It’s a similar situation in my paper, the person who has the fewest comments is the BR person, who complains about two things: one is shared with the others, so I get it, and the other is complete misunderstanding and a very minor one. Yet, everyone else gave BA/A. In fact, A has more points of criticism than BR.

In situations like this, I feel like the reviewer just wants to give a rejection and is looking for an excuse. Maybe they have a submission that they think might be with the same area chair, too? I don’t know, maybe Im too jaded.

I agree that if we sway a BA to A or maybe a BR to BA, there is a chance for the paper to get accepted. Ive heard in the past people lowered their score even when there wasn’t new negative info in rebuttal. Im hoping that wont be the case. Wishing you the best of luck!

Are there any resources that show score distribution from previous years?

consensus seems towards an acceptance, so perhaps it will work out :)

Question for people who have reviewed before (this was my first time reviewing): It seems like reviewers don’t see other reviewers’ comments on the same paper, unlike NeurIPS. Will this change after the author response time? Otherwise how are the reviewers meant to discuss things?

You submit a 1 page PDF as the “author response” by Dec 5 AoE. The template for it is on the website on the FAQ page (also in the email). That’s it. There is no point-by-point response and as far as I understand, no “discussion” with the reviewers. Just an opportunity to clear any misunderstandings or a short experiment or two that fits into that 1 page

In the exact same boat as you. 3 BA, 1 A, 1 BR. Feels like a coin flip at this point. I tried hard to find stats on previous years to see what the average score was for accepted papers, but couldnt find any info