peer-review
You can move an AI reviewer's score without changing a single result News
A new study rewrote research papers to change only their rhetoric while preserving every scientific claim, and found AI reviewers shifted their overall scores by up to nine tenths of a point, with the effect strongest near the accept-reject boundary.
NeurIPS papers average six objective mistakes each, up from four News
A study of 2,500 machine learning papers using an automated checker found that the average number of objective mistakes in a NeurIPS paper rose from 3.8 in 2021 to 5.9 in 2025, a 55 percent increase over four years.
NeurIPS rebuttal week ended with authors, reviewers and chairs all reporting the same silence News
The NeurIPS 2026 author discussion window closed on 3 August with multiple independent reports of reviewers and area chairs never responding to rebuttals, in a cycle the conference redesigned specifically to make that discussion consequential.
NeurIPS is running a randomized experiment on AI-assisted review News
NeurIPS 2026 is randomly assigning volunteer reviewers to no, open-ended, or structured LLM assistance inside OpenReview, while banning unsanctioned model use elsewhere, as its community trades accusations about AI-written reviews and rebuttals.
NeurIPS runs a monitored AI-review experiment and formally bans prompt injection in papers News
NeurIPS released 2026 paper reviews on July 22 under an opt-in AI-assistance experiment, with a handbook that explicitly prohibits prompt injection and admits it cannot police prose merely tuned to please an AI reviewer.
ICML caught AI-written peer reviews by hiding secret phrases in submitted papers News
ICML 2026 embedded invisible instructions in submitted PDFs that trick a review-writing LLM into inserting rare marker phrases, flagging about 1% of reviews as machine-generated and desk-rejecting 497 papers whose authors broke a no-LLM pledge.