← 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. ▌
   Sigir Submission · brycewang-stanford

   Use when auditing a SIGIR full or short paper before the deadline — the 9-page vs 4-page budgets with appendices counted inside, ACM sigconf anonymization, per-track OpenReview groups, the PC-member nomination duty, cross-track double-submission bans, AI-use disclosure, and desk-reject triage for the ACM SIGIR conference.
   1k repo stars
2. ▌
   Sigmod Workflow · brycewang-stanford

   Use when planning a SIGMOD project calendar under the PACMMOD round system, covering round selection and hopping, backward planning from abstract and paper cutoffs, the feedback and revision windows, embargo-aware contingencies, and coordinating a systems-building team against quarterly deadlines.
   1k repo stars
3. ▌
   Socc Camera Ready · brycewang-stanford

   Use when preparing an accepted ACM SoCC paper for its camera-ready, covering de-anonymization, the acmart/sigconf final format and ACM metadata (DOI, ORCID, CCS concepts), integrating reviewer-required changes without scope creep, permanentizing released code and traces, the ACM rights/e-copyright form, and the presentation obligation in Singapore.
   1k repo stars
4. ▌
   Socc Related Work · brycewang-stanford

   Use when positioning an ACM SoCC submission against both the systems literature (OSDI, NSDI, EuroSys, ATC, SOSP, SoCC) and the data-management literature (SIGMOD, VLDB), writing delta-first contrast rather than a citation catalog, keeping self-citations dual-anonymous, and handling concurrent, preprint, and prior-version overlap.
   1k repo stars
5. ▌
   Soda Camera Ready · brycewang-stanford

   Use when converting a SODA (ACM-SIAM Symposium on Discrete Algorithms) acceptance into a correct SIAM proceedings entry — following the October final-version instructions, condensing the no-limit submission into the proceedings version, restoring author identity, syncing the arXiv full version, and planning the January talk.
   1k repo stars
6. ▌
   Soda Related Work · brycewang-stanford

   Use when positioning a SODA (ACM-SIAM Symposium on Discrete Algorithms) paper in the algorithms literature — tracing bound lineages across SODA/STOC/FOCS/ESA/ICALP and journals, handling arXiv-first priority culture, citing conference versus journal versions correctly, and self-citation under lightweight double-blind rules.
   1k repo stars
7. ▌
   Sosp Camera Ready · brycewang-stanford

   Use when preparing a SOSP camera-ready after acceptance, working with an assigned shepherd toward the final deadline, expanding from the 12-page submission to the 13-page final limit (14 with shepherd approval), de-anonymizing safely, adding artifact badges, and meeting ACM proceedings requirements.
   1k repo stars
8. ▌
   Sosp Related Work · brycewang-stanford

   Use when positioning a SOSP submission against the systems literature — the SOSP/OSDI lineage a PC expects you to know, structural comparison instead of citation listing, third-person self-citation under double-blind rules, and handling concurrent work across the now-annual systems deadline circuit.
   1k repo stars
9. ▌
   Stoc Camera Ready · brycewang-stanford

   Use when converting a STOC (ACM Symposium on Theory of Computing) acceptance into publishable form — the ACM proceedings version, de-anonymization, rights forms, the CFP-level expectation that the full paper with proofs goes public on arXiv or ECCC by the camera-ready deadline, and TheoryFest talk preparation.
   1k repo stars
10. ▌
    Stoc Related Work · brycewang-stanford

    Use when positioning a STOC (ACM Symposium on Theory of Computing) paper against the theory literature — tracing bound-improvement lineages, citing conference/journal/preprint version pairs correctly, handling concurrent arXiv and ECCC work, and keeping self-citation double-blind-safe.
    1k repo stars
11. ▌
    Tacas Submission · brycewang-stanford

    Use when auditing a TACAS (ETAPS) submission for EasyChair readiness, covering the choice among the four paper categories (research, case-study, regular tool, tool-demonstration), the correct LNCS page limit and llncs.cls format, the per-category blind mode (double-blind research vs single-blind tool/case-study), the mandatory tool-paper artifact deadline, and desk-reject triage before the firm ETAPS deadline.
    1k repo stars
12. ▌
    Uai Review Process · brycewang-stanford

    Use when reasoning about UAI peer review on OpenReview, including bidding, double-blind evaluation against the correctness, novelty, backing, and clarity criteria, the author-response window, the reviewer-and-area-chair discussion that follows it, decision timing, spotlight versus poster outcomes, and PMLR publication of accepted papers.
    1k repo stars
13. ▌
    Uist Camera Ready · brycewang-stanford

