ICLR reviewer flags novelty overlap with arXiv paper that drew from the authors' own workshop work
BlancheMinerva · x · 2026-11-07
A researcher describes a peer-review dilemma: their team published work A at a workshop, later co-wrote paper B on arXiv that included A's content (because it originated from their team), then updated A and submitted to ICLR — where a reviewer accused them of claiming novelty for ideas already in B. The wrinkle: those ideas were in the workshop version too and landed in B precisely because of the authors' contribution. They're asking the community how to handle this rebuttal, highlighting flaws in arXiv-first novelty judgments.
Related event: ICLR Reviewers Question Novelty of Workshop-Published Paper(2 posts)→
More from Research
- Researcher: JEPA-titled models are usually bad in practice, V-JEPA 2.1 the only exception — serrjoa · 2026-11-07
- AI2 Releases ToyBlocks, an Open Simulated Tabletop for Robot Learning Experiments — allen_ai · 2026-11-07
- Why alpha shouldn't scale with rank: LoRA effective learning rate dynamics — thebasepoint · 2026-11-07
- LoRA ranks move in lockstep early in training; higher rank means higher effective LR — thebasepoint · 2026-11-07
- Subliminal learning happens at every LoRA rank and full fine-tuning, given right learning rate — thebasepoint · 2026-11-07
- Lean Software Verification conference at Stanford adds AI safety roundtable with Tegmark and de Moura — ChrSzegedy · 2026-11-07