Input:
Your role is to assess whether a claim is well-stated or overstated based on the available evidence.

The Input Information will include:
1. Original Claim: The claim under evaluation.
2. Evidence: Research findings, including figures, tables, or other relevant data supporting the claim.

Optional. review comment: Reviewer feedback relevant to the claim's validity.

The claim should be assesed with the following:
Score: Evaluate the claim on a scale of 1 to 5, where:
- 1: Well-stated (accurately reflects the evidence without exaggeration)
- 5: Overstated (exaggerates findings' significance, magnitude, or certainty)

Justification: Provide a detailed explanation that includes:
- Instances of exaggerated wording, insufficient experiments, lack of experimental details, gaps in knowledge, weak grounding in evidence, or lack of acknowledgment of limitations.
- Direct citations from relevant evidence that substantiate your reasoning.
- If review comment is included only take into account the relevant comments towards the claim.

The claim to be assessed is:

To approach that, we add only two subnetworks in the form of Multilayer Perceptron (MLP) to backbone network, one for computing the feature compensation and the other for soft gating the compensation, where both are computed based on the context, that is, the feature compensation is context adaptive.

The review comment to be evaluated is:

Strengths:
- The paper tackles an important problem of identifying the mismatch between a source domain and a target domain before transfer.
- The paper is, in general, well-aligned with literature in the area.

Weaknesses:
- The paper does not provide explanations / intuitions to most technical decisions. For instance, the proposed method is very quickly explained in roughly half a page (sections 3.1 - 3.2). For example, why is it reasonable to use DEC? Why is compensation necessary - what are the underlying factors that make it necessary once the closest cluster centers have been identified? Why is cosine similarity, and no other measure, applicable in this case?
- It is very unclear to me how the proposed method is actually helping to identify the mismatch between a source domain and a target domain. In several parts of the paper, it is mentioned that the cluster centers are calculated on the full training set, and according to my understanding it is the whole training set of the target domain for which cluster centers are being calculated? I think it would greatly benefit the explanation of the method if it would clearly distinguish which parts of it come from the source domain and which from the target domain.
- In the experiments, I do not see any reasoning as to what the proposed method works in some cases but not in others. In which cases doing this kind of clustering + compensation approach would work better? This kind of description is very important to really see the contribution of the proposed method to the problem of transfer learning.

The evidence to be evaluated is:In contrast to (Guo et al., 2020; Liu et al., 2021), our method can approach this goal since we just add a tiny network to obtain enhanced feature to compensate for the feature from backbone network.

Then, we compute the similarity between the input data example and each of the centroids resulting from clustering so as to figure out the position of the input in reference to the cluster centers, where the cluster centers act as anchors to figure out data distribution as well as how far from the input to each anchor.

Then, we compute the cosine similarity between \(\mathbf{X}\) and \(\mathbf{C}_{1},\mathbf{C}_{2},\ldots,\mathbf{C}_{K}\) respectively, and the corresponding similarity is denoted as \(\mathbf{S}=(\mathbf{S}_{1},\mathbf{S}_{2},\ldots,\mathbf{S}_{K})\).

These similarities are referred to as context since they figure out the relative position of \(\mathbf{X}\) in regard to the cluster centers, based on which the compensation to the original feature embedding is computed. As shown in Figure 1, the compensation to the original embedding is subject to two branches: The first branch appends the context vector \(\mathbf{S}\) to the original embedding \(\mathbf{X}\) via concatenation, and then a multilayer perceptron (MLP) is used to transform \(\mathbf{X}\)()S into \(\Delta=MLP(\mathbf{X}\)()S), where MLP is designed to force \(\Delta\) has the same dimension as \(\mathbf{X}\), and () denotes concatenation. The second branch computes the soft gating factor \(\mathbf{W}=MLP(\mathbf{S})\) so as to obtain the weighted compensation subject to the context, that is, \(\mathbf{W}.\Delta\), where \(\mathbf{W}\) is a scalar.

In Eq. (1), we concatenate \(\mathbf{X}\) and \(\mathbf{S}\) to produce the compensation \(MLP(\mathbf{X}(\mathbf{\bar{\odot}}\mathbf{S})\) for transferring feature embedding because \(\mathbf{S}\) indicates how ambiguous \(\mathbf{X}\) is in terms of being associate with a deterministic cluster, say, context. Moreover, the soft weighting \(MLP(\mathbf{S})\) aims to control the overall compensation adaptive to the context \(\mathbf{S}\). It is apparent that anchors resulting from clustering determines the performance of the proposed solution since they are the base to figure out data distribution and aware of the contextual clue to produce compensation adaptively. Here, we make use of the algorithm referred to as Deep Embedded Clustering (DEC) (Xie et al., 2016) to obtain such anchor points, and the experiments confirm that DEC performs very well in the proposed framework.

Here, the color of each pixel corresponds with the corresponding soft gating factor \(\mathbf{W}\), and a higher heat value of \(\mathbf{W}\) means a bigger compensation applied to transfer the feature embedding. We can see that bigger compensations are mostly applied to the data points locating in a self-contained region.

Figure 2(b) shows the 2-dimensional histogram of maximum cosine similarity against soft gating factor \(\mathbf{W}\), which shows such a trend that lower similarity corresponds with in general higher compensation level, say, higher soft gating. Since the maximum similarity to cluster centers indicates the membership degree of the data example in association with a deterministic cluster, and a smaller value means a higher ambiguous case in terms of membership association, it is thus natural to result in higher-level transferring for feature compensation. This fully exhibits the motivation of this study, that is, why we make use of clustering centers as the anchors to figure out the contextual clue in directing feature compensation.

We propose a new transfer learning method with context-aware compensation to feature embedding, where a contextual descriptor figuring out how close from the input to each cluster center is applied, and soft gating is used to make the feature transfer focused on the data samples that truly need transferring.

The strong point aspect as well as the weakness lies in the clustering-based contextual description, which determines the overall performance.

Input: Figure 2: (a) Visualization of the data distribution of Stanford Dogs data via PCA. The heat value of each pixel corresponds with the value of the soft gating factor W in association with this pixel. (b) 2-dimensional histogram of maximum cosine similarity against soft gating factor (W ).

Input: Figure 1: Context-directed Transfer Learning

Input:
You should:
1. Carefully review the claim and the text and image evidence. Summarize how the evidence influenced your evaluation of the claim's validity and strength and briefly explain whether the claim is wellstated or overstated on a scale of 1 to 5 (up to 100 words).
2. Provide the final score (choose from 1 to 5), in the format: <score>{score}</score>.

Output:
After reviewing the claim and evidence, I find the claim is moderately overstated. While the evidence shows they do add two MLP subnetworks for compensation and gating, the claim of being "context adaptive" needs more justification. The review points out valid concerns about lacking explanations for technical decisions and unclear reasoning about how the method identifies domain mismatch. The evidence shows the basic architecture but doesn't fully validate the effectiveness of the context-adaptive aspect. The figures demonstrate the method's implementation but don't conclusively prove superior context adaptation.

<score>3</score>

Justification:
1. The claim accurately states they add two MLP subnetworks, supported by Figure 1 and the technical description.

2. Areas of overstatement:
- The "context adaptive" aspect needs stronger validation. While they show correlation between similarity and gating in Figure 2(b), the reviewer notes "It is very unclear...how the proposed method is actually helping to identify the mismatch."
- Limited explanation of why their approach to context is effective. As per review: "The paper does not provide explanations/intuitions to most technical decisions."
- The evidence focuses more on describing the mechanism rather than proving its effectiveness for context adaptation.

3. The claim would be better stated if it:
- Acknowledged limitations in understanding why/when the approach works
- More precisely defined what makes it "context adaptive"
- Provided clearer evidence of adaptiveness benefits

4. Supporting evidence shows implementation but has gaps in validation:
- "The strong point aspect as well as the weakness lies in the clustering-based contextual description"
- Reviewer: "I do not see any reasoning as to what the proposed method works in some cases but not in others"


Input:
Your role is to assess whether a claim is well-stated or overstated based on the available evidence.

The Input Information will include:
1. Original Claim: The claim under evaluation.
2. Evidence: Research findings, including figures, tables, or other relevant data supporting the claim.

Optional. review comment: Reviewer feedback relevant to the claim's validity.

The claim should be assesed with the following:
Score: Evaluate the claim on a scale of 1 to 5, where:
- 1: Well-stated (accurately reflects the evidence without exaggeration)
- 5: Overstated (exaggerates findings' significance, magnitude, or certainty)

Justification: Provide a detailed explanation that includes:
- Instances of exaggerated wording, insufficient experiments, lack of experimental details, gaps in knowledge, weak grounding in evidence, or lack of acknowledgment of limitations.
- Direct citations from relevant evidence that substantiate your reasoning.
- If review comment is included only take into account the relevant comments towards the claim.

The claim to be assessed is:

To approach that, we add only two subnetworks in the form of Multilayer Perceptron (MLP) to backbone network, one for computing the feature compensation and the other for soft gating the compensation, where both are computed based on the context, that is, the feature compensation is context adaptive.

The review comment to be evaluated is:

### Strength

- The method is interesting. Studying the contextual relation between source and target domains is novel.
- The related work section is sufficient. So much literature is surveyed.
- Experimental datasets and comparison methods are representative.

