'reproducibility' 검색 결과

Use when reviewing mathematical validity, evidence, reproducibility, figures or a submission draft.

한국어 요약은 준비 중입니다. 원문 설명을 표시하고 있습니다.

QA an analysis before sharing with stakeholders — methodology checks, accuracy verification, and bias detection. Use when reviewing an analysis for errors, checking for survivorship bias, validating aggregation logic, or preparing documentation for reproducibility.

한국어 요약은 준비 중입니다. 원문 설명을 표시하고 있습니다.

Think and work like an expert Machine Learning Researcher. Use when a task calls for Machine Learning Researcher judgment. Reasons from population risk, double descent, and inductive bias; enforces sacred test sets, hierarchical ablations, nested CV, and HELM/Dynabench-aware benchmarking; reports with NeurIPS and Pineau reproducibility checklists while treating leakage, meta-overfitting, benchmark contamination, Goodhart gaming, and seed variance as first-class failure modes.

한국어 요약은 준비 중입니다. 원문 설명을 표시하고 있습니다.

Think and work like an expert Experimental Physicist. Use when a task calls for Experimental Physicist judgment. Reasons from GUM error budgets, traceable calibration chains, and multiplied signal-chain transfer functions — separating Type A and Type B uncertainty, null runs, and ELN-linked reproducibility before precision or discovery claims.

한국어 요약은 준비 중입니다. 원문 설명을 표시하고 있습니다.

Think and work like an expert Deep Learning Scientist. Use when a task calls for Deep Learning Scientist judgment. Reasons from CNN/Transformer inductive bias, Li et al. loss landscapes, grokking/mode connectivity, and Kaplan/Chinchilla scaling (~20 tokens/param); designs ResNet/ViT/DiT/MoE/FlashAttention stacks with FLOPs-matched ablations; trains AdamW+cosine/WSD via Megatron-FSDP/DeepSpeed; evaluates FID/MMLU-Pro/MMLU-CF with lm-eval decontamination and Pineau/NeurIPS reproducibility checklists.

한국어 요약은 준비 중입니다. 원문 설명을 표시하고 있습니다.

Think and work like an expert Computational Linguist. Use when a task calls for Computational Linguist judgment. Reasons from UD/PTB formalisms, validate.py/eval.py (LAS/MLAS/ELAS), and evalb .prm settings through Stanza/UDPipe pipelines, PropBank/FrameNet/AMR/UMR layers, IAA (κ, Krippendorff α), CONDA contamination checks, and ARR reproducibility while treating tokenizer mismatch, oracle inflation, train–test leakage, and guideline drift as first-class failure modes.

한국어 요약은 준비 중입니다. 원문 설명을 표시하고 있습니다.

Think and work like an expert Bioinformatician. Use when a task calls for Bioinformatician judgment. Reference-build discipline (GRCh38/GENCODE/Ensembl, MANE), batch-as-covariate DE (DESeq2/edgeR), index hopping/UDI, GATK/BQSR/PLINK GWAS multiplicity, nf-core reproducibility, and scRNA-seq ambient-RNA/doublet artifacts.

한국어 요약은 준비 중입니다. 원문 설명을 표시하고 있습니다.

Think and work like an expert AI Researcher. Use when a task calls for AI Researcher judgment. Reasons from data generating processes, inductive biases, and compute-data-algorithm trade-offs through train/val/test discipline, seed sweeps, ablation ladders, and standards like NeurIPS reproducibility checklists, model cards, and lm-eval-harness, while treating data leakage (Kapoor & Narayanan taxonomy), benchmark contamination, spurious correlations, and reward-model overoptimization as first-class failure modes.

한국어 요약은 준비 중입니다. 원문 설명을 표시하고 있습니다.

Break down full ARR (ACL Rolling Review) reviewer responses into structured rebuttal units. Use when input contains ARR reviewer fields (Paper Summary, Strengths, Weaknesses, Comments/Suggestions) and numeric scores (Confidence, Soundness, Excitement, Overall Assessment, Reproducibility). Splits weaknesses and comments/suggestions into granular response items while preserving original wording for quoted issues.

한국어 요약은 준비 중입니다. 원문 설명을 표시하고 있습니다.

Build and operate rights-aware Bria FIBO and FIBO Lite image-generation workflows with structured prompts, reference images, asynchronous status handling, webhooks, cost gates, and safe artifact downloads. Use when a user asks for Bria/FIBO generation, refinement, inspiration, reproducibility, hosted API integration, or a licensed-data image workflow; do not use for FIBO Edit, video, generic image editing, or third-party FIBO gateways.

