Neurips
Neurips on Beyond Market Intelligence: a running collection of 41 stories we have gathered and hand-picked because they are worth your time. Every post here touches on neurips 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 neurips, 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.
No rebuttals from neurips authors [D]
Many NeurIPS authors are experiencing frustration with a lack of reviewer responses, a sentiment echoed in recent discussions. It appears the absence of author rebuttals is surprisingly common; a significant number of submissions, including borderline papers with positive Area Chair feedback, haven't received them. This leaves authors understandably perplexed. While challenging, this situation highlights a broader issue within the peer review process. For deeper insights into related concerns, explore our article, "neurips 2026: ACs and reviewers have disappeared."
It's time to desk reject papers that don't include code that can reproduce the results [D]
A concerning trend is emerging from recent conference review seasons: a significant lack of reproducible code accompanying submitted papers. Across 12 reviews this year, only one provided complete, runnable code, while seven offered none at all. This severely impacts quality assurance and reproducibility, with even partial code often containing critical bugs. Incentives currently favor code concealment, but a shift towards penalties for non-disclosure is needed to ensure rigorous scientific standards.
Bad but typical NeurIPS experience? [D]
The NeurIPS review process, as highlighted by one researcher's experience, can be a frustrating lottery. Despite conscientious reviewing and generous scoring, unexpectedly harsh reviews and unresponsive area chairs created a deeply discouraging experience. Adversarial reviewer feedback, coupled with a late-stage AC response, underscored the system’s inherent unpredictability and potential toxicity. This highlights a broader issue within the AI research community, prompting discussions around reviewer accountability—as explored in articles like "NeurIPS 2026: If the rebuttal addresses your concern, please raise your score."
NeurIPS 2026: If the rebuttal addresses your concern, please raise your score [D]
A persistent challenge within the NeurIPS community involves reviewer scoring discrepancies: concerns adequately addressed in rebuttals are not always reflected in adjusted scores. We urge reviewers to align scores with the resolution of stated concerns, regardless of personal methodological preferences. Scientific exploration thrives on diverse perspectives, and valuing rigorous responses strengthens the peer-review process. As explored in "Coding Agents Don’t Need Bigger Context Windows — They Need a Context Compiler," a focus on efficient context management is key to progress.
Question about NeurIPS discussion phase [D]
Navigating the NeurIPS discussion phase can be unpredictable. A common question arises: how often do reviewers update scores after indicating concerns are resolved? Experience suggests it’s less frequent than one might hope, particularly when initial engagement is limited. You're not alone in observing this—others have noted similar patterns. Our community has explored this dynamic further in "Conference Reviews: Asking Too Much?" As your case demonstrates, persistence can yield results, ultimately leading to score adjustments.
Neurips 2026: does every metareview recommend accept/reject? [D]
Navigating NeurIPS decisions can be perplexing. A recent discussion reveals a surprising trend: some metareviews already include an accept/reject recommendation—often a rejection. Your team’s experience, with a metareview expressing cautious optimism despite reviewer disengagement, highlights this complexity. While a strong rebuttal is crucial, the lack of engagement raises questions about future prospects. As explored in "No rebuttals from NeurIPS authors," reviewer responsiveness remains a significant challenge. Consider carefully whether continued hope aligns with the current situation.
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."
Editing Neurips Rebuttal [D]
Regarding NeurIPS rebuttal edits, a clarification is emerging. The post-rebuttal button will transition to an “official comment” status on July 27th AoE. While we anticipate you'll retain the ability to edit your rebuttal after this change, we advise monitoring closely. For a deeper understanding of the NeurIPS meta-reviewer response process, explore our article, "How exactly does the NeurIPS meta reviewer response work?". Stay informed as these crucial deadlines approach.
