OpenReview

We are using OpenReview to manage submissions. The reviews and author responses will not be public initially (but may be made public later, see below). As in previous years, submissions under review will be visible only to their assigned program committee. We will not be soliciting comments from the general public during the reviewing process. Anyone who plans to submit a paper as an author or a co-author will need to create (or update) their OpenReview profile by the full paper submission deadline. Your OpenReview profile can be edited by logging in and clicking on your name in https://openreview.net/. This takes you to a URL "https://openreview.net/profile?id=~[Firstname]_[Lastname][n]" where the last part is your profile name, e.g., ~Po-Yi_Lu1.

The OpenReview profiles must be up to date, with all publications by the authors, and their current affiliations. The easiest way to import publications is through DBLP but it is not required, see OpenReview FAQ. Submissions without the authors' updated OpenReview profiles will be desk rejected. The information entered in the profile is critical for ensuring that conflicts of interest and reviewer matching are handled properly. Because of the rapid growth of NeurIPS, we request that all authors help with reviewing papers, if asked to do so. We need everyone's help in maintaining the high scientific quality of NeurIPS.

Please be aware that OpenReview has a moderation policy for newly created profiles: New profiles created without an institutional email will go through a moderation process that can take up to two weeks. New profiles created with an institutional email will be activated automatically. If you have any questions about the use of OpenReview, please refer to its FAQ: https://openreview.net/faq

Our OpenReview portal is https://openreview.net/group?id=NeurIPS.cc/2025/Conference. Please note that submissions meant for the Datasets & Benchmarks papers should be submitted to a different OpenReview portal, as shown here. Papers will not be transferred between the main and the D&B track after the submission is closed.

Abstract Submission

There is a mandatory abstract submission deadline on May 11, 2025, four days before full paper submissions are due. While it will be possible to edit the title and abstract until the full paper submission deadline, submissions with "placeholder" abstracts that are rewritten for the full submission risk being removed without consideration. This includes titles and abstracts that either provide little or no semantic information (e.g., "We provide a new semi-supervised learning method.") or describe a substantively different claimed contribution. After the abstract deadline, adding or removing authors is not allowed, but listed authors can potentially be reordered before the submission deadline.

Paper Formatting Instructions

All submissions must be in PDF format, and in a single PDF file include, in this suggested order:

1. The submitted paper content
2. Paper references
3. The NeurIPS paper checklist

The authors may optionally choose to include some or all of the technical appendices in the same PDF above. But those included parts cannot be changed after the full submission deadline.

The main text of a submitted paper is limited to nine content pages, including all figures and tables. Additional pages containing references, checklist, and the optional technical appendices do not count as content pages. If your submission is accepted, you will be allowed an additional content page for the camera-ready version. The maximum file size for a main paper submission is 50MB.

You must format your submission using the NeurIPS 2025 LaTeX style file (to be announced soon), which includes a "preprint" option for non-anonymous preprints posted online. Submissions that violate the NeurIPS style (e.g., by decreasing margins or font sizes) or page limits may be rejected without further review. Papers may also be rejected without consideration of their merits if they fail to meet the submission requirements, as described in this document.

Paper Checklist

In order to improve the rigor and transparency of research submitted to and published at NeurIPS, authors are required to complete a paper checklist. The paper checklist is intended to help authors reflect on a wide variety of issues relating to responsible machine learning research, including reproducibility, transparency, research ethics, and societal impact. The checklist forms part of the paper submission, but does not count towards the page limit.

Technical Appendices and Supplementary Material

Technical appendices with additional results, figures, graphs and proofs may be submitted with the paper submission before the full submission deadline (see above), or as a separate PDF in the ZIP file below before the supplementary material deadline. There is no page limit for the technical appendices.

Supplementary material, such as data, or source code may also be submitted separately in a single ZIP file. The material should be created by the authors that directly supports the submission content. We encourage authors to upload their code specifically as part of their supplementary material in order to help reviewers assess the quality of the work. Check the policy as well as code submission guidelines and templates for further details.

Like main paper submissions, technical appendices and supplementary material must be anonymized. Looking at technical appendices and supplementary material is at the discretion of the reviewers. Authors may submit up to 100MB of technical appendices and supplementary material.

Use of Large Language Models (LLMs)

The NeurIPS policy for use of Large Language Models (LLMs) can be found here (to be announced soon). Authors are responsible for following it.

Double-blind Reviewing

All submissions must be anonymized and may not contain any identifying information that may violate the double-blind reviewing policy. This policy applies to any supplementary or linked material as well, including code. If you are including links to any external material, it is your responsibility to guarantee anonymous browsing. Please do not include acknowledgments at submission time. If you need to cite one of your own papers, you should do so with adequate anonymization to preserve double-blind reviewing. For instance, write "In the previous work of Smith et al. [1]…" rather than "In our previous work [1]...". If you need to cite one of your own papers that is in submission to NeurIPS and not available as a non-anonymous preprint, then include a copy of the cited anonymized submission in the supplementary material and write "Anonymous et al. [1] concurrently show...". Any papers found to be violating this policy will be desk rejected.

Please note that a different policy applies to Datasets & Benchmarks papers, as shown here.

