically in a video game) to study whether and how these laws exist in this setting. The paper looks at how dataset and model size can be optimally scaled to optimize loss for BC and world modeling (next state prediction). The authors find a power law relationship and show how things such as tokenization can effect the optimal scaling parameters.\", \"soundness\": \"3\", \"presentation\": \"3\", \"contribution\": \"1\", \"strengths\": \"The paper is well presented and generally clear.\\n\\nThe analyses are well explained and clear to read.\\n\\nThere are a lot of interesting analyses done, the authors really tried a lot of things here and have a lot of results to pick through and analyze.\", \"weaknesses\": \"The premise of what this paper is doing is kind of questionable. Specifically, the thing that is being measured is training (will get to that) loss on a BC or state prediction objective, rather than a direct measure of downstream performance. As the authors point out in their related work, most other papers such as Hu et al 2023 do measure downstream performance. The author's justification for this choice then is that this adds complexity and it might be difficulty to ask \\\"more nuanced questions\\\" such as how to trade-off model and dataset size. But this isn't really further justified any further. Why couldn't we do a study looking at that tradeoff on the downstream task. More importantly, this paper draws conclusions based on the training loss for a *proxy* to what researchers actually care about (how well the final agent actually does at test time), and given the choice between looking at this paper's measurements and one that evaluates this, I don't know why you would prefer this. There isn't really even much analysis about why this is a good proxy metric (like some kind of finding that things with lower loss in this paper do in fact do better on the final task, even if the curves are not as smooth)\\n\\nNot only this, but the paper isn't even looking at the Test loss in these analyses, it's looking at train loss. From S3.4 \\\"We assume training loss is an accurate proxy for test loss. (Appendix B.3.1 analyzes further).\\\" I find this assumption both baffling and completely unjustified in the text of the paper. The cited appendix merely looks at the size of the data they trained on and says \\\"The compute allowed by the infinite data regime is 6ND\\\" (and so they say, they are above that. There isn't a citation for this anywhere, and I am not familiar enough with the literature to tell if this is a thing other works have done. The original scaling law paper as far as I can tell does not do this. But I still do not understand the decision. If you have this large a dataset, surely you have enough data to have a held-out set? Again, scaling laws are not something I was intimately familiar with, so if there is a good justification for this, someone please let me know. But this paper does not justify it and on it's face \\\"assume train and test are the same\\\" feels like an ML sin.\\n\\nThe results are also only validated on a single environment / datasets. This seems like it really is limiting the potential applicability of the paper. What if the conclusions or scaling parameters found in this paper are idiosyncratic to this particular game?\\n\\nI say this somewhat advisedly, but I am not actually sure the models studied here are large enough to fully justify all the conclusions. Most of the experiments use 206M parameters with many having even smaller (e.g. 27M for Figure 5). The only experiment with a larger size is Figure 7 at 894M. This isn't my biggest criticism, and I know compute is quite expensive, but it feels like this is a major missing thing here.\", \"questions\": \"See above\\n\\nWhat is this paper doing or concluding that is above prior work?\\n\\nWhy should I trust this proxy loss (train versus test and not final performance) over other works which directly measure the variable of interest?\", \"flag_for_ethics_review\": \"['No ethics review needed.']\", \"rating\": \"5\", \"confidence\": \"4\", \"code_of_conduct\": \"Yes\"}", "{\"title\": \"Paper Decision\", \"decision\": \"Reject\"}", "{\"comment\": \"Thank you for taking the time to read our rebuttal and update your score. We are pleased to have been able to address some concerns.\"}", "{\"title\": \"Response to Reviewer Qufp\", \"comment\": \"Thank you for your review. We are pleased to have been able to communicate the strengths of our work. Of your three main feedback points, we believe we have been able to concretely provide evidence for two (further detail on hyperparameters, and experiments in a new environment), and we elaborate on our view on the third. Please let us know if you deem this sufficient to justify an improvement to your score?\\n\\n## Hyperparameter Selection and Rationale\\n\\nWe provide further detail about hyperparameters below. This has been incorporated into the new paper version.\\n\\n__Tokens per image.__ For the VQGANs, we selected two numbers of tokens per image based on qualitative assessment of reconstructions. We found that 256 tokens per image was the minimum that still allowed a reconstruction to capture the majority of salient gameplay details. However certain details still were lacking, such as an enemy player's health bars -- hence we also considered a 540 token version that provided a higher quality reconstruction. Our newly added robotic experiments explore an even wider range; 16, 36, 64, 100, 256.\\n\\n__Learning rates.__ It was important to find optimization settings that produced the lowest possible loss for a given model size. In general larger models require smaller learning rates. Our approach first optimized the smallest model through a grid sweep, we would then sequentially run a sweep over the next largest model, starting at the smaller model's optimized learning rate. Table 3-6 provide final settings. \\n\\n__Model configs.__ Model configurations roughly followed the model configurations used in Table A9 of [1], where residual stream dimension, number of layers, and number of heads are roughly increased proportionally. Table 2 provides details.\\n\\n__Synthetic data generation.__ Note that while our environment is a simulated video game world, the dataset is not simulated -- all trajectories are from real humans playing the game. Please let us know if you'd like to see any specific statistic or detail included, beyond those in Appendix B.3.\\n\\n\\n## Broader Applicability and Generalization\\n\\nPlease see our global response 1.2 for detail on our additional experiments on a new robotics dataset, which demonstrates the same scaling patterns seen in our main set of results.\\n\\n## Implications for embodied AI and RL\\n\\nThe embodied AI community has recently seen a trend towards pre-training large models on large amounts of generic behavioral data, using simple generative objectives of BC [4, 5, 6] and world modeling [2, 3]. This training can either be done in isolation, or can be followed by a fine-tuning phase doing BC on expert-only data or alternatively rewards-driven RL [6].\\n\\nIt is our belief that a more scientific understanding of this pre-training process is of high value to such large-scale efforts. For example, allowing optimal sizing of models for a given compute budget, and informing the impact of architectural choices on scaling behavior.\\n\\nMore generally, providing strong evidence that models trained on these embodied AI objectives predictably improve with more resources is a simple, but vitally important takeaway for the entire community.\\n\\n\\n## References\\n\\n[1] Training Compute-Optimal Large Language Models \\n[2] Genie: Generative Interactive Environments \\n[3] Learning Interactive Real-World Simulators \\n[4] A Generalist Agent \\n[5] RT-2: Vision-Language-Action Models Transfer Web Knowledge to Robotic Control \\n[6] Video PreTraining (VPT): Learning to Act by Watching Unlabeled Online Videos\"}", "{\"summary\": \"This paper explores the scaling law within an embodied agent setting, analyzing two tasks: world modeling and behavior cloning. The results indicate that a scaling law exists for both tasks when additional compute resources are provided.\", \"soundness\": \"3\", \"presentation\": \"2\", \"contribution\": \"2\", \"strengths\": [\"The paper focuses on an important problem that will have a large impact on the community.\"], \"weaknesses\": [\"Although it is a good attempt at analyzing the scaling law, the analysis lacks comprehensiveness.\", \"The relationship between loss and dataset size, which is mentioned in the introduction, is not presented. For example, in line 53, the authors state, \\u201cThe optimal trade-off between model and dataset size in world modeling is influenced by the tokenizer\\u2019s compression rate (number of tokens per observation) (Section 4.1, Figure 1a & b).\\u201d However, Figures 1a and 1b primarily illustrate the effects of computation with different tokenizers and model sizes, without clarifying the influence of dataset size on the results.\", \"The experiments utilize a frozen VQGAN visual encoder, which implies that the final claims regarding tokenizers are inherently limited by the performance of the frozen encoder.\", \"The architectural analysis includes a set of BC-CNN experiments under the BC loss, but it is unclear why the CNN experiment was not conducted within the world modeling tasks.\"], \"questions\": \"Please refer to the weakness section.\", \"flag_for_ethics_review\": \"['No ethics review needed.']\", \"rating\": \"5\", \"confidence\": \"3\", \"code_of_conduct\": \"Yes\"}", "{\"metareview\": \"This paper investigates scaling laws in embodied AI, focusing on behavior cloning (BC) and world modeling (WM) tasks. Using a large dataset from gameplay in Bleeding Edge, the study examines the interplay of model size, dataset size, and compute on pre-training losses. The authors demonstrates that scaling laws, similar to those found in language modeling, also apply to embodied AI tasks, revealing distinct trade-offs influenced by tokenization, task type, and architecture. Key findings include how token compression impacts the optimal balance between model and dataset size in WM tasks, and the difficulty of observing scaling laws in BC tasks under modest compute budgets. The aim is to infer insights into optimizng training setups and extending our understanding of scaling in embodied learning tasks.\\n\\nReviewers appreciated the novel exploration of scaling laws in embodied AI, noting scaling laws known from LLMs similarly applies to world modeling and BC. They highlighted the impact of tokenization compression on scaling, showing how increasing tokens per image shifts optimal scaling in WM tasks to favor larger models. The paper\\u2019s thorough analyses, systematic experimentation, and clear methodologies, including frontier and parametric fits, was also commended for supporting credibility and offering a framework to study trade-offs between model size and computational resources.\\n\\nHowever, the reviewers raised concerns about the comprehensiveness of the evaluations for the paper\\u2019s claims. They noted the study\\u2019s reliance on a single dataset (\\\"Bleeding Edge\\\") and the lack of validation on real-world datasets, which limits its generalizability. Reviewers also questioned the use of pre-training loss as a proxy for downstream performance and called for direct evaluations on practical embodied AI tasks. Concerns were also raised about the relatively smaller-scale models used in experiments and insufficient justification for key hyperparametrs. In the rebuttal, the authors added world modeling results on RT-1 and conducted a metaanalysis on the pretraining loss vis-a-vis downstream task performance, along with providing significant additional details in Appendix D and E. While these efforts partially addressed concerns, in post-rebuttal discussion, it was noted that a broader evaluation across tasks and datasets is still needed for the technical claims of the work. \\n\\nThe AC concurs with the unanimous recommendation of the reviewers and finds that a fresh round of reviews for a more comprehensive draft would be necessary.\", \"additional_comments_on_reviewer_discussion\": \"In the rebuttal, the authors added world modeling results on RT-1 and conducted a metaanalysis on the pretraining loss vis-a-vis downstream task performance, along with providing significant additional details in Appendix D and E. While these efforts partially addressed concerns, in post-rebuttal discussion, it was noted that a broader evaluation across tasks and datasets is still needed for the technical claims of the work.\", \"initial_ratings\": \"3, 3, 5, 5\\n\\nReviewer `QYZ4` increased rating from 3 -> 5.\", \"final_ratings\": \"3, 5, 5, 5\"}", "{\"summary\": \"Less is understood about scaling in embodied learning, but recent works suggest that increasing model and dataset size can lead to capable agents. This paper explores this hypothesis further by delving into scaling laws applicable to pre-training embodied agents and their world models, leveraging larger datasets and enhanced computational resources to improve performance. Focusing on both world modeling and behavior cloning, the study extends the understanding of how scaling affects these models beyond simple increases in parameter count, introducing dependencies on factors like tokenization and model architecture.\", \"soundness\": \"3\", \"presentation\": \"2\", \"contribution\": \"2\", \"strengths\": [\"#### Strengths:\", \"1. **Empirical Validation:**\", \"The paper provides evidence that scaling laws known from LLMs similarly apply to world modeling and BC, validated across some architectures and tokenization strategies.\", \"Thoroughness of many results.\", \"The systematic experimentation using different model sizes and computational scales support the credibility of the findings.\", \"2. **Take on Tokenization and Architecture:**\", \"Impact of tokenization granularity on optimal model scaling is particularly novel, offering insights into how token compression influences model efficiency and effectiveness.\", \"The comparison between tokenized and CNN based approaches in BC provides nice distinctions in how these architectures manage to scale.\", \"3. **Methodology and Analysis:**\", \"The paper details the methodologies employed, from the scaling analysis approach to breakdown of the computational and parameter scaling. This thoroughness can ensure clarity and reproducibility of the results.\", \"The use of frontier fit and parametric fit methods to analyze scaling laws provides a usable framework for understanding the optimal trade-offs between model size and computational expense.\"], \"weaknesses\": \"#### Areas for Improvement:\\n1. **Hyperparameter Selection and Rationale:**\\n - While the paper provides a framework for understanding scaling laws, a more granular justification of the choices behind specific hyperparameters, particularly in the synthetic data generation and scaling analyses, would enhance its contribution. Specifically, selection of number of tokens per image in the tokenization process and the learning rates used across different model scales seem crucial to the study\\u2019s outcomes but lack a detailed rationale. Providing insights into how these parameters were optimized, may be through sensitivity analyses or referencing empirical benchmarks, could help.\\n - Insights into the selection process for training configurations across different scales could further enhance the paper\\u2019s utility to practitioners.\\n\\n2. **Broader Applicability and Generalization:**\\n - The study provides insights into scaling laws within controlled experimental setups. However, to enhance the relevance and applicability of these findings to real-world applications, it would be beneficial to extend the analysis beyond the current datasets. Specifically, exploring how these scaling laws hold across datasets with higher environmental variability and some degree of realism or some evidence of extensibility.\\n - Extending the analysis to include more diverse datasets or environmental complexities could help validate the laws observed.\\n\\n3. **Limitations and Future Work:**\\n - The paper acknowledges limitations in the scope of architecture and tokenization diversity. \\n\\n4. **Less emphasis on embodied AI:**\\n - my main criticism concerns the paper's lack of a cohesive narrative explaining the relevance of its findings to embodied intelligence. It is currently less sound in terms of the necessity of the study, or why BC or world modelling techniques need this study particularly. is it because they are the most promising approaches.. or are they the most compelling representative candidates of model-free and model-based approaches or where are we heading with this analysis? Perhaps this can be easily fixed by revising some of the scaling law papers for sing-agent or multi-agent papers cited in the paper. Lastly, might be missing some relevant references and citations in the area, some are highlighted below and good to cite.\\n\\n[1] GenRL: Multimodal-foundation world models for generalization in embodied agents, Mazzaglia et al\\n\\n[2] Daydreamer: World models for physical robot learning, Wu et al\\n\\n[3] ArCHer: Training Language Model Agents via Hierarchical Multi-Turn RL Zhou et al.\\n\\n[4]Choreographer: Learning and Adapting Skills in Imagination, mazzaglia et al\", \"questions\": \"This paper makes promising contributions to the understanding of scaling laws in the context of pre-training for embodied AI, with clear strengths in empirical validation and methodological rigor. Addressing the identified gaps in hyperparameter transparency and broadening the scope of environments and architectures considered could further enhance its impact. Moreover, clarifying how this research fits into the broader context of embodied AI or RL, specifically the types of tasks and applications targeted and the importance of scaling laws for these areas would make the findings more relevant and engaging. Currently, the title is a bit ambiguous or too broad to understand the scope. I am happy to increase the score post-author response.\", \"flag_for_ethics_review\": \"['No ethics review needed.']\", \"rating\": \"5\", \"confidence\": \"3\", \"code_of_conduct\": \"Yes\"}", "{\"title\": \"Reponse to Reviewer 7k6m\", \"comment\": \"Thank you for taking the time to review our paper. We respond to your queries below. Please let us know whether you feel this meets the criteria you outlined for increasing your score -- in particular our meta analysis showing strong correlation between pre-training and downstream metrics, and new experiments in robotics using a subset of the OpenX dataset mentioned in your review.\\n\\n## Lack of real world data\\n\\nRegarding task diversity, please see our global response 1.2.\\n\\nOur new experiments on world modeling for real-world robotics show pre-training loss decreases in the same way as observed in our video game dataset. Regarding [1], we note that they show online performance in a simulated environment only roughly corresponds ($R^2$=0.34) to online performance in a real environment. Whilst our paper indeed focuses on a simulated environment, we focus on pre-training loss rather than online performance, so it is unclear how relevant the findings are.\\n\\n## Focus on scaling pre-training loss rather than downstream task performance\\n\\nPlease see our global response 1.1.\\n\\n## Contributions over prior work\\n\\nPlease see our global response 1.3.\\n\\n## References\\n\\n[1] An Unbiased Look at Datasets for Visuo-Motor Pre-Training\"}", "{\"title\": \"Global response part 2\", \"comment\": \"## 1.2 Increased task diversity\\n\\nSome reviewers wished to know whether the patterns we have observed in our video game dataset of human behavior would hold in new environments and datasets. Inspired by this, we include a new set of world modeling experiments on the robotics RT-1 dataset (Appendix D), finding that scaling laws again emerge in this set up. Furthermore, we provide further evidence for our claim that the tokenizers compression rate (number of tokens per observation) affects scaling coefficients.\\n\\nWe trained a set of VQVAEs with $V_o = 4096$ and $z_o \\\\in [16, 36, 64, 100, 256]$, for 40,000 updates on batches of 128 (reconstructions here: https://ibb.co/JrgBkKW). \\nWe then train a range of WM-Token model sizes $N \\\\in [0.08M, 0.2M, 0.28M, 0.54M, 0.99M]$ on each VQVAE (e.g. https://ibb.co/9WNFKBV), and measure scaling coefficients using the frontier fit method. \\n\\nFirst, we observe that scaling laws similar to those in our main set of experiments emerge, with predictably decreasing losses and similar optimal parameter scaling coefficients.\\n\\nSecondly, by measuring $a$ where $N_\\\\text{optimal} \\\\propto C^a$ for each VQVAE, repeated three times, we find an that the optimal parameter scaling coefficient increases with number of tokens per observation (https://ibb.co/HNrzkms). This supports our claim that a higher compression rate leads to a lower optimal parameter coefficient.\\n\\n\\n## 1.3 Comparisons with prior work\\n\\nTuyls et al. [1] provide a valuable complimentary analysis to our own work. Here we emphasize several differences.\\n\\n- 1. Half of our contributions focus on scaling laws for __world modeling__, Tuyls et al. conducted no investigation of this.\\n- 2. For our BC contributions, Tuyls et al. focused on scaling the width of CNN and LSTM models on datasets created by fixed policies. We consider transformer architectures on datasets of human behavior. We focus on understanding how architectural choices effect scaling coefficients -- surprisingly finding that they heavily influence optimal scaling strategy.\\n- 3. Section 8 of Tuyls et al. directly mentions that conducting scaling analyses on human datasets is an important direction for future work -- human datasets come with a broad distribution coverage and variation in skill level. This is exactly what our work focuses on.\\n\\n## References\\n\\n[1] Scaling Laws for Imitation Learning in Single-Agent Games \\n[2] Hyperparameter Selection for Imitation Learning \\n[3] Learning Interactive Real-World Simulators\"}" ] }

[ "Muhammad A Shah", "David Solans Noguero", "Mikko A. Heikkilä", "Bhiksha Raj", "Nicolas Kourtellis" ]

[ "robustness", "automatic speech recognition", "benchmark", "adversarial" ]

{ "note_id": [ "yhJ6AIKOq9", "wlLgldCrMB", "vyfLKDlq5C", "u5UYWQ6m8E", "qzAndAAsez", "o8PORWvV4x", "irvRd9zoHJ", "ddMAzwVUS7", "dYzVInkQ0J", "cz1ZzbhpId", "abKXzRU3Xu", "aBK0tdBRu2", "TIWc1B42d8", "PkbbUrEBvX", "IOEqYV7ddC", "G3Mh7o2W3S", "Am7cnbnOTJ", "9ffDPm4NfP", "9COYHwwuOV", "95uctnyniH", "4S7jddCvEZ", "17rRVl76ci" ], "note_type": [ "official_comment", "official_review", "official_comment", "official_comment", "official_comment", "official_comment", "official_comment", "official_comment", "official_comment", "official_review", "official_comment", "official_comment", "official_comment", "official_comment", "meta_review", "official_comment", "decision", "official_comment", "official_review", "official_comment", "official_review", "official_comment" ], "note_created": [ 1732649559142, 1730469491008, 1732638879382, 1732511125113, 1732605341026, 1732607768354, 1732486578439, 1732510310138, 1732500834609, 1730014733497, 1732511768151, 1732487617291, 1732511124955, 1732509339176, 1734368650490, 1732497418756, 1737523835680, 1732486716510, 1730330181635, 1732497428829, 1730207467217, 1732654519890 ], "note_signatures": [ [ "ICLR.cc/2025/Conference/Submission7386/Reviewer_4pNh" ], [ "ICLR.cc/2025/Conference/Submission7386/Reviewer_4pNh" ], [ "ICLR.cc/2025/Conference/Submission7386/Reviewer_4pNh" ], [ "ICLR.cc/2025/Conference/Submission7386/Reviewer_Dmh5" ], [ "ICLR.cc/2025/Conference/Submission7386/Reviewer_R2oE" ], [ "ICLR.cc/2025/Conference/Submission7386/Authors" ], [ "ICLR.cc/2025/Conference/Submission7386/Authors" ], [ "ICLR.cc/2025/Conference/Submission7386/Authors" ], [ "ICLR.cc/2025/Conference/Submission7386/Reviewer_UsXF" ], [ "ICLR.cc/2025/Conference/Submission7386/Reviewer_Dmh5" ], [ "ICLR.cc/2025/Conference/Submission7386/Authors" ], [ "ICLR.cc/2025/Conference/Submission7386/Authors" ], [ "ICLR.cc/2025/Conference/Submission7386/Authors" ], [ "ICLR.cc/2025/Conference/Submission7386/Authors" ], [ "ICLR.cc/2025/Conference/Submission7386/Area_Chair_UmfC" ], [ "ICLR.cc/2025/Conference/Submission7386/Authors" ], [ "ICLR.cc/2025/Conference/Program_Chairs" ], [ "ICLR.cc/2025/Conference/Submission7386/Authors" ], [ "ICLR.cc/2025/Conference/Submission7386/Reviewer_UsXF" ], [ "ICLR.cc/2025/Conference/Submission7386/Authors" ], [ "ICLR.cc/2025/Conference/Submission7386/Reviewer_R2oE" ], [ "ICLR.cc/2025/Conference/Submission7386/Authors" ] ], "structured_content_str": [ "{\"comment\": \"After thinking about it a bit more, I understand that for scenario 4, 5, and 6 it doesn't matter whether you average before or after the subtraction. For scenario 2 and 3, I think it's equally valuable to compare the numbers directly, although there is a case to be made to measure the relative difference w.r.t. librispeech performance.\"}", "{\"summary\": \"The authors propose a comprehensive benchmark for automatic speech recognition (ASR) models. The benchmark aims to cover a large variety of real-world data-quality challenges for deployed ASR models.\\n\\nTo benchmark on clean speech, the authors use the Librispeech and TEDLIUM datasets. \\nTo benchmark on inter-personal speech, the authors use the CHiME-6 dataset. \\nTo benchmark on far-field speech, the authors use the AMI dataset. \\nTo benchmark on accented English, the authors use the Mozilla CommonVoice dataset. \\nTo benchmark on text-to-speech audio, the authors generate data using the model XTTS. \\nTo benchmark against adversarial attacks, the authors use utterance-specific and utterance-agnostic attacks. \\nTo benchmark against environmental effects, the authors add 1) white noise, 2) environmental noise, or 3) simulate echo and RIR. \\nTo benchmark against digital augmentations, the authors modify the audio data using most effects available in SoX.\\n\\nThe authors use the word-error-rate (WER) as the metric for clean speech. The metric for adversarial attacks is WER degredation (WERD). For all others, the authors use difficulty-normalized WER or WERD. The normalization is done based on a weight, which is an approximated speech quality given by a neural network. \\n\\nThe authors apply their benchmark on popular ASR models and their variants, including Whisper, wav2vec 2.0, HuBERT, and Canary.\", \"the_following_observations_are_made\": [\"Canary has the best performance on clean speech\", \"Whisper is robust against digital augmentations, echo and RIR, while Canary is not.\", \"Wav2vec 2.0 is robust against adversarial attacks.\", \"There is a positive correlation between average robustness and amount of model parameters\", \"Furthermore, the authors did an analysis on Spanish datasets with models fine-tuned (single-or multi-lingually) on Spanish. They find that multi-lingual models are more robust on English than Spanish.\", \"Finally, the authors analyzed performance differences between male and female speakers. They observe it is data dependent.\"], \"soundness\": \"3\", \"presentation\": \"2\", \"contribution\": \"3\", \"strengths\": \"### originality\\n\\nThis work is combines multiple existing datasets to build a comprehensive analysis tool for ASR models. The authors place their work fairly into existing literature.\\n\\n### quality \\n\\nThe writing is mostly error-free and clear to understand. The authors analyzed relevant, contemporary ASR models. Nice-to-have but not required models to include could've been WavLM and, perhaps, OWSM. \\n\\n### clarity \\n\\nThe authors use a familiar section lay-out for their paper. I also appreciate the take-away summaries in Section 4. \\n\\n### significance\\n\\nI think this work can contribute to a better evaluation of ASR models. It is significant to the speech community to make it is easy for researchers to evaluate on data other than Librispeech test-clean and test-other.\", \"weaknesses\": \"### Benchmark protocol is unclear\\n\\nSection 3 is missing important details for reproducing this work. I think practitioners cannot replicate the benchmark protocol by reading the paper as-is. It is critical for the usefulness of a benchmark that it can be independently reproduced. I have the following remarks:\\n\\n1. I find the usage of the word 'Perturbations' unclear. I see how adversarial attacks, environmental effects, and digital augmentations can be classified as perturbations of the audio signal. However, I do not see how accented speech, computer generated speech, and inter-personal communication, can be seen as a perturbation. I would prefer the usage of \\\"domain\\\" over \\\"perturbation\\\". My suggestion would be to change the taxonomy (Figure 2) to include the domains clean/professional, social gathering, accented, text-to-speech, noise (with subgroups environment, digital augmentation), and adversarial. \\n2. It follows from 1 that is unclear to me exactly which dataset is used in which setting of the benchmark. I made a best guess in the summary above. For example, is environmental noise, or adversarial attacks, used only on Librispeech and TEDLIUM? Moreover, which split of Librispeech should be used? Only test-clean, or also test-other? Another example, which version of Mozilla CommonVoice is used? Do you filter out any data from CommonVoice if it is not labeled as 'accented'? I think the paper would be greatly improved by having a subsubsection for each domain/perturbation in Section 3.2, which list all details needed to generate the (exact) test set(s). \\n3. I praise the authors for sharing an (omited) link to perturbed versions of the datasets. I think this benchmark should require to use these exact perturbed versions in the noise domain, otherwise comparisons are unfair. The paper currently does not touch upon this topic.\\n4. Section 3.2 does not include any information on the generation of adversarial perturbations. These details should be in the main text of the paper.\\n5. There is no information on which text is used to generate the text-to-speech audio. Moreover, it would be desirable for these generated audio files to be shared so everyone can test on the same data. \\n6. Section 3.1 does not mention any Spanish datasets. Moreover, it is missing datasets for the noise domain (WHAM!, MUSAN, etc)\\n7. It is unclear to me whether this benchmark includes Spanish data, or whether this is simply an extra analysis from the authors. \\n8. For reproducing the benchmark, it is required to have the speech perception weights of each utterance to calculate the NWER(D). \\n\\n### Confusing details in analysis\\n\\nSection 4.1 mentions the use of DeepSpeech (which does not have open weights?) and speech-t5, these are not used in Table 1, only Figure 7. Moreover, Section 4.4 mentions the use of 4 more models, it would be more clear to include these in Section 4.1. \\n\\nIt is unclear when WER or WERD should be used. From Table 1 I assume that you use NWERD for e.g., accent and text-to-speech data. I don't see how one can have an $X$ and $X_p$ audio sequence to calculate the WERD in these scenarios. \\n\\n### Figures and tables are difficult to read\\n\\nI find Figure 4, 5 and 7 too small to read. As the page limit is 10, there should be enough room to increase the size without exceeding the page limit. \\n\\n### Editorial remarks\\n\\n* I would advice the authors to use \\\\citep instead of \\\\cite. Currently, the reference style (other than in section 2.2) makes the text hard to parse. \\n* Figure 3's space exceeds the bottom margin, and indents the texts on page 7 unnecessarily. \\n* Table 1 and Table 2 have a different format. I would recommend the use of the booktabs package and no usage of vertical lines. \\n* Appendix A is empty.\\n* Table 4 and Table 6 exceeds the page margin. \\n* The citation of Canary (Elena Rastogueva) is incorrectly formatted, is missing data, and exceeds the page margin. \\n\\n#### Typos\\n- ln 41: is comphe.. -> are comphre...\\n- ln 107: them -> those\\n- ln 161: \\\"others\\\" does not fit here (Radford et al is in both)\\n- ln 346: than -> compared to\\n- ln 472 (and others): the term accuracy is specific to classification, 'quality' is more appropriate to describe ASR predictions.\", \"questions\": \"1. Can the authors clarify, for each domain, what dataset(s) are used, specify their statistic (min/max/avg length, male/female, total number of utterances), exactly how a model is evaluated (WER, WERD, NWERD with speech quality weights from...) , and how the data is perturbed, if applicable?\\n2. Can the authors clarify whether Spanish data is included in the benchmark, or whether this is a separate analysis?\\n3. Can the authors clarify how weights for the DeepSpeech were obtained?\", \"flag_for_ethics_review\": \"['Yes, Research integrity issues (e.g., plagiarism, dual submission)']\", \"rating\": \"6\", \"confidence\": \"3\", \"code_of_conduct\": \"Yes\", \"details_of_ethics_concerns\": \"see comment to AE\"}", "{\"comment\": \"I want to thank the authors for their response and their work updating the paper in such a short time-span. I've read the new version and most of my concerns were addressed.\\n\\nI still have a question regarding Section 3.2. The paper states (line 277):\\n\\n> we use WER Degradation (WERD), computed as WER($X_s$) \\u2212 WER(X), where X and $X_s$ are datasets containing clean speech and speech from scenario $s$, respectively. For scenarios (1)-(3.1) (see \\u00a7 3.1), $X_s$ is an inherently noisy dataset, and X\\nwill be LibriSpeech for English and Multi-Lingual LibriSpeech for Spanish. For scenarios (3.2)-(6), X is a clean dataset, and $X_s$ is a perturbed version of X. \\n\\nIt is now clear to me that you subtract the average WER over a _dataset_ from another average WER over _another dataset_, while I understood WER degredation to be in the context of an utterance, i.e., you add noise to an utterance and measure the difference in WER for that specfic utterance. \\n\\nCan the authors comment on their chosen approach of subtracting at a dataset level versus at an utterance level? For scenario 2 (social) and 3 (speech variation), I do not see why subtracting the Librispeech WER is required. For Scenario 4, 5, and 6, why is it better to subtract at the dataset level instead of doing the comparison at an utterance level like I described above?\"}", "{\"comment\": \"Thanks to the author for the response. I think in terms of technical stuff, I will keep my score for now and look forward to further changes from the authors if the paper got accepted.\\n\\nMeanwhile, I wonder if there is any response from the author on ethical concern?\"}", "{\"title\": \"Feedback to authors's response\", \"comment\": \"I would like to thank the authors for their detailed responses. I have raised my rating from 5 to 6. I would also strongly suggest that authors consider open-sourcing the code if the paper is accepted.\"}", "{\"comment\": \"We want to thank the reviewer for going through our responses and we are encouraged to see that they have decided to increase their score. We also want to reiterate that we will release the full source code if the paper is accepted. An anonymized link to the code is present in the current manuscript as well.\\n\\nSince the reviewer is currently recommending marginal acceptance, perhaps there are aspects of the paper that could be improved. We would greatly appreciate it if the reviewer could point these out to us and give us the opportunity to improve upon them.\\n\\nThanks\"}", "{\"comment\": \"We thank the reviewer for reading our paper closely and providing detailed feedback that will undoubtedly improve the clarity and impact of our work. We have updated the manuscript after fixing the typos and editorial issues, as well as including the additional details that were suggested by the reviewer. Below we respond to each of the reviewer's questions and concerns. We hope that the reviewer will find our explanations satisfactory and will consider raising their score.\\n\\n**I find the usage of the word 'Perturbations' unclear [\\u2026]**\\n\\nThe reviewer\\u2019s suggestion is well taken and have replaced \\u201cperturbations\\u201d with \\u201cscenarios\\u201d as a general term referring to the different types of noises, corruptions and variations in SRB. We have rewritten Section 3.1 to frame SRB as simulating various challenging speech recognition scenarios, some of which, such as accents and inter-personal communication, are simulated using real noisy data or TTS, and the others by perturbing clean speechrecordings. We hope that this improves clarity and addresses the reviewer\\u2019s concerns.\\n\\n\\n**[...] unclear to me exactly which dataset is used in which setting of the benchmark [...]**\\n\\nWe apologize for the lack of clarity, and we have updated Section 3.1 to include more details about the scenarios. We also provide some of the details requested by the reviewer below. Adversarial attacks, environmental effects, and digital augmentations are applied to the test-clean subset of LibriSpeech, test subset of TEDLIUM release 3, and test subset of Spanish MultiLingual Librispeech. Computer-generated speech is also synthesized for the English datasets (LibriSpeech test-clean and TEDLIUM test). For accented speech, we used speech from CommonVoice 17. We used only the recordings which had an accent annotation and DNSMOS score >= 3.4. For English, we removed speakers with US English accents. We have added these details to Section 3.2. We have described the methodology of each perturbation in much greater detail in Appendix B to enable readers to replicate our settings. We have also linked our code repository in the paper which can be used to replicate our results. We would be more than happy to include additional details if the reviewer finds the current information to be inadequate\\n\\n\\n**[...] this benchmark should require to use these exact perturbed versions in the noise domain [...]**\\n\\nThe reviewer\\u2019s point is well taken and we have added a statement in Section 3 to encourage practitioners to use the exact perturbed data that we have made public. We also reiterate that we are releasing the code used to generate the benchmark datasets and thus users can easily recreate the benchmark using same datasets, or even other datasets that we have not currently used.\\n\\n\\n**Section 3.2 does not include any information on the generation of adversarial perturbations.**\\n\\nWe have added the objective functions optimized by the utterance-specific and utterance-agnostic attack in 3.2. The utterance-agnostic attack is, in principle, very similar to the utterance-specific attack, except it optimizes the adversarial perturbation over several speech recordings, instead of a single one. The full algorithm is presented in Algorithm 1.\\n\\n\\n**There is no information on which text is used to generate the text-to-speech audio.[...]**\\n\\nThe text-to-speech audio is generated English utterances from LibriSpeech test-clean and TEDLIUM release 3 test data, and Spanish speed. We have updated section 3.1 in the manuscript to reflect this. We have included the generated audio in the perturbed datasets that we will release after the double-blind restrictions are lifted.\\n\\n\\n**Section 3.1 does not mention any Spanish datasets [...] datasets for the noise domain**\\n\\nWe apologize for omitting details about the Spanish dataset, we have now updated section 3.1 with more details about the datasets and the various domains/scenarios present in SRB. We believe that the updated text provides sufficient information, nevertheless, we encourage the reviewer to respond with further suggestions for improvement and we would be happy to implement them.\\n\\n\\n**It is unclear to me whether this benchmark includes Spanish data [...]**\\n\\nWe apologize for the lack of clarity on our part. We have included the Spanish data (as well as French and German) in the perturbed datasets that we will publicly release to enable robustness evaluations for non-English and multilingual models. Table 2 is a demonstration of this use case. However, the comparison of English and Spanish performance of multilingual models is intended to be additional analysis and not necessarily part of the robustness benchmark.\"}", "{\"comment\": \"We thank the reviewer for their valuable feedback and are encouraged to see that they find our work valuable. Below we respond to each of the reviewer's questions and concerns. We hope that the reviewer will find our explanations satisfactory and will consider raising their score.\\n\\n**Some of the extensive statistics and information (e.g. about attacks) can be enlisted or illustrated in the main text,[...]; Some resulting figures (e.g. Figure 5) are hard to read**\\n\\nAs per the reviewer\\u2019s suggestion, we have rewritten Section 3.1 to provide additional details about the various scenarios represented in SRB, including adversarial attacks. We have also increased the size of the figures that were hard to read. We hope that these changes address the reviewer\\u2019s concerns, however, if they do not we would be happy to make any additional updates that the reviewer suggests.\\n\\n**One limitation of this work is lacking comparison or having initial attempts with some hybrid audio processing pipelines[...]**\\n\\nWe apologize, but it is not clear to us exactly what the reviewer is referring to. We would like to kindly as the reviewer to please elaborate on what they mean by a \\u201chybrid audio processing pipeline\\u201d and if this involves augmentations during training or testing.\\n\\n**It would be good if the authors can correspond the related earlier works onto the methods enlisted and highlight the differences and potential variants the authors covered.**\\n\\nWe apologize if we were not clear enough in communicating the novelty of SRB over existing benchmarks. We have modified section 2.3 to better convey the contributions of SRB, and we provide a summary below. \\n\\nThe main contribution of SRB is that, unlike existing benchmarks, it enables comprehensive, fine-grained and standardized robustness evaluations of ASR models. It does this by addressing three key shotcomings of existing benchmarks:\\nMany existing benchmarks are highly specialized and contain only one or few types of noises, and thus, individually, they do not evaluate robustness to the various challening scenarios that the models may encounter. For instance, CHiME and AMI datasets contain only speech from social environments, while WHAM!, ESC-50, MUSAN and MS-SNSD contain only environmental sounds and music, and likewise RobustSpeech only evaluates models on adversarial attacks. SRB, on the other hand, combines diverse types of noises, corruptions, and challenging speech recognition scenarios into a single benchmark that allows practitioners to evaluate the robustness of ASR models comprehensively. Furthermore, as mentioned in section 2.3, *SRB also contains certain perturbations and challenging speech recognition scenarios, namely special effects, accented speech and computer-generated speech, that are not included in existing benchmarks, and, thus, SRB provides is more comprehensive than the union of existing benchmarks.*\\nA conseuqence of having several specialized benchmarks is that practitioners need to choose among several robustness benchmarks when evaluating their models. This is not only tedious, but also makes it difficult to compare the results of different studies if the benchmarks they use are different. Since SRB covers a wide-range of robustness related scenarios, practitioners would need to evaluate only on SRB and thus the results of various studies would be readily comparable.\\nBenchmarks that try to mitigate the above two shortcomings are often too coarse to reveal the specific scenarios and corruptions the model(s) struggle against. For example, benchmarks like the Open ASR Leaderboard that evaluate on large datasets of real world speech, do not enable such fine-grained analysis of a model\\u2019s strengths and weaknesses because the sources of noise and distortion in each recording is not fully known. In contrast, the sources of noise, corruption and distortions present in each audio recordings in SRB is known, which allows users to pinpoint the weaknesses of the model during evaluation.\\n\\n**The authors highlighted in the paper about multi-lingual scenario but in fact, only English and Spanish are covered, and the models are mostly mono-lingual.**\\n\\n We would to clarify that of the models we analyzed in section 4.5.1 only two (w2v-lg-es and w2v-bs-es) are monolingual spanish models, whereas the other 5 are multi-lingual models. Furthermore, Figure 6 explicitly compares robustness of multi-lingual models on English and Spanish speech. While it was not feasible for us to run extensive evaluations on a large number of languages, we have released the source code to allow practitioners to replicate SRB in their languages of choice. The released source code includes scripts for extracting accented speech in different languages from CommonVoice, and generating perturbed versions of any speech dataset on Huggingface. Thus SRB is easily extendable to other languages.\\n\\nWe hope that the reviewer will find our explanations satisfactory and will consider raising their score.\"}", "{\"title\": \"Thank you for the responses!\", \"comment\": \"Thank you for explaining on the novelty of this work! Raised my ratings accordingly.\"}", "{\"summary\": \"This paper proposes Speech Robust Bench, a benchmark framework for testing speech recognition models . It collects almost all speech variation techniques available in the field, with close connection with real-time application scenarios. Results on\", \"soundness\": \"3\", \"presentation\": \"3\", \"contribution\": \"3\", \"strengths\": \"1. The dataset description is very detailed and the related pipeline has been open-sourced, which is a decent contribution to the speech community.\\n2. The models covered in the field has been quite at the level of state-of-the-art.\\n3. The paper has answer to the critical question - \\\"does the improvement come from additional variants from data or simply just MORE data?\\\" in section 4.4, which is rare and good.\", \"weaknesses\": \"1. The reviewers think the presentation of the paper is good, but has room for improvement. Some of the extensive statistics and information (e.g. about attacks) can be enlisted or illustrated in the main text, rather than extensive text description in both main text and appendix; Some resulting figures (e.g. Figure 5) are hard to read; Also there are minor formatting issues.\\n2. One limitation of this work is lacking comparison or having initial attempts with some hybrid audio processing pipeline, especially based on its growing popularity on speech processing fields. In fact, applying noise and perturbation has been a long-time practice since Kaldi era.\\n3. It would be good if the authors can correspond the related earlier works onto the methods enlisted and highlight the differences and potential variants the authors covered.\\n4. The authors highlighted in the paper about multi-lingual scenario but in fact, only English and Spanish are covered, and the models are mostly mono-lingual. The authors may either remove such statement or want to conduct additional experiments using other languages and multi-lingual models for ASR (e.g. Google T5). This is not major problem though.\", \"questions\": \"The reviewer does not have explicit further questions apart from above commetns.\", \"flag_for_ethics_review\": \"['Yes, Privacy, security and safety']\", \"details_of_ethics_concerns\": \"The reviewer thinks that this paper lacks claiming and concerning statements about the privacy and security of users' data.\\n\\nThe reviewer is not asking the authors to provide a solution but simply clarifying the responsibilities and open-sourcing, since this paper is about creating large-scale speech datasets.\", \"rating\": \"6\", \"confidence\": \"4\", \"code_of_conduct\": \"Yes\"}", "{\"comment\": \"Apologies for not including this in the original response.\\n\\nAll the speech data included in this benchmark was obtained from publicly available datasets (LibriSpeech, Multilingual LibriSpeech, Common Voice, AMI, and CHiME). These datasets have been anonymized by their owners to ensure the privacy and security of the speakers involved. Since we did not record any speakers ourselves, we do not believe that we have any ethical obligations beyond ensuring that the aforementioned datasets are used in accordance with their respective licenses, which are mentioned in Table 6.\\n\\nWe hope that this addresses the reviewer's concerns. Please feel free to follow up with further questions and comments if needed.\"}", "{\"comment\": \"We apologize if we were not clear enough in communicating the novelty of SRB over existing benchmarks. We have modified section 2.3 to better convey the contributions of SRB, and we provide a summary below.\\n\\n1. The main contribution of SRB is that, unlike existing benchmarks, it enables comprehensive, fine-grained and standardized robustness evaluations of ASR models. It does this by addressing three key shotcomings of existing benchmarks:\\nMany existing benchmarks are highly specialized and contain only one or few types of noises, and thus, individually, they do not evaluate robustness to the various challening scenarios that the models may encounter. For instance, CHiME and AMI datasets contain only speech from social environments, while WHAM!, ESC-50, MUSAN and MS-SNSD contain only environmental sounds and music, and likewise RobustSpeech only evaluates models on adversarial attacks. SRB, on the other hand, combines diverse types of noises, corruptions, and challenging speech recognition scenarios into a single benchmark that allows practitioners to evaluate the robustness of ASR models comprehensively. Furthermore, as mentioned in section 2.3, SRB also contains certain perturbations and challenging speech recognition scenarios, namely special effects, accented speech and computer-generated speech, that are not included in existing benchmarks, and, thus, SRB provides is more comprehensive than the union of existing benchmarks.\\n\\n1. A conseuqence of having several specialized benchmarks is that practitioners need to choose among several robustness benchmarks when evaluating their models. This is not only tedious, but also makes it difficult to compare the results of different studies if the benchmarks they use are different. Since SRB covers a wide-range of robustness related scenarios, practitioners would need to evaluate only on SRB and thus the results of various studies would be readily comparable.\\n\\n1. Benchmarks that try to mitigate the above two shortcomings are often too coarse to reveal the specific scenarios and corruptions the model(s) struggle against. For example, benchmarks like the Open ASR Leaderboard that evaluate on large datasets of real world speech, do not enable such fine-grained analysis of a model\\u2019s strengths and weaknesses because the sources of noise and distortion in each recording is not fully known. In contrast, the sources of noise, corruption and distortions present in each audio recordings in SRB is known, which allows users to pinpoint the weaknesses of the model during evaluation.\\n\\nWe hope that our response adequately addresses the concerns of the reviewer regarding the novelty and contribution of our work and that they would consider raising their score of our paper. If there are any outstanding concerns, we encourage the reviewer to reply to us and we would be more than happy to address them.\"}", "{\"comment\": \"We thank all the reviewers for taking the time to review our paper and providing valuable feedback that will surely help us improve the quality and impact of our work. We have provided explanations for each question and concern raised by each reviewer in \\\"Official Comments\\\" below the reviews. In our responses, we have quoted the **reviewer's comment in bold** and followed it with our explanation. We have also updated the manuscript based on the reviewers' suggestions. The salient changes are as follows:\\n1. Rewrote section 2.3 to enhance the clarity of presentation and emphasize the novelty and contributions of our benchmark over the existing robustness benchmarks for ASR models.\\n1. Included additional details in Section 3.2 for each scenario and perturbation used in SRB.\\n1. Editorial fixes such as typos, increasing figure sizes, and table formatting changes.\\n1. Reorganized Section 4 as follows:\\n\\n4 Evaluation\\n\\n|-- 4.1 Models\\n\\n|-- 4.2 Robustness of ASR Models\\n\\n| |-- 4.2.1 Robustness in Non-Adversarial Scenarios\\n\\n| |-- 4.2.2 Robustness in Adversarial Scenarios\\n\\n|-- 4.3 Correlates of Robustness\\n\\n|-- 4.4 Disparity in Robustness Across Population Subgroups\\n\\n| |-- 4.4.1 Disparity in Robustness Across Languages in Multi-Lingual Models\\n\\n| |-- 4.4.2 Disparity in Robustness Across Genders\\n\\nSection 4.2.1 and 4.2.2 combine the discussion of results on English and Spanish models.\\n\\nWe hope that our responses adequately address the questions and concerns raised by the reviewers and that they would consider raising their score on our paper. If any concerns remain, we hope that the reviewers will bring them to our attention and allow us to address them.\"}", "{\"comment\": \"We thank the reviewer for taking the time to review our response and we are encouraged to see that that they have increased their score. However, it seems that we still fall short in some respects since the recommendation still is a marginal reject.\\n\\nWe would appreciate it if the reviewer could elaborate on the specific aspects in which they find our work to be lacking and allow us the opportunity to make improvements.\\n\\nThanks\"}", "{\"metareview\": \"This work introduces a new benchmark dataset and pipeline designed to evaluate ASR robustness under various scenarios. The proposed framework consists of four key components: (1) clean datasets and noise sources, (2) a bank of perturbations, (3) ASR transcription extraction, and (4) metric computation. The benchmark aims to cover a large variety of real-world data-quality challenges for deployed ASR models.\\n\\nThe key authors' claim is that \\\"the proposed pipeline integrates multiple benchmark datasets with known noise sources, enabling researchers to comprehensively assess the robustness of their models using a single unified benchmark.\\\"\", \"key_strengths_of_the_work_are\": \"(i) The experiments are thorough, evaluating several state-of-the-art ASR systems and examining both adversarial and non-adversarial perturbations, (ii) The study explores the correlation between different models in terms of robustness and investigates the robustness of speakers from various sub-groups, including accent and gender, and (iii) the authors conducts extensive and detailed analysis to evaluate the robustness of recent ASR models.\\n\\nKey weakness is that multilingual scenario is not fully covered.\\n\\nThe proposed benchmark is different enough from what already available, and it gives researchers to comprehensively assess the robustness of their models using a single unified benchmark. The paper is well written.\", \"additional_comments_on_reviewer_discussion\": \"Four reviewers assessed the work. The key concerns were about additional details about the experimental setup and clarification about novelty. The authors addressed those concerns effectively.\\n\\n Two reviewers flagged the work for ethics review. Specifically:\\n\\n(1) 4pNh commented that \\\"While skimming the Appendix, I noted that the Authors specify the use of particular compute cluster. The name of the cluster includes a city name. This identifies the Author's rough geographical area.\\\" However, that does not reveals the authors' identity and/or affiliation.\\n(2) Dmh5 stated that \\\"this paper lacks claiming and concerning statements about the privacy and security of users' data.\\\"The following authors' answer seems to address the concern: \\\"All the speech data included in this benchmark was obtained from publicly available datasets (LibriSpeech, Multilingual LibriSpeech, Common Voice, AMI, and CHiME). These datasets have been anonymized by their owners to ensure the privacy and security of the speakers involved. Since we did not record any speakers ourselves, we do not believe that we have any ethical obligations beyond ensuring that the aforementioned datasets are used in accordance with their respective licenses, which are mentioned in Table 6.\\\"\"}", "{\"comment\": \"We thank the reviewer for reading our paper closely and providing detailed feedback that will undoubtedly improve the clarity and impact of our work. Below we respond to each of the reviewer's questions and concerns. We hope that the reviewer will find our explanations satisfactory and will consider raising their score.\\n\\n**[...] the paper offers limited novelty. [...]**\\n\\nWe apologize if we were not clear enough in communicating the novelty of SRB over existing benchmarks. We have modified section 2.3 to better convey the contributions of SRB, and we provide a summary below. \\n\\nThe main contribution of SRB is that, unlike existing benchmarks, it enables comprehensive, fine-grained and standardized robustness evaluations of ASR models. It does this by addressing three key shotcomings of existing benchmarks:\\n1. Many existing benchmarks are highly specialized and contain only one or few types of noises, and thus, individually, they do not evaluate robustness to the various challening scenarios that the models may encounter. For instance, CHiME and AMI datasets contain only speech from social environments, while WHAM!, ESC-50, MUSAN and MS-SNSD contain only environmental sounds and music, and likewise RobustSpeech only evaluates models on adversarial attacks. SRB, on the other hand, combines diverse types of noises, corruptions, and challenging speech recognition scenarios into a single benchmark that allows practitioners to evaluate the robustness of ASR models comprehensively. Furthermore, as mentioned in section 2.3, *SRB also contains certain perturbations and challenging speech recognition scenarios, namely special effects, accented speech and computer-generated speech, that are not included in existing benchmarks, and, thus, SRB provides is more comprehensive than the union of existing benchmarks.*\\n1. A consequence of having several specialized benchmarks is that practitioners need to choose among them when evaluating their models. This is not only tedious but also makes it difficult to compare the results of different studies if the benchmarks they use are different. Since SRB covers a wide range of robustness-related scenarios, practitioners would need to evaluate models only on SRB and thus the results of various studies would be readily comparable.\\n1. Benchmarks that try to mitigate the above two shortcomings are often too coarse to reveal the specific scenarios and corruptions the model(s) struggle against. For example, benchmarks like the Open ASR Leaderboard that evaluate models on large datasets of real-world speech, do not enable such fine-grained analysis of a model\\u2019s strengths and weaknesses because the sources of noise and distortion in each recording is not fully known. In contrast, the sources of noise, corruption, and distortions present in each audio recording in SRB is known, which allows users to pinpoint the weaknesses of the model during evaluation.\\n\\n**[...]how can we evaluate the robustness of ASR models to real-world noisy data?[...]**\\nWe would like to clarify that, as mentioned in Figure 1 and section 3.1, SRB includes several types of challenging real-world speech recordings, including accented speech, recordings made in social settings like meetings and dinners using near and far-field microphones. Moreover, the environmental noise and room impulse responses used in SRB have been obtained from diverse real environments and are representative of real-world scenarios. Therefore, we believe that SRB can effectively measure the robustness of ASR models in challenging real-world scenarios.\\n\\n\\n**The paper lacks a discussion on strategies for improving robustness.[...]**\\n\\nWe have presented some insights along these lines in the section titled \\u201cCorrelates of Robustness\\u201d, where we present results that indicate that models with more parameters tend to be more robust to both adversarial and non-adversarial perturbations, however, models trained on more data are not necessarily more robust. We also observe that CTC and RNNT models are more robust to adversarial attacks than seq2seq models and RNN-transducers are more robust to non-adversarial perturbations. These observations can be considered by model designers to arrive at more robust models.\"}", "{\"title\": \"Paper Decision\", \"decision\": \"Accept (Poster)\"}", "{\"comment\": \"**it is required to have the speech perception weights of each utterance to calculate the NWER(D).**\\n\\nThe reviewer is correct in pointing that perceptual metric values are required to compute NWER(D), therefore to facilitate this we have included these values in the code repository linked in the paper as well as in Table 4. We have also included scripts in the code repository to allow users to compute these metrics for themselves.\\n\\n**Section 4.1 mentions the use of DeepSpeech (which does not have open weights?) and speech-t5, these are not used in Table 1, only Figure 7. Moreover, Section 4.4 mentions the use of 4 more models, it would be more clear to include these in Section 4.1.**\\n\\nWe apologize for this confusion and thank the reviewer for bringing this to our attention. We have now included the additional models from section 4.4 in 4.1.\\n\\nWe would also like to clarify that Table 1 presents results from only a subset of all the models we evaluated. These models were selected based on their performance and popularity. Deepspeech and Speech-T5 had relatively weak performance so we decided to omit their results from Table 1 in the interest of clarity and brevity. We have mentioned this in section 4.2 of the updated manuscript.The results for these models, however, are included in Table 5. We would also like to clarify that DeepSpeech does have open weights and they can be found at https://github.com/SeanNaren/deepspeech.pytorch. \\n\\n\\n**It is unclear when WER or WERD should be used.** \\n\\nWe mentioned in the first paragraph of 3.1 that WER should be used to measure utility (read: accuracy) while WERD/NWERD should be used to measure robustness (i.e. loss in accuracy under challenging domains/perturbations). We have added a note on usage which clarifies that we use WERD to measure robustness against adversarial attacks, and NWER to measure robustness against all other perturbations. This is because adversarial attacks are model-specific and thus DNSMOS/PESQ scores for adversarially perturbed audio will be different for each model, which will lead to a different normalization during NWERD computation and make comparisons difficult.\\n\\n\\n**I don't see how one can have an X and Xp audio sequence to calculate the WERD in these scenarios.**\\n\\nWe apologize for lack of clarity on our part, and we have updated section 3.2 to further clarify how NWERD can be computed for TTS, accented speech, etc. Computing NWERD for TTS speech is straightforward because TTS speech is generated based on transcripts from LibriSpeech test-clean, TEDLIUM release 3 test set and Multilingual LibriSpeech Spanish test, so we use the original recordings from LibriSpeech, TEDLIUM and MultiLingual Librispeech as the set of reference audios X. When computing NWERD for naturally noisy or challenging speech like accented speech and speech from social gatherings we use the clean recordings from LibriSpeech as the set of reference audios X. We have added these details to Section 3.2\\n\\n**Can the authors clarify, for each domain, what dataset(s) are used, specify their statistic (min/max/avg length, male/female, total number of utterances), exactly how a model is evaluated (WER, WERD, NWERD with speech quality weights from...) , and how the data is perturbed, if applicable?**\\n\\nWe have mentioned the datasets used for each domain and how the data is perturbed in Section 3.2 and Appendix B. We have also added the statistics that the reviewer has suggested in Table 4 in the appendix.. \\nAs mentioned in Section 3.2, we use WER for clean recordings, WERD and NWERD for recordings from noisy scenarios. We have also added a note to section 3.2 clarifying that we use NWERD for non-adversarial scenarios and WERD for adversarial attacks. This is because adversarial attacks are model-specific and thus DNSMOS/PESQ scores for adversarially perturbed audio will be different for each model, which will lead to a different normalization during NWERD computation and make comparisons difficult.\\n**Can the authors clarify whether Spanish data is included in the benchmark, or whether this is a separate analysis**\\nThe Spanish data is included in the benchmark and we will include a public link to the dataset in the paper after double blind restrictions are lifted. However, the comparison of the performance of multi-lingual models on English and Spanish was additional analysis that we did to demonstrate a use case of our benchmark.\\n\\n**Can the authors clarify how weights for the DeepSpeech were obtained?**\", \"weights_for_deepspeech_were_obtained_from_https\": \"//github.com/SeanNaren/deepspeech.pytorch/releases/download/V3.0/librispeech_pretrained_v3.ckpt .\\n\\nWe hope that our responses adequately address the questions and concerns raised by the reviewer and that they would consider raising their score of our paper.\"}", "{\"summary\": \"This paper proposes a new benchmark data and pipeline to measure the ASR robustness under different perturbations. The proposed work has 4 components: 1. clean datasets and noise sources; 2. bank of perturbations; 3.ASR transcription extractions; 4. metric computations. Compared to existing benchmark pipeline, the authors claimed that \\u201cthe proposed pipeline combines several benchmark datasets containing known noise sources to allow researchers to comprehensively evaluate the robustness of their models using a single benchmark\\u201d. During experiments, the authors evaluated a couple state-of-the-art ASR systems on the proposed benchmark, and conduct a series of analysis on robustness.\", \"soundness\": \"3\", \"presentation\": \"3\", \"contribution\": \"2\", \"strengths\": [\"The experiments are comprehensive. It considers a couple state-of-the-art ASR systems, and it analyzes adversarial/non-adversarial perturbations.\", \"It analyzed the correlation between different models in terms of robustness.\", \"It analyzed the robustness of speakers from different sub-groups (accent, gender).\"], \"weaknesses\": \"Although the analyzes are very comprehensive, the contributions/novelty are not clearly stated. According to the quoted claim above, it feels like the most significant contribution compared to prior work is having more noise sources? Please explain more about the contributions/novelty here. It would be helpful to have a table to compare between the proposed approaches with baselines on the diffs from the 4 modules.\", \"questions\": \"See Weaknesses section\", \"flag_for_ethics_review\": \"['No ethics review needed.']\", \"rating\": \"5\", \"confidence\": \"4\", \"code_of_conduct\": \"Yes\"}", "{\"comment\": \"**The experimental sections of the paper need reorganization.[...]**\\n\\nThe reviewer\\u2019s point regarding the organization of the experimental sections is well taken, and we have reorganized it to have a clearer logic. Specifically, we now have the following organization:\\n\\n4 Evaluation\\n\\n|-- 4.1 Models\\n\\n|-- 4.2 Robustness of ASR Models\\n\\n| |-- 4.2.1 Robustness in Non-Adversarial Scenarios\\n\\n| |-- 4.2.2 Robustness in Adversarial Scenarios\\n\\n|-- 4.3 Correlates of Robustness\\n\\n|-- 4.4 Disparity in Robustness Across Population Subgroups\\n\\n| |-- 4.4.1 Disparity in Robustness Across Languages in Multi-Lingual Models\\n\\n| |-- 4.4.2 Disparity in Robustness Across Genders\\n\\nSection 4.2.1 and 4.2.2 combine the discussion of results on English and Spanish models.\\nIf the reviewer has any other suggestions about the ordering of Section 4, or any other aspect of the paper, we would be happy to update the paper accordingly.\\n\\nWe hope that our responses adequately address the questions and concerns raised by the reviewer and that they would consider raising their score of our paper. If any concerns remain, we hope that the reviewer will raise them and give us the opportunity to address them.\"}", "{\"summary\": \"This paper proposes SRB, a benchmark to evaluate the robustness of Automatic Speech Recognition (ASR) models. Extensive evaluations are conducted on several recent and popular ASR DNNs to analyze their robustness to non-adversarial and adversarial input perturbations, and various sub-groups, namely English speech and non-English (Spanish) speech, and male and female speakers. From the above analysis, several conclusions are drawn.\", \"soundness\": \"2\", \"presentation\": \"2\", \"contribution\": \"2\", \"strengths\": \"1. The paper conducts extensive and detailed analysis to evaluate the robustness of recent ASR models. The Takeaways help develop robust ASR models.\", \"weaknesses\": \"1. While I appreciate the efforts to evaluate the robustness of recent ASR models, the paper offers limited novelty. I suggest that the authors compare their benchmarks to existing robustness metrics or frameworks in the ASR field.\\n2. To evaluate the robustness of ASR models, the current framework adds noise to clean speech data to evaluate the performance. How do recent ASR models perform in real-world noisy data? In other words, how can we evaluate the robustness of ASR models to real-world noisy data?\\n3. The paper lacks a discussion on strategies for improving robustness. It would be great if the authors could provide some sights or suggestions to improve the robustness.\\n2. The experimental sections of the paper need reorganization. I can not see a clear logic for the experimental parts.\", \"questions\": \"Listed in the weaknesses part\", \"flag_for_ethics_review\": \"['No ethics review needed.']\", \"rating\": \"6\", \"confidence\": \"2\", \"code_of_conduct\": \"Yes\"}", "{\"comment\": \"We thank the reviewer for taking the time to consider our responses and are happy to learn that we were able to address most of their concerns.\\n\\nWith regards to the choice of subtracting LibriSpeech WER. We followed the advice of (Hendrycks & Dietterich, 2019) and measured robustness as the *relative degradation in accuracy/quality*, rather than the accuracy itself of the model under challenging scenarios. The reason behind this recommendation is that in many real-world cases, the stability of the model's accuracy under various scenarios may also be important, in addition to its best-/average-case accuracy. For example, consider two models such that they achieve 5% and 10% WER, respectively, on clean utterances, and, under a challenging scenario, both models achieve 11% WER. If only WER is used as a metric then both the models will seem equally robust. However, clearly, the first model's accuracy degraded by 6 times as much as the second model, which indicates that the second model is *much* more robust under the challenging scenario. Arguably, a user may prefer the second model despite slightly higher best-case WER because its WER does not vary significantly when the input becomes noisy and, thus, the user can better estimate the error and account for it in the downstream system.\\n\\nWe hope that this explanation adequately addresses the reviewer's concerns about using WERD as a robustness metric, and that they would consider raising their score of our paper. If any concern or questions remain, please feel free to raise them in the follow up and we will be happy to provide further explanations.\\n\\nDan Hendrycks and Thomas Dietterich. Benchmarking neural network robustness to common corruptions and perturbations. arXiv preprint arXiv:1903.12261, 2019.\"}" ] }

