From: NeurIPS.cc/2022/Workshop/DistShift/Program_Chairs
title: Paper Decision
decision: Accept (Poster)
comment: The paper discusses an interesting problem and proposes a straight-forward and potentially interesting solution. The reviewers have added some important comments on how to further improve the quality of the paper. The method seems like a reasonable idea and fits well to the workshop. The authors, however, should change the discussion of their results. E.g., they should take into account statistical significance. The last sentence of the abstract should be changed, as this improvement is not always guaranteed. Also, it seems that the 'uniform'-version of the method seems to perform not worse than 'ours' on all but one data set, where it even performs better; there is a short discussion around line 129 but this point should be mentioned more prominently, e.g., in the abstract and conclusion.

In addition, the authors are encouraged to
- move at least some of the information from the appendix up to the main paper (e.g., Fig 1a?)
- add a (pseudo) algorithm to further clarify all details of the method
- change the format of Figure 2 (e.g., place both 'a) top' above b1) and 'a) bottom' above b2?)
- use boldface and different ranks in Table 1 only if the difference is significant
- change "our method improves the forecasting error over its base model" to "our method can improve the forecasting error over its base model" etc
- to highlight the differences between 'DeepAR' and 'Ada-DeepAR (uniform)'.