Ethics Review

Reviewers and ACs may flag submissions for ethics review. Flagged submissions will be sent to an ethics review committee for comments. Comments from ethics reviewers will be considered by the primary reviewers and AC as part of their deliberation. They will also be visible to authors, who will have an opportunity to respond. Ethics reviewers do not have the authority to reject papers, but in extreme cases papers may be rejected by the program chairs on ethical grounds, regardless of scientific quality or contribution.

Preprints

The existence of non-anonymous preprints (on arXiv or other online repositories, personal websites, social media) will not result in rejection. If you choose to use the NeurIPS style for the preprint version, you must use the "preprint" option rather than the "final" option. Reviewers will be instructed not to actively look for such preprints, but encountering them will not constitute a conflict of interest. Authors may submit anonymized work to NeurIPS that is already available as a preprint (e.g., on arXiv) without citing it. Note that public versions of the submission should not say "Under review at NeurIPS" or similar.

Dual Submissions

Submissions that are substantially similar to papers that the authors have previously published or submitted in parallel to other peer-reviewed venues with proceedings or journals may not be submitted to NeurIPS. Papers previously presented at workshops are permitted, so long as they did not appear in conference proceedings (e.g., CVPRW proceedings), a journal or a book. NeurIPS coordinates with other conferences to identify dual submissions. The NeurIPS policy on dual submissions applies for the entire duration of the reviewing process. Failure to cope with the dual submission policy is ground to desk rejection during any point of the reviewing and program building process. Slicing contributions too thinly is discouraged. The reviewing process will treat any other submission by an overlapping set of authors as prior work. If publishing one would render the other too incremental, both may be rejected.

Please note that dual submissions to both the main conference track and the Datasets & Benchmarks track will be desk rejected.

Anti-collusion

NeurIPS does not tolerate any collusion whereby authors secretly cooperate with reviewers, ACs or SACs to obtain favorable reviews. The penalty for collusion is immediate removal from the reviewing system, rejection of all papers under consideration, and/or sanctions to future NeurIPS.

If collusion is identified, the authors and reviewers involved will be notified, and be able to respond to the accusation. While their answers will be carefully taken into consideration, given the short time window to act, the PCs will deliberate and their decision will be final.

Identifying collusion can happen at any point during the review process, including but not limited to the bidding process and the rebuttal period.

Author Responses

Authors will have one week to view and respond to initial reviews. Author responses may not contain any identifying information that may violate the double-blind reviewing policy. Authors may not submit revisions of their paper or supplemental material, but may post their responses as a discussion in OpenReview. This is to reduce the burden on authors to have to revise their paper in a rush during the short rebuttal period.

After the initial response period, authors will be able to respond to any further reviewer/AC questions and comments by posting on the submission's forum page. The program chairs reserve the right to solicit additional reviews after the initial author response period. These reviews will become visible to the authors as they are added to OpenReview, and authors will have a chance to respond to them.

After the notification deadline, accepted and opted-in rejected papers will be made public and open for non-anonymous public commenting. Their anonymous reviews, meta-reviews, author responses and reviewer responses will also be made public. Authors of rejected papers will have two weeks after the notification deadline to opt in to make their deanonymized rejected papers public in OpenReview. These papers are not counted as NeurIPS publications and will be shown as rejected in OpenReview.

Publication of Accepted Submissions

Reviews, meta-reviews, and any discussion with the authors will be made public for accepted papers (but reviewer, area chair, and senior area chair identities will remain anonymous). Camera-ready papers will be due in advance of the conference. All camera-ready papers must include a funding disclosure. We strongly encourage accompanying code and data to be submitted with accepted papers when appropriate, as per the code submission policy. Authors will be allowed to make minor changes for a short period of time after the conference.

Contemporaneous Work

For the purpose of the reviewing process, papers that appeared online after March 1st, 2025 will generally be considered "contemporaneous" in the sense that the submission will not be rejected on the basis of the comparison to contemporaneous work. Authors are still expected to cite and discuss contemporaneous work and perform empirical comparisons to the degree feasible. Any paper that influenced the submission is considered prior work and must be cited and discussed as such. Submissions that are very similar to contemporaneous work will undergo additional scrutiny to prevent cases of plagiarism and missing credit to prior work.

Plagiarism is prohibited by the NeurIPS Code of Conduct.

Other Tracks

Similarly to earlier years, we will host multiple tracks, such as datasets and benchmarks, competitions, tutorials as well as workshops, in addition to the main track for which this call for papers is intended. See the conference homepage for updates and calls for participation in these tracks.

This year, the Datasets and Benchmarks track will share the exact same deadlines as the main conference program. DB submissions will also adhere to the main track's guidelines for formatting, supplementary materials, LLM use, ethics review, preprints, dual submissions, anti-collusion, author responses, and publication. Please refer to the Datasets and Benchmarks CFP for details on the track specific requirements; otherwise, the main track's CFP applies.

Experiments

As in past years, the program chairs will be measuring the quality and effectiveness of the review process via randomized controlled experiments. All experiments are independently reviewed and approved by an Institutional Review Board (IRB). The program chairs and the Datasets and Benchmarks track chairs will decide whether the experiments are applicable to either or both of the tracks.

Financial Aid

Each paper may designate up to one (1) NeurIPS.cc account email address of a corresponding student author who confirms that they would need the support to attend the conference, and agrees to volunteer if they get selected. To be considered for Financial the student will also need to fill out the Financial Aid application when it becomes available.