Event owner lens
Use this record to benchmark whether a comparable event makes the work after the room visible. The score is 30/100, so the next move is to benchmark the weakest pillars before repeating the format.
applied learning or working session agenda analysis
ICML - Self-Improving Language Models for Evolutionary Program Synthesis: A Case Study on ARC-AGI - 2020 - Plan for how ICML 2020's Virtual Schedule
This applied learning or working session in Academic / Research / Science shows 24 visible agenda rows from icml.cc and scores 30/100: a thin but inspectable design signal. The clearest public signals sit in Learning Transfer and Participation Architecture; the main limits are Follow Through and Network Design. Visible mechanisms include Participant work, Feedback, and Learning transfer. The public record does not show follow-up or tracking, so the score should be read as design intent rather than durable impact. A practical reading: For a reader, this is a comparison record more than a model to copy: it reads as an applied learning or working session, with the strongest visible signal in learning transfer and participation architecture and the biggest open question around follow through and network design. The practical test is whether the published agenda connects the room to post-event continuation and evidence. This page is an original public-evidence analysis, not a copy of the source agenda or an endorsement of the event. The score places the visible agenda in the thin outcome architecture band. The strongest visible pillars are Learning Transfer, Participation Architecture, and Future-of-Work Fit; the thinnest visible pillars are Follow Through, Network Design, and Personalization. Visible mechanisms include Participant work, Feedback, and Learning transfer. The extracted agenda preview includes 38 visible rows. The most common formats are Presentation, Training, and Panel; the most common inferred purposes are Knowledge Transfer, Skill Building, and Showcase.
Eight-pillar fingerprint
Hover any pillar to see what it measures and, where it scored low, what the agenda is missing.
Participation Architecture?53
Participation Architecture - 53/100. Participant work, contribution, interaction, and alternatives to passive broadcast.
Follow Through?5
Follow Through - 5/100. Owners, dates, commitments, progress checks, and accountability after the room.Missing: Add named owners, dates, implementation checkpoints, and a visible post-event continuation path.
Problem Specificity?28
Problem Specificity - 28/100. A clear costly problem, objective, decision, or performance target.
Personalization?25
Personalization - 25/100. Role, path, goal, preparation, or connection tailoring for participants.Missing: Create role-based paths, prepared questions, tailored breakouts, or participant-specific next steps.
Network Design?6
Network Design - 6/100. Structured weak ties, bridge-building, mixers, and relationship persistence.Missing: Replace generic networking blocks with designed introductions, ask-offer exchanges, peer groups, or bridge-building rituals.
Learning Transfer?68
Learning Transfer - 68/100. Applied practice, feedback, workplace use, refreshers, and 30-90 day transfer.
Evidence Maturity?40
Evidence Maturity - 40/100. Baseline, comparison, follow-up, isolation, and attribution confidence.
Future-of-Work Fit?50
Future-of-Work Fit - 50/100. Value against time, hybrid reality, accessibility, AI, and meeting load.
Fix the gaps
Field-tested exercises matched to this agenda's weakest pillars, from the exercise library.
Follow Through (5/100)
Exercises that strengthen it: Mental Toughness Workshop • WorkshopBank · 15% Solutions • WorkshopBank · Network Patches
Network Design (6/100)
Exercises that strengthen it: Fun Trust-Building Group Game for Team Connection - Izzat... · Exciting Group Trust Activity for Building Confidence... · PFP: September 2005
Personalization (25/100)
Exercises that strengthen it: Journey Mapping • WorkshopBank · Group Energiser & Perspective-Changing Exercise - Paradigm... · Photo Storytelling
Agenda Preview
The actual agenda we captured. Every block is classified by format and purpose. Open any block to see how we read it; the colored edge shows whether it is participant work, broadcast, logistics, or a showcase.
Room vs wrapper
29 percent of the 38 classified blocks put participants to work; the rest broadcast, show, or handle logistics. That mix is what drives the participation score.
Participant workBroadcastShowcaseLogistics
all eventCall for TutorialsTrainingSkill building+
Format · Participant workTrainingGuided skill building where participants practice. Counts as participant work and learning transfer.
