본문으로 건너뛰기
cccskills
무료GitHub에 공개

aamas-artifact-evaluation

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.

한국어 요약은 준비 중입니다. 원문 설명을 표시하고 있습니다.

설치 방법 보기

포함된 파일(1)

  • SKILL.md3.7 KB

SKILL.md(원문)

설치하기 전에 에이전트에게 전달되는 지시 내용을 확인할 수 있습니다.

AAMAS Artifact Evaluation

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.

Artifact plan

  • Decide what a reviewer needs to believe the interaction claim: game or environment code, opponent/population definitions, the training regime, seeds, payoff logs, proofs, or qualitative episode traces.
  • Keep decision-critical evidence in the main paper or appendix; optional bulk runs can live in the supplementary zip.
  • Anonymize repository history, paths, environment names, license headers, cluster paths, and commit authors for the review version.
  • Include a minimal reproduction map: environment build, dependencies, hardware, commands, expected outputs, per-run wall-clock, seeds, and known nondeterminism (especially in self-play).
  • For a deployed or human-subject setting, give enough provenance for credible reproduction without violating data-use terms.
  • After acceptance, replace anonymous archives with a public, licensed, citable artifact.

What AAMAS evidence reviewers open first

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 typeFirst artifact inspectedCommon failure caught
Convergence to an equilibriumThe game definition and the learning-rule codeSolution concept named in the paper but not encoded in the evaluation
Emergent cooperation/defectionThe environment and reward specificationResult depends on an undocumented reward-shaping constant
Beats other agentsThe opponent/population set and match protocolOnly self-play reported; no held-out opponents
Mechanism is truthfulThe payment rule plus a strategic-deviation testNo script that lets an agent try to game the mechanism

Worked vignette: packaging a self-play study

A hypothetical submission claims a learning rule that converges to a correlated equilibrium in a repeated congestion game, shown by self-play.

  • Ship the game as one parameterized generator (number of agents, capacity, payoff scale) rather than constants buried in a notebook, so reviewers can vary the interaction.
  • Record the exact seed sequence and replication count behind every convergence plot; an equilibrium-convergence claim without seeds is unfalsifiable.
  • Emit payoff and regret tables directly from logged results so PDF and artifact numbers cannot drift.
  • Include a strategic-deviation harness: a script that drops in a non-conforming agent and measures whether it profits, because that is exactly what a game-theory reviewer will try.

Calibration anchors

  • Supplement inspection at AAMAS is at reviewer discretion; assume only the README and one entry script get opened, and design the top level accordingly.
  • Supplement size and format caps vary by cycle (25 MB single zip in 2026); verify against the current OpenReview form rather than a past year.

Output format

[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>

리뷰

아직 리뷰가 없습니다. 사용해 본 소감을 남겨 주세요.

댓글

로그인 없이 쓸 수 있습니다. 사용 후기, 질문, 작동하지 않은 환경 등을 편하게 남겨 주세요.

아직 댓글이 없습니다. 첫 댓글을 남겨 보세요.

보내면 바로 공개됩니다. 이메일 주소나 전화번호 같은 개인 정보는 쓰지 마세요. URL은 2개까지입니다.

0 / 1,000자

이 양식은 reCAPTCHA로 보호되며 Google 개인정보처리방침 및 서비스 약관이 적용됩니다.

같은 저장소의 스킬

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.

한국어 요약은 준비 중입니다. 원문 설명을 표시하고 있습니다.

brycewang-stanford/Awesome-Journal-Skills1.3천2026년 9월 27일 업데이트

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.

한국어 요약은 준비 중입니다. 원문 설명을 표시하고 있습니다.

brycewang-stanford/Awesome-Journal-Skills1.3천2026년 9월 27일 업데이트

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.

한국어 요약은 준비 중입니다. 원문 설명을 표시하고 있습니다.

brycewang-stanford/Awesome-Journal-Skills1.3천2026년 9월 27일 업데이트

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.

한국어 요약은 준비 중입니다. 원문 설명을 표시하고 있습니다.

brycewang-stanford/Awesome-Journal-Skills1.3천2026년 9월 27일 업데이트

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.

한국어 요약은 준비 중입니다. 원문 설명을 표시하고 있습니다.

brycewang-stanford/Awesome-Journal-Skills1.3천2026년 9월 27일 업데이트

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.

한국어 요약은 준비 중입니다. 원문 설명을 표시하고 있습니다.

brycewang-stanford/Awesome-Journal-Skills1.3천2026년 9월 27일 업데이트

brycewang-stanford의 스킬 모두 보기

이 스킬의 문제 신고