Use 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 wording stays double-blind.
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 when revising the main paper. AAMAS papers need a compact statement of why an interaction result matters and enough detail for a game theorist and an empiricist to both validate it.
| Draft pattern | AAMAS-safe rewrite |
|---|---|
| "Our agents outperform the baselines..." | "reduce social cost by X (SE Y) over Z seeds against held-out opponents" |
| "The agents reach equilibrium..." | "converge to a coarse-correlated equilibrium (Def. 2) under Assumptions 1-3" |
| "The mechanism is fair and efficient..." | "is dominant-strategy truthful (Thm. 1) with efficiency loss bounded by ... (Thm. 2)" |
| "In a multiagent setting..." | Name the game, the number of agents, and the information structure |
A draft with two theorems, a mechanism, six figures, and a sprawling related-work section: keep both theorem statements with one sketch each, the mechanism definition, and the two decision-critical figures (truthfulness-under-learning and the efficiency gap); compress related work into precise contrasts; move secondary lemmas and four figures to the appendix with forward references. The test of a good cut: a reviewer reconstructs the whole interaction argument without opening the supplement.
[Writing diagnosis] clear / interaction-buried / concept-unnamed / overloaded
[First-page fix] <new interaction framing>
[Claim discipline] <claim -> proof / experiment / limitation>
[Compression cuts] <move / delete / merge>
[Anonymity edits] <phrases to rewrite>
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.