Paper: LARG2, Language-based Automatic Reward and Goal Generation (ICLR-2024)

Reviewer comment (Writing):
Several typos/grammatical errors – ‘rewards functions’ in conclusion, ‘if the code fail..’, ‘can not be guarantee’, ‘commonly encounter..’ in Section 4.3, Section 4.1 – ‘bellow’ should be ‘below’.

Author response:
Dear Reviewer,

We would like to thank you for taking the time to review our work and provide valuable comments and suggestions. 

We acknowledge the importance of your input and would like to assure you that all your comments will be carefully considered to prepare a more mature version of our paper.

We will fix the issues that you spotted and revise the description of our method to make it clearer. Adding too many elements of the whole process seems to have created confusion and weakened the discourse.
We will split this content and focus on individual contributions which should allow space for better method descriptions and more extensive experimental support. 

Your expertise and critical analysis have played an essential role in strengthening the quality of our communication.

We are committed to addressing all the raised points and look forward to resubmitting an improved version of our work in the near future.

With gratitude and best regards,

The authors

Reviewer comment (Presentation):
This paper is very difficult to read. The text and code snippet in figures are too small to read. It would be helpful to include one illustrative example in the main text. The method section also interleaves method explanation with implementation particular to the pick-and-place tasks in the experiment section; this makes it difficult to understand how general LARG2 actually is.

Author response:
Dear Reviewer,

We would like to thank you for taking the time to review our work and provide valuable comments and suggestions. 

We acknowledge the importance of your input and would like to assure you that all your comments will be carefully considered to prepare a more mature version of our paper.

We will fix the issues that you spotted and revise the description of our method to make it clearer. Adding too many elements of the whole process seems to have created confusion and weakened the discourse.
We will split this content and focus on individual contributions which should allow space for better method descriptions and more extensive experimental support. 

Your expertise and critical analysis have played an essential role in strengthening the quality of our communication.

We are committed to addressing all the raised points and look forward to resubmitting an improved version of our work in the near future.

With gratitude and best regards,

The authors

Reviewer comment (Writing):
In general, the writing and formatting of the paper are subpar. The method description (Sec 4) is not well-structured or motivated. It feels more like a step-by-step explanation of what happened and a lot of the details can be left out for the sake of clarity. Personally, I also find using single characters to denote a large variety of things (prompts, text descriptions, codes, functions, sets, etc) confusing and hard to follow.

Author response:
Dear Reviewer,

We would like to thank you for taking the time to review our work and provide valuable comments and suggestions. 

We acknowledge the importance of your input and would like to assure you that all your comments will be carefully considered to prepare a more mature version of our paper.

We will fix the issues that you spotted and revise the description of our method to make it clearer. Adding too many elements of the whole process seems to have created confusion and weakened the discourse.
We will split this content and focus on individual contributions which should allow space for better method descriptions and more extensive experimental support. 

Your expertise and critical analysis have played an essential role in strengthening the quality of our communication.

We are committed to addressing all the raised points and look forward to resubmitting an improved version of our work in the near future.

With gratitude and best regards,

The authors