Learning 3D Perception from Others' Predictions

## Abstract

Abstract The abstract paragraph should be indented 1/2 inch (3 picas) on both left and
right-hand margins. Use 10 point type, with a vertical spacing of 11 points.
The word Abstract must be centered, in small caps, and in point size 12. Two
line spaces precede the abstract. The abstract must be limited to one
paragraph.

## 1 Submission of conference papers to ICLR 2025

ICLR requires electronic submissions, processed by
[https://openreview.net/](https://openreview.net/). See ICLR’s website for more instructions.

If your paper is ultimately accepted, the statement \iclrfinalcopy should be inserted to adjust the
format to the camera ready requirements.

The format for the submissions is a variant of the NeurIPS format.
Please read carefully the instructions below, and follow them
faithfully.

### 1.1 Style

Papers to be submitted to ICLR 2025 must be prepared according to the
instructions presented here.

Authors are required to use the ICLR LaTeX style files obtainable at the
ICLR website. Please make sure you use the current files and
not previous versions. Tweaking the style files may be grounds for rejection.

### 1.2 Retrieval of style files

The style files for ICLR and other conference information are available online at:

[http://www.iclr.cc/](http://www.iclr.cc/)

The file iclr2025_conference.pdf contains these
instructions and illustrates the
various formatting requirements your ICLR paper must satisfy.
Submissions must be made using LaTeX and the style files
iclr2025_conference.sty and iclr2025_conference.bst (to be used with LaTeX2e). The file
iclr2025_conference.tex may be used as a “shell” for writing your paper. All you
have to do is replace the author, title, abstract, and text of the paper with
your own.

The formatting instructions contained in these style files are summarized in
sections 2, 3, and 4 below.

## 2 General formatting instructions

The text must be confined within a rectangle 5.5 inches (33 picas) wide and
9 inches (54 picas) long. The left margin is 1.5 inch (9 picas).
Use 10 point type with a vertical spacing of 11 points. Times New Roman is the
preferred typeface throughout. Paragraphs are separated by 1/2 line space,
with no indentation.

Paper title is 17 point, in small caps and left-aligned.
All pages should start at 1 inch (6 picas) from the top of the page.

Authors’ names are
set in boldface, and each name is placed above its corresponding
address. The lead author’s name is to be listed first, and
the co-authors’ names are set to follow. Authors sharing the
same address can be on the same line.

Please pay special attention to the instructions in section 4
regarding figures, tables, acknowledgments, and references.

There will be a strict upper limit of 10 pages for the main text of the initial submission, with unlimited additional pages for citations.

## 3 Headings: first level

First level headings are in small caps,
flush left and in point size 12. One line space before the first level
heading and 1/2 line space after the first level heading.

### 3.1 Headings: second level

Second level headings are in small caps,
flush left and in point size 10. One line space before the second level
heading and 1/2 line space after the second level heading.

#### 3.1.1 Headings: third level

Third level headings are in small caps,
flush left and in point size 10. One line space before the third level
heading and 1/2 line space after the third level heading.

## 4 Citations, figures, tables, references

These instructions apply to everyone, regardless of the formatter being used.

### 4.1 Citations within the text

Citations within the text should be based on the natbib package
and include the authors’ last names and year (with the “et al.” construct
for more than two authors). When the authors or the publication are
included in the sentence, the citation should not be in parenthesis using \citet{} (as
in “See Hinton06 for more information.”). Otherwise, the citation
should be in parenthesis using \citep{} (as in “Deep learning shows promise to make progress
towards AI (Bengio+chapter2007).”).

The corresponding references are to be listed in alphabetical order of
authors, in the References section. As to the format of the
references themselves, any style is acceptable as long as it is used
consistently.

### 4.2 Footnotes

Indicate footnotes with a number(^1^11Sample of the first footnote) in the
text. Place the footnotes at the bottom of the page on which they appear.
Precede the footnote with a horizontal rule of 2 inches
(12 picas).(^2^22Sample of the second footnote)

### 4.3 Figures

All artwork must be neat, clean, and legible. Lines should be dark
enough for purposes of reproduction; art work should not be
hand-drawn. The figure number and caption always appear after the
figure. Place one line space before the figure caption, and one line
space after the figure. The figure caption is lower case (except for
first word and proper nouns); figures are numbered consecutively.

