April 16, 2026•1 min read•from Machine Learning

[ICML 2026] Scores increased and then decreased!! [D]

Our take

Navigating the review process for ICML 2026 can be challenging, especially when scores fluctuate unexpectedly. One reviewer initially raised your score from 4(3) to 5(3) after you addressed their concerns, only to later revert it back to 4. This change may have occurred during the area chair's discussion, prompting worries about potential rejection. With your average score now at 3.75, it's natural to question your chances. Engaging with the community for insights can provide clarity and support during this uncertain time.

hi,

one of my reviewers initially gave 4(3). addressed his concerns during the rebuttal. He acknowledged it and increased the score to 5(3) with final justification as well. checked open review randomly now, I can see he reduced it back to 4. am guessing he did this during the AC reviewer discussion? is this a sign of early rejection? My average was 4, which has now reduced to 3.75. do I still have any chance? Any comments would be appreciated.

submitted by /u/HelpfulSinger3762
[link] [comments]

Read on the original site

Open the publisher's page for the full experience

View original article →

Seems ICML is rejecting MANY unanimous positively rated papers [D]My 4444 (4443 pre-rebuttal) got rejected (as expected). Just copying a reply I wrote a couple of days ago before decisions were out: There seems to be a misalignment in the incentives of this year’s ICML reviews. The rebuttal phase is pushing hard to encourage reviewers to reconsider their scores, which has a good motivation. But in practice, it creates a distorted dynamic. ACs are seeking homogeneous ratings among reviewers. As a reviewer, I feel the pressure to increase my score to avoid prolonged back-and-forth discussions. I would assume there may be many reviewers who are not engaged but raise their scores just to end the discussion. At the same time, reviewers who are initially positive often seem reluctant to update their scores, even after their concerns are addressed. I came across a review that said: “Thank you for the rebuttal. The paper is valuable. The rebuttal addressed all my concerns.” (rephrased to avoid directly locating the paper) Yet the score remained at 4. It now makes me nervous (NOW I KNOW I WAS RIGHT!) since scores are inflated while the conference has a limited capacity. In a few days, we may see MANY uniformly positively rated papers rejected, just like last NeurIPS. I would prefer to roll back to how peer review originally was: reviewers provide honest and independent evaluations; AC assess their quality and consistency; and borderline cases are resolved through AC discussion. The current mechanism feels unnecessarily complex and makes the already bad situation worse. submitted by /u/AffectionateLife5693 [link] [comments]

Tagged with

#rows.com#financial modeling with spreadsheets#ICML#reviewers#rebuttal#score#early rejection#average#justification#AC reviewer#concerns#open review#Machine Learning#comments#reduced#increased#discussion#chance#submission#randomly checked

[ICML 2026] Scores increased and then decreased!! [D]

Related Articles

Tagged with