← 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. ▌
   Aamas Supplementary · brycewang-stanford

   Use when preparing AAMAS supplementary material - proofs, extended game and mechanism definitions, extra multiagent experiments, opponent-set details, and the anonymized artifact zip - under the size cap, anonymity, and reviewer-discretion limits, including how to split a game-theory-plus-experiments paper across the 8-page body and the supplement.
   1k repo stars
2. ▌
   Aamas Writing Style · brycewang-stanford

   Use when revising an AAMAS paper so the interaction contribution leads the first page, the solution concept or incentive property is named, the game and agents are legible, claims are paired with proofs or multiagent experiments, the argument fits eight two-column pages plus references, and the wording stays double-blind.
   1k repo stars
3. ▌
   Ccs Supplementary · brycewang-stanford

   Use when preparing ACM CCS appendices and supplementary material, including the ethics considerations appendix, protocol transcripts, formal proofs, measurement tables, and anonymized supporting material under the 12-page body limit, anonymity, and reviewer-discretion constraints for a security paper.
   1k repo stars
4. ▌
   Ccs Writing Style · brycewang-stanford

   Use when revising an ACM CCS paper for a precise threat model, calibrated attack/defense claims, 12-page ACM sigconf compression, double-blind wording, adaptive-evaluation honesty, and the security house style that survives an adversarial SIGSAC program committee.
   1k repo stars
5. ▌
   Acmmm Camera Ready · brycewang-stanford

   Use when preparing the ACM MM (ACM Multimedia) camera-ready version of record — de-anonymizing safely, completing the ACM rights form and CCS concepts, meeting ACM sigconf requirements, releasing code/data/media artifacts and any earned reproducibility badge, registering, and planning the oral/poster presentation in Rio.
   1k repo stars
6. ▌
   Acmmm Related Work · brycewang-stanford

   Use when building or auditing the related-work section of an ACM MM (ACM Multimedia) paper — covering the multimedia literature spread across vision, audio/speech, language, HCI/QoE, and systems, handling arXiv-speed concurrency, keeping citations double-blind, and verifying that cited "ACM MM papers" are ACM MM and not ICMR, MMSys, CVPR, or TOMM.
   1k repo stars
7. ▌
   Asplos Experiments · brycewang-stanford

   Use when designing or auditing the evaluation of an ASPLOS paper — choosing among real silicon, FPGA prototypes, and simulators with cycle-accuracy caveats stated, selecting workload suites and baselines that hold up across three communities, attributing wins via ablation, and reporting energy, area, and overhead honestly.
   1k repo stars
8. ▌
   Cc Statistics · brycewang-stanford

   Use when defining n, choosing statistical tests, correcting for multiple comparisons, and reporting error bars for a Cancer Cell (Cell Press) manuscript. Focuses on biological statistics and avoiding pseudo-replication; it does not design experiments or build figures.
   1k repo stars
9. ▌
   Cc Submission · brycewang-stanford bundle

   Use when running the final pre-submission preflight for Cancer Cell (Cell Press) — file completeness, STAR Methods / Key Resources Table, deposition accessions, statistics reporting, ethics statements, figure integrity, and portal logistics. It is the last gate before submitting.
   1k repo stars
10. ▌
    Cikm Author Response · brycewang-stanford

    Use when preparing author-side communication around CIKM reviews — drafting for a response window if the cycle offers one (unconfirmed for 2026), writing camera-ready revision notes that answer reviewer concerns, handling post-decision chair correspondence, and converting rejection reviews into a resubmission brief.
    1k repo stars
11. ▌
    Cikm Reproducibility · brycewang-stanford

    Use when hardening the reproducibility of a CIKM paper — pinning the pipeline stages where IR, mining, and knowledge-management results silently diverge, documenting KGs and enterprise data that cannot be released, keeping the GenAI disclosure consistent with how code and data were produced, and preparing the post-acceptance release.
    1k repo stars
12. ▌
    Cikm Topic Selection · brycewang-stanford

    Use when deciding whether a project fits CIKM, the tri-community ACM venue spanning information retrieval, data mining, and knowledge management/databases, when weighing CIKM against SIGIR, KDD, WSDM, TheWebConf, SIGMOD/VLDB, or ISWC, and when choosing among CIKM's five tracks before writing begins.
    1k repo stars
13. ▌
    Colm Author Response · brycewang-stanford

    Use when writing a COLM rebuttal in the OpenReview discussion phase — triaging reviews released in late May, running cache-based follow-up experiments inside the roughly two-and-a-half-week window, answering contamination and baseline-fairness objections with evidence, and writing for the area chair who decides in July.
    1k repo stars
14. ▌
    Colm Reproducibility · brycewang-stanford