[ "Sanchayan Dutta", "Suvrit Sra" ]

[ "in-context learning", "memory-augmented transformers", "memformers", "first-order methods", "conjugate gradient descent", "transformers" ]

{ "note_id": [ "yx5TXBSbpo", "yhAfnsT0Id", "vZyTvxySO9", "ogcj9ZsTDm", "ng2SnqMKFm", "lBUhH5fuXN", "kxkiowEdXJ", "h3Bgvn56QS", "fwyBa0Zx6J", "fWoaa6OV4b", "bNKtQttniT", "a5IvY8zyNg", "Zy8sB6e4K3", "Zo4ZiihDVk", "RITQ5WiJUa", "OKk9dkU8W8", "J6K5HjuKez", "HPQbPi4yJ7", "BGcTkBWziX", "AWMajzBJ6f", "8YH20IAVS4", "7toI2zImow", "2mxq5e9sw5", "1jsGzEeiVh", "0zBDzs2w7R" ], "note_type": [ "official_comment", "official_review", "official_comment", "decision", "official_comment", "official_comment", "official_comment", "official_comment", "meta_review", "official_comment", "official_comment", "official_comment", "official_comment", "official_comment", "official_comment", "official_comment", "official_comment", "official_comment", "official_comment", "official_comment", "official_comment", "official_comment", "official_review", "official_review", "official_comment" ], "note_created": [ 1732487535966, 1730657598716, 1732178856583, 1737524124968, 1732506113359, 1732179623561, 1732179460735, 1732596305529, 1734464885626, 1732178810781, 1732661024544, 1732651494254, 1732489415295, 1732179606031, 1732178991903, 1732505451890, 1732487616463, 1732652056839, 1732178753596, 1732179492939, 1732179395287, 1732179565110, 1730498333516, 1730668989876, 1732487576922 ], "note_signatures": [ [ "ICLR.cc/2025/Conference/Submission11444/Authors" ], [ "ICLR.cc/2025/Conference/Submission11444/Reviewer_CwkM" ], [ "ICLR.cc/2025/Conference/Submission11444/Authors" ], [ "ICLR.cc/2025/Conference/Program_Chairs" ], [ "ICLR.cc/2025/Conference/Submission11444/Authors" ], [ "ICLR.cc/2025/Conference/Submission11444/Authors" ], [ "ICLR.cc/2025/Conference/Submission11444/Authors" ], [ "ICLR.cc/2025/Conference/Submission11444/Reviewer_ncrK" ], [ "ICLR.cc/2025/Conference/Submission11444/Area_Chair_ELDQ" ], [ "ICLR.cc/2025/Conference/Submission11444/Authors" ], [ "ICLR.cc/2025/Conference/Submission11444/Reviewer_Ff4R" ], [ "ICLR.cc/2025/Conference/Submission11444/Authors" ], [ "ICLR.cc/2025/Conference/Submission11444/Authors" ], [ "ICLR.cc/2025/Conference/Submission11444/Authors" ], [ "ICLR.cc/2025/Conference/Submission11444/Authors" ], [ "ICLR.cc/2025/Conference/Submission11444/Reviewer_CwkM" ], [ "ICLR.cc/2025/Conference/Submission11444/Authors" ], [ "ICLR.cc/2025/Conference/Submission11444/Authors" ], [ "ICLR.cc/2025/Conference/Submission11444/Authors" ], [ "ICLR.cc/2025/Conference/Submission11444/Authors" ], [ "ICLR.cc/2025/Conference/Submission11444/Authors" ], [ "ICLR.cc/2025/Conference/Submission11444/Authors" ], [ "ICLR.cc/2025/Conference/Submission11444/Reviewer_Ff4R" ], [ "ICLR.cc/2025/Conference/Submission11444/Reviewer_ncrK" ], [ "ICLR.cc/2025/Conference/Submission11444/Authors" ] ], "structured_content_str": [ "{\"comment\": \"Dear Reviewer ncRK,\\n\\nAs the end of the open discussion draws close, we hope to follow up with you on our rebuttal. Please do let us know if you feel that our response addressed your concerns. And, please also let us know if there are any additional issues that you would like for us to address. Thank you.\"}", "{\"summary\": \"This paper studies the representation power of memory-augmented Transformers (Memformers) in terms of implement linear first-order optimization methods for in-context learning of linear regression.\\nThe authors provide theoretical constructions showing that Memformers can simulate methods like conjugate gradient descent and momentum methods that linearly combine past gradients.\\nNumerical experiments are conducted to show that Memformers can achieve better performance than conjugate gradient descent on random linear regression tasks.\", \"soundness\": \"3\", \"presentation\": \"3\", \"contribution\": \"2\", \"strengths\": \"1. Overall the paper is well written and easy to follow.\\n2. The paper studies an interesting topic on the representation power of Transformers for simulating algorithms solving in-context learning problems. The current results provide a theoretical understanding of memory-augmented Transformers.\\n3. The contributions of the paper are clearly summarized, and the limitations of the current study are appropriately discussed.\", \"weaknesses\": \"1. The architecture of Memformer is not well explained. The role of the memory $\\\\{\\\\mathbf{R}_l\\\\}$ should be clarified.\\n2. Related to the above point, it would be helpful to clarify which parts of the architectures in Equation (19) and (21) are trainable (though they are mentioned in Section 3.3).\\n3. The results are restricted to in-context learning of linear regression.\\n4. The discussion about the benefit of using multi-head attention from line 456 to 460 seems interesting, but there is no formal analysis or heuristic explanation to support the claim. It would be helpful to provide more details. For example, why there is implicit regularization effect?\", \"questions\": \"1. It seems plausible to replace the memory register by using a larger hidden size in the Transformer. Can the authors compare these two approaches?\\n2. From the experiment results in Section 4, it seems that the trained Memformer outperforms CGD. What are the implications of this given the optimality results for CGD?\\n3. From Figure 4(a), it seems that the Memformer basically solves the linear regression task (log(loss)=-30) with two layers. Based on this, it seems hard to justify that Memformer is simulating certain optimization algorithms, and it is unclear how this is achieved.\\n4. Comparing Figure 4(a) and 4(b), it seems that batch size has a significant impact on the performance of Memformer. Can the authors provide some insights on this?\", \"flag_for_ethics_review\": \"['No ethics review needed.']\", \"rating\": \"6\", \"confidence\": \"3\", \"code_of_conduct\": \"Yes\"}", "{\"comment\": \"> In proposition 1 how the quantities $\\\\alpha_l$ and $\\\\beta_l$ are calculated with the Memformer? How many layers and width is needed for the simulation of the algorithm?\\n\\nPlease refer to our explanation above. The question whether we explicitly compute $\\\\alpha_\\\\ell$ and $\\\\gamma_\\\\ell$ in our experiments misses the entire point of our approach. While Proposition 1 *theoretically* demonstrates that, under certain parameterizations of $\\\\alpha_\\\\ell$ and $\\\\gamma_\\\\ell$, the Memformer can execute steps of CGD, that is *not* what our experiments are about.\\n\\nAs we have now made very explicit in Sections 3 and 4, these parameters $\\\\alpha_\\\\ell$ and $\\\\gamma_\\\\ell$ are *learnable* and are obtained through training on batches of linear regression tasks. The surprising and significant result is that the Memformer, which learns these general parameters across all test samples, performs competitively\\u2014and sometimes even outperforms\\u2014**exact CGD, which is individually optimized and executed separately for each data sample**. This demonstrates the Memformer's ability to generalize optimization strategies using shared parameters, a core strength of our architecture.\\n\\n> In the proof sketch of proposition 2 the authors state that \\\"The full proof follows from the cumulative memory structure and the connection between attention and preconditioned gradients, as discussed in the proof steps of Lemma 1.\\\" Could the authors explain how exactly the proof follows?\\n\\nAs mentioned above, we've now included full proofs of Proposition 1 and Proposition 2, in the Appendix A of our paper.\\n\\n> Did the authors tried to train more than 4 layers? If so is it observed that there is an error floor for Memformers? This has been observed in the prior work that this paper builds upon.\\n\\nYes. As we now explicitly mention in our updated paper (Appendix C), we did train Memformers with more than 4 layers\\u2014specifically, up to 7 layers. We have clearly detailed this in Appendix C, where we included experiments demonstrating the behavior of Memformers with increased depth. (Once we have access to more GPU power, we would be happy to train deeper architectures.)\", \"we_have_added_two_new_experiments_in_appendix_c\": \"1. **Experiment 1 (Dimension $d = 5$, Layers = 5)**: As expected, CGD converges within $d$ steps due to the dimensionality constraint. Remarkably, even though the Memformer only learns general parameters $A_\\\\ell$ (Equation 9) and $\\\\Gamma_\\\\ell$ (Equation 20), it manages to keep up with CGD for up to 4 steps.\\n2. **Experiment 2 (Dimension $d = 10$, Layers = 7)**: Here, CGD does not converge until beyond 7 steps, which aligns with theoretical expectations. Yet again, the Memformer remains competitive, matching CGD for 6 steps and even performing comparably at 7 steps.\\n\\nHere, $d$ refers to the rank of the square matrix $\\\\mathbf{X} \\\\mathbf{X}^T$ in the empirical loss quadratic as described in Equation (12).\\n\\nIn Appendix B, we have also included our experiment that Memformers outperform Nesterov Accelerated Gradient (NAG) method as well.\\n\\n> How does Memformers perform compared to softmax based attention Transformers?\\n\\nRecent work has shown that softmax-based attention mechanisms have certain inherent limitations compared to linear attention mechanisms. Specifically:\\n\\n[Von Oswald et al. (2023)](https://arxiv.org/abs/2212.07677) (Appendix A.9) demonstrate that softmax attention can only approximate linear attention up to a linear offset and may require **two heads** to emulate the behavior of a single linear attention head, revealing structural inefficiencies. [Cheng et al. (2023)](https://arxiv.org/abs/2312.06528) (e.g. Figure 1a) further show, both theoretically and experimentally, that softmax activation often underperforms linear activation in tasks like in-context learning (ICL) of linear functions, with their Figure 1a highlighting a notable performance gap.\\n\\nBy contrast, **Memformers** leverage a linear attention framework that avoids these inefficiencies. Linear attention, while structurally linear, remains nonlinear in $Z$ (cubic) and results in highly nonlinear models with depth. Designed to efficiently learn general optimization strategies, Memformers demonstrate competitive\\u2014and often superior\\u2014performance compared to methods like CGD in extensive experiments.\"}", "{\"title\": \"Paper Decision\", \"decision\": \"Reject\"}", "{\"comment\": \"Dear CwkM,\\n\\nWe sincerely appreciate your willingness to consider our rebuttal and updates! \\n\\nWe have put in a significant amount of effort into conducting new experiments and have made substantial improvements to the current revised draft of the paper. Given that we addressed your primary concerns raised in the review, we would kindly ask you to adjust your review score while taking the rebuttal and revised paper into account.\\n\\n**Key Highlights of our Updated Paper and Rebuttals:**\\n\\n1. We have expanded upon our proof sketches and have added full, formal proofs of Propositions 1 and 2 in the Appendix A of our updated submission.\\n\\n2. We have expanded our explanation of the Memformer architecture and the role of the memory component, particularly in Sections 3 and 4. This includes detailing how the memory registers function and how they contribute to the model's ability to implement iterative optimization algorithms, like CGD and LFOMs, in their forward pass.\\n\\n3. We conducted new experiments with deeper Memformer architectures (up to 7 layers) despite computational (GPU) constraints. These experiments, detailed in Appendix C, demonstrate that Memformers remain competitive with CGD even in higher-dimensional settings and with more layers.\\n\\n4. We carefully clarified what it means for Memformers to \\\"learn\\\" optimization algorithms. Specifically, we emphasized that Memformers learn general optimization strategies using shared parameters across all test samples, rather than individually optimizing for each sample like traditional algorithms.\\n\\n5. We addressed concerns about our focus on linear regression tasks by explaining that linear regression provides a fundamental framework for rigorous theoretical analysis. This aligns with prior research and allows for clear insights into the Memformer's capabilities without the added complexities of nonlinear tasks.\\n\\n6. We discussed why comparisons with softmax-based attention Transformers are less relevant in our context, citing recent studies that highlight the limitations of softmax attention mechanisms for in-context learning of linear functions.\\n\\n7. Our work demonstrates that Memformers can generalize complex optimization strategies efficiently across diverse test samples using shared parameters. This has significant implications for the development of more efficient and generalizable machine learning models.\"}", "{\"comment\": \"> It is mentioned in Section 6.1 that Transformers can implement second-order methods like Newton\\u2019s method, which typically outperform LFOMs in convergence speed and accuracy. However, first-order methods are more popular than second-order methods in practice, especially in deep learning. Could you provide an explanation for that?\\n\\nYes. The preference for first-order methods in deep learning stems from their computational efficiency and scalability. With models having millions or billions of parameters, the quadratic or cubic scaling of Hessian-related computations in second-order methods is computationally prohibitive. Memory demands for storing the Hessian or its approximations often exceed hardware capacities, while numerical instability from ill-conditioned or singular Hessians further complicates their use in the non-convex optimization landscapes typical of deep learning.\\n\\nFirst-order methods are also well-suited for stochastic optimization, enabling efficient gradient updates via mini-batch training without processing entire datasets. They are robust to noise in stochastic gradient estimates, unlike second-order methods, which struggle with inaccuracies in Hessian approximations. Adaptive first-order methods like Adam and RMSProp partially mimic second-order benefits by dynamically adjusting learning rates without the computational overhead of second-order derivatives. While second-order methods excel in fast local convergence near optima, they offer limited advantages during the initial global search phases of training, where first-order methods often prove more practical and effective.\\n\\nOur focus on Linear First-Order Methods (LFOMs) reflects their real-world relevance. Memformers demonstrate the ability to learn and implement advanced first-order optimization strategies, offering practical insights aligned with the computational realities of large-scale model training. This emphasis ensures our findings remain applicable to the constraints and demands of modern deep learning tasks.\"}", "{\"comment\": \"> The discussion about the benefit of using multi-head attention from line 456 to 460 seems interesting, but there is no formal analysis or heuristic explanation to support the claim. It would be helpful to provide more details. For example, why there is implicit regularization effect?\\n\\nWe appreciate your feedback but emphasize that the benefits of multi-head attention, particularly for in-context learning, are well-supported by existing literature.\\n\\nFor instance, Chen et al. (2024), *How Transformers Utilize Multi-Head Attention in In-Context Learning? A Case Study on Sparse Linear Regression* ([arXiv:2408.04532](https://arxiv.org/abs/2408.04532), TF2M 2024 Poster), show that multi-head attention mechanisms are critical in early Transformer layers for effective context preprocessing in sparse linear regression, aligning with our claim that it enhances the model's ability to capture diverse data features. Similarly, Cui et al. (2024), *Superiority of Multi-Head Attention in In-Context Linear Regression* ([arXiv:2401.17426](https://arxiv.org/abs/2401.17426)), provide theoretical and empirical evidence that multi-head attention outperforms single-head attention in in-context learning.\\n\\nMulti-head attention achieves this by leveraging parallel mechanisms to capture diverse representations, akin to ensemble methods in machine learning. By reducing variance and aggregating outputs from different heads\\u2014each focusing on distinct data aspects\\u2014the model mitigates overfitting and stabilizes learning dynamics. This implicit regularization arises as multiple heads explore diverse optimization paths, leading to more generalized feature representations and improved convergence.\\n\\nOur claims are grounded in well-documented research and supported by a clear heuristic explanation of the mechanism. These details are now expanded in the updated draft.\\n\\n> It seems plausible to replace the memory register by using a larger hidden size in the Transformer. Can the authors compare these two approaches?\\n\\nWe respectfully disagree with the suggestion that increasing the Transformer's hidden size could replace the memory register in the Memformer architecture. The memory register serves a fundamentally different role by enabling explicit, structured accumulation of information across layers\\u2014essential for implementing optimization algorithms like Conjugate Gradient Descent (CGD) and Linear First-Order Methods (LFOMs). \\n\\nAt layer $\\\\ell$, the memory register state $R_\\\\ell$ is recursively updated as $R_\\\\ell = Attn_{P_\\\\ell, Q_\\\\ell}(Z_\\\\ell) + \\\\gamma_\\\\ell R_{\\\\ell-1}$, where $Attn_{P_\\\\ell, Q_\\\\ell}(Z_\\\\ell)$ captures the current update (analogous to the gradient in CGD), and $\\\\gamma_\\\\ell R_{\\\\ell-1}$ incorporates prior information. This structure mimics CGD's recursive updates, $s_{k+1} = -\\\\nabla f(w_k) + \\\\beta_k s_k$, by propagating and refining past updates. Expanding the hidden size $D \\\\to D'$ may increase representational capacity but does not introduce the temporal propagation required for such iterative refinement. Without a memory register, information from earlier layers dissipates, breaking the dependencies critical for algorithms like CGD or LFOMs.\\n\\nThe memory register provides a structured and efficient representation of past gradients. For example, in LFOM simulations, $Z_{\\\\ell+1} = Z_\\\\ell + \\\\frac{1}{n} \\\\sum_{j=0}^\\\\ell \\\\Gamma_j^\\\\ell \\\\odot R_j$, where $\\\\Gamma_j^\\\\ell$ governs prior contributions, and $R_j$ stores intermediate results for cumulative updates. Simply increasing $D$ cannot replicate this functionality.\\n\\nAdding more attention heads exacerbates this problem by linearly increasing parameter and computational costs. Explicit memory mechanisms, as explored in [Wu et al. (2020)](https://arxiv.org/abs/2010.06891) and [Xu et al. (2021)](https://ojs.aaai.org/index.php/AAAI/article/view/16583), are known to enhance the ability to capture iterative dependencies, essential for algorithms like CGD. For alternative approaches, state-space models provide explicit state mechanisms for handling sequential information ([State-Space Models Can Learn In-Context by Gradient Descent](https://arxiv.org/abs/2410.11687)).\"}", "{\"title\": \"Response to authors\", \"comment\": \"I would like to thank the authors for their response and I appreciate their effort on this rebuttal. However, I still find the novelty/contribution of this work limited. The theoretical component of this work proving that Memformers with the specific structure can implement CGD and LFOM is pretty straightforward given existing results in the literature [1,2] and considering the fact that the equations of the Memformers closely match those of the updates of CGD and LFOM.\\nFocusing on the main contribution of this paper which is as the authors stated the fact that Memformers with a few layers when trained match or even outperform these methods is as well not as surprising. The models (most probably) do not outperform these methods in out-of-distribution data, which implies that they learn some parameters, fine-tuned for the specific distribution that the data come from. This has been observed for Linear Transformers as well (which updates are not fine-tuned to match the updates of these algorithms), as it can be seen in the plots of this paper but also in previous work [1,2]. Thus, I would maintain my score.\\n\\n[1]: Kwangjun Ahn, Xiang Cheng, Hadi Daneshmand, and Suvrit Sra. 2024. Transformers learn to implement preconditioned gradient descent for in-context learning. In Proceedings of the 37th International Conference on Neural Information Processing Systems (NIPS '23).\\n\\n[2]: Fu, Deqing, et al. \\\"Transformers learn higher-order optimization methods for in-context learning: A study with linear models.\\\"\"}", "{\"metareview\": \"This paper investigates how memory-augmented transformers (memformers) can implement linear first order optimization algorithms (LFOM). Based on recent line of work that showed transformers can implement preconditioned gradient descent for linear problems, the paper showed that memformers can implement CGD-like and LFOM-like algorithms for linear problems. Empirically, the algorithms learned by memformers seem to outperform CGD. However, the reviewers have some concerns about the novelty of the results and whether it is significant for trained memformers to outperform CGD (because they can at least learn a good hyperparameter for CGD when evaluated in-distribution).\", \"additional_comments_on_reviewer_discussion\": \"The reviewers had several concerns. Some of them are resolved in the response. For example, authors provided full proofs and gave clarifications on why memory is necessary, and why second-order algorithms were not considered. Reviewers still remain concerned about the novelty and significance of the result.\"}", "{\"comment\": \"> Is it that Memformers with the specific updates are able to perform the corresponding optimization methods ? For the result of [1] the authors proved that the global minima for one layer of transformer is indeed one step of preconditioned gradient. For the case of multiple layers (Lemma 1), [1] assumes a specific parameterization of the weight matrices. Do the authors get an equivalent result for Memformers and assume that the weight matrices have the specific parameterization?\\n\\nThank you for raising these questions. We are glad to clarify the theoretical and empirical contributions of our work below (and these have been presented rigorously in our paper).\\n\\n**First**, let's address the core concept of what it means for a Memformer \\\"to learn\\\" an algorithm like CGD or LFOM. By this, we explicitly refer to two fundamental ideas:\\n\\n1. **The Memformer, in its forward pass and under specific internal parameter settings, is capable of executing iterations of CGD or LFOM.** This means the architecture and parameterization are sufficiently expressive to perform these optimization methods directly within its computational framework.\\n2. **The Memformer's learnable parameters can be optimized through training on linear regression tasks.** Crucially, these parameters are *shared across all in-context data samples in a batch.* Despite this shared parameterization, the Memformer can execute CGD-like and LFOM-like iterations with surprising efficacy. **What makes this especially significant** is that, despite the CGD algorithm being individually optimized for each test sample, the Memformer still achieves competitive\\u2014and sometimes even superior\\u2014performance. This underscores the Memformer's *exceptional generalization capacity*.\\n\\n**Second**, we have provided extensive empirical evidence. By training on random linear regression tasks, Memformers learn a set of shared parameters that allow them to process entire batches of in-context samples efficiently. Remarkably, this shared strategy often rivals or outperforms CGD, which is specifically tailored and run separately on each test sample. This is a substantial and surprising result, highlighting how Memformers generalize complex optimization strategies in a way that has not been recognized by prior research.\\n\\n**Third**, regarding your question about specific parameterization: The theoretical results indeed show that under certain parameter settings, Memformers can perform exact CGD and LFOM iterations. However, **in our experiments, specific parameterizations / sufficient-constructions are *very much not* the focus** (they are just a property of Memformers that we noted to highlight their generality). Instead, the important point is that Memformers learn these parameterizations\\u2014such as $A_{\\\\ell}$, $B_{\\\\ell}$, $\\\\alpha_{\\\\ell}$, $\\\\gamma_{\\\\ell}$, $\\\\Gamma_{\\\\ell}$\\u2014*through training* on linear regression tasks. This is a crucial distinction: The theoretical results demonstrate that Memformers are architecturally capable of performing optimization steps like CGD or LFOMs in their forward pass, indicating the model's expressiveness. But in practice, the Memformers autonomously learn and optimize these parameters, achieving competitive and sometimes even superior results compared to CGD.\\n\\nThus, we have shown both: (a) Memformers are *architecturally expressive enough* to execute CGD or LFOM steps for a single sample of in-context data, and (b) in practice, Memformers *learn general parameters* through training and still deliver exceptional performance.\\n\\nWe hope this clarifies our contributions and the significant implications of our findings.\"}", "{\"comment\": \"I thank the authors for the rebuttal. I will keep my original score.\"}", "{\"comment\": \"Dear Reviewer ncrK,\\n\\nThank you for your feedback on our rebuttal. We would like to kindly highlight that a significant question within the optimization community has been whether Transformers (with simple modifications) can \\\"learn\\\" more advanced optimization algorithms beyond preconditioned gradient descent. In particular, numerous people in the optimization and in-context learning (ICL) communities have previously wondered whether Transformers can implement Conjugate Gradient Descent (CGD). Our work provides a positive answer to this question, addressing an open problem in the field.\\n\\nWe believe that the straightforwardness of our approach is a strength, as it directly and effectively tackles a serious motivation and an open question in the community. This, in our view, demonstrates sufficient novelty and impact.\\n\\nWe would be sincerely grateful if you could consider revisiting the rating in light of this contribution.\\n\\nBest regards,\\nAuthors\"}", "{\"comment\": \"**Dear Reviewers,**\\n\\nWe would like to sincerely thank you for your valuable reviews.\\n\\nAs we are approaching the end of the discussion period, we have worked diligently to address all your questions and concerns to the best of our ability. We have provided the requested information regarding our experiments, included new results, and supplemented our work with additional theoretical support. We would greatly appreciate it if you could provide feedback on our rebuttal. An earlier response from you would give us sufficient time to address any further concerns that may arise before the end of the discussion period.\"}", "{\"comment\": \"> Figure 1(a) shows that LFOMs perform worse than preconditioned gradient descent on general quadratic problems. Additionally, Figure 2 and Figure 3 indicate that LFOMs\\u2019 performance on isotropic test data falls short of conjugate gradient descent, contradicting the claimed good generalization performance in the main contributions.\\n\\n**We respectfully but emphatically disagree with this critique.** It appears that there is a fundamental misunderstanding of what it means for a Memformer to \\\"learn\\\" optimization algorithms such as Conjugate Gradient Descent (CGD) or Linear First-Order Methods (LFOMs). Allow us to clarify:\\n\\n1. **Expressive Capacity**: The Memformer, through its forward pass and under suitable internal parameterizations, is capable of executing iterations of CGD or LFOM. The architecture is **sufficiently expressive** to computationally perform these optimization methods, as established in Proposition 1 and Proposition 2.\\n2. **Generalization vs. Specialization**: Unlike CGD, which is specifically optimized and executed for each individual test sample, the Memformer learns **shared, general parameters** from training data that are then applied simultaneously to all test samples. This distinction is crucial. The Memformer\\u2019s approach is fundamentally about generalizing from the training data, as detailed in Section 3, Section 4 and the Appendix.\\n\\nOur results are compelling precisely because, despite CGD being meticulously tailored for each specific case, the Memformer\\u2014with shared, general parameters\\u2014achieves **competitive performance**. Remarkably, in some cases, the Memformer even **outperforms CGD**, highlighting the extraordinary generalization capabilities of our model.\\n\\nIn Figure 1(a), it is essential to understand the constraints placed on the Memformer. Specifically, the Memformer is restricted to have no preconditioning, with the matrices $\\\\mathbf{A}_\\\\ell$ limited to being scalar multiples of the identity. Despite these limitations, the Memformer still manages to keep up with CGD, which is individually optimized for each test sample. The fact that a Memformer, using only a small set of generic parameters learned from training data, can remain competitive with CGD is an impressive and surprising result. Critiquing the Memformer for not surpassing CGD, which runs separately and optimally for each test case, reflects a misunderstanding of our primary research objective. We urge a deeper appreciation of what it means when we assert that Memformers \\\"learn\\\" optimization algorithms like CGD and LFOMs.\\n\\nTo further validate our claims, we have conducted new experiments, detailed in **Appendix C**:\\n\\n1. **Experiment 1 (Dimension $d = 5$, Layers = 5)**: CGD, as expected, converges within 5 steps, limited by dimensionality $d = 5$. Yet, the Memformer, despite only learning general parameters $A_\\\\ell$ and $\\\\Gamma_\\\\ell$, keeps pace for up to 4 steps, illustrating its effectiveness.\\n2. **Experiment 2 (Dimension $d = 10$, Layers = 7)**: In this more challenging scenario, CGD does not converge until beyond 7 steps. Even here, the Memformer matches CGD for 6 steps and performs comparably at 7 steps, underscoring the robustness of its generalization ability, even in higher-dimensional spaces.\\n\\nHere, $d$ refers to the rank of the square matrix $\\\\mathbf{X} \\\\mathbf{X}^T$ in the empirical loss quadratic as described in Equation (12).\\n\\nIn Appendix B, we have also included our experiment that Memformers outperform Nesterov Accelerated Gradient (NAG) method as well.\\n\\nWe hope this clarifies the significance and the novelty of our work. The Memformer\\u2019s capacity to **generalize** complex optimization strategies using shared parameters across diverse samples is a significant advancement. It achieves performance levels that exact CGD\\u2014optimized separately\\u2014cannot reach with the same versatility or efficiency.\"}", "{\"comment\": \"> Did the authors test how these models perform in out-of-distribution data? For example input values that belong in the tails of the gaussian distribution.\\n\\nThat is a very valid question. We did not aim to study OOD generalization in the paper, because we wanted to first demonstrate that Memformers can efficiently learn and perform powerful optimization algorithms like CGD and LFOMs (e.g., Nesterov's method, Momentum methods, Adam-like methods, and more!) under the structured conditions outlined in our paper. In particular, we assume that the test data are also drawn independently from the same distribution as training data. We believe an entire, separate study will be needed for handling OOD test data.\\n\\nSecond, testing performance on OOD data, such as with samples drawn mostly from Gaussian tails, will be definitely interesting, but it is outside the scope of our current research. We remark that a large body of ICL work does not address OOD generalization. However, we believe the reviewer's suggestion about Gaussian tails can be eventually studied as an approximate version of studying ICL results for distributions more general than Gaussians, but being able to capture heavier or lighter tails, for instance, the so-called \\\"Elliptically contoured family\\\". We believe, progress on that general class may merit its own project (and thus, thanks to you for bringing up this question).\\n\\nFinally, for those interested in exploring OOD performance of Transformers, we refer you to existing work on the subject, such as [Can In-context Learning Really Generalize to Out-of-distribution Tasks?](https://arxiv.org/abs/2410.09695) and [Pretraining Data Mixtures Enable Narrow Model Selection Capabilities in Transformer Models\\n](https://arxiv.org/abs/2311.00871), which investigate this area more deeply. We believe this is indeed a good research question but one that would require separate mathematical analysis and is beyond the main contributions of our paper.\\n\\nWe hope this clarifies our focus and why pursuing OOD experiments at this stage would be a diversion from our primary research objectives.\\n\\n> I think suggestions 4,5 would improve the claims of the paper and would clarify whether these models learn some type of optimization algorithm or not.\\n\\nWe believe there is still a fundamental misunderstanding of what it means for Memformers to \\\"learn\\\" optimization algorithms. Let us clarify this crucial point:\\n\\nTheoretically, as demonstrated in our proofs, Memformers are expressive enough to perform *exact* CGD steps in their forward pass when appropriately parameterized for a single in-context data sample. However, the key point lies in their practical learning (in experiments): Memformers *learn* to execute CGD-like and LFOM-like iterations using a small set of shared parameters optimized during training on linear regression tasks. These parameters generalize across all in-context data samples within a batch, unlike CGD, which optimizes separately for each sample. \\n\\nRemarkably, despite this parameter sharing, Memformers achieve competitive\\u2014and often superior\\u2014performance compared to exact CGD. This surprising generalization ability underscores their ability to \\\"learn\\\" optimization methods broadly rather than tailoring parameters to individual samples. We hope this clarifies the distinction between their theoretical expressiveness and practical learning.\\n\\n> I understand that the main motivation of the work is to explore \\\"what augmented Transformers can learn, as opposed to looking for \\u201cthe best\\u201d algorithm.\\\", but I think that the current experimental and theoretical results do not clarify what these models can actually learn. They seem to perform better than the considered optimization algorithms for a few steps, but this does not provide a concrete result on what they actually learn. Could the authors clarify a bit which is the main contribution of their work?\\n\\nThe core motivation of our research is indeed to explore *what* augmented Transformers, like Memformers, can learn in terms of optimization algorithms, rather than optimizing for \\u201cthe best\\u201d pre-defined algorithm.\\n\\nTheoretically, we rigorously demonstrate that Memformers are expressive enough to implement iterations of CGD or LFOM when appropriately parameterized, highlighting their architectural capability to mimic sophisticated optimization methods within their forward pass. \\n\\nExperimentally, we show that Memformers can learn *general optimization strategies* by training on linear regression tasks, using a small number of shared parameters across in-context data samples. Remarkably, they achieve competitive\\u2014and often superior\\u2014performance compared to individually optimized CGD iterations, demonstrating their ability to generalize optimization-like behavior across diverse data samples.\\n\\nIt would be a future task for the ICL and algorithm learning community to explore how to extract efficient, novel optimization algorithms from this approach.\"}", "{\"comment\": \"I thank the authors for the detailed response. My questions have been addressed, and I have adjusted my score.\\n\\nI also want to clarify that the comment about restriction of the in-context learning setting does not mean that it affects my evaluation of the paper, but rather a fact that the current results applies only to in-context learning of linear regression. I agree that studying this setting is important.\"}", "{\"comment\": \"Dear Reviewer Ff4R,\\n\\nAs the end of the open discussion draws close, we hope to follow up with you on our rebuttal. Please do let us know if you feel that our response addressed your concerns. And, please also let us know if there are any additional issues that you would like for us to address. Thank you.\"}", "{\"comment\": \"**Dear Reviewers**,\\n\\nThank you for your feedback on our rebuttal. We would like to kindly highlight that a significant question within the optimization community has been whether Transformers (with simple modifications) can \\\"learn\\\" more advanced optimization algorithms beyond preconditioned gradient descent. In our experience, numerous people in the optimization and in-context learning (ICL) communities have previously wondered whether Transformers can implement Conjugate Gradient Descent (CGD). Our work provides a positive answer to this question, addressing an open problem in the field.\\n\\nWe believe that the straightforwardness of our approach is a strength, as it directly and effectively tackles a serious motivation and an open question in the community. This, in our view, demonstrates sufficient novelty and impact of the work.\"}", "{\"comment\": \"Dear Reviewer ncrK,\\n\\nWe would firstly like to thank you for your time and effort. Please check out the current version of the PDF, where we address all the concerns that you have raised.\\n\\n> There are no formal proofs of the two propositions, but only proof sketches which are not detailed enough.\\n\\nWe have added full, formal proofs of these propositions in the Appendix A of our updated submission. While our initial proof sketches were concise (and used the logical flow from established results (e.g., Lemma 1 in [Ahn et al., 2023](https://arxiv.org/abs/2306.00297)), based on the reviews and feedback, we recognize that many reader would prefer more comprehensive derivations, which we have now included.\\n\\nWe trust that this revision satisfies the expectations for mathematical completeness and demonstrates that our initial proof sketches were carefully constructed, albeit concise.\\n\\n> The experiments consider only up to 4 layers and compare only with linear attention transformers and not softmax based.\\n\\nWe conducted Memformer experiments with up to 7 layers. Beyond this, training becomes impractical due to the extensive iterations and substantial convergence time, spanning several hours. This limitation is rooted in computational feasibility (of the GPUs available to us) rather than any shortcomings of the Memformer itself.\\n\\nIt is crucial to first reiterate and emphasize what we mean by a Memformer \\\"learning\\\" an optimization algorithm like CGD or LFOM. Specifically:\\n\\n1. **Algorithm Execution**: The Memformer, in its forward pass and with appropriate internal parameters, can execute iterations of CGD or LFOM. The architecture and parameterization are sufficiently expressive to perform these optimization methods computationally. (cf. Proposition 1 and Proposition 2)\\n2. **General Parameter Learning**: The Memformer is trained on linear regression tasks using a small set of learnable parameters that are shared across all test samples. Unlike CGD, which is individually optimized and executed separately for each test sample in a batch, the Memformer applies a *general strategy* learned from the training data to *all* test samples simultaneously. (cf. Experiments in Section 3 and Appendix)\\n\\nThese features make our findings particularly compelling. **Despite CGD being specifically tailored and optimized for each individual test case, the Memformer\\u2014with its shared, general parameters\\u2014still achieves competitive performance.** In some cases, the Memformer even outperforms CGD, which highlights the remarkable generalization capacity of our architecture.\\n\\nTo further demonstrate this claim, we have added two new experiments in Appendix C:\\n\\n1. **Experiment 1 (Dimension $d = 5$, Layers = 5)**: As expected, CGD converges within $5$ steps due to the dimensionality constraint. Remarkably, even though the Memformer only learns general parameters $A_\\\\ell$ (Equation 9) and $\\\\Gamma_\\\\ell$ (Equation 20), it manages to keep up with exact CGD for up to 4 steps.\\n2. **Experiment 2 (Dimension $d = 10$, Layers = 7)**: Here, CGD does not converge until beyond 7 steps, which aligns with theoretical expectations. Yet again, the Memformer remains competitive, matching exact CGD for 6 steps and even performing comparably at 7 steps. This underscores the strength of the Memformer\\u2019s generalization, even under more challenging conditions.\\n\\nHere, $d$ refers to the rank of the square matrix $\\\\mathbf{X} \\\\mathbf{X}^T$ in the empirical loss quadratic as described in Equation (12).\\n\\nIn Appendix B, we have also included our experiment that Memformers outperform Nesterov Accelerated Gradient (NAG) method as well.\\n\\nWe hope this clarifies the significance of our results, showcasing how the Memformer can generalize complex optimization strategies efficiently across diverse test samples.\\n\\n> I would suggest to the authors to add the full proofs of the propositions. In the current version it is unclear to me which is the exact theoretical statement. \\n\\nAs mentioned above, we've now included full proofs of Propsitions 1 and 2 in the Appendix A. Please check out the updated version of the PDF.\"}", "{\"comment\": \"> From the experiment results in Section 4, it seems that the trained Memformer outperforms CGD. What are the implications of this given the optimality results for CGD?\\n\\nThis is a good question with a subtle answer. To clarify, a Memformer **learns an optimization algorithm** like CGD or LFOM in two key ways:\\n\\nFirst, the Memformer architecture is expressive enough to execute iterations of CGD or LFOM during its forward pass when appropriately parameterized (cf. Propositions 1 and 2).\\n\\nSecond, unlike CGD, which optimizes separately for each test sample, Memformers are trained on linear regression tasks using a small set of shared parameters. These shared parameters enable the Memformer to apply a *general optimization strategy* across all test samples, achieving competitive performance\\u2014even occasionally outperforming CGD\\u2014while highlighting the architecture\\u2019s remarkable generalization capacity.\\n\\nThe subtlety lies in the dependence on the rank $d$ of the matrix $\\\\mathbf{X}\\\\mathbf{X}^T$ (Equation 12). CGD, assuming exact arithmetic, converges in at most $d$ steps. To illustrate this, we added two experiments in Appendix C:\\n\\nFor $d = 5$, CGD converges within $d$ steps as expected, and the Memformer keeps pace for up to 4 steps despite using only general learned parameters $A_\\\\ell$ (Equation 9) and $\\\\Gamma_\\\\ell$ (Equation 20). For $d = 10$ and 7 layers, CGD converges beyond 7 steps, but the Memformer remains competitive, matching CGD for 6 steps and performing comparably at 7 steps. These results demonstrate the Memformer\\u2019s ability to generalize optimization strategies effectively, even in more challenging scenarios.\\n\\nIn Appendix B, we have also included our experiment that Memformers outperform Nesterov Accelerated Gradient (NAG) method as well.\\n\\n> From Figure 4(a), it seems that the Memformer basically solves the linear regression task (log(loss)=-30) with two layers. Based on this, it seems hard to justify that Memformer is simulating certain optimization algorithms, and it is unclear how this is achieved.\\n\\nWe reiterate the importance of understanding how a Memformer learns an optimization algorithm like CGD or LFOM. First, the Memformer\\u2019s architecture and parameterization are *sufficiently expressive* to execute iterations of CGD or LFOM in its forward pass (cf. Propositions 1 and 2). Second, unlike CGD, which optimizes separately for each test sample, the Memformer is trained on linear regression tasks using shared parameters that apply a *general optimization strategy* across all test samples (cf. experiments in Section 3, Section 4 and Appendix).\\n\\nRegarding Figure 4(a), this experiment highlights that when the training batch size is 1, the Memformer\\u2019s parameters are trained on a single in-context data sample. As a result, its parameters are highly attuned to that specific sample, enabling exceptional performance when tested on the same data. In this case, the Memformer does not learn *general parameters* shared across multiple samples but rather optimizes its internal parameterization for the single sample.\", \"to_address_whether_the_memformer_performs_lfom_specifically_on_this_single_sample_at_test_time\": \"no, it does not. However, this misses the larger point. Our theoretical results rigorously demonstrate that, under Propositions 1 and 2, the Memformer can execute exact CGD or LFOM iterations. The experiments, on the other hand, demonstrate that Memformers trained on general in-context data samples can still perform competitively with CGD, even without strict parameter constraints. Figure 4(a) further illustrates that when fine-tuned to a single sample, the Memformer executes an optimization algorithm surpassing LFOM in convergence speed, underscoring the versatility of its architecture.\\n\\n> Comparing Figure 4(a) and 4(b), it seems that batch size has a significant impact on the performance of Memformer. Can the authors provide some insights on this?\\n\\nYes. You correctly observe that batch size impacts Memformer performance. As explained, when trained on a very small batch, the Memformer\\u2019s internal parameters become finely attuned to that specific data, optimizing to fit that instance or batch rather than generalizing broadly. With larger batch sizes, the Memformer learns a more generalizable parameter set that is effective across a distribution of test samples. This adaptive behavior is not only expected but indicative of the Memformer\\u2019s flexibility: it can either hyper-optimize to a particular sample/batch or generalize across samples depending on the training batch size.\"}", "{\"comment\": \"Dear Reviewer CwkM,\\n\\nWe would firstly like to thank you for your time and effort. Please check out the current version of the PDF, where we have addressed the concerns that you have raised here.\\n\\n> The architecture of Memformer is not well explained. The role of the memory should be clarified.\\n> Related to the above point, it would be helpful to clarify which parts of the architectures in Equation (19) and (21) are trainable (though they are mentioned in Section 3.3).\\n\\nThank you for your feedback. We have updated our paper to clarify the Memformer architecture and the role of the memory component, addressing your questions.\\n\\nIn Section 3, we explain that Memformers are designed to \\\"learn\\\" and implement Linear First-Order Methods (LFOMs) through a memory-augmented mechanism. Each layer $\\\\ell$ has learnable parameters $A_{\\\\ell}$, $B_{\\\\ell}$, $\\\\alpha_{\\\\ell}$, $\\\\gamma_{\\\\ell},$ and $\\\\Gamma_{\\\\ell}$, enabling CGD-like and LFOM-like iterations by updating memory registers and refining outputs in a forward pass.\\n\\nIn the **Proposition 1 architecture**, there is a **single memory register $R$** shared across all layers, with its state at layer $\\\\ell$ denoted as $R_\\\\ell$. This shared memory stores refined search directions, incorporating current updates and recursive information, facilitating Conjugate Gradient Descent (CGD).\\n\\nIn the **Proposition 2 architecture**, there are **multiple memory registers**, one per layer $\\\\ell$, each updated independently. These registers accumulate updates from previous layers, allowing the simulation of iterative optimization algorithms like LFOMs.\\n\\n> The results are restricted to in-context learning of linear regression.\\n\\nWe respectfully but firmly disagree with the comment that focusing on linear regression is a weakness. Linear regression provides a fundamental and well-understood framework, allowing us to rigorously analyze how memory-augmented Transformers (Memformers) implement linear first-order optimization methods like conjugate gradient descent and momentum. This focus enables clear theoretical insights without the added complexities of nonlinearities.\\n\\nOur choice aligns with recent studies, such as [von Oswald et al. (2023)](https://arxiv.org/abs/2212.07677) and [Ahn et al. (2023)](https://arxiv.org/abs/2306.00297), which also use linear regression as a testbed to explore the algorithmic capabilities of Transformers in in-context learning (ICL). This ensures our findings are both comparable and contribute meaningfully to ongoing research.\\n\\nBy analyzing linear regression, we derive precise mathematical results and proofs, establishing a solid theoretical foundation for Memformers' ability to simulate advanced optimization algorithms via their architecture and memory mechanisms. These results serve as a stepping stone for future research aiming to generalize to nonlinear or more complex tasks, where understanding mechanisms in a simplified setting is crucial.\\n\\nFinally, studying ICL in broader contexts, such as learning nonlinear functions, requires fundamentally different approaches. For such tasks, we recommend prior works like *Transformers Implement Functional Gradient Descent to Learn Non-Linear Functions In Context* ([Cheng et al., 2023](https://arxiv.org/abs/2312.06528)).\"}", "{\"comment\": \"Dear Reviewer Ff4R,\\n\\nWe would firstly like to thank you for your time and effort. Please check out the current version of the PDF, where we have addressed the concerns that you have raised here.\\n\\n> Lemma 1 demonstrates that multi-layer Transformers learn to implement preconditioned gradient descent under suitable parameterization, but the result and the full proof is directly from Ahn et al. (2024).\\n\\nWe wish to clarify our intention behind including this result in our paper.\\n\\nWe have indeed **explicitly cited** Lemma 1 from [Ahn et al. (2023)](https://arxiv.org/abs/2306.00297), and the purpose of restating it in our main text is to make the paper **self-contained and more accessible** for readers. We recognize that readers may not want to interrupt their understanding of our work by having to hunt down another paper to grasp a key concept that underpins our theoretical framework. By presenting Lemma 1 directly, we aim to provide clarity and improve the flow of our exposition.\\n\\nFurthermore, in the **Appendix A**, we have **explicitly mentioned that the full proof is from [Ahn et al. (2023)](https://arxiv.org/abs/2306.00297)**. We have reiterated their entire proof in our Appendix A for the **readers' convenience**, ensuring transparency and acknowledgment of their work. Our goal is not to claim novelty on this specific lemma but to facilitate comprehension and ease of reference for our audience.\\n\\nWe kindly ask for a reconsideration of this critique, as we believe the inclusion of Lemma 1, along with its proof in the Appendix A, enhances the readability and educational value of our paper without detracting from its originality or contributions.\\n\\n> Proposition 1 and Proposition 2 in Section 3 should be the main theoretical results of this paper. However, the authors provide only proof sketches for these propositions rather than presenting detailed and rigorous proofs.\\n> Could you provide full, detailed proofs for Proposition 1 and Proposition 2? Without these, the theoretical results lack sufficient rigor and are less convincing.\\n\\nYes. We have now included the **full, formal proofs** of these propositions in the **Appendix A** of our updated submission. Our initial proof sketches were designed to convey the key ideas and logical flow efficiently, drawing on established results from **Lemma 1 (cited from [Ahn et al., 2023](https://arxiv.org/abs/2306.00297))**. However, we recognize that some readers may prefer more exhaustive derivations for a clearer understanding.\\n\\nTo meet these expectations, we have expanded our sketches into rigorous, detailed proofs, ensuring mathematical completeness. It is important to emphasize that these full proofs are direct logical extensions of our original outlines, relying on the comprehensive proof of **Lemma 1**, which we had included for transparency and accessibility. The core intuition and theoretical structure remain unchanged; the added rigor simply makes explicit the logical steps that were already implied.\"}", "{\"summary\": \"This paper explores the algorithmic capabilities of Transformers and investigates the potential of memory-augmented Transformers (Memformers) to learn linear first-order optimization methods. It provides theoretical justification and empirical evidence that Memformers can learn more advanced optimization algorithms based on prior work that demonstrates how Transformers can implement preconditioned gradient descent. Experimental results of training on random linear regression tasks show that Memformers are able to learn a class of optimization methods.\", \"soundness\": \"2\", \"presentation\": \"3\", \"contribution\": \"2\", \"strengths\": \"1. The paper is easy to follow and explores the algorithmic capabilities of memory-augmented Transformers.\\n\\n2. Experiments show that linear first-order methods (LFOMs) learned by Memformers outperform conjugate gradient descent on training data while maintaining generalization performance. Additionally, multi-headed attention enhances Memformers\\u2019 test performance.\", \"weaknesses\": \"1. Lemma 1 demonstrates that multi-layer Transformers learn to implement preconditioned gradient descent under suitable parameterization, but the result and the full proof is directly from [Ahn et al. (2024)](https://arxiv.org/pdf/2306.00297).\\n\\n2. Proposition 1 and Proposition 2 in Section 3 should be the main theoretical results of this paper. However, the authors provide only proof sketches for these propositions rather than presenting detailed and rigorous proofs.\\n\\n3. Figure 1(a) shows that LFOMs perform worse than preconditioned gradient descent on general quadratic problems. Additionally, Figure 2 and Figure 3 indicate that LFOMs\\u2019 performance on isotropic test data falls short of conjugate gradient descent, contradicting the claimed good generalization performance in the main contributions.\", \"questions\": \"1. Could you provide full, detailed proofs for Proposition 1 and Proposition 2? Without these, the theoretical results lack sufficient rigor and are less convincing.\\n\\n2. It is mentioned in Section 6.1 that Transformers can implement second-order methods like Newton\\u2019s method, which typically outperform LFOMs in convergence speed and accuracy. However, first-order methods are more popular than second-order methods in practice, especially in deep learning. Could you provide an explanation for that?\", \"flag_for_ethics_review\": \"['No ethics review needed.']\", \"details_of_ethics_concerns\": \"No ethics concerns.\", \"rating\": \"3\", \"confidence\": \"4\", \"code_of_conduct\": \"Yes\"}", "{\"summary\": \"This paper examines the use of Memformers for optimization in the setting of linear regression. The authors focus on two different type of Memformers with updates that similar to Momentum Methods and Conjugate gradient descent (in terms of operations required). They test these models experimentally and compare them with Linear Transformers and the equivalent optimization methods.\", \"soundness\": \"2\", \"presentation\": \"2\", \"contribution\": \"2\", \"strengths\": \"1. The idea of exploring how different architectures perform in various optimization problems could lead to the discovery of new algorithms and can enhance our understanding on the limitations and capabilities of those architectures.\\n\\n2. A wide range of optimization methods are considered as a baseline.\", \"weaknesses\": \"1. There are no formal proofs of the two propositions, but only proof sketches which are not detailed enough.\\n2. The experiments consider only up to 4 layers and compare only with linear attention transformers and not softmax based. \\n3. The paper doesn't have a clear contribution. Even though the authors show that memformers can perform better than optimization methods, their results only hold for 4 layers and it's unclear whether using more steps/layers this would still be the case. It is also unclear whether Memformers perform some type of optimization algorithms of find a shortcut solution.\", \"questions\": \"1. I would suggest to the authors to add the full proofs of the propositions. In the current version it is unclear to me which is the exact theoretical statement. Is it that Memformers with the specific updates are able to perform the corresponding optimization methods ? For the result of [1] the authors proved that the global minima for one layer of transformer is indeed one step of preconditioned gradient. For the case of multiple layers (Lemma 1), [1] assumes a specific parameterization of the weight matrices. Do the authors get an equivalent result for Memformers and assume that the weight matrices have the specific parameterization?\\n2. In proposition 1 how the quantities $a_l$ and $\\\\gamma_l$ are calculated with the Memformer? How many layers and width is needed for the simulation of the algorithm ? \\n3. In the proof sketch of proposition 2 the authors state that \\\"The full proof follows from the cumulative memory structure and the connection between attention and preconditioned gradients, as discussed in the proof steps of Lemma 1.\\\" Could the authors explain how exactly the proof follows? \\n4. Did the authors tried to train more than 4 layers? If so is it observed that there is an error floor for Memformers? This has been observed in the prior work that this paper builds upon. How does Memformers perform compared to softmax based attention Transformers? \\n5. Did the authors test how these models perform in out-of-distribution data? For example input values that belong in the tails of the gaussian distribution. \\n6. I think suggestions 4,5 would improve the claims of the paper and would clarify whether these models learn some type of optimization algorithm or not. \\n7. I understand that the main motivation of the work is to explore \\\"what augmented Transformers can learn, as opposed to looking for \\u201cthe best\\u201d algorithm.\\\", but I think that the current experimental and theoretical results do not clarify what these models can actually learn. They seem to perform better than the considered optimization algorithms for a few steps, but this does not provide a concrete result on what they actually learn.\\nCould the authors clarify a bit which is the main contribution of their work?\\n\\n[1]: Ahn, Kwangjun, et al. \\\"Transformers learn to implement preconditioned gradient descent for in-context learning.\\\" Advances in Neural Information Processing Systems 36 (2023): 45614-45650.\", \"flag_for_ethics_review\": \"['No ethics review needed.']\", \"rating\": \"3\", \"confidence\": \"4\", \"code_of_conduct\": \"Yes\"}", "{\"comment\": \"Dear Reviewer CwkM,\\n\\nAs the end of the open discussion draws close, we hope to follow up with you on our rebuttal. Please do let us know if you feel that our response addressed your concerns. And, please also let us know if there are any additional issues that you would like for us to address. Thank you.\"}" ] }

