88 lines
4.2 KiB
Markdown
88 lines
4.2 KiB
Markdown
|
# Internal ICASSP-style review loop
|
||
|
|
|
||
|
|
## Review 1: reject in original method framing
|
||
|
|
|
||
|
|
**Main concerns**
|
||
|
|
|
||
|
|
1. The novelty claim was too broad. EgoSpeak already defines egocentric
|
||
|
|
when-to-speak prediction, while MuVAP, AV-CONV, and 3M-Transformer cover
|
||
|
|
adjacent multiparty audiovisual structure.
|
||
|
|
2. The learned visual method did not support the intended speaker-grounding
|
||
|
|
claim. Pooled vision gave only `+0.291` mean-mAP points over `G+A`, and the
|
||
|
|
current-frame person-set screen did not exceed the historical pooled row.
|
||
|
|
3. Dense mAP, raw endpoint AP, and semantic floor events were conflated.
|
||
|
|
4. Planned tail, context, transfer, and behavior experiments occupied too much
|
||
|
|
of a four-page argument despite being unmeasured.
|
||
|
|
|
||
|
|
**Revision**
|
||
|
|
|
||
|
|
The paper was reframed from a successful visual adapter to a causal
|
||
|
|
global--local evidence audit. The claim is now that recent audio and global
|
||
|
|
context are complementary, while generic visual access remains insufficient.
|
||
|
|
All semantic event numbers and planned cross-backbone claims were removed.
|
||
|
|
|
||
|
|
## Review 2: weak reject after reframing
|
||
|
|
|
||
|
|
**Strengths**
|
||
|
|
|
||
|
|
- Clear task asymmetry: visible interlocutors condition prediction of an
|
||
|
|
invisible wearer.
|
||
|
|
- Strict causal cutoff and fixed 5-Hz / ten-horizon contract.
|
||
|
|
- A coherent positive result for `G+A`, especially wearer-offset anticipation.
|
||
|
|
- An unusually informative negative result: visible-activity labels help, but
|
||
|
|
current generic visual features do not recover that signal.
|
||
|
|
- Oracle controls distinguish visibility, timeliness, aggregation, and
|
||
|
|
identity continuity.
|
||
|
|
|
||
|
|
**Remaining concerns**
|
||
|
|
|
||
|
|
1. The deployable main comparison is single seed; only the oracle has three
|
||
|
|
seeds.
|
||
|
|
2. Sessions 1--3 have been inspected repeatedly, so the current matrix is not
|
||
|
|
a clean confirmatory test.
|
||
|
|
3. `G+A` changes history, feature access, and trainable capacity relative to
|
||
|
|
`A` or `G`; a matched wider/temporal control is missing.
|
||
|
|
4. Raw onset/offset AP is not a one-event-one-vote behavioral metric.
|
||
|
|
5. Checkpoint hashes, common valid-pair counts, and original predictions are
|
||
|
|
not all archived on this host.
|
||
|
|
|
||
|
|
**Revision**
|
||
|
|
|
||
|
|
The abstract and results now identify single-seed versus three-seed evidence,
|
||
|
|
avoid significance language, separate endpoint diagnostics from events, and
|
||
|
|
state the capacity/history confound. The main paper no longer claims reduced
|
||
|
|
false entry, semantic yield, speaker identity, or real-time throughput.
|
||
|
|
|
||
|
|
## Review 3: current verdict
|
||
|
|
|
||
|
|
**Score: 5/10, borderline, structurally ready but not yet confirmatory.**
|
||
|
|
|
||
|
|
The manuscript is substantially clearer and more defensible than a paper that
|
||
|
|
claims a successful visual grounding method. Its strongest publishable insight
|
||
|
|
is the controlled mismatch between oracle information value and learned visual
|
||
|
|
access. However, writing quality cannot replace the missing confirmatory
|
||
|
|
evidence. Calling the current artifact "accepted-paper ready" would overstate
|
||
|
|
the science.
|
||
|
|
|
||
|
|
## Minimum gates for a credible accept recommendation
|
||
|
|
|
||
|
|
1. Re-run `A`, `G`, `G+A`, and the selected visual condition for seeds 0/1/2
|
||
|
|
under one frozen recipe and common valid pairs; archive predictions,
|
||
|
|
checkpoint/config hashes, per-session values, and trainable parameter counts.
|
||
|
|
2. Add a parameter- and history-matched control. The central `G+A` gain must
|
||
|
|
remain larger than seed variance and the matched-capacity alternative.
|
||
|
|
3. Run the corrected competing-risk evaluator with training-side calibration,
|
||
|
|
manually audit real timelines, and report matched-recall false-entry and
|
||
|
|
false-stop rates only if denominators and invalid counts agree.
|
||
|
|
4. If visual grounding remains a contribution, replace generic pooling with a
|
||
|
|
causal active-speaker/floor estimator and require correct-time evidence to
|
||
|
|
beat delayed, removed, and capacity-matched controls. Otherwise retain the
|
||
|
|
honest audio-local paper and remove visual-method language.
|
||
|
|
5. Rebuild with the official 2027 kit, keep technical content within four
|
||
|
|
pages, put only references on an optional fifth page, and retain the IEEE
|
||
|
|
AI-assisted drafting disclosure.
|
||
|
|
|
||
|
|
Passing gates 1--3 would support a solid ICASSP empirical paper. Passing gate
|
||
|
|
4 with a meaningful matched-recall behavior gain would support the stronger
|
||
|
|
method paper originally envisioned.
|