ICLR Reviewer: DRL Papers Are Top-Tier, LLM Work 'Riddled with Experiment Confounds'
tw_killian · x · 2026-11-16
An ICLR reviewer's take, now circulating: the deep reinforcement learning (DRL) submissions they reviewed are top-tier, while LLM-focused papers are "riddled with experiment confounds." A firsthand snapshot of the quality gap between the two tracks, echoing the familiar complaint that LLM experiments are hard to control and evaluate cleanly.
More from Research
- Inside Asimov Press's 3-month experiment to build a scientific journal that outlives linkrot — zetalyrae · 2026-11-16
- Paper: markets may defuse zero-sum status contests in a post-scarcity society — paulnovosad · 2026-11-16
- Artificial Humanities lab's year in review: papers in 2026, books in 2027 — begusgasper · 2026-11-16
- ASI as a Black Box: we can deduce almost nothing about what superintelligence could do — zetalyrae · 2026-11-16
- wordgrammer: a good benchmark must be a task you don't care about — wordgrammer · 2026-11-16
- Turing Post Guides: 15+ Forcing Methods for Video Generation and 10 Looped Transformer Papers — TheTuringPost · 2026-11-16