← all publishers

brycewang-stanford

@brycewang-stanford source repo

Report this profile Claim this profile

• 5.3k skills
• 0 followers
• 1k repo stars
• 2 weeks ago last updated

1. ▌
   Ijcai Reproducibility · brycewang-stanford

   Use when strengthening IJCAI or IJCAI-ECAI reproducibility evidence for theory, algorithms, datasets, and computational experiments under the official convincing/credible/irreproducible reviewer rubric and optional reproducibility-section guidance.
   1k repo stars
2. ▌
   Ijcai Topic Selection · brycewang-stanford

   Use when deciding whether an AI project is a strong IJCAI or IJCAI-ECAI fit, comparing main track versus special tracks, Survey Track, AIJ/JAIR expedited-publication potential, or alternative AI venues such as NeurIPS, ICML, ICLR, AAAI, AISTATS, UAI, COLT, KDD, CVPR, ACL, or ICRA.
   1k repo stars
3. ▌
   Imc Artifact Evaluation · brycewang-stanford

   Use when preparing an ACM IMC artifact for release, covering the artifact-availability declaration, post-acceptance availability shepherding, DOI-issuing dataset archives, documenting measurement provenance and vantage points, Community Contribution Award eligibility, and the difference between the anonymized review artifact and the public release.
   1k repo stars
4. ▌
   Infocom Experiments · brycewang-stanford

   Use when designing or auditing IEEE INFOCOM evaluations, covering analytical results with stated and justified assumptions, simulation with a named simulator and logged seeds, testbed and measurement studies with real traffic, honest and tuned baselines, and matching evidence to the shape of each networking claim across the analysis-simulation-testbed spectrum.
   1k repo stars
5. ▌
   Issta Author Response · brycewang-stanford

   Use when drafting an ISSTA author response for the rebuttal window or planning a Major-Revision resubmission, covering evidence-anchored replies, the Accept/Major-Revision/Reject outcome model, converting reviewer asks into a revision ledger, anonymity in the response, and the difference between a rebuttal claim and a promised change.
   1k repo stars
6. ▌
   Issta Reproducibility · brycewang-stanford

   Use when strengthening ISSTA reproducibility and verifiability evidence, covering pinned subject programs and benchmark versions, random seeds and timeout budgets, non-determinism disclosure for fuzzing and analysis, claim-to-evidence traceability, tool availability statements, and keeping the artifact consistent with the paper's tables.
   1k repo stars
7. ▌
   Issta Topic Selection · brycewang-stanford

   Use when deciding whether a project is a strong ISSTA fit versus ICSE, FSE, ASE, ICST, PLDI/CAV, or an SE journal, identifying whether the contribution is a testing/analysis technique, characterizing its evaluation shape, and sharpening the framing before writing begins.
   1k repo stars
8. ▌
   Kdd Artifact Evaluation · brycewang-stanford

   Use when packaging code, datasets, configs, and deployment evidence for a KDD paper, where the repository cited in the submission is the only artifact reviewers can reach because rebuttals ban links. Covers anonymized repo construction, scale-claim harnesses, ADS evidence without production data, and post-acceptance release.
   1k repo stars
9. ▌
   Micro Author Response · brycewang-stanford

   Use when reviews arrive for a MICRO submission and the rebuttal/revision window opens — triaging reviewer objections by what can change a decision, answering methodology attacks with runs and configs rather than promises, keeping anonymity intact, and staying inside MICRO's professional-conduct rules for rebuttals.
   1k repo stars
10. ▌
    Micro Reproducibility · brycewang-stanford

    Use when hardening a MICRO paper's results for re-derivation — pinning simulator commits and configs, recording workload trace provenance and SimPoint recipes, versioning power/area models, capturing RTL toolchain state, and writing the run manifests that later survive MICRO's post-acceptance artifact evaluation.
    1k repo stars
11. ▌
    Micro Topic Selection · brycewang-stanford

    Use when deciding whether a project belongs at MICRO (IEEE/ACM International Symposium on Microarchitecture) or should route to ISCA, HPCA, ASPLOS, DAC/ICCAD, SC, or MLSys — testing whether the mechanism truly lives inside the machine, gauging the MICRO evidence bar, and weighing the main track against the new Industry Track.
    1k repo stars
12. ▌
    Misq Rebuttal · brycewang-stanford

    Use after a MIS Quarterly revision decision to plan the revision and draft the point-by-point response — prioritizing the Senior Editor's letter, addressing tradition-specific rigor concerns (identification, validity/CMB, artifact evaluation, trustworthiness), updating the transparency materials, and keeping the revised manuscript within its page limit. Drafts the response after the manuscript is actually revised; interpret the decision first with misq-review-process.
    1k repo stars
13. ▌
    Misq Workflow · brycewang-stanford