Make sure the figure caption does not get separated from the figure.
Leave sufficient space to avoid splitting the figure and figure caption.

You may use color figures.
However, it is best for the
figure captions and the paper body to make sense if the paper is printed
either in black/white or in color.

Figure: Figure 1: Sample figure caption.

### 4.4 Tables

All tables must be centered, neat, clean and legible. Do not use hand-drawn
tables. The table number and title always appear before the table. See
Table 1.

Place one line space before the table title, one line space after the table
title, and one line space after the table. The table title must be lower case
(except for first word and proper nouns); tables are numbered consecutively.

**Table 1: Sample table title**
| PART | DESCRIPTION |
| --- | --- |
| Dendrite | Input terminal |
| Axon | Output terminal |
| Soma | Cell body (contains cell nucleus) |

## 5 Default Notation

In an attempt to encourage standardized notation, we have included the
notation file from the textbook, Deep Learning
goodfellow2016deep available at
[https://github.com/goodfeli/dlbook_notation/](https://github.com/goodfeli/dlbook_notation/). Use of this style
is not required and can be disabled by commenting out
math_commands.tex.

Numbers and Arrays

| $\displaystyle a$ | A scalar (integer or real) |
| --- | --- |
| $\displaystyle\va$ | A vector |
| $\displaystyle\mA$ | A matrix |
| $\displaystyle\tA$ | A tensor |
| $\displaystyle\mI_{n}$ | Identity matrix with $n$ rows and $n$ columns |
| $\displaystyle\mI$ | Identity matrix with dimensionality implied by context |
| $\displaystyle\ve^{(i)}$ | Standard basis vector $[0,\dots,0,1,0,\dots,0]$ with a 1 at position $i$ |
| $\displaystyle\text{diag}(\va)$ | A square, diagonal matrix with diagonal entries given by $\va$ |
| $\displaystyle\ra$ | A scalar random variable |
| $\displaystyle\rva$ | A vector-valued random variable |
| $\displaystyle\rmA$ | A matrix-valued random variable |

Sets and Graphs

| $\displaystyle\sA$ | A set |
| --- | --- |
| $\displaystyle\R$ | The set of real numbers |
| $\displaystyle\{0,1\}$ | The set containing 0 and 1 |
| $\displaystyle\{0,1,\dots,n\}$ | The set of all integers between 0 0 and $n$ |
| $\displaystyle[a,b]$ | The real interval including $a$ and $b$ |
| $\displaystyle(a,b]$ | The real interval excluding $a$ but including $b$ |
| $\displaystyle\sA\backslash\sB$ | Set subtraction, i.e., the set containing the elements of $\sA$ that are not in $\sB$ |
| $\displaystyle\gG$ | A graph |
| $\displaystyle\parents_{\gG}(\ervx_{i})$ | The parents of $\ervx_{i}$ in $\gG$ |

Indexing

| $\displaystyle\eva_{i}$ | Element $i$ of vector $\va$, with indexing starting at 1 |
| --- | --- |
| $\displaystyle\eva_{-i}$ | All elements of vector $\va$ except for element $i$ |
| $\displaystyle\emA_{i,j}$ | Element $i,j$ of matrix $\mA$ |
| $\displaystyle\mA_{i,:}$ | Row $i$ of matrix $\mA$ |
| $\displaystyle\mA_{:,i}$ | Column $i$ of matrix $\mA$ |
| $\displaystyle\etA_{i,j,k}$ | Element $(i,j,k)$ of a 3-D tensor $\tA$ |
| $\displaystyle\tA_{:,:,i}$ | 2-D slice of a 3-D tensor |
| $\displaystyle\erva_{i}$ | Element $i$ of the random vector $\rva$ |

Calculus

| $\displaystyle\frac{dy}{dx}$ | Derivative of $y$ with respect to $x$ |
| --- | --- |
| $\displaystyle\frac{\partial y}{\partial x}$ | Partial derivative of $y$ with respect to $x$ |
| $\displaystyle\nabla_{\vx}y$ | Gradient of $y$ with respect to $\vx$ |
| $\displaystyle\nabla_{\mX}y$ | Matrix derivatives of $y$ with respect to $\mX$ |
| $\displaystyle\nabla_{\tX}y$ | Tensor containing derivatives of $y$ with respect to $\tX$ |
| $\displaystyle\frac{\partial f}{\partial\vx}$ | Jacobian matrix $\mJ\in\R^{m\times n}$ of $f:\R^{n}\rightarrow\R^{m}$ |
| $\displaystyle\nabla_{\vx}^{2}f(\vx)\text{or}\mH(f)(\vx)$ | The Hessian matrix of $f$ at input point $\vx$ |
| $\displaystyle\int f(\vx)d\vx$ | Definite integral over the entire domain of $\vx$ |
| $\displaystyle\int_{\sS}f(\vx)d\vx$ | Definite integral with respect to $\vx$ over the set $\sS$ |

