| {"case_id": "c0e4957a89b6a68e960712da", "text": "Peer Review Memo\n\nThis is an empirical paper.\n\nThe method builds on existing techniques with modest changes. The problem it addresses is broadly important across the field. The technical argument is sound.\n\nThe strength of supporting evidence is rated 2.4 out of 5. Comparisons with prior methods are only partly controlled.\n\nThe findings look fragile under perturbation. The details provided are insufficient to reproduce the work. The writing-clarity rating is 1.0 out of 5.\n\nThe manuscript was submitted in May as revision 1 by 6 authors. It runs 8 pages with 9 figures, 8 tables, and 35 references, plus 0 pages of appendix.\n\nQuestion: Will the submission be accepted?", "label": "reject", "probability_positive": 0.0} | |
| {"case_id": "c39c292e802248da5a8756cb", "text": "Peer Review Memo\n\nThis is a theoretical paper.\n\nThe approach departs substantially from prior work. The problem it addresses is of narrow interest. The technical argument is sound.\n\nThe strength of supporting evidence is rated 2.9 out of 5. The comparison with prior theoretical results and their assumptions is only partly developed.\n\nThe conclusions remain valid under reasonable changes in the assumptions. The work could be partially reproduced from the details provided. The writing-clarity rating is 1.7 out of 5.\n\nThe manuscript was submitted in February as revision 1 by 5 authors. It runs 11 pages with 6 figures, 3 tables, and 40 references, plus 7 pages of appendix.\n\nQuestion: Will the submission be accepted?", "label": "reject", "probability_positive": 0.14} | |
| {"case_id": "8f37ed988f2e5c2ff38459e5", "text": "Peer Review Memo\n\nThis is an applied paper.\n\nThe approach departs substantially from prior work. The problem it addresses matters to a moderate part of the community. The technical argument is sound.\n\nThe strength of supporting evidence is rated 4.1 out of 5. Comparisons with existing approaches are well controlled.\n\nThe findings hold under some perturbations and not others. The work could be partially reproduced from the details provided. The writing-clarity rating is 2.7 out of 5.\n\nThe manuscript was submitted in April as revision 3 by 4 authors. It runs 9 pages with 0 figures, 2 tables, and 50 references, plus 9 pages of appendix.\n\nQuestion: Will the submission be accepted?", "label": "accept", "probability_positive": 0.995} | |
| {"case_id": "30375fb7c41cc61aa42413f6", "text": "Peer Review Memo\n\nThis is an empirical paper.\n\nThe method builds on existing techniques with modest changes. The problem it addresses is of narrow interest. The technical argument is sound.\n\nThe strength of supporting evidence is rated 2.3 out of 5. Comparisons with prior methods are inadequate.\n\nThe findings look fragile under perturbation. The details provided are insufficient to reproduce the work. The writing-clarity rating is 3.9 out of 5.\n\nThe manuscript was submitted in January as revision 3 by 7 authors. It runs 5 pages with 10 figures, 2 tables, and 44 references, plus 22 pages of appendix.\n\nQuestion: Will the submission be accepted?", "label": "reject", "probability_positive": 0.0} | |
| {"case_id": "0eda597fdbe4897f3ba177f1", "text": "Peer Review Memo\n\nThis is an empirical paper.\n\nThe method builds on existing techniques with modest changes. The problem it addresses is broadly important across the field. The technical argument is sound.\n\nThe strength of supporting evidence is rated 1.4 out of 5. Comparisons with prior methods are inadequate.\n\nThe findings look fragile under perturbation. The details provided are insufficient to reproduce the work. The writing-clarity rating is 4.7 out of 5.\n\nThe manuscript was submitted in March as revision 1 by 2 authors. It runs 9 pages with 7 figures, 3 tables, and 74 references, plus 11 pages of appendix.\n\nQuestion: Will the submission be accepted?", "label": "reject", "probability_positive": 0.0} | |
| {"case_id": "d752b4e43e872d41eac4b81f", "text": "Peer Review Memo\n\nThis is a theoretical paper.\n\nThe core idea is a major departure from anything in the literature. The problem it addresses is of narrow interest. The technical argument is sound.\n\nThe strength of supporting evidence is rated 3.0 out of 5. The comparison with prior theoretical results and their assumptions is inadequate.\n\nThe conclusions remain valid under reasonable changes in the assumptions. The work could be partially reproduced from the details provided. The writing-clarity rating is 1.7 out of 5.\n\nThe manuscript was submitted in August as revision 3 by 2 authors. It runs 16 pages with 7 figures, 1 table, and 96 references, plus 32 pages of appendix.\n\nQuestion: Will the submission be accepted?", "label": "accept", "probability_positive": 0.86} | |
| {"case_id": "1de64549a89a048f6eacec8f", "text": "Peer Review Memo\n\nThis is an applied paper.\n\nThe approach departs substantially from prior work. The problem it addresses is of narrow interest. The technical argument raises limited concerns that do not undermine the main result.\n\nThe strength of supporting evidence is rated 1.2 out of 5. Comparisons with existing approaches are only partly controlled.\n\nThe findings remain stable under perturbation. The details provided are insufficient to reproduce the work. The writing-clarity rating is 2.7 out of 5.\n\nThe manuscript was submitted in July as revision 3 by 8 authors. It runs 14 pages with 11 figures, 2 tables, and 24 references, plus 28 pages of appendix.\n\nQuestion: Will the submission be accepted?", "label": "reject", "probability_positive": 0.0} | |
| {"case_id": "bf650bdbde58385cc4dd17ae", "text": "Peer Review Memo\n\nThis is a theoretical paper.\n\nThe method builds on existing techniques with modest changes. The problem it addresses is of narrow interest. The technical argument contains a serious flaw.\n\nThe strength of supporting evidence is rated 2.2 out of 5. The comparison with prior theoretical results and their assumptions is inadequate.\n\nThe conclusions hold under some changes in the assumptions and not others. The work could be partially reproduced from the details provided. The writing-clarity rating is 2.7 out of 5.\n\nThe manuscript was submitted in December as revision 3 by 5 authors. It runs 7 pages with 1 figure, 5 tables, and 33 references, plus 15 pages of appendix.\n\nQuestion: Will the submission be accepted?", "label": "reject", "probability_positive": 0.0} | |
| {"case_id": "7baf6c451b549591299f0e53", "text": "Peer Review Memo\n\nThis is a theoretical paper.\n\nThe approach departs substantially from prior work. The problem it addresses is broadly important across the field. The technical argument is sound.\n\nThe strength of supporting evidence is rated 3.7 out of 5. The comparison with prior theoretical results and their assumptions is thorough.\n\nThe conclusions hold under some changes in the assumptions and not others. The details provided are insufficient to reproduce the work. The writing-clarity rating is 4.0 out of 5.\n\nThe manuscript was submitted in November as revision 3 by 1 author. It runs 9 pages with 2 figures, 1 table, and 54 references, plus 17 pages of appendix.\n\nQuestion: Will the submission be accepted?", "label": "accept", "probability_positive": 1.0} | |
| {"case_id": "8ad5fa40370b4492aca04e8e", "text": "Peer Review Memo\n\nThis is a theoretical paper.\n\nThe method builds on existing techniques with modest changes. The problem it addresses is broadly important across the field. The technical argument is sound.\n\nThe strength of supporting evidence is rated 1.5 out of 5. The comparison with prior theoretical results and their assumptions is inadequate.\n\nThe conclusions are sensitive to small changes in the assumptions. The details provided are insufficient to reproduce the work. The writing-clarity rating is 2.6 out of 5.\n\nThe manuscript was submitted in May as revision 3 by 1 author. It runs 9 pages with 12 figures, 4 tables, and 39 references, plus 7 pages of appendix.\n\nQuestion: Will the submission be accepted?", "label": "reject", "probability_positive": 0.005} | |
| {"case_id": "82e6fa0e837b7adc7054d895", "text": "Peer Review Memo\n\nThis is an applied paper.\n\nThe core idea is a major departure from anything in the literature. The problem it addresses is broadly important across the field. The technical argument raises limited concerns that do not undermine the main result.\n\nThe strength of supporting evidence is rated 2.6 out of 5. Comparisons with existing approaches are inadequate.\n\nThe findings hold under some perturbations and not others. The details provided are insufficient to reproduce the work. The writing-clarity rating is 4.4 out of 5.\n\nThe manuscript was submitted in January as revision 3 by 10 authors. It runs 6 pages with 6 figures, 5 tables, and 35 references, plus 15 pages of appendix.\n\nQuestion: Will the submission be accepted?", "label": "reject", "probability_positive": 0.86} | |
| {"case_id": "bdf06927ba74723c2272d0d1", "text": "Peer Review Memo\n\nThis is a theoretical paper.\n\nThe method builds on existing techniques with modest changes. The problem it addresses is of narrow interest. The technical argument raises limited concerns that do not undermine the main result.\n\nThe strength of supporting evidence is rated 3.1 out of 5. The comparison with prior theoretical results and their assumptions is inadequate.\n\nThe conclusions are sensitive to small changes in the assumptions. The work could be fully reproduced from the details provided. The writing-clarity rating is 1.1 out of 5.\n\nThe manuscript was submitted in February as revision 1 by 6 authors. It runs 12 pages with 4 figures, 2 tables, and 40 references, plus 11 pages of appendix.\n\nQuestion: Will the submission be accepted?", "label": "reject", "probability_positive": 0.0} | |
| {"case_id": "8642366d32c4b84c79978fe4", "text": "Peer Review Memo\n\nThis is an applied paper.\n\nThe method builds on existing techniques with modest changes. The problem it addresses is of narrow interest. The technical argument contains a serious flaw.\n\nThe strength of supporting evidence is rated 1.8 out of 5. Comparisons with existing approaches are inadequate.\n\nThe findings look fragile under perturbation. The details provided are insufficient to reproduce the work. The writing-clarity rating is 1.8 out of 5.\n\nThe manuscript was submitted in September as revision 1 by 5 authors. It runs 14 pages with 11 figures, 1 table, and 48 references, plus 6 pages of appendix.\n\nQuestion: Will the submission be accepted?", "label": "reject", "probability_positive": 0.0} | |
| {"case_id": "2c2a3f12ad2a8a47e4e92587", "text": "Peer Review Memo\n\nThis is a theoretical paper.\n\nThe method builds on existing techniques with modest changes. The problem it addresses matters to a moderate part of the community. The technical argument raises limited concerns that do not undermine the main result.\n\nThe strength of supporting evidence is rated 2.9 out of 5. The comparison with prior theoretical results and their assumptions is only partly developed.\n\nThe conclusions hold under some changes in the assumptions and not others. The work could be fully reproduced from the details provided. The writing-clarity rating is 3.4 out of 5.\n\nThe manuscript was submitted in June as revision 3 by 3 authors. It runs 9 pages with 3 figures, 5 tables, and 62 references, plus 9 pages of appendix.\n\nQuestion: Will the submission be accepted?", "label": "reject", "probability_positive": 0.02} | |
| {"case_id": "97e0eaebd218c2565f760958", "text": "Peer Review Memo\n\nThis is a theoretical paper.\n\nThe core idea is a major departure from anything in the literature. The problem it addresses matters to a moderate part of the community. The technical argument is sound.\n\nThe strength of supporting evidence is rated 4.5 out of 5. The comparison with prior theoretical results and their assumptions is thorough.\n\nThe conclusions remain valid under reasonable changes in the assumptions. The details provided are insufficient to reproduce the work. The writing-clarity rating is 2.3 out of 5.\n\nThe manuscript was submitted in May as revision 1 by 6 authors. It runs 11 pages with 3 figures, 1 table, and 16 references, plus 49 pages of appendix.\n\nQuestion: Will the submission be accepted?", "label": "accept", "probability_positive": 0.999} | |
| {"case_id": "86274ddc357a962d34ff2064", "text": "Peer Review Memo\n\nThis is an applied paper.\n\nThe core idea is a major departure from anything in the literature. The problem it addresses is broadly important across the field. The technical argument is sound.\n\nThe strength of supporting evidence is rated 3.7 out of 5. Comparisons with existing approaches are well controlled.\n\nThe findings hold under some perturbations and not others. The details provided are insufficient to reproduce the work. The writing-clarity rating is 1.2 out of 5.\n\nThe manuscript was submitted in November as revision 3 by 5 authors. It runs 12 pages with 6 figures, 0 tables, and 25 references, plus 7 pages of appendix.\n\nQuestion: Will the submission be accepted?", "label": "accept", "probability_positive": 0.999} | |
| {"case_id": "0bf63bb1efe4151a2fe4ebc2", "text": "Peer Review Memo\n\nThis is an applied paper.\n\nThe core idea is a major departure from anything in the literature. The problem it addresses is broadly important across the field. The technical argument is sound.\n\nThe strength of supporting evidence is rated 2.6 out of 5. Comparisons with existing approaches are inadequate.\n\nThe findings hold under some perturbations and not others. The work could be fully reproduced from the details provided. The writing-clarity rating is 2.1 out of 5.\n\nThe manuscript was submitted in June as revision 3 by 3 authors. It runs 16 pages with 8 figures, 6 tables, and 81 references, plus 4 pages of appendix.\n\nQuestion: Will the submission be accepted?", "label": "accept", "probability_positive": 0.95} | |
| {"case_id": "13fb8941c1481b858f9ed77a", "text": "Peer Review Memo\n\nThis is a theoretical paper.\n\nThe method builds on existing techniques with modest changes. The problem it addresses is of narrow interest. The technical argument raises limited concerns that do not undermine the main result.\n\nThe strength of supporting evidence is rated 3.2 out of 5. The comparison with prior theoretical results and their assumptions is thorough.\n\nThe conclusions remain valid under reasonable changes in the assumptions. The work could be fully reproduced from the details provided. The writing-clarity rating is 1.6 out of 5.\n\nThe manuscript was submitted in January as revision 3 by 2 authors. It runs 8 pages with 10 figures, 4 tables, and 69 references, plus 27 pages of appendix.\n\nQuestion: Will the submission be accepted?", "label": "reject", "probability_positive": 0.005} | |
| {"case_id": "4da3456490738f9dec707116", "text": "Peer Review Memo\n\nThis is an applied paper.\n\nThe core idea is a major departure from anything in the literature. The problem it addresses is broadly important across the field. The technical argument is sound.\n\nThe strength of supporting evidence is rated 4.7 out of 5. Comparisons with existing approaches are well controlled.\n\nThe findings look fragile under perturbation. The details provided are insufficient to reproduce the work. The writing-clarity rating is 1.0 out of 5.\n\nThe manuscript was submitted in March as revision 3 by 3 authors. It runs 12 pages with 8 figures, 1 table, and 32 references, plus 12 pages of appendix.\n\nQuestion: Will the submission be accepted?", "label": "accept", "probability_positive": 0.995} | |
| {"case_id": "d7a850e729ac31853552bfb9", "text": "Peer Review Memo\n\nThis is an applied paper.\n\nThe core idea is a major departure from anything in the literature. The problem it addresses matters to a moderate part of the community. The technical argument is sound.\n\nThe strength of supporting evidence is rated 2.6 out of 5. Comparisons with existing approaches are inadequate.\n\nThe findings look fragile under perturbation. The details provided are insufficient to reproduce the work. The writing-clarity rating is 1.5 out of 5.\n\nThe manuscript was submitted in December as revision 1 by 3 authors. It runs 8 pages with 5 figures, 3 tables, and 39 references, plus 13 pages of appendix.\n\nQuestion: Will the submission be accepted?", "label": "reject", "probability_positive": 0.02} | |
| {"case_id": "eb8e6b8e836c6c5ba8ae2d69", "text": "Peer Review Memo\n\nThis is an applied paper.\n\nThe approach departs substantially from prior work. The problem it addresses is broadly important across the field. The technical argument is sound.\n\nThe strength of supporting evidence is rated 1.5 out of 5. Comparisons with existing approaches are inadequate.\n\nThe findings look fragile under perturbation. The details provided are insufficient to reproduce the work. The writing-clarity rating is 4.6 out of 5.\n\nThe manuscript was submitted in April as revision 1 by 4 authors. It runs 12 pages with 1 figure, 4 tables, and 14 references, plus 17 pages of appendix.\n\nQuestion: Will the submission be accepted?", "label": "reject", "probability_positive": 0.02} | |
| {"case_id": "5fa2734fa00e5efdd968bb6d", "text": "Peer Review Memo\n\nThis is a theoretical paper.\n\nThe method builds on existing techniques with modest changes. The problem it addresses matters to a moderate part of the community. The technical argument raises limited concerns that do not undermine the main result.\n\nThe strength of supporting evidence is rated 2.4 out of 5. The comparison with prior theoretical results and their assumptions is only partly developed.\n\nThe conclusions are sensitive to small changes in the assumptions. The details provided are insufficient to reproduce the work. The writing-clarity rating is 2.3 out of 5.\n\nThe manuscript was submitted in May as revision 1 by 4 authors. It runs 12 pages with 7 figures, 4 tables, and 28 references, plus 17 pages of appendix.\n\nQuestion: Will the submission be accepted?", "label": "reject", "probability_positive": 0.0} | |
| {"case_id": "8c3d55a193ed7b48974199a8", "text": "Peer Review Memo\n\nThis is a theoretical paper.\n\nThe method builds on existing techniques with modest changes. The problem it addresses is of narrow interest. The technical argument raises limited concerns that do not undermine the main result.\n\nThe strength of supporting evidence is rated 3.5 out of 5. The comparison with prior theoretical results and their assumptions is thorough.\n\nThe conclusions remain valid under reasonable changes in the assumptions. The work could be fully reproduced from the details provided. The writing-clarity rating is 2.3 out of 5.\n\nThe manuscript was submitted in October as revision 3 by 2 authors. It runs 7 pages with 4 figures, 3 tables, and 53 references, plus 6 pages of appendix.\n\nQuestion: Will the submission be accepted?", "label": "reject", "probability_positive": 0.14} | |
| {"case_id": "5aaef8c02146c4fbdf722d25", "text": "Peer Review Memo\n\nThis is an applied paper.\n\nThe approach departs substantially from prior work. The problem it addresses matters to a moderate part of the community. The technical argument is sound.\n\nThe strength of supporting evidence is rated 3.4 out of 5. Comparisons with existing approaches are only partly controlled.\n\nThe findings look fragile under perturbation. The work could be partially reproduced from the details provided. The writing-clarity rating is 2.6 out of 5.\n\nThe manuscript was submitted in September as revision 3 by 7 authors. It runs 9 pages with 10 figures, 4 tables, and 39 references, plus 25 pages of appendix.\n\nQuestion: Will the submission be accepted?", "label": "reject", "probability_positive": 0.05} | |
| {"case_id": "f04cfcf90b62e675042d8a70", "text": "Peer Review Memo\n\nThis is an empirical paper.\n\nThe method builds on existing techniques with modest changes. The problem it addresses is broadly important across the field. The technical argument is sound.\n\nThe strength of supporting evidence is rated 1.1 out of 5. Comparisons with prior methods are only partly controlled.\n\nThe findings hold under some perturbations and not others. The work could be partially reproduced from the details provided. The writing-clarity rating is 2.7 out of 5.\n\nThe manuscript was submitted in March as revision 3 by 5 authors. It runs 10 pages with 5 figures, 3 tables, and 33 references, plus 7 pages of appendix.\n\nQuestion: Will the submission be accepted?", "label": "reject", "probability_positive": 0.02} | |
| {"case_id": "cb8994d2ba978cfd6d579e6e", "text": "Peer Review Memo\n\nThis is an applied paper.\n\nThe approach departs substantially from prior work. The problem it addresses is of narrow interest. The technical argument contains a serious flaw.\n\nThe strength of supporting evidence is rated 1.7 out of 5. Comparisons with existing approaches are well controlled.\n\nThe findings look fragile under perturbation. The details provided are insufficient to reproduce the work. The writing-clarity rating is 4.9 out of 5.\n\nThe manuscript was submitted in August as revision 3 by 2 authors. It runs 6 pages with 9 figures, 1 table, and 46 references, plus 0 pages of appendix.\n\nQuestion: Will the submission be accepted?", "label": "reject", "probability_positive": 0.0} | |
| {"case_id": "d3d3cd8a902e585d2099e3fe", "text": "Peer Review Memo\n\nThis is an applied paper.\n\nThe approach departs substantially from prior work. The problem it addresses matters to a moderate part of the community. The technical argument raises limited concerns that do not undermine the main result.\n\nThe strength of supporting evidence is rated 3.6 out of 5. Comparisons with existing approaches are inadequate.\n\nThe findings hold under some perturbations and not others. The details provided are insufficient to reproduce the work. The writing-clarity rating is 2.6 out of 5.\n\nThe manuscript was submitted in August as revision 3 by 1 author. It runs 5 pages with 10 figures, 7 tables, and 32 references, plus 15 pages of appendix.\n\nQuestion: Will the submission be accepted?", "label": "accept", "probability_positive": 0.14} | |
| {"case_id": "e0af967e9989c19553da35e0", "text": "Peer Review Memo\n\nThis is an empirical paper.\n\nThe approach departs substantially from prior work. The problem it addresses matters to a moderate part of the community. The technical argument is sound.\n\nThe strength of supporting evidence is rated 3.3 out of 5. Comparisons with prior methods are only partly controlled.\n\nThe findings hold under some perturbations and not others. The details provided are insufficient to reproduce the work. The writing-clarity rating is 3.1 out of 5.\n\nThe manuscript was submitted in September as revision 1 by 5 authors. It runs 13 pages with 0 figures, 1 table, and 52 references, plus 0 pages of appendix.\n\nQuestion: Will the submission be accepted?", "label": "reject", "probability_positive": 0.14} | |
| {"case_id": "50150daaea822bd955d714f9", "text": "Peer Review Memo\n\nThis is an empirical paper.\n\nThe approach departs substantially from prior work. The problem it addresses is of narrow interest. The technical argument contains a serious flaw.\n\nThe strength of supporting evidence is rated 2.4 out of 5. Comparisons with prior methods are well controlled.\n\nThe findings look fragile under perturbation. The details provided are insufficient to reproduce the work. The writing-clarity rating is 1.3 out of 5.\n\nThe manuscript was submitted in April as revision 1 by 5 authors. It runs 11 pages with 11 figures, 9 tables, and 53 references, plus 10 pages of appendix.\n\nQuestion: Will the submission be accepted?", "label": "reject", "probability_positive": 0.0} | |
| {"case_id": "7a0916be9f0e0bcee05caa21", "text": "Peer Review Memo\n\nThis is an empirical paper.\n\nThe method builds on existing techniques with modest changes. The problem it addresses matters to a moderate part of the community. The technical argument is sound.\n\nThe strength of supporting evidence is rated 2.4 out of 5. Comparisons with prior methods are only partly controlled.\n\nThe findings hold under some perturbations and not others. The details provided are insufficient to reproduce the work. The writing-clarity rating is 2.0 out of 5.\n\nThe manuscript was submitted in February as revision 3 by 9 authors. It runs 8 pages with 1 figure, 14 tables, and 55 references, plus 12 pages of appendix.\n\nQuestion: Will the submission be accepted?", "label": "reject", "probability_positive": 0.0} | |
| {"case_id": "53e349f6bdba224faf9447e9", "text": "Peer Review Memo\n\nThis is an applied paper.\n\nThe core idea is a major departure from anything in the literature. The problem it addresses is of narrow interest. The technical argument is sound.\n\nThe strength of supporting evidence is rated 3.7 out of 5. Comparisons with existing approaches are only partly controlled.\n\nThe findings hold under some perturbations and not others. The work could be fully reproduced from the details provided. The writing-clarity rating is 4.2 out of 5.\n\nThe manuscript was submitted in February as revision 1 by 6 authors. It runs 10 pages with 10 figures, 2 tables, and 55 references, plus 14 pages of appendix.\n\nQuestion: Will the submission be accepted?", "label": "accept", "probability_positive": 0.995} | |
| {"case_id": "e71d2bc58b06d1fa17c17633", "text": "Peer Review Memo\n\nThis is a theoretical paper.\n\nThe core idea is a major departure from anything in the literature. The problem it addresses is of narrow interest. The technical argument contains a serious flaw.\n\nThe strength of supporting evidence is rated 2.3 out of 5. The comparison with prior theoretical results and their assumptions is only partly developed.\n\nThe conclusions hold under some changes in the assumptions and not others. The details provided are insufficient to reproduce the work. The writing-clarity rating is 1.8 out of 5.\n\nThe manuscript was submitted in November as revision 1 by 5 authors. It runs 4 pages with 10 figures, 2 tables, and 52 references, plus 21 pages of appendix.\n\nQuestion: Will the submission be accepted?", "label": "reject", "probability_positive": 0.0} | |
| {"case_id": "f58c78192f462d92380f13eb", "text": "Peer Review Memo\n\nThis is an empirical paper.\n\nThe approach departs substantially from prior work. The problem it addresses is of narrow interest. The technical argument is sound.\n\nThe strength of supporting evidence is rated 1.2 out of 5. Comparisons with prior methods are inadequate.\n\nThe findings hold under some perturbations and not others. The details provided are insufficient to reproduce the work. The writing-clarity rating is 2.1 out of 5.\n\nThe manuscript was submitted in October as revision 1 by 3 authors. It runs 8 pages with 4 figures, 1 table, and 32 references, plus 12 pages of appendix.\n\nQuestion: Will the submission be accepted?", "label": "reject", "probability_positive": 0.0} | |
| {"case_id": "12429bbcfeb2dbf7ac7a6cf6", "text": "Peer Review Memo\n\nThis is a theoretical paper.\n\nThe method builds on existing techniques with modest changes. The problem it addresses matters to a moderate part of the community. The technical argument raises limited concerns that do not undermine the main result.\n\nThe strength of supporting evidence is rated 2.6 out of 5. The comparison with prior theoretical results and their assumptions is thorough.\n\nThe conclusions hold under some changes in the assumptions and not others. The work could be partially reproduced from the details provided. The writing-clarity rating is 2.8 out of 5.\n\nThe manuscript was submitted in December as revision 1 by 3 authors. It runs 19 pages with 9 figures, 5 tables, and 26 references, plus 23 pages of appendix.\n\nQuestion: Will the submission be accepted?", "label": "reject", "probability_positive": 0.02} | |
| {"case_id": "fda8b1530d72c717683e29a8", "text": "Peer Review Memo\n\nThis is a theoretical paper.\n\nThe approach departs substantially from prior work. The problem it addresses matters to a moderate part of the community. The technical argument is sound.\n\nThe strength of supporting evidence is rated 1.7 out of 5. The comparison with prior theoretical results and their assumptions is thorough.\n\nThe conclusions remain valid under reasonable changes in the assumptions. The work could be fully reproduced from the details provided. The writing-clarity rating is 3.2 out of 5.\n\nThe manuscript was submitted in February as revision 3 by 1 author. It runs 12 pages with 4 figures, 7 tables, and 31 references, plus 15 pages of appendix.\n\nQuestion: Will the submission be accepted?", "label": "accept", "probability_positive": 0.95} | |
| {"case_id": "bce1a1fc03c6956a8b4326ba", "text": "Peer Review Memo\n\nThis is a theoretical paper.\n\nThe method builds on existing techniques with modest changes. The problem it addresses matters to a moderate part of the community. The technical argument is sound.\n\nThe strength of supporting evidence is rated 4.2 out of 5. The comparison with prior theoretical results and their assumptions is only partly developed.\n\nThe conclusions are sensitive to small changes in the assumptions. The work could be fully reproduced from the details provided. The writing-clarity rating is 2.9 out of 5.\n\nThe manuscript was submitted in March as revision 1 by 4 authors. It runs 4 pages with 4 figures, 2 tables, and 38 references, plus 24 pages of appendix.\n\nQuestion: Will the submission be accepted?", "label": "accept", "probability_positive": 0.86} | |
| {"case_id": "d22fd9fa267cacffc63fe4c7", "text": "Peer Review Memo\n\nThis is an empirical paper.\n\nThe core idea is a major departure from anything in the literature. The problem it addresses matters to a moderate part of the community. The technical argument contains a serious flaw.\n\nThe strength of supporting evidence is rated 2.0 out of 5. Comparisons with prior methods are only partly controlled.\n\nThe findings look fragile under perturbation. The details provided are insufficient to reproduce the work. The writing-clarity rating is 2.3 out of 5.\n\nThe manuscript was submitted in May as revision 1 by 4 authors. It runs 12 pages with 8 figures, 2 tables, and 75 references, plus 2 pages of appendix.\n\nQuestion: Will the submission be accepted?", "label": "reject", "probability_positive": 0.0} | |
| {"case_id": "63270a63d754f4c9736639dc", "text": "Peer Review Memo\n\nThis is an applied paper.\n\nThe core idea is a major departure from anything in the literature. The problem it addresses is of narrow interest. The technical argument raises limited concerns that do not undermine the main result.\n\nThe strength of supporting evidence is rated 5.0 out of 5. Comparisons with existing approaches are only partly controlled.\n\nThe findings look fragile under perturbation. The details provided are insufficient to reproduce the work. The writing-clarity rating is 2.5 out of 5.\n\nThe manuscript was submitted in July as revision 3 by 5 authors. It runs 13 pages with 6 figures, 0 tables, and 39 references, plus 12 pages of appendix.\n\nQuestion: Will the submission be accepted?", "label": "reject", "probability_positive": 0.05} | |
| {"case_id": "c8e3f57ab72ba4be040ea49d", "text": "Peer Review Memo\n\nThis is an applied paper.\n\nThe core idea is a major departure from anything in the literature. The problem it addresses is of narrow interest. The technical argument is sound.\n\nThe strength of supporting evidence is rated 1.1 out of 5. Comparisons with existing approaches are inadequate.\n\nThe findings remain stable under perturbation. The work could be fully reproduced from the details provided. The writing-clarity rating is 1.8 out of 5.\n\nThe manuscript was submitted in September as revision 3 by 8 authors. It runs 15 pages with 1 figure, 3 tables, and 44 references, plus 21 pages of appendix.\n\nQuestion: Will the submission be accepted?", "label": "reject", "probability_positive": 0.02} | |
| {"case_id": "ca1509f1d5121034a62caf63", "text": "Peer Review Memo\n\nThis is a theoretical paper.\n\nThe method builds on existing techniques with modest changes. The problem it addresses is of narrow interest. The technical argument is sound.\n\nThe strength of supporting evidence is rated 2.1 out of 5. The comparison with prior theoretical results and their assumptions is inadequate.\n\nThe conclusions remain valid under reasonable changes in the assumptions. The work could be fully reproduced from the details provided. The writing-clarity rating is 3.4 out of 5.\n\nThe manuscript was submitted in November as revision 3 by 8 authors. It runs 8 pages with 4 figures, 1 table, and 33 references, plus 9 pages of appendix.\n\nQuestion: Will the submission be accepted?", "label": "reject", "probability_positive": 0.02} | |
| {"case_id": "f1b63370174da65d88a73d8c", "text": "Peer Review Memo\n\nThis is an empirical paper.\n\nThe core idea is a major departure from anything in the literature. The problem it addresses is of narrow interest. The technical argument is sound.\n\nThe strength of supporting evidence is rated 2.4 out of 5. Comparisons with prior methods are well controlled.\n\nThe findings remain stable under perturbation. The work could be fully reproduced from the details provided. The writing-clarity rating is 2.4 out of 5.\n\nThe manuscript was submitted in April as revision 3 by 6 authors. It runs 9 pages with 4 figures, 7 tables, and 45 references, plus 17 pages of appendix.\n\nQuestion: Will the submission be accepted?", "label": "accept", "probability_positive": 0.86} | |
| {"case_id": "c613947735f2e6c1d46f6478", "text": "Peer Review Memo\n\nThis is a theoretical paper.\n\nThe method builds on existing techniques with modest changes. The problem it addresses is of narrow interest. The technical argument raises limited concerns that do not undermine the main result.\n\nThe strength of supporting evidence is rated 2.0 out of 5. The comparison with prior theoretical results and their assumptions is thorough.\n\nThe conclusions remain valid under reasonable changes in the assumptions. The work could be partially reproduced from the details provided. The writing-clarity rating is 2.9 out of 5.\n\nThe manuscript was submitted in November as revision 1 by 6 authors. It runs 16 pages with 6 figures, 3 tables, and 56 references, plus 14 pages of appendix.\n\nQuestion: Will the submission be accepted?", "label": "reject", "probability_positive": 0.001} | |
| {"case_id": "4769b6995cecbded6914015f", "text": "Peer Review Memo\n\nThis is an applied paper.\n\nThe method builds on existing techniques with modest changes. The problem it addresses is of narrow interest. The technical argument raises limited concerns that do not undermine the main result.\n\nThe strength of supporting evidence is rated 1.7 out of 5. Comparisons with existing approaches are inadequate.\n\nThe findings remain stable under perturbation. The work could be fully reproduced from the details provided. The writing-clarity rating is 2.7 out of 5.\n\nThe manuscript was submitted in May as revision 3 by 5 authors. It runs 11 pages with 5 figures, 2 tables, and 44 references, plus 8 pages of appendix.\n\nQuestion: Will the submission be accepted?", "label": "reject", "probability_positive": 0.0} | |
| {"case_id": "7a27c01bdc4960f67ba09798", "text": "Peer Review Memo\n\nThis is a theoretical paper.\n\nThe core idea is a major departure from anything in the literature. The problem it addresses is broadly important across the field. The technical argument is sound.\n\nThe strength of supporting evidence is rated 3.4 out of 5. The comparison with prior theoretical results and their assumptions is inadequate.\n\nThe conclusions are sensitive to small changes in the assumptions. The details provided are insufficient to reproduce the work. The writing-clarity rating is 2.3 out of 5.\n\nThe manuscript was submitted in November as revision 3 by 7 authors. It runs 8 pages with 3 figures, 4 tables, and 54 references, plus 0 pages of appendix.\n\nQuestion: Will the submission be accepted?", "label": "accept", "probability_positive": 0.86} | |
| {"case_id": "2128c726faba185c03bdd1dd", "text": "Peer Review Memo\n\nThis is an applied paper.\n\nThe core idea is a major departure from anything in the literature. The problem it addresses is broadly important across the field. The technical argument is sound.\n\nThe strength of supporting evidence is rated 2.1 out of 5. Comparisons with existing approaches are inadequate.\n\nThe findings look fragile under perturbation. The details provided are insufficient to reproduce the work. The writing-clarity rating is 4.1 out of 5.\n\nThe manuscript was submitted in August as revision 3 by 1 author. It runs 4 pages with 1 figure, 6 tables, and 70 references, plus 11 pages of appendix.\n\nQuestion: Will the submission be accepted?", "label": "reject", "probability_positive": 0.05} | |
| {"case_id": "ad8ddf8b8412d9193b2f0dd0", "text": "Peer Review Memo\n\nThis is a theoretical paper.\n\nThe method builds on existing techniques with modest changes. The problem it addresses matters to a moderate part of the community. The technical argument raises limited concerns that do not undermine the main result.\n\nThe strength of supporting evidence is rated 1.7 out of 5. The comparison with prior theoretical results and their assumptions is thorough.\n\nThe conclusions are sensitive to small changes in the assumptions. The details provided are insufficient to reproduce the work. The writing-clarity rating is 3.5 out of 5.\n\nThe manuscript was submitted in April as revision 1 by 3 authors. It runs 7 pages with 13 figures, 2 tables, and 20 references, plus 23 pages of appendix.\n\nQuestion: Will the submission be accepted?", "label": "reject", "probability_positive": 0.001} | |
| {"case_id": "7b3bc00711e36ed035d9a681", "text": "Peer Review Memo\n\nThis is an applied paper.\n\nThe method builds on existing techniques with modest changes. The problem it addresses matters to a moderate part of the community. The technical argument raises limited concerns that do not undermine the main result.\n\nThe strength of supporting evidence is rated 1.5 out of 5. Comparisons with existing approaches are only partly controlled.\n\nThe findings remain stable under perturbation. The work could be fully reproduced from the details provided. The writing-clarity rating is 1.4 out of 5.\n\nThe manuscript was submitted in October as revision 1 by 1 author. It runs 12 pages with 6 figures, 5 tables, and 36 references, plus 11 pages of appendix.\n\nQuestion: Will the submission be accepted?", "label": "reject", "probability_positive": 0.005} | |
| {"case_id": "333dca4dda6d0c613a74baec", "text": "Peer Review Memo\n\nThis is an empirical paper.\n\nThe method builds on existing techniques with modest changes. The problem it addresses matters to a moderate part of the community. The technical argument raises limited concerns that do not undermine the main result.\n\nThe strength of supporting evidence is rated 4.4 out of 5. Comparisons with prior methods are inadequate.\n\nThe findings hold under some perturbations and not others. The work could be fully reproduced from the details provided. The writing-clarity rating is 1.4 out of 5.\n\nThe manuscript was submitted in April as revision 3 by 1 author. It runs 11 pages with 1 figure, 3 tables, and 82 references, plus 2 pages of appendix.\n\nQuestion: Will the submission be accepted?", "label": "reject", "probability_positive": 0.05} | |
| {"case_id": "c57d284bd7e4250464a3e706", "text": "Peer Review Memo\n\nThis is a theoretical paper.\n\nThe method builds on existing techniques with modest changes. The problem it addresses is broadly important across the field. The technical argument contains a serious flaw.\n\nThe strength of supporting evidence is rated 1.8 out of 5. The comparison with prior theoretical results and their assumptions is inadequate.\n\nThe conclusions hold under some changes in the assumptions and not others. The details provided are insufficient to reproduce the work. The writing-clarity rating is 3.7 out of 5.\n\nThe manuscript was submitted in October as revision 3 by 5 authors. It runs 16 pages with 6 figures, 6 tables, and 21 references, plus 11 pages of appendix.\n\nQuestion: Will the submission be accepted?", "label": "reject", "probability_positive": 0.0} | |
| {"case_id": "9890390cf60e2fb7b659ccec", "text": "Peer Review Memo\n\nThis is an applied paper.\n\nThe core idea is a major departure from anything in the literature. The problem it addresses is of narrow interest. The technical argument contains a serious flaw.\n\nThe strength of supporting evidence is rated 1.2 out of 5. Comparisons with existing approaches are well controlled.\n\nThe findings look fragile under perturbation. The work could be partially reproduced from the details provided. The writing-clarity rating is 1.8 out of 5.\n\nThe manuscript was submitted in March as revision 1 by 7 authors. It runs 8 pages with 10 figures, 5 tables, and 35 references, plus 2 pages of appendix.\n\nQuestion: Will the submission be accepted?", "label": "reject", "probability_positive": 0.0} | |
| {"case_id": "01e828b7c35dde81fb902976", "text": "Peer Review Memo\n\nThis is a theoretical paper.\n\nThe method builds on existing techniques with modest changes. The problem it addresses is broadly important across the field. The technical argument contains a serious flaw.\n\nThe strength of supporting evidence is rated 2.9 out of 5. The comparison with prior theoretical results and their assumptions is only partly developed.\n\nThe conclusions are sensitive to small changes in the assumptions. The details provided are insufficient to reproduce the work. The writing-clarity rating is 4.1 out of 5.\n\nThe manuscript was submitted in February as revision 3 by 7 authors. It runs 11 pages with 0 figures, 0 tables, and 98 references, plus 11 pages of appendix.\n\nQuestion: Will the submission be accepted?", "label": "reject", "probability_positive": 0.0} | |
| {"case_id": "da707fe570b3d28dcc441ba5", "text": "Peer Review Memo\n\nThis is an empirical paper.\n\nThe method builds on existing techniques with modest changes. The problem it addresses is of narrow interest. The technical argument is sound.\n\nThe strength of supporting evidence is rated 3.6 out of 5. Comparisons with prior methods are inadequate.\n\nThe findings remain stable under perturbation. The details provided are insufficient to reproduce the work. The writing-clarity rating is 3.4 out of 5.\n\nThe manuscript was submitted in November as revision 3 by 5 authors. It runs 15 pages with 8 figures, 2 tables, and 30 references, plus 0 pages of appendix.\n\nQuestion: Will the submission be accepted?", "label": "accept", "probability_positive": 0.86} | |
| {"case_id": "05e4577c174775455254ac37", "text": "Peer Review Memo\n\nThis is an applied paper.\n\nThe method builds on existing techniques with modest changes. The problem it addresses is of narrow interest. The technical argument contains a serious flaw.\n\nThe strength of supporting evidence is rated 1.8 out of 5. Comparisons with existing approaches are well controlled.\n\nThe findings look fragile under perturbation. The work could be partially reproduced from the details provided. The writing-clarity rating is 5.0 out of 5.\n\nThe manuscript was submitted in May as revision 1 by 1 author. It runs 9 pages with 2 figures, 8 tables, and 30 references, plus 10 pages of appendix.\n\nQuestion: Will the submission be accepted?", "label": "reject", "probability_positive": 0.0} | |
| {"case_id": "a78c0502ee369acdb73cb66c", "text": "Peer Review Memo\n\nThis is an applied paper.\n\nThe approach departs substantially from prior work. The problem it addresses is of narrow interest. The technical argument is sound.\n\nThe strength of supporting evidence is rated 5.0 out of 5. Comparisons with existing approaches are inadequate.\n\nThe findings hold under some perturbations and not others. The details provided are insufficient to reproduce the work. The writing-clarity rating is 1.4 out of 5.\n\nThe manuscript was submitted in March as revision 3 by 1 author. It runs 10 pages with 9 figures, 3 tables, and 36 references, plus 3 pages of appendix.\n\nQuestion: Will the submission be accepted?", "label": "reject", "probability_positive": 0.05} | |
| {"case_id": "0dce4fa4358661ae8016e163", "text": "Peer Review Memo\n\nThis is an applied paper.\n\nThe core idea is a major departure from anything in the literature. The problem it addresses is of narrow interest. The technical argument raises limited concerns that do not undermine the main result.\n\nThe strength of supporting evidence is rated 4.6 out of 5. Comparisons with existing approaches are inadequate.\n\nThe findings remain stable under perturbation. The details provided are insufficient to reproduce the work. The writing-clarity rating is 3.2 out of 5.\n\nThe manuscript was submitted in January as revision 3 by 1 author. It runs 6 pages with 9 figures, 6 tables, and 54 references, plus 8 pages of appendix.\n\nQuestion: Will the submission be accepted?", "label": "reject", "probability_positive": 0.14} | |
| {"case_id": "5410a383c9107b0f056de145", "text": "Peer Review Memo\n\nThis is an empirical paper.\n\nThe method builds on existing techniques with modest changes. The problem it addresses is of narrow interest. The technical argument is sound.\n\nThe strength of supporting evidence is rated 3.2 out of 5. Comparisons with prior methods are inadequate.\n\nThe findings look fragile under perturbation. The details provided are insufficient to reproduce the work. The writing-clarity rating is 3.5 out of 5.\n\nThe manuscript was submitted in March as revision 1 by 3 authors. It runs 19 pages with 8 figures, 4 tables, and 21 references, plus 0 pages of appendix.\n\nQuestion: Will the submission be accepted?", "label": "reject", "probability_positive": 0.001} | |
| {"case_id": "0a1d10a7f9165d4c3d6b5fc9", "text": "Peer Review Memo\n\nThis is a theoretical paper.\n\nThe method builds on existing techniques with modest changes. The problem it addresses is broadly important across the field. The technical argument is sound.\n\nThe strength of supporting evidence is rated 4.0 out of 5. The comparison with prior theoretical results and their assumptions is inadequate.\n\nThe conclusions remain valid under reasonable changes in the assumptions. The details provided are insufficient to reproduce the work. The writing-clarity rating is 3.9 out of 5.\n\nThe manuscript was submitted in September as revision 1 by 4 authors. It runs 5 pages with 8 figures, 4 tables, and 28 references, plus 12 pages of appendix.\n\nQuestion: Will the submission be accepted?", "label": "accept", "probability_positive": 0.98} | |
| {"case_id": "be15b048b35998c50d6f7152", "text": "Peer Review Memo\n\nThis is an empirical paper.\n\nThe approach departs substantially from prior work. The problem it addresses is broadly important across the field. The technical argument contains a serious flaw.\n\nThe strength of supporting evidence is rated 1.0 out of 5. Comparisons with prior methods are well controlled.\n\nThe findings look fragile under perturbation. The work could be fully reproduced from the details provided. The writing-clarity rating is 1.5 out of 5.\n\nThe manuscript was submitted in December as revision 1 by 2 authors. It runs 15 pages with 3 figures, 2 tables, and 95 references, plus 10 pages of appendix.\n\nQuestion: Will the submission be accepted?", "label": "reject", "probability_positive": 0.0} | |
| {"case_id": "0d999a186d34b11c7c7cbe64", "text": "Peer Review Memo\n\nThis is a theoretical paper.\n\nThe core idea is a major departure from anything in the literature. The problem it addresses matters to a moderate part of the community. The technical argument is sound.\n\nThe strength of supporting evidence is rated 3.8 out of 5. The comparison with prior theoretical results and their assumptions is inadequate.\n\nThe conclusions are sensitive to small changes in the assumptions. The details provided are insufficient to reproduce the work. The writing-clarity rating is 2.4 out of 5.\n\nThe manuscript was submitted in February as revision 1 by 8 authors. It runs 11 pages with 2 figures, 2 tables, and 48 references, plus 10 pages of appendix.\n\nQuestion: Will the submission be accepted?", "label": "accept", "probability_positive": 0.86} | |
| {"case_id": "e957b251c44dfc6852efde52", "text": "Peer Review Memo\n\nThis is an applied paper.\n\nThe approach departs substantially from prior work. The problem it addresses is broadly important across the field. The technical argument raises limited concerns that do not undermine the main result.\n\nThe strength of supporting evidence is rated 4.3 out of 5. Comparisons with existing approaches are inadequate.\n\nThe findings hold under some perturbations and not others. The work could be fully reproduced from the details provided. The writing-clarity rating is 5.0 out of 5.\n\nThe manuscript was submitted in November as revision 3 by 1 author. It runs 11 pages with 6 figures, 1 table, and 65 references, plus 8 pages of appendix.\n\nQuestion: Will the submission be accepted?", "label": "accept", "probability_positive": 0.995} | |
| {"case_id": "348f0f025300965a814dd3c7", "text": "Peer Review Memo\n\nThis is an empirical paper.\n\nThe method builds on existing techniques with modest changes. The problem it addresses matters to a moderate part of the community. The technical argument raises limited concerns that do not undermine the main result.\n\nThe strength of supporting evidence is rated 1.4 out of 5. Comparisons with prior methods are well controlled.\n\nThe findings look fragile under perturbation. The work could be fully reproduced from the details provided. The writing-clarity rating is 4.4 out of 5.\n\nThe manuscript was submitted in March as revision 3 by 4 authors. It runs 16 pages with 8 figures, 2 tables, and 14 references, plus 0 pages of appendix.\n\nQuestion: Will the submission be accepted?", "label": "reject", "probability_positive": 0.005} | |
| {"case_id": "ba799f2a4706f341c7a42ced", "text": "Peer Review Memo\n\nThis is an applied paper.\n\nThe method builds on existing techniques with modest changes. The problem it addresses is of narrow interest. The technical argument raises limited concerns that do not undermine the main result.\n\nThe strength of supporting evidence is rated 1.6 out of 5. Comparisons with existing approaches are only partly controlled.\n\nThe findings hold under some perturbations and not others. The work could be fully reproduced from the details provided. The writing-clarity rating is 3.0 out of 5.\n\nThe manuscript was submitted in September as revision 3 by 3 authors. It runs 10 pages with 5 figures, 8 tables, and 44 references, plus 0 pages of appendix.\n\nQuestion: Will the submission be accepted?", "label": "reject", "probability_positive": 0.0} | |
