Papers
Topics
Authors
Recent
Detailed Answer
Quick Answer
Concise responses based on abstracts only
Detailed Answer
Well-researched responses based on abstracts and relevant paper content.
Custom Instructions Pro
Preferences or requirements that you'd like Emergent Mind to consider when generating responses
Gemini 2.5 Flash
Gemini 2.5 Flash 62 tok/s
Gemini 2.5 Pro 48 tok/s Pro
GPT-5 Medium 14 tok/s Pro
GPT-5 High 13 tok/s Pro
GPT-4o 93 tok/s Pro
Kimi K2 213 tok/s Pro
GPT OSS 120B 458 tok/s Pro
Claude Sonnet 4 38 tok/s Pro
2000 character limit reached

Design and Analysis of the NIPS 2016 Review Process (1708.09794v2)

Published 31 Aug 2017 in cs.DL, cs.LG, cs.SI, and stat.ML

Abstract: Neural Information Processing Systems (NIPS) is a top-tier annual conference in machine learning. The 2016 edition of the conference comprised more than 2,400 paper submissions, 3,000 reviewers, and 8,000 attendees. This represents a growth of nearly 40% in terms of submissions, 96% in terms of reviewers, and over 100% in terms of attendees as compared to the previous year. The massive scale as well as rapid growth of the conference calls for a thorough quality assessment of the peer-review process and novel means of improvement. In this paper, we analyze several aspects of the data collected during the review process, including an experiment investigating the efficacy of collecting ordinal rankings from reviewers. Our goal is to check the soundness of the review process, and provide insights that may be useful in the design of the review process of subsequent conferences.

Citations (96)

Summary

We haven't generated a summary for this paper yet.

List To Do Tasks Checklist Streamline Icon: https://streamlinehq.com

Collections

Sign up for free to add this paper to one or more collections.

Lightbulb On Streamline Icon: https://streamlinehq.com

Continue Learning

We haven't generated follow-up questions for this paper yet.