icml-workflow

ICML Workflow

Use this as the router for the ICML depth pack. It chooses the next skill and keeps policy,

evidence, artifact, and public-record risks visible.

ICML is a conference, not a journal: it has no standing editor-in-chief and no article-processing

charge. The rotating leadership is the per-edition General Chair and Program Chairs (2026 General

Chair: Tong Zhang; Program Chairs: Dudik, Jaggi, Agarwal, Li, verified 2026-06-22), and the cost

model is registration fees, not APCs — PMLR proceedings are open-access with no author fee.

Conference organizers rotate yearly, so re-check the current CFP and committees page rather than

carrying a name forward.

Stage map

1. Fit and track: icml-topic-selection.
2. Drafting: icml-writing-style, icml-related-work, icml-experiments.
3. Artifact and supplement: icml-artifact-evaluation, icml-reproducibility, icml-supplementary.
4. Pre-submission audit: icml-submission.
5. Review diagnosis: icml-review-process.
6. Rebuttal and discussion: icml-author-response.
7. Accepted-paper work: icml-camera-ready.

Working principles

• Start with the current ICML official pages, not last year's memory.
• Maintain a table mapping claims to main-paper evidence, appendix evidence, code/data, and

limitations.

• Keep anonymous review artifacts and public release artifacts as separate states.
• Treat reciprocal reviewing, reviewer LLM policy, impact statements, lay summaries, and public

original-submission release as first-class workflow items.

• Decide early whether a paper is really an ICML main-track paper or better suited to a position

paper, workshop, NeurIPS, ICLR, AISTATS, TMLR, JMLR, or a domain venue.

Deadline cadence (verify against the current CFP)

ICML runs an abstract deadline before the full-paper deadline, and the 2026 cycle freezes the author

list at the abstract stage. Treat the cadence as: abstract and author list locked, then full PDF and

supplement, then reviews, then the response window, then one discussion round, then decisions, then

camera-ready and the PMLR-bound proceedings. Never hard-code the exact dates here; reopen the current

year's CFP because they move annually.

Stage-to-risk router

| Stage | Dominant ICML risk | First skill to open |

| --- | --- | --- |

| Fit | Wrong track (main vs Position Papers) | icml-topic-selection |

| Drafting | Claim outruns evidence in 8 pages | icml-writing-style, icml-experiments |

| Pre-submission | Anonymity or page-limit desk reject | icml-submission |

| Response | One-round rebuttal misallocated | icml-author-response |

| Accepted | Public-record exposure on OpenReview | icml-camera-ready |

Worked routing pass

A team has an adaptive-optimizer paper with a convergence proof and ImageNet-scale benchmarks. The

router sends them first to topic selection (confirm main-track, not Position Papers), then to

experiments and writing-style for the tuned-baseline and compute-disclosure gaps, then to submission

for the OpenReview and format-checker audit. Each handoff records the official page to reopen so the

plan never relies on last year's remembered rules. After decisions, an accepted paper flows to

camera-ready with its public-record state in mind, while a rejected one loops back to topic selection

or reroute, carrying the reviewer-quotable issue into the next venue choice.

Output format

[Current stage] fit / drafting / pre-submission / review / response / camera-ready / reroute
[Next skill] <ICML skill>
[Official source to open] <CFP/Author Instructions/FAQ/OpenReview/LLM policy>
[Blocking gap] <policy/evidence/artifact/writing/public-record>
[Next action] <concrete task>