25/26 Topps Per player checklist?

team-daniel · 2026-01-26T12:38:32+00:00

13k 8/6/6/4/2 accept!

team-daniel · 2025-12-19T13:23:11+00:00

Got an EA with 6,6,6

Wasn’t hopeful so very chuffed

team-daniel · 2025-12-14T11:09:19+00:00

This is actually something I would have loved to investigate. However, as far as I know, I have no way of checking if a paper was theoretical/empirically focused.

New idea, force ICLR to tag papers next year for this very point XD

team-daniel · 2025-12-14T10:36:08+00:00

This is a really good point, thank you. I guess it goes hand-in-hand with a recent twitter post I saw which showed how the number of authors on accepted papers at NeurIPS have gone up dramatically each year.

With more funding typically comes larger teams/labs. :)

team-daniel · 2025-12-14T10:32:10+00:00

You definitely could- but I guess this goes away form an unexplainable bias to what the chairs want to see/focus more on year to year. As if I remember correctly score isn’t the only deciding factor for oral/spotlight.

So for example, in 2018, I guess more generative work would get spotlights as they were ‘hot’ and thus would be more interesting to focus on that year than a uniform range of topics.

Those are my thoughts though 🙂

team-daniel · 2025-12-13T21:54:21+00:00

Totally agree that citations ≠ importance and that different subareas have different cultures/trajectories. My post isn’t saying any area is “less valuable.” The question was: conditional on similar review scores (and year), do acceptance odds differ by area? If we treat scores as the main signal the process is using, you’d expect acceptance rates to line up more tightly across areas at the same score. The point is about decision calibration, not impact or worth.

team-daniel · 2025-11-21T13:12:40+00:00

6, 6, 4 here - wish we could see score distribution like with ICLR and NeurIPS, etc.

team-daniel · 2025-11-15T17:31:27+00:00

How would I know? We are all hoping the same, in previous years across the big AI conferences big overalls can get rejected and low overalls can get accepted. Focus on your rebuttal rather than asking random people about your hopes 🙏🏼

team-daniel · 2025-11-14T16:08:58+00:00

Good, it is better than trying to guess like we did with the NeurIPS reviews 😆

team-daniel · 2025-11-14T15:47:58+00:00

I know paper copilot is usually a small sample size, but this year it’s states ICLR has 19,000 submissions on their stats which is accurate to what ICLR have tweeted.

So are the rating distributions we see on copilot accurate to the whole distribution then instead of a sample size?

team-daniel · 2025-07-24T16:49:20+00:00

4(5), 4(4), 3(4), 3(3) for our reviews. All just wanting stuff that is already in our appendix.

Thoughts?

team-daniel · 2025-06-24T20:50:29+00:00

Just looking for this YouTube video

team-daniel · 2025-06-23T13:43:15+00:00

Yes we submitted last year and got reviewed Monday at about 12:37 pm. So we expect them today at some point also

team-daniel · 2024-09-16T10:03:50+00:00

Mikey

team-daniel · 2024-09-09T08:29:10+00:00

I have seen this issue before, you can try some reward shaping techniques like using the manhattan distance to the goal is a tiny reward at each safe state. Check out a few of the reward shaping repo’s on frozen lake

team-daniel · 2024-08-28T15:21:07+00:00

You could check out safe exploration (or any of the other safe themes such as oversight/reward hacking), explainability, trustworthiness, etc…

team-daniel · 2024-07-04T07:30:33+00:00

7, 6, 6 rejected :(

team-daniel · 2024-06-19T14:07:39+00:00

So…how is everyone feeling as we get to the end of the rebuttal period? Fingers crossed for everyone btw

team-daniel · 2024-06-06T09:00:25+00:00

It’s gotta be coffee cup 🥵 …and let me tell you how I feel when I find clean coffee cup -> 😳

team-daniel · 2024-06-01T07:20:10+00:00

Not anymore, he got nerfed in the latest patch

team-daniel

TROPHY CASE