    Use when hardening a COLM paper's reproducibility story — pinning open-weight checkpoints and tokenizers, handling API-model drift and deprecation honestly, versioning evaluation harnesses and prompts, disclosing compute, and writing availability statements that distinguish what is releasable from what is not.
    1k repo stars
15. ▌
    Colm Topic Selection · brycewang-stanford

    Use when deciding whether language-model research belongs at COLM or should route to ACL/EMNLP, ICLR, NeurIPS, ICML, or a workshop — applying the object-of-study test, matching against COLM's CFP lanes (training, data, evaluation, inference, safety), and weighing the trade-offs of a young venue before writing begins.
    1k repo stars
16. ▌
    Colt Author Response · brycewang-stanford

    Use when drafting a COLT (Conference on Learning Theory) rebuttal after initial reviews, handling proof-correctness objections, tightness and novelty-of-technique challenges, the area-chair identity-reveal rule, and concession strategy for theorem-first papers where one unrepaired gap outweighs every polished answer.
    1k repo stars
17. ▌
    Colt Reproducibility · brycewang-stanford

    Use when strengthening the reproducibility of a COLT (Conference on Learning Theory) paper, where reproducing means re-deriving — complete proofs, explicit assumptions, tracked constants, correctly invoked external results, self-contained notation — plus seeds and scripts for any numerical illustration the paper carries.
    1k repo stars
18. ▌
    Colt Topic Selection · brycewang-stanford

    Use when deciding whether a result is COLT-shaped (Conference on Learning Theory) — a theorem-first learning-theory contribution — versus better routed to ALT, STOC/FOCS, NeurIPS/ICML/AISTATS, JMLR, or a statistics journal, and whether the right vehicle is a full paper or a COLT open-problem piece.
    1k repo stars
19. ▌
    Conext Experiments · brycewang-stanford

    Use when designing or auditing the evaluation of an ACM CoNEXT paper — matching evidence to claim shape with real testbeds and deployments, honest and tuned baselines, measurement statistics and uncertainty, trace and config provenance, and contamination-aware ablations for ML-for-networking work.
    1k repo stars
20. ▌
    Corl Author Response · brycewang-stanford

    Use when drafting the CoRL rebuttal — a single-page PDF due days after reviews are released, aimed at reviewers, the Area Chair, and the discussion window that follows. Covers triage against the first-round gate, one-page layout economy, presenting new numbers compactly, and tone for an exchange that becomes public on acceptance.
    1k repo stars
21. ▌
    Corl Reproducibility · brycewang-stanford

    Use when making a CoRL robot-learning paper reproducible — pinning simulator and driver versions, releasing training configs, demonstration data and checkpoints, documenting hardware setups that cannot be rerun, seed policy, evaluation scripts, and honest availability statements for code, data, and robot platforms.
    1k repo stars
22. ▌
    Corl Topic Selection · brycewang-stanford

    Use when deciding whether a project belongs at CoRL, the Conference on Robot Learning, or should be routed to ICRA, IROS, RSS, NeurIPS, ICLR, ICML, or a journal — based on whether the learned component is the contribution, what embodied evidence exists, and which reviewer community should judge the claim.
    1k repo stars
23. ▌
    Crim Rebuttal · brycewang-stanford

    Use when writing the response to a Criminology (ASC / Wiley) revise-and-resubmit. Criminology revisions usually require converting multiple expert reviewers across the field's disciplines while keeping the editor confident the revision is convergent and the theoretical contribution intact. Structures the response letter; it does not fabricate new results.
    1k repo stars
24. ▌
    Crim Workflow · brycewang-stanford

    Use as the entry point for any Criminology (ASC / Wiley) manuscript. Routes to the right crim sub-skill based on where you are in the lifecycle and whether the paper is a full Article or a Research Note. Criminology is theory-forward and interdisciplinary, so the router first checks that the paper makes a criminological contribution, not just reports a crime correlation. It dispatches; it does not draft content.
    1k repo stars
25. ▌
    Cscw Author Response · brycewang-stanford

    Use when a CSCW paper draws Revise and Resubmit or Revise for External Review — triaging reviewer requests, running the weeks-long revision as a project, and writing the point-by-point response letter that the same reviewers will read before they reread anything else.
    1k repo stars
26. ▌
    Cscw Reproducibility · brycewang-stanford

    Use when strengthening the transparency of a CSCW paper — auditable qualitative analysis trails, documented trace pipelines, codebooks and instruments, and honest data-availability statements when community and participant data cannot ethically be shared.
    1k repo stars
27. ▌
    Cscw Topic Selection · brycewang-stanford

