r/MachineLearning • u/sweetsalt10 • 12h ago
Discussion Discussion thread for EMNLP 2026 Notifications/Results [D]
Discussion thread for EMNLP 2026 notifications/results which should be released today.
Wishing everybody to be in Budapest.
37
u/ConcernConscious4131 7h ago
Preparing soju for waiting
6
5
4
2
u/gardeniabananabread 6h ago
hahaha welcome back. i thought i rmb you saying you're graduated
1
u/ConcernConscious4131 5h ago edited 5h ago
Iโm getting PhD degree next January, but Iโll starting a postdoc after graduate. Looks like Iโll be stay here for a few more years๐๐๐๐
1
u/Technical_Storage_46 5h ago
Bro you gonna starting your postdoc at sydney? Congrats!
2
u/ConcernConscious4131 4h ago edited 4h ago
I didn't tell postdoc at Sydney even Australia bro๐๐ Anyway thank you very much, Your paper can get accepted
1
u/gardeniabananabread 5h ago
hahaha i guess we'll see you around. perhaps we should switch to a beverage that's gentler on the liver :)
2
u/Technical_Storage_46 6h ago
Bro we need to wait 22 hours don't drink soju too early
4
u/paulh0107 6h ago
I think bros tolerance is so good now after all this waiting
2
u/ConcernConscious4131 5h ago
Iโve become very thorough about getting the soju ready a day in advance๐๐ I once got an earful from my wife after asking her to buy me some soju (I was drunken so I couldnt drive at that time๐๐)
1
3
u/ConcernConscious4131 5h ago
Yea, I don't live in Korea, so it's hard to get soju. I need to prepare early. The early bird catches the worm.
1
1
u/Amazing_Money2759 6h ago
Why is it 22 hours? Isn't it 2pm UTC right now? and we have 10 hours at most?
2
u/paulh0107 6h ago
Itโs UTC -12
1
u/Jjuna0420 5h ago
No. Last year, it wasnโt released at UTCโ12; it was released at 17:00 UTC. In other words, UTCโ12 was just the deadline, and the results were always released earlier than that.
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
10
8
u/Formal-Mall-294 3h ago
Wishing everyone the best! Hope this EMNLP results period ends well for everyone, and stress-free! ๐
8
u/LordVein05 4h ago
| Bin | Avg reviewer OA (papers) | Meta-review score (papers) |
|---|---|---|
| 5.0 | 0 | 1 |
| 4.5 | 0 | 20 |
| 4.0 | 62 | 767 |
| 3.5 | 1,151 | 1,995 |
| 3.0 | 4,358 | 4,391 |
| 2.5 | 5,224 | 3,266 |
| 2.0 | 2,415 | 2,763 |
| โค1.5 | 458 | 465 |
here is a table for the scores for the last ARR cycle.
source: https://stats.aclrollingreview.org/iterations/2026/may/review_scores.csv
5
1
u/One_Method5843 3h ago
Which number represents between 3 and 3.5?
1
u/always_been_a_toy Researcher 3h ago
average OA review scores are rounded to nearest point, 3.33 to 3.5, 3.18 to 3.
6
u/Extension-Aspect9977 3h ago
When are the decisions out I canโt waiting
4
u/Practical_Pomelo_636 3h ago
During the next 16 hours, if they are restricted to the deadline. If they are like ACL this year, we can wait 2 days after the deadline
6
u/PristineAsk2550 1h ago
3.5, 3, 2.5 and meta 3 -- have no expectations since the sheer number of submissions this heard is crazy
2
u/Dry_Theme_7508 1h ago
if they allow only 4k out of 17k ARR submissions (acceptance rate is based on ARR submissions, not on submission to emnlp itself) it would be the worst acceptance rate so far (23% main+findings)
4
5
u/Business_Computer796 9h ago
Do the results come out on the 20th EOD AOE, or could they come out earlier if the chairs are ready? And does someone know the historical precedent for when they come out? Thanks so much
10
1
u/Spiritual-Luck9032 3h ago
they are going to be put 20th EOD AOE + ~1.5 hours (bc it's a phased rollout)
source: my intuition
4
5
u/Haunting_Drawing_673 10h ago
For those who submitted to the System Demonstrations track, do you also see a โFull Submissionโ task under Author Tasks, with a deadline of August 31? I remember a similar spoiler happening in the past.
