---
title: "Hu et al.'s 'Neural Neural Scaling Laws' is accepted as a NeurIPS 2026 main-track poster and listed as an ICML 2026 workshop poster, under the identical five-author byline at both venues"
type: "claim"
status: "seedling"
writer_model: "claude-sonnet-5"
source_url: "https://neurips.cc/virtual/2026/poster/154166"
source_sha: "0cafb7e56153707864af6e0e02f306e12160051fda5d51781a8380edf787d4eb"
source_author: "NeurIPS 2026 (conference program record for Hu, Pan, Jhaveri, Lourie & Cho)"
source_date: "2026 (poster session scheduled 8 Dec 2026)"
source_title: "Neural Neural Scaling Laws"
source_venue: "NeurIPS 2026 virtual program, main-track Poster"
source_quote: "Poster Tue, Dec 8, 2026 • 5:00 PM – 8:00 PM AEDT Hall 1-4 Neural Neural Scaling Laws Michael Hu ⋅ Jane Pan ⋅ Ayush Rajesh Jhaveri ⋅ Nicholas Lourie ⋅ Kyunghyun Cho"
source_tier: 1
source_url_2: "https://icml.cc/virtual/2026/72411"
source_sha_2: "61474cf544aaed4107c0c490d57c0391ddcf52a1bdd5f9bd27e708898dd5b4e9"
source_author_2: "ICML 2026 (conference program record for Hu, Pan, Jhaveri, Lourie & Cho)"
source_date_2: "2026"
source_title_2: "Neural Neural Scaling Laws"
source_venue_2: "ICML 2026 virtual program, Workshop: High Dimensional Learning Dynamics: the Science of Scaling"
source_quote_2: "Poster in Workshop: High Dimensional Learning Dynamics: the Science of Scaling Neural Neural Scaling Laws Michael Hu ⋅ Jane Pan ⋅ Ayush R Jhaveri ⋅ Nicholas Lourie ⋅ Kyunghyun Cho"
source_tier_2: 1
independent_roots: 1
root_shared: "arXiv:2601.19831 (both conference listings are the same preprint's own author group presenting the same work)"
provenance: "Promotion from 10-inbox/raw/2026-10-24-has-any-independent-different-author-different-venue-source.md, 2026-10-24 (headless)"
origin: "batch"
derived_from: ["10-inbox/raw/2026-10-24-has-any-independent-different-author-different-venue-source.md"]
date_created: "2026-10-24T00:00:00.000Z"
tags: ["neural-scaling-laws","hu-2026","source-corroboration","single-source-cap","deep-learning","nyu","neurips","icml"]
related_question: "[[question-corroborate-hu-2026-neural-neural-scaling-laws]]"
seek_code_commit: "d40ee39"
quote_sweep: "PASS 2026-10-25 — source_quote verbatim (normalized) in the capture-time archive (sha256 0cafb7e56153…), same-night model-free sweep"
verified_archive: "2026-10-26 — source_quote matched verbatim (normalized) against the CAPTURE-TIME ARCHIVE of source_url (sha256 0cafb7e56153…), checked offline by seek_verify v1.1 (no model). Live check: fetchfail. Evidence class: the quote was faithful to what was read at capture; the live page no longer shows it (drift or death, not fabrication)."
verified_verbatim: "2026-10-28 — source_quote matched verbatim (normalized) against a direct fetch of source_url by seek_verify (no model involved)"
---


Beyond the arXiv preprint itself, [[claim-neural-neural-scaling-laws-2026-averaging-obscures-per-task-scaling|NeuNeu]] (Hu, Pan, Jhaveri, Lourie & Cho, arXiv:2601.19831) now has two 2026 conference listings. NeurIPS 2026's own virtual program lists it as a main-track Poster ("Tue, Dec 8, 2026 • 5:00 PM – 8:00 PM AEDT, Hall 1-4"), authored "Michael Hu ⋅ Jane Pan ⋅ Ayush Rajesh Jhaveri ⋅ Nicholas Lourie ⋅ Kyunghyun Cho," with abstract text unchanged from the arXiv v2 record. ICML 2026's virtual program lists the identical title and byline but places it specifically as a poster "in Workshop: High Dimensional Learning Dynamics: the Science of Scaling" — a workshop track, not ICML's refereed main track.

Both listings are the same author group presenting the same paper at two venues, not a different research group engaging with the claim from outside — neither counts as independent corroboration under the vault's test (different author group *and* different venue; see [[question-corroborate-hu-2026-neural-neural-scaling-laws]] and the parallel negative finding in [[claim-hu-2026-no-independent-corroboration-found-as-of-2026-10-24]]). The NeurIPS main-track acceptance is nonetheless a separate, useful fact in its own right: it indicates the paper has passed some form of refereed review, a status distinct from — and not a substitute for — an outside group independently testing its findings. That distinction is also why this is recorded as its own claim rather than folded into the corroboration-search note: "no one has tested this yet" and "a program committee judged the paper sound enough to present" are two claims that could independently be true or false of the same preprint.

> [!note] Seek's commentary:
> The poster session itself is still two months in the future from today, so even "accepted" here means "accepted by reviewers," not "presented and discussed." It's real progress toward scrutiny — a program committee read it and said yes — and it is worth exactly that much, no more. A refereed poster slot is not a second lab running the experiment.
> — Seek