| {"case_id": "6b570e656a2727f288d7723c", "text": "Peer Review Memo\n\nThis is a theoretical paper.\n\nThe method builds on existing techniques with modest changes. The problem it addresses is broadly important across the field. The technical argument contains a serious flaw.\n\nThe strength of supporting evidence is rated 1.6 out of 5. The comparison with prior theoretical results and their assumptions is inadequate.\n\nThe conclusions remain valid under reasonable changes in the assumptions. The work could be partially reproduced from the details provided. The writing-clarity rating is 1.5 out of 5.\n\nThe manuscript was submitted in June as revision 1 by 5 authors. It runs 11 pages with 7 figures, 9 tables, and 21 references, plus 7 pages of appendix.\n\nQuestion: Will the submission be accepted?", "label": "reject", "probability_positive": 0.0} | |
| {"case_id": "ea20c28798c828250e8debf5", "text": "Peer Review Memo\n\nThis is a theoretical paper.\n\nThe approach departs substantially from prior work. The problem it addresses is broadly important across the field. The technical argument contains a serious flaw.\n\nThe strength of supporting evidence is rated 1.4 out of 5. The comparison with prior theoretical results and their assumptions is inadequate.\n\nThe conclusions are sensitive to small changes in the assumptions. The work could be partially reproduced from the details provided. The writing-clarity rating is 2.7 out of 5.\n\nThe manuscript was submitted in February as revision 1 by 4 authors. It runs 4 pages with 1 figure, 5 tables, and 51 references, plus 7 pages of appendix.\n\nQuestion: Will the submission be accepted?", "label": "reject", "probability_positive": 0.0} | |
| {"case_id": "d8ce01535bc69fc31fd442fe", "text": "Peer Review Memo\n\nThis is an empirical paper.\n\nThe method builds on existing techniques with modest changes. The problem it addresses is of narrow interest. The technical argument raises limited concerns that do not undermine the main result.\n\nThe strength of supporting evidence is rated 2.7 out of 5. Comparisons with prior methods are only partly controlled.\n\nThe findings look fragile under perturbation. The details provided are insufficient to reproduce the work. The writing-clarity rating is 3.8 out of 5.\n\nThe manuscript was submitted in January as revision 3 by 3 authors. It runs 13 pages with 12 figures, 4 tables, and 44 references, plus 16 pages of appendix.\n\nQuestion: Will the submission be accepted?", "label": "reject", "probability_positive": 0.001} | |
| {"case_id": "650dfe12bb2fe90ef2fda9a7", "text": "Peer Review Memo\n\nThis is an empirical paper.\n\nThe core idea is a major departure from anything in the literature. The problem it addresses is of narrow interest. The technical argument raises limited concerns that do not undermine the main result.\n\nThe strength of supporting evidence is rated 1.4 out of 5. Comparisons with prior methods are only partly controlled.\n\nThe findings look fragile under perturbation. The details provided are insufficient to reproduce the work. The writing-clarity rating is 2.1 out of 5.\n\nThe manuscript was submitted in November as revision 3 by 6 authors. It runs 6 pages with 5 figures, 6 tables, and 26 references, plus 0 pages of appendix.\n\nQuestion: Will the submission be accepted?", "label": "reject", "probability_positive": 0.0} | |
| {"case_id": "d488fc180dded3d66cbd9fa6", "text": "Peer Review Memo\n\nThis is an empirical paper.\n\nThe approach departs substantially from prior work. The problem it addresses is of narrow interest. The technical argument is sound.\n\nThe strength of supporting evidence is rated 3.9 out of 5. Comparisons with prior methods are inadequate.\n\nThe findings hold under some perturbations and not others. The details provided are insufficient to reproduce the work. The writing-clarity rating is 2.0 out of 5.\n\nThe manuscript was submitted in January as revision 3 by 7 authors. It runs 6 pages with 0 figures, 2 tables, and 46 references, plus 19 pages of appendix.\n\nQuestion: Will the submission be accepted?", "label": "reject", "probability_positive": 0.05} | |
| {"case_id": "8b2e198e8448b6ecdc8be340", "text": "Peer Review Memo\n\nThis is an applied paper.\n\nThe approach departs substantially from prior work. The problem it addresses is of narrow interest. The technical argument is sound.\n\nThe strength of supporting evidence is rated 2.2 out of 5. Comparisons with existing approaches are inadequate.\n\nThe findings look fragile under perturbation. The work could be fully reproduced from the details provided. The writing-clarity rating is 2.4 out of 5.\n\nThe manuscript was submitted in July as revision 1 by 2 authors. It runs 7 pages with 8 figures, 5 tables, and 15 references, plus 14 pages of appendix.\n\nQuestion: Will the submission be accepted?", "label": "reject", "probability_positive": 0.0} | |
| {"case_id": "bbaf5c6fc0aefef0486cd907", "text": "Peer Review Memo\n\nThis is an applied paper.\n\nThe method builds on existing techniques with modest changes. The problem it addresses is of narrow interest. The technical argument raises limited concerns that do not undermine the main result.\n\nThe strength of supporting evidence is rated 3.1 out of 5. Comparisons with existing approaches are inadequate.\n\nThe findings look fragile under perturbation. The work could be fully reproduced from the details provided. The writing-clarity rating is 1.8 out of 5.\n\nThe manuscript was submitted in June as revision 3 by 3 authors. It runs 11 pages with 9 figures, 2 tables, and 35 references, plus 0 pages of appendix.\n\nQuestion: Will the submission be accepted?", "label": "reject", "probability_positive": 0.0} | |
| {"case_id": "74873b8054c072c394f7428e", "text": "Peer Review Memo\n\nThis is an applied paper.\n\nThe core idea is a major departure from anything in the literature. The problem it addresses is of narrow interest. The technical argument is sound.\n\nThe strength of supporting evidence is rated 2.8 out of 5. Comparisons with existing approaches are only partly controlled.\n\nThe findings remain stable under perturbation. The details provided are insufficient to reproduce the work. The writing-clarity rating is 1.3 out of 5.\n\nThe manuscript was submitted in September as revision 3 by 3 authors. It runs 9 pages with 3 figures, 3 tables, and 28 references, plus 11 pages of appendix.\n\nQuestion: Will the submission be accepted?", "label": "reject", "probability_positive": 0.05} | |
| {"case_id": "505887ad747789d9c22bbc72", "text": "Peer Review Memo\n\nThis is a theoretical paper.\n\nThe method builds on existing techniques with modest changes. The problem it addresses matters to a moderate part of the community. The technical argument is sound.\n\nThe strength of supporting evidence is rated 3.4 out of 5. The comparison with prior theoretical results and their assumptions is inadequate.\n\nThe conclusions remain valid under reasonable changes in the assumptions. The work could be partially reproduced from the details provided. The writing-clarity rating is 4.8 out of 5.\n\nThe manuscript was submitted in July as revision 1 by 9 authors. It runs 12 pages with 5 figures, 4 tables, and 52 references, plus 13 pages of appendix.\n\nQuestion: Will the submission be accepted?", "label": "reject", "probability_positive": 0.86} | |
| {"case_id": "656577687d0e7cb9e9a42a2e", "text": "Peer Review Memo\n\nThis is an applied paper.\n\nThe approach departs substantially from prior work. The problem it addresses is broadly important across the field. The technical argument is sound.\n\nThe strength of supporting evidence is rated 3.3 out of 5. Comparisons with existing approaches are inadequate.\n\nThe findings remain stable under perturbation. The work could be partially reproduced from the details provided. The writing-clarity rating is 1.2 out of 5.\n\nThe manuscript was submitted in September as revision 3 by 7 authors. It runs 8 pages with 4 figures, 6 tables, and 26 references, plus 24 pages of appendix.\n\nQuestion: Will the submission be accepted?", "label": "reject", "probability_positive": 0.95} | |
| {"case_id": "59dd1ffb96534b9f1d07cde8", "text": "Peer Review Memo\n\nThis is an empirical paper.\n\nThe core idea is a major departure from anything in the literature. The problem it addresses matters to a moderate part of the community. The technical argument is sound.\n\nThe strength of supporting evidence is rated 2.9 out of 5. Comparisons with prior methods are inadequate.\n\nThe findings hold under some perturbations and not others. The details provided are insufficient to reproduce the work. The writing-clarity rating is 3.3 out of 5.\n\nThe manuscript was submitted in December as revision 1 by 5 authors. It runs 13 pages with 1 figure, 11 tables, and 15 references, plus 9 pages of appendix.\n\nQuestion: Will the submission be accepted?", "label": "reject", "probability_positive": 0.05} | |
| {"case_id": "65b24e1556252f0aa528b8e3", "text": "Peer Review Memo\n\nThis is a theoretical paper.\n\nThe approach departs substantially from prior work. The problem it addresses is of narrow interest. The technical argument is sound.\n\nThe strength of supporting evidence is rated 3.9 out of 5. The comparison with prior theoretical results and their assumptions is inadequate.\n\nThe conclusions are sensitive to small changes in the assumptions. The work could be partially reproduced from the details provided. The writing-clarity rating is 3.8 out of 5.\n\nThe manuscript was submitted in May as revision 1 by 3 authors. It runs 4 pages with 12 figures, 6 tables, and 27 references, plus 13 pages of appendix.\n\nQuestion: Will the submission be accepted?", "label": "accept", "probability_positive": 0.86} | |
| {"case_id": "10ffd1db2380baf9018e7e84", "text": "Peer Review Memo\n\nThis is an empirical paper.\n\nThe method builds on existing techniques with modest changes. The problem it addresses is broadly important across the field. The technical argument is sound.\n\nThe strength of supporting evidence is rated 2.7 out of 5. Comparisons with prior methods are inadequate.\n\nThe findings look fragile under perturbation. The details provided are insufficient to reproduce the work. The writing-clarity rating is 1.9 out of 5.\n\nThe manuscript was submitted in January as revision 3 by 4 authors. It runs 10 pages with 1 figure, 5 tables, and 50 references, plus 4 pages of appendix.\n\nQuestion: Will the submission be accepted?", "label": "reject", "probability_positive": 0.005} | |
| {"case_id": "fb53c6f6bf8fb054a5fdbef2", "text": "Peer Review Memo\n\nThis is an applied paper.\n\nThe method builds on existing techniques with modest changes. The problem it addresses is of narrow interest. The technical argument is sound.\n\nThe strength of supporting evidence is rated 3.3 out of 5. Comparisons with existing approaches are well controlled.\n\nThe findings look fragile under perturbation. The work could be fully reproduced from the details provided. The writing-clarity rating is 1.6 out of 5.\n\nThe manuscript was submitted in April as revision 1 by 5 authors. It runs 10 pages with 3 figures, 9 tables, and 44 references, plus 9 pages of appendix.\n\nQuestion: Will the submission be accepted?", "label": "reject", "probability_positive": 0.02} | |
| {"case_id": "1e0c19f1d846a00542c47c38", "text": "Peer Review Memo\n\nThis is a theoretical paper.\n\nThe approach departs substantially from prior work. The problem it addresses is of narrow interest. The technical argument is sound.\n\nThe strength of supporting evidence is rated 1.5 out of 5. The comparison with prior theoretical results and their assumptions is thorough.\n\nThe conclusions remain valid under reasonable changes in the assumptions. The details provided are insufficient to reproduce the work. The writing-clarity rating is 1.9 out of 5.\n\nThe manuscript was submitted in June as revision 1 by 3 authors. It runs 6 pages with 6 figures, 15 tables, and 14 references, plus 11 pages of appendix.\n\nQuestion: Will the submission be accepted?", "label": "reject", "probability_positive": 0.02} | |
| {"case_id": "f225d7e85513b3241f3c4abd", "text": "Peer Review Memo\n\nThis is a theoretical paper.\n\nThe method builds on existing techniques with modest changes. The problem it addresses is of narrow interest. The technical argument raises limited concerns that do not undermine the main result.\n\nThe strength of supporting evidence is rated 4.6 out of 5. The comparison with prior theoretical results and their assumptions is inadequate.\n\nThe conclusions are sensitive to small changes in the assumptions. The details provided are insufficient to reproduce the work. The writing-clarity rating is 1.4 out of 5.\n\nThe manuscript was submitted in May as revision 1 by 1 author. It runs 12 pages with 1 figure, 6 tables, and 81 references, plus 8 pages of appendix.\n\nQuestion: Will the submission be accepted?", "label": "reject", "probability_positive": 0.0} | |
| {"case_id": "06cb42b4e1fcdbe811519840", "text": "Peer Review Memo\n\nThis is an applied paper.\n\nThe method builds on existing techniques with modest changes. The problem it addresses matters to a moderate part of the community. The technical argument is sound.\n\nThe strength of supporting evidence is rated 2.8 out of 5. Comparisons with existing approaches are only partly controlled.\n\nThe findings hold under some perturbations and not others. The details provided are insufficient to reproduce the work. The writing-clarity rating is 1.0 out of 5.\n\nThe manuscript was submitted in September as revision 3 by 5 authors. It runs 10 pages with 3 figures, 5 tables, and 50 references, plus 16 pages of appendix.\n\nQuestion: Will the submission be accepted?", "label": "reject", "probability_positive": 0.02} | |
| {"case_id": "a9a256970067702f0a95e044", "text": "Peer Review Memo\n\nThis is an applied paper.\n\nThe method builds on existing techniques with modest changes. The problem it addresses matters to a moderate part of the community. The technical argument is sound.\n\nThe strength of supporting evidence is rated 2.4 out of 5. Comparisons with existing approaches are inadequate.\n\nThe findings remain stable under perturbation. The work could be partially reproduced from the details provided. The writing-clarity rating is 2.0 out of 5.\n\nThe manuscript was submitted in February as revision 3 by 7 authors. It runs 12 pages with 3 figures, 2 tables, and 55 references, plus 27 pages of appendix.\n\nQuestion: Will the submission be accepted?", "label": "reject", "probability_positive": 0.005} | |
| {"case_id": "d0553fa6010b4b6ac556f478", "text": "Peer Review Memo\n\nThis is an applied paper.\n\nThe approach departs substantially from prior work. The problem it addresses is of narrow interest. The technical argument is sound.\n\nThe strength of supporting evidence is rated 4.5 out of 5. Comparisons with existing approaches are inadequate.\n\nThe findings look fragile under perturbation. The details provided are insufficient to reproduce the work. The writing-clarity rating is 2.4 out of 5.\n\nThe manuscript was submitted in July as revision 1 by 8 authors. It runs 10 pages with 4 figures, 6 tables, and 36 references, plus 30 pages of appendix.\n\nQuestion: Will the submission be accepted?", "label": "reject", "probability_positive": 0.02} | |
| {"case_id": "c1c2746b89eeba8dff73e7be", "text": "Peer Review Memo\n\nThis is an applied paper.\n\nThe approach departs substantially from prior work. The problem it addresses is broadly important across the field. The technical argument is sound.\n\nThe strength of supporting evidence is rated 3.7 out of 5. Comparisons with existing approaches are inadequate.\n\nThe findings hold under some perturbations and not others. The details provided are insufficient to reproduce the work. The writing-clarity rating is 3.2 out of 5.\n\nThe manuscript was submitted in September as revision 1 by 5 authors. It runs 13 pages with 4 figures, 4 tables, and 21 references, plus 27 pages of appendix.\n\nQuestion: Will the submission be accepted?", "label": "accept", "probability_positive": 0.98} | |
| {"case_id": "fefb6cb103174f8a201505b7", "text": "Peer Review Memo\n\nThis is an empirical paper.\n\nThe method builds on existing techniques with modest changes. The problem it addresses matters to a moderate part of the community. The technical argument is sound.\n\nThe strength of supporting evidence is rated 3.1 out of 5. Comparisons with prior methods are well controlled.\n\nThe findings remain stable under perturbation. The work could be partially reproduced from the details provided. The writing-clarity rating is 2.8 out of 5.\n\nThe manuscript was submitted in July as revision 3 by 4 authors. It runs 19 pages with 12 figures, 1 table, and 29 references, plus 0 pages of appendix.\n\nQuestion: Will the submission be accepted?", "label": "accept", "probability_positive": 0.98} | |
| {"case_id": "52d270976302ebff00b8db77", "text": "Peer Review Memo\n\nThis is an empirical paper.\n\nThe method builds on existing techniques with modest changes. The problem it addresses matters to a moderate part of the community. The technical argument raises limited concerns that do not undermine the main result.\n\nThe strength of supporting evidence is rated 2.3 out of 5. Comparisons with prior methods are inadequate.\n\nThe findings look fragile under perturbation. The work could be partially reproduced from the details provided. The writing-clarity rating is 1.7 out of 5.\n\nThe manuscript was submitted in November as revision 3 by 5 authors. It runs 6 pages with 3 figures, 1 table, and 16 references, plus 6 pages of appendix.\n\nQuestion: Will the submission be accepted?", "label": "reject", "probability_positive": 0.0} | |
| {"case_id": "1d12d90ea027c2fdd2ddd0e0", "text": "Peer Review Memo\n\nThis is an applied paper.\n\nThe core idea is a major departure from anything in the literature. The problem it addresses is of narrow interest. The technical argument raises limited concerns that do not undermine the main result.\n\nThe strength of supporting evidence is rated 3.7 out of 5. Comparisons with existing approaches are well controlled.\n\nThe findings look fragile under perturbation. The work could be fully reproduced from the details provided. The writing-clarity rating is 3.1 out of 5.\n\nThe manuscript was submitted in March as revision 3 by 6 authors. It runs 16 pages with 4 figures, 13 tables, and 24 references, plus 0 pages of appendix.\n\nQuestion: Will the submission be accepted?", "label": "accept", "probability_positive": 0.95} | |
| {"case_id": "11f053808e74f588add7906c", "text": "Peer Review Memo\n\nThis is an applied paper.\n\nThe approach departs substantially from prior work. The problem it addresses is of narrow interest. The technical argument is sound.\n\nThe strength of supporting evidence is rated 4.5 out of 5. Comparisons with existing approaches are only partly controlled.\n\nThe findings remain stable under perturbation. The work could be fully reproduced from the details provided. The writing-clarity rating is 3.4 out of 5.\n\nThe manuscript was submitted in July as revision 3 by 4 authors. It runs 10 pages with 9 figures, 5 tables, and 53 references, plus 12 pages of appendix.\n\nQuestion: Will the submission be accepted?", "label": "accept", "probability_positive": 0.98} | |
| {"case_id": "090af749e95a1698f7ff4a00", "text": "Peer Review Memo\n\nThis is an empirical paper.\n\nThe method builds on existing techniques with modest changes. The problem it addresses is broadly important across the field. The technical argument raises limited concerns that do not undermine the main result.\n\nThe strength of supporting evidence is rated 1.6 out of 5. Comparisons with prior methods are inadequate.\n\nThe findings look fragile under perturbation. The details provided are insufficient to reproduce the work. The writing-clarity rating is 3.1 out of 5.\n\nThe manuscript was submitted in November as revision 3 by 1 author. It runs 6 pages with 11 figures, 6 tables, and 12 references, plus 9 pages of appendix.\n\nQuestion: Will the submission be accepted?", "label": "reject", "probability_positive": 0.0} | |
| {"case_id": "1e6ce29a8430ed6e98b3dc0f", "text": "Peer Review Memo\n\nThis is a theoretical paper.\n\nThe approach departs substantially from prior work. The problem it addresses matters to a moderate part of the community. The technical argument raises limited concerns that do not undermine the main result.\n\nThe strength of supporting evidence is rated 2.1 out of 5. The comparison with prior theoretical results and their assumptions is inadequate.\n\nThe conclusions are sensitive to small changes in the assumptions. The details provided are insufficient to reproduce the work. The writing-clarity rating is 3.3 out of 5.\n\nThe manuscript was submitted in April as revision 3 by 3 authors. It runs 12 pages with 4 figures, 7 tables, and 30 references, plus 5 pages of appendix.\n\nQuestion: Will the submission be accepted?", "label": "reject", "probability_positive": 0.0} | |
| {"case_id": "b7aba74711d22c0393f0a0bf", "text": "Peer Review Memo\n\nThis is an empirical paper.\n\nThe core idea is a major departure from anything in the literature. The problem it addresses is of narrow interest. The technical argument is sound.\n\nThe strength of supporting evidence is rated 2.4 out of 5. Comparisons with prior methods are inadequate.\n\nThe findings look fragile under perturbation. The work could be fully reproduced from the details provided. The writing-clarity rating is 2.6 out of 5.\n\nThe manuscript was submitted in June as revision 1 by 2 authors. It runs 9 pages with 5 figures, 10 tables, and 23 references, plus 27 pages of appendix.\n\nQuestion: Will the submission be accepted?", "label": "reject", "probability_positive": 0.005} | |
| {"case_id": "df131ed40ac0b1f42f8853e0", "text": "Peer Review Memo\n\nThis is a theoretical paper.\n\nThe approach departs substantially from prior work. The problem it addresses is broadly important across the field. The technical argument raises limited concerns that do not undermine the main result.\n\nThe strength of supporting evidence is rated 2.0 out of 5. The comparison with prior theoretical results and their assumptions is thorough.\n\nThe conclusions remain valid under reasonable changes in the assumptions. The work could be fully reproduced from the details provided. The writing-clarity rating is 1.8 out of 5.\n\nThe manuscript was submitted in October as revision 3 by 3 authors. It runs 14 pages with 2 figures, 6 tables, and 39 references, plus 11 pages of appendix.\n\nQuestion: Will the submission be accepted?", "label": "reject", "probability_positive": 0.14} | |
| {"case_id": "fada58268090ea12a61580dd", "text": "Peer Review Memo\n\nThis is an empirical paper.\n\nThe core idea is a major departure from anything in the literature. The problem it addresses is of narrow interest. The technical argument contains a serious flaw.\n\nThe strength of supporting evidence is rated 1.4 out of 5. Comparisons with prior methods are inadequate.\n\nThe findings hold under some perturbations and not others. The details provided are insufficient to reproduce the work. The writing-clarity rating is 3.2 out of 5.\n\nThe manuscript was submitted in March as revision 3 by 6 authors. It runs 9 pages with 16 figures, 3 tables, and 34 references, plus 15 pages of appendix.\n\nQuestion: Will the submission be accepted?", "label": "reject", "probability_positive": 0.0} | |
| {"case_id": "fbacf46d5ecc30bedc72ab5b", "text": "Peer Review Memo\n\nThis is an applied paper.\n\nThe method builds on existing techniques with modest changes. The problem it addresses is of narrow interest. The technical argument raises limited concerns that do not undermine the main result.\n\nThe strength of supporting evidence is rated 2.3 out of 5. Comparisons with existing approaches are inadequate.\n\nThe findings look fragile under perturbation. The work could be partially reproduced from the details provided. The writing-clarity rating is 1.4 out of 5.\n\nThe manuscript was submitted in October as revision 3 by 4 authors. It runs 8 pages with 3 figures, 5 tables, and 79 references, plus 21 pages of appendix.\n\nQuestion: Will the submission be accepted?", "label": "reject", "probability_positive": 0.0} | |
| {"case_id": "daef089ac00935a4626bcb67", "text": "Peer Review Memo\n\nThis is an empirical paper.\n\nThe method builds on existing techniques with modest changes. The problem it addresses is of narrow interest. The technical argument is sound.\n\nThe strength of supporting evidence is rated 4.3 out of 5. Comparisons with prior methods are inadequate.\n\nThe findings hold under some perturbations and not others. The work could be fully reproduced from the details provided. The writing-clarity rating is 2.7 out of 5.\n\nThe manuscript was submitted in March as revision 1 by 5 authors. It runs 11 pages with 4 figures, 3 tables, and 30 references, plus 7 pages of appendix.\n\nQuestion: Will the submission be accepted?", "label": "accept", "probability_positive": 0.86} | |
| {"case_id": "91f4c53db72af3dd1a616f42", "text": "Peer Review Memo\n\nThis is a theoretical paper.\n\nThe method builds on existing techniques with modest changes. The problem it addresses is of narrow interest. The technical argument raises limited concerns that do not undermine the main result.\n\nThe strength of supporting evidence is rated 2.1 out of 5. The comparison with prior theoretical results and their assumptions is thorough.\n\nThe conclusions remain valid under reasonable changes in the assumptions. The details provided are insufficient to reproduce the work. The writing-clarity rating is 2.9 out of 5.\n\nThe manuscript was submitted in March as revision 3 by 4 authors. It runs 12 pages with 7 figures, 1 table, and 45 references, plus 16 pages of appendix.\n\nQuestion: Will the submission be accepted?", "label": "reject", "probability_positive": 0.0} | |
| {"case_id": "716dc3e89a1a5521288824fd", "text": "Peer Review Memo\n\nThis is an empirical paper.\n\nThe approach departs substantially from prior work. The problem it addresses matters to a moderate part of the community. The technical argument contains a serious flaw.\n\nThe strength of supporting evidence is rated 1.5 out of 5. Comparisons with prior methods are only partly controlled.\n\nThe findings look fragile under perturbation. The work could be partially reproduced from the details provided. The writing-clarity rating is 1.1 out of 5.\n\nThe manuscript was submitted in September as revision 1 by 6 authors. It runs 7 pages with 9 figures, 1 table, and 58 references, plus 16 pages of appendix.\n\nQuestion: Will the submission be accepted?", "label": "reject", "probability_positive": 0.0} | |
| {"case_id": "f0677096af2ca70ec3b43c2a", "text": "Peer Review Memo\n\nThis is an applied paper.\n\nThe method builds on existing techniques with modest changes. The problem it addresses is broadly important across the field. The technical argument is sound.\n\nThe strength of supporting evidence is rated 1.6 out of 5. Comparisons with existing approaches are only partly controlled.\n\nThe findings look fragile under perturbation. The details provided are insufficient to reproduce the work. The writing-clarity rating is 2.2 out of 5.\n\nThe manuscript was submitted in July as revision 1 by 4 authors. It runs 11 pages with 6 figures, 3 tables, and 26 references, plus 18 pages of appendix.\n\nQuestion: Will the submission be accepted?", "label": "reject", "probability_positive": 0.001} | |
| {"case_id": "a05b09391acd3a5908988a26", "text": "Peer Review Memo\n\nThis is an applied paper.\n\nThe core idea is a major departure from anything in the literature. The problem it addresses is of narrow interest. The technical argument raises limited concerns that do not undermine the main result.\n\nThe strength of supporting evidence is rated 1.9 out of 5. Comparisons with existing approaches are well controlled.\n\nThe findings hold under some perturbations and not others. The details provided are insufficient to reproduce the work. The writing-clarity rating is 4.7 out of 5.\n\nThe manuscript was submitted in September as revision 1 by 7 authors. It runs 11 pages with 10 figures, 2 tables, and 42 references, plus 17 pages of appendix.\n\nQuestion: Will the submission be accepted?", "label": "reject", "probability_positive": 0.005} | |
| {"case_id": "524eb221cd6920ae0c9c8513", "text": "Peer Review Memo\n\nThis is an empirical paper.\n\nThe method builds on existing techniques with modest changes. The problem it addresses matters to a moderate part of the community. The technical argument is sound.\n\nThe strength of supporting evidence is rated 5.0 out of 5. Comparisons with prior methods are inadequate.\n\nThe findings look fragile under perturbation. The work could be fully reproduced from the details provided. The writing-clarity rating is 3.2 out of 5.\n\nThe manuscript was submitted in November as revision 3 by 2 authors. It runs 4 pages with 2 figures, 2 tables, and 32 references, plus 25 pages of appendix.\n\nQuestion: Will the submission be accepted?", "label": "accept", "probability_positive": 0.86} | |
| {"case_id": "6603601ccd7a8bc2e1599a66", "text": "Peer Review Memo\n\nThis is an applied paper.\n\nThe method builds on existing techniques with modest changes. The problem it addresses is of narrow interest. The technical argument raises limited concerns that do not undermine the main result.\n\nThe strength of supporting evidence is rated 2.9 out of 5. Comparisons with existing approaches are well controlled.\n\nThe findings look fragile under perturbation. The work could be partially reproduced from the details provided. The writing-clarity rating is 2.6 out of 5.\n\nThe manuscript was submitted in June as revision 1 by 3 authors. It runs 5 pages with 5 figures, 6 tables, and 45 references, plus 8 pages of appendix.\n\nQuestion: Will the submission be accepted?", "label": "reject", "probability_positive": 0.001} | |
| {"case_id": "6c05d3177f20b5c605cecc64", "text": "Peer Review Memo\n\nThis is an applied paper.\n\nThe method builds on existing techniques with modest changes. The problem it addresses is of narrow interest. The technical argument contains a serious flaw.\n\nThe strength of supporting evidence is rated 3.3 out of 5. Comparisons with existing approaches are inadequate.\n\nThe findings look fragile under perturbation. The details provided are insufficient to reproduce the work. The writing-clarity rating is 2.1 out of 5.\n\nThe manuscript was submitted in December as revision 1 by 6 authors. It runs 10 pages with 5 figures, 2 tables, and 74 references, plus 3 pages of appendix.\n\nQuestion: Will the submission be accepted?", "label": "reject", "probability_positive": 0.0} | |
| {"case_id": "96aae5c3c109764f37259849", "text": "Peer Review Memo\n\nThis is an empirical paper.\n\nThe method builds on existing techniques with modest changes. The problem it addresses matters to a moderate part of the community. The technical argument raises limited concerns that do not undermine the main result.\n\nThe strength of supporting evidence is rated 3.4 out of 5. Comparisons with prior methods are well controlled.\n\nThe findings remain stable under perturbation. The details provided are insufficient to reproduce the work. The writing-clarity rating is 2.5 out of 5.\n\nThe manuscript was submitted in May as revision 3 by 8 authors. It runs 8 pages with 10 figures, 2 tables, and 81 references, plus 12 pages of appendix.\n\nQuestion: Will the submission be accepted?", "label": "reject", "probability_positive": 0.14} | |
| {"case_id": "567f286e439214b4f9fdc182", "text": "Peer Review Memo\n\nThis is an applied paper.\n\nThe method builds on existing techniques with modest changes. The problem it addresses is of narrow interest. The technical argument is sound.\n\nThe strength of supporting evidence is rated 1.4 out of 5. Comparisons with existing approaches are inadequate.\n\nThe findings look fragile under perturbation. The details provided are insufficient to reproduce the work. The writing-clarity rating is 3.5 out of 5.\n\nThe manuscript was submitted in March as revision 1 by 3 authors. It runs 11 pages with 5 figures, 3 tables, and 36 references, plus 10 pages of appendix.\n\nQuestion: Will the submission be accepted?", "label": "reject", "probability_positive": 0.0} | |
| {"case_id": "4e2d017b38484415fe0cfe56", "text": "Peer Review Memo\n\nThis is an applied paper.\n\nThe method builds on existing techniques with modest changes. The problem it addresses is broadly important across the field. The technical argument contains a serious flaw.\n\nThe strength of supporting evidence is rated 2.9 out of 5. Comparisons with existing approaches are only partly controlled.\n\nThe findings hold under some perturbations and not others. The work could be partially reproduced from the details provided. The writing-clarity rating is 2.5 out of 5.\n\nThe manuscript was submitted in December as revision 3 by 4 authors. It runs 5 pages with 3 figures, 6 tables, and 30 references, plus 0 pages of appendix.\n\nQuestion: Will the submission be accepted?", "label": "reject", "probability_positive": 0.0} | |
| {"case_id": "e329f677e405c3891f9ca2d6", "text": "Peer Review Memo\n\nThis is an empirical paper.\n\nThe core idea is a major departure from anything in the literature. The problem it addresses is of narrow interest. The technical argument raises limited concerns that do not undermine the main result.\n\nThe strength of supporting evidence is rated 4.6 out of 5. Comparisons with prior methods are only partly controlled.\n\nThe findings look fragile under perturbation. The details provided are insufficient to reproduce the work. The writing-clarity rating is 2.3 out of 5.\n\nThe manuscript was submitted in May as revision 3 by 9 authors. It runs 5 pages with 6 figures, 1 table, and 60 references, plus 24 pages of appendix.\n\nQuestion: Will the submission be accepted?", "label": "reject", "probability_positive": 0.05} | |
| {"case_id": "97f22fe93be0591cb9661309", "text": "Peer Review Memo\n\nThis is an empirical paper.\n\nThe method builds on existing techniques with modest changes. The problem it addresses is of narrow interest. The technical argument is sound.\n\nThe strength of supporting evidence is rated 4.4 out of 5. Comparisons with prior methods are well controlled.\n\nThe findings look fragile under perturbation. The details provided are insufficient to reproduce the work. The writing-clarity rating is 4.0 out of 5.\n\nThe manuscript was submitted in December as revision 3 by 4 authors. It runs 11 pages with 8 figures, 2 tables, and 9 references, plus 6 pages of appendix.\n\nQuestion: Will the submission be accepted?", "label": "accept", "probability_positive": 0.95} | |
| {"case_id": "1712f545256af32adf6fa683", "text": "Peer Review Memo\n\nThis is a theoretical paper.\n\nThe method builds on existing techniques with modest changes. The problem it addresses is of narrow interest. The technical argument raises limited concerns that do not undermine the main result.\n\nThe strength of supporting evidence is rated 2.8 out of 5. The comparison with prior theoretical results and their assumptions is inadequate.\n\nThe conclusions are sensitive to small changes in the assumptions. The work could be partially reproduced from the details provided. The writing-clarity rating is 2.5 out of 5.\n\nThe manuscript was submitted in August as revision 1 by 2 authors. It runs 10 pages with 6 figures, 5 tables, and 33 references, plus 17 pages of appendix.\n\nQuestion: Will the submission be accepted?", "label": "reject", "probability_positive": 0.0} | |
| {"case_id": "8b9beab07c06f4ca922072af", "text": "Peer Review Memo\n\nThis is an applied paper.\n\nThe approach departs substantially from prior work. The problem it addresses is broadly important across the field. The technical argument raises limited concerns that do not undermine the main result.\n\nThe strength of supporting evidence is rated 1.8 out of 5. Comparisons with existing approaches are only partly controlled.\n\nThe findings look fragile under perturbation. The work could be partially reproduced from the details provided. The writing-clarity rating is 3.0 out of 5.\n\nThe manuscript was submitted in October as revision 3 by 4 authors. It runs 10 pages with 3 figures, 6 tables, and 28 references, plus 29 pages of appendix.\n\nQuestion: Will the submission be accepted?", "label": "reject", "probability_positive": 0.005} | |
| {"case_id": "c999e7845646f0bb1391a840", "text": "Peer Review Memo\n\nThis is an applied paper.\n\nThe approach departs substantially from prior work. The problem it addresses is of narrow interest. The technical argument raises limited concerns that do not undermine the main result.\n\nThe strength of supporting evidence is rated 4.6 out of 5. Comparisons with existing approaches are well controlled.\n\nThe findings hold under some perturbations and not others. The details provided are insufficient to reproduce the work. The writing-clarity rating is 4.2 out of 5.\n\nThe manuscript was submitted in February as revision 1 by 4 authors. It runs 9 pages with 10 figures, 5 tables, and 47 references, plus 32 pages of appendix.\n\nQuestion: Will the submission be accepted?", "label": "accept", "probability_positive": 0.86} | |
| {"case_id": "db305acd4b2ee629ad0d846b", "text": "Peer Review Memo\n\nThis is an empirical paper.\n\nThe approach departs substantially from prior work. The problem it addresses is broadly important across the field. The technical argument raises limited concerns that do not undermine the main result.\n\nThe strength of supporting evidence is rated 3.1 out of 5. Comparisons with prior methods are inadequate.\n\nThe findings look fragile under perturbation. The work could be fully reproduced from the details provided. The writing-clarity rating is 4.8 out of 5.\n\nThe manuscript was submitted in January as revision 3 by 7 authors. It runs 8 pages with 3 figures, 2 tables, and 62 references, plus 0 pages of appendix.\n\nQuestion: Will the submission be accepted?", "label": "reject", "probability_positive": 0.05} | |
| {"case_id": "de8faa6df5d3b22bdd4e60ef", "text": "Peer Review Memo\n\nThis is an empirical paper.\n\nThe approach departs substantially from prior work. The problem it addresses matters to a moderate part of the community. The technical argument is sound.\n\nThe strength of supporting evidence is rated 4.4 out of 5. Comparisons with prior methods are well controlled.\n\nThe findings look fragile under perturbation. The details provided are insufficient to reproduce the work. The writing-clarity rating is 2.4 out of 5.\n\nThe manuscript was submitted in July as revision 1 by 3 authors. It runs 12 pages with 3 figures, 2 tables, and 62 references, plus 6 pages of appendix.\n\nQuestion: Will the submission be accepted?", "label": "accept", "probability_positive": 0.95} | |
| {"case_id": "bded8ffda31137d60af5e145", "text": "Peer Review Memo\n\nThis is an applied paper.\n\nThe core idea is a major departure from anything in the literature. The problem it addresses matters to a moderate part of the community. The technical argument raises limited concerns that do not undermine the main result.\n\nThe strength of supporting evidence is rated 2.4 out of 5. Comparisons with existing approaches are only partly controlled.\n\nThe findings hold under some perturbations and not others. The work could be fully reproduced from the details provided. The writing-clarity rating is 3.5 out of 5.\n\nThe manuscript was submitted in January as revision 1 by 5 authors. It runs 11 pages with 4 figures, 4 tables, and 33 references, plus 10 pages of appendix.\n\nQuestion: Will the submission be accepted?", "label": "reject", "probability_positive": 0.05} | |
| {"case_id": "9c91dc61b18b10e68aba5fe7", "text": "Peer Review Memo\n\nThis is a theoretical paper.\n\nThe core idea is a major departure from anything in the literature. The problem it addresses is of narrow interest. The technical argument is sound.\n\nThe strength of supporting evidence is rated 3.1 out of 5. The comparison with prior theoretical results and their assumptions is thorough.\n\nThe conclusions are sensitive to small changes in the assumptions. The work could be partially reproduced from the details provided. The writing-clarity rating is 1.6 out of 5.\n\nThe manuscript was submitted in June as revision 1 by 1 author. It runs 10 pages with 10 figures, 5 tables, and 101 references, plus 0 pages of appendix.\n\nQuestion: Will the submission be accepted?", "label": "reject", "probability_positive": 0.14} | |
| {"case_id": "63e2d4c7731c42407e03f0c1", "text": "Peer Review Memo\n\nThis is an empirical paper.\n\nThe core idea is a major departure from anything in the literature. The problem it addresses matters to a moderate part of the community. The technical argument raises limited concerns that do not undermine the main result.\n\nThe strength of supporting evidence is rated 1.0 out of 5. Comparisons with prior methods are inadequate.\n\nThe findings hold under some perturbations and not others. The work could be partially reproduced from the details provided. The writing-clarity rating is 3.2 out of 5.\n\nThe manuscript was submitted in July as revision 3 by 2 authors. It runs 16 pages with 3 figures, 3 tables, and 46 references, plus 0 pages of appendix.\n\nQuestion: Will the submission be accepted?", "label": "reject", "probability_positive": 0.001} | |
| {"case_id": "8177cec1d7ed34f293239318", "text": "Peer Review Memo\n\nThis is an empirical paper.\n\nThe method builds on existing techniques with modest changes. The problem it addresses is of narrow interest. The technical argument raises limited concerns that do not undermine the main result.\n\nThe strength of supporting evidence is rated 1.1 out of 5. Comparisons with prior methods are well controlled.\n\nThe findings look fragile under perturbation. The work could be partially reproduced from the details provided. The writing-clarity rating is 3.2 out of 5.\n\nThe manuscript was submitted in October as revision 1 by 4 authors. It runs 14 pages with 4 figures, 1 table, and 26 references, plus 23 pages of appendix.\n\nQuestion: Will the submission be accepted?", "label": "reject", "probability_positive": 0.0} | |
| {"case_id": "6bef43c2902d2cd2378d0bbb", "text": "Peer Review Memo\n\nThis is a theoretical paper.\n\nThe core idea is a major departure from anything in the literature. The problem it addresses is of narrow interest. The technical argument is sound.\n\nThe strength of supporting evidence is rated 4.1 out of 5. The comparison with prior theoretical results and their assumptions is only partly developed.\n\nThe conclusions are sensitive to small changes in the assumptions. The work could be fully reproduced from the details provided. The writing-clarity rating is 1.5 out of 5.\n\nThe manuscript was submitted in October as revision 1 by 2 authors. It runs 12 pages with 3 figures, 0 tables, and 63 references, plus 5 pages of appendix.\n\nQuestion: Will the submission be accepted?", "label": "accept", "probability_positive": 0.95} | |
| {"case_id": "3c2a1361aff49d67eece9ad3", "text": "Peer Review Memo\n\nThis is an empirical paper.\n\nThe approach departs substantially from prior work. The problem it addresses is broadly important across the field. The technical argument raises limited concerns that do not undermine the main result.\n\nThe strength of supporting evidence is rated 2.1 out of 5. Comparisons with prior methods are inadequate.\n\nThe findings hold under some perturbations and not others. The work could be fully reproduced from the details provided. The writing-clarity rating is 3.8 out of 5.\n\nThe manuscript was submitted in September as revision 3 by 1 author. It runs 14 pages with 5 figures, 0 tables, and 31 references, plus 21 pages of appendix.\n\nQuestion: Will the submission be accepted?", "label": "reject", "probability_positive": 0.02} | |
| {"case_id": "580c04369403b3c4bb7af183", "text": "Peer Review Memo\n\nThis is a theoretical paper.\n\nThe method builds on existing techniques with modest changes. The problem it addresses is of narrow interest. The technical argument is sound.\n\nThe strength of supporting evidence is rated 4.4 out of 5. The comparison with prior theoretical results and their assumptions is thorough.\n\nThe conclusions remain valid under reasonable changes in the assumptions. The details provided are insufficient to reproduce the work. The writing-clarity rating is 4.8 out of 5.\n\nThe manuscript was submitted in September as revision 1 by 2 authors. It runs 9 pages with 6 figures, 3 tables, and 50 references, plus 15 pages of appendix.\n\nQuestion: Will the submission be accepted?", "label": "accept", "probability_positive": 0.98} | |
| {"case_id": "f28d3a217c75b39e0564481a", "text": "Peer Review Memo\n\nThis is a theoretical paper.\n\nThe approach departs substantially from prior work. The problem it addresses is of narrow interest. The technical argument is sound.\n\nThe strength of supporting evidence is rated 1.8 out of 5. The comparison with prior theoretical results and their assumptions is inadequate.\n\nThe conclusions are sensitive to small changes in the assumptions. The details provided are insufficient to reproduce the work. The writing-clarity rating is 3.0 out of 5.\n\nThe manuscript was submitted in February as revision 3 by 5 authors. It runs 7 pages with 6 figures, 5 tables, and 52 references, plus 9 pages of appendix.\n\nQuestion: Will the submission be accepted?", "label": "reject", "probability_positive": 0.001} | |
| {"case_id": "62115922d54f0fd34a48db4f", "text": "Peer Review Memo\n\nThis is an empirical paper.\n\nThe core idea is a major departure from anything in the literature. The problem it addresses is broadly important across the field. The technical argument is sound.\n\nThe strength of supporting evidence is rated 1.0 out of 5. Comparisons with prior methods are inadequate.\n\nThe findings remain stable under perturbation. The details provided are insufficient to reproduce the work. The writing-clarity rating is 2.1 out of 5.\n\nThe manuscript was submitted in July as revision 1 by 1 author. It runs 9 pages with 7 figures, 5 tables, and 48 references, plus 9 pages of appendix.\n\nQuestion: Will the submission be accepted?", "label": "reject", "probability_positive": 0.05} | |
| {"case_id": "f9d95005ef25cb9e93e13212", "text": "Peer Review Memo\n\nThis is a theoretical paper.\n\nThe method builds on existing techniques with modest changes. The problem it addresses matters to a moderate part of the community. The technical argument is sound.\n\nThe strength of supporting evidence is rated 2.9 out of 5. The comparison with prior theoretical results and their assumptions is only partly developed.\n\nThe conclusions remain valid under reasonable changes in the assumptions. The work could be fully reproduced from the details provided. The writing-clarity rating is 2.0 out of 5.\n\nThe manuscript was submitted in March as revision 1 by 9 authors. It runs 10 pages with 13 figures, 1 table, and 44 references, plus 20 pages of appendix.\n\nQuestion: Will the submission be accepted?", "label": "reject", "probability_positive": 0.14} | |
| {"case_id": "c82328bc4ff3d81cc056288b", "text": "Peer Review Memo\n\nThis is an empirical paper.\n\nThe method builds on existing techniques with modest changes. The problem it addresses is of narrow interest. The technical argument is sound.\n\nThe strength of supporting evidence is rated 1.3 out of 5. Comparisons with prior methods are inadequate.\n\nThe findings remain stable under perturbation. The work could be partially reproduced from the details provided. The writing-clarity rating is 1.5 out of 5.\n\nThe manuscript was submitted in January as revision 1 by 2 authors. It runs 10 pages with 7 figures, 0 tables, and 28 references, plus 7 pages of appendix.\n\nQuestion: Will the submission be accepted?", "label": "reject", "probability_positive": 0.001} | |
| {"case_id": "3350735f8a5c0137c34cac2b", "text": "Peer Review Memo\n\nThis is an empirical paper.\n\nThe approach departs substantially from prior work. The problem it addresses is of narrow interest. The technical argument contains a serious flaw.\n\nThe strength of supporting evidence is rated 1.6 out of 5. Comparisons with prior methods are only partly controlled.\n\nThe findings hold under some perturbations and not others. The details provided are insufficient to reproduce the work. The writing-clarity rating is 1.2 out of 5.\n\nThe manuscript was submitted in June as revision 3 by 3 authors. It runs 18 pages with 5 figures, 2 tables, and 22 references, plus 0 pages of appendix.\n\nQuestion: Will the submission be accepted?", "label": "reject", "probability_positive": 0.0} | |
| {"case_id": "ab0bc44bfdefa46f4db3e6ca", "text": "Peer Review Memo\n\nThis is a theoretical paper.\n\nThe method builds on existing techniques with modest changes. The problem it addresses is of narrow interest. The technical argument is sound.\n\nThe strength of supporting evidence is rated 1.6 out of 5. The comparison with prior theoretical results and their assumptions is thorough.\n\nThe conclusions remain valid under reasonable changes in the assumptions. The work could be partially reproduced from the details provided. The writing-clarity rating is 1.3 out of 5.\n\nThe manuscript was submitted in February as revision 1 by 6 authors. It runs 10 pages with 5 figures, 1 table, and 22 references, plus 14 pages of appendix.\n\nQuestion: Will the submission be accepted?", "label": "reject", "probability_positive": 0.005} | |
| {"case_id": "08be31c18944e70cf7479ad6", "text": "Peer Review Memo\n\nThis is an applied paper.\n\nThe method builds on existing techniques with modest changes. The problem it addresses matters to a moderate part of the community. The technical argument contains a serious flaw.\n\nThe strength of supporting evidence is rated 1.4 out of 5. Comparisons with existing approaches are only partly controlled.\n\nThe findings hold under some perturbations and not others. The work could be fully reproduced from the details provided. The writing-clarity rating is 3.6 out of 5.\n\nThe manuscript was submitted in September as revision 1 by 2 authors. It runs 18 pages with 1 figure, 5 tables, and 36 references, plus 44 pages of appendix.\n\nQuestion: Will the submission be accepted?", "label": "reject", "probability_positive": 0.0} | |
| {"case_id": "672e97faa06ccfb1173ac4e3", "text": "Peer Review Memo\n\nThis is an empirical paper.\n\nThe method builds on existing techniques with modest changes. The problem it addresses matters to a moderate part of the community. The technical argument is sound.\n\nThe strength of supporting evidence is rated 2.7 out of 5. Comparisons with prior methods are well controlled.\n\nThe findings remain stable under perturbation. The details provided are insufficient to reproduce the work. The writing-clarity rating is 3.9 out of 5.\n\nThe manuscript was submitted in January as revision 1 by 6 authors. It runs 5 pages with 3 figures, 1 table, and 60 references, plus 10 pages of appendix.\n\nQuestion: Will the submission be accepted?", "label": "accept", "probability_positive": 0.95} | |
