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
- VidMap uses RoMa coarse matching on all frames, fine-scale only for keyframes — ducha_aiki · 2026-09-11
- Bug Hunt Bench author: leaderboard noise is about 2-3 points — PawelHuryn · 2026-09-11
- PNAS paper shows a tiny billiard-ball system is a universal computer — undecidability lives in two dimensions — eigensteve · 2026-09-11
- New paper: Absolute pose estimation from affine cues and gravity direction — ducha_aiki · 2026-09-11
- LoMa Paper Ships REALLY HardPairs Dataset, Accepted at ECCV 2026 — ducha_aiki · 2026-09-11
- Johns Hopkins Launches Full-Stack Hands-on Robot Learning Class with SO-101 Arm Kits — _krishna_murthy · 2026-09-11