12,237 skills found · Page 280 of 408
brycewang-stanford / amr-literature-positioningUse when you must identify which theoretical conversation an Academy of Management Review (AMR) manuscript enters and how it "challenges and extends" that conversation.
brycewang-stanford / amr-review-processUse when you need to understand the Academy of Management Review (AMR) developmental, multi-round review and interpret a decision letter focused on theoretical novelty and logical soundness. Explains the process and decision types; it does NOT draft the response document (that is amr-rebuttal).
brycewang-stanford / aaai-artifact-evaluationUse when packaging AAAI code, data, multimedia appendices, technical appendices, reproducibility evidence, and post-acceptance artifact releases without violating double-blind or immutable-supplement rules.
brycewang-stanford / aaai-author-responseUse when drafting an AAAI author response (rebuttal) under the single short character-limited author-feedback window, the no-URL rule, no-new-results guidance, AI-generated-review handling, and the AAAI two-phase review process where Phase-2 papers receive one feedback round before SPC/AC discussion…
brycewang-stanford / aaai-camera-readyUse when preparing an accepted AAAI paper for camera-ready source submission to AAAI Press, including proceedings page limits, two-column template compliance, copyright transfer, purchased extra technical pages, deanonymization, registration, oral or poster presentation, and final public artifact re…
brycewang-stanford / aaai-review-processUse when explaining or planning around AAAI's two-phase review process, Phase 1 rejection risk, Phase 2 additional reviews, AI-assisted review pilot, author feedback, SPC/AC discussion, and final decisions.
brycewang-stanford / aaai-supplementaryUse when organizing AAAI supplementary material, including the technical appendix, multimedia appendix, and code/data ZIPs, while respecting that AAAI supplements are due with the paper, treated as immutable after submission, must stay double-blind, and should never hide main-paper-critical evidence…
brycewang-stanford / aaai-workflowUse when planning an AAAI project timeline from topic selection through abstract, OpenReview submission, two-phase review, rebuttal, decision, camera-ready, registration, presentation, and public artifact release.
brycewang-stanford / aaai-writing-styleUse when revising an AAAI manuscript for broad-AI-audience fit, a first-page contribution statement legible to non-specialist Phase-1 reviewers, two-column readability, concise novelty claims, reproducibility-checklist alignment, hedged limitations and ethics, and policy-aware framing of AI-system a…
brycewang-stanford / aamas-artifact-evaluationUse when packaging AAMAS multiagent code, environments, opponent and population sets, random seeds, game definitions, and logs as anonymous supplementary evidence or a public post-acceptance release, even without a separate artifact badge, so that game-theory and MARL reviewers can inspect and re-ru…
brycewang-stanford / aamas-author-responseUse when drafting an AAMAS rebuttal to preliminary OpenReview reviews, covering the double-blind constraint, the no-new-results and no-revised-paper norms, how to answer game-theory, MARL, and systems reviewers at once, and how to give the area chair a clean acceptance rationale within a short respo…
brycewang-stanford / aamas-experimentsUse when designing or auditing AAMAS experiments - self-play and population-based training, opponent selection, equilibrium and regret metrics, game-theoretic simulations, ablations, seeds, hyperparameters, compute, and claim-to-evidence fit - with emphasis on experiments that probe the interaction…
brycewang-stanford / aamas-related-workUse when positioning an AAMAS submission against multiagent, game-theory, and reinforcement-learning literature spread across AAMAS, AAAI, IJCAI, NeurIPS, ICML, EC, and JAAMAS, including arXiv and workshop versions, concurrent submissions, prior conference versions, and the cross-community citation…
brycewang-stanford / aamas-reproducibilityUse when strengthening AAMAS reproducibility evidence for interaction claims, including proofs and game definitions, opponent and population sets, self-play protocols, random seeds, compute, uncertainty on strategic outcomes, baselines, and consistency between what the paper claims about agents and…
brycewang-stanford / aamas-review-processUse when explaining or planning around AAMAS peer review, covering OpenReview review release, the double-blind rebuttal on preliminary reviews, area-chair discussion, the mixed game-theory, MARL, and systems reviewer pool, the public posting of reviews and decisions, and how acceptance criteria weig…
