What really gets a paper into an A* venue: dazzling SOTA metrics or thoughtful, fair evaluation? A recent question from a young researcher surfaced a tension many in the community feel but rarely say out loud.
What researchers are asking
- Is achieving state-of-the-art results required for acceptance at top-tier (A*) conferences?
- Many published papers highlight unbeatable benchmarks, making newcomers feel they can’t realistically surpass them.
- Is it fair to compare a new method primarily against closely related or same-family baselines rather than the absolute SOTA?
- Examples: a small tweak to Bagging compared against other Bagging-based forests (not Boosting like XGBoost); an SVM variant compared mainly with margin-based or kernel methods (not tree models).
- Concern: If the method beats similar baselines but not the global best, reviewers may consider it “meaningless.”
- Goal: Understand what reviewers consider fair and convincing comparisons.
The SOTA trap: what reviewers actually reward
At AI Tech Inspire, this question keeps coming up: Do you need to beat every leaderboard entry to earn a top-tier acceptance? Short answer: no. Strong papers often win on insight, clarity, scope, and evidence, not just raw numbers. Many committees value contributions that:
- Introduce a novel idea or theory, even if it’s early-stage.
- Offer a simpler method with similar performance and lower compute.
- Improve fairness, robustness, privacy, interpretability, or energy efficiency.
- Expose flaws in common evaluation practices and propose better ones.
- Deliver unusually strong analysis: ablations, failure modes, uncertainty, and reproducibility.
Key takeaway: SOTA is sufficient but not necessary. Reviewers reward ideas that improve how the field thinks, not just what a single number says.
Fair comparisons: family vs field
The fairness question is nuanced. If your method is a targeted change—say a tweak to Bagging—then comparing to closely related baselines is essential to isolate the contribution. But if the paper aims to solve a general task (e.g., tabular classification), omitting strong alternatives like Boosting naturally raises eyebrows.
In practice, a convincing paper usually covers both angles:
- Same-family baselines: to show that your change is a real improvement inside the method family (e.g., Bagging variants, kernel SVM variants). This is the scientific comparison.
- Strong cross-family baselines: to show practical relevance in the wider ecosystem (e.g., XGBoost, well-tuned
RandomForest, or even simple linear models). This is the engineering comparison.
If the absolute SOTA is out of scope due to a different problem setting, resource class, or metric, make that explicit. For example:
- “We target low-latency inference with tight memory constraints; boosting-based SOTA violates our latency budget by 10×.”
- “Our method is for noisy labels; the SOTA assumes clean labels and underperforms with 30% noise.”
Clear problem statements protect authors from unfair apples-to-oranges comparisons—and help reviewers evaluate your work on its intended merits.
Baselines that build trust
Developers and reviewers alike tend to look for a few standard baselines. A good suite often includes:
- Strongly tuned classical baselines: e.g., scikit-learn
LogisticRegression,RandomForest,SVM, with careful hyperparameters and cross-validation. - Popular, high-performing toolkits: for tabular, something like XGBoost; for deep learning, a lean implementation in PyTorch or TensorFlow.
- Task-specific SOTA or near-SOTA: even if you can’t beat it, show where you stand and why a user might still pick your approach (e.g., 95% of SOTA performance with 20% of the training time).
- Ablations: each component’s contribution, not just the final system.
- Resource metrics: training time, inference latency, memory, and
FLOPs. If you rely on CUDA accelerators, report GPU type and hours.
For datasets and reproducibility, reference sources like Hugging Face Datasets, pinned versions, and exact preprocessing scripts. Consider sharing minimal code, even a pip install snippet, to reduce friction:
pip install yourlib && python -m yourlib.run --config configs/paper.yaml
Think of a fair run as hitting R again and again: if the number moves wildly with different seeds, you haven’t measured the method—only its luck.
Measuring well: the unglamorous superpower
“Beat by 0.2%” headlines are brittle. What ages well is careful measurement:
- Multiple seeds with mean and 95% CIs.
- Proper tuning budgets for every baseline, including yours.
- Consistent metrics across baselines (don’t cherry-pick F1 for one model and accuracy for another without cause).
- Robustness checks: distribution shifts, noise, or adversarial tests if relevant.
- Error analysis: qualitative examples, confusion matrices, and where the method fails.
When performance differences are small or mixed, make that explicit. It’s better to say “statistically indistinguishable on dataset A, better on B by 1.5±0.7, worse on C by 0.8±0.5” than to overclaim a universal win.
When not to chase SOTA
There are solid reasons to publish without a new top score:
- Simplicity and reliability: A smaller model that trains in minutes on commodity hardware can be more useful to practitioners than a massive model that needs days of GPUs.
- Interpretability: A slight drop in accuracy for substantially clearer decision boundaries can be valuable in healthcare or finance.
- Constraints: Mobile, edge, or privacy-first deployments have different “winners” than leaderboard servers.
- Methodological clarity: A principled result or theorem may unlock new directions even if early experiments trail SOTA.
Engineers choosing between a heavyweight Transformer fine-tune in PyTorch and a lean approach in TensorFlow often care about time-to-first-result and maintenance, not just top-line accuracy. Likewise, when experimenting with GPT APIs or diffusion models like Stable Diffusion, cost and latency can dominate.
A reviewer’s mental checklist
Based on patterns we’ve seen across A* venues, here’s the informal checklist many reviewers seem to use:
- Clear problem statement: What scenario and constraints are you optimizing for?
- Positioning: Why your approach versus existing families? What niche or tradeoff does it target?
- Baseline strength: Similar-family comparisons and at least one strong alternative method.
- Fairness: Equal tuning budgets, identical preprocessing, same metrics, multiple seeds.
- Ablations and analysis: Each component’s role and failure cases.
- Reproducibility: Code/seed/configs; runnable scripts in PyTorch/TensorFlow; data provenance (e.g., Hugging Face Datasets).
- Honesty: Where it loses and why someone might still pick it (speed, memory, simplicity).
Practical guidance for authors
To make comparisons fair and convincing:
- Include both: same-family baselines for scientific isolation and strong cross-family baselines for practical relevance.
- State constraints up front: compute budget, latency targets, memory limits, privacy setup.
- Be transparent: report confidence intervals, tuning grids, seeds, and hardware (CUDA version, GPU model).
- Explain tradeoffs: nearly-as-good accuracy with 5–10× cheaper training can be compelling.
- Avoid strawmen: use tuned, well-known baselines—no outdated, under-tuned comparisons.
Why this matters for developers and engineers
A rigorous paper isn’t just good scholarship—it’s a better spec. Teams deciding what to ship need to know:
- How the method behaves under constraints likely to exist in production.
- When a simpler model is preferable because it’s maintainable, debuggable, and cheaper.
- Whether performance holds across datasets and seeds—or if it’s a one-off lucky run.
As practitioners evaluate models—whether fine-tuning with PyTorch, deploying on edge devices with CUDA, or exploring pretrained options from Hugging Face—the same principles apply. Fair comparisons make decisions faster and safer.
“Compare fairly, analyze deeply, and tell the truth about tradeoffs.” That standard often outlasts SOTA by a conference cycle or two.
If you’re preparing a submission, consider the dual mandate: be scientifically honest within the method family and practically relevant across competing approaches. Do that well, and reviewers—and future users—are more likely to trust the work, with or without a new #1 on the leaderboard.
Recommended Resources
As an Amazon Associate, I earn from qualifying purchases.
