跳到正文
cccskills
免费在 GitHub 公开

aaai-artifact-evaluation

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.

中文简介正在准备中。当前显示原文说明。

查看安装方法

包含的文件(1)

  • SKILL.md3.5 KB

SKILL.md(原文)

安装前可以查看交给 AI 代理的指令内容。

AAAI Artifact Evaluation

Use this to prepare artifacts that reviewers can use to assess reproducibility. AAAI supplementary material is part of the submission record; after review starts, do not assume it can be updated.

Artifact package

  • Provide a technical appendix for proofs, algorithms, assumptions, hyperparameters, and extended experiments.
  • Provide code/data ZIPs that reproduce main tables or figures, with a short README, environment, commands, seeds, expected outputs, and runtime.
  • Provide multimedia appendices only when they support the technical claim.
  • Remove author names, usernames, paths, repository history, cloud buckets, API keys, and metadata.
  • Avoid web pointers in the reviewed submission unless current rules explicitly allow them.
  • Include licensing and access notes for datasets, models, and third-party code.

AAAI-specific discipline

  • Treat the supplementary deadline as final.
  • Verify ZIP integrity before submission; missing or corrupted files may not be fixable during rebuttal.
  • Make the reproducibility checklist consistent with the artifact package.
  • Prepare a post-acceptance public release path but keep review artifacts anonymous.

What an AAAI reviewer actually opens

AAAI does not run a separate badged artifact-evaluation committee the way some systems venues do; the same broad-AI reviewer who scores the paper also inspects whatever supplement you attach. That reviewer may be a planning, knowledge-representation, or constraint-satisfaction specialist rather than a deep-learning engineer, so the artifact has to be legible without insider tooling. Optimize for a reviewer who skims, not one who will spend an afternoon configuring a cluster.

Reviewer actionPassesFails
Opens the ZIPsane tree, top READMEnested archives, 0-byte files
Reads appendixmaps to numbered claimscontradicts the paper
Tries one commandreproduces one headline numberneeds private data or credentials
Scans for identitynothing reveals authorsGit logs or home paths leak

Phase-1 artifact red flags

Because clearly-below-bar papers can be cut before author feedback, a supplement that looks thin or unrunnable is a cheap reason to summary-reject. Avoid these:

  • Checklist promises released code, but the ZIP only holds figures and no scripts.
  • A "see our repository" pointer to a mutable, deanonymizing URL.
  • Multimedia attached for spectacle that carries no technical claim, inflating size with no rigor.
  • Datasets shipped with no license note, leaving reuse legality unverifiable.

Worked vignette

A constraint-solving paper claims a 30% node-expansion reduction. The team ships a large ZIP of raw solver logs but no driver script. The reproduction path is empty, so artifact status is "risky"; the fix is a small run_main.py that regenerates Table 2 from seeds, a trimmed log sample, and a license for the benchmark instances. The raw dump moves to the post-acceptance release.

Output format

[Artifact status] complete / partial / risky / unavailable
[Submitted files] technical appendix / multimedia appendix / code-data ZIP
[Reviewer reproduction path] <commands and expected output>
[Anonymity risks] <metadata, links, paths, logs>
[Missing items] <data, code, seeds, licenses, hardware>

评价

还没有评价。欢迎分享你的使用感受。

评论

无需登录即可发表。欢迎分享使用感受、提问,或说明在哪些环境下无法运行。

还没有评论。来写第一条吧。

提交后会立即公开。请勿填写邮箱、电话等个人信息。URL 最多 2 个。

0 / 1000 字

此表单受 reCAPTCHA 保护,适用 Google 的隐私权政策和服务条款。

同一仓库的技能

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.

中文简介正在准备中。当前显示原文说明。

brycewang-stanford/Awesome-Journal-Skills12702026年9月27日 更新

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.

中文简介正在准备中。当前显示原文说明。

brycewang-stanford/Awesome-Journal-Skills12702026年9月27日 更新

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.

中文简介正在准备中。当前显示原文说明。

brycewang-stanford/Awesome-Journal-Skills12702026年9月27日 更新

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.

中文简介正在准备中。当前显示原文说明。

brycewang-stanford/Awesome-Journal-Skills12702026年9月27日 更新

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.

中文简介正在准备中。当前显示原文说明。

brycewang-stanford/Awesome-Journal-Skills12702026年9月27日 更新

Use when explaining or planning around AAAI's two-phase review process, Phase 1 rejection risk, Phase 2 additional reviews, AI-assisted review pilot, author feedback, SPC/AC discussion, and final decisions.

中文简介正在准备中。当前显示原文说明。

brycewang-stanford/Awesome-Journal-Skills12702026年9月27日 更新

查看 brycewang-stanford 的全部技能

报告此技能的问题