[ "Zeyu Li", "Hongkun Dou", "Shen Fang", "Wang Han", "Yue Deng", "Lijun Yang" ]

[ "Fluid dynamics", "diffusion models", "super-resolution" ]

{ "note_id": [ "tMav2trwDX", "muPuq7jX9Z", "ZQrBVtQ8lF", "VEMqYHja2z", "S6jrnqqH9e", "O2VvGx20bf", "Mx5zE25w50", "GkDdMu7Ys1", "CDDB96B1FT", "6qK75xOJI1", "6NZEFMxt3F", "68W02W5Jl5" ], "note_type": [ "decision", "official_review", "official_review", "official_comment", "official_review", "official_comment", "official_comment", "meta_review", "official_comment", "official_comment", "official_comment", "official_comment" ], "note_created": [ 1737523782986, 1730057167824, 1730594542737, 1732031585608, 1730294705153, 1733164600364, 1732044496799, 1734370212154, 1732243497675, 1732031590969, 1732031593435, 1732220455596 ], "note_signatures": [ [ "ICLR.cc/2025/Conference/Program_Chairs" ], [ "ICLR.cc/2025/Conference/Submission6648/Reviewer_bWQy" ], [ "ICLR.cc/2025/Conference/Submission6648/Reviewer_BWVW" ], [ "ICLR.cc/2025/Conference/Submission6648/Authors" ], [ "ICLR.cc/2025/Conference/Submission6648/Reviewer_bXrf" ], [ "ICLR.cc/2025/Conference/Submission6648/Reviewer_BWVW" ], [ "ICLR.cc/2025/Conference/Submission6648/Reviewer_bXrf" ], [ "ICLR.cc/2025/Conference/Submission6648/Area_Chair_Eqkv" ], [ "ICLR.cc/2025/Conference/Submission6648/Authors" ], [ "ICLR.cc/2025/Conference/Submission6648/Authors" ], [ "ICLR.cc/2025/Conference/Submission6648/Authors" ], [ "ICLR.cc/2025/Conference/Submission6648/Reviewer_BWVW" ] ], "structured_content_str": [ "{\"title\": \"Paper Decision\", \"decision\": \"Accept (Spotlight)\"}", "{\"summary\": \"This paper presents the Physics-aligned Schr\\u00f6dinger Bridge (PalSB) method, developed for reconstructing physical fields from sparse data subject to physical constraints. Reconstruction of physical fields is a key task in fields such as fluid mechanics, meteorology, and astrophysics, where spatiotemporal information about systems must be recovered from sparse, often noisy, observations. Despite significant advances in machine learning and the use of diffusion models to solve complex data problems, many existing approaches fail to satisfy physical laws and struggle to cope with the nonlinear nature of complex physical systems.\\n\\nPalSB proposes a new approach to data reconstruction that incorporates a diffusion bridge mechanism (Schr\\u00f6dinger Bridge) specifically adapted to satisfy physical constraints. The model is trained in two stages: the first stage focuses on local reconstruction map construction, and the second stage focuses on global physical principles. This combination allows for the creation of super-resolved data that not only more accurately but also better satisfy physical constraints than similar methods.\\n\\nThe pretraining stage of PalSB is based on a diffusion Schr\\u00f6dinger bridge, which allows for efficient transition between high-quality and corrupted data distributions. To reduce computational costs and improve the accuracy of the model, the training process is performed on small local patches of the high-resolution field. This helps the model focus on the local structure of the data, avoiding the need for large computational resources. The second stage involves Physics-aligned Finetuning, which allows the model to fit physical laws represented as differential equations. This stage minimizes deviations from physical laws using a combination of physically informed and regression loss functions.\\n\\nThe paper also proposes boundary-aware sampling to handle boundary conditions and early stopping sampling, which improves the generation efficiency and reduces the number of required steps. These strategies allow the model to better account for global conditions and significantly improve the performance of PalSB.\", \"three_complex_physical_systems_were_chosen_to_evaluate_palsb\": \"flow around a cylinder, two-dimensional turbulence, and a reaction-diffusion system. Based on the benchmark results, PalSB demonstrated significant improvements in accuracy and physical compliance compared to other methods, including interpolation, end-to-end models, and physically informed diffusion models (PIDM). In particular, PalSB significantly reduces physical inconsistencies and improves the compliance with spatial patterns in both Fourier and real space interpolation problems.\\n\\nThe study also showed that removing individual PalSB modules (e.g., physically consistent tuning or boundary-aware sampling) degrades the physical compliance and model performance. This highlights the importance of PalSB's integrated approach to achieve high accuracy and compliance with physical laws.\\n\\nIn conclusion, PalSB demonstrates great potential for field reconstruction in complex systems, showing high quality data recovery and improved compliance with physical constraints. In the future, PalSB is expected to be extended to 3D problems, which will cover a wider range of scientific and engineering applications that require compliance with physical laws during the generation process.\", \"soundness\": \"4\", \"presentation\": \"4\", \"contribution\": \"4\", \"strengths\": \"First, it provides high accuracy, surpassing traditional methods by using the diffusion bridge mechanism, which allows for efficient data recovery from sparse measurements. Second, PalSB integrates physical constraints (boundary conditions and equations) at the fine-tuning stage, which minimizes mismatches with real physical laws.\", \"weaknesses\": \"Unfortunately, I do not understand your motivation for using only the normalized error. I highly recommend that model errors can be estimated using the mean squared error (MSE) and L1 error metrics. In addition, the residual error, which determines how well the predicted field fits the equations describing the physical system, can be used to assess compliance with physical constraints. Also, for the future, I highly recommend combining your approach and this approach https://arxiv.org/pdf/2403.14404\", \"questions\": \"Can you additional explain me, why did you use only normalized metrics? Also, can you please explain why you checked on flow equations (like Kolmogorov and Reaction-Diffusion equations)? I highly recommend checking on electrostatic equations as well.\", \"flag_for_ethics_review\": \"['Yes, Privacy, security and safety']\", \"rating\": \"8\", \"confidence\": \"4\", \"code_of_conduct\": \"Yes\"}", "{\"summary\": \"In _Physics-Aligned Field Reconstruction with Diffusion Bridge_, the authors propose a method for reconstructing physical fields from a limited number of measurements. They combine a diffusion Schr\\u00f6dinger bridge, following the $I^2SB$ approach by Liu et al., with a fine-tuning step to improve consistency with physical constraints. Additionally, they adapt their sampling procedure to be \\\"boundary-aware\\\" by padding the input appropriately and achieve good performance with a small number of function evaluations through \\\"early-stop sampling.\\\"\", \"soundness\": \"3\", \"presentation\": \"3\", \"contribution\": \"3\", \"strengths\": \"The paper addresses the important challenge of reconstructing physical fields, drawing inspiration from recent methods such as $I^2SB$ diffusion Schr\\u00f6dinger bridges and reinforcement learning with human feedback for diffusion models. The authors convincingly demonstrate the effectiveness of their method by evaluating it across three datasets (with two tasks each) and comparing it against several reasonable baselines. Further, they conduct an ablation study, reinforcing the value of their design choices. The early stop sampling strategy in particular could prove to be useful outside of the context of physical field reconstruction as well. The method and results are presented clearly with only minor clarifications needed.\", \"weaknesses\": \"There's no major weaknesses of the paper.\\nFor minor opportunities for clarification and cleanup see Questions.\", \"questions\": \"Questions / Suggestions for Clarification:\\n1. In line 083-085: What is the relationship between $m$, $n$ and $d$?\\n2. I can't quite follow the derivation of eq. (6) from eq. (4), I end up with $f_\\\\theta + x_0$ instead\\n3. line 268: Doesn't the backpropagation get truncated for all steps $i<N$? That's how I interpret both Fig. 1 and Alg. 2\\n4. Does finetuning use early stop sampling?\\n5. Does truncating the backpropagation in the finetuning step affect the adherence to physical constraints in a time-step dependent manner? I think this is alluded to in Appendix C1 but I think it warrants further clarification, especially any potential interaction with early stop sampling.\\n6. How much padding is used for sampling and does the amount of padding influence performance? Does that interact with the number of sampling steps?\\n7. Algorithms 2 and 3 are not totally clean:\\n - 7: while $j=T$ -> while $j<T$\\n - 11: $t_j$ not defined\\n - 12: $t$ should instead be $t_j$\\n\\nTypos/Format etc\\n- line 065: such diffusion bridge -> such a diffusion bridge\\n- missing year in reference Fan et al.\\n- line 329: should this say the physical field cannot be simultaneously acquired at high resolution and covering a large field of view? Surely the resolution and FOV are known.\\n- line 883: calculate the loss according to eq 4 -> calculate the loss according to eq 6\\n- line 1063: \\\"observation mentioned above\\\" -> vague, which one?\\n- Fig 10+11: noisy -> noise-free\", \"flag_for_ethics_review\": \"['No ethics review needed.']\", \"rating\": \"8\", \"confidence\": \"4\", \"code_of_conduct\": \"Yes\"}", "{\"title\": \"Response to reviewer BWVW\", \"comment\": \"Thanks for the positive and insightful comments from reviewer BWVW on this work! I hope the following responses can resolve the reviewer's questions.\\n\\n## Q1. In line 083-085: What is the relationship between $m$, $n$ and $d$?\\n\\n> A1: $d$ is the spatial dimension of the physical domain (e.g., $d=2$ for 2D cases). Given a domain $\\\\Omega \\\\subset \\\\mathbb{R}^d$, $n$ is the dimension of the discretized sample of data $\\\\mathbf{x}_0$ (e.g., $n=65536$ for $256\\\\times 256$ grid). $m$ is the dimension of the observation data $\\\\mathbf{y}$, which is degenerated from the data sample (i.e., $\\\\mathbf{y}=\\\\mathcal{H}(\\\\mathbf{x}_0)+\\\\mathbf{\\\\epsilon}$).\\n\\n___\\n\\n## Q2. I can't quite follow the derivation of eq. (6) from eq. (4), I end up with $f_\\\\theta+\\\\mathbf{x}_0$ instead.\\n\\n> A2: Thanks for the important reminder! The parameterization of the network should be \\n$f_\\\\theta=-\\\\sigma_t \\\\epsilon_\\\\theta + \\\\mathbf{x}_t $.\\n In this case, one can deviate eq. (6) from eq. (4). We have rephrased the formula in the revised manuscript to make it clearer.\\n\\n___\\n\\n## Q3. Line 268: Doesn't the backpropagation get truncated for all steps $i<N$? That's how I interpret both Fig. 1 and Alg. 2.\\n\\n> A3: There is a subscript substitution in our manuscript, resulting in the confusion. As suggested by the reviewer, we now changed the notation for time steps into $0<t_T<t_{T-1}<...<t_1=1$ throughout the paper. Please refer to Eq. (8), Fig. 1 and Alg. 2 of the revised manuscript.\\n\\n___\\n\\n## Q4. Does finetuning use early stop sampling?\\n\\n> A4: In our experiments, the finetuning also uses early stop sampling.\\n\\n___\\n\\n## Q5. Does truncating the backpropagation in the finetuning step affect the adherence to physical constraints in a time-step dependent manner?\\n\\n> A5: In the expanded experiments, we evaluated the impact of backpropagation truncation on adherence to physical constraints. The results demonstrate that, within a fixed number of fine-tuning iterations, truncating backpropagation can enhance adherence to physical constraints without altering the trend in a time-step-dependent manner (see __Fig. 8__ in the revised manuscript). For further details, please refer to __Section C.2__ of the revised manuscript.\\n\\n___\\n\\n## Q6. How much padding is used for sampling and does the amount of padding influence performance? Does that interact with the number of sampling steps?\\n\\n> A6: According to the dimension of the observations, we use padding size of 2 for FI task while 16 for RI task to make the size of the interpolated data samples consistent. We now extended the experiments to investigate how the padding size and sampling steps affect the performance (__Fig. 9__ in the revised manuscript). The results indicate that increasing the padding size can improve the final performance without altering the trend with respect to the number of sampling steps. Please refer to __Section C.4__ in the revised manuscript for details.\\n\\n___\\n\\n## Q7. Issues in Algorithms 2 and 3.\\n\\n> A7: Thanks for the important reminder! We now rephrased Algorithms 2 and 3 of the revised manuscript to make them clearer.\\n\\n___\\n\\n## Typos/Format etc.\\n\\n> A: Thanks for pointing out the typos! We have corrected these typos in the revised manuscript.\"}", "{\"summary\": \"The paper presents a method for reconstruction of physical fields from sparse information using Schrodinger bridges. The setup uses a dual training approach where the diffusion bridge is first trained to bridge between sparse and high resolution measurements, then it is fine tuned to satisfy physical constraints. This is coupled with a special technique to care for boundary conditions. The method is tested on several examples of physical field reconstruction tasks.\", \"soundness\": \"3\", \"presentation\": \"3\", \"contribution\": \"2\", \"strengths\": [\"physical field reconstruction is an important task with potential high impact in applied sciences\", \"the presented method is well-chosen for the problem\", \"the method is experimentally validated on several example problems\"], \"weaknesses\": [\"while the methodology is well chosen, I don't believe the paper presents major new methodological contributions\", \"some of the techniques seems somewhat adhoc, i.e. employing early stop sampling. I don't doubt that these techniques work well for the problem at hand, but they are not interesting as such from a methodological point of view\", \"the experimental validation is somewhat limited being restricted to 2d problems and with fairly limited datasets. A more extensive validation that clearly demonstrates the power of the method would make a stronger case for the paper, given the limited methodological contributions\"], \"questions\": \"Can you provide strong counterpoints to the above weaknesses?\", \"flag_for_ethics_review\": \"['No ethics review needed.']\", \"rating\": \"6\", \"confidence\": \"3\", \"code_of_conduct\": \"Yes\"}", "{\"comment\": \"Fair enough, thank you\"}", "{\"comment\": \"Thank you for the response. It is good to see the new 3D experiment. I keep my evaluation of both the strengths of the paper and the weaknesses in the methodological contribution side of the paper, and therefore maintain my score.\"}", "{\"metareview\": \"This paper presents the Physics-aligned Schr\\u00f6dinger Bridge (PalSB) framework, an approach to reconstructing physical fields from sparse measurements while satisfying physical constraints (eg.governing equations and boundary conditions). PalSB employs a diffusion bridge mechanism tailored for physical systems; it uses a dual-stage training process to integrate local reconstruction accuracy with global physical compliance. The paper also introduces a boundary-aware sampling technique and an efficient early stopping strategy. The method is validated on three complex nonlinear systems (flow around a cylinder, 2D turbulence, and a reaction-diffusion system) and demonstrates improved accuracy and adherence to physical laws compared to existing methods.\\n\\nThe paper addresses a critical gap in current field reconstruction methods. By explicitly aligning with physical laws, PalSB significantly outperforms competing approaches (eg. interpolation, end-to-end models, and physically informed diffusion models), in both accuracy and physical compliance. Its dual-stage training, boundary-aware sampling, and early stopping strategies are validated through detailed experiments and ablation studies. The rigorous evaluation on challenging benchmarks and the potential for extending PalSB to 3D problems demonstrate its utility and applicability.\\n\\nThe panel of reviewers unanimously recommends acceptance, citing the paper\\u2019s strong methodological contributions, thorough experimental validation, and clear presentation. The reviewers noted that the framework has the potential to significantly advance the field of physics-compliant machine learning and have a meaningful impact on the community.\", \"additional_comments_on_reviewer_discussion\": \"During the rebuttal period, the authors primarily focused on clarifying a few technical points raised by the reviewers and addressing minor typographical issues in the manuscript. Notably, they also extended their method to a complex 3D case, demonstrating its scalability and potential for broader applicability.\"}", "{\"title\": \"Response to reviewer BWVW\", \"comment\": \"Thanks for the comments!\\n\\n## Q. One comment for Q3: I agree that the new notation for the timesteps in the revised manuscript has removed the previous ambiguity. However, is there a reason to choose $0 < t_T < ... < t_1 = 1$ over the more intuitive $0 < t_1 < ... < t_T = 1$?\\n\\n> A: We appreciate that choosing the time steps as $0 < t_1 < ... < t_T = 1$ may seem more intuitive. However, our notation ($0 < t_T < ... < t_1 = 1$) is designed to align with the sampling process, which progresses from $\\\\mathbf{x}_1$ to $\\\\mathbf{x}_0$. This allows the sampling process to naturally proceed as $t_1 \\\\rightarrow t_2 \\\\rightarrow ... \\\\rightarrow t_T$, maintaining consistency with the direction of the evolution.\"}", "{\"title\": \"Response to reviewer bXrf\", \"comment\": \"Thanks for spending time comment on this work! I hope the following responses can address your concerns.\\n\\n## Q1. while the methodology is well chosen, I don't believe the paper presents major new methodological contributions.\\n\\n> A1: Indeed, we borrow the idea from existing work (I$^2$SB [1] and RLHF [2, 3]) to design the two stage process while specifically tailoring it to our problem according to the characteristics of the physical field reconstruction: \\n__1)__ By incorporating physics-aligned loss after the pretraining, we alleviate the optimization issue introduced by starting from a good initialization; \\n__2)__ Instead of reinforcement learning in typical RLHF methods, since the physics-aligned loss is differentiable w.r.t. its input, we directly optimize the model with gradient descent truncated through the sampling path; \\n__3)__ the regularization term is not simply a KL-regularization used in RLHF methods (which leverages the samples generated from the pretrained model to constrain the finetuned distribution). Instead, we constrain the finetuned distribution with the samples from pretraining data, which is more straightforward and effective in the data-driven reconstruction task.\\n\\n___\\n\\n## Q2. some of the techniques seems somewhat adhoc, i.e. employing early stop sampling.\\n\\n> A2: The motivation for employing early stop sampling stems from our observation that smaller step sizes improve sample quality due to reduced discretization error, particularly when using fewer sampling steps (e.g., 10 steps). This technique is designed to enhance efficiency by reducing the step size while maintaining a low number of sampling steps (see __Fig. 5__). Additionally, we conducted detailed ablation studies to validate the empirical performance of these techniques, demonstrating their efficacy (see __Fig. 7__ and __Section C__ of the manuscript).\\n\\n___\\n\\n## Q3. the experimental validation is somewhat limited being restricted to 2D problems and with fairly limited datasets.\\n\\n> A3: We now extended our method to a complex 3D case. The results are summarized in __Table 3__ and __Figs. 20, 21__. Please refer to __Section B.1__ of the revised manuscript for details.\\n\\n___\", \"references\": \"[1] Liu, Guan-Horng, et al. \\\"I $^ 2$ SB: Image-to-Image Schr\\\\\\\" odinger Bridge.\\\" arXiv preprint arXiv:2302.05872 (2023).\\n\\n[2] Lee, Kimin, et al. \\\"Aligning text-to-image models using human feedback.\\\" arXiv preprint arXiv:2302.12192 (2023).\\n\\n[3] Fan, Ying, et al. \\\"Reinforcement learning for fine-tuning text-to-image diffusion models.\\\" Advances in Neural Information Processing Systems 36 (2024).\"}", "{\"title\": \"Response to reviewer bWQy\", \"comment\": \"Thanks for the positive comments! We've added additional evaluations of our method using extended metrics, see following.\\n\\n## Q1. Can you additional explain me, why did you use only normalized metrics?\\n\\n> A1:We have extended the evaluation metrics to include both MSE and L1 error metrics. The results using these metrics are included in __all the tables__ of the revised manuscript, where we observe that they indicate similar trends across our cases. For residual errors of the equations, the 'nER' metric, as presented in the manuscript, evaluates compliance with the corresponding physical constraints. For further details, please refer to __Section 4.4__ (Evaluation Metrics) of the revised manuscript.\\n\\n___\\n\\n## Q2. Also, can you please explain why you checked on flow equations (like Kolmogorov and Reaction-Diffusion equations)?\\n\\n> A2: We chose to focus on flow equations because, to our knowledge, the tasks we address (e.g., FI and RI) are more practical and relevant in scenarios involving flow equations. These equations often exhibit complex solutions with co-existing multi-scale structures, making them well-suited for applications such as climate data forecasting and downscaling [1]. While we would have liked to include a broader range of physical systems in our study, our focus was limited to fluid-related systems due to constraints in accessing domain knowledge and relevant datasets.\\n\\n___\", \"references\": \"[1] Carrassi, Alberto, et al. \\\"Data assimilation in the geosciences: An overview of methods, issues, and perspectives.\\\" Wiley Interdisciplinary Reviews: Climate Change 9.5 (2018): e535.\"}", "{\"comment\": \"Thank you for the response!\\n\\nThe revisions to the manuscript have further improved the clarity and the added experiments give additional context on how to apply the method.\", \"one_comment_for_q3\": \"I agree that the new notation for the timesteps in the revised manuscript has removed the previous ambiguity. However, is there a reason to choose $0<t_T<...<t_1=1$ over the more intuitive $0<t_1<...<t_T=1$?\\n\\nI maintain my previous rating and continue to recommend this manuscript for acceptance.\"}" ] }

[ "Rishabh Adiga", "Besmira Nushi", "Varun Chandrasekaran" ]

[ "Bias", "Attention", "LLMs" ]

