Weird pattern in the ICLR papers I was assigned to review [D]
I was assigned 3 ICLR papers to review.
Proof1 community thread
Key points
- I generally consider myself a pretty nice reviewer but...all 3 of them are slop.
- The reason I am posting here is because I noticed a strange similarity between all three papers.
- So instead, they all propose to look at the difference between two errors or scores. In all three cases, when you look at the difference, some troublesome shared term cancels out, allowing you to derive a tighter bound on the difference.
- Also, not only do all 3 submissions share the same core idea, but they all introduce it in the same way, use the same Claude-sounding prose, and include tons of additional proofs and experiments in a pretty similar way.
Sources (1)
- [1]Weird pattern in the ICLR papers I was assigned to review [D]r/MachineLearning (top, daily) · Oct 14, 12:28 AM
I was assigned 3 ICLR papers to review.
I generally consider myself a pretty nice reviewer but...all 3 of them are slop.
Extractive summary: sentences quoted from the sources.
Before this
- Oct 13, 2026Claude CoWork for Local LLMs that runs on your Phone
- Oct 13, 2026How many of you have seen this honest ICLR submission? [D]
- Oct 13, 2026Noob tip: pull the exact ComfyUI workflow back out of your old images
- Oct 13, 2026Built a VRAM scheduler (vramble) to automate model swapping on my local AI workstation
- Oct 13, 2026How far are we from a local model being able to optimize it's own runtime stack?
- Oct 12, 2026Qwen3.8-27B vs Frontier vs Others