한국어 요약은 준비 중입니다. 원문 설명을 표시하고 있습니다.

Provider-independent production workflow for creating Manim-based explainer animations. Use when an agent must plan, code, render, QA, or hand off precise math, science, data, diagram, algorithm, or concept animations with Manim, including storyboard, scene architecture, formulas, coordinate systems, voiceover timing, accessibility, reproducibility, provenance, and delivery decisions.

한국어 요약은 준비 중입니다. 원문 설명을 표시하고 있습니다.

Plan, prompt, execute, troubleshoot, and quality-control Black Forest Labs FLUX image generation and editing across the BFL direct API and licensed local/open-weight deployments. Use for FLUX.2 model selection, text-to-image, single- or multi-reference editing, typography, exact-color work, mask-based erase/inpainting, outpainting, API integration, reproducibility, deployment licensing, and production rights or safety decisions; also use when migrating or maintaining legacy FLUX.1/FLUX1.1 workflows.

한국어 요약은 준비 중입니다. 원문 설명을 표시하고 있습니다.

Provider-independent production workflow for agents assembling, auditing, executing, and handing off ComfyUI node-graph workflows for image, video, upscale, inpaint, conditioning, and batch media generation; use when a task involves ComfyUI workflow JSON/API graphs, model and custom-node inventories, reproducibility, provenance, safety/rights review, local or cloud execution hygiene, or production QA.

한국어 요약은 준비 중입니다. 원문 설명을 표시하고 있습니다.

Comprehensive quality control for CLIP-seq libraries (eCLIP, iCLIP, iCLIP2, PAR-CLIP) covering library complexity (preseq), FRiP, IDR replicate reproducibility, read-distribution metagene, SMInput vs IgG control rationale, rRNA / snoRNA contamination, fragment-length distribution, and ENCODE-compliance thresholds. Use when assessing whether a CLIP library passed, deciding lenient vs stringent peak thresholds, comparing replicates with IDR rescue and self-consistency ratios, or distinguishing failed IP from over-amplified library.

한국어 요약은 준비 중입니다. 원문 설명을 표시하고 있습니다.

Data Version Control for ML projects. Track large datasets and models alongside Git, build reproducible ML pipelines, and run experiments with metric comparison. Works with any storage backend including S3, GCS, Azure, and local filesystems.

한국어 요약은 준비 중입니다. 원문 설명을 표시하고 있습니다.

Infrastructure and practices for reproducible computational research. Covers environment management, data versioning, code documentation, and sharing protocols that enable others to reproduce your results. Use when ", " mentioned.

한국어 요약은 준비 중입니다. 원문 설명을 표시하고 있습니다.

Build the deterministic evidence ledger (artifact_manifest.json + claims.json) that every other Anti-Autoresearch auditor reads. One pass inventories artifacts, derives the observability level (L0 PDF-only / L1 +LaTeX / L2 +repo+results) by fixed rule, and extracts span-anchored, hashed, checkable claims (numbers, comparisons, scope, method, baselines, citations, captions, table cells) into claims.json. An OPTIONAL additive cross-model pass ADDS span-anchored semantic claims — method, theorem statements with their assumptions, definitions, proof/derivation steps and equations, scope, baselines, conclusions, the motivation span, and reproducibility-artifact references (the proof, derivation, and structure anchors the family B/D/G auditors need) — it never invents a number, emits a finding, or computes a verdict. Run FIRST, before any audit skill. Triggers: "build the ledger", "extract claims", "prep for integrity audit", "evidence ledger", "建证据账本".

한국어 요약은 준비 중입니다. 원문 설명을 표시하고 있습니다.

Audit experiment integrity against the evidence ledger. At L2 (repo + result files present) a fresh cross-model reviewer reads the eval code line-by-line for fake/derived ground truth, score self-normalization, phantom results (a paper number with no backing file/key), dead/uncalled metric code, verified-scope inflation, method-described ≠ method-evaluated drift, synthesized-looking results, placeholder/fake data still wired into a released result, code-output ≠ reported-number mismatch, and missing reproducibility artifacts (an empirical/agent/LLM paper shipping neither code nor the prompts/configs its results need) — every finding span-anchored to a ledger claim_id. At L0/L1 (PDF / source only) the same patterns are surfaced as info-level 'could-not-verify' signals where the ledger gives an anchor (observability_level_required:2) — NEVER a fraud verdict from a PDF. The reviewer PROPOSES findings; tools/adjudicate_findings.py computes the verdict. Detect-only. Triggers: "experiment forensics", "audit the results", "check the eval code", "实验诚实度".

