NeurIPS 2026: If the rebuttal addresses your concern, please raise your score [D]
Mirrored from r/MachineLearning for archival readability. Support the source by reading on the original site.
Potentially a hot take? I am not sure why our community is plagued with reviewers who, after acknowledging that their concerns were addressed by a rebuttal, decide to maintain their score because they don't vibe with the paper. So here is my plea to all reviewers: If you list a set of concerns in your review and these concerns are addressed during the rebuttal, please adjust your score accordingly. This should apply whether or not you like the paper and/or its methodology. The beauty of scientific research is that we each get to explore ideas that we find meaningful whose value may not be immediately obvious to every individual reviewer.
[link] [comments]
More from r/MachineLearning
-
A collision-entropy floor for watermark/retrieval AI-text detection. Looking for a sanity check before I take this further [D]
Aug 14
-
Are supervised and unsupervised learning still relevant today? [D]
Aug 14
-
TMLR Relevance and Prestige [D]
Aug 13
-
Reproducible canvas-aligned low-level patterns in somerandomllm-generated images and their possible relation to iterative editing artifacts [D]
Aug 13
Discussion (0)
Sign in to join the discussion. Free account, 30 seconds — email code or GitHub.
Sign in →No comments yet. Sign in and be the first to say something.