brycewang-stanford / aamas-supplementaryUse when preparing AAMAS supplementary material - proofs, extended game and mechanism definitions, extra multiagent experiments, opponent-set details, and the anonymized artifact zip - under the size cap, anonymity, and reviewer-discretion limits, including how to split a game-theory-plus-experiment…
brycewang-stanford / aamas-topic-selectionUse when deciding whether a project is a strong AAMAS fit, comparing AAMAS with AAAI, IJCAI, NeurIPS, ICML, EC, and the JAAMAS journal, identifying whether the agents are truly the research object, naming the interaction primitive (solution concept, mechanism, coordination, negotiation), and sharpen…
brycewang-stanford / aamas-workflowUse when planning an AAMAS project timeline from venue fit through abstract, full-paper or extended-abstract upload, supplementary material, the double-blind rebuttal, decision, IFAAMAS camera-ready, registration, and presentation, with track-specific deadlines and backward-planning offsets for a ga…
brycewang-stanford / aamas-writing-styleUse when revising an AAMAS paper so the interaction contribution leads the first page, the solution concept or incentive property is named, the game and agents are legible, claims are paired with proofs or multiagent experiments, the argument fits eight two-column pages plus references, and the word…
brycewang-stanford / ccs-artifact-evaluationUse when packaging ACM CCS artifacts for the artifact-evaluation committee and the ACM badges — Artifacts Available, Artifacts Evaluated Functional, Artifacts Evaluated Reusable, and Results Reproduced — covering what security evaluators inspect, how to make attacks and defenses turnkey, and how to…
brycewang-stanford / ccs-author-responseUse when drafting an ACM CCS rebuttal during the HotCRP author-response window, covering threat-model defenses, adaptive-attack objections, ethics and disclosure questions, anonymity constraints, adversarial reviewer pushback patterns, and decision-focused replies aimed at the meta-reviewer.
brycewang-stanford / ccs-experimentsUse when designing or auditing ACM CCS experiments, attack demonstrations, adaptive-attack defense evaluations, security measurements, baselines, overhead and cost reporting, ablations, and claim-to-evidence fit, with emphasis on evidence that survives an adversarial program committee rather than le…
brycewang-stanford / ccs-related-workUse when positioning an ACM CCS submission against the security big-four and specialist literature, including arXiv preprints, prior CCS/S&P/USENIX/NDSS papers, concurrent disclosures, CVE and advisory records, and the attack-and-defense lineage that a SIGSAC program committee expects to see credite…
brycewang-stanford / ccs-reproducibilityUse when strengthening ACM CCS reproducibility evidence, including the artifact-availability posture, threat-model-to-evidence mapping, attack reproduction steps, defense overhead measurement, measurement-dataset provenance, environment and version pinning, and honest justification when artifacts ca…
brycewang-stanford / ccs-review-processUse when explaining or planning around ACM CCS peer review, the two-cycle HotCRP workflow, decision categories including minor revision, the rebuttal window, the adversarial reviewer pool, ethics and disclosure scrutiny, meta-review dynamics, and ACM proceedings outcomes.
brycewang-stanford / ccs-submissionUse when auditing an ACM CCS submission for HotCRP readiness, dual-cycle abstract registration and full-paper deadlines, the 12-page ACM sigconf body, anonymization, the ethics considerations appendix, artifact-availability posture, dual-submission policy, per-cycle submission caps, desk-reject trig…
brycewang-stanford / ccs-supplementaryUse when preparing ACM CCS appendices and supplementary material, including the ethics considerations appendix, protocol transcripts, formal proofs, measurement tables, and anonymized supporting material under the 12-page body limit, anonymity, and reviewer-discretion constraints for a security pape…
brycewang-stanford / ccs-topic-selectionUse when deciding whether a security project fits ACM CCS versus IEEE S&P, USENIX Security, NDSS, PETS, or a crypto/theory venue, identifying the security contribution type, and sharpening the threat model and attacker capability before writing begins.
brycewang-stanford / ccs-workflowUse when planning an ACM CCS project timeline across the two HotCRP review cycles, from venue fit through abstract registration, full-paper upload, rebuttal, notification, revision, artifact evaluation, ACM camera-ready, and in-person presentation, with backward-planning offsets and the security big…
brycewang-stanford / ccs-writing-styleUse when revising an ACM CCS paper for a precise threat model, calibrated attack/defense claims, 12-page ACM sigconf compression, double-blind wording, adaptive-evaluation honesty, and the security house style that survives an adversarial SIGSAC program committee.