    Use when deciding which misq-* sub-skill to invoke next, or when sequencing manuscript work from topic selection through revision for a MIS Quarterly (MISQ) manuscript. Routes — it does not replace — the specialized skills, and it first helps you name which of the four IS research traditions (behavioral, design science, economics, organizational) your paper lives in.
    1k repo stars
14. ▌
    Mlsys Author Response · brycewang-stanford

    Use when drafting MLSys author responses on OpenReview under the venue's compressed rebuttal window, prioritizing systems-reviewer objections about workload representativeness, baseline tuning, and missing measurements, deciding whether to run new experiments in days, and keeping replies anonymous and decision-focused.
    1k repo stars
15. ▌
    Mlsys Reproducibility · brycewang-stanford

    Use when hardening the reproducibility of MLSys performance claims, pinning the full system layer from driver to interconnect, separating ML randomness from systems noise, choosing repetition counts and variance reporting for throughput and latency numbers, and disclosing hardware, workloads, and cost so strangers can re-measure results.
    1k repo stars
16. ▌
    Mlsys Topic Selection · brycewang-stanford

    Use when deciding whether a project belongs at MLSys rather than OSDI, SOSP, NSDI, ASPLOS, ATC, EuroSys, or the ML conferences, testing for genuine ML-systems co-design, choosing between the research and industrial tracks, and sharpening the systems-for-ML or ML-for-systems framing before writing starts.
    1k repo stars
17. ▌
    Mobicom Experiments · brycewang-stanford

    Use when designing or auditing the evaluation of a MobiCom submission — building real-device testbeds, choosing RF and channel measurement methodology, injecting realistic mobility and interference, profiling energy on hardware, picking tuned baselines, and reporting distributions so wireless reviewers see where the mechanism wins and breaks.
    1k repo stars
18. ▌
    Mobisys Experiments · brycewang-stanford

    Use when designing or auditing the evaluation of a MobiSys submission — building real-device testbeds, instrumenting energy and thermal behavior, measuring latency and frame-rate tails, bounding memory footprint, choosing tuned system baselines, and running deployments or user studies, so systems reviewers see where the system wins and breaks on the device.
    1k repo stars
19. ▌
    Molcell Data · brycewang-stanford

    Use to build Molecular Cell's data and code deposition plan and the Data and Code Availability statement inside STAR Methods Resource Availability — approved repositories (GEO, PDB/EMDB, PRIDE), accessions/DOIs at submission, and Cell Press's standardized availability format with Mendeley Data as Elsevier's default.
    1k repo stars
20. ▌
    Naacl Author Response · brycewang-stanford

    Use when writing the ARR author response for a paper headed to NAACL — deciding which reviewer objections to spend the window on, drafting replies that give the action editor a citable meta-review sentence, and protecting the score record that NAACL's committee will later read at commitment.
    1k repo stars
21. ▌
    Naacl Reproducibility · brycewang-stanford

    Use when hardening the reproducibility story of a NAACL submission — treating the Responsible NLP checklist as a binding contract, pinning model versions and API access dates, making multilingual evaluation re-runnable, and stating an honest release level instead of an aspirational one.
    1k repo stars
22. ▌
    Naacl Topic Selection · brycewang-stanford

    Use when deciding whether a project should target NAACL rather than ACL, EMNLP, EACL, AACL, LREC-COLING, TACL, or an ML venue — weighing the chapter's Nations-of-the-Americas identity, theme tracks, timing across skipped years, and whether the paper's audience actually convenes at this conference.
    1k repo stars
23. ▌
    Neurips Experiments · brycewang-stanford

    Use when stress-testing NeurIPS experimental evidence, including baselines, ablations, data splits, compute, negative results, real-world use, and claim-to-evidence calibration.
    1k repo stars
24. ▌
    Oopsla Supplementary · brycewang-stanford

    Use when deciding what rides along with an OOPSLA submission beyond the 23-page body — appendices, full proofs or mechanizations, extended tables, anonymized code — keeping the package double-anonymous, self-consistent with the PDF, and honest about what reviewers are obliged to read versus what a revision can absorb.
    1k repo stars
25. ▌
    Oopsla Writing Style · brycewang-stanford

    Use when revising a draft into OOPSLA's register — design insight stated before the artifact, claims written to be falsifiable, motivating examples that carry semantics, journal-article pacing inside the 23-page cap, and honest threats-to-validity prose that preempts the revision lever rather than triggering it.
    1k repo stars
26. ▌
    Percom Supplementary · brycewang-stanford

