rebuttal

To draft a conference rebuttal, provide your paper path and reviews file to parse reviewer feedback, classify concerns, and generate a venue-compliant response strategy. The workflow atomizes issues and creates a structured draft with placeholders for pending experiments.

Yes, you can customize the reviewer response tone and length by passing optional venue and character-limit parameters. This ensures the drafted rebuttal complies with the specific formatting constraints of conferences like NeurIPS, ICML, or CVPR.

Handling multi-round rebuttals requires tracking previous responses and updating the issue board. The workflow supports follow-up rounds by maintaining a per-reviewer response strategy, allowing you to address new concerns or provide updated experimental results iteratively.

Yes, the rebuttal workflow supports CVPR, ACL, AAAI, ICCV, and ICLR among other major AI conferences. It applies targeted response strategies based on the specific venue parameters provided during the review analysis and drafting phases.

Structuring an issue board begins with review analysis to atomize reviewer concerns and classify them by severity and type. This creates a per-reviewer response strategy that organizes pending experiments and assigns specific response angles before drafting.

To start generating a peer-review rebuttal draft, you need to provide the file path for your paper and the file path for your reviews. Optionally, you can include the target venue and character limits to guide the tone and length of the output.