When will the papers be visible on the OpenReview?
By 15-Aug all the submitted papers, along with their reviews, will become publicly visible. Both papers and reviews will be anonymized. The authors, reviewers and public can comment on the papers.
During the rebuttal period, between 15-Aug and 26-Aug, the authors and reviewers should discuss the reviews. The authors are free to update the paper, and the reviewers are expected to review the new versions and update their evaluation.
After the author’s notification, on 10-Sep, the accepted papers will be de-anonymized, and the rejected papers will be removed from the public domain.
Will I be able to update the paper during the discussion period?
What is the criteria for desk rejection based on the scope?
The paper can be desk rejected for one of the three reasons: formatting issues, anonymity violation, or scope.
Formatting issues — paper is either too long, or in an incorrect format.
Anonymity violation — the main manuscript, supplemental materials, or a link provided in a paper identifies one or more of the authors.
Missing or insufficient limitations section — all papers are required to have an honest and sufficiently encompassing limitations section.
Scope: All CoRL submissions must demonstrate the relevance to Robot Learning through Intent—explicitly address a learning question for physical robots, or Outcome—test the proposed learning solution on physical robots.
- No learning: Manually design and tune the performance of a robot controller without use of learning.
- No learning: A search algorithm for model-based planning.
- No robotics: A generic result on sample complexity.
- No robotics: A generic RL algorithm.
- Little robotics: Improved performance on a standard CV dataset, e.g., ImageNet recognition.
- Insufficient algorithm evaluation quality: A RL algorithm evaluated with a low number of random seeds (e.g., fewer than 5 seeds) in a stochastic scenario which drastically alters performance (see Hendersen et al. Deep Reinforcement Learning that Matters, 2019, https://arxiv.org/pdf/1709.06560.pdf for further examples).
- An algorithm that was only evaluated in simulation without credible evidence on the possibility of transfer to a real robot learning due to sim2real problems or data efficiency.
What is the maximum size of the supplemental material? Can I add links to the additional resources?
- 100 MB
- Links to the additional resources are fine, but the reviewers have no obligation to look at them. Please make sure that the additional resources do not accidentally reveal your identity.
I can’t register an account, and the deadline is approaching. Help.
If one of your co-authors cannot register with OpenReview, and the deadline is approaching, please contact Program Chairs (email@example.com) for assistance.
Can I change author order after the submission deadline? How about adding a new author?
- Changing the author order is permitted. Adding or removing the authors after the paper submission deadline is not allowed. Under exceptional circumstances, please reach out to the program chairs.
How do I communicate with the ACs / reviewers / authors?
The preferred mode of communication between ACs, the reviewers, and the authors is through the comments on the papers. Note that the comments can be assigned different visibility levels, marked as readers field.
I am an area chair and would like to assign reviewers. How do I do that?
Preliminary assignments are completed from the AC recruited pool of the reviewers who agreed to review. We expect that the majority of the existing assignments will not need modifications (90%?). That said, there might be situations where a specific paper would benefit a specific reviewer, or where the automated fit is not good — in these cases — you are welcome to change the reviewers, from another reviewer from the pool or outside of the pool.
Here is how to modify Reviewer Assignments.
I am an area chair. Should we wait for the final versions of the supplemental material to flag papers for desk reject consideration?
No, not necessarily.
Our goal and spirit of the desk-reject flagging is to enter the review phase with submissions relevant to robot learning, and enable a fair and unbiased review process. It is not the goal to penalize the authors for omissions and things that can be mitigated before the review process starts. Likewise, we are not looking to reduce by-quota the number of submissions that enter the review phase.
The content, and formatting concerns are not applicable to the supplementary material. The only possible way for the supplementary material to make the paper a candidate for desk rejects is a violation of anonymity.
I am a reviewer, and I am not qualified to review a submission. Who do I contact?
Contact the submission’s area chair by posting a comment on the submission’s page. Please make it readable to the area chair and PCs. The (minor) adjustments to the reviewer assignments will be made until 25-Jun.
I am a reviewer. What should I expect of the limitations section?
The limitations section should honestly and explicitly describe limiting assumptions, failure modes, and other limitations of the results and experiments and how these might be addressed in the future.
The reviewers will be instructed to treat the limitations section in a constructive manner and especially focus on what is missing in this section.