NeurIPS 2026 review results spark a thread on noisy scores and rebuttals
Afraid_Difference697 · reddit · 2026-07-22
A NeurIPS review-results discussion thread where authors and attendees compare notes on reviews, rebuttals, and backup conference plans.
The thread highlights a recurring point from NeurIPS consistency experiments: review outcomes are noisy, and many papers accepted in one committee would be rejected by another. The practical advice is to focus rebuttal effort on the reviews that point out real issues, not the ones that merely score poorly or skimmed the work.
Useful discussion prompts in the thread include:
- Review comments that uncovered missing experiments or baselines
- What to contest versus concede in a rebuttal
- Patterns in this cycle such as reproducibility requests, compute comparisons, and ablation depth
- Alternatives if the paper does not land at NeurIPS, such as ICLR, AISTATS, or workshops
More from Research
- AI slop is already clogging PR review and weakening the credit system behind science — rbhar90 · 2026-07-27
- ICML 2026 oral paper replication scores stay middling after a stricter re-scoring — profjamesevans · 2026-07-27
- Long-running agents will need immutable event logs, this thread argues — sebpaquet · 2026-07-27
- Seed IQ navigates Doom II, prompting questions about benchmarks beyond ARC-AGI — Fit_Transition8824 · 2026-07-27
- Agentic Data Science in Practice: Agents Write Code but Answer Wrong Questions — hugobowne · 2026-07-27
- A concise canon of foundational papers in ML, systems, NLP, speech, and audio — deliprao · 2026-07-27