Neurips Position Track Rebuttal and Reviews [R]
Navigating the NeurIPS Position Track rebuttal process can feel unclear, especially for first-time conference paper submitters. Receiving a 3/3/5/7 alongside reviews with actionable feedback suggests a promising opportunity for revision. The rebuttal phase allows you to directly address reviewer concerns; the Area Chair (AC) will evaluate these rebuttals alongside the original reviews to determine if your revisions adequately address the feedback. Consider referencing "Link plots/figures in NeurIPS rebuttal [R]" for practical guidance on presenting supplementary data effectively.
How exactly does the NeurIPS meta reviewer response work? [D]
Navigating NeurIPS meta-reviewer responses can be complex, especially with recent updates. Initially, authors were directed to AC confidential comments, but a recent announcement now requires posting answers to initial meta-reviews as comments on the July 28th thread by August 3rd – a shift designed for reviewer visibility. Clarifying whether this new option opens immediately, as the rebuttal period concludes, is crucial. Essentially, the process seems to demand public posting for reviewer access, rather than private AC updates.
NeurIPS 2026 AI-generated reviews [D]
The NeurIPS 2026 paper on AI-generated reviews has sparked considerable debate, particularly regarding the ethics of leveraging LLMs in the peer-review process. Author /u/bricklerex raises a critical point: beyond the study itself, what action is being taken to address potentially problematic AI-assisted reviews? While outright plagiarism is unlikely, concerns exist about superficial engagement with submitted work and the potential for meta-reviewers also utilizing LLMs. For a deeper understanding of the NeurIPS meta-reviewer system, explore "How exactly does the NeurIPS meta reviewer response work?"
Paper lengths, and reasonable assumptions in ML conferences. [D]
Observations regarding paper lengths and reviewer feedback at top ML conferences reveal a concerning trend. While conferences maintain consistent paper lengths – often supplemented by extensive appendices to mitigate reviewer fatigue – theoretical work appears unfairly penalized. Increasingly, rejections cite issues like perceived difficulty or unexplained terminology, rather than addressing the core impact of the research. This echoes experiences where inherent complexity is mistaken for a flaw. As highlighted in "NeurIPS 2026 AI-generated reviews," understanding these dynamics requires careful consideration.
Link plots/figures in NeurIPS rebuttal [R]
Reviewers at NeurIPS requested additional experiments best visualized through plots and figures, a format often more digestible than tabular data. While OpenReview’s technical guidelines restrict external links, experienced submitters sometimes leverage this for clarity. Proceeding cautiously is advised; a minor infraction is more likely than outright rejection, though outcomes vary. Consider the DONUT text extraction model, as discussed in a related article, for inspiration on effectively presenting complex data. Ultimately, advocate for OpenReview’s adoption of modern markdown to support figure embeds directly.
Happy openreview refresh day to all those who celebrate [D]
Happy refresh day to the [D] community—may the odds be ever in your favor! As a NeurIPS Area Chair, this year's incentive structure appears to be yielding positive results, significantly reducing the need for reviewer follow-up. This marks a notable improvement over the past five years of Area Chair experience. Let's hope for active participation in discussions as well. For further context on the broader AI landscape and the challenges it presents, explore our interview with the Substack CEO on "The AI Slop Problem."
NeurIPS 2026 reviews exact timing[D]
The anticipation surrounding NeurIPS 2026 review release dates is understandably high. Many researchers find themselves frequently checking OpenReview, as highlighted by /u/Anshuman3480. While exact timing remains unconfirmed, historical patterns suggest a phased release, typically beginning mid-November. We understand the stress of waiting; staying informed is key. For those tracking submission numbers more broadly, our recent article on "Number of Submissions @ AAAI" offers related insights into the conference timeline. We’ll update this space as official announcements become available.
NeurIPS reviews coming in soon! [D]
NeurIPS reviews are anticipated to appear around July 22nd at 5:30 PM AoE, based on observations across social platforms. For those who submitted to NeurIPS 2026 – whether to workshops or the main/other tracks – we'd welcome your perspectives on the upcoming reviews. This period marks a critical juncture for researchers. Explore insights into model performance; for example, our recent article on "Schema," a harness achieving 99% on ARC-3, offers a relevant case study in pushing boundaries. Share your thoughts and prepare for the assessments!