한국어 요약은 준비 중입니다. 원문 설명을 표시하고 있습니다.

Use when a change trains a model, reports a metric, or touches seeds, data or model versions, the lockfile, MLflow or DVC — what every run must log, seeding, environment pinning, data versioning and keeping tests off the shared tracking server

한국어 요약은 준비 중입니다. 원문 설명을 표시하고 있습니다.

🇺🇸 Your dev team ships features nobody asked for while user-reported bugs pile up for months. Operations blames engineering for ignoring users; engineering blames operations for not understanding technical constraints. This gives you the complete Product × Engineering × Operations alignment SOP — from unified backlog to 10-day sprint cadence to veto power rules. What's inside: • Dual-layer Kanban system (master backlog + sprint board with unified tagging) • 10-day sprint standard process (Day 1 dev → Day 6 testable build → Day 10 ship) • Issue template with reproducibility requirements (3x reported = auto-severe) • Tri-party alignment meetings (daily standup / sprint planning / sprint review) • Operations veto power on releases (P0 bug = block shipping) • User feedback → product iteration closed loop (beta testing + interview SOP) • Core metrics framework (acquisition → activation → retention → monetization → referral) • Technical debt management (20-30% sprint capacity reserved) • Ready-to-use templates: Bug Report, Sprint Planning, Responsibility Matrix Built from: Real product strategy meetings + beta testing frameworks. References Supabase sprint model, Manus/DeepSeek commercialization alignment. By @WeiYipei. 🇨🇳 你的研发团队在做没人要的新功能，用户反馈的 Bug 堆了三个月没人动。运营觉得研发不听用户，研发觉得运营不懂技术。这份 SOP 给你从统一看板到 10 天迭代节奏到一票否决权的完整产研运协同框架。 🇯🇵 開発チームは誰も求めていない機能を作り、ユーザーから報告されたバグは何ヶ月も放置。このSOPは、統一バックログから10日スプリント、リリース拒否権まで、プロダクト×エンジニアリング×オペレーションの完全な連携フレームワークを提供します。 🇰🇷 개발팀은 아무도 요청하지 않은 기능을 만들고, 사용자가 보고한 버그는 몇 달째 방치됩니다. 이 SOP는 통합 백로그부터 10일 스프린트, 릴리스 거부권까지 제품×개발×운영 완전 협업 프레임워크를 제공합니다. Triggers: "product ops" | "engineering operations" | "product development SOP" | "sprint planning" | "iteration management" | "cross-functional alignment" | "product engineering ops" | "dev ops collaboration" | "产研运协同" | "迭代管理" | "产品研发运营" | "プロダクト開発運営" | "제품개발운영"

한국어 요약은 준비 중입니다. 원문 설명을 표시하고 있습니다.

Audit existing model training code — find reproducibility issues, data leakage, and missing best practices. Use when asked to "audit our training code", "is our training reproducible", or "check for training data leakage".

한국어 요약은 준비 중입니다. 원문 설명을 표시하고 있습니다.

Reads and analyzes academic papers (arXiv preprints, conference / journal PDFs, Zotero items) at three configurable depths: quick skim (2 min), standard read (10 min), or deep analysis (30 min). Produces structured digests covering problem, method, key innovation, results, limitations, reproducibility, hidden assumptions, and connections to the user's other work. Use when the user shares an arXiv link, PDF, or paper title and asks to read / summarize / digest / TL;DR / analyze / review / critique / explain / break down a paper, asks about a paper's contributions / methods / results / equations / figures, wants to compare two papers side by side, or needs a reading note for their records.

한국어 요약은 준비 중입니다. 원문 설명을 표시하고 있습니다.

MLOps and the production ML lifecycle -- model packaging and serving, CI/CD for ML, experiment tracking, model registries, reproducibility, production monitoring for data and concept drift, retraining pipelines, A/B and shadow deployment, and rollback. Covers batch vs online/real-time inference, REST endpoints, feature stores, data and version pinning, deterministic pipelines, performance-decay detection, and retraining triggers. Use when deploying models to production, serving predictions, monitoring for data or concept drift, setting up ML CI/CD, tracking experiments, managing a model registry, or planning retraining, shadow rollout, and rollback.

한국어 요약은 준비 중입니다. 원문 설명을 표시하고 있습니다.

Apply best practices for Jupyter notebooks: cell ordering, reproducibility, parameterisation. Use when working with .ipynb files.

한국어 요약은 준비 중입니다. 원문 설명을 표시하고 있습니다.