Uai workflow

UAI Workflow

Use this as the project-management layer over the other UAI skills. UAI is a conference run by the AUAI: there is no editor-in-chief and no rolling submission — one deadline per year, per-edition chairs, and PMLR publication funded by registration rather than author fees. The 2026 calendar below is the verified anchor (checked 2026-07-08); substitute the current year's official dates before planning anything.

The 2026 shape of a UAI year

Phase	2026 anchor	Owner-side work
Fit decision	months before	Confirm uncertainty is the contribution (uai-topic-selection)
Submission opens	Jan 25	OpenReview profiles, conflicts, subject areas ready
Paper deadline	Feb 25, 23:59 AoE	Single PDF (8pp main + appendix), ≤15 MB, ZIP ≤50 MB
Bidding	Mar 2–9	Nothing — routing was set by your abstract
Reviews written	Mar 21 – Apr 11	Prepare response infrastructure; draft anticipated objections
Author response	Apr 23 – May 2	Evidence-anchored replies (uai-author-response)
Reviewer–AC discussion	May 2–8	Silence; the response argues for you
Notification	Jun 1	Triage outcome; celebrate or re-route
Camera-ready	Jul 27	PMLR files, public artifacts (uai-camera-ready)
Conference	Aug 17–21, Amsterdam	Tutorials Mon, main Tue–Thu, workshops Fri

Backward plan from the paper deadline

Offsets assume a probabilistic-methods paper with theory and experiments; shift for your mix, and re-anchor to current official dates:

• T−10 weeks: contribution sentence frozen; identifiability/guarantee target named; ladder of experiments designed (exact-truth, stress, real).
• T−8: core theorem believed and sketched; assumption set labeled A1…An and no longer moving.
• T−6: exact-truth experiments done; the theorem's prediction visibly matches or the paper's story changes now, not at T−1.
• T−4: full draft in the UAI template; appendix skeleton mirrors main-text numbering; baselines tuned and logged.
• T−3: internal mock review against the four criteria (correctness, novelty, backing, clarity) by someone outside the project.
• T−2: stress and real-data experiments locked; determinism ledger and manifests in the artifact; supplementary ZIP assembled from a clean export.
• T−1: anonymity sweep of PDF and ZIP; page/size caps verified mechanically; OpenReview form fields drafted.
• T−0: upload early in the day AoE-wise; re-download and cold-read.

Role assignments that prevent the classic failures

# uai-cycle-owners.yaml — one name per row, no shared ownership
anonymity_sweep:      # PDF + ZIP + metadata; leaks are unfixable after the deadline
evidence_map:         # every claim -> exhibit; updated when any result changes
appendix_integrity:   # body statements == appendix statements after every edit
artifact_build:       # clean-export ZIP, manifest files, size cap
openreview_form:      # profiles, conflicts, subject areas, abstract == PDF abstract
response_marshal:     # archives submitted PDF; drafts objection bank before reviews
camera_ready:         # PMLR forms, de-anonymization, public repo tag
presentation:         # poster, spotlight, registration, travel/visa timeline

The two most damaging single points of failure at UAI specifically: an unowned anonymity sweep (appendices inside the reviewed PDF widen the leak surface), and an unowned appendix-integrity check (deadline-week edits to body theorems silently orphan their proofs).

Between decision and conference

• Accepted: the June-to-July window carries camera-ready, artifact publication, and registration simultaneously — assign them to different people on day one.
• Rejected: run the axis triage from uai-review-process within a week while context is fresh; the natural re-route targets (AISTATS, NeurIPS/ICML, CLeaR, or a journal) have their own calendars, and reviews in hand are an asset that depreciates.
• Either way: at least one author may be called to review for UAI — the volunteer agreement signed at submission — so protect reviewing bandwidth in March–April.

The cycle archive

One deadline per year means institutional memory is the compounding asset. At each transition, file into a shared, dated directory:

• The exact uploaded PDF and ZIP (deadline day) — responses must quote these.
• The OpenReview form contents as submitted (screenshot or export).
• All reviews, your responses, and the meta-review (decision day).
• The camera-ready as published, plus the PMLR entry once the volume is live.
• A one-page retrospective: which criterion drew fire, which anticipated objection materialized, what the next cycle should do differently.

Groups that skip the retrospective re-learn the same reviewer objection annually.

Contingency table

If this happens	Then	Because
Theorem breaks at T−3	Demote it to a conjecture + empirical study, or pull the paper	A wrong proof fails correctness; a scoped claim can still pass backing
Key experiment unfinished at T−1	Cut the claim, not the caveats	Claims without exhibits fail the backing criterion
Coauthor conflict list incomplete at deadline	Fix profiles before the form, even if tight	Conflict errors poison assignment invisibly
Reviews arrive harsher than expected	Run axis triage before drafting anything	Emotion-first responses waste the short window
Accepted but presenter cannot travel	Check the current remote-presentation rules immediately	2026 said "physically or remotely", but details were 待核实
Rejected with fixable-axis reviews	Target the next honest-fit deadline within the month	Review memory and momentum decay fast

First-cycle notes

For a group's first UAI attempt: budget one extra week for OpenReview profile setup and conflict entry across all authors; expect the two-column template to shrink an apparently-fitting draft by half a page; and have the mock reviewer score the four posted criteria explicitly — first-time submissions most often lose on backing, not on correctness.

Standing warnings

• Never inherit dates from this file or from memory; the official important-dates page is the only calendar.
• Registration fees, in-person requirements, and remote-presentation options were not fully verifiable for 2026 at pack-check time (待核实) — confirm before booking travel or promising remote attendance.
• One-deadline venues punish schedule slips brutally: a week late here is a year late.

Output format

[Cycle position] fit / build / submitted / response / decided / camera-ready / conference
[Next hard date] <official date + source URL>
[Critical path] <three tasks gating the next transition>
[Owner gaps] <rows in the owner map without a name>
[Re-route plan] <standing answer to "if rejected, then where">