Use 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-run the interaction claims.
The English summary is being prepared. Showing the original description.
Run score Not tested
See how to installReview the instructions the agent will receive before you install.
Use this for evidence packaging around AAMAS. Because the venue is about interaction, an artifact must make a multiagent claim inspectable: the game, the other agents, and the protocol, not just a single trained model.
The single fact that shapes packaging: a reviewer will re-run a small game far sooner than they will retrain a large policy, so make the strategic core turnkey before polishing anything.
| Claim type | First artifact inspected | Common failure caught |
|---|---|---|
| Convergence to an equilibrium | The game definition and the learning-rule code | Solution concept named in the paper but not encoded in the evaluation |
| Emergent cooperation/defection | The environment and reward specification | Result depends on an undocumented reward-shaping constant |
| Beats other agents | The opponent/population set and match protocol | Only self-play reported; no held-out opponents |
| Mechanism is truthful | The payment rule plus a strategic-deviation test | No script that lets an agent try to game the mechanism |
A hypothetical submission claims a learning rule that converges to a correlated equilibrium in a repeated congestion game, shown by self-play.
[Artifact role] anonymous supplement / camera-ready release / public archive
[Contents] <game/env/opponents/seeds/proofs/logs>
[Anonymity risks] <paths/metadata/licenses/URLs>
[Reproduction level] turnkey / scripted / descriptive / weak
[Fixes before upload] <ordered list>
No reviews yet. Tell others what you thought.
No login needed. Share how it worked for you, ask a question, or note where it did not run.
No comments yet. Be the first to write one.
Use when packaging AAAI code, data, multimedia appendices, technical appendices, reproducibility evidence, and post-acceptance artifact releases without violating double-blind or immutable-supplement rules.
The English summary is being prepared. Showing the original description.
Use 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.
The English summary is being prepared. Showing the original description.
Use 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 release.
The English summary is being prepared. Showing the original description.
Use when designing or auditing AAAI experiments for the broad-AI program committee, including baselines, ablations, statistical significance, robustness, human evaluation, AI-for-Social-Impact and alignment/safety evidence, compute and cost reporting, and reproducibility-checklist alignment for Phase-1 survival.
The English summary is being prepared. Showing the original description.
Use when positioning an AAAI paper's novelty against archival work, contemporaneous arXiv or workshop papers, and AAAI/IJCAI/NeurIPS/ICML/ICLR neighbors across the broad AI scope, while staying inside AAAI's dual-submission and AI-as-source policy constraints and writing a related-work section legible to non-specialist reviewers.
The English summary is being prepared. Showing the original description.
Use when strengthening an AAAI paper's reproducibility checklist (placed after references), experimental traceability, seed and hyperparameter reporting, compute and cost disclosure, dataset access and licensing, code/data ZIP readiness, and the claim-to-evidence map that Phase-1 reviewers use to judge rigor across AAAI's broad AI scope.
The English summary is being prepared. Showing the original description.