    Use when deciding what belongs in an IEEE PerCom paper body versus its dataset/artifact and any appendix, covering the tight IEEEtran 9+1 page budget, the rule that decision-critical evidence stays inside the reviewed pages, double-blind supplementary material, and how to split a human-subjects sensing paper between body and dataset.
    1k repo stars
27. ▌
    Percom Writing Style · brycewang-stanford

    Use when revising an IEEE PerCom paper for a pervasive-computing contribution on the first page, cross-subject claims stated precisely, a limitations section that argues rather than recites, evidence proportional to the claim, double-blind wording, and disciplined use of the tight IEEEtran 9-page budget.
    1k repo stars
28. ▌
    Pmla Theory And Method · brycewang-stanford

    Use when choosing and deploying a theoretical or methodological frame in a PMLA (Publications of the Modern Language Association) essay. PMLA welcomes all theoretical perspectives but expects theory to illuminate texts, not to substitute for reading. Also the home for Theories and Methodologies and The Changing Profession features. Frames the method; it does not perform the close reading.
    1k repo stars
29. ▌
    Ppopp Author Response · brycewang-stanford

    Use when writing a PPoPP author-response rebuttal, covering the short fixed word-capped window, answering the recurring "does it scale?" and "what about baseline X?" questions with pre-run numbers, correcting factual misreadings of a concurrency argument, staying double-blind, and prioritizing the points that can actually move a decision.
    1k repo stars
30. ▌
    Ppopp Reproducibility · brycewang-stanford

    Use when making a PPoPP paper's parallel-performance results reproducible, covering the hardware and topology description reviewers re-run, thread pinning and NUMA control, seeds and warm-up, compiler/driver/flag provenance, and building an environment that reproduces the paper's scaling trend on different machines.
    1k repo stars
31. ▌
    Ppopp Topic Selection · brycewang-stanford

    Use when deciding whether a parallel/concurrent-computing project belongs at PPoPP or should be routed to PLDI, CGO, POPL, ASPLOS, HPCA, SC, SPAA, or OOPSLA, and when distinguishing PPoPP's "the parallelism is the point" scope from a compiler contribution (CGO/PLDI), a concurrency logic (POPL), or a microarchitecture result (ASPLOS/HPCA).
    1k repo stars
32. ▌
    Recsys Supplementary · brycewang-stanford

    Use when organizing ACM RecSys supporting material under the venue's no-separate-supplement convention — how to split a recommender paper between the body, the appendix that counts inside the page budget, and the anonymous in-paper repository, so tuning grids, extra datasets, and ablations land where reviewers use them.
    1k repo stars
33. ▌
    Recsys Writing Style · brycewang-stanford

    Use when revising an ACM RecSys paper for a recommendation-first first page, honest offline-versus-online framing, equal-budget baseline claims, leakage-aware evaluation wording, ACM two-column 8-page compression, double-blind phrasing, and claims scoped to what the ranking evidence actually supports rather than to leaderboard language.
    1k repo stars
34. ▌
    Sensys Supplementary · brycewang-stanford

    Use when deciding what goes in a SenSys paper's body versus its unlimited references and appendices versus HotCRP fields — keeping the double-column body carrying the argument, moving full protocols, extra plots, and derivations to the appendix, blinding anonymous artifact links, and keeping the Response to Reviewers out of the body.
    1k repo stars
35. ▌
    Sensys Writing Style · brycewang-stanford

    Use when drafting or revising a SenSys paper's abstract, introduction, and system sections — building the sensing-pain to mechanism to measured-behavior arc inside the double-column limit, putting the buildable system on the first page, reporting energy and latency as numbers not adjectives, and pairing every claim with a measurement.
    1k repo stars
36. ▌
    Sigcomm Experiments · brycewang-stanford

    Use when designing or auditing ACM SIGCOMM experiments — climbing the evidence ladder from microbenchmarks to testbed and trace replay to deployment, choosing baselines that match the deployed state of the art, reporting tail percentiles and variance over repeated trials, mapping break points, and holding the fair variable fixed.
    1k repo stars
37. ▌
    Sigir Author Response · brycewang-stanford

    Use when reviews arrive for a SIGIR submission and the authors must decide how to answer — triaging IR-reviewer objections (weak baselines, missing significance tests, collection choice), writing within whatever response mechanism the current SIGIR cycle actually offers, and planning the resubmission path if the answer is no.
    1k repo stars
38. ▌
    Sigir Reproducibility · brycewang-stanford

