Unverified50% confidenceFactExact time
Empirical studies such as the dual-track experiment at NIPS 2014 show that even the review processes of top conferences contain a considerable degree of randomness and subjectivity.
1
Sources
50%
Confidence
Long-term
Relevance
9/22/2026
First Seen
Sources
Related Entities
Related Claims
UnverifiedIn 2021, NeurIPS conducted a famous experiment in which the same paper was submitted twice and received completely different review outcomes, revealing the high degree of randomness in the review process.78% similarUnverifiedChecking consistency through random sampling yields an inflated consistency rate because most samples are simple, masking the regions that are truly problematic.72% similarUnverifiedIn few-shot prompting, simply changing the order of examples can cause dramatic fluctuations in accuracy, ranging from near-random to near-optimal.69% similarUnverifiedWhen randomized experiments are not feasible, causal inference methods become critical, including Difference-in-Differences (DID), Regression Discontinuity Design (RDD), Instrumental Variables (IV), and Propensity Score Matching (PSM).68% similarUnverified过度域随机化会引入与真实分布相差过大的不可能样本，稀释有效训练信号，随机化范围的设定需要大量领域专家经验67% similar
Cite This Claim
Stable URI
https://kongchang.com/claim/940376API
curl https://kongchang.com/api/v1/knowledge/claims/940376MCP
get_claim(id=940376)