AINEWS
When 'ICML Paper' Means Workshop Paper
A Reddit thread highlighting how workshop papers at top venues can be misrepresented as main track publications exposes ongoing ambiguity in how AI industry hiring and self presentation are evaluated.
A Reddit thread highlighting how workshop papers at top venues can be misrepresented as main track publications exposes ongoing ambiguity in how AI industry hiring and self presentation are evaluated.
A short thread on r/MachineLearning went viral last week after a user noticed something unusual: colleagues at the same AI company had publicly cited five ICML papers in five months, including one Spotlight — only for the posts to reveal the papers were workshop submissions, not main-track publications.[^1]
The original poster wrote: "I recently saw these posts from people at the same AI company. At first, I was extremely surprised. It turned out they were workshop papers. Am I missing something here, or are workshop papers now being treated as equivalent to main-track papers?"
Community reaction was swift. One Reddit user who claimed direct familiarity with the individual wrote: "I am connected with this guy. Didn't realise they were all workshop. Makes the PhD comment seem ridiculous as any number of workshop papers wouldn't be too difficult to achieve."[^1] Another user noted: "I literally produced one CVPR workshop paper in 3 days. It was a good paper but workshop paper is nothing to brag about."[^1]
The distinction matters. In the machine learning research community, workshop papers and main-track papers at venues like ICML are generally understood to carry very different weight. A strong PhD student might produce five main-track papers over four years; producing five workshop papers in five months is considerably less uncommon.
The thread highlights a persistent ambiguity in how AI industry researchers present their work. When a researcher lists "five ICML papers" on a personal site, LinkedIn, or in a bio, the implication is usually main-track publications at the flagship conference. Workshop papers, which are typically shorter, less rigorously reviewed, and not included in the formal conference proceedings, occupy a very different tier.
The original poster included a direct quote from the colleagues' claims: "Five ICML papers is what a strong PhD produces in four years. I did it in five months."[^1] That framing — explicitly invoking the PhD-production benchmark — suggests an intent to claim main-track equivalence. The subsequent revelation that all five were workshop papers prompted disbelief in the community.
One commenter captured the reaction succinctly: "ML research is such a slaughterhouse... CS has so many interesting research areas yet ML gets all the focus."[^1]
The workshop-versus-main-track distinction is well-established terminology in the ML research community. Workshops at major conferences are typically focused on emerging or niche topics, run concurrently with the main event, and do not carry the same publication prestige as the main track. Main-track papers appear in the formal conference proceedings and are indexed accordingly.
This case appears to be an instance of an individual leveraging the brand association of "ICML" without specifying the workshop context — a practice that, while not technically false, can create a misleading impression of research output and credibility.
[^1]: Reddit r/MachineLearning discussion thread, June 2026. Source: https://www.reddit.com/r/MachineLearning/comments/1u3d7as/5_icml_papers_in_5_months_d/