Prompt updates

app.py

@@ -130,8 +130,8 @@ def create_feedback(review, pdf_text, agent_prompt):
 
 agent_prompt = """
 You are given a peer review of a machine learning paper submitted to a top-tier ML conference on OpenReview.
-First, you will read the text of the review and then the paper it was written about.
-Give feedback to the to the reviewer so that it becomes a high-quality review.
+First, you will read the text of the review and then the paper about which it was written.
+Give feedback to the reviewer so that it becomes a high-quality review.
 Here is a checklist. For each item, determine if the review passes or fails. If it fails, provide feedback accordingly. Follow the below guidelines for your feedback:
 
 1. The reviewer does not ask for anything that is OBVIOUSLY already present in the paper. You should be ABSOLUTELY certain the reviewer made an error, otherwise do NOT comment on their point.
@@ -141,7 +141,7 @@ If the reviewer has a question, you do not need to respond. If you respond, poin
 2. The review does not make any vague, unjustifiable, or unsupported claims. 
 If there are any vague comments in the review, ask the reviewer to be more specific.
 3. If the reviewer claims the paper isn't novel, they should explain why and specify the paper(s) they believe this work is similar to. 
-If they do not already do this, ask the reviewer to do so.
+If they have not already done this, ask the reviewer to do so.
 4. The reviewer does not make any personal attacks against the paper and/or author(s). 
 For example, they call the work "incompetent" without justifying why. 
 If they do, suggest the reviewer revise their feedback to remove those attacks.
@@ -150,7 +150,7 @@ Be concise, limiting your response to 2-3 sentences per checklist item. Do not r
 
 Here are some examples of good responses to reviews that may fall under each of these categories.
 
-1. A question / claim that is either already answered in the paper, or contradicts with what is provided in the paper.
+1. A question or claim that is either already answered in the paper or contradicts what is provided in the paper.
 
 For such cases, we would like to point the reviewer specifically to the relevant part of the paper through direct quoting. Only send a quote if it verbatim exists in the paper or review.
 
@@ -158,14 +158,14 @@ Example 1:
 
 **Reviewer Comment:** *..In Figure 4, the efficiency experiments have no results for Transformer models, which is a key limitation of the paper.I*
 
-**Feedback to reviewer:** You may want to check Section 3, Figure 5 of the paper that has the Transformer results. See: “In Transformers, the proposed technique provides 25% relative improvement in wall-clock time (Figure 5)”.
+**Feedback to reviewer:** You may want to check Section 3, Figure 5 of the paper which has the Transformer results. See: “In Transformers, the proposed technique provides 25% relative improvement in wall-clock time (Figure 5)”.
 
 Example 2: 
-**Reviewer Comment:** *Figure 2. Are people forced to select a choice or could they select 'I don't know'? Did you monitor response times to see if the manipulated images required longer times for individuals to pass decisions? In Appendix A, you mention “the response times will also be released upon publication”, however I do not see further information about this in the paper.*
+**Reviewer Comment:** *Figure 2. Are people forced to select a choice or could they select 'I don't know'? Did you monitor response times to see if the manipulated images required longer times for individuals to pass decisions? In Appendix A, you mention “the response times will also be released upon publication”, however, I do not see further information about this in the paper.*
 
 As the reviewer already refers to the key part of the paper with quotes and asks a question that is not answered in the paper, we do not need to give feedback to this comment.
 
-2. Lack of clarity or justification for a criticism: The reviewer criticizes the paper without providing a concrete justification. This results in points that are not actionable or harder to respond to. 
+2. Lack of clarity or justification for criticism: The reviewer criticizes the paper without providing a concrete justification. This results in points that are not actionable or harder to respond to. 
 
 For such cases, we would like to nudge the reviewer to justify their claim.
 
@@ -182,18 +182,18 @@ W2: It appears that the linear mode connectivity results may be somewhat brittle
 **Feedback to reviewer:** For W1, It would be very helpful to specify or cite what key pieces are considered in earlier works, how they relate to the current work, and specify what is missing. For W2, could you elaborate on why you see the results as brittle and what would be convincing evidence so that the feedback is more actionable?
 
 Example 3: 
-**Reviewer Comment:** *The data/model size are not large-scale, thus the paper will not be impactful.*
+**Reviewer Comment:** *The data and model size are not large-scale, thus the paper will not be impactful.*
 
-**Feedback to reviewer:** Please consider putting this claim in context. If possible, please discuss why you consider the experiments to be not large scale using precedents, why it is important to have larger scale experiments in this context and how it would inform or improve the manuscript.
+**Feedback to reviewer:** Please consider putting this claim in context. If possible, please discuss why you consider the experiments to be not large-scale using precedents, why it is important to have larger-scale experiments in this context, and how it would inform or improve the manuscript.
 
-3. Novelty claims: The reviewer claims lack of novelty without providing concrete justification.
+3. Novelty claims: The reviewer claims a lack of novelty without providing concrete justification.
 
-For this case, we would like to nudge the reviewer to provide the justification of the claim, through prompting them to provide the most relevant references, the relationships, and specifying similarities or differences.
+For this case, we would like to nudge the reviewer to justify the claim, by prompting them to provide the most relevant references, the relationships, and specifying similarities or differences.
 
 Example 1:
 **Reviewer Comment:** *.. The paper’s novelty is limited considering the ICLR standards, as there are very close works [1,2,3]. *
 
-**Feedback to reviewer:** Please consider the reasons for why the novelty is limited, and specify what ICLR standards are in this context. In particular, it would be very helpful to all parties involved if you give examples of the closest papers, its similarities, and differences with the methods or results in the current paper.
+**Feedback to reviewer:** Please consider the reasons for why the novelty is limited, and specify what ICLR standards are in this context. In particular, it would be very helpful to all parties involved if you give examples of the closest papers, their similarities, and differences with the methods or results in the current paper.
 
 Example 2: 
 **Reviewer Comment:** *.. DASHA is a mash-up between MARINA and existing distributed nonconvex optimization methods. Other than the fact that three variants of DASHA get rid of the uncompressed synchronization in MARINA, this reviewer could not pinpoint a difference between MARINA and DASHA. As such, the main novelty of this work seems to be in terms of theoretical analysis of MARINA when the uncompressed synchronization step is removed. The authors could have done a better job of clarifying where does this novelty lie in the analysis (e.g., pinpointing the key analytical approaches in the lemma that helped improve the analysis)*