    Use when deciding whether a project belongs at CSCW — is the group, community, or organization the real unit of analysis? — and running the routing decision against CHI, ICWSM, DIS, GROUP, TOCHI, and social-science journals before any drafting or platform account setup begins.
    1k repo stars
28. ▌
    Cvpr Author Response · brycewang-stanford

    Use when planning or drafting the CVPR one-page rebuttal after reviews are released, covering the official rebuttal template, the ban on new contributions and external links, triaging multiple reviews at 16k-submission scale, choosing which numbers fit in one page, and writing for the AC who reads the discussion.
    1k repo stars
29. ▌
    Cvpr Reproducibility · brycewang-stanford

    Use when hardening a CVPR paper's reproducibility story, covering the Compute Reporting Form's hardware and compute sections, training-recipe disclosure, benchmark protocol and split hygiene, seed and variance reporting for vision experiments, and closing the gaps reviewers probe at a benchmark-driven venue.
    1k repo stars
30. ▌
    Cvpr Topic Selection · brycewang-stanford

    Use when deciding whether a project belongs at CVPR or should route elsewhere, covering what counts as a vision contribution at the field's flagship, fit tests for methods, datasets, and application papers, realistic odds at 25% acceptance and 16k submissions, and routing to ICCV, ECCV, WACV, 3DV, NeurIPS, or a journal.
    1k repo stars
31. ▌
    Demog Rebuttal · brycewang-stanford

    Use when writing the response to a Demography (PAA / Duke University Press) revise-and-resubmit. Demography review is double-blind and synthesized by a topic-area Deputy Editor, so the response must convert every expert reviewer on demographic substance (rates, identification, methods) without alienating the editor. Structures the response letter; it does not fabricate new results.
    1k repo stars
32. ▌
    Demog Workflow · brycewang-stanford

    Use as the entry point for any Demography (PAA / Duke University Press) manuscript. Routes to the right Demography sub-skill based on where you are in the lifecycle and which article type (Research Article, Research Note, Commentary) fits. It dispatches; it does not draft content.
    1k repo stars
33. ▌
    Eacl Author Response · brycewang-stanford

    Use when drafting an EACL author response during the ACL Rolling Review rebuttal window, covering how to triage reviewer points, address the action editor who writes the meta-review, answer NLP objection patterns, run in-window experiments, flag deficient reviews, and decide respond-now versus revise-for-a-later-venue given EACL's single cycle.
    1k repo stars
34. ▌
    Eacl Reproducibility · brycewang-stanford

    Use when running the Responsible NLP checklist as a claims audit for an EACL paper, covering hyperparameter and compute disclosure, verbatim prompt and decoding reporting, data-contamination stance, variance and significance reporting, multilingual coverage claims, and consistency between the checklist answers and what the paper actually contains.
    1k repo stars
35. ▌
    Eacl Topic Selection · brycewang-stanford

    Use when deciding whether a project is EACL-shaped or better routed to ACL, EMNLP, NAACL, AACL, TACL, Computational Linguistics, LREC-COLING, COLM, or an ML venue, covering the long-versus-short choice, the accept-Findings calculus, and how EACL's single ARR cycle and irregular cadence affect the routing decision.
    1k repo stars
36. ▌
    Ecai Reproducibility · brycewang-stanford

    Use when building the reproducibility story for an ECAI paper — a complete proof appendix for theory/KR work, a seeded and cached package for empirical/ML work, provenance pinning for datasets and models, and an anonymized supplement that satisfies double-blind review inside ECAI's tight 7-page body with no separate artifact track.
    1k repo stars
37. ▌
    Ecai Topic Selection · brycewang-stanford

    Use before writing to decide whether a project belongs at ECAI versus IJCAI, AAAI, AAMAS, KR, or a pure-ML venue, and whether it should go to the ECAI main track or the co-located PAIS applications track — using contribution shape, the model-swap test, the European/general-AI fit, and the calendar (including the joint IJCAI-ECAI 2026 cycle).
    1k repo stars
38. ▌
    Eccv Author Response · brycewang-stanford

    Use when drafting an ECCV rebuttal — the optional one-page, two-column PDF answering three-plus reviews inside a nine-day window (reviews May 2, rebuttal due May 11 in 2026), with references counted inside the page, no venue-forbidden extras, and arguments sized for the area-chair discussion that follows.
    1k repo stars
39. ▌
    Eccv Reproducibility · brycewang-stanford

