[r/ML] [D] Many times I feel additional experiments during the rebuttal make my paper worse

Summary

The author observes a concerning trend in AI/ML conference peer review, where reviewers now feel obligated to find flaws, even in strong papers, to demonstrate diligence. This shift, intended to improve review quality, has eliminated "easy" reviews and often leads to authors conducting additional, sometimes detrimental, experiments during the rebuttal phase. Consequently, the pressure to find faults can paradoxically worsen the quality of submitted papers.

Continue Reading

Explore related coverage about community news and adjacent AI developments: [r/ML] [D] MYTHOS-INVERSION STRUCTURAL AUDIT, [r/LocalLLaMA] karpathy / autoresearch, [r/ML] [R] Agentic AI and Occupational Displacement: A Multi-Regional Task Exposure Analysis (236 occupations, 5 US metros), [r/ML] Building behavioural response models of public figures using Brain scan data (Predict their next move using psychological modelling) [P].

Related Articles

• [r/ML] [D] MYTHOS-INVERSION STRUCTURAL AUDIT

  March 29, 2026

• [r/LocalLLaMA] karpathy / autoresearch

  March 10, 2026

• [r/ML] [R] Agentic AI and Occupational Displacement: A Multi-Regional Task Exposure Analysis (236 occupations, 5 US metros)

  April 7, 2026

• [r/ML] Building behavioural response models of public figures using Brain scan data (Predict their next move using psychological modelling) [P]

  April 5, 2026