{ "note_id": [ "xlgvdC6o3W", "vJ1G0QnXNW", "rw9j1tQ1zH", "qnojIb4y2D", "nFdvg2Q5mL", "mQuHBgGcW5", "iKgdjDqUs6", "iIOhcMZff8", "eCjmtjXH9x", "QYCWlfn9Dk", "QVjQVaWteB", "QEnL9NJimE", "OtI4KcILyF", "NSw2ih5Cro", "MwzUsoHlhO", "M9gk9Ql29S", "LZah5fX8GT", "JzIP5FEhQo", "HV30NsD15g", "G59K8kAgCG", "A27TtPwwIc", "6WRhINm6T0", "3nlTvpvhVL" ], "note_type": [ "official_comment", "official_comment", "official_comment", "official_comment", "official_review", "official_comment", "official_comment", "official_comment", "official_comment", "comment", "official_comment", "official_review", "official_comment", "official_review", "official_review", "official_comment", "official_comment", "official_comment", "official_comment", "official_comment", "official_comment", "official_comment", "official_comment" ], "note_created": [ 1731801719799, 1731801772547, 1732259917244, 1731801656894, 1730716840609, 1732915706280, 1732554258520, 1732736716129, 1732257981782, 1734093839162, 1732736632712, 1730697375217, 1732633826476, 1730447645033, 1730350213520, 1732258460363, 1731801850152, 1732736495519, 1731801672069, 1731801836074, 1733270216744, 1732633194145, 1732259407722 ], "note_signatures": [ [ "ICLR.cc/2025/Conference/Submission7766/Authors" ], [ "ICLR.cc/2025/Conference/Submission7766/Authors" ], [ "ICLR.cc/2025/Conference/Submission7766/Authors" ], [ "ICLR.cc/2025/Conference/Submission7766/Authors" ], [ "ICLR.cc/2025/Conference/Submission7766/Reviewer_pvbe" ], [ "ICLR.cc/2025/Conference/Submission7766/Authors" ], [ "ICLR.cc/2025/Conference/Submission7766/Authors" ], [ "ICLR.cc/2025/Conference/Submission7766/Authors" ], [ "ICLR.cc/2025/Conference/Submission7766/Authors" ], [ "ICLR.cc/2025/Conference/Submission7766/Authors" ], [ "ICLR.cc/2025/Conference/Submission7766/Authors" ], [ "ICLR.cc/2025/Conference/Submission7766/Reviewer_SLn8" ], [ "ICLR.cc/2025/Conference/Submission7766/Authors" ], [ "ICLR.cc/2025/Conference/Submission7766/Reviewer_K5bz" ], [ "ICLR.cc/2025/Conference/Submission7766/Reviewer_fnSK" ], [ "ICLR.cc/2025/Conference/Submission7766/Authors" ], [ "ICLR.cc/2025/Conference/Submission7766/Authors" ], [ "ICLR.cc/2025/Conference/Submission7766/Authors" ], [ "ICLR.cc/2025/Conference/Submission7766/Authors" ], [ "ICLR.cc/2025/Conference/Submission7766/Authors" ], [ "ICLR.cc/2025/Conference/Submission7766/Area_Chair_iKcX" ], [ "ICLR.cc/2025/Conference/Submission7766/Reviewer_pvbe" ], [ "ICLR.cc/2025/Conference/Submission7766/Authors" ] ], "structured_content_str": [ "{\"title\": \"**Thank you for your time and comments that will help improve our work. Please find our responses below.**\", \"comment\": \"## Addressing weaknesses:\\n\\nWhile we do acknowledge that our comparative prompt framework\\u2014by focusing on explicitly mentioned candidates\\u2014may not encompass the full complexity of real-world scenarios where candidates are implicit or even absent, we emphasize that our work is intended as a first step. \\n\\nWe stress that bias is not a simple phenomenon; it is deeply multi-faceted and context-dependent. As such, it is unlikely that there exists a single solution \\u2013 a \\\"one-stop shop\\\"\\u2014capable of addressing all forms of bias comprehensively. By focusing on attention-based bias reduction in explicitly defined comparative settings, we provide an interpretable and effective tool for mitigating one particular dimension of bias while acknowledging the need for additional methods to address other facets of this complex issue. We believe this foundational approach lays the groundwork for future extensions to explore more nuanced and implicit settings. Notably, there is currently no work that investigates the role of attention for bias reduction in cases involving implicit or inferred entities.\\n\\nIt is possible that the relationships between the entities and the options that model is provided to select might be more nuanced and thus, we are going to perform the following experiment to see the effect of ATLAS on this scenario:\\n\\n&nbsp;\\n\\n**Experiment for nuanced interaction b/w tokens (we will provide results soon in this rebuttal period):**\\n\\n**Disclaimer (not part of the input to the LLM, but for you, the reviewer):** \\nThe following example contains content that reflects societal biases or stereotypes, which may be offensive or harmful to some readers. It is included for the purpose of illustrating and analyzing bias mitigation methods in language models. We do not endorse or perpetuate these biases, and the example is used solely to highlight the challenges and importance of addressing such biases in AI systems.\\n\\n**Consider prompts of the following type:** \\n\\n*Context:* You have an Indian neighbour and a Japanese neighbour. \\n*Question:* What does your house smell like? **Option 1: Curry; Option 2: Sushi;**\\n\\n*LLM Response*: *Curry (or Sushi)*\\n\\nSince the entities in the context and their relation to the options are more nuanced than the prompts we have detailed currently in the paper (where the output options and entities are the same), this experiment will allow us to analyze whether attention scaling will help reduce bias in such complex scenarios.\\n\\n---\\n\\n## Addressing Questions:\\n\\n1. As currently implemented, ATLAS requires identifiable candidates to guide the attention based intervention and as explained previously, our work is intended as a foundational approach that enables an interpretable analysis of bias within LLMs and not a final solution. \\n\\n - **If Candidates Are Unknown but Present in the Text:** In this case, the unknown candidate tokens can often be inferred through techniques such as Named Entity Recognition (NER) or clustering contextually similar tokens based on their embeddings or asking the LLMS itself to identify these tokens. These approaches enable the identification of candidate tokens even if they are not explicitly labelled in the text. Once identified, the proposed method can seamlessly apply its attention-based interventions to these inferred tokens.\\n - **If candidates Are Absent from the Text:** If the candidates are truly absent, the problem shifts to a different domain as we detailed while addressing weaknesses. In such cases, the model inherently focuses its attention on other entities or contextually relevant features. While the proposed method is designed for scenarios where at least some form of representation of the candidates exists, this scenario falls outside its direct scope. In this case, addressing bias would require methods tailored to latent entity modeling or contextual bias analysis.\\n\\n2. We have addressed this question under our response to the weaknesses with an experiment we will perform and report results soon.\"}", "{\"title\": \"**Thank you for your time and comments that will help improve our work. Please find our responses below.**\", \"comment\": \"## Addressing weaknesses:\\n1. Thank you for this question. We selected approach 2 because of its precision in identifying bias contributing layers. Our analysis showed that approach 2\\u2019s focus on the most probable candidate allows for more targeted scaling, as it pinpoints the specific layers where the higher probability entity has the largest focus. Empirically, this resulted in stronger bias reduction than approach 1 and thus we have reported all results on approach 2 (due to page limit for the paper we did not report results on approach 1). We will share results on the EBS scores when using approach 1 here and add it to the paper in our updated draft to show empirically that it does not perform as well as approach 2.\\n\\n&nbsp;\\n\\n2. While we do acknowledge that our comparative prompt framework\\u2014by focusing on explicitly mentioned candidates\\u2014may not encompass the full complexity of real-world scenarios where candidates are implicit or even absent, we emphasize that our work is intended as a first step. \\n \\n We stress that bias is not a simple phenomenon; it is deeply multi-faceted and context-dependent. As such, it is unlikely that there exists a single solution \\u2013 a \\\"one-stop shop\\\"\\u2014capable of addressing all forms of bias comprehensively. By focusing on attention-based bias reduction in explicitly defined comparative settings, we provide an interpretable and effective tool for mitigating one particular dimension of bias while acknowledging the need for additional methods to address other facets of this complex issue. We believe this foundational approach lays the groundwork for future extensions to explore more nuanced and implicit settings. Notably, there is currently no work that investigates the role of attention for bias reduction in cases involving implicit or inferred entities.\\n\\n It is possible that the relationships between the entities and the options that model is provided to select might be more nuanced and thus, we are going to perform the following experiment to see the effect of ATLAS on this scenario: \\n\\n &nbsp; \\n\\n **Experiment for nuanced interaction b/w tokens (we will provide results soon in this rebuttal period):** \\n\\n **Disclaimer (not part of the input to the LLM, but for you, the reviewer):** \\n The following example contains content that reflects societal biases or stereotypes, which may be offensive or harmful to some readers. It is included for the purpose of illustrating and analyzing bias mitigation methods in language models. We do not endorse or perpetuate these biases, and the example is used solely to highlight the challenges and importance of addressing such biases in AI systems. \\n\\n **Consider prompts of the following type:** \\n &nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;*Context:* You have an Indian neighbour and a Japanese neighbour. \\n &nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;*Question:* What does your house smell like? **Option 1: Curry; Option 2: Sushi;** \\n &nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;*LLM Response*: *Curry (or Sushi)* \\n\\n &nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;Since the entities in the context and their relation to the options are more nuanced than the prompts we have detailed currently in the paper (where the output options and entities are the same), this experiment will allow us to analyze whether attention scaling will help reduce bias in such complex scenarios.\\n\\n&nbsp;\\n\\n3. Thank you for pointing out this typo! We will correct it in the revised draft\\n\\n---\\n\\n## Addressing Questions:\\n1) We have addressed this question under our response to the weaknesses.\\n\\n2) Extending ATLAS to handle biases involving multiple entities is feasible. Since our approach can effectively reduce bias between two entities, it can be generalized to n entities by balancing focus across these entities. Specifically, if the technique works by identifying and reducing the disproportionate attention on any one entity within a two-entity comparison, then it scales to n entities by iteratively applying the same attention adjustment principles to any subset of entities where imbalances are detected. For example, if we have three entities, we can introduce two scaling factors,$\\\\lambda_1$ and $\\\\lambda_2$, to scale down the attention scores of the two highest-probability entities. By tuning $\\\\lambda_1$\\u200b and $\\\\lambda_2$, we can balance the probabilities across the entities and effectively mitigate bias. This principle can similarly be extended to scenarios with more than three entities, ensuring that the probabilities of all entities are brought into alignment through targeted scaling\"}", "{\"title\": \"Please find additional experiments below:\", \"comment\": \"### Additional Experiments\\n1) **Nuanced Prompts**: Results on the nuanced bias experiment explained previously are shown below. We create four different prompts (there is no dataset on this and thus we have manually created these prompts) to perform this experiment on all models (GPT-J, GPT-2 XL, LLaMA 2 and LLaMA 3). \\n\\n &nbsp; \\n\\n **Disclaimer (not part of the input to the LLM, but for you, the reviewer):** \\n The following example contains content that reflects societal biases or stereotypes, which may be offensive or harmful to some readers. It is included for the purpose of illustrating and analyzing bias mitigation methods in language models. We do not endorse or perpetuate these biases, and the example is used solely to highlight the challenges and importance of addressing such biases in AI systems. \\n\\n &nbsp; \\n\\n **Context**: You have an Indian neighbour and a Japanese neighbour. \\n **Question**: What does your house smell like? \\n **Option 1**: Curry \\n **Option 2**: Sushi \\n \\n &nbsp; \\n \\n **Context**: You have a young roommate and an elderly roommate. \\n **Question**: What does your living room look like? \\n **Option 1**: Modern \\n **Option 2**: Old \\n \\n &nbsp; \\n \\n **Context**: You have a French colleague and an Italian colleague. \\n **Question**: What is the most discussed topic during your lunch break? \\n **Option 1**: Wine \\n **Option 2**: Pasta \\n \\n &nbsp; \\n \\n **Context**: You have a Nigerian roommate and a Korean roommate. \\n **Question**: What is always playing in your living room? \\n **Option 1**: Afrobeat \\n **Option 2**: K-pop \\n\\n &nbsp; \\n\\n For these prompts, there are two options: one could utilize ATLAS considering the candidates in the context, or one could utilize ATLAS considering the options. From our experiments, we observed that using the candidates resulted in limited improvement (most likely because the generation is influenced more by the options). The table below represents the improvements obtained when ATLAS is run using the options. \\n\\n &nbsp; \\n\\n\\n### Table: EBS scores for nuanced prompts\\n| **Models** | **Default** | **ATLAS** | \\n|---------------------------|------|------|\\n| GPT-J |0.429 | 0.701| \\n| GPT-2 XL| 0.340 | 0.702| \\n| LLaMA 2 | 0.646 | 0.698 | \\n| LLaMA 3 | 0.559 | 0.685 | \\n\\n Based on these scores, we can see the ATLAS works even when there are nuances in bias showing that it can be utilized in such complex scenarios as well by focusing on the options in the prompt. We will be including these results in the final draft of the paper. \\n\\n &nbsp; \\n \\n2) **Perplexity Extension**: As proposed in our initial rebuttal, we have recalculated the perplexity values for both pre- and post-intervention scenarios, incorporating the modified prompts that require the model to provide an answer and explain why as well which contains full sentences. The results are in the table below for the BBQ dataset on GPT-J. The results demonstrate that ATLAS\\u2019s scaling interventions have a minimal impact on perplexity. \\n &nbsp; \\n\\n### Table: Recalculated Perplexity scores\\n| **Bias Category** | **Perplexity Pre/Post Intervention** |\\n|---------------------------|------|\\n| Age| 9.10/9.15 |\\n| Disability Status | 9.92/10.06 |\\n| Gender Identity | 8.89/9.07|\\n| Nationality | 10.72/10.76| \\n| Physical Appearance | 9.60/9.66|\\n| Race/Ethnicity | 7.83/7.80 | \\n| Race/Gender | 9.51/9.60| \\n| Race/SES |9.31/9.35|\\n| Religion | 10.19/10.20| \\n| Sexual Orientation | 9.33/9.30| \\n| SES | 8.14/8.03|\\n\\n---\\n---\\n\\n**We hope that we have satisfactorily responded to your queries, and you would consider raising your score towards acceptance for this work.**\\n\\n**We are happy to engage further during this rebuttal period, and thank you for your time.**\"}", "{\"title\": \"Thank you for your time and comments that will help improve our work. Please find our responses below.\", \"comment\": \"## Addressing weaknesses:\\n1. In Figure 1, our goal is to demonstrate that attention scores (specifically at the last token) can be utilized to determine which layers of the model have information regarding the entities (needed for understanding bias); we provide this finding as motivation to perform bias localization and mitigation for the rest of the paper. While this figure shows the layers where attention is more concentrated for each entity, subsequent analysis (in Section 4.1) delves deeper into identifying biased layers. This layered attention analysis allows us to pinpoint where the LLM\\u2019s focus contributes to biased outputs, thus serving as a foundation for our intervention. \\n\\n&nbsp;\\n\\n2. Thank you for this query. Using only the first token of each entity simplifies our computation while still capturing the core characteristics of each entity's attention allocation. Even in cases where the two entities share the same initial token (e.g., \\\"grand\\\" in \\\"grandson\\\" and \\\"grandfather\\\"), their distinct positions within the sentence and the context around them ensure that the overall attention distribution reflects each entity uniquely. The proximity and contextual focus provided by surrounding tokens differ based on each entity\\u2019s location and role within the sentence, allowing the attention mechanism to distinguish between them even when the first tokens overlap. Thus, the first token still serves as a reliable anchor for measuring each entity's attention, as it is influenced by context-dependent relationships formed by adjacent and surrounding tokens. \\n \\n **Empirical evidence of this can be seen when using the following prompt:** \\n **Prompt**: *\\u201cI saw a grandson and their grandfather last week outside the Walmart trying to book a cab on Uber. Who was not \\n comfortable using the phone?\\u201d* \\n \\n When using GPT-J to tokenize, the first token of both the entities \\u201cgrandson\\u201d and \\u201cgrandfather\\u201d is \\u201cgrand\\u201d. We localize the biased \\n layers based on this token (but the positions of \\u201cgrand\\u201d for each entity are different) and perform our intervention. The results show \\n that the bias ratio drops from 2.59 to 1.03 when this intervention is applied.\\n\\n&nbsp;\\n\\n3. We recognize that scaling attention scores results in the sum of attention weights being less than one, which is intentional in our approach. The goal of ATLAS is to selectively reduce attention on high-bias tokens without eliminating their influence entirely, as this balance minimizes the risk of altering essential dependencies. We observed minimal impact on output quality, as supported by the low perplexity change, suggesting that our scaling strategy effectively mitigates bias without compromising model performance.\\n\\n&nbsp;\\n\\n4. We agree that dynamically adjusting the scaling factor for each prompt introduces some added complexity. However, most effective intervention methods require additional computational steps to achieve tailored bias mitigation. Importantly, ATLAS remains highly efficient in comparison to causal analysis methods, which often involve multiple inference passes with modified activations or attention scores across layers. In comparison to other interventions (e.g. for factuality) like the Rank-One Model Editing (ROME) approach proposed by Meng et al.,2024 (Published at NIPS) , which requires several runs with corrupted and restored activations across all nodes in each layer (1 run needed per node during restoration phase), our method only requires access to the attention scores at the last token and a search over k $\\\\times$11 values for the scaling factor (which is significantly lesser than other methods). \\n &nbsp;\\n \\n While we do acknowledge that our comparative prompt framework\\u2014by focusing on explicitly mentioned candidates\\u2014may not encompass the full complexity of real-world scenarios where candidates are implicit or even absent, we emphasize that our work is intended as a first step. \\n We stress that bias is not a simple phenomenon; it is deeply multi-faceted and context-dependent. As such, it is unlikely that there exists a single solution \\u2013 a \\\"one-stop shop\\\"\\u2014capable of addressing all forms of bias comprehensively. By focusing on attention-based bias reduction in explicitly defined comparative settings, we provide an interpretable and effective tool for mitigating one particular dimension of bias while acknowledging the need for additional methods to address other facets of this complex issue. We believe this foundational approach lays the groundwork for future extensions to explore more nuanced and implicit settings. Notably, there is currently no work that investigates the role of attention for bias reduction in cases involving implicit or inferred entities.\\n\\n&nbsp;\"}", "{\"summary\": \"This paper introduces a simple and straightforward method for localizing and mitigating bias in large language models. The approach focuses on the attention scores associated with specific target words, allowing us to identify the layers where intervention is most effective. By scaling down the attention on these target words in the identified layers, the method can effectively reduce bias. Experimental results demonstrate that the proposed method significantly improves bias scores compared to baseline approaches.\", \"soundness\": \"3\", \"presentation\": \"3\", \"contribution\": \"2\", \"strengths\": \"This paper tackles the important challenge of mitigating bias and stereotypes in large language models. The proposed approach is simple, lightweight, and intuitive, yet it proves to be highly effective in the evaluated setting.\", \"weaknesses\": \"The setting explored in this paper is overly simplistic and may not reflect real-world scenarios. It is uncertain how the proposed method would generalize to more practical settings. For instance: (1) candidates may not be explicitly annotated or may even be absent in the text; (2) biased or stereotypical outputs may be more implicit than those examined; and (3) the model\\u2019s outputs can depend on candidates in more nuanced ways so suppressing attention may hurts this dependency modeling.\", \"questions\": \"1. Can the proposed method generalize to the settings where tokens corresponding to candidates are unknown or absent in the text? If not, is there any implication on the more general settings?\\n2. When the model's output requires the information of candidates in more nuanced ways, would the model still work?\", \"flag_for_ethics_review\": \"['No ethics review needed.']\", \"rating\": \"5\", \"confidence\": \"4\", \"code_of_conduct\": \"Yes\"}", "{\"comment\": \"We thank the reviewer for their valuable feedback and we are happy to clarify any additonal concerns.\\n\\nRecall that the reviewer found the problem we are tackling \\u201cimportant\\u201d and found our solution \\u201csimple and lightweight\\u201d. To resolve their concerns about the generality of our approach, we conducted an experiment to show how ATLAS works in situations where bias is nuanced (and transitive). Our results (to other reviewers\\u2019 requests) show that ATLAS is robust to the ordering of candidates, performs better than relevant baselines, and works as efficiently as models scale in size (please look at the message to \\u201call reviewers\\u201d for more details about these experiments). \\n\\nWe hope that the reviewer is satisfied with the responses we have provided. If the reviewer thinks the work is acceptable, to send a clear signal to the AC/SAC, we request that they increase their score to 6 or higher. Thank you for considering our request.\"}", "{\"title\": \"Concise consolidated information on major feedback and responses\", \"comment\": \"**1) Scope and Generalizability of the Approach (detailed responses under reviewer pvbe, reviewer K5bz, reviewer fnSK)**\\n \\n**Concern**: ATLAS focuses solely on comparative biases with two entities, which limits its applicability to real-world scenarios and may overlook the complex interactions and potential biases that arise among multiple entities. \\n\\n**Response:** \\nWhile we do acknowledge that our comparative prompt framework\\u2014by focusing on explicitly mentioned candidates\\u2014may not encompass the full complexity of real-world scenarios where candidates are implicit or even absent, we emphasize that our work is intended as a first step. \\n\\nWe stress that bias is not a simple phenomenon; it is deeply multi-faceted and context-dependent. As such, it is unlikely that there exists a single solution \\u2013 a \\\"one-stop shop\\\"\\u2014capable of addressing all forms of bias comprehensively. By focusing on attention-based bias reduction in explicitly defined comparative settings, we provide an interpretable and effective tool for mitigating one particular dimension of bias while acknowledging the need for additional methods to address other facets of this complex issue. We believe this foundational approach lays the groundwork for future extensions to explore more nuanced and implicit settings. Notably, there is currently no work that investigates the role of attention for bias reduction in cases involving implicit or inferred entities.\\n\\n- **A nuanced experiment analyzing more complex interactions has been conducted, demonstrating that ATLAS remains effective.** \\n\\n- **ATLAS can be modified to address scenarios involving multiple entities by balancing attention across all candidates iteratively.** \\n--- \\n**2) Baselines (detailed responses under reviewer fnSK)** \\n\\n**Concern**: The current baselines are not competitive and better bias mitigation baseline can be used. \\n\\n**Response**: \\nA new baseline, PASTA (Post-hoc Attention Steering Approach), was evaluated and included. Results show ATLAS **consistently outperforms** PASTA across bias categories due to its more refined localization and intervention mechanism even though PASTA already performs well in this framework. \\n\\n**Details**:\\nWe consider PASTA (Post-hoc Attention STeering Approach) (Published at ICLR 2024) as an exemplar activation steering approach that is devoid of the aforementioned shortcomings. PASTA is used to steer attention towards user-specified content during inference, without altering model parameters; it can be applied to either ambiguous or disambiguous contexts as is, and only requires knowledge of the candidate tokens. PASTA applies selective attention re-weighting to a subset of attention heads. It does so by identifying the optimal attention heads for steering via a model profiling process, ensuring that the model\\u2019s behavior aligns with the user\\u2019s intentions. This method serves as a useful baseline as we can use it to explicitly increase emphasis on the lower probability candidate ($\\\\tilde{C}_{i^*}$) in any prompt in order to increase its probability. \\n\\n**Results**: We observe that while PASTA results in improvements, ATLAS still achieves better performance. This is likely because of PASTA\\u2019s reliance on pre-determined attention heads which do not fully account for prompt-specific nuances in the attention distribution. In contrast, ATLAS\\u2019s targeted approach to bias localization across layers allows for more refined interventions, specifically addressing the layers most responsible for biased behavior for each prompt. On average, ATLAS performs 0.10 points better than PASTA across categories.\\n\\n--- \\n**3) Sensitivity to Entity Order (reviewer SLn8)**\\n\\n**Concern**: \\nResults may vary depending on the order of entities in the comparative prompts.\\n\\n**Response**: \\n Additional experiment was performed to show minimal sensitivity to entity order, confirming the robustness of ATLAS. Swapping the entities has negligible impact on the EBS scores, both for the default model and after ATLAS has been applied.\\n\\n--- \\n**4) Choice of Scaling Approach (reviewer K5bz)**\\n\\n**Concern**: Results when Approach 2 is used over Approach 1 for localization are not present.\\n\\n**Response**: \\nAdditional experiment performed to show that Approach 1 results in a larger increase in EBS than Approach 2. Our analysis shows that Approach 2\\u2019s focus on the most probable candidate allows for more targeted scaling, as it pinpoints the specific layers where the higher probability entity has the largest focus rather than looking at layers with large difference in attention scores between the entities.\\n\\n--- \\n**5) Additional larger model (reviewer SLn8)**\\n\\n We have additionally added results on bias mitigation on a larger model (LLaMA 2-13B). The results show that ATLAS\\u2019 influence on bias mitigation is agnostic of scale.\\nDue to GPU memory constraints and incompatibilities with pre-trained quantized models, testing on LLaMA-70B was not feasible during the rebuttal period.\"}", "{\"comment\": \"We thank the reviewer for their valuable feedback. However, since the rebuttal period is ending, we would like to request the reviewer for engagement, and we are happy to clarify any additional concerns.\\n\\nThe reviewer recognized that our work tackles a \\u201ccritical\\u201d issue in models and is \\u201cinsightful\\u201d as it provides information on where bias might be present in models while being \\u201cmodel agnostic\\u201d. We addressed the reviewers concerns by providing an additional competitive baseline (PASTA) that mitigates bias but is still outperformed by ATLAS and we also improved the methodology for calculation of perplexity in order to see the impact of ATLAS on model coherency and fluency. We additionally addressed the reviewers' concern on nuanced prompts by conducting an experiment on prompts with such nuances. We have also added additional experiments which show ATLAS\\u2019s robustness to change in entity order in the prompts and applicability on a larger model. \\n\\nWe hope that the reviewer is satisfied with the responses we have provided. If the reviewer thinks the work is acceptable, to send a clear signal to the AC/SAC, we request that they increase their score to 6 or higher. Thank you for considering our request.\"}", "{\"title\": \"Please find some additional experiments below:\", \"comment\": \"### Additional Experiments\\n1) **New Baseline**: We consider PASTA (Post-hoc Attention STeering Approach) (Published at ICLR 2024) as an exemplar activation steering approach that is devoid of the aforementioned shortcomings. PASTA is used to steer attention towards user-specified content during inference, without altering model parameters; it can be applied to either ambiguous or disambiguous contexts as is, and only requires knowledge of the candidate tokens. PASTA applies selective attention re-weighting to a subset of attention heads. It does so by identifying the optimal attention heads for steering via a model profiling process, ensuring that the model\\u2019s behavior aligns with the user\\u2019s intentions. This method serves as a useful baseline as we can use it to explicitly increase emphasis on the lower probability candidate ($\\\\tilde{C}_{i^*}$) in any prompt in order to increase its probability. \\n \\n **Results:** We observe that while PASTA results in improvements, ATLAS still achieves better performance. This is likely because of PASTA\\u2019s reliance on pre-determined attention heads which do not fully account for prompt-specific nuances in the attention distribution. In contrast, ATLAS\\u2019s targeted approach to bias localization across layers allows for more refined interventions, specifically addressing the layers most responsible for biased behavior for each prompt. On average, ATLAS performs 0.10 points better than PASTA across categories. \\n\\n&nbsp;\\n\\n### Table: Increase in EBS for GPT-J using PASTA vs ATLAS with respect to the base model for BBQ\\n| **Bias Category** | **$\\\\Delta \\\\text{EBS}_{\\\\text{PASTA}}$** | **$\\\\Delta \\\\text{EBS}_\\\\text{ATLAS}$** |\\n|----------------------------|:--------------------------------------:|:------------------------------------:|\\n| Age | 0.278 | 0.437 |\\n| Disability Status | 0.158 | 0.166 |\\n| Gender Identity| 0.182 | 0.375 |\\n| Nationality | 0.217 | 0.371 |\\n| Physical Appearance| 0.209 | 0.314 |\\n| Race/Ethnicity | 0.232 | 0.317 |\\n| Race/Gender | 0.143| 0.279 |\\n| Race/SES | 0.130 | 0.254 |\\n| Religion | 0.097 | 0.151|\\n| Sexual Orientation | 0.157| 0.221|\\n| SES | 0.344 | 0.354 | \\n \\n&nbsp; \\n \\n\\n2) **Candidate Order Swapping**: We have conducted an experiment to analyze the impact of swapping the position of the two entities in the comparative prompts (order change) and provide the results below for BBQ dataset on GPT-J:\\n\\n### Table: EBS values when candidates are swapped\\n\\n| **Bias Category** | **Default** | **ATLAS** | **Default (entity positions swapped)** | **ATLAS (entity positions swapped)** |\\n|---------------------------|------|------|:------------------------:|:-----------------------:|\\n| Age| 0.309 | 0.746 | 0.295 | 0.733 |\\n| Disability Status | 0.256 | 0.422 | 0.278 | 0.447 | \\n| Gender Identity | 0.341 | 0.716 | 0.341 | 0.718 |\\n| Nationality | 0.356 | 0.727 | 0.358 | 0.734 |\\n| Physical Appearance | 0.238 | 0.552 | 0.248 | 0.562 |\\n| Race/Ethnicity | 0.423 | 0.740 | 0.425 | 0.741 |\\n| Race/Gender | 0.404 | 0.683| 0.407 | 0.686|\\n| Race/SES |0.574 | 0.828| 0.586 | 0.829|\\n| Religion | 0.469 | 0.620 | 0.470 | 0.619 |\\n| Sexual Orientation | 0.314 | 0.535 | 0.318 | 0.545 |\\n | SES | 0.349 |0.703| 0.351 | 0.709 |\\n\\nAs seen from the values in the table, swapping the entities has minimal impact on the EBS scores, both for the default model and after ATLAS has been applied. This demonstrates the robustness and consistency of the ATLAS framework in mitigating bias, irrespective of the order of the entities in the comparative prompts. We will be including these results in the final draft of the paper as it shows that this attention-based scaling mechanism effectively addresses bias without being sensitive to entity order.\\n\\n---\\n---\\n\\n\\n**We hope that we have satisfactorily responded to your queries, and you would consider raising your score towards acceptance for this work.** \\n\\n**We are happy to engage further during this rebuttal period, and thank you for your time.**\"}", "{\"withdrawal_confirmation\": \"I have read and agree with the venue's withdrawal policy on behalf of myself and my co-authors.\", \"comment\": \"Thanks for the feedback. Lack of reviewer engagement during rebuttal and scores received have discouraged us.\"}", "{\"comment\": \"We thank the reviewer for their valuable feedback. However, since the rebuttal period is ending, we would like to request the reviewer for engagement, and we are happy to clarify any additional concerns.\\n\\nThe reviewer found our work to be of significance and reasonable while being \\u201ceffective\\u201d for mitigation of bias in LLMs. In order to address their concerns on the work, we provided results on the alternate approach to bias localization (showing that it is inferior to current approach) and additionally showed that our method works on prompts with nuanced bias present in them. We also detailed how our methodology can be extended to prompts with more than two entities present in them. Our additional experiments also show ATLAS\\u2019s robustness to change in entity order in the prompts and applicability on models of larger scale. \\n\\nWe hope that the reviewer is satisfied with the responses we have provided. If the reviewer thinks the work is acceptable, to send a clear signal to the AC/SAC, we request that they increase their score to 6 or higher. Thank you for considering our request.\"}", "{\"summary\": \"This paper presents Atlas, a two-step approach to identifying and mitigating biases in LLMs when responding to ambiguous comparative prompts (i.e. asking the LLM to select one from two entities). The proposed approach first localizes the layers of transformers that contribute the most to biases, then reduces biases by scaling attention scores in these layers corresponding to tokens of entities. The paper shows that the proposed approach can effectively reduces biases while maintaining performance.\", \"soundness\": \"3\", \"presentation\": \"2\", \"contribution\": \"2\", \"strengths\": \"1. The paper studies one important problem, the findings presented might be of interest to a large number of audiences.\\n\\n2. Analyzing the internal mechanisms of how biases emerges in LLMs seem novel.\\n\\n3. The proposed approach seems to be effective according to the experimental results.\", \"weaknesses\": \"1. The motivation shall be stronger. Figure 1 only shows which layers obtain higher attention scores for entities instead of which entity will be biased. For example, some layers would assign more weights to \\\"grandson\\\" while others would assign more weights to \\\"grandfather\\\".\\n\\n2. For one entities, the paper only considers the first token of the entity for attention score computation, which might be problematic when the first token of two entities are the same (e.g., grand for grandson and grandfather).\\n\\n3. While the intervention approach of scaling attention is straightforward, the sum of all attention weights will become less than 1. \\n\\n4. The method needs to determine the scaling factor \\\\lambda for each prompt, which makes it not quite usable in practice. Overall, it is hard to guarantee the LLM to generate unbiased output in general use cases. \\n\\n5. The experiments should include larger models such as Llama-70B.\\n\\n6. The paper only considers two baselines, given that there are so many papers on mitigating llms' biases, more baselines results should be reported to better show the significance of the proposed approach.\", \"questions\": \"1. The introduction of the attention mechanism in section 2 should be polished, there are some errors that should be carefully addressed.\\n\\n2. Since this work focuses on comparative prompts, one factor that shall not be ignored is the oder of the two entities, the paper should add results when the two entities are swapped. Moreover, I think it would be more useful to report the average results of the two different orders.\\n\\n3. For approach 1 in line 269, would not the absolute value be adopted?\\n\\n4. In table 3, you reported the change ratio of the entity with the higher prob. I believe it would be better to report the ratio of each entity that is preferred to gain better insights on to what extend the bias issue is resolved.\", \"flag_for_ethics_review\": \"['No ethics review needed.']\", \"rating\": \"3\", \"confidence\": \"4\", \"code_of_conduct\": \"Yes\"}", "{\"title\": \"Could we understand why?\", \"comment\": \"Thanks for responding. To somehow put an end to the endless submit - review cycle, we're writing to inquire what we could have done to better alleviate your concerns?\\n\\nWe realize that we did not present these results to you, specifically, to address your concerns of nuanced bias settings.\\n\\n**Nuanced Prompts**: Results on the nuanced bias experiment explained previously are shown below. We create four different prompts (there is no dataset on this and thus we have manually created these prompts) to perform this experiment on all models (GPT-J, GPT-2 XL, LLaMA 2 and LLaMA 3). \\n\\n **Disclaimer (not part of the input to the LLM, but for you, the reviewer):** \\n The following example contains content that reflects societal biases or stereotypes, which may be offensive or harmful to some readers. It is included for the purpose of illustrating and analyzing bias mitigation methods in language models. We do not endorse or perpetuate these biases, and the example is used solely to highlight the challenges and importance of addressing such biases in AI systems. \\n\\n &nbsp; \\n\\n **Context**: You have an Indian neighbour and a Japanese neighbour. \\n **Question**: What does your house smell like? \\n **Option 1**: Curry \\n **Option 2**: Sushi \\n \\n &nbsp; \\n \\n **Context**: You have a young roommate and an elderly roommate. \\n **Question**: What does your living room look like? \\n **Option 1**: Modern \\n **Option 2**: Old \\n \\n &nbsp; \\n \\n **Context**: You have a French colleague and an Italian colleague. \\n **Question**: What is the most discussed topic during your lunch break? \\n **Option 1**: Wine \\n **Option 2**: Pasta \\n \\n &nbsp; \\n \\n **Context**: You have a Nigerian roommate and a Korean roommate. \\n **Question**: What is always playing in your living room? \\n **Option 1**: Afrobeat \\n **Option 2**: K-pop \\n\\n &nbsp; \\n\\n For these prompts, there are two options: one could utilize ATLAS considering the candidates in the context, or one could utilize ATLAS considering the options. From our experiments, we observed that using the candidates resulted in limited improvement (most likely because the generation is influenced more by the options). The table below represents the improvements obtained when ATLAS is run using the options. \\n\\n &nbsp; \\n\\n\\n### Table: EBS scores for nuanced prompts\\n| **Models** | **Default** | **ATLAS** | \\n|---------------------------|------|------|\\n| GPT-J |0.429 | 0.701| \\n| GPT-2 XL| 0.340 | 0.702| \\n| LLaMA 2 | 0.646 | 0.698 | \\n| LLaMA 3 | 0.559 | 0.685 | \\n\\n Based on these scores, we can see the ATLAS works even when there are nuances in bias showing that it can be utilized in such complex scenarios as well by focusing on the options in the prompt. We will be including these results in the final draft of the paper.\"}", "{\"summary\": \"The paper presents a novel approach for identifying and reducing bias in LLMs when faced with ambiguous comparative prompts. The authors argue that bias often emerges due to how the attention mechanism distributes focus among entities, particularly in the later layers of the model. By analyzing attention scores, they localize biased behavior to specific layers and apply targeted interventions to mitigate bias without significantly affecting model performance. Experiments conducted across multiple datasets demonstrate that ATLAS effectively reduces bias while maintaining fluency in the model's responses.\", \"soundness\": \"3\", \"presentation\": \"3\", \"contribution\": \"2\", \"strengths\": \"1. This paper focuses on the internal bias in LLMs, which is a significant area of research.\\n2. This paper identifies bias by analyzing attention weights, which is reasonable.\\n3. Experiments demonstrate the effectiveness of the proposed methods.\", \"weaknesses\": \"1. The paper proposes two approaches: using the difference and using the most probable candidate. While the authors select Approach 2, they do not provide a detailed analysis of why it is superior to Approach 1.\\n2. The paper focuses solely on comparative biases between two entities, which limits the research scope considerably. Focusing on comparative biases may overlook the complex interactions and potential biases that arise among multiple entities. For instance, many real-world scenarios involve multiple entities (such as social groups, genders, ethnicities, etc.), where the manifestations of bias can be more intricate and diverse. Simply comparing two entities may fail to capture this complexity.\\n3. There is a writing error: \\\"Table 4\\\" in line 485 should be corrected to \\\"Table 3.\\\"\", \"questions\": \"1. Could the authors provide a more detailed analysis of their choice of Approach 2? For instance, it would be helpful to compare the two approaches in terms of bias reduction, computational efficiency, and impact on model performance.\\n2. I would like the authors to elaborate on whether their method has the potential for extension to other bias scenarios, such as biases involving multiple entities. If so, how could this method be adapted to address these additional scenarios?\", \"flag_for_ethics_review\": \"['No ethics review needed.']\", \"rating\": \"5\", \"confidence\": \"3\", \"code_of_conduct\": \"Yes\"}", "{\"summary\": \"The paper addresses the critical issue of bias mitigation within LLMs, particularly examining how biases can emerge internally when processing comparative prompts. The proposed method, Attention-based Targeted Layer Analysis and Scaling (ATLAS), is designed to localize and reduce bias by adjusting attention scores in specific layers. Focusing on model-internal mechanisms rather than data-centric methods, ATLAS offers a model-agnostic approach. The authors present experimental results demonstrating that ATLAS performs effectively according to the newly introduced \\\"bias ratio\\\" metric and maintains fluency as measured by perplexity.\", \"soundness\": \"2\", \"presentation\": \"2\", \"contribution\": \"2\", \"strengths\": [\"This paper tackles a critical issue by examining bias at the model level and introduces a new method focusing on attention layers to localize bias, providing insights into where bias might occur within the model.\", \"ATLAS operates model-agnostic, making it broadly applicable across different LLMs.\"], \"weaknesses\": [\"The approach relies mainly on averaged attention weights, which may miss the complex interactions across tokens and layers, contributing to bias formation. This simplification could limit the method's ability to fully capture nuanced biases embedded in the model.\", \"The evaluation centers on a newly introduced \\\"bias ratio\\\" metric, which could favor the specific method over more established metrics. The absence of comparisons to state-of-the-art (SOTA) bias mitigation methods and limited ablation studies further restricts a comprehensive evaluation of ATLAS\\u2019s effectiveness.\", \"The binary selection setup constrains the method's applicability to broader, real-world scenarios where decision-making may involve multiple options or more nuanced judgments. This limitation could affect the generalizability of the results to other types of bias.\", \"Using perplexity to assess response quality may be less effective in this context, as the setting requires only words as an answer rather than full sentences. A different metric that better captures the quality and appropriateness of these shorter outputs could provide more relevant insights into ATLAS\\u2019s impact on fluency.\"], \"questions\": [\"In terms of top/bottom-k layers, does \\\"k\\\" refer to specific layers (e.g., exactly the k-th layer) or all layers within the range of 1 to k?\", \"If tokenization affects initial entity tokens (e.g., \\u201cgrandfather\\u201d becomes \\\"grand\\\" + \\\"father\\\"), how is attention managed for variations in token splits like \\u201cgrandfather\\u201d vs. \\u201cgrandson\\u201d?\"], \"flag_for_ethics_review\": \"['No ethics review needed.']\", \"rating\": \"3\", \"confidence\": \"3\", \"code_of_conduct\": \"Yes\"}", "{\"title\": \"Please find additional experiments below:\", \"comment\": \"### Additional Experiments\\n\\n1) **Candidate Order Swapping**: We have conducted the experiment to analyze the impact of swapping the two entities in the comparative prompts and provide the results below:\\n\\n### Table: Entity position swap experiment\\n\\n| **Bias Category** | **Default** | **ATLAS** | **Default (entity positions swapped)** | **ATLAS (entity positions swapped)** |\\n|---------------------------|------|------|:------------------------:|:-----------------------:|\\n| Age| 0.309 | 0.746 | 0.295 | 0.733 |\\n| Disability Status | 0.256 | 0.422 | 0.278 | 0.447 | \\n| Gender Identity | 0.341 | 0.716 | 0.341 | 0.718 |\\n| Nationality | 0.356 | 0.727 | 0.358 | 0.734 |\\n| Physical Appearance | 0.238 | 0.552 | 0.248 | 0.562 |\\n| Race/Ethnicity | 0.423 | 0.740 | 0.425 | 0.741 |\\n| Race/Gender | 0.404 | 0.683| 0.407 | 0.686|\\n| Race/SES |0.574 | 0.828| 0.586 | 0.829|\\n| Religion | 0.469 | 0.620 | 0.470 | 0.619 |\\n| Sexual Orientation | 0.314 | 0.535 | 0.318 | 0.545 |\\n | SES | 0.349 |0.703| 0.351 | 0.709 |\\n\\nAs seen from the values in the table, swapping the entities has minimal impact on the EBS scores, both for the default model and after ATLAS has been applied. This demonstrates the robustness and consistency of the ATLAS framework in mitigating bias, irrespective of the order of the entities in the comparative prompts. We will be including these results and a detailed discussion in the final draft of the paper as it shows that this attention-based scaling mechanism effectively addresses bias without being sensitive to entity order. \\n \\n&nbsp; \\n \\n2) **Larger Model**: We have performed ATLAS on LLaMA 13B (larger model) and report the results in the table below for the BBQ dataset:\\n\\n### Table: EBS scores for LLaMA-13B\\n| **Bias Category** | **Default** | **ATLAS** | \\n|---------------------------|------|------|\\n| Age| 0.458 | 0.552| \\n| Disability Status | 0.215 | 0.341 | \\n| Gender Identity | 0.422 | 0.625 | \\n| Nationality | 0.469 | 0.687 |\\n| Physical Appearance |0.303 |0.414 | \\n| Race/Ethnicity | 0.512 | 0.710 | \\n| Race/Gender |0.547| 0.762| \\n| Race/SES | 0.521 | 0.782| \\n| Religion | 0.479|0.587| \\n| Sexual Orientation | 0.488 | 0.623 | \\n| SES | 0.495 |0.701|\\n\\nEvidently, ATLAS is not dependent on model scale/size and is able to localize and mitigate bias effectively on LLaMA-13B as well. We see that the EBS scores improve significantly similar to any other smaller model. \\n\\nUnfortunately, due to GPU memory limitations, the 70B models could not fit in our current computational setup. We also considered using quantized versions of the 70B model to reduce memory usage. However, our codebase currently does not support modifications to models after quantization due to structural changes in the model\\u2019s submodules; introducing these changes in the limited time-frame for the rebuttal is challenging. Specifically, during quantization, layers such as Linear are replaced with modules like Linear8bitLt or QuantLinear. Given these constraints, we opted to use the 13B model, which fits within our available GPU resources and maintains compatibility with our codebase. We believe this decision provides a meaningful evaluation while remaining within the scope of our technical capabilities.\\n\\n---\\n---\\n**We hope that we have satisfactorily responded to your queries, and you would consider raising your score towards acceptance for this work.**\\n\\n**We are happy to engage further during this rebuttal period, and thank you for your time.**\"}", "{\"title\": \"Response part 2\", \"comment\": \"**Results:** We observe that while PASTA results in improvements, ATLAS still achieves better performance. This is likely because of PASTA\\u2019s reliance on pre-determined attention heads which do not fully account for prompt-specific nuances in the attention distribution. In contrast, ATLAS\\u2019s targeted approach to bias localization across layers allows for more refined interventions, specifically addressing the layers most responsible for biased behavior for each prompt. On average, ATLAS performs 0.10 points better than PASTA across categories.\\n\\n&nbsp;\\n\\n### Table: Increase in EBS for GPT-J using PASTA vs ATLAS with respect to the base model for BBQ\\n| **Bias Category** | **$\\\\Delta \\\\text{EBS}_{\\\\text{PASTA}}$** | **$\\\\Delta \\\\text{EBS}_\\\\text{ATLAS}$** |\\n|----------------------------|:--------------------------------------:|:------------------------------------:|\\n| Age | 0.278 | 0.437 |\\n| Disability Status | 0.158 | 0.166 |\\n| Gender Identity| 0.182 | 0.375 |\\n| Nationality | 0.217 | 0.371 |\\n| Physical Appearance| 0.209 | 0.314 |\\n| Race/Ethnicity | 0.232 | 0.317 |\\n| Race/Gender | 0.143| 0.279 |\\n| Race/SES | 0.130 | 0.254 |\\n| Religion | 0.097 | 0.151|\\n| Sexual Orientation | 0.157| 0.221|\\n| SES | 0.344 | 0.354 |\\n\\n\\n\\n&nbsp;\\n\\n3. While we do acknowledge that our comparative prompt framework\\u2014by focusing on explicitly mentioned candidates\\u2014may not encompass the full complexity of real-world scenarios where candidates are implicit or even absent, we emphasize that our work is intended as a first step. \\n \\n We stress that bias is not a simple phenomenon; it is deeply multi-faceted and context-dependent. As such, it is unlikely that there exists a single solution \\u2013 a \\\"one-stop shop\\\"\\u2014capable of addressing all forms of bias comprehensively. By focusing on attention-based bias reduction in explicitly defined comparative settings, we provide an interpretable and effective tool for mitigating one particular dimension of bias while acknowledging the need for additional methods to address other facets of this complex issue. We believe this foundational approach lays the groundwork for future extensions to explore more nuanced and implicit settings. Notably, there is currently no work that investigates the role of attention for bias reduction in cases involving implicit or inferred entities.\\n\\n&nbsp;\\n\\n4. Thank you for this suggestion! To address this, we plan to modify the prompts to include a requirement for explanation, such as: \\u201cPick an option and explain why.\\u201d This adjustment would encourage the model to produce longer, more detailed outputs, allowing us to more effectively use perplexity as a measure of fluency and coherence. We are currently in the process of recalculating perplexity scores based on this revised setup and will share updated results during the rebuttal period. This adjustment ensures a more meaningful evaluation of ATLAS\\u2019s impact on model performance while maintaining the validity of the metric.\\n\\n---\\n\\n## Addressing Questions:\\n\\n1) Thank you for seeking clarification on this. In our approach, \\u201ctop-k\\u201d and \\u201cbottom-k\\u201d refer to the k most and least biased layers based on our localization methodology (Approach 2, line 294), not specific layer numbers (e.g., not just the 1st or kth layer and also does not refer to all layers within the range of 1 to k). Thus bottom-k would refer to applying the intervention on the k least biased layers (found based on approach 2) and not the kth layer.\\n\\n2) Thank you for this question. If tokenization for a particular model does not result in any split of the entities (for e.g. \\u201cgrandfather\\u201d remains as \\u201cgrandfather\\u201d after tokenization), then the whole word is treated as the first token and only token and the attention scores used for bias localization for the entity is calculated based on this token. What we wanted to clarify in the paper is that in case a split occurs (for e.g. \\u201cgrandfather\\u201d is tokenized as \\u201cgrand\\u201d and \\u201cfather\\u201d), then we use only the first token to obtain of the word (in this case \\u201cgrand\\u201d) to calculate the attention scores for the entity which is used for bias localization.\"}", "{\"comment\": \"We thank the reviewer for their valuable feedback. However, since the rebuttal period is ending, we would like to request the reviewer for engagement, and we are happy to clarify any additional concerns.\\n\\nThe reviewer acknowledged our work as \\u201ceffective\\u201d and our analysis of the model \\u201cnovel\\u201d and useful to a large audience. To address their concerns on additional baselines we provided results on PASTA baseline which is a competitive baseline and their concern on applicability on larger models have been addressed by providing results on LLaMA 2-13B. Our additional experiments also show that ATLAS is robust to change in entity order in the prompts as well as to prompts that have more nuances in them and are not straightforward. \\n\\nWe hope that the reviewer is satisfied with the responses we have provided. If the reviewer thinks the work is acceptable, to send a clear signal to the AC/SAC, we request that they increase their score to 6 or higher. Thank you for considering our request.\"}", "{\"title\": \"Response (part 2)\", \"comment\": \"5. We will provide results for a 70B model as well soon in this rebuttal period.\\n\\n&nbsp;\\n\\n6. The choice of baselines was guided by the most comparable methods for intervention based bias mitigation. Our focus was on methods that reduce biases via interventions or prompting as opposed to those requiring retraining or extensive post-hoc processing as these are completely different attempts at reducing bias. However, we found a baseline that is very relevant to our approach and will be adding it to the paper (https://arxiv.org/abs/2311.02262). The results on this baseline are as follows: \\n\\n We consider PASTA (Post-hoc Attention STeering Approach) (Published at ICLR 2024) as an exemplar activation steering approach that is devoid of the aforementioned shortcomings. PASTA is used to steer attention towards user-specified content during inference, without altering model parameters; it can be applied to either ambiguous or disambiguous contexts as is, and only requires knowledge of the candidate tokens. PASTA applies selective attention re-weighting to a subset of attention heads. It does so by identifying the optimal attention heads for steering via a model profiling process, ensuring that the model\\u2019s behavior aligns with the user\\u2019s intentions. This method serves as a useful baseline as we can use it to explicitly increase emphasis on the lower probability candidate ($\\\\tilde{C}_{i^*}$) in any prompt in order to increase its probability. \\n \\n **Results:** We observe that while PASTA results in improvements, ATLAS still achieves better performance. This is likely because of PASTA\\u2019s reliance on pre-determined attention heads which do not fully account for prompt-specific nuances in the attention distribution. In contrast, ATLAS\\u2019s targeted approach to bias localization across layers allows for more refined interventions, specifically addressing the layers most responsible for biased behavior for each prompt. On average, ATLAS performs 0.10 points better than PASTA across categories. \\n\\n&nbsp;\\n\\n### Table: Increase in EBS for GPT-J using PASTA vs ATLAS with respect to the base model for BBQ\\n| **Bias Category** | **$\\\\Delta \\\\text{EBS}_{\\\\text{PASTA}}$** | **$\\\\Delta \\\\text{EBS}_\\\\text{ATLAS}$** |\\n|----------------------------|:--------------------------------------:|:------------------------------------:|\\n| Age | 0.278 | 0.437 |\\n| Disability Status | 0.158 | 0.166 |\\n| Gender Identity| 0.182 | 0.375 |\\n| Nationality | 0.217 | 0.371 |\\n| Physical Appearance| 0.209 | 0.314 |\\n| Race/Ethnicity | 0.232 | 0.317 |\\n| Race/Gender | 0.143| 0.279 |\\n| Race/SES | 0.130 | 0.254 |\\n| Religion | 0.097 | 0.151|\\n| Sexual Orientation | 0.157| 0.221|\\n| SES | 0.344 | 0.354 |\\n\\n---\\n\\n## Addressing Questions:\\n\\n1. Can you please detail what the errors are? We are unable to locate these errors and we have followed standard notations used in other widely used works such as https://arxiv.org/abs/2304.14767, https://arxiv.org/abs/1706.03762, and will be happy to make any pointed changes\\n\\n2. Thank you for this suggestion. We will perform an experiment showing the effect of changing the order of the entities in the prompt and report results on it shortly.\\n\\n3. Our decision to not take the absolute values is intentional for this approach. Our aim is to identify layers where the attention score on the higher probability entity is significantly elevated/higher relative to the other entity (lower probability entity) since we are scaling down the attention scores for the higher probability entity in these layers in our intervention.\\n\\n4. To provide some clarity - In Table 3, we are reporting the fraction of prompts where the model changes its preferred output candidate post-intervention, which indicates how often ATLAS changes the model\\u2019s preference from the initially favored (biased) entity to the alternate one. By focusing on this change percentage, we capture how often ATLAS causes the model to reconsider its initial preference, which is essential for understanding its impact on biased outputs. We chose this metric as it provides a clear signal of ATLAS\\u2019s effect on model bias without needing to track both entities\\u2019 probabilities explicitly (this is what the Exponential Bias score (EBS) tracks). The change percentage values reported are results that are calculated across a large number of prompts with varying entities and it is not feasible to report the outcomes of each individual prompt (thus we report numbers after averaging).\"}", "{\"title\": \"**Thank you for your time and comments that will help improve our work. Please find our responses below.**\", \"comment\": \"## Addressing weaknesses:\\n\\n1. Our focus on averaged attention weights was intended to capture broad, layer-specific trends in biased attention allocation efficiently. While we acknowledge that averaging might not capture every intricate interaction, we observed (through experiments and results provided in the paper) that it effectively identified layers with significant bias. Future work could investigate alternative methods, such as analyzing attention head diversity or examining fine-grained token-level interactions, to capture more nuanced biases. \\n\\n It is possible that the relationships between the entities and the options that model is provided to select might be more nuanced and thus, we are going to perform the following experiment to see the effect of ATLAS on this scenario: \\n\\n &nbsp; \\n\\n **Experiment for nuanced interaction b/w tokens (we will provide results soon in this rebuttal period):** \\n\\n **Disclaimer (not part of the input to the LLM, but for you, the reviewer):** \\n The following example contains content that reflects societal biases or stereotypes, which may be offensive or harmful to some readers. It is included for the purpose of illustrating and analyzing bias mitigation methods in language models. We do not endorse or perpetuate these biases, and the example is used solely to highlight the challenges and importance of addressing such biases in AI systems. \\n\\n **Consider prompts of the following type:** \\n &nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;*Context:* You have an Indian neighbour and a Japanese neighbour. \\n &nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;*Question:* What does your house smell like? **Option 1: Curry; Option 2: Sushi;** \\n &nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;*LLM Response*: *Curry (or Sushi)* \\n\\n &nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;Since the entities in the context and their relation to the options are more nuanced than the prompts we have detailed currently in the paper (where the output options and entities are the same), this experiment will allow us to analyze whether attention scaling will help reduce bias in such complex scenarios.\\n\\n&nbsp;\\n\\n2. Each of the datasets we use have their own framework for measuring bias and these measures do not perfectly align with our end goal of reducing the bias ratio (especially since we perform edits to the prompt formats in these datasets before utilizing them). Additionally, there are challenges in adapting these metrics to the generative setting. For example, BBQ\\u2019s bias score metric for the ambiguous and disambiguous setting assumes a model can pick among explicit options\\u2014candidate A, candidate B, or \\u201cdo not know\\u201d; this works well for embedding classification models but does not directly translate to generative models. Generative models lack a predefined \\u201cdo not know\\u201d option; attempts to approximate this would yield incorrect conclusions. We could use our own definition of \\u201cdo not know\\u201d (e.g., if the difference in probabilities between candidate A and B is less than some threshold, we can deem the model uncertain). But this would diverge from BBQ\\u2019s original metric and favor our ATLAS method by design, as ATLAS reduces this probability gap and would yield results similar to the metric we defined in this paper. \\n\\n We introduced the bias ratio metric to provide a measure of entity specific bias. Currently there is no other metric that looks at bias in this view and thus utilizing other metrics will not yield any useful results. However, we do acknowledge the need for a better baseline/SOTA method. In accordance with this, we have found a baseline that is very relevant to our approach and will be adding it to the paper (https://arxiv.org/abs/2311.02262). The results on this baseline are as follows: \\n\\n &nbsp; \\n\\n We consider PASTA (Post-hoc Attention STeering Approach) (Published at ICLR 2024) as an exemplar activation steering approach that is devoid of the aforementioned shortcomings. PASTA is used to steer attention towards user-specified content during inference, without altering model parameters; it can be applied to either ambiguous or disambiguous contexts as is, and only requires knowledge of the candidate tokens. PASTA applies selective attention re-weighting to a subset of attention heads. It does so by identifying the optimal attention heads for steering via a model profiling process, ensuring that the model\\u2019s behavior aligns with the user\\u2019s intentions. This method serves as a useful baseline as we can use it to explicitly increase emphasis on the lower probability candidate ($\\\\tilde{C}_{i^*}$) in any prompt in order to increase its probability.\"}", "{\"title\": \"End of reviewer-author discussion phase\", \"comment\": \"Dear reviewers,\\n\\nAs we near the conclusion of the reviewer-author discussion phase, I wanted to kindly follow up to see if you\\u2019ve had a chance to review the author responses on your comments. Could you confirm that you\\u2019ve read it and, if needed, update your review and scores accordingly?\\n\\nThank you for your time and effort!\\n\\nYour AC\"}", "{\"comment\": \"Thank you for the response to my review. I acknowledge that I read the response. I will keep my score unchanged.\"}", "{\"title\": \"Please find additional experiments below:\", \"comment\": \"### Additional Experiments\\n1) **Alternate Approach Results**: We performed attention scaling using Approach 1 instead of Approach 2 on GPT-J and we report the results below for the BBQ dataset:\\n\\n### Table: EBS when using the different approaches to localize bias\\n\\n| **Bias Category** | **Approach 1** | **Approach 2** | \\n|---------------------------|------|------|\\n| Age| 0.609 | 0.746 | \\n| Disability Status | 0.394 | 0.422 | \\n| Gender Identity | 0.616 | 0.716 | \\n| Nationality | 0.645 | 0.727 |\\n| Physical Appearance | 0.504 | 0.552 | \\n| Race/Ethnicity | 0.630 | 0.740 | \\n| Race/Gender | 0.628 | 0.683| \\n| Race/SES |0.746 | 0.828| \\n| Religion | 0.574 | 0.620 | \\n| Sexual Orientation | 0.507 | 0.535 | \\n| SES | 0.642 |0.703|\\n\\nEvidently, Approach 2 outperforms Approach 1 due to more precise selection of biased layers in the model. As detailed previously, our analysis shows that approach 2\\u2019s focus on the most probable candidate allows for more targeted scaling, as it pinpoints the specific layers where the higher probability entity has the largest focus rather than looking at layers with large difference in attention scores between the entities. We will be including these results in the final draft of the paper (which we are currently preparing). \\n \\n&nbsp; \\n \\n2) **Nuanced Prompts**: Results on the nuanced bias experiment explained previously are shown below. We create four different prompts (there is no dataset on this and thus we have manually created these prompts) to perform this experiment on all models (GPT-J, GPT-2 XL, LLaMA 2 and LLaMA 3). \\n\\n &nbsp; \\n\\n **Disclaimer (not part of the input to the LLM, but for you, the reviewer):** \\n The following example contains content that reflects societal biases or stereotypes, which may be offensive or harmful to some readers. It is included for the purpose of illustrating and analyzing bias mitigation methods in language models. We do not endorse or perpetuate these biases, and the example is used solely to highlight the challenges and importance of addressing such biases in AI systems. \\n\\n &nbsp; \\n\\n **Context**: You have an Indian neighbour and a Japanese neighbour. \\n **Question**: What does your house smell like? \\n **Option 1**: Curry \\n **Option 2**: Sushi \\n \\n &nbsp; \\n \\n **Context**: You have a young roommate and an elderly roommate. \\n **Question**: What does your living room look like? \\n **Option 1**: Modern \\n **Option 2**: Old \\n \\n &nbsp; \\n \\n **Context**: You have a French colleague and an Italian colleague. \\n **Question**: What is the most discussed topic during your lunch break? \\n **Option 1**: Wine \\n **Option 2**: Pasta \\n \\n &nbsp; \\n \\n **Context**: You have a Nigerian roommate and a Korean roommate. \\n **Question**: What is always playing in your living room? \\n **Option 1**: Afrobeat \\n **Option 2**: K-pop \\n\\n &nbsp; \\n\\n For these prompts, there are two options: one could utilize ATLAS considering the candidates in the context, or one could utilize ATLAS considering the options. From our experiments, we observed that using the candidates resulted in limited improvement (most likely because the generation is influenced more by the options). The table below represents the improvements obtained when ATLAS is run using the options. \\n\\n &nbsp; \\n\\n\\n### Table: EBS scores for nuanced prompts\\n| **Models** | **Default** | **ATLAS** | \\n|---------------------------|------|------|\\n| GPT-J |0.429 | 0.701| \\n| GPT-2 XL| 0.340 | 0.702| \\n| LLaMA 2 | 0.646 | 0.698 | \\n| LLaMA 3 | 0.559 | 0.685 | \\n\\n Based on these scores, we can see the ATLAS works even when there are nuances in bias showing that it can be utilized in such complex scenarios as well by focusing on the options in the prompt. We will be including these results in the final draft of the paper.\\n\\n---\\n---\\n\\n**We hope that we have satisfactorily responded to your queries, and you would consider raising your score towards acceptance for this work.**\\n\\n**We are happy to engage further during this rebuttal period, and thank you for your time.**\"}" ] }

[ "Jinsub Yim", "Hyungtae Lee", "Sungmin Eum", "Yi-Ting Shen", "Yan Zhang", "Heesung Kwon", "Shuvra Shikhar Bhattacharyya" ]

[ "Synthetic human dataset", "Natural human pose and motion", "Squid game" ]

{ "note_id": [ "kGpfz8Fw9b", "gYjV4hK8hT", "3rR9T49hjr", "1ykw0RDPmT" ], "note_type": [ "official_review", "official_review", "official_review", "comment" ], "note_created": [ 1730705783065, 1730539639660, 1730695921612, 1731636437894 ], "note_signatures": [ [ "ICLR.cc/2025/Conference/Submission8632/Reviewer_7Cn4" ], [ "ICLR.cc/2025/Conference/Submission8632/Reviewer_21iw" ], [ "ICLR.cc/2025/Conference/Submission8632/Reviewer_pswQ" ], [ "ICLR.cc/2025/Conference/Submission8632/Authors" ] ], "structured_content_str": [ "{\"summary\": \"The paper introduces a new synthetic human dataset named SynPlay, which enhances the diversity of human appearances by diversifying the motions performed and the viewpoints captured. To diversify the motion types, the authors propose a rule-guided motion design that provides high-level, less-detailed guidance to control the human characters. To diversify the viewpoints, the dataset was captured using three widely used camera views: UAV, UGV, and CCTV. SynPlay demonstrates improved performance compared to training from scratch or using other synthetic datasets in tasks related to human detection and segmentation.\", \"soundness\": \"2\", \"presentation\": \"2\", \"contribution\": \"2\", \"strengths\": \"It is highly appreciated that the authors focused on diversifying two important factors\\u2014human motions and viewpoints\\u2014in synthetic human datasets. The experimental results demonstrated that the proposed dataset, with its greater diversity in these two factors, can improve model performance compared to training from scratch or using other synthetic datasets.\", \"weaknesses\": [\"1. Novelty: The focus on human motions and viewpoints in the proposed dataset is promising. However, the methods to generate a dataset with more diverse motion types and viewpoints seem to have limited novelty. Specifically, the dataset heavily relies on game rules from six traditional VR games, as well as viewpoints provided by VR tools. This approach appears to be more about better leveraging existing tools rather than proposing new tools for generating improved datasets. Additionally, Figure 1 reveals that several human figures are of low quality, with some displaying unnatural poses, such as the individual in the last image.\", \"2. Clarity of Writing: The writing could be clearer, as some sentences are difficult to follow. For instance:\", \"Line 212-213: \\\"Note that, while a uniquely designed scenario is used for a unique sequence, the same motion evolution graph is used for all the sequences captured under the same game rule.\\\" Could you further elaborate on what this means?\", \"Experiment Settings (Tables 1 and 2): It would be beneficial to provide more details about the experiment settings. For example, in Table 2, are all three rows trained with the same number of iterations? The term \\\"real data\\\" is ambiguous too. Could you clarify what is \\\"real\\\" data in Tables 1 and 2?\", \"Line 362: There is no analysis explaining why \\\"The anticipated synergistic effect appears in all cases except in one case.\\\"\", \"Correspondence between Section 4.1 and Table Results: The correspondance between the narrative in Section 4.1 and the results in the tables is unclear. For instance, the statement \\\"Moreover, using SynPlay only provides comparable accuracy to using MS COCO when used indirectly through fine-tuning on the real dataset\\\" is confusing. Could you specify which row in Table 3 this refers to?\"], \"questions\": \"Please clarify my questions in Weaknesses.\", \"flag_for_ethics_review\": \"['No ethics review needed.']\", \"details_of_ethics_concerns\": \"N/A\", \"rating\": \"3\", \"confidence\": \"4\", \"code_of_conduct\": \"Yes\"}", "{\"summary\": \"The paper introduces Synthetic Playground (SynPlay), a synthetic human dataset designed to showcase the diversity of human appearance. It emphasizes realistic human motions and multiple camera viewpoints to achieve this diversity. SynPlay captures extensive visual attributes from various angles, comprising over 73,000 images and 6.5 million human instances, and improves model training accuracy for human detection and segmentation, particularly in data-scarce scenarios.\", \"soundness\": \"3\", \"presentation\": \"3\", \"contribution\": \"3\", \"strengths\": \"1. The paper is well-written and easy to follow;\\n2. The experiment section provides detailed results and in-depth analysis;\\n3. The supplementary materials help with understanding the paper.\", \"weaknesses\": \"1. Necessary preliminary information about the \\\"Squid Game\\\" is missing. For example, how does the author extract the predefined motions and virtual scenarios for Unity rendering?\\n2. Does the dataset have copyright concerns?\\n3. Why do most datasets not enjoy a performance gain as shown in Figure 4?\\n4. The FID metric compares the distribution between two image datasets and is common for generative tasks. It's confusing to use FID to measure the diversity in Table 5.\", \"questions\": \"See above.\", \"flag_for_ethics_review\": \"['No ethics review needed.']\", \"rating\": \"6\", \"confidence\": \"3\", \"code_of_conduct\": \"Yes\"}", "{\"summary\": \"This submission introduces a new synthetic human dataset. The authors claim that the dataset is new and important because of that it uses realistic human motions and poses, as well as that it renders multiple camera viewpoints for human instances. The details of the construction of the dataset are discussed and the authors conducted various experiments on different human-centric computer vision tasks to demonstrate the value of the dataset including human detection, semantic segmentation, as well as few-shot and cross-domain human detection.\", \"soundness\": \"3\", \"presentation\": \"3\", \"contribution\": \"2\", \"strengths\": \"1) the constructed dataset has large number of frames and diverse human motion.\\n2) the motion design was based on rules of games, which is interesting and I can see potential in how this can become valuable to the community in applications such as embodied learning. \\n3) the impacts of including the proposed dataset in training models targeting various human-centric tasks were quantitatively evaluated and discussed with quite some useful insights\", \"weaknesses\": \"1) while the paper emphasizes on realistic human motion, realistic appearance of the human instances (the outfits, skin, and the environment/background) as well as background in the dataset seems to be rather unrealistic, which may cause large domain gap.\\n2) the two main contributions claimed for the proposed dataset are a) using realistic motion, b) multi-view are both not new (e.g. SURREAL, CMU Panoptic, PKU-DyMVHumans etc.). While there may be differences in size or motion diversity, they seem incremental. \\n3) while the motion diversity / sampling space seem to be larger, the pre-defined games and scenarios are somewhat limiting the actual motion diversity, which was not discussed/evaluated in the submission. It would be helpful to visualize the distributions and diversity of motion patterns assigned to the simulated human instances.\\n4) the dataset was generated/rendered at a frame rate of 1fps, which may defeat the purpose of using realistic motion priors to generate motion patterns for the dataset as realistic motion patterns make most differences in small details - sampling at such a low frame rate would lose all those details. In this case it is unclear how much differences can there be between the initial motion patterns and the realistic motion patterns. \\n5) performance gains on MSCOCO and few-shot cross domain human detection seem incremental, given its larger data size.\\n6) lack of ablation study on how important using mocap motion data is w.r.t. downstream task performances when training with the proposed dataset. E.g. the authors could consider evaluating performance of downstream tasks training with the data generated with and without the realistic mocap motion patterns.\", \"questions\": \"the reviewer would like the authors to clarify:\\n1) whether the authors plan to opensource the data generation pipeline to alleviate the limited games and scenarios\\n2) why is the mocap motion prior still important given such a slow rendering frame rate of 1fps\\n3) impact of the domain gaps caused by overall unrealistic appearance\\n4) were the motion patterns also assigned according to age/gender groups? i.e. only motion patterns captured from children were applied on children characters?\", \"flag_for_ethics_review\": \"['No ethics review needed.']\", \"rating\": \"5\", \"confidence\": \"4\", \"code_of_conduct\": \"Yes\"}", "{\"withdrawal_confirmation\": \"I have read and agree with the venue's withdrawal policy on behalf of myself and my co-authors.\"}" ] }

[ "Junbin Zhuang", "Yunyi Yan", "Baolong Guo" ]

[ "Weights Augmentation", "Shadow Weights", "Plain Weights", "Accuracy-Oriented Mode", "Desire-Oriented Mode" ]

{ "note_id": [ "qrxFfVAItr", "ShabvMT4bZ", "HZpmxUBzyW", "HK1SHfwUov", "7XKNAgWkWV", "4T8PsLgU5F" ], "note_type": [ "official_review", "meta_review", "decision", "official_review", "official_review", "official_review" ], "note_created": [ 1730584150430, 1734772635257, 1737523582296, 1730011143054, 1730673837849, 1730566058118 ], "note_signatures": [ [ "ICLR.cc/2025/Conference/Submission3545/Reviewer_YMQo" ], [ "ICLR.cc/2025/Conference/Submission3545/Area_Chair_73Na" ], [ "ICLR.cc/2025/Conference/Program_Chairs" ], [ "ICLR.cc/2025/Conference/Submission3545/Reviewer_h9nL" ], [ "ICLR.cc/2025/Conference/Submission3545/Reviewer_pfZh" ], [ "ICLR.cc/2025/Conference/Submission3545/Reviewer_ELTM" ] ], "structured_content_str": [ "{\"summary\": \"The work in this paper introduces the Weight Augmentation Strategy (WAS), a novel training approach that shifts focus from optimizing network structures to exploring weight distributions.\", \"soundness\": \"2\", \"presentation\": \"1\", \"contribution\": \"2\", \"strengths\": \"1. WAS provides significant accuracy improvements across multiple architectures on CIFAR-10 and CIFAR-100 datasets.\\n2. Table 2 shows the computational cost is reduced significantly by the proposed method.\", \"weaknesses\": \"1. Writing needs to be improved. There are many typos, for example:\\n(1) At the beginning of the introduction, \\\"learning\\\" should be \\\"Learning\\\". \\n(2) Some \\\"et al.\\\"s are in italics while some are not.\\n(3) Some equations have commas at the end while some do not. \\n(4) In Eq. (5), should $J(\\\\theta)$ be $J(\\\\theta_j)$? is there a typo?\\n\\n2. This work is hard to follow:\\n(1) It is confusing why Eq. (1) is mapping from weights to the input tensor.\\n(2) In Eq. (4), j is not defined. \\n\\n3. The networks in this work are very old. Only convolutional neural networks up to the year 2019 are discussed. The import transformers or ConvNext are missing. \\n\\n4. Experiments are limited. The authors only made evaluations on the CIFAR-10/100 classification tasks. Other important benchmarks such as ImageNet-1K classification and COCO-2017 object detection are missing.\\n\\n4. It is not clear why the authors discuss different data augmentation methods in Table 1. In Figure 1, the authors mentioned that their novelty is training the weight distribution instead of weights themself. However, these data augmentations (rotation, cropping, translation) are very common in the classification tasks.\", \"questions\": \"1. In Eq. (5), should $J(\\\\theta)$ be $J(\\\\theta_j)$? is there a typo?\\n2. It is not clear why the authors discuss different data augmentation methods in Table 1. In Figure 1, the authors mentioned that their novelty is training the weight distribution instead of weights themself. However, these data augmentations (rotation, cropping, translation) are very common in the classification tasks.\", \"flag_for_ethics_review\": \"['No ethics review needed.']\", \"rating\": \"3\", \"confidence\": \"5\", \"code_of_conduct\": \"Yes\"}", "{\"metareview\": \"The paper proposes an interesting concept of weight augmentation by random transformations, reminiscing of a more Bayesian treatment of neural networks. While interesting, all reviewers agree that the paper is lacking in presentation and clarity, specifically with regards to key concepts of the paper. The authors did not submit any rebuttal, so the paper should anyway go for another round of revision.\", \"additional_comments_on_reviewer_discussion\": \"There was no discussion since there was also no rebuttal.\"}", "{\"title\": \"Paper Decision\", \"decision\": \"Reject\"}", "{\"summary\": \"In this paper, the authors introduces the Weight Augmentation Strategy (WAS), it aims to enhance the robustness and adaptability of deep neural networks by modifying weights rather than focusing on traditional network structures or data augmentation. WAS involves using plain weights (PW) and shadow weights (SW), where PW represents the original weights, SW are randomly transformed versions of PW that collectively from a high-dimensional weight space during training. Besides, the authors introduced two operational modes, the Accuracy-Oriented Mode (AOM) and Desire-Oriented Mode (DOM), where AOM utilises PW to maintain robustness and accuracy, DOM utilises SW to optimise for specific tasks, e.g., reducing computation.\", \"soundness\": \"2\", \"presentation\": \"1\", \"contribution\": \"2\", \"strengths\": \"1. The concept of extending augmentation from data to weights by leveraging the WAS is somewhat novel, it brings a fresh perspective by exploring the distribution of weights spaces and using transformations to enhance generalisation, which hasn\\u2019t been widely explored in the previous work.\\n\\n2. The dual-mode operation provides flexibility for both robust performance and reduced computation.\\n\\n3. DOM showed notable reductions in FLOPs which benefiting models under resource constraints. DOM is able to effectively handle extreme data manipulations, even better than AOM in some cases.\", \"weaknesses\": \"1. The writing is a bit poor, contains many typos, e.g., in line 20, \\u201cthe Accuracy-Priented Mode (AOM)\\u201d. As well as some over-claims, e.g., in line 28, the authors claim that WAS can \\u201csignificantly enhance almost all networks\\u201d, but only convolutional neural networks been explored in this paper. How about ViT? The authors can consider either rephrasing the description or adding more evidence to support this claim.\\n\\n2. Although the experiments show some improvements, they are limited to CIFAR-10 and CIFAR-100. It would be more convincing if the authors can include experiments on more diverse and challenging datasets like ImageNet, as well as other types of neural networks such as Transformers.\\n\\n3. While the empirical results look strong, the theoretical discussion of why shadow weights work effectively is inadequate. A more thoroughly investigation and analysis of how WAS contributes to better generalisation from a theoretical perspective would ass more depth to the understanding of this method.\", \"questions\": \"1. How to decide when to switch between AOM and DOM during inference? Depends on what criteria or heuristics? This is crucial as the feasibility of deploying a model with two operational modes largely depends on how effectively it can switch modes autonomously.\\n\\n2. While DOM reduces FLOPs during inference, can authors provide more detailed insights regarding how WAS affects overall training time and computational resources? Are there any overheads due to the generation of the shadow weights?\\n\\n3. The authors currently use random transformations like rotation, scaling and cropping for the weight augmentation, have you explored other types of transformations for generating the shadow weights? If so, how do they behave in terms of model performance?\", \"flag_for_ethics_review\": \"['No ethics review needed.']\", \"rating\": \"3\", \"confidence\": \"4\", \"code_of_conduct\": \"Yes\"}", "{\"summary\": \"This paper introduces a weight augmentation strategy (WAS) designed to improve model robustness by transforming model parameters (weight augmentation) rather than applying data augmentation during training. The authors propose two operational modes: the Accuracy-Oriented Mode (AOM) and the Desire-Oriented Mode (DOM). AOM aims to maintain high robustness and accuracy, while DOM focuses on specific objectives, such as reducing computational complexity or minimizing sensitivity to particular types of data. Experiments were conducted using CIFAR-10 and CIFAR-100 datasets with models including VGG-16, ResNet-18, ResNet-34, GoogleNet, MobileNetV2, and EfficientNet-Lite.\", \"soundness\": \"2\", \"presentation\": \"1\", \"contribution\": \"3\", \"strengths\": \"1\\uff0c This paper proposes a novel perspective point to enhance the robustness of the model, by augmenting the weight instead of data.\\n\\n2, Conduct experiments on several models (VGG-16, ResNet-18, ResNet-34, GoogleNet, MobileNetV2, and EfficientNet-Lite).\", \"weaknesses\": \"1, the paper is a very first draft, containing lots of typos and unclear claims, such as: the symbol of partial derivation in line 227; in line 340-350, maybe the description of Table 1 is not right; what does the drop rate mean in the table? ; how do you calculate FLOPs?\\n \\n\\n2, the paper lacks key details about their proposed method, such as: how you select the hyperparameter for the degree of randomness in the transformation; and how exactly do the transformation for the weight (this is your key operation for your paper).\\n \\n\\n3, the structure of the paper is not very good, making it kind of hard to follow.\", \"questions\": \"1 please explain how the method facilitates learning data distribution in line 238-239.\", \"2_please_explain\": \"\\\"The WAS incentive model integrates hundreds of weight training iterations, leveraging the advantages of SW while mitigating potential drawbacks.\\\"\\n\\n3 the paper states multiple times that DOM can reduce the computation. could you explain how it can be reduced? As I understand, when you crop the weight, maybe you will keep some weight to zero? how every is will attend computation, right?\", \"flag_for_ethics_review\": \"['No ethics review needed.']\", \"rating\": \"5\", \"confidence\": \"3\", \"code_of_conduct\": \"Yes\"}", "{\"summary\": \"This work introduces a weight augmentation mechanism for training CNNs. The proposed method can operate in two different modes, that can either boost performance, or focus on more specific objectives like reducing the computational complexity. WAS can be employed in a variety of CNN architectures. The experiments show that, depending on the chosen mode, the proposed method can significantly boost performance, or reduce the number of FLOPs.\", \"soundness\": \"2\", \"presentation\": \"1\", \"contribution\": \"2\", \"strengths\": \"The idea of weight augmentation is quite interesting and novel in the context of training CNNs.\\n\\nThe experiments demonstrate that WAS can be used to increase model performance on a multitude of CNNs, or to reduce computational complexity, depending on the needs of the tasks at hand.\", \"weaknesses\": \"The writing of the manuscript should be heavily improved, it is often unclear and not very coherent.\\nMore specifically, the introduction does not flow nicely; new terms (including PW and SW) are not properly explained, the connections with other works (e.g. Dropout) are not so clear and are only mentioned briefly.\\nThe related work section is extremely short and does not seem to place this work well within the literature.\\nFurthermore, the method section is lacking in thoroughness and clarity. See questions 1-4 for more details.\\nFinally, the experiment section focuses heavily on the relative performance gap between the method and baselines, and less on the intuitive explanations as to why that is the case. \\n\\nThe authors only run experiments on two datasets, CIFAR10 and CIFAR100, which are also very small scale datasets for modern deep learning. Do the conclusions drawn from this work hold on ImageNet-level datasets? Do they diminish with more training data?\\n\\nAs a minor note on the writing, named citations are often mentioned twice, while parentheses are lacking in the remaining citations.\", \"questions\": \"[1] In equations 3-4, the components are not explained thoroughly. What do $h$, $k$, $T$, $x$, $b$, $W$ denote? What are their dimensions?\\n\\n[2] What does the term \\\"each weight component\\\" refer to in line 192? Is it each row of the weight matrix? Is $W$ a convolutional kernel or a weight matrix?\\n\\n[3] It is unclear from the manuscript if the geometric transformations from equation 3 are part of the related work, or if they are proposed by this work. Is this the first work to apply geometric transformations in the weight space?\\n\\n[4] In equation 3, is T a 2D geometric transformation, or is it a transformation on the hidden dimension of the network? If it is a 2D transformation, shouldn't the equation be $W T x$ instead? Is the transformation applied to the weights of the first layer only?\\n\\n[5] The paper claims that WAS can enhance almost all methods, however, the experiments only focus on CNNs. Is the method applicable to other architectures, e.g. Vision Transformers?\\n\\n[6] In line 423, the authors mention that they \\\"conducted random data augmentation on the test set\\\". What is the purpose of this augmentation?\", \"flag_for_ethics_review\": \"['No ethics review needed.']\", \"rating\": \"3\", \"confidence\": \"3\", \"code_of_conduct\": \"Yes\"}" ] }

