ICMI 2026 Scores 4/3/4 – First-Time Submitter Asks If Rebuttal Can Save It
Two 'Probably Accept' ratings clash with a 'Borderline' – what are the real odds?
In a recent Reddit post, a first-time submitter to ACM ICMI 2026 (the International Conference on Multimodal Interaction) revealed their long paper’s review scores: 4 (Probably Accept), 3 (Borderline), and 4 (Probably Accept). The reviewer with the highest self-stated expertise recommended acceptance, while the borderline reviewer raised concerns about soundness yet acknowledged the work as a nice contribution. The user, u/kanishq95, is now seeking guidance from past authors and reviewers on how to interpret this mixed result and whether a strong rebuttal can tip the balance.
ICMI reviews typically use a scale where 4 indicates acceptance is likely, 3 is borderline, and lower scores are reject. A 4/3/4 pattern is common for papers that have clear strengths but also notable weaknesses. The community response on similar threads suggests that with a persuasive rebuttal addressing the soundness concerns, the paper has a reasonable shot at acceptance, especially given the high-expertise reviewer’s strong endorsement. The outcome also depends on area chair discretion and the overall pool quality. For AI and HCI researchers, this case highlights the importance of crafting targeted rebuttals and understanding review dynamics in top-tier conferences.
- Received overall ratings of 4 (Probably Accept), 3 (Borderline), and 4 (Probably Accept) for an ICMI 2026 long paper.
- The borderline reviewer had soundness concerns but still called the contribution nice; the highest-expertise reviewer recommended acceptance.
- Community feedback suggests a 4/3/4 score is competitive after rebuttal, but depends on addressing the weak reviewer’s issues effectively.
Why It Matters
Review patterns like 4/3/4 are common in top AI conferences – knowing how to interpret and rebut can make or break an acceptance.