### Weakness

- Although the idea of learning contextual relation is novel, this approach is not. It remains unclear whether clustering can model the context information, or if the results of clusters and original inputs can solve the mismatch between source and target domains in transfer learning.
- The claim that "this method only adds two MLPs to the backbone network" is not correct. As can be seen from Figure 1, there are more than two MLPs: it still has an autoencoder (DEC), which is much more complicated than MLPs.
- The method part is extremely confusing and not clear, which should be rewritten. I find figure 1 hard to understand, specifically how to compute $\mathbf{X} \textcopyright \mathbf{S}$ and $\mathbf{W} \cdot \Delta$. (I even think that should be $\cdot$ instead of $.$, since you claim it's a product.)
- The success of "compensation" heavily relies on DEC (deep embedding clustering). If DEC does not give the correct clustering results, the method will fail. How to justify this? Additionally, DEC brings extra computations, which should be highlighted in the paper.
- This method will consume a lot of training time than comparison methods, according to Sec. 3.3. We see that there is more than one step of fine-tuning, which is more complicated than existing work. Authors should compare your training and inference time in the experiments.
- In experiments, you should also list the number of training parameters of each method for a more fair study since this method introduces extra neural network modules.
- More importantly, the performance on general fine-tuning tasks of this method is NOT good. According to table 1, This approach only succeeds using Resnet-101, while it does not generate competitive results in Resnet-50 and VGG16. Hence, it is difficult to say that this approach actually works in different backbones.
- No experiments to explain why this method works. Lack of detailed analysis.
- With regards to related work, I think this paper misses two very important references on the same topic:

[1] Jang Y, Lee H, Hwang S J, et al. Learning what and where to transfer[C]//International Conference on Machine Learning. PMLR, 2019: 3030-3039.

[2] Murugesan K, Sadashivaiah V, Luss R, et al. Auto-Transfer: Learning to Route Transferrable Representations[J]. arXiv preprint arXiv:2202.01011, 2022.

The evidence to be evaluated is:In contrast to (Guo et al., 2020; Liu et al., 2021), our method can approach this goal since we just add a tiny network to obtain enhanced feature to compensate for the feature from backbone network.

Then, we compute the similarity between the input data example and each of the centroids resulting from clustering so as to figure out the position of the input in reference to the cluster centers, where the cluster centers act as anchors to figure out data distribution as well as how far from the input to each anchor.

Then, we compute the cosine similarity between \(\mathbf{X}\) and \(\mathbf{C}_{1},\mathbf{C}_{2},\ldots,\mathbf{C}_{K}\) respectively, and the corresponding similarity is denoted as \(\mathbf{S}=(\mathbf{S}_{1},\mathbf{S}_{2},\ldots,\mathbf{S}_{K})\).

These similarities are referred to as context since they figure out the relative position of \(\mathbf{X}\) in regard to the cluster centers, based on which the compensation to the original feature embedding is computed. As shown in Figure 1, the compensation to the original embedding is subject to two branches: The first branch appends the context vector \(\mathbf{S}\) to the original embedding \(\mathbf{X}\) via concatenation, and then a multilayer perceptron (MLP) is used to transform \(\mathbf{X}\)()S into \(\Delta=MLP(\mathbf{X}\)()S), where MLP is designed to force \(\Delta\) has the same dimension as \(\mathbf{X}\), and () denotes concatenation. The second branch computes the soft gating factor \(\mathbf{W}=MLP(\mathbf{S})\) so as to obtain the weighted compensation subject to the context, that is, \(\mathbf{W}.\Delta\), where \(\mathbf{W}\) is a scalar.

In Eq. (1), we concatenate \(\mathbf{X}\) and \(\mathbf{S}\) to produce the compensation \(MLP(\mathbf{X}(\mathbf{\bar{\odot}}\mathbf{S})\) for transferring feature embedding because \(\mathbf{S}\) indicates how ambiguous \(\mathbf{X}\) is in terms of being associate with a deterministic cluster, say, context. Moreover, the soft weighting \(MLP(\mathbf{S})\) aims to control the overall compensation adaptive to the context \(\mathbf{S}\). It is apparent that anchors resulting from clustering determines the performance of the proposed solution since they are the base to figure out data distribution and aware of the contextual clue to produce compensation adaptively. Here, we make use of the algorithm referred to as Deep Embedded Clustering (DEC) (Xie et al., 2016) to obtain such anchor points, and the experiments confirm that DEC performs very well in the proposed framework.

Here, the color of each pixel corresponds with the corresponding soft gating factor \(\mathbf{W}\), and a higher heat value of \(\mathbf{W}\) means a bigger compensation applied to transfer the feature embedding. We can see that bigger compensations are mostly applied to the data points locating in a self-contained region.

Figure 2(b) shows the 2-dimensional histogram of maximum cosine similarity against soft gating factor \(\mathbf{W}\), which shows such a trend that lower similarity corresponds with in general higher compensation level, say, higher soft gating. Since the maximum similarity to cluster centers indicates the membership degree of the data example in association with a deterministic cluster, and a smaller value means a higher ambiguous case in terms of membership association, it is thus natural to result in higher-level transferring for feature compensation. This fully exhibits the motivation of this study, that is, why we make use of clustering centers as the anchors to figure out the contextual clue in directing feature compensation.

We propose a new transfer learning method with context-aware compensation to feature embedding, where a contextual descriptor figuring out how close from the input to each cluster center is applied, and soft gating is used to make the feature transfer focused on the data samples that truly need transferring.

The strong point aspect as well as the weakness lies in the clustering-based contextual description, which determines the overall performance.

Input: Figure 2: (a) Visualization of the data distribution of Stanford Dogs data via PCA. The heat value of each pixel corresponds with the value of the soft gating factor W in association with this pixel. (b) 2-dimensional histogram of maximum cosine similarity against soft gating factor (W ).

Input: Figure 1: Context-directed Transfer Learning

Input:
You should:
1. Carefully review the claim and the text and image evidence. Summarize how the evidence influenced your evaluation of the claim's validity and strength and briefly explain whether the claim is wellstated or overstated on a scale of 1 to 5 (up to 100 words).
2. Provide the final score (choose from 1 to 5), in the format: <score>{score}</score>.

Output:
After reviewing the claim and evidence, I find the statement significantly overstated. The claim suggests "only two subnetworks in the form of MLP" are added, but Figure 1 clearly shows a more complex architecture including an Auto-Encoder (DEC), clustering mechanism, and multiple processing components. The review comments also highlight this discrepancy, noting that the DEC is "much more complicated than MLPs." The evidence shows the method requires clustering, similarity computations, and multiple processing steps beyond just two MLPs. The claim understates the architectural complexity and computational requirements of the approach.

<score>4</score>

Justification:
1. The claim contradicts Figure 1's architectural diagram which shows:
- Auto-Encoder (DEC)
- Clustering component
- Cosine similarity computation
- Two MLPs plus additional processing components

2. Evidence from the reviewer confirms this: "The claim that 'this method only adds two MLPs to the backbone network' is not correct. As can be seen from Figure 1, there are more than two MLPs: it still has an autoencoder (DEC), which is much more complicated than MLPs."

3. The text evidence describes multiple computational steps including clustering, similarity calculations, and feature compensation that go beyond just two MLP operations.

4. The methodology section and reviewer feedback indicate significant additional computational overhead and training complexity not acknowledged in the claim.

While the core concept is valid, the claim severely understates the architectural and computational complexity of the approach, warranting a score of 4 for being significantly overstated.


Input:
Your role is to assess whether a claim is well-stated or overstated based on the available evidence.

The Input Information will include:
1. Original Claim: The claim under evaluation.
2. Evidence: Research findings, including figures, tables, or other relevant data supporting the claim.

Optional. review comment: Reviewer feedback relevant to the claim's validity.

The claim should be assesed with the following:
Score: Evaluate the claim on a scale of 1 to 5, where:
- 1: Well-stated (accurately reflects the evidence without exaggeration)
- 5: Overstated (exaggerates findings' significance, magnitude, or certainty)

Justification: Provide a detailed explanation that includes:
- Instances of exaggerated wording, insufficient experiments, lack of experimental details, gaps in knowledge, weak grounding in evidence, or lack of acknowledgment of limitations.
- Direct citations from relevant evidence that substantiate your reasoning.
- If review comment is included only take into account the relevant comments towards the claim.

The claim to be assessed is:

To approach that, we add only two subnetworks in the form of Multilayer Perceptron (MLP) to backbone network, one for computing the feature compensation and the other for soft gating the compensation, where both are computed based on the context, that is, the feature compensation is context adaptive.

The review comment to be evaluated is:

Strengths:
the paper is well written, methodology is well-described, and the problem addressed is relevant.

Weaknesses.
The author is describing how to use data centers to do data compensation, however, how this is related to data transferring is poorly described. For examples, is data centers computed on target data set? how is its feature vector computed, using the pretrained network? using distance to get compensation factor seems only to be working under a strong assumption that this is used for classification, and it only works for image classification tasks? why using distance to centers work? all these questions are not answered properly.

Based on the experimental setup, it is just finetuning the pretrained network using some downstream tasks. It just barely competes with SOTA methods, seems that with or without such 2 layers of compensation networks does not change the result at all.

The evidence to be evaluated is:In contrast to (Guo et al., 2020; Liu et al., 2021), our method can approach this goal since we just add a tiny network to obtain enhanced feature to compensate for the feature from backbone network.

Then, we compute the similarity between the input data example and each of the centroids resulting from clustering so as to figure out the position of the input in reference to the cluster centers, where the cluster centers act as anchors to figure out data distribution as well as how far from the input to each anchor.

Then, we compute the cosine similarity between \(\mathbf{X}\) and \(\mathbf{C}_{1},\mathbf{C}_{2},\ldots,\mathbf{C}_{K}\) respectively, and the corresponding similarity is denoted as \(\mathbf{S}=(\mathbf{S}_{1},\mathbf{S}_{2},\ldots,\mathbf{S}_{K})\).