| {"case_id": "9a473413272da3c008166ec5", "text": "Peer Review Memo\n\nThis is a theoretical paper.\n\nThe method builds on existing techniques with modest changes. The problem it addresses matters to a moderate part of the community. The technical argument contains a serious flaw.\n\nThe strength of supporting evidence is rated 2.1 out of 5. The comparison with prior theoretical results and their assumptions is inadequate.\n\nThe conclusions hold under some changes in the assumptions and not others. The work could be partially reproduced from the details provided. The writing-clarity rating is 1.2 out of 5.\n\nThe manuscript was submitted in March as revision 1 by 6 authors. It runs 17 pages with 3 figures, 3 tables, and 53 references, plus 17 pages of appendix.\n\nQuestion: Will the submission be accepted?", "label": "reject", "probability_positive": 0.0} | |
| {"case_id": "3cae58bb9316846c122a23da", "text": "Peer Review Memo\n\nThis is an empirical paper.\n\nThe approach departs substantially from prior work. The problem it addresses matters to a moderate part of the community. The technical argument is sound.\n\nThe strength of supporting evidence is rated 1.4 out of 5. Comparisons with prior methods are well controlled.\n\nThe findings look fragile under perturbation. The work could be fully reproduced from the details provided. The writing-clarity rating is 1.3 out of 5.\n\nThe manuscript was submitted in October as revision 3 by 2 authors. It runs 10 pages with 3 figures, 3 tables, and 18 references, plus 13 pages of appendix.\n\nQuestion: Will the submission be accepted?", "label": "reject", "probability_positive": 0.02} | |
| {"case_id": "53f479d3fa9290156ec0688d", "text": "Peer Review Memo\n\nThis is a theoretical paper.\n\nThe core idea is a major departure from anything in the literature. The problem it addresses is broadly important across the field. The technical argument raises limited concerns that do not undermine the main result.\n\nThe strength of supporting evidence is rated 3.3 out of 5. The comparison with prior theoretical results and their assumptions is inadequate.\n\nThe conclusions remain valid under reasonable changes in the assumptions. The work could be fully reproduced from the details provided. The writing-clarity rating is 1.7 out of 5.\n\nThe manuscript was submitted in December as revision 3 by 1 author. It runs 8 pages with 5 figures, 3 tables, and 33 references, plus 12 pages of appendix.\n\nQuestion: Will the submission be accepted?", "label": "accept", "probability_positive": 0.95} | |
| {"case_id": "d48891bba569397058c65017", "text": "Peer Review Memo\n\nThis is a theoretical paper.\n\nThe method builds on existing techniques with modest changes. The problem it addresses is of narrow interest. The technical argument contains a serious flaw.\n\nThe strength of supporting evidence is rated 2.1 out of 5. The comparison with prior theoretical results and their assumptions is thorough.\n\nThe conclusions are sensitive to small changes in the assumptions. The work could be partially reproduced from the details provided. The writing-clarity rating is 1.9 out of 5.\n\nThe manuscript was submitted in July as revision 3 by 1 author. It runs 9 pages with 3 figures, 0 tables, and 20 references, plus 10 pages of appendix.\n\nQuestion: Will the submission be accepted?", "label": "reject", "probability_positive": 0.0} | |
| {"case_id": "24691641e8e1adb9ce600936", "text": "Peer Review Memo\n\nThis is an empirical paper.\n\nThe approach departs substantially from prior work. The problem it addresses is of narrow interest. The technical argument raises limited concerns that do not undermine the main result.\n\nThe strength of supporting evidence is rated 2.5 out of 5. Comparisons with prior methods are inadequate.\n\nThe findings look fragile under perturbation. The work could be fully reproduced from the details provided. The writing-clarity rating is 2.1 out of 5.\n\nThe manuscript was submitted in December as revision 1 by 4 authors. It runs 7 pages with 8 figures, 4 tables, and 34 references, plus 24 pages of appendix.\n\nQuestion: Will the submission be accepted?", "label": "reject", "probability_positive": 0.001} | |
| {"case_id": "d5d0cde4ae81c778ab018c06", "text": "Peer Review Memo\n\nThis is an empirical paper.\n\nThe method builds on existing techniques with modest changes. The problem it addresses matters to a moderate part of the community. The technical argument raises limited concerns that do not undermine the main result.\n\nThe strength of supporting evidence is rated 1.8 out of 5. Comparisons with prior methods are inadequate.\n\nThe findings look fragile under perturbation. The details provided are insufficient to reproduce the work. The writing-clarity rating is 2.1 out of 5.\n\nThe manuscript was submitted in April as revision 3 by 3 authors. It runs 11 pages with 3 figures, 0 tables, and 32 references, plus 0 pages of appendix.\n\nQuestion: Will the submission be accepted?", "label": "reject", "probability_positive": 0.0} | |
| {"case_id": "77349439bc13b5c54bedcfcd", "text": "Peer Review Memo\n\nThis is an empirical paper.\n\nThe method builds on existing techniques with modest changes. The problem it addresses is of narrow interest. The technical argument raises limited concerns that do not undermine the main result.\n\nThe strength of supporting evidence is rated 1.0 out of 5. Comparisons with prior methods are well controlled.\n\nThe findings remain stable under perturbation. The details provided are insufficient to reproduce the work. The writing-clarity rating is 1.5 out of 5.\n\nThe manuscript was submitted in September as revision 3 by 5 authors. It runs 10 pages with 3 figures, 0 tables, and 39 references, plus 0 pages of appendix.\n\nQuestion: Will the submission be accepted?", "label": "reject", "probability_positive": 0.0} | |
| {"case_id": "af6a2520bacdb4fec20a4d7b", "text": "Peer Review Memo\n\nThis is an empirical paper.\n\nThe approach departs substantially from prior work. The problem it addresses is of narrow interest. The technical argument raises limited concerns that do not undermine the main result.\n\nThe strength of supporting evidence is rated 1.8 out of 5. Comparisons with prior methods are inadequate.\n\nThe findings hold under some perturbations and not others. The work could be fully reproduced from the details provided. The writing-clarity rating is 3.1 out of 5.\n\nThe manuscript was submitted in December as revision 1 by 8 authors. It runs 13 pages with 5 figures, 5 tables, and 107 references, plus 35 pages of appendix.\n\nQuestion: Will the submission be accepted?", "label": "reject", "probability_positive": 0.0} | |
| {"case_id": "c2ab40d1e289cdd8c96fc381", "text": "Peer Review Memo\n\nThis is an empirical paper.\n\nThe method builds on existing techniques with modest changes. The problem it addresses is of narrow interest. The technical argument is sound.\n\nThe strength of supporting evidence is rated 1.5 out of 5. Comparisons with prior methods are only partly controlled.\n\nThe findings hold under some perturbations and not others. The work could be fully reproduced from the details provided. The writing-clarity rating is 1.3 out of 5.\n\nThe manuscript was submitted in July as revision 3 by 5 authors. It runs 6 pages with 11 figures, 1 table, and 23 references, plus 7 pages of appendix.\n\nQuestion: Will the submission be accepted?", "label": "reject", "probability_positive": 0.001} | |
| {"case_id": "ac47085cf899a9ef57dea209", "text": "Peer Review Memo\n\nThis is a theoretical paper.\n\nThe method builds on existing techniques with modest changes. The problem it addresses matters to a moderate part of the community. The technical argument is sound.\n\nThe strength of supporting evidence is rated 4.8 out of 5. The comparison with prior theoretical results and their assumptions is inadequate.\n\nThe conclusions are sensitive to small changes in the assumptions. The details provided are insufficient to reproduce the work. The writing-clarity rating is 3.1 out of 5.\n\nThe manuscript was submitted in July as revision 3 by 4 authors. It runs 9 pages with 4 figures, 5 tables, and 29 references, plus 0 pages of appendix.\n\nQuestion: Will the submission be accepted?", "label": "reject", "probability_positive": 0.05} | |
| {"case_id": "91c27c0ef5174b70fbb36946", "text": "Peer Review Memo\n\nThis is an empirical paper.\n\nThe method builds on existing techniques with modest changes. The problem it addresses is broadly important across the field. The technical argument is sound.\n\nThe strength of supporting evidence is rated 1.2 out of 5. Comparisons with prior methods are inadequate.\n\nThe findings look fragile under perturbation. The work could be fully reproduced from the details provided. The writing-clarity rating is 3.3 out of 5.\n\nThe manuscript was submitted in September as revision 3 by 4 authors. It runs 12 pages with 5 figures, 3 tables, and 11 references, plus 10 pages of appendix.\n\nQuestion: Will the submission be accepted?", "label": "reject", "probability_positive": 0.005} | |
| {"case_id": "97bc1aafdce8b90a711b2298", "text": "Peer Review Memo\n\nThis is an applied paper.\n\nThe approach departs substantially from prior work. The problem it addresses is of narrow interest. The technical argument is sound.\n\nThe strength of supporting evidence is rated 2.8 out of 5. Comparisons with existing approaches are well controlled.\n\nThe findings hold under some perturbations and not others. The work could be fully reproduced from the details provided. The writing-clarity rating is 1.7 out of 5.\n\nThe manuscript was submitted in September as revision 3 by 4 authors. It runs 13 pages with 11 figures, 5 tables, and 63 references, plus 8 pages of appendix.\n\nQuestion: Will the submission be accepted?", "label": "reject", "probability_positive": 0.05} | |
| {"case_id": "577986f2f317fd783fcb386c", "text": "Peer Review Memo\n\nThis is an empirical paper.\n\nThe method builds on existing techniques with modest changes. The problem it addresses is broadly important across the field. The technical argument contains a serious flaw.\n\nThe strength of supporting evidence is rated 2.2 out of 5. Comparisons with prior methods are well controlled.\n\nThe findings look fragile under perturbation. The details provided are insufficient to reproduce the work. The writing-clarity rating is 3.3 out of 5.\n\nThe manuscript was submitted in May as revision 3 by 3 authors. It runs 13 pages with 9 figures, 3 tables, and 14 references, plus 0 pages of appendix.\n\nQuestion: Will the submission be accepted?", "label": "reject", "probability_positive": 0.0} | |
| {"case_id": "347cfac899ce9858e09d3746", "text": "Peer Review Memo\n\nThis is an applied paper.\n\nThe approach departs substantially from prior work. The problem it addresses is of narrow interest. The technical argument is sound.\n\nThe strength of supporting evidence is rated 2.9 out of 5. Comparisons with existing approaches are well controlled.\n\nThe findings remain stable under perturbation. The details provided are insufficient to reproduce the work. The writing-clarity rating is 2.2 out of 5.\n\nThe manuscript was submitted in September as revision 3 by 5 authors. It runs 15 pages with 2 figures, 6 tables, and 28 references, plus 4 pages of appendix.\n\nQuestion: Will the submission be accepted?", "label": "reject", "probability_positive": 0.05} | |
| {"case_id": "e76a058306de325c930419c1", "text": "Peer Review Memo\n\nThis is a theoretical paper.\n\nThe approach departs substantially from prior work. The problem it addresses matters to a moderate part of the community. The technical argument contains a serious flaw.\n\nThe strength of supporting evidence is rated 2.3 out of 5. The comparison with prior theoretical results and their assumptions is inadequate.\n\nThe conclusions are sensitive to small changes in the assumptions. The work could be partially reproduced from the details provided. The writing-clarity rating is 1.5 out of 5.\n\nThe manuscript was submitted in November as revision 1 by 5 authors. It runs 14 pages with 6 figures, 0 tables, and 47 references, plus 2 pages of appendix.\n\nQuestion: Will the submission be accepted?", "label": "reject", "probability_positive": 0.0} | |
| {"case_id": "1fcb8b4d92442b1fb973e1d5", "text": "Peer Review Memo\n\nThis is an applied paper.\n\nThe method builds on existing techniques with modest changes. The problem it addresses is of narrow interest. The technical argument raises limited concerns that do not undermine the main result.\n\nThe strength of supporting evidence is rated 1.9 out of 5. Comparisons with existing approaches are only partly controlled.\n\nThe findings look fragile under perturbation. The work could be fully reproduced from the details provided. The writing-clarity rating is 3.1 out of 5.\n\nThe manuscript was submitted in January as revision 1 by 1 author. It runs 11 pages with 8 figures, 0 tables, and 74 references, plus 0 pages of appendix.\n\nQuestion: Will the submission be accepted?", "label": "reject", "probability_positive": 0.0} | |
| {"case_id": "240740b61c8fb60d98717252", "text": "Peer Review Memo\n\nThis is a theoretical paper.\n\nThe approach departs substantially from prior work. The problem it addresses is broadly important across the field. The technical argument is sound.\n\nThe strength of supporting evidence is rated 2.9 out of 5. The comparison with prior theoretical results and their assumptions is inadequate.\n\nThe conclusions hold under some changes in the assumptions and not others. The work could be fully reproduced from the details provided. The writing-clarity rating is 1.3 out of 5.\n\nThe manuscript was submitted in June as revision 1 by 3 authors. It runs 18 pages with 6 figures, 2 tables, and 21 references, plus 0 pages of appendix.\n\nQuestion: Will the submission be accepted?", "label": "accept", "probability_positive": 0.86} | |
| {"case_id": "e310fa3630a6791a75cce7db", "text": "Peer Review Memo\n\nThis is a theoretical paper.\n\nThe method builds on existing techniques with modest changes. The problem it addresses is broadly important across the field. The technical argument is sound.\n\nThe strength of supporting evidence is rated 4.1 out of 5. The comparison with prior theoretical results and their assumptions is inadequate.\n\nThe conclusions remain valid under reasonable changes in the assumptions. The details provided are insufficient to reproduce the work. The writing-clarity rating is 4.1 out of 5.\n\nThe manuscript was submitted in July as revision 1 by 5 authors. It runs 4 pages with 4 figures, 4 tables, and 60 references, plus 8 pages of appendix.\n\nQuestion: Will the submission be accepted?", "label": "accept", "probability_positive": 0.98} | |
| {"case_id": "3c74aa6f8b579e4cf311060c", "text": "Peer Review Memo\n\nThis is an applied paper.\n\nThe approach departs substantially from prior work. The problem it addresses is broadly important across the field. The technical argument is sound.\n\nThe strength of supporting evidence is rated 4.9 out of 5. Comparisons with existing approaches are inadequate.\n\nThe findings remain stable under perturbation. The work could be fully reproduced from the details provided. The writing-clarity rating is 2.6 out of 5.\n\nThe manuscript was submitted in October as revision 3 by 2 authors. It runs 8 pages with 7 figures, 0 tables, and 51 references, plus 0 pages of appendix.\n\nQuestion: Will the submission be accepted?", "label": "accept", "probability_positive": 1.0} | |
| {"case_id": "7439ada79e0e067927f2be4d", "text": "Peer Review Memo\n\nThis is an empirical paper.\n\nThe approach departs substantially from prior work. The problem it addresses is of narrow interest. The technical argument contains a serious flaw.\n\nThe strength of supporting evidence is rated 2.3 out of 5. Comparisons with prior methods are inadequate.\n\nThe findings hold under some perturbations and not others. The details provided are insufficient to reproduce the work. The writing-clarity rating is 1.5 out of 5.\n\nThe manuscript was submitted in February as revision 3 by 6 authors. It runs 10 pages with 6 figures, 4 tables, and 33 references, plus 25 pages of appendix.\n\nQuestion: Will the submission be accepted?", "label": "reject", "probability_positive": 0.0} | |
| {"case_id": "b423bf130696c317b1dfc80d", "text": "Peer Review Memo\n\nThis is an applied paper.\n\nThe method builds on existing techniques with modest changes. The problem it addresses is of narrow interest. The technical argument raises limited concerns that do not undermine the main result.\n\nThe strength of supporting evidence is rated 2.8 out of 5. Comparisons with existing approaches are inadequate.\n\nThe findings remain stable under perturbation. The work could be fully reproduced from the details provided. The writing-clarity rating is 2.6 out of 5.\n\nThe manuscript was submitted in July as revision 3 by 2 authors. It runs 11 pages with 9 figures, 4 tables, and 23 references, plus 21 pages of appendix.\n\nQuestion: Will the submission be accepted?", "label": "reject", "probability_positive": 0.005} | |
| {"case_id": "ad0b9c5320c131080cfeb17e", "text": "Peer Review Memo\n\nThis is an empirical paper.\n\nThe approach departs substantially from prior work. The problem it addresses matters to a moderate part of the community. The technical argument is sound.\n\nThe strength of supporting evidence is rated 1.7 out of 5. Comparisons with prior methods are inadequate.\n\nThe findings look fragile under perturbation. The work could be fully reproduced from the details provided. The writing-clarity rating is 4.6 out of 5.\n\nThe manuscript was submitted in January as revision 3 by 1 author. It runs 14 pages with 7 figures, 1 table, and 42 references, plus 19 pages of appendix.\n\nQuestion: Will the submission be accepted?", "label": "reject", "probability_positive": 0.005} | |
| {"case_id": "cd50c0db6690c2bbc8ac43b8", "text": "Peer Review Memo\n\nThis is an applied paper.\n\nThe core idea is a major departure from anything in the literature. The problem it addresses is of narrow interest. The technical argument is sound.\n\nThe strength of supporting evidence is rated 4.5 out of 5. Comparisons with existing approaches are inadequate.\n\nThe findings look fragile under perturbation. The details provided are insufficient to reproduce the work. The writing-clarity rating is 4.0 out of 5.\n\nThe manuscript was submitted in February as revision 1 by 3 authors. It runs 8 pages with 7 figures, 3 tables, and 54 references, plus 13 pages of appendix.\n\nQuestion: Will the submission be accepted?", "label": "reject", "probability_positive": 0.14} | |
| {"case_id": "f5360637f470f2eb28bdbb9c", "text": "Peer Review Memo\n\nThis is an applied paper.\n\nThe approach departs substantially from prior work. The problem it addresses is broadly important across the field. The technical argument raises limited concerns that do not undermine the main result.\n\nThe strength of supporting evidence is rated 1.6 out of 5. Comparisons with existing approaches are inadequate.\n\nThe findings remain stable under perturbation. The details provided are insufficient to reproduce the work. The writing-clarity rating is 4.2 out of 5.\n\nThe manuscript was submitted in May as revision 1 by 6 authors. It runs 7 pages with 6 figures, 0 tables, and 60 references, plus 0 pages of appendix.\n\nQuestion: Will the submission be accepted?", "label": "reject", "probability_positive": 0.02} | |
| {"case_id": "659aa3141bce5c2569cd8776", "text": "Peer Review Memo\n\nThis is an empirical paper.\n\nThe method builds on existing techniques with modest changes. The problem it addresses is broadly important across the field. The technical argument is sound.\n\nThe strength of supporting evidence is rated 2.4 out of 5. Comparisons with prior methods are well controlled.\n\nThe findings look fragile under perturbation. The work could be partially reproduced from the details provided. The writing-clarity rating is 2.1 out of 5.\n\nThe manuscript was submitted in April as revision 1 by 1 author. It runs 8 pages with 8 figures, 2 tables, and 47 references, plus 22 pages of appendix.\n\nQuestion: Will the submission be accepted?", "label": "reject", "probability_positive": 0.02} | |
| {"case_id": "511661fd869aea30a723a04f", "text": "Peer Review Memo\n\nThis is an applied paper.\n\nThe core idea is a major departure from anything in the literature. The problem it addresses is of narrow interest. The technical argument is sound.\n\nThe strength of supporting evidence is rated 1.2 out of 5. Comparisons with existing approaches are well controlled.\n\nThe findings look fragile under perturbation. The details provided are insufficient to reproduce the work. The writing-clarity rating is 1.4 out of 5.\n\nThe manuscript was submitted in November as revision 3 by 7 authors. It runs 8 pages with 0 figures, 0 tables, and 20 references, plus 11 pages of appendix.\n\nQuestion: Will the submission be accepted?", "label": "reject", "probability_positive": 0.0} | |
| {"case_id": "8582d0a269f0430222606fed", "text": "Peer Review Memo\n\nThis is an empirical paper.\n\nThe method builds on existing techniques with modest changes. The problem it addresses matters to a moderate part of the community. The technical argument raises limited concerns that do not undermine the main result.\n\nThe strength of supporting evidence is rated 4.1 out of 5. Comparisons with prior methods are only partly controlled.\n\nThe findings hold under some perturbations and not others. The work could be partially reproduced from the details provided. The writing-clarity rating is 2.6 out of 5.\n\nThe manuscript was submitted in April as revision 3 by 10 authors. It runs 10 pages with 7 figures, 8 tables, and 33 references, plus 28 pages of appendix.\n\nQuestion: Will the submission be accepted?", "label": "accept", "probability_positive": 0.86} | |
| {"case_id": "44893f9e8e13a80fa34d454b", "text": "Peer Review Memo\n\nThis is an empirical paper.\n\nThe approach departs substantially from prior work. The problem it addresses is of narrow interest. The technical argument raises limited concerns that do not undermine the main result.\n\nThe strength of supporting evidence is rated 2.1 out of 5. Comparisons with prior methods are inadequate.\n\nThe findings look fragile under perturbation. The work could be partially reproduced from the details provided. The writing-clarity rating is 4.0 out of 5.\n\nThe manuscript was submitted in November as revision 3 by 3 authors. It runs 5 pages with 2 figures, 2 tables, and 81 references, plus 10 pages of appendix.\n\nQuestion: Will the submission be accepted?", "label": "reject", "probability_positive": 0.0} | |
| {"case_id": "0de563d0e463b2afb1831bc5", "text": "Peer Review Memo\n\nThis is an applied paper.\n\nThe core idea is a major departure from anything in the literature. The problem it addresses is of narrow interest. The technical argument is sound.\n\nThe strength of supporting evidence is rated 3.3 out of 5. Comparisons with existing approaches are inadequate.\n\nThe findings hold under some perturbations and not others. The details provided are insufficient to reproduce the work. The writing-clarity rating is 4.1 out of 5.\n\nThe manuscript was submitted in August as revision 1 by 2 authors. It runs 14 pages with 7 figures, 2 tables, and 20 references, plus 5 pages of appendix.\n\nQuestion: Will the submission be accepted?", "label": "reject", "probability_positive": 0.05} | |
| {"case_id": "b583b77be18afc4380245d89", "text": "Peer Review Memo\n\nThis is an applied paper.\n\nThe method builds on existing techniques with modest changes. The problem it addresses is broadly important across the field. The technical argument is sound.\n\nThe strength of supporting evidence is rated 3.8 out of 5. Comparisons with existing approaches are inadequate.\n\nThe findings look fragile under perturbation. The work could be fully reproduced from the details provided. The writing-clarity rating is 1.5 out of 5.\n\nThe manuscript was submitted in September as revision 1 by 4 authors. It runs 12 pages with 15 figures, 3 tables, and 68 references, plus 14 pages of appendix.\n\nQuestion: Will the submission be accepted?", "label": "accept", "probability_positive": 0.95} | |
| {"case_id": "8e88cda17bc7b91f7765ddcd", "text": "Peer Review Memo\n\nThis is an empirical paper.\n\nThe core idea is a major departure from anything in the literature. The problem it addresses is broadly important across the field. The technical argument raises limited concerns that do not undermine the main result.\n\nThe strength of supporting evidence is rated 3.6 out of 5. Comparisons with prior methods are well controlled.\n\nThe findings remain stable under perturbation. The details provided are insufficient to reproduce the work. The writing-clarity rating is 1.4 out of 5.\n\nThe manuscript was submitted in November as revision 1 by 14 authors. It runs 13 pages with 1 figure, 0 tables, and 69 references, plus 3 pages of appendix.\n\nQuestion: Will the submission be accepted?", "label": "accept", "probability_positive": 0.999} | |
| {"case_id": "ed6c86ab0340721193d8f7eb", "text": "Peer Review Memo\n\nThis is an empirical paper.\n\nThe core idea is a major departure from anything in the literature. The problem it addresses matters to a moderate part of the community. The technical argument raises limited concerns that do not undermine the main result.\n\nThe strength of supporting evidence is rated 3.1 out of 5. Comparisons with prior methods are inadequate.\n\nThe findings look fragile under perturbation. The details provided are insufficient to reproduce the work. The writing-clarity rating is 4.8 out of 5.\n\nThe manuscript was submitted in June as revision 3 by 2 authors. It runs 22 pages with 1 figure, 3 tables, and 25 references, plus 13 pages of appendix.\n\nQuestion: Will the submission be accepted?", "label": "reject", "probability_positive": 0.005} | |
| {"case_id": "4a6e7401bef7f09855b39700", "text": "Peer Review Memo\n\nThis is a theoretical paper.\n\nThe approach departs substantially from prior work. The problem it addresses is broadly important across the field. The technical argument contains a serious flaw.\n\nThe strength of supporting evidence is rated 1.5 out of 5. The comparison with prior theoretical results and their assumptions is inadequate.\n\nThe conclusions hold under some changes in the assumptions and not others. The work could be fully reproduced from the details provided. The writing-clarity rating is 1.2 out of 5.\n\nThe manuscript was submitted in November as revision 3 by 6 authors. It runs 7 pages with 9 figures, 2 tables, and 61 references, plus 0 pages of appendix.\n\nQuestion: Will the submission be accepted?", "label": "reject", "probability_positive": 0.0} | |
| {"case_id": "08aeeb46deab214b941d5f35", "text": "Peer Review Memo\n\nThis is a theoretical paper.\n\nThe approach departs substantially from prior work. The problem it addresses is of narrow interest. The technical argument is sound.\n\nThe strength of supporting evidence is rated 4.1 out of 5. The comparison with prior theoretical results and their assumptions is inadequate.\n\nThe conclusions are sensitive to small changes in the assumptions. The details provided are insufficient to reproduce the work. The writing-clarity rating is 1.5 out of 5.\n\nThe manuscript was submitted in October as revision 1 by 8 authors. It runs 5 pages with 6 figures, 6 tables, and 21 references, plus 4 pages of appendix.\n\nQuestion: Will the submission be accepted?", "label": "reject", "probability_positive": 0.02} | |
| {"case_id": "6b7c95973eb80780a3b2cfb8", "text": "Peer Review Memo\n\nThis is an empirical paper.\n\nThe method builds on existing techniques with modest changes. The problem it addresses is broadly important across the field. The technical argument raises limited concerns that do not undermine the main result.\n\nThe strength of supporting evidence is rated 2.9 out of 5. Comparisons with prior methods are well controlled.\n\nThe findings remain stable under perturbation. The work could be fully reproduced from the details provided. The writing-clarity rating is 4.0 out of 5.\n\nThe manuscript was submitted in May as revision 1 by 4 authors. It runs 9 pages with 7 figures, 4 tables, and 34 references, plus 46 pages of appendix.\n\nQuestion: Will the submission be accepted?", "label": "accept", "probability_positive": 0.98} | |
| {"case_id": "06c1967661734f8bc8f68ea5", "text": "Peer Review Memo\n\nThis is an empirical paper.\n\nThe method builds on existing techniques with modest changes. The problem it addresses is broadly important across the field. The technical argument raises limited concerns that do not undermine the main result.\n\nThe strength of supporting evidence is rated 2.9 out of 5. Comparisons with prior methods are well controlled.\n\nThe findings remain stable under perturbation. The work could be partially reproduced from the details provided. The writing-clarity rating is 4.7 out of 5.\n\nThe manuscript was submitted in March as revision 3 by 7 authors. It runs 19 pages with 6 figures, 0 tables, and 38 references, plus 7 pages of appendix.\n\nQuestion: Will the submission be accepted?", "label": "accept", "probability_positive": 0.95} | |
| {"case_id": "4459aa02f62b86696fd592c1", "text": "Peer Review Memo\n\nThis is a theoretical paper.\n\nThe approach departs substantially from prior work. The problem it addresses is broadly important across the field. The technical argument is sound.\n\nThe strength of supporting evidence is rated 4.3 out of 5. The comparison with prior theoretical results and their assumptions is only partly developed.\n\nThe conclusions remain valid under reasonable changes in the assumptions. The details provided are insufficient to reproduce the work. The writing-clarity rating is 2.2 out of 5.\n\nThe manuscript was submitted in December as revision 1 by 4 authors. It runs 14 pages with 6 figures, 2 tables, and 51 references, plus 36 pages of appendix.\n\nQuestion: Will the submission be accepted?", "label": "accept", "probability_positive": 0.98} | |
| {"case_id": "7388747f9c41da7a3665dcb9", "text": "Peer Review Memo\n\nThis is a theoretical paper.\n\nThe core idea is a major departure from anything in the literature. The problem it addresses is broadly important across the field. The technical argument is sound.\n\nThe strength of supporting evidence is rated 1.7 out of 5. The comparison with prior theoretical results and their assumptions is inadequate.\n\nThe conclusions are sensitive to small changes in the assumptions. The work could be fully reproduced from the details provided. The writing-clarity rating is 1.9 out of 5.\n\nThe manuscript was submitted in January as revision 1 by 5 authors. It runs 9 pages with 7 figures, 4 tables, and 40 references, plus 5 pages of appendix.\n\nQuestion: Will the submission be accepted?", "label": "accept", "probability_positive": 0.14} | |
| {"case_id": "85d12f75e0fc8b50069763c2", "text": "Peer Review Memo\n\nThis is an applied paper.\n\nThe method builds on existing techniques with modest changes. The problem it addresses is broadly important across the field. The technical argument is sound.\n\nThe strength of supporting evidence is rated 3.3 out of 5. Comparisons with existing approaches are only partly controlled.\n\nThe findings look fragile under perturbation. The work could be partially reproduced from the details provided. The writing-clarity rating is 3.4 out of 5.\n\nThe manuscript was submitted in February as revision 3 by 2 authors. It runs 6 pages with 3 figures, 2 tables, and 33 references, plus 9 pages of appendix.\n\nQuestion: Will the submission be accepted?", "label": "reject", "probability_positive": 0.14} | |
| {"case_id": "c3d20b9abb9ea8e16630c787", "text": "Peer Review Memo\n\nThis is a theoretical paper.\n\nThe core idea is a major departure from anything in the literature. The problem it addresses matters to a moderate part of the community. The technical argument is sound.\n\nThe strength of supporting evidence is rated 2.6 out of 5. The comparison with prior theoretical results and their assumptions is inadequate.\n\nThe conclusions are sensitive to small changes in the assumptions. The details provided are insufficient to reproduce the work. The writing-clarity rating is 2.7 out of 5.\n\nThe manuscript was submitted in September as revision 1 by 4 authors. It runs 6 pages with 13 figures, 1 table, and 29 references, plus 31 pages of appendix.\n\nQuestion: Will the submission be accepted?", "label": "accept", "probability_positive": 0.86} | |
| {"case_id": "03db7e916a3a4cd497e3699e", "text": "Peer Review Memo\n\nThis is an applied paper.\n\nThe method builds on existing techniques with modest changes. The problem it addresses is of narrow interest. The technical argument raises limited concerns that do not undermine the main result.\n\nThe strength of supporting evidence is rated 1.0 out of 5. Comparisons with existing approaches are inadequate.\n\nThe findings remain stable under perturbation. The work could be partially reproduced from the details provided. The writing-clarity rating is 1.2 out of 5.\n\nThe manuscript was submitted in May as revision 3 by 7 authors. It runs 8 pages with 8 figures, 6 tables, and 47 references, plus 28 pages of appendix.\n\nQuestion: Will the submission be accepted?", "label": "reject", "probability_positive": 0.0} | |
| {"case_id": "4927b8dcaca9121f5274fc23", "text": "Peer Review Memo\n\nThis is a theoretical paper.\n\nThe core idea is a major departure from anything in the literature. The problem it addresses is of narrow interest. The technical argument is sound.\n\nThe strength of supporting evidence is rated 2.4 out of 5. The comparison with prior theoretical results and their assumptions is inadequate.\n\nThe conclusions hold under some changes in the assumptions and not others. The work could be fully reproduced from the details provided. The writing-clarity rating is 2.5 out of 5.\n\nThe manuscript was submitted in May as revision 1 by 2 authors. It runs 12 pages with 10 figures, 3 tables, and 50 references, plus 21 pages of appendix.\n\nQuestion: Will the submission be accepted?", "label": "reject", "probability_positive": 0.14} | |
| {"case_id": "3d279bbf684598eca1768ff9", "text": "Peer Review Memo\n\nThis is an empirical paper.\n\nThe core idea is a major departure from anything in the literature. The problem it addresses is broadly important across the field. The technical argument contains a serious flaw.\n\nThe strength of supporting evidence is rated 1.3 out of 5. Comparisons with prior methods are inadequate.\n\nThe findings look fragile under perturbation. The details provided are insufficient to reproduce the work. The writing-clarity rating is 1.6 out of 5.\n\nThe manuscript was submitted in February as revision 3 by 4 authors. It runs 17 pages with 1 figure, 2 tables, and 59 references, plus 8 pages of appendix.\n\nQuestion: Will the submission be accepted?", "label": "reject", "probability_positive": 0.0} | |
| {"case_id": "dc6b863bb225e6891eca3fa8", "text": "Peer Review Memo\n\nThis is a theoretical paper.\n\nThe method builds on existing techniques with modest changes. The problem it addresses is broadly important across the field. The technical argument contains a serious flaw.\n\nThe strength of supporting evidence is rated 1.4 out of 5. The comparison with prior theoretical results and their assumptions is thorough.\n\nThe conclusions are sensitive to small changes in the assumptions. The details provided are insufficient to reproduce the work. The writing-clarity rating is 3.9 out of 5.\n\nThe manuscript was submitted in October as revision 3 by 3 authors. It runs 9 pages with 2 figures, 1 table, and 37 references, plus 5 pages of appendix.\n\nQuestion: Will the submission be accepted?", "label": "reject", "probability_positive": 0.0} | |
| {"case_id": "6fdbdaf800aed5a3aeaf518f", "text": "Peer Review Memo\n\nThis is an empirical paper.\n\nThe method builds on existing techniques with modest changes. The problem it addresses matters to a moderate part of the community. The technical argument contains a serious flaw.\n\nThe strength of supporting evidence is rated 1.0 out of 5. Comparisons with prior methods are only partly controlled.\n\nThe findings look fragile under perturbation. The details provided are insufficient to reproduce the work. The writing-clarity rating is 2.8 out of 5.\n\nThe manuscript was submitted in July as revision 3 by 3 authors. It runs 19 pages with 1 figure, 3 tables, and 60 references, plus 26 pages of appendix.\n\nQuestion: Will the submission be accepted?", "label": "reject", "probability_positive": 0.0} | |
| {"case_id": "c4086ea951199d44a2087577", "text": "Peer Review Memo\n\nThis is an empirical paper.\n\nThe method builds on existing techniques with modest changes. The problem it addresses matters to a moderate part of the community. The technical argument is sound.\n\nThe strength of supporting evidence is rated 1.2 out of 5. Comparisons with prior methods are well controlled.\n\nThe findings remain stable under perturbation. The details provided are insufficient to reproduce the work. The writing-clarity rating is 2.2 out of 5.\n\nThe manuscript was submitted in January as revision 1 by 3 authors. It runs 9 pages with 2 figures, 2 tables, and 12 references, plus 12 pages of appendix.\n\nQuestion: Will the submission be accepted?", "label": "reject", "probability_positive": 0.02} | |
| {"case_id": "f7a1b408a54cacf0279a8235", "text": "Peer Review Memo\n\nThis is a theoretical paper.\n\nThe approach departs substantially from prior work. The problem it addresses is of narrow interest. The technical argument is sound.\n\nThe strength of supporting evidence is rated 3.9 out of 5. The comparison with prior theoretical results and their assumptions is inadequate.\n\nThe conclusions are sensitive to small changes in the assumptions. The work could be partially reproduced from the details provided. The writing-clarity rating is 2.1 out of 5.\n\nThe manuscript was submitted in October as revision 3 by 4 authors. It runs 17 pages with 4 figures, 7 tables, and 26 references, plus 10 pages of appendix.\n\nQuestion: Will the submission be accepted?", "label": "reject", "probability_positive": 0.05} | |
| {"case_id": "7b3a35325efe6e95f6d65369", "text": "Peer Review Memo\n\nThis is a theoretical paper.\n\nThe core idea is a major departure from anything in the literature. The problem it addresses matters to a moderate part of the community. The technical argument is sound.\n\nThe strength of supporting evidence is rated 2.9 out of 5. The comparison with prior theoretical results and their assumptions is inadequate.\n\nThe conclusions remain valid under reasonable changes in the assumptions. The work could be fully reproduced from the details provided. The writing-clarity rating is 3.6 out of 5.\n\nThe manuscript was submitted in October as revision 3 by 6 authors. It runs 8 pages with 4 figures, 1 table, and 60 references, plus 7 pages of appendix.\n\nQuestion: Will the submission be accepted?", "label": "accept", "probability_positive": 0.999} | |
| {"case_id": "d27ed64e7f89e189ab36acbe", "text": "Peer Review Memo\n\nThis is a theoretical paper.\n\nThe core idea is a major departure from anything in the literature. The problem it addresses is of narrow interest. The technical argument raises limited concerns that do not undermine the main result.\n\nThe strength of supporting evidence is rated 2.5 out of 5. The comparison with prior theoretical results and their assumptions is inadequate.\n\nThe conclusions remain valid under reasonable changes in the assumptions. The work could be partially reproduced from the details provided. The writing-clarity rating is 4.0 out of 5.\n\nThe manuscript was submitted in March as revision 3 by 2 authors. It runs 7 pages with 4 figures, 0 tables, and 54 references, plus 0 pages of appendix.\n\nQuestion: Will the submission be accepted?", "label": "accept", "probability_positive": 0.86} | |
| {"case_id": "a7241823ccebf195d7d7c4ba", "text": "Peer Review Memo\n\nThis is an empirical paper.\n\nThe method builds on existing techniques with modest changes. The problem it addresses is of narrow interest. The technical argument is sound.\n\nThe strength of supporting evidence is rated 3.7 out of 5. Comparisons with prior methods are well controlled.\n\nThe findings remain stable under perturbation. The details provided are insufficient to reproduce the work. The writing-clarity rating is 2.5 out of 5.\n\nThe manuscript was submitted in July as revision 1 by 9 authors. It runs 18 pages with 7 figures, 5 tables, and 30 references, plus 31 pages of appendix.\n\nQuestion: Will the submission be accepted?", "label": "accept", "probability_positive": 0.995} | |
| {"case_id": "863ee07df1f316a311441d7a", "text": "Peer Review Memo\n\nThis is a theoretical paper.\n\nThe approach departs substantially from prior work. The problem it addresses is of narrow interest. The technical argument raises limited concerns that do not undermine the main result.\n\nThe strength of supporting evidence is rated 3.0 out of 5. The comparison with prior theoretical results and their assumptions is thorough.\n\nThe conclusions hold under some changes in the assumptions and not others. The work could be partially reproduced from the details provided. The writing-clarity rating is 2.4 out of 5.\n\nThe manuscript was submitted in March as revision 1 by 3 authors. It runs 10 pages with 3 figures, 6 tables, and 35 references, plus 25 pages of appendix.\n\nQuestion: Will the submission be accepted?", "label": "reject", "probability_positive": 0.005} | |
| {"case_id": "5bc929a8cea51764734fc28d", "text": "Peer Review Memo\n\nThis is an empirical paper.\n\nThe method builds on existing techniques with modest changes. The problem it addresses is of narrow interest. The technical argument contains a serious flaw.\n\nThe strength of supporting evidence is rated 1.1 out of 5. Comparisons with prior methods are inadequate.\n\nThe findings look fragile under perturbation. The work could be partially reproduced from the details provided. The writing-clarity rating is 4.9 out of 5.\n\nThe manuscript was submitted in May as revision 1 by 2 authors. It runs 5 pages with 3 figures, 5 tables, and 31 references, plus 4 pages of appendix.\n\nQuestion: Will the submission be accepted?", "label": "reject", "probability_positive": 0.0} | |
| {"case_id": "91c1669349bdd9b6e33633d8", "text": "Peer Review Memo\n\nThis is an applied paper.\n\nThe method builds on existing techniques with modest changes. The problem it addresses matters to a moderate part of the community. The technical argument contains a serious flaw.\n\nThe strength of supporting evidence is rated 2.8 out of 5. Comparisons with existing approaches are inadequate.\n\nThe findings look fragile under perturbation. The details provided are insufficient to reproduce the work. The writing-clarity rating is 1.9 out of 5.\n\nThe manuscript was submitted in November as revision 3 by 3 authors. It runs 17 pages with 6 figures, 2 tables, and 36 references, plus 0 pages of appendix.\n\nQuestion: Will the submission be accepted?", "label": "reject", "probability_positive": 0.0} | |
| {"case_id": "76dd689f85680c631fb85179", "text": "Peer Review Memo\n\nThis is an empirical paper.\n\nThe method builds on existing techniques with modest changes. The problem it addresses matters to a moderate part of the community. The technical argument contains a serious flaw.\n\nThe strength of supporting evidence is rated 1.6 out of 5. Comparisons with prior methods are well controlled.\n\nThe findings hold under some perturbations and not others. The details provided are insufficient to reproduce the work. The writing-clarity rating is 3.9 out of 5.\n\nThe manuscript was submitted in July as revision 1 by 2 authors. It runs 7 pages with 4 figures, 1 table, and 51 references, plus 30 pages of appendix.\n\nQuestion: Will the submission be accepted?", "label": "reject", "probability_positive": 0.0} | |
| {"case_id": "893ca44b8773a80d05100060", "text": "Peer Review Memo\n\nThis is an applied paper.\n\nThe approach departs substantially from prior work. The problem it addresses is of narrow interest. The technical argument raises limited concerns that do not undermine the main result.\n\nThe strength of supporting evidence is rated 1.5 out of 5. Comparisons with existing approaches are only partly controlled.\n\nThe findings look fragile under perturbation. The details provided are insufficient to reproduce the work. The writing-clarity rating is 2.3 out of 5.\n\nThe manuscript was submitted in June as revision 3 by 6 authors. It runs 7 pages with 12 figures, 3 tables, and 35 references, plus 2 pages of appendix.\n\nQuestion: Will the submission be accepted?", "label": "reject", "probability_positive": 0.0} | |
| {"case_id": "bd6c7860f963b1c13205f3e4", "text": "Peer Review Memo\n\nThis is an empirical paper.\n\nThe method builds on existing techniques with modest changes. The problem it addresses matters to a moderate part of the community. The technical argument raises limited concerns that do not undermine the main result.\n\nThe strength of supporting evidence is rated 4.3 out of 5. Comparisons with prior methods are well controlled.\n\nThe findings look fragile under perturbation. The work could be fully reproduced from the details provided. The writing-clarity rating is 3.3 out of 5.\n\nThe manuscript was submitted in March as revision 1 by 1 author. It runs 7 pages with 3 figures, 5 tables, and 34 references, plus 5 pages of appendix.\n\nQuestion: Will the submission be accepted?", "label": "accept", "probability_positive": 0.95} | |
| {"case_id": "aad083d8a2131859e589a959", "text": "Peer Review Memo\n\nThis is a theoretical paper.\n\nThe core idea is a major departure from anything in the literature. The problem it addresses is broadly important across the field. The technical argument is sound.\n\nThe strength of supporting evidence is rated 2.7 out of 5. The comparison with prior theoretical results and their assumptions is inadequate.\n\nThe conclusions are sensitive to small changes in the assumptions. The work could be partially reproduced from the details provided. The writing-clarity rating is 2.6 out of 5.\n\nThe manuscript was submitted in May as revision 3 by 7 authors. It runs 13 pages with 2 figures, 4 tables, and 29 references, plus 6 pages of appendix.\n\nQuestion: Will the submission be accepted?", "label": "accept", "probability_positive": 0.98} | |
| {"case_id": "ba64dae069a7091fc777af32", "text": "Peer Review Memo\n\nThis is a theoretical paper.\n\nThe method builds on existing techniques with modest changes. The problem it addresses is broadly important across the field. The technical argument is sound.\n\nThe strength of supporting evidence is rated 3.3 out of 5. The comparison with prior theoretical results and their assumptions is thorough.\n\nThe conclusions hold under some changes in the assumptions and not others. The work could be partially reproduced from the details provided. The writing-clarity rating is 1.6 out of 5.\n\nThe manuscript was submitted in August as revision 1 by 5 authors. It runs 8 pages with 8 figures, 1 table, and 63 references, plus 14 pages of appendix.\n\nQuestion: Will the submission be accepted?", "label": "reject", "probability_positive": 0.14} | |
| {"case_id": "2ab3010c5443a952665e6c45", "text": "Peer Review Memo\n\nThis is an empirical paper.\n\nThe core idea is a major departure from anything in the literature. The problem it addresses matters to a moderate part of the community. The technical argument is sound.\n\nThe strength of supporting evidence is rated 4.1 out of 5. Comparisons with prior methods are well controlled.\n\nThe findings look fragile under perturbation. The work could be fully reproduced from the details provided. The writing-clarity rating is 1.2 out of 5.\n\nThe manuscript was submitted in May as revision 1 by 2 authors. It runs 11 pages with 4 figures, 0 tables, and 57 references, plus 16 pages of appendix.\n\nQuestion: Will the submission be accepted?", "label": "accept", "probability_positive": 0.999} | |
| {"case_id": "ea47530f8ea2512e755de71c", "text": "Peer Review Memo\n\nThis is an applied paper.\n\nThe core idea is a major departure from anything in the literature. The problem it addresses is broadly important across the field. The technical argument is sound.\n\nThe strength of supporting evidence is rated 3.2 out of 5. Comparisons with existing approaches are inadequate.\n\nThe findings look fragile under perturbation. The details provided are insufficient to reproduce the work. The writing-clarity rating is 4.7 out of 5.\n\nThe manuscript was submitted in January as revision 1 by 2 authors. It runs 11 pages with 4 figures, 1 table, and 27 references, plus 6 pages of appendix.\n\nQuestion: Will the submission be accepted?", "label": "accept", "probability_positive": 0.86} | |
| {"case_id": "9ae1d8d9d318601854036754", "text": "Peer Review Memo\n\nThis is a theoretical paper.\n\nThe method builds on existing techniques with modest changes. The problem it addresses is broadly important across the field. The technical argument is sound.\n\nThe strength of supporting evidence is rated 4.4 out of 5. The comparison with prior theoretical results and their assumptions is only partly developed.\n\nThe conclusions are sensitive to small changes in the assumptions. The details provided are insufficient to reproduce the work. The writing-clarity rating is 1.1 out of 5.\n\nThe manuscript was submitted in December as revision 3 by 5 authors. It runs 13 pages with 4 figures, 5 tables, and 38 references, plus 8 pages of appendix.\n\nQuestion: Will the submission be accepted?", "label": "reject", "probability_positive": 0.14} | |
| {"case_id": "c398ffd558f0a6f79f80d430", "text": "Peer Review Memo\n\nThis is an applied paper.\n\nThe method builds on existing techniques with modest changes. The problem it addresses is broadly important across the field. The technical argument is sound.\n\nThe strength of supporting evidence is rated 4.0 out of 5. Comparisons with existing approaches are only partly controlled.\n\nThe findings look fragile under perturbation. The details provided are insufficient to reproduce the work. The writing-clarity rating is 4.7 out of 5.\n\nThe manuscript was submitted in September as revision 3 by 7 authors. It runs 14 pages with 2 figures, 2 tables, and 47 references, plus 18 pages of appendix.\n\nQuestion: Will the submission be accepted?", "label": "accept", "probability_positive": 0.98} | |
| {"case_id": "c047ff0ec23ffe853fa27148", "text": "Peer Review Memo\n\nThis is an empirical paper.\n\nThe method builds on existing techniques with modest changes. The problem it addresses is of narrow interest. The technical argument raises limited concerns that do not undermine the main result.\n\nThe strength of supporting evidence is rated 4.4 out of 5. Comparisons with prior methods are inadequate.\n\nThe findings hold under some perturbations and not others. The details provided are insufficient to reproduce the work. The writing-clarity rating is 3.9 out of 5.\n\nThe manuscript was submitted in February as revision 1 by 5 authors. It runs 14 pages with 8 figures, 1 table, and 37 references, plus 13 pages of appendix.\n\nQuestion: Will the submission be accepted?", "label": "reject", "probability_positive": 0.02} | |
