What is the AC guidance for ICML? (Or: ICML qq thread) [D]

Reddit r/MachineLearning / 4/14/2026

💬 OpinionSignals & Early TrendsIdeas & Deep Analysis

共有:

Key Points

A Reddit thread discusses whether ICML area chairs (ACs) are under increased pressure to require final justification updates and help reviewers converge on a consensus.
A user reports that for papers they reviewed, ACs repeatedly prompted reviewers to complete final justifications, resulting in mostly filled-out justifications across multiple submissions.
The same user contrasts this with their own paper experience, noting reviewer inactivity (e.g., not posting final justifications), and questioning whether the AC is actively pushing the discussion forward.
The discussion centers on reviewer-author discussion period dynamics, AC engagement, and what practical guidance or expectations ACs may have during ICML decision workflows.

I heard there is more pressure on the ACs to get final justifications and encourage reviewers to converge to a consensus. Is that true?

Full disclosure, I am asking because I am bummed at how quiet the activity on my paper has been. I reviewed 6 papers, where 1 withdrew toward the end of the reviewer-author discussion period. Of the remaining 5, many have an average of 3 or lower, but still ACs have responded on every paper but one (with 2,3,3). They pushed the reviewers to do a final justification, so almost every single final justification is filled out, just one is missing on one of the papers.

Meanwhile, I have a 3344....which probably won't get in, but shows some disagreement at least....and there is no movement on my reviewers for writing their final justification. 2 reviewers (3, 4) haven't posted a final justification at all. I wonder if my AC is not bothering to push for discussion.

submitted by /u/WhiteBear2018
[link] [comments]