[aseg]

Slightly meta-level: I'm glad the authors finds the ICLR reviews useful, and this illustrates one of the successes of ICLR's policy of always open sourcing the reviews (regardless of whether the paper is accepted or rejected).

The authors benefit from having "testimonials" of how anonymous reviewers interpreted their works, and it also allows opens the door to people outside of the classic academic pipeline to see the behind the scenes arguments to accept/reject a paper.

Here are the reviews for this paper btw: https://openreview.net/forum?id=xNsIfzlefG

And here's a list of all the rejected papers: https://openreview.net/group?id=ICLR.cc/2025/Conference#tab-...

[3abiton]

Absolutely, whenever I got ICLR rejections, at least I could always ppint out to that reviewer who didn't understand core concepts of the paper.