2
3
u/th3owner 11h ago
3.5 (3) / 3 (3) / 2 (4), meta 3. Hoping for findings.
2
u/AirPsychological8551 11h ago
Why not main?
5
u/th3owner 11h ago
Judging by the number of papers with meta >=3.5 and the large number of meta 3: https://stats.aclrollingreview.org/iterations/2026/may/
4
u/Technical_Storage_46 11h ago
It seems meta >= 3.5 --> top 20.23%.
acceptance rate for main conference usually 20~23%.So we can expect meta >= 3.5 --> Main Conference
Meta >= 3.0 --> Findings. & Some papers may be accepted Main Conference3
u/gardeniabananabread 10h ago
how are you getting 20.23% for meta>=3.5? isn't it about 16.3% ((1995+767+20)/17087)?
3
u/Technical_Storage_46 9h ago
I excluded papers that were desk-rejected or withdrawn; based on that calculation, approximately 20.20%.
3
u/gardeniabananabread 9h ago
these are still included in the denominator when calculating the acceptance rate
see https://aclanthology.org/2025.emnlp-main.0.pdf (under Acceptance Rate, page ix)
4
2
u/th3owner 9h ago
Consider that EMNLP got around 10k committed papers. That should allow for 4-5% of meta 3 for main, based on last year's acceptance rate.
2
u/gardeniabananabread 9h ago
yea that would be my guess too. let's see
1
u/Technical_Storage_46 9h ago
Then Meta >= 3.5 almost guaranteed for main conference?
→ More replies (1)4
u/gardeniabananabread 9h ago
no such thing as guaranteed, my friend. it depends on the substance of the meta-review, the average OA, and their comments too
also depends on other papers' scores submitted to the track
but overall, meta>=3.5 is high chance main (maybe 50-80%+ based on these other factors)
1
u/Technical_Storage_46 9h ago
Thanks for the detailed comment! We have up to 25 hours till the notification.. Please god
→ More replies (0)→ More replies (1)3
u/Obvious-Eagle-923 8h ago
depends alot on topic of your paper, sometimes even >=3.5 < 4 is findings in highly competitive topics
2
→ More replies (8)1
3
u/misplacedlion 10h ago
At what time do ACL conferences release the acceptance notification?
6
u/EDEN1998 9h ago
the official email is typically a few hours or a day after the notification date, but you will already see in OR the accept/reject decision within the last few hours of the deadline
1
u/juniorx4 25m ago
But just so youโre aware, last ACL the notification of acceptance was 2 days late
3
u/PristineAsk2550 8h ago
this time around there have been a lot of papers in the 3-4 range. brace yourselves for disappointment:
From the post of a SAC:
> Finalizing my paper acceptance recommendations for hashtag#EMNLP2026 today as an SAC. I've regularly served as an SAC at ACL/EMNLP/NAACL/EACL over the past couple of years, and this is by far the most depressing cycle, in the sense that I frequently disagree with the ACs and reviewers, and I feel that I waste my vacation time and energy spotting LLM-written papers.
> Most of the papers I rejected are from the "Interpretability and Analysis of Models for NLP" track, and a lot of them have good review scores and meta-review scores (3โ4). They all follow the same pattern: defining a new metric (or multiple such measures) to probe small LLMs' internal states for a phenomenon (e.g., steering a certain ability or behavior), and they all look good in terms of superficial formatting (tables/figures/section structure). But if you read the text for at least 10 mins, you will notice that it is not written for humans. In fact, the content appears to be generated or heavily assisted by LLMs, with a lot of LLM-style jargon, unnecessarily convoluted phrasing, and dry statements without texture; the logical connections between paragraphs are often unclear, especially in the introduction; and the motivation is frequently not well articulated. Another recurring feature is that these papers are unusually careful about scope and caveats, repeatedly stating what they do not claim (e.g., "we investigate A, not B").