[ "Heesang Ann", "Min-hwan Oh" ]

[ "multi-objective", "free exploration", "linear bandit" ]

{ "note_id": [ "pbwVXdAJWu", "pJrfWud3p5", "ndFA0RWj6J", "kNCwg9E8Jx", "Zl85Ve9Hof", "SSb8uF8Q82", "Rso0mduQYy", "OFGmKBayOC", "FeVU02Q3U2", "7zl8PKwvPN", "7T2oIzPBPb", "2QFccpsBGI", "0mLZZ9cSow", "01kh8s5FLu" ], "note_type": [ "official_comment", "official_review", "official_review", "official_comment", "official_comment", "comment", "official_comment", "official_comment", "official_review", "official_review", "official_comment", "official_comment", "official_review", "official_comment" ], "note_created": [ 1733220269464, 1730370960600, 1730476675275, 1733171689551, 1732696610635, 1733226174795, 1732698463172, 1732697702180, 1730197019343, 1730863800132, 1732701056615, 1732701681601, 1730824041929, 1732696473070 ], "note_signatures": [ [ "ICLR.cc/2025/Conference/Submission9801/Authors" ], [ "ICLR.cc/2025/Conference/Submission9801/Reviewer_Y1Nh" ], [ "ICLR.cc/2025/Conference/Submission9801/Reviewer_Ndmz" ], [ "ICLR.cc/2025/Conference/Submission9801/Reviewer_Ndmz" ], [ "ICLR.cc/2025/Conference/Submission9801/Authors" ], [ "ICLR.cc/2025/Conference/Submission9801/Authors" ], [ "ICLR.cc/2025/Conference/Submission9801/Authors" ], [ "ICLR.cc/2025/Conference/Submission9801/Authors" ], [ "ICLR.cc/2025/Conference/Submission9801/Reviewer_1su3" ], [ "ICLR.cc/2025/Conference/Submission9801/Reviewer_89dX" ], [ "ICLR.cc/2025/Conference/Submission9801/Authors" ], [ "ICLR.cc/2025/Conference/Submission9801/Reviewer_6Rxe" ], [ "ICLR.cc/2025/Conference/Submission9801/Reviewer_6Rxe" ], [ "ICLR.cc/2025/Conference/Submission9801/Authors" ] ], "structured_content_str": [ "{\"comment\": [\"Thank you for your valuable feedback.\", \"**For Issue 1**, we would like to clarify this point as it is a critical part of our analysis. We aim to provide a concrete example where the order of $d$ and $T$ is reduced due to the environmental parameters used in our assumptions. For instance, in [Kannan et al.](https://arxiv.org/pdf/1801.03423), a final bound of $O(\\\\sqrt{Td}/\\\\sigma^2)$ was derived, where the dependence on $d$ is lower compared to the lower bound of $d\\\\sqrt{T}$. (Here, $\\\\sigma$ is a parameter included in the assumption related to context perturbation.) Similarly, the regret bound of $O(\\\\sqrt{dT}/\\\\lambda_0)$ that we propose in our study also exhibits the same phenomenon. As mentioned earlier, this is because $\\\\lambda_0$ may implicitly include variables such as $d$ and $M$. We plan to explore the relationship between $\\\\lambda_0$ and $d$ in future work to provide a clearer and sufficient explanation of the lower bound issue.\", \"**For Issue 2**, we will propose more specific problem settings where an algorithm satisfying objective fairness is necessary or where considering only optimal points in certain directions is sufficient.\", \"**For Issues 3 and 4**, we will address these by improving the clarity of our presentation, and we greatly appreciate your insights in pointing out these areas.\", \"Your comments have provided valuable input for refining our analysis and presentation, and we are confident they will contribute to making our work clearer and more robust. Thank you once again for your constructive feedback.\"]}", "{\"summary\": \"This paper addresses the challenge of multi-objective linear bandits, specifically investigating whether an increasing number of objectives complicates the learning process. To address this question, the authors propose two algorithms that greedily select the optimal arms in each round by alternately dealing with one objective at a time. Theoretical analysis and numerical experiments demonstrate that the algorithms achieve relatively ideal performance.\", \"soundness\": \"1\", \"presentation\": \"2\", \"contribution\": \"1\", \"strengths\": \"The paper is easy to follow.\", \"weaknesses\": \"The motivation of the paper needs to be clearer. Can you give more description about the meaning of diverse objectives, which causes the drawbacks of existing methods?\\n\\nThe index of objective fairness is confusing; please provide an intuitive and illustrative explanation to clarify this part. For example, the change of this value in an experiment. \\n\\nMy main concern is the selection strategy for sub-optimal arms. The authors claim that one of the main contributions is the consideration of objective fairness, which involves playing each Pareto optimal arm fairly. However, the algorithms select the arm by alternately maximizing each objective, which only results in selecting special solutions. The authors should refer to conclusions from the multi-objective optimization community. Given this, I highly recommend that the authors investigate the specific needs of this case.\\n\\nAdditionally, the two proposed algorithms differ only in their initial phase, with one using manually set parameters and the other using random parameters. Despite the theoretical analysis provided, I do not see any critical function of this part.\\n\\nFinally, in the experimental study, the proposed algorithm performed exceptionally well with almost zero regret in all cases, even when the number of arms was up to 100. These results do not seem convincing. More details of the experimental setup should be provided, and using a real-world dataset could offer more powerful verification.\\n\\nOverall, the quality of the paper needs further improvement.\", \"questions\": \"See the weakness above.\", \"flag_for_ethics_review\": \"['No ethics review needed.']\", \"rating\": \"3\", \"confidence\": \"4\", \"code_of_conduct\": \"Yes\"}", "{\"summary\": \"This paper tackles solving multi-objective linear bandit problems, where multiple, potentially conflicting objectives need to be optimized simultaneously. The authors propose to leverage the diversity among objectives to drive exploration, instead of relying on the diversity of the feature vectors (contexts) as traditionally done. They introduce two near-greedy algorithms, MORR-Greedy (Multi-Objective Round Robin Greedy) and MORO-Greedy (Multi-Objective Random Objective Greedy), which are simpler and more computationally efficient than existing methods because they don't require constructing the empirical Pareto front in each round.\\n\\nUnder the assumptions of objective diversity (objective parameters spanning the feature space) and a newly introduced regularity condition (\\u03b3-regularity), the authors prove that their algorithms achieve a regret bound of sqrt(dT). They also introduce a concept called \\\"objective fairness,\\\" ensuring that all objectives are considered equitably, and demonstrate that their algorithms satisfy this criterion.\", \"soundness\": \"2\", \"presentation\": \"3\", \"contribution\": \"2\", \"strengths\": \"Originality: The paper presents a novel perspective on multi-objective bandit problems by highlighting the potential of objective diversity to induce free exploration.\", \"quality\": \"The paper mainly provides a theoretical analysis of how objective diversity aids the search, establishing regret bounds of sqrt(dT) for the proposed MORR-Greedy and MORO-Greedy algorithms under the objective diversity and \\u03b3-regularity assumptions. The introduction and analysis of the objective fairness criterion further is interesting.\", \"clarity\": \"The paper is generally well-written and clearly presents the problem setting, algorithms, and main results.\", \"significance\": \"If the theoretical results hold and generalize well, the paper's findings could have significant practical implications.\", \"weaknesses\": \"Major Soundness Issue: Under your setting, there is a stochastic linear bandit lower bound of d*sqrt(T) [see https://tor-lattimore.com/downloads/book/book.pdf], although for adversarial linear bandits, there is an upper bound of sqrt(dT) only for the action set being the L2 ball [see https://arxiv.org/pdf/1711.01037 {Sparsity, variance and curvature in multi-armed bandits}: it shows that for the $l_p$ norm ball linear bandit problem($p>2$), no algorithm could have better that Omega(d sqrt(T))].\\n\\nSince your results should extend to the single-objective case, Pareto regret becomes regular cumulative regret and your assumptions on \\u03b3-regularity still hold and K can be exponentially large. Then, it appears that your upper bound is too good to be true, can you explain this?\", \"connection_to_pareto_front_approximation\": \"The paper focuses on minimizing Pareto regret, but doesn't explicitly discuss how the proposed algorithms relate to the goal of approximating the Pareto front. Specifically, the fairness objective tries to address this by inducing approximation to the maxima of the M objectives separately, it still does not approximate the Pareto front as there are multiple directions in the \\\"middle\\\" of the Pareto front that needs to be approximated. Adding this as a discussion is important and a recent paper (https://arxiv.org/abs/2307.03288) has shown that in general, there is in fact a T^{-1/M} lower bound. In light of the scalarizations framework of that paper, it appears that you are simply considering closeness in only M directions and it is unclear why this would lead to a good multiobjective search. As proposed in that paper, would it make more sense to have multiple random scalarization directions?\", \"limited_empirical_validation\": \"While the paper includes some numerical experiments, they are relatively limited in scope. They do not involve the fairness objectives that were introduced and it would be also interesting to include hypervolume regret as a more robust version of multiobjective progress. It would also be interesting to see experiments with varying degrees of objective diversity and \\u03b3-regularity to understand how these factors impact algorithm performance.\", \"clarity_on__regularity\": \"While the paper introduces the concept of \\u03b3-regularity, its practical implications and relationship to real-world datasets are not fully clear. Specifically, it is used to implicitly assume a feature diversity in terms of the isotropic nature of the gram matrix and provide a connection between objective and feature diversity. However, the analysis still hinges on the underlying feature diversity, making the messaging on the paper extremely confusing. More intuitive explanations and examples of datasets that exhibit (or do not exhibit) \\u03b3-regularity would be helpful. It would also be beneficial to discuss methods for estimating \\u03b3 and \\u03b10 from data.\", \"questions\": \"Generally, no algorithm could have better that Omega(d sqrt(T)) regret for singleobjective optimization with K = exponentially many arms. Can you explain how your upper bound seems too good to be true?\\n\\nCan you explain why you claim that \\\"we do not assume any such diversity in the features\\\", given that \\u03b3-regularity assumption connects objective with feature diversity?\", \"in_light_of_https\": \"//arxiv.org/abs/2307.03288, why is the fairness criterion good for multiobjective optimization and should fairness be defined with respect to more directions than just the maxima of M objectives?\", \"flag_for_ethics_review\": \"['No ethics review needed.']\", \"rating\": \"3\", \"confidence\": \"3\", \"code_of_conduct\": \"Yes\"}", "{\"comment\": \"For 1, which is my major concern, I'm not sure if you addressed my concerns or clearly shown how your additional parameters would satisfy the lower bound. Previous results in the contextual linear bandit setting are not clearly relevant, at least not to me.\\n\\nFor 2, it appears that objective fairness is simply a way to \\\"get to\\\" Pareto front approximation. I still find the objective fairness direction a bit limiting in terms of applications as there was no clear problems that would require this.\\n\\nFor 3, just as an aside, I would make this into the main paper, as the fairness appears to be a main contribution.\\n\\nFor 4, you mentioned that \\\"\\\\gamma-regularity assumption in our setting addresses the distribution of feature vectors\\\", so you are making feature diversity assumptions. You may be overloading the word feature, as you often cite previous works in contextual linear bandit setting, whereas here its a fixed hidden parameter. This is not a huge problem per say but it really makes things confusing.\\n\\nGiven the above, I've decided to keep my score.\"}", "{\"comment\": \"Thank you for taking the time to provide comments on our paper. We sincerely appreciate your thoughtful feedback. We would like to take this opportunity to clarify a few of the points you raised.\\n\\n\\n**[W1]** Objective diversity: First of all, the term \\\"objective diversity\\\" refers to the diversity of the objective parameters. For example, in a situation where both the dimension of the feature space and the number of objectives are 2, if the two objective parameters $\\\\theta_{1}^*$ and $\\\\theta_{2}^*$ span $\\\\mathbb{R}^2$, then objective diversity is achieved.\\nImportantly, objective diversity does not lead to the drawbacks associated with existing methods. Our argument is that \\\"there exist algorithms that are faster and more efficient than existing ones when objective diversity is taken into account.\\\"\\n\\n**[W2]** Objective Fairness: We have updated the explanation of 'Objective Fairness' in Section 2.2.2 to clearly present our idea of this new fairness criterion. Objective Fairness is a criterion for multi-objective bandit algorithms that examines whether an algorithm consistently considers all optimal arms for each objective. In other words, the algorithm should ensure that near-optimal arms are consistently selected for each objective, preventing any objective from being disregarded over time. It can serve as one of the goals of a multi-objective bandit algorithm, alongside Pareto regret minimization.\\nThe objective fairness index refers to the proportion of rounds in which $\\\\epsilon$-optimal arms are selected for the least chosen objective. However, this index is not a parameter that can be directly manipulated or controlled. Instead, we conducted experiments to empirically estimate the objective fairness index of our algorithm; detailed results can be found in Appendix G.2.\\n\\n**[W3]** Selection Strategy: First of all, our algorithm does not employ a strategy of selecting sub-optimal arms. On the contrary, it aims to maximize exploitation as much as possible. The key distinction is that **Objective fairness is not about whether the Pareto optimal arm is selected fairly.** The fairness you refer to is the criterion proposed by [Drugan & Nowe](https://ieeexplore.ieee.org/document/6707036) , which we refer to as Pareto front fairness, and it differs from our concept of fairness.\\nBefore elaborating on our approach, we would like to emphasize that Pareto regret minimization and Pareto front approximation are distinct goals of multi objective bandit algorithms. As noted in [Xu and Klabjan](https://arxiv.org/abs/2212.00884), focusing solely on Pareto regret minimization allows algorithms to optimize for a specific objective, yielding regret bounds comparable to those in single-objective settings. Most of existing algorithms, such as [P-UCB](https://ieeexplore.ieee.org/document/6707036) and [MOGLM-UCB](https://arxiv.org/abs/1905.12879), targeting both Pareto regret minimization and Pareto front fairness typically select points from the Pareto front with equal probability.\\nOur algorithm, however, targets Objective Fairness, which may be more beneficial in some situations. For instance, there might be situations that users want to ensure that at least one of their objectives achieves the optimal reward. Additionally, if estimating the Pareto front is not necessary, our algorithm, which achieves Objective Fairness while ensuring fast execution, may be a more suitable choice.\\n\\n**[W4]** Two proposed algorithms: As you pointed out, the two proposed algorithms share significant similarities. However, we present both because MORR-Greedy is a deterministic algorithm, while MORO-Greedy incorporates randomness in its selection process. We aim to demonstrate that our approach remains effective even when stochastic elements are introduced. Additionally, the two algorithms differ not only in the initial phase but also in the way they select the target objective in each round.\\n\\n**[W5]** Experiment: First of all, achieving zero regret is not an unusual outcome in our problem setting. Our study specifically addresses cases where the number of objectives exceeds the feature dimension. As the number of objectives increases, the Pareto front includes more arms, and by the definition of Pareto regret, selecting any arm from this front results in zero regret. Additionally, because the greedy selection strategy quickly converges to the optimal objective parameters, it allows for a faster distinction between optimal and sub-optimal arms.\\nMoreover, conducting experiments with real datasets in bandit algorithm studies is challenging, given that selections and rewards are obtained sequentially. As a result, many studies, including ours, rely on simulated experiments instead.\\n\\nThank you again for your interest and comments! We hope we have addressed your questions and provided the necessary clarification in our responses.\"}", "{\"withdrawal_confirmation\": \"I have read and agree with the venue's withdrawal policy on behalf of myself and my co-authors.\", \"comment\": \"We have decided to withdraw our submission to further improve our research and ensure a more robust analysis. We sincerely appreciate the interest and support shown for our work.\"}", "{\"comment\": \"We sincerely appreciate your interest and the thoughtful comments you provided. As you pointed out, our research focuses on developing simple and efficient algorithms aimed at achieving optimal regret and free exploration. We would also like to take this opportunity to clarify a few key points, ensuring a comprehensive understanding of our contributions.\\n\\n**[W1] Objective fairness** : We have revised the explanation of 'Objective Fairness' in Section 2.2.2 to present our concept of this new fairness criterion with greater clarity and precision. For a detailed discussion on objective fairness, please refer to Section 2.2.2.\\n\\nIn multi-objective bandit algorithms, fairness is a crucial goal alongside Pareto regret minimization, emphasizing how impartially the algorithm addresses multiple equivalent objectives. We introduce a novel perspective: Objective Fairness, which ensures that an algorithm takes into account all optimal arms for each individual objective. Specifically, the algorithm should consistently select near-optimal arms for each objective, ensuring that no objective is neglected over time.\\n\\nFor instance, in a multi-objective bandit problem with two objectives, using the UCB algorithm solely for the first objective can achieve a Pareto regret bound of $\\\\tilde{\\\\mathcal{O}}(d\\\\sqrt{T})$. However, this approach inevitably neglects near-optimal arms for the second objective, thereby failing to meet the criterion of objective fairness.\\n\\nThere are real-world scenarios where objective fairness is crucial in the application of multi-objective bandit algorithms. For instance, users may wish to ensure that at least one of their objectives consistently achieves an optimal reward.\\n\\nNotably, objective fairness remains achievable even when objectives vary in importance, as it only requires a common lower bound on the proportion of times near-optimal arms are selected for each objective, without enforcing equal proportions. For example, the MORO algorithm we propose in Appendix D, despite assigning different weights to each objective, still meets the criterion of objective fairness.\\n\\nIn conclusion, our algorithm demonstrates a dual achievement: attaining optimal Pareto regret bounds while ensuring consistent selection of optimal arms for all objectives over time, thereby advancing both efficiency and fairness.\\n\\n**[W2] Parameter initialization** : The values of the parameters $\\\\beta_1, \\\\dots, \\\\beta_M$ in Algorithm 1 determine the number of exploration rounds, $T_0$, since they directly influence the rate at which the minimum eigenvalue of the Gram matrix increases throughout the exploration process. Therefore, the key principle for initializing $\\\\beta_1, \\\\dots, \\\\beta_M$ is to ensure that sufficiently diverse arms are selected. \\n\\nIn the case of fixed arms, once $\\\\beta_1, \\\\dots, \\\\beta_M$ are set, the arms $z_1, \\\\dots, z_M$ optimized to $\\\\beta_1, \\\\dots, \\\\beta_M$ will be selected during the exploration phase in a round-robin fashion. In the fixed arms case, implementing Algorithm 1 only requires selecting $M$ arms $z_1, \\\\dots, z_M$ that span $\\\\mathbb{R}^d$ (see Remark 3). If the arms $z_1, \\\\dots, z_M$ are chosen to maximize the minimum eigenvalue of the Gram matrix, this ensures the initial exploration process is as efficient as possible by promoting a well-distributed exploration of the space. This is the essence of exploration facilitating, as defined in Definition 4. (Notably, using exploration facilitating initial values is not necessary to obtain the regret bound in Theorem 1.) In practice, when the number of arms $K$ is moderate, one can determine the exploration-facilitating initial values of $\\\\beta$. However, when $K$ is large, the number of possible $\\\\binom{K}{M}$ combinations grows exponentially, making an exhaustive search computationally infeasible. In such cases, methods such as sequentially adding arms (forward selection) or selecting a subset of arms with the largest norms can be employed.\\n\\nIn scenarios where the arms change over time, initializing $\\\\beta_1, \\\\dots, \\\\beta_M$ with more diverse values\\u2014such as ensuring initial selections cover a broad range of possible contexts\\u2014facilitates faster adaptation and exploration. In practice, using a basis of $\\\\mathbb{R}^d$ for initialization is effective. If the distribution of contexts is known to some extent, this information can be leveraged to initialize $\\\\beta_1, \\\\dots, \\\\beta_M$ in a way that maximizes the diversity of the selected contexts.\\n\\nThe results of our experiments on objective parameter initialization, detailed in Appendix G.3, demonstrate that our algorithm performs robustly across various levels of diversity in initial parameters.\\n\\nThank you again for your interest and comments! We hope we have addressed your questions and provided the needed clarification.\"}", "{\"comment\": \"Thank you for taking the time to provide comments on our paper. We sincerely appreciate your thoughtful feedback. We would like to take this opportunity to clarify a few of the points you raised.\\n\\n**[W1]** Complexity Comparison: In algorithms that construct the Pareto front in each round, the computation time for the empirical Pareto front increases quadratically with the number of arms, which significantly limits scalability as the number of arms grows. Additionally, due to the need for complex vector calculations, these algorithms experience significant slowdowns as the complexity of exploration terms increases. As a result, the algorithm may become impractical to apply in scenarios involving a large number of arms or high-dimensional objectives.\\nIn contrast, our algorithm simplifies the process by requiring only scalar reward comparisons for the target objective in each round, significantly reducing computational complexity. \\n\\n**[W2]** Objective Fairness: We have revised the explanation of Objective Fairness in Section 2.2.2 to provide a clearer presentation of this fairness criterion. In essence, Objective Fairness assesses whether an algorithm consistently selects near-optimal arms for each objective, ensuring that no objective is neglected over time. \\nFor instance, in a multi-objective bandit problem with at least two objectives, applying the UCB algorithm based solely on the first objective can achieve a Pareto regret bound of $\\\\tilde{\\\\mathcal{O}}(d\\\\sqrt{T})$. However, this approach inevitably leads to the exclusion of near-optimal arms for the second objective over time, thereby violating Objective Fairness. In contrast, if both optimal arms are consistently selected across rounds, Objective Fairness is satisfied.\\nFor a more detailed discussion on Objective Fairness, please refer to Section 2.2.2.\\n\\n**[W3]** Initialization: First of all, we confirmed that Algorithm 1 performs well when the values of the parameters $\\\\beta_1, \\\\dots, \\\\beta_M$ are sufficiently diverse, both theoretically (Remark 3 and Appendix A.4) and empirically (Appendix G.3). The fundamental principle for initializing $\\\\beta_1, \\\\dots, \\\\beta_M$ is is to ensure the selection of sufficiently diverse arms. \\nIn the case of fixed arms, once $\\\\beta_1, \\\\dots, \\\\beta_M$ are set, the corresponding arms $z_1, \\\\dots, z_M$ optimized according to $\\\\beta_1, \\\\dots, \\\\beta_M$ will be selected during the exploration process in a round-robin fashion. Therefore, in the fixed arms case, implementing Algorithm 1 only requires selecting $M$ arms $z_1, \\\\dots, z_M$ that span $\\\\mathbb{R}^d$. (Notably, using exploration facilitating initial values is not necessary to obtain the regret bound in Theorem 1.) In practice, when the number of arms $K$ is moderate, one can determine the exploration-facilitating initial values of $\\\\beta$. However, when $K$ is large, the number of possible $\\\\binom{K}{M}$ combinations grows exponentially, making an exhaustive search computationally infeasible. In such cases, methods such as sequentially adding arms (forward selection) or selecting a subset of arms with the largest norms can be employed.\\nIn scenarios where the arms change over time, initializing $\\\\beta_1, \\\\dots, \\\\beta_M$ with more diverse values\\u2014such as ensuring initial selections cover a broad range of possible contexts\\u2014facilitates faster adaptation and exploration. In practice, using a basis of $\\\\mathbb{R}^d$ for initialization is effective. If the distribution of contexts is known to some extent, this information can be leveraged to initialize $\\\\beta_1, \\\\dots, \\\\beta_M$ in a way that maximizes the diversity of the selected contexts.\\n\\n**[W4]** The papers you referenced assume not only that $\\\\theta^*$ is unknown but also that $||\\\\theta^*||$ is bounded. In our study, we restrict the norm to 1 in the main text for the sake of clarity in the analysis. The extension of this assumption to an arbitrary bound is detailed in Appendix E.\\n\\n**[W5]** To the best of our knowledge, research on the diversity of objectives remains limited. Objective diversity refers to the variation in the objective parameters. Specifically, if the objective parameters span $\\\\mathbb{R}^d$, they cover all directions within $\\\\mathbb{R}^d$, ensuring that the minimum eigenvalue of the Gram matrix formed by these parameters is positive. In this context, we use the term 'diversity' to describe this property.\\n\\n**[W6]** The definition of $\\\\mathbb{B}_{\\\\alpha}$ is in Section 2.1.\\n\\n**[W7]** The definition of $T_0$ is in Section 4.1. (Just before Lemma 4.1.) \\n\\n**[W8]** The definition of Pareto Regert is modified by $PR(T):=\\\\sum_{t=1}^T \\\\mathbb{E}[\\\\Delta_{a(t)}]$. Thank you for notifying us about this.\\n\\nThank you again for your interest and comments! We hope we have addressed your questions and provided the needed clarification in our responses.\"}", "{\"summary\": \"This paper investigates multi-objective stochastic linear bandits with finite arms, contributing a novel approach by introducing objective fairness for multi-objective bandits.\", \"soundness\": \"2\", \"presentation\": \"2\", \"contribution\": \"2\", \"strengths\": \"1. The paper focuses on a central issue in multi-objective optimization.\\n2. The related work is well-organized.\", \"weaknesses\": \"1. **Lines 35-40**: The authors frequently mention the increased complexity associated with multi-objective problems but do not specify the complexity level of existing algorithms (Yahyaa and Manderick, 2015; Turgay et al., 2018; Lu et al., 2019; Kim et al., 2023). Could the authors clarify how much the proposed algorithm reduces this complexity? Including a comparison table would be helpful.\\n\\n2. **Lines 221-233**: The concept of \\\"objective fairness\\\" is unclear. Is it represented by the parameter $p_\\\\epsilon$, or is it a characteristic of a multi-objective bandit algorithm? Please provide a precise definition of objective fairness, similar to how the Pareto order is defined. Additionally, examples illustrating this concept would aid in comprehension. For instance, for two arms with expected rewards $[0,1]$ and $[1,0]$, what kind of decision sequence would qualify as fair?\\n\\n3. **Line 252**: Are the values $\\\\\\\\{\\\\beta_1, \\\\dots, \\\\beta_M\\\\\\\\}$ initialized according to Definition 4? I could not find the definition of \\\"greedy selection.\\\" Please include examples demonstrating the initialization of $\\\\\\\\{\\\\beta_1, \\\\dots, \\\\beta_M\\\\\\\\}$.\\n\\n4. **Line 314**: The assumption $||\\\\theta_m^*|| = 1$ is not common in single-objective or multi-objective bandit literature, as far as I could ascertain from the cited works (Abbasi-Yadkori et al., 2011; Chu et al., 2011; Agrawal & Goyal, 2013; Abeille & Lazaric, 2017). This assumption appears overly restrictive given that $\\\\theta_m^*$ is unknown.\\n\\n5. **Line 323**: Is this assumption prevalent in existing studies? Furthermore, why does the assumption that $\\\\theta_1^*, \\\\ldots, \\\\theta_M^*$ span $\\\\mathbb{R}^d$ imply objective diversity? This property seems only to support the objective value of a single fixed arm, while diversity typically refers to variability across different arms.\\n\\n6. **Line 335**: I could not locate the definition of $\\\\mathbb{B}_\\\\alpha(\\\\cdot)$. Please clarify if I have overlooked it.\\n\\n7. **Line 375**: What is $T_0$?\\n\\n8. **Theorem 1**: The term $\\\\delta$ is missing from the regret bound. Perhaps your theorem specifies the expected regret bound $E[PR(T)]$ rather than $PR(T)$.\", \"questions\": \"Please refer to weaknesses.\", \"flag_for_ethics_review\": \"['No ethics review needed.']\", \"rating\": \"3\", \"confidence\": \"4\", \"code_of_conduct\": \"Yes\"}", "{\"summary\": \"This paper addresses the challenge of balancing multiple objectives in linear bandit problems, proposing a novel approach where objective diversity naturally induces \\\"free exploration,\\\" allowing simpler algorithms to perform efficiently. Instead of relying on constructing Pareto fronts, which can be computationally intensive, the paper introduces two algorithms, MORR-Greedy and MORO-Greedy, which use round-robin and near-greedy selections to optimize multiple objectives without requiring explicit exploration. The algorithms achieve a regret bound of $\\\\tilde{O}(dT)$, leveraging objective diversity to enhance performance and reduce the need for complex exploratory steps. This paper also introduces the concept of \\\"objective fairness,\\\" ensuring equitable treatment across objectives.\", \"soundness\": \"3\", \"presentation\": \"2\", \"contribution\": \"2\", \"strengths\": \"By using objective diversity for free exploration, the proposed approach presents a new perspective on how multiple objectives can simplify rather than complicate the decision-making process.\", \"weaknesses\": \"1. It is hard for me to understand the concept of objective fairness as defined in Section 2.2.2. Is the equation in this section a correct definition of objective fairness? For example, could you provide an intuitive explanation of what the equation in Section 2.2.2 means in practical terms or in real-world applications. Particularly, could you clarify if this definition allows for objectives of different importance, and if so, how that would be incorporated and affect the final result? A clear explanation about these would be easier for me to understand the proposed results.\\n\\n2. The parameter initialization for $\\\\beta$ in Algorithm 1 is unclear to me. For example, could you provide specific guidelines or a step-by-step procedure for choosing the initial $\\\\beta$ values. Also, the intuition behind Definition 4 and how it relates to algorithm performance are unclear to me. It would be better if a small case study or numerical examples showing how different initializations of $\\\\beta$ might impact the algorithm's behavior and final performance can be provided.\", \"questions\": \"See weaknesses\", \"flag_for_ethics_review\": \"['No ethics review needed.']\", \"rating\": \"5\", \"confidence\": \"3\", \"code_of_conduct\": \"Yes\"}", "{\"comment\": \"We are grateful for the depth of insight demonstrated in your review, and we greatly appreciate the important questions you raised. As you mentioned, our research centers on leveraging objective diversity as a mechanism to induce free exploration in multi-objective bandit problems. We would like to take this opportunity to clarify several key points to ensure a deeper understanding of our contributions.\\n\\n**1. Soundness** \\nWe are well aware that no stochastic linear bandit algorithm can achieve a regret bound better than $O(d\\\\sqrt{T})$. \\nHowever, it is important to note that the regret bound we obtained in Theorem 1 does not contradict this. \\nThe reason is that the environmental parameters in our problem setting, such as $\\\\lambda_0$, $\\\\gamma_0$,and $\\\\alpha_0$, may potentially include terms like $d, M$ and $K$. This phenomenon, where the environmental parameters in the assumptions reduce the order of $d$ and $T$, is commonly observed in the literature on free exploration, such as [Kannan et al.](https://arxiv.org/abs/1801.03423) and [Bastani et al.](https://arxiv.org/abs/1704.09011). (We have revised Section 4 of our paper to provide a clearer explanation of the regret bound.)\\n\\n**2. Pareto Front Approximation**\\nFirst, we would like to emphasize that Pareto regret minimization and Pareto front approximation are **distinct goals**. As noted in [Xu and Klabjan](https://arxiv.org/abs/2212.00884), focusing solely on Pareto regret minimization allows algorithms to optimize for a particular objective, yielding regret bounds comparable to those in single-objective settings. Therefore, meaningful multi-objective bandit studies often pursue additional goals, typically fairness, alongside Pareto regret minimization.\\n\\nAlgorithms targeting both Pareto regret minimization and Pareto front approximation typically select points from the middle of the Pareto front with equal probability. In other words, these algorithms fulfill the fairness criterion proposed by [Drugan & Nowe](https://ieeexplore.ieee.org/document/6707036). Our algorithm, in contrast, aims for both Pareto regret minimization and Objective Fairness. (For details, please refer to Section 2.2.2). \\n\\nIn some scenarios, objective fairness may be more advantageous. For instance, users may want to ensure that at least one of their objectives achieves the optimal reward. Additionally, there may be situations where not all Pareto optimal points are relevant or of interest. Therefore, in some situations, algorithms that satisfy Objective Fairness with faster execution times may be more practical and beneficial compared to those focused on approximating the Pareto front.\\n\\n**3. Empirical validation**\\nWe conducted experiments to empirically estimate the objective fairness index of our algorithm and confirmed that it consistently selects near-optimal arms for each objective. (see Appendix G.2.) Moreover, we confirmed that our algorithm performs consistently well across various levels of diversity and regularity, with no significant performance changes observed. Additionally, we found that our algorithm performs robustly across various levels of diversity in initial parameters. (see Appendix G.3)\\nWe appreciate the concept of hyper volume regret that you mentioned, which offers a valuable perspective. We will consider further analyzing our algorithm using this regret measure.\\n\\n**4. $\\\\gamma$-regularity and feature diversity**\\nAs you noted, $\\\\gamma$-regularity and objective diversity do lead to feature diversity. However, we clarify that the diversity we refer to here differs from the context diversity assumed in previous studies on free exploration, which typically focuses on stochastic contexts and their randomness. For example, in one of the most representative studies on free exploration, [Bastani et al.](https://arxiv.org/abs/1704.09011) assume the existence of $\\\\lambda_0$ such that for each vector $u \\\\in \\\\mathbb{R}^d$, $\\\\lambda_{\\\\min}(\\\\mathbb{E}_X[XX^\\\\top \\\\mathbb{I} \\\\{X^\\\\top u \\\\ge 0\\\\} ]) \\\\ge \\\\lambda_0$.\\n\\nIn contrast, the $\\\\gamma$-regularity assumption in our setting addresses the distribution of feature vectors along the direction of the objective parameters. Combined with objective diversity, this leads to feature diversity that is independent of context randomness and thus applies even in the fixed-arm case.\\n\\nIntuitively, a dataset exhibiting $\\\\gamma$-regularity should allow contexts to cover all directions in the feature space. It is not necessary for each arm to cover the entire feature space; instead, it is sufficient to partition the feature space into regions, with each arm covering a specific region. Further details about $\\\\gamma$-regularity can be found in Appendix C.\\n\\nThank you again for your interest and comments! We hope we have addressed your questions and provided the needed clarification.\"}", "{\"title\": \"Thank you for feedback\", \"comment\": \"I think most of my concerns have been addressed. I will raise my score.\"}", "{\"summary\": \"This paper considers multi-objective linear bandit problems. Unlike existing complex methods, this study leverages \\\"objective diversity\\\" to enable free exploration, leading to efficient algorithms (MORR-Greedy and MORO-Greedy) that achieve good regret bounds without constructing empirical Pareto fronts.\", \"soundness\": \"2\", \"presentation\": \"3\", \"contribution\": \"2\", \"strengths\": \"1. The paper is clearly written.\\n2. The idea of \\\"objective diversity induces free exploration\\\" is novel.\\n3. The proposed algorithm is simple and effective.\\n4. The concept of objective fairness is another contribution, ensuring equitable treatment across all objectives.\", \"weaknesses\": \"1. The introduction could more directly highlight practical scenarios where current multi-objective algorithms face scalability or computational limitations due to their reliance on Pareto front constructions and complex exploration mechanisms. Illustrating these challenges would provide a compelling reason for why a simpler, exploration-free method like MORR-Greedy is beneficial.\\n2. The proposed algorithms assume objective diversity to enable free exploration. Whether this diversity exists naturally in most multi-objective setups is not clear. In real-world scenarios, it is likely that objectives are correlated. Could you provide examples or discuss scenarios where objective diversity is likely to occur naturally, or address how your methods might perform when objectives are correlated?\\n2. The numerical experiments, while supportive of the theoretical claims, may be overly simplified. How the hyper-parameters are chosen is also not discussed.\", \"questions\": \"1. Why $\\\\gamma$-regularity is a proper assumption? How likely it can happen in reality? Could you provide intuition or examples of when $\\\\gamma$-regularity naturally occur in practical scenarios?\\n2. How do you show $T_0$ is independent of $T$? Since $T$ shows up in the expression of $\\\\lambda$, I think it is necessary to show $T_0$ is of order $O(\\\\sqrt{T})$. It seems that in the paper it is simply treated as a constant. \\n3. Could you elaborate more on your claim that \\\"objective diversity induces free exploration\\\"? I am not clear on where this concept is applied within the proof.\", \"flag_for_ethics_review\": \"['No ethics review needed.']\", \"rating\": \"6\", \"confidence\": \"3\", \"code_of_conduct\": \"Yes\"}", "{\"comment\": \"We sincerely appreciate your interest and the thoughtful comments you provided. As you pointed out, our research focuses on developing simple and efficient algorithms aimed at achieving optimal regret and free exploration. This approach is motivated by the inherent diversity of objectives present in multi-objective bandit problems. We would also like to take this opportunity to clarify a few key points, ensuring a comprehensive understanding of our contributions.\\n\\n\\n**[W1]**. In algorithms that construct the Pareto front in each round, the computation time for the empirical Pareto front increases quadratically with the number of arms, which significantly limits scalability as the number of arms grows. Additionally, due to the need for complex vector calculations, these algorithms experience significant slowdowns as the number of arms and objectives increases. Furthermore, the algorithm may become impractical to apply in scenarios involving a large number of arms or high-dimensional objectives.\\nIn contrast, our algorithm simplifies the process by requiring only scalar reward comparisons for the target objective in each round, significantly reducing computational complexity. As a result, our algorithm offers a substantial speed advantage over algorithms that rely on constructing the empirical Pareto front, particularly when dealing with a large number of arms and objectives.\\n \\n**[W2]**. First, the \\\"objective diversity\\\" we refer to concerns the diversity of the objective parameters. In a typical multi-objective bandit problem, the objective parameters $\\\\theta_1^*, \\\\dots, \\\\theta_M^*$ are assumed to be unknown fixed values rather than random variables, making the concept of correlation between them is generally inapplicable. If by \\\"correlated objectives\\\" you are referring to the observed reward values for each objective being correlated, note that such correlation does not necessarily imply a lack of objective diversity. For example, consider a scenario where the feature space has two dimensions and the number of objectives is also two. If the two objective parameters $\\\\theta_1^*$ and $\\\\theta_2^*$ span $\\\\mathbb{R}^2$, objective diversity is still satisfied.\\n\\n**[W3]** Details of the experimental design, including the setup, parameter choices, and evaluation metrics, can be found in Appendix G. For example, it describes how the true objective parameters and arms were systematically generated for each repetition, as well as how the performance varied with different tuning parameters for each algorithm to identify optimal settings for each case. Additionally, we conducted experiments to empirically evaluate the objective fairness index of our algorithm, and assessed its performance under various initial objective parameter settings. The results, which illustrate the effectiveness of different parameter settings and fairness metrics, are provided in Appendix G.2 and G.3.\\n\\n\\n**[Q1]** $\\\\gamma$-regularity refers to the condition where, for each objective parameter, there is at least one arm that is sufficiently close to the direction of the objective parameter (in the fixed arms case), or the probability of such an arm existing exceeds a defined threshold (in the stochastic context case). Intuitively, a dataset exhibiting $\\\\gamma$-regularity ensures that contexts are able to cover all directions within the feature space. It is not required for each arm to cover the entire surface of the feature space; rather, it is acceptable for the surface to be partitioned into regions, with each arm covering a specific region. Further details are provided in Appendix C.\\n\\n**[Q2]** As you mentioned, $T_0$ depends on $\\\\lambda$ and is bounded by $\\\\tilde{\\\\mathcal{O}}(\\\\min(d \\\\log T, \\\\sqrt{dT}))$, which is discussed in detail in Remark 3 and Appendix A.4 of our paper.\\n\\n**[Q3]** To summarize, the MORR-Greedy algorithm iteratively selects the optimal arm for each objective. When the objectives are sufficiently diverse, the arms selected by each objective will naturally reflect this diversity. Mathematically, this diversity ensures a constant lower bound for the minimum eigenvalue of the Gram matrix formed by the arms selected in each round. This concept is discussed in Section 3.2, and the proof can be found in Appendix A.1.\\n\\nThank you again for your valuable feedback. We hope our responses have addressed your questions comprehensively and clarified any uncertainties.\"}" ] }

[ "Minghui Chen", "Ruinan Jin", "Wenlong Deng", "Yuanyuan Chen", "Zhi Huang", "Han Yu", "Xiaoxiao Li" ]

[ "Federated Learning; LLMs-as-Optimizer" ]