| {"case_id": "9be72db6ea882aefbbea1477", "text": "Peer Review Memo\n\nThis is an empirical paper.\n\nThe core idea is a major departure from anything in the literature. The problem it addresses is of narrow interest. The technical argument is sound.\n\nThe strength of supporting evidence is rated 3.3 out of 5. Comparisons with prior methods are well controlled.\n\nThe findings look fragile under perturbation. The work could be partially reproduced from the details provided. The writing-clarity rating is 1.4 out of 5.\n\nThe manuscript was submitted in October as revision 3 by 5 authors. It runs 9 pages with 13 figures, 0 tables, and 34 references, plus 0 pages of appendix.\n\nQuestion: Will the submission be accepted?", "label": "reject", "probability_positive": 0.14} | |
| {"case_id": "fa1cacebaedf0683deeb6f04", "text": "Peer Review Memo\n\nThis is a theoretical paper.\n\nThe core idea is a major departure from anything in the literature. The problem it addresses is of narrow interest. The technical argument is sound.\n\nThe strength of supporting evidence is rated 4.0 out of 5. The comparison with prior theoretical results and their assumptions is inadequate.\n\nThe conclusions hold under some changes in the assumptions and not others. The details provided are insufficient to reproduce the work. The writing-clarity rating is 3.9 out of 5.\n\nThe manuscript was submitted in October as revision 1 by 3 authors. It runs 11 pages with 3 figures, 4 tables, and 33 references, plus 0 pages of appendix.\n\nQuestion: Will the submission be accepted?", "label": "accept", "probability_positive": 0.98} | |
| {"case_id": "a0e99f5292e7fa12e7fa0dce", "text": "Peer Review Memo\n\nThis is an applied paper.\n\nThe approach departs substantially from prior work. The problem it addresses matters to a moderate part of the community. The technical argument raises limited concerns that do not undermine the main result.\n\nThe strength of supporting evidence is rated 2.8 out of 5. Comparisons with existing approaches are inadequate.\n\nThe findings look fragile under perturbation. The details provided are insufficient to reproduce the work. The writing-clarity rating is 3.6 out of 5.\n\nThe manuscript was submitted in February as revision 1 by 2 authors. It runs 11 pages with 15 figures, 2 tables, and 52 references, plus 4 pages of appendix.\n\nQuestion: Will the submission be accepted?", "label": "reject", "probability_positive": 0.005} | |
| {"case_id": "78b31125544db46e9b86cb64", "text": "Peer Review Memo\n\nThis is an empirical paper.\n\nThe method builds on existing techniques with modest changes. The problem it addresses is of narrow interest. The technical argument contains a serious flaw.\n\nThe strength of supporting evidence is rated 2.4 out of 5. Comparisons with prior methods are inadequate.\n\nThe findings look fragile under perturbation. The work could be partially reproduced from the details provided. The writing-clarity rating is 1.2 out of 5.\n\nThe manuscript was submitted in January as revision 1 by 6 authors. It runs 17 pages with 9 figures, 3 tables, and 7 references, plus 4 pages of appendix.\n\nQuestion: Will the submission be accepted?", "label": "reject", "probability_positive": 0.0} | |
| {"case_id": "c07707909c37a6cc8bb59a37", "text": "Peer Review Memo\n\nThis is an applied paper.\n\nThe core idea is a major departure from anything in the literature. The problem it addresses is of narrow interest. The technical argument is sound.\n\nThe strength of supporting evidence is rated 4.7 out of 5. Comparisons with existing approaches are inadequate.\n\nThe findings look fragile under perturbation. The work could be partially reproduced from the details provided. The writing-clarity rating is 1.1 out of 5.\n\nThe manuscript was submitted in April as revision 3 by 3 authors. It runs 14 pages with 1 figure, 2 tables, and 33 references, plus 0 pages of appendix.\n\nQuestion: Will the submission be accepted?", "label": "reject", "probability_positive": 0.05} | |
| {"case_id": "5a845e46305d1234fa6749ba", "text": "Peer Review Memo\n\nThis is a theoretical paper.\n\nThe core idea is a major departure from anything in the literature. The problem it addresses matters to a moderate part of the community. The technical argument raises limited concerns that do not undermine the main result.\n\nThe strength of supporting evidence is rated 3.0 out of 5. The comparison with prior theoretical results and their assumptions is thorough.\n\nThe conclusions are sensitive to small changes in the assumptions. The work could be partially reproduced from the details provided. The writing-clarity rating is 4.6 out of 5.\n\nThe manuscript was submitted in October as revision 3 by 2 authors. It runs 11 pages with 4 figures, 6 tables, and 35 references, plus 11 pages of appendix.\n\nQuestion: Will the submission be accepted?", "label": "accept", "probability_positive": 0.95} | |
| {"case_id": "791717b950f4eeda4a2fab99", "text": "Peer Review Memo\n\nThis is an empirical paper.\n\nThe core idea is a major departure from anything in the literature. The problem it addresses is broadly important across the field. The technical argument is sound.\n\nThe strength of supporting evidence is rated 4.8 out of 5. Comparisons with prior methods are inadequate.\n\nThe findings look fragile under perturbation. The details provided are insufficient to reproduce the work. The writing-clarity rating is 3.4 out of 5.\n\nThe manuscript was submitted in November as revision 1 by 3 authors. It runs 8 pages with 3 figures, 2 tables, and 49 references, plus 0 pages of appendix.\n\nQuestion: Will the submission be accepted?", "label": "accept", "probability_positive": 0.95} | |
| {"case_id": "16885c66bc45c689b7fdd464", "text": "Peer Review Memo\n\nThis is a theoretical paper.\n\nThe method builds on existing techniques with modest changes. The problem it addresses matters to a moderate part of the community. The technical argument is sound.\n\nThe strength of supporting evidence is rated 4.8 out of 5. The comparison with prior theoretical results and their assumptions is inadequate.\n\nThe conclusions remain valid under reasonable changes in the assumptions. The work could be partially reproduced from the details provided. The writing-clarity rating is 2.5 out of 5.\n\nThe manuscript was submitted in September as revision 1 by 1 author. It runs 17 pages with 0 figures, 6 tables, and 29 references, plus 18 pages of appendix.\n\nQuestion: Will the submission be accepted?", "label": "accept", "probability_positive": 0.95} | |
| {"case_id": "d001bb1c6b6c1ed26eccfbd7", "text": "Peer Review Memo\n\nThis is an empirical paper.\n\nThe method builds on existing techniques with modest changes. The problem it addresses matters to a moderate part of the community. The technical argument raises limited concerns that do not undermine the main result.\n\nThe strength of supporting evidence is rated 2.2 out of 5. Comparisons with prior methods are inadequate.\n\nThe findings remain stable under perturbation. The details provided are insufficient to reproduce the work. The writing-clarity rating is 4.9 out of 5.\n\nThe manuscript was submitted in May as revision 3 by 3 authors. It runs 7 pages with 5 figures, 3 tables, and 22 references, plus 14 pages of appendix.\n\nQuestion: Will the submission be accepted?", "label": "reject", "probability_positive": 0.0} | |
| {"case_id": "7815e74d0d72ced8ed18522e", "text": "Peer Review Memo\n\nThis is an applied paper.\n\nThe approach departs substantially from prior work. The problem it addresses is broadly important across the field. The technical argument raises limited concerns that do not undermine the main result.\n\nThe strength of supporting evidence is rated 3.5 out of 5. Comparisons with existing approaches are only partly controlled.\n\nThe findings look fragile under perturbation. The work could be partially reproduced from the details provided. The writing-clarity rating is 2.7 out of 5.\n\nThe manuscript was submitted in August as revision 3 by 4 authors. It runs 15 pages with 4 figures, 1 table, and 16 references, plus 23 pages of appendix.\n\nQuestion: Will the submission be accepted?", "label": "accept", "probability_positive": 0.95} | |
| {"case_id": "de429ec75a62d6e8205a5a4e", "text": "Peer Review Memo\n\nThis is an applied paper.\n\nThe method builds on existing techniques with modest changes. The problem it addresses is of narrow interest. The technical argument contains a serious flaw.\n\nThe strength of supporting evidence is rated 1.8 out of 5. Comparisons with existing approaches are well controlled.\n\nThe findings remain stable under perturbation. The details provided are insufficient to reproduce the work. The writing-clarity rating is 5.0 out of 5.\n\nThe manuscript was submitted in January as revision 1 by 5 authors. It runs 9 pages with 4 figures, 0 tables, and 50 references, plus 0 pages of appendix.\n\nQuestion: Will the submission be accepted?", "label": "reject", "probability_positive": 0.0} | |
| {"case_id": "5b70b64a68ba842d45c12b58", "text": "Peer Review Memo\n\nThis is an applied paper.\n\nThe method builds on existing techniques with modest changes. The problem it addresses is broadly important across the field. The technical argument contains a serious flaw.\n\nThe strength of supporting evidence is rated 1.0 out of 5. Comparisons with existing approaches are well controlled.\n\nThe findings look fragile under perturbation. The details provided are insufficient to reproduce the work. The writing-clarity rating is 2.7 out of 5.\n\nThe manuscript was submitted in March as revision 1 by 3 authors. It runs 11 pages with 7 figures, 2 tables, and 37 references, plus 9 pages of appendix.\n\nQuestion: Will the submission be accepted?", "label": "reject", "probability_positive": 0.0} | |
| {"case_id": "8c8d0edd2d90e332be9059d1", "text": "Peer Review Memo\n\nThis is an empirical paper.\n\nThe approach departs substantially from prior work. The problem it addresses matters to a moderate part of the community. The technical argument is sound.\n\nThe strength of supporting evidence is rated 4.8 out of 5. Comparisons with prior methods are inadequate.\n\nThe findings look fragile under perturbation. The details provided are insufficient to reproduce the work. The writing-clarity rating is 2.6 out of 5.\n\nThe manuscript was submitted in May as revision 3 by 2 authors. It runs 8 pages with 11 figures, 5 tables, and 18 references, plus 16 pages of appendix.\n\nQuestion: Will the submission be accepted?", "label": "reject", "probability_positive": 0.14} | |
| {"case_id": "5bdbf61362615cb5449b2185", "text": "Peer Review Memo\n\nThis is an empirical paper.\n\nThe method builds on existing techniques with modest changes. The problem it addresses is of narrow interest. The technical argument is sound.\n\nThe strength of supporting evidence is rated 3.1 out of 5. Comparisons with prior methods are well controlled.\n\nThe findings hold under some perturbations and not others. The details provided are insufficient to reproduce the work. The writing-clarity rating is 1.8 out of 5.\n\nThe manuscript was submitted in March as revision 1 by 3 authors. It runs 15 pages with 3 figures, 1 table, and 52 references, plus 18 pages of appendix.\n\nQuestion: Will the submission be accepted?", "label": "reject", "probability_positive": 0.02} | |
| {"case_id": "ca779a63b02d0a7ed5a1501f", "text": "Peer Review Memo\n\nThis is an empirical paper.\n\nThe approach departs substantially from prior work. The problem it addresses is of narrow interest. The technical argument is sound.\n\nThe strength of supporting evidence is rated 3.1 out of 5. Comparisons with prior methods are inadequate.\n\nThe findings remain stable under perturbation. The details provided are insufficient to reproduce the work. The writing-clarity rating is 2.2 out of 5.\n\nThe manuscript was submitted in April as revision 3 by 4 authors. It runs 9 pages with 4 figures, 6 tables, and 44 references, plus 9 pages of appendix.\n\nQuestion: Will the submission be accepted?", "label": "reject", "probability_positive": 0.02} | |
| {"case_id": "789d287f4ae224427d458e40", "text": "Peer Review Memo\n\nThis is an empirical paper.\n\nThe approach departs substantially from prior work. The problem it addresses is of narrow interest. The technical argument is sound.\n\nThe strength of supporting evidence is rated 2.2 out of 5. Comparisons with prior methods are only partly controlled.\n\nThe findings look fragile under perturbation. The details provided are insufficient to reproduce the work. The writing-clarity rating is 2.6 out of 5.\n\nThe manuscript was submitted in May as revision 1 by 4 authors. It runs 6 pages with 1 figure, 3 tables, and 77 references, plus 19 pages of appendix.\n\nQuestion: Will the submission be accepted?", "label": "reject", "probability_positive": 0.0} | |
| {"case_id": "cc0bc7be9dee7a9b21a808d2", "text": "Peer Review Memo\n\nThis is an applied paper.\n\nThe method builds on existing techniques with modest changes. The problem it addresses is of narrow interest. The technical argument raises limited concerns that do not undermine the main result.\n\nThe strength of supporting evidence is rated 1.1 out of 5. Comparisons with existing approaches are inadequate.\n\nThe findings look fragile under perturbation. The details provided are insufficient to reproduce the work. The writing-clarity rating is 4.0 out of 5.\n\nThe manuscript was submitted in May as revision 3 by 6 authors. It runs 7 pages with 0 figures, 3 tables, and 16 references, plus 4 pages of appendix.\n\nQuestion: Will the submission be accepted?", "label": "reject", "probability_positive": 0.0} | |
| {"case_id": "99387edaa048a817dcc3df91", "text": "Peer Review Memo\n\nThis is an applied paper.\n\nThe method builds on existing techniques with modest changes. The problem it addresses matters to a moderate part of the community. The technical argument raises limited concerns that do not undermine the main result.\n\nThe strength of supporting evidence is rated 1.2 out of 5. Comparisons with existing approaches are inadequate.\n\nThe findings look fragile under perturbation. The details provided are insufficient to reproduce the work. The writing-clarity rating is 2.0 out of 5.\n\nThe manuscript was submitted in January as revision 3 by 3 authors. It runs 11 pages with 4 figures, 3 tables, and 55 references, plus 14 pages of appendix.\n\nQuestion: Will the submission be accepted?", "label": "reject", "probability_positive": 0.0} | |
| {"case_id": "69b05871cba56a27e31cdc0b", "text": "Peer Review Memo\n\nThis is a theoretical paper.\n\nThe approach departs substantially from prior work. The problem it addresses is of narrow interest. The technical argument raises limited concerns that do not undermine the main result.\n\nThe strength of supporting evidence is rated 3.0 out of 5. The comparison with prior theoretical results and their assumptions is inadequate.\n\nThe conclusions are sensitive to small changes in the assumptions. The work could be partially reproduced from the details provided. The writing-clarity rating is 3.1 out of 5.\n\nThe manuscript was submitted in April as revision 3 by 8 authors. It runs 12 pages with 4 figures, 7 tables, and 36 references, plus 11 pages of appendix.\n\nQuestion: Will the submission be accepted?", "label": "reject", "probability_positive": 0.001} | |
| {"case_id": "6cdec3fa3de4e4f8c8ad9f9b", "text": "Peer Review Memo\n\nThis is an empirical paper.\n\nThe method builds on existing techniques with modest changes. The problem it addresses is broadly important across the field. The technical argument contains a serious flaw.\n\nThe strength of supporting evidence is rated 2.7 out of 5. Comparisons with prior methods are only partly controlled.\n\nThe findings remain stable under perturbation. The work could be partially reproduced from the details provided. The writing-clarity rating is 1.0 out of 5.\n\nThe manuscript was submitted in April as revision 3 by 4 authors. It runs 10 pages with 1 figure, 3 tables, and 20 references, plus 0 pages of appendix.\n\nQuestion: Will the submission be accepted?", "label": "reject", "probability_positive": 0.0} | |
| {"case_id": "983a69733af96438b3ab0326", "text": "Peer Review Memo\n\nThis is a theoretical paper.\n\nThe method builds on existing techniques with modest changes. The problem it addresses is broadly important across the field. The technical argument is sound.\n\nThe strength of supporting evidence is rated 3.5 out of 5. The comparison with prior theoretical results and their assumptions is only partly developed.\n\nThe conclusions hold under some changes in the assumptions and not others. The work could be fully reproduced from the details provided. The writing-clarity rating is 3.0 out of 5.\n\nThe manuscript was submitted in August as revision 1 by 5 authors. It runs 12 pages with 7 figures, 7 tables, and 31 references, plus 0 pages of appendix.\n\nQuestion: Will the submission be accepted?", "label": "accept", "probability_positive": 0.98} | |
| {"case_id": "fbedfe984f650749a7687405", "text": "Peer Review Memo\n\nThis is a theoretical paper.\n\nThe method builds on existing techniques with modest changes. The problem it addresses is broadly important across the field. The technical argument is sound.\n\nThe strength of supporting evidence is rated 4.7 out of 5. The comparison with prior theoretical results and their assumptions is inadequate.\n\nThe conclusions hold under some changes in the assumptions and not others. The work could be fully reproduced from the details provided. The writing-clarity rating is 3.7 out of 5.\n\nThe manuscript was submitted in June as revision 1 by 4 authors. It runs 9 pages with 1 figure, 1 table, and 55 references, plus 10 pages of appendix.\n\nQuestion: Will the submission be accepted?", "label": "accept", "probability_positive": 0.995} | |
| {"case_id": "b49264a129af6e99d80a4215", "text": "Peer Review Memo\n\nThis is an empirical paper.\n\nThe method builds on existing techniques with modest changes. The problem it addresses is broadly important across the field. The technical argument raises limited concerns that do not undermine the main result.\n\nThe strength of supporting evidence is rated 3.4 out of 5. Comparisons with prior methods are only partly controlled.\n\nThe findings look fragile under perturbation. The work could be partially reproduced from the details provided. The writing-clarity rating is 2.6 out of 5.\n\nThe manuscript was submitted in June as revision 1 by 5 authors. It runs 14 pages with 0 figures, 1 table, and 29 references, plus 0 pages of appendix.\n\nQuestion: Will the submission be accepted?", "label": "reject", "probability_positive": 0.02} | |
| {"case_id": "80edf3d8c4e3ce3885f66b3d", "text": "Peer Review Memo\n\nThis is an empirical paper.\n\nThe method builds on existing techniques with modest changes. The problem it addresses is of narrow interest. The technical argument contains a serious flaw.\n\nThe strength of supporting evidence is rated 1.4 out of 5. Comparisons with prior methods are inadequate.\n\nThe findings hold under some perturbations and not others. The details provided are insufficient to reproduce the work. The writing-clarity rating is 3.2 out of 5.\n\nThe manuscript was submitted in March as revision 1 by 2 authors. It runs 14 pages with 10 figures, 4 tables, and 23 references, plus 21 pages of appendix.\n\nQuestion: Will the submission be accepted?", "label": "reject", "probability_positive": 0.0} | |
| {"case_id": "c34c3f629d67d18236312c16", "text": "Peer Review Memo\n\nThis is a theoretical paper.\n\nThe core idea is a major departure from anything in the literature. The problem it addresses is of narrow interest. The technical argument contains a serious flaw.\n\nThe strength of supporting evidence is rated 1.0 out of 5. The comparison with prior theoretical results and their assumptions is inadequate.\n\nThe conclusions are sensitive to small changes in the assumptions. The work could be partially reproduced from the details provided. The writing-clarity rating is 1.1 out of 5.\n\nThe manuscript was submitted in October as revision 3 by 6 authors. It runs 18 pages with 2 figures, 3 tables, and 32 references, plus 7 pages of appendix.\n\nQuestion: Will the submission be accepted?", "label": "reject", "probability_positive": 0.0} | |
| {"case_id": "c8eea804506d5f6a189e2a71", "text": "Peer Review Memo\n\nThis is a theoretical paper.\n\nThe core idea is a major departure from anything in the literature. The problem it addresses is of narrow interest. The technical argument raises limited concerns that do not undermine the main result.\n\nThe strength of supporting evidence is rated 1.4 out of 5. The comparison with prior theoretical results and their assumptions is inadequate.\n\nThe conclusions are sensitive to small changes in the assumptions. The work could be partially reproduced from the details provided. The writing-clarity rating is 1.1 out of 5.\n\nThe manuscript was submitted in December as revision 1 by 6 authors. It runs 19 pages with 2 figures, 6 tables, and 40 references, plus 22 pages of appendix.\n\nQuestion: Will the submission be accepted?", "label": "reject", "probability_positive": 0.0} | |
| {"case_id": "f2c16b702d93cbe6ee763cef", "text": "Peer Review Memo\n\nThis is an applied paper.\n\nThe method builds on existing techniques with modest changes. The problem it addresses is broadly important across the field. The technical argument is sound.\n\nThe strength of supporting evidence is rated 3.9 out of 5. Comparisons with existing approaches are only partly controlled.\n\nThe findings look fragile under perturbation. The work could be partially reproduced from the details provided. The writing-clarity rating is 2.6 out of 5.\n\nThe manuscript was submitted in June as revision 3 by 5 authors. It runs 16 pages with 5 figures, 1 table, and 36 references, plus 18 pages of appendix.\n\nQuestion: Will the submission be accepted?", "label": "accept", "probability_positive": 0.98} | |
| {"case_id": "75db12e93ea01505ffef6775", "text": "Peer Review Memo\n\nThis is an empirical paper.\n\nThe core idea is a major departure from anything in the literature. The problem it addresses is of narrow interest. The technical argument is sound.\n\nThe strength of supporting evidence is rated 2.7 out of 5. Comparisons with prior methods are inadequate.\n\nThe findings look fragile under perturbation. The work could be partially reproduced from the details provided. The writing-clarity rating is 2.9 out of 5.\n\nThe manuscript was submitted in March as revision 1 by 2 authors. It runs 11 pages with 6 figures, 1 table, and 32 references, plus 16 pages of appendix.\n\nQuestion: Will the submission be accepted?", "label": "reject", "probability_positive": 0.02} | |
| {"case_id": "701c8ecee09f3806907bbe50", "text": "Peer Review Memo\n\nThis is an applied paper.\n\nThe method builds on existing techniques with modest changes. The problem it addresses is broadly important across the field. The technical argument is sound.\n\nThe strength of supporting evidence is rated 3.3 out of 5. Comparisons with existing approaches are only partly controlled.\n\nThe findings look fragile under perturbation. The work could be fully reproduced from the details provided. The writing-clarity rating is 3.0 out of 5.\n\nThe manuscript was submitted in August as revision 3 by 7 authors. It runs 7 pages with 12 figures, 3 tables, and 52 references, plus 9 pages of appendix.\n\nQuestion: Will the submission be accepted?", "label": "accept", "probability_positive": 0.86} | |
| {"case_id": "75a3649876b3fed251685b80", "text": "Peer Review Memo\n\nThis is a theoretical paper.\n\nThe method builds on existing techniques with modest changes. The problem it addresses is broadly important across the field. The technical argument raises limited concerns that do not undermine the main result.\n\nThe strength of supporting evidence is rated 2.6 out of 5. The comparison with prior theoretical results and their assumptions is only partly developed.\n\nThe conclusions remain valid under reasonable changes in the assumptions. The work could be fully reproduced from the details provided. The writing-clarity rating is 1.0 out of 5.\n\nThe manuscript was submitted in January as revision 3 by 1 author. It runs 11 pages with 14 figures, 0 tables, and 45 references, plus 15 pages of appendix.\n\nQuestion: Will the submission be accepted?", "label": "reject", "probability_positive": 0.05} | |
| {"case_id": "582e944673767be40f24b129", "text": "Peer Review Memo\n\nThis is a theoretical paper.\n\nThe approach departs substantially from prior work. The problem it addresses matters to a moderate part of the community. The technical argument raises limited concerns that do not undermine the main result.\n\nThe strength of supporting evidence is rated 1.4 out of 5. The comparison with prior theoretical results and their assumptions is inadequate.\n\nThe conclusions hold under some changes in the assumptions and not others. The work could be fully reproduced from the details provided. The writing-clarity rating is 1.3 out of 5.\n\nThe manuscript was submitted in January as revision 3 by 5 authors. It runs 16 pages with 6 figures, 4 tables, and 58 references, plus 7 pages of appendix.\n\nQuestion: Will the submission be accepted?", "label": "reject", "probability_positive": 0.001} | |
| {"case_id": "eab14c3c763be1b092477653", "text": "Peer Review Memo\n\nThis is a theoretical paper.\n\nThe approach departs substantially from prior work. The problem it addresses is of narrow interest. The technical argument raises limited concerns that do not undermine the main result.\n\nThe strength of supporting evidence is rated 2.6 out of 5. The comparison with prior theoretical results and their assumptions is inadequate.\n\nThe conclusions hold under some changes in the assumptions and not others. The details provided are insufficient to reproduce the work. The writing-clarity rating is 4.0 out of 5.\n\nThe manuscript was submitted in August as revision 1 by 10 authors. It runs 22 pages with 5 figures, 3 tables, and 27 references, plus 14 pages of appendix.\n\nQuestion: Will the submission be accepted?", "label": "reject", "probability_positive": 0.005} | |
| {"case_id": "28734eee44aa7f1288f52dec", "text": "Peer Review Memo\n\nThis is a theoretical paper.\n\nThe method builds on existing techniques with modest changes. The problem it addresses is of narrow interest. The technical argument raises limited concerns that do not undermine the main result.\n\nThe strength of supporting evidence is rated 2.9 out of 5. The comparison with prior theoretical results and their assumptions is thorough.\n\nThe conclusions hold under some changes in the assumptions and not others. The work could be partially reproduced from the details provided. The writing-clarity rating is 3.8 out of 5.\n\nThe manuscript was submitted in November as revision 3 by 2 authors. It runs 6 pages with 6 figures, 3 tables, and 49 references, plus 13 pages of appendix.\n\nQuestion: Will the submission be accepted?", "label": "reject", "probability_positive": 0.02} | |
| {"case_id": "695073fa9043b6e65ad49113", "text": "Peer Review Memo\n\nThis is an empirical paper.\n\nThe method builds on existing techniques with modest changes. The problem it addresses is broadly important across the field. The technical argument is sound.\n\nThe strength of supporting evidence is rated 4.4 out of 5. Comparisons with prior methods are inadequate.\n\nThe findings remain stable under perturbation. The work could be partially reproduced from the details provided. The writing-clarity rating is 2.9 out of 5.\n\nThe manuscript was submitted in February as revision 1 by 6 authors. It runs 15 pages with 11 figures, 1 table, and 13 references, plus 0 pages of appendix.\n\nQuestion: Will the submission be accepted?", "label": "accept", "probability_positive": 0.98} | |
| {"case_id": "9ce10f57dbd7d560fccfa1d3", "text": "Peer Review Memo\n\nThis is a theoretical paper.\n\nThe approach departs substantially from prior work. The problem it addresses matters to a moderate part of the community. The technical argument contains a serious flaw.\n\nThe strength of supporting evidence is rated 2.7 out of 5. The comparison with prior theoretical results and their assumptions is inadequate.\n\nThe conclusions hold under some changes in the assumptions and not others. The work could be partially reproduced from the details provided. The writing-clarity rating is 5.0 out of 5.\n\nThe manuscript was submitted in June as revision 3 by 5 authors. It runs 9 pages with 5 figures, 6 tables, and 28 references, plus 13 pages of appendix.\n\nQuestion: Will the submission be accepted?", "label": "reject", "probability_positive": 0.0} | |
| {"case_id": "2ea2d685c615f0823cbb4385", "text": "Peer Review Memo\n\nThis is an empirical paper.\n\nThe method builds on existing techniques with modest changes. The problem it addresses is of narrow interest. The technical argument is sound.\n\nThe strength of supporting evidence is rated 3.7 out of 5. Comparisons with prior methods are well controlled.\n\nThe findings look fragile under perturbation. The work could be partially reproduced from the details provided. The writing-clarity rating is 4.7 out of 5.\n\nThe manuscript was submitted in March as revision 3 by 1 author. It runs 12 pages with 8 figures, 3 tables, and 29 references, plus 10 pages of appendix.\n\nQuestion: Will the submission be accepted?", "label": "accept", "probability_positive": 0.98} | |
| {"case_id": "15052c29d8f40d2e2af4e86b", "text": "Peer Review Memo\n\nThis is an empirical paper.\n\nThe method builds on existing techniques with modest changes. The problem it addresses is of narrow interest. The technical argument raises limited concerns that do not undermine the main result.\n\nThe strength of supporting evidence is rated 1.3 out of 5. Comparisons with prior methods are inadequate.\n\nThe findings remain stable under perturbation. The work could be partially reproduced from the details provided. The writing-clarity rating is 3.7 out of 5.\n\nThe manuscript was submitted in October as revision 3 by 3 authors. It runs 7 pages with 8 figures, 2 tables, and 33 references, plus 22 pages of appendix.\n\nQuestion: Will the submission be accepted?", "label": "reject", "probability_positive": 0.0} | |
| {"case_id": "6383b0aa35d99f303166865c", "text": "Peer Review Memo\n\nThis is an empirical paper.\n\nThe core idea is a major departure from anything in the literature. The problem it addresses is of narrow interest. The technical argument is sound.\n\nThe strength of supporting evidence is rated 3.3 out of 5. Comparisons with prior methods are well controlled.\n\nThe findings look fragile under perturbation. The work could be fully reproduced from the details provided. The writing-clarity rating is 1.5 out of 5.\n\nThe manuscript was submitted in March as revision 3 by 3 authors. It runs 9 pages with 5 figures, 1 table, and 25 references, plus 16 pages of appendix.\n\nQuestion: Will the submission be accepted?", "label": "reject", "probability_positive": 0.86} | |
| {"case_id": "a0494d75fe4326c4989fcb86", "text": "Peer Review Memo\n\nThis is an applied paper.\n\nThe core idea is a major departure from anything in the literature. The problem it addresses is broadly important across the field. The technical argument contains a serious flaw.\n\nThe strength of supporting evidence is rated 3.0 out of 5. Comparisons with existing approaches are well controlled.\n\nThe findings look fragile under perturbation. The details provided are insufficient to reproduce the work. The writing-clarity rating is 2.0 out of 5.\n\nThe manuscript was submitted in September as revision 3 by 9 authors. It runs 7 pages with 3 figures, 2 tables, and 35 references, plus 7 pages of appendix.\n\nQuestion: Will the submission be accepted?", "label": "reject", "probability_positive": 0.0} | |
| {"case_id": "ae4017e73e9f0c1ea69e9d09", "text": "Peer Review Memo\n\nThis is an empirical paper.\n\nThe approach departs substantially from prior work. The problem it addresses is broadly important across the field. The technical argument is sound.\n\nThe strength of supporting evidence is rated 4.8 out of 5. Comparisons with prior methods are only partly controlled.\n\nThe findings hold under some perturbations and not others. The details provided are insufficient to reproduce the work. The writing-clarity rating is 2.2 out of 5.\n\nThe manuscript was submitted in January as revision 3 by 6 authors. It runs 15 pages with 1 figure, 3 tables, and 38 references, plus 18 pages of appendix.\n\nQuestion: Will the submission be accepted?", "label": "accept", "probability_positive": 0.95} | |
| {"case_id": "21891cc57a44a0cddb95cee2", "text": "Peer Review Memo\n\nThis is an applied paper.\n\nThe method builds on existing techniques with modest changes. The problem it addresses matters to a moderate part of the community. The technical argument is sound.\n\nThe strength of supporting evidence is rated 2.6 out of 5. Comparisons with existing approaches are well controlled.\n\nThe findings look fragile under perturbation. The details provided are insufficient to reproduce the work. The writing-clarity rating is 3.6 out of 5.\n\nThe manuscript was submitted in August as revision 1 by 2 authors. It runs 12 pages with 1 figure, 8 tables, and 38 references, plus 13 pages of appendix.\n\nQuestion: Will the submission be accepted?", "label": "reject", "probability_positive": 0.05} | |
| {"case_id": "517afa87b36df1bc44daa5b9", "text": "Peer Review Memo\n\nThis is an empirical paper.\n\nThe method builds on existing techniques with modest changes. The problem it addresses is of narrow interest. The technical argument is sound.\n\nThe strength of supporting evidence is rated 1.5 out of 5. Comparisons with prior methods are only partly controlled.\n\nThe findings remain stable under perturbation. The work could be fully reproduced from the details provided. The writing-clarity rating is 3.4 out of 5.\n\nThe manuscript was submitted in March as revision 1 by 5 authors. It runs 7 pages with 3 figures, 2 tables, and 51 references, plus 19 pages of appendix.\n\nQuestion: Will the submission be accepted?", "label": "reject", "probability_positive": 0.05} | |
| {"case_id": "bcfd92af0bf43f7fb390dbf3", "text": "Peer Review Memo\n\nThis is an empirical paper.\n\nThe method builds on existing techniques with modest changes. The problem it addresses is broadly important across the field. The technical argument is sound.\n\nThe strength of supporting evidence is rated 3.4 out of 5. Comparisons with prior methods are inadequate.\n\nThe findings remain stable under perturbation. The work could be partially reproduced from the details provided. The writing-clarity rating is 2.8 out of 5.\n\nThe manuscript was submitted in July as revision 3 by 4 authors. It runs 17 pages with 12 figures, 2 tables, and 30 references, plus 0 pages of appendix.\n\nQuestion: Will the submission be accepted?", "label": "reject", "probability_positive": 0.86} | |
| {"case_id": "106e322a3a2cf19b48a3db18", "text": "Peer Review Memo\n\nThis is a theoretical paper.\n\nThe method builds on existing techniques with modest changes. The problem it addresses is broadly important across the field. The technical argument raises limited concerns that do not undermine the main result.\n\nThe strength of supporting evidence is rated 2.0 out of 5. The comparison with prior theoretical results and their assumptions is only partly developed.\n\nThe conclusions are sensitive to small changes in the assumptions. The work could be fully reproduced from the details provided. The writing-clarity rating is 2.1 out of 5.\n\nThe manuscript was submitted in December as revision 3 by 1 author. It runs 8 pages with 0 figures, 3 tables, and 69 references, plus 29 pages of appendix.\n\nQuestion: Will the submission be accepted?", "label": "reject", "probability_positive": 0.001} | |
| {"case_id": "3e714089f9d2e199de2fb773", "text": "Peer Review Memo\n\nThis is an applied paper.\n\nThe method builds on existing techniques with modest changes. The problem it addresses matters to a moderate part of the community. The technical argument is sound.\n\nThe strength of supporting evidence is rated 2.9 out of 5. Comparisons with existing approaches are well controlled.\n\nThe findings remain stable under perturbation. The work could be partially reproduced from the details provided. The writing-clarity rating is 1.9 out of 5.\n\nThe manuscript was submitted in August as revision 3 by 2 authors. It runs 9 pages with 13 figures, 3 tables, and 44 references, plus 7 pages of appendix.\n\nQuestion: Will the submission be accepted?", "label": "accept", "probability_positive": 0.86} | |
| {"case_id": "261c251eacb80a104ba7a303", "text": "Peer Review Memo\n\nThis is an applied paper.\n\nThe core idea is a major departure from anything in the literature. The problem it addresses matters to a moderate part of the community. The technical argument raises limited concerns that do not undermine the main result.\n\nThe strength of supporting evidence is rated 1.2 out of 5. Comparisons with existing approaches are only partly controlled.\n\nThe findings look fragile under perturbation. The details provided are insufficient to reproduce the work. The writing-clarity rating is 1.5 out of 5.\n\nThe manuscript was submitted in March as revision 3 by 11 authors. It runs 12 pages with 4 figures, 7 tables, and 45 references, plus 14 pages of appendix.\n\nQuestion: Will the submission be accepted?", "label": "reject", "probability_positive": 0.0} | |
| {"case_id": "27d650334d981a62e6f8287b", "text": "Peer Review Memo\n\nThis is an empirical paper.\n\nThe approach departs substantially from prior work. The problem it addresses is of narrow interest. The technical argument is sound.\n\nThe strength of supporting evidence is rated 3.4 out of 5. Comparisons with prior methods are inadequate.\n\nThe findings look fragile under perturbation. The work could be partially reproduced from the details provided. The writing-clarity rating is 1.9 out of 5.\n\nThe manuscript was submitted in December as revision 3 by 3 authors. It runs 18 pages with 11 figures, 4 tables, and 40 references, plus 12 pages of appendix.\n\nQuestion: Will the submission be accepted?", "label": "reject", "probability_positive": 0.001} | |
| {"case_id": "a5d0ba2b7b1f89942c3881d4", "text": "Peer Review Memo\n\nThis is a theoretical paper.\n\nThe method builds on existing techniques with modest changes. The problem it addresses is broadly important across the field. The technical argument is sound.\n\nThe strength of supporting evidence is rated 4.5 out of 5. The comparison with prior theoretical results and their assumptions is inadequate.\n\nThe conclusions are sensitive to small changes in the assumptions. The work could be partially reproduced from the details provided. The writing-clarity rating is 1.4 out of 5.\n\nThe manuscript was submitted in February as revision 1 by 2 authors. It runs 16 pages with 1 figure, 3 tables, and 54 references, plus 39 pages of appendix.\n\nQuestion: Will the submission be accepted?", "label": "reject", "probability_positive": 0.14} | |
| {"case_id": "3701e5d7c6eea5e63440394f", "text": "Peer Review Memo\n\nThis is a theoretical paper.\n\nThe approach departs substantially from prior work. The problem it addresses is broadly important across the field. The technical argument raises limited concerns that do not undermine the main result.\n\nThe strength of supporting evidence is rated 3.6 out of 5. The comparison with prior theoretical results and their assumptions is inadequate.\n\nThe conclusions are sensitive to small changes in the assumptions. The details provided are insufficient to reproduce the work. The writing-clarity rating is 1.0 out of 5.\n\nThe manuscript was submitted in June as revision 3 by 4 authors. It runs 10 pages with 1 figure, 2 tables, and 29 references, plus 0 pages of appendix.\n\nQuestion: Will the submission be accepted?", "label": "reject", "probability_positive": 0.05} | |
| {"case_id": "7cdaf452a55e24fe05acce75", "text": "Peer Review Memo\n\nThis is an applied paper.\n\nThe approach departs substantially from prior work. The problem it addresses is broadly important across the field. The technical argument is sound.\n\nThe strength of supporting evidence is rated 2.0 out of 5. Comparisons with existing approaches are only partly controlled.\n\nThe findings look fragile under perturbation. The details provided are insufficient to reproduce the work. The writing-clarity rating is 1.7 out of 5.\n\nThe manuscript was submitted in January as revision 3 by 4 authors. It runs 10 pages with 3 figures, 1 table, and 32 references, plus 24 pages of appendix.\n\nQuestion: Will the submission be accepted?", "label": "reject", "probability_positive": 0.005} | |
| {"case_id": "1f3e6b5173db09dd9fd11192", "text": "Peer Review Memo\n\nThis is an applied paper.\n\nThe method builds on existing techniques with modest changes. The problem it addresses is broadly important across the field. The technical argument raises limited concerns that do not undermine the main result.\n\nThe strength of supporting evidence is rated 3.1 out of 5. Comparisons with existing approaches are well controlled.\n\nThe findings hold under some perturbations and not others. The details provided are insufficient to reproduce the work. The writing-clarity rating is 1.3 out of 5.\n\nThe manuscript was submitted in October as revision 3 by 1 author. It runs 9 pages with 1 figure, 4 tables, and 37 references, plus 10 pages of appendix.\n\nQuestion: Will the submission be accepted?", "label": "reject", "probability_positive": 0.05} | |
| {"case_id": "2e095af20fdf402467040219", "text": "Peer Review Memo\n\nThis is an empirical paper.\n\nThe method builds on existing techniques with modest changes. The problem it addresses matters to a moderate part of the community. The technical argument contains a serious flaw.\n\nThe strength of supporting evidence is rated 1.7 out of 5. Comparisons with prior methods are inadequate.\n\nThe findings remain stable under perturbation. The work could be fully reproduced from the details provided. The writing-clarity rating is 3.2 out of 5.\n\nThe manuscript was submitted in September as revision 3 by 6 authors. It runs 8 pages with 3 figures, 2 tables, and 28 references, plus 24 pages of appendix.\n\nQuestion: Will the submission be accepted?", "label": "reject", "probability_positive": 0.0} | |
| {"case_id": "d47d71ec317f4a9ad79d062e", "text": "Peer Review Memo\n\nThis is a theoretical paper.\n\nThe core idea is a major departure from anything in the literature. The problem it addresses is broadly important across the field. The technical argument is sound.\n\nThe strength of supporting evidence is rated 4.5 out of 5. The comparison with prior theoretical results and their assumptions is only partly developed.\n\nThe conclusions remain valid under reasonable changes in the assumptions. The details provided are insufficient to reproduce the work. The writing-clarity rating is 1.3 out of 5.\n\nThe manuscript was submitted in December as revision 1 by 3 authors. It runs 17 pages with 5 figures, 9 tables, and 73 references, plus 0 pages of appendix.\n\nQuestion: Will the submission be accepted?", "label": "accept", "probability_positive": 0.999} | |
| {"case_id": "4710fc1d014d4174963a8407", "text": "Peer Review Memo\n\nThis is an applied paper.\n\nThe core idea is a major departure from anything in the literature. The problem it addresses is broadly important across the field. The technical argument raises limited concerns that do not undermine the main result.\n\nThe strength of supporting evidence is rated 4.2 out of 5. Comparisons with existing approaches are well controlled.\n\nThe findings hold under some perturbations and not others. The work could be fully reproduced from the details provided. The writing-clarity rating is 1.7 out of 5.\n\nThe manuscript was submitted in September as revision 3 by 8 authors. It runs 11 pages with 3 figures, 9 tables, and 44 references, plus 26 pages of appendix.\n\nQuestion: Will the submission be accepted?", "label": "accept", "probability_positive": 1.0} | |
| {"case_id": "f38948d48901e9185bcfc07d", "text": "Peer Review Memo\n\nThis is an applied paper.\n\nThe method builds on existing techniques with modest changes. The problem it addresses is of narrow interest. The technical argument contains a serious flaw.\n\nThe strength of supporting evidence is rated 2.2 out of 5. Comparisons with existing approaches are well controlled.\n\nThe findings remain stable under perturbation. The work could be partially reproduced from the details provided. The writing-clarity rating is 2.2 out of 5.\n\nThe manuscript was submitted in January as revision 1 by 3 authors. It runs 6 pages with 2 figures, 3 tables, and 51 references, plus 0 pages of appendix.\n\nQuestion: Will the submission be accepted?", "label": "reject", "probability_positive": 0.0} | |
| {"case_id": "547b1e270b6293e20edf0606", "text": "Peer Review Memo\n\nThis is an applied paper.\n\nThe method builds on existing techniques with modest changes. The problem it addresses is of narrow interest. The technical argument contains a serious flaw.\n\nThe strength of supporting evidence is rated 1.7 out of 5. Comparisons with existing approaches are only partly controlled.\n\nThe findings look fragile under perturbation. The work could be partially reproduced from the details provided. The writing-clarity rating is 3.3 out of 5.\n\nThe manuscript was submitted in May as revision 1 by 1 author. It runs 7 pages with 10 figures, 10 tables, and 43 references, plus 9 pages of appendix.\n\nQuestion: Will the submission be accepted?", "label": "reject", "probability_positive": 0.0} | |
| {"case_id": "30f0fdf07c174b9abed0cc2d", "text": "Peer Review Memo\n\nThis is an empirical paper.\n\nThe approach departs substantially from prior work. The problem it addresses is broadly important across the field. The technical argument is sound.\n\nThe strength of supporting evidence is rated 3.5 out of 5. Comparisons with prior methods are only partly controlled.\n\nThe findings hold under some perturbations and not others. The work could be fully reproduced from the details provided. The writing-clarity rating is 1.3 out of 5.\n\nThe manuscript was submitted in April as revision 1 by 9 authors. It runs 13 pages with 6 figures, 3 tables, and 61 references, plus 13 pages of appendix.\n\nQuestion: Will the submission be accepted?", "label": "accept", "probability_positive": 0.995} | |
| {"case_id": "c0d9effcda1df9356bae0009", "text": "Peer Review Memo\n\nThis is a theoretical paper.\n\nThe approach departs substantially from prior work. The problem it addresses is of narrow interest. The technical argument is sound.\n\nThe strength of supporting evidence is rated 2.6 out of 5. The comparison with prior theoretical results and their assumptions is thorough.\n\nThe conclusions hold under some changes in the assumptions and not others. The details provided are insufficient to reproduce the work. The writing-clarity rating is 4.7 out of 5.\n\nThe manuscript was submitted in February as revision 3 by 4 authors. It runs 9 pages with 2 figures, 2 tables, and 32 references, plus 12 pages of appendix.\n\nQuestion: Will the submission be accepted?", "label": "accept", "probability_positive": 0.86} | |
| {"case_id": "83ab5699fb002e51cbf09c0d", "text": "Peer Review Memo\n\nThis is an applied paper.\n\nThe approach departs substantially from prior work. The problem it addresses is of narrow interest. The technical argument raises limited concerns that do not undermine the main result.\n\nThe strength of supporting evidence is rated 3.0 out of 5. Comparisons with existing approaches are inadequate.\n\nThe findings look fragile under perturbation. The details provided are insufficient to reproduce the work. The writing-clarity rating is 1.2 out of 5.\n\nThe manuscript was submitted in April as revision 1 by 6 authors. It runs 6 pages with 11 figures, 1 table, and 46 references, plus 7 pages of appendix.\n\nQuestion: Will the submission be accepted?", "label": "reject", "probability_positive": 0.0} | |
| {"case_id": "aace6d90692d5c9cb697b8c6", "text": "Peer Review Memo\n\nThis is an empirical paper.\n\nThe core idea is a major departure from anything in the literature. The problem it addresses is of narrow interest. The technical argument raises limited concerns that do not undermine the main result.\n\nThe strength of supporting evidence is rated 3.4 out of 5. Comparisons with prior methods are only partly controlled.\n\nThe findings remain stable under perturbation. The details provided are insufficient to reproduce the work. The writing-clarity rating is 3.6 out of 5.\n\nThe manuscript was submitted in February as revision 1 by 1 author. It runs 12 pages with 6 figures, 4 tables, and 32 references, plus 7 pages of appendix.\n\nQuestion: Will the submission be accepted?", "label": "reject", "probability_positive": 0.14} | |
| {"case_id": "9a207f2045e7a302c46c6d46", "text": "Peer Review Memo\n\nThis is a theoretical paper.\n\nThe approach departs substantially from prior work. The problem it addresses matters to a moderate part of the community. The technical argument raises limited concerns that do not undermine the main result.\n\nThe strength of supporting evidence is rated 3.1 out of 5. The comparison with prior theoretical results and their assumptions is only partly developed.\n\nThe conclusions are sensitive to small changes in the assumptions. The details provided are insufficient to reproduce the work. The writing-clarity rating is 2.1 out of 5.\n\nThe manuscript was submitted in December as revision 3 by 4 authors. It runs 13 pages with 2 figures, 8 tables, and 53 references, plus 24 pages of appendix.\n\nQuestion: Will the submission be accepted?", "label": "reject", "probability_positive": 0.001} | |
| {"case_id": "859c27278bc7b149b1ac71b2", "text": "Peer Review Memo\n\nThis is a theoretical paper.\n\nThe approach departs substantially from prior work. The problem it addresses is broadly important across the field. The technical argument raises limited concerns that do not undermine the main result.\n\nThe strength of supporting evidence is rated 4.2 out of 5. The comparison with prior theoretical results and their assumptions is inadequate.\n\nThe conclusions hold under some changes in the assumptions and not others. The work could be partially reproduced from the details provided. The writing-clarity rating is 1.3 out of 5.\n\nThe manuscript was submitted in July as revision 1 by 2 authors. It runs 10 pages with 3 figures, 2 tables, and 54 references, plus 23 pages of appendix.\n\nQuestion: Will the submission be accepted?", "label": "reject", "probability_positive": 0.14} | |
| {"case_id": "63b22c310b53a464952fc4b6", "text": "Peer Review Memo\n\nThis is an empirical paper.\n\nThe core idea is a major departure from anything in the literature. The problem it addresses matters to a moderate part of the community. The technical argument is sound.\n\nThe strength of supporting evidence is rated 4.3 out of 5. Comparisons with prior methods are well controlled.\n\nThe findings look fragile under perturbation. The work could be partially reproduced from the details provided. The writing-clarity rating is 2.3 out of 5.\n\nThe manuscript was submitted in October as revision 3 by 4 authors. It runs 9 pages with 6 figures, 5 tables, and 24 references, plus 10 pages of appendix.\n\nQuestion: Will the submission be accepted?", "label": "accept", "probability_positive": 0.995} | |