    Use when strengthening the reproducibility of a SIGIR paper or preparing a SIGIR Reproducibility track submission — pinning the retrieval pipeline, seeds and variance for neural rankers, documenting collection versions and index settings, and structuring a reproduction study of published IR results with honest divergence analysis.
    1k repo stars
39. ▌
    Sigir Topic Selection · brycewang-stanford

    Use when deciding whether a project belongs at SIGIR and in which of its tracks — testing whether retrieval is the contribution or the plumbing, forking across full/short/resources/reproducibility/perspectives/industry, and routing misfits to ECIR, CIKM, WSDM, CHIIR, ICTIR, RecSys, TheWebConf, or NLP/ML venues.
    1k repo stars
40. ▌
    Sigmod Supplementary · brycewang-stanford

    Use when deciding what accompanies a SIGMOD submission beyond the 12 pages, covering extended technical reports, anonymized code and data links that survive multi-round review, appendix placement relative to the unlimited reference pages, and what reviewers actually open during a PACMMOD round.
    1k repo stars
41. ▌
    Sigmod Writing Style · brycewang-stanford

    Use when revising a SIGMOD research paper's prose and structure, covering the data-management framing readers expect on page one, running examples and architecture figures, scoping systems claims to measured workloads, third-person anonymity phrasing, and fitting a systems argument into 12 ACM-template pages.
    1k repo stars
42. ▌
    Sf Submission · brycewang-stanford

    Use when running the final pre-submission preflight for Social Forces (SF) via ScholarOne Manuscript Central — double-anonymized preparation with a separate title page, the reference-inclusive 10,000-word cap, the 10 tables-and-figure-panels limit, Chicago 17th author-date, the data availability statement, ORCID, and the $50 processing fee. Final checks; it does not draft content.
    1k repo stars
43. ▌
    Tacas Author Response · brycewang-stanford

    Use when drafting a TACAS (ETAPS) author response for the rebuttal window, covering the short single-round rebuttal, answering soundness and benchmark-fairness objections with checkable evidence, addressing artifact concerns for tool papers, respecting the per-category blind model when it applies, and reading which objections a rebuttal can and cannot move.
    1k repo stars
44. ▌
    Tacas Reproducibility · brycewang-stanford

    Use when strengthening TACAS (ETAPS) reproducibility, covering the clean evaluation-VM packaging that the artifact process assumes, pinned dependencies and offline execution, a claim-to-script mapping so every benchmark number regenerates, honest degrees of reproducibility, consistency between the paper and the artifact, and the category difference between a mandatory tool-paper artifact and a voluntary research-paper artifact.
    1k repo stars
45. ▌
    Tacas Topic Selection · brycewang-stanford

    Use when deciding whether a formal-methods / verification project belongs at TACAS (ETAPS) or a sibling like CAV, VMCAI, FMCAD, SPIN, or a journal, AND — distinctively — which of TACAS's four categories (research, case-study, regular tool, tool-demonstration) it fits, plus whether the work is a SV-COMP competition contribution rather than a paper.
    1k repo stars
46. ▌
    Uai Artifact Evaluation · brycewang-stanford

    Use when packaging code, data, samplers, solvers, and logs for a UAI submission's 50 MB supplementary ZIP or a public post-acceptance release, making probabilistic-inference claims independently runnable while keeping every file double-blind, given that UAI reviewers may open the archive but are not obliged to read it.
    1k repo stars
47. ▌
    Vis Artifact Evaluation · brycewang-stanford

    Use when packaging an IEEE VIS artifact for the Graphics Replicability Stamp Initiative (GRSI) / TVCG Replicability Stamp and the IEEE VIS Open Practices program, covering what an independent GRSI volunteer reproduces first, DOI-issuing archives, evaluator-proof documentation for visualization code and data, and how VIS reproducibility differs from ACM-style artifact badges.
    1k repo stars
48. ▌
    Acmmm Author Response · brycewang-stanford

    Use when drafting the ACM MM (ACM Multimedia) rebuttal — turning multiple anonymous reviews into one focused, anonymous response that fixes factual errors first, adds small confirmatory cross-modal results, concedes calibratedly, and stays inside policy (anonymous, no new external links), written for the area chair who decides.
    1k repo stars
49. ▌
    Acmmm Reproducibility · brycewang-stanford

    Use when strengthening the reproducibility of an ACM MM (ACM Multimedia) paper or preparing for the ACM MM Reproducibility track and ACM artifact badging — capturing environments, media/data access, seeds, and multimodal pipelines so an independent reviewer can rebuild results and reach Artifacts Evaluated or Results Reproduced badges.
    1k repo stars
50. ▌
    Acmmm Topic Selection · brycewang-stanford