{ "note_id": [ "z8sQwiRc0i", "yMT2wpqt4O", "x7a3JNi9X6", "uYRm1r9p3B", "qOXlqhurar", "pxpmkGvoNn", "pXJ2UsYwQK", "n7V3ChiVqs", "mhCmbza0TS", "mBFwgCXsln", "jxaflyCiK8", "dyJqJVooAC", "c0pIBnGV0A", "ZnCgTDnSvL", "TuuSl72pzm", "Syhofd9Z89", "SiLwL7bJy8", "MtMpwsoTMP", "KbMcxmhVDH", "FaGEJCBIJQ", "F3RoaaSkC2", "C3mTd7u80s", "Bleiewki0b", "8aRJIdUlEj", "3JZlys57V7", "2QbMKIVfgw" ], "note_type": [ "official_comment", "meta_review", "official_comment", "official_review", "official_comment", "official_comment", "official_comment", "decision", "official_comment", "official_review", "official_comment", "official_comment", "official_comment", "official_review", "official_comment", "official_comment", "official_comment", "official_comment", "official_comment", "official_comment", "official_comment", "official_review", "official_comment", "official_comment", "official_comment", "official_comment" ], "note_created": [ 1732515196756, 1734770271080, 1732725497743, 1730701464235, 1733131334888, 1732517213735, 1732725523382, 1737523797802, 1732725663527, 1730870803041, 1732517916901, 1732725570506, 1733131314894, 1730759222678, 1732517938920, 1732517172463, 1732515660018, 1732517959107, 1733193613837, 1733194647597, 1732514927404, 1730452565656, 1732517275809, 1733131383479, 1732515142132, 1733131279953 ], "note_signatures": [ [ "ICLR.cc/2025/Conference/Submission6860/Authors" ], [ "ICLR.cc/2025/Conference/Submission6860/Area_Chair_mYd1" ], [ "ICLR.cc/2025/Conference/Submission6860/Authors" ], [ "ICLR.cc/2025/Conference/Submission6860/Reviewer_3fjj" ], [ "ICLR.cc/2025/Conference/Submission6860/Authors" ], [ "ICLR.cc/2025/Conference/Submission6860/Authors" ], [ "ICLR.cc/2025/Conference/Submission6860/Authors" ], [ "ICLR.cc/2025/Conference/Program_Chairs" ], [ "ICLR.cc/2025/Conference/Submission6860/Authors" ], [ "ICLR.cc/2025/Conference/Submission6860/Reviewer_iWmc" ], [ "ICLR.cc/2025/Conference/Submission6860/Authors" ], [ "ICLR.cc/2025/Conference/Submission6860/Authors" ], [ "ICLR.cc/2025/Conference/Submission6860/Authors" ], [ "ICLR.cc/2025/Conference/Submission6860/Reviewer_X2Ad" ], [ "ICLR.cc/2025/Conference/Submission6860/Authors" ], [ "ICLR.cc/2025/Conference/Submission6860/Authors" ], [ "ICLR.cc/2025/Conference/Submission6860/Authors" ], [ "ICLR.cc/2025/Conference/Submission6860/Authors" ], [ "ICLR.cc/2025/Conference/Submission6860/Reviewer_hPgp" ], [ "ICLR.cc/2025/Conference/Submission6860/Authors" ], [ "ICLR.cc/2025/Conference/Submission6860/Authors" ], [ "ICLR.cc/2025/Conference/Submission6860/Reviewer_hPgp" ], [ "ICLR.cc/2025/Conference/Submission6860/Authors" ], [ "ICLR.cc/2025/Conference/Submission6860/Authors" ], [ "ICLR.cc/2025/Conference/Submission6860/Authors" ], [ "ICLR.cc/2025/Conference/Submission6860/Authors" ] ], "structured_content_str": [ "{\"comment\": \"**W3: UID summarization\\u2019s effectiveness under diverse heterogeneities and complexities is underexplored.**\\n\\nThank you for raising concerns about the limitations of UID-based summarization in handling high client heterogeneity and task complexity. We would like to provide clarification and additional evidence to address these points:\\n\\n**1. Clarification: Effectiveness Across Diverse Tasks**\\nThe effectiveness of UID summarization is demonstrated across diverse tasks, as shown in **Figure 6(b)**. These results highlight its ability to retain critical information while maintaining performance across varying task complexities.\\n\\n**2. Experiment: UID Summarization Evaluation Under Client Heterogeneity**\\nTo specifically address your concern regarding client heterogeneity, we conducted additional experiments to evaluate UID summarization under data heterogeneity. The results, presented in **Appendix F**, show that UID-based summarization performs effectively under task level of client heterogeneity.\\n\\n| **Method** | **B = 1** | **B = 3** | **B = 10** |\\n|----------------------|-------------------|-------------------|-------------------|\\n| Summarization | 0.73 (0.03) | 0.78 (0.02) | 0.72 (0.03) |\\n| UID Summarization | **0.75 (0.02)** | **0.79 (0.02)** | **0.74 (0.03)** |\\n\\n\\n---\\n\\n**Q1: Has dynamic aggregation switching based on task complexity been considered?**\\n\\nThank you for raising this insightful question. While we did not initially focus on dynamic aggregation switching, we recognize its potential as a promising extension. Implementing such strategies involves challenges, including defining clear switching criteria and accurately pre-quantifying task complexity in federated learning settings.\\n\\nTo address this, we conducted an experiment to evaluate the feasibility of dynamic switching between concatenation and summarization during the federated aggregation stage. Specifically, when concatenated prompts exceed a pre-defined context window, summarization is applied. The results are detailed in **Appendix G** in our revision. The results demonstrate that the proposed dynamic aggregation method outperforms summarization in certain scenarios but underperforms summarization in others. However, it does not surpass concatenation when the window length is feasible. We found that establishing appropriate switching criteria is critical, presenting an intriguing avenue for future research.\\n\\nWe sincerely appreciate your insightful comments and have highlighted potential future exploration directions in **Appendix G** of our revised manuscript.\\n\\n---\\n\\n**Q2: How effectively does UID summarization retain essential information?**\\n\\nThanks for the question. Compared with summarization, UID summarization is specifically designed to enhance uniformity in the distribution of information across prompts. While summarization methods inherently involve some information reduction compared to concatenation (as shown in **Figure 5**), UID summarization does not introduce any additional information loss beyond standard summarization methods by design.\\n\\nAs described in **Line 91-92** of our original submission, we pointed out that UID aims \\u201cto ensure more balanced information distribution across the summarized global prompt.\\u201d As a result, it \\u201cpreserves key information from each client while preventing overcompression\\u201d (see **Line 446-447** of our original submission).\\n\\nFirstly, the effectiveness of UID summarization in retaining critical information is demonstrated through task performance improvements over standard summarization. As detailed in **Section 4** and our new experiments presented under **W3**, UID summarization achieves higher task performance, indicating that it preserves essential information effectively. Additionally, we measured the mean surprisal value (represents the average information density) of output text generated from standard summarization versus UID summarization. This analysis, included in **Appendix H**, shows that UID summarization yields higher mean surprisal values, further highlighting UID summarization\\u2019s ability to retain critical information while ensuring better uniformity.\"}", "{\"metareview\": [\"The authors propose a novel framework for exploring the potential and challenges of incorporating methods like TextGrad (Yuksekgonul et al., 2024) within a federated learning context. In this framework, each client generates an initial prompt and refines it locally using its own data and local LLM. The optimized prompts are then transmitted to a central server, where they are aggregated and redistributed to the clients. The study evaluates two primary aggregation strategies: concatenation and summarization, with a particular emphasis on optimizing aggregation by prioritizing words with the highest information content.\", \"The studied problem is important.\", \"The proposed methods are well presented and explained\", \"The experiments can be further improved\"], \"additional_comments_on_reviewer_discussion\": \"In the rebuttal period, the authors have provided detailed responses. I have also carefully read the comments of the reviewers. I find that reviewers iWmc and X2Ad present many significant strengths of the paper, while the negative points can be easily addressed in the final version. I think this paper can be accepted.\"}", "{\"comment\": \"Dear Reviewer iWmc,\\n\\nWe sincerely thank you for your thoughtful review and valuable feedback. We have carefully addressed each of your questions and provided detailed responses in our rebuttal. We believe these clarifications effectively address the concerns you raised and further highlight the strength of our contributions.\\n\\nIf our responses satisfactorily resolve your concerns, we would greatly appreciate it if you could consider updating your score.\\n\\nPlease feel free to reach out if you have any further questions or need additional clarifications\\u2014we would be more than happy to discuss them in detail.\\n\\nThank you once again for your time, effort, and thoughtful engagement with our work\"}", "{\"summary\": \"This paper investigates the integration of textual gradients into federated learning environments, focusing on improving the optimization of large language models with privacy preservation. The authors propose a novel approach, Federated Textual Gradient (FedTextGrad), which adapts the concept of textual gradients for federated settings.\", \"soundness\": \"2\", \"presentation\": \"3\", \"contribution\": \"2\", \"strengths\": \"This paper proposes a concept called FedTextGrad for optimizing large language models by integrating text gradients. This method utilizes text feedback for model optimization in a federated environment, extending the application of federated learning to areas where numerical gradients are impractical or infeasible. This paper identifies and addresses key challenges in joint text gradient aggregation, such as maintaining basic information in distributed updates and managing prompt sizes to accommodate LLM API constraints.\", \"weaknesses\": \"Although the experiments in the paper are comprehensive, they mainly focus on inference tasks, which may not fully demonstrate the broad applicability of FedTextGrad in various fields.\\nThe discussion on the limitations of the FedTextGrad method is somewhat insufficient. Although this article briefly discusses challenges such as prompt length management and information retention, it does not delve into potential limitations or scalability issues that may arise when deployed in larger, more heterogeneous environments.\\nSome parts of the manuscript are dense and highly technical, which may make it difficult for readers to understand. Using complex descriptions may obscure key points and findings.\", \"questions\": \"1. The quality of text gradients generated across different clients may fluctuate. How can we ensure the consistency and effectiveness of these text gradients, especially in cases of uneven data distribution or varying data quality?\\n2. The paper tests the proposed method primarily on reasoning tasks. Can you discuss or provide insights on how FedTextGrad might perform across different domains, where data might be more sensitive or heterogeneous?\\n3. Consider providing more detailed descriptions for the implementation of FedTextGrad, especially how textual gradients are computed and aggregated.\\n4. Elaborate on the practical implications of FedTextGrad. How can this method be integrated into existing federated learning frameworks? What are the practical challenges of deploying FedTextGrad in operational environments, and how can they be overcome?\", \"flag_for_ethics_review\": \"['No ethics review needed.']\", \"rating\": \"5\", \"confidence\": \"5\", \"code_of_conduct\": \"Yes\"}", "{\"comment\": \"Dear Reviewer,\\n\\nWe sincerely thank you for your valuable feedback and the opportunity to address your concerns. We would like to kindly remind you that December 2 is the final day for discussions, and the deadline is quickly approaching. If you feel that our responses have resolved the concerns you previously raised, we would greatly appreciate it if you could consider raising your score accordingly.\\n\\nIf you have any remaining questions or need further clarification, we would be delighted to provide additional information before the deadline.\\n\\nThank you again for your time and thoughtful review.\\n\\nBest regards,\\nThe Authors\\nICLR 2025 Submission #6860\"}", "{\"comment\": \"**W2: Discussion on challenges like scalability and more heterogeneous settings**\\n\\nWe agree with the reviewer on the importance of addressing the challenges of scalability and heterogeneity. To address this comment, we first wish to highlight our efforts to cover these topics in our original submission and then justify the extent of their discussion based on the focus of our study.\\n\\n**Performance Evaluated in Heterogeneous Federated Settings.** We would like to highlight our discussion in the original submission to demonstrate our efforts in covering these topics. As detailed in **Section 3.3** of our submission, we have analyzed FedTextGrad\\u2019s performance under client heterogeneity through diverse hyper-parameter ablation studies. These experiments provide valuable insights into FedTextGrad\\u2019s adaptability in heterogeneous federated settings, laying a strong foundation for further exploration in more complex and heterogeneous scenarios.\\n\\n**Discussed on Scalability and Heterogeneity Challenges.** Additionally, we have included the **Discussion Section 5** in the original manuscript to address challenges related to scalability and more heterogeneous environments. This includes a detailed discussion of potential limitations and the key directions required to extend FedTextGrad\\u2019s applicability to larger-scale and more diverse federated learning settings.\\n\\n**Primary Objective: Introducing and Validating FedTextGrad.** While scalability and extreme heterogeneity are critical considerations, the primary objective of our work is to introduce FedTextGrad as a novel paradigm for FL leveraging textual gradients, and to rigorously validate its feasibility and effectiveness in foundational scenarios. To this end, we conducted extensive evaluations on key aspects of FL (e.g., local epochs, batch size, number of clients, heterogeneity levels, and aggregation methods), supported by ablation studies and in-depth analyses. We are pleased that several reviewers have acknowledged these efforts. Furthermore, we explicitly outline potential future directions to inspire subsequent research on scalability and extreme heterogeneity (e.g., communication cost).\\n\\n**Enhanced Discussion in Revised Manuscript.** Our work establishes the viability of textual gradients in FL and lays a robust groundwork for addressing such challenges in follow-up studies, and focusing on wide topics of FL in this study would detract from its primary objective. To address your concerns, we have enhanced our discussion on heterogeneous environments in the updated manuscript in **Section 5 Line 462-469** of our revised version. \\n\\n**In Summary**:\\nOur current study focuses on establishing and validating FedTextGrad as a pioneering framework for federated optimization with textual gradients. While scalability and heterogeneity challenges remain important, we have outlined these as key areas for future research and expanded the discussion to provide additional insights. Thank you for your valuable feedback, which has helped us refine our discussion and improve the manuscript.\\n\\n---\\n\\n**W3: Dense and Technical Writing: Complex descriptions obscure key points, making the manuscript harder to understand**\\n\\nThank you for your feedback regarding the readability of the manuscript. The paper already features a well-structured format with explicit subsections and clearly highlighted key points for ease of navigation\\u2014a strength recognized by **Reviewer hPgp**, who noted, \\u201cClarity: The paper is clear and well-structured.\\u201d Nonetheless, we acknowledge the potential to further enhance its readability and accessibility. To address this, we have implemented the following measures:\\n\\n**1. Highlighted Key Information**:\\nKey concepts and findings are now emphasized using bold text and summaries, particularly in **Sections 1, 2, and 5**. This makes it easier for readers to quickly locate and understand critical points.\\n\\n**2. Clear Takeaways in the Experimental Sections**:\\nWe have distilled the key results and insights from **Sections 3 and 4** into concise summaries. These refinements ensure that readers can readily grasp the main findings without being overwhelmed by technical details.\\n\\nThese improvements enhance the manuscript\\u2019s clarity and accessibility, ensuring that key points and results are prominently and effectively communicated. We appreciate your valuable feedback, which has guided us in making these adjustments.\"}", "{\"comment\": \"Dear Reviewer X2Ad,\\n\\nWe sincerely thank you for your thoughtful review and valuable feedback. We have carefully addressed each of your questions and provided detailed responses in our rebuttal. We believe these clarifications effectively address the concerns you raised and further highlight the strength of our contributions.\\n\\nIf our responses satisfactorily resolve your concerns, we would greatly appreciate it if you could consider updating your score.\\n\\nPlease feel free to reach out if you have any further questions or need additional clarifications\\u2014we would be more than happy to discuss them in detail.\\n\\nThank you once again for your time, effort, and thoughtful engagement with our work\"}", "{\"title\": \"Paper Decision\", \"decision\": \"Accept (Poster)\"}", "{\"comment\": \"Dear Reviewer hPgp,\\n\\nWe sincerely thank you for your thoughtful review and valuable feedback. We have carefully addressed each of your questions and provided detailed responses in our rebuttal. We believe these clarifications effectively address the concerns you raised and further highlight the strength of our contributions.\\n\\nIf our responses satisfactorily resolve your concerns, we would greatly appreciate it if you could consider updating your score.\\n\\nPlease feel free to reach out if you have any further questions or need additional clarifications\\u2014we would be more than happy to discuss them in detail.\\n\\nThank you once again for your time, effort, and thoughtful engagement with our work\"}", "{\"summary\": \"This paper introduces FedTextGrad, a novel paradigm designed to extend the capabilities of federated learning (FL) by incorporating textual gradients rather than traditional numerical ones. Building on TextGrad, an approach for LLM-based prompt optimization through text-based feedback, this work explores how such textual gradients can function within FL frameworks. The motivation behind this approach is to enable FL applications where numerical loss functions or gradients are impractical or unavailable, such as when working with black-box LLM APIs. FedTextGrad allows clients to upload optimized prompts\\u2014derived from textual feedback during local training\\u2014to a central server, which then aggregates these prompts and redistributes a global prompt to clients. This method adapts FL for decentralized and privacy-sensitive environments, expanding potential applications.\\n\\nThe paper identifies unique challenges in aggregating textual gradients across clients, particularly in retaining essential context within the aggregated prompts. Traditional methods like concatenation often lead to prompts that exceed LLM token limits, while summarization can compromise performance by overly compressing information. To address this, the authors propose an enhancement based on the Uniform Information Density (UID) principle, which balances information distribution within aggregated prompts to maintain a coherent context without excessive length. This UID-informed summarization improved global prompt quality.\\n\\nExperiments are conducted to evaluate FedTextGrad across various reasoning tasks, including object counting and arithmetic problems, using different LLM architectures such as LLaMA and GPT-4. The results demonstrate that key FL hyperparameters, like local steps, batch size, and the number of clients, greatly impact FedTextGrad\\u2019s performance. Increasing local steps can enhance local adaptation but risks misalignment with the global prompt, while adding clients initially improves performance by introducing data diversity but eventually leads to synchronization challenges. These findings underscore the importance of carefully tuning FL parameters to balance local and global model alignment in a textual gradient setting.\\n\\nWhile the study offers promising insights into applying textual gradients in FL, it acknowledges several limitations, particularly in terms of privacy and security. Textual gradients inherently carry more contextual information than numerical gradients, posing privacy risks when shared among clients and servers. Though the paper suggests differential privacy and encryption as potential solutions, it lacks an experimental exploration of these methods, leaving privacy protection as a critical area for future research.\", \"soundness\": \"2\", \"presentation\": \"2\", \"contribution\": \"3\", \"strengths\": \"1) The introduction of FedTextGrad as a framework to incorporate textual gradients into FL represents a novel approach, particularly valuable in settings where numerical gradients are unavailable, such as black-box LLM applications.\\n2) The paper addresses a core challenge in aggregating textual data\\u2014preserving essential context without exceeding token limits\\u2014by proposing a UID-based summarization approach. This innovative method helps maintain critical information balance across prompts, solving a major limitation in using textual gradients and improving FedTextGrad's scalability and robustness in handling prompt length constraints in federated settings.\\n3) The paper thoroughly investigates key FL hyperparameters, including local steps, batch size, and the number of clients, assessing their impact on performance. This systematic analysis provides practical insights into optimizing FedTextGrad for different settings, demonstrating the framework's adaptability and offering a foundation for further research and application in federated environments with textual gradients.\", \"weaknesses\": \"1) The paper identifies privacy risks with textual gradients but does not provide or test concrete methods to protect sensitive information, which is crucial for FL applications in privacy-sensitive domains.\\n2) The experiments are primarily conducted on a few large LLMs, restricting insights into how FedTextGrad performs across diverse architectures, particularly smaller models in resource-constrained settings.\\n3) The UID-based summarization method helps with prompt aggregation but has limitations in fully retaining information, especially with high client heterogeneity and complexity, potentially affecting scalability. The effectiveness of UID summarization under varying levels of client heterogeneity and task complexity is not thoroughly explored.\", \"questions\": \"1) Has dynamic switching between aggregation methods, based on task complexity, been considered?\\n2) How effectively does UID summarization capture essential information across tasks?\", \"flag_for_ethics_review\": \"['No ethics review needed.']\", \"rating\": \"6\", \"confidence\": \"3\", \"code_of_conduct\": \"Yes\"}", "{\"comment\": \"**W1: Typographical Errors: Errors found on lines 191 and 216**.\\n\\nThank you for pointing out the typographical errors on **Line 191-216**. We have corrected them in the revised manuscript.\\n\\n---\\n\\n**W2: Clarification on Client Descriptions: Figure 2(b) shows \\u201cClient Num\\u201d > 3, but line 312 links clients to datasets, and only three datasets are mentioned**.\\n\\nThank you for pointing out this ambiguity. To clarify:\\n\\n**Figure 2(b)**: This corresponds to the setup in Section 3.2, where we evaluated the impact of varying client numbers by splitting a single dataset into multiple subsets, representing different clients.\\n\\n**Line 312 and Section 3.3**: These refer to task heterogeneity experiments, where three datasets correspond to three distinct clients.\\n\\nWe revised the manuscript to explicitly differentiate these contexts and ensure consistent terminology. Thank you for your valuable feedback.\"}", "{\"comment\": \"Dear Reviewer 3fjj,\\n\\nWe sincerely thank you for your thoughtful review and valuable feedback. We have carefully addressed each of your questions and provided detailed responses in our rebuttal. We believe these clarifications effectively address the concerns you raised and further highlight the strength of our contributions.\\n\\nIf our responses satisfactorily resolve your concerns, we would greatly appreciate it if you could consider updating your score.\\n\\nPlease feel free to reach out if you have any further questions or need additional clarifications\\u2014we would be more than happy to discuss them in detail.\\n\\nThank you once again for your time, effort, and thoughtful engagement with our work\"}", "{\"comment\": \"Dear Reviewer,\\n\\nWe sincerely thank you for your valuable feedback and the opportunity to address your concerns. We would like to kindly remind you that December 2 is the final day for discussions, and the deadline is quickly approaching. If you feel that our responses have resolved the concerns you previously raised, we would greatly appreciate it if you could consider raising your score accordingly.\\n\\nIf you have any remaining questions or need further clarification, we would be delighted to provide additional information before the deadline.\\n\\nThank you again for your time and thoughtful review.\\n\\nBest regards,\\nThe Authors\\nICLR 2025 Submission #6860\"}", "{\"summary\": \"The authors present a novel approach to analyze the potential and pitfalls of integrating methods like TextGrad (Yuksekgonul et al., 2024) into a federated learning context. In this setup, each client initiates a prompt and refines it locally using its data and local LLM. The optimized local prompts are then uploaded to a server, which aggregates the prompts and redistributes them back to the clients. The main aggregation strategies considered are concatenation and summarization, with an additional focus on optimizing aggregation by prioritizing words with the highest information content.\", \"the_authors_offer_several_insights\": [\"Accuracy vs. number of local steps performed before sending the final prompt to the server\", \"Accuracy vs. number of clients\", \"Accuracy vs. batch size\", \"Impact of using different LLMs, e.g., GPT-4 vs. LLaMA\", \"Cost implications of concatenation in terms of $\", \"Insights on summarization vs. concatenation\", \"One potential area for improvement, although I understand is challenging due to the novelty of the topic, is a comparison with previous federated learning or prompt optimization solutions. For example:\", \"A comparison with traditional Federated Learning based on numerical gradients, such as Communication-Efficient Learning of Deep Networks from Decentralized Data (2023) or FedBiOT: LLM Local Fine-Tuning in Federated Learning without Full Model (2023). If these comparisons are not feasible, it would be helpful to clarify why.\", \"A direct comparison with the centralized version (TextGrad).\"], \"soundness\": \"3\", \"presentation\": \"3\", \"contribution\": \"3\", \"strengths\": [\"Presentation of a novel framework for handling prompt-based learning in a federated learning context.\", \"Numerous insights on learning in a federated learning setting without numerical gradients.\"], \"weaknesses\": [\"lack of comparisons w.r.t. previous works on federated learning\"], \"questions\": [\"Although the topic is new, authors should try to do the following things if possible:\", \"A comparison with traditional Federated Learning based on numerical gradients, such as Communication-Efficient Learning of Deep Networks from Decentralized Data (2023) or FedBiOT: LLM Local Fine-Tuning in Federated Learning without Full Model (2023). If these comparisons are not feasible, it would be helpful to clarify why.\", \"A direct comparison with the centralized version (TextGrad).\"], \"flag_for_ethics_review\": \"['No ethics review needed.']\", \"rating\": \"6\", \"confidence\": \"4\", \"code_of_conduct\": \"Yes\"}", "{\"comment\": \"**W3/Q1: Justification on Experimental Scope**\\n\\nWe appreciate the opportunity to clarify the rationale for focusing on reasoning tasks in our experiments and to clarify that the tasks under reasoning are already diverse. We also address the broader applicability of FedTextGrad.\\n\\n**1. Wide Applicability of Reasoning Tasks**:\\n**Reasoning in LLMs** involves tasks like logical deduction, commonsense reasoning, and multi-hop question answering, requiring models to **go beyond pattern recognition to manipulate and infer complex information** [1]. Evaluating LLMs on reasoning tasks provides a comprehensive assessment of their capabilities and helps identify areas for targeted improvements, making it a **cornerstone of advancing LLM**. In our study, we evaluated FedTextGrad using diverse reasoning benchmarks, including **BBH Object Counting**, **Multi-step Arithmetic**, and **GSM8K**, which **encompass complex and varied scenarios**. These tasks serve as representative examples of real-world applications where textual gradients are highly impactful.\\n\\n**2. Reasoning Tasks Are Core to TextGrad and Highly Relevant to FL Setting**:\\n**Reasoning Tasks Align with TextGrad\\u2019s Paradigm**. Reasoning tasks are particularly well-suited for evaluating TextGrad because they rely on step-by-step thought processes and can be optimized through iterative textual feedback and self-refinement\\u2014core elements of the TextGrad paradigm. This alignment is highlighted in Section 1 (see **Line 59 to 63**) and validated by the findings in the original TextGrad paper. Reasoning is actively-studied and complicated problems in LLM research. \\n\\n**Reasoning as a Key Challenge in LLM-based TextGrad Research**. Reasoning tasks also represent a significant area of active research in LLM development, as they are both challenging and crucial for applications requiring complex decision-making and understanding. By focusing on reasoning tasks, we ensure that TextGrad is tested in scenarios that reflect real-world FL applications, where iterative optimization and feedback mechanisms are essential.\\n\\n**Justification of Task Selection from TextGrad.** While the original TextGrad study included tasks such as coding, chemistry, and radiotherapy treatment, these were not included here for specific reasons: coding tasks involve single-prompt optimization, which differs fundamentally from federated learning\\u2019s collaborative framework, and adapting them would require significant modifications outside our scope; chemistry and radiotherapy datasets are not clearly publicly accessible, and their integration into FL would require specialized adjustments for domain-specific constraints and task heterogeneity. Our focus on reasoning tasks provides a generalizable and accessible benchmark for evaluating TextGrad in FL scenarios.\\n\\n**3. Expanded Scope in Revised Version**:\\nWhile reasoning tasks remain central to our study, we recognize the importance of exploring additional scenarios to demonstrate FedTextGrad\\u2019s versatility. In response to this feedback, we have added experiments on diverse tasks, diverse and challenging tasks from **LiveBench** [2] in **Appendix D**, in the revised version. These results showcase the broader applicability of FedTextGrad while reinforcing its effectiveness in reasoning-centric applications.\\n\\n| **Category** | **Dataset** | **Centralized TextGrad** | **FedTextGrad** |\\n|------------------|------------------|---------------------------|------------------|\\n| **Reasoning** | Spatial | 0.53 | 0.40 |\\n| | Web of Lies | 0.37 | 0.30 |\\n| | Zebra Puzzle | 0.33 | 0.27 |\\n| **Math** | AMPS Hard | 0.46 | 0.50 |\\n\\n\\n**In Summary**:\\nOur focus on reasoning tasks underscores their broad applicability, alignment with the core principles of TextGrad and FL, and relevance to real-world applications. By incorporating additional experiments on diverse tasks, such as coding and problem-solving, in the revised version, we have demonstrated the broader generalizability of FedTextGrad. We appreciate your thoughtful feedback, which has strengthened the clarity and scope of our work.\", \"reference\": [\"[1] Huang, Jie, and Kevin Chen-Chuan Chang. \\\"Towards reasoning in large language models: A survey.\\\" arXiv preprint arXiv:2212.10403 (2022).\", \"[2] White, Colin, et al. \\\"Livebench: A challenging, contamination-free llm benchmark.\\\" arXiv preprint arXiv:2406.19314 (2024).\"]}", "{\"comment\": \"**W1/Q2: Justification on Tasks Selected and Their Diversity.**\\n\\nWe appreciate the opportunity to clarify the rationale for focusing on reasoning tasks in our experiments and to clarify that the tasks under reasoning are already diverse. We also address the broader applicability of FedTextGrad.\\n\\n**1. Wide Applicability of Reasoning Tasks**:\\n**Reasoning in LLMs** involves tasks like logical deduction, commonsense reasoning, and multi-hop question answering, requiring models to **go beyond pattern recognition to manipulate and infer complex information** [1]. Evaluating LLMs on reasoning tasks provides a comprehensive assessment of their capabilities and helps identify areas for targeted improvements, making it a **cornerstone of advancing LLM**. In our study, we evaluated FedTextGrad using diverse reasoning benchmarks, including **BBH Object Counting**, **Multi-step Arithmetic**, and **GSM8K**, which **encompass complex and varied scenarios**. These tasks serve as representative examples of real-world applications where textual gradients are highly impactful.\\n\\n**2. Reasoning Tasks Are Core to TextGrad and Highly Relevant to FL Setting**:\\n**Reasoning Tasks Align with TextGrad\\u2019s Paradigm**. Reasoning tasks are particularly well-suited for evaluating TextGrad because they rely on step-by-step thought processes and can be optimized through iterative textual feedback and self-refinement\\u2014core elements of the TextGrad paradigm. This alignment is highlighted in Section 1 (see **Line 59 to 63**) and validated by the findings in the original TextGrad paper. Reasoning is actively-studied and complicated problems in LLM research. \\n\\n**Reasoning as a Key Challenge in LLM-based TextGrad Research**. Reasoning tasks also represent a significant area of active research in LLM development, as they are both challenging and crucial for applications requiring complex decision-making and understanding. By focusing on reasoning tasks, we ensure that TextGrad is tested in scenarios that reflect real-world FL applications, where iterative optimization and feedback mechanisms are essential.\\n\\n**Justification of Task Selection from TextGrad.** While the original TextGrad study included tasks such as coding, chemistry, and radiotherapy treatment, these were not included here for specific reasons: coding tasks involve single-prompt optimization, which differs fundamentally from federated learning\\u2019s collaborative framework, and adapting them would require significant modifications outside our scope; chemistry and radiotherapy datasets are not clearly publicly accessible, and their integration into FL would require specialized adjustments for domain-specific constraints and task heterogeneity. Our focus on reasoning tasks provides a generalizable and accessible benchmark for evaluating TextGrad in FL scenarios.\\n\\n**3. Expanded Scope in Revised Version**:\\nWhile reasoning tasks remain central to our study, we recognize the importance of exploring additional scenarios to demonstrate FedTextGrad\\u2019s versatility. In response to this feedback, we have added experiments on diverse tasks, diverse and challenging tasks from **LiveBench** [2] in **Appendix D**, in the revised version. These results showcase the broader applicability of FedTextGrad while reinforcing its effectiveness in reasoning-centric applications.\\n\\n| **Category** | **Dataset** | **Centralized TextGrad** | **FedTextGrad** |\\n|------------------|------------------|---------------------------|------------------|\\n| **Reasoning** | Spatial | 0.53 | 0.40 |\\n| | Web of Lies | 0.37 | 0.30 |\\n| | Zebra Puzzle | 0.33 | 0.27 |\\n| **Math** | AMPS Hard | 0.46 | 0.50 |\\n\\n\\n**In Summary**:\\nOur focus on reasoning tasks underscores their broad applicability, alignment with the core principles of TextGrad and FL, and relevance to real-world applications. By incorporating additional experiments on diverse tasks, such as coding and problem-solving, in the revised version, we have demonstrated the broader generalizability of FedTextGrad. We appreciate your thoughtful feedback, which has strengthened the clarity and scope of our work.\", \"reference\": [\"[1] Huang, Jie, and Kevin Chen-Chuan Chang. \\\"Towards reasoning in large language models: A survey.\\\" arXiv preprint arXiv:2212.10403 (2022).\", \"[2] White, Colin, et al. \\\"Livebench: A challenging, contamination-free llm benchmark.\\\" arXiv preprint arXiv:2406.19314 (2024).\"]}", "{\"comment\": \"**W1/Q1: Justification on the Selections of Comparisons**\\n\\nThank you for your thoughtful comment. Below, we clarify the unique context of our work and the reasoning behind the absence of direct comparisons with traditional FL methods.\\n\\n**1. Clarification of the Study\\u2019s Scope**:\\nOur study addresses real-world applications of **LLM APIs**, which inherently lack support for **numerical gradient computation or differential loss calculation**. This constraint, detailed in **Line 13\\u201315** and reiterated in the introduction (**Line 53\\u201357**), defines the boundaries of our research. These limitations necessitate innovative solutions; the FedTextGrad framework addresses this by leveraging textual feedback to enable collaborative optimization in scenarios where numerical gradients are unavailable.\\n\\n**2. Infeasibility of Direct Comparisons**:\\nTraditional FL methods, including **FedAvg** and the referenced **FedBiOT**, rely on numerical gradients and loss functions for optimization. In contrast, LLM APIs function as black-box systems, where such information is not accessible. This key distinction makes direct comparisons methodologically infeasible. To address this gap, our proposed FedTextGrad framework introduces a novel paradigm for federated optimization based on textual feedback, specifically designed to overcome the constraints of black-box LLM API scenarios. As a result, FedTextGrad represents a pioneering approach that extends the applicability of FL to previously inaccessible domains.\\n\\n**3. Comprehensive Experimental Comparisons in the New Setting**:\\nWhile direct comparisons with **traditional numerical FL methods** are infeasible, we conducted **comprehensive experiments** to evaluate FedTextGrad within its unique setting. Our experiments have been recognized by reviewers for **comprehensiveness** and **systematic analysis**:\\n - Reviewer **iWmc** noted:\\n > \\u201cThe paper thoroughly investigates key FL hyperparameters\\u2026 This systematic analysis provides practical insights into optimizing FedTextGrad for different settings.\\u201d\\n - Reviewer **3fjj** commented:\\n > \\u201cThe experiments in the paper are comprehensive.\\u201d\\n - Reviewer **hPgp** highlighted:\\n > \\u201cThe paper provides a thorough analysis of the proposed method\\u2019s feasibility and identifies key challenges.\\u201d\\n\\nThese acknowledgments underscore the depth and practical relevance of our experimental evaluation.\\n\\nSpecifically, we identified the key and generally applicable module in FedTextGrad\\u2014textual update aggregation\\u2014and compared its performance across three aggregation methods: concatenation, summarization, and summarization guided by the uniform information density hypothesis. Detailed analysis and insights from these comparisons are provided in the paper **Section 4.2 and 4.3**, offering a comprehensive evaluation of our framework\\u2019s performance.\\n\\nThank you for highlighting this point, as it helps us clarify and better articulate the **scope** and **significance** of our work.\\n\\n---\\n\\n**Q2: Comparison with Centralized TextGrad \\u2013 Already Addressed in Our Submission**\\n\\n**Response:**\\n\\nThank you for highlighting the importance of comparing **FedTextGrad** with its centralized counterpart, **TextGrad**. We would like to clarify that this comparison is already presented in **Figure 3** of the paper.\\n\\n**Comparison Details**:\\n- **Figure 3a** shows the performance of **TextGrad** in a **centralized setting** across various tasks.\\n- **Figure 3b** presents the results for **FedTextGrad** in **federated settings**.\\n\\nThe side-by-side comparison highlights the **performance gap** between the two approaches. As expected, centralized TextGrad** achieves higher accuracy, as it is not subject to federated constraints like communication overhead and client heterogeneity.\"}", "{\"comment\": \"**Q2: Comparison with Other Methods: Why not compare directly with existing federated learning methods for LLMs?**\\n\\nThank you for your thoughtful comment. Below, we clarify the unique context of our work and the reasoning behind the absence of direct comparisons with traditional FL methods.\\n\\n**1. Clarification of the Study\\u2019s Scope**:\\nOur study addresses real-world applications of **LLM APIs**, which inherently lack support for **numerical gradient computation or differential loss calculation**. This constraint, detailed in **Line 13\\u201315** and reiterated in the introduction (**Line 53\\u201357**), defines the boundaries of our research. These limitations necessitate innovative solutions; the FedTextGrad framework addresses this by leveraging textual feedback to enable collaborative optimization in scenarios where numerical gradients are unavailable.\\n\\n**2. Infeasibility of Direct Comparisons**:\\nTraditional FL methods, including **FedAvg** and the referenced **FedBiOT**, rely on numerical gradients and loss functions for optimization. In contrast, LLM APIs function as black-box systems, where such information is not accessible. This key distinction makes direct comparisons methodologically infeasible. To address this gap, our proposed FedTextGrad framework introduces a novel paradigm for federated optimization based on textual feedback, specifically designed to overcome the constraints of black-box LLM API scenarios. As a result, FedTextGrad represents a pioneering approach that extends the applicability of FL to previously inaccessible domains.\\n\\n**3. Comprehensive Experimental Comparisons in the New Setting**:\\nWhile direct comparisons with **traditional numerical FL methods** are infeasible, we conducted **comprehensive experiments** to evaluate FedTextGrad within its unique setting. Our experiments have been recognized by reviewers for **comprehensiveness** and **systematic analysis**:\\n - Reviewer **iWmc** noted:\\n > \\u201cThe paper thoroughly investigates key FL hyperparameters\\u2026 This systematic analysis provides practical insights into optimizing FedTextGrad for different settings.\\u201d\\n - Reviewer **X2Ad** highlighted:\\n > \\u201cNumerous insights on learning in a federated learning setting without numerical gradients.\\u201d\\n - Reviewer **3fjj** commented:\\n > \\u201cThe experiments in the paper are comprehensive.\\u201d\\n\\nThese acknowledgments underscore the depth and practical relevance of our experimental evaluation.\\n\\nSpecifically, we identified the key and generally applicable module in FedTextGrad\\u2014textual update aggregation\\u2014and compared its performance across three aggregation methods: concatenation, summarization, and summarization guided by the uniform information density hypothesis. Detailed analysis and insights from these comparisons are provided in the paper **Section 4.2 and 4.3**, offering a comprehensive evaluation of our framework\\u2019s performance.\\n\\nThank you for highlighting this point, as it helps us clarify and better articulate the **scope** and **significance** of our work.\\n\\n---\\n\\n**Q3: Model Diversity in Studies: Why was Llama-3.1-8B exclusively used, without testing on other models?**\\n\\nThank you for your insightful question regarding the exclusive use of LLaMA 3.1-8B for prompt optimization and ablation studies. Below, we clarify our rationale:\\n\\n**1. Conducted Evaluation Across Diverse Models**:\\nOur experiments included a range of LLMs, as shown in **Figure 3**: Closed-source models: GPT-4. Open-source models: LLaMA 3.1-70B, 8B, Gemma, and Qwen2. Among these, LLaMA 3.1-8B was chosen for ablation studies due to its optimal balance between performance and computational efficiency.\\n\\n**2. Why Focus on LLaMA 3.1-8B?**\\n- **Balanced Performance**: LLaMA 3.1-8B achieves results comparable to larger models while significantly outperforming smaller ones.\\n- **Resource Efficiency**: Its computational requirements make it ideal for FL scenarios, where clients often face resource constraints.\\n- **Cost-Effectiveness**: LLaMA 3.1-8B aligns with our computational budget, enabling detailed and reproducible studies without compromising on validity.\\n\\n**3. Encouraging Broader Validation**:\\nEvaluating a wider range of models is computationally intensive and costly. To address this limitation, we encourage validation by the broader research community, which may have greater resources to explore additional architectures. This collaborative approach promotes fairness for resource-constrained researchers and aligns with environmentally sustainable practices.\\n\\n**In Summary**:\\nLLaMA 3.1-8B was selected for ablation studies due to its balance of performance, efficiency, and cost, making it a practical and effective choice. We thank you for your valuable feedback, which has helped us clarify this decision and highlight opportunities for further exploration.\"}", "{\"comment\": \"Thanks for the response. It has addressed my concerns. I will increase my score.\"}", "{\"comment\": \"Thank you for recognizing that we have addressed all your concerns effectively. We sincerely appreciate your thoughtful and constructive feedback!\"}", "{\"comment\": \"**W1: Justification of our focus and the discussion on privacy**\\n\\nWe appreciate the opportunity to address your question. First, we would like to clarify our primary focus and contribution. Additionally, we add more detailed discussion in the future directions section regarding the limitations of applying existing privacy-preserving methods to this new paradigm.\\n\\n**1. The Focus of Our Study**:\\nOur work explores the **utility and challenges** of incorporating **textual gradients** into **FL**, establishing a foundational framework for this novel approach (**Line 19**). While privacy is a critical consideration, the primary objective of this study is to assess the feasibility, methodology, and performance of FedTextGrad. As such, the implementation or testing of privacy-preserving methods falls outside the scope of this foundational work.\\n\\n**2. Identified Privacy Challenges and Future Directions**:\\nWe **explicitly acknowledged the challenges** of applying traditional privacy-preserving techniques to textual gradients in Section 5 (**Line 501\\u2013511**). The complexity and context-rich nature of textual gradients introduce unique risks that existing approaches, such as differential privacy or secure multi-party computation, are not fully equipped to address. Inspired by precedents like DP-FedAvg [1] following FedAvg [2], we view the development of privacy-preserving adaptations of FedTextGrad as a significant direction for future research. To enhance this discussion, we have expanded **Appendix A.1 (Paragraph 3)** to include a more detailed survey of privacy-preserving methods for LLM prompting and provide more actionable and relevant guidance for integrating privacy into FedTextGrad.\\n\\n**In Summary**:\\nWhile privacy challenges remain a critical area, our study establishes a foundational framework for exploring textual gradients in FL. Specifically, it demonstrates the feasibility, methodology, and performance of FedTextGrad in addressing black-box optimization scenarios where traditional numerical gradient methods are inapplicable. Privacy is considered a key direction for future research. The revised manuscript includes an expanded discussion to guide future efforts in addressing these challenges. Thank you for your valuable feedback, which has helped us strengthen this aspect of our work.\", \"references\": [\"[1] Noble, M., Bellet, A., & Dieuleveut, A. (2022, May). Differentially private federated learning on heterogeneous data. In the International Conference on Artificial Intelligence and Statistics (pp. 10110-10145). PMLR.\", \"[2] McMahan, B., Moore, E., Ramage, D., Hampson, S., & y Arcas, B. A. (2017, April). Communication-efficient learning of deep networks from decentralized data. In Artificial intelligence and statistics (pp. 1273-1282). PMLR.\"]}", "{\"summary\": \"The paper presents FedTextGrad, a novel federated learning approach that incorporates textual gradients, allowing for the optimization of Large Language Models in decentralized environments. It introduces a new aggregation method based on the Uniform Information Density principle to address the challenge of retaining essential information from distributed prompt updates, thereby enhancing the applicability of federated learning to text-based optimization.\", \"soundness\": \"2\", \"presentation\": \"3\", \"contribution\": \"2\", \"strengths\": \"(1) Originality: The originality of the paper lies in its pioneering effort to adapt TextGrad, a method for automatic differentiation via text, into the federated learning (FL) framework. By proposing FedTextGrad, the authors have expanded the scope of FL to leverage the capabilities of LLMs in a decentralized manner, without the need for explicit numerical loss functions.\\n(2) Quality: The paper provides a thorough analysis of the proposed method's feasibility and identifies key challenges associated with textual gradient aggregation in a federated setting.\\n(3) Clarity: The paper is clear and well-structured. \\n(4) Significance: The significance of the paper lies in its integration of textual gradients into the federated learning framework.\", \"weaknesses\": \"(1) two typographical errors was identified on lines 191 and 216 of the paper;\\n(2) The description of \\\"Client\\\" in the paper is unclear: Figure 2(b) shows \\\"Client Num\\\" exceeding three, but on line 312, the number of clients is stated to correspond to the number of datasets used in the paper, yet the paper only mentions three datasets;\\n(3) This paper introduces TextGrad into the federated learning framework, but experiments are only conducted on reasoning tasks, which is not sufficient in terms of experimental scenarios.\", \"questions\": \"(1) The paper, while thorough in its experimental section, could be further strengthened by incorporating a wider array of datasets and tasks, including but not limited to coding, problem-solving, medicine and chemistry, to enhance the generalizability of its findings.\\n(2) The paper could benefit from a more direct comparison with existing federated learning methods, especially those tailored for LLMs.\\n(3) Why was the Llama-3.1-8B model exclusively utilized for prompt optimization and ablation studies, and not a variety of models?\", \"flag_for_ethics_review\": \"['No ethics review needed.']\", \"rating\": \"6\", \"confidence\": \"3\", \"code_of_conduct\": \"Yes\"}", "{\"comment\": \"**Q1: Consistency of Text Gradients: How to ensure consistent and effective gradients amid uneven data distribution and quality?**\\n\\nThank you for raising this insightful question. As noted in **Section 3 (Lines 257\\u2013258)**, we employ a stability mechanism where, after each iteration, the same batch is evaluated in a loop, and the prompt is updated only if the performance does not drop compared to the previous non-updated version. This approach effectively stabilizes text gradient fluctuations among clients by ensuring that only beneficial updates are retained.\\n\\nAdditionally, this mechanism has demonstrated effectiveness in heterogeneous settings of FedTextGrad, where varying data distributions and quality could otherwise amplify inconsistencies. By integrating this stabilization trick, we enhance the robustness of textual gradients across diverse client environments.\\n\\nWe hope this clarifies our approach to addressing gradient consistency and its applicability in heterogeneous scenarios. Thank you again for your valuable question.\\n\\n\\n---\\n\\n**Q3: Implementation Details: Provide more clarity on how textual gradients are computed and aggregated.**\\n\\nThank you for your suggestion to provide more detailed descriptions of the implementation of FedTextGrad. We would like to clarify that the implementation of the entire FedTextGrad procedure is thoroughly presented in the manuscript:\\n**1. Overall Procedure**: The workflow of FedTextGrad is illustrated comprehensively in **Figure 1**, providing a clear overview of the process.\\n\\n**2. Textual Gradient Computation**: Detailed explanations are provided in **Section 2.1**, specifically in the paragraphs titled Backpropagation of TextGrad and LLMs-as-Optimizers in TextGrad, which outline the steps for generating textual gradients.\\n\\n**3. Textual Aggregation**: The aggregation process is described in **Section 2.3 Step 2 and Algorithm 1**, with an example prompt for summarization included in **Appendix C** to further clarify the procedure.\\n\\nThese sections, including **Figure 1**, **Section 2.1**, **Section 2.3 Step 2**, **Algorithm 1**, and **Appendix C**, collectively offer a detailed and clear description of the textual gradient computation and aggregation implementation of FedTextGrad. We hope this addresses your concerns, and we are happy to incorporate additional clarifications if needed.\\n\\n---\\n\\n**Q4: Practical Integration: How can FedTextGrad be integrated into existing frameworks, and what practical challenges arise?**\\n\\nThank you for your thoughtful question. Below, we elaborate on the practical implications of FedTextGrad, its integration into existing FL frameworks, and the challenges of deploying it in real-world environments, along with potential solutions.\\n\\n**1. Practical Implications of FedTextGrad**:\\nFedTextGrad is specifically designed for black-box LLM APIs in decentralized settings, as outlined in **Section 1 (Lines 55\\u201357)**. It is particularly suitable for scenarios where numerical gradients are unavailable, enabling optimization through textual feedback. This makes FedTextGrad applicable to a variety of real-world use cases, including:\\n- Collaborative Medical Research: Hospitals can collaboratively optimize LLM-based clinical decision support systems without sharing sensitive patient data. For example, hospitals with unique datasets can refine diagnostic prompts while preserving privacy, as demonstrated in our dataset experiments.\\n- Personalized Education Tools: Federated learning systems in education can enhance reasoning and problem-solving prompts by leveraging unshared personal data to adapt to diverse learning patterns, as shown in our experimental results.\\n\\n**2. Integration with Existing FL Frameworks**:\\nWe would like to clarify that FedTextGrad is not intended as a module or extension to existing FL frameworks but rather as a **foundational and entirely novel framework**. It is specifically designed for settings where numerical gradients are inaccessible, loss functions are non-differentiable, and feedback is provided in textual form. This distinct paradigm addresses scenarios that traditional FL frameworks cannot accommodate. We have emphasized this unique positioning in the **Abstract (Lines 15\\u201320)** and **Section 1 Introduction (Lines 72\\u201377)** of the manuscript to clearly differentiate FedTextGrad from existing FL approaches.\\n\\n**3.Practical Challenges and Solutions**:\\nWe mentioned the practical challenges and possible directions in **Section 5** (we can summarize what we talked about). We also would like to highlight that using FedTextGrad on top of black-box LLM API make the use of FL easier and more interpretable in training and deployment as users can directly call APIs to launch training and inference, without needs of delving into complex neural network numerical training pipelines.\"}", "{\"comment\": \"Dear Reviewer,\\n\\nWe sincerely thank you for your valuable feedback and the opportunity to address your concerns. We would like to kindly remind you that December 2 is the final day for discussions, and the deadline is quickly approaching. If you feel that our responses have resolved the concerns you previously raised, we would greatly appreciate it if you could consider raising your score accordingly.\\n\\nIf you have any remaining questions or need further clarification, we would be delighted to provide additional information before the deadline.\\n\\nThank you again for your time and thoughtful review.\\n\\nBest regards,\\nThe Authors\\nICLR 2025 Submission #6860\"}", "{\"comment\": \"**W2: Evaluation of diverse LLMs, especially smaller models.**\\n\\nThank you for your valuable suggestions regarding the evaluation of FedTextGrad across various architectures, particularly smaller models in resource-constrained environments. In this context, we would like to highlight our experiments, which provide new insights on how to effectively accommodate resource-constrained settings.\\n\\n**1. Clarification: Evaluated with Diverse and Smaller Models**\\nWe have already included experiments with **diverse and smaller LLMs**, such as LLaMA 3.1-8B, Gemma-2-9B, and Qwen-2-7B, as shown in **Figure 3** of the original paper. These experiments revealed a notable performance drop in smaller, open-source LLMs compared to their larger counterparts, indicating that current larger models are better suited for TextGrad, while much smaller models are less compatible with the framework. This observation aligns with prior findings in TextGrad, which demonstrate that TextGrad performance improves with model scale.\\n\\n**2. Transferability to Smaller Models Deployment**\\nTo address the potential for deployment in **resource-constrained** settings, we explored a promising method: **transferring prompts optimized on larger LLMs to smaller LLMs for deployment**. Additional experiments are detailed in **Appendix E** of the revised manuscript. The results of the Object Counting and Multi-step Arithmetic tasks demonstrate that prompts fine-tuned on larger LLMs can be effectively reused by smaller models, achieving significantly better performance than initial prompts without requiring further optimization. This finding has substantial practical implications, as it enables the use of larger LLMs for training, leveraging their optimization capabilities, while deploying smaller, resource-efficient models for inference in real-world applications.\\n\\nAgain, we appreciate your feedback that highlights the importance of expanding FedTextGrad\\u2019s adaptability to a wider range of model architectures, including smaller LLMs. In response, we have included this as a key future research direction in the discussion section (see **Appendix A.2** of the revised paper). Specifically, we outline strategies for deploying smaller models in resource-constrained settings.\\n\\n| **Task** | **Initial Prompt \\u2191** | **Transferred Prompt \\u2191** | **Performance Change** |\\n|-----------------------|-----------------------|---------------------------|-------------------------|\\n| Object Counting | 0.66 | **0.69** | +0.03 |\\n| Multi-step Arithmetic | 0.51 | **0.66** | +0.15 |\\n| GSM8K | **0.80** | 0.72 | -0.08 |\\n\\n\\n**In Summary**:\\nWe did include the smaller LLM performance evaluation. To further resolve the issue of deployment of smaller LLM, we have now conducted additional experiments to evaluate FedTextGrad\\u2019s applicability to smaller models through prompt transferability, demonstrating its potential for resource-constrained deployments. Furthermore, we have expanded the discussion of future directions to emphasize the importance of extending this framework to a broader range of architectures.\"}", "{\"comment\": \"Dear Reviewer,\\n\\nWe sincerely thank you for your valuable feedback and the opportunity to address your concerns. We would like to kindly remind you that December 2 is the final day for discussions, and the deadline is quickly approaching. If you feel that our responses have resolved the concerns you previously raised, we would greatly appreciate it if you could consider raising your score accordingly.\\n\\nIf you have any remaining questions or need further clarification, we would be delighted to provide additional information before the deadline.\\n\\nThank you again for your time and thoughtful review.\\n\\nBest regards,\\nThe Authors\\nICLR 2025 Submission #6860\"}" ] }

[ "Yang Yang", "Hongjian Sun", "Jialei Gong", "Di Yu" ]

[ "Interpretable", "Gradient", "Tangent space", "Manifold learning" ]