    Use when converting a conditional UIST acceptance into a published paper — delivering the rebuttal-promised changes by the July deadline, working the ACM TAPS pipeline with alt text for every figure and table, de-anonymizing correctly, finalizing the video figure, and preparing the Detroit talk and demo.
    1k repo stars
14. ▌
    Uist Related Work · brycewang-stanford

    Use when positioning a UIST submission against prior art — organizing by capability delta rather than paper lists, covering the technique lineage, toolkit ancestry, and commercial systems reviewers know, citing your own work in the third person, and verifying venue attribution through the ACM DL and dblp.
    1k repo stars
15. ▌
    Vis Review Process · brycewang-stanford

    Use when reasoning about how an IEEE VIS full-paper submission is evaluated, covering the two-phase review that mirrors IEEE TVCG, the primary/secondary/external (and 2026 student) reviewer roles, the six-area routing through Area Paper Chairs, the conditional-accept second round, and how VIS's journal-integrated process differs from a single accept/reject conference and from CHI/CVPR.
    1k repo stars
16. ▌
    Vldb Camera Ready · brycewang-stanford

    Use when producing the final PVLDB version of an accepted VLDB paper, covering the volume-specific template, PDF/A compliance and font embedding, figure legibility floors, the availability paragraph and artifact URL, proceedings file naming and copyright steps, and planning presentation at the matching VLDB conference.
    1k repo stars
17. ▌
    Vldb Related Work · brycewang-stanford

    Use when positioning a PVLDB submission against prior literature, covering the deep database canon back to the 1980s VLDB proceedings, the SIGMOD/ICDE/CIDR neighborhood, concurrent work under rolling monthly deadlines, industrial and open-source systems as citable prior art, and overlap declarations for extended versions.
    1k repo stars
18. ▌
    Wacv Camera Ready · brycewang-stanford

    Use when preparing a WACV camera-ready after acceptance, covering de-anonymization, IEEE Xplore plus CVF open-access dual publication, IEEE copyright and PDF checks, the dataset and code release obligation, per-paper registration, and preparing the winter-conference talk or poster once a paper clears Round 1 or Round 2.
    1k repo stars
19. ▌
    Wacv Related Work · brycewang-stanford

    Use when writing or auditing a WACV related-work section, covering how to position an applications or algorithms contribution against fast-moving vision literature, sibling-venue (CVPR/ICCV/ECCV) and arXiv concurrency, application-domain literature, double-blind self-citation, and verifying that cited "WACV papers" are actually WACV papers.
    1k repo stars
20. ▌
    Wsdm Camera Ready · brycewang-stanford

    Use when preparing a WSDM camera-ready after acceptance - de-anonymization order, ACM rights and TAPS production into the Digital Library proceedings, CCS concepts and keywords, page-allowance verification, artifact link restoration, and registration/presentation duties at a single-track winter conference.
    1k repo stars
21. ▌
    Wsdm Related Work · brycewang-stanford

    Use when positioning a paper against prior literature for WSDM - locating the work inside WSDM's own research lineages (click models, unbiased LTR, sequential recommendation, community detection), contrasting against SIGIR/KDD/WWW/CIKM/RecSys neighbors, venue-misattribution traps, and compressing the section for the tight page budget.
    1k repo stars
22. ▌
    Aaai Supplementary · brycewang-stanford

    Use when organizing AAAI supplementary material, including the technical appendix, multimedia appendix, and code/data ZIPs, while respecting that AAAI supplements are due with the paper, treated as immutable after submission, must stay double-blind, and should never hide main-paper-critical evidence from reviewers who skim the appendix.
    1k repo stars
23. ▌
    Aaai Writing Style · brycewang-stanford

    Use when revising an AAAI manuscript for broad-AI-audience fit, a first-page contribution statement legible to non-specialist Phase-1 reviewers, two-column readability, concise novelty claims, reproducibility-checklist alignment, hedged limitations and ethics, and policy-aware framing of AI-system and capability claims.
    1k repo stars
24. ▌
    Aamas Experiments · brycewang-stanford

    Use when designing or auditing AAMAS experiments - self-play and population-based training, opponent selection, equilibrium and regret metrics, game-theoretic simulations, ablations, seeds, hyperparameters, compute, and claim-to-evidence fit - with emphasis on experiments that probe the interaction rather than chase a single-agent leaderboard.
    1k repo stars
25. ▌
    Acl Author Response · brycewang-stanford