These similarities are referred to as context since they figure out the relative position of \(\mathbf{X}\) in regard to the cluster centers, based on which the compensation to the original feature embedding is computed. As shown in Figure 1, the compensation to the original embedding is subject to two branches: The first branch appends the context vector \(\mathbf{S}\) to the original embedding \(\mathbf{X}\) via concatenation, and then a multilayer perceptron (MLP) is used to transform \(\mathbf{X}\)()S into \(\Delta=MLP(\mathbf{X}\)()S), where MLP is designed to force \(\Delta\) has the same dimension as \(\mathbf{X}\), and () denotes concatenation. The second branch computes the soft gating factor \(\mathbf{W}=MLP(\mathbf{S})\) so as to obtain the weighted compensation subject to the context, that is, \(\mathbf{W}.\Delta\), where \(\mathbf{W}\) is a scalar.

In Eq. (1), we concatenate \(\mathbf{X}\) and \(\mathbf{S}\) to produce the compensation \(MLP(\mathbf{X}(\mathbf{\bar{\odot}}\mathbf{S})\) for transferring feature embedding because \(\mathbf{S}\) indicates how ambiguous \(\mathbf{X}\) is in terms of being associate with a deterministic cluster, say, context. Moreover, the soft weighting \(MLP(\mathbf{S})\) aims to control the overall compensation adaptive to the context \(\mathbf{S}\). It is apparent that anchors resulting from clustering determines the performance of the proposed solution since they are the base to figure out data distribution and aware of the contextual clue to produce compensation adaptively. Here, we make use of the algorithm referred to as Deep Embedded Clustering (DEC) (Xie et al., 2016) to obtain such anchor points, and the experiments confirm that DEC performs very well in the proposed framework.

Here, the color of each pixel corresponds with the corresponding soft gating factor \(\mathbf{W}\), and a higher heat value of \(\mathbf{W}\) means a bigger compensation applied to transfer the feature embedding. We can see that bigger compensations are mostly applied to the data points locating in a self-contained region.

Figure 2(b) shows the 2-dimensional histogram of maximum cosine similarity against soft gating factor \(\mathbf{W}\), which shows such a trend that lower similarity corresponds with in general higher compensation level, say, higher soft gating. Since the maximum similarity to cluster centers indicates the membership degree of the data example in association with a deterministic cluster, and a smaller value means a higher ambiguous case in terms of membership association, it is thus natural to result in higher-level transferring for feature compensation. This fully exhibits the motivation of this study, that is, why we make use of clustering centers as the anchors to figure out the contextual clue in directing feature compensation.

We propose a new transfer learning method with context-aware compensation to feature embedding, where a contextual descriptor figuring out how close from the input to each cluster center is applied, and soft gating is used to make the feature transfer focused on the data samples that truly need transferring.

The strong point aspect as well as the weakness lies in the clustering-based contextual description, which determines the overall performance.

Input: Figure 2: (a) Visualization of the data distribution of Stanford Dogs data via PCA. The heat value of each pixel corresponds with the value of the soft gating factor W in association with this pixel. (b) 2-dimensional histogram of maximum cosine similarity against soft gating factor (W ).

Input: Figure 1: Context-directed Transfer Learning

Input:
You should:
1. Carefully review the claim and the text and image evidence. Summarize how the evidence influenced your evaluation of the claim's validity and strength and briefly explain whether the claim is wellstated or overstated on a scale of 1 to 5 (up to 100 words).
2. Provide the final score (choose from 1 to 5), in the format: <score>{score}</score>.

Output:
After reviewing the claim and evidence, this appears to be a moderately overstated claim. While the evidence shows they do add two MLP subnetworks for compensation and gating based on context, several key limitations are not acknowledged:

1. The review points out that the method "barely competes with SOTA methods" and the compensation networks may not significantly impact results
2. The evidence lacks clear experimental validation showing the effectiveness of the context-adaptive approach
3. The claim doesn't acknowledge limitations regarding applicability (e.g., assumptions about classification tasks)
4. The method's dependency on clustering quality is understated in the claim but noted as a key weakness in later evidence

While the basic technical description is accurate, the claim would be better stated with appropriate caveats about limitations and effectiveness.

<score>4</score>

Justification:
- The evidence demonstrates the technical implementation matches the claim's description of the two MLP networks and context-based computation
- However, the reviewer feedback indicates potential overstatement of effectiveness
- The claim omits important limitations about task applicability and assumptions
- The evidence shows strong dependence on clustering quality which isn't mentioned in the claim
- Experimental validation of the context-adaptive benefits is limited in the provided evidence
- The claim would be more accurate with qualified language about effectiveness and limitations


Input:
Your role is to assess whether a claim is well-stated or overstated based on the available evidence.

The Input Information will include:
1. Original Claim: The claim under evaluation.
2. Evidence: Research findings, including figures, tables, or other relevant data supporting the claim.

Optional. review comment: Reviewer feedback relevant to the claim's validity.

The claim should be assesed with the following:
Score: Evaluate the claim on a scale of 1 to 5, where:
- 1: Well-stated (accurately reflects the evidence without exaggeration)
- 5: Overstated (exaggerates findings' significance, magnitude, or certainty)

Justification: Provide a detailed explanation that includes:
- Instances of exaggerated wording, insufficient experiments, lack of experimental details, gaps in knowledge, weak grounding in evidence, or lack of acknowledgment of limitations.
- Direct citations from relevant evidence that substantiate your reasoning.
- If review comment is included only take into account the relevant comments towards the claim.

The claim to be assessed is:

A novel method is proposed for context-aware feature compensation, where similarities between the input and the cluster centers representing the overall data distribution is used as the clue to evaluate how much feature compensation is needed to solve the mismatch between source domain and target domain.

The evidence to be evaluated is:In contrast to (Guo et al., 2020; Liu et al., 2021), our method can approach this goal since we just add a tiny network to obtain enhanced feature to compensate for the feature from backbone network. Compared with the Pseudo label used in (Zhong & Maki, 2020), we use the similarity between the data example of interest to all the centers from clustering, which figures out the contextual situation regarding feature discriminant more comprehensively than a simple Pseudo label.

For a given example, whether and how much the corresponding embedding should be changed to approach a new task is subject to its position in the data distribution. If its position is closer to an existing cluster center, in general, a higher probability of correct classification can be expected due to the explicit association with known data representatives. In such a case, the embedding should be changed little. On the contrary, the embedding should be remedied remarkably if its association to any cluster center is not so deterministic. Therefore, we first perform clustering on training data to obtain the centers representing data distribution. Then, we compute the similarity between the input data example and each of the centroids resulting from clustering so as to figure out the position of the input in reference to the cluster centers, where the cluster centers act as anchors to figure out data distribution as well as how far from the input to each anchor.

These similarities are referred to as context since they figure out the relative position of \(\mathbf{X}\) in regard to the cluster centers, based on which the compensation to the original feature embedding is computed.

In Eq. (1), we concatenate \(\mathbf{X}\) and \(\mathbf{S}\) to produce the compensation \(MLP(\mathbf{X}(\mathbf{\bar{\odot}}\mathbf{S})\) for transferring feature embedding because \(\mathbf{S}\) indicates how ambiguous \(\mathbf{X}\) is in terms of being associate with a deterministic cluster, say, context. Moreover, the soft weighting \(MLP(\mathbf{S})\) aims to control the overall compensation adaptive to the context \(\mathbf{S}\). It is apparent that anchors resulting from clustering determines the performance of the proposed solution since they are the base to figure out data distribution and aware of the contextual clue to produce compensation adaptively. Here, we make use of the algorithm referred to as Deep Embedded Clustering (DEC) (Xie et al., 2016) to obtain such anchor points, and the experiments confirm that DEC performs very well in the proposed framework.

* DELTA (Li et al., 2019): DELTA characterizes the distance between source/target networks using their outer layer outputs, and incorporates such distance as the regularization term of the loss function.

Since the maximum similarity to cluster centers indicates the membership degree of the data example in association with a deterministic cluster, and a smaller value means a higher ambiguous case in terms of membership association, it is thus natural to result in higher-level transferring for feature compensation. This fully exhibits the motivation of this study, that is, why we make use of clustering centers as the anchors to figure out the contextual clue in directing feature compensation.

We propose a new transfer learning method with context-aware compensation to feature embedding, where a contextual descriptor figuring out how close from the input to each cluster center is applied, and soft gating is used to make the feature transfer focused on the data samples that truly need transferring. The experiments demonstrate that the proposed feature transferring scheme is technically sound, and a big performance improvement is achieved using a tiny network.

Input: Figure 2: (a) Visualization of the data distribution of Stanford Dogs data via PCA. The heat value of each pixel corresponds with the value of the soft gating factor W in association with this pixel. (b) 2-dimensional histogram of maximum cosine similarity against soft gating factor (W ).

Input: Figure 1: Context-directed Transfer Learning

Input:
You should:
1. Carefully review the claim and the text and image evidence. Summarize how the evidence influenced your evaluation of the claim's validity and strength and briefly explain whether the claim is wellstated or overstated on a scale of 1 to 5 (up to 100 words).
2. Provide the final score (choose from 1 to 5), in the format: <score>{score}</score>.

Output:
After reviewing the claim and evidence, I find that it is generally well-stated and accurately reflects the proposed method. The evidence provides detailed technical explanations and diagrams showing how the similarity between input data and cluster centers is used to determine feature compensation. Figure 1 clearly illustrates the architecture where cluster centers and cosine similarity are used to generate context-aware compensation. Figure 2 demonstrates the relationship between similarity values and gating factors. The claim avoids exaggeration and precisely describes the core mechanism without overstating capabilities or results.

