General response — Rebuttal

2564 characters

1 placeholder(s) to resolve before posting:

[PENDING: G2, G1]

Preview

We thank all reviewers for the careful reviews. All four recommend acceptance. Most questions ask for analyses of results we already have, plus a few new runs. Every result below, with tables and videos, is on one anonymous page: https://memorizon-rebuttal.pages.dev/

New in this response

Retrieval hit rate and training distribution for 100 / 200 / 400 s (btN3): https://memorizon-rebuttal.pages.dev/e1/. Longer spans add available first visits (83% -> 91% -> 96% of scored chunks have one in range). Given one is available, top-6 retrieves it about 90% of the time at every span.
Bank-content ablation on the 200 s and 400 s models (btN3): https://memorizon-rebuttal.pages.dev/e2/. With no bank, or a bank from another video, Gain falls to about zero; random frames from the same video recover about a third.
Camera following with CaR, and returns stratified by realized yaw error (btN3): https://memorizon-rebuttal.pages.dev/e3/. Among well-aligned returns, CaR is within seed noise of our 100 s and 400 s models and about 0.06 Revisit below the 200 s model. We report this plainly and no longer claim an advantage over CaR in camera following (the two follow the path equally well).
Cost (m2mq, MjTC): https://memorizon-rebuttal.pages.dev/e5/. Pose scoring takes 32 ms per chunk at 400 s of history on one CPU thread, about 1% of the 3.2 s needed to generate a chunk. Chunk latency is flat from 10 s to 400 s of history, and peak allocated GPU memory equals a sliding window (22.6 GB).
Zero-shot on real capture (KgbX, m2mq): https://memorizon-rebuttal.pages.dev/e6/. 20 DL3DV-10K scenes from one real first frame and the scene's own camera path. The path is followed (correlation 0.79 / 0.73); we do not claim pixel fidelity.
Occlusion of retrieved frames (MjTC), measured with monocular depth: https://memorizon-rebuttal.pages.dev/e7/. 24-49% of the in-frustum content of retrieved frames is occluded, versus 38-65% for random frames that pass the same frustum test.
Independent training seeds and bank noise [PENDING: G2, G1]: runs finished training, results to be posted in a follow-up comment.

Changes to the paper

Camera following moves into Sec. 4.2; the cross-system ranking is called indicative, and within-backbone ablations are the primary evidence for memory.
The 400 s explanation in Sec. 4.3 is now a hypothesis; 200 s is best in our tested setup.
The abstract reads "bounded by k x K"; novelty claims in Sec. 1 are narrowed to the union-bank mechanism.

Individual replies follow.

Text to paste (Markdown)

We thank all reviewers for the careful reviews. All four recommend acceptance. Most questions ask for analyses of results we already have, plus a few new runs. Every result below, with tables and videos, is on one anonymous page: https://memorizon-rebuttal.pages.dev/

**New in this response**
1. **Retrieval hit rate and training distribution for 100 / 200 / 400 s** (btN3): https://memorizon-rebuttal.pages.dev/e1/. Longer spans add available first visits (83% -> 91% -> 96% of scored chunks have one in range). Given one is available, top-6 retrieves it about 90% of the time at every span.
2. **Bank-content ablation** on the 200 s and 400 s models (btN3): https://memorizon-rebuttal.pages.dev/e2/. With no bank, or a bank from another video, Gain falls to about zero; random frames from the same video recover about a third.
3. **Camera following with CaR, and returns stratified by realized yaw error** (btN3): https://memorizon-rebuttal.pages.dev/e3/. Among well-aligned returns, CaR is within seed noise of our 100 s and 400 s models and about 0.06 Revisit below the 200 s model. We report this plainly and no longer claim an advantage over CaR in camera following (the two follow the path equally well).
4. **Cost** (m2mq, MjTC): https://memorizon-rebuttal.pages.dev/e5/. Pose scoring takes 32 ms per chunk at 400 s of history on one CPU thread, about 1% of the 3.2 s needed to generate a chunk. Chunk latency is flat from 10 s to 400 s of history, and peak allocated GPU memory equals a sliding window (22.6 GB).
5. **Zero-shot on real capture** (KgbX, m2mq): https://memorizon-rebuttal.pages.dev/e6/. 20 DL3DV-10K scenes from one real first frame and the scene's own camera path. The path is followed (correlation 0.79 / 0.73); we do not claim pixel fidelity.
6. **Occlusion of retrieved frames** (MjTC), measured with monocular depth: https://memorizon-rebuttal.pages.dev/e7/. 24-49% of the in-frustum content of retrieved frames is occluded, versus 38-65% for random frames that pass the same frustum test.
7. **Independent training seeds and bank noise** [PENDING: G2, G1]: runs finished training, results to be posted in a follow-up comment.

**Changes to the paper**
- Camera following moves into Sec. 4.2; the cross-system ranking is called indicative, and within-backbone ablations are the primary evidence for memory.
- The 400 s explanation in Sec. 4.3 is now a hypothesis; 200 s is best in our tested setup.
- The abstract reads "bounded by k x K"; novelty claims in Sec. 1 are narrowed to the union-bank mechanism.

Individual replies follow.