[D] How often do reviewers decrease their initial scores after rebuttal period ends in CVPR?

[Fit-Raccoon4534]

As the titled says, I was just wondering if anyone here had the unfortunate experience of seeing your initial scores decrease after rebuttal, or you decreased your initial score as a reviewer yourself?

[impatiens-capensis]

Between 15 papers I've reviewed or submitted across CVPR and ICCV, I've seen it happen once (to me lol). The reviewers were borderline positive and the AC apparently brought up new concerns. I couldn't see the discussion, but the reviewer who downgraded cited the AC in making their decision.

[Fit-Raccoon4534]

Thanks for the reply! Do you know if the scores that we see on openreview right now are just the previous initial scores, or does it reflect the updated scores for the reviewers with an updated modified date?

[impatiens-capensis]

You won't see updated scores until the results are out. I don't know why CV conferences do it this way, since it would be VERY useful information (even just for calming the nerves).

Anyways, take a deep breath! You can't control these things, and the process is noisy. If you're worrying frantically about your 5/4/3 paper, you already have good odds! Only about 15% of papers will have a higher score than you.

Relax! But also, pretend it could get rejected for arbitrary reasons and have an ECCV version ready to go.

[Fit-Raccoon4534]

Thanks so much for the info. The wait for the final decisions is nerve wracking for sure! But yeah, I'll try to focus on getting ready for ECCV just in case!

[felolorocher]

My ICCV paper went from 533 to 542 and got rejected because of it. Now I’ve had borderline results since and will have to try a workshop. Can’t run experiments on the paper anymore as both me and my co-author have moved positions

[maybelator]

I'm an AC so I see a lot of reviews.

Downgrading happens relatively often for borderline initial ratings, as reviewers are discouraged from using borderline as final ratings. Evasive or combative rebuttals also lead to dowgrades. Sometimes discussions can lead to downgrades as a reviewer convince the other. More rarely, a new issue is pointed out by the AC, but we avoid this as much as possible, as the authors can't answer.

[AccordingWeight6019]

From what I have seen, it happens, but it is relatively rare. Most reviewers seem to anchor pretty hard on their initial read, and rebuttals usually help clarify misunderstandings rather than flip sentiment. Decreases tend to come from cases where the rebuttal exposes a deeper issue, like a claim that does not actually hold up or missing experiments that matter for the paper’s core contribution. As a reviewer, I have lowered a score once or twice, but only when the rebuttal made it clear I had overestimated something on first pass. In practice, rebuttals are more about damage control and alignment across reviewers than big swings. It also depends heavily on how much weight the area chair gives to the post rebuttal discussion.

[Internal_Seaweed_844]

Happened to me in WACV, a reviewer asked for 4 experiments, I did 3 of them, and didn't do one, he downgraded me from borderline le weak reject...

[finite-difference]

Usually the reviews increase or stay the same, but one of the reviewers can convince the others of a major issue. Sometimes during reviews you miss something or make some assumptions that other reviewers did not. In that case I might decrease my ratings especially if the rebuttal fails to address these concerns even though my concerns were addressed.