Position: The Current AI Conference Model is Unsustainable! Diagnosing the Crisis of Centralized AI Conference
Not on the map. Why?
Abstract (arXiv)
Artificial Intelligence (AI) conferences are essential for advancing research, sharing knowledge, and fostering academic community. However, their rapid expansion has rendered the centralized conference model increasingly unsustainable. This paper offers a data-driven diagnosis of a structural crisis that threatens the foundational goals of scientific dissemination, equity, and community well-being. We identify four key areas of strain: (1) scientifically, with per-author publication rates more than doubling over the past decade to over 4.5 papers annually; (2) environmentally, with the carbon footprint of a single conference exceeding the daily emissions of its host city; (3) psychologically, with 71% of online community discourse reflecting negative sentiment and 35% referencing mental health concerns; and (4) logistically, with attendance at top conferences such as NeurIPS 2024 beginning to outpace venue capacity. These pressures point to a system that is misaligned with its core mission. In response, we propose the Community-Federated Conference (CFC) model, which separates peer review, presentation, and networking into globally coordinated but locally organized components, offering a more sustainable, inclusive, and resilient path forward for AI research.
Key facts. Cited by 7 papers in the map (data through 7 Oct 2026). Builds on 7 of its 35 references that are in the map. First posted on arXiv 6 Aug 2025.
Builds on
7 of 35 references.
References · 7
- 2023Direct Preference Optimization: Your Language Model is Secretly a Reward Modelcited by 7,916
- 2023Mamba: Linear-Time Sequence Modeling with Selective State Spacescited by 4,616
- 2025Measuring AI Ability to Complete Long Software Taskscited by 142
- 2025Position: The AI Conference Peer Review Crisis Demands Author Feedback and Reviewer Rewardscited by 34
- 2020An Open Review of OpenReview: A Critical Analysis of the Machine Learning Conference Review Processcited by 23
- 2025Is there a half-life for the success rates of AI agents?cited by 3
- 2025Human-AI Collaboration or Academic Misconduct? Measuring AI Use in Student Writing Through Stylometric Evidencecited by 3
Built on by
Citing papers per year: 2025: 1; 2026: 6.
7 papers.
- 2025Insights from the ICLR Peer Review and Rebuttal Processcited by 8
- 2026Diversity Collapse in Multi-Agent LLM Systems: Structural Coupling and Collective Failure in Open-Ended Idea Generationcited by 7
- 2026APRES: An Agentic Paper Revision and Evaluation Systemcited by 1
- 2026Position: Academic Conferences are Potentially Facing Denominator Gaming Caused by Fully Automated Scientific Agentscited by 1
- 2026Machine Learning Research Has Outpaced Its Communication Norms and NeurIPS Should Actcited by 0
- 2026AiraXiv: An AI-Driven Open-Access Platform for Human and AI Scientistscited by 0
- 2026Beyond Imitation: A Framework and Benchmark for LLM-Assisted Peer Reviewcited by 0
- 2026Beyond Imitation: A Framework and Benchmark for LLM-Assisted Peer Review8 Oct 2026
- 2026AiraXiv: An AI-Driven Open-Access Platform for Human and AI Scientists20 May 2026
- 2026Position: Academic Conferences are Potentially Facing Denominator Gaming Caused by Fully Automated Scientific Agents11 May 2026
- 2026Machine Learning Research Has Outpaced Its Communication Norms and NeurIPS Should Act9 May 2026
- 2026Diversity Collapse in Multi-Agent LLM Systems: Structural Coupling and Collective Failure in Open-Ended Idea Generation20 Apr 2026
- 2026APRES: An Agentic Paper Revision and Evaluation System3 Mar 2026
- 2025Insights from the ICLR Peer Review and Rebuttal Process19 Nov 2025