Probability and Information Theory

| $\displaystyle P(\ra)$ | A probability distribution over a discrete variable |
| --- | --- |
| $\displaystyle p(\ra)$ | A probability distribution over a continuous variable, or over<br>a variable whose type has not been specified |
| $\displaystyle\ra\sim P$ | Random variable $\ra$ has distribution $P$ |
| $\displaystyle\E_{\rx\sim P}[f(x)]\text{or}\E f(x)$ | Expectation of $f(x)$ with respect to $P(\rx)$ |
| $\displaystyle\Var(f(x))$ | Variance of $f(x)$ under $P(\rx)$ |
| $\displaystyle\Cov(f(x),g(x))$ | Covariance of $f(x)$ and $g(x)$ under $P(\rx)$ |
| $\displaystyle H(\rx)$ | Shannon entropy of the random variable $\rx$ |
| $\displaystyle\KL(P\|Q)$ | Kullback-Leibler divergence of P and Q |
| $\displaystyle\mathcal{N}(\vx;\vmu,\mSigma)$ | Gaussian distribution over $\vx$ with mean $\vmu$ and covariance $\mSigma$ |

Functions

| $\displaystyle f:\sA\rightarrow\sB$ | The function $f$ with domain $\sA$ and range $\sB$ |
| --- | --- |
| $\displaystyle f\circ g$ | Composition of the functions $f$ and $g$ |
| $\displaystyle f(\vx;\vtheta)$ | A function of $\vx$ parametrized by $\vtheta$.<br>(Sometimes we write $f(\vx)$ and omit the argument $\vtheta$ to lighten notation) |
| $\displaystyle\log x$ | Natural logarithm of $x$ |
| $\displaystyle\sigma(x)$ | Logistic sigmoid, $\displaystyle\frac{1}{1+\exp(-x)}$ |
| $\displaystyle\zeta(x)$ | Softplus, $\log(1+\exp(x))$ |
| $\displaystyle||\vx||_{p}$ | $\normlp$ norm of $\vx$ |
| $\displaystyle||\vx||$ | $\normltwo$ norm of $\vx$ |
| $\displaystyle x^{+}$ | Positive part of $x$, i.e., $\max(0,x)$ |
| $\displaystyle\1_{\mathrm{condition}}$ | is 1 if the condition is true, 0 otherwise |

## 6 Final instructions

Do not change any aspects of the formatting parameters in the style files.
In particular, do not modify the width or length of the rectangle the text
should fit into, and do not change font sizes (except perhaps in the
References section; see below). Please note that pages should be
numbered.

## 7 Preparing PostScript or PDF files

Please prepare PostScript or PDF files with paper size “US Letter”, and
not, for example, “A4”. The -t
letter option on dvips will produce US Letter files.

Consider directly generating PDF files using pdflatex
(especially if you are a MiKTeX user).
PDF figures must be substituted for EPS figures, however.

Otherwise, please generate your PostScript and PDF files with the following commands:

### 7.1 Margins in LaTeX

Most of the margin problems come from figures positioned by hand using
\special or other commands. We suggest using the command
\includegraphics
from the graphicx package. Always specify the figure width as a multiple of
the line width as in the example below using .eps graphics

or

for .pdf graphics.
See section 4.4 in the graphics bundle documentation ([http://www.ctan.org/tex-archive/macros/latex/required/graphics/grfguide.ps](http://www.ctan.org/tex-archive/macros/latex/required/graphics/grfguide.ps))

A number of width problems arise when LaTeX cannot properly hyphenate a
line. Please give LaTeX hyphenation hints using the \- command.

#### Author Contributions

If you’d like to, you may include a section for author contributions as is done
in many journals. This is optional and at the discretion of the authors.

