Use when deciding whether a paper belongs at NeurIPS, choosing main-track versus another NeurIPS track, selecting contribution type, or rerouting to a better AI/ML venue.
Scanned 6/6/2026
Install to Claude Code
npx -y skills add brycewang-stanford/Awesome-Journal-Skills --skill neurips-topic-selection --agent claude-codeInstalls into .claude/skills of the current project.
Are you the author of Neurips Topic Selection?
Add the live security badge to your README — it updates automatically with every re-scan.
[](https://www.skillsdirectory.com/skills/brycewang-stanford-neurips-topic-selection)More formats (shields.io, HTML) on the badges page.
---
name: neurips-topic-selection
description: Use when deciding whether a paper belongs at NeurIPS, choosing main-track versus another NeurIPS track, selecting contribution type, or rerouting to a better AI/ML venue.
---
# NeurIPS Topic Selection
Use this skill before committing to NeurIPS. The target is not "any good AI paper"; it is a paper
whose contribution will matter to the NeurIPS reviewer community and survive the current official
track rules.
## Fit signals
Strong NeurIPS candidates usually have one of these cores:
- a general ML method, model, objective, optimization, inference, or learning principle;
- a theory result that changes understanding of ML behavior or limits;
- a high-quality empirical finding about models, data, evaluation, robustness, or scaling;
- a use-inspired result with a real scientific, social, health, robotics, sustainability, or
creative-AI problem and a clear ML contribution;
- a dataset, benchmark, or evaluation contribution that belongs in the correct current NeurIPS
track rather than being forced into main track;
- a rigorous negative result that changes community understanding.
## Poor fit signals
- Engineering integration without a research insight.
- Domain application where the ML contribution is ordinary.
- Benchmark improvement without mechanism, error analysis, or generality.
- Safety, fairness, or societal claim with thin evidence.
- Reproduction or replication study better suited to MLRC/TMLR.
- Dataset or evaluation paper that should use the E&D track.
- Position argument that should use the Position Papers track.
## Contribution-type choice
Choose the contribution type that changes reviewer expectations. A theory paper should make proofs
central. A use-inspired paper needs a real task and ML novelty. A concept-and-feasibility paper
needs high-risk/high-reward framing and credible preliminary evidence. A negative-results paper
needs a lesson that matters beyond one failed run.
## Output format
```text
[Fit] High / Medium / Low
[Recommended track] Main / E&D / Position / MLRC / workshop / other venue
[Contribution type] General / Theory / Use-Inspired / Concept & Feasibility / Negative Results
[Why NeurIPS] <one sentence>
[Main upgrade needed] <evidence, framing, related work, artifact, ethics, or reroute>
```
Is this your skill, or is something wrong with this listing? Request removal or report an issue. Author removals are honored within 72 hours.
No comments yet. Be the first to comment!