iclr-topic-selection

ICLR Topic Selection

Use this when a project is still movable. ICLR is broad, but the paper should teach the learning community something about representations, objectives, models, data, optimization, evaluation, or deployment.

Strong ICLR signals

• A clear representation-learning, model-behavior, optimization, generative modeling, RL, theory, or evaluation contribution.
• Evidence that changes how researchers should build, analyze, or judge learning systems.
• A simple central claim that can be verified by focused theory, experiments, or artifacts.
• Interest beyond one dataset, product, or application vertical.
• Honest limitations and ethics treatment for high-impact model or data claims.

Weak ICLR signals

• Pure application paper with little learning insight.
• Incremental benchmark bump without mechanism, analysis, or robust evidence.
• Closed system claim that reviewers cannot inspect or reproduce.
• Dataset-only paper without a learning-representation or evaluation advance.
• Theory result disconnected from modern learning practice and not routed to a theory-focused venue.

Routing logic

• Prefer NeurIPS or ICML for broader ML method/theory work with less ICLR-specific representation framing.
• Prefer AISTATS or UAI for statistics, uncertainty, causal, or probabilistic emphasis.
• Prefer ACL, CVPR, KDD, or robotics/HCI venues when the contribution is primarily domain-specific.
• Prefer workshops when the idea is timely but under-evidenced.

Fit-versus-route decision table

ICLR's center of gravity is deep representation learning: architectures, self-supervision, generative models, foundation models, RL with deep function approximation, optimization for deep nets, interpretability, and alignment. Score the project against that center before routing.

Project shape	ICLR fit	Better route if not ICLR
New self-supervised objective with analysis	Strong	—
Theory explaining a deep-net phenomenon	Strong	AISTATS/UAI if purely statistical
LLM/foundation-model behavior study	Strong	ACL if narrowly language-specific
Benchmark bump, no mechanism	Weak	Domain venue or workshop
Causal/uncertainty emphasis	Plausible	AISTATS or UAI
Deployed application, little learning insight	Weak	KDD, CVPR, robotics/HCI venue

Worked vignette

A team has a method that improves recommendation click-through in production. As written it is an application paper. To make it ICLR-shaped, they extract the representation-learning claim: a new contrastive objective that yields embeddings transferring across catalogs, demonstrated with an ablation and a probe on a public dataset. The product result becomes one validation point, not the contribution. If that reframing fails to surface a learning insight, the honest route is KDD.

Reviewer-pushback patterns

• "No learning insight, just engineering." Reframe around the mechanism or route to a domain venue.
• "Dataset-only paper." Add an evaluation or representation advance, or target a datasets-and- benchmarks track instead.
• "Theory disconnected from practice." Tie the result to an observed deep-learning phenomenon.

Output format

[ICLR fit] strong / plausible / weak / no
[Core learning insight] <one sentence>
[Evidence required] <theory, experiment, benchmark, artifact>
[Best venue route] ICLR / NeurIPS / ICML / AISTATS / UAI / domain venue / workshop
[Reframe] <how to make the paper more ICLR-shaped>