    Use when deciding whether a project is a genuine ACM MM (ACM Multimedia) contribution rather than single-modality work, choosing a thematic area, and routing between ACM MM, CVPR/ICCV, ACL/EMNLP, ICMR, MMSys, NeurIPS/ICLR, and the ACM TOMM journal by finding the cross-modal or media-systems core of the contribution.
    1k repo stars
51. ▌
    Aistats Camera Ready · brycewang-stanford

    Use when preparing accepted AISTATS papers for PMLR camera-ready submission, covering the 9-page final body, two-column layout reflow, author de-anonymization, proceedings forms, metadata, final appendix handling, registration, in-person presentation obligations, and public artifact release.
    1k repo stars
52. ▌
    Aistats Related Work · brycewang-stanford

    Use when positioning an AISTATS submission against AI, machine-learning, statistics, and uncertainty literature, including arXiv preprints, workshop versions, concurrent submissions, prior conference versions, PMLR archival status, and the two-community citation coverage that AISTATS reviewers expect.
    1k repo stars
53. ▌
    Asplos Review Process · brycewang-stanford

    Use when reasoning about how an ASPLOS submission will be judged — the two-page rapid-review screen and what it filters, full double-blind review, the author-response window, the Accept / Major Revision / Reject outcome set, how revisions are re-reviewed as submissions, and where authors actually hold leverage in each stage.
    1k repo stars
54. ▌
    Cc Writing Style · brycewang-stanford

    Use when polishing prose for a Cancer Cell (Cell Press) manuscript — the Summary/Introduction/Results/Discussion craft, claim calibration, and Cell Press nomenclature/house style. It edits language and framing; it does not design experiments or build figures.
    1k repo stars
55. ▌
    Conext Review Process · brycewang-stanford

    Use when reasoning about how an ACM CoNEXT submission is evaluated, covering double-anonymous review, the two-round TPC process with online discussion and a TPC meeting, the Accept / Reject / one-shot "major" revision decision categories, the journal-style revise-and-resubmit re-read by the original reviewers, shepherding, and how CoNEXT's two-cycle process differs from SIGCOMM and NSDI.
    1k repo stars
56. ▌
    CI Workflow · brycewang-stanford

    Use as the entry point for any Critical Inquiry (CI) essay. Routes to the right CI sub-skill based on where you are in the lifecycle and which format (Article, Critical Response, Review) fits. CI is an interdisciplinary journal of criticism and theory in the arts and humanities; the router's job is to keep the project pointed at a bold theoretical intervention with interdisciplinary stakes. It dispatches; it does not draft content.
    1k repo stars
57. ▌
    Ecta Robustness · brycewang-stanford

    Use when an Econometrica manuscript needs finite-sample evidence and edge-case scrutiny — Monte Carlo design, finite-sample performance, regularity-condition stress tests, and degenerate cases. Designs and audits the simulation evidence; it does not derive the asymptotics (use ecta-identification) or format the resulting tables (use ecta-tables-figures).
    1k repo stars
58. ▌
    Ecta Submission · brycewang-stanford bundle

    Use when running the final pre-submission preflight for an Econometrica manuscript via Editorial Express — manuscript assembly, Supplemental Material, the 45-page limit, anonymization, references, the ES-member submission fee, and Data and Code Availability Policy compliance.
    1k repo stars
59. ▌
    Eurosys Camera Ready · brycewang-stanford

    Use when converting an accepted EuroSys paper into its ACM proceedings version — flipping acmart out of review/anonymous mode, restoring authors and acknowledgments, completing ACM rights and metadata steps, attaching sysartifacts badges, and meeting the single camera-ready date that serves both the spring and fall cohorts.
    1k repo stars
60. ▌
    Eurosys Related Work · brycewang-stanford

    Use when positioning a EuroSys submission in the systems literature — mapping the SOSP/OSDI/NSDI/ATC/ASPLOS neighbor space plus EuroSys's own two-decade proceedings line, handling concurrent arXiv and workshop versions under double-blind rules, and declaring overlap with earlier submissions of the same work.
    1k repo stars
61. ▌
    Kdd Topic Selection · brycewang-stanford

    Use when deciding whether a project belongs at KDD and in which track — Research vs Applied Data Science vs Datasets and Benchmarks vs AI for Sciences — or whether it routes to ICDM, SDM, WSDM, CIKM, WWW, VLDB, or an ML flagship. Covers the deployment-evidence fork, data-regime framing, and SIGKDD fit signals before writing.
    1k repo stars
62. ▌
    Lancet Reporting · brycewang-stanford

