Ranking Agreement Does Not Reveal Paragraph-Edit Agreement in Two Released Paper Acceptance Predictors

Abstract

A fast acceptance classifier could select revisions for a slower evaluator. We ask whether agreement on existing papers supports that use. We compare a classifier of word and document features with two released text-only acceptance predictors fine-tuned from the same language model with three billion parameters. For 198 papers from the International Conference on Learning Representations, we compare model rankings of the original papers and of paragraph rewrites screened automatically for unchanged facts, claim strength, and attribution. The classifier ranks original papers closely with one predictor and moderately with the other, but shows no detectable agreement with either on which rewrites raise scores. The tests specified in advance used reduced numerical precision. Rounding error dominated the small score responses. We therefore rescored the released weights in full 32-bit precision as a post hoc check; edit agreement remained near zero. At this precision, when each predictor chooses among five rewrites per paper, its average raw score is under two points out of 100 higher than with random choice. The evidence covers presentation rewrites and two open predictors from one family; transfer to costly evaluators remains untested. Revision selectors should therefore be checked against the intended evaluator on the revisions they rank.