Skill UI

A comprehensive guideline for researchers developing robot-learning papers. It details best practices for experimental design, emphasizing statistical rigor, handling stochasticity (training seeds, initial states), bridging the sim-to-real gap, and ensuring fairness across baseline policy families (BC/RL/VLA). This resource helps ensure claims are supported by credible evidence.

This guide provides a comprehensive checklist for evaluating Electronic Design Automation (EDA) research manuscripts for top-tier conferences like DAC. It emphasizes the necessity of using standard, recognized benchmark suites (e.g., ISPD, EPFL, TAU), comparing results against the true State-of-the-Art (SOTA), reporting full PPA metrics and runtime, and implementing ablation studies to ensure fairness, reproducibility, and generalizability, especially for ML-based methods.

A detailed model of the ACM/IEEE Design Automation Conference (DAC) research manuscript review process. This guide explains the double-blind, TPC-driven, and single-shot nature of the evaluation, emphasizing the critical balance between genuine novelty and measured Quality-of-Results (QoR). It outlines the high standards for evidence fairness, benchmark credibility, and ablation studies required for acceptance, differentiating DAC's approach from architecture and software venues.

A comprehensive guide for designing and auditing high-stakes computer vision experiments for top-tier conferences. It covers critical areas like 'matched-substrate fairness,' 'six-month-staleness testing,' and rigorous ablation studies, ensuring that claims are robust, reproducible, and withstand intense peer review scrutiny.

This comprehensive guide outlines the rigorous standards for designing, auditing, and reporting Natural Language Processing (NLP) experiments, specifically tailored for top-tier academic conferences like EMNLP. It covers critical areas including baseline fairness checks, data contamination audits, statistical significance testing, prompt sensitivity analysis, and structured human evaluation protocols, ensuring reported claims are robust, reproducible, and methodologically sound.

This guide provides a comprehensive framework for designing rigorous, falsifiable system evaluations for academic research papers. It details best practices across four critical evidence layers: end-to-end performance, mechanism decomposition, operational cost, and boundary testing. Learn how to ensure workload realism, maintain baseline fairness, structure your experiment matrix, and avoid common pitfalls to meet top-tier systems research standards.

This guide meticulously models the rigorous decision-making machinery of top-tier academic conferences, using EuroSys as a detailed example. It covers the two-round submission cycle, the 'Accept/Revise/Reject' outcome logic, double-blind review mechanics, and critical criteria (like deployment plausibility and verifiable fairness) that determine a paper's success. Ideal for researchers and graduate students preparing systems research submissions.

A comprehensive guide to preparing accountability artifacts for AI research papers, particularly for venues like FAccT. It covers the necessary documentation genres—including datasheets for datasets, model cards for models, and impact assessments—to ensure transparency, verifiability, and accountability regarding claims of fairness and harm mitigation in AI systems. The focus is on making research outputs rigorously traceable and ethically responsible.

This guide outlines the rigorous methodological standards for empirical work in AI fairness, accountability, and transparency (FAccT). It advises researchers on matching specific claims (e.g., disparate harm) to appropriate evidence types—including disaggregated metrics, coded qualitative data, and documented ethical procedures. It stresses the importance of ethical review, handling protected attributes, and acknowledging limitations to ensure high scientific and ethical rigor.

This guide provides best practices for authors writing the "Related Work" section for interdisciplinary AI conferences. It teaches how to precisely position novelty across multiple domains—including ML fairness, law, HCI, and critical theory—by writing delta-first contrasts and properly attributing borrowed concepts to their original academic source.

This guide helps researchers determine the most appropriate academic venue for their responsible AI work. It provides detailed criteria and rigorous testing methods (like the Delete-the-equity test) to assess whether fairness, accountability, or transparency is a primary, core contribution, guiding authors away from merely 'bolted-on' ethical framing.

A comprehensive guide for revising academic papers submitted to FAccT (Fairness, Accountability, and Transparency). It instructs authors on how to frame socio-technical contributions to be legible to a mixed panel of computer scientists, lawyers, and social scientists. Focus areas include scoping claims to specific populations, explicitly arguing adverse impacts, and making interdisciplinary concepts native to the text.