zy415 OP t1_jdhk9t8 wrote

Is it just ICML that reviewers tend to ghost? My experiences (as both reviewers and authors) with NeurIPS and ICLR are that reviewers tend to participate in discussion with authors


zy415 t1_j966hqu wrote

Comparing ICLR to AISTATS/UAI is like comparing apple to orange.

ICLR focuses on deep learning with more architecture stuffs, while AISTATS/UAI focuses more on statistical machine learning (e.g. kernel methods, Bayesian statistics, causal inference, optimization) with more theoretical results. I would argue that NeurIPS/ICML has a combination of both. NeurIPS seems to have more application papers in deep learning and architecture stuffs nowadays.

Thanks to the recent popularity in deep learning, ICLR quickly arises to the "Big 3" machine learning conference. This is just because deep learning has become a major part of machine learning nowadays.


zy415 t1_irh6dg3 wrote

Nowadays there are many niche conferences in different subareas of ML. However, I think it will take some time for those niche conferences to be "mainstream" in the specific subarea, because prestige matters (especially in job application) and those niche conferences are just not as prestigious as the top ML conferences, at least for now. See here for a discussion: https://www.reddit.com/r/MachineLearning/comments/vjqdom/d_niche_ml_venues_vs_top_ml_conferences/?utm_source=share&utm_medium=web2x&context=3