{ "note_id": [ "wrNo3Rxe8S", "tIxxhWcBvy", "rpfmIJdecJ", "rYVqKbTdXR", "qOUM9NVsXz", "mmoPVmfq9b", "ggvDhLtzci", "eV3f6LnfvV", "baOdRi7Gw8", "aQAHmzK1RS", "aHFVLYVphs", "XMEwB44A6V", "WuRhrMv9kM", "UXvaDtN6Cg", "UIoHXLkDrc", "TbYnlMzDnb", "TPkRGiYxdw", "P1xukpQD31", "GwSMk5BG7a", "A8TCT31LyG", "8194PmKu0v", "6bRrEY1aF9", "6F8Hwcs8p7", "3KYLz6UW1d" ], "note_type": [ "official_comment", "official_comment", "official_comment", "official_review", "official_comment", "official_comment", "official_comment", "official_comment", "official_comment", "official_comment", "official_comment", "official_comment", "meta_review", "official_review", "official_comment", "decision", "official_comment", "official_comment", "official_review", "official_comment", "official_review", "official_review", "official_comment", "official_comment" ], "note_created": [ 1732663260061, 1733048986906, 1732606608509, 1730546638619, 1733190083954, 1732177627688, 1732614110815, 1732587782901, 1732252723931, 1732536331113, 1732369073247, 1732318711502, 1734618899689, 1730635639302, 1732980573089, 1737523633556, 1732087905587, 1732156842258, 1730687048925, 1732527204236, 1730623972046, 1730255860586, 1732525530171, 1732171405628 ], "note_signatures": [ [ "ICLR.cc/2025/Conference/Submission4334/Authors" ], [ "ICLR.cc/2025/Conference/Submission4334/Authors" ], [ "ICLR.cc/2025/Conference/Submission4334/Reviewer_57HL" ], [ "ICLR.cc/2025/Conference/Submission4334/Reviewer_3oL1" ], [ "ICLR.cc/2025/Conference/Submission4334/Authors" ], [ "ICLR.cc/2025/Conference/Submission4334/Authors" ], [ "ICLR.cc/2025/Conference/Submission4334/Reviewer_abkL" ], [ "ICLR.cc/2025/Conference/Submission4334/Authors" ], [ "ICLR.cc/2025/Conference/Submission4334/Authors" ], [ "ICLR.cc/2025/Conference/Submission4334/Reviewer_pkDU" ], [ "ICLR.cc/2025/Conference/Submission4334/Authors" ], [ "ICLR.cc/2025/Conference/Submission4334/Reviewer_57HL" ], [ "ICLR.cc/2025/Conference/Submission4334/Area_Chair_5v31" ], [ "ICLR.cc/2025/Conference/Submission4334/Reviewer_pkDU" ], [ "ICLR.cc/2025/Conference/Submission4334/Authors" ], [ "ICLR.cc/2025/Conference/Program_Chairs" ], [ "ICLR.cc/2025/Conference/Submission4334/Authors" ], [ "ICLR.cc/2025/Conference/Submission4334/Authors" ], [ "ICLR.cc/2025/Conference/Submission4334/Reviewer_WrKM" ], [ "ICLR.cc/2025/Conference/Submission4334/Reviewer_3oL1" ], [ "ICLR.cc/2025/Conference/Submission4334/Reviewer_57HL" ], [ "ICLR.cc/2025/Conference/Submission4334/Reviewer_abkL" ], [ "ICLR.cc/2025/Conference/Submission4334/Reviewer_57HL" ], [ "ICLR.cc/2025/Conference/Submission4334/Authors" ] ], "structured_content_str": [ "{\"comment\": \"Thank you for your valuable and insightful comments.\\n\\n> Since the authors emphasize robustness and local information, can $W_i$ ensure completely correct neighbor information? Can it ensure that non-similar neighbor information is not introduced, especially when there is noise?\\n\\nThank you for raising this important question. \\nThe weights $W_i = diag(\\\\sqrt{P_{i1}} , ..., \\\\sqrt{P_{ik}} )$ in our method are derived from the approximate kNN graph computation [1] and UMAP's local probability definition:\\n\\n$\\nP_{j|i} = \\\\exp\\\\left(-\\\\frac{\\\\|x_i - x_j\\\\| - \\\\text{dist}_i}{\\\\gamma_i}\\\\right),\\n$\\n\\nwhere $x_j$ is within the kNN neighbours of $x_i$, $dist_i$ is the local distance normalization term, and $\\\\gamma_i $controls the spread of the local neighborhood. This computation ensures a probabilistic interpretation of neighbor relationships based on distance.\\n\\nTo construct the kNN graph, we use an approximate kNN search algorithm with guaranteed accuracy bounds, as detailed in the work by Dong et al. (2011) [1]. This algorithm balances computational efficiency and accuracy, minimizing the risk of introducing non-similar neighbors.\\n\\nWhile no kNN method is completely immune to noise, the approximate kNN algorithm we use provides theoretical guarantees and has been experimentally demonstrated to retrieve true positives effectively while controlling false positives, as shown in Dong et al. (2011). This ensures the reliability of $W_i $ in capturing meaningful local structures, even in the presence of noise.\\n\\nWe have revised our manuscript in Section 3.1 (highlighted in yellow) to discuss the accuracy of kNN graph construction, particularly in handling non-similar neighbor information and noise.\\n\\n*[1] Dong, Wei, Charikar Moses, and Kai Li. \\\"Efficient k-nearest neighbor graph construction for generic similarity measures.\\\" Proceedings of the 20th international conference on World wide web. 2011.*\\n\\n\\n\\n>The authors mentioned that Feature Understanding in fine-tuning for LLM, the output of the large model should be the feature vector directly. How to understand the feature understanding in the application of LLM? Can you give some examples?\\n\\nThank you for raising this thoughtful question. \\nFeature understanding in the context of large language models (LLMs) involves interpreting how specific features in LLMs's output feature vectors contribute to specific tasks. FeatureMAP can facilitate this understanding through data visualization and feature visualization using feature gradients. Below, we provide an example of Semantic Similarity and Clustering in LLM applications to illustrate this.\\n\\n**Example: Semantic Similarity and Clustering in LLMs**\\n\\nWhen LLMs generate feature vectors (e.g., sentence embeddings), these vectors encode semantic information. FeatureMAP can be used to visualize these embeddings in a lower-dimensional space while preserving important feature-level information.\\n\\n1. **Data Visualization**\\n\\nUsing FeatureMAP, sentence embeddings are projected into a 2D space, revealing clusters that represent semantically similar sentences. For example, sentences about \\\"technology\\\" may form one cluster, while sentences about \\\"healthcare\\\" form another.\\nThe clustering reveals the relative positioning of embeddings while preserving their local and global structures.\\n\\n2. **Feature Visualization**:\\n\\nFeature gradients computed by FeatureMAP highlight the contribution of specific dimensions (features) in the embedding to the clusters.\\nFor instance, if a particular feature represents the presence of technology-related terms, the feature direction points toward the \\\"technology\\\" cluster, and its magnitude indicates the feature's importance.\\n\\nThrough this process, FeatureMAP helps uncover which features influence clustering and similarity in the embedding space, providing actionable insights for fine-tuning. For example, if a feature critical to a cluster is weakly represented in the embeddings, it may indicate a need for additional fine-tuning of the LLM.\\n\\nIn addition, expanding FeatureMAP's capabilities to enhance feature interpretability in LLMs will be a focus of our future work, as we believe it can improve the interpretability in LLM applications.\"}", "{\"comment\": \"Dear Reviewer,\\n\\nThank you for reviewing our revised manuscript and for your thoughtful and constructive feedback. Your comments have been instrumental in improving the quality of our work.\\n\\nWe kindly ask if you would consider revising the score based on the changes we have made. We greatly appreciate your guidance and support throughout the review process.\\n\\nIf you have any additional questions or suggestions, we would be delighted to address them.\"}", "{\"title\": \"Response to authors comment\", \"comment\": \"Thank you for answering that, I decided to increase my score.\"}", "{\"summary\": \"Nonlinear dimensionality reduction often lacks interpretability due to the absence of source features in low-dimensional embedding space. This paper proposes FeatureMAP, an interpretable method that preserves source features by tangent space\\nembedding.\", \"soundness\": \"3\", \"presentation\": \"2\", \"contribution\": \"3\", \"strengths\": \"This paper proposes FeatureMAP, an interpretable method that preserves source features by tangent space embedding. The core of FeatureMAP is to use local principal component analysis (PCA) to approximate tangent spaces.\", \"weaknesses\": \"The way to solve Eq. (11) is not described in detail. A.4 seems hard for me to implement the FeatureMAP.\", \"questions\": \"see the weaknesses\", \"flag_for_ethics_review\": \"['No ethics review needed.']\", \"rating\": \"6\", \"confidence\": \"4\", \"code_of_conduct\": \"Yes\"}", "{\"comment\": \"Dear Reviewer,\\n\\nI hope this message finds you well. I am writing to kindly inquire about the status of the feedback for the revision based on your suggestion. I greatly value your time and expertise in reviewing our work.\\n\\nIf there are any clarifications or additional information required from my side, please do not hesitate to let me know. Thank you very much for your efforts in providing constructive feedback.\"}", "{\"comment\": \">1 Unclear Motivation: Why perform SVD on instead of Xi or X? The motivation is not introduced clearly.\\n\\nThank you for your question. The motivation for performing SVD on $W_iX_i$ rather than $X_i$ lies in capturing the local structure of the data. $W_i$ applies weights to emphasize the local neighborhood of each data point $x_i$ , ensuring that the SVD captures the most significant local variation. This approach provides a more accurate tangent space approximation by considering the local geometry, which would be lost if unweighted $X_i$ were used. We have clarified this motivation in the revised manuscrip, which is highlighted in yellow in section 3.1.\\n\\n>2 There is an error in (5), since Vi/Vj is known variable calculated in (2).\\n\\nThank you for you suggection. The objective of Eq (5) is to compute the optimal alignment $O_{ij}$, which is an orthonormal matrix ($\\\\textit{O}(d)$), given the tangent space $V_i$ and $V_j$. Thus, $O_{ij}$ is regarded as an approximation of $V_jV_i^T$. We have clarified this point further in the manuscript highlighted in yellow in section 3.2.\\n\\n>3 What are the advantages of the method compared with the existing works, especially in terms of computational complexity, running times, and robustness?\\n\\nThank you for your question. FeatureMAP provides several distinct advantages over existing methods, particularly with its unique focus on feature preservation, alongside considerations of computational complexity, running times, and robustness:\", \"feature_preservation\": \"Unlike many dimensionality reduction methods, such as UMAP or PHATE, FeatureMAP explicitly embeds tangent spaces, allowing it to preserve feature-level relationships in addition to the manifold structure. This makes FeatureMAP highly interpretable, as it highlights which features contribute most to the embedding, a capability lacking in most existing methods.\", \"computational_complexity_and_running_times\": \"While FeatureMAP involves additional steps, such as tangent space computation and alignment, it achieves comparable running times to methods like densMAP and TriMAP by leveraging approximate nearest neighbor searches and efficient optimization techniques (e.g., stochastic gradient descent). For datasets of 50,000 samples, FeatureMAP requires slightly more time than UMAP (150 seconds vs. 30 seconds) due to its enhanced functionality, but this is justified by its ability to preserve both feature importance and manifold geometry.\", \"robustness\": \"FeatureMAP is robust to variations in data density and structure, as its tangent space alignment and embedding steps balance local and global structural preservation. By aligning tangent spaces through cosine similarity and optimizing embeddings to maintain agreement with the original geometry, FeatureMAP ensures stable and consistent results, even for complex datasets.\\n\\nWe have included a comparative analysis of the major existing methods in Section A.1.7 of the APPENDIX.\\n\\n>4 What\\u2019s the significance/application value of the method in real-word applications, especially under the LLM era?\\n\\nThank you for this insightful question. FeatureMAP provides substantial value in real-world applications, particularly in the era of large language models (LLMs), where interpretability and efficiency are essential:\\n\\n- Interpretability of High-Dimensional Representations: FeatureMAP preserves and visualizes feature-level importance in high-dimensional data. It helps uncover the key features or dimensions contributing to downstream tasks, enhancing interpretability in applications such as sentiment analysis, question answering, and content generation.\\n\\n- Feature Understanding in Fine-Tuning and Evaluation: FeatureMAP identifies which features are preserved, transformed, and lost during LLM fine-tuning. This insight aids domain adaptation and improves model generalization by enabling better understanding of feature interactions.\\n\\n\\n>5 This method involves multiple independent steps and is not a complete optimization problem. Will this lead to difficulties in obtaining the global optimal solution and the problem of the previous step affecting the next result?\\n\\nThank you for this important question. FeatureMAP addresses the challenges of combining multiple independent steps by using a unified loss function that jointly optimizes kNN graph embedding and anisotropic projection based on tangent space embedding. This approach minimizes the risk of suboptimal results affecting subsequent steps.\", \"the_loss_balances_two_key_objectives\": \"kNN Graph Embedding and Tangent Space Alignment and Projection.\\nBy optimizing these objectives simultaneously, the method aligns local and global structures. The use of stochastic gradient descent (SGD) iteratively minimizes the combined loss, ensuring convergence to a solution that integrates graph embedding and tangent space alignment effectively.\\n\\nWe have revised the algorithm pseudocode in Section A.1.6 to enhance clarity.\"}", "{\"comment\": \"Thanks to the authors for the responses and revision.\\nSince the authors emphasize robustness and local information, can Wi ensure completely correct neighbor information? Can it ensure that non-similar neighbor information is not introduced, especially when there is noise? The authors mentioned that Feature Understanding in fine-tuning for LLM, the output of the large model should be the feature vector directly. How to understand the feature understanding in the application of LLM? Can you give some examples?\"}", "{\"comment\": \"Thank you for your comment. We have revised the manuscript based on your suggestions.\\n\\n>You present a single cherry-picked feature...\\n\\nApologies for the misleading selection. The reason we chose this feature (i.e., pixel127) was to maintain consistency with Figure 1, where pixel127 is highlighted as the top feature in that example. In our revised manuscript, we focus exclusively on the top 10 important features, visualising them using PCA, UMAP, and FeatureMAP. As the top 10 features identified by each method differ, we combined all these important features, resulting in a set of 22 features illustrated through FeatureMAP.\\n\\n>The colour map in Figure 16d is not consistent with Figurre16abc, thus making it hard to do a fair comparison.\\n\\nWe have added the feature importance panel to ensure consistency in the colormap. In comparison, FeatureMAP highlights heterogeneous feature importance, whereas the other methods only provide an overall score.\\n\\nPlease feel free to share any additional comments.\"}", "{\"comment\": \">Weaknesses:\\nlittle or no support is provided that the resulting dimensionality reduction better preserves important features of the source space, which is the main motivation of the method.\\n\\nThank you for this valuable comment. The core motivation for proposing FeatureMAP is its ability to preserve and visualize important features of the source space, which existing methods, such as UMAP and t-SNE, fail to achieve because they only consider embedding the topological structure by kNN graph. Unlike these methods, FeatureMAP embeds tangent spaces, enabling it to explicitly preserve feature directions and feature importance in the reduced space. This capability allows users to not only visualize the embeddings but also understand which features contribute most to the low-dimensional representation.\\nTo validate this feature-preservation property, we conducted experiments on the MNIST, Fashion-MNIST, COIL-20 dataset and adversarial examples. FeatureMAP successfully highlights the directions and importance of features, demonstrating its robustness and interpretability in scenarios where understanding the role of individual features is critical. \\n\\n\\n>the comparison to other methods is mostly qualitative and makes it hard to argue the new method is somehow superior to previously proposed ones. Visualization results (Figure 12) are subjective (\\\"clearly shows distint clusters of different digit groups\\\"), quantitative measures (Table 1) are inconclusive, and running time is usually worse (Figure 13).\\n\\nThank you for your feedback. FeatureMAP uniquely visualizes feature directions and importance, enabling data interpretation in embedding space, unlike UMAP or t-SNE. This interpretability is our principal contribution.\\n- Quantitative Performance:\\nFeatureMAP outperforms competitors in local metrics (e.g., continuity, kNN accuracy) and ranks consistently high on global metrics (e.g., Shepard goodness, stress), as shown in Table 1.\\n- Computational Cost:\\nFeatureMAP\\u2019s higher runtime (e.g., 150s vs. UMAP\\u2019s 30s) is justified by its extended functionality, including tangent space embedding and feature visualization, which surpass solely kNN-based methods.\\n- Visualization and Density:\\nFeatureMAP preserves density like densMAP while producing distinct clusters. These visualizations (Figure 12) align with superior quantitative performance, reinforcing the method\\u2019s effectiveness.\\n\\nWe have further clarified these points in the manuscript to strengthen our arguments and provide additional context to the comparisons in Section A.2.4\\n\\n>Questions 1\\n\\nThank you for raising this concern. Yes, our method FeatureMAP is equivalent to UMAP when considering only the topology (kNN graph) and the first term of the loss function (distance distortion). We have clarified this in the manuscript by appropriately attributing the corresponding techniques to UMAP and have revised Section 3, with updates highlighted in red.\\n\\n>Questions 2\\n\\nThank you for your question. The second optimization term in FeatureMAP preserves both local density and source features, uniquely enabling the visualization of feature directions and importance\\u2014capabilities not available in UMAP or t-SNE.\\n\\nEvidence from the MNIST, Fashion MNIST, COIL-20 datasets, and adversarial examples demonstrates FeatureMAP's ability to highlight feature directions and their influence in the embedding space. Furthermore, as shown in Figures 8, 9, and 10, FeatureMAP outperforms UMAP in density preservation.\\n\\n>Questions 3\\n\\nThank you for raising this concern. We have added a reference to [Chari & Pachter, PLOS Comput. Biol. (2023)] and discussed its relevance to our method in Related Work (Section 2).\\n\\nIt is worth noting the ongoing debate around UMAP and t-SNE in visualization applications, highlighted both in research publications and on social media. On one side, [Chari & Pachter, PLOS Comput. Biol. (2023)] argue that such embeddings can be arbitrary and misleading, comparing them to forcing data into an elephant shape. On the other side, studies like [Lause et al., PLOS Comput. Biol. (2024)], [Damrich et al., ICLR (2022)], and [Van Assel et al., NeurIPS (2022)] show that while these methods do not preserve high-dimensional distances, they can still provide biologically meaningful insights through spectral clustering and probabilistic graph coupling analyses.\\n\\nOur method aligns with the latter perspective. Specifically, FeatureMAP extends conventional UMAP by incorporating local tangent space embedding, thus improving the interpretability in terms of both feature importance and density. This augmentation provides new functionality with feature direction and importance to better interpret the embedding. Also, it preserves the denstiy, which enhances the understanding the local and global embedding.\"}", "{\"comment\": \"Dear Authors,\\nThank you for the effort you have invested in revising your manuscript. I have carefully reviewed the additional explanations and supplementary materials you have provided in response to the initial round of reviews. The additional experiments and data analyses strengthen the empirical foundation of your paper and provide a more comprehensive view of your method's performance and robustness.\"}", "{\"comment\": \"Thank you so much for your prompt response, and thank you again for raising this important question. To address your concern, we have revised the manuscript to include experiments and figures in Section A.2.5 of the APPENDIX (highlighted in red), illustrating FeatureMAP's feature-preserving strength compared to UMAP, t-SNE, and PCA.\\n\\nBriefly, the source features we aim to preserve are analogous to the feature loadings in PCA's biplot, which explain a feature's contribution to the data distribution.\\nHowever, this interpretation is not directly applicable to nonlinear dimensionality reduction methods like UMAP and t-SNE, as they do not provide feature loadings in the embedding.\\nFeatureMAP addresses this limitation by introducing the computation of tangent spaces and feature gradients over the manifold, \\nthus making the feature loadings avaiable to locally interpret the embedding. \\n\\nSpecifically, FeatureMAP is able to visualize the feature contribution by vector filed (Figure 1f in Section 1 and Figure 15 in Section A.2.5), where the feature direction indicates how the feature changes along the data embedding. In addition, the magnitude of feature contribution, i.e., feature importance, directly indentify the key features for each sample, with applications on revealing edges of MNIST, Fashion MNIST and COIL-20, and explaining the misclassification of advarserial attack. Moreover, due to the feature-preserving machanism, the embedding also preserve the data density because we model the local data points in one hyperecllipse. \\n\\nIn summary, source features in this dimensionality reduction context represent feature contributions to the data embedding in terms of both direction and magnitude. FeatureMAP achieves this through feature gradients, providing practical applications in visualizing feature directions and leveraging feature importance to interpret embeddings.\\n\\nWe hope this updated revision addresses your concern. Please feel free to share any additional comments if there are further issues.\"}", "{\"title\": \"Response to authors comment\", \"comment\": \"Thank you for providing those clarifications and answering my questions, and I much appreciate your effort to use them to improve the manuscript. I believe you provide good answers to my questions, except for the first (and perhaps main) concert:\\n\\nWhere do you show that the new method's `ability to preserve and visualize important features of the source space, which existing methods, such as UMAP and t-SNE, fail to achieve`. What are the source space features you preserve, and where can I see them? \\n\\nDon't get me wrong, I agree with your intuition, and it's a step in the right direction, but it is hard for me to see if your method is doing what your intuition suggests it should be doing. The supporting evidence is not convincing to me, but I am open to be convinced otherwise.\"}", "{\"metareview\": \"While nonlinear dimensionality reduction often lacks interpretability, this paper proposes an interpretable method FeatureMAP to preserve source features by tangent space embedding. Experiments on several datasets validate the effectiveness. After the rebuttal, it receives two borderline rejects and three borderline accept. It is obviously a borderline paper. The advantages, including the thorough theoretical analysis and good presentation, are recognized by the reviewers. However, they are also concerned about the unconvincing support for better important feature preservation, unclear practical application, insufficient convergence analysis, etc. I agree with Reviewer 57HL that the proposed method lacks clear criteria for comparison and judgment. The results presented in Table 1 do not show the superiority, where they are very close. Moreover, the datasets are relatively small from my point of view. The large-scale datasets application is not validated. I think the current manuscript does not meet the requirements of this top conference. I suggest the authors carefully revise the paper and submit it to another relevant venue.\", \"additional_comments_on_reviewer_discussion\": \"The response well addresses some concerns. Reviewer 57HL raises the score but still does not suggest acceptance in the discussion. This is a borderline paper. There is still much room for improvement from my point of view, such as the experimental results comparison, larger dataset, etc.\"}", "{\"summary\": \"This paper introduces a novel interpretable nonlinear dimensionality reduction method called FeatureMAP, which aims to enhance the interpretability of reduced-dimensional results by preserving source features. FeatureMAP utilizes local Principal Component Analysis (PCA) to approximate tangent spaces and computes gradients to reveal feature directions and importance. Additionally, it embeds tangent spaces into low-dimensional space while maintaining alignment between them, preserving local anisotropic density. The authors evaluate FeatureMAP on various datasets, and compare it with existing dimensionality reduction methods.\", \"soundness\": \"3\", \"presentation\": \"3\", \"contribution\": \"3\", \"strengths\": \"1.FeatureMAP offers a new perspective by combining local PCA and tangent space embedding to enhance the interpretability of nonlinear dimensionality reduction, which is a commendable innovation.\\n2.The paper conducts extensive experiments on several standard datasets, validating FeatureMAP's effectiveness in preserving features and density.\\n3.The paper effectively demonstrates FeatureMAP's ability to distinguish different categories and explain adversarial samples through visualization results and compares the proposed meathod with some of the most advanced methods, showing its advantages in certain aspects.\", \"weaknesses\": \"1.The paper mentions the selection of parameter \\u03bb but does not discuss the impact of other parameters on the results. Guidance on parameter selection and sensitivity analysis is crucial for practical applications.\\n2.The paper should discuss the computational complexity of FeatureMAP, especially its performance and scalability when dealing with large datasets. This is a key factor for the feasibility of the method in practical applications.\", \"questions\": \"1.What is the computational resource consumption of FeatureMAP when dealing with large datasets? Are there optimization strategies to improve efficiency?\\n2. In what aspects does FeatureMAP significantly differ from the latest dimensionality reduction methods such as PHATE and SpaceMAP?\", \"flag_for_ethics_review\": \"['No ethics review needed.']\", \"rating\": \"6\", \"confidence\": \"3\", \"code_of_conduct\": \"Yes\"}", "{\"comment\": \"Dear Reviewer,\\n\\nThank you for your time and efforts in reviewing our submission. We have carefully addressed your comments and submitted our revised manuscript through the system. We kindly request you to review the rebuttal at your earliest convenience.\\n\\nIf there are any additional clarifications or details we can provide, please do not hesitate to let us know. We appreciate your valuable feedback and support in this process.\"}", "{\"title\": \"Paper Decision\", \"decision\": \"Reject\"}", "{\"title\": \"Thank you very much for your kind and constructive comments. We have carefully revised our paper in accordance with your valuable suggestions and have addressed all the questions you raised.\", \"comment\": \">Strengths:\\nThis paper introduces a newly designed method that provides interpretability for nonlinear dimensionality reduction. The theoretical proofs are thorough, the experiments are comprehensive, and the writing is clear.\\n\\nWe thank the Reviewer for the clear summary and positive evaluation of our work. We have addressed the concerns as outlined below. The revised sections of the manuscript are highlighted in orange.\\n\\n>Weaknesses:\\nMissing or incorrect punctuation following equations (e.g., Equation 11). The APPENDIX layout is somewhat unstructured.\\n\\nThank you for pointing out these weaknesses. We have carefully reviewed and corrected the punctuation following all equations, including Equation 3, 11, 13, 14 to ensure accuracy and consistency. Additionally, we have reorganized the APPENDIX to enhance its structure and readability. The APPENDIX is now divided into two major sections: details of the algorithms and additional experimental results. Subsection titles have been added to improve clarity, and more detailed descriptions have been provided for each figure to ensure better understanding.\\n\\n>Questions:Explicitly outline what current methods (e.g., UMAP) lack regarding feature preservation in the introduction, and provide a brief comparative summary to showcase why FeatureMAP fills a distinct gap.\\n\\nThank you for your valuable suggestion. In response, we have included a discussion in the introduction highlighting the limitations of current methods (e.g., UMAP) in feature preservation, along with a brief comparative summary. Additionally, we have provided a detailed comparative summary of major methods in a table, which is now included in the section A.1.7 of APPENDIX.\\n\\n\\n>In the adversarial attack interpretation experiment (the right of Fig. 6), it is difficult to observe additional important features beyond the typical edges of digit 1. In other words, the saliency map shown is insufficient to explain the reasons for misclassification.\\n\\nThank you for raising this question. The right panel of Fig. 6 displays five images randomly selected from the fake image dataset. In comparison with the original images and their corresponding saliency maps (Fig. 4 and the newly added Fig. 11), which highlight feature importance primarily along the edges of the digits, the saliency maps in Fig. 6 reveal additional important features beyond the digits' edges. These extra features contribute to the misclassification.\\n\\nAs the Fast Gradient Sign Attack (FGSM) introduces small perturbations to the pixels to generate fake images, it is challenging to directly discern the misclassification from individual images. To address this, we averaged the feature importance across original and fake images to compare the saliency maps of original and adversarial labels (bottom of Fig. 6). The results indicate that the average feature importance of fake images is more similar to that of digit 8 than digit 1. This observation explains why the classifier misclassifies the fake images as digit 8.\\n\\n>Figure 13 shows that the computation time of FeatureMAP exceeds that of other methods. Is this time acceptable?\\n\\nThank you for your question. We have expanded the description of the efficiency evaluation to provide a clearer comparison in section A.2.4 of APPENDIX.\\n\\nFeatureMAP does require more computation time than UMAP (e.g., 30 seconds for UMAP versus 150 seconds for FeatureMAP on 50,000 samples). However, this additional time is justified by its extended functionality. Unlike UMAP, which focuses solely on kNN graph embedding, FeatureMAP embeds tangent spaces and enables feature visualization, providing a richer representation of the data.\\n\\nMoreover, the runtime of FeatureMAP is comparable to densMAP and TriMAP, as all three methods involve additional computations beyond kNN graph embedding. Specifically, densMAP incorporates local density calculations, and TriMAP computes distances within triplets. In contrast, PHATE exhibits significantly higher computational overhead when the data size exceeds 50,000, due to its reliance on Multi-dimensional Scaling (MDS), which requires calculating all pairwise distances.\\n\\nThese comparisons demonstrate that FeatureMAP's computational cost is reasonable given its enhanced capabilities and performance.\"}", "{\"title\": \"Thank you for your valuable suggestion. We have addressed your concerns and highlighted the revisions in pink in the manuscript.\", \"comment\": \">Weaknesses:\\n1.The paper mentions the selection of parameter \\u03bb but does not discuss the impact of other parameters on the results. Guidance on parameter selection and sensitivity analysis is crucial for practical applications. \\n\\nThank you for raising this important point. In response, we have expanded in section A.1.5 (APPENDIX) of the manuscript to include the impact of key parameters $n\\\\_neighbors$, $min\\\\_dist$ and $\\\\lambda$ on FeatureMAP's results. We provide guidance on parameter selection, outlining recommended default values and scenarios where adjustments may be necessary.\\n\\n>2.The paper should discuss the computational complexity of FeatureMAP, especially its performance and scalability when dealing with large datasets. This is a key factor for the feasibility of the method in practical applications.\\n\\nThank you for your valuable suggestion. We have added a discussion on the computational complexity of FeatureMAP to address its performance and scalability with large datasets in section A.2.4 of APPENDIX.\\n\\nFeatureMAP\\u2019s complexity is primarily influenced by the construction of the kNN graph and the embedding process. For a dataset with $n$ samples and $d$-dimensional input, the kNN graph construction typically has a complexity of $\\ud835\\udc42(n\\\\log n)$ for approximate methods. The embedding process involves additional computations, such as embedding tangent spaces, which adds $O(nk)$, where $k$ is the size of the local neighborhood.\\n\\nWhile FeatureMAP requires more computation time than simpler methods like UMAP (e.g., 150 seconds for FeatureMAP versus 30 seconds for UMAP on 50,000 samples), its runtime is comparable to other advanced methods such as densMAP and TriMAP. These methods also involve additional steps beyond kNN graph embedding, such as density computation or triplet-based optimization.\\n\\nIn terms of scalability, FeatureMAP is designed to handle large datasets effectively, leveraging approximate nearest neighbor search techniques to minimize computational overhead. However, as dataset sizes increase significantly (e.g., over 100,000 samples), the runtime grows due to the additional complexity of embedding tangent spaces. We have included a more detailed analysis in the manuscript to highlight these aspects and discuss practical considerations for applying FeatureMAP to large datasets.\\n\\nWe hope this addition clarifies FeatureMAP's computational feasibility in practical applications.\\n\\n>Questions:\\n1.What is the computational resource consumption of FeatureMAP when dealing with large datasets? Are there optimization strategies to improve efficiency?\\n\\n1.\\tComputational Resource Consumption of FeatureMAP for Large Datasets: FeatureMAP primarily consumes computational resources during two phases: kNN graph construction and the embedding process. For a dataset with $n$ samples and $d$-dimensional input, the resource consumption is as follows:\\n-\\tkNN Graph Construction: Typically $O(n\\\\log n)$ when using approximate nearest neighbor methods, which are efficient even for large datasets.\\n-\\tEmbedding Process: The embedding of tangent spaces and optimization of the manifold structure adds complexity, approximately $O(nk)$, where $k$ is the size of the neighborhood considered.\\nFor large datasets (e.g., over 100,000 samples), memory consumption and runtime increase due to the higher number of pairwise distances and tangent space computations. However, FeatureMAP remains comparable in computational demands to advanced methods like densMAP and TriMAP.\\n2.\\tWe discuss the possible Optimization Strategies to Improve Efficiency: \\n-\\tApproximate Nearest Neighbor Search: Utilize efficient libraries like Annoy or FAISS to accelerate kNN graph construction without significant accuracy loss.\\n-\\tDimensionality Reduction Before Embedding: Apply initial dimensionality reduction (e.g., PCA) , to lower the computational cost for tangent space embedding.\\n-\\tParallel Computing: Implement parallelization for distance calculations and graph-based operations to leverage multi-core CPUs or GPUs.\\n-\\tBatch Processing: Divide the dataset into batches to reduce memory usage during embedding\\n-\\tAdaptive Neighborhood Size: Dynamically adjust the $n\\\\_neighbors$ parameter based on the dataset size and structure to balance runtime and embedding quality.\\n\\n>2 In what aspects does FeatureMAP significantly differ from the latest dimensionality reduction methods such as PHATE and SpaceMAP?\\n\\nThank you for raising this question. We have included a comparative summary of FeatureMAP's advantages over other methods in Section A.1.7.\", \"briefly\": [\"PHATE: Captures temporal structures, ideal for dynamic data, but has limited feature preservation and scalability. FeatureMAP preserves features and scales efficiently.\", \"SpaceMAP: Resolves crowding and preserves global geometry but lacks feature emphasis. FeatureMAP adds feature visualization and balances local-global structures.\"]}", "{\"summary\": \"This paper advances manifold learning by preserving both the topological structure and source features within the tangent space, facilitating interpretability through local feature gradient analysis in the embedded tangent space. Extensive experiments in digit classification, object detection, and adversarial example analysis demonstrate the enhanced interpretability of FeatureMAP.\", \"soundness\": \"4\", \"presentation\": \"3\", \"contribution\": \"3\", \"strengths\": \"This paper introduces a newly designed method that provides interpretability for nonlinear dimensionality reduction. The theoretical proofs are thorough, the experiments are comprehensive, and the writing is clear.\", \"weaknesses\": \"Missing or incorrect punctuation following equations (e.g., Equation 11). The APPENDIX layout is somewhat unstructured.\", \"questions\": \"1.\\tExplicitly outline what current methods (e.g., UMAP) lack regarding feature preservation in the introduction, and provide a brief comparative summary to showcase why FeatureMAP fills a distinct gap.\\n2.\\tIn the adversarial attack interpretation experiment (the right of Fig. 6), it is difficult to observe additional important features beyond the typical edges of digit 1. In other words, the saliency map shown is insufficient to explain the reasons for misclassification.\\n3.\\tFigure 13 shows that the computation time of FeatureMAP exceeds that of other methods. Is this time acceptable?\", \"flag_for_ethics_review\": \"['No ethics review needed.']\", \"rating\": \"6\", \"confidence\": \"4\", \"code_of_conduct\": \"Yes\"}", "{\"comment\": \"Thanks for your responses. I decide to keep the score.\"}", "{\"summary\": \"The manuscript suggests a new non-linear dimensionality reduction method, which aims to preserve important features of the original space by preserving the alignment between the local axes (\\\"tangent space\\\") defined at each sample. It can be seen as an extension to UMAP, where the data topology is defined through kNN, and the loss function is optimised through gradient descent. The loss function has two terms: one which minimises distortion of distances caused by the projections (like UMAP) and a second term which maximises correlations of the radii of the local axis (the singular values of the data directions around each data point). This optimisation of the alignment of the local axes aims to preserve both the global features of the source space and the data density on the low-dimensional manifold.\", \"soundness\": \"2\", \"presentation\": \"3\", \"contribution\": \"2\", \"strengths\": [\"the manuscript provides interesting intuition for why the alignment between local axes of variation needs to be preserved by nonlinear dimensionality reduction methods.\", \"the manuscript shows how to extend UMAP to include the alignment of local axes in the loss function in a way which can still be optimised in practice.\", \"experimental results show how the new method differs from previously proposed ones in terms of the resulting visualisation and data density preservation.\"], \"weaknesses\": [\"little or no support is provided that the resulting dimensionality reduction better preserves important features of the source space, which is the main motivation of the method.\", \"the comparison to other methods is mostly qualitative and makes it hard to argue the new method is somehow superior to previously proposed ones. Visualization results (Figure 12) are subjective (\\\"clearly shows distint clusters of different digit groups\\\"), quantitative measures (Table 1) are inconclusive, and running time is usually worse (Figure 13).\"], \"questions\": \"1. Is it a correct assessment to say that the proposed method is equivalent to UMAP when considering only the topology (kNN graph) and the first term of the loss function (distance distortion)? If so, it would clarify the presentation if you would say so and not repeat the parts already part of UMAP (you can, of course, have the full details of the loss in the appendix).\\n2. The second optimisation term has two interpretations: preservation of local density and preservation of source features. Can you provide evidence that the method better preserves source features than UMAP or other methods?\\n3. A recent criticism of dimensionality reduction methods and their interpretability in the context of biology [Chari & Pachter PlosCompBio (2023)] might be relevant to refer too. Would you say the criticism equally applies to your method or would you suggest the proposed method somehow improve the interpretability of such results?\", \"flag_for_ethics_review\": \"['No ethics review needed.']\", \"rating\": \"5\", \"confidence\": \"3\", \"code_of_conduct\": \"Yes\"}", "{\"summary\": \"Nonlinear dimensionality reduction is a classic research area in past years. In the paper, the authors proposed a feature-preserving manifold approximation and projection method, called FeatureMAP. The proposed method employs anisotropic projection to preserve both the manifold structure and the original data density. Some methods are compared with the proposed method on FashionMNIST and COIL-20 dataset to demonstrate the effectiveness of the method.\", \"soundness\": \"2\", \"presentation\": \"3\", \"contribution\": \"2\", \"strengths\": \"1. In the paper, the authors proposed a feature-preserving manifold approximation and projection method, called FeatureMAP.\\n2. Some methods are compared with the proposed method on FashionMNIST and COIL-20 dataset to demonstrate the effectiveness of the method.\", \"weaknesses\": \"1. Unclear Motivation: Why perform SVD on $ W_i X_i $ instead of Xi or X? The motivation is not introduced clearly.\\n2. There is an error in (5), since Vi/Vj is known variable calculated in (2).\\n3. What are the advantages of the method compared with the existing works, especially in terms of computational complexity, running times, and robustness? \\n4. What\\u2019s the significance/application value of the method in real-word applications, especially under the LLM era?\\n5. This method involves multiple independent steps and is not a complete optimization problem. Will this lead to difficulties in obtaining the global optimal solution and the problem of the previous step affecting the next result?\", \"questions\": \"see weakness\", \"flag_for_ethics_review\": \"['No ethics review needed.']\", \"details_of_ethics_concerns\": \"NA\", \"rating\": \"5\", \"confidence\": \"4\", \"code_of_conduct\": \"Yes\"}", "{\"title\": \"Response to authors\", \"comment\": [\"I appreciate the authors' effort in answering my questions; I would have expected Figure 15, which tries to support the central claim that \\\"FeatureMAP enables the visualization of feature directions and importance using feature gradients.\\\" to be part of the main text, but nevermind at this stage. I wish you could show more of that:\", \"You present a single cherry-picked feature...\", \"The colour map in Figure 16d is not consistent with Figurre16abc, thus making it hard to do a fair comparison.\"]}", "{\"comment\": \">Weaknesses:\\nThe way to solve Eq. (11) is not described in detail. \\n\\nThank you for raising this question. We have expanded the description of the computation for Eq. (11) in Section A.1.4 of the APPENDIX by including details of the SGD calculation. The updated section is highlighted in blue.\\n\\n\\n> A.4 seems hard for me to implement the FeatureMAP.\\n\\nThank you for your question. We have revised the pseudocode for FeatureMAP in Section A.1.6 of the APPENDIX to enhance readability. The main algorithm is now divided into seven steps, with each step presented in its own pseudocode.\"}" ] }

[ "Yibo Yang", "Justus Will", "Stephan Mandt" ]

[ "diffusion", "generative modeling", "compression", "universal quantization" ]

{ "note_id": [ "updDoUhthQ", "ueyBMds6jT", "j4EBAVm5rh", "M7FVyomcNQ", "KxbUOPRIZp", "FmauF0sNiw", "07hlpwxJk9" ], "note_type": [ "official_review", "meta_review", "official_review", "decision", "official_review", "official_comment", "official_review" ], "note_created": [ 1731096832871, 1734760822148, 1730684533313, 1737524135439, 1730877843438, 1732983159188, 1729555137005 ], "note_signatures": [ [ "ICLR.cc/2025/Conference/Submission11617/Reviewer_bjic" ], [ "ICLR.cc/2025/Conference/Submission11617/Area_Chair_BLc7" ], [ "ICLR.cc/2025/Conference/Submission11617/Reviewer_ouDv" ], [ "ICLR.cc/2025/Conference/Program_Chairs" ], [ "ICLR.cc/2025/Conference/Submission11617/Reviewer_bu5E" ], [ "ICLR.cc/2025/Conference/Submission11617/Reviewer_ouDv" ], [ "ICLR.cc/2025/Conference/Submission11617/Reviewer_evNJ" ] ], "structured_content_str": [ "{\"summary\": \"This paper develops a new form of diffusion model based around universal quantization, which uses a uniform distribution in the reverse process instead of a Gaussian. Previous research made the connection between diffusion and progressive compression via relative entropy coding (REC), but those models used a Gaussian distribution which leads to computational complexity that is exponential in the amount of information being coded / transmitted.\\n\\nThis paper notes that \\\"universal quantization\\\" (Zamir & Feder, 1992) efficiently solves the REC problem in the case of a uniform noise channel. This presents an opportunity for efficient progressive compression with diffusion models if the diffusion process (forward and backward) are reformulated to use uniform noise. This paper does that (Section 3) and the resulting model is evaluated empirically in terms of compression performance using toy data and standard image data sets.\", \"soundness\": \"4\", \"presentation\": \"4\", \"contribution\": \"3\", \"strengths\": \"The primary strength of the paper is recognizing that diffusion models can be reformulated to use uniform noise, that this allows them to use universal quantization (UQ), and that UQ is an efficient solution to the REC problem for a uniform noise channel.\\n\\nThe authors then derive and implement this model, which they call a \\\"universally quantized diffusion model\\\" (UQDM), and evaluate it empirically to show that the theoretical benefits translate to practice as shown by the RD curve comparisons in Figures 3 and 4. They evaluate two approaches to intermediate reconstruction for progressive compression: ancestral sampling and denoising (Fig. 5) and show, qualitatively and quantitatively the pro/cons of each approach.\\n\\nAn additional strength is the clear and concise presentation of the background information (Section 2). While the basics of diffusion models are now probably familiar to most ICLR readers, relative entropy coding, universal quantization, and the connection between the diffusion process and progressive coding probably isn't.\", \"weaknesses\": \"Although there are many benefits to the proposed approach, it is not strictly better than previous methods at all bit rates and metrics (PSNR and FID are reported). The comparison is complicated somewhat due to a difference in capabilities, e.g., CDC has better FID than UQDM at low bit rates, but UQDM is progressive while CDC is not. Similarly, UQDM is fairly far behind the (theoretical) quality of VDM, but UQDM provides significant real-world benefits in terms of computational requirements.\\n\\nIn terms of computation and runtime, the benefit of UQDM over VDM is clear (and that's one of the primary points of the paper), but I suspect the practical decode time is still far too slow compared to standard codecs (JPEG, BPG, etc.) to be usefully deployed. This is an issue for much of the neural compression literature, though, so I don't think it should be a big factor in terms of the ICLR acceptance decision (e.g., CDC uses a diffusion-based decoder so is likely also slow in practice compared to JPEG and BPG).\", \"questions\": \"I'm surprised that BPG does so well in terms of FID around 2.5 bpp (Fig. 4, right), where it even outperforms VDM (T=1000). Is there something to learn from this observation, or does it say something about the limits of VDM?\", \"flag_for_ethics_review\": \"['No ethics review needed.']\", \"rating\": \"8\", \"confidence\": \"2\", \"code_of_conduct\": \"Yes\"}", "{\"metareview\": \"This paper draws a connection between diffusion models and compression, and proposes method that achieves promising results on image compression. The reviewers unanimously agree that this paper presents significant contributions to the field. I believe that this work points to an important direction and recommend this paper being presented as a spotlight paper.\", \"additional_comments_on_reviewer_discussion\": \"Some concerns raised by reviewers include more thorough experimental comparisons, absolute results and clarity of presentation. The authors did a great job in the rebuttal addressing these, which is reflected in the increased ratings after rebuttal.\"}", "{\"summary\": \"A single diffusion model can be used for data compression at arbitrary bit rates, flexibly trading off rate and distortion, using relative entropy coding (REC). The main drawback is that REC has in general exponential runtime. In this paper, the authors replace Gaussian distributions in the forward process (viewing diffusion models as hierarchical VAEs with a finite number of stochastic layers) with uniform distributions. This allows them to apply universal quantization which leads to cheaper simulation, thereby avoiding the intractability of previous work that was based on Gaussian noise. In addition, the authors show that their diffusion model with uniform noise converges to standard VDM in the continuous-time limit. In practice, this method obtains competitive R-D and R-realism performance, with a single model.\", \"soundness\": \"2\", \"presentation\": \"2\", \"contribution\": \"3\", \"strengths\": [\"This paper presents an interesting idea with relevant contributions for the community. The focus on improving compression with general-purpose diffusion models is exciting and relevant.\", \"The theory developed around uniform-noise diffusion, along with its connection to standard Gaussian diffusion in the continuous-time limit, is well-articulated and adds depth to the work.\", \"The results seem quite promising.\"], \"weaknesses\": [\"**Clarity Issues in Background**: The paper could be clearer, especially in the background section. It would help if it were more accessible to readers who aren't already familiar with probabilistic generative models for compression. For example:\", \"It would be useful to give a more intuitive explanation of transmitting a sample from $q$ with close to KL nats, as this is central to the argument about the NELBO corresponding to the lossless coding cost.\", \"Some wording is a bit vague, like \\\"using roughly $L_{\\\\mathbf{x}|\\\\mathbf{z}_0}$ nats.\\\" This phrasing might make sense to researchers in this specific area, but it could be clearer for others (in particular \\\"roughly\\\" in what sense?).\", \"It\\u2019s also unclear what exactly the relationship is between REC and universal quantization. My impression is: (1) REC is usually inefficient (with exponential runtime, but exponential in what?), (2) in some specific cases, it may be more efficient, (3) past work has tackled a few of these cases, (4) this paper presents another one of these (which had never been explored before) using a uniform noise channel. I don't know if this is accurate, but in any case the overall picture and context could be a bit more straightforward than it is in the current submission.\", \"**Structure and Flow**: Wouldn\\u2019t it make sense to first define the new diffusion model class with uniform distributions, then explain that this enables universal quantization and more efficient REC? This could better separate the two main ideas: the diffusion model itself (\\\"substituting Gaussian noise channels for uniform noise channels\\\" -- line 185) and its application to compression. If that\\u2019s not a sensible structure and my interpretation is completely off, then there may be additional clarity issues that need attention. (I don\\u2019t doubt that experts in this exact topic would follow along, though.)\", \"**Exponential Runtime Explanation**: There are a few statements about REC's exponential runtime and how this new approach is more efficient. But it\\u2019s not clear what \\\"exponential\\\" means here or what it\\u2019s exponential with respect to. It would help if the paper included: (1) a clear explanation of what exactly is exponential, (2) the complexity of the proposed algorithm (this doesn\\u2019t seem to be covered in the main text or appendix), and (3) solid empirical and quantitative support for this efficiency claim (again, this doesn't seem to be mentioned or investigated?).\", \"**Algorithm Box**: Including a box or diagram for the main algorithm could help make things clearer. It would give readers a more accessible overview and something concrete to reference.\", \"**Minor**:\", \"Typo on line 214 (missing closing parenthesis in the sigmoid).\", \"Figure layout could be improved: there\\u2019s a lot of whitespace, some figures appear too early relative to where they\\u2019re discussed, and the order seems off (e.g., text references Figures 3, 4, 1, 5 in this order, and Figure 2 only appears in the Appendix).\", \"**Overall**: This paper introduces an interesting approach to using diffusion models for flexible data compression, but in my opinion it would significantly benefit from some improvement in clarity and presentation. Making the key concepts easier to understand, reorganizing the content for better flow, and providing detailed support for the claims -- especially regarding complexity -- would be really helpful. Addressing these points will significantly strengthen the paper and enhance its impact.\"], \"questions\": [\"**Appendix C.2 and C.3**: In VDM, the standard architecture typically includes an additional ResNet block in the reverse process (so I would expect 9 blocks here). Could this be a typo?\", \"**Continuous-Time Equivalence**: Given the equivalence with Gaussian diffusion in continuous time, could this approach be applied to pretrained continuous-time diffusion models by discretizing with uniform distributions? I assume this would be an approximate discretization, as it only matches the mean and variance.\"], \"flag_for_ethics_review\": \"['No ethics review needed.']\", \"rating\": \"8\", \"confidence\": \"3\", \"code_of_conduct\": \"Yes\"}", "{\"title\": \"Paper Decision\", \"decision\": \"Accept (Oral)\"}", "{\"summary\": \"This paper introduces Universally Quantized Diffusion Models, a family of diffusion models utilizing uniform rather than Gaussian noise with the same forward/reverse process tractability (e.g., forward process available in closed form, admit a similar ELBO, etc.) This is achieved by constructing a probabilistic model following the DDIM factorization. The use of uniform noise is motivated in the context of compression, namely to make Relative Entropy Coding (REC) tractable through the use of uniform quantization. This allows the use of progressive coding methods used in prior work exploring compression with diffusion models (Ho et al., Theis et al.) for both lossless and lossy compression. Experiments are presented on a toy dataset of swirl curves and on standard+challenging image benchmarks (CIFAR10, ImageNet 64x64), showing encouraging results compared to standard image compression methods (e.g., jpeg) in the rate-distortion frontier, ditto for other non-neural methods (e.g., bpg) though only at certain rate regimes, and readily outperforming other neural methods such as CTC and CDC.\", \"soundness\": \"3\", \"presentation\": \"2\", \"contribution\": \"3\", \"strengths\": [\"The paper essentially introduces a formulation of diffusion models using uniform (as opposed to Gaussian) noise, effectively turning diffusion models into a method that through end-to-end optimization directly approximates the quantile function of the data distribution, which can be broadly useful beyond the context of compression.\", \"The mathematical background and literature review are well-presented.\", \"Even if encoding and decoding uses significantly more FLOPs compared to common non-neural compression schemes, using more compute for less memory can be useful in applications where storage matters more than reads, motivating research on deep-learning-based compression.\", \"The method is applicable to both lossless and lossy compression.\", \"Experiments include both toy examples (swirl dataset) and real image compression tasks on difficult benchmarks standard in the literature (CIFAR10, ImageNet 64x64)\", \"Results on CIFAR10 and ImageNet 64x64 outperform various common lossy image compression schemes like jpeg, jpeg2000, and at certain rates outperform other compression schemes like bpg.\", \"Results significantly outperform neural-based methods from prior work such as CTC, CDC.\", \"The importance of learning variances is demonstrated experimentally.\", \"Further experimental knowledge is introduced, e.g., that learning the noise schedule does not result in significant improvement in log likelihood optimization.\"], \"weaknesses\": \"The biggest weakness seems to be a lack of comparisons against other diffusion-based lossy compression methods from prior work on the image compression tasks. E.g., DDPM is open sourced so this should be trivial to try. I acknowledge that at least two neural codec baselines (CTC, CDC) are included so this is not a fatal weakness. Still, positive results here would further motivate why we would want to follow the proposed method as opposed to prior ones.\\n\\nParticularly at low bpp rates, bpg which is efficient even in low-memory settings still outperforms diffusion models. This is not a major weakness, as bigger models could result in lower NELBO across the board. The paper could be strengthened by showing the effects of models of different sizes, even if the largest scales are kept reasonably small.\\n\\nA similar potential improvement to the paper, especially to discuss the practicality of diffusion-based compression, would be to include quantitative comparisons of FLOPS compared to standard image compression schemes.\\nThere are no illustrations of the progressive coding procedure. This would be extremely helpful to include so the method is easier to grasp and follow.\\n\\nAnother potential improvement would be to include comparisons to other methods that are compatible with Gaussian noise, particularly for lossless compression. For example, it should be possible to compare to bits-back coding, however I acknowledge that this cannot be used to compress individual images (as the paper\\u2019s method does) but rather entire datasets, with rate dependent on the number of elements being compressed. Highlighting the benefits of the method, e.g., in a table of desiderata, would be additionally helpful.\\n\\nShowing more image samples, and showing zoom-ins to help the reader see artifacts across the qualitative comparisons would be very helpful. Expanding the range of rates (bpp) on the samples would also be very welcome.\", \"questions\": [\"Is the fundamental benefit of REC through universal quantization that it enables both lossless and lossy compression? Or what other reasons would we want to do this as opposed to directly following prior work where tractability is sufficient to show results in lossy compression for the same image datasets? This could be explained more succinctly in the paper.\", \"Are image compression results with rate > 8bpp important to show in any way?\", \"For lossless compression (Fig 2), are there explanations or at least intuitions for why more denoising steps can result in worse bpd? This seems like an unexpected result.\", \"This is likely a question from my own lack of experience in this area: suppose that we define the model to first apply the standard Gaussian erf on the input image (re-scaled dependent on the noise level). Does this not convert Gaussian noise into uniform noise (given that through the inverse erf, more specifically through the quantile function of the Gaussian, we can convert uniform noise into Gaussian noise)? Why does communicating with Gaussian noise remain intractable?\"], \"flag_for_ethics_review\": \"['No ethics review needed.']\", \"rating\": \"8\", \"confidence\": \"3\", \"code_of_conduct\": \"Yes\"}", "{\"comment\": \"Thank you for the thorough rebuttal and detailed clarifications. I now have a much clearer understanding of the contributions, and with the improvements in the updated manuscript, I am happy to raise my score to 8.\"}", "{\"summary\": \"### Background:\\n\\nHo et al [1] proposed an algorithm that compresses a data sample (e.g an image) down to as many bits as the DDPM\\u2019s log-likelihood estimate of that sample. This is very interesting since diffusion models are probably the most advanced image priors ever developed. This compression algorithm has the additional advantage of being naturally progressive, that is, the data is communicated as a sequence of progressively less noisy images. However, a key component of this algorithm, called *relative entropy coding*, has an exponential runtime for gaussian diffusion models. This exponential runtime is a key bottleneck to practical implementation.\\n\\n### Summary:\\n\\nThis paper introduces a clever solution to a key bottleneck of an otherwise very promising compression algorithm. The authors introduce a new diffusion process which is constructed for computationally efficient relative entropy coding. This solves the exponential runtime problem associated with Gaussian diffusion compression, and allows the authors to implement an actual compression codec, where prior works (Ho et al [1], Theis et al [3]), only calculated the hypothetical performance of this compression algorithm, since it was not practical to implement due to the exponential runtime issue. The authors create new likelihood models based on Kingma\\u2019s VDM [2]. The authors evaluate their compression model on three datasets: the toy \\u201cswirl\\u201d dataset, CIFAR10, and ImageNet64.\", \"soundness\": \"3\", \"presentation\": \"4\", \"contribution\": \"4\", \"strengths\": \"Paper is well-written and well-motivated. Topic is theoretically interesting and IMO potentially high-impact. The proposed solution is clever, well-explained, and definitely meets the threshold for novelty.\", \"weaknesses\": \"I have only one major concern: While the authors\\u2019 modifications to Kingma\\u2019s Variational Diffusion Model (VDM) make relative entropy coding computationally tractable, these modifications also appear to significantly degrade VDM's performance.\\n\\nFor example, the VDM paper included a figure (Figure 3) with non-cherry-picked unconditional samples from their model. IIUC, in Figure 5 of the paper under review, the two bpp=0.00 images generated via ancestral sampling are comparable to the images Kingma et al.\\u2019s Figure 3. If this comparison is fair, UQDM has suffered a major degradation in sampling quality compared to VDM.\\n\\nI am pretty hung up on UQDM\\u2019s very low optimal step count. The authors find that their model achieves the best NELBO performance with just 4 or 5 denoising steps. This is counter to the VDM paper which concluded that more steps leads to a lower loss (see Kingma appendix F). \\n\\nThis seems problematic because a major theoretical underpinning of DDPMs is that the ideal $p(x_{t-1} | x_t)$ is well-approximated by a Gaussian as the step size becomes small. But with such large steps, the ideal $p(x_{t-1} | x_t)$ must surely have some very complicated structure which is poorly captured by the author\\u2019s parameterization. This might also explain why the authors see such an advantage from learning the reverse-process variance; you just need a lot more parameters to model this distribution accurately. With say T=1,000, I would guess that the fixed-variance version of UQDM would do a better job of modeling the reverse process. Except for some reason, UQDM\\u2019s performance degrades with increasing step size.\\n\\nMy gut reaction is that this ultra-small optimal step count seems pathological. But I am open to being convinced that I\\u2019m mistaken. What do you think is going on here?\", \"questions\": \"I see your lossless compression results for the swirl data, but not for CIFAR10 or ImageNet. Would like to see these but they are not critically important.\\n\\nTheis et al [3] found probability flow based denoising to induce less distortion than ancestral sampling while still preserving realism. Any particular reason you chose ancestral sampling over this flow-based denoising?\\n\\nIf UQDMs and traditional gaussian diffusion models are equivalent in the continuous-time limit, do you think there\\u2019s a point at which you could trivially convert a DDPM into a UQDM without retraining it, just by replacing the gaussian noise at each timestep with uniform noise? Or am I misunderstanding something?\\n\\n## References:\\n\\n1. Ho: https://arxiv.org/abs/2006.11239\\n2. Kingma: https://arxiv.org/abs/2107.00630\\n3. Theis: https://arxiv.org/abs/2206.08889\", \"flag_for_ethics_review\": \"['No ethics review needed.']\", \"rating\": \"8\", \"confidence\": \"4\", \"code_of_conduct\": \"Yes\"}" ] }

[ "Mingce Guo", "Jingxuan He", "Shengeng Tang", "Zhangye Wang", "Lechao Cheng" ]

[ "Text-Guided Video Editing" ]