<score>1</score>

Justification:
1. The evidence directly supports the claim through:
- Detailed mathematical framework showing how similarities are computed and used
- Clear architectural diagram demonstrating the role of cluster centers
- Experimental visualization validating the approach
- Specific explanations of how similarity values guide compensation (e.g., "Since the maximum similarity to cluster centers indicates the membership degree...")

2. The claim uses measured language:
- States "is proposed" rather than claiming superiority
- Accurately describes the use of similarities as "clues" rather than perfect solutions
- Avoids overstating the method's capabilities
- Matches the technical details presented in the evidence


Input:
Your role is to assess whether a claim is well-stated or overstated based on the available evidence.

The Input Information will include:
1. Original Claim: The claim under evaluation.
2. Evidence: Research findings, including figures, tables, or other relevant data supporting the claim.

Optional. review comment: Reviewer feedback relevant to the claim's validity.

The claim should be assesed with the following:
Score: Evaluate the claim on a scale of 1 to 5, where:
- 1: Well-stated (accurately reflects the evidence without exaggeration)
- 5: Overstated (exaggerates findings' significance, magnitude, or certainty)

Justification: Provide a detailed explanation that includes:
- Instances of exaggerated wording, insufficient experiments, lack of experimental details, gaps in knowledge, weak grounding in evidence, or lack of acknowledgment of limitations.
- Direct citations from relevant evidence that substantiate your reasoning.
- If review comment is included only take into account the relevant comments towards the claim.

The claim to be assessed is:

A novel method is proposed for context-aware feature compensation, where similarities between the input and the cluster centers representing the overall data distribution is used as the clue to evaluate how much feature compensation is needed to solve the mismatch between source domain and target domain.

The review comment to be evaluated is:

Strengths:
- The problem addressed by the paper is relevant.
- The methodology is clear and well-described.
- The experiments are fair and show that the method is competitive with SOTA in some cases.

Weaknesses:
1. In the introduction, the authors remark that "due to the overlap between the source domain and the target domain, not every data example needs transferring, and how much transferring is needed for a data example is subject to its position in the overall data distribution". Nonetheless, in their algorithm, clustering is performed using the target data. Thus, the computed similarities will not tell how far a given target example is from the source distribution. Therefore, I don't see how they are useful to assess "how much transferring is needed" for that example. When the source distribution is very different from the target, the method seems inappropriate. The poor results on MIT Indoor-67 reinforce this suspicion.
2. Are the displacements $\Delta$ normalized? Otherwise, the role of the predicted magnitude $W$ is redundant.
3. The experimental results are not particularly convincing. In particular, it is unclear which of the training strategies proposed in section 3.3 is the best one. In addition, it would be interesting to visualize what kind of transformations the model is learning, i.e. if it's learning $\Delta$s that pull representations towards the cluster centroids (or something else).
4. A theoretical analysis of the proposed methodology is missing. It is presented as a mere heuristic without any theoretical guarantees.

The evidence to be evaluated is:In contrast to (Guo et al., 2020; Liu et al., 2021), our method can approach this goal since we just add a tiny network to obtain enhanced feature to compensate for the feature from backbone network. Compared with the Pseudo label used in (Zhong & Maki, 2020), we use the similarity between the data example of interest to all the centers from clustering, which figures out the contextual situation regarding feature discriminant more comprehensively than a simple Pseudo label.

For a given example, whether and how much the corresponding embedding should be changed to approach a new task is subject to its position in the data distribution. If its position is closer to an existing cluster center, in general, a higher probability of correct classification can be expected due to the explicit association with known data representatives. In such a case, the embedding should be changed little. On the contrary, the embedding should be remedied remarkably if its association to any cluster center is not so deterministic. Therefore, we first perform clustering on training data to obtain the centers representing data distribution. Then, we compute the similarity between the input data example and each of the centroids resulting from clustering so as to figure out the position of the input in reference to the cluster centers, where the cluster centers act as anchors to figure out data distribution as well as how far from the input to each anchor.

These similarities are referred to as context since they figure out the relative position of \(\mathbf{X}\) in regard to the cluster centers, based on which the compensation to the original feature embedding is computed.

In Eq. (1), we concatenate \(\mathbf{X}\) and \(\mathbf{S}\) to produce the compensation \(MLP(\mathbf{X}(\mathbf{\bar{\odot}}\mathbf{S})\) for transferring feature embedding because \(\mathbf{S}\) indicates how ambiguous \(\mathbf{X}\) is in terms of being associate with a deterministic cluster, say, context. Moreover, the soft weighting \(MLP(\mathbf{S})\) aims to control the overall compensation adaptive to the context \(\mathbf{S}\). It is apparent that anchors resulting from clustering determines the performance of the proposed solution since they are the base to figure out data distribution and aware of the contextual clue to produce compensation adaptively. Here, we make use of the algorithm referred to as Deep Embedded Clustering (DEC) (Xie et al., 2016) to obtain such anchor points, and the experiments confirm that DEC performs very well in the proposed framework.

* DELTA (Li et al., 2019): DELTA characterizes the distance between source/target networks using their outer layer outputs, and incorporates such distance as the regularization term of the loss function.

Since the maximum similarity to cluster centers indicates the membership degree of the data example in association with a deterministic cluster, and a smaller value means a higher ambiguous case in terms of membership association, it is thus natural to result in higher-level transferring for feature compensation. This fully exhibits the motivation of this study, that is, why we make use of clustering centers as the anchors to figure out the contextual clue in directing feature compensation.

We propose a new transfer learning method with context-aware compensation to feature embedding, where a contextual descriptor figuring out how close from the input to each cluster center is applied, and soft gating is used to make the feature transfer focused on the data samples that truly need transferring. The experiments demonstrate that the proposed feature transferring scheme is technically sound, and a big performance improvement is achieved using a tiny network.

Input: Figure 2: (a) Visualization of the data distribution of Stanford Dogs data via PCA. The heat value of each pixel corresponds with the value of the soft gating factor W in association with this pixel. (b) 2-dimensional histogram of maximum cosine similarity against soft gating factor (W ).

Input: Figure 1: Context-directed Transfer Learning

Input:
You should:
1. Carefully review the claim and the text and image evidence. Summarize how the evidence influenced your evaluation of the claim's validity and strength and briefly explain whether the claim is wellstated or overstated on a scale of 1 to 5 (up to 100 words).
2. Provide the final score (choose from 1 to 5), in the format: <score>{score}</score>.

Output:
After reviewing the claim and evidence, this appears to be a moderately overstated claim. While the evidence demonstrates a novel method using cluster centers and similarities for feature compensation, there are key limitations:

1. As noted in the review, clustering is performed only on target data, so similarities don't truly reflect distance from source distribution
2. The evidence doesn't conclusively show how much transfer is actually "needed" - it's more of a heuristic approach
3. The theoretical foundations and guarantees are lacking
4. Results on some datasets (MIT Indoor-67) were poor, suggesting limitations in the method's generalizability

While the core concept is valid, the claim overstates the method's ability to evaluate "how much feature compensation is needed" without clear theoretical or empirical validation.

<score>4</score>


Input:
Your role is to assess whether a claim is well-stated or overstated based on the available evidence.

The Input Information will include:
1. Original Claim: The claim under evaluation.
2. Evidence: Research findings, including figures, tables, or other relevant data supporting the claim.

Optional. review comment: Reviewer feedback relevant to the claim's validity.

The claim should be assesed with the following:
Score: Evaluate the claim on a scale of 1 to 5, where:
- 1: Well-stated (accurately reflects the evidence without exaggeration)
- 5: Overstated (exaggerates findings' significance, magnitude, or certainty)

Justification: Provide a detailed explanation that includes:
- Instances of exaggerated wording, insufficient experiments, lack of experimental details, gaps in knowledge, weak grounding in evidence, or lack of acknowledgment of limitations.
- Direct citations from relevant evidence that substantiate your reasoning.
- If review comment is included only take into account the relevant comments towards the claim.

The claim to be assessed is:

A novel method is proposed for context-aware feature compensation, where similarities between the input and the cluster centers representing the overall data distribution is used as the clue to evaluate how much feature compensation is needed to solve the mismatch between source domain and target domain.

The review comment to be evaluated is:

Strengths:
- The paper tackles an important problem of identifying the mismatch between a source domain and a target domain before transfer.
- The paper is, in general, well-aligned with literature in the area.

Weaknesses:
- The paper does not provide explanations / intuitions to most technical decisions. For instance, the proposed method is very quickly explained in roughly half a page (sections 3.1 - 3.2). For example, why is it reasonable to use DEC? Why is compensation necessary - what are the underlying factors that make it necessary once the closest cluster centers have been identified? Why is cosine similarity, and no other measure, applicable in this case?
- It is very unclear to me how the proposed method is actually helping to identify the mismatch between a source domain and a target domain. In several parts of the paper, it is mentioned that the cluster centers are calculated on the full training set, and according to my understanding it is the whole training set of the target domain for which cluster centers are being calculated? I think it would greatly benefit the explanation of the method if it would clearly distinguish which parts of it come from the source domain and which from the target domain.
- In the experiments, I do not see any reasoning as to what the proposed method works in some cases but not in others. In which cases doing this kind of clustering + compensation approach would work better? This kind of description is very important to really see the contribution of the proposed method to the problem of transfer learning.

The evidence to be evaluated is:In contrast to (Guo et al., 2020; Liu et al., 2021), our method can approach this goal since we just add a tiny network to obtain enhanced feature to compensate for the feature from backbone network. Compared with the Pseudo label used in (Zhong & Maki, 2020), we use the similarity between the data example of interest to all the centers from clustering, which figures out the contextual situation regarding feature discriminant more comprehensively than a simple Pseudo label.