    Use to select and apply the correct EQUATOR reporting guideline for a Lancet manuscript — CONSORT for RCTs (with the mandatory flow diagram), STROBE for observational studies, PRISMA for systematic reviews/meta-analyses, SPIRIT for protocols — and to attach the completed checklist and study-flow diagram.
    1k repo stars
63. ▌
    Micro Experiments · brycewang-stanford

    Use when designing or auditing the evaluation of a MICRO paper — choosing the right instrument on the ladder from analytical model to cycle-level simulator to RTL to silicon, tuning baselines the PC will respect, selecting workload suites, running ablations and sensitivity sweeps, and reporting geomeans with full overhead accounting.
    1k repo stars
64. ▌
    Mind Writing Style · brycewang-stanford

    Use when drafting or polishing the prose of a Mind article so the argument is maximally clear to a broad philosophical readership within the ~8,000-word limit. Mind asks that even technical material be accompanied by informal exposition. Tightens sentences and clarity; it does not generate the argument (see mind-thesis-and-argument).
    1k repo stars
65. ▌
    Mlsys Experiments · brycewang-stanford

    Use when designing or auditing the evaluation of an MLSys paper, selecting representative workloads and hardware, tuning baselines symmetrically, reporting throughput, latency tails, memory, cost, and quality together, structuring ablations that attribute gains to mechanisms, and building scaling and sensitivity evidence reviewers trust.
    1k repo stars
66. ▌
    Naacl Experiments · brycewang-stanford

    Use when designing or auditing the experimental program of a NAACL submission — matching evidence to language-coverage claims, keeping cross-lingual comparisons budget-fair, testing on natively authored rather than translated data where the claim requires it, and reporting variance that survives reviewer probing.
    1k repo stars
67. ▌
    Ndss Supplementary · brycewang-stanford

    Use when dividing an NDSS paper between the 13-page body, the Ethics Considerations section, references, and appendices — deciding what reviewers must see in-body, what the page-limit exclusions really buy, and how the camera-ready gains a 2-page artifact appendix.
    1k repo stars
68. ▌
    Ndss Writing Style · brycewang-stanford

    Use when drafting or revising an NDSS paper's prose — building the first page around a capability-bounded networked adversary, sizing claims to evidence, weaving the ethics signal into the narrative, and fitting the argument into NDSS's 13-page body ahead of a two-round read.
    1k repo stars
69. ▌
    Nsdi Supplementary · brycewang-stanford

    Use when splitting NSDI material across the 12-page body, the appendix pages the CFP allows beyond references, HotCRP auxiliary-material uploads for critical online content, and the one-shot-revision packet — deciding what reviewers must see in-body versus what merely supports it.
    1k repo stars
70. ▌
    Nsdi Writing Style · brycewang-stanford

    Use when drafting or revising NSDI prose — building the operational-pain-to-design-principle arc, fitting argument and figures into 12 pages with references and appendices outside the cap, calibrating claims to trace and testbed evidence, and writing for reviewers who read tail percentiles before adjectives.
    1k repo stars
71. ▌
    Osdi Supplementary · brycewang-stanford

    Use when deciding where OSDI content lives given the no-appendix submission rule — triaging material between the 12-page reviewed body, the 14-page-plus-appendices final paper, and the public artifact, since OSDI (unlike appendix-friendly venues) reviews nothing outside the body.
    1k repo stars
72. ▌
    Osdi Writing Style · brycewang-stanford

    Use when drafting or revising an OSDI paper's prose and structure — building the pain → abstraction → mechanism → measurement narrative, fitting it into the 12-page reviewed body with no appendix escape hatch, and writing for a PC told to down-rank padded papers and given no rebuttal to clarify with.
    1k repo stars
73. ▌
    Pldi Supplementary · brycewang-stanford

    Use when deciding what accompanies a PLDI submission beyond the 20 text pages — full proofs, extended benchmark data, anonymized code — and how to keep every extra byte double-blind, optional for reviewers, and consistent with the main PDF under summary-rejection formatting rules.
    1k repo stars
74. ▌
    Pldi Writing Style · brycewang-stanford

    Use when revising a PLDI draft for the venue's voice — design insight before tool name, mechanisms instead of adjectives, a running example that carries the semantics, honest limitation statements, and prose that fits the single-column acmsmall journal format without padding toward the page cap.
    1k repo stars
75. ▌
    Pmla Writing Style · brycewang-stanford

    Use when drafting or polishing the prose of a PMLA (Publications of the Modern Language Association) essay so it reads clearly for a broad membership of language and literature scholars. PMLA prizes a concise, readable presentation; the prose must carry sophisticated argument without jargon for its own sake. Tightens the writing; it does not invent content or handle citation mechanics.
    1k repo stars
76. ▌
    Podc Supplementary · brycewang-stanford

