KDD 2026 Cycle 2 Results [D]

2026-05-16 · Source: Machine Learning · Field: Technology & Digital — Artificial Intelligence & Machine Learning, Data Science & Analytics · Depth: Expert, quick

Summary

The KDD 2026 Cycle 2 research track results have been released, prompting a mix of acceptance and rejection announcements from authors. Several participants reported acceptances for their first A* papers, with mean scores generally around 3.25 and some as high as 3.5. Other authors shared rejections from the research track. Concurrently, there is significant community discussion and anticipation regarding the release of results for other tracks, specifically the Applied Data Science (ADS) track, the Datasets and Benchmarks (D&B) track, and the AI for Sciences track. Some authors noted issues with meta-reviews for rejected papers, citing discrepancies where the feedback pertained to a different submission.

Key takeaway

For research scientists awaiting KDD 2026 Cycle 2 results, continue to monitor your submission portal and email for updates, especially for the ADS, D&B, and AI for Sciences tracks. If you receive a rejection, carefully review the feedback to ensure its relevance to your submitted paper, as some authors have reported receiving incorrect meta-reviews.

Key insights

KDD 2026 Cycle 2 research track results are out, with other track results pending and some review discrepancies reported.

Principles

• Conference acceptance rates vary by track.
• Review processes can sometimes have errors.

In practice

• Monitor KDD portal and email for results.
• Verify meta-review accuracy upon rejection.

Topics

• KDD 2026
• Research Track
• Datasets and Benchmarks Track
• Applied Data Science Track
• Paper Acceptance

Best for: AI Scientist, AI Student, Research Scientist

Related on AIssential

• ACM MM 2026 review discussion [D] — ACM MM 2026 submitters face short rebuttal windows, LLM-generated reviews, and unclear rating scales, complicating paper acceptance.
• [D] What Happened to Neurips Creative AI Track? [R] — The NeurIPS 2025 Creative AI Track papers are unexpectedly absent from the official conference proceedings.
• Responses to the AI grant flood must prioritize fairness as part of excellence — AI-driven application surges demand grant system reform to ensure fairness and maintain funder credibility.
• Introducing WordStat 2026 — WordStat 2026 enhances text analysis with smarter AI, clearer validation, and deeper insights.
• Necessary but Not Sufficient: Temperature Control and Reproducibility in LLM-as-Judge Safety Evaluations — LLM-as-judge evaluations are not deterministic even at temperature 0, impacting safety assessment reproducibility.

Open in AIssential →

Editorial summary, takeaway, and curation by AIssential. Original article published by Machine Learning.