    Use when drafting an ACL author response inside an ACL Rolling Review cycle on OpenReview, covering the response window before meta-review, reviewer discussion dynamics, score-change strategy, flagging review issues to the area chair, anonymity rules, and deciding between responding now versus revising for a later ARR cycle.
    1k repo stars
26. ▌
    Acl Reproducibility · brycewang-stanford

    Use when strengthening reproducibility evidence for an ACL paper reviewed through ACL Rolling Review, covering the Responsible NLP checklist end to end, hyperparameter and compute reporting, prompt and decoding disclosure for LLM experiments, data contamination auditing, variance across runs, and checklist-to-paper consistency.
    1k repo stars
27. ▌
    Acl Topic Selection · brycewang-stanford

    Use when deciding whether a project fits ACL versus EMNLP, NAACL, EACL, TACL, Computational Linguistics, COLM, or an ML venue, covering contribution typing for NLP work, long-versus-short paper choice, the annual theme track, Findings-tier expectations, and sharpening the computational-linguistics framing before writing starts.
    1k repo stars
28. ▌
    Ccs Experiments · brycewang-stanford

    Use when designing or auditing ACM CCS experiments, attack demonstrations, adaptive-attack defense evaluations, security measurements, baselines, overhead and cost reporting, ablations, and claim-to-evidence fit, with emphasis on evidence that survives an adversarial program committee rather than leaderboard wins.
    1k repo stars
29. ▌
    Acmmm Submission · brycewang-stanford

    Use when auditing an ACM MM (ACM Multimedia) submission for OpenReview readiness — thematic-area choice, the 6-8 page ACM sigconf budget, references-only overflow, double-blind anonymity versus the single-blind Reproducibility/Open-Source/Dataset tracks, supplementary media, dual submission, desk-reject triggers, and last-week sequencing.
    1k repo stars
30. ▌
    Ase Author Response · brycewang-stanford

    Use when drafting ASE (IEEE/ACM Automated Software Engineering) author responses, covering the double-anonymous rebuttal that must first survive the early-rejection gate and — distinctively — the criteria-bound revision-round summary-of-changes that maps every stated revision criterion to a concrete change and is re-checked against those criteria.
    1k repo stars
31. ▌
    Ase Reproducibility · brycewang-stanford

    Use when building the open-science and reproducibility story for an ASE (IEEE/ACM Automated Software Engineering) submission, covering the mandatory Data Availability Statement, anonymized-but-runnable tools, tool and subject-system provenance pinning, cached LLM outputs, and staging for the ACM Available/Reusable artifact badges.
    1k repo stars
32. ▌
    Ase Topic Selection · brycewang-stanford

    Use when deciding whether a software-engineering project belongs at ASE (IEEE/ACM Automated Software Engineering) or should be routed to ICSE, ESEC/FSE, ISSTA, a PL venue, or an SE journal, and when distinguishing ASE by its automation-centric contribution shape, its tool/technique emphasis, and its AI4SE/SE4AI scope.
    1k repo stars
33. ▌
    Atc Author Response · brycewang-stanford

    Use when writing the ATC (ACM SIGOPS Annual Technical Conference, formerly USENIX ATC) rebuttal and the shepherd's description-of-changes — the short round-two response that corrects factual misreadings and supplies requested measurements, and the point-by-point revision record a conditional-acceptance shepherd checks before final acceptance.
    1k repo stars
34. ▌
    Atc Reproducibility · brycewang-stanford

    Use when building the reproducibility story for an ATC (ACM SIGOPS Annual Technical Conference, formerly USENIX ATC) systems paper — pinning testbed and software environments, providing a turnkey path from the artifact to the headline numbers, and preparing an anonymized-but-runnable review package ahead of the Available/Functional/Reproduced badges.
    1k repo stars
35. ▌
    Atc Topic Selection · brycewang-stanford

    Use when deciding whether a computer-systems project belongs at ATC (ACM SIGOPS Annual Technical Conference, formerly USENIX ATC) or should be routed to OSDI, SOSP, NSDI, EuroSys, FAST, or a workshop like HotOS/HotStorage — distinguishing ATC by its broad practical scope, its Deployed Systems / experience lane, the breadth-vs-selectivity trade, and the November/June calendar.
    1k repo stars
36. ▌
    Cc Workflow · brycewang-stanford

    Use when deciding which cc-* sub-skill to invoke next, or when sequencing a Cancer Cell (Cell Press) manuscript from scope check through peer-review revision. Routes — it does not replace — the specialized skills.
    1k repo stars
37. ▌
    Cav Author Response · brycewang-stanford