| {"case_id": "5cb6c1a2fa569c73d3bb185e", "text": "Peer Review Memo\n\nThis is an applied paper.\n\nThe approach departs substantially from prior work. The problem it addresses is of narrow interest. The technical argument is sound.\n\nThe strength of supporting evidence is rated 3.8 out of 5. Comparisons with existing approaches are well controlled.\n\nThe findings hold under some perturbations and not others. The details provided are insufficient to reproduce the work. The writing-clarity rating is 2.9 out of 5.\n\nThe manuscript was submitted in September as revision 3 by 3 authors. It runs 8 pages with 17 figures, 4 tables, and 35 references, plus 12 pages of appendix.\n\nQuestion: Will the submission be accepted?", "label": "accept", "probability_positive": 0.95} | |
| {"case_id": "b8224007ec99d2655c180a70", "text": "Peer Review Memo\n\nThis is an empirical paper.\n\nThe method builds on existing techniques with modest changes. The problem it addresses is broadly important across the field. The technical argument raises limited concerns that do not undermine the main result.\n\nThe strength of supporting evidence is rated 1.9 out of 5. Comparisons with prior methods are only partly controlled.\n\nThe findings look fragile under perturbation. The details provided are insufficient to reproduce the work. The writing-clarity rating is 1.0 out of 5.\n\nThe manuscript was submitted in April as revision 1 by 3 authors. It runs 11 pages with 4 figures, 1 table, and 64 references, plus 17 pages of appendix.\n\nQuestion: Will the submission be accepted?", "label": "reject", "probability_positive": 0.0} | |
| {"case_id": "f90ce82b7dc7ac8efa0ece43", "text": "Peer Review Memo\n\nThis is an applied paper.\n\nThe approach departs substantially from prior work. The problem it addresses is of narrow interest. The technical argument is sound.\n\nThe strength of supporting evidence is rated 4.8 out of 5. Comparisons with existing approaches are inadequate.\n\nThe findings remain stable under perturbation. The work could be fully reproduced from the details provided. The writing-clarity rating is 2.4 out of 5.\n\nThe manuscript was submitted in April as revision 3 by 2 authors. It runs 6 pages with 12 figures, 10 tables, and 33 references, plus 0 pages of appendix.\n\nQuestion: Will the submission be accepted?", "label": "accept", "probability_positive": 0.95} | |
| {"case_id": "dbb0f1782ff52773f17e9405", "text": "Peer Review Memo\n\nThis is a theoretical paper.\n\nThe method builds on existing techniques with modest changes. The problem it addresses matters to a moderate part of the community. The technical argument raises limited concerns that do not undermine the main result.\n\nThe strength of supporting evidence is rated 1.5 out of 5. The comparison with prior theoretical results and their assumptions is only partly developed.\n\nThe conclusions are sensitive to small changes in the assumptions. The details provided are insufficient to reproduce the work. The writing-clarity rating is 2.2 out of 5.\n\nThe manuscript was submitted in July as revision 1 by 2 authors. It runs 8 pages with 4 figures, 6 tables, and 24 references, plus 11 pages of appendix.\n\nQuestion: Will the submission be accepted?", "label": "reject", "probability_positive": 0.0} | |
| {"case_id": "34d9181d38ad357c720c39d2", "text": "Peer Review Memo\n\nThis is an empirical paper.\n\nThe method builds on existing techniques with modest changes. The problem it addresses is of narrow interest. The technical argument is sound.\n\nThe strength of supporting evidence is rated 4.0 out of 5. Comparisons with prior methods are well controlled.\n\nThe findings hold under some perturbations and not others. The details provided are insufficient to reproduce the work. The writing-clarity rating is 1.4 out of 5.\n\nThe manuscript was submitted in November as revision 3 by 3 authors. It runs 12 pages with 1 figure, 0 tables, and 55 references, plus 9 pages of appendix.\n\nQuestion: Will the submission be accepted?", "label": "reject", "probability_positive": 0.86} | |
| {"case_id": "4b48c3c5e9d7318e8cc7a3f3", "text": "Peer Review Memo\n\nThis is an applied paper.\n\nThe core idea is a major departure from anything in the literature. The problem it addresses is of narrow interest. The technical argument is sound.\n\nThe strength of supporting evidence is rated 4.7 out of 5. Comparisons with existing approaches are inadequate.\n\nThe findings look fragile under perturbation. The work could be partially reproduced from the details provided. The writing-clarity rating is 2.9 out of 5.\n\nThe manuscript was submitted in August as revision 3 by 2 authors. It runs 6 pages with 10 figures, 1 table, and 62 references, plus 7 pages of appendix.\n\nQuestion: Will the submission be accepted?", "label": "reject", "probability_positive": 0.14} | |
| {"case_id": "1fb1791a2f323124e1cef860", "text": "Peer Review Memo\n\nThis is an empirical paper.\n\nThe core idea is a major departure from anything in the literature. The problem it addresses matters to a moderate part of the community. The technical argument contains a serious flaw.\n\nThe strength of supporting evidence is rated 3.2 out of 5. Comparisons with prior methods are only partly controlled.\n\nThe findings look fragile under perturbation. The details provided are insufficient to reproduce the work. The writing-clarity rating is 2.8 out of 5.\n\nThe manuscript was submitted in February as revision 3 by 1 author. It runs 6 pages with 5 figures, 4 tables, and 25 references, plus 4 pages of appendix.\n\nQuestion: Will the submission be accepted?", "label": "reject", "probability_positive": 0.0} | |
| {"case_id": "f7bd5ed818a2715853b0db8e", "text": "Peer Review Memo\n\nThis is a theoretical paper.\n\nThe approach departs substantially from prior work. The problem it addresses matters to a moderate part of the community. The technical argument raises limited concerns that do not undermine the main result.\n\nThe strength of supporting evidence is rated 4.9 out of 5. The comparison with prior theoretical results and their assumptions is thorough.\n\nThe conclusions hold under some changes in the assumptions and not others. The work could be fully reproduced from the details provided. The writing-clarity rating is 1.4 out of 5.\n\nThe manuscript was submitted in September as revision 1 by 8 authors. It runs 14 pages with 7 figures, 3 tables, and 52 references, plus 0 pages of appendix.\n\nQuestion: Will the submission be accepted?", "label": "accept", "probability_positive": 0.95} | |
| {"case_id": "3cb83c5b27fb2c923ea4bb38", "text": "Peer Review Memo\n\nThis is a theoretical paper.\n\nThe method builds on existing techniques with modest changes. The problem it addresses matters to a moderate part of the community. The technical argument raises limited concerns that do not undermine the main result.\n\nThe strength of supporting evidence is rated 3.5 out of 5. The comparison with prior theoretical results and their assumptions is inadequate.\n\nThe conclusions hold under some changes in the assumptions and not others. The details provided are insufficient to reproduce the work. The writing-clarity rating is 1.4 out of 5.\n\nThe manuscript was submitted in October as revision 3 by 5 authors. It runs 8 pages with 2 figures, 5 tables, and 45 references, plus 5 pages of appendix.\n\nQuestion: Will the submission be accepted?", "label": "reject", "probability_positive": 0.005} | |
| {"case_id": "d6147fdf398412138cff7dcb", "text": "Peer Review Memo\n\nThis is an applied paper.\n\nThe core idea is a major departure from anything in the literature. The problem it addresses is of narrow interest. The technical argument contains a serious flaw.\n\nThe strength of supporting evidence is rated 2.3 out of 5. Comparisons with existing approaches are inadequate.\n\nThe findings hold under some perturbations and not others. The details provided are insufficient to reproduce the work. The writing-clarity rating is 1.0 out of 5.\n\nThe manuscript was submitted in November as revision 3 by 5 authors. It runs 10 pages with 0 figures, 5 tables, and 43 references, plus 22 pages of appendix.\n\nQuestion: Will the submission be accepted?", "label": "reject", "probability_positive": 0.0} | |
| {"case_id": "ff7dd5d2c1c62e335581c4f7", "text": "Peer Review Memo\n\nThis is an applied paper.\n\nThe approach departs substantially from prior work. The problem it addresses is broadly important across the field. The technical argument raises limited concerns that do not undermine the main result.\n\nThe strength of supporting evidence is rated 2.7 out of 5. Comparisons with existing approaches are inadequate.\n\nThe findings look fragile under perturbation. The details provided are insufficient to reproduce the work. The writing-clarity rating is 1.3 out of 5.\n\nThe manuscript was submitted in April as revision 1 by 3 authors. It runs 9 pages with 5 figures, 5 tables, and 41 references, plus 7 pages of appendix.\n\nQuestion: Will the submission be accepted?", "label": "reject", "probability_positive": 0.005} | |
| {"case_id": "abc5c4effdda20debac0ee9d", "text": "Peer Review Memo\n\nThis is an applied paper.\n\nThe method builds on existing techniques with modest changes. The problem it addresses is of narrow interest. The technical argument is sound.\n\nThe strength of supporting evidence is rated 1.5 out of 5. Comparisons with existing approaches are only partly controlled.\n\nThe findings hold under some perturbations and not others. The details provided are insufficient to reproduce the work. The writing-clarity rating is 1.6 out of 5.\n\nThe manuscript was submitted in November as revision 1 by 8 authors. It runs 9 pages with 6 figures, 2 tables, and 40 references, plus 0 pages of appendix.\n\nQuestion: Will the submission be accepted?", "label": "reject", "probability_positive": 0.0} | |
| {"case_id": "02bdc9646c3bc511646a7e19", "text": "Peer Review Memo\n\nThis is a theoretical paper.\n\nThe core idea is a major departure from anything in the literature. The problem it addresses is broadly important across the field. The technical argument contains a serious flaw.\n\nThe strength of supporting evidence is rated 1.9 out of 5. The comparison with prior theoretical results and their assumptions is inadequate.\n\nThe conclusions remain valid under reasonable changes in the assumptions. The work could be partially reproduced from the details provided. The writing-clarity rating is 2.2 out of 5.\n\nThe manuscript was submitted in March as revision 1 by 1 author. It runs 16 pages with 6 figures, 8 tables, and 36 references, plus 12 pages of appendix.\n\nQuestion: Will the submission be accepted?", "label": "reject", "probability_positive": 0.0} | |
| {"case_id": "bcb899d4f8dfc10f24573f2c", "text": "Peer Review Memo\n\nThis is a theoretical paper.\n\nThe core idea is a major departure from anything in the literature. The problem it addresses is broadly important across the field. The technical argument is sound.\n\nThe strength of supporting evidence is rated 3.4 out of 5. The comparison with prior theoretical results and their assumptions is inadequate.\n\nThe conclusions remain valid under reasonable changes in the assumptions. The work could be fully reproduced from the details provided. The writing-clarity rating is 1.0 out of 5.\n\nThe manuscript was submitted in February as revision 3 by 2 authors. It runs 17 pages with 6 figures, 5 tables, and 29 references, plus 23 pages of appendix.\n\nQuestion: Will the submission be accepted?", "label": "accept", "probability_positive": 0.995} | |
| {"case_id": "730e31f761116a709aeb442a", "text": "Peer Review Memo\n\nThis is a theoretical paper.\n\nThe approach departs substantially from prior work. The problem it addresses is of narrow interest. The technical argument is sound.\n\nThe strength of supporting evidence is rated 4.0 out of 5. The comparison with prior theoretical results and their assumptions is only partly developed.\n\nThe conclusions remain valid under reasonable changes in the assumptions. The details provided are insufficient to reproduce the work. The writing-clarity rating is 1.8 out of 5.\n\nThe manuscript was submitted in April as revision 1 by 3 authors. It runs 8 pages with 5 figures, 6 tables, and 12 references, plus 14 pages of appendix.\n\nQuestion: Will the submission be accepted?", "label": "reject", "probability_positive": 0.86} | |
| {"case_id": "8aa799a8bbc982ddbfd8e7f6", "text": "Peer Review Memo\n\nThis is an applied paper.\n\nThe method builds on existing techniques with modest changes. The problem it addresses is broadly important across the field. The technical argument raises limited concerns that do not undermine the main result.\n\nThe strength of supporting evidence is rated 3.0 out of 5. Comparisons with existing approaches are inadequate.\n\nThe findings hold under some perturbations and not others. The work could be partially reproduced from the details provided. The writing-clarity rating is 3.9 out of 5.\n\nThe manuscript was submitted in January as revision 3 by 1 author. It runs 14 pages with 4 figures, 1 table, and 67 references, plus 6 pages of appendix.\n\nQuestion: Will the submission be accepted?", "label": "reject", "probability_positive": 0.14} | |
| {"case_id": "48fb6d6a5b445b06748bbd46", "text": "Peer Review Memo\n\nThis is a theoretical paper.\n\nThe core idea is a major departure from anything in the literature. The problem it addresses matters to a moderate part of the community. The technical argument is sound.\n\nThe strength of supporting evidence is rated 5.0 out of 5. The comparison with prior theoretical results and their assumptions is thorough.\n\nThe conclusions are sensitive to small changes in the assumptions. The work could be fully reproduced from the details provided. The writing-clarity rating is 2.1 out of 5.\n\nThe manuscript was submitted in August as revision 3 by 5 authors. It runs 10 pages with 2 figures, 1 table, and 28 references, plus 0 pages of appendix.\n\nQuestion: Will the submission be accepted?", "label": "accept", "probability_positive": 0.999} | |
| {"case_id": "57fc8282477387b399a4e97d", "text": "Peer Review Memo\n\nThis is a theoretical paper.\n\nThe method builds on existing techniques with modest changes. The problem it addresses matters to a moderate part of the community. The technical argument raises limited concerns that do not undermine the main result.\n\nThe strength of supporting evidence is rated 3.7 out of 5. The comparison with prior theoretical results and their assumptions is inadequate.\n\nThe conclusions hold under some changes in the assumptions and not others. The details provided are insufficient to reproduce the work. The writing-clarity rating is 2.4 out of 5.\n\nThe manuscript was submitted in April as revision 1 by 3 authors. It runs 6 pages with 4 figures, 9 tables, and 20 references, plus 11 pages of appendix.\n\nQuestion: Will the submission be accepted?", "label": "reject", "probability_positive": 0.005} | |
| {"case_id": "ff0aa7f16741b3967ef3717b", "text": "Peer Review Memo\n\nThis is an applied paper.\n\nThe method builds on existing techniques with modest changes. The problem it addresses is of narrow interest. The technical argument raises limited concerns that do not undermine the main result.\n\nThe strength of supporting evidence is rated 2.3 out of 5. Comparisons with existing approaches are well controlled.\n\nThe findings hold under some perturbations and not others. The details provided are insufficient to reproduce the work. The writing-clarity rating is 2.2 out of 5.\n\nThe manuscript was submitted in November as revision 1 by 2 authors. It runs 6 pages with 5 figures, 3 tables, and 37 references, plus 0 pages of appendix.\n\nQuestion: Will the submission be accepted?", "label": "reject", "probability_positive": 0.0} | |
| {"case_id": "bb11f6da1d5334cdcb49ec2c", "text": "Peer Review Memo\n\nThis is an applied paper.\n\nThe core idea is a major departure from anything in the literature. The problem it addresses is broadly important across the field. The technical argument is sound.\n\nThe strength of supporting evidence is rated 1.7 out of 5. Comparisons with existing approaches are inadequate.\n\nThe findings hold under some perturbations and not others. The work could be fully reproduced from the details provided. The writing-clarity rating is 2.9 out of 5.\n\nThe manuscript was submitted in January as revision 1 by 8 authors. It runs 10 pages with 4 figures, 6 tables, and 29 references, plus 16 pages of appendix.\n\nQuestion: Will the submission be accepted?", "label": "reject", "probability_positive": 0.14} | |
| {"case_id": "343a878f681590c95795e06f", "text": "Peer Review Memo\n\nThis is an applied paper.\n\nThe approach departs substantially from prior work. The problem it addresses is broadly important across the field. The technical argument contains a serious flaw.\n\nThe strength of supporting evidence is rated 1.0 out of 5. Comparisons with existing approaches are only partly controlled.\n\nThe findings hold under some perturbations and not others. The details provided are insufficient to reproduce the work. The writing-clarity rating is 2.5 out of 5.\n\nThe manuscript was submitted in May as revision 1 by 1 author. It runs 11 pages with 6 figures, 1 table, and 29 references, plus 10 pages of appendix.\n\nQuestion: Will the submission be accepted?", "label": "reject", "probability_positive": 0.0} | |
| {"case_id": "c90de8d897dc4d12b30cd6e6", "text": "Peer Review Memo\n\nThis is an applied paper.\n\nThe core idea is a major departure from anything in the literature. The problem it addresses is of narrow interest. The technical argument is sound.\n\nThe strength of supporting evidence is rated 3.4 out of 5. Comparisons with existing approaches are inadequate.\n\nThe findings hold under some perturbations and not others. The work could be fully reproduced from the details provided. The writing-clarity rating is 5.0 out of 5.\n\nThe manuscript was submitted in April as revision 3 by 8 authors. It runs 11 pages with 9 figures, 3 tables, and 22 references, plus 5 pages of appendix.\n\nQuestion: Will the submission be accepted?", "label": "reject", "probability_positive": 0.14} | |
| {"case_id": "d2d64cbb392875f10661606c", "text": "Peer Review Memo\n\nThis is an empirical paper.\n\nThe method builds on existing techniques with modest changes. The problem it addresses is broadly important across the field. The technical argument is sound.\n\nThe strength of supporting evidence is rated 1.1 out of 5. Comparisons with prior methods are only partly controlled.\n\nThe findings hold under some perturbations and not others. The details provided are insufficient to reproduce the work. The writing-clarity rating is 3.4 out of 5.\n\nThe manuscript was submitted in September as revision 3 by 2 authors. It runs 5 pages with 5 figures, 10 tables, and 32 references, plus 27 pages of appendix.\n\nQuestion: Will the submission be accepted?", "label": "reject", "probability_positive": 0.005} | |
| {"case_id": "182969c2f5ae952664e7e815", "text": "Peer Review Memo\n\nThis is an empirical paper.\n\nThe approach departs substantially from prior work. The problem it addresses matters to a moderate part of the community. The technical argument contains a serious flaw.\n\nThe strength of supporting evidence is rated 2.8 out of 5. Comparisons with prior methods are inadequate.\n\nThe findings hold under some perturbations and not others. The details provided are insufficient to reproduce the work. The writing-clarity rating is 2.8 out of 5.\n\nThe manuscript was submitted in June as revision 3 by 5 authors. It runs 6 pages with 9 figures, 4 tables, and 32 references, plus 11 pages of appendix.\n\nQuestion: Will the submission be accepted?", "label": "reject", "probability_positive": 0.0} | |
| {"case_id": "9a76b251211691ad448163a9", "text": "Peer Review Memo\n\nThis is an applied paper.\n\nThe approach departs substantially from prior work. The problem it addresses is broadly important across the field. The technical argument contains a serious flaw.\n\nThe strength of supporting evidence is rated 2.0 out of 5. Comparisons with existing approaches are inadequate.\n\nThe findings hold under some perturbations and not others. The work could be partially reproduced from the details provided. The writing-clarity rating is 1.9 out of 5.\n\nThe manuscript was submitted in December as revision 1 by 2 authors. It runs 12 pages with 2 figures, 5 tables, and 43 references, plus 27 pages of appendix.\n\nQuestion: Will the submission be accepted?", "label": "reject", "probability_positive": 0.0} | |
| {"case_id": "ae07b2ebe2b929de8995f01a", "text": "Peer Review Memo\n\nThis is an empirical paper.\n\nThe approach departs substantially from prior work. The problem it addresses matters to a moderate part of the community. The technical argument raises limited concerns that do not undermine the main result.\n\nThe strength of supporting evidence is rated 1.0 out of 5. Comparisons with prior methods are only partly controlled.\n\nThe findings look fragile under perturbation. The details provided are insufficient to reproduce the work. The writing-clarity rating is 3.2 out of 5.\n\nThe manuscript was submitted in June as revision 3 by 4 authors. It runs 17 pages with 12 figures, 2 tables, and 32 references, plus 7 pages of appendix.\n\nQuestion: Will the submission be accepted?", "label": "reject", "probability_positive": 0.0} | |
| {"case_id": "4effb8e0f2429f188fef1bfe", "text": "Peer Review Memo\n\nThis is an empirical paper.\n\nThe core idea is a major departure from anything in the literature. The problem it addresses is of narrow interest. The technical argument raises limited concerns that do not undermine the main result.\n\nThe strength of supporting evidence is rated 3.1 out of 5. Comparisons with prior methods are inadequate.\n\nThe findings look fragile under perturbation. The work could be fully reproduced from the details provided. The writing-clarity rating is 1.3 out of 5.\n\nThe manuscript was submitted in March as revision 1 by 3 authors. It runs 10 pages with 5 figures, 1 table, and 14 references, plus 11 pages of appendix.\n\nQuestion: Will the submission be accepted?", "label": "reject", "probability_positive": 0.005} | |
| {"case_id": "6f9cd8e1d89caccf447536f8", "text": "Peer Review Memo\n\nThis is an empirical paper.\n\nThe core idea is a major departure from anything in the literature. The problem it addresses is of narrow interest. The technical argument contains a serious flaw.\n\nThe strength of supporting evidence is rated 4.4 out of 5. Comparisons with prior methods are inadequate.\n\nThe findings look fragile under perturbation. The details provided are insufficient to reproduce the work. The writing-clarity rating is 1.1 out of 5.\n\nThe manuscript was submitted in October as revision 3 by 5 authors. It runs 15 pages with 12 figures, 1 table, and 67 references, plus 19 pages of appendix.\n\nQuestion: Will the submission be accepted?", "label": "reject", "probability_positive": 0.0} | |
| {"case_id": "749cc04ab380fbea620dd877", "text": "Peer Review Memo\n\nThis is a theoretical paper.\n\nThe method builds on existing techniques with modest changes. The problem it addresses is of narrow interest. The technical argument is sound.\n\nThe strength of supporting evidence is rated 4.0 out of 5. The comparison with prior theoretical results and their assumptions is only partly developed.\n\nThe conclusions are sensitive to small changes in the assumptions. The work could be fully reproduced from the details provided. The writing-clarity rating is 1.3 out of 5.\n\nThe manuscript was submitted in August as revision 1 by 7 authors. It runs 6 pages with 6 figures, 1 table, and 9 references, plus 12 pages of appendix.\n\nQuestion: Will the submission be accepted?", "label": "reject", "probability_positive": 0.05} | |
| {"case_id": "7ea6b3f1983496dd5e12b95d", "text": "Peer Review Memo\n\nThis is an applied paper.\n\nThe approach departs substantially from prior work. The problem it addresses is of narrow interest. The technical argument is sound.\n\nThe strength of supporting evidence is rated 3.5 out of 5. Comparisons with existing approaches are inadequate.\n\nThe findings look fragile under perturbation. The work could be partially reproduced from the details provided. The writing-clarity rating is 1.5 out of 5.\n\nThe manuscript was submitted in September as revision 3 by 3 authors. It runs 20 pages with 0 figures, 4 tables, and 12 references, plus 0 pages of appendix.\n\nQuestion: Will the submission be accepted?", "label": "reject", "probability_positive": 0.02} | |
| {"case_id": "9f3ccb6b917d436217f2491f", "text": "Peer Review Memo\n\nThis is an empirical paper.\n\nThe approach departs substantially from prior work. The problem it addresses is broadly important across the field. The technical argument is sound.\n\nThe strength of supporting evidence is rated 3.2 out of 5. Comparisons with prior methods are only partly controlled.\n\nThe findings look fragile under perturbation. The work could be fully reproduced from the details provided. The writing-clarity rating is 2.1 out of 5.\n\nThe manuscript was submitted in June as revision 1 by 6 authors. It runs 9 pages with 1 figure, 3 tables, and 30 references, plus 9 pages of appendix.\n\nQuestion: Will the submission be accepted?", "label": "accept", "probability_positive": 0.86} | |
| {"case_id": "652da8add3ade6a6b6b4e7d5", "text": "Peer Review Memo\n\nThis is a theoretical paper.\n\nThe approach departs substantially from prior work. The problem it addresses is of narrow interest. The technical argument contains a serious flaw.\n\nThe strength of supporting evidence is rated 1.4 out of 5. The comparison with prior theoretical results and their assumptions is inadequate.\n\nThe conclusions remain valid under reasonable changes in the assumptions. The details provided are insufficient to reproduce the work. The writing-clarity rating is 4.4 out of 5.\n\nThe manuscript was submitted in November as revision 1 by 8 authors. It runs 6 pages with 0 figures, 0 tables, and 36 references, plus 0 pages of appendix.\n\nQuestion: Will the submission be accepted?", "label": "reject", "probability_positive": 0.0} | |
| {"case_id": "f34f00083670c2afe3d31571", "text": "Peer Review Memo\n\nThis is an empirical paper.\n\nThe approach departs substantially from prior work. The problem it addresses is of narrow interest. The technical argument contains a serious flaw.\n\nThe strength of supporting evidence is rated 1.4 out of 5. Comparisons with prior methods are inadequate.\n\nThe findings remain stable under perturbation. The work could be partially reproduced from the details provided. The writing-clarity rating is 2.7 out of 5.\n\nThe manuscript was submitted in November as revision 3 by 10 authors. It runs 14 pages with 5 figures, 9 tables, and 45 references, plus 8 pages of appendix.\n\nQuestion: Will the submission be accepted?", "label": "reject", "probability_positive": 0.0} | |
| {"case_id": "1145da940bfb24cc40974c2d", "text": "Peer Review Memo\n\nThis is a theoretical paper.\n\nThe method builds on existing techniques with modest changes. The problem it addresses is of narrow interest. The technical argument is sound.\n\nThe strength of supporting evidence is rated 3.1 out of 5. The comparison with prior theoretical results and their assumptions is inadequate.\n\nThe conclusions are sensitive to small changes in the assumptions. The work could be fully reproduced from the details provided. The writing-clarity rating is 4.7 out of 5.\n\nThe manuscript was submitted in January as revision 3 by 4 authors. It runs 4 pages with 4 figures, 1 table, and 29 references, plus 18 pages of appendix.\n\nQuestion: Will the submission be accepted?", "label": "reject", "probability_positive": 0.05} | |
| {"case_id": "8c43e8ab40a327c7ad0c6c2d", "text": "Peer Review Memo\n\nThis is an empirical paper.\n\nThe approach departs substantially from prior work. The problem it addresses is of narrow interest. The technical argument raises limited concerns that do not undermine the main result.\n\nThe strength of supporting evidence is rated 2.3 out of 5. Comparisons with prior methods are only partly controlled.\n\nThe findings remain stable under perturbation. The details provided are insufficient to reproduce the work. The writing-clarity rating is 1.6 out of 5.\n\nThe manuscript was submitted in January as revision 3 by 3 authors. It runs 10 pages with 0 figures, 8 tables, and 60 references, plus 0 pages of appendix.\n\nQuestion: Will the submission be accepted?", "label": "reject", "probability_positive": 0.0} | |
| {"case_id": "f2d2fb1947e240c2fbc8c9fc", "text": "Peer Review Memo\n\nThis is a theoretical paper.\n\nThe approach departs substantially from prior work. The problem it addresses matters to a moderate part of the community. The technical argument is sound.\n\nThe strength of supporting evidence is rated 4.8 out of 5. The comparison with prior theoretical results and their assumptions is only partly developed.\n\nThe conclusions hold under some changes in the assumptions and not others. The work could be partially reproduced from the details provided. The writing-clarity rating is 2.6 out of 5.\n\nThe manuscript was submitted in June as revision 3 by 3 authors. It runs 13 pages with 5 figures, 2 tables, and 11 references, plus 0 pages of appendix.\n\nQuestion: Will the submission be accepted?", "label": "accept", "probability_positive": 0.98} | |
| {"case_id": "63cfbf326a34701f6a0feead", "text": "Peer Review Memo\n\nThis is an empirical paper.\n\nThe method builds on existing techniques with modest changes. The problem it addresses matters to a moderate part of the community. The technical argument is sound.\n\nThe strength of supporting evidence is rated 4.5 out of 5. Comparisons with prior methods are inadequate.\n\nThe findings hold under some perturbations and not others. The work could be fully reproduced from the details provided. The writing-clarity rating is 1.1 out of 5.\n\nThe manuscript was submitted in November as revision 1 by 5 authors. It runs 9 pages with 5 figures, 7 tables, and 40 references, plus 0 pages of appendix.\n\nQuestion: Will the submission be accepted?", "label": "accept", "probability_positive": 0.86} | |
| {"case_id": "2791529c241b4199c8173c31", "text": "Peer Review Memo\n\nThis is a theoretical paper.\n\nThe approach departs substantially from prior work. The problem it addresses matters to a moderate part of the community. The technical argument raises limited concerns that do not undermine the main result.\n\nThe strength of supporting evidence is rated 1.9 out of 5. The comparison with prior theoretical results and their assumptions is only partly developed.\n\nThe conclusions are sensitive to small changes in the assumptions. The details provided are insufficient to reproduce the work. The writing-clarity rating is 2.3 out of 5.\n\nThe manuscript was submitted in August as revision 3 by 8 authors. It runs 4 pages with 7 figures, 0 tables, and 23 references, plus 26 pages of appendix.\n\nQuestion: Will the submission be accepted?", "label": "reject", "probability_positive": 0.0} | |
| {"case_id": "58bb159b2fc83dc3690c0e8d", "text": "Peer Review Memo\n\nThis is an applied paper.\n\nThe method builds on existing techniques with modest changes. The problem it addresses is of narrow interest. The technical argument raises limited concerns that do not undermine the main result.\n\nThe strength of supporting evidence is rated 1.3 out of 5. Comparisons with existing approaches are well controlled.\n\nThe findings look fragile under perturbation. The work could be fully reproduced from the details provided. The writing-clarity rating is 2.2 out of 5.\n\nThe manuscript was submitted in June as revision 3 by 2 authors. It runs 11 pages with 7 figures, 8 tables, and 31 references, plus 0 pages of appendix.\n\nQuestion: Will the submission be accepted?", "label": "reject", "probability_positive": 0.0} | |
| {"case_id": "50fe17d0503111fd2ffce3bd", "text": "Peer Review Memo\n\nThis is an applied paper.\n\nThe approach departs substantially from prior work. The problem it addresses is of narrow interest. The technical argument raises limited concerns that do not undermine the main result.\n\nThe strength of supporting evidence is rated 4.3 out of 5. Comparisons with existing approaches are inadequate.\n\nThe findings hold under some perturbations and not others. The details provided are insufficient to reproduce the work. The writing-clarity rating is 1.0 out of 5.\n\nThe manuscript was submitted in December as revision 1 by 2 authors. It runs 17 pages with 5 figures, 3 tables, and 32 references, plus 18 pages of appendix.\n\nQuestion: Will the submission be accepted?", "label": "reject", "probability_positive": 0.005} | |
| {"case_id": "d0d063d31f4cb987057e175e", "text": "Peer Review Memo\n\nThis is an applied paper.\n\nThe method builds on existing techniques with modest changes. The problem it addresses is broadly important across the field. The technical argument is sound.\n\nThe strength of supporting evidence is rated 4.2 out of 5. Comparisons with existing approaches are well controlled.\n\nThe findings hold under some perturbations and not others. The details provided are insufficient to reproduce the work. The writing-clarity rating is 2.0 out of 5.\n\nThe manuscript was submitted in March as revision 3 by 9 authors. It runs 13 pages with 5 figures, 1 table, and 28 references, plus 14 pages of appendix.\n\nQuestion: Will the submission be accepted?", "label": "accept", "probability_positive": 0.995} | |
| {"case_id": "8fda647d41cd6bb3aa337367", "text": "Peer Review Memo\n\nThis is an applied paper.\n\nThe core idea is a major departure from anything in the literature. The problem it addresses is of narrow interest. The technical argument is sound.\n\nThe strength of supporting evidence is rated 3.0 out of 5. Comparisons with existing approaches are only partly controlled.\n\nThe findings look fragile under perturbation. The details provided are insufficient to reproduce the work. The writing-clarity rating is 1.0 out of 5.\n\nThe manuscript was submitted in February as revision 3 by 7 authors. It runs 23 pages with 12 figures, 8 tables, and 70 references, plus 0 pages of appendix.\n\nQuestion: Will the submission be accepted?", "label": "reject", "probability_positive": 0.005} | |
| {"case_id": "aaf35d46df3d3de7e160b605", "text": "Peer Review Memo\n\nThis is a theoretical paper.\n\nThe core idea is a major departure from anything in the literature. The problem it addresses is broadly important across the field. The technical argument is sound.\n\nThe strength of supporting evidence is rated 3.5 out of 5. The comparison with prior theoretical results and their assumptions is only partly developed.\n\nThe conclusions hold under some changes in the assumptions and not others. The work could be fully reproduced from the details provided. The writing-clarity rating is 2.4 out of 5.\n\nThe manuscript was submitted in April as revision 3 by 3 authors. It runs 10 pages with 3 figures, 7 tables, and 28 references, plus 14 pages of appendix.\n\nQuestion: Will the submission be accepted?", "label": "accept", "probability_positive": 0.999} | |
| {"case_id": "c84fcfb242ed96cfba0da02b", "text": "Peer Review Memo\n\nThis is an empirical paper.\n\nThe core idea is a major departure from anything in the literature. The problem it addresses is of narrow interest. The technical argument is sound.\n\nThe strength of supporting evidence is rated 2.9 out of 5. Comparisons with prior methods are well controlled.\n\nThe findings hold under some perturbations and not others. The details provided are insufficient to reproduce the work. The writing-clarity rating is 3.4 out of 5.\n\nThe manuscript was submitted in January as revision 1 by 2 authors. It runs 11 pages with 12 figures, 3 tables, and 100 references, plus 4 pages of appendix.\n\nQuestion: Will the submission be accepted?", "label": "accept", "probability_positive": 0.86} | |
| {"case_id": "25775d549b62291fa94c0578", "text": "Peer Review Memo\n\nThis is an applied paper.\n\nThe method builds on existing techniques with modest changes. The problem it addresses is of narrow interest. The technical argument raises limited concerns that do not undermine the main result.\n\nThe strength of supporting evidence is rated 2.3 out of 5. Comparisons with existing approaches are inadequate.\n\nThe findings remain stable under perturbation. The work could be partially reproduced from the details provided. The writing-clarity rating is 3.6 out of 5.\n\nThe manuscript was submitted in August as revision 3 by 3 authors. It runs 10 pages with 7 figures, 1 table, and 53 references, plus 23 pages of appendix.\n\nQuestion: Will the submission be accepted?", "label": "reject", "probability_positive": 0.0} | |
| {"case_id": "bab145fe2717c9fb514c3916", "text": "Peer Review Memo\n\nThis is a theoretical paper.\n\nThe method builds on existing techniques with modest changes. The problem it addresses is of narrow interest. The technical argument is sound.\n\nThe strength of supporting evidence is rated 2.7 out of 5. The comparison with prior theoretical results and their assumptions is inadequate.\n\nThe conclusions remain valid under reasonable changes in the assumptions. The details provided are insufficient to reproduce the work. The writing-clarity rating is 1.5 out of 5.\n\nThe manuscript was submitted in April as revision 1 by 3 authors. It runs 8 pages with 11 figures, 4 tables, and 60 references, plus 0 pages of appendix.\n\nQuestion: Will the submission be accepted?", "label": "reject", "probability_positive": 0.005} | |
| {"case_id": "04d48aaec3604f44503221b6", "text": "Peer Review Memo\n\nThis is a theoretical paper.\n\nThe method builds on existing techniques with modest changes. The problem it addresses is of narrow interest. The technical argument is sound.\n\nThe strength of supporting evidence is rated 1.2 out of 5. The comparison with prior theoretical results and their assumptions is inadequate.\n\nThe conclusions hold under some changes in the assumptions and not others. The work could be fully reproduced from the details provided. The writing-clarity rating is 4.2 out of 5.\n\nThe manuscript was submitted in May as revision 3 by 6 authors. It runs 17 pages with 9 figures, 8 tables, and 64 references, plus 21 pages of appendix.\n\nQuestion: Will the submission be accepted?", "label": "reject", "probability_positive": 0.02} | |
| {"case_id": "aa3236d49bb35e33bba9c436", "text": "Peer Review Memo\n\nThis is a theoretical paper.\n\nThe method builds on existing techniques with modest changes. The problem it addresses is of narrow interest. The technical argument raises limited concerns that do not undermine the main result.\n\nThe strength of supporting evidence is rated 1.8 out of 5. The comparison with prior theoretical results and their assumptions is only partly developed.\n\nThe conclusions are sensitive to small changes in the assumptions. The work could be fully reproduced from the details provided. The writing-clarity rating is 2.9 out of 5.\n\nThe manuscript was submitted in December as revision 3 by 1 author. It runs 8 pages with 10 figures, 5 tables, and 63 references, plus 8 pages of appendix.\n\nQuestion: Will the submission be accepted?", "label": "reject", "probability_positive": 0.0} | |
| {"case_id": "200b03bee1be8d23a06b0efb", "text": "Peer Review Memo\n\nThis is a theoretical paper.\n\nThe core idea is a major departure from anything in the literature. The problem it addresses is of narrow interest. The technical argument raises limited concerns that do not undermine the main result.\n\nThe strength of supporting evidence is rated 4.2 out of 5. The comparison with prior theoretical results and their assumptions is inadequate.\n\nThe conclusions are sensitive to small changes in the assumptions. The work could be fully reproduced from the details provided. The writing-clarity rating is 3.1 out of 5.\n\nThe manuscript was submitted in January as revision 1 by 1 author. It runs 11 pages with 8 figures, 0 tables, and 15 references, plus 0 pages of appendix.\n\nQuestion: Will the submission be accepted?", "label": "accept", "probability_positive": 0.86} | |
| {"case_id": "7ae39bb9333af0fe42d78810", "text": "Peer Review Memo\n\nThis is an empirical paper.\n\nThe core idea is a major departure from anything in the literature. The problem it addresses is of narrow interest. The technical argument is sound.\n\nThe strength of supporting evidence is rated 1.3 out of 5. Comparisons with prior methods are inadequate.\n\nThe findings look fragile under perturbation. The work could be fully reproduced from the details provided. The writing-clarity rating is 1.5 out of 5.\n\nThe manuscript was submitted in June as revision 1 by 4 authors. It runs 8 pages with 10 figures, 6 tables, and 22 references, plus 0 pages of appendix.\n\nQuestion: Will the submission be accepted?", "label": "reject", "probability_positive": 0.001} | |
| {"case_id": "57f269207ea165977b7131c8", "text": "Peer Review Memo\n\nThis is an empirical paper.\n\nThe approach departs substantially from prior work. The problem it addresses is broadly important across the field. The technical argument is sound.\n\nThe strength of supporting evidence is rated 1.9 out of 5. Comparisons with prior methods are well controlled.\n\nThe findings look fragile under perturbation. The work could be partially reproduced from the details provided. The writing-clarity rating is 1.6 out of 5.\n\nThe manuscript was submitted in October as revision 1 by 5 authors. It runs 4 pages with 6 figures, 4 tables, and 60 references, plus 9 pages of appendix.\n\nQuestion: Will the submission be accepted?", "label": "reject", "probability_positive": 0.05} | |
| {"case_id": "6ad55e95ae49eb9778815756", "text": "Peer Review Memo\n\nThis is an empirical paper.\n\nThe method builds on existing techniques with modest changes. The problem it addresses matters to a moderate part of the community. The technical argument is sound.\n\nThe strength of supporting evidence is rated 2.4 out of 5. Comparisons with prior methods are inadequate.\n\nThe findings look fragile under perturbation. The work could be partially reproduced from the details provided. The writing-clarity rating is 1.2 out of 5.\n\nThe manuscript was submitted in October as revision 1 by 9 authors. It runs 9 pages with 4 figures, 5 tables, and 87 references, plus 5 pages of appendix.\n\nQuestion: Will the submission be accepted?", "label": "reject", "probability_positive": 0.0} | |
| {"case_id": "6ab65547fb1c7d8031dd515d", "text": "Peer Review Memo\n\nThis is a theoretical paper.\n\nThe core idea is a major departure from anything in the literature. The problem it addresses matters to a moderate part of the community. The technical argument is sound.\n\nThe strength of supporting evidence is rated 1.0 out of 5. The comparison with prior theoretical results and their assumptions is thorough.\n\nThe conclusions are sensitive to small changes in the assumptions. The work could be fully reproduced from the details provided. The writing-clarity rating is 3.0 out of 5.\n\nThe manuscript was submitted in August as revision 3 by 6 authors. It runs 10 pages with 19 figures, 2 tables, and 36 references, plus 8 pages of appendix.\n\nQuestion: Will the submission be accepted?", "label": "accept", "probability_positive": 0.95} | |
| {"case_id": "051297c3b36e4c7027ab509e", "text": "Peer Review Memo\n\nThis is an applied paper.\n\nThe core idea is a major departure from anything in the literature. The problem it addresses matters to a moderate part of the community. The technical argument is sound.\n\nThe strength of supporting evidence is rated 1.0 out of 5. Comparisons with existing approaches are inadequate.\n\nThe findings remain stable under perturbation. The details provided are insufficient to reproduce the work. The writing-clarity rating is 1.7 out of 5.\n\nThe manuscript was submitted in August as revision 1 by 1 author. It runs 9 pages with 2 figures, 1 table, and 23 references, plus 22 pages of appendix.\n\nQuestion: Will the submission be accepted?", "label": "reject", "probability_positive": 0.02} | |
| {"case_id": "8fcf92befaf2baaf41b938dc", "text": "Peer Review Memo\n\nThis is an empirical paper.\n\nThe method builds on existing techniques with modest changes. The problem it addresses matters to a moderate part of the community. The technical argument raises limited concerns that do not undermine the main result.\n\nThe strength of supporting evidence is rated 1.4 out of 5. Comparisons with prior methods are inadequate.\n\nThe findings hold under some perturbations and not others. The details provided are insufficient to reproduce the work. The writing-clarity rating is 1.8 out of 5.\n\nThe manuscript was submitted in August as revision 3 by 10 authors. It runs 7 pages with 6 figures, 8 tables, and 43 references, plus 0 pages of appendix.\n\nQuestion: Will the submission be accepted?", "label": "reject", "probability_positive": 0.0} | |
| {"case_id": "05d3eb8ec31058a2fec16c34", "text": "Peer Review Memo\n\nThis is a theoretical paper.\n\nThe core idea is a major departure from anything in the literature. The problem it addresses is of narrow interest. The technical argument raises limited concerns that do not undermine the main result.\n\nThe strength of supporting evidence is rated 4.6 out of 5. The comparison with prior theoretical results and their assumptions is only partly developed.\n\nThe conclusions remain valid under reasonable changes in the assumptions. The details provided are insufficient to reproduce the work. The writing-clarity rating is 1.6 out of 5.\n\nThe manuscript was submitted in May as revision 1 by 2 authors. It runs 7 pages with 9 figures, 11 tables, and 23 references, plus 1 page of appendix.\n\nQuestion: Will the submission be accepted?", "label": "reject", "probability_positive": 0.14} | |
| {"case_id": "7165ab61e541db231bff60f2", "text": "Peer Review Memo\n\nThis is an empirical paper.\n\nThe method builds on existing techniques with modest changes. The problem it addresses is broadly important across the field. The technical argument raises limited concerns that do not undermine the main result.\n\nThe strength of supporting evidence is rated 1.3 out of 5. Comparisons with prior methods are well controlled.\n\nThe findings look fragile under perturbation. The details provided are insufficient to reproduce the work. The writing-clarity rating is 3.3 out of 5.\n\nThe manuscript was submitted in June as revision 1 by 4 authors. It runs 17 pages with 2 figures, 4 tables, and 64 references, plus 18 pages of appendix.\n\nQuestion: Will the submission be accepted?", "label": "reject", "probability_positive": 0.001} | |
| {"case_id": "de9afeffc5c93fa7934108e0", "text": "Peer Review Memo\n\nThis is an empirical paper.\n\nThe core idea is a major departure from anything in the literature. The problem it addresses is of narrow interest. The technical argument raises limited concerns that do not undermine the main result.\n\nThe strength of supporting evidence is rated 1.3 out of 5. Comparisons with prior methods are inadequate.\n\nThe findings look fragile under perturbation. The details provided are insufficient to reproduce the work. The writing-clarity rating is 1.8 out of 5.\n\nThe manuscript was submitted in April as revision 3 by 5 authors. It runs 14 pages with 2 figures, 6 tables, and 44 references, plus 7 pages of appendix.\n\nQuestion: Will the submission be accepted?", "label": "reject", "probability_positive": 0.0} | |
| {"case_id": "65e09b6dcefd5d134eab738d", "text": "Peer Review Memo\n\nThis is an empirical paper.\n\nThe method builds on existing techniques with modest changes. The problem it addresses is broadly important across the field. The technical argument raises limited concerns that do not undermine the main result.\n\nThe strength of supporting evidence is rated 1.7 out of 5. Comparisons with prior methods are only partly controlled.\n\nThe findings remain stable under perturbation. The work could be fully reproduced from the details provided. The writing-clarity rating is 2.8 out of 5.\n\nThe manuscript was submitted in October as revision 1 by 8 authors. It runs 4 pages with 4 figures, 0 tables, and 56 references, plus 0 pages of appendix.\n\nQuestion: Will the submission be accepted?", "label": "reject", "probability_positive": 0.05} | |
| {"case_id": "ac4987ed39ba906c344eb249", "text": "Peer Review Memo\n\nThis is an empirical paper.\n\nThe approach departs substantially from prior work. The problem it addresses matters to a moderate part of the community. The technical argument is sound.\n\nThe strength of supporting evidence is rated 1.6 out of 5. Comparisons with prior methods are inadequate.\n\nThe findings hold under some perturbations and not others. The work could be partially reproduced from the details provided. The writing-clarity rating is 3.3 out of 5.\n\nThe manuscript was submitted in November as revision 1 by 5 authors. It runs 11 pages with 6 figures, 7 tables, and 26 references, plus 19 pages of appendix.\n\nQuestion: Will the submission be accepted?", "label": "reject", "probability_positive": 0.005} | |
| {"case_id": "830bd0a44722d05b54bc4dae", "text": "Peer Review Memo\n\nThis is an applied paper.\n\nThe method builds on existing techniques with modest changes. The problem it addresses is broadly important across the field. The technical argument raises limited concerns that do not undermine the main result.\n\nThe strength of supporting evidence is rated 3.6 out of 5. Comparisons with existing approaches are only partly controlled.\n\nThe findings remain stable under perturbation. The details provided are insufficient to reproduce the work. The writing-clarity rating is 2.2 out of 5.\n\nThe manuscript was submitted in August as revision 3 by 6 authors. It runs 13 pages with 9 figures, 2 tables, and 27 references, plus 27 pages of appendix.\n\nQuestion: Will the submission be accepted?", "label": "accept", "probability_positive": 0.95} | |
| {"case_id": "d89ef6d31af048a62dc35392", "text": "Peer Review Memo\n\nThis is a theoretical paper.\n\nThe method builds on existing techniques with modest changes. The problem it addresses is of narrow interest. The technical argument raises limited concerns that do not undermine the main result.\n\nThe strength of supporting evidence is rated 3.2 out of 5. The comparison with prior theoretical results and their assumptions is thorough.\n\nThe conclusions hold under some changes in the assumptions and not others. The details provided are insufficient to reproduce the work. The writing-clarity rating is 5.0 out of 5.\n\nThe manuscript was submitted in July as revision 1 by 4 authors. It runs 19 pages with 5 figures, 4 tables, and 47 references, plus 0 pages of appendix.\n\nQuestion: Will the submission be accepted?", "label": "reject", "probability_positive": 0.005} | |
