NeurIPS 2025 Decision Storm: When Full Scores Still Mean Rejection
-
Official Announcement and Statistics
On September 19, 2025, the NeurIPS community collectively held its breath as decisions were released. This year, 21,575 valid submissions were received for the Main Track, of which 5,290 papers were accepted — an overall acceptance rate of 24.52%.
The breakdown of accepted papers is as follows:- Posters: 4,525
- Spotlights: 688
- Orals: 77
Authors of accepted papers are required to present in person at one of two locations — San Diego or Mexico City — while Copenhagen offers an optional satellite poster session (EurIPS). The deadline for camera-ready submissions is October 23, 2025 (AoE).
Yet behind the neat statistics lies a storm: despite strong reviewer support and unanimous positive scores, many papers were rejected due to venue capacity constraints. As one official standard phrased it, only work of “foundational and groundbreaking significance” would make it through.
The Controversy: "Full Scores, Still Rejected"
The community has exploded with frustration, especially around the phenomenon now dubbed “physical rejections” — papers with all positive (even maximal) reviewer scores being declined.
According to leaks and social chatter, Senior Area Chairs (SACs) were instructed to reject already-approved papers simply to keep acceptance numbers within bounds. The consequence: strong, solid contributions — often with unanimous reviewer endorsement — were discarded at the final stage.
This has left both authors and reviewers disillusioned. Reviewers who poured effort into fair evaluations saw their recommendations overturned, while authors with glowing reviews were pushed back into the exhausting cycle of “review → revise → resubmit → re-review”.
Heated Reactions Across Platforms
Across Chinese WeChat groups, Zhihu, Reddit, and Twitter/X, reactions spanned despair, anger, and irony:
- Doctoral students reported “7 submissions, 7 rejections,” comparing NeurIPS to a lottery.
- Review anomalies surfaced: authors described Area Chair comments that were factually wrong (e.g., citing “table errors” in papers without tables, or referring to “8 environments” when only 4 were present).
- Inconsistent outcomes: Some papers with average scores of 5/5/5/4 were rejected, while others with weaker profiles sneaked in.
- Cynical humor emerged: “Real skill isn’t doing research — it’s writing in a way that doesn’t make reviewers think too hard, because if they think, they might misunderstand.”
One Chinese blogger summarized:
“Directly rejecting even all-5-score papers just to control the rate is exaggerated. NeurIPS tried the dual-city venue model, but it still didn’t solve the bottleneck.”
Decision Patterns: Scores vs. Outcomes
The 2025 decisions were marked by inconsistency: papers with identical scores often faced opposite fates. Below is a consolidated view of reported cases across platforms (Zhihu, Reddit, Twitter/X, etc.) — capturing the full spectrum of anecdotes.
Score Pattern Outcome Remarks / Reported Issues 5/5/5/4 Rejected AC introduced factually incorrect criticisms (“8 environments” when only 4 existed; claimed “table errors” though no tables). 5/4/4/4 Rejected Meta-review contradicted reviewers; cited errors not present in the paper. 5/5/5/2 Rejected AC dismissed reviewer support; authors suspected quota cuts. 5/5/4/3 Rejected Despite strong confidence (mostly 5s), AC added new issues post-rebuttal. 5/5/4/4, 5 reviewers Accepted (poster) Mixed reviews; one reviewer didn’t update scores, others raised post-rebuttal. 5/5/5/5 (all positive) Some rejected Cases of full scores declined due to “venue capacity”; sparked the “physical rejection” debate. 5/5/4/2 Rejected Minor points from reviewers reframed as “major flaws” by AC. 5/5/4/4/3 Accepted (poster) AC acknowledged rebuttal but outcome still borderline. 5552 Rejected Multiple reports of this score pattern rejected in both main track and DB track. 5554 Mixed: some posters, some rejections A few spotlight upgrades; others inexplicably rejected. 