Evidence basisParticipant work is implied by the formatInferred from format
all eventCall for WorkshopsWorkshopParticipant work+
Format · Participant workWorkshopParticipants work on a problem and produce something. The strongest signal of participation architecture.
Evidence basisParticipant work is implied by the formatInferred from format
08:00-11:00The general conference will follow an "11 hour offset model" (see appendix for how we reached this) in which every presenter during the main conference (talks, tutorials, invited talks, test of time awardee, etc.) presents or discusses their work twice. Each...TrainingSkill building+
Format · Participant workTrainingGuided skill building where participants practice. Counts as participant work and learning transfer.
Evidence basisParticipant work is implied by the formatInferred from format
7:00-23:00These windows ensure at least one falls in the time range for all attendees in their own local time zone (see figure below). For example, consider a presenter in UTC+1, who presents at and in their local time. The former presentation will fall in a...PresentationKnowledge transfer+
Format · BroadcastPresentationSpeakers present, the audience receives. Awareness only unless paired with practice or follow-up.
Evidence basisNo participant output visible from this rowRead from source, no work signal
09:00Authors will provide a video 15 minute video talk, and will also be available for two 45-minute-long blocks of time to present a virtual poster and answer questions (which they may do without visual aids). These "poster presentations" will all take place...WorkshopShowcase+
Format · Participant workWorkshopParticipants work on a problem and produce something. The strongest signal of participation architecture.
Evidence basisParticipant work is implied by the formatInferred from format
all eventInvited Talks and PanelsPanelDiscussion+
Format · BroadcastPanelExperts discuss while the audience watches. Surfaces perspective but rarely creates participant work.
Evidence basisNo participant output visible from this rowRead from source, no work signal
all eventTutorialsTrainingSkill building+
Format · Participant workTrainingGuided skill building where participants practice. Counts as participant work and learning transfer.
Evidence basisParticipant work is implied by the formatInferred from format
7:00Here, the rows correspond to time in UTC+X (eg, +2 is Central Europe), and the columns correspond to other time zones (eg, +17 is west coast USA): you should think of rows as presenter times and columns as viewing times. The black, bold columns correspond to...PresentationKnowledge transfer+
Format · BroadcastPresentationSpeakers present, the audience receives. Awareness only unless paired with practice or follow-up.
Evidence basisNo participant output visible from this rowRead from source, no work signal
4amThe basic take-away here is that the ACM proposal (presentations in rows 15-20 or so) works reasonably well for everyone except people in China, Japan, Australia, and other parts of East Asia, who would basically need to be awake at midnight to to attend any...PresentationKnowledge transfer+
Format · BroadcastPresentationSpeakers present, the audience receives. Awareness only unless paired with practice or follow-up.
Evidence basisNo participant output visible from this rowRead from source, no work signal
14:00-18:00There is simply no time during which there aren't a substantial number of people who cannot attend (though the range, as advised by ACM, is the best of the bad options).PresentationKnowledge transfer+
Format · BroadcastPresentationSpeakers present, the audience receives. Awareness only unless paired with practice or follow-up.
Evidence basisNo participant output visible from this rowRead from source, no work signal
8:00Finally, we consider what is to us a new model. Each presenter has to present twice: once between and , and once between and . (Or alternatively, any two three-hour blocks, with a gap of ~11hr between first and second presentation.) These particular choices...PresentationKnowledge transfer+
Format · BroadcastPresentationSpeakers present, the audience receives. Awareness only unless paired with practice or follow-up.
Evidence basisNo participant output visible from this rowRead from source, no work signal
18:00Row 1, column 0 has the value "18". This means that an attendee in UTC+0 can see a talk by someone from time zone UTC+1 at (in UTC+0) -- this would be the evening presentation by that presenter.PresentationKnowledge transfer+
Format · BroadcastPresentationSpeakers present, the audience receives. Awareness only unless paired with practice or follow-up.
Evidence basisNo participant output visible from this rowRead from source, no work signal
14:00Row 1, column 2 has the value "9" -- this means that an attendee in UTC+2 can see the talk of a presenter from UTC+1 at 9a (in the attendees time zone of UTC+2). In this case, this would be the morning presentation of that presenter. (Of course they could...PresentationKnowledge transfer+
Format · BroadcastPresentationSpeakers present, the audience receives. Awareness only unless paired with practice or follow-up.