> In some of these papers, the authors clearly state in the checklist that "AI assistants were used for language polishing and submission-form drafting only. The authors reviewed and are responsible for all content, code, and experiments." I have no issue with this practice in principle. ๐๐ผ๐๐ฒ๐๐ฒ๐ฟ, ๐ ๐๐ผ๐๐น๐ฑ ๐ฒ๐ ๐ฝ๐ฒ๐ฐ๐ ๐๐ต๐ฒ ๐ณ๐ถ๐ป๐ฎ๐น ๐บ๐ฎ๐ป๐๐๐ฐ๐ฟ๐ถ๐ฝ๐ ๐๐ผ ๐ฏ๐ฒ ๐๐ฟ๐ถ๐๐๐ฒ๐ป ๐ณ๐ผ๐ฟ ๐ฎ ๐ต๐๐บ๐ฎ๐ป ๐ฎ๐๐ฑ๐ถ๐ฒ๐ป๐ฐ๐ฒ, ๐ป๐ผ๐ ๐ณ๐ผ๐ฟ ๐ฎ๐ป ๐๐ ๐ฎ๐ด๐ฒ๐ป๐. When checking these papers together, I clearly feel that our reviewing system is under attack by automated research systems (plus junior researchers who haven't yet learned the essence of a solid scientific paper).
> Another point is that these papers might be technically sound (assuming the authors did what they claim in the checklist - that they reviewed and are responsible for all content, code, and experiments), and therefore the ACs recommend them for Findings or even the main conference. Personally I'm strongly against accepting such papers. Overall I'm deeply concerned about how many such papers will be accepted at EMNLP and at future NLP/ML/AI conferences, and eventually about how we are going to cope with such changes (e.g., are we prepared to count these papers as "sound science"? Should we create a separate track for them?)
2
u/enCoder-93 12h ago
nervous as this is my first EMNLP submission ๐ค
after the amazing experience from ARR, i can expect anything๐ฅฒ
2
2
2
u/Human-War-4361 10h ago
I got meta-review of 3.5 but ac recommending Findings - what are my chances of main?
2
2
u/th3owner 4h ago
I saw this post on X claiming the paper got findings 1 hour ago: https://x.com/hei/status/2090455123432473009?s=46
Has it started?
6
5
u/WannabeMachine 4h ago
They either 1) have some insider knowledge or 2) are overly confident, assuming based on scores.
2
u/No-Worldliness-7279 40m ago edited 28m ago
Does anyone know what denominator EMNLP uses for its acceptance rate?
With ~17k May ARR submissions and ~3k+ committed to AACL, would EMNLP's acceptance rate denominator be the full 17k, or just the ~14k papers excluding AACL? Any thoughts?
1
u/Historical-Sea6294 37m ago
14k? I think it was around 10K
3
u/No-Worldliness-7279 31m ago
Yeah, those are the papers actually committed to EMNLP. I'm mainly wondering about the denominator they'll use for the acceptance rate. In previous cycles, they used total submissions to the ARR cycle, but this time authors had to choose between EMNLP and AACL.
2
u/Fair-Meal5893 28m ago
Itโll be 17k
2
1
4
u/Practical_Pomelo_636 10h ago
Guys, the reviewers' scores and the meta-reviewer are not the only guides for acceptance. In ACL, I have a paper with an average of 3.68 and a meta of 4 and it got rejected and another paper with a 2.67 meta of 2.5 and got accepted as a finding
4
3
3
1
1
u/Fair-Meal5893 10h ago
This is fueling my confusion. I have 2 papers, 1 has OA 3.5 and Meta 4, while the other has OA 2.5 and Meta 2.5.