5544 Mixed: some spotlights, others rejected Widely cited as inconsistent; many authors baffled. 5543 Both accepted and rejected Example: some became posters, others turned down despite positive rebuttals. 5443 Both accepted and rejected Borderline batch heavily dependent on AC stance. 5442 Rejected Even when concerns resolved in rebuttal. 4444 Accepted Many reported “all 4s” surprisingly accepted. 4443 Mixed outcomes Some accepted, others rejected. 4433 Mostly rejected Borderline scores penalized. 4333 Accepted (poster) One report of borderline acceptance. 5533 Mostly rejected Authors called it the “graveyard zone.” 5433 Mostly rejected Similar pattern, AC-driven. 3335 Accepted Outlier case; noted on Reddit. 4544 → 5554 Accepted (spotlight) Rebuttal boosted scores. 2345 → 3455 Accepted (poster) Successful rebuttal turnaround. 2345 → 5557 (2024 precedent) Accepted Used as hopeful comparison by authors. 34455 → 44455 Accepted (poster) Multi-reviewer score boost after rebuttal. 5333 → 5533 Accepted (poster) ID ~26k; noted as “lottery win.” 4332 → 4444 Accepted (poster) One of the rare low-starting-score rescues. 55443 → 55444 Accepted (spotlight) Multi-modal identifiability paper. 5542 Rejected Despite AC promising “accept if revised,” outcome was negative. 5555 Accepted (spotlight) Some cases confirmed. 5556 Accepted (oral) Examples with IDs around 9k. 5655 Accepted (oral) Example from Reddit. 45555 Accepted (poster) Case shared from ID ~25k. 444 Accepted (poster) Noted as surprising acceptance despite simplicity. 6543 Rejected Reported confusion (“3 did not respond”). 6554 Accepted Example of strong paper getting through. Observation:
- High-score rejections (5/5/5/4, 5/5/5/2, 5544, 5552) were the most controversial.
- Mid-score bands (4444, 4443) had surprisingly better chances than some high-score papers.
- AC overrides and venue constraints trumped numerical averages.
As one Reddit AC admitted:
“Some rejections were not about flaws, but simply space constraints. It was a bloodbath.”
Perspectives and Proposals
The controversy has revived debates on how top-tier AI conferences should adapt to ballooning submissions:
- Adopting an ACL-style Findings track: Accept papers for archival recognition without guaranteeing a talk/poster slot. This balances fairness with logistical limits.
- Decoupling acceptance from physical venues: Many argue the artificial scarcity of poster space shouldn’t dictate what science gets recognized.
- Transparency in decision overrides: Authors want clearer documentation when SAC or PC overturns unanimous reviewer recommendations.
Others are already planning to redirect rejections to ICLR 2026 or CVPR. Some predict ICLR 2026 will see a submission boom as displaced NeurIPS/AAAI works seek a new home.
Tip: you can test your paper towards ICLR or CVPR via our AI review tool: https://cspaper.org/, where ICLR 2026 review agent has the knowledge about this "Perfect Storm" (We give our estimated submission to ICLR 2026 review agent)
Lessons and Reflections
Despite the frustration, senior researchers urge balance:
- Not all rejections imply low quality. Sometimes it’s the byproduct of constraints, not scientific merit.
- Writing clarity matters. Even obvious points must be explained plainly — reviewers may interpret differently otherwise.
- Luck plays a role. As one blogger put it: “Acceptance sometimes just needs a little bit of fortune. Don’t lose faith in your work.”
For those accepted, congratulations — prepare for San Diego or Mexico City. For those rejected, the community’s consensus is clear: recycle, refine, and resubmit. The research journey continues.
Final Word
NeurIPS remains the flagship of machine learning, but NeurIPS 2025 has exposed deep tensions: between quality and quantity, between science and spectacle, between fairness and prestige. Whether the community embraces reforms like Findings, or continues down the path of selective “physical rejection,” will shape not just future conferences but the very ecosystem of AI research.
For now, the 2025 decisions will be remembered as a year when “perfect scores weren’t enough.”