    Use when hardening the reproducibility story of an ECCV paper — training recipes and schedules readers can re-run, dataset versioning and split provenance, pinned foundation-model dependencies, compute disclosure, and seed/variance honesty for benchmark deltas, sized for the 14-page LNCS body plus supplement.
    1k repo stars
40. ▌
    Eccv Topic Selection · brycewang-stanford

    Use when deciding whether a computer-vision project should target ECCV — weighing the two-year even-year cadence against CVPR, ICCV, WACV, BMVC, ACCV, NeurIPS, and journal routes, testing whether the work matches ECCV's breadth from geometry to vision-language, and reading the Koenderink Prize lineage as a durability signal.
    1k repo stars
41. ▌
    Edbt Author Response · brycewang-stanford

    Use when drafting EDBT author responses across the two turns of a cycle — the short author-feedback reply on the initial reviews, and the in-cycle revise-and-resubmit change letter that maps every reviewer request to a concrete revision re-read by the original reviewers under the OpenProceedings process.
    1k repo stars
42. ▌
    Edbt Reproducibility · brycewang-stanford

    Use when strengthening EDBT reproducibility for a database-systems paper, covering a runnable artifact, pinned environments and workloads, dataset and query-log provenance, claim-to-evidence mapping, honest degrees of reproducibility, and consistency between the paper and the package for the open-access OpenProceedings record.
    1k repo stars
43. ▌
    Edbt Topic Selection · brycewang-stanford

    Use when deciding whether a data-management project belongs at EDBT or should be routed to SIGMOD, VLDB/PVLDB, ICDE, the co-located ICDT theory venue, or a database journal, and when choosing the EDBT paper shape (Regular / Experiments-&-Analysis / Vision) and the nearest submission cycle.
    1k repo stars
44. ▌
    Emnlp Supplementary · brycewang-stanford

    Use when dividing an EMNLP paper between content pages, uncounted Limitations and ethics sections, appendices, and ACL Rolling Review supplementary uploads — deciding what reviewers are owed in the body, what belongs in appendix prompts-and-tables territory, and what ships as anonymous code and data archives.
    1k repo stars
45. ▌
    Emnlp Writing Style · brycewang-stanford

    Use when revising an EMNLP draft for the venue's empirical voice — phenomenon-first framing, claims scoped to tested languages and domains, examples tied to counted errors, a Limitations section with content, honest hedging calibrated to evidence strength, and ACL two-column discipline for long and short formats.
    1k repo stars
46. ▌
    Facct Supplementary · brycewang-stanford

    Use when deciding what belongs in an ACM FAccT paper body versus its endmatter statements, appendices, and supplementary material — the 14-page acmart budget, the extra endmatter page for ethics/adverse-impacts statements, the rule that decision-critical evidence stays in the reviewed pages, mutually-anonymous supplementary material, and how to split an interdisciplinary paper between body, endmatter, and artifact.
    1k repo stars
47. ▌
    Facct Writing Style · brycewang-stanford

    Use when revising an ACM FAccT paper so that a fairness/accountability/transparency contribution is legible on the first page to a mixed CS+law+social-science reviewer pool, claims are scoped to who is affected, limitations and harms are argued rather than recited, the interdisciplinary framing is native, and the acmart page budget and endmatter statements are used well.
    1k repo stars
48. ▌
    Fast Author Response · brycewang-stanford

    Use when drafting USENIX FAST author responses, covering the short pre-notification rebuttal during the author-response period and — distinctively — the one-shot-revision change ledger that maps every required change (including any newly required storage experiments) to a concrete result, resubmitted at the next deadline for a terminal accept/reject.
    1k repo stars
49. ▌
    Fast Reproducibility · brycewang-stanford

    Use when strengthening USENIX FAST reproducibility and open-science evidence, covering device and firmware provenance, device-state disclosure, trace availability and replay, claim-to-evidence mapping, honest degrees of reproducibility on hardware that ages and varies, and consistency between what the paper says and what the artifact contains.
    1k repo stars
50. ▌
    Fast Topic Selection · brycewang-stanford

    Use when deciding whether a storage project belongs at USENIX FAST or should be routed to OSDI, ATC, NSDI, EuroSys, HotStorage, MSST, SYSTOR, or a storage journal (ACM TOS), and when distinguishing FAST from general-systems siblings by storage-contribution shape, real-device evidence, and the two-deadline calendar.
    1k repo stars
51. ▌
    Focs Author Response · brycewang-stanford

    Use when managing author-side communication around a FOCS (IEEE Symposium on Foundations of Computer Science) submission, where no rebuttal round exists — discharging objections inside the paper before submission, handling rare chair-mediated queries, and converting a rejection into a disciplined autumn resubmission.
    1k repo stars
52. ▌
    Focs Reproducibility · brycewang-stanford

