1 min readfrom Machine Learning

NeurIPS 2026 AC-Pilot, how much would you trust this? [D]

Our take

The AC-Pilot for NeurIPS 2026 introduces an innovative approach to streamline the review process, allowing authors to focus on addressing specific concerns. However, it raises questions about trust in the system. If a reviewer's concerns are not included in the compiled list, they may hesitate to adjust their score, even if all listed issues are thoroughly addressed.

I wonder how this AC-Pilot thing works for NeurIPS 2026.

The guidelines say that "What you are communicating is that the authors do not need to worry about concerns you have not listed, and that there is a real opportunity for acceptance if listed concerns are sufficiently addressed."

However if a reviewer sees that their questions are not on that list compiled by the AC, even if all the listed questions are properly addressed that particular reviewer will be less inclined to change the score, no?

Also despite that they kept emphasizing it's whether the concerns were sufficiently addressed that matters instead of the raw scores, we all know the raw scores matter, so eventually one still must answer all questions?

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

Read on the original site

Open the publisher's page for the full experience

View original article

Tagged with

#natural language processing for spreadsheets#generative AI for data analysis#Excel alternatives for data analysis#rows.com#real-time data collaboration#real-time collaboration#NeurIPS#AC-Pilot#reviewer#concerns#guidelines#scoring#questions#acceptance#addressed#peer review#raw scores#opportunity#feedback#submitted