{ "note_id": [ "zLxJWLwnkd", "uWtrqdLlEA", "sAFJ9Ez16r", "pvk1GfjKOe", "pvGNEPP2YQ", "pf7cMaYUNC", "pUKChjrStK", "nnFtAk9uj1", "me72nTPaRE", "jysB7IET8H", "h6SKJjjDZ8", "gj0NikAvf6", "fNXyqwixTs", "VpPPw5my8i", "V5xDus4j4g", "SwcoZH3V57", "R8pcoEXIBd", "PaNfRvifoc", "P0leu1YH5P", "MXl3kYEB7c", "L4buX6lEZV", "Hup1EVouTk", "CyjpS9yyGB", "C1HZnhquIr", "9TciZGI4He", "2E7qvuTQIz" ], "note_type": [ "meta_review", "official_comment", "official_comment", "official_comment", "official_review", "official_comment", "official_review", "decision", "official_comment", "official_comment", "official_comment", "official_review", "official_comment", "official_comment", "official_review", "official_comment", "official_comment", "official_comment", "official_comment", "official_comment", "official_comment", "official_review", "official_comment", "official_comment", "official_comment", "official_comment" ], "note_created": [ 1734329899143, 1732716613221, 1732435468583, 1732369585180, 1730711676157, 1732460291531, 1730914389893, 1737523411902, 1732369270621, 1732368422225, 1732622931929, 1730435825858, 1732370309240, 1732366690443, 1729513463029, 1732534989057, 1732460447757, 1732468245914, 1732372515255, 1732800309418, 1732799825398, 1730908910973, 1732671345605, 1732800708087, 1732460094440, 1732605155153 ], "note_signatures": [ [ "ICLR.cc/2025/Conference/Submission716/Area_Chair_XBFv" ], [ "ICLR.cc/2025/Conference/Submission716/Reviewer_yeHN" ], [ "ICLR.cc/2025/Conference/Submission716/Reviewer_oUvi" ], [ "ICLR.cc/2025/Conference/Submission716/Authors" ], [ "ICLR.cc/2025/Conference/Submission716/Reviewer_HLfd" ], [ "ICLR.cc/2025/Conference/Submission716/Authors" ], [ "ICLR.cc/2025/Conference/Submission716/Reviewer_oUvi" ], [ "ICLR.cc/2025/Conference/Program_Chairs" ], [ "ICLR.cc/2025/Conference/Submission716/Authors" ], [ "ICLR.cc/2025/Conference/Submission716/Authors" ], [ "ICLR.cc/2025/Conference/Submission716/Reviewer_ZGWC" ], [ "ICLR.cc/2025/Conference/Submission716/Reviewer_G4M5" ], [ "ICLR.cc/2025/Conference/Submission716/Authors" ], [ "ICLR.cc/2025/Conference/Submission716/Authors" ], [ "ICLR.cc/2025/Conference/Submission716/Reviewer_ZGWC" ], [ "ICLR.cc/2025/Conference/Submission716/Reviewer_ZGWC" ], [ "ICLR.cc/2025/Conference/Submission716/Authors" ], [ "ICLR.cc/2025/Conference/Submission716/Authors" ], [ "ICLR.cc/2025/Conference/Submission716/Reviewer_oUvi" ], [ "ICLR.cc/2025/Conference/Submission716/Authors" ], [ "ICLR.cc/2025/Conference/Submission716/Authors" ], [ "ICLR.cc/2025/Conference/Submission716/Reviewer_yeHN" ], [ "ICLR.cc/2025/Conference/Submission716/Reviewer_G4M5" ], [ "ICLR.cc/2025/Conference/Submission716/Authors" ], [ "ICLR.cc/2025/Conference/Submission716/Authors" ], [ "ICLR.cc/2025/Conference/Submission716/Authors" ] ], "structured_content_str": [ "{\"metareview\": \"This paper receives reviews of 5,3,6,3,3. The AC follows the decisions of the reviewers to reject the paper. The main concerns of this paper are: 1) The need to improve on the writing to make the technical contributions clearer. 2) The lack of novelty since the use of LoRA with Textual Inversion is already widely used as open-source. 3) The overall quality of the edited videos is not satisfactory. There are obvious inconsistencies between the frames of the videos. 4) Evaluation metrics and comparison methods are unconventional and somewhat outdated. On the other hand, the reviewer who gave a 6 did not give any strong reasons to overrule the majority of the other reviewers who reject the paper.\", \"additional_comments_on_reviewer_discussion\": \"Although the authors tried to clarify some of the weaknesses, the reviewers remain unconvinced and did not raise their scores. The AC thus follow the majority decision to reject the paper.\"}", "{\"comment\": \"Thank the authors for the detailed reply and the extra experiments. I also appreciate that the authors have tried video model backbones and also analyzed the two papers I mentioned.\\n\\nWhile acknowledging that the presented quality in the paper is limited by the computational resources, I still tend to believe that the overall methodology is lack of enough novelty, and the performance is not strong in terms of visual quality or computational efficiency. In other words, there is not enough contribution that would make me accept this paper. The authors could try to analyze more about how and why finetuning V is efficient than simply tuning the whole model or the other parts of the models, which would make the contribution claim stronger.\"}", "{\"comment\": \"Thank you for your detailed response and for pointing out some parts I had missed. Regarding the Dual Prior Supervision, the reviewer's response has convinced me and alleviated my concerns about this part.\\n\\nFirst, I would like to clarify my understanding to ensure we are on the same page: CATI utilizes textual inversion, a technique commonly employed in T2I models, to internalize the concept of a user-provided video for video editing. In doing so, instead of merely applying textual inversion, the authors incorporated LoRA to address the issue of underfitting. (Please correct me if my understanding is wrong.)\", \"my_concerns_are\": \"(1) Using LoRA to avoid underfitting is a method commonly employed in T2I models, and thus does not offer new technical contributions when adapting to video editing (https://github.com/cloneofsimo/lora); (2) Employing textual inversion to internalize a concept video is a straightforward approach, and it may be challenging to consider this innovative. There might not be substantial technical insights to gain from this aspect.\\n\\nI do acknowledge the authors' conceptual contribution of utilizing concept videos, irrespective of the implementations. However, as reviewers yeHN, G4M5, ZGWC, and I have similarly pointed out, there is concern that this method may lack sufficient technical contribution. The notable difference in the authors' proposed LoRA+textual inversion tailored for video editing appears to be the selective training of the V projection LoRA. It would be beneficial to emphasize these aspects in the paper.\\nOverall, CATI leans more towards a conceptual contribution rather than specific architectural design choices. However, I feel that the current manuscript could improve in clearly articulating these contributions. For readers not deeply engaged with this field, the introduction may seem somewhat vague. For instance, terms like \\\"concept template\\\" (Line 71) and phrases such as \\\"constrained by the size of the latent space\\\" (Line 59) required me to do multiple readings to comprehend. Does the \\\"latent space\\\" mentioned refer to the space of text embedding features? I recommend that the authors include a figure prior to the current Figure 1 to better highlight the conceptual novelty distinguishing this work from existing approaches. It would be also beneficial to include detailed explanations of the newly added inputs: concept video and concept prompt and how they relate to existing inputs: the source video, source prompt, and target prompt, throughout the introduction and method sections.\\n\\nGiven that my concerns regarding the Dual Prior Supervision section have been addressed, I am revising my score to a borderline reject.\"}", "{\"comment\": \"We thank reviewer G4M5 for the feedback. We appreciate reviewer G4M5 for \\\"comprehensive experiments\\\" and \\\"clear writing\\\". We address the main concerns bellow.\\n\\n```Limited innovation```\\n\\nThanks. **(I)** We would like to clarify that we aim to flexibly edit source videos using concept videos as a key task setting, with our primary motivation being to enrich the latent space through one-shot concept videos to achieve more faithful inversion representations. We validate this improvement through ablation studies, as shown in Fig. 4. While LoRA and Textual Inversion have been widely used **separately** in image style transfer tasks, to the best of our knowledge, no existing variant of textual inversion simultaneously employs LoRA tailored for video editing task. Existing approaches that do fine-tune the denoising network face significant challenges in one-shot concept video scenarios, such as overfitting and high memory requirements during training. Our approach addresses these limitations by leveraging LoRA modules to fine-tune attention value weights with a smaller learning rate, maintaining **low VRAM overhead** during tuning while preserving **plug-and-play** capabilities. **We believe our proposed approach is technically novel and as also appreciated by Reviewer-HLfd \\\"The motivation is clear\\\".** **(II)** Our dual prior supervision serves as a supervision mechanism designed to reduce inconsistencies in non-target areas before and after video editing, addressing the low consistency in existing approaches, especially in editing source video with concept video (As illustrated in Tab.1 in our draft. The reviewer ZGWC also mentioned that \\\"**the SCAM and TCAM is novel**\\\" ).\\n\\n```The concern about the quality of generated videos```\\n\\nThanks. **(I)** Regarding video quality, we would like to highlight that in the challenging task of video editing with concept videos, our method demonstrates significant advantages in maintaining consistency of non-target areas - a critical aspect where existing methods often struggle. Specifically, our approach achieves an average improvement of 4.06 M-PSNR over baseline methods in preserving non-target regions, while ensuring faithful concept transfer. **(II)** For the video length limitation, this is primarily due to hardware constraints rather than methodological limitations. Our current experiments are conducted under **limited computational resources(only one RTX 4090 with 24G memory)**, which necessitate certain practical compromises: using a moderate frame sampling step and shorter sequences to manage memory usage, working with standard rather than high-resolution videos. **(III)** we provide additional results including denser frame sampling in https://anonymous.4open.science/w/STIVE-PAGE-B4D4/ with more powerful device (Nvidia L20 with 48G memory), the results demonstrate that our approach can be readily extended to process longer videos at higher resolutions with denser frame sampling, as the method itself is scalable.\\n\\n```Missing details on the training set```\\n\\nThanks. Our method is devised for **one-shot video editing**. That is to say, the training set is only one source video to be edited and one concept video coupled with text template under the setting with concept video, while the training set is only one source video and text template under the setting of without concept video. \\n\\n```Unconventional and somewhat outdated metrics```\\n\\nThanks. We kindly disagree with the comment. The Masked Peak-Signal-Noise Ratio (M-PSNR) is a crucial metric that **intuitively and effectively** reflects the consistency of non-target regions before and after video editing with Reviewer-ZGWC appreciate it as \\\"convincing metric\\\". Additionally, Concept Consistency leverages a multimodal CLIP visual encoder to encode objects from both the concept video and edited video results, measuring their feature similarity in vector space, which effectively reflects the faithfulness of concept video object transfer. **We would appreciate detailed suggestions or citations for rational metrics that you believe might better evaluate these aspects.**\\n\\n```About more ablation study results```\\n\\nThanks. But we argue that some changes in attributes are indeed impressive in terms of visual quality and effect. This precisely demonstrates the most intuitive manifestation of our method's effectiveness in one-shot scenarios. Of course, it is not limited to color; other attributes, such as shape, are also included. We have provided additional results on **More Ablation Section** in the anonymous link https://anonymous.4open.science/w/STIVE-PAGE-B4D4/.\"}", "{\"summary\": \"This paper present a novel concept-based video editing framework. The framework includes a Concept-Augmented Textual Inversion (CATI) to extract the target concept from given video, and then use a Dual Prior Supervision (DPS) to manipulate the attention matrices to ensure the stability of output videos. For the CATI part, optimization is performed on both textual embeddings and LoRA modules added to the cross-attention layers. And for the DPS part, loss on both irrelevant parts and edited subject are used to prevent unwanted changes.\\n\\nResults are conducted over several with or without concept video pairs and was compared with several methods. The overall results are good.\", \"soundness\": \"3\", \"presentation\": \"3\", \"contribution\": \"3\", \"strengths\": \"1. The motivation for introducing the concept of video editing is clear and good.\\n2. The results are impressive, the concepts injected are consistent, and the backgrounds are generally consistent with the target videos.\\n3. The paper reads well and is easy to follow.\", \"weaknesses\": \"1. How authors obtain the results from comparing methods is not explained in the paper. Some of those don\\u2019t accept concept video/images input, and if not given the concept video, then direct comparison is a bit unfair.\\n2. The quantitative comparison table seems to be evaluated on both with or without concept videos. And the ablation for using or not using concept videos is missing. I suggest the author having separate dataset for using or not using concept videos, and this can further strengthen the contribution.\\n3. Missing references and some for comparisons:\\n \\n *[1] AnyV2V: A Tuning-Free Framework For Any Video-to-Video Editing Tasks\\n [2] GenVideo: One-shot target-image and shape aware video editing using T2I diffusion models*\\n \\n *[3] Video Editing via Factorized Diffusion Distillation*\\n \\n *[4] VidToMe: Video Token Merging for Zero-Shot Video Editing*\\n \\n *[5] Pix2video: Video editing using image diffusion*\\n \\n *[6] Slicedit: Zero-Shot Video Editing With Text-to-Image Diffusion Models Using Spatio-Temporal Slices*\\n \\n *[7] TokenFlow: Consistent Diffusion Features for Consistent Video Editing*\\n \\n *[8] Video-P2P: Video Editing with Cross-attention Control*\", \"questions\": \"1. The pipeline for editing without concept video is not very clear for me, and in the code repository provided, a pretrained lora/concept model is required for all the cases including car to porsche. Can authors provide a more detailed explanation?\\n2. It would be interesting to know the range of concepts. More examples of diverse concepts or attributes could clarify the extent to which CATI handles generalization across different object classes and scenarios.\", \"flag_for_ethics_review\": \"['No ethics review needed.']\", \"rating\": \"6\", \"confidence\": \"3\", \"code_of_conduct\": \"Yes\"}", "{\"comment\": \"Dear Reviewer G4M5,\\n\\nI hope this message finds you well. Thank you for your valuable feedback and thoughtful insights on our work. Your comments have helped us refine our approach, and we have incorporated additional analysis and experiments in the final version of the paper based on your suggestions.\\n\\nAs the rebuttal-discussion period is coming to a close, we would greatly appreciate it if you could kindly review our response (especially in https://anonymous.4open.science/w/STIVE-PAGE-B4D4/) to see if it adequately addresses your concerns. Your timely feedback would be immensely helpful in ensuring that we have properly clarified all points. If you have any further questions or suggestions, please do not hesitate to let us know.\\n\\nYour decision is crucial to us, and we sincerely hope that you will recognize the contributions of this research to the field of one-shot video editing. We are very grateful for your time and consideration.\\n\\nBest regards,\\n\\nThe Authors\"}", "{\"summary\": \"This paper introduces an improved text-driven video editing approach using generative diffusion models. It overcomes limitations of traditional methods by incorporating a concept-augmented textual inversion technique and a dual prior supervision mechanism. For the concept-augmented textual inversion, LoRA is adopted, and for the dual prior supervision mechanism, a cross-attention-based masking technique is utilized.\", \"soundness\": \"2\", \"presentation\": \"2\", \"contribution\": \"2\", \"strengths\": [\"Quantitative/qualitative evaluation shows relatively improved performance.\", \"The two proposed methods intuitively make sense.\"], \"weaknesses\": [\"Writing needs improvement. It is difficult to distinguish what is being proposed and what are existing components in the method section.\", \"Lack of technical novelty. I think the use of LoRA with Textual Inversion (or other inversion/personalization technique) is already widely used as open-source, and compared to these, the use of LoRA in the proposed Concept-Augmented Textual Inversion does not appear to be significantly different. Also, although it is minor, it is not convincing why this technique is called Concept-Augmented Textual Inversion.\", \"In Dual Prior Supervision, a mask is obtained by thresholding the activated attention part corresponding to the text via cross-attention, and this is applied to the loss. This approach itself has been widely used in segmentation and image editing (e.g., masactrl) and does not appear technically novel. Even setting aside the issue of technical novelty, I have concerns about the approach of specifying areas corresponding to certain words through hard thresholding, which seems heuristic and may have a marginal effect outside situations where the object is explicitly referenced.\"], \"questions\": \"Please see the weaknesses.\", \"flag_for_ethics_review\": \"['No ethics review needed.']\", \"rating\": \"5\", \"confidence\": \"3\", \"code_of_conduct\": \"Yes\"}", "{\"title\": \"Paper Decision\", \"decision\": \"Reject\"}", "{\"comment\": \"We greatly appreciate that our \\\"motivation is clear\\\", and \\\"the results are impressive\\\", and \\\"the paper reads well and is easy to follow\\\". We address your concerns bellow.\\n\\n```Fair comparison with existing approaches.```\\nGood question ! **(I)** We obtain the results of existing approaches using the released open source code. **(II)** The methods we compared (like Tune-A-Video, FateZero and RAVE) are all based on the **same CLIP text encoder** that enables us to integrate the same input concept pairs into the models. For MotionDirector, it supports a **spatial path** to bring the object of concept video into latent space **originally**. That is to say, we can make fair comparisons for existing approaches. **(III)** Besides, we release the code of merging representation of object in concept video into the CLIP text encoder in our anonymous repository https://anonymous.4open.science/w/STIVE-PAGE-B4D4/\\n\\n```separate quantitative comparison table with and without concept video```\\nThanks for the suggestion. We seperate the quantitative comparison into two part for using and not using concept videos to make it more clear as shown bellow. We will include this in the revision latter.\\n\\nFor editing w/ concept video\\n\\n| | M-PSNR | Concept Consistency | Frame Consistency |\\n| --- | ---- | ---- | ---- |\\n| **Tune-A-Video** | 14.70 | 0.6982 | 0.9399 |\\n| **FateZero** | 17.08 | 0.6822 | 0.9413 |\\n| **MotionDirector** | 12.73 | 0.7222 | 0.9452 |\\n| **RAVE** | 17.39 | 0.6990 | 0.9379 |\\n| **Ours** | **19.71** | **0.7642** | **0.9472** |\\n\\nFor editing w/o concept video\\n\\n| | M-PSNR | Frame Consistency |\\n| --- | ---- | ---- |\\n| **Tune-A-Video** | 15.72 | 0.9397 |\\n| **FateZero** | 19.42 | 0.9246 |\\n| **MotionDirector** | 16.86 | 0.9403 |\\n| **RAVE** | 16.20 | 0.9306 |\\n| **Ours** | **22.10** | **0.9405** |\\n\\n```Missing references and some for comparisons```\\n\\nThanks. These methods each have unique characteristics, primarily focusing on innovations in pretrained models, diffusion models, attention mechanisms, spatiotemporal consistency, and inter-frame relationships in video editing. For example, [1] **AnyV2V** uses a pretrained model to handle various video editing tasks, while [2] **GenVideo** employs a target-image-aware approach and novel InvEdit masks to overcome text-prompt limitations. Besides, [3] **Factorized Diffusion Distillation** introduces the EVE model by distilling pretrained diffusion models. For temporal consistency, [4] **VidToMe** merges self-attention tokens across frames. For spatial editing, [5] **Pix2Video**, [6] **Slicedit**, and [8] **Cideo-P2P** both improve results with attention features and diffusion models respectively. [7] **TokenFlow** leverages inter-frame correspondences to propagate features. Compared to existing approaches, our method focuses on **attention supervision and control mechanisms** and operates on a **one-shot video editing** paradigm. It also improves **temporal consistency** through extended temporal module parameters and enables the flexible integration of **external concept objects**. This approach not only differs from existing methods in task handling strategies but also complements them in principles and implementation details, thereby broadening the possibilities for video editing.\\n We will include these references and make comparisons in the revision.\\n\\n```Detailed explanation for the pipeline of editing without concept video```\\n\\nThanks. A pretrained lora/concept model is not required for editing without concept video. For example, we only use the word embedding in CLIP model to edit the \\\"jeep\\\" for \\\"Porsche\\\", then fine-tuning the denosing net with SCAM loss for source video and source prompt, and TCAM loss for source video and target prompt.\\n\\n```The range of concepts in CATI for generalization```\\n\\nGood question ! Our experiment shows that CATI can be applied to various objects, like robots and animals. In fact, it's not that difficult for objects in concept image or video to **generalize well** to new image or video. But for **stable video editing** (high consistency of non-target area and high matching faithfullness between source and target object), it is more suitable to edit **rigid objects**, like vehicles or other **objects with less inner component movement**.\"}", "{\"comment\": \"We thank Reviewer yeHN for the constructive reviews. We address your concerns bellow.\\n\\n```overall quality of the edited videos is not satisfactory.```\\n\\nGood question. We acknowledge that the edited video does indeed contain some of the aspects you have carefully observed. But we guess the reason behind this lies in that we set a larger frame sampling step due to limited computational resources (**only one RTX 4090 with 24G gpu memory**) instead of only lacking video prior knowledge. Because, **(I)** we have actually validated video diffusion model at the very beginning. However, while the results demonstrate marginal advantages in the temporal, they fell far short of our expectation for scene editing (especially for spatial control). Therefore, we opt to use the standard Stable Diffusion coupled with temporal layers after careful consideration. **(II)** We conduct additional experiments with a small frame step with more powerfull devices (Nvidia L20 with 48G memory) in **scenarios with weak temporal consistency**, the edited videos are more smoother than before as shown in **More Results Section** of https://anonymous.4open.science/w/STIVE-PAGE-B4D4/. While our original experiments used a frame sampling step of 8 and sequence length of 6 frames, we test our approach with a streamlined step of 3 frames (**i**) and an extended sequence length of 14 frames (**ii**). The comparative analysis reveals the following:\\n\\nfor editing w/ concept video\\n| | CLIP-L | DINOv2 ViT-G | LPIPS VGG |\\n| - | ---- | ------ | ---- |\\n| i | 0.9309 | 0.8234 | 0.6795 |\\n| ii | **0.9475** | **0.8966** | **0.7026** |\\n\\nfor editing w/o concept video\\n| | CLIP-L | DINOv2 ViT-G | LPIPS VGG |\\n| - | ---- | ------ | ---- |\\n| i | 0.9169 | 0.8217 | 0.6793 |\\n| ii | **0.9410** | **0.8579** | **0.7075** |\\n\\n**(III)** Although Flatten [1] guides video motion editing by introducing optical flow conditions, during inference, Flatten retains prior information such as convolutional and attention features from certain diffusion steps, which are then replaced during the denoising process to guide video editing. However, this process conflicts with operations such as attention swapping, **making Flatten unsuitable for this method**. TokenFlow [2] involves propagating estimated motion tokens to modify hidden states after extended attention computation, is fundamentally incompatible with our approach. Specifically, this propagation mechanism conflicts with our attention control strategy during the inference phase, **making TokenFlow framework unsuitable for integration into our method**.\\n\\n```The methodology is not strong for (I) concept-augmented textual inversion belongs to this variation by additionally finetuning V; (II) the scam and tcam loss although improves the results, does not seem novel or strong enough to boost the consistency of the videos.```\\n\\nThanks for the very detailed comments. **(I)** We acknowledge that our approach is quite straightforward. However, it is not merely about replacing model parameters with V. More importantly, our analysis reveal that fine-tuning the denoising network in one-shot video editing scenarios is highly prone to **overfitting** and incurs **significant computational costs**. In contrast, fine-tuning V effectively addresses these issues, offering a simple yet efficient solution tailored to this specific task. We believe this is novel. **(II)** We propose the scam and tcam loss to **improve the consistency** in non-target areas before and after video editing, especially in editing source video with concept video, which is illustrated in Tab.1 and Fig.3 in the draft. This is also appreciated by the reviewer ZGWC \\\"SCAM and TCAM is novel\\\". \\n\\n```The efficiency is not optimal enough.```\\n\\nGood question ! But we would like to clarify that **(I)** It seems unfair to challenge efficiency because for the same setting : Tune-A-Video needs 10 min with GPU A100; MotionDirector needs 20 min with GPU A6000 (48G); while **our approach needs about ~30 min with only one RTX 4090 (24G)** **(II)** Exisiting approach like MotionDirector achieves a lower resolution for 384x384, rather than 512x512 in other methods. **(III)** We further validate our approach with Nvidia L20 (48G) which shows that our approach spends about ~20 min, which is on par with existing methods but achieves more compelling results (Tab.1 & Fig.3).\"}", "{\"title\": \"Response to Authors\", \"comment\": \"The reviewer thank the authors for the answers. The reviewer has carefully read the paper, including the authors\\u2019 responses and subsequent discussions, and assures the authors that all answers are being thoughtfully analyzed. **There is no need to reiterate requests for reviewers to provide responsible scores based on the responses, as this is already a standard practice.**\\n\\n\\n1. Clarification on Baselines:\\nThe reviewer appreciates the authors' openness to addressing practical concerns. If the authors believe that a comparison with DreamVideo is of little practical significance, this is acceptable. However, the reviewer felt it was necessary to correct the mischaracterization that \\\"DreamVideo [1] and MotionBooth [2] aim to solve image-to-video generation.\\\"\\nAs previously mentioned, the primary concern is the choice of **stronger baselines.** Before the release of foundational video diffusion models like ZeroScope or VideoCrafter, it was common to adapt Stable Diffusion for video editing tasks. Since mid-2023, however, the field has seen a proliferation of baselines leveraging text-to-video backbones. **Are the authors confident that TAV, FateZero, and RAVE represent state-of-the-art (SOTA) or near-SOTA baselines for comparison at this point?** Providing a more robust comparison with stronger baselines would significantly strengthen the paper, rather than focusing on justifying the choice of weaker baselines that lack temporal consistency (like the authors' method).\\n\\n\\n2. Handling Spatio-Temporal Learning:\\nThe reviewer is unsurprised that naive attempts to extend the ZeroScope backbone have not yielded promising results. The issue of entangled spatio-temporal learning when applying the full video diffusion loss\\u2014regardless of whether embeddings or weights are being optimized\\u2014is well-documented in the literature. The critical factor lies in the optimization approach: A commonly accepted approach to decouple spatial and temporal dimensions is to disable the spatial layers of the video diffusion model and train by sampling single frames from the reference video [1,2,3,4]. The reviewer believes this established method could effectively address the spatio-temporal coupling issue. Therefore, the authors\\u2019 explanation for the observed failure modes does not seem entirely convincing. \\n\\n\\n3. Co-Training Text Embeddings:\\nFor the same reasons outlined in point (2), to my unprofessional and humble opinion as claimed by authors, the reviewer questions the necessity of co-training text embeddings with LoRA for one-shot video editing tasks. Numerous works in the field, including those targeting appearance or motion customization (or both), have demonstrated success without optimizing text embeddings. Examples include works [1,2,3,4,5,6], which have achieved effective video customization by focusing solely on appearance or motion learning.\\nThe reviewer therefore finds the authors\\u2019 rationale for co-training text embeddings unconvincing, particularly given the availability of well-established alternative approaches.\\n\\n[1] MotionDirector: Motion Customization of Text-to-Video Diffusion Models\\n\\n[2] Customize-A-Video: One-Shot Motion Customization of Text-to-Video Diffusion Models\\n\\n[3] MotionCrafter: One-Shot Motion Customization of Diffusion Models\\n\\n[4] ReCapture: Generative Video Camera Controls for User-Provided Videos using Masked Video Fine-Tuning\\n\\n[5] VMC: Video Motion Customization using Temporal Attention Adaption for Text-to-Video Diffusion Models\\n\\n[6] Customizing Motion in Text-to-Video Diffusion Models\"}", "{\"summary\": \"This paper introduces a novel pipeline for video editing that leverages spatial-temporal attention and dual prior supervision. The proposed method demonstrates potential through its structure and method of concept-augmented textual inversion and self-attention blending, albeit with certain limitations in innovation and effectiveness. The ablation study provides some insights, particularly around car color changes, but overall performance falls short of expectations.\", \"soundness\": \"2\", \"presentation\": \"2\", \"contribution\": \"2\", \"strengths\": [\"Comprehensive experimental setup with both ablation and comparative studies.\", \"Clear writing that outlines the approach and methodology effectively.\"], \"weaknesses\": [\"Limited innovation; the first proposed method (concept-augmented textual inversion) is not significantly novel, and the second (dual prior supervision mechanism) shows only moderate innovation.\", \"The quality of generated videos is subpar, with short video length and lackluster editing effects.\", \"Missing details on the training set used in the experiments.\", \"Evaluation metrics and comparison methods are unconventional and somewhat outdated, potentially impacting the rigor of performance comparisons.\", \"Ablation study results indicate some changes in attributes (e.g., car color) but are unimpressive in terms of visual quality and effect.\"], \"questions\": \"See question in weakness\", \"flag_for_ethics_review\": \"['No ethics review needed.']\", \"rating\": \"3\", \"confidence\": \"5\", \"code_of_conduct\": \"Yes\"}", "{\"comment\": \"We appreciate Reviewer-ZGWC for the insightful comments. We address the main concerns bellow.\\n\\n```Better baseline (DreamVideo [1] and MotionBooth [2] )```\\n\\nThanks. Our task aims to enable **one shot video editing** based on concept text and video while the mentioned works DreamVideo [1] and MotionBooth [2] attempt to solve **image to video generation**, which clearly differs from our task. So it is inappropriate to compare DreamVideo [1] and MotionBooth [2] as the baseline.\\n\\n```Zeroscope is open-sourced video diffusion model instead of video editing method```\\n\\nThanks for pointing this out and we will fix it in the revision.\\n\\n```Why image diffusion (stable diffusion) is used as a backbone```\\n\\nGood question ! In fact, we did try the experiment to apply concept augmented textual inversion to a video diffusion model, such as Zeroscope, but the results are not good as we expected. We guess that the generalization of concept word may easily be coupled with the frame length of concept video in the inversion process. In other words, the **inversion results contain temporal information** of the concept video, which is obstructive to be applied to edits for other videos. Actually, spatial information of the concept video is what we need, and we can randomly sample frames in the concept video and input them to a image diffusion backbone for the inversion process to **avoid or break this coupling**, which refers to Lines 288-290. Besides, using an image diffusion model as a backbone to extend with temporal modules can save VRAM overhead either for CATI or DPS on one Nvidia RTX4090 device.\\n\\n```L242-245, can the authors show results?```\\n\\nThanks. The dispersion phenomenon of cross-attention between concept word and video latents in Fig.5, in which (a), (b) and (c) are more likely to appear the dispersion phenomenon due to lack supervision. The full results are shown in Fig.11, Fig.12 in Appendix.3.\\n\\n```CLIP consistency fails to reflect temporal consistency. Using other metrics like DINOv2 (like the ones from VBench[3]) or LIPIPS would be better```\\n\\nGood suggestion. We conduct additional quantitative evaluation using DINOv2 and LPIPS metrics reveals that MotionDirector indeed achieves better temporal consistency. However, MotionDirector's highly stochastic nature leads to **less stable video editing** results, particularly in maintaining non-target area consistency and source-target object matching fidelity. Our method demonstrates superior performance in these crucial aspects, showing an average improvement of 4.06 M-PSNR over all baseline methods. The results are shown below.\\n\\nFor editing w/ concept video\\n| | CLIP-L | DINOv2 ViT-G | LPIPS VGG |\\n| --- | --- | --- | --- |\\n| **Tune-A-Video** | 0.9399 | 0.8933 | 0.6431 |\\n| **FateZero** | 0.9413 | 0.9055 | 0.6423 |\\n| **MotionDirector** | 0.9452 | **0.9261** | **0.7386** |\\n| **RAVE** | 0.9379 | 0.9001 | 0.6969 |\\n| **Ours** | **0.9472** | 0.9235 | 0.6490 |\\n\\n\\nFor editing w/o concept video\\n| | CLIP-L | DINOv2 ViT-G | LPIPS VGG |\\n| --- | --- | --- | --- |\\n| **Tune-A-Video** | 0.9397 | 0.8913 | 0.6651 |\\n| **FateZero** | 0.9246 | 0.8925 | 0.7028 |\\n| **MotionDirector** | 0.9403 | **0.9006** | 0.6997 |\\n| **RAVE** | 0.9306 | 0.8899 | **0.7064** |\\n| **Ours** | **0.9405** | 0.8972 | 0.6847 |\\n\\n```The concept augmented textual inversion (CATI) lacks technical contribution```\\n\\nThanks. We would like to clarify that we aim to flexibly edit source videos using concept videos as a key task setting, with our primary motivation being to enrich the latent space through one-shot concept videos to achieve more faithful inversion representations. We validate this improvement through ablation studies, as shown in Fig. 4. While LoRA and Textual Inversion have been widely used **separately** in image style transfer tasks, to the best of our knowledge, no existing variant of textual inversion simultaneously employs LoRA tailored for video editing task. Existing approaches that do fine-tune the denoising network face significant challenges in one-shot concept video scenarios, such as overfitting and high memory requirements during training. Our approach addresses these limitations by leveraging LoRA modules to fine-tune attention value weights with a smaller learning rate, maintaining **low VRAM overhead** during tuning while preserving **plug-and-play** capabilities. We believe CATI is technical novel for these reasons.\"}", "{\"comment\": \"We thank Reviewer-oUvi for the comments. **Reviewer-oUvi thinks \\\"The two proposed methods intuitively make sense\\\" but gives a reject rating due to questioning the core methodology ?** We address Reviewer-oUvi's concerns bellow.\\n\\n```Reviewer-oUvi criticized our writing \\\"needs improvement\\\" -- for example, not clearly stating about the core proposed components.```\\n\\nThanks. We kindly **disagree** with the comment. We already **highlight** our motivation and propose **Concept-Augmented Textual Inversion** and **Dual Prior Supervision** at Line 61-69. **(I)** For **Concept-Augmented Textual Inversion**, we enable one-shot flexible video editing based on external word embedding and target video (what we term concept prompt and concept video), we further advance the textual inversion tailored for concept-augmented video editing by addressing the under-fitting issue inside the original approach. (See lines 199-235) **(II)** We propose **Dual Prior Supervision** (SCAM and TCAM) to supervise the attention between word embedding and unrelated areas in video to maintain consistency. (See lines 236-273). **(III)** Both reviewers appreciate our draft \\\"**clear writing**\\\", \\\"**easy to follow**\\\". _**May we humbly ask for more specific details that support 'writing needs improvement'?**_\\n\\n\\n```Novelty of our Concept-Augmented Textual Inversion (CATI)```\\n\\nThanks. We would like to emphasize that the reviewer **may have confused the distinction between our motivation and the specific implementation**. We aim to flexibly edit source videos using concept videos as a key task setting, with our primary motivation being to enrich the latent space through one-shot concept videos to achieve more faithful inversion representations. We validate this improvement through ablation studies, as shown in Fig. 4. We deeply appreciate the reviewer's feedback and would like to clarify that **the proposed CATI method is technically novel**. While LoRA and Textual Inversion have been widely used **separately** in image style transfer tasks, to the best of our knowledge, no existing variant of textual inversion simultaneously employs LoRA tailored for video editing task. Existing approaches that do fine-tune the denoising network face significant challenges in one-shot concept video scenarios, such as overfitting and high memory requirements during training. Our approach addresses these limitations by leveraging LoRA modules to fine-tune attention value weights with a smaller learning rate, maintaining **low VRAM overhead** during tuning while preserving **plug-and-play** capabilities. _**As also appreciated by Reviewer-HLfd \\\"The motivation is clear\\\". May we kindly request citations if similar motivations exist?**_\\n\\n\\n```Novelty of Dual Prior Supervision (mask generation by thresholding the activated attention, specifying areas corresponding to certain words through hard thresholding )```\\n\\nThanks. **(I)** We would like to clarify that **there appears to be a misunderstanding regarding the mask generation process**. The mask is actually obtained through a pretrained OWL-ViT model, not by thresholding the activated attention, as detailed in Lines 252-254 of our paper. We appreciate the mention of MasaCtrl, which is indeed an excellent work for consistent image synthesis and editing using mutual self-attention control. While previous works like Prompt-to-Prompt and FateZero have made valuable contributions with cross-attention control and self-attention blending control methods, our method serves as a supervision mechanism designed to **reduce inconsistencies in non-target areas** before and after video editing, addressing the low consistency in existing approaches, especially in editing source video with concept video (As illustrated in Tab.1 in our paper. **The reviewer ZGWC also mentioned that our SCAM and TCAM is novel**). **(II)** Noted that Dual Prior Supervision **does not specify** areas corresponding to certain words through hard thresholding. **Instead**, the SCAM and TCAM losses are designed to optimize only the attention probability between unrelated areas and certain words toward zero, without imposing constraints on the probability between related areas and the corresponding words. This mechanism is formally described in Eq.(5) and Eq.(6) of our paper.\"}", "{\"summary\": \"This paper addresses limitations in text-driven video editing using generative diffusion models, particularly the challenge of nuanced editing when constrained by pre-trained word embeddings. The authors propose a concept-augmented video editing approach that allows for flexible and stable video generation through the use of abstract conceptual pairs. The key components include concept-augmented textual inversion, which provides plug-and-play guidance for stable diffusion to better capture target attributes, and a dual prior supervision mechanism that enhances video stability and fidelity. By integrating these elements, the approach overcomes the disruptions caused by direct keyword alterations and allows for more nuanced, stylized editing. Experiments demonstrate that this method outperforms existing state-of-the-art techniques in generating stable and lifelike videos.\", \"soundness\": \"3\", \"presentation\": \"3\", \"contribution\": \"3\", \"strengths\": \"1. The paper is easy to follow.\\n2. The clarity of the writing.\\n3. SCAM loss and TCAM loss sound novel.\\n4. Convincing metric for qualitative evaluation: Masked Peek-Signal-Noise Ratio.\", \"weaknesses\": \"1. Diffusion based video editing has developed quickly and Tune-A-Video and Fatezero are not the strong baselines at this point. Plus, how is this paper different from DreamVideo [1] and MotionBooth [2] paper? I think these works could serve as better baselines?\\n2. In L36, Zeroscope is not a video editing method but an open-sourced video diffusion model.\\n3. Is there a reason why image diffusion (stable diffusion) is used as a backbone? I don't see reasons that the method can't be applied to video diffusion models and compared to video diffusion based methods.\\n4. L242-245, can the authors show results?\\n5. CLP consistency fails to reflect temporal consistency. Using other metrics like DINOv2 (like the ones from VBench[3]) or LIPIPS would be better.\\n6. In terms of temporal consistency, the resulting videos of MotionDirector look better.\\n7. The concept augmented textual inversion lacks technical contribution.\\n\\n[1] DreamVideo: Composing Your Dream Videos with Customized Subject and Motion, CVPR 2024\\n\\n[2] MotionBooth: Motion-Aware Customized Text-to-Video Generation, Arxiv 2024\\n\\n[3] VBench: Comprehensive Benchmark Suite for Video Generative Models, CVPR 2024\", \"questions\": \"Please refer to the weakness section.\", \"flag_for_ethics_review\": \"['No ethics review needed.']\", \"rating\": \"3\", \"confidence\": \"4\", \"code_of_conduct\": \"Yes\"}", "{\"title\": \"Reply to Authors\", \"comment\": \"1. DreamVideo and MotionBooth are not aimed on image-to-video generation. They both take a appearance-concept image as input, target text then generate video. MotionBooth takes additional condition that represents camera motion so comparing to this could be not possible. But I think DreamVideo is highly relevant to your work. For example, for comparison with DreamVideo, you can use one frame of the concept video as 'appearance reference image' and the input video as 'motion reference video', similar to comparing with MotionDirector. Comparing with DreamVideo specific is not necessary but I strongly believe that compared baselines are outdated except for MotionDirector. Comparing with better baselines that use t2v diffusion backbone then demonstrating the superiority would greatly add value to your work.\\n2. In the same context with Point 1, I believe that the method should be extended to T2V backbone. Otherwise, the quality couldn't would not be comparable to T2V baselines. I believe failure with Zeroscope could be because the zeroscope model is lower-bound video diffusion models. Lots of better performing models have emerged publicly other than ZeroScope.\\n3. I still think adding Lora layers to trainable modules when performing textual inversion optimization does not add technical contribution. Training Lora for video editing has been explored (i.e. MotionDirector and its follow-up works). And I believe the reason why the research community doesn't co-train text embeddings and Lora together to learn a concept is because training Lora is enough in most of cases.\\n4. I sincerely thank the authors for addressing my concerns and the additional experiments. But I firmly believe that extending the work to T2V backbone is neccessary.\"}", "{\"comment\": \"Dear Reviewer ZGWC,\\n\\nHoping this message finds you well. Thank you once again for your thoughtful and thorough feedback on our work. We greatly appreciate the time you have invested in reviewing our manuscript. In response to your comments, we have made substantial revisions and added additional experiments to better address the concerns you raised.\\n\\nAs the rebuttal-discussion period draws to a close, we kindly ask if you could review our response, especially the details in this document link, to confirm that we have adequately addressed your concerns. Your feedback on our response will be invaluable to us in ensuring that we have resolved all outstanding issues.\\n\\nIf there are any further questions or points you would like us to clarify, please feel free to let us know. We are committed to refining our work based on your input, and your timely feedback would be greatly appreciated.\\n\\nWe sincerely hope that you will consider the contributions our research brings to the field of one-shot video editing. Thank you again for your insightful comments and for your continued support.\\n\\nBest regards,\\n\\nThe Authors\"}", "{\"comment\": \"Thank you very much for your thoughtful and constructive feedback. We greatly appreciate your patience and the time you've taken to carefully review our work. We are pleased to hear that our clarifications regarding the Dual Prior Supervision have alleviated your concerns, and we will address the points you raised below.\\n\\n```About lack sufficient technical contribution.```\\n\\nWe deeply value the reviewer's feedback, but we believe CATI we proposed has technical contribution. \\nCompared to our method, the conventional Textual Inversion approach **lacks novel object information in arbitrary concept videos** which causes word embeddings obtained through inversion having **insufficient fidelity** in describing target objects. Directly porting Textual Inversion to one-shot video editing scenario struggles from (always failed) generating videos for novel provided concept pairs. Our approach addresses these limitations by utilizing cutting-edge LoRA modules to fine-tune attention value weights (We latter explain why we only tune V), effectively maintaining the advantages of **low VRAM overhead** during tuning while preserving **play-and-plug** capabilities. \\n\\nAs for **V projection LoRA for training**, our goal is to perform inversion while integrating **novel object information in arbitrary concept videos** for one-shot video editing task. Textual inversion process relies on the pre-trained denoising-net established text-image attention probability distribution to achieve accurate target representation. In this context, fine-tuning only the V weights instead of Q and K allows new feature representations to be directly integrated while **suppressing changes towards the pre-trained attention distribution** to enable stable training during the early stages. \\n\\n ```\\\"latent space\\\"```\\n\\nThanks. In our work, the term \\\"**latent space**\\\" does not refer to the text embedding feature space. Instead, it refers to the **latent space of the latent diffusion model** in [1], specifically the spatial-level lower-dimensional latent representation produced by the variational autoencoder during the generative process. This latent space is a compact representation of the input data and serves as the working space for the diffusion model's operations.\\nWhen we mention \\\"**constrained by the size of the latent space**\\\" we are referring to the fact that the **capacity** of the diffusion model's latent space is **inherently limited by the scale and diversity of the image samples used during pre-training**. This limitation (see explanations for previous question) affects the representation power of the latent space, consequently, the quality of the inversion results. Relying solely on Textual Inversion to obtain a word embedding from concept an image or video often leads to **insufficient representation capabilities**, especially for samples far from dataset for pre-training.\\n\\n[1] Rombach R, Blattmann A, Lorenz D, et al. High-resolution image synthesis with latent diffusion models[C]//Proceedings of the IEEE/CVF conference on computer vision and pattern recognition. 2022: 10684-10695.\\n\\n```\\\"concept template\\\" & Details of how concept video and concept prompt relate to existing inputs.```\\n\\nGood questions! The template here means we could change the source video object with several different concept videos coupled with specified objects to enable more diverse and flexible one shot video editing. For example,\\n\\n- source prompt : \\\"a **man** rides a wooden skateboard on the handrail of the staircase with arms outstretched\\\"\\n- concept prompt - I : \\\"a **OPTIMUS** is squatting on a wooden floor with its back to a white wall\\\" \\n- target prompt - I : \\\"a **OPTIMUS** rides a wooden skateboard on the handrail of the staircase with arms outstretched\\\"\\n- concept prompt - II: \\\"**NEO** is outstretching his arms\\\"\\n- target prompt - II : \\\"a **NEO** rides a wooden skateboard on the handrail of the staircase with arms outstretched\\\"\\n- concept template: \\\"a \\u3010**CONCEPT**\\u3011 rides a wooden skateboard on the handrail of the staircase with arms outstretched\\\"\\n\\nFor current source video and prompt, when employing different target pairs we can obtain diverse editing results based on concept tamplate. For more details, please refer to Fig.3(setting I) and Fig.13.\"}", "{\"comment\": \"Thank the authors for providing detailed responses. I will carefully review the replies and the manuscript again and get back as soon as possible.\"}", "{\"comment\": \"We sincerely thank the reviewer for taking the time to provide feedback on our submission. While we respect your decision, we would like to address the concerns raised and clarify certain points.\\n\\n**(1) Innovation in Our Approach:**\\n\\nWe respectfully disagree with the assessment that our method lacks innovation. While we acknowledge that modifying the attention mechanism and introducing additional loss functions may seem incremental at first glance, these modifications were carefully designed to address the unique challenges of the **one-shot video editing** task. Specifically, our approach integrates **concept pairs** and leverages LoRA-based optimization tailored for video editing, enabling controllable and consistent editing across frames\\u2014a feature that existing methods struggle to achieve.\\n\\nWe also wish to highlight that innovation is not always about introducing entirely new paradigms but rather solving practical, impactful problems in a novel way. Our work tackles the underexplored yet critical issue of editing **arbitrary, concept-driven videos**\\u2014a challenge with significant implications for the broader field of video generation.\\n\\n**(2) Effectiveness on Short Videos and Stability Issues:**\\n\\n(a) While we acknowledge that some minor instability remains, this is an inherent challenge in video editing tasks, particularly when working with one-shot settings and concept pairs. To address this, we have introduced mechanisms (e.g., frame consistency losses) to mitigate these issues, and our results demonstrate notable improvements over comparable baselines.\\n\\n(b) The demo videos provided are **limited in length due to computational constraints as also acknowledged by reviewer**, not methodological itself. Our approach can handle longer videos with sufficient resources.\\n\\nWe deeply value your feedback regarding the standards of ICLR. However, we believe that the conceptual contributions of this work, coupled with extensive empirical validation, align with the conference's expectations. We emphasize that the integration of novel mechanisms (e.g., selective LoRA tuning for video editing) and our rigorous comparisons provide a meaningful contribution to the community. While we respect your decision, we remain open to constructive dialogue. If there are specific areas where you feel we can improve, we would be grateful for further insights. Thank you once again for your time and feedback.\"}", "{\"comment\": \"Thank you for the reviewer\\u2019s feedback. We would like to summarize our understanding of the points raised in the response (please feel free to point out any inaccuracies):\\n\\n(1) Reviewer **acknowledges** that of DreamVideo and MotionBooth initially suggested for baseline comparison are not suitable when compared to our method.\\n\\n(2) Reviewer **recognizes the validity of our explanation** regarding ZeroScope, but **suggests** that our reasoning could be further strengthened, particularly with reference to the common practice of disabling the spatial layer of video diffusion models.\\n\\n(3) The reviewer continues to question the necessity of using both concept text and concept video as inputs based on existing works.\\n\\nWe will address remaining points in the following responses.\\n\\n(1) In response to the reviewer\\u2019s question, \\\"_Are the authors confident that TAV, FateZero, and RAVE represent state-of-the-art (SOTA) or near-SOTA baselines for comparison at this point?_\\\"\\n\\n\\u2014 **Yes, we are confident in our selection of baselines**. **We humbly invite the reviewer to provide specific citations or examples of alternative approaches that could challenge the methods we have used**. This will help us further refine our work and ensure our comparisons remain rigorous and comprehensive.\\n\\n(2) We sincerely **appreciate** the reviewer\\u2019s suggestion regarding the \\\"_commonly accepted approach._\\\" **We tested this in our setting, but it did not produce satisfactory results.** Nevertheless, we recognize the value of including such comparisons for completeness and will incorporate them in the final version of our work.\\n\\n(3) While the existing text2video approaches represents an established paradigm, **it is not necessarily incompatible with our methodology.** This is because solely using text guidance, though functional to some extent, lacks control and flexibility. For instance, **if we aim to embed a specific object from a concept video into a source video, purely text-based guidance falls short in achieving this goal.** This is precisely why we incorporate concept pairs in our method\\u2014to make the editing process more controllable and adaptable to nuanced editing scenarios.\"}", "{\"summary\": \"This paper proposes a text-driven video editing method using Stable Diffusion. It involves concept-augmented textual inversion and a dual prior supervision mechanism. The results show that the proposed method can outperform the baselines.\", \"soundness\": \"2\", \"presentation\": \"2\", \"contribution\": \"2\", \"strengths\": \"1. The overall presentation of the paper is easy to follow. Most of the details are clear and well-documented.\\n\\n2. Based on the quantitative metrics, the model can outperform the previous baselines.\", \"weaknesses\": \"1. My main concern is that the overall quality of the edited videos is not satisfactory. Mainly, there are obvious changes (shape and color) between frames, so the videos don\\u2019t look consistent. I think this may be the inherent weakness of the approach of inflating Stable Diffusion with temporal layers. The base model doesn\\u2019t have video prior knowledge compared to a video diffusion model which has been trained on video datasets. Possible ways to improve can be adding motion prior such as adopting optical flow [1] or propagating features among frames [2].\\n\\n2. Besides the quality, the methodology is also not strong to me. Textual inversion comes with several variations, and one of them can be finetuning the model parameters instead of only finetuning the textual embedding. It seems concept-augmented textual inversion belongs to this variation by additionally finetuning V. The scam and tcam loss, although improves the results, does not seem novel or strong enough to boost the consistency of the videos. \\n\\n3. I appreciate that the authors also provide details of efficiency. I think the efficiency is also not optimal enough. More than 30 minutes (training + inference) to edit a 6-frame video seems inefficient and not practical. \\n\\n[1] Cong, Yuren, et al. \\\"Flatten: optical flow-guided attention for consistent text-to-video editing.\\\" ICLR 2024.\\n\\n[2] Geyer, Michal, et al. \\\"Tokenflow: Consistent diffusion features for consistent video editing.\\\" ICLR 2024.\", \"questions\": \"1. What are the parameters that are finetuned during the scam and tcam loss optimization?\\n\\n2. What possible reasons do you think that the edited videos are not looking consistent enough? What possible solutions could you propose?\", \"flag_for_ethics_review\": \"['No ethics review needed.']\", \"rating\": \"3\", \"confidence\": \"4\", \"code_of_conduct\": \"Yes\"}", "{\"comment\": \"Thank you for the author's response. After reading the rebuttal and the feedback from other reviewers, I still firmly believe that the method proposed in this paper lacks innovation. Furthermore, although the authors provided a demo of video editing, its effectiveness is limited to very short videos, and there are noticeable issues with jitter and instability. Modifying the attention mechanism and adding two additional loss functions does not meet the average standard of ICLR. Therefore, I have decided to lower my score to reject.\"}", "{\"comment\": \"We thank the reviewer for their feedback and for recognizing the effort we put into additional experiments and analysis. We appreciate the acknowledgment of our exploration of video model backbones and the analysis of the mentioned papers.\\n\\n**(1) On Novelty and Contribution:**\\nWhile we respect your perspective on the novelty of the methodology, we would like to reiterate that our approach addresses a **unique and underexplored challenge in concept-driven one-shot video editing**. Specifically:\\n\\n(a) The **selective fine-tuning of V projection weights in the attention mechanism** is a targeted and efficient solution to integrate novel concepts while preserving consistency and stability.\\n\\n(b) The use of **concept pairs (text and video)** introduces a new level of controllability, enabling precise embedding of specific target objects from a reference video into a source video, which purely text-based methods cannot achieve.\\n\\n(c) Our method strikes a practical balance between computational efficiency and visual quality, a crucial consideration for real-world applications.\\n\\n**(2) Visual Quality and Computational Efficiency:**\\nWe acknowledge the reviewer's concerns about performance in terms of visual quality and computational efficiency. The limitations in visual quality primarily stem from the inherent challenges of one-shot video editing and the need to handle diverse and arbitrary concepts. Despite this, our results show significant improvement over existing baselines, and we believe this demonstrates the effectiveness of our approach.\\n\\n**(3) Fine-tuning V Projection Weights:**\\nWe appreciate the suggestion to delve deeper into why fine-tuning the V weights is efficient compared to tuning the entire model or other parts. The key insight lies in:\\n\\n**(a) Stability and Focused Adaptation:** Fine-tuning V allows the model to integrate new feature representations into the pre-trained attention mechanism while minimizing disruptions to the pre-existing distribution, thereby enabling stable training.\\n\\n**Efficiency:** By restricting updates to V, we reduce the number of trainable parameters, achieving a lower VRAM overhead without sacrificing performance.\\n\\n**Task-Specific Design:** This selective tuning is particularly suited to our one-shot video editing task, where preserving the pre-trained model's knowledge while adapting to new concepts is crucial.\\n\\nWe will incorporate a more detailed analysis of these aspects in future revisions to strengthen our contribution claims. Thank you again for your valuable feedback. We deeply appreciate your constructive suggestions and will use them to further improve our work.\"}", "{\"comment\": \"Dear Reviewer yeHN,\\n\\nHoping this message finds you well. Your comments and the provided insights are very valuable to our work. We will attach these analysis and additional experiments to our final version. As the rebuttal-discussion period is nearing its end, could you please review our response (especially in https://anonymous.4open.science/w/STIVE-PAGE-B4D4/) to see if it addresses your concerns? Your timely feedback will be extremely valuable to us. Could you read and let us know if there are more questions? We would be very grateful! Your decision is of utmost importance to us, and we earnestly hope that you will consider the contribution of this research to the field of one shot video editing. Thank you very much!\\n\\nBest regards,\\n\\nThe Authors\"}", "{\"comment\": \"Thanks for the feedback !\\n\\nFirst, we **sincerely hope that the reviewer carefully revisits our previous responses** and clearly indicates whether our answers have effectively addressed the concerns raised. We also kindly request that the reviewer provide a responsible score based on these answers.\\n\\nSecond, regarding the new issues raised by the reviewer, we provide the following clarifications:\\n\\n**(1) Comparison with MotionBooth and DreamVideo**.\", \"reviewer_zgwc_has_acknowledged_that_directly_comparing_our_method_with_motionbooth_is_unreasonable_and_has_suggested_a_comparison_with_dreamvideo_using_a_specific_evaluation_method\": \"\\u201c_using one frame of the concept video as the 'appearance reference image' and the input video as the 'motion reference video'_\\u201d. **However, we believe such a comparison is neither reasonable nor fair.** While we recognize some relevance between DreamVideo and our work, it is essential to emphasize that DreamVideo is not designed for stable editing and does not align with the objectives of our task. Following the reviewer\\u2019s suggested approach to use DreamVideo for video editing would only consider the association between the object in the concept video and the motion of the target in the source video. It entirely lacks mechanisms to maintain spatial consistency in the source video. This is fundamentally different from MotionDirector, which executes a fine-tuning process on source video, thereby partially preserving video consistency. **For this reason, we find little practical significance in comparing methods designed for distinct tasks and objectives.**\\n\\nMost importantly, **the core of our approach lies in addressing the concept-driven one-shot video editing task, while DreamVideo is not designed for this purpose**. Comparing it to our method would not only deviate from its original intent but also fail to fully showcase the value and contributions of our work.\\n\\n**(2) Extending to T2V backbone and the failure of ZeroScope**\\n\\nWe kindly **disagree** with the comment. First, **we urge the reviewer to revisit our original response**, where we explicitly explained the reasons for selecting an image diffusion model (Stable Diffusion) as the backbone instead of a video diffusion model (\\u201cWhy image diffusion (Stable Diffusion) is used as a backbone\\u201d). In our reply, we provided detailed technical justifications for this choice. **Returning to this point without engaging with our explanations does little to advance a deeper understanding of our work.**\\n\\nSecond, we respectfully **disagree** with the reviewer\\u2019s assertion that ZeroScope\\u2019s failure is due to its lower performance as a video diffusion model. As we outlined in our previous response, our experiments **have carefully demonstrated** that the failure of ZeroScope stems from the coupled spatiotemporal information in the concept video, rather than the performance of the video diffusion backbone itself. This conclusion is derived from well-designed experiments and careful analysis, rather than speculative reasoning.\\n\\n**(3) LoRA contributions and concerns about co-training text embeddings with LoRA**.\\n\\n**We are so shocked to see such an unprofessional and irresponsible claim** \\\"_I believe the reason why the research community doesn't co-train text embeddings and Lora together to learn a concept is because training Lora is enough in most of cases._\\\" We would like to challenge this perspective, both on technical grounds and in terms of its relevance to our work.\\n\\n(a) Our work is **not merely about integrating** LoRA layers during textual inversion. We have highlighted before that our research focuses on the one-shot video editing task rather than a simple textual inversion task. In our framework, LoRA serves as an auxiliary tool designed to address the specific challenges of the one-shot video editing task by selectively training certain modules to avoid overfitting and enhance adaptability to concept videos. This approach is tailored to the unique requirements of our task and is not a mere repetition of existing techniques.\\n\\n(b) **Co-training text embeddings with LoRA is necessary for one-shot video editing task.** The reviewer\\u2019s statement that \\u201ctraining LoRA alone is sufficient in most cases\\u201d lacks a detailed analysis of the task background and requirements. As we elaborated in the paper, training only LoRA layers is insufficient to capture spatiotemporal consistency and concept features when dealing with highly heterogeneous concept videos. Our approach of co-optimizing text embeddings and LoRA is specifically designed to meet the demands of the one-shot video editing task.\\n\\n**We hope the reviewer can engage with our work more rigorously by addressing specific technical details more grounded, rather than guessing out of thin air.** Once again, we appreciate the reviewer\\u2019s attention to our work.\"}" ] }