    Use when hardening a FOCS (IEEE Symposium on Foundations of Computer Science) paper's checkability — the theory analogue of reproducibility — via hypothesis ledgers, single-source theorem statements that cannot drift between submission and arXiv versions, audits of imported theorems, and certificates for machine-checked steps.
    1k repo stars
53. ▌
    Focs Topic Selection · brycewang-stanford

    Use when deciding whether a theoretical-computer-science result belongs at FOCS (IEEE Symposium on Foundations of Computer Science) — testing foundations-level significance, weighing the April deadline against sibling theory venues like STOC, SODA, CCC, ITCS, or CRYPTO, and applying the CFP's broaden-the-reach clause.
    1k repo stars
54. ▌
    Hpca Topic Selection · brycewang-stanford

    Use when deciding whether a project is HPCA-shaped or better routed to ISCA, MICRO, ASPLOS, or a systems/theory venue, weighing whether the machine, the mechanism, or the measurement is the contribution, and whether the main track or the HPCA Industry track fits, from the winter seat of the architecture calendar.
    1k repo stars
55. ▌
    Icalp Supplementary · brycewang-stanford

    Use when splitting an ICALP (EATCS) theory paper between the 15-page main body and the clearly labelled appendix / full version — deciding what a referee must see in the body versus what may be deferred, ensuring every deferred proof is actually present and findable, and keeping the split consistent with lightweight double-blind review.
    1k repo stars
56. ▌
    Icalp Writing Style · brycewang-stanford

    Use when shaping the exposition of an ICALP (EATCS) theory paper — stating the model before the theorem, putting a legible theorem statement and its improvement over prior bounds on the first page, structuring the 15-page body around the argument while full proofs live in the appendix/full version, and meeting the correctness-and-clarity bar of Track A and Track B referees.
    1k repo stars
57. ▌
    Icassp Experiments · brycewang-stanford

    Use when designing or auditing ICASSP experiments across signal-processing modalities — matching the metric to the task law (WER, SI-SDR, PESQ/STOI, EER/minDCF, PSNR/SSIM, BER, RMSE), anchoring baselines to current strong methods and standard corpora, sweeping the operating condition, and reporting spread over runs within the four-page limit.
    1k repo stars
58. ▌
    Iccv Author Response · brycewang-stanford

    Use when ICCV reviews arrive and the one-page rebuttal must be drafted inside the one-week May window, covering the official template's constraints, evidence selection when no attachments or links are allowed, addressing reviewers who are themselves deadline-crushed authors, and writing for the meta-review that follows.
    1k repo stars
59. ▌
    Iccv Reproducibility · brycewang-stanford

    Use when hardening the reproducibility story of an ICCV paper, covering full recipe disclosure without a mandated compute form, protocol pinning for foundation-model and zero-shot evaluations, seed and variance honesty at vision training scale, and writing results that stay checkable across the two-year gap to the next ICCV.
    1k repo stars
60. ▌
    Iccv Topic Selection · brycewang-stanford

    Use when deciding whether a computer-vision project should target ICCV, weighing the biennial odd-year cadence and its two-year option cost, what the Marr Prize lineage says about ICCV taste, honest odds at 24% acceptance, and when to hold work for CVPR, ECCV, WACV, or a journal instead of forcing the March deadline.
    1k repo stars
61. ▌
    Icde Author Response · brycewang-stanford

    Use when responding to IEEE ICDE reviews, whether drafting a rebuttal to reviewer concerns or preparing a revise-and-resubmit change document for an invited ICDE revision under the 4-week window, coordinating with area chairs, addressing systems-reviewer pushback on baselines and cost, and deciding what is feasible before the revision deadline.
    1k repo stars
62. ▌
    Icde Topic Selection · brycewang-stanford

    Use when deciding whether a project is a strong IEEE ICDE fit, routing among the three database venues from ICDE's seat (SIGMOD's quarterly rounds vs PVLDB's monthly deadlines vs ICDE's two rounds), choosing ICDE research vs industry track, applying the data-management-primitive test, and comparing with TKDE, EDBT, or systems venues.
    1k repo stars
63. ▌
    Icdm Author Response · brycewang-stanford

    Use when preparing for the review phase of an ICDM (IEEE International Conference on Data Mining) submission - planning for a venue whose tradition is NO author rebuttal, pre-answering reviewer questions inside the submitted PDF and cited artifact, and, only if the current edition opens a response window, drafting a tight anonymity-safe reply.
    1k repo stars
64. ▌
    Icdm Reproducibility · brycewang-stanford