    Use when drafting a CAV (Computer Aided Verification) author response (rebuttal) for a paper that has passed the two-stage review's first filter, covering how to answer soundness/proof objections, benchmark-fairness challenges, and novelty-delta doubts with verifiable evidence while preserving double-anonymity for Regular and Application papers.
    1k repo stars
38. ▌
    Cav Reproducibility · brycewang-stanford

    Use when strengthening CAV (Computer Aided Verification) reproducibility, covering benchmark provenance (SV-COMP/SMT-COMP/HWMCC/VNN-COMP set revisions), pinned tool and baseline versions, resource limits and hardware, seeds for randomized/portfolio solvers, checkable proof witnesses/certificates for soundness claims, and consistency between the paper's tables and the artifact.
    1k repo stars
39. ▌
    Cav Topic Selection · brycewang-stanford

    Use when deciding whether a formal-methods project belongs at CAV (Computer Aided Verification) or should be routed to TACAS, FMCAD, VMCAI, LPAR/IJCAR, POPL/PLDI/OOPSLA, or a journal (FMSD/JAR/TOCL), and when choosing the right CAV category — Regular, Short Tool, Short Application, or Industrial Experience & Case Study.
    1k repo stars
40. ▌
    Chi Author Response · brycewang-stanford

    Use when an ACM CHI paper receives a revise-and-resubmit invitation and the five-week window opens — planning the revision triage, making tracked changes reviewers can audit, and writing the response letter that carries the paper through round 2 and the PC meeting.
    1k repo stars
41. ▌
    Chi Reproducibility · brycewang-stanford

    Use when strengthening research transparency for an ACM CHI paper — protocols, instruments, codebooks, analysis scripts, preregistration, and data availability under human-subjects constraints — so methods survive the ADR-Method screening and others can actually build on the work.
    1k repo stars
42. ▌
    Chi Topic Selection · brycewang-stanford

    Use when deciding whether a project belongs at ACM CHI, which of CHI's contribution types it makes, and which reviewing subcommittee should judge it — or whether the work is better routed to UIST, CSCW, DIS, IUI, ASSETS, IMWUT, or TOCHI before any drafting starts.
    1k repo stars
43. ▌
    Cikm Supplementary · brycewang-stanford

    Use when deciding what supporting material accompanies a CIKM submission given budgets that count appendices inside the page limit, structuring the in-PDF appendix versus the anonymously cited artifact, keeping both double-blind, and handling the uncounted GenAI-disclosure and reference sections correctly.
    1k repo stars
44. ▌
    Cikm Writing Style · brycewang-stanford

    Use when revising a CIKM manuscript for the tri-community readership — writing an opening that lands with IR, data-mining, and knowledge-management reviewers simultaneously, compressing into appendix-inclusive page budgets, keeping claims inside the evidence, and maintaining double-blind and disclosure-compliant prose.
    1k repo stars
45. ▌
    Colm Supplementary · brycewang-stanford

    Use when deciding what goes into a COLM paper's appendices and supplementary material versus the strict 9-page main text — verbatim prompts, full evaluation configurations, per-task result tables, contamination analyses, human-evaluation protocols, and anonymized code/data packages that survive double-blind review.
    1k repo stars
46. ▌
    Colm Writing Style · brycewang-stanford

    Use when drafting or revising COLM paper prose — leading with a finding about language models rather than a leaderboard delta, scoping claims to tested models and scales, naming versions in text, keeping the 9-page main text self-sufficient, and matching the measured, analysis-forward voice of COLM's award lineage.
    1k repo stars
47. ▌
    Colt Supplementary · brycewang-stanford

    Use when structuring the appendix of a COLT (Conference on Learning Theory) submission — the unlimited-length proof appendix inside the single PDF — covering body/appendix splitting for a 12-page limit, theorem restatement discipline, lemma ordering, notation tables, and what referees expect to find where.
    1k repo stars
48. ▌
    Colt Writing Style · brycewang-stanford

    Use when revising a COLT (Conference on Learning Theory) paper for theorem-first exposition — formal setup before results, informal-then-formal theorem statements, proof overviews that sell the technique, quantifier and constant hygiene, and fitting the argument's spine into 12 PMLR-formatted pages.
    1k repo stars
49. ▌
    Corl Supplementary · brycewang-stanford

    Use when assembling CoRL supplementary material — the strongly encouraged overview video under the 250 MB cap and roughly three minutes, the optional appendix inside the same PDF that reviewers need not read, code and data attachments, and anonymization of everything, with the PMLR no-video rule shaping camera-ready plans.
    1k repo stars
50. ▌
    Corl Writing Style · brycewang-stanford

