Large conferences such as NeurIPS and AAAI serve as crossroads of various AI fields, since they attract submissions from a vast number of communities. However, in some cases, this has resulted in a poor reviewing experience for some communities, whose submissions get assigned to less qualified reviewers outside of their communities. An often-advocated solution is to break up any such large conference into smaller conferences, but this can lead to isolation of communities and harm interdisciplinary research.

As a result, these and other large conferences must rely on automated systems to decide what members of the impaneled reviewer pool will review each paper.

R2: "Section 4.2 needs more clarity. It's not clear if the Fog noise model is a good model for fog corruption..."

Full (exact) conformal set vs. split or cross-validated conformal set Non-connectedness of the conformal prediction set. This was initially suggested in [18, Remark 1]. We follow the actual practice in the literature [14, Remark 5]. We did not observe violations. We will also summarize the proposed algorithm in a direct pseudo-code.

We thank the reviewers for their feedback. We will first respond to shared and then to individual comments. Additionally, reviewers 2 and 3 requested clarification regarding the advantages of DCA over other methods. For instance, one could attempt to correlate each neuron's contribution to the DCA subspace with single-neuron Studying the behavior of Kernel DCA is a direction for future studies. Additionally, we found and corrected a minor bug in Figure 1A: the SFA and DCA lines are now blue and red, respectively.