    Use when strengthening reproducibility for an ICDM (IEEE International Conference on Data Mining) paper - seeds, configs, compute and data reporting, and an anonymized reproduction package that survives the Research Track's triple-blind regime while every detail fights for room inside the single 10-page IEEE all-inclusive cap.
    1k repo stars
65. ▌
    Icdm Topic Selection · brycewang-stanford

    Use when deciding whether a project is a strong ICDM (IEEE International Conference on Data Mining) fit, choosing among its Research, Applied, and Blue Sky tracks, and comparing ICDM with KDD, SDM, CIKM, WSDM, WWW, ICDE, or the ML flagships by contribution type, sponsor community, and the data-mining routing calendar seen from ICDM's June deadline.
    1k repo stars
66. ▌
    Icdt Author Response · brycewang-stanford

    Use when responding to ICDT (International Conference on Database Theory) referees — principally the first-cycle Revise-and-resubmit round, where you return a corrected paper that closes each identified proof gap, plus any short author-comment phase, keeping the response anonymous and mapping every referee point to a concrete change in the revised PDF.
    1k repo stars
67. ▌
    Icdt Reproducibility · brycewang-stanford

    Use when strengthening the verifiability of an ICDT (International Conference on Database Theory) paper — the theory-venue analogue of reproducibility — covering complete and self-contained proofs, exact models and assumptions, claim-to-proof mapping, matching upper and lower bounds, consistency between the LIPIcs paper and the arXiv full version, and honest labeling of what is proved versus conjectured.
    1k repo stars
68. ▌
    Icdt Topic Selection · brycewang-stanford

    Use when deciding whether a database-theory project belongs at ICDT (International Conference on Database Theory) or should be routed to PODS, the co-located EDBT systems track, a pure-TCS venue (LICS, ICALP, STACS), or a journal (ACM TODS, LMCS, TheoretiCS), and when distinguishing ICDT from its sibling database-theory flagship PODS by calendar, publisher, and community.
    1k repo stars
69. ▌
    Iclr Author Response · brycewang-stanford

    Use when drafting ICLR OpenReview author discussion replies, revision notes, public comments, restricted comments, and responses to reviewer or AC concerns during the discussion period. Use when reviews land and you must decide what to answer publicly versus privately, how to log a discussion-period revision, or how to move a borderline score before the AC writes the meta-review for the permanent record.
    1k repo stars
70. ▌
    Iclr Reproducibility · brycewang-stanford

    Use when strengthening reproducibility for ICLR papers, including seeds, variance, compute, datasets, implementation details, ethics statements, and reviewer-verifiable evidence. Use when writing the ICLR reproducibility statement, when a reviewer says a result is not verifiable, or when mapping each representation-learning claim to a seed, split, and command so anyone reading the permanent OpenReview record can check it.
    1k repo stars
71. ▌
    Iclr Topic Selection · brycewang-stanford

    Use when deciding whether a project is a strong ICLR submission, should be reframed for ICLR, or should be routed to NeurIPS, ICML, AAAI, AISTATS, ACL, CVPR, KDD, or another venue. Use when a project lacks a clear representation-learning insight, when an application result needs a learning contribution to fit ICLR, or when weighing ICLR's deep-learning center of gravity against a better-matched venue.
    1k repo stars
72. ▌
    Icml Author Response · brycewang-stanford

    Use when drafting ICML rebuttals and reviewer-author discussion replies under OpenReview double-blind constraints, where authors respond after initial reviews, reviewers may then have one additional discussion round, no revised paper can be uploaded during the period, and responses must stay anonymous. Use to triage objections by soundness, originality, significance, clarity, ethics, and reproducibility for the AC.
    1k repo stars
73. ▌
    Icml Reproducibility · brycewang-stanford

    Use when strengthening ICML reproducibility evidence, including code/data availability, random seeds, compute disclosure, appendix evidence, impact-statement support, and reviewer-facing reproducibility claims.
    1k repo stars
74. ▌
    Icml Topic Selection · brycewang-stanford

    Use when deciding whether a manuscript fits ICML, choosing the main research track versus the ICML Position Papers track or another venue (NeurIPS, ICLR, AISTATS, UAI, COLT, MLSys, TMLR, JMLR), or rerouting an ML paper based on its contribution type, strength of evidence, theory-versus-empirical balance, and interest to the broad ICML machine-learning community. Use before committing effort to an ICML submission.
    1k repo stars
75. ▌
    Icra Author Response · brycewang-stanford

