Paper:
Automatic Piano Fingering is a hard task which computers can learn using data. As data collection is hard and expensive, we propose to automate this process by automatically extracting fingerings from public videos and MIDI files, using computer-vision techniques. Running this process on 90 videos results in the largest dataset for PIANO-FINGERING with more than 150K notes. We show that when running a previously proposed model for automatic PIANO-FINGERING on our dataset and then fine-tuning it on manually labeled piano fingering data, we achieve state-of-the-art results. In addition to the fingering extraction method, we also introduce a novel method for transferring deep-learning computer-vision models to work on out-of-domain data, by fine-tuning it on out-of-domain augmentation proposed by a Generative Adversarial Network (GAN). For demonstration, we anonymously release a visualization of the output of our process for a single video on https://youtu.be/Gfs1UWQhr5Q

Review:
In this paper, the authors proposed an automatic piano fingering algorithm, that accepts YouTube videos and corresponding MIDI files and outputs fingering prediction for each note. The claimed contribution is two-fold: First, they proposed the algorithm, and second, they claim that the algorithm can be used to automatically generate large datasets for piano fingering problems. The motivation is clearly stated and convincing. The overall algorithm is mainly described. 
However, I would like to reject this paper. Major issues:
* Some key information is missing in Section 3.6, which is the only section that shows technical details: What is X_{n_k}? How is that related to the estimated finger poses? What is the function f in the definition of function g? (Also, it would be helpful to label the equations for clarification.) Are you doing Bayesian inference? With the key information missing, it is hard to fully understand the remaining technical details in this section. 
* Their experimental results cannot properly support their claims. In Section 4.2, the authors try to show the strength of their proposed piano fingering algorithm by comparing their automatically annotated dataset APFD with an existing manually annotated dataset PIG. The authors showed the evaluation results of models trained and fine-tuned with different datasets. However, this is not an acceptable comparison for me, due to several reasons.
First, in order to show the strength of automatic piano fingering prediction, it is much better to directly run the prediction algorithm on datasets with known labels. According to the related work section, there is at least one existing work by Takegawa et al. that uses videos and MIDI files to detect piano fingering. Can you compare your algorithm with theirs? 
Second, it is essentially unreliable to compare two datasets by comparing the performance of two prediction models, as there are too many implementation details that are almost impossible to control. 
Third, it is not clear how we should compare the testing errors in Table 2. Yes, a model initially trained on PIG and fine-tuned on APFD may perform better than a model trained merely on APFD, but does that suggest anything (and the advantage is just 0.4%)? Similarly, the experimental result that an MLP model initially trained on APFD then fine-tuned with PIG works better than an HMM model that is trained with PIG data alone cannot prove anything. There are too many possible reasons that may lead to this experimental result. 
* How is this method more attractable than the existing ones? There are neither experimental comparisons nor high-level justifications of why the existing algorithms are not applicable to the given scenario. In Section 2, although the authors described a good number of existing work on piano-fingering and their drawbacks, they failed to point out the strength of their paper as a comparison. As a result, the strength of this paper is still unclear after reading this section. How does this paper avoid the drawbacks of these previous papers? 
* The writing of this paper needs to be greatly improved. It takes a lot of effort to literally understand this paper: There may be missing parts, misplaced clauses, and broken logic between sentences. I have listed several examples in the minor issues part. 
Minor issues:
* In the first paragraph of Section 1: The sentence before 'In practice ...' is incomplete. 
* In the last paragraph of Section 1: Missing brackets for \textsection 3.3 and \textsection 3.4. Also, 'on A new dataset we introduce' should be 'on THE new dataset we introduce'. 
* On page 3, the sentence 'In this work, we continue the transition of search-based methods that optimize a set of constraints with learning methods that ...' is not making sense to me. Do you mean that your work is an extension of search-based methods, or do you mean that your work is not a search-based method? Also, are you optimizing a set of constraints, or optimizing with a set of constraints? 
* On page 3, the last sentence in Section 2: '... and adapt their model to compare TO our ...' should be '... and adapt their model to compare WITH our ...'. The last part of this sentence is also a bit confusing: How do you compare a model with a dataset?
* On page 4, the paragraph starting with 'MIDI files': The first two sentences are almost the same; the period between them is missing. I guess one of them should be deleted. The following sentences in this paragraph are also subject to grammatical errors. For example, the sentence 'It consists of a sequence of events ... to carry out, WHEN, and allows for ...' is not a complete sentence. 'We only use videos that come along with a MIDI file' -> 'We only use videos that come along with MIDI files'. 
* On page 5, last paragraph in Section 3.3: 'highest probability defections' -> 'highest probability detections'.
* The last paragraph on Page 5: 'Using off-the-shelve ...' -> 'Use off-the-shelf ...'.
* In Section 4.2.1, the corresponding result is Table 2, instead of Table 1.