For a given example, whether and how much the corresponding embedding should be changed to approach a new task is subject to its position in the data distribution. If its position is closer to an existing cluster center, in general, a higher probability of correct classification can be expected due to the explicit association with known data representatives. In such a case, the embedding should be changed little. On the contrary, the embedding should be remedied remarkably if its association to any cluster center is not so deterministic. Therefore, we first perform clustering on training data to obtain the centers representing data distribution. Then, we compute the similarity between the input data example and each of the centroids resulting from clustering so as to figure out the position of the input in reference to the cluster centers, where the cluster centers act as anchors to figure out data distribution as well as how far from the input to each anchor.

These similarities are referred to as context since they figure out the relative position of \(\mathbf{X}\) in regard to the cluster centers, based on which the compensation to the original feature embedding is computed.

In Eq. (1), we concatenate \(\mathbf{X}\) and \(\mathbf{S}\) to produce the compensation \(MLP(\mathbf{X}(\mathbf{\bar{\odot}}\mathbf{S})\) for transferring feature embedding because \(\mathbf{S}\) indicates how ambiguous \(\mathbf{X}\) is in terms of being associate with a deterministic cluster, say, context. Moreover, the soft weighting \(MLP(\mathbf{S})\) aims to control the overall compensation adaptive to the context \(\mathbf{S}\). It is apparent that anchors resulting from clustering determines the performance of the proposed solution since they are the base to figure out data distribution and aware of the contextual clue to produce compensation adaptively. Here, we make use of the algorithm referred to as Deep Embedded Clustering (DEC) (Xie et al., 2016) to obtain such anchor points, and the experiments confirm that DEC performs very well in the proposed framework.

* DELTA (Li et al., 2019): DELTA characterizes the distance between source/target networks using their outer layer outputs, and incorporates such distance as the regularization term of the loss function.

Since the maximum similarity to cluster centers indicates the membership degree of the data example in association with a deterministic cluster, and a smaller value means a higher ambiguous case in terms of membership association, it is thus natural to result in higher-level transferring for feature compensation. This fully exhibits the motivation of this study, that is, why we make use of clustering centers as the anchors to figure out the contextual clue in directing feature compensation.

We propose a new transfer learning method with context-aware compensation to feature embedding, where a contextual descriptor figuring out how close from the input to each cluster center is applied, and soft gating is used to make the feature transfer focused on the data samples that truly need transferring. The experiments demonstrate that the proposed feature transferring scheme is technically sound, and a big performance improvement is achieved using a tiny network.

Input: Figure 2: (a) Visualization of the data distribution of Stanford Dogs data via PCA. The heat value of each pixel corresponds with the value of the soft gating factor W in association with this pixel. (b) 2-dimensional histogram of maximum cosine similarity against soft gating factor (W ).

Input: Figure 1: Context-directed Transfer Learning

Input:
You should:
1. Carefully review the claim and the text and image evidence. Summarize how the evidence influenced your evaluation of the claim's validity and strength and briefly explain whether the claim is wellstated or overstated on a scale of 1 to 5 (up to 100 words).
2. Provide the final score (choose from 1 to 5), in the format: <score>{score}</score>.

Output:
After reviewing the claim, evidence, and reviewer comments, I can provide the following assessment:

The claim appears moderately overstated based on several factors:

1. While the evidence shows the method does use similarities between input and cluster centers, the reviewer correctly points out that fundamental explanations are missing about why this approach works and when it's most effective.

2. The evidence provides technical details about the implementation but lacks clear justification for key design choices (e.g., why cosine similarity is used, why DEC clustering specifically).

3. The claim suggests a "novel method" but doesn't fully address limitations or comparative effectiveness across different scenarios, which the reviewer also notes as a weakness.

4. The evidence does demonstrate that the method works in some cases (as shown in Figure 2), but doesn't fully validate the broader implications suggested in the claim.

<score>3</score>


Input:
Your role is to assess whether a claim is well-stated or overstated based on the available evidence.

The Input Information will include:
1. Original Claim: The claim under evaluation.
2. Evidence: Research findings, including figures, tables, or other relevant data supporting the claim.

Optional. review comment: Reviewer feedback relevant to the claim's validity.

The claim should be assesed with the following:
Score: Evaluate the claim on a scale of 1 to 5, where:
- 1: Well-stated (accurately reflects the evidence without exaggeration)
- 5: Overstated (exaggerates findings' significance, magnitude, or certainty)

Justification: Provide a detailed explanation that includes:
- Instances of exaggerated wording, insufficient experiments, lack of experimental details, gaps in knowledge, weak grounding in evidence, or lack of acknowledgment of limitations.
- Direct citations from relevant evidence that substantiate your reasoning.
- If review comment is included only take into account the relevant comments towards the claim.

The claim to be assessed is:

A novel method is proposed for context-aware feature compensation, where similarities between the input and the cluster centers representing the overall data distribution is used as the clue to evaluate how much feature compensation is needed to solve the mismatch between source domain and target domain.

The review comment to be evaluated is:

### Strength

- The method is interesting. Studying the contextual relation between source and target domains is novel.
- The related work section is sufficient. So much literature is surveyed.
- Experimental datasets and comparison methods are representative.

### Weakness

- Although the idea of learning contextual relation is novel, this approach is not. It remains unclear whether clustering can model the context information, or if the results of clusters and original inputs can solve the mismatch between source and target domains in transfer learning.
- The claim that "this method only adds two MLPs to the backbone network" is not correct. As can be seen from Figure 1, there are more than two MLPs: it still has an autoencoder (DEC), which is much more complicated than MLPs.
- The method part is extremely confusing and not clear, which should be rewritten. I find figure 1 hard to understand, specifically how to compute $\mathbf{X} \textcopyright \mathbf{S}$ and $\mathbf{W} \cdot \Delta$. (I even think that should be $\cdot$ instead of $.$, since you claim it's a product.)
- The success of "compensation" heavily relies on DEC (deep embedding clustering). If DEC does not give the correct clustering results, the method will fail. How to justify this? Additionally, DEC brings extra computations, which should be highlighted in the paper.
- This method will consume a lot of training time than comparison methods, according to Sec. 3.3. We see that there is more than one step of fine-tuning, which is more complicated than existing work. Authors should compare your training and inference time in the experiments.
- In experiments, you should also list the number of training parameters of each method for a more fair study since this method introduces extra neural network modules.
- More importantly, the performance on general fine-tuning tasks of this method is NOT good. According to table 1, This approach only succeeds using Resnet-101, while it does not generate competitive results in Resnet-50 and VGG16. Hence, it is difficult to say that this approach actually works in different backbones.
- No experiments to explain why this method works. Lack of detailed analysis.
- With regards to related work, I think this paper misses two very important references on the same topic:

[1] Jang Y, Lee H, Hwang S J, et al. Learning what and where to transfer[C]//International Conference on Machine Learning. PMLR, 2019: 3030-3039.

[2] Murugesan K, Sadashivaiah V, Luss R, et al. Auto-Transfer: Learning to Route Transferrable Representations[J]. arXiv preprint arXiv:2202.01011, 2022.

The evidence to be evaluated is:In contrast to (Guo et al., 2020; Liu et al., 2021), our method can approach this goal since we just add a tiny network to obtain enhanced feature to compensate for the feature from backbone network. Compared with the Pseudo label used in (Zhong & Maki, 2020), we use the similarity between the data example of interest to all the centers from clustering, which figures out the contextual situation regarding feature discriminant more comprehensively than a simple Pseudo label.

For a given example, whether and how much the corresponding embedding should be changed to approach a new task is subject to its position in the data distribution. If its position is closer to an existing cluster center, in general, a higher probability of correct classification can be expected due to the explicit association with known data representatives. In such a case, the embedding should be changed little. On the contrary, the embedding should be remedied remarkably if its association to any cluster center is not so deterministic. Therefore, we first perform clustering on training data to obtain the centers representing data distribution. Then, we compute the similarity between the input data example and each of the centroids resulting from clustering so as to figure out the position of the input in reference to the cluster centers, where the cluster centers act as anchors to figure out data distribution as well as how far from the input to each anchor.

These similarities are referred to as context since they figure out the relative position of \(\mathbf{X}\) in regard to the cluster centers, based on which the compensation to the original feature embedding is computed.

In Eq. (1), we concatenate \(\mathbf{X}\) and \(\mathbf{S}\) to produce the compensation \(MLP(\mathbf{X}(\mathbf{\bar{\odot}}\mathbf{S})\) for transferring feature embedding because \(\mathbf{S}\) indicates how ambiguous \(\mathbf{X}\) is in terms of being associate with a deterministic cluster, say, context. Moreover, the soft weighting \(MLP(\mathbf{S})\) aims to control the overall compensation adaptive to the context \(\mathbf{S}\). It is apparent that anchors resulting from clustering determines the performance of the proposed solution since they are the base to figure out data distribution and aware of the contextual clue to produce compensation adaptively. Here, we make use of the algorithm referred to as Deep Embedded Clustering (DEC) (Xie et al., 2016) to obtain such anchor points, and the experiments confirm that DEC performs very well in the proposed framework.

* DELTA (Li et al., 2019): DELTA characterizes the distance between source/target networks using their outer layer outputs, and incorporates such distance as the regularization term of the loss function.

Since the maximum similarity to cluster centers indicates the membership degree of the data example in association with a deterministic cluster, and a smaller value means a higher ambiguous case in terms of membership association, it is thus natural to result in higher-level transferring for feature compensation. This fully exhibits the motivation of this study, that is, why we make use of clustering centers as the anchors to figure out the contextual clue in directing feature compensation.

We propose a new transfer learning method with context-aware compensation to feature embedding, where a contextual descriptor figuring out how close from the input to each cluster center is applied, and soft gating is used to make the feature transfer focused on the data samples that truly need transferring. The experiments demonstrate that the proposed feature transferring scheme is technically sound, and a big performance improvement is achieved using a tiny network.

