Navigating Post-Acceptance Revisions for NeurIPS Papers

The period between a paper's acceptance and its final camera-ready submission is a critical window for refinement. For researchers who have had a paper accepted to NeurIPS, the temptation and necessity to make substantial changes can be significant, especially if parallel work on another submission (like ICLR) has led to substantial improvements or new insights. The core question becomes: how much can be altered without fundamentally changing the accepted work?

One team, facing this exact scenario after a NeurIPS acceptance, found themselves with a significantly rewritten manuscript derived from their ICLR resubmission efforts. They detailed their experience, highlighting that nearly every section of their paper underwent substantial modification, with the exception of the core results and the ultimate conclusion. This level of revision prompts a discussion on the acceptable scope of changes in the pre-camera-ready phase.

Scope of Revisions: Beyond Minor Typos

The revisions undertaken by this research group extended far beyond simple grammatical corrections or minor clarifications. Key areas that saw complete overhauls include:

  • Introduction, Related Work, and Background: These foundational sections were entirely rewritten to enhance clarity and preempt potential confusion for readers. Ensuring the context is precisely framed is crucial for the paper's reception and understanding.
  • Methodology: The description of the method was significantly expanded. A new pipeline graph was introduced, accompanied by detailed text explaining each component block. This contrasts sharply with the previous version, which was described as a mere dumping ground of formulas. The addition of visual aids and structured explanations represents a substantial enhancement to the methodological exposition.
  • Algorithm Stability and Hyperparameter Sensitivity: The algorithm itself was improved with added scaling and smoothing techniques, leading to increased stability. However, this enhancement directly impacted hyperparameters and, consequently, the shape and interpretation of the sensitivity study's graphs. The visual representation of the algorithm's behavior changed considerably.
  • Appendix Additions: A new theorem was incorporated, complete with a five-page proof appended to the document. This addition not only expands the theoretical underpinnings of the work but also adds significant volume and depth to the supplementary material.

The Camera-Ready Deadline: A Balancing Act

The camera-ready deadline is typically understood as a point for polishing and finalization, not for introducing entirely new research directions or fundamentally altering the core contributions. However, the NeurIPS submission process, like many others, involves a lag between acceptance notification and the final deadline. This interval can be exploited for further research, refinement, or incorporation of late-breaking insights.

The experience shared suggests that while the core findings and conclusions should remain consistent with the accepted submission, the narrative, explanatory detail, and even theoretical justifications can be substantially enhanced. The addition of a new theorem, for instance, strengthens the theoretical basis of the work, provided it aligns with and supports the already accepted core contribution. Similarly, improving the clarity and structure of the methodology, as demonstrated by the addition of a pipeline graph, enhances the paper's didactic value without altering the experimental outcomes.

The challenge lies in differentiating between legitimate improvements and a wholesale rewrite that might be more appropriate for a new submission cycle. The team's approach, focusing on clarifying exposition, enhancing theoretical rigor, and improving algorithmic robustness, appears to fall within the spirit of refining an already accepted piece of work. The key takeaway is that substantial structural and explanatory changes are possible, provided they build upon and clarify the accepted contribution rather than introducing entirely new research questions or results.

What remains unaddressed is how widely such extensive revisions are practiced and whether conference committees have explicit guidelines or informal norms regarding the extent of changes permitted in this window. The shared experience provides a data point, but the broader landscape of acceptable post-acceptance modifications is less clear.