A recent email from the CVPR 2026 PC mandates in-person presentations for papers, yet also allows for virtual participation during author registration, causing significant confusion among authors. They are concerned about managing this requirement, especially with long USA visa queues, and are seeking clarification on whether virtual attendance is truly an option.
![Mandatory In-Person Presentation in CVPR 2026 [D]](/cdn-cgi/image/width=3840,quality=75,format=webp/https://preview.redd.it/z5stwi8b9zug1.png?width=140&height=16&auto=webp&s=b6f43a18f31d7ae1eef9cc885f3fb97719c1015a)
The content describes a perceived misalignment in the ICML review process, where reviewers feel pressured to homogenize scores to avoid prolonged discussions, potentially leading to positive papers being rejected. It highlights reviewers being reluctant to update scores even after concerns are addressed, creating distorted dynamics.
A KDD 2026 submitter noticed that their paper's reviews and discussions have disappeared from their author view, while discussions for other papers are still visible in their reviewer view. They are inquiring if other users are experiencing the same technical glitch with the review platform.
The content questions the effectiveness of the NeurIPS 2026 "AC-Pilot" system, which aims to focus reviewers on listed concerns. It raises doubts about whether reviewers will disregard unlisted issues or still prioritize raw scores over sufficiently addressed concerns, despite guidelines.
An ICML paper author is concerned because a reviewer increased their score after rebuttal but then reduced it back to the original score. The decrease in the paper's average score makes them fear an early rejection.
The author criticizes the decision to extend the deadline for reviewers' final justifications at ICML 2026 without extending for authors to contact ACs, deeming it a significant mistake. A reviewer raised new, critical issues in their final justification, not previously mentioned, which could jeopardize a paper with otherwise strong reviews.
A query asks if the ICML 2026 position paper track is following similar scoring and discussion trends as the main track, seeking insights from ACs or reviewers.
The post asks for predictions on the average score threshold required for paper acceptance at ICML 2026, with author notifications set for April 30th. It's a query about the acceptance benchmark for an AI conference.
A user asks the community about previous experiences submitting to the CHI PLAY conference, inquiring about the helpfulness of the reviewers and the quality of the feedback.