Venue: ICLR 2023 TinyPapers

Reviews:

final_score: rating: Needs Clarification (NC): a submission which does not meet the reviewing criteria and needs clarification for its described problem or solution
review_content: summary_of_contributions: The paper asks two questions to be resolved for an effective federated learning. In turn, the proposed research aism to provide an algorithm selection framework which can help in learning better algorithm in FL setting.
strengths_and_weaknesses: The questions asked although well known in the community and have received due attention recently are important to explore.

However, the paper needs significant writing updates. The abstract should be concise and clear. It did not give any idea about the questions and what has been proposed in this paper. 

The contribution of the proposed work is very limited and has not been justified quantitatively. The weakness of the existing works which is overcome is also not well highlighted.
suggested_changes: Proofread the paper and update the paper to make it clear and concise. The paper is missing a point description which makes it hard to understand the limitation of existing works and the proposed contribution. 

No analysis has been performed in this paper to justify the impact of this work. 

Solutions to the questions raised are not clearly demonstrated. Even the questions themselves are not clear.
review_title: null

Meta-review: metareview: The paper asks pertinent questions that have been on the radar of the FL community in the recent times i.e. Algorithm Selection and Client Contribution Prediction for effective FL. This, IF executed well not only helps bring attention of the community to these sub-problems, but also puts a step forward in formalizing such efforts for further contribution.

However, the current state of the submission needs significant revisions to meet archivable standards.
These revisions include better formalization, experimentation, analysis and comparison to existing works to make a case for the paper and it's stand. 

Overall, we recommend an invitation to revise for the submission.
confidence: 4: The area chair is confident but not absolutely certain
Decision: Invite to revise