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.
日本語の概要は準備中です。原文の説明を表示しています。
Use 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 sharpening the multiagent framing before writing begins.
インストールする前に、エージェントに与えられる指示の中身を確認できます。
Use this before writing. AAMAS is strongest when the agents are the research object - when the result exists because multiple self-interested or cooperating agents interact - not when a single-agent method is dressed in multiagent vocabulary.
| Signal in the project | AAMAS reading |
|---|---|
| A solution concept, mechanism, or coordination result paired with multiagent experiments | Core fit - the house genre |
| Emergent behavior that only appears because agents co-adapt | Core fit |
| Strong single-agent method benchmarked in a multiagent environment | Better served at NeurIPS or ICML |
| Pure market/auction theory with economics as the point | EC or an econ-CS journal |
| Broad AI reasoning with no interaction at its center | AAAI or IJCAI |
A project trains agents to communicate and shows higher cooperation in a mixed-motive game. AAMAS reading: strong fit if the analysis is about the interaction - what the emergent protocol signals, whether it is incentive-compatible, how it changes the equilibrium. Strip the incentive and coordination analysis and keep only a reward curve, and the same project reads as a general MARL paper better suited to NeurIPS or ICML; grow it into a full theory of the signaling equilibrium, and EC or JAAMAS becomes the better home.
[Fit] strong AAMAS / possible AAMAS / better elsewhere
[Best venue] AAMAS / AAAI / IJCAI / NeurIPS / ICML / EC / JAAMAS / other
[Interaction primitive] <solution concept / mechanism / coordination / negotiation / none>
[Contribution sentence] <one sentence>
[Top rejection risk] <single-agent-in-disguise / concept-unnamed / thin-evaluation / scope>
[Next action] <theory, experiment, framing, or venue switch>
まだレビューはありません。使ってみた感想をお寄せください。
概要と使いどころ
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.
日本語の概要は準備中です。原文の説明を表示しています。
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.
日本語の概要は準備中です。原文の説明を表示しています。
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.
日本語の概要は準備中です。原文の説明を表示しています。
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.
日本語の概要は準備中です。原文の説明を表示しています。
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.
日本語の概要は準備中です。原文の説明を表示しています。
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.
日本語の概要は準備中です。原文の説明を表示しています。