    Use when deciding what goes in the first 10 read-guaranteed pages of an ACM PODC submission versus the full version / appendix, and when choosing between a regular paper and a Brief Announcement — so that nothing which decides acceptance lives past page 10 and every deferred proof remains reachable.
    1k repo stars
77. ▌
    Podc Writing Style · brycewang-stanford

    Use when drafting or revising the body of an ACM PODC paper — building the distributed-theory skeleton (an explicit model box, the result stated as a theorem up front, a proof architecture the reader can navigate, and the 10-page-merits discipline) so the merits case lands within the first 10 pages a PODC committee is guaranteed to read.
    1k repo stars
78. ▌
    Pods Supplementary · brycewang-stanford

    Use when deciding what belongs in an ACM PODS paper body versus its at-submission appendix, covering the acmsmall 15-page budget, the rule that PODS forbids online/external appendices so all proofs ship with the submission, the body/appendix split for a theory paper, and double-anonymous supplementary hygiene.
    1k repo stars
79. ▌
    Pods Writing Style · brycewang-stanford

    Use when revising an ACM PODS paper for a precise model and result on the first page, exact theorem statements with matching bounds, complete and self-contained proofs (body plus at-submission appendix), honest assumptions and open cases, double-anonymous wording, and disciplined use of the acmsmall 15-page budget.
    1k repo stars
80. ▌
    Popl Supplementary · brycewang-stanford

    Use when splitting a POPL paper across the 25-page body, the proof appendix, and anonymous supplementary material — deciding which proofs and auxiliary judgments leave the text, packaging proof scripts without identity leaks under full double-blind, and keeping every artifact self-consistent with the submission PDF.
    1k repo stars
81. ▌
    Popl Writing Style · brycewang-stanford

    Use when drafting or revising POPL prose — building the informal-to-formal ramp from a motivating program to definitions to a sharply stated main theorem, keeping notation coherent across 25 pages of text, writing proof sketches that name the hard case, and framing significance as an idea other PL researchers can reuse.
    1k repo stars
82. ▌
    Ppopp Experiments · brycewang-stanford

    Use when designing or auditing a PPoPP paper's evaluation, covering the twin bar of concurrency correctness and measured scalability — speedup curves, strong vs weak scaling, core/thread sweeps, NUMA and GPU effects, contention microbenchmarks plus real workloads, variance and measurement hygiene, and honest strong baselines.
    1k repo stars
83. ▌
    Sigir Experiments · brycewang-stanford

    Use when designing or auditing the empirical program of a SIGIR paper — choosing test collections that match the claim, metric-cutoff discipline, paired significance testing with multiple-comparison correction, baseline tuning symmetry, ablations that isolate mechanisms, efficiency reporting, and LLM-era evaluation pitfalls.
    1k repo stars
84. ▌
    Socc Supplementary · brycewang-stanford

    Use when deciding what belongs in an ACM SoCC paper body versus its released artifact and appendices, covering the acmart 12-page (full) or 6-page (short) budget with unlimited references, the rule that decision-critical evidence stays inside the reviewed pages, dual-anonymous supplementary material, and how to split a cloud-systems measurement paper between body and package.
    1k repo stars
85. ▌
    Socc Writing Style · brycewang-stanford

    Use when revising an ACM SoCC paper for a cloud-scale problem an operator recognizes on the first page, a contribution at the systems-and-data intersection, evidence measured on a real or realistic deployment with tail latency and cost as first-class, dual-anonymous wording, and disciplined use of the acmart 12-page budget.
    1k repo stars
86. ▌
    Soda Supplementary · brycewang-stanford

    Use when organizing the back matter of a SODA (ACM-SIAM Symposium on Discrete Algorithms) submission — there is no supplementary channel, so appendix architecture inside the single no-page-limit PDF does the supplement's job; covers front/back matter split, appendix ordering, and external-archive references.
    1k repo stars
87. ▌
    Soda Writing Style · brycewang-stanford

    Use when writing or revising a SODA (ACM-SIAM Symposium on Discrete Algorithms) paper — headline bounds stated exactly, the title-page abstract that wins bidding, a first-ten-pages overview for triage readers, prior-bound comparison tables, and prose discipline for an uncapped full-version document.
    1k repo stars
88. ▌
    Sosp Supplementary · brycewang-stanford

