[AI/ML Researcher] Promise Rejection - Please Help With The Review

Applied on 16th Mar and got the rejection letter today. I’m on T4 student visa and applied within the UK.
I passed the OC4 but failed in MC and OC2.

Assessment panel feedback

The applicant has applied for the Exceptional Promise visa and selected Optional Criteria 2 and 4. There is insufficient evidence to demonstrate the applicant is recognised as leading and exceptional talent within the digital technology sector. Recognising the applicant is at an early stage of their career and a Research Intern at Meta there is currently insufficient evidence to demonstrate how the applicant has impacted or has the potential to impact / advance the technology sector. The references provided whilst supportive are from a narrow part of the industry i.e. fellow academics at the University of XXX. There is insufficient evidence to demonstrate extraordinary ability or expertise to be potential leading talent at the forefront of the sector. There is also insufficient evidence at this stage to demonstrate a sustained or potential to create a sustained national or international presence where the applicant is a sought after expert within the industry. Speaking examples provided directly relate to the applicants PHD, and whilst notable do not demonstrate impact on the technology sector at this stage. We would typically expect to see evidence of a stronger track record of media recognition, industry leading speaking engagements, public contributions to technology related activities and references from a wide network of industry recognised leaders. The applicant has not met the Mandatory Criteria.

OC2 - the applicant has not provided sufficient evidence to demonstrate work beyond the applicant’s occupation that contributes to the advancement of the field. The applicant has provided notable examples including GitHub and teaching at XXX however this is directly related to the applicants current field of work. There is insufficient evidence for the criteria to be met for OC2.

OC4 - the applicant has provided sufficient evidence to demonstrate exceptional ability in the field through academic contributions and research. The applicant has provided examples of published works on Google Scholar, conference papers and outside citations. The applicant has met OC4.

My background
I’m currently a third-year UK PhD student (2020-now). I have 8 months of experience in Meta AI working as a research scientist intern. I obtained my UK Bachelor’s degree with first-class honors in 2020.

Letter of Recommendations:
Two letters from my doctoral supervisor (both are Professors, and one supervisor is an IEEE Fellow), and one letter from another professor at my university who I work closely with.

Ten pieces of evidence
[1-2] Support letters from my previous research manager from Meta AI (MC, OC4)
[3] Employment evidence of Meta research scientist intern (MC)
[4] GitHub contributions with 250+ stars (OC2)
[5] Conference talk at 4 international AI/ML conferences (MC, OC2)
[6] Op-ed and news articles of my research work done during my PhD (MC, OC2)
[7] Reviewer experiences for top AI/ML journals and conferences, evidence of organizing one special session at one signal processing conference (MC, OC2, OC4)
[8] 20+ AI/ML conference publications, 200+ citations, (MC, OC4)
[9] Teaching evidence at my university (OC2)
[10] UK Bachelor’s degree with first-class honors & registration letter of PhD (OC4)

Questions

  1. For MC, the concern of the officer is my pieces of evidence are insufficient to show I have the potential to advance the tech sector, although I feel my pieces of evidence for MC are not weak. In addition, can I use my publications and reviewer experience to argue the assessment of MC? I have included these (evidence 7,8) but it seems they are not mentioned in the decision.

  2. For OC2, the main concern of the officer is every piece of my evidence (evidence 4,5,6,7,9) is directly related to my Ph.D. (current field of work). Any suggestions to argue for this point? In addition, can I use my reviewer of AI/ML journals/conferences as evidence for OC2 in the review?

Could I get some guidance to understand my current situation, what should I focus on for my review? Many thank for your help!!

1 Like

I believe you can do that. Point them to the reviews that that were not acknowledged.

Thanks a lot! Do you have any suggestions for the argumentation of OC2? I feel the main reason I failed in OC2 is these pieces of evidence are directly related to my PhD :frowning:

You need to demonstrate that the conference speaking are outside your employment. For the GitHub is there any opensource contribution?

Thanks! I’ll highlight the conference talk in the review. GitHub contributions are all open-sourced but related to my PhD research. Is the reviewing experience a strong evidence for OC2?

Yes it is. You contributed to research outside your work to advance the sector. You need to make it clear that you applied and were selected as a reviewer of a top journal.

Thank you so much! BTW can I say more in the appeal about the GitHub contributions (250+ stars, open-sourced but related to my current occupation)?

Of it is for OC2 then it doesn’t meet the criteria.

By reviewing articles, that showcase your ability to advance the field and also exhibits your leadership potential in evaluating/assessing the contributions or work of others.

1 Like

I received the rejection of my promise endorsement on April 26th and submitted my review on May 24th. I am delighted to share that on June 9th, I received my endorsement and subsequently obtained my visa decision for stage-2. Thanks a lot for the help from @Francisca_Chiedu and @aaliyu for my review!

3 Likes

Congratulations. Really please it worked out for you.

1 Like