A machine learning researcher shared their experience of having a paper rejected from the Empirical Methods in Natural Language Processing (EMNLP) conference, despite receiving decent scores from reviewers. The paper, which focused on multimodality, received an average score of 2.83 out of 4, with one reviewer marking it as 'very positive'. The author, a master's student and first-time paper submitter, is seeking advice on their next steps, including whether to resubmit to ACL ARR and if previous reviewer feedback would be beneficial for future submissions, as they need a publication for internship applications. AI
IMPACT Highlights the competitive nature of top-tier AI research conferences and the challenges faced by early-career researchers in publishing.
RANK_REASON Discussion of a research paper's rejection from a major ML conference and the author's subsequent steps. [lever_c_demoted from research: ic=1 ai=1.0]
AI-generated summary · Google Gemini · from 1 sources. How we write summaries →
