Tracking #: 922-1942 Flag : Review Camera-ready Authors: Chloé MercierThierry Vieville Responsible editor: Alessandro Oltramari Submission Type: Regular PaperFull PDF Version: nai-paper-922.pdfSupplementary Files: nai-supplementary-922.pdfCover Letter: RESUBMIT of #838-1839 Dear Editors-in-chief, Thank you very much for reconsidering this draft. We fully understand the need for a major revision and have detailed how we address these reviewer comments. Best regards.Approve Decision: ApprovedPrevious Version: Algorithmic ersatz for VSA: Macroscopic simulation of Vector Symbolic ArchitectureTags: Reviewed Decision:Accept Solicited Reviews:Review #1 submitted on 17/Mar/2026 By Alessandro OltramariReview DetailsReviewer has chosen not to be AnonymousOverall Impression: AverageContent:Technical Quality of the paper: AverageOriginality of the paper: YesAdequacy of the bibliography: YesPresentation:Adequacy of the abstract: YesIntroduction: background and motivation: GoodOrganization of the paper: SatisfactoryLevel of English: SatisfactoryOverall presentation: AverageDetailed Comments: The authors have addressed my requests for minor revisions satisfactorily, and I have no further comments. Review #2 submitted on 15/Mar/2026 By Anonymous UserReview DetailsReviewer has chosen to be AnonymousOverall Impression: GoodContent:Technical Quality of the paper: AverageOriginality of the paper: YesAdequacy of the bibliography: YesPresentation:Adequacy of the abstract: YesIntroduction: background and motivation: GoodOrganization of the paper: SatisfactoryLevel of English: SatisfactoryOverall presentation: GoodDetailed Comments: I have checked that the authors addressed the feedback (supplemental and resubmisson) from the previous review and have completed a fair amount of additional work. The final paper includes an adequate amount of theoretical analysis and experimental results to support the arguments. Therefore, I recommend acceptance. Review #3 submitted on 06/Mar/2026 By Kaushik RoyReview DetailsReviewer has chosen not to be AnonymousOverall Impression: GoodContent:Technical Quality of the paper: GoodOriginality of the paper: YesAdequacy of the bibliography: YesPresentation:Adequacy of the abstract: YesIntroduction: background and motivation: GoodOrganization of the paper: SatisfactoryLevel of English: SatisfactoryOverall presentation: GoodDetailed Comments: The paper has addressed my comments on it.
