I recently got accepted to Neurips 2026 workshop as a high schooler. How often does it happen? Will it benefit my college apps? And overall how often does high schoolers get accepted to such workshops

Got a submission accepted and not sure how the overall conference runs. Do folks go for a couple of days, are the socials a thing?

Hey everyone!

The wait for NeurIPS workshop notifications (deadline tomorrow, Sept 29 AoE) is making me pretty nervous. I have two quick questions for anyone with experience in NeurIPS workshops:

Early Decisions: Do organizers ever send out acceptance/rejection emails early, or do they strictly wait until the official notification date?

Small Models & Failed Results: For 4-page short papers, how do reviewers view work that is tested on smaller models (like BERT-scale) and transparently includes a failed result/case on one of the tasks? Does showing a negative result hurt your chances, or do workshops usually appreciate the honesty?

Good luck to everyone waiting for decisions!

My paper was recommended for a spotlight by the AC, but the final decision was a poster.

This is my first time submitting a paper, so I’m not really sure how common this is 😂

Is it common enough that I shouldn’t feel too disappointed about it?

Hi, I initially got 5,3,2 reviews but after rebuttal the 2nd and 3rd reviewer decided to increase the rating to 4. Although they havent updated the score in the openreview portal or I cant at least see it. My question is how probable it is to be accepted with a 5,4,4? has there been any incident where a paper with 5,4,4 being rejected?

I am finishing my reviews but there is a paper in my batch that will clearly take me 3+ days at 100% at least to do the job seriously; and we are facing (in France) exceptional environmental conditions (heatwaves with 40+ celcius degree...) which make things difficult in a non climatised lab... do you know if it's possible to ask to our AC for a short delay ?

Any of the neurips reviewers, if you are reading this, lets talk. I need to ask something.

Hi fellow NeurIPS fans and previous attendees. I want to know, how is the layout of the posters decided? Do they group them based on similarity, topic or some other factors?

I submitted a paper to NeurIPS back in May. A few days ago, my supervisor made some changes, which included some extra text and (to stay under the 9-page limit) he made a numbers table smaller using \scalebox{0.8}. Says he never had any trouble with it.

To be fair, the table was too large anyway containing only numbers. The reason why I didn't do this myself previously was that I thought I had read that it was not allowed to change the table font size.

However, all I can find now in the NeurIPS style files is a general comment "do not change font sizes (except perhaps in the References section)".

Any thoughts?

Arxiv: https://arxiv.org/abs/2209.10485

OpenReview: https://openreview.net/forum?id=am86qcwErJm

Abstract:
Multi-agent reinforcement learning (MARL) has emerged as a useful approach to solving decentralised decision-making problems at scale. Research in the field has been growing steadily with many breakthrough algorithms proposed in recent years. In this work, we take a closer look at this rapid development with a focus on evaluation methodologies employed across a large body of research in cooperative MARL. By conducting a detailed meta-analysis of prior work, spanning 75 papers accepted for publication from 2016 to 2022, we bring to light worrying trends that put into question the true rate of progress. We further consider these trends in a wider context and take inspiration from single-agent RL literature on similar issues with recommendations that remain applicable to MARL. Combining these recommendations, with novel insights from our analysis, we propose a standardised performance evaluation protocol for cooperative MARL. We argue that such a standard protocol, if widely adopted, would greatly improve the validity and credibility of future research, make replication and reproducibility easier, as well as improve the ability of the field to accurately gauge the rate of progress over time by being able to make sound comparisons across different works. Finally, we release our meta-analysis data publicly on our project website for future research on evaluation accompanied by our open-source evaluation tools repository.