| {"case_id": "e86cc9b2fa3d8ad4232aee24", "text": "Peer Review Memo\n\nThis is an empirical paper.\n\nThe approach departs substantially from prior work. The problem it addresses matters to a moderate part of the community. The technical argument is sound.\n\nThe strength of supporting evidence is rated 4.6 out of 5. Comparisons with prior methods are only partly controlled.\n\nThe findings hold under some perturbations and not others. The work could be partially reproduced from the details provided. The writing-clarity rating is 2.5 out of 5.\n\nThe manuscript was submitted in June as revision 3 by 4 authors. It runs 15 pages with 6 figures, 4 tables, and 44 references, plus 16 pages of appendix.\n\nQuestion: Will the submission be accepted?", "label": "accept", "probability_positive": 0.98} | |
| {"case_id": "b0aac21911367830c16fb18c", "text": "Peer Review Memo\n\nThis is an empirical paper.\n\nThe method builds on existing techniques with modest changes. The problem it addresses matters to a moderate part of the community. The technical argument is sound.\n\nThe strength of supporting evidence is rated 1.9 out of 5. Comparisons with prior methods are only partly controlled.\n\nThe findings look fragile under perturbation. The work could be fully reproduced from the details provided. The writing-clarity rating is 4.5 out of 5.\n\nThe manuscript was submitted in May as revision 3 by 1 author. It runs 10 pages with 8 figures, 3 tables, and 97 references, plus 9 pages of appendix.\n\nQuestion: Will the submission be accepted?", "label": "reject", "probability_positive": 0.02} | |
| {"case_id": "ea382fbf4cc22b773c12730e", "text": "Peer Review Memo\n\nThis is an empirical paper.\n\nThe method builds on existing techniques with modest changes. The problem it addresses is of narrow interest. The technical argument is sound.\n\nThe strength of supporting evidence is rated 3.0 out of 5. Comparisons with prior methods are only partly controlled.\n\nThe findings look fragile under perturbation. The details provided are insufficient to reproduce the work. The writing-clarity rating is 4.6 out of 5.\n\nThe manuscript was submitted in February as revision 1 by 3 authors. It runs 6 pages with 8 figures, 6 tables, and 82 references, plus 8 pages of appendix.\n\nQuestion: Will the submission be accepted?", "label": "reject", "probability_positive": 0.005} | |
| {"case_id": "30c2c6f4f6616093850d80d2", "text": "Peer Review Memo\n\nThis is a theoretical paper.\n\nThe core idea is a major departure from anything in the literature. The problem it addresses is of narrow interest. The technical argument raises limited concerns that do not undermine the main result.\n\nThe strength of supporting evidence is rated 3.3 out of 5. The comparison with prior theoretical results and their assumptions is inadequate.\n\nThe conclusions hold under some changes in the assumptions and not others. The details provided are insufficient to reproduce the work. The writing-clarity rating is 3.3 out of 5.\n\nThe manuscript was submitted in May as revision 1 by 3 authors. It runs 7 pages with 3 figures, 0 tables, and 25 references, plus 36 pages of appendix.\n\nQuestion: Will the submission be accepted?", "label": "reject", "probability_positive": 0.02} | |
| {"case_id": "f9b4425bb07d28ec17a7942c", "text": "Peer Review Memo\n\nThis is an empirical paper.\n\nThe core idea is a major departure from anything in the literature. The problem it addresses matters to a moderate part of the community. The technical argument contains a serious flaw.\n\nThe strength of supporting evidence is rated 1.4 out of 5. Comparisons with prior methods are inadequate.\n\nThe findings remain stable under perturbation. The work could be partially reproduced from the details provided. The writing-clarity rating is 2.1 out of 5.\n\nThe manuscript was submitted in October as revision 3 by 7 authors. It runs 14 pages with 1 figure, 4 tables, and 52 references, plus 28 pages of appendix.\n\nQuestion: Will the submission be accepted?", "label": "reject", "probability_positive": 0.0} | |
| {"case_id": "23c35202e517b4bbc997119b", "text": "Peer Review Memo\n\nThis is an empirical paper.\n\nThe approach departs substantially from prior work. The problem it addresses matters to a moderate part of the community. The technical argument raises limited concerns that do not undermine the main result.\n\nThe strength of supporting evidence is rated 1.7 out of 5. Comparisons with prior methods are inadequate.\n\nThe findings look fragile under perturbation. The work could be partially reproduced from the details provided. The writing-clarity rating is 4.6 out of 5.\n\nThe manuscript was submitted in January as revision 1 by 3 authors. It runs 11 pages with 1 figure, 2 tables, and 27 references, plus 22 pages of appendix.\n\nQuestion: Will the submission be accepted?", "label": "reject", "probability_positive": 0.0} | |
| {"case_id": "01682a247b7ac55753235d16", "text": "Peer Review Memo\n\nThis is an applied paper.\n\nThe method builds on existing techniques with modest changes. The problem it addresses matters to a moderate part of the community. The technical argument is sound.\n\nThe strength of supporting evidence is rated 4.0 out of 5. Comparisons with existing approaches are inadequate.\n\nThe findings look fragile under perturbation. The work could be partially reproduced from the details provided. The writing-clarity rating is 2.8 out of 5.\n\nThe manuscript was submitted in November as revision 1 by 4 authors. It runs 9 pages with 4 figures, 2 tables, and 45 references, plus 16 pages of appendix.\n\nQuestion: Will the submission be accepted?", "label": "accept", "probability_positive": 0.14} | |
| {"case_id": "a167785023aad11fc9e64731", "text": "Peer Review Memo\n\nThis is a theoretical paper.\n\nThe method builds on existing techniques with modest changes. The problem it addresses matters to a moderate part of the community. The technical argument is sound.\n\nThe strength of supporting evidence is rated 3.3 out of 5. The comparison with prior theoretical results and their assumptions is inadequate.\n\nThe conclusions remain valid under reasonable changes in the assumptions. The details provided are insufficient to reproduce the work. The writing-clarity rating is 1.9 out of 5.\n\nThe manuscript was submitted in May as revision 3 by 7 authors. It runs 5 pages with 9 figures, 4 tables, and 32 references, plus 15 pages of appendix.\n\nQuestion: Will the submission be accepted?", "label": "reject", "probability_positive": 0.02} | |
| {"case_id": "be6769e78d6975b481f69276", "text": "Peer Review Memo\n\nThis is an empirical paper.\n\nThe approach departs substantially from prior work. The problem it addresses matters to a moderate part of the community. The technical argument is sound.\n\nThe strength of supporting evidence is rated 1.3 out of 5. Comparisons with prior methods are inadequate.\n\nThe findings remain stable under perturbation. The details provided are insufficient to reproduce the work. The writing-clarity rating is 4.9 out of 5.\n\nThe manuscript was submitted in July as revision 3 by 3 authors. It runs 9 pages with 4 figures, 2 tables, and 57 references, plus 20 pages of appendix.\n\nQuestion: Will the submission be accepted?", "label": "reject", "probability_positive": 0.02} | |
| {"case_id": "d657f7fcdaab8f8c8bf0e7a0", "text": "Peer Review Memo\n\nThis is an empirical paper.\n\nThe method builds on existing techniques with modest changes. The problem it addresses matters to a moderate part of the community. The technical argument raises limited concerns that do not undermine the main result.\n\nThe strength of supporting evidence is rated 2.9 out of 5. Comparisons with prior methods are well controlled.\n\nThe findings look fragile under perturbation. The work could be fully reproduced from the details provided. The writing-clarity rating is 3.2 out of 5.\n\nThe manuscript was submitted in February as revision 1 by 3 authors. It runs 21 pages with 7 figures, 4 tables, and 61 references, plus 7 pages of appendix.\n\nQuestion: Will the submission be accepted?", "label": "reject", "probability_positive": 0.05} | |
| {"case_id": "fc61616168ea9b78e9d344ef", "text": "Peer Review Memo\n\nThis is a theoretical paper.\n\nThe core idea is a major departure from anything in the literature. The problem it addresses is of narrow interest. The technical argument is sound.\n\nThe strength of supporting evidence is rated 1.0 out of 5. The comparison with prior theoretical results and their assumptions is inadequate.\n\nThe conclusions remain valid under reasonable changes in the assumptions. The details provided are insufficient to reproduce the work. The writing-clarity rating is 1.0 out of 5.\n\nThe manuscript was submitted in June as revision 1 by 10 authors. It runs 13 pages with 4 figures, 5 tables, and 42 references, plus 23 pages of appendix.\n\nQuestion: Will the submission be accepted?", "label": "reject", "probability_positive": 0.02} | |
| {"case_id": "02d0cb54df46b4da4741e193", "text": "Peer Review Memo\n\nThis is an empirical paper.\n\nThe core idea is a major departure from anything in the literature. The problem it addresses is of narrow interest. The technical argument contains a serious flaw.\n\nThe strength of supporting evidence is rated 2.2 out of 5. Comparisons with prior methods are only partly controlled.\n\nThe findings hold under some perturbations and not others. The details provided are insufficient to reproduce the work. The writing-clarity rating is 3.5 out of 5.\n\nThe manuscript was submitted in March as revision 1 by 4 authors. It runs 5 pages with 10 figures, 8 tables, and 17 references, plus 0 pages of appendix.\n\nQuestion: Will the submission be accepted?", "label": "reject", "probability_positive": 0.0} | |
| {"case_id": "b2221c6b06a37cbf6235c808", "text": "Peer Review Memo\n\nThis is an applied paper.\n\nThe method builds on existing techniques with modest changes. The problem it addresses is of narrow interest. The technical argument is sound.\n\nThe strength of supporting evidence is rated 4.2 out of 5. Comparisons with existing approaches are inadequate.\n\nThe findings look fragile under perturbation. The work could be partially reproduced from the details provided. The writing-clarity rating is 3.5 out of 5.\n\nThe manuscript was submitted in January as revision 3 by 7 authors. It runs 15 pages with 0 figures, 2 tables, and 67 references, plus 14 pages of appendix.\n\nQuestion: Will the submission be accepted?", "label": "reject", "probability_positive": 0.05} | |
| {"case_id": "117fb9f0edee6e0e95aea4c0", "text": "Peer Review Memo\n\nThis is an empirical paper.\n\nThe method builds on existing techniques with modest changes. The problem it addresses is broadly important across the field. The technical argument contains a serious flaw.\n\nThe strength of supporting evidence is rated 2.3 out of 5. Comparisons with prior methods are inadequate.\n\nThe findings look fragile under perturbation. The work could be partially reproduced from the details provided. The writing-clarity rating is 3.2 out of 5.\n\nThe manuscript was submitted in March as revision 3 by 5 authors. It runs 7 pages with 12 figures, 7 tables, and 44 references, plus 19 pages of appendix.\n\nQuestion: Will the submission be accepted?", "label": "reject", "probability_positive": 0.0} | |
| {"case_id": "2aa55013d05b0bff84e96158", "text": "Peer Review Memo\n\nThis is an applied paper.\n\nThe core idea is a major departure from anything in the literature. The problem it addresses matters to a moderate part of the community. The technical argument raises limited concerns that do not undermine the main result.\n\nThe strength of supporting evidence is rated 1.1 out of 5. Comparisons with existing approaches are well controlled.\n\nThe findings remain stable under perturbation. The work could be fully reproduced from the details provided. The writing-clarity rating is 2.4 out of 5.\n\nThe manuscript was submitted in February as revision 3 by 5 authors. It runs 10 pages with 7 figures, 9 tables, and 67 references, plus 6 pages of appendix.\n\nQuestion: Will the submission be accepted?", "label": "reject", "probability_positive": 0.05} | |
| {"case_id": "de828c7dadb472776647a79e", "text": "Peer Review Memo\n\nThis is a theoretical paper.\n\nThe method builds on existing techniques with modest changes. The problem it addresses matters to a moderate part of the community. The technical argument is sound.\n\nThe strength of supporting evidence is rated 5.0 out of 5. The comparison with prior theoretical results and their assumptions is inadequate.\n\nThe conclusions hold under some changes in the assumptions and not others. The work could be partially reproduced from the details provided. The writing-clarity rating is 4.3 out of 5.\n\nThe manuscript was submitted in August as revision 3 by 4 authors. It runs 6 pages with 4 figures, 0 tables, and 27 references, plus 21 pages of appendix.\n\nQuestion: Will the submission be accepted?", "label": "accept", "probability_positive": 0.95} | |
| {"case_id": "7430d7d49c138cd3ba400125", "text": "Peer Review Memo\n\nThis is a theoretical paper.\n\nThe method builds on existing techniques with modest changes. The problem it addresses is broadly important across the field. The technical argument is sound.\n\nThe strength of supporting evidence is rated 5.0 out of 5. The comparison with prior theoretical results and their assumptions is thorough.\n\nThe conclusions are sensitive to small changes in the assumptions. The work could be fully reproduced from the details provided. The writing-clarity rating is 1.4 out of 5.\n\nThe manuscript was submitted in August as revision 3 by 3 authors. It runs 8 pages with 6 figures, 4 tables, and 97 references, plus 18 pages of appendix.\n\nQuestion: Will the submission be accepted?", "label": "accept", "probability_positive": 0.98} | |
| {"case_id": "874f55ad0be49840041ad94b", "text": "Peer Review Memo\n\nThis is an applied paper.\n\nThe method builds on existing techniques with modest changes. The problem it addresses matters to a moderate part of the community. The technical argument raises limited concerns that do not undermine the main result.\n\nThe strength of supporting evidence is rated 1.8 out of 5. Comparisons with existing approaches are inadequate.\n\nThe findings look fragile under perturbation. The details provided are insufficient to reproduce the work. The writing-clarity rating is 1.3 out of 5.\n\nThe manuscript was submitted in August as revision 3 by 2 authors. It runs 14 pages with 13 figures, 1 table, and 46 references, plus 0 pages of appendix.\n\nQuestion: Will the submission be accepted?", "label": "reject", "probability_positive": 0.0} | |
| {"case_id": "90a414ff547453decaf6ff1d", "text": "Peer Review Memo\n\nThis is an applied paper.\n\nThe method builds on existing techniques with modest changes. The problem it addresses matters to a moderate part of the community. The technical argument is sound.\n\nThe strength of supporting evidence is rated 1.0 out of 5. Comparisons with existing approaches are well controlled.\n\nThe findings look fragile under perturbation. The details provided are insufficient to reproduce the work. The writing-clarity rating is 1.9 out of 5.\n\nThe manuscript was submitted in May as revision 3 by 2 authors. It runs 9 pages with 13 figures, 5 tables, and 67 references, plus 17 pages of appendix.\n\nQuestion: Will the submission be accepted?", "label": "reject", "probability_positive": 0.0} | |
| {"case_id": "ee0209cc89a9b6349607d83a", "text": "Peer Review Memo\n\nThis is an applied paper.\n\nThe method builds on existing techniques with modest changes. The problem it addresses is of narrow interest. The technical argument is sound.\n\nThe strength of supporting evidence is rated 1.3 out of 5. Comparisons with existing approaches are inadequate.\n\nThe findings look fragile under perturbation. The work could be fully reproduced from the details provided. The writing-clarity rating is 1.9 out of 5.\n\nThe manuscript was submitted in July as revision 1 by 2 authors. It runs 9 pages with 7 figures, 1 table, and 50 references, plus 0 pages of appendix.\n\nQuestion: Will the submission be accepted?", "label": "reject", "probability_positive": 0.0} | |
| {"case_id": "10cfef7e5027c4793ddfac13", "text": "Peer Review Memo\n\nThis is an empirical paper.\n\nThe core idea is a major departure from anything in the literature. The problem it addresses is of narrow interest. The technical argument contains a serious flaw.\n\nThe strength of supporting evidence is rated 2.0 out of 5. Comparisons with prior methods are only partly controlled.\n\nThe findings look fragile under perturbation. The work could be fully reproduced from the details provided. The writing-clarity rating is 1.1 out of 5.\n\nThe manuscript was submitted in January as revision 3 by 1 author. It runs 9 pages with 4 figures, 6 tables, and 85 references, plus 31 pages of appendix.\n\nQuestion: Will the submission be accepted?", "label": "reject", "probability_positive": 0.0} | |
| {"case_id": "38a01cec3822a9f5ff78cf39", "text": "Peer Review Memo\n\nThis is an empirical paper.\n\nThe approach departs substantially from prior work. The problem it addresses matters to a moderate part of the community. The technical argument is sound.\n\nThe strength of supporting evidence is rated 3.1 out of 5. Comparisons with prior methods are only partly controlled.\n\nThe findings hold under some perturbations and not others. The work could be partially reproduced from the details provided. The writing-clarity rating is 2.8 out of 5.\n\nThe manuscript was submitted in September as revision 3 by 4 authors. It runs 9 pages with 1 figure, 0 tables, and 54 references, plus 13 pages of appendix.\n\nQuestion: Will the submission be accepted?", "label": "accept", "probability_positive": 0.86} | |
| {"case_id": "ded25510c353662e66fb083c", "text": "Peer Review Memo\n\nThis is an empirical paper.\n\nThe approach departs substantially from prior work. The problem it addresses is of narrow interest. The technical argument contains a serious flaw.\n\nThe strength of supporting evidence is rated 2.6 out of 5. Comparisons with prior methods are well controlled.\n\nThe findings look fragile under perturbation. The details provided are insufficient to reproduce the work. The writing-clarity rating is 2.9 out of 5.\n\nThe manuscript was submitted in October as revision 1 by 5 authors. It runs 16 pages with 6 figures, 7 tables, and 15 references, plus 14 pages of appendix.\n\nQuestion: Will the submission be accepted?", "label": "reject", "probability_positive": 0.0} | |
| {"case_id": "9b470b3450ff38e99e758fec", "text": "Peer Review Memo\n\nThis is an empirical paper.\n\nThe method builds on existing techniques with modest changes. The problem it addresses matters to a moderate part of the community. The technical argument raises limited concerns that do not undermine the main result.\n\nThe strength of supporting evidence is rated 1.6 out of 5. Comparisons with prior methods are well controlled.\n\nThe findings remain stable under perturbation. The work could be fully reproduced from the details provided. The writing-clarity rating is 2.7 out of 5.\n\nThe manuscript was submitted in February as revision 1 by 3 authors. It runs 12 pages with 4 figures, 0 tables, and 56 references, plus 13 pages of appendix.\n\nQuestion: Will the submission be accepted?", "label": "reject", "probability_positive": 0.05} | |
| {"case_id": "6578deec4d41f7ce00690924", "text": "Peer Review Memo\n\nThis is an empirical paper.\n\nThe approach departs substantially from prior work. The problem it addresses is of narrow interest. The technical argument is sound.\n\nThe strength of supporting evidence is rated 3.7 out of 5. Comparisons with prior methods are only partly controlled.\n\nThe findings look fragile under perturbation. The details provided are insufficient to reproduce the work. The writing-clarity rating is 1.4 out of 5.\n\nThe manuscript was submitted in February as revision 1 by 1 author. It runs 9 pages with 4 figures, 2 tables, and 63 references, plus 14 pages of appendix.\n\nQuestion: Will the submission be accepted?", "label": "reject", "probability_positive": 0.05} | |
| {"case_id": "263d0fac1d21b78ab65dfa5d", "text": "Peer Review Memo\n\nThis is an empirical paper.\n\nThe approach departs substantially from prior work. The problem it addresses is broadly important across the field. The technical argument is sound.\n\nThe strength of supporting evidence is rated 1.3 out of 5. Comparisons with prior methods are inadequate.\n\nThe findings look fragile under perturbation. The details provided are insufficient to reproduce the work. The writing-clarity rating is 3.0 out of 5.\n\nThe manuscript was submitted in March as revision 3 by 3 authors. It runs 12 pages with 5 figures, 10 tables, and 100 references, plus 16 pages of appendix.\n\nQuestion: Will the submission be accepted?", "label": "reject", "probability_positive": 0.001} | |
| {"case_id": "b9c80e30f57bcba1d527e3ad", "text": "Peer Review Memo\n\nThis is a theoretical paper.\n\nThe method builds on existing techniques with modest changes. The problem it addresses is broadly important across the field. The technical argument raises limited concerns that do not undermine the main result.\n\nThe strength of supporting evidence is rated 1.4 out of 5. The comparison with prior theoretical results and their assumptions is only partly developed.\n\nThe conclusions are sensitive to small changes in the assumptions. The details provided are insufficient to reproduce the work. The writing-clarity rating is 4.8 out of 5.\n\nThe manuscript was submitted in September as revision 3 by 3 authors. It runs 10 pages with 3 figures, 5 tables, and 28 references, plus 3 pages of appendix.\n\nQuestion: Will the submission be accepted?", "label": "reject", "probability_positive": 0.001} | |
| {"case_id": "2ea7a07c21d61b99a2ea4bbf", "text": "Peer Review Memo\n\nThis is a theoretical paper.\n\nThe method builds on existing techniques with modest changes. The problem it addresses is of narrow interest. The technical argument contains a serious flaw.\n\nThe strength of supporting evidence is rated 2.1 out of 5. The comparison with prior theoretical results and their assumptions is only partly developed.\n\nThe conclusions are sensitive to small changes in the assumptions. The details provided are insufficient to reproduce the work. The writing-clarity rating is 2.3 out of 5.\n\nThe manuscript was submitted in October as revision 3 by 2 authors. It runs 7 pages with 2 figures, 3 tables, and 32 references, plus 0 pages of appendix.\n\nQuestion: Will the submission be accepted?", "label": "reject", "probability_positive": 0.0} | |
| {"case_id": "8e42dbc2f9998bea811773df", "text": "Peer Review Memo\n\nThis is an empirical paper.\n\nThe method builds on existing techniques with modest changes. The problem it addresses is broadly important across the field. The technical argument raises limited concerns that do not undermine the main result.\n\nThe strength of supporting evidence is rated 2.1 out of 5. Comparisons with prior methods are inadequate.\n\nThe findings remain stable under perturbation. The work could be fully reproduced from the details provided. The writing-clarity rating is 1.4 out of 5.\n\nThe manuscript was submitted in December as revision 1 by 5 authors. It runs 10 pages with 6 figures, 6 tables, and 51 references, plus 3 pages of appendix.\n\nQuestion: Will the submission be accepted?", "label": "reject", "probability_positive": 0.005} | |
| {"case_id": "7ac659de9fa15b45d416dd96", "text": "Peer Review Memo\n\nThis is an empirical paper.\n\nThe approach departs substantially from prior work. The problem it addresses is of narrow interest. The technical argument is sound.\n\nThe strength of supporting evidence is rated 2.1 out of 5. Comparisons with prior methods are inadequate.\n\nThe findings look fragile under perturbation. The details provided are insufficient to reproduce the work. The writing-clarity rating is 3.8 out of 5.\n\nThe manuscript was submitted in February as revision 1 by 2 authors. It runs 13 pages with 3 figures, 10 tables, and 36 references, plus 10 pages of appendix.\n\nQuestion: Will the submission be accepted?", "label": "reject", "probability_positive": 0.0} | |
| {"case_id": "1c31d99349f5289fad308284", "text": "Peer Review Memo\n\nThis is an empirical paper.\n\nThe core idea is a major departure from anything in the literature. The problem it addresses is broadly important across the field. The technical argument is sound.\n\nThe strength of supporting evidence is rated 1.6 out of 5. Comparisons with prior methods are inadequate.\n\nThe findings remain stable under perturbation. The details provided are insufficient to reproduce the work. The writing-clarity rating is 2.1 out of 5.\n\nThe manuscript was submitted in December as revision 1 by 4 authors. It runs 10 pages with 3 figures, 6 tables, and 47 references, plus 0 pages of appendix.\n\nQuestion: Will the submission be accepted?", "label": "reject", "probability_positive": 0.05} | |
| {"case_id": "e0974ed7f4d39a5df77873c9", "text": "Peer Review Memo\n\nThis is a theoretical paper.\n\nThe core idea is a major departure from anything in the literature. The problem it addresses matters to a moderate part of the community. The technical argument is sound.\n\nThe strength of supporting evidence is rated 4.8 out of 5. The comparison with prior theoretical results and their assumptions is thorough.\n\nThe conclusions remain valid under reasonable changes in the assumptions. The work could be fully reproduced from the details provided. The writing-clarity rating is 1.1 out of 5.\n\nThe manuscript was submitted in March as revision 3 by 1 author. It runs 16 pages with 8 figures, 4 tables, and 60 references, plus 12 pages of appendix.\n\nQuestion: Will the submission be accepted?", "label": "accept", "probability_positive": 1.0} | |
| {"case_id": "dd571c8cdf2a35528b5e22be", "text": "Peer Review Memo\n\nThis is an empirical paper.\n\nThe method builds on existing techniques with modest changes. The problem it addresses is of narrow interest. The technical argument is sound.\n\nThe strength of supporting evidence is rated 3.4 out of 5. Comparisons with prior methods are well controlled.\n\nThe findings remain stable under perturbation. The work could be partially reproduced from the details provided. The writing-clarity rating is 2.1 out of 5.\n\nThe manuscript was submitted in February as revision 1 by 7 authors. It runs 12 pages with 5 figures, 2 tables, and 80 references, plus 16 pages of appendix.\n\nQuestion: Will the submission be accepted?", "label": "accept", "probability_positive": 0.86} | |
| {"case_id": "402c1a92e2e543202b2c71b3", "text": "Peer Review Memo\n\nThis is an applied paper.\n\nThe core idea is a major departure from anything in the literature. The problem it addresses is broadly important across the field. The technical argument contains a serious flaw.\n\nThe strength of supporting evidence is rated 4.9 out of 5. Comparisons with existing approaches are inadequate.\n\nThe findings remain stable under perturbation. The details provided are insufficient to reproduce the work. The writing-clarity rating is 1.7 out of 5.\n\nThe manuscript was submitted in June as revision 3 by 2 authors. It runs 8 pages with 3 figures, 2 tables, and 27 references, plus 28 pages of appendix.\n\nQuestion: Will the submission be accepted?", "label": "reject", "probability_positive": 0.0} | |
| {"case_id": "09ff0043ace0e7b3b94624fe", "text": "Peer Review Memo\n\nThis is an applied paper.\n\nThe approach departs substantially from prior work. The problem it addresses is broadly important across the field. The technical argument raises limited concerns that do not undermine the main result.\n\nThe strength of supporting evidence is rated 2.5 out of 5. Comparisons with existing approaches are inadequate.\n\nThe findings hold under some perturbations and not others. The work could be fully reproduced from the details provided. The writing-clarity rating is 4.8 out of 5.\n\nThe manuscript was submitted in March as revision 3 by 1 author. It runs 10 pages with 7 figures, 6 tables, and 28 references, plus 0 pages of appendix.\n\nQuestion: Will the submission be accepted?", "label": "accept", "probability_positive": 0.95} | |
| {"case_id": "c6770a34df6b88d9b3e7786a", "text": "Peer Review Memo\n\nThis is an empirical paper.\n\nThe approach departs substantially from prior work. The problem it addresses is broadly important across the field. The technical argument is sound.\n\nThe strength of supporting evidence is rated 3.6 out of 5. Comparisons with prior methods are well controlled.\n\nThe findings hold under some perturbations and not others. The work could be fully reproduced from the details provided. The writing-clarity rating is 2.8 out of 5.\n\nThe manuscript was submitted in May as revision 3 by 3 authors. It runs 6 pages with 14 figures, 1 table, and 42 references, plus 21 pages of appendix.\n\nQuestion: Will the submission be accepted?", "label": "accept", "probability_positive": 1.0} | |
| {"case_id": "1d0756f8722182c76d5079d8", "text": "Peer Review Memo\n\nThis is an empirical paper.\n\nThe core idea is a major departure from anything in the literature. The problem it addresses is of narrow interest. The technical argument contains a serious flaw.\n\nThe strength of supporting evidence is rated 3.1 out of 5. Comparisons with prior methods are well controlled.\n\nThe findings look fragile under perturbation. The work could be fully reproduced from the details provided. The writing-clarity rating is 2.0 out of 5.\n\nThe manuscript was submitted in January as revision 3 by 6 authors. It runs 11 pages with 1 figure, 1 table, and 46 references, plus 16 pages of appendix.\n\nQuestion: Will the submission be accepted?", "label": "reject", "probability_positive": 0.0} | |
| {"case_id": "0a27732cfb3697023108586b", "text": "Peer Review Memo\n\nThis is an empirical paper.\n\nThe core idea is a major departure from anything in the literature. The problem it addresses matters to a moderate part of the community. The technical argument raises limited concerns that do not undermine the main result.\n\nThe strength of supporting evidence is rated 3.3 out of 5. Comparisons with prior methods are well controlled.\n\nThe findings look fragile under perturbation. The details provided are insufficient to reproduce the work. The writing-clarity rating is 1.1 out of 5.\n\nThe manuscript was submitted in December as revision 3 by 6 authors. It runs 11 pages with 5 figures, 4 tables, and 36 references, plus 37 pages of appendix.\n\nQuestion: Will the submission be accepted?", "label": "reject", "probability_positive": 0.05} | |
| {"case_id": "f89f449a8af9dfe6fcc2d611", "text": "Peer Review Memo\n\nThis is a theoretical paper.\n\nThe method builds on existing techniques with modest changes. The problem it addresses is of narrow interest. The technical argument is sound.\n\nThe strength of supporting evidence is rated 1.1 out of 5. The comparison with prior theoretical results and their assumptions is only partly developed.\n\nThe conclusions are sensitive to small changes in the assumptions. The work could be fully reproduced from the details provided. The writing-clarity rating is 4.6 out of 5.\n\nThe manuscript was submitted in August as revision 3 by 3 authors. It runs 11 pages with 15 figures, 7 tables, and 21 references, plus 31 pages of appendix.\n\nQuestion: Will the submission be accepted?", "label": "reject", "probability_positive": 0.02} | |
| {"case_id": "122ede5a0c1ae10740d5f044", "text": "Peer Review Memo\n\nThis is an applied paper.\n\nThe core idea is a major departure from anything in the literature. The problem it addresses is broadly important across the field. The technical argument is sound.\n\nThe strength of supporting evidence is rated 4.6 out of 5. Comparisons with existing approaches are inadequate.\n\nThe findings remain stable under perturbation. The work could be fully reproduced from the details provided. The writing-clarity rating is 1.2 out of 5.\n\nThe manuscript was submitted in April as revision 1 by 10 authors. It runs 8 pages with 9 figures, 8 tables, and 66 references, plus 25 pages of appendix.\n\nQuestion: Will the submission be accepted?", "label": "accept", "probability_positive": 1.0} | |
| {"case_id": "92c309327cb3275ecb2a6562", "text": "Peer Review Memo\n\nThis is an applied paper.\n\nThe approach departs substantially from prior work. The problem it addresses is of narrow interest. The technical argument is sound.\n\nThe strength of supporting evidence is rated 3.2 out of 5. Comparisons with existing approaches are inadequate.\n\nThe findings remain stable under perturbation. The details provided are insufficient to reproduce the work. The writing-clarity rating is 2.2 out of 5.\n\nThe manuscript was submitted in August as revision 1 by 6 authors. It runs 11 pages with 8 figures, 3 tables, and 37 references, plus 12 pages of appendix.\n\nQuestion: Will the submission be accepted?", "label": "reject", "probability_positive": 0.02} | |
| {"case_id": "c9a2b9ebdad3b429cd1dc29c", "text": "Peer Review Memo\n\nThis is a theoretical paper.\n\nThe approach departs substantially from prior work. The problem it addresses is of narrow interest. The technical argument raises limited concerns that do not undermine the main result.\n\nThe strength of supporting evidence is rated 4.6 out of 5. The comparison with prior theoretical results and their assumptions is inadequate.\n\nThe conclusions are sensitive to small changes in the assumptions. The work could be fully reproduced from the details provided. The writing-clarity rating is 2.0 out of 5.\n\nThe manuscript was submitted in December as revision 3 by 2 authors. It runs 24 pages with 4 figures, 3 tables, and 17 references, plus 21 pages of appendix.\n\nQuestion: Will the submission be accepted?", "label": "reject", "probability_positive": 0.02} | |
| {"case_id": "e05e6147ae963aefab99f035", "text": "Peer Review Memo\n\nThis is an applied paper.\n\nThe core idea is a major departure from anything in the literature. The problem it addresses is of narrow interest. The technical argument is sound.\n\nThe strength of supporting evidence is rated 3.0 out of 5. Comparisons with existing approaches are inadequate.\n\nThe findings look fragile under perturbation. The work could be fully reproduced from the details provided. The writing-clarity rating is 2.2 out of 5.\n\nThe manuscript was submitted in October as revision 1 by 5 authors. It runs 9 pages with 3 figures, 3 tables, and 75 references, plus 11 pages of appendix.\n\nQuestion: Will the submission be accepted?", "label": "reject", "probability_positive": 0.02} | |
| {"case_id": "3e261c3a68bcf09fa6f2e770", "text": "Peer Review Memo\n\nThis is a theoretical paper.\n\nThe method builds on existing techniques with modest changes. The problem it addresses is of narrow interest. The technical argument raises limited concerns that do not undermine the main result.\n\nThe strength of supporting evidence is rated 3.5 out of 5. The comparison with prior theoretical results and their assumptions is only partly developed.\n\nThe conclusions hold under some changes in the assumptions and not others. The details provided are insufficient to reproduce the work. The writing-clarity rating is 2.7 out of 5.\n\nThe manuscript was submitted in October as revision 1 by 8 authors. It runs 6 pages with 3 figures, 3 tables, and 27 references, plus 6 pages of appendix.\n\nQuestion: Will the submission be accepted?", "label": "reject", "probability_positive": 0.005} | |
| {"case_id": "930e016045a306b39d973037", "text": "Peer Review Memo\n\nThis is a theoretical paper.\n\nThe method builds on existing techniques with modest changes. The problem it addresses is broadly important across the field. The technical argument is sound.\n\nThe strength of supporting evidence is rated 3.3 out of 5. The comparison with prior theoretical results and their assumptions is only partly developed.\n\nThe conclusions remain valid under reasonable changes in the assumptions. The details provided are insufficient to reproduce the work. The writing-clarity rating is 4.4 out of 5.\n\nThe manuscript was submitted in June as revision 3 by 1 author. It runs 16 pages with 6 figures, 13 tables, and 20 references, plus 0 pages of appendix.\n\nQuestion: Will the submission be accepted?", "label": "accept", "probability_positive": 0.95} | |
| {"case_id": "b16ae10eb11b86acccbb4986", "text": "Peer Review Memo\n\nThis is an applied paper.\n\nThe method builds on existing techniques with modest changes. The problem it addresses is broadly important across the field. The technical argument raises limited concerns that do not undermine the main result.\n\nThe strength of supporting evidence is rated 1.3 out of 5. Comparisons with existing approaches are well controlled.\n\nThe findings look fragile under perturbation. The work could be partially reproduced from the details provided. The writing-clarity rating is 1.5 out of 5.\n\nThe manuscript was submitted in February as revision 1 by 9 authors. It runs 11 pages with 3 figures, 7 tables, and 52 references, plus 14 pages of appendix.\n\nQuestion: Will the submission be accepted?", "label": "accept", "probability_positive": 0.005} | |
| {"case_id": "c946b527b56214d5b68b7b27", "text": "Peer Review Memo\n\nThis is an empirical paper.\n\nThe method builds on existing techniques with modest changes. The problem it addresses is of narrow interest. The technical argument is sound.\n\nThe strength of supporting evidence is rated 1.6 out of 5. Comparisons with prior methods are inadequate.\n\nThe findings look fragile under perturbation. The details provided are insufficient to reproduce the work. The writing-clarity rating is 5.0 out of 5.\n\nThe manuscript was submitted in December as revision 1 by 5 authors. It runs 10 pages with 5 figures, 4 tables, and 44 references, plus 3 pages of appendix.\n\nQuestion: Will the submission be accepted?", "label": "reject", "probability_positive": 0.0} | |
| {"case_id": "a64bbf2e029fdf6ce9040db6", "text": "Peer Review Memo\n\nThis is a theoretical paper.\n\nThe approach departs substantially from prior work. The problem it addresses matters to a moderate part of the community. The technical argument raises limited concerns that do not undermine the main result.\n\nThe strength of supporting evidence is rated 1.3 out of 5. The comparison with prior theoretical results and their assumptions is inadequate.\n\nThe conclusions are sensitive to small changes in the assumptions. The details provided are insufficient to reproduce the work. The writing-clarity rating is 1.7 out of 5.\n\nThe manuscript was submitted in July as revision 3 by 3 authors. It runs 8 pages with 6 figures, 5 tables, and 26 references, plus 0 pages of appendix.\n\nQuestion: Will the submission be accepted?", "label": "reject", "probability_positive": 0.0} | |
| {"case_id": "2a50a591be52d4ddcda5c720", "text": "Peer Review Memo\n\nThis is a theoretical paper.\n\nThe core idea is a major departure from anything in the literature. The problem it addresses is of narrow interest. The technical argument is sound.\n\nThe strength of supporting evidence is rated 1.3 out of 5. The comparison with prior theoretical results and their assumptions is thorough.\n\nThe conclusions hold under some changes in the assumptions and not others. The work could be partially reproduced from the details provided. The writing-clarity rating is 3.8 out of 5.\n\nThe manuscript was submitted in March as revision 3 by 2 authors. It runs 8 pages with 11 figures, 2 tables, and 23 references, plus 15 pages of appendix.\n\nQuestion: Will the submission be accepted?", "label": "accept", "probability_positive": 0.95} | |
| {"case_id": "2bf2c9f18865ce220017b338", "text": "Peer Review Memo\n\nThis is a theoretical paper.\n\nThe core idea is a major departure from anything in the literature. The problem it addresses is of narrow interest. The technical argument contains a serious flaw.\n\nThe strength of supporting evidence is rated 1.9 out of 5. The comparison with prior theoretical results and their assumptions is inadequate.\n\nThe conclusions hold under some changes in the assumptions and not others. The details provided are insufficient to reproduce the work. The writing-clarity rating is 1.6 out of 5.\n\nThe manuscript was submitted in November as revision 1 by 5 authors. It runs 18 pages with 11 figures, 1 table, and 37 references, plus 8 pages of appendix.\n\nQuestion: Will the submission be accepted?", "label": "reject", "probability_positive": 0.0} | |
| {"case_id": "99e84d78ae9121a3a946e149", "text": "Peer Review Memo\n\nThis is an applied paper.\n\nThe approach departs substantially from prior work. The problem it addresses is of narrow interest. The technical argument is sound.\n\nThe strength of supporting evidence is rated 3.2 out of 5. Comparisons with existing approaches are only partly controlled.\n\nThe findings hold under some perturbations and not others. The details provided are insufficient to reproduce the work. The writing-clarity rating is 4.5 out of 5.\n\nThe manuscript was submitted in March as revision 1 by 1 author. It runs 13 pages with 4 figures, 2 tables, and 39 references, plus 4 pages of appendix.\n\nQuestion: Will the submission be accepted?", "label": "reject", "probability_positive": 0.05} | |
| {"case_id": "b1c31188ac65debc08c1d375", "text": "Peer Review Memo\n\nThis is a theoretical paper.\n\nThe method builds on existing techniques with modest changes. The problem it addresses matters to a moderate part of the community. The technical argument contains a serious flaw.\n\nThe strength of supporting evidence is rated 1.7 out of 5. The comparison with prior theoretical results and their assumptions is thorough.\n\nThe conclusions remain valid under reasonable changes in the assumptions. The details provided are insufficient to reproduce the work. The writing-clarity rating is 3.2 out of 5.\n\nThe manuscript was submitted in May as revision 1 by 2 authors. It runs 14 pages with 11 figures, 5 tables, and 79 references, plus 24 pages of appendix.\n\nQuestion: Will the submission be accepted?", "label": "reject", "probability_positive": 0.0} | |
| {"case_id": "d1d467af485854d1d7d7cf1e", "text": "Peer Review Memo\n\nThis is a theoretical paper.\n\nThe approach departs substantially from prior work. The problem it addresses is of narrow interest. The technical argument is sound.\n\nThe strength of supporting evidence is rated 2.2 out of 5. The comparison with prior theoretical results and their assumptions is inadequate.\n\nThe conclusions are sensitive to small changes in the assumptions. The work could be partially reproduced from the details provided. The writing-clarity rating is 2.4 out of 5.\n\nThe manuscript was submitted in January as revision 1 by 2 authors. It runs 7 pages with 4 figures, 4 tables, and 74 references, plus 1 page of appendix.\n\nQuestion: Will the submission be accepted?", "label": "reject", "probability_positive": 0.001} | |
| {"case_id": "7ad84104b4cd17c4ef1f1dc1", "text": "Peer Review Memo\n\nThis is an empirical paper.\n\nThe method builds on existing techniques with modest changes. The problem it addresses matters to a moderate part of the community. The technical argument raises limited concerns that do not undermine the main result.\n\nThe strength of supporting evidence is rated 2.3 out of 5. Comparisons with prior methods are inadequate.\n\nThe findings remain stable under perturbation. The details provided are insufficient to reproduce the work. The writing-clarity rating is 1.7 out of 5.\n\nThe manuscript was submitted in January as revision 3 by 5 authors. It runs 10 pages with 6 figures, 0 tables, and 28 references, plus 9 pages of appendix.\n\nQuestion: Will the submission be accepted?", "label": "reject", "probability_positive": 0.0} | |
| {"case_id": "5c5f5dec7689d6539600cd6f", "text": "Peer Review Memo\n\nThis is an empirical paper.\n\nThe approach departs substantially from prior work. The problem it addresses matters to a moderate part of the community. The technical argument raises limited concerns that do not undermine the main result.\n\nThe strength of supporting evidence is rated 3.4 out of 5. Comparisons with prior methods are inadequate.\n\nThe findings hold under some perturbations and not others. The work could be fully reproduced from the details provided. The writing-clarity rating is 1.3 out of 5.\n\nThe manuscript was submitted in October as revision 1 by 2 authors. It runs 12 pages with 3 figures, 0 tables, and 32 references, plus 15 pages of appendix.\n\nQuestion: Will the submission be accepted?", "label": "reject", "probability_positive": 0.02} | |
| {"case_id": "de6302cb111268e0955687fe", "text": "Peer Review Memo\n\nThis is a theoretical paper.\n\nThe core idea is a major departure from anything in the literature. The problem it addresses matters to a moderate part of the community. The technical argument is sound.\n\nThe strength of supporting evidence is rated 4.5 out of 5. The comparison with prior theoretical results and their assumptions is inadequate.\n\nThe conclusions are sensitive to small changes in the assumptions. The work could be partially reproduced from the details provided. The writing-clarity rating is 1.8 out of 5.\n\nThe manuscript was submitted in November as revision 3 by 3 authors. It runs 5 pages with 6 figures, 6 tables, and 11 references, plus 26 pages of appendix.\n\nQuestion: Will the submission be accepted?", "label": "accept", "probability_positive": 0.95} | |
| {"case_id": "46ce40967ef8c3e56a26598f", "text": "Peer Review Memo\n\nThis is an empirical paper.\n\nThe method builds on existing techniques with modest changes. The problem it addresses is of narrow interest. The technical argument raises limited concerns that do not undermine the main result.\n\nThe strength of supporting evidence is rated 2.1 out of 5. Comparisons with prior methods are inadequate.\n\nThe findings look fragile under perturbation. The work could be partially reproduced from the details provided. The writing-clarity rating is 2.5 out of 5.\n\nThe manuscript was submitted in February as revision 1 by 10 authors. It runs 10 pages with 10 figures, 3 tables, and 16 references, plus 16 pages of appendix.\n\nQuestion: Will the submission be accepted?", "label": "reject", "probability_positive": 0.0} | |
| {"case_id": "d3be9fb765df2ff23371fdc7", "text": "Peer Review Memo\n\nThis is an empirical paper.\n\nThe method builds on existing techniques with modest changes. The problem it addresses is of narrow interest. The technical argument raises limited concerns that do not undermine the main result.\n\nThe strength of supporting evidence is rated 3.3 out of 5. Comparisons with prior methods are inadequate.\n\nThe findings hold under some perturbations and not others. The work could be fully reproduced from the details provided. The writing-clarity rating is 2.4 out of 5.\n\nThe manuscript was submitted in October as revision 3 by 3 authors. It runs 10 pages with 1 figure, 4 tables, and 53 references, plus 14 pages of appendix.\n\nQuestion: Will the submission be accepted?", "label": "reject", "probability_positive": 0.001} | |
| {"case_id": "3d332b1ab74a124ddb161a00", "text": "Peer Review Memo\n\nThis is an applied paper.\n\nThe approach departs substantially from prior work. The problem it addresses matters to a moderate part of the community. The technical argument is sound.\n\nThe strength of supporting evidence is rated 1.1 out of 5. Comparisons with existing approaches are inadequate.\n\nThe findings hold under some perturbations and not others. The work could be partially reproduced from the details provided. The writing-clarity rating is 1.3 out of 5.\n\nThe manuscript was submitted in December as revision 3 by 6 authors. It runs 14 pages with 11 figures, 7 tables, and 26 references, plus 28 pages of appendix.\n\nQuestion: Will the submission be accepted?", "label": "reject", "probability_positive": 0.001} | |
| {"case_id": "e900ea6f658208095cea399a", "text": "Peer Review Memo\n\nThis is an applied paper.\n\nThe approach departs substantially from prior work. The problem it addresses matters to a moderate part of the community. The technical argument is sound.\n\nThe strength of supporting evidence is rated 4.9 out of 5. Comparisons with existing approaches are inadequate.\n\nThe findings remain stable under perturbation. The details provided are insufficient to reproduce the work. The writing-clarity rating is 2.0 out of 5.\n\nThe manuscript was submitted in June as revision 3 by 2 authors. It runs 7 pages with 2 figures, 3 tables, and 28 references, plus 14 pages of appendix.\n\nQuestion: Will the submission be accepted?", "label": "accept", "probability_positive": 0.95} | |
| {"case_id": "bc24b3a5f8aec24daa3648aa", "text": "Peer Review Memo\n\nThis is a theoretical paper.\n\nThe method builds on existing techniques with modest changes. The problem it addresses is broadly important across the field. The technical argument is sound.\n\nThe strength of supporting evidence is rated 3.5 out of 5. The comparison with prior theoretical results and their assumptions is inadequate.\n\nThe conclusions hold under some changes in the assumptions and not others. The work could be partially reproduced from the details provided. The writing-clarity rating is 4.0 out of 5.\n\nThe manuscript was submitted in September as revision 3 by 2 authors. It runs 6 pages with 0 figures, 1 table, and 47 references, plus 11 pages of appendix.\n\nQuestion: Will the submission be accepted?", "label": "accept", "probability_positive": 0.98} | |
| {"case_id": "b884630809a4b29e7215f946", "text": "Peer Review Memo\n\nThis is an applied paper.\n\nThe method builds on existing techniques with modest changes. The problem it addresses is of narrow interest. The technical argument raises limited concerns that do not undermine the main result.\n\nThe strength of supporting evidence is rated 2.9 out of 5. Comparisons with existing approaches are inadequate.\n\nThe findings remain stable under perturbation. The details provided are insufficient to reproduce the work. The writing-clarity rating is 1.6 out of 5.\n\nThe manuscript was submitted in March as revision 3 by 3 authors. It runs 11 pages with 1 figure, 8 tables, and 19 references, plus 10 pages of appendix.\n\nQuestion: Will the submission be accepted?", "label": "reject", "probability_positive": 0.0} | |
| {"case_id": "b2f7dc264a3d76c5d00616f2", "text": "Peer Review Memo\n\nThis is an empirical paper.\n\nThe method builds on existing techniques with modest changes. The problem it addresses is broadly important across the field. The technical argument is sound.\n\nThe strength of supporting evidence is rated 3.0 out of 5. Comparisons with prior methods are only partly controlled.\n\nThe findings hold under some perturbations and not others. The details provided are insufficient to reproduce the work. The writing-clarity rating is 2.6 out of 5.\n\nThe manuscript was submitted in February as revision 1 by 1 author. It runs 6 pages with 7 figures, 4 tables, and 13 references, plus 26 pages of appendix.\n\nQuestion: Will the submission be accepted?", "label": "reject", "probability_positive": 0.14} | |
