But do we know how long was this vulnerability there? Was it for years, and people have been exploiting this route to get their papers accepted (not surprised at all) or is it a newish bug?

Interesting remark. I think there's a difference between looking up the names of past reviewers out of curiosity, without having any consequence (eg, don't bully them), and looking up the names of current reviewers in order to bias the process. The later would be a big integrity failure.

OpenReview was breached. The names of authors, reviewers, ACs, etc, for all past and current conferences were visible for a time, making nothing anonymous anymore. These data have been released for this year's ICLR, but I fear it's also the case for the past 10 years of conferences.

In case someone missed it, an account called OpenReviewers has started posting public comments at ICLR submissions revealing the identity of reviewers. We are in a crazy time.

7/🎛️ Control between areas
We applied our framework to a simplified model of interacting brain areas: a multi-area recurrent neural network (RNN) trained on a working memory task. After learning the task, its "sensory" area gained control over its "cognitive" area.

5/🔎 Estimating the Jacobian from data is difficult. To do so, we developed JacobianODE, a deep learning framework that leverages geometric properties of the Jacobian to infer it from data.

Scroll down the thread to learn how it works. For now, does it work?

My personal favorites (derogatory) are Chicago's 'are you the recommender an alum' and 'please rate the emotional stability of the applicant.'

And asking me to rate english language skills, which, toefl exists?

13/ 😀Feel free to reach out to discuss this work, or the application of it to your field of study. Or come swing by our poster at #NeurIPS2025. We’d love to chat!

📄 Paper: openreview.net/forum?id=I82...
💾 Code: github.com/adamjeisen/J...
📍 Poster: Thu 4 Dec 11am - 2pm PST (#2111)