NeurIPS Accept, but Confusing Final Justification, Is This Normal? [D]
Mirrored from r/MachineLearning for archival readability. Support the source by reading on the original site.
Just got an Accept at NeurIPS with initial scores of 5/5/4! The initial meta-review was pretty positive, but the final justification was entirely negative, raising concerns about AI use and suggesting further investigation and reconsideration of the recommendation.
For context, one reference was flagged because its author list had been copied over from an adjacent BibTeX entry.
Does anyone know if the final justification is written before or after the final decision? Just confused by the mismatch between the final justification and the actual decision.
[link] [comments]
More from r/MachineLearning
-
How can I turn an industry ML project into a publication? [R]
Sep 28
-
Are there any good research papers around Text clustering using LLMs [R]
Sep 28
-
Free, open-source AI engineering course where you build each algorithm by hand: 523 lessons, now as EPUB/PDF books [P]
Sep 28
-
Two-stage shelf audit: YOLO finds the products, embeddings can't tell sibling SKUS apart. What should Stage 2 be? [P]
Sep 27
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.