    Use when writing or revising a CoRL paper's prose — leading with the embodied task and the learned component, calibrating claims to evaluation scale, writing the mandatory Limitations section as a scored asset, fitting the argument into 8 pages, and satisfying a dual reviewer audience of ML and robotics readers.
    1k repo stars
51. ▌
    Cscw Supplementary · brycewang-stanford

    Use when assembling supplementary materials for a CSCW submission — appendices, codebooks, interview guides, survey instruments, analysis code, and data extracts — deciding what accompanies a journal-model paper, anonymized end to end and consistent across R&R rounds.
    1k repo stars
52. ▌
    Cscw Writing Style · brycewang-stanford

    Use when drafting or revising CSCW prose — group-level framing, concepts a field can reuse, participant voice handled with care, theory that earns its keep, and length discipline under the 5,000-12,000-word scrutiny band where contribution is weighed against every page.
    1k repo stars
53. ▌
    Cvpr Supplementary · brycewang-stanford

    Use when deciding what belongs in a CVPR supplementary upload versus the 8-page body, covering the one-week-later supplement deadline, video and qualitative-result norms in computer vision, anonymous code packaging, the no-external-links rule, and keeping decision-critical evidence out of material reviewers may skip.
    1k repo stars
54. ▌
    Cvpr Writing Style · brycewang-stanford

    Use when writing or revising a CVPR paper's prose and figures, covering the 8-page budget where figures and tables count against the limit, the page-1 teaser figure convention, benchmark-table craft, claim calibration for a skeptical vision audience, and taking responsibility for tool-assisted text under CVPR's rules.
    1k repo stars
55. ▌
    Dac Author Response · brycewang-stanford

    Use when handling reviewer feedback for an ACM/IEEE Design Automation Conference (DAC) Research Manuscript — writing a concise, evidence-first rebuttal IF the cycle runs an author-response period (verify; DAC has historically not), and otherwise converting DAC reviews into a targeted response-to-reviewers when rerouting a rejected paper to ICCAD, DATE, ASP-DAC, or a journal.
    1k repo stars
56. ▌
    Dac Reproducibility · brycewang-stanford

    Use when building the reproducibility story for an ACM/IEEE Design Automation Conference (DAC) Research Manuscript, covering pinned EDA benchmark suites and versions (ISPD, EPFL, ISCAS/ITC, TAU, CircuitNet), open-source flow provenance (OpenROAD, ABC, Yosys), PDK/library and tool-version disclosure, seed/variance reporting for stochastic and ML flows, and the anonymized-then-public repository path — absent a formal DAC artifact-badging track.
    1k repo stars
57. ▌
    Dac Topic Selection · brycewang-stanford

    Use when deciding whether an EDA or chip-design project belongs at the ACM/IEEE Design Automation Conference (DAC) and, if so, in the double-blind archival Research Manuscript track versus the industry-facing Engineering Track — or whether it should route to a sibling EDA venue (ICCAD, DATE, ASP-DAC) or a computer-architecture venue (ISCA/MICRO/HPCA), decided by contribution shape, QoR evidence maturity, and the November calendar.
    1k repo stars
58. ▌
    Eacl Supplementary · brycewang-stanford

    Use when organizing an EACL paper's body, mandatory Limitations section, appendices, and anonymized supplementary archive so that no decision-critical content hides where ACL Rolling Review reviewers are not obliged to read, and so the content-page budget carries the whole argument on its own.
    1k repo stars
59. ▌
    Eacl Writing Style · brycewang-stanford

    Use when revising an EACL paper's prose for a task-first first page, a concrete page-one example, scoped LLM-era claims, quantified error analysis, an anonymity-safe voice, honest Limitations, and compression into the 8-page long or 4-page short content budget without pushing the argument into appendices.
    1k repo stars
60. ▌
    Ecai Supplementary · brycewang-stanford

    Use when deciding what goes in the ECAI 7-page body versus the anonymized supplement — splitting content by decision-criticality so nothing a reviewer needs to judge the paper lives outside the tight body, given there is no unlimited in-paper appendix and no separate artifact track.
    1k repo stars
61. ▌
    Ecai Writing Style · brycewang-stanford

    Use when writing or tightening an ECAI paper body — leading with a general-AI contribution on the first page, matching evidence to claim (a theorem and construction, or a fair empirical comparison), and doing it inside a 7-page body where every paragraph must earn its space.
    1k repo stars
62. ▌
    Eccv Supplementary · brycewang-stanford