Evidence basisNo participant output visible from this rowRead from source, no work signal
07:00-08:00As an intuitive "proof" of this model, suppose there is an event just outside your comfort window. In the first case, say it is slightly too early: in your local time zone. The 11hr model means it will also be presented either 11 hr earlier ( in your local...PresentationKnowledge transfer+
Format · BroadcastPresentationSpeakers present, the audience receives. Awareness only unless paired with practice or follow-up.
Evidence basisNo participant output visible from this rowRead from source, no work signal
all eventSchedule for Unregistered AttendeesUnknownUnknown+
Format · BroadcastUnknownFormat not classified from the source; treated as a broadcast block by default.
Evidence basisLowRead from source
all eventCall for TutorialsTrainingSkill Building+
Format · Participant workTrainingGuided skill building where participants practice. Counts as participant work and learning transfer.
Evidence basisMediumRead from source
all eventCall for WorkshopsWorkshopCo Creation+
Format · Participant workWorkshopParticipants work on a problem and produce something. The strongest signal of participation architecture.
Evidence basisMediumRead from source
all eventTLDR for Attendees: There will be live poster sessions, and things to do happening at all hours of the day. Our schedule guarantees that every poster and invited talk and panel will happen at least once in a time friendly to your local time zone.PanelDeliberation+
Format · BroadcastPanelExperts discuss while the audience watches. Surfaces perspective but rarely creates participant work.
Evidence basisMediumRead from source
08:00-11:00The general conference will follow an "11 hour offset model" (see appendix for how we reached this) in which every presenter during the main conference (talks, tutorials, invited talks, test of time awardee, etc.) presents or discusses their work twice. Each of these two presentations will fall in a three hour window chosen by the authors (occupying only one of those three hours), with eleven hours separating the two three-hour windows: for instance, from (in the presenter's local time zone) and again from (again in in their local time zone, though not necessarily on the same day).TrainingSkill Building+
Format · Participant workTrainingGuided skill building where participants practice. Counts as participant work and learning transfer.
Evidence basisMediumRead from source
7:00-23:00 These windows ensure at least one falls in the time range for all attendees in their own local time zone (see figure below). For example, consider a presenter in UTC+1, who presents at and in their local time. The former presentation will fall in a reasonable time window for attendees in UTC+0 (at ) through UTC+12 (at ). The latter presentation falls in a reasonable time range for attendees in UTC-11 (at ) through UTC+2 (at ). Thus, at least one presentation can be attended by anyone in the world at a reasonable time.PresentationKnowledge Transfer+
Format · BroadcastPresentationSpeakers present, the audience receives. Awareness only unless paired with practice or follow-up.
Evidence basisMediumRead from source
09:00 Authors will provide a video 15 minute video talk, and will also be available for two 45-minute-long blocks of time to present a virtual poster and answer questions (which they may do without visual aids). These "poster presentations" will all take place during the main part of the conference: Tuesday through Thursday. Presenters will be assigned two poster slots abiding by the "11 hour offset model" but perhaps not on the same day (e.g., possible on Tuesday and on Wednesday) to allow for scheduling of invited talks.Poster SessionShowcase+
Format · ShowcasePoster SessionPresenters display work; attendees browse and ask questions. Some interaction, not structured work.
Evidence basisMediumRead from source
all eventVideos will not be explicitly played back during the time of the conference; instead, the videos will be made available to attendees one week in advance of the conference, for them to watch whenever is convenient for them. Attendees are strongly encouraged to watch one or both videos before the poster presentation, and also to attend many posters -- interaction is one of the most important parts of a conference, and posters are a good way to engage with your fellow attendees!Poster SessionShowcase+
Format · ShowcasePoster SessionPresenters display work; attendees browse and ask questions. Some interaction, not structured work.
Evidence basisMediumRead from source
all eventInvited Talks and PanelsPanelDeliberation+
Format · BroadcastPanelExperts discuss while the audience watches. Surfaces perspective but rarely creates participant work.
