aiqbench analysis
This audit reveals a critical imbalance in top ML venues like NeurIPS and ICML, where the 2025 position paper tracks are dominated by reformist critiques rather than direction-setting artifacts that advance the field's trajectory. The analysis suggests these conferences need explicit interventions to solicit concrete contributions—such as new benchmarks or measurement protocols—that provide tangible building blocks for future research alongside existing critical discourse.
An Investigation of the NeurIPS and ICML 2025 Position Tracks
arXiv:2608.16894v1 Announce Type: cross Abstract: ML venues shape what kinds of research claims become legible to reviewers and what forms of evidence count as rigorous. The NeurIPS and ICML Position Paper Tracks were created for agenda-setting work, making their early composition worth auditing. \textbf{This paper argues that the publicly accessible 2025 reviewed pool is dominated by reformist critique, and that the track should explicitly solicit direction-setting work alongside, not in place of, the reformist critiques it already hosts well.} We audit every accessible submission to the NeurIPS 2025 and ICML 2025 Position Tracks under a pre-specified rubric, and compare the resulting pattern with a reference class of widely recognized agenda-shifting ML papers. Three-quarters of audited submissions critique an existing benchmark, evaluation, or methodology; these papers score highly on our artifact-coupling rubric, but evidentiary depth does not predict reviewer rating. The reference class (AlexNet, the Transformer, Concrete Problems in AI Safety, and others) differs from the accessible reviewed pool in \emph{artifact kind}: agenda-shifting papers typically gave the field something new to build on, test against, or contest, such as a measurement protocol, benchmark proposal, toy implementation, dataset card, audit template, or falsifiable experimental program. We close with four CFP-level interventions aimed at broadening the submission mix without displacing the critiques the track already hosts well.
Abstract:ML venues shape what kinds of research claims become legible to reviewers and what forms of evidence count as rigorous. The NeurIPS and ICML Position Paper Tracks were created for agenda-setting work, making their early composition worth auditing. \textbf{This paper argues that the publicly accessible 2025 reviewed pool is dominated by reformist critique, and that the track should explicitly solicit direction-setting work alongside, not in place of, the reformist critiques it already hosts well.} We audit every accessible submission to the NeurIPS 2025 and ICML 2025 Position Tracks under a pre-specified rubric, and compare the resulting pattern with a reference class of widely recognized agenda-shifting ML papers. Three-quarters of audited submissions critique an existing benchmark, evaluation, or methodology; these papers score highly on our artifact-coupling rubric, but evidentiary depth does not predict reviewer rating. The reference class (AlexNet, the Transformer, Concrete Problems in AI Safety, and others) differs from the accessible reviewed pool in \emph{artifact kind}: agenda-shifting papers typically gave the field something new to build on, test against, or contest, such as a measurement protocol, benchmark proposal, toy implementation, dataset card, audit template, or falsifiable experimental program. We close with four CFP-level interventions aimed at broadening the submission mix without displacing the critiques the track already hosts well.
Computers and Society (cs.CY); Computation and Language (cs.CL)
arXiv:2608.16894 [cs.CY]
(or arXiv:2608.16894v1 [cs.CY] for this version)
https://doi.org/10.48550/arXiv.2608.16894 Focus to learn more arXiv-issued DOI via DataCite
arXivLabs is a framework that allows collaborators to develop and share new arXiv features directly on our website.
Both individuals and organizations that work with arXivLabs have embraced and accepted our values of openness, community, excellence, and user data privacy. arXiv is committed to these values and only works with partners that adhere to them.
Have an idea for a project that will add value for arXiv's community? Learn more about arXivLabs.
Full text under the publisher's open licence · 306 words
Related coverage
Links #3: 2026/06 Part 1
LessWrong · Jun 15, 2026
Position: The ML Community Must Build an AI-Augmented Peer-Review Ecosystem
arXiv · Jun 10, 2026

Digital States 2026: AI Moves From Experiment to Infrastructure
govtech.com · Sep 24, 2026

An overview of frontier AI company monitoring practices in mid 2026
LessWrong · Oct 7, 2026