    Use when deciding what belongs in a SOSP supplementary document versus the 12-page paper, packaging proofs, extended analyses, and methodological detail as a separate anonymized upload, and keeping review-critical evidence out of material reviewers are not obligated to read.
    1k repo stars
89. ▌
    Sosp Writing Style · brycewang-stanford

    Use when drafting or revising SOSP prose — leading with a design principle rather than a feature list, building the intro's problem-to-insight arc, budgeting 12 dense two-column pages across design and evaluation, writing figures that argue, and keeping claims inside what the measurements support.
    1k repo stars
90. ▌
    Stoc Supplementary · brycewang-stanford

    Use when architecting everything beyond the first twelve pages of a STOC (ACM Symposium on Theory of Computing) submission — the discretionary-read appendix, the reviewed table of contents, theorem-to-proof pointer discipline, and the division of labor between the submission appendix and the arXiv/ECCC full version.
    1k repo stars
91. ▌
    Stoc Writing Style · brycewang-stanford

    Use when drafting or revising a STOC (ACM Symposium on Theory of Computing) paper — the theorem-forward first page, informal/formal statement pairing, the technical-overview section that carries acceptance, notation economy for a cross-area committee, and prose that survives the twelve guaranteed pages.
    1k repo stars
92. ▌
    Tacas Experiments · brycewang-stanford

    Use when designing or auditing a TACAS (ETAPS) evaluation, covering shared verification benchmarks (SV-COMP-style task sets), fair baseline configuration and equal time budgets, honest wall-clock/scalability reporting on stated hardware, soundness checking of results, reproducibility on the clean artifact VM, and how a TACAS tool-paper evaluation differs from a SV-COMP competition entry.
    1k repo stars
93. ▌
    Uai Author Response · brycewang-stanford

    Use when drafting UAI author responses during the OpenReview rebuttal window, turning reviewer objections about technical correctness, novelty, evidential backing, or clarity into anonymous, evidence-anchored replies that survive the reviewer-and-area-chair discussion phase that follows immediately after authors go quiet.
    1k repo stars
94. ▌
    Uai Reproducibility · brycewang-stanford

    Use when hardening reproducibility evidence for a UAI paper, including seeds, sampler convergence diagnostics, ELBO and calibration traces, dataset and hyperparameter disclosure, compute reporting, and honest code-availability statements, since UAI strongly encourages released code and data and reviews whether claims are convincingly backed.
    1k repo stars
95. ▌
    Uai Topic Selection · brycewang-stanford

    Use when deciding whether a project belongs at UAI, where uncertainty representation, probabilistic reasoning, graphical models, causal inference, or decision making under uncertainty must be the contribution itself, and when to route instead to AISTATS, NeurIPS, ICML, COLT, CLeaR, or a statistics journal before drafting begins.
    1k repo stars
96. ▌
    Uist Supplementary · brycewang-stanford

    Use when producing the video figure and supplementary materials for a UIST submission — treating the 3-minute video as near-mandatory evidence in a demo-culture venue, scripting it around claims, meeting the 1080p/4K H.264 spec, anonymizing frames and audio, and deciding what else ships alongside the PDF.
    1k repo stars
97. ▌
    Uist Writing Style · brycewang-stanford

    Use when drafting or revising a UIST paper — structuring the systems-paper arc (walkthrough before mechanism), writing an implementation section with real technical depth, pairing every capability claim with a figure or measurement, and fitting the argument inside the 10-page or 5-page two-column limit.
    1k repo stars
98. ▌
    Vis Author Response · brycewang-stanford

    Use when drafting IEEE VIS author responses across the two-phase review, covering the first-round reviewer discussion, and — distinctively — the conditional-accept second-round revision with its summary-of-changes that maps every required change to a concrete edit and is re-read by the same primary, secondary, and external reviewers under the IEEE TVCG process.
    1k repo stars
99. ▌
    Vis Reproducibility · brycewang-stanford

    Use when strengthening IEEE VIS reproducibility and open-practices evidence, covering the open-materials statement, anonymized-but-runnable code and stimuli, preregistration of perceptual and user studies, provenance for datasets and rendering pipelines, claim-to-figure mapping, honest degrees of reproducibility, and consistency between what the TVCG paper says and what the supplemental archive contains.
    1k repo stars
100. ▌
     Vis Topic Selection · brycewang-stanford

     Use when deciding whether a project belongs at IEEE VIS or should be routed to EuroVis, PacificVis, CHI, a graphics venue, or the IEEE TVCG journal track, and when choosing among the six VIS areas (Theoretical & Empirical, Applications, Systems & Rendering, Representations & Interaction, Data Transformations, Analytics & Decisions) by contribution type and evidence maturity.
     1k repo stars