From: ICLR.cc/2023/Conference/Program_Chairs
title: Paper Decision
decision: Reject
metareview:_summary,_strengths_and_weaknesses: Rejected as not meeting submission requirements.
justification_for_why_not_higher_score: .
justification_for_why_not_lower_score: .

From: ICLR.cc/2023/Conference/Paper370/Reviewer_z5g5
confidence: 5: You are absolutely certain about your assessment. You are very familiar with the related work and checked the math/other details carefully.
summary_of_the_paper: N/A
strength_and_weaknesses: N/A
clarity,_quality,_novelty_and_reproducibility: N/A
summary_of_the_review: This submission is not anonymous, the authors didn't use submission template either. 
correctness: 1: The main claims of the paper are incorrect or not at all supported by theory or empirical results.
technical_novelty_and_significance: 1: The contributions are neither significant nor novel.
empirical_novelty_and_significance: Not applicable
flag_for_ethics_review: NO.
details_of_ethics_concerns: This submission is not anonymous, the authors didn't use submission template either. 
recommendation: 1: strong reject

From: ICLR.cc/2023/Conference/Paper370/Reviewer_p6j5
confidence: 5: You are absolutely certain about your assessment. You are very familiar with the related work and checked the math/other details carefully.
summary_of_the_paper:  I treat this paper as desk rejected.
strength_and_weaknesses: Desk rejected.
clarity,_quality,_novelty_and_reproducibility: Desk rejected.
summary_of_the_review: Desk rejected.
correctness: 1: The main claims of the paper are incorrect or not at all supported by theory or empirical results.
technical_novelty_and_significance: 1: The contributions are neither significant nor novel.
empirical_novelty_and_significance: 1: The contributions are neither significant nor novel.
flag_for_ethics_review: NO.
recommendation: 1: strong reject

From: ICLR.cc/2023/Conference/Paper370/Reviewer_FJEP
confidence: 5: You are absolutely certain about your assessment. You are very familiar with the related work and checked the math/other details carefully.
summary_of_the_paper: This is an invalid submission that is non-anonymous and informal-formatted. Thus, it should be desk rejected. 
strength_and_weaknesses: NA
clarity,_quality,_novelty_and_reproducibility: NA
summary_of_the_review: Desk Reject.
correctness: 1: The main claims of the paper are incorrect or not at all supported by theory or empirical results.
technical_novelty_and_significance: 1: The contributions are neither significant nor novel.
empirical_novelty_and_significance: Not applicable
flag_for_ethics_review: NO.
recommendation: 1: strong reject

From: ICLR.cc/2023/Conference/Paper370/Reviewer_YHRv
confidence: 5: You are absolutely certain about your assessment. You are very familiar with the related work and checked the math/other details carefully.
summary_of_the_paper: I believe this article should be rejected since it does not follow ICLR's submission requirements (format, double-blind, etc.).
strength_and_weaknesses: N/A
clarity,_quality,_novelty_and_reproducibility: N/A
summary_of_the_review: N/A
correctness: 1: The main claims of the paper are incorrect or not at all supported by theory or empirical results.
technical_novelty_and_significance: 1: The contributions are neither significant nor novel.
empirical_novelty_and_significance: Not applicable
flag_for_ethics_review: NO.
Yes, Unprofessional behaviors (e.g., unprofessional exchange between authors and reviewers)
recommendation: 1: strong reject