---

name: neurips-reproducibility description: Use when strengthening NeurIPS reproducibility evidence, aligning Paper Checklist answers with the paper, writing code/data instructions, setting random-seed and compute disclosure, or deciding whether the MLRC/TMLR reproducibility route fits better than the main track or Datasets & Benchmarks track.

NeurIPS Reproducibility

Use this skill when a NeurIPS paper's claim depends on experiments, data, code, or a reproducibility argument. The immediate target is a trustworthy main-track paper; the alternative route is MLRC/TMLR when the central contribution is reproduction, replication, or generalizability of prior claims.

Main-track reproducibility bar

• State exact data splits, preprocessing, hyperparameters, selection criteria, compute resources, software versions, and random-seed protocol.
• Report uncertainty where it matters: confidence intervals, standard errors, multiple seeds, sensitivity checks, or negative findings.
• Distinguish exploratory experiments from evidence that supports the main claim.
• Make code/data availability match the checklist answer; "no" is allowed with justification, but a central open-source benchmark or dataset usually needs accessible artifacts.
• For human, private, medical, proprietary, or safety-sensitive data, document access constraints and ethical controls rather than pretending full release is possible.

MLRC route check

Consider the NeurIPS Reproducibility / MLRC track when the paper is primarily about confirming, partially reproducing, failing to reproduce, or extending a published ML result. The 2026 MLRC route requires TMLR review/acceptance before NeurIPS presentation consideration; this is not a shortcut for ordinary main-track submissions.

Checklist-to-evidence cross-check

A "yes" on the NeurIPS Paper Checklist with nothing in the paper to back it is exactly what reviewers hunt for. Run this cross-check so each reproducibility answer is honest and locatable; hedge the exact item wording to the current year's checklist.

Checklist answer	Evidence that must exist	Failure pattern reviewers flag
Code released: yes	anonymous link plus run commands during review	"yes" with no commands or a dead link
Data released: yes	accessible split, license, and loading code	central benchmark claimed open but not provided
Seeds/protocol reported	seed count and aggregation rule in the text	a single run reported as if deterministic
Compute reported	hardware, wall-clock, and total resource budget	omitted cost behind a "trained until converged"
Error bars reported	intervals or std over runs on headline metrics	bold-best numbers with no variance

A justified "no" beats an unsupported "yes". If full release is blocked by privacy, licensing, or safety, say so and document what reviewers can still verify.

Reviewer-pushback patterns

Reviewer concern	NeurIPS-specific fix
"Results may be a lucky seed"	report multiple seeds with variance, not a single point
"Cannot rerun your pipeline"	ship exact env, configs, and a one-command entry point in the ZIP
"Compute claims are unfair"	disclose budget and tune baselines under the same budget
"Dataset access unclear"	give license, hosting, and access steps, anonymized for review

Worked vignette: a scaling-law claim

A paper claims a clean scaling law but reports one training run per model size with no intervals. Reviewers cannot tell signal from seed noise. The fix before submission: add at least a few seeds at the smaller sizes, plot variance bands, disclose the GPU-hours budget, and set the code-released and error-bars checklist answers to a "yes" that the appendix actually supports. If the contribution were instead reproducing someone else's published scaling law, the MLRC/TMLR route, not the main track, would be the correct home.

Output format

[Reproducibility status] Strong / adequate / weak
[Claim at risk] <result that cannot yet be reproduced>
[Needed evidence] <code/data/seed/compute/ablation/error bars/license>
[Checklist changes] <items to revise>
[Route] Main track / MLRC-TMLR / other