    Use when responding to ICRA reviews in the channels that actually exist — turning decision-day reviewer comments into a disciplined camera-ready revision, writing the revise-and-resubmit response letter on the RA-L pathway, or converting an ICRA reject into a targeted IROS or RA-L resubmission — since classic ICRA offers no rebuttal.
    1k repo stars
76. ▌
    Icra Reproducibility · brycewang-stanford

    Use when hardening an ICRA paper's reproducibility — specifying robot platform, firmware, ROS and driver versions, control rates, and sensor calibration; logging rosbags and seeds; separating what others can rerun (code, sim) from what they can only audit (your hardware trials); and writing honest availability statements.
    1k repo stars
77. ▌
    Icra Topic Selection · brycewang-stanford

    Use when deciding whether a robotics project belongs at ICRA, choosing between a direct ICRA submission and the RA-L journal route with conference presentation, or re-routing to IROS, RSS, CoRL, T-RO, HRI, or CASE based on contribution type, evidence shape, and the embodiment test.
    1k repo stars
78. ▌
    Icse Author Response · brycewang-stanford

    Use when drafting an ICSE author response or executing a Major Revision, covering criterion-targeted replies to research-track reviews, the September response window, the four-week revision sprint to the November deadline, response-letter structure, and change tracking that survives PC re-review.
    1k repo stars
79. ▌
    Icse Reproducibility · brycewang-stanford

    Use when building the verifiability story of an ICSE research-track paper, covering the open-science policy's sharing-by-default expectation, the Data Availability section, anonymized replication packages at review time, provenance pinning for mining and LLM studies, and honest non-sharing justifications.
    1k repo stars
80. ▌
    Icse Topic Selection · brycewang-stanford

    Use when deciding whether a software-engineering project belongs in the ICSE research track or should be routed to FSE, ASE, ISSTA, MSR, ICSME, EMSE/TSE/TOSEM, or an ICSE co-located track such as NIER, SEIP, SEIS, or Demonstrations, based on contribution type, evidence maturity, and audience.
    1k repo stars
81. ▌
    Icsme Supplementary · brycewang-stanford

    Use when deciding what belongs in an IEEE ICSME paper body versus its anonymized artifact and appendices, covering the IEEEtran two-column 10-page budget where figures and appendices count, the rule that decision-critical evidence stays inside the reviewed pages, double-anonymous supplementary material, and how to split a mining/evolution paper between body and package.
    1k repo stars
82. ▌
    Icsme Writing Style · brycewang-stanford

    Use when revising an IEEE ICSME paper for a maintenance/evolution contribution stated on the first page, research-question contracts, a threats-to-validity section that argues rather than recites, evidence proportional to the claim, double-anonymous wording, and disciplined use of the IEEEtran two-column 10-page budget.
    1k repo stars
83. ▌
    Ieeesp Submission · brycewang-stanford

    Use when auditing an IEEE S&P (Oakland) submission for HotCRP readiness, including the registration freeze with ORCID matching, the 13-page/18-page compsoc format, anonymization, the Ethics Considerations field, SoK checkbox, conflict declarations, and the desk-reject triggers specific to S&P cycles.
    1k repo stars
84. ▌
    Ijcai Supplementary · brycewang-stanford

    Use when preparing IJCAI or IJCAI-ECAI supplementary material, technical appendices, ZIP files, proofs, derivations, data, source code, and resubmission files under deadline, format, size, anonymity, and reviewer-discretion constraints.
    1k repo stars
85. ▌
    Ijcai Writing Style · brycewang-stanford

    Use when revising an IJCAI or IJCAI-ECAI paper for broad AI significance, 7-page-body compression, self-contained exposition, double-blind wording, optional ethics discussion, reproducibility clarity, and policy-safe use of LLM editing.
    1k repo stars
86. ▌
    Ipsn Author Response · brycewang-stanford

    Use when drafting an IPSN-lineage rebuttal, covering the double-blind response to sensor-systems reviewers on ground truth, baseline fairness, deployment realism, energy accounting, and simulation-vs-real-hardware doubts, without leaking identity and without promising experiments not yet run.
    1k repo stars
87. ▌
    Ipsn Reproducibility · brycewang-stanford

    Use when strengthening IPSN-lineage reproducibility for a hardware/embedded/deployment artifact, covering firmware and board files, pinned toolchains, raw traces and calibration, honest degrees of reproducibility for a physical system, anonymized-but-runnable artifacts, and consistency between the paper and the package.
    1k repo stars
88. ▌
    Podc Experiments · brycewang-stanford