Input: Figure 2: (a) Visualization of the data distribution of Stanford Dogs data via PCA. The heat value of each pixel corresponds with the value of the soft gating factor W in association with this pixel. (b) 2-dimensional histogram of maximum cosine similarity against soft gating factor (W ).

Input: Figure 1: Context-directed Transfer Learning

Input:
You should:
1. Carefully review the claim and the text and image evidence. Summarize how the evidence influenced your evaluation of the claim's validity and strength and briefly explain whether the claim is wellstated or overstated on a scale of 1 to 5 (up to 100 words).
2. Provide the final score (choose from 1 to 5), in the format: <score>{score}</score>.

Output:
After reviewing the claim and evidence, including the review comments and technical details provided:

The claim appears moderately overstated for several key reasons:

1. While the method does use similarities between input and cluster centers, the reviewer points out significant concerns about whether clustering can effectively model context information and solve domain mismatch.

2. The evidence shows the method is more complex than claimed, requiring an autoencoder (DEC) and multiple fine-tuning steps, not just similarity comparisons.

3. The experimental results are inconsistent across different backbones, working well only with ResNet-101 but not with ResNet-50 or VGG16, suggesting the method's effectiveness is not as general as implied.

4. The claim doesn't acknowledge the heavy reliance on DEC's clustering quality or the additional computational overhead identified in the review.

<score>4</score>


Input:
Your role is to assess whether a claim is well-stated or overstated based on the available evidence.

The Input Information will include:
1. Original Claim: The claim under evaluation.
2. Evidence: Research findings, including figures, tables, or other relevant data supporting the claim.

Optional. review comment: Reviewer feedback relevant to the claim's validity.

The claim should be assesed with the following:
Score: Evaluate the claim on a scale of 1 to 5, where:
- 1: Well-stated (accurately reflects the evidence without exaggeration)
- 5: Overstated (exaggerates findings' significance, magnitude, or certainty)

Justification: Provide a detailed explanation that includes:
- Instances of exaggerated wording, insufficient experiments, lack of experimental details, gaps in knowledge, weak grounding in evidence, or lack of acknowledgment of limitations.
- Direct citations from relevant evidence that substantiate your reasoning.
- If review comment is included only take into account the relevant comments towards the claim.

The claim to be assessed is:

A novel method is proposed for context-aware feature compensation, where similarities between the input and the cluster centers representing the overall data distribution is used as the clue to evaluate how much feature compensation is needed to solve the mismatch between source domain and target domain.

The review comment to be evaluated is:

Strengths:
the paper is well written, methodology is well-described, and the problem addressed is relevant.

Weaknesses.
The author is describing how to use data centers to do data compensation, however, how this is related to data transferring is poorly described. For examples, is data centers computed on target data set? how is its feature vector computed, using the pretrained network? using distance to get compensation factor seems only to be working under a strong assumption that this is used for classification, and it only works for image classification tasks? why using distance to centers work? all these questions are not answered properly.

Based on the experimental setup, it is just finetuning the pretrained network using some downstream tasks. It just barely competes with SOTA methods, seems that with or without such 2 layers of compensation networks does not change the result at all.

The evidence to be evaluated is:In contrast to (Guo et al., 2020; Liu et al., 2021), our method can approach this goal since we just add a tiny network to obtain enhanced feature to compensate for the feature from backbone network. Compared with the Pseudo label used in (Zhong & Maki, 2020), we use the similarity between the data example of interest to all the centers from clustering, which figures out the contextual situation regarding feature discriminant more comprehensively than a simple Pseudo label.

For a given example, whether and how much the corresponding embedding should be changed to approach a new task is subject to its position in the data distribution. If its position is closer to an existing cluster center, in general, a higher probability of correct classification can be expected due to the explicit association with known data representatives. In such a case, the embedding should be changed little. On the contrary, the embedding should be remedied remarkably if its association to any cluster center is not so deterministic. Therefore, we first perform clustering on training data to obtain the centers representing data distribution. Then, we compute the similarity between the input data example and each of the centroids resulting from clustering so as to figure out the position of the input in reference to the cluster centers, where the cluster centers act as anchors to figure out data distribution as well as how far from the input to each anchor.

These similarities are referred to as context since they figure out the relative position of \(\mathbf{X}\) in regard to the cluster centers, based on which the compensation to the original feature embedding is computed.

In Eq. (1), we concatenate \(\mathbf{X}\) and \(\mathbf{S}\) to produce the compensation \(MLP(\mathbf{X}(\mathbf{\bar{\odot}}\mathbf{S})\) for transferring feature embedding because \(\mathbf{S}\) indicates how ambiguous \(\mathbf{X}\) is in terms of being associate with a deterministic cluster, say, context. Moreover, the soft weighting \(MLP(\mathbf{S})\) aims to control the overall compensation adaptive to the context \(\mathbf{S}\). It is apparent that anchors resulting from clustering determines the performance of the proposed solution since they are the base to figure out data distribution and aware of the contextual clue to produce compensation adaptively. Here, we make use of the algorithm referred to as Deep Embedded Clustering (DEC) (Xie et al., 2016) to obtain such anchor points, and the experiments confirm that DEC performs very well in the proposed framework.

* DELTA (Li et al., 2019): DELTA characterizes the distance between source/target networks using their outer layer outputs, and incorporates such distance as the regularization term of the loss function.

Since the maximum similarity to cluster centers indicates the membership degree of the data example in association with a deterministic cluster, and a smaller value means a higher ambiguous case in terms of membership association, it is thus natural to result in higher-level transferring for feature compensation. This fully exhibits the motivation of this study, that is, why we make use of clustering centers as the anchors to figure out the contextual clue in directing feature compensation.

We propose a new transfer learning method with context-aware compensation to feature embedding, where a contextual descriptor figuring out how close from the input to each cluster center is applied, and soft gating is used to make the feature transfer focused on the data samples that truly need transferring. The experiments demonstrate that the proposed feature transferring scheme is technically sound, and a big performance improvement is achieved using a tiny network.

Input: Figure 2: (a) Visualization of the data distribution of Stanford Dogs data via PCA. The heat value of each pixel corresponds with the value of the soft gating factor W in association with this pixel. (b) 2-dimensional histogram of maximum cosine similarity against soft gating factor (W ).

Input: Figure 1: Context-directed Transfer Learning

Input:
You should:
1. Carefully review the claim and the text and image evidence. Summarize how the evidence influenced your evaluation of the claim's validity and strength and briefly explain whether the claim is wellstated or overstated on a scale of 1 to 5 (up to 100 words).
2. Provide the final score (choose from 1 to 5), in the format: <score>{score}</score>.

Output:
After reviewing the claim, evidence, and reviewer comments, I will assess whether the claim is well-stated or overstated:

Summary of Evaluation:
The claim describes a novel method using cluster centers and similarity measures for feature compensation in domain adaptation. While the evidence shows a detailed technical approach with mathematical formulation, diagrams, and some experimental validation, there are significant concerns raised in the review about:
1. Lack of clear explanation of how data centers relate to transfer learning
2. Limited experimental validation showing the method "barely competes with SOTA"
3. Unclear justification for why distance to centers works as an effective approach

The evidence partially supports the basic technical description in the claim, but doesn't fully validate its effectiveness or novelty. The claim could be more measured in acknowledging limitations.

<score>3</score>

Justification:
The claim is moderately overstated because:
1. While the method description is technically accurate based on the evidence, the claim presents it as definitively solving domain mismatch without acknowledging limitations
2. The reviewer points out that experimental results show limited improvement ("barely competes with SOTA")
3. The evidence shows theoretical framework but lacks comprehensive validation of effectiveness
4. Key questions about methodology remain unanswered according to reviewer (e.g., how centers are computed, why distance metrics work)
5. The evidence provides mathematical formulation and architectural details that support the basic approach, but does not fully demonstrate its advantages over existing methods

The claim would be better stated with more measured language acknowledging current limitations and need for further validation.


Input:
Your role is to assess whether a claim is well-stated or overstated based on the available evidence.

The Input Information will include:
1. Original Claim: The claim under evaluation.
2. Evidence: Research findings, including figures, tables, or other relevant data supporting the claim.

Optional. review comment: Reviewer feedback relevant to the claim's validity.

The claim should be assesed with the following:
Score: Evaluate the claim on a scale of 1 to 5, where:
- 1: Well-stated (accurately reflects the evidence without exaggeration)
- 5: Overstated (exaggerates findings' significance, magnitude, or certainty)

Justification: Provide a detailed explanation that includes:
- Instances of exaggerated wording, insufficient experiments, lack of experimental details, gaps in knowledge, weak grounding in evidence, or lack of acknowledgment of limitations.
- Direct citations from relevant evidence that substantiate your reasoning.
- If review comment is included only take into account the relevant comments towards the claim.

The claim to be assessed is:

The new architecture only incorporates two additional MLP modules, one for computing feature compensation and the other for soft gating the compensation.

The evidence to be evaluated is:In contrast to (Guo et al., 2020; Liu et al., 2021), our method can approach this goal since we just add a tiny network to obtain enhanced feature to compensate for the feature from backbone network.

The first branch appends the context vector \(\mathbf{S}\) to the original embedding \(\mathbf{X}\) via concatenation, and then a multilayer perceptron (MLP) is used to transform \(\mathbf{X}\)()S into \(\Delta=MLP(\mathbf{X}\)()S), where MLP is designed to force \(\Delta\) has the same dimension as \(\mathbf{X}\), and () denotes concatenation. The second branch computes the soft gating factor \(\mathbf{W}=MLP(\mathbf{S})\) so as to obtain the weighted compensation subject to the context, that is, \(\mathbf{W}.\Delta\), where \(\mathbf{W}\) is a scalar.