#### Acknowledgments

Use unnumbered third level headings for the acknowledgments. All
acknowledgments, including those to funding agencies, go at the end of the paper.

## Appendix A Appendix

You may include other additional sections here.

## Peer Reviews

confidence: 5
contribution: 2
initial_rating: 3
presentation: 3
questions: The proposed method provides pseudo-labels for the ego vehicle by directly passing the predicted results of the reference vehicle, which is a very naive approach. A semi-supervised learning framework is more flexible. What kind of performance effects would a semi-supervised learning framework have in this experimental setup? The ground truth of the reference vehicle is completely discarded in the subsequent method design, which is undoubtedly regrettable. Even if the center position of the ground truth has a deviation for the ego vehicle, the size of the bounding box is entirely correct, and this information is also very important. Please also respond to the comments in  Weaknesses.
soundness: 2
strengths: - The quality of the paper's figures is high and relatively clear and explicit.
- This method ensures the accuracy of the detector while reducing the cost of annotation, and its effectiveness has been verified on both real and simulated datasets.
summary: This paper introduces a novel approach for training 3D object detectors by utilizing predictions from nearby agents with accurate detectors. This approach addresses the challenges of acquiring large amounts of annotated data. Validated on a real-world collaborative driving dataset, the proposed method demonstrates effective label-efficient learning and substantially improves the AP.
weaknesses: 1. This paper introduces a variant of the offboard 3D object detection method. It only selects an unsupervised scheme as a baseline, which is inappropriate. For a fair comparison, the proposed paper should be compared with offboard 3D object detection methods with similar experimental settings. These methods also rely on an accurate detector to label unannotated scenes. The authors should select the correct baselines[1] [2] for comparison. 
[1] DetZero: Rethinking Offboard 3D Object Detection with Long-term Sequential Point Clouds, ICCV 2023. 
[2] Offboard 3D Object Detection from Point Cloud Sequences. CVPR 2021.

2. Compared to traditional offboard 3D object detection, the proposed solution not only uses full data annotation to train an accurate detector but also provides partial manual labeling for unannotated scenarios. This approach of adding extra manual labeling diminishes the contribution of the method. The authors emphasize that when an autonomous vehicle enters a new scene, it can obtain scene information from an established intelligent agent, which is an online process. However, the method itself is offline, which creates a contradiction. What are the proposed method's contributions in light of these concerns?
3. The proposed method provides pseudo-labels for the ego vehicle by directly passing the predicted results of the reference vehicle, which is a very naive approach. A semi-supervised learning framework is more flexible. What kind of performance effects would a semi-supervised learning framework have in this experimental setup? For example, train a teacher network using data from labeled reference vehicles, and then use the teacher network to generate pseudo-labels for unlabeled point clouds to train the student network further.
4. The ground truth of the reference vehicle is completely discarded in the subsequent method design, which is undoubtedly regrettable. Even if the center position of the ground truth has a deviation for the ego vehicle, the size of the bounding box is entirely correct, and this information is also very important. Therefore, why not use the reference vehicle's ground truth in their method?

---

confidence: 2
contribution: 2
initial_rating: 5
presentation: 3
questions: please see my major concerns in the weaknesses section.
soundness: 2
strengths: + The paper introduces an interesting problem formulation for 3D object detection in resource-limited settings, suggesting a new collaborative information-sharing approach to reduce labeling costs.
+ The ablation study is well designed. Results demonstrate the contribution of different design components to the overall performance, sharing valuable insights into the effectiveness of these different components in the proposed pipeline.
summary: This paper aims to develop a label-efficient approach for training 3D object detectors in autonomous vehicles by leveraging predictions from nearby vehicles equipped with accurate detectors. The main technical contribution is the proposed R&B-POP pipeline, which refines detection results from neighboring cars using a box ranker and a distance-based curriculum self-training approach. This method addresses challenges like viewpoint mismatches and localization errors that arise when integrating predictions from external sources. In experiments, the authors validated their approach on a collaborative driving dataset; they showed that with a small set of labeled data, this approach achieves performance close to that of fully supervised models.