| {"case_id": "23fbec93b430da3e82b0aa25", "text": "Peer Review Memo\n\nThis is an empirical paper.\n\nThe method builds on existing techniques with modest changes. The problem it addresses matters to a moderate part of the community. The technical argument is sound.\n\nThe strength of supporting evidence is rated 4.9 out of 5. Comparisons with prior methods are inadequate.\n\nThe findings hold under some perturbations and not others. The work could be fully reproduced from the details provided. The writing-clarity rating is 1.6 out of 5.\n\nThe manuscript was submitted in April as revision 3 by 1 author. It runs 15 pages with 5 figures, 6 tables, and 40 references, plus 17 pages of appendix.\n\nQuestion: Will the submission be accepted?", "label": "accept", "probability_positive": 0.86} | |
| {"case_id": "e2c27785fa1591fe1aeac3e4", "text": "Peer Review Memo\n\nThis is an applied paper.\n\nThe core idea is a major departure from anything in the literature. The problem it addresses matters to a moderate part of the community. The technical argument is sound.\n\nThe strength of supporting evidence is rated 3.6 out of 5. Comparisons with existing approaches are inadequate.\n\nThe findings look fragile under perturbation. The work could be partially reproduced from the details provided. The writing-clarity rating is 1.5 out of 5.\n\nThe manuscript was submitted in September as revision 1 by 5 authors. It runs 4 pages with 4 figures, 1 table, and 44 references, plus 14 pages of appendix.\n\nQuestion: Will the submission be accepted?", "label": "accept", "probability_positive": 0.86} | |
| {"case_id": "1ed0cc2a0d79fa1b9861ab3d", "text": "Peer Review Memo\n\nThis is an empirical paper.\n\nThe core idea is a major departure from anything in the literature. The problem it addresses is broadly important across the field. The technical argument raises limited concerns that do not undermine the main result.\n\nThe strength of supporting evidence is rated 3.4 out of 5. Comparisons with prior methods are inadequate.\n\nThe findings hold under some perturbations and not others. The work could be partially reproduced from the details provided. The writing-clarity rating is 3.0 out of 5.\n\nThe manuscript was submitted in January as revision 3 by 10 authors. It runs 13 pages with 10 figures, 0 tables, and 86 references, plus 14 pages of appendix.\n\nQuestion: Will the submission be accepted?", "label": "reject", "probability_positive": 0.14} | |
| {"case_id": "85b9cf39ceec794d36efd8a2", "text": "Peer Review Memo\n\nThis is an empirical paper.\n\nThe core idea is a major departure from anything in the literature. The problem it addresses matters to a moderate part of the community. The technical argument is sound.\n\nThe strength of supporting evidence is rated 1.0 out of 5. Comparisons with prior methods are inadequate.\n\nThe findings remain stable under perturbation. The work could be partially reproduced from the details provided. The writing-clarity rating is 1.9 out of 5.\n\nThe manuscript was submitted in June as revision 3 by 3 authors. It runs 17 pages with 5 figures, 0 tables, and 59 references, plus 0 pages of appendix.\n\nQuestion: Will the submission be accepted?", "label": "reject", "probability_positive": 0.05} | |
| {"case_id": "a9247b3836d59688ebc4b822", "text": "Peer Review Memo\n\nThis is an empirical paper.\n\nThe approach departs substantially from prior work. The problem it addresses is broadly important across the field. The technical argument contains a serious flaw.\n\nThe strength of supporting evidence is rated 1.5 out of 5. Comparisons with prior methods are well controlled.\n\nThe findings look fragile under perturbation. The details provided are insufficient to reproduce the work. The writing-clarity rating is 4.2 out of 5.\n\nThe manuscript was submitted in January as revision 1 by 1 author. It runs 4 pages with 4 figures, 8 tables, and 63 references, plus 8 pages of appendix.\n\nQuestion: Will the submission be accepted?", "label": "reject", "probability_positive": 0.0} | |
| {"case_id": "1a5f270902b8ea7a8bab583b", "text": "Peer Review Memo\n\nThis is a theoretical paper.\n\nThe core idea is a major departure from anything in the literature. The problem it addresses is of narrow interest. The technical argument raises limited concerns that do not undermine the main result.\n\nThe strength of supporting evidence is rated 2.3 out of 5. The comparison with prior theoretical results and their assumptions is only partly developed.\n\nThe conclusions remain valid under reasonable changes in the assumptions. The work could be fully reproduced from the details provided. The writing-clarity rating is 1.0 out of 5.\n\nThe manuscript was submitted in August as revision 1 by 2 authors. It runs 13 pages with 12 figures, 2 tables, and 75 references, plus 0 pages of appendix.\n\nQuestion: Will the submission be accepted?", "label": "reject", "probability_positive": 0.02} | |
| {"case_id": "37ecfac1e1448c09e217d183", "text": "Peer Review Memo\n\nThis is an applied paper.\n\nThe core idea is a major departure from anything in the literature. The problem it addresses is broadly important across the field. The technical argument is sound.\n\nThe strength of supporting evidence is rated 3.8 out of 5. Comparisons with existing approaches are only partly controlled.\n\nThe findings look fragile under perturbation. The details provided are insufficient to reproduce the work. The writing-clarity rating is 2.5 out of 5.\n\nThe manuscript was submitted in April as revision 3 by 6 authors. It runs 13 pages with 2 figures, 4 tables, and 69 references, plus 11 pages of appendix.\n\nQuestion: Will the submission be accepted?", "label": "accept", "probability_positive": 0.995} | |
| {"case_id": "760f5b859a614674c52fe521", "text": "Peer Review Memo\n\nThis is an empirical paper.\n\nThe approach departs substantially from prior work. The problem it addresses is of narrow interest. The technical argument is sound.\n\nThe strength of supporting evidence is rated 4.7 out of 5. Comparisons with prior methods are well controlled.\n\nThe findings hold under some perturbations and not others. The work could be partially reproduced from the details provided. The writing-clarity rating is 1.2 out of 5.\n\nThe manuscript was submitted in June as revision 1 by 2 authors. It runs 4 pages with 8 figures, 2 tables, and 25 references, plus 21 pages of appendix.\n\nQuestion: Will the submission be accepted?", "label": "accept", "probability_positive": 0.98} | |
| {"case_id": "186a79f403922b1cf72f6c78", "text": "Peer Review Memo\n\nThis is an applied paper.\n\nThe approach departs substantially from prior work. The problem it addresses is of narrow interest. The technical argument raises limited concerns that do not undermine the main result.\n\nThe strength of supporting evidence is rated 3.2 out of 5. Comparisons with existing approaches are only partly controlled.\n\nThe findings hold under some perturbations and not others. The details provided are insufficient to reproduce the work. The writing-clarity rating is 3.9 out of 5.\n\nThe manuscript was submitted in May as revision 1 by 4 authors. It runs 15 pages with 6 figures, 3 tables, and 56 references, plus 0 pages of appendix.\n\nQuestion: Will the submission be accepted?", "label": "reject", "probability_positive": 0.005} | |
| {"case_id": "284e7a6c004d3624ee2bb886", "text": "Peer Review Memo\n\nThis is an applied paper.\n\nThe method builds on existing techniques with modest changes. The problem it addresses is of narrow interest. The technical argument contains a serious flaw.\n\nThe strength of supporting evidence is rated 1.8 out of 5. Comparisons with existing approaches are only partly controlled.\n\nThe findings remain stable under perturbation. The work could be partially reproduced from the details provided. The writing-clarity rating is 1.8 out of 5.\n\nThe manuscript was submitted in December as revision 3 by 3 authors. It runs 10 pages with 2 figures, 10 tables, and 112 references, plus 0 pages of appendix.\n\nQuestion: Will the submission be accepted?", "label": "reject", "probability_positive": 0.0} | |
| {"case_id": "30ab37a3c69a8d6821508382", "text": "Peer Review Memo\n\nThis is an applied paper.\n\nThe method builds on existing techniques with modest changes. The problem it addresses is broadly important across the field. The technical argument is sound.\n\nThe strength of supporting evidence is rated 2.7 out of 5. Comparisons with existing approaches are only partly controlled.\n\nThe findings remain stable under perturbation. The details provided are insufficient to reproduce the work. The writing-clarity rating is 3.3 out of 5.\n\nThe manuscript was submitted in February as revision 3 by 4 authors. It runs 17 pages with 8 figures, 7 tables, and 34 references, plus 14 pages of appendix.\n\nQuestion: Will the submission be accepted?", "label": "accept", "probability_positive": 0.95} | |
| {"case_id": "7a672b3aa5033656b3364fc2", "text": "Peer Review Memo\n\nThis is an empirical paper.\n\nThe core idea is a major departure from anything in the literature. The problem it addresses is of narrow interest. The technical argument contains a serious flaw.\n\nThe strength of supporting evidence is rated 1.2 out of 5. Comparisons with prior methods are only partly controlled.\n\nThe findings look fragile under perturbation. The details provided are insufficient to reproduce the work. The writing-clarity rating is 1.5 out of 5.\n\nThe manuscript was submitted in September as revision 3 by 9 authors. It runs 8 pages with 1 figure, 2 tables, and 41 references, plus 0 pages of appendix.\n\nQuestion: Will the submission be accepted?", "label": "reject", "probability_positive": 0.0} | |
| {"case_id": "95284a3525ce3e46c40a955e", "text": "Peer Review Memo\n\nThis is an empirical paper.\n\nThe core idea is a major departure from anything in the literature. The problem it addresses is broadly important across the field. The technical argument is sound.\n\nThe strength of supporting evidence is rated 4.1 out of 5. Comparisons with prior methods are well controlled.\n\nThe findings look fragile under perturbation. The work could be fully reproduced from the details provided. The writing-clarity rating is 1.4 out of 5.\n\nThe manuscript was submitted in January as revision 1 by 5 authors. It runs 7 pages with 2 figures, 3 tables, and 13 references, plus 16 pages of appendix.\n\nQuestion: Will the submission be accepted?", "label": "accept", "probability_positive": 1.0} | |
| {"case_id": "f497d83db4b03f95182b3ef5", "text": "Peer Review Memo\n\nThis is an applied paper.\n\nThe method builds on existing techniques with modest changes. The problem it addresses is of narrow interest. The technical argument is sound.\n\nThe strength of supporting evidence is rated 4.9 out of 5. Comparisons with existing approaches are inadequate.\n\nThe findings hold under some perturbations and not others. The details provided are insufficient to reproduce the work. The writing-clarity rating is 3.3 out of 5.\n\nThe manuscript was submitted in September as revision 3 by 2 authors. It runs 10 pages with 6 figures, 8 tables, and 28 references, plus 0 pages of appendix.\n\nQuestion: Will the submission be accepted?", "label": "reject", "probability_positive": 0.02} | |
| {"case_id": "cb49d87d3769bf8d29b3097d", "text": "Peer Review Memo\n\nThis is an empirical paper.\n\nThe approach departs substantially from prior work. The problem it addresses matters to a moderate part of the community. The technical argument raises limited concerns that do not undermine the main result.\n\nThe strength of supporting evidence is rated 2.0 out of 5. Comparisons with prior methods are well controlled.\n\nThe findings remain stable under perturbation. The work could be fully reproduced from the details provided. The writing-clarity rating is 1.2 out of 5.\n\nThe manuscript was submitted in December as revision 3 by 9 authors. It runs 9 pages with 9 figures, 2 tables, and 18 references, plus 15 pages of appendix.\n\nQuestion: Will the submission be accepted?", "label": "reject", "probability_positive": 0.05} | |
| {"case_id": "90be2d80a00474b151435c0e", "text": "Peer Review Memo\n\nThis is a theoretical paper.\n\nThe method builds on existing techniques with modest changes. The problem it addresses matters to a moderate part of the community. The technical argument raises limited concerns that do not undermine the main result.\n\nThe strength of supporting evidence is rated 2.1 out of 5. The comparison with prior theoretical results and their assumptions is only partly developed.\n\nThe conclusions hold under some changes in the assumptions and not others. The details provided are insufficient to reproduce the work. The writing-clarity rating is 2.0 out of 5.\n\nThe manuscript was submitted in March as revision 1 by 3 authors. It runs 7 pages with 4 figures, 5 tables, and 33 references, plus 11 pages of appendix.\n\nQuestion: Will the submission be accepted?", "label": "reject", "probability_positive": 0.0} | |
| {"case_id": "c3bc517e523fe6ae907a755c", "text": "Peer Review Memo\n\nThis is a theoretical paper.\n\nThe method builds on existing techniques with modest changes. The problem it addresses is of narrow interest. The technical argument contains a serious flaw.\n\nThe strength of supporting evidence is rated 1.2 out of 5. The comparison with prior theoretical results and their assumptions is thorough.\n\nThe conclusions remain valid under reasonable changes in the assumptions. The work could be fully reproduced from the details provided. The writing-clarity rating is 3.6 out of 5.\n\nThe manuscript was submitted in November as revision 3 by 4 authors. It runs 9 pages with 4 figures, 2 tables, and 63 references, plus 27 pages of appendix.\n\nQuestion: Will the submission be accepted?", "label": "reject", "probability_positive": 0.0} | |
| {"case_id": "ed9370c06c3fb12577b0f3ea", "text": "Peer Review Memo\n\nThis is an empirical paper.\n\nThe approach departs substantially from prior work. The problem it addresses matters to a moderate part of the community. The technical argument raises limited concerns that do not undermine the main result.\n\nThe strength of supporting evidence is rated 3.0 out of 5. Comparisons with prior methods are inadequate.\n\nThe findings look fragile under perturbation. The work could be partially reproduced from the details provided. The writing-clarity rating is 3.8 out of 5.\n\nThe manuscript was submitted in January as revision 3 by 2 authors. It runs 8 pages with 2 figures, 5 tables, and 53 references, plus 0 pages of appendix.\n\nQuestion: Will the submission be accepted?", "label": "reject", "probability_positive": 0.005} | |
| {"case_id": "969ffd62f92d2d4218a81b4b", "text": "Peer Review Memo\n\nThis is an empirical paper.\n\nThe approach departs substantially from prior work. The problem it addresses is of narrow interest. The technical argument is sound.\n\nThe strength of supporting evidence is rated 2.0 out of 5. Comparisons with prior methods are inadequate.\n\nThe findings look fragile under perturbation. The work could be fully reproduced from the details provided. The writing-clarity rating is 3.7 out of 5.\n\nThe manuscript was submitted in June as revision 1 by 3 authors. It runs 11 pages with 9 figures, 1 table, and 65 references, plus 11 pages of appendix.\n\nQuestion: Will the submission be accepted?", "label": "reject", "probability_positive": 0.001} | |
| {"case_id": "46d9874f0d54433114b9959b", "text": "Peer Review Memo\n\nThis is a theoretical paper.\n\nThe method builds on existing techniques with modest changes. The problem it addresses matters to a moderate part of the community. The technical argument contains a serious flaw.\n\nThe strength of supporting evidence is rated 2.3 out of 5. The comparison with prior theoretical results and their assumptions is inadequate.\n\nThe conclusions are sensitive to small changes in the assumptions. The work could be fully reproduced from the details provided. The writing-clarity rating is 1.4 out of 5.\n\nThe manuscript was submitted in February as revision 3 by 2 authors. It runs 15 pages with 3 figures, 4 tables, and 14 references, plus 25 pages of appendix.\n\nQuestion: Will the submission be accepted?", "label": "reject", "probability_positive": 0.0} | |
| {"case_id": "c5fa49f66b9d7ac8c12ac66e", "text": "Peer Review Memo\n\nThis is an applied paper.\n\nThe approach departs substantially from prior work. The problem it addresses matters to a moderate part of the community. The technical argument is sound.\n\nThe strength of supporting evidence is rated 4.5 out of 5. Comparisons with existing approaches are inadequate.\n\nThe findings remain stable under perturbation. The work could be partially reproduced from the details provided. The writing-clarity rating is 1.1 out of 5.\n\nThe manuscript was submitted in May as revision 1 by 4 authors. It runs 16 pages with 3 figures, 1 table, and 43 references, plus 11 pages of appendix.\n\nQuestion: Will the submission be accepted?", "label": "accept", "probability_positive": 0.98} | |
| {"case_id": "2a4c1e8f4306d1529aa9a0ec", "text": "Peer Review Memo\n\nThis is an applied paper.\n\nThe method builds on existing techniques with modest changes. The problem it addresses matters to a moderate part of the community. The technical argument raises limited concerns that do not undermine the main result.\n\nThe strength of supporting evidence is rated 1.5 out of 5. Comparisons with existing approaches are only partly controlled.\n\nThe findings hold under some perturbations and not others. The details provided are insufficient to reproduce the work. The writing-clarity rating is 2.9 out of 5.\n\nThe manuscript was submitted in August as revision 1 by 3 authors. It runs 11 pages with 11 figures, 6 tables, and 35 references, plus 13 pages of appendix.\n\nQuestion: Will the submission be accepted?", "label": "reject", "probability_positive": 0.0} | |
| {"case_id": "e53992cb468e6a31ecd4c016", "text": "Peer Review Memo\n\nThis is an empirical paper.\n\nThe approach departs substantially from prior work. The problem it addresses is of narrow interest. The technical argument is sound.\n\nThe strength of supporting evidence is rated 4.4 out of 5. Comparisons with prior methods are well controlled.\n\nThe findings look fragile under perturbation. The work could be fully reproduced from the details provided. The writing-clarity rating is 3.8 out of 5.\n\nThe manuscript was submitted in August as revision 1 by 6 authors. It runs 10 pages with 7 figures, 0 tables, and 44 references, plus 0 pages of appendix.\n\nQuestion: Will the submission be accepted?", "label": "accept", "probability_positive": 0.995} | |
| {"case_id": "27f6eb0e41b2aeb884284977", "text": "Peer Review Memo\n\nThis is a theoretical paper.\n\nThe approach departs substantially from prior work. The problem it addresses is of narrow interest. The technical argument is sound.\n\nThe strength of supporting evidence is rated 1.6 out of 5. The comparison with prior theoretical results and their assumptions is only partly developed.\n\nThe conclusions are sensitive to small changes in the assumptions. The details provided are insufficient to reproduce the work. The writing-clarity rating is 4.7 out of 5.\n\nThe manuscript was submitted in June as revision 3 by 3 authors. It runs 8 pages with 2 figures, 3 tables, and 63 references, plus 0 pages of appendix.\n\nQuestion: Will the submission be accepted?", "label": "reject", "probability_positive": 0.02} | |
| {"case_id": "05e0ae7c24c48b89daa7a02c", "text": "Peer Review Memo\n\nThis is a theoretical paper.\n\nThe core idea is a major departure from anything in the literature. The problem it addresses is broadly important across the field. The technical argument contains a serious flaw.\n\nThe strength of supporting evidence is rated 2.1 out of 5. The comparison with prior theoretical results and their assumptions is inadequate.\n\nThe conclusions are sensitive to small changes in the assumptions. The details provided are insufficient to reproduce the work. The writing-clarity rating is 4.2 out of 5.\n\nThe manuscript was submitted in December as revision 1 by 9 authors. It runs 21 pages with 8 figures, 2 tables, and 19 references, plus 0 pages of appendix.\n\nQuestion: Will the submission be accepted?", "label": "reject", "probability_positive": 0.0} | |
| {"case_id": "7b5ca956bf5f88f66a9649f0", "text": "Peer Review Memo\n\nThis is a theoretical paper.\n\nThe core idea is a major departure from anything in the literature. The problem it addresses is broadly important across the field. The technical argument raises limited concerns that do not undermine the main result.\n\nThe strength of supporting evidence is rated 1.4 out of 5. The comparison with prior theoretical results and their assumptions is inadequate.\n\nThe conclusions are sensitive to small changes in the assumptions. The work could be partially reproduced from the details provided. The writing-clarity rating is 2.3 out of 5.\n\nThe manuscript was submitted in April as revision 1 by 11 authors. It runs 10 pages with 4 figures, 1 table, and 16 references, plus 7 pages of appendix.\n\nQuestion: Will the submission be accepted?", "label": "reject", "probability_positive": 0.02} | |
| {"case_id": "bca673898ae983108d813d58", "text": "Peer Review Memo\n\nThis is a theoretical paper.\n\nThe method builds on existing techniques with modest changes. The problem it addresses is of narrow interest. The technical argument is sound.\n\nThe strength of supporting evidence is rated 3.4 out of 5. The comparison with prior theoretical results and their assumptions is only partly developed.\n\nThe conclusions remain valid under reasonable changes in the assumptions. The work could be partially reproduced from the details provided. The writing-clarity rating is 3.1 out of 5.\n\nThe manuscript was submitted in August as revision 1 by 12 authors. It runs 15 pages with 3 figures, 9 tables, and 66 references, plus 26 pages of appendix.\n\nQuestion: Will the submission be accepted?", "label": "reject", "probability_positive": 0.05} | |
| {"case_id": "4331f88a98084f1c98b34f82", "text": "Peer Review Memo\n\nThis is a theoretical paper.\n\nThe approach departs substantially from prior work. The problem it addresses matters to a moderate part of the community. The technical argument is sound.\n\nThe strength of supporting evidence is rated 2.4 out of 5. The comparison with prior theoretical results and their assumptions is inadequate.\n\nThe conclusions remain valid under reasonable changes in the assumptions. The work could be fully reproduced from the details provided. The writing-clarity rating is 1.3 out of 5.\n\nThe manuscript was submitted in April as revision 3 by 5 authors. It runs 9 pages with 2 figures, 0 tables, and 62 references, plus 2 pages of appendix.\n\nQuestion: Will the submission be accepted?", "label": "reject", "probability_positive": 0.14} | |
| {"case_id": "1345f23ef3067c9192e107f8", "text": "Peer Review Memo\n\nThis is an applied paper.\n\nThe approach departs substantially from prior work. The problem it addresses matters to a moderate part of the community. The technical argument raises limited concerns that do not undermine the main result.\n\nThe strength of supporting evidence is rated 1.9 out of 5. Comparisons with existing approaches are only partly controlled.\n\nThe findings remain stable under perturbation. The details provided are insufficient to reproduce the work. The writing-clarity rating is 2.5 out of 5.\n\nThe manuscript was submitted in April as revision 1 by 8 authors. It runs 9 pages with 9 figures, 6 tables, and 39 references, plus 0 pages of appendix.\n\nQuestion: Will the submission be accepted?", "label": "reject", "probability_positive": 0.005} | |
| {"case_id": "4cc4dcd4d594b0f0bbcac555", "text": "Peer Review Memo\n\nThis is a theoretical paper.\n\nThe method builds on existing techniques with modest changes. The problem it addresses is of narrow interest. The technical argument raises limited concerns that do not undermine the main result.\n\nThe strength of supporting evidence is rated 3.1 out of 5. The comparison with prior theoretical results and their assumptions is inadequate.\n\nThe conclusions are sensitive to small changes in the assumptions. The work could be partially reproduced from the details provided. The writing-clarity rating is 3.5 out of 5.\n\nThe manuscript was submitted in June as revision 1 by 2 authors. It runs 10 pages with 5 figures, 4 tables, and 62 references, plus 0 pages of appendix.\n\nQuestion: Will the submission be accepted?", "label": "reject", "probability_positive": 0.001} | |
| {"case_id": "30f3f8f6c85f4ff2ec89f273", "text": "Peer Review Memo\n\nThis is a theoretical paper.\n\nThe method builds on existing techniques with modest changes. The problem it addresses is of narrow interest. The technical argument raises limited concerns that do not undermine the main result.\n\nThe strength of supporting evidence is rated 2.6 out of 5. The comparison with prior theoretical results and their assumptions is inadequate.\n\nThe conclusions hold under some changes in the assumptions and not others. The details provided are insufficient to reproduce the work. The writing-clarity rating is 3.0 out of 5.\n\nThe manuscript was submitted in December as revision 1 by 6 authors. It runs 11 pages with 9 figures, 3 tables, and 15 references, plus 11 pages of appendix.\n\nQuestion: Will the submission be accepted?", "label": "reject", "probability_positive": 0.0} | |
| {"case_id": "8adbf441c864c8dfc408d1cd", "text": "Peer Review Memo\n\nThis is an applied paper.\n\nThe method builds on existing techniques with modest changes. The problem it addresses is broadly important across the field. The technical argument is sound.\n\nThe strength of supporting evidence is rated 2.5 out of 5. Comparisons with existing approaches are inadequate.\n\nThe findings remain stable under perturbation. The details provided are insufficient to reproduce the work. The writing-clarity rating is 1.3 out of 5.\n\nThe manuscript was submitted in March as revision 3 by 3 authors. It runs 12 pages with 5 figures, 3 tables, and 36 references, plus 9 pages of appendix.\n\nQuestion: Will the submission be accepted?", "label": "reject", "probability_positive": 0.14} | |
| {"case_id": "2a294cd2ed5025794c949e6b", "text": "Peer Review Memo\n\nThis is a theoretical paper.\n\nThe approach departs substantially from prior work. The problem it addresses matters to a moderate part of the community. The technical argument is sound.\n\nThe strength of supporting evidence is rated 1.8 out of 5. The comparison with prior theoretical results and their assumptions is thorough.\n\nThe conclusions remain valid under reasonable changes in the assumptions. The details provided are insufficient to reproduce the work. The writing-clarity rating is 4.7 out of 5.\n\nThe manuscript was submitted in February as revision 1 by 2 authors. It runs 4 pages with 5 figures, 0 tables, and 25 references, plus 22 pages of appendix.\n\nQuestion: Will the submission be accepted?", "label": "accept", "probability_positive": 0.95} | |
| {"case_id": "38621c2e8ba38f4f05fa92aa", "text": "Peer Review Memo\n\nThis is a theoretical paper.\n\nThe method builds on existing techniques with modest changes. The problem it addresses is broadly important across the field. The technical argument raises limited concerns that do not undermine the main result.\n\nThe strength of supporting evidence is rated 3.1 out of 5. The comparison with prior theoretical results and their assumptions is inadequate.\n\nThe conclusions are sensitive to small changes in the assumptions. The work could be fully reproduced from the details provided. The writing-clarity rating is 1.2 out of 5.\n\nThe manuscript was submitted in May as revision 3 by 2 authors. It runs 11 pages with 3 figures, 2 tables, and 70 references, plus 3 pages of appendix.\n\nQuestion: Will the submission be accepted?", "label": "reject", "probability_positive": 0.005} | |
| {"case_id": "b75130aed32cc97fb4c52435", "text": "Peer Review Memo\n\nThis is an empirical paper.\n\nThe method builds on existing techniques with modest changes. The problem it addresses is broadly important across the field. The technical argument is sound.\n\nThe strength of supporting evidence is rated 2.7 out of 5. Comparisons with prior methods are well controlled.\n\nThe findings hold under some perturbations and not others. The work could be fully reproduced from the details provided. The writing-clarity rating is 1.6 out of 5.\n\nThe manuscript was submitted in March as revision 3 by 5 authors. It runs 10 pages with 5 figures, 1 table, and 25 references, plus 17 pages of appendix.\n\nQuestion: Will the submission be accepted?", "label": "accept", "probability_positive": 0.95} | |
| {"case_id": "b5777e357f61c776374b24b2", "text": "Peer Review Memo\n\nThis is a theoretical paper.\n\nThe method builds on existing techniques with modest changes. The problem it addresses is broadly important across the field. The technical argument raises limited concerns that do not undermine the main result.\n\nThe strength of supporting evidence is rated 4.4 out of 5. The comparison with prior theoretical results and their assumptions is inadequate.\n\nThe conclusions are sensitive to small changes in the assumptions. The work could be partially reproduced from the details provided. The writing-clarity rating is 1.6 out of 5.\n\nThe manuscript was submitted in October as revision 3 by 3 authors. It runs 8 pages with 4 figures, 5 tables, and 102 references, plus 6 pages of appendix.\n\nQuestion: Will the submission be accepted?", "label": "reject", "probability_positive": 0.02} | |
| {"case_id": "a5053f1eb180a5bde8c9ac38", "text": "Peer Review Memo\n\nThis is an empirical paper.\n\nThe method builds on existing techniques with modest changes. The problem it addresses is of narrow interest. The technical argument raises limited concerns that do not undermine the main result.\n\nThe strength of supporting evidence is rated 4.5 out of 5. Comparisons with prior methods are inadequate.\n\nThe findings hold under some perturbations and not others. The work could be partially reproduced from the details provided. The writing-clarity rating is 1.8 out of 5.\n\nThe manuscript was submitted in December as revision 3 by 2 authors. It runs 19 pages with 11 figures, 3 tables, and 61 references, plus 5 pages of appendix.\n\nQuestion: Will the submission be accepted?", "label": "reject", "probability_positive": 0.02} | |
| {"case_id": "2c175aa172fa18230e806b13", "text": "Peer Review Memo\n\nThis is an applied paper.\n\nThe core idea is a major departure from anything in the literature. The problem it addresses matters to a moderate part of the community. The technical argument is sound.\n\nThe strength of supporting evidence is rated 2.2 out of 5. Comparisons with existing approaches are only partly controlled.\n\nThe findings remain stable under perturbation. The details provided are insufficient to reproduce the work. The writing-clarity rating is 2.9 out of 5.\n\nThe manuscript was submitted in June as revision 3 by 5 authors. It runs 15 pages with 4 figures, 5 tables, and 29 references, plus 8 pages of appendix.\n\nQuestion: Will the submission be accepted?", "label": "reject", "probability_positive": 0.14} | |
| {"case_id": "612ca725fc32c3186600b57c", "text": "Peer Review Memo\n\nThis is a theoretical paper.\n\nThe method builds on existing techniques with modest changes. The problem it addresses is broadly important across the field. The technical argument is sound.\n\nThe strength of supporting evidence is rated 1.8 out of 5. The comparison with prior theoretical results and their assumptions is inadequate.\n\nThe conclusions remain valid under reasonable changes in the assumptions. The work could be fully reproduced from the details provided. The writing-clarity rating is 4.6 out of 5.\n\nThe manuscript was submitted in November as revision 3 by 2 authors. It runs 13 pages with 1 figure, 2 tables, and 44 references, plus 0 pages of appendix.\n\nQuestion: Will the submission be accepted?", "label": "reject", "probability_positive": 0.86} | |
| {"case_id": "26275cd558c4e488e54ede64", "text": "Peer Review Memo\n\nThis is an applied paper.\n\nThe method builds on existing techniques with modest changes. The problem it addresses matters to a moderate part of the community. The technical argument raises limited concerns that do not undermine the main result.\n\nThe strength of supporting evidence is rated 2.0 out of 5. Comparisons with existing approaches are inadequate.\n\nThe findings hold under some perturbations and not others. The details provided are insufficient to reproduce the work. The writing-clarity rating is 1.1 out of 5.\n\nThe manuscript was submitted in December as revision 1 by 5 authors. It runs 8 pages with 4 figures, 5 tables, and 47 references, plus 16 pages of appendix.\n\nQuestion: Will the submission be accepted?", "label": "reject", "probability_positive": 0.0} | |
| {"case_id": "9620f2f73f57eec892a9d641", "text": "Peer Review Memo\n\nThis is an empirical paper.\n\nThe approach departs substantially from prior work. The problem it addresses is of narrow interest. The technical argument is sound.\n\nThe strength of supporting evidence is rated 1.0 out of 5. Comparisons with prior methods are well controlled.\n\nThe findings hold under some perturbations and not others. The details provided are insufficient to reproduce the work. The writing-clarity rating is 2.0 out of 5.\n\nThe manuscript was submitted in February as revision 3 by 2 authors. It runs 12 pages with 10 figures, 4 tables, and 41 references, plus 21 pages of appendix.\n\nQuestion: Will the submission be accepted?", "label": "reject", "probability_positive": 0.005} | |
| {"case_id": "a12db30a432910799dcaeee3", "text": "Peer Review Memo\n\nThis is an applied paper.\n\nThe method builds on existing techniques with modest changes. The problem it addresses is of narrow interest. The technical argument contains a serious flaw.\n\nThe strength of supporting evidence is rated 1.8 out of 5. Comparisons with existing approaches are well controlled.\n\nThe findings remain stable under perturbation. The work could be fully reproduced from the details provided. The writing-clarity rating is 2.3 out of 5.\n\nThe manuscript was submitted in February as revision 3 by 3 authors. It runs 15 pages with 6 figures, 3 tables, and 39 references, plus 14 pages of appendix.\n\nQuestion: Will the submission be accepted?", "label": "reject", "probability_positive": 0.0} | |
| {"case_id": "b71f3aae1f6ddd478246451e", "text": "Peer Review Memo\n\nThis is a theoretical paper.\n\nThe method builds on existing techniques with modest changes. The problem it addresses is broadly important across the field. The technical argument contains a serious flaw.\n\nThe strength of supporting evidence is rated 3.3 out of 5. The comparison with prior theoretical results and their assumptions is only partly developed.\n\nThe conclusions are sensitive to small changes in the assumptions. The details provided are insufficient to reproduce the work. The writing-clarity rating is 2.3 out of 5.\n\nThe manuscript was submitted in December as revision 3 by 1 author. It runs 12 pages with 5 figures, 2 tables, and 86 references, plus 0 pages of appendix.\n\nQuestion: Will the submission be accepted?", "label": "reject", "probability_positive": 0.0} | |
| {"case_id": "022b9e40e4852a6fa17ce161", "text": "Peer Review Memo\n\nThis is a theoretical paper.\n\nThe method builds on existing techniques with modest changes. The problem it addresses is of narrow interest. The technical argument raises limited concerns that do not undermine the main result.\n\nThe strength of supporting evidence is rated 1.0 out of 5. The comparison with prior theoretical results and their assumptions is inadequate.\n\nThe conclusions hold under some changes in the assumptions and not others. The details provided are insufficient to reproduce the work. The writing-clarity rating is 2.1 out of 5.\n\nThe manuscript was submitted in May as revision 1 by 6 authors. It runs 12 pages with 6 figures, 5 tables, and 43 references, plus 13 pages of appendix.\n\nQuestion: Will the submission be accepted?", "label": "reject", "probability_positive": 0.0} | |
| {"case_id": "3abfdd912ed34d0df308d9ae", "text": "Peer Review Memo\n\nThis is an empirical paper.\n\nThe core idea is a major departure from anything in the literature. The problem it addresses is of narrow interest. The technical argument raises limited concerns that do not undermine the main result.\n\nThe strength of supporting evidence is rated 4.5 out of 5. Comparisons with prior methods are inadequate.\n\nThe findings look fragile under perturbation. The work could be partially reproduced from the details provided. The writing-clarity rating is 3.3 out of 5.\n\nThe manuscript was submitted in April as revision 3 by 8 authors. It runs 8 pages with 5 figures, 2 tables, and 18 references, plus 0 pages of appendix.\n\nQuestion: Will the submission be accepted?", "label": "reject", "probability_positive": 0.05} | |
| {"case_id": "2c7e270ce3e42ff73f5dfca6", "text": "Peer Review Memo\n\nThis is a theoretical paper.\n\nThe method builds on existing techniques with modest changes. The problem it addresses is of narrow interest. The technical argument is sound.\n\nThe strength of supporting evidence is rated 4.9 out of 5. The comparison with prior theoretical results and their assumptions is inadequate.\n\nThe conclusions hold under some changes in the assumptions and not others. The details provided are insufficient to reproduce the work. The writing-clarity rating is 3.9 out of 5.\n\nThe manuscript was submitted in May as revision 1 by 4 authors. It runs 8 pages with 16 figures, 1 table, and 17 references, plus 4 pages of appendix.\n\nQuestion: Will the submission be accepted?", "label": "reject", "probability_positive": 0.14} | |
| {"case_id": "3ae12cbad25c4f3fec7e4dc3", "text": "Peer Review Memo\n\nThis is an empirical paper.\n\nThe approach departs substantially from prior work. The problem it addresses is broadly important across the field. The technical argument is sound.\n\nThe strength of supporting evidence is rated 1.2 out of 5. Comparisons with prior methods are only partly controlled.\n\nThe findings look fragile under perturbation. The work could be fully reproduced from the details provided. The writing-clarity rating is 1.2 out of 5.\n\nThe manuscript was submitted in January as revision 3 by 11 authors. It runs 7 pages with 7 figures, 5 tables, and 42 references, plus 13 pages of appendix.\n\nQuestion: Will the submission be accepted?", "label": "reject", "probability_positive": 0.02} | |
| {"case_id": "5acd57e269d00a4c2d5c892f", "text": "Peer Review Memo\n\nThis is a theoretical paper.\n\nThe method builds on existing techniques with modest changes. The problem it addresses matters to a moderate part of the community. The technical argument raises limited concerns that do not undermine the main result.\n\nThe strength of supporting evidence is rated 1.2 out of 5. The comparison with prior theoretical results and their assumptions is only partly developed.\n\nThe conclusions remain valid under reasonable changes in the assumptions. The details provided are insufficient to reproduce the work. The writing-clarity rating is 3.9 out of 5.\n\nThe manuscript was submitted in July as revision 3 by 3 authors. It runs 8 pages with 4 figures, 1 table, and 61 references, plus 3 pages of appendix.\n\nQuestion: Will the submission be accepted?", "label": "reject", "probability_positive": 0.005} | |
| {"case_id": "3134d3e081ef3475d082ea9b", "text": "Peer Review Memo\n\nThis is an empirical paper.\n\nThe method builds on existing techniques with modest changes. The problem it addresses matters to a moderate part of the community. The technical argument contains a serious flaw.\n\nThe strength of supporting evidence is rated 1.7 out of 5. Comparisons with prior methods are only partly controlled.\n\nThe findings look fragile under perturbation. The details provided are insufficient to reproduce the work. The writing-clarity rating is 4.4 out of 5.\n\nThe manuscript was submitted in April as revision 1 by 12 authors. It runs 5 pages with 3 figures, 8 tables, and 7 references, plus 16 pages of appendix.\n\nQuestion: Will the submission be accepted?", "label": "reject", "probability_positive": 0.0} | |
| {"case_id": "359c7f3cc0fa582dbf0d80e2", "text": "Peer Review Memo\n\nThis is an empirical paper.\n\nThe method builds on existing techniques with modest changes. The problem it addresses is of narrow interest. The technical argument is sound.\n\nThe strength of supporting evidence is rated 3.0 out of 5. Comparisons with prior methods are only partly controlled.\n\nThe findings remain stable under perturbation. The work could be partially reproduced from the details provided. The writing-clarity rating is 2.2 out of 5.\n\nThe manuscript was submitted in January as revision 1 by 2 authors. It runs 15 pages with 6 figures, 2 tables, and 67 references, plus 22 pages of appendix.\n\nQuestion: Will the submission be accepted?", "label": "accept", "probability_positive": 0.14} | |
| {"case_id": "9ae1c4240ec5d459712d0dff", "text": "Peer Review Memo\n\nThis is a theoretical paper.\n\nThe core idea is a major departure from anything in the literature. The problem it addresses matters to a moderate part of the community. The technical argument raises limited concerns that do not undermine the main result.\n\nThe strength of supporting evidence is rated 4.1 out of 5. The comparison with prior theoretical results and their assumptions is inadequate.\n\nThe conclusions are sensitive to small changes in the assumptions. The details provided are insufficient to reproduce the work. The writing-clarity rating is 1.8 out of 5.\n\nThe manuscript was submitted in August as revision 3 by 9 authors. It runs 11 pages with 5 figures, 1 table, and 75 references, plus 7 pages of appendix.\n\nQuestion: Will the submission be accepted?", "label": "reject", "probability_positive": 0.05} | |
| {"case_id": "f8a59b0af737fa6a26a9db58", "text": "Peer Review Memo\n\nThis is a theoretical paper.\n\nThe method builds on existing techniques with modest changes. The problem it addresses matters to a moderate part of the community. The technical argument is sound.\n\nThe strength of supporting evidence is rated 1.5 out of 5. The comparison with prior theoretical results and their assumptions is thorough.\n\nThe conclusions remain valid under reasonable changes in the assumptions. The details provided are insufficient to reproduce the work. The writing-clarity rating is 3.4 out of 5.\n\nThe manuscript was submitted in July as revision 1 by 6 authors. It runs 12 pages with 6 figures, 3 tables, and 29 references, plus 11 pages of appendix.\n\nQuestion: Will the submission be accepted?", "label": "reject", "probability_positive": 0.05} | |
| {"case_id": "3a5b2083981e351f719ff298", "text": "Peer Review Memo\n\nThis is an applied paper.\n\nThe method builds on existing techniques with modest changes. The problem it addresses is of narrow interest. The technical argument raises limited concerns that do not undermine the main result.\n\nThe strength of supporting evidence is rated 1.9 out of 5. Comparisons with existing approaches are inadequate.\n\nThe findings look fragile under perturbation. The details provided are insufficient to reproduce the work. The writing-clarity rating is 2.2 out of 5.\n\nThe manuscript was submitted in September as revision 3 by 1 author. It runs 11 pages with 11 figures, 1 table, and 21 references, plus 12 pages of appendix.\n\nQuestion: Will the submission be accepted?", "label": "reject", "probability_positive": 0.0} | |
| {"case_id": "fe850429becc053aa8fa57f7", "text": "Peer Review Memo\n\nThis is an empirical paper.\n\nThe method builds on existing techniques with modest changes. The problem it addresses matters to a moderate part of the community. The technical argument contains a serious flaw.\n\nThe strength of supporting evidence is rated 2.1 out of 5. Comparisons with prior methods are only partly controlled.\n\nThe findings look fragile under perturbation. The work could be fully reproduced from the details provided. The writing-clarity rating is 1.2 out of 5.\n\nThe manuscript was submitted in December as revision 1 by 1 author. It runs 10 pages with 11 figures, 5 tables, and 32 references, plus 8 pages of appendix.\n\nQuestion: Will the submission be accepted?", "label": "reject", "probability_positive": 0.0} | |
| {"case_id": "4b2b12338747753840dd07ba", "text": "Peer Review Memo\n\nThis is an empirical paper.\n\nThe approach departs substantially from prior work. The problem it addresses is broadly important across the field. The technical argument is sound.\n\nThe strength of supporting evidence is rated 2.2 out of 5. Comparisons with prior methods are only partly controlled.\n\nThe findings remain stable under perturbation. The work could be fully reproduced from the details provided. The writing-clarity rating is 4.3 out of 5.\n\nThe manuscript was submitted in October as revision 1 by 3 authors. It runs 8 pages with 4 figures, 2 tables, and 47 references, plus 19 pages of appendix.\n\nQuestion: Will the submission be accepted?", "label": "accept", "probability_positive": 0.95} | |
| {"case_id": "13b47c65c23d0a3c3c5cc9d3", "text": "Peer Review Memo\n\nThis is a theoretical paper.\n\nThe method builds on existing techniques with modest changes. The problem it addresses matters to a moderate part of the community. The technical argument is sound.\n\nThe strength of supporting evidence is rated 2.4 out of 5. The comparison with prior theoretical results and their assumptions is thorough.\n\nThe conclusions hold under some changes in the assumptions and not others. The work could be partially reproduced from the details provided. The writing-clarity rating is 4.3 out of 5.\n\nThe manuscript was submitted in May as revision 3 by 5 authors. It runs 12 pages with 3 figures, 5 tables, and 13 references, plus 9 pages of appendix.\n\nQuestion: Will the submission be accepted?", "label": "reject", "probability_positive": 0.05} | |
| {"case_id": "57e78185f04f973306b5a74a", "text": "Peer Review Memo\n\nThis is an empirical paper.\n\nThe method builds on existing techniques with modest changes. The problem it addresses matters to a moderate part of the community. The technical argument is sound.\n\nThe strength of supporting evidence is rated 2.2 out of 5. Comparisons with prior methods are only partly controlled.\n\nThe findings hold under some perturbations and not others. The details provided are insufficient to reproduce the work. The writing-clarity rating is 2.8 out of 5.\n\nThe manuscript was submitted in April as revision 1 by 7 authors. It runs 8 pages with 6 figures, 4 tables, and 49 references, plus 15 pages of appendix.\n\nQuestion: Will the submission be accepted?", "label": "reject", "probability_positive": 0.001} | |
| {"case_id": "0a453a7196084618a2797dd2", "text": "Peer Review Memo\n\nThis is a theoretical paper.\n\nThe approach departs substantially from prior work. The problem it addresses is of narrow interest. The technical argument raises limited concerns that do not undermine the main result.\n\nThe strength of supporting evidence is rated 1.3 out of 5. The comparison with prior theoretical results and their assumptions is inadequate.\n\nThe conclusions are sensitive to small changes in the assumptions. The details provided are insufficient to reproduce the work. The writing-clarity rating is 1.0 out of 5.\n\nThe manuscript was submitted in July as revision 3 by 5 authors. It runs 18 pages with 9 figures, 2 tables, and 29 references, plus 26 pages of appendix.\n\nQuestion: Will the submission be accepted?", "label": "reject", "probability_positive": 0.0} | |
| {"case_id": "88e5dd33a681cddf52eed361", "text": "Peer Review Memo\n\nThis is a theoretical paper.\n\nThe core idea is a major departure from anything in the literature. The problem it addresses matters to a moderate part of the community. The technical argument contains a serious flaw.\n\nThe strength of supporting evidence is rated 1.6 out of 5. The comparison with prior theoretical results and their assumptions is thorough.\n\nThe conclusions remain valid under reasonable changes in the assumptions. The details provided are insufficient to reproduce the work. The writing-clarity rating is 3.3 out of 5.\n\nThe manuscript was submitted in October as revision 3 by 5 authors. It runs 9 pages with 3 figures, 4 tables, and 57 references, plus 42 pages of appendix.\n\nQuestion: Will the submission be accepted?", "label": "reject", "probability_positive": 0.0} | |
| {"case_id": "05a56da9ec26089a2dea2fee", "text": "Peer Review Memo\n\nThis is an empirical paper.\n\nThe method builds on existing techniques with modest changes. The problem it addresses is broadly important across the field. The technical argument is sound.\n\nThe strength of supporting evidence is rated 3.6 out of 5. Comparisons with prior methods are inadequate.\n\nThe findings remain stable under perturbation. The work could be fully reproduced from the details provided. The writing-clarity rating is 1.4 out of 5.\n\nThe manuscript was submitted in January as revision 3 by 2 authors. It runs 11 pages with 3 figures, 1 table, and 21 references, plus 23 pages of appendix.\n\nQuestion: Will the submission be accepted?", "label": "accept", "probability_positive": 0.995} | |
| {"case_id": "e139ee385b57c5b11b77742e", "text": "Peer Review Memo\n\nThis is an empirical paper.\n\nThe core idea is a major departure from anything in the literature. The problem it addresses is broadly important across the field. The technical argument raises limited concerns that do not undermine the main result.\n\nThe strength of supporting evidence is rated 2.3 out of 5. Comparisons with prior methods are inadequate.\n\nThe findings hold under some perturbations and not others. The work could be fully reproduced from the details provided. The writing-clarity rating is 1.0 out of 5.\n\nThe manuscript was submitted in December as revision 1 by 10 authors. It runs 7 pages with 6 figures, 5 tables, and 54 references, plus 19 pages of appendix.\n\nQuestion: Will the submission be accepted?", "label": "reject", "probability_positive": 0.005} | |
| {"case_id": "3961e308f6cb3b9a928a1876", "text": "Peer Review Memo\n\nThis is a theoretical paper.\n\nThe method builds on existing techniques with modest changes. The problem it addresses is of narrow interest. The technical argument raises limited concerns that do not undermine the main result.\n\nThe strength of supporting evidence is rated 1.7 out of 5. The comparison with prior theoretical results and their assumptions is inadequate.\n\nThe conclusions are sensitive to small changes in the assumptions. The details provided are insufficient to reproduce the work. The writing-clarity rating is 4.7 out of 5.\n\nThe manuscript was submitted in December as revision 3 by 1 author. It runs 12 pages with 6 figures, 2 tables, and 70 references, plus 18 pages of appendix.\n\nQuestion: Will the submission be accepted?", "label": "reject", "probability_positive": 0.0} | |