    Use when assembling ECCV supplementary material under its own deadline one week after the paper (March 12 in 2026) — deciding what belongs in the extra week's upload, video and qualitative-result packaging, anonymity scrubbing of archives, and keeping the 14-page LNCS body self-contained.
    1k repo stars
63. ▌
    Eccv Writing Style · brycewang-stanford

    Use when writing or revising an ECCV paper in the Springer LNCS single-column format — spending the 14-page budget (figures and tables included), LNCS-specific layout craft, first-page architecture for a mixed European panel, numbered-citation hygiene, and claims phrased to survive a one-page rebuttal.
    1k repo stars
64. ▌
    Edbt Supplementary · brycewang-stanford

    Use when deciding what belongs in an EDBT paper body versus its artifact and appendices, covering the per-shape page budget with unlimited references, the rule that decision-critical evidence stays inside the reviewed pages, and how to split a database-systems paper between body and reproducible package.
    1k repo stars
65. ▌
    Edbt Writing Style · brycewang-stanford

    Use when revising an EDBT paper for a data-management contribution on the first page, a reproducibly described mechanism, an evaluation that survives a database-systems reviewer, honest scope, and disciplined use of the per-shape page budget (Regular / Experiments-&-Analysis / Vision) in the OpenProceedings template.
    1k repo stars
66. ▌
    Emnlp Experiments · brycewang-stanford

    Use when designing or auditing the experimental program of an EMNLP paper — baseline fairness and tuning budgets, dataset and language coverage matched to claims, contamination audits for pretrained and API models, significance testing and seed variance, human evaluation protocols, prompt sensitivity, and the error analysis EMNLP reviewers expect.
    1k repo stars
67. ▌
    Facct Experiments · brycewang-stanford

    Use when designing or auditing ACM FAccT empirical work — quantitative fairness audits with disaggregated metrics and fair baselines, qualitative and participatory studies with coding and reflexivity, mixed-methods designs, sound handling of protected attributes and proxies, consent and IRB for human-subjects and community-facing work, and matching evidence to the shape of a fairness/accountability/transparency claim.
    1k repo stars
68. ▌
    Fast Supplementary · brycewang-stanford

    Use when deciding what belongs in a USENIX FAST paper body versus its artifact and appendices, covering the USENIX two-column page budget (references excluded), the rule that decision-critical storage evidence stays inside the reviewed pages, double-blind supplementary material, and how to split a storage paper between body and package.
    1k repo stars
69. ▌
    Fast Writing Style · brycewang-stanford

    Use when revising a USENIX FAST paper for a storage contribution on the first page, a design/mechanism narrative a storage reviewer can follow, an evaluation framed as the storage cost it changes (write amplification, tail latency, endurance, crash consistency), double-blind wording, and disciplined use of the USENIX two-column page budget.
    1k repo stars
70. ▌
    Focs Supplementary · brycewang-stanford

    Use when architecting everything after page ten of a FOCS (IEEE Symposium on Foundations of Computer Science) submission — a venue with no separate supplement channel where the paper itself continues past the guaranteed-read window — covering body organization, proof placement, and navigation for the discretionary reader.
    1k repo stars
71. ▌
    Focs Writing Style · brycewang-stanford

    Use when drafting or revising a FOCS (IEEE Symposium on Foundations of Computer Science) paper — making the first ten pages carry the whole case to a broad theory committee, pairing informal and formal theorem statements, keeping single-column 11-point prose readable, and writing double-blind-safe self-references.
    1k repo stars
72. ▌
    Fse Author Response · brycewang-stanford

    Use when drafting ESEC/FSE author responses, covering the initial-review rebuttal and — distinctively — the journal-style Major Revision response letter that must stay double-anonymous, map every reviewer request to a concrete tracked change, and survive re-review by the original reviewers under PACMSE.
    1k repo stars
73. ▌
    Fse Reproducibility · brycewang-stanford

    Use when strengthening ESEC/FSE reproducibility and open-science evidence, covering the Data Availability statement, anonymized-but-runnable artifacts, provenance pinning for mining and LLM studies, claim-to-evidence mapping, honest degrees of reproducibility, and consistency between what the paper says and what the artifact contains.
    1k repo stars
74. ▌
    Fse Topic Selection · brycewang-stanford

    Use when deciding whether a software-engineering project belongs at ESEC/FSE or should be routed to ICSE, ASE, ISSTA, MSR, ICSME, or an SE journal (EMSE/TSE/TOSEM), and when distinguishing FSE from its sibling general-SE flagship ICSE by contribution shape, evidence maturity, and the PACMSE journal-style fit.
    1k repo stars
75. ▌
    Hpca Supplementary · brycewang-stanford