This is an interesting exploration of new formulation for label-efficient 3D object detection. However, it is unclear how well the proposed method performs compared to other data-efficient domain adaptation or fine-tuning strategies, as relevant comparisons with SOTA are lacking. Additionally, the problem setting feels somewhat artificial, relying on several assumptions that may limit its practical applicability. 
My rating is a weak reject.
weaknesses: -	Practicality and applicability of the problem setting. One of my main concerns is the practicality of the proposed problem setting. First, the approach relies heavily on the assumption that neighboring cars with accurate detectors are always available when needed, but this may not always be feasible. Additionally, without having a good pre-trained detector but attempting to rely on other cars’ detection sharing seems unsafe. This mechanism will also need to resolve multiple other dependencies and complexities such as identifying trustworthy vehicles (e.g., not malicious, not inaccurate), managing potential error accumulation (causing problems when passing to other cars), etc. Without all these sorted out, the current problem setting is somewhat artificial and lacks reliability and scalability. 
-	Technical comparisons. If the primary technical goal is to enable fine-tuning with minimal data, it should include comparisons with existing/ SOTA data-efficient training and fine-tuning methods. Demonstrating how this method compares with these techniques/models, will better clarify its advantages and limitations. Such a comparison is currently lacking.   
-	Another minor issue: when comparing with the fully supervised models, please also include comparisons with SOTA models. Additionally, consider testing how the accuracy changes if fewer data are selected/used for training. This comparison would better illustrate the proposed pipeline’s advantage over simply having a road-side transmitter providing local data to passing vehicles.

---

confidence: 3
contribution: 2
initial_rating: 6
presentation: 3
questions: 1. It is possible that the method can learn knowledge from other vehicles in real-time, which would expand the scope of practical applications?
2. What's the key difference between Box ranker and IoU scoring in traditional detectors?
soundness: 3
strengths: 1. The paper is well-structured, with a clear abstract, introduction, methodology, experiments, and conclusion sections that logically flow from one to the next.
2. The proposed  Refining & Discovering Boxes for 3D Perception from Others’ Predictions (R&B-POP) method is simple and effective.
3. The paper has extensive experiments and the figures are very professionally made.
summary: The paper investigates a new scenario for constructing 3D object detectors in autonomous driving by leveraging predictions from nearby units equipped with accurate detectors. The paper addresses the challenges of viewpoint mismatches and mislocalization due to synchronization and GPS errors. The authors propose a learning pipeline called Refining & Discovering Boxes for 3D Perception from Others' Predictions (R&B-POP). This pipeline includes a distance-based curriculum that starts by learning from closer units with similar viewpoints and then improves the quality of predictions from other units through self-training. In general, while there are no surprising design elements in the methodology, the problem addressed in the paper is a new issue in this field. Learning new knowledge from the predictions of other agents appears to have significant practical application value.
weaknesses: 1. The scenario assumed in the paper has great limitations, that is, learning knowledge from nearby agents to achieve detection. Theoretically, the learning process needs to be fast enough so that the current vehicles can predict new objects. However, I did not see the authors' analysis of the algorithm's training speed and discussion of actual deployment limitations.
2. Box ranker seems to be just an IoU scoring method, which is adopted in most detectors, such as Voxel-RCNN, PV-RCNN, they are not fundamentally different, why not directly use or discuss the limitations of existing IoU scoring method in this application?

---

confidence: 4
contribution: 3
initial_rating: 6
presentation: 4
questions: Have the authors tried training the ranker without using any annotated ego frames? As mentioned previously, it would be compelling if the need to label any of the ego data was completely eliminated.
soundness: 3
strengths: 1. The setting introduced in this paper is novel and creative, and will inspire future work in this new research direction.
2. The method is well-explained and intuitive. Using a set of thoughtful approaches for improving psuedo-label quality and training, the authors are able to significantly improve performance over the baseline and other heuristic approaches.
3. Experiments are very thorough, and many ablation studies have been performed. 
4. The paper is well-written and organized.
summary: This papers proposes the novel idea of "learning from others predictions", i.e. using pseudo-labels from a detector deployed on another agent in the scene to train an ego agent perception model. The approach can be summarized in three parts: first, the reference detector is pre-trained on a human-annotated labels offline, and a box ranker is pre-trained on a small number of human-annotated ego frames. Next, the reference detector's pseudo-labels are generated for frames in which the reference agent is below some threshold distance from the ego agent, and are used to train the ego detector after undergoing a course-to-fine box refinement module with the box ranker. Lastly, self-training is performed using the ego detector's predictions on all available frames. Their approach, dubbed R&B-POP, is able to significantly improve AP from naively using the reference detector predictions, nearly equaling performance of training with human-annotated labels on V2V4Real Collaborative Perception dataset.
weaknesses: 1. Although the results are impressive on V2V4Real, the experiments are performed on the case where there is minimal domain shift between the two vehicle detectors (e.g. they both have the same sensors, both survey the scene from the street, etc). It would be a more interesting experimental setting with two drastically different object detectors, e.g. one on a LiDAR mounted car, and one on a stationary security camera. The authors suggest scenarios such as these as possible applications, although it's not clear that the method demonstrated in this work can be easily applied to such a scenario. However, I understand experiments are limited by available data, so these may not be feasible in practice.
2. The authors utilize a small number of human-annotated frames from the Ego vehicle sensor data to train the box ranker, so the need for a human labeler is not completely eliminated. It would also be compelling to include experiments comparing to other semi-supervised learning approaches for 3D object detection using a similar number of labeled ego frames, to demonstrate that R&B-POP works better than conventional SSL approaches for this level of annotator budget.

