Searcharxiv⌕ Search
Home/Archive/arXiv

arXiv · 2611.01076

Change the Funnel, Not Who May Submit: Engineering Peer Review for the Flood

Mikhail L. Arbuzov·Lee Mosbacker·Sisong Bei
View original source ↗Read source document ↗Export metadata ↓

Abstract

Every reviewer knows the feeling: more papers each cycle, three full reviews for each of them, and a suspicion that near the accept line the outcome is luck. The numbers bear it out. NeurIPS received 30,709 submissions in 2026, more than three times as many as in 2021, and reviewing them took some 184,000 expert hours, or 92 years of researchers' time. Three-quarters of those hours went to papers that were rejected. And when NeurIPS twice had the same papers reviewed by two committees, the second rejected half of what the first accepted. Conferences are responding by limiting who may submit. We simulated that answer, and an alternative, in a model calibrated to the NeurIPS experiments. The limits save little and select no better, and those based on a past acceptance fall mostly on new authors. The alternative changes how papers are judged, spending full reads only where a decision turns on them. In a staged funnel, an automated quality check first turns back papers that are not ready. The rest are ranked by their value, from short summaries, by readers that each submission brings. Only the finalists get a full read, which checks their claims and settles the final ranking. The staged funnel needs a little over half of today's expert hours, accepts 95.5% of papers in the top 3-10% (against 74% today), and makes nearly every top-0.5% paper a spotlight or oral. And because every paper brings its own reader, the funnel keeps pace with the flood.

Explore related subjects

cs.LGcs.CYcs.DL

Keep this discovery

Explore connections, maps & timelines

BibTeXRIS

Mikhail L. Arbuzov, Lee Mosbacker, Sisong Bei. 2026-10-31. Change the Funnel, Not Who May Submit: Engineering Peer Review for the Flood. https://arxiv.org/abs/2611.01076

Cite the original work for its findings. Save a collection to share your selection of sources.

KEEP EXPLORING

Related papers

arXiv2026

Subspace Node Pruning

Node pruning is the art of removing computational units such as neurons, filters, attention heads, or even entire layers to significantly reduce inference time while retaining network performance. In this work, we show that a broad family of importance measures, from activation-based to Fisher-based, share a common quadratic form. Through a lower-triangular change of basis, this form yields a pruning subspace in which entire nodes can be removed while the impact of the lost units is simultaneously recovered via linear least squares. Furthermore, the importance measures within our subspace are decoupled and additive through an orthogonalization of the layer activations, allowing multi-node pruning within layers without interference between importance scores. Our method, Subspace Node Pruning (SNP), outperforms the compared baselines on VGG-16 and ResNet-50 on ImageNet. On OPT-125M and LLaMA-2 7B, SNP matches the state-of-the-art LLM Surgeon at a 40-shot schedule and outperforms it whenever fewer shots are used, all without any retraining after pruning.

cs.LG↗
arXiv2026

On the growth of the parameters of approximating ReLU neural networks

This work focuses on the analysis of fully connected feed forward ReLU neural networks as they approximate a given, smooth function. In contrast to conventionally studied universal approximation properties under increasing architectures, e.g., in terms of width or depth of the networks, we are concerned with the asymptotic growth of the parameters of approximating networks. Such results are of interest, e.g., for error analysis or consistency results for neural network training. The main result of our work is that, for a ReLU architecture with state of the art approximation error, the realizing parameters grow at most polynomially. The obtained rate with respect to a normalized network size is compared to existing results and is shown to be superior in most cases, in particular for high dimensional input.

cs.LG↗
arXiv2026

Correlations Are Ruining Your Gradient Descent

Natural gradient descent, and the preconditioned optimizers which have followed from it, correct gradient descent by estimating curvature and applying its inverse to the gradient. For any single layer of a deep neural network, this correction can be shown to approximately separate into two factors: one which accounts for correlations in the gradient signal, and one which accounts for correlations in the data arriving at that layer. Herein we show that this second factor can be expressed as a change of basis rather than of curvature and, considered thus, it can be removed from the optimizer entirely and placed within the network itself. Specifically, we show that, once forward weights are corrected, right-sided natural gradient descent can be implemented in a form which has three exactly equivalent forms: a gradient preconditioner, a decorrelating linear transform in the forward pass, or a set of recurrent dynamics in which all updates are Hebbian and rely only upon locally available signals. The (recurrent) decorrelation method we discover aligns closely with proposed methods for inhibitory learning and homeostatic plasticity in the brain. Notably, our transform requires no matrix inverse, no matrix decomposition, and no information beyond that which is available at an individual synapse. It can therefore be applied in distributed and physically constrained systems, including neuromorphic hardware and nervous systems, where existing preconditioners cannot. We demonstrate its effectiveness empirically in convolutional and residual network models while significantly improving a range of approximate biologically plausible methods for credit assignment.

cs.LG↗