    Use when building the evidence for an ACM PODC paper — where "evidence" is a proof, not a benchmark. Covers matching upper and lower bounds, tightness arguments, model and assumption stress-tests, adversary-strength calibration, and the honest, clearly-optional role of any simulation in a distributed-computing-theory paper.
    1k repo stars
89. ▌
    Pods Experiments · brycewang-stanford

    Use when designing or auditing the analytical "evidence" of an ACM PODS paper — worst-case and average-case analyses, matching upper and lower bounds, dichotomy completeness, correct complexity assumptions, and the occasional empirical validation when a theory paper claims practicality — matching the rigor to the shape of each theoretical claim.
    1k repo stars
90. ▌
    Popl Experiments · brycewang-stanford

    Use when designing the empirical component of a POPL paper — deciding whether evidence should be a mechanization, a prototype, case studies, or benchmarks; reporting proof effort and case-study coverage honestly; and keeping performance numbers in a supporting role so the formal claim stays the paper's center of gravity.
    1k repo stars
91. ▌
    Socc Experiments · brycewang-stanford

    Use when designing or auditing ACM SoCC evaluations, covering real or realistic deployments over simulation, production or representative workloads and traces, tail-latency and cost as first-class metrics, fair tuned baselines, scale and multi-tenancy behavior, reproducible measurement pipelines, and matching evidence to the shape of each cloud claim.
    1k repo stars
92. ▌
    Soda Experiments · brycewang-stanford

    Use when deciding whether and how experiments belong in a SODA (ACM-SIAM Symposium on Discrete Algorithms) paper — SODA's scope includes experimental validation but theorems carry the decision, so this skill designs supporting numerics honestly and routes implementation-led work to co-located ALENEX or to SEA.
    1k repo stars
93. ▌
    Sosp Experiments · brycewang-stanford

    Use when designing or auditing the evaluation of a SOSP paper — mapping every claim to an experiment, choosing baselines a systems PC will accept as fair, mixing microbenchmarks with end-to-end and failure runs, reporting tails and overheads honestly, and isolating the mechanism the design credits.
    1k repo stars
94. ▌
    Stoc Experiments · brycewang-stanford

    Use when judging whether computation belongs in a STOC (ACM Symposium on Theory of Computing) paper at all — STOC accepts on theorems, with no empirical-evaluation expectation — and when it does, scoping it as certified proof computation, constructive search, or clearly labeled illustration rather than benchmarking.
    1k repo stars
95. ▌
    Uai Supplementary · brycewang-stanford

    Use when splitting a UAI paper between the 8-page main part, the unlimited in-PDF appendix for proofs and protocols, and the optional 50 MB supplementary ZIP, deciding what reviewers must see in the body versus what may sit in material they are not required to read, all under double-blind and single-file constraints.
    1k repo stars
96. ▌
    Uai Writing Style · brycewang-stanford

    Use when revising a UAI manuscript for probabilistic-inference readers, enforcing precise notation for distributions, graphs, and interventions, explicit assumption and identifiability statements, an 8-page main part that carries the whole argument while proofs sit in the appendix, and claims calibrated to what the theory and experiments show.
    1k repo stars
97. ▌
    Uist Experiments · brycewang-stanford

    Use when designing or auditing the evaluation of a UIST paper — choosing among technical benchmarks, controlled comparisons, usability walkthroughs, expert sessions, and demonstration applications, matching evaluation shape to the systems claim, and avoiding the ritual study that proves nothing the paper asserts.
    1k repo stars
98. ▌
    Vis Supplementary · brycewang-stanford

    Use when deciding what belongs in an IEEE VIS paper body versus its supplemental materials, covering the VGTC/TVCG 9+2 page budget, the supplemental video that VIS reviewers routinely watch, the one-week supplemental deadline extension, double-blind supplemental anonymization, and how to split a visualization paper between the reviewed pages and the archive.
    1k repo stars
99. ▌
    Vis Writing Style · brycewang-stanford

    Use when revising an IEEE VIS paper for a task-grounded visualization contribution on the first page, a design rationale that ties each visual encoding and interaction to a task, evaluation matched to the contribution type, honest limitations, and disciplined use of the VGTC/TVCG 9+2 page budget for a paper that will be read as an IEEE TVCG journal article.
    1k repo stars
100. ▌
     Vldb Experiments · brycewang-stanford

     Use when designing or auditing the evaluation of a VLDB paper, covering workload and dataset realism at scale, competitor tuning fairness, scalability curves versus single points, tail-latency and throughput reporting, ablations that isolate the mechanism, and the loss-case disclosure PVLDB reviewers look for first.
     1k repo stars