---

confidence: 4
contribution: 3
initial_rating: 6
presentation: 3
questions: Please consider replying to the Weaknesses.
soundness: 3
strengths: 1. This paper proposes a creative and interesting strategy for the training of object detectors. It can exploit existing pretrained detector in a flexible way regardless of their input formats and deployment compatibility. The authors provide detailed explanation about their motivation and sound justification of the feasibility.

2. The algorithm includes a relatively complex pipeline. However, each module inside it is well-motivated and has a clear role. The step-by-step improvement brought by each module is also demonstrated clearly through extensive experiments.

3. The paper is well-written. The authors organize everything well to make it easy to follow. The illustrations are also very clear, helpful for  readers to understand the content.
summary: This paper designs a new strategy to train the 3D object detector, i.e. learning from the detection results of a nearby unit equipped with a  pretrained detector. There are two main challenges, mis-localization and viewpoint mismatching, resulting in the inferior performance of naive self-training. To this end, this paper proposes a rank-based pseudo-label refinement module and a distance-based curriculum learning scheme. Experiments are conducted on V2V4Real and OPV2V datasets to evaluate the proposed algorithm.
weaknesses: 1. The authors are targeted for LiDAR sensors. However, if we apply this setting in practice, the camera sensors are much more ubiquitous such as the surveillance. I am wondering whether the algorithm would still work if the reference car is using camera-based detector. Given camera-based detectors are weaker, this may require high robustness of the proposed algorithm.

2. In the experiments, it may be helpful to include some baselines using other strategies for the training of detector. For example, since the algorithm requires a small number of annotated frames to train the ranker, it may alternatively apply some semi-supervised strategies to train the detector directly.

Meta-review: This paper received mixed reviews, with four reviewers voting for borderline acceptance and one reviewer (R3jy) voting for borderline rejection. The key contributions of this paper include the introduction of a new label-efficient setting for 3D object detection, which leverages prediction results from nearby agents, and the design of the first solution to address this novel setting.

After the rebuttal, Reviewers LF3v, goE2, and dJeW acknowledged that most of their concerns had been addressed, while Reviewer iYjB did not respond, and Reviewer R3jy actively engaged in the discussion with the authors. Since Reviewer iYjB also did not participate in the AC-reviewer discussion period, the AC reviewed the authors' response to their questions and believes that most concerns were resolved. 

The remaining concerns from reviewers focused on insufficient comparisons with label-efficient methods (R3jy, dJeW) and offboard methods (R3jy). The AC noted that neither Reviewer R3jy nor dJeW responded to the authors' latest reply. After carefully reviewing the authors' follow-up responses, the AC agrees with the authors' argument that offboard 3D object detection does not constitute a directly comparable setting to the proposed method, even though both aim to generate pseudo labels from existing models. Regarding the comparison with other label-efficient methods, such as semi-supervised methods, the authors addressed this concern by providing a comparison with 3DIoUMatch and demonstrating a performance improvement through the incorporation of a semi-supervised technique.

As a result, the AC believes that the concerns raised by Reviewer R3jy have largely been addressed. Therefore, the AC recommends accepting the paper and encourages the authors to include the newly added experimental results in the final version.

Decision: Accept (Poster)