    Use when deciding where HPCA material belongs across the four destinations the venue offers — the 11-page body, the anonymized artifact mirror, the staging shelf for the rebuttal/revision window, and the post-acceptance public release — while keeping anonymity intact and every reference author-complete.
    1k repo stars
76. ▌
    Hpca Writing Style · brycewang-stanford

    Use when revising an HPCA paper for the mechanism-to-behavior first-page arc, a measured motivation before the fix, a checkable mechanism description, numbers that name their instrument, and 11-page compression that leaves slack for the single rebuttal/revision window.
    1k repo stars
77. ▌
    Hri Author Response · brycewang-stanford

    Use when writing the single ACM/IEEE HRI full-paper rebuttal that responds to three external reviewers and two area chairs — triaging study-design and statistics critiques, correcting misreadings, promising only what a camera-ready can deliver, staying anonymous and within the length limit, and giving the online reviewer discussion reasons to raise scores.
    1k repo stars
78. ▌
    Hri Reproducibility · brycewang-stanford

    Use when building the openness and replicability story for an ACM/IEEE HRI full paper — sharing study materials, robot-behavior specifications, de-identified data, and analysis code; reporting Wizard-of-Oz and pre-registration; and stating honestly what can and cannot be reproduced in an embodied human-subjects study.
    1k repo stars
79. ▌
    Hri Topic Selection · brycewang-stanford

    Use when deciding whether a human-robot-interaction project belongs at the ACM/IEEE HRI conference versus CHI, ICRA/IROS, RO-MAN, CoRL, HAI, or the THRI/JHRI journals, and then which of HRI's five full-paper tracks (User Studies, Technical, Design, Theory and Methods, Systems) it should enter, using the robot-embodiment and human-in-the-loop tests and the HRI calendar.
    1k repo stars
80. ▌
    Icalp Experiments · brycewang-stanford

    Use when matching the argument of an ICALP (EATCS) theory paper to its claim — choosing the proof strategy for an upper or lower bound, deciding when supporting computation (SAT/SMT-verified base cases, computer-assisted case analysis, exhaustive small-case checks) legitimately backs a theorem, and keeping any such computation reproducible without turning a proof paper into an experimental one.
    1k repo stars
81. ▌
    Iccv Supplementary · brycewang-stanford

    Use when planning or auditing ICCV supplementary material under the same-day paper-plus-supplement deadline, covering what moves out of the 8-page body, parallel production of videos and code from February onward, double-blind hygiene inside the archive, and making depth material navigable for reviewers who choose to open it.
    1k repo stars
82. ▌
    Iccv Writing Style · brycewang-stanford

    Use when drafting or revising the prose and figures of an ICCV paper, covering writing for an international generalist reviewer pool, the inclusive 8-page economy, mechanism-first exposition, calibrated claims that survive a one-page rebuttal cycle, and captions and figures that carry the paper for readers who skim first.
    1k repo stars
83. ▌
    Icde Writing Style · brycewang-stanford

    Use when revising an IEEE ICDE paper for the first-page data-engineering contract, a reconstructable mechanism description, the running-example device, performance claims scoped to the workloads actually run, single-blind first-person phrasing, and 12-page IEEE two-column compression that survives a builder-heavy program committee.
    1k repo stars
84. ▌
    Icdm Supplementary · brycewang-stanford

    Use when organizing supplementary and appendix material for an ICDM (IEEE International Conference on Data Mining) paper - deciding what belongs in the body, in an appendix that counts inside the single 10-page IEEE cap, or in an external anonymized repository, plus planning the compression if the paper is accepted as a short paper.
    1k repo stars
85. ▌
    Icdm Writing Style · brycewang-stanford

    Use when drafting or revising prose for an ICDM (IEEE International Conference on Data Mining) paper - the data-regime-first register, the named-mechanism discipline, measured-scale language instead of scalability adjectives, discovery-validity sentences, triple-blind-safe self-reference, and compression into the single 10-page IEEE all-inclusive cap.
    1k repo stars
86. ▌
    Icdt Supplementary · brycewang-stanford

    Use when deciding how to split an ICDT (International Conference on Database Theory) paper between the 15-page lipics-v2021 body and the clearly-marked appendix that referees read at their discretion, given that online/external appendices are not allowed and every proof needed to certify the result must live inside the single submitted PDF.
    1k repo stars
87. ▌
    Icdt Writing Style · brycewang-stanford

    Use when shaping the prose of an ICDT (International Conference on Database Theory) paper — the theorem-proof structure, stating the data model and computation model precisely, leading with the result and its data-management consequence, proof-sketch-then-appendix discipline within the lipics-v2021 15-page budget, and the notation conventions a database-theory referee expects.
    1k repo stars
88. ▌
    Iclr Supplementary · brycewang-stanford

