--- name: AAMAS Related Work Positioning slug: aamas-related-work category: Writing description: Audit the novelty and eligibility of an AAMAS submission by mapping related work across multiagent, game theory, and reinforcement learning venues, ensuring cross-community citation coverage that AAMAS reviewers expect. github: "https://github.com/brycewang-stanford/Awesome-Journal-Skills/tree/main/AAMAS-Skills/skills/aamas-related-work" language: Stata stars: 880 forks: 106 install: "git clone https://github.com/brycewang-stanford/Awesome-Journal-Skills" added: 2026-07-20T06:49:39.290Z last_synced: 2026-07-29T06:37:40.391Z canonical_url: "https://dirskills.com/skills/aamas-related-work" --- # AAMAS Related Work Positioning Audit the novelty and eligibility of an AAMAS submission by mapping related work across multiagent, game theory, and reinforcement learning venues, ensuring cross-community citation coverage that AAMAS reviewers expect. **Install:** `git clone https://github.com/brycewang-stanford/Awesome-Journal-Skills` ## README # AAMAS Related Work Use this to audit novelty and eligibility. Reopen the current CFP for dual-submission, anonymity, and prior-publication rules before advising authors; much of the nearest multiagent work lives at *other* venues, which shapes both positioning and eligibility. ## Positioning checks - Separate the interaction novelty from engineering improvement: a new solution concept, mechanism, learning-dynamics result, coordination protocol, negotiation strategy, or empirical multiagent finding. - Compare across communities: AAMAS itself, the AI conferences (AAAI, IJCAI), the ML conferences (NeurIPS, ICML), and economics-and-computation venues (EC), plus the JAAMAS journal. Many landmark multiagent papers are *not* at AAMAS, so a bibliography that only cites AAMAS is as suspicious as one that ignores it. - Treat conference proceedings and journals as archival unless the current rules say otherwise. - Cite arXiv and workshop versions without breaking double-blind; do not point reviewers to an identity-revealing page. - Explain overlap with any concurrent or prior version, and do not submit duplicate archival work. ## Cross-community coverage table | Literature lane | Typical sources | What AAMAS reviewers check | |---|---|---| | Agents / multiagent core | AAMAS, JAAMAS, IJCAI, AAAI agent tracks | Whether the nearest multiagent method is compared or explicitly distinguished | | Multiagent RL | NeurIPS, ICML, ICLR, prior AAMAS | Whether MADDPG/QMIX/COMA-style cousins are cited even though they are not AAMAS papers | | Game theory / mechanism design | EC, GEB, algorithmic game-theory venues | Whether the solution concept and known impossibility results are acknowledged | | Social choice / negotiation | AAMAS, AAAI, COMSOC, ADT | Whether standard axioms and strategyproofness usage are followed | A bibliography citing only deep-MARL benchmarks tells a game-theory reviewer that known equilibrium or mechanism results may be getting rediscovered - a recognizable AAMAS reject pattern no amount of benchmark strength repairs. The mirror failure - only citing classical game theory while ignoring the deep-MARL wave - loses the empirical reviewer. ## Positioning vignette Imagine the paper proposes a communication protocol that improves cooperation in a mixed-motive game. Its nearest neighbors: a NeurIPS MARL paper with emergent communication but no incentive analysis, an EC paper with a cheap-talk equilibrium but no learning, and a prior AAMAS paper on the same game with a weaker coordination result. The novelty sentence should name all three: incentives where the MARL line had none, learning where the game-theory line stayed static, and stronger coordination than the direct AAMAS predecessor. ## Concurrent-work judgment calls - Independently concurrent arXiv work: cite neutrally, state the technical difference, and avoid priority claims reviewers cannot verify. - Your own workshop version: usually non-archival and citable, but verify against the current CFP and phrase the citation so double-blind survives. - When unsure about a venue's archival status, declare the overlap in the submission form rather than gambling on a chair's reading. ## Output format ```text [Eligibility] clear / needs declaration / risky [Closest literatures] [Nearest 3 works] distinction> [Archival-overlap risk] [Novelty sentence] ```