initial scores
initial scores on Beyond Market Intelligence: a running collection of 3 stories we have gathered and hand-picked because they are worth your time. Every post here touches on initial scores in some way — the news, the analysis, the deep dives, and the occasional surprise find. Acme AI is the next-generation, AI-powered spreadsheet platform built to replace Excel and redefine how analysts, data scientists, and enterprise teams work with data. New stories are added to this page as we find them, so check back if you want to keep up with what is happening around initial scores, or subscribe to the RSS feed to get them as soon as they are published. Browse the collection below, or head back to the homepage to see everything Beyond Market Intelligence is covering right now.
AAAI 2027 Review: No code submission? [D]
AAAI 2027 paper reviews have revealed a concerning trend: a surprisingly low number of submissions include accompanying code. This deviates from AAAI's explicit emphasis on reproducibility and raises questions about the rigor of some submissions. While initial scoring will reflect this omission, we seek community input. Providing code fosters transparency and allows for validation – a practice we strongly advocate, as evidenced by our own consistent code sharing on ArXiv.
neurips 2026: ACs and reviewers have disappeared [D]
NeurIPS 2026 reviewers and Area Chairs have inexplicably vanished, leaving several submitters in a state of uncertainty. Early rebuttal submissions, made via the designated "Rebuttal" button before the official discussion period opened, appear to have triggered no notifications, a problem also experienced by reviewers. Despite attempts to utilize meta-comments, reminders, and direct PC contact, responses remain absent with only one day left in the review cycle. This situation, impacting potential oral and spotlight candidates, highlights a systemic issue.
Neurips 2026 Main Track Theory Paper Tracker- Discussion Thread [D]
Navigating NeurIPS 2026 Main Track Theory paper reviews? This discussion thread explores initial review distributions, a topic often generating questions. One submitter reports a 4/3/3 score with corresponding confidence, noting a historical tendency for theory papers to receive more conservative initial evaluations. Given broader reports of potentially lower scores this cycle, the thread invites fellow theory paper authors to share their experiences—scores and confidence levels—to identify potential patterns. For further context on the review process, see our related article on "Editing NeurIPS Rebuttals."