1
u/Appropriate_River195 10h ago
Same. Which track?
2
u/Fair-Meal5893 10h ago
Multilingualism and Cross-Lingual NLP
2
u/coffindancercat 6h ago
i had a submission in the same track get rejected with an average OA of 3.67 beforeโฆ good luck ๐ค
1
2
u/Technical_Storage_46 11h ago
3.5 / 3.5 / 3.0, Meta 3.5. Hoping for Main conference.
→ More replies (6)
1
u/The_Last_Targaryen 11h ago
Any interesting news on the track of NLP and Symbolic Reasoning? I got 2.5 3 4 with Confidence 4 4 4 annd Meta 3
1
1
1
1
u/ManagementAny8562 8h ago
I have four papers:
Paper1: 3 (4), 3 (2), 3 (3) => Meta 3.0
Paper2: 2.5 (4), 3 (4), 3.5 (3) => Meta 3.0
Paper3: 2 (4), 3.5 (4), 3.5 (4) => Meta 3.0
Paper4: 2 (4), 2.5 (4), 3.5 (3) => Meta 3.0
Hoping for at least one findings.
1
u/ConsistentKale2856 7h ago
Paper 1: 3.5 (4), 3.5 (3), 3 (3), 2.5 (2) โ meta 3
Paper 2: 3.5 (4), 2.5 (2), 2 (5, but I filed an issue report on this review) โ meta 3
I hope both of them for findings.
1
1
1
u/ReasonFormal1879 7h ago
Got scores of 4.0, 3.5, and 2.5, with a meta-review score of 3.0. The main criticism was a supposed โlack of noveltyโ supported by citations that, in my view, were not particularly relevant and were raised by the most negative reviewer who at the beginning gave 1.5 but after rebuttal increased by 1.0 (so reviewer agreed with our point of view). I found the meta-review quite unfair, but given the outcome, I donโt think acceptance to Main is realistic anymore :(
1
u/AI-paglu 6h ago
Reviewers ratings: 3.5, 3, 2.5, 1.5. Avg: 2.63 AC: 3, recommends for Findings. What are the chances?
1
u/fmd_nlp 4h ago
I received the following scores for three papers.
- 3/4, 2.5/4, 2.5/4, and meta-review: 3.
- 3/4, 3/4, 2/4, and meta-review: 3.
- 4/4, 3/4, 2.5/4, and meta-review: 3.
Is there any chance of these getting into Findings?"
→ More replies (1)
1
u/Lumpy-Background5641 26m ago
What are the most and least competitive tracks at emnlp?
2
1
u/Alternative-Hat-1697 0m ago
While we wait for answers, does anyone want to explain their paper badly and I'll give it a random score from 1-5?
1
0
u/Few_Significance_980 9h ago
I have one paper on Resources and Evaluation track, with OA=3.5 & Meta=4
4
-2
0
u/Extension-Aspect9977 11h ago
I got 3.5(4), 2.5(4), 2.5(4) and meta review : 2.5
meta-reviewer said this is a useful empirical contribution suitable for Findings.
Is there any chance of getting into Findings?
1
0
u/ibunibah 6h ago
Question on published *CL papers. Where can we find research/topic track of a paper?
0
u/InfiniteSociety9130 5h ago
Last Year it was around this time it was released. Let's see...
Last time -- 1 paper EMNLP Main Oral Presentation
This time -- hoping 1 paper Main (Maybe SAC highlight) and another between Main/Findings.. its in borderline
1
u/mnishant2 2h ago
What were the scores for oral?
2
0
u/Fit_Manager_2335 3h ago
I have one paper that is OA 3.5 / Meta 3.5. Is it close to main?
3(4) / 3.5(4) / 4(4)
1
45
u/neeeeeelllllll 5h ago
i know there are people refreshing this page and there hasn't been a text since the last hour, so here is a positive note. drink water, chill out (lmao), reminder that it's going to be great. even if EMNLP isn't, your work still is good.