Post

@ccanonne.github.io

The #STOC2027 CfP has been updated (in light of the recent #arXiv policy change): acm-stoc.org/stoc2027/sto... (see "Public submissions") In addition, a document by the PC Chair explaining the rationale behind the policies is available: acm-stoc.org/stoc2027/sto... [PDF]

2/10/26, 8:14 pm4 reposts12 likes

Juspreet Singh Sandhu

@freegaussians.bsky.social

I just do not think using LLMs for the review is a good idea. I am not confident this is going to go down well.

Clément Canonne

@ccanonne.github.io

I'm not disagreeing. My view is just not the majority one in this case.

Juspreet Singh Sandhu

@freegaussians.bsky.social

Sorry, perhaps I should be more precise - it is disconcerting to me that your view is not in the majority. That’s what I mean.

Shreyas Srinivas

@lean-samaritan.bsky.social

“making submissions public allows the PC and reviewers to use LLMs to help with review and evaluation without violating the confidentiality of submissions” ==> what?

Shreyas Srinivas

@lean-samaritan.bsky.social

Maybe the intended meaning is benign. However the current phrasing comes off as “let’s get rid of the rules so we can violate them without violating them”.

Sophie Huiberts

@sophie.huiberts.me

This seems like a strange change? 1. STOC makes arXiv posting mandatory because of submissions increase 2. arXiv tightens its rate limit because of submissions increase 3. STOC abandonds arXiv posting because of said rate limit? Not sure what I am not understanding here.

Anuj Dawar अनुज दावर انُج داور

@anujdawar.bsky.social

I think the additional load that the STOC requirement would have put on arxiv would have been too much.

Exactly

My understanding is that (1) the last minute change means some authors may not have had time to plan, and (2) conversations with arXiv people revealed a risk they might not be able to handle the load. For future iterations of STOC, a more stable public posting solution should be found.