# UAI 2026 review form > Simulate UAI 2026 reviews: Summary and contributions, five 1–4 assessments (originality, correctness, evidence, reproducibility, clarity), main strengths and weaknesses, detailed comments, and the 1–10 overall score with justification and confidence. - Venue: Conference on Uncertainty in Artificial Intelligence - Form status: official (from the venue's public reviewer form) - Official source: https://auai.org/uai2026/instructions_for_reviewers_and_area_chairs - Overall score: Overall Score, 1–10 - Rough acceptance bar (our simulation): mean ≥ 6 - Web page: https://reviewpaper.ai/venues/uai ## How reviewers read the paper UAI 2026 reviewers summarize the motivation and contributions briefly (mainly for ACs), rate five axes on 1–4 (originality, correctness, support of claims by evidence, reproducibility, clarity), list main strengths and weaknesses along those axes, give detailed comments, and choose a 1–10 overall score with a short justification and a 1–5 confidence. Judge the scientific contribution, not personal interest in the topic. Ethics flags are separate from the score. - Detailed, specific and polite; avoid vague or subjective complaints. - Judge the scientific contribution, not whether the topic interests you. - Respect the character limits: summary and justification are a few lines each. - Use the borderline scores 4 and 5 sparingly. **Where the bar sits.** UAI historically accepts about 30% of submissions; no 2026 statistics are public. The reviewer instructions target at most 25% of papers at 7 (Accept) or above, so a mean around 6 is competitive and 5–6 is borderline. ## Reviewer form, field by field ### 1. Summary And Contributions Type: free text. At most 500 characters: the paper's motivation and key contributions in a few lines. Contributions may be theoretical, methodological, algorithmic, applied, empirical, connecting ideas across fields, or a critical analysis. ### 2. Originality/Novelty Type: score, 1–4. Part of "Assessment Of The Paper". How new are the main ideas? - **4**: Excellent: The main ideas of the paper are ground-breaking. - **3**: Good: The paper makes non-trivial advances over the current state-of-the-art. - **2**: Fair: The paper contributes some new ideas. - **1**: Poor: The main ideas of the paper are not novel or represent incremental progress. ### 3. Correctness/Technical Quality Type: score, 1–4. Part of "Assessment Of The Paper". Technical soundness of the methods, proofs and experiments. - **4**: Excellent: I am confident that the paper is technically sound, and I have carefully checked the details. - **3**: Good: The paper appears to be technically sound, but I have not carefully checked the details. - **2**: Fair: The paper has minor, easily fixable, technical flaws that do not impact the validity of the main results. - **1**: Poor: The paper has major technical flaws. ### 4. Extent To Which Claims Are Supported By Evidence Type: score, 1–4. Part of "Assessment Of The Paper". Do experiments, proofs, code and references back up the claims? - **4**: Excellent: all claims are supported by very convincing evidence (in the form of comprehensive experimental evaluation, rigorous mathematical proofs, detailed (pseudo-)code, precise references, well-motivated and realistic assumptions) and the authors deliver what they promise. - **3**: Good: the main claims are supported by convincing evidence (in the form of adequate experimental evaluation, proofs, (pseudo-)code, references, assumptions). - **2**: Fair: the main claims are somewhat supported by evidence (but the experimental evaluation may be weak, or does not match entirely with the claims, important baselines may be missing, proofs contain important ideas but lack rigor, algorithmic details are only discussed superficially, references are imprecise, assumptions are not sufficiently motivated or explicated, etc.). - **1**: Poor: the authors fail to convincingly back up their main claims (e.g., if the experimental evaluation is flawed, proofs are lacking or invalid, references are missing, assumptions are not realistic, not specified, or not motivated). ### 5. Reproducibility Type: score, 1–4. Part of "Assessment Of The Paper". Could competent researchers reproduce the main results? - **4**: Excellent: key resources (e.g. proofs, code, data) are available and key details (e.g. proof sketches, experimental setup) are comprehensively described for competent researchers to confidently and easily reproduce the main results. - **3**: Good: key resources (e.g. proofs, code, data) are available and key details (e.g. proofs, experimental setup) are sufficiently well-described for competent researchers to confidently reproduce the main results. - **2**: Fair: key resources (e.g. proofs, code, data) are unavailable but key details (e.g. proof sketches, experimental setup) are sufficiently well-described for an expert to confidently reproduce the main results. - **1**: Poor: key details (e.g. proof sketches, experimental setup) are incomplete/unclear, or key resources (e.g. proofs, code, data) are unavailable. ### 6. Clarity Of Writing Type: score, 1–4. Part of "Assessment Of The Paper". Organization and clarity of the writing. - **4**: Excellent: The paper is well-organized and clearly written. - **3**: Good: The paper is well organized but the presentation could be improved. - **2**: Fair: The paper is somewhat clear, but some important details are missing or unclear. - **1**: Poor: The paper is unclear and very hard to understand. ### 7. Main Strengths Type: list of points. At most 3000 characters, organized along the five assessment axes above. ### 8. Main Weaknesses Type: list of points. At most 3000 characters, organized along the five assessment axes above. Be specific; avoid vague or subjective complaints. ### 9. Detailed Comments To The Authors Type: list of points. Detailed, specific and polite comments, questions and suggestions for improving the paper. ### 10. Overall Score Type: score, 1–10. Ideally no more than 25% of papers at Accept (7) or above, 20% at Strong Accept or above, 10% at Very Strong Accept or above and 1% at Award quality. 4 and 5 sparingly. - **10**: Award quality - **9**: Very Strong Accept - **8**: Strong Accept - **7**: Accept - **6**: Weak Accept - **5**: Borderline accept. Please use sparingly. - **4**: Borderline reject. Please use sparingly. - **3**: Reject - **2**: Strong Reject - **1**: Very Strong Reject ### 11. Justification For Your Score Type: free text. At most 500 characters: the decisive reasons for the overall score. ### 12. Confidence In Your Score Type: score, 1–5. How confident you are in your score. - **5**: Very confident - **4**: Quite confident - **3**: Somewhat confident - **2**: Not very confident - **1**: Not confident ### 13. Ethical Concerns (optional) Type: free text. "No", or "Yes" with an explanation. The overall score should not depend on this answer. ## Area chair meta-review UAI ACs run the discussion, write the meta-review and recommend accept or reject to the PCs. The meta-review form itself is not public. Recommendation options: Accept · Reject ## LLM policy UAI 2026 does not allow LLMs to write reviews or meta-reviews; they may be used only to check grammar, and the reviewer is responsible for all submitted text. Official policy: https://auai.org/uai2026/instructions_for_reviewers_and_area_chairs --- Simulate reviews of your own draft in this venue's form: https://reviewpaper.ai/new?venue=uai (3 free reviews). Sample report: https://reviewpaper.ai/sample. reviewpaper.ai is for authors checking their own unpublished drafts. If you are an assigned reviewer, follow your venue's LLM policy: most venues forbid putting a submission you are reviewing into any external AI tool. Not affiliated with any conference.