Machine Learning Research Has Outpaced Its Communication Norms and NeurIPS Should Act
Ajay Mandyam Rangarajan, Jeyashree Krishnan

TL;DR
This paper analyzes the exponential growth of machine learning research and its declining readability, proposing standards for NeurIPS to improve communication clarity and accessibility for human readers.
Contribution
It provides a comprehensive analysis of publication trends and readability metrics, and suggests seven measurable standards for NeurIPS to enhance research communication.
Findings
NeurIPS abstracts have become harder to read over time.
Acronym density in NeurIPS titles has increased significantly.
More readable papers tend to receive more citations.
Abstract
Machine learning research has grown exponentially while its communication norms have not. We argue NeurIPS should adopt explicit, measurable writing standards. We analyze 2.8 million arXiv papers (1991-2025), 24,772 NeurIPS papers (1987-2024), and 24.5 million PubMed papers (1990-2025), applying classical readability scores, the Hohmann writing style suite (including sensational language), acronym density and reuse, an LLM as judge readability protocol, and citations from OpenAlex and Semantic Scholar. Four patterns emerge. First, NeurIPS abstracts score harder to read on every classical readability metric: Flesch Reading Ease falls from about 24 in 1987 to 13 in 2024, and sensational language rises by about 50 percent in NeurIPS abstracts between 2015 and 2024. Second, acronym density in NeurIPS titles has grown from 0.33 per 100 words in 1987 to 3.21 in 2024, and about 89 percent of…
Peer Reviews
No public reviews on file for this paper yet. If you reviewed it on a platform where reviews are public (OpenReview, ICLR, NeurIPS, ICML), you can paste yours below so the community can read it here.
Videos
No videos yet. Explain this paper in a talk, walkthrough, or lecture? Add one.