Evidence basisMediumRead from source
all eventAfter each playback of the talk concludes, there will be a moderated panel Q/A session with the speaker and one or two other guest panelists with overlapping but different expertise, about 60 minutes in length. During the first presentation of an invited talk, the panel will be live; for the second presentation, the speaker will still be available to answer questions, but a recording of the panel will be played back.PanelDeliberation+
Format · BroadcastPanelExperts discuss while the audience watches. Surfaces perspective but rarely creates participant work.
Evidence basisMediumRead from source
all eventThe test of time award will be presented similarly to invited talks, but with no panel discussion. In particular there will be one test of time award talk, which will be a pre-recorded video and available to attendees a few days before the conference begins. This will be played on Monday (the "tutorials day") at two time windows chosen by the awardees -- not overlapping with tutorials. Unlike the invited talks, instead of having a panel discussion there will be a short, live Q/A with the presenters after both presentations. The talk and discussion together will be 50 minutes long.PanelDeliberation+
Format · BroadcastPanelExperts discuss while the audience watches. Surfaces perspective but rarely creates participant work.
Evidence basisMediumRead from source
all eventTutorialsTrainingSkill Building+
Format · Participant workTrainingGuided skill building where participants practice. Counts as participant work and learning transfer.
Evidence basisMediumRead from source
all eventTutorials will be presented on Monday. There are ten tutorials, each a total of two hours of pre-recorded videos, broken into four modules of 30 minutes each. Tutorial presentation videos will be available shortly before the conference, and will also be simulcast and their respective time slots. During those time slots, presenters will be available on chat to answer clarification questions on the fly, and then also answer more substantial questions in 15 minute breaks between each module.TrainingSkill Building+
Format · Participant workTrainingGuided skill building where participants practice. Counts as participant work and learning transfer.
Evidence basisMediumRead from source
all eventTutorials will similarly be assigned two time slots (each time slot is 3hr in total), determined in consultation with tutorial presenters so that (a) not all tutorials take place at the same time and (b) the presenters can attend those time slots.TrainingSkill Building+
Format · Participant workTrainingGuided skill building where participants practice. Counts as participant work and learning transfer.
Evidence basisMediumRead from source
all eventOn each main day of the conference (Tuesday through Thursday), the first thing scheduled will be the invited talk sessions. These will be a 120 minute session (taking two adjacent slots), occurring twice during that 24 hour period. Nothing else will be presented at the same time, thus "locking" four of the 24 time slots for that day. Once that invited talk is scheduled, posters will be scheduled around it, each poster getting two slots.Poster SessionShowcase+
Format · ShowcasePoster SessionPresenters display work; attendees browse and ask questions. Some interaction, not structured work.
Evidence basisMediumRead from source
all eventIn order to facilitate this scheduling, poster presenters will be asked to select their preferred three hour blocks -- in many cases, those three hour blocks will not contain an invited talk, and posters can be spread into any of the slots in that block. However, in the case that the three hour block includes an invited talk, the poster will have to occur in the remaining time slot.Poster SessionShowcase+
Format · ShowcasePoster SessionPresenters display work; attendees browse and ask questions. Some interaction, not structured work.
Evidence basisMediumRead from source
7:00 Here, the rows correspond to time in UTC+X (eg, +2 is Central Europe), and the columns correspond to other time zones (eg, +17 is west coast USA): you should think of rows as presenter times and columns as viewing times. The black, bold columns correspond to time zones where we have a large number of participants coming from (according to our earlier survey). The green cells are "reasonable" viewing time slots, where reasonable means between and local time for attendees (this was approximately the time ranges that people reported potential availability on that survey).UnknownUnknown+
Format · BroadcastUnknownFormat not classified from the source; treated as a broadcast block by default.
Evidence basisMediumRead from source
4amThe basic take-away here is that the ACM proposal (presentations in rows 15-20 or so) works reasonably well for everyone except people in China, Japan, Australia, and other parts of East Asia, who would basically need to be awake at midnight to to attend any parts of the conference. This is further made clear with our survey, where we asked participants when they could attend and converted all of these times to UTC+0PresentationKnowledge Transfer+
Format · BroadcastPresentationSpeakers present, the audience receives. Awareness only unless paired with practