Main Conference Timetable for Authors

Note: all deadlines are “anywhere on earth” (UTC-12)

June 16, 2025
Open Review submission site opens for author registration

June 25, 2025
Open Review submission site opens for paper submission

July 25, 2025
Abstracts due at 11:59 PM UTC-12

August 1, 2025
Full papers due at 11:59 PM UTC-12

August 4, 2025
Supplementary material and code due by 11:59 PM UTC-12

September 8, 2025
Notification of Phase 1 rejections

October 2-8, 2025
Author feedback window

November 3, 2025
Notification of final acceptance or rejection (Main Technical Track)

November 13, 2025
Submission of camera-ready files (Main Technical Track)

January 20-27, 2026
AAAI-26 Conference

Note: Deadlines are track-specific and may differ from those listed above. Track-specific deadlines are listed on their respective CFP.

AAAI-26 FAQ for Authors (Rebuttal)

What Authors Need to Know: Review the guidelines below before submitting your author response. Learn about character limits, what you can and cannot include, and how to address reviewer concerns effectively.

A review is unprofessional. How do I respond?

Authors should include such concerns in the rebuttal so that the other reviewers, the SPC, and the AC handling the paper can discuss them appropriately.

The rebuttal should focus on the substance of the reviews (questionable or not), particularly focusing on any factually incorrect claims. Authors should avoid focusing on the tone, presentation, or perceived fairness of the reviews.

Note that recommendations are not made by averaging the reviewers’ scores. Paper recommendations are made by senior members after considering all available information, including the reviews, the scores, the author response, and the reviewer discussions.

Do we only have 2500 characters to respond to all reviews?

Yes, you must respond to all reviews with a single rebuttal of 2500 characters maximum.

Isn’t it unfair that we have to reply to multiple reviews with only 2500 characters?

We endeavor to provide 5 human reviews and 1 AI review to all papers. We will be able to make decisions with a minimum of 3 human reviews. The vast majority of papers (98.98%) had 3 human reviews or more when author responses opened. This means that different papers will have different numbers of reviews. It is up to the authors to decide how to prioritize their responses to reviews.

Can we provide code, diagrams or other files in our rebuttal?

Authors can provide any text (markdown formatting is okay) that fits within the length limit. The response must not include any URLs — responses detected to contain URLs may be withheld.

The supplementary material is missing files or appears to be corrupted. Can it be updated?

According to AAAI policy, supplementary materials cannot be updated at this stage under any circumstances. Authors are responsible for verifying the completeness and integrity of their uploads during the supplementary material submission period.

Can the reproducibility checklist be uploaded at this stage?

No additional files, including the reproducibility checklist, can be uploaded at this stage. Authors should address any reviewer concerns about reproducibility directly in their rebuttal. If the paper is accepted, the proceedings team will collect the complete checklist during the camera-ready submission process.

Should the AI review be addressed in the rebuttal?

Authors can choose to address points raised in any and all of the reviews, including all human-written reviews and the AI-generated reviews.

Can we provide new results that the reviewers asked for?

Authors should not provide new results during the rebuttal, even if the reviewers asked for them. AAAI expects the reviews (and rebuttals) to focus on the paper as submitted. New, rushed experiments cannot be properly validated by the reviewers. 

Clarifying why some experiments are not needed, or why additional results are not critical for the paper is acceptable though.

What are the “Author Review Evaluation” and “AI Author Review Evaluation” for?

These are part of our study on the AAAI-26 process, including the AI pilot program. Participation in this survey is entirely voluntary, and will not be used for the paper decisions, but will help us understand how to revise future review processes.

This study is part of the Pilot Program for AI-Assisted Review in AAAI-2026, led by Joydeep Biswas (Associate Program Chair, AAAI-26) together with the Workflow Chairs, and overseen by the AAAI-26 Program Chairs and Associate Program Chairs, in consultation with the AAAI conference committee and the AAAI Ethics Committee. The study has been reviewed by The University of Texas at Austin Institutional Review Board, and details about the study and participation are available here. 

The “Ethics Chair Author Comment” form shows an error when I try to submit.

We understand this is confusing. The “Ethics Chair Author Comment” functionality is for the Ethics Chairs to contact the Authors if they need to, not the other way around.

Complaints about AI-Generated, factually wrong or generally lacking reviews should be addressed in the rebuttal, not reported to the Ethics Committee. See the “A review is unprofessional. How do I respond?” question above.