Here, the color of each pixel corresponds with the corresponding soft gating factor \(\mathbf{W}\), and a higher heat value of \(\mathbf{W}\) means a bigger compensation applied to transfer the feature embedding. We can see that bigger compensations are mostly applied to the data points locating in a self-contained region.

Figure 2(b) shows the 2-dimensional histogram of maximum cosine similarity against soft gating factor \(\mathbf{W}\), which shows such a trend that lower similarity corresponds with in general higher compensation level, say, higher soft gating. Since the maximum similarity to cluster centers indicates the membership degree of the data example in association with a deterministic cluster, and a smaller value means a higher ambiguous case in terms of membership association, it is thus natural to result in higher-level transferring for feature compensation.

We propose a new transfer learning method with context-aware compensation to feature embedding, where a contextual descriptor figuring out how close from the input to each cluster center is applied, and soft gating is used to make the feature transfer focused on the data samples that truly need transferring.

Input: Figure 2: (a) Visualization of the data distribution of Stanford Dogs data via PCA. The heat value of each pixel corresponds with the value of the soft gating factor W in association with this pixel. (b) 2-dimensional histogram of maximum cosine similarity against soft gating factor (W ).

Input: Figure 1: Context-directed Transfer Learning

Input:
You should:
1. Carefully review the claim and the text and image evidence. Summarize how the evidence influenced your evaluation of the claim's validity and strength and briefly explain whether the claim is wellstated or overstated on a scale of 1 to 5 (up to 100 words).
2. Provide the final score (choose from 1 to 5), in the format: <score>{score}</score>.

Output:
Based on careful review of the claim and evidence:

The claim about incorporating "only two additional MLP modules" is well-stated and accurately reflects the architecture shown in Figure 1. The evidence clearly shows two MLP modules: one that computes the feature compensation (Δ) from concatenated X⊕S, and another that computes the soft gating factor (W). The rest of the components (Auto-Encoder, clustering, cosine similarity) are not additional modules but rather part of the context generation process. The evidence directly supports this architectural claim without exaggeration.

<score>1</score>

Justification:
1. Figure 1 explicitly shows exactly two MLP modules in the architecture
2. The text evidence provides mathematical descriptions of both MLPs:
- First MLP: "MLP is used to transform X⊕S into Δ"
- Second MLP: "computes the soft gating factor W=MLP(S)"
3. No additional MLP modules are mentioned or shown in the evidence
4. The claim is precise and technically accurate in describing the architectural components

The claim sticks strictly to describing the architectural elements without overstating their capabilities or impact, making it well-stated (score of 1).


Input:
Your role is to assess whether a claim is well-stated or overstated based on the available evidence.

The Input Information will include:
1. Original Claim: The claim under evaluation.
2. Evidence: Research findings, including figures, tables, or other relevant data supporting the claim.

Optional. review comment: Reviewer feedback relevant to the claim's validity.

The claim should be assesed with the following:
Score: Evaluate the claim on a scale of 1 to 5, where:
- 1: Well-stated (accurately reflects the evidence without exaggeration)
- 5: Overstated (exaggerates findings' significance, magnitude, or certainty)

Justification: Provide a detailed explanation that includes:
- Instances of exaggerated wording, insufficient experiments, lack of experimental details, gaps in knowledge, weak grounding in evidence, or lack of acknowledgment of limitations.
- Direct citations from relevant evidence that substantiate your reasoning.
- If review comment is included only take into account the relevant comments towards the claim.

The claim to be assessed is:

The new architecture only incorporates two additional MLP modules, one for computing feature compensation and the other for soft gating the compensation.

The review comment to be evaluated is:

Strengths:
- The problem addressed by the paper is relevant.
- The methodology is clear and well-described.
- The experiments are fair and show that the method is competitive with SOTA in some cases.

Weaknesses:
1. In the introduction, the authors remark that "due to the overlap between the source domain and the target domain, not every data example needs transferring, and how much transferring is needed for a data example is subject to its position in the overall data distribution". Nonetheless, in their algorithm, clustering is performed using the target data. Thus, the computed similarities will not tell how far a given target example is from the source distribution. Therefore, I don't see how they are useful to assess "how much transferring is needed" for that example. When the source distribution is very different from the target, the method seems inappropriate. The poor results on MIT Indoor-67 reinforce this suspicion.
2. Are the displacements $\Delta$ normalized? Otherwise, the role of the predicted magnitude $W$ is redundant.
3. The experimental results are not particularly convincing. In particular, it is unclear which of the training strategies proposed in section 3.3 is the best one. In addition, it would be interesting to visualize what kind of transformations the model is learning, i.e. if it's learning $\Delta$s that pull representations towards the cluster centroids (or something else).
4. A theoretical analysis of the proposed methodology is missing. It is presented as a mere heuristic without any theoretical guarantees.

The evidence to be evaluated is:In contrast to (Guo et al., 2020; Liu et al., 2021), our method can approach this goal since we just add a tiny network to obtain enhanced feature to compensate for the feature from backbone network.

The first branch appends the context vector \(\mathbf{S}\) to the original embedding \(\mathbf{X}\) via concatenation, and then a multilayer perceptron (MLP) is used to transform \(\mathbf{X}\)()S into \(\Delta=MLP(\mathbf{X}\)()S), where MLP is designed to force \(\Delta\) has the same dimension as \(\mathbf{X}\), and () denotes concatenation. The second branch computes the soft gating factor \(\mathbf{W}=MLP(\mathbf{S})\) so as to obtain the weighted compensation subject to the context, that is, \(\mathbf{W}.\Delta\), where \(\mathbf{W}\) is a scalar.

Here, the color of each pixel corresponds with the corresponding soft gating factor \(\mathbf{W}\), and a higher heat value of \(\mathbf{W}\) means a bigger compensation applied to transfer the feature embedding. We can see that bigger compensations are mostly applied to the data points locating in a self-contained region.

Figure 2(b) shows the 2-dimensional histogram of maximum cosine similarity against soft gating factor \(\mathbf{W}\), which shows such a trend that lower similarity corresponds with in general higher compensation level, say, higher soft gating. Since the maximum similarity to cluster centers indicates the membership degree of the data example in association with a deterministic cluster, and a smaller value means a higher ambiguous case in terms of membership association, it is thus natural to result in higher-level transferring for feature compensation.

We propose a new transfer learning method with context-aware compensation to feature embedding, where a contextual descriptor figuring out how close from the input to each cluster center is applied, and soft gating is used to make the feature transfer focused on the data samples that truly need transferring.

Input: Figure 2: (a) Visualization of the data distribution of Stanford Dogs data via PCA. The heat value of each pixel corresponds with the value of the soft gating factor W in association with this pixel. (b) 2-dimensional histogram of maximum cosine similarity against soft gating factor (W ).

Input: Figure 1: Context-directed Transfer Learning

Input:
You should:
1. Carefully review the claim and the text and image evidence. Summarize how the evidence influenced your evaluation of the claim's validity and strength and briefly explain whether the claim is wellstated or overstated on a scale of 1 to 5 (up to 100 words).
2. Provide the final score (choose from 1 to 5), in the format: <score>{score}</score>.

Output:
Let me evaluate the claim: "The new architecture only incorporates two additional MLP modules, one for computing feature compensation and the other for soft gating the compensation."

Looking at Figure 1 and the evidence, while the claim mentions two MLP modules, it understates the actual architectural complexity. The system also includes:
- An Auto-Encoder (DEC)
- A clustering component
- A cosine similarity calculation module
- Additional operations (concatenation, scalar product, addition)

The claim oversimplifies the architecture by focusing only on the MLP modules while omitting other crucial components. Even the reviewer points out that the methodology has multiple training strategies (Section 3.3). The claim attempts to portray the architecture as simpler than it actually is.

<score>4</score>


Input:
Your role is to assess whether a claim is well-stated or overstated based on the available evidence.

The Input Information will include:
1. Original Claim: The claim under evaluation.
2. Evidence: Research findings, including figures, tables, or other relevant data supporting the claim.

Optional. review comment: Reviewer feedback relevant to the claim's validity.

The claim should be assesed with the following:
Score: Evaluate the claim on a scale of 1 to 5, where:
- 1: Well-stated (accurately reflects the evidence without exaggeration)
- 5: Overstated (exaggerates findings' significance, magnitude, or certainty)

Justification: Provide a detailed explanation that includes:
- Instances of exaggerated wording, insufficient experiments, lack of experimental details, gaps in knowledge, weak grounding in evidence, or lack of acknowledgment of limitations.
- Direct citations from relevant evidence that substantiate your reasoning.
- If review comment is included only take into account the relevant comments towards the claim.

The claim to be assessed is:

The new architecture only incorporates two additional MLP modules, one for computing feature compensation and the other for soft gating the compensation.

The review comment to be evaluated is:

Strengths:
- The paper tackles an important problem of identifying the mismatch between a source domain and a target domain before transfer.
- The paper is, in general, well-aligned with literature in the area.

Weaknesses:
- The paper does not provide explanations / intuitions to most technical decisions. For instance, the proposed method is very quickly explained in roughly half a page (sections 3.1 - 3.2). For example, why is it reasonable to use DEC? Why is compensation necessary - what are the underlying factors that make it necessary once the closest cluster centers have been identified? Why is cosine similarity, and no other measure, applicable in this case?
- It is very unclear to me how the proposed method is actually helping to identify the mismatch between a source domain and a target domain. In several parts of the paper, it is mentioned that the cluster centers are calculated on the full training set, and according to my understanding it is the whole training set of the target domain for which cluster centers are being calculated? I think it would greatly benefit the explanation of the method if it would clearly distinguish which parts of it come from the source domain and which from the target domain.
- In the experiments, I do not see any reasoning as to what the proposed method works in some cases but not in others. In which cases doing this kind of clustering + compensation approach would work better? This kind of description is very important to really see the contribution of the proposed method to the problem of transfer learning.