    Use when organizing ICLR appendices, supplementary files, anonymous code/data, revised PDFs, private links, and discussion-period updates under OpenReview rules. Use when deciding what stays in the main text versus the appendix, how to label a discussion-period revision so reviewers find changes fast, or how to package anonymous artifacts that remain part of the permanent public record after acceptance.
    1k repo stars
89. ▌
    Iclr Writing Style · brycewang-stanford

    Use when revising an ICLR manuscript for learning-representation framing, OpenReview readability, contribution clarity, limitations, ethics, and reviewer navigation. Use when the core representation insight is buried, when an abstract must read well as an OpenReview snippet, or when adding a "what to verify" path so reviewers can confirm the claim under permanent public review.
    1k repo stars
90. ▌
    Icml Supplementary · brycewang-stanford

    Use when deciding what ICML material belongs in the main 8-page body, same-PDF appendices, supplementary manuscript, code/data supplement, anonymous concurrent-submission PDF, or public camera-ready artifact.
    1k repo stars
91. ▌
    Icml Writing Style · brycewang-stanford

    Use when rewriting a machine-learning paper for ICML-style claims, 8-page clarity, soundness/originality/significance framing, impact statement, lay-summary readiness, and reviewer-updateable rebuttal posture.
    1k repo stars
92. ▌
    Icra Supplementary · brycewang-stanford

    Use when planning ICRA supplementary material, which in this venue means primarily the video attachment — 180 seconds, 20 MB, submitted in fixed PaperPlaza windows — plus external code links; covers storyboarding, showing failures, anonymization of footage, and what may never live only outside the 6+2-page PDF.
    1k repo stars
93. ▌
    Icra Writing Style · brycewang-stanford

    Use when drafting or tightening an ICRA manuscript — leading with the robot task and physical constraint, compressing a systems story into 6 IEEE two-column pages, writing figure-first for skimming reviewers, quantifying instead of demo-speak, and keeping notation consistent across kinematics, control, and learning sections.
    1k repo stars
94. ▌
    Icse Supplementary · brycewang-stanford

    Use when deciding what goes into the 10-page body versus the replication package of an ICSE research-track submission, covering the no-unlimited-appendix page model, anonymized supplementary links and HotCRP uploads, package organization for reviewer navigation, and content-placement rules that protect the review.
    1k repo stars
95. ▌
    Icse Writing Style · brycewang-stanford

    Use when writing or revising an ICSE research-track paper, covering empirical-SE paper anatomy, research questions as the load-bearing structure, the threats-to-validity section the community expects, practitioner-grounded motivation, calibrated claims, and fitting a complete study into ten IEEE pages.
    1k repo stars
96. ▌
    Icsme Experiments · brycewang-stanford

    Use when designing or auditing IEEE ICSME empirical evaluations, covering real evolving subject systems, mining-software-repositories provenance, fair baselines, SE-standard statistics and effect sizes, change-history and survivorship confounds, qualitative rigor, contamination-aware LLM ablations, and matching evidence to the shape of each maintenance/evolution claim.
    1k repo stars
97. ▌
    Ieeesp Workflow · brycewang-stanford

    Use when planning an IEEE S&P (Oakland) submission calendar across the two-cycle year, including registration-versus-paper deadlines, the early-reject and rebuttal windows, Revise resubmission timing, the one-year embargo clock, and choosing which cycle a project can realistically hit.
    1k repo stars
98. ▌
    Ijcai Experiments · brycewang-stanford

    Use when designing or auditing IJCAI or IJCAI-ECAI experiments, baselines, ablations, statistical evidence, hyperparameter reporting, compute descriptions, dataset handling, ethics risks, and reproducibility evidence for AI papers.
    1k repo stars
99. ▌
    Imc Author Response · brycewang-stanford

    Use when drafting ACM IMC author responses, covering the initial-review rebuttal and — distinctively — the One-Shot-Revision resubmission that must address a bounded set of action points, keep double-blind anonymity, satisfy the reviewer champion, and be re-judged by the same reviewers at the next deadline.
    1k repo stars
100. ▌
     Imc Reproducibility · brycewang-stanford

     Use when strengthening ACM IMC reproducibility and availability evidence, covering the artifact-availability declaration, measurement provenance (vantage points, dates, tool versions), dataset release with schema, honest reproducibility for a moving Internet, the Replicability Track, and consistency between what the paper claims and what the released data contains.
     1k repo stars