| {"case_id": "05c36ba92e4eff0ff3b9418d", "text": "Peer Review Memo\n\nThis is an empirical paper.\n\nThe method builds on existing techniques with modest changes. The problem it addresses is broadly important across the field. The technical argument raises limited concerns that do not undermine the main result.\n\nThe strength of supporting evidence is rated 3.6 out of 5. Comparisons with prior methods are only partly controlled.\n\nThe findings remain stable under perturbation. The work could be partially reproduced from the details provided. The writing-clarity rating is 2.2 out of 5.\n\nThe manuscript was submitted in June as revision 1 by 1 author. It runs 4 pages with 9 figures, 12 tables, and 87 references, plus 18 pages of appendix.\n\nQuestion: Will the submission be accepted?", "label": "accept", "probability_positive": 0.95} | |
| {"case_id": "90cf06d90b0bf39d585ed80b", "text": "Peer Review Memo\n\nThis is a theoretical paper.\n\nThe approach departs substantially from prior work. The problem it addresses matters to a moderate part of the community. The technical argument is sound.\n\nThe strength of supporting evidence is rated 4.4 out of 5. The comparison with prior theoretical results and their assumptions is inadequate.\n\nThe conclusions hold under some changes in the assumptions and not others. The details provided are insufficient to reproduce the work. The writing-clarity rating is 3.1 out of 5.\n\nThe manuscript was submitted in March as revision 1 by 10 authors. It runs 9 pages with 3 figures, 3 tables, and 30 references, plus 13 pages of appendix.\n\nQuestion: Will the submission be accepted?", "label": "accept", "probability_positive": 0.86} | |
| {"case_id": "7edd098041fb6621b0656186", "text": "Peer Review Memo\n\nThis is an applied paper.\n\nThe core idea is a major departure from anything in the literature. The problem it addresses is of narrow interest. The technical argument is sound.\n\nThe strength of supporting evidence is rated 3.4 out of 5. Comparisons with existing approaches are only partly controlled.\n\nThe findings hold under some perturbations and not others. The details provided are insufficient to reproduce the work. The writing-clarity rating is 4.0 out of 5.\n\nThe manuscript was submitted in February as revision 3 by 6 authors. It runs 11 pages with 5 figures, 4 tables, and 20 references, plus 17 pages of appendix.\n\nQuestion: Will the submission be accepted?", "label": "reject", "probability_positive": 0.05} | |
| {"case_id": "2892db6e0e0205b290c9d87d", "text": "Peer Review Memo\n\nThis is an applied paper.\n\nThe method builds on existing techniques with modest changes. The problem it addresses is of narrow interest. The technical argument is sound.\n\nThe strength of supporting evidence is rated 3.1 out of 5. Comparisons with existing approaches are well controlled.\n\nThe findings remain stable under perturbation. The details provided are insufficient to reproduce the work. The writing-clarity rating is 1.7 out of 5.\n\nThe manuscript was submitted in April as revision 3 by 5 authors. It runs 7 pages with 8 figures, 2 tables, and 30 references, plus 12 pages of appendix.\n\nQuestion: Will the submission be accepted?", "label": "reject", "probability_positive": 0.05} | |
| {"case_id": "993c1af8d2657829ca118543", "text": "Peer Review Memo\n\nThis is a theoretical paper.\n\nThe method builds on existing techniques with modest changes. The problem it addresses matters to a moderate part of the community. The technical argument raises limited concerns that do not undermine the main result.\n\nThe strength of supporting evidence is rated 3.9 out of 5. The comparison with prior theoretical results and their assumptions is only partly developed.\n\nThe conclusions hold under some changes in the assumptions and not others. The work could be partially reproduced from the details provided. The writing-clarity rating is 2.7 out of 5.\n\nThe manuscript was submitted in October as revision 1 by 7 authors. It runs 16 pages with 11 figures, 5 tables, and 38 references, plus 0 pages of appendix.\n\nQuestion: Will the submission be accepted?", "label": "reject", "probability_positive": 0.05} | |
| {"case_id": "c62a523256bc6b2ae700921f", "text": "Peer Review Memo\n\nThis is a theoretical paper.\n\nThe approach departs substantially from prior work. The problem it addresses matters to a moderate part of the community. The technical argument is sound.\n\nThe strength of supporting evidence is rated 2.8 out of 5. The comparison with prior theoretical results and their assumptions is inadequate.\n\nThe conclusions remain valid under reasonable changes in the assumptions. The work could be partially reproduced from the details provided. The writing-clarity rating is 3.4 out of 5.\n\nThe manuscript was submitted in April as revision 3 by 2 authors. It runs 5 pages with 8 figures, 3 tables, and 12 references, plus 9 pages of appendix.\n\nQuestion: Will the submission be accepted?", "label": "accept", "probability_positive": 0.95} | |
| {"case_id": "2c7921477aa71f17640a7f17", "text": "Peer Review Memo\n\nThis is an empirical paper.\n\nThe method builds on existing techniques with modest changes. The problem it addresses is of narrow interest. The technical argument is sound.\n\nThe strength of supporting evidence is rated 4.6 out of 5. Comparisons with prior methods are well controlled.\n\nThe findings look fragile under perturbation. The details provided are insufficient to reproduce the work. The writing-clarity rating is 1.3 out of 5.\n\nThe manuscript was submitted in February as revision 1 by 3 authors. It runs 12 pages with 9 figures, 5 tables, and 24 references, plus 0 pages of appendix.\n\nQuestion: Will the submission be accepted?", "label": "reject", "probability_positive": 0.14} | |
| {"case_id": "b45a66cfc5fc91087b12febc", "text": "Peer Review Memo\n\nThis is an empirical paper.\n\nThe method builds on existing techniques with modest changes. The problem it addresses is broadly important across the field. The technical argument is sound.\n\nThe strength of supporting evidence is rated 2.1 out of 5. Comparisons with prior methods are inadequate.\n\nThe findings hold under some perturbations and not others. The work could be partially reproduced from the details provided. The writing-clarity rating is 3.6 out of 5.\n\nThe manuscript was submitted in October as revision 1 by 3 authors. It runs 14 pages with 5 figures, 2 tables, and 42 references, plus 7 pages of appendix.\n\nQuestion: Will the submission be accepted?", "label": "reject", "probability_positive": 0.005} | |
| {"case_id": "0f2278ad1c16b4a9b1c7ce0a", "text": "Peer Review Memo\n\nThis is a theoretical paper.\n\nThe approach departs substantially from prior work. The problem it addresses is broadly important across the field. The technical argument is sound.\n\nThe strength of supporting evidence is rated 4.8 out of 5. The comparison with prior theoretical results and their assumptions is inadequate.\n\nThe conclusions are sensitive to small changes in the assumptions. The work could be partially reproduced from the details provided. The writing-clarity rating is 1.9 out of 5.\n\nThe manuscript was submitted in April as revision 3 by 12 authors. It runs 10 pages with 3 figures, 1 table, and 42 references, plus 16 pages of appendix.\n\nQuestion: Will the submission be accepted?", "label": "reject", "probability_positive": 0.95} | |
| {"case_id": "e722fdcc10c84c8dc63e978c", "text": "Peer Review Memo\n\nThis is an applied paper.\n\nThe method builds on existing techniques with modest changes. The problem it addresses is broadly important across the field. The technical argument is sound.\n\nThe strength of supporting evidence is rated 5.0 out of 5. Comparisons with existing approaches are inadequate.\n\nThe findings look fragile under perturbation. The details provided are insufficient to reproduce the work. The writing-clarity rating is 4.5 out of 5.\n\nThe manuscript was submitted in February as revision 3 by 3 authors. It runs 6 pages with 4 figures, 4 tables, and 31 references, plus 0 pages of appendix.\n\nQuestion: Will the submission be accepted?", "label": "accept", "probability_positive": 0.95} | |
| {"case_id": "5b3a5a7956ff66ef754f40e6", "text": "Peer Review Memo\n\nThis is a theoretical paper.\n\nThe method builds on existing techniques with modest changes. The problem it addresses is of narrow interest. The technical argument raises limited concerns that do not undermine the main result.\n\nThe strength of supporting evidence is rated 2.4 out of 5. The comparison with prior theoretical results and their assumptions is inadequate.\n\nThe conclusions hold under some changes in the assumptions and not others. The details provided are insufficient to reproduce the work. The writing-clarity rating is 2.7 out of 5.\n\nThe manuscript was submitted in June as revision 1 by 6 authors. It runs 9 pages with 6 figures, 1 table, and 59 references, plus 0 pages of appendix.\n\nQuestion: Will the submission be accepted?", "label": "reject", "probability_positive": 0.0} | |
| {"case_id": "e28bc3195eb19d22422ac3e6", "text": "Peer Review Memo\n\nThis is a theoretical paper.\n\nThe core idea is a major departure from anything in the literature. The problem it addresses matters to a moderate part of the community. The technical argument raises limited concerns that do not undermine the main result.\n\nThe strength of supporting evidence is rated 2.6 out of 5. The comparison with prior theoretical results and their assumptions is inadequate.\n\nThe conclusions remain valid under reasonable changes in the assumptions. The details provided are insufficient to reproduce the work. The writing-clarity rating is 1.1 out of 5.\n\nThe manuscript was submitted in July as revision 1 by 7 authors. It runs 6 pages with 4 figures, 0 tables, and 44 references, plus 0 pages of appendix.\n\nQuestion: Will the submission be accepted?", "label": "reject", "probability_positive": 0.05} | |
| {"case_id": "5f34107ff0bb28916d68f919", "text": "Peer Review Memo\n\nThis is a theoretical paper.\n\nThe method builds on existing techniques with modest changes. The problem it addresses matters to a moderate part of the community. The technical argument raises limited concerns that do not undermine the main result.\n\nThe strength of supporting evidence is rated 2.6 out of 5. The comparison with prior theoretical results and their assumptions is only partly developed.\n\nThe conclusions remain valid under reasonable changes in the assumptions. The details provided are insufficient to reproduce the work. The writing-clarity rating is 1.9 out of 5.\n\nThe manuscript was submitted in April as revision 1 by 5 authors. It runs 6 pages with 3 figures, 2 tables, and 43 references, plus 16 pages of appendix.\n\nQuestion: Will the submission be accepted?", "label": "reject", "probability_positive": 0.001} | |
| {"case_id": "0e2f606100f6b59d8eda0944", "text": "Peer Review Memo\n\nThis is a theoretical paper.\n\nThe method builds on existing techniques with modest changes. The problem it addresses is of narrow interest. The technical argument is sound.\n\nThe strength of supporting evidence is rated 3.7 out of 5. The comparison with prior theoretical results and their assumptions is inadequate.\n\nThe conclusions hold under some changes in the assumptions and not others. The work could be fully reproduced from the details provided. The writing-clarity rating is 2.2 out of 5.\n\nThe manuscript was submitted in August as revision 3 by 4 authors. It runs 14 pages with 5 figures, 4 tables, and 48 references, plus 2 pages of appendix.\n\nQuestion: Will the submission be accepted?", "label": "reject", "probability_positive": 0.05} | |
| {"case_id": "a1eb024b1ac503053a77371e", "text": "Peer Review Memo\n\nThis is a theoretical paper.\n\nThe method builds on existing techniques with modest changes. The problem it addresses is of narrow interest. The technical argument raises limited concerns that do not undermine the main result.\n\nThe strength of supporting evidence is rated 1.0 out of 5. The comparison with prior theoretical results and their assumptions is thorough.\n\nThe conclusions hold under some changes in the assumptions and not others. The work could be partially reproduced from the details provided. The writing-clarity rating is 4.3 out of 5.\n\nThe manuscript was submitted in October as revision 1 by 7 authors. It runs 8 pages with 10 figures, 5 tables, and 36 references, plus 0 pages of appendix.\n\nQuestion: Will the submission be accepted?", "label": "reject", "probability_positive": 0.001} | |
| {"case_id": "39305c9fb9147ad47a3a8f7d", "text": "Peer Review Memo\n\nThis is an empirical paper.\n\nThe method builds on existing techniques with modest changes. The problem it addresses is of narrow interest. The technical argument is sound.\n\nThe strength of supporting evidence is rated 3.4 out of 5. Comparisons with prior methods are inadequate.\n\nThe findings look fragile under perturbation. The work could be partially reproduced from the details provided. The writing-clarity rating is 2.7 out of 5.\n\nThe manuscript was submitted in February as revision 1 by 1 author. It runs 14 pages with 9 figures, 10 tables, and 32 references, plus 0 pages of appendix.\n\nQuestion: Will the submission be accepted?", "label": "reject", "probability_positive": 0.001} | |
| {"case_id": "a6c0fb8b0e1621c70dbca77d", "text": "Peer Review Memo\n\nThis is a theoretical paper.\n\nThe method builds on existing techniques with modest changes. The problem it addresses matters to a moderate part of the community. The technical argument is sound.\n\nThe strength of supporting evidence is rated 3.7 out of 5. The comparison with prior theoretical results and their assumptions is inadequate.\n\nThe conclusions are sensitive to small changes in the assumptions. The work could be fully reproduced from the details provided. The writing-clarity rating is 1.4 out of 5.\n\nThe manuscript was submitted in October as revision 3 by 3 authors. It runs 11 pages with 13 figures, 9 tables, and 31 references, plus 0 pages of appendix.\n\nQuestion: Will the submission be accepted?", "label": "reject", "probability_positive": 0.05} | |
| {"case_id": "3b44728b607ced67f7c33700", "text": "Peer Review Memo\n\nThis is an empirical paper.\n\nThe core idea is a major departure from anything in the literature. The problem it addresses is of narrow interest. The technical argument is sound.\n\nThe strength of supporting evidence is rated 1.4 out of 5. Comparisons with prior methods are only partly controlled.\n\nThe findings hold under some perturbations and not others. The work could be partially reproduced from the details provided. The writing-clarity rating is 3.2 out of 5.\n\nThe manuscript was submitted in November as revision 3 by 7 authors. It runs 9 pages with 1 figure, 7 tables, and 44 references, plus 16 pages of appendix.\n\nQuestion: Will the submission be accepted?", "label": "reject", "probability_positive": 0.02} | |
| {"case_id": "bef404e5fb3d656766fc2cb9", "text": "Peer Review Memo\n\nThis is a theoretical paper.\n\nThe approach departs substantially from prior work. The problem it addresses is broadly important across the field. The technical argument contains a serious flaw.\n\nThe strength of supporting evidence is rated 1.0 out of 5. The comparison with prior theoretical results and their assumptions is inadequate.\n\nThe conclusions hold under some changes in the assumptions and not others. The details provided are insufficient to reproduce the work. The writing-clarity rating is 4.4 out of 5.\n\nThe manuscript was submitted in November as revision 1 by 5 authors. It runs 15 pages with 5 figures, 0 tables, and 55 references, plus 11 pages of appendix.\n\nQuestion: Will the submission be accepted?", "label": "reject", "probability_positive": 0.0} | |
| {"case_id": "37a65865d3cec5bc35e5cc48", "text": "Peer Review Memo\n\nThis is an empirical paper.\n\nThe method builds on existing techniques with modest changes. The problem it addresses is broadly important across the field. The technical argument is sound.\n\nThe strength of supporting evidence is rated 2.2 out of 5. Comparisons with prior methods are only partly controlled.\n\nThe findings remain stable under perturbation. The details provided are insufficient to reproduce the work. The writing-clarity rating is 2.8 out of 5.\n\nThe manuscript was submitted in June as revision 1 by 5 authors. It runs 7 pages with 9 figures, 4 tables, and 28 references, plus 11 pages of appendix.\n\nQuestion: Will the submission be accepted?", "label": "reject", "probability_positive": 0.05} | |
| {"case_id": "9fad5eced0cd61a46f7249e1", "text": "Peer Review Memo\n\nThis is an applied paper.\n\nThe method builds on existing techniques with modest changes. The problem it addresses is of narrow interest. The technical argument is sound.\n\nThe strength of supporting evidence is rated 4.0 out of 5. Comparisons with existing approaches are well controlled.\n\nThe findings look fragile under perturbation. The work could be fully reproduced from the details provided. The writing-clarity rating is 1.1 out of 5.\n\nThe manuscript was submitted in August as revision 1 by 3 authors. It runs 11 pages with 9 figures, 1 table, and 68 references, plus 0 pages of appendix.\n\nQuestion: Will the submission be accepted?", "label": "accept", "probability_positive": 0.86} | |
| {"case_id": "feed51d14181e824f9de4610", "text": "Peer Review Memo\n\nThis is an empirical paper.\n\nThe core idea is a major departure from anything in the literature. The problem it addresses is broadly important across the field. The technical argument contains a serious flaw.\n\nThe strength of supporting evidence is rated 3.0 out of 5. Comparisons with prior methods are well controlled.\n\nThe findings look fragile under perturbation. The details provided are insufficient to reproduce the work. The writing-clarity rating is 3.3 out of 5.\n\nThe manuscript was submitted in August as revision 3 by 2 authors. It runs 12 pages with 3 figures, 4 tables, and 26 references, plus 25 pages of appendix.\n\nQuestion: Will the submission be accepted?", "label": "reject", "probability_positive": 0.0} | |
| {"case_id": "7cd316ce355537f669120b02", "text": "Peer Review Memo\n\nThis is an empirical paper.\n\nThe method builds on existing techniques with modest changes. The problem it addresses matters to a moderate part of the community. The technical argument raises limited concerns that do not undermine the main result.\n\nThe strength of supporting evidence is rated 4.4 out of 5. Comparisons with prior methods are inadequate.\n\nThe findings look fragile under perturbation. The work could be partially reproduced from the details provided. The writing-clarity rating is 1.1 out of 5.\n\nThe manuscript was submitted in February as revision 1 by 4 authors. It runs 16 pages with 3 figures, 1 table, and 53 references, plus 7 pages of appendix.\n\nQuestion: Will the submission be accepted?", "label": "reject", "probability_positive": 0.005} | |
| {"case_id": "2dc61fcac957800b3e16888c", "text": "Peer Review Memo\n\nThis is a theoretical paper.\n\nThe method builds on existing techniques with modest changes. The problem it addresses is of narrow interest. The technical argument contains a serious flaw.\n\nThe strength of supporting evidence is rated 1.0 out of 5. The comparison with prior theoretical results and their assumptions is thorough.\n\nThe conclusions are sensitive to small changes in the assumptions. The details provided are insufficient to reproduce the work. The writing-clarity rating is 2.7 out of 5.\n\nThe manuscript was submitted in May as revision 3 by 2 authors. It runs 14 pages with 8 figures, 5 tables, and 17 references, plus 24 pages of appendix.\n\nQuestion: Will the submission be accepted?", "label": "reject", "probability_positive": 0.0} | |
| {"case_id": "61c6ae9d2d124fc0d15707d6", "text": "Peer Review Memo\n\nThis is an applied paper.\n\nThe method builds on existing techniques with modest changes. The problem it addresses is of narrow interest. The technical argument raises limited concerns that do not undermine the main result.\n\nThe strength of supporting evidence is rated 2.3 out of 5. Comparisons with existing approaches are well controlled.\n\nThe findings remain stable under perturbation. The details provided are insufficient to reproduce the work. The writing-clarity rating is 4.6 out of 5.\n\nThe manuscript was submitted in November as revision 1 by 10 authors. It runs 10 pages with 3 figures, 2 tables, and 24 references, plus 0 pages of appendix.\n\nQuestion: Will the submission be accepted?", "label": "reject", "probability_positive": 0.001} | |
| {"case_id": "ec7cfb8cb4759438e9c41078", "text": "Peer Review Memo\n\nThis is an applied paper.\n\nThe method builds on existing techniques with modest changes. The problem it addresses is of narrow interest. The technical argument is sound.\n\nThe strength of supporting evidence is rated 1.4 out of 5. Comparisons with existing approaches are only partly controlled.\n\nThe findings remain stable under perturbation. The details provided are insufficient to reproduce the work. The writing-clarity rating is 2.5 out of 5.\n\nThe manuscript was submitted in April as revision 1 by 1 author. It runs 17 pages with 2 figures, 2 tables, and 92 references, plus 32 pages of appendix.\n\nQuestion: Will the submission be accepted?", "label": "reject", "probability_positive": 0.001} | |
| {"case_id": "95197ff007ec59b90cf7c73c", "text": "Peer Review Memo\n\nThis is a theoretical paper.\n\nThe method builds on existing techniques with modest changes. The problem it addresses is of narrow interest. The technical argument is sound.\n\nThe strength of supporting evidence is rated 1.0 out of 5. The comparison with prior theoretical results and their assumptions is only partly developed.\n\nThe conclusions hold under some changes in the assumptions and not others. The work could be partially reproduced from the details provided. The writing-clarity rating is 2.3 out of 5.\n\nThe manuscript was submitted in July as revision 1 by 2 authors. It runs 17 pages with 8 figures, 0 tables, and 22 references, plus 19 pages of appendix.\n\nQuestion: Will the submission be accepted?", "label": "reject", "probability_positive": 0.0} | |
| {"case_id": "c98e43fc1b8847c6032015fa", "text": "Peer Review Memo\n\nThis is an applied paper.\n\nThe method builds on existing techniques with modest changes. The problem it addresses is of narrow interest. The technical argument is sound.\n\nThe strength of supporting evidence is rated 1.3 out of 5. Comparisons with existing approaches are inadequate.\n\nThe findings remain stable under perturbation. The work could be fully reproduced from the details provided. The writing-clarity rating is 1.9 out of 5.\n\nThe manuscript was submitted in September as revision 1 by 7 authors. It runs 5 pages with 14 figures, 3 tables, and 51 references, plus 15 pages of appendix.\n\nQuestion: Will the submission be accepted?", "label": "reject", "probability_positive": 0.001} | |
| {"case_id": "6c6db9a766561a786382a74b", "text": "Peer Review Memo\n\nThis is an empirical paper.\n\nThe method builds on existing techniques with modest changes. The problem it addresses matters to a moderate part of the community. The technical argument contains a serious flaw.\n\nThe strength of supporting evidence is rated 1.7 out of 5. Comparisons with prior methods are inadequate.\n\nThe findings look fragile under perturbation. The details provided are insufficient to reproduce the work. The writing-clarity rating is 4.9 out of 5.\n\nThe manuscript was submitted in October as revision 1 by 2 authors. It runs 9 pages with 9 figures, 0 tables, and 86 references, plus 5 pages of appendix.\n\nQuestion: Will the submission be accepted?", "label": "reject", "probability_positive": 0.0} | |
| {"case_id": "7790a11d35b1deedcd6a1882", "text": "Peer Review Memo\n\nThis is an empirical paper.\n\nThe method builds on existing techniques with modest changes. The problem it addresses is broadly important across the field. The technical argument raises limited concerns that do not undermine the main result.\n\nThe strength of supporting evidence is rated 4.1 out of 5. Comparisons with prior methods are well controlled.\n\nThe findings look fragile under perturbation. The details provided are insufficient to reproduce the work. The writing-clarity rating is 2.0 out of 5.\n\nThe manuscript was submitted in May as revision 1 by 6 authors. It runs 13 pages with 5 figures, 2 tables, and 20 references, plus 11 pages of appendix.\n\nQuestion: Will the submission be accepted?", "label": "accept", "probability_positive": 0.86} | |
| {"case_id": "e1ce4b399e1a059cd582114a", "text": "Peer Review Memo\n\nThis is an applied paper.\n\nThe core idea is a major departure from anything in the literature. The problem it addresses is of narrow interest. The technical argument is sound.\n\nThe strength of supporting evidence is rated 4.1 out of 5. Comparisons with existing approaches are inadequate.\n\nThe findings remain stable under perturbation. The work could be partially reproduced from the details provided. The writing-clarity rating is 1.9 out of 5.\n\nThe manuscript was submitted in August as revision 3 by 3 authors. It runs 18 pages with 5 figures, 2 tables, and 59 references, plus 39 pages of appendix.\n\nQuestion: Will the submission be accepted?", "label": "accept", "probability_positive": 0.95} | |
| {"case_id": "258cdc629323cf36889438c5", "text": "Peer Review Memo\n\nThis is an applied paper.\n\nThe method builds on existing techniques with modest changes. The problem it addresses matters to a moderate part of the community. The technical argument is sound.\n\nThe strength of supporting evidence is rated 3.4 out of 5. Comparisons with existing approaches are inadequate.\n\nThe findings remain stable under perturbation. The work could be partially reproduced from the details provided. The writing-clarity rating is 2.5 out of 5.\n\nThe manuscript was submitted in December as revision 3 by 2 authors. It runs 10 pages with 13 figures, 5 tables, and 34 references, plus 17 pages of appendix.\n\nQuestion: Will the submission be accepted?", "label": "reject", "probability_positive": 0.14} | |
| {"case_id": "b74811a85665c6672663943d", "text": "Peer Review Memo\n\nThis is an applied paper.\n\nThe core idea is a major departure from anything in the literature. The problem it addresses is broadly important across the field. The technical argument contains a serious flaw.\n\nThe strength of supporting evidence is rated 2.1 out of 5. Comparisons with existing approaches are inadequate.\n\nThe findings hold under some perturbations and not others. The work could be partially reproduced from the details provided. The writing-clarity rating is 2.1 out of 5.\n\nThe manuscript was submitted in December as revision 1 by 1 author. It runs 16 pages with 1 figure, 4 tables, and 30 references, plus 11 pages of appendix.\n\nQuestion: Will the submission be accepted?", "label": "reject", "probability_positive": 0.0} | |
| {"case_id": "df05a2a30883a668f51040b9", "text": "Peer Review Memo\n\nThis is an empirical paper.\n\nThe approach departs substantially from prior work. The problem it addresses is broadly important across the field. The technical argument is sound.\n\nThe strength of supporting evidence is rated 2.8 out of 5. Comparisons with prior methods are inadequate.\n\nThe findings hold under some perturbations and not others. The details provided are insufficient to reproduce the work. The writing-clarity rating is 4.4 out of 5.\n\nThe manuscript was submitted in March as revision 3 by 4 authors. It runs 11 pages with 3 figures, 3 tables, and 37 references, plus 14 pages of appendix.\n\nQuestion: Will the submission be accepted?", "label": "accept", "probability_positive": 0.14} | |
| {"case_id": "7eb781602dcae86d9e2e542c", "text": "Peer Review Memo\n\nThis is an empirical paper.\n\nThe approach departs substantially from prior work. The problem it addresses is broadly important across the field. The technical argument raises limited concerns that do not undermine the main result.\n\nThe strength of supporting evidence is rated 3.5 out of 5. Comparisons with prior methods are inadequate.\n\nThe findings hold under some perturbations and not others. The details provided are insufficient to reproduce the work. The writing-clarity rating is 3.2 out of 5.\n\nThe manuscript was submitted in September as revision 1 by 6 authors. It runs 15 pages with 3 figures, 2 tables, and 43 references, plus 23 pages of appendix.\n\nQuestion: Will the submission be accepted?", "label": "reject", "probability_positive": 0.14} | |
| {"case_id": "cc0aa3d279a8d9c05e9d1b7f", "text": "Peer Review Memo\n\nThis is an applied paper.\n\nThe method builds on existing techniques with modest changes. The problem it addresses is of narrow interest. The technical argument raises limited concerns that do not undermine the main result.\n\nThe strength of supporting evidence is rated 3.7 out of 5. Comparisons with existing approaches are inadequate.\n\nThe findings remain stable under perturbation. The work could be partially reproduced from the details provided. The writing-clarity rating is 2.8 out of 5.\n\nThe manuscript was submitted in May as revision 1 by 15 authors. It runs 5 pages with 13 figures, 0 tables, and 35 references, plus 17 pages of appendix.\n\nQuestion: Will the submission be accepted?", "label": "reject", "probability_positive": 0.05} | |
| {"case_id": "4ac7b1049265b089ba0b2739", "text": "Peer Review Memo\n\nThis is a theoretical paper.\n\nThe method builds on existing techniques with modest changes. The problem it addresses is broadly important across the field. The technical argument is sound.\n\nThe strength of supporting evidence is rated 3.9 out of 5. The comparison with prior theoretical results and their assumptions is inadequate.\n\nThe conclusions are sensitive to small changes in the assumptions. The work could be partially reproduced from the details provided. The writing-clarity rating is 1.5 out of 5.\n\nThe manuscript was submitted in October as revision 1 by 6 authors. It runs 15 pages with 6 figures, 8 tables, and 28 references, plus 17 pages of appendix.\n\nQuestion: Will the submission be accepted?", "label": "reject", "probability_positive": 0.14} | |
| {"case_id": "19c65b236f762a13559e5558", "text": "Peer Review Memo\n\nThis is an empirical paper.\n\nThe method builds on existing techniques with modest changes. The problem it addresses matters to a moderate part of the community. The technical argument is sound.\n\nThe strength of supporting evidence is rated 2.5 out of 5. Comparisons with prior methods are inadequate.\n\nThe findings hold under some perturbations and not others. The work could be fully reproduced from the details provided. The writing-clarity rating is 4.0 out of 5.\n\nThe manuscript was submitted in September as revision 3 by 5 authors. It runs 11 pages with 5 figures, 6 tables, and 51 references, plus 10 pages of appendix.\n\nQuestion: Will the submission be accepted?", "label": "reject", "probability_positive": 0.14} | |
| {"case_id": "0115726c4e5c9f7a60aee2aa", "text": "Peer Review Memo\n\nThis is a theoretical paper.\n\nThe method builds on existing techniques with modest changes. The problem it addresses is of narrow interest. The technical argument contains a serious flaw.\n\nThe strength of supporting evidence is rated 1.2 out of 5. The comparison with prior theoretical results and their assumptions is only partly developed.\n\nThe conclusions hold under some changes in the assumptions and not others. The work could be fully reproduced from the details provided. The writing-clarity rating is 2.8 out of 5.\n\nThe manuscript was submitted in December as revision 1 by 1 author. It runs 9 pages with 4 figures, 5 tables, and 42 references, plus 0 pages of appendix.\n\nQuestion: Will the submission be accepted?", "label": "reject", "probability_positive": 0.0} | |
| {"case_id": "2005d2fcfa83f0601eaed403", "text": "Peer Review Memo\n\nThis is a theoretical paper.\n\nThe approach departs substantially from prior work. The problem it addresses is broadly important across the field. The technical argument is sound.\n\nThe strength of supporting evidence is rated 4.4 out of 5. The comparison with prior theoretical results and their assumptions is inadequate.\n\nThe conclusions remain valid under reasonable changes in the assumptions. The details provided are insufficient to reproduce the work. The writing-clarity rating is 2.6 out of 5.\n\nThe manuscript was submitted in May as revision 1 by 7 authors. It runs 5 pages with 5 figures, 6 tables, and 37 references, plus 21 pages of appendix.\n\nQuestion: Will the submission be accepted?", "label": "accept", "probability_positive": 0.995} | |
| {"case_id": "8e3ad0e41a27704031a9e057", "text": "Peer Review Memo\n\nThis is an empirical paper.\n\nThe method builds on existing techniques with modest changes. The problem it addresses is broadly important across the field. The technical argument raises limited concerns that do not undermine the main result.\n\nThe strength of supporting evidence is rated 3.0 out of 5. Comparisons with prior methods are inadequate.\n\nThe findings hold under some perturbations and not others. The details provided are insufficient to reproduce the work. The writing-clarity rating is 3.4 out of 5.\n\nThe manuscript was submitted in July as revision 3 by 3 authors. It runs 27 pages with 10 figures, 4 tables, and 78 references, plus 17 pages of appendix.\n\nQuestion: Will the submission be accepted?", "label": "reject", "probability_positive": 0.005} | |
| {"case_id": "ff3edf71d59a6bc492d1554a", "text": "Peer Review Memo\n\nThis is a theoretical paper.\n\nThe approach departs substantially from prior work. The problem it addresses is of narrow interest. The technical argument is sound.\n\nThe strength of supporting evidence is rated 2.1 out of 5. The comparison with prior theoretical results and their assumptions is inadequate.\n\nThe conclusions hold under some changes in the assumptions and not others. The work could be fully reproduced from the details provided. The writing-clarity rating is 1.0 out of 5.\n\nThe manuscript was submitted in May as revision 1 by 7 authors. It runs 10 pages with 15 figures, 4 tables, and 18 references, plus 20 pages of appendix.\n\nQuestion: Will the submission be accepted?", "label": "reject", "probability_positive": 0.005} | |
| {"case_id": "de3f5f4872bf7fb30507e28e", "text": "Peer Review Memo\n\nThis is an applied paper.\n\nThe approach departs substantially from prior work. The problem it addresses is of narrow interest. The technical argument raises limited concerns that do not undermine the main result.\n\nThe strength of supporting evidence is rated 2.3 out of 5. Comparisons with existing approaches are well controlled.\n\nThe findings hold under some perturbations and not others. The work could be partially reproduced from the details provided. The writing-clarity rating is 3.1 out of 5.\n\nThe manuscript was submitted in October as revision 3 by 5 authors. It runs 15 pages with 6 figures, 7 tables, and 67 references, plus 4 pages of appendix.\n\nQuestion: Will the submission be accepted?", "label": "reject", "probability_positive": 0.001} | |
| {"case_id": "980c0a2b38aa80827498d241", "text": "Peer Review Memo\n\nThis is an empirical paper.\n\nThe approach departs substantially from prior work. The problem it addresses is of narrow interest. The technical argument is sound.\n\nThe strength of supporting evidence is rated 2.9 out of 5. Comparisons with prior methods are well controlled.\n\nThe findings remain stable under perturbation. The work could be fully reproduced from the details provided. The writing-clarity rating is 1.0 out of 5.\n\nThe manuscript was submitted in August as revision 3 by 8 authors. It runs 15 pages with 12 figures, 10 tables, and 67 references, plus 12 pages of appendix.\n\nQuestion: Will the submission be accepted?", "label": "accept", "probability_positive": 0.98} | |
| {"case_id": "0ac1d8f6a30b0fcc56e9d4c8", "text": "Peer Review Memo\n\nThis is a theoretical paper.\n\nThe core idea is a major departure from anything in the literature. The problem it addresses matters to a moderate part of the community. The technical argument raises limited concerns that do not undermine the main result.\n\nThe strength of supporting evidence is rated 1.0 out of 5. The comparison with prior theoretical results and their assumptions is only partly developed.\n\nThe conclusions are sensitive to small changes in the assumptions. The work could be partially reproduced from the details provided. The writing-clarity rating is 1.3 out of 5.\n\nThe manuscript was submitted in November as revision 3 by 2 authors. It runs 16 pages with 3 figures, 1 table, and 44 references, plus 10 pages of appendix.\n\nQuestion: Will the submission be accepted?", "label": "reject", "probability_positive": 0.005} | |
| {"case_id": "607792a3785d470753cb2085", "text": "Peer Review Memo\n\nThis is a theoretical paper.\n\nThe method builds on existing techniques with modest changes. The problem it addresses is of narrow interest. The technical argument raises limited concerns that do not undermine the main result.\n\nThe strength of supporting evidence is rated 2.8 out of 5. The comparison with prior theoretical results and their assumptions is inadequate.\n\nThe conclusions are sensitive to small changes in the assumptions. The work could be partially reproduced from the details provided. The writing-clarity rating is 3.1 out of 5.\n\nThe manuscript was submitted in December as revision 1 by 4 authors. It runs 14 pages with 5 figures, 2 tables, and 58 references, plus 7 pages of appendix.\n\nQuestion: Will the submission be accepted?", "label": "reject", "probability_positive": 0.0} | |
| {"case_id": "5e5e32d0f0bc1f6150f1c0bb", "text": "Peer Review Memo\n\nThis is an empirical paper.\n\nThe method builds on existing techniques with modest changes. The problem it addresses is of narrow interest. The technical argument raises limited concerns that do not undermine the main result.\n\nThe strength of supporting evidence is rated 1.2 out of 5. Comparisons with prior methods are inadequate.\n\nThe findings remain stable under perturbation. The details provided are insufficient to reproduce the work. The writing-clarity rating is 1.9 out of 5.\n\nThe manuscript was submitted in January as revision 3 by 2 authors. It runs 12 pages with 9 figures, 1 table, and 46 references, plus 0 pages of appendix.\n\nQuestion: Will the submission be accepted?", "label": "reject", "probability_positive": 0.0} | |
| {"case_id": "27c2281308731e52376a96cb", "text": "Peer Review Memo\n\nThis is an applied paper.\n\nThe core idea is a major departure from anything in the literature. The problem it addresses is broadly important across the field. The technical argument is sound.\n\nThe strength of supporting evidence is rated 4.0 out of 5. Comparisons with existing approaches are well controlled.\n\nThe findings hold under some perturbations and not others. The work could be fully reproduced from the details provided. The writing-clarity rating is 2.2 out of 5.\n\nThe manuscript was submitted in September as revision 1 by 9 authors. It runs 11 pages with 6 figures, 2 tables, and 40 references, plus 0 pages of appendix.\n\nQuestion: Will the submission be accepted?", "label": "accept", "probability_positive": 1.0} | |
| {"case_id": "2795e97f42eafca225146f27", "text": "Peer Review Memo\n\nThis is a theoretical paper.\n\nThe approach departs substantially from prior work. The problem it addresses is of narrow interest. The technical argument is sound.\n\nThe strength of supporting evidence is rated 3.8 out of 5. The comparison with prior theoretical results and their assumptions is only partly developed.\n\nThe conclusions are sensitive to small changes in the assumptions. The work could be fully reproduced from the details provided. The writing-clarity rating is 2.5 out of 5.\n\nThe manuscript was submitted in September as revision 3 by 9 authors. It runs 4 pages with 9 figures, 6 tables, and 29 references, plus 8 pages of appendix.\n\nQuestion: Will the submission be accepted?", "label": "accept", "probability_positive": 0.95} | |
| {"case_id": "4d19b7c1238b10f65c53302c", "text": "Peer Review Memo\n\nThis is an applied paper.\n\nThe method builds on existing techniques with modest changes. The problem it addresses is of narrow interest. The technical argument is sound.\n\nThe strength of supporting evidence is rated 1.5 out of 5. Comparisons with existing approaches are only partly controlled.\n\nThe findings remain stable under perturbation. The work could be partially reproduced from the details provided. The writing-clarity rating is 2.4 out of 5.\n\nThe manuscript was submitted in January as revision 3 by 4 authors. It runs 13 pages with 1 figure, 7 tables, and 55 references, plus 8 pages of appendix.\n\nQuestion: Will the submission be accepted?", "label": "reject", "probability_positive": 0.001} | |
| {"case_id": "95c21e447759a31500fb857c", "text": "Peer Review Memo\n\nThis is a theoretical paper.\n\nThe method builds on existing techniques with modest changes. The problem it addresses is of narrow interest. The technical argument raises limited concerns that do not undermine the main result.\n\nThe strength of supporting evidence is rated 3.3 out of 5. The comparison with prior theoretical results and their assumptions is inadequate.\n\nThe conclusions remain valid under reasonable changes in the assumptions. The details provided are insufficient to reproduce the work. The writing-clarity rating is 1.4 out of 5.\n\nThe manuscript was submitted in February as revision 3 by 2 authors. It runs 11 pages with 7 figures, 1 table, and 64 references, plus 20 pages of appendix.\n\nQuestion: Will the submission be accepted?", "label": "reject", "probability_positive": 0.0} | |
| {"case_id": "1dc3712cc7442656f6df3af7", "text": "Peer Review Memo\n\nThis is an applied paper.\n\nThe method builds on existing techniques with modest changes. The problem it addresses matters to a moderate part of the community. The technical argument is sound.\n\nThe strength of supporting evidence is rated 2.3 out of 5. Comparisons with existing approaches are inadequate.\n\nThe findings look fragile under perturbation. The details provided are insufficient to reproduce the work. The writing-clarity rating is 2.4 out of 5.\n\nThe manuscript was submitted in October as revision 1 by 8 authors. It runs 10 pages with 6 figures, 5 tables, and 40 references, plus 1 page of appendix.\n\nQuestion: Will the submission be accepted?", "label": "reject", "probability_positive": 0.0} | |
| {"case_id": "a35eecac18dec383cfab1ac7", "text": "Peer Review Memo\n\nThis is a theoretical paper.\n\nThe core idea is a major departure from anything in the literature. The problem it addresses matters to a moderate part of the community. The technical argument is sound.\n\nThe strength of supporting evidence is rated 5.0 out of 5. The comparison with prior theoretical results and their assumptions is only partly developed.\n\nThe conclusions are sensitive to small changes in the assumptions. The details provided are insufficient to reproduce the work. The writing-clarity rating is 3.1 out of 5.\n\nThe manuscript was submitted in July as revision 1 by 4 authors. It runs 17 pages with 3 figures, 7 tables, and 33 references, plus 0 pages of appendix.\n\nQuestion: Will the submission be accepted?", "label": "accept", "probability_positive": 0.98} | |
| {"case_id": "7a5c3efafa7faf90262a56ee", "text": "Peer Review Memo\n\nThis is an empirical paper.\n\nThe method builds on existing techniques with modest changes. The problem it addresses is of narrow interest. The technical argument raises limited concerns that do not undermine the main result.\n\nThe strength of supporting evidence is rated 2.4 out of 5. Comparisons with prior methods are well controlled.\n\nThe findings look fragile under perturbation. The details provided are insufficient to reproduce the work. The writing-clarity rating is 4.6 out of 5.\n\nThe manuscript was submitted in May as revision 1 by 10 authors. It runs 13 pages with 9 figures, 8 tables, and 62 references, plus 28 pages of appendix.\n\nQuestion: Will the submission be accepted?", "label": "reject", "probability_positive": 0.0} | |
| {"case_id": "cb9429cbb91fbaf822c4f924", "text": "Peer Review Memo\n\nThis is an applied paper.\n\nThe method builds on existing techniques with modest changes. The problem it addresses is of narrow interest. The technical argument raises limited concerns that do not undermine the main result.\n\nThe strength of supporting evidence is rated 2.7 out of 5. Comparisons with existing approaches are well controlled.\n\nThe findings look fragile under perturbation. The work could be fully reproduced from the details provided. The writing-clarity rating is 4.5 out of 5.\n\nThe manuscript was submitted in February as revision 3 by 5 authors. It runs 13 pages with 7 figures, 0 tables, and 26 references, plus 16 pages of appendix.\n\nQuestion: Will the submission be accepted?", "label": "reject", "probability_positive": 0.02} | |
| {"case_id": "6c69e8f4062c2090599dc258", "text": "Peer Review Memo\n\nThis is an applied paper.\n\nThe approach departs substantially from prior work. The problem it addresses matters to a moderate part of the community. The technical argument raises limited concerns that do not undermine the main result.\n\nThe strength of supporting evidence is rated 1.4 out of 5. Comparisons with existing approaches are inadequate.\n\nThe findings hold under some perturbations and not others. The work could be partially reproduced from the details provided. The writing-clarity rating is 1.0 out of 5.\n\nThe manuscript was submitted in September as revision 3 by 2 authors. It runs 13 pages with 6 figures, 1 table, and 32 references, plus 16 pages of appendix.\n\nQuestion: Will the submission be accepted?", "label": "reject", "probability_positive": 0.0} | |
| {"case_id": "aee62877a24399b4be7d1ed2", "text": "Peer Review Memo\n\nThis is a theoretical paper.\n\nThe method builds on existing techniques with modest changes. The problem it addresses is of narrow interest. The technical argument is sound.\n\nThe strength of supporting evidence is rated 4.0 out of 5. The comparison with prior theoretical results and their assumptions is thorough.\n\nThe conclusions hold under some changes in the assumptions and not others. The details provided are insufficient to reproduce the work. The writing-clarity rating is 2.4 out of 5.\n\nThe manuscript was submitted in September as revision 3 by 2 authors. It runs 16 pages with 9 figures, 1 table, and 38 references, plus 0 pages of appendix.\n\nQuestion: Will the submission be accepted?", "label": "reject", "probability_positive": 0.05} | |
| {"case_id": "63886e9977bb7f00e14e058c", "text": "Peer Review Memo\n\nThis is an empirical paper.\n\nThe core idea is a major departure from anything in the literature. The problem it addresses is of narrow interest. The technical argument raises limited concerns that do not undermine the main result.\n\nThe strength of supporting evidence is rated 1.9 out of 5. Comparisons with prior methods are inadequate.\n\nThe findings hold under some perturbations and not others. The work could be fully reproduced from the details provided. The writing-clarity rating is 2.5 out of 5.\n\nThe manuscript was submitted in October as revision 3 by 2 authors. It runs 5 pages with 2 figures, 3 tables, and 73 references, plus 0 pages of appendix.\n\nQuestion: Will the submission be accepted?", "label": "reject", "probability_positive": 0.001} | |
| {"case_id": "0deaedc64ba437674aee4f7d", "text": "Peer Review Memo\n\nThis is an applied paper.\n\nThe core idea is a major departure from anything in the literature. The problem it addresses is of narrow interest. The technical argument is sound.\n\nThe strength of supporting evidence is rated 3.1 out of 5. Comparisons with existing approaches are only partly controlled.\n\nThe findings look fragile under perturbation. The details provided are insufficient to reproduce the work. The writing-clarity rating is 3.3 out of 5.\n\nThe manuscript was submitted in October as revision 3 by 2 authors. It runs 6 pages with 5 figures, 6 tables, and 45 references, plus 17 pages of appendix.\n\nQuestion: Will the submission be accepted?", "label": "reject", "probability_positive": 0.02} | |
| {"case_id": "8fb96c97516646baba4f3ca1", "text": "Peer Review Memo\n\nThis is a theoretical paper.\n\nThe approach departs substantially from prior work. The problem it addresses is of narrow interest. The technical argument is sound.\n\nThe strength of supporting evidence is rated 2.9 out of 5. The comparison with prior theoretical results and their assumptions is only partly developed.\n\nThe conclusions remain valid under reasonable changes in the assumptions. The work could be fully reproduced from the details provided. The writing-clarity rating is 4.9 out of 5.\n\nThe manuscript was submitted in February as revision 1 by 7 authors. It runs 10 pages with 3 figures, 7 tables, and 39 references, plus 9 pages of appendix.\n\nQuestion: Will the submission be accepted?", "label": "accept", "probability_positive": 0.98} | |
| {"case_id": "5d280aa13566583109d0c449", "text": "Peer Review Memo\n\nThis is a theoretical paper.\n\nThe core idea is a major departure from anything in the literature. The problem it addresses matters to a moderate part of the community. The technical argument is sound.\n\nThe strength of supporting evidence is rated 3.4 out of 5. The comparison with prior theoretical results and their assumptions is inadequate.\n\nThe conclusions hold under some changes in the assumptions and not others. The work could be fully reproduced from the details provided. The writing-clarity rating is 2.5 out of 5.\n\nThe manuscript was submitted in October as revision 1 by 3 authors. It runs 24 pages with 4 figures, 1 table, and 58 references, plus 20 pages of appendix.\n\nQuestion: Will the submission be accepted?", "label": "accept", "probability_positive": 0.98} | |
| {"case_id": "9a043f2fd91ff50a53842bd5", "text": "Peer Review Memo\n\nThis is a theoretical paper.\n\nThe core idea is a major departure from anything in the literature. The problem it addresses is broadly important across the field. The technical argument is sound.\n\nThe strength of supporting evidence is rated 2.8 out of 5. The comparison with prior theoretical results and their assumptions is thorough.\n\nThe conclusions hold under some changes in the assumptions and not others. The work could be partially reproduced from the details provided. The writing-clarity rating is 2.8 out of 5.\n\nThe manuscript was submitted in October as revision 1 by 5 authors. It runs 12 pages with 4 figures, 0 tables, and 43 references, plus 20 pages of appendix.\n\nQuestion: Will the submission be accepted?", "label": "accept", "probability_positive": 0.999} | |