The evidence to be evaluated is:In contrast to (Guo et al., 2020; Liu et al., 2021), our method can approach this goal since we just add a tiny network to obtain enhanced feature to compensate for the feature from backbone network.

The first branch appends the context vector \(\mathbf{S}\) to the original embedding \(\mathbf{X}\) via concatenation, and then a multilayer perceptron (MLP) is used to transform \(\mathbf{X}\)()S into \(\Delta=MLP(\mathbf{X}\)()S), where MLP is designed to force \(\Delta\) has the same dimension as \(\mathbf{X}\), and () denotes concatenation. The second branch computes the soft gating factor \(\mathbf{W}=MLP(\mathbf{S})\) so as to obtain the weighted compensation subject to the context, that is, \(\mathbf{W}.\Delta\), where \(\mathbf{W}\) is a scalar.

Here, the color of each pixel corresponds with the corresponding soft gating factor \(\mathbf{W}\), and a higher heat value of \(\mathbf{W}\) means a bigger compensation applied to transfer the feature embedding. We can see that bigger compensations are mostly applied to the data points locating in a self-contained region.

Figure 2(b) shows the 2-dimensional histogram of maximum cosine similarity against soft gating factor \(\mathbf{W}\), which shows such a trend that lower similarity corresponds with in general higher compensation level, say, higher soft gating. Since the maximum similarity to cluster centers indicates the membership degree of the data example in association with a deterministic cluster, and a smaller value means a higher ambiguous case in terms of membership association, it is thus natural to result in higher-level transferring for feature compensation.

We propose a new transfer learning method with context-aware compensation to feature embedding, where a contextual descriptor figuring out how close from the input to each cluster center is applied, and soft gating is used to make the feature transfer focused on the data samples that truly need transferring.

Input: Figure 2: (a) Visualization of the data distribution of Stanford Dogs data via PCA. The heat value of each pixel corresponds with the value of the soft gating factor W in association with this pixel. (b) 2-dimensional histogram of maximum cosine similarity against soft gating factor (W ).

Input: Figure 1: Context-directed Transfer Learning

Input:
You should:
1. Carefully review the claim and the text and image evidence. Summarize how the evidence influenced your evaluation of the claim's validity and strength and briefly explain whether the claim is wellstated or overstated on a scale of 1 to 5 (up to 100 words).
2. Provide the final score (choose from 1 to 5), in the format: <score>{score}</score>.

Output:
I'll evaluate whether the claim "The new architecture only incorporates two additional MLP modules, one for computing feature compensation and the other for soft gating the compensation" is well-stated based on the evidence.

Looking at Figure 1 and the technical descriptions, while the architecture does include the two mentioned MLP modules (one for computing Δ and one for soft gating W), it also incorporates several other additional components beyond just these MLPs:

1. An Auto-Encoder (DEC)
2. A clustering mechanism
3. A cosine similarity computation module
4. Additional operations (concatenation, scalar product)

The claim oversimplifies the architectural additions by stating "only" two MLP modules when the evidence shows more components. However, the MLPs are indeed the main trainable components added.

<score>3</score>

The claim is moderately overstated since it understates the full scope of architectural additions, though the MLPs are central components. This also aligns with the reviewer's comment about insufficient technical explanations of the various components.


Input:
Your role is to assess whether a claim is well-stated or overstated based on the available evidence.

The Input Information will include:
1. Original Claim: The claim under evaluation.
2. Evidence: Research findings, including figures, tables, or other relevant data supporting the claim.

Optional. review comment: Reviewer feedback relevant to the claim's validity.

The claim should be assesed with the following:
Score: Evaluate the claim on a scale of 1 to 5, where:
- 1: Well-stated (accurately reflects the evidence without exaggeration)
- 5: Overstated (exaggerates findings' significance, magnitude, or certainty)

Justification: Provide a detailed explanation that includes:
- Instances of exaggerated wording, insufficient experiments, lack of experimental details, gaps in knowledge, weak grounding in evidence, or lack of acknowledgment of limitations.
- Direct citations from relevant evidence that substantiate your reasoning.
- If review comment is included only take into account the relevant comments towards the claim.

The claim to be assessed is:

The new architecture only incorporates two additional MLP modules, one for computing feature compensation and the other for soft gating the compensation.

The review comment to be evaluated is:

### Strength

- The method is interesting. Studying the contextual relation between source and target domains is novel.
- The related work section is sufficient. So much literature is surveyed.
- Experimental datasets and comparison methods are representative.

### Weakness

- Although the idea of learning contextual relation is novel, this approach is not. It remains unclear whether clustering can model the context information, or if the results of clusters and original inputs can solve the mismatch between source and target domains in transfer learning.
- The claim that "this method only adds two MLPs to the backbone network" is not correct. As can be seen from Figure 1, there are more than two MLPs: it still has an autoencoder (DEC), which is much more complicated than MLPs.
- The method part is extremely confusing and not clear, which should be rewritten. I find figure 1 hard to understand, specifically how to compute $\mathbf{X} \textcopyright \mathbf{S}$ and $\mathbf{W} \cdot \Delta$. (I even think that should be $\cdot$ instead of $.$, since you claim it's a product.)
- The success of "compensation" heavily relies on DEC (deep embedding clustering). If DEC does not give the correct clustering results, the method will fail. How to justify this? Additionally, DEC brings extra computations, which should be highlighted in the paper.
- This method will consume a lot of training time than comparison methods, according to Sec. 3.3. We see that there is more than one step of fine-tuning, which is more complicated than existing work. Authors should compare your training and inference time in the experiments.
- In experiments, you should also list the number of training parameters of each method for a more fair study since this method introduces extra neural network modules.
- More importantly, the performance on general fine-tuning tasks of this method is NOT good. According to table 1, This approach only succeeds using Resnet-101, while it does not generate competitive results in Resnet-50 and VGG16. Hence, it is difficult to say that this approach actually works in different backbones.
- No experiments to explain why this method works. Lack of detailed analysis.
- With regards to related work, I think this paper misses two very important references on the same topic:

[1] Jang Y, Lee H, Hwang S J, et al. Learning what and where to transfer[C]//International Conference on Machine Learning. PMLR, 2019: 3030-3039.

[2] Murugesan K, Sadashivaiah V, Luss R, et al. Auto-Transfer: Learning to Route Transferrable Representations[J]. arXiv preprint arXiv:2202.01011, 2022.

The evidence to be evaluated is:In contrast to (Guo et al., 2020; Liu et al., 2021), our method can approach this goal since we just add a tiny network to obtain enhanced feature to compensate for the feature from backbone network.

The first branch appends the context vector \(\mathbf{S}\) to the original embedding \(\mathbf{X}\) via concatenation, and then a multilayer perceptron (MLP) is used to transform \(\mathbf{X}\)()S into \(\Delta=MLP(\mathbf{X}\)()S), where MLP is designed to force \(\Delta\) has the same dimension as \(\mathbf{X}\), and () denotes concatenation. The second branch computes the soft gating factor \(\mathbf{W}=MLP(\mathbf{S})\) so as to obtain the weighted compensation subject to the context, that is, \(\mathbf{W}.\Delta\), where \(\mathbf{W}\) is a scalar.

Here, the color of each pixel corresponds with the corresponding soft gating factor \(\mathbf{W}\), and a higher heat value of \(\mathbf{W}\) means a bigger compensation applied to transfer the feature embedding. We can see that bigger compensations are mostly applied to the data points locating in a self-contained region.

Figure 2(b) shows the 2-dimensional histogram of maximum cosine similarity against soft gating factor \(\mathbf{W}\), which shows such a trend that lower similarity corresponds with in general higher compensation level, say, higher soft gating. Since the maximum similarity to cluster centers indicates the membership degree of the data example in association with a deterministic cluster, and a smaller value means a higher ambiguous case in terms of membership association, it is thus natural to result in higher-level transferring for feature compensation.

We propose a new transfer learning method with context-aware compensation to feature embedding, where a contextual descriptor figuring out how close from the input to each cluster center is applied, and soft gating is used to make the feature transfer focused on the data samples that truly need transferring.

Input: Figure 2: (a) Visualization of the data distribution of Stanford Dogs data via PCA. The heat value of each pixel corresponds with the value of the soft gating factor W in association with this pixel. (b) 2-dimensional histogram of maximum cosine similarity against soft gating factor (W ).

Input: Figure 1: Context-directed Transfer Learning

Input:
You should:
1. Carefully review the claim and the text and image evidence. Summarize how the evidence influenced your evaluation of the claim's validity and strength and briefly explain whether the claim is wellstated or overstated on a scale of 1 to 5 (up to 100 words).
2. Provide the final score (choose from 1 to 5), in the format: <score>{score}</score>.

Output:
Based on my review of the claim, evidence, and reviewer comments, this claim appears to be significantly overstated.

The claim states that "the new architecture only incorporates two additional MLP modules," but Figure 1 clearly shows that the architecture includes:
1. An Auto-Encoder (DEC) module
2. A clustering (DEC) component
3. Two MLP modules (one for compensation and one for soft gating)
4. Additional components like cosine similarity calculation and cluster centers

The reviewer correctly points out that "the claim that 'this method only adds two MLPs to the backbone network' is not correct" since the autoencoder (DEC) component adds significant complexity. The architecture diagram demonstrates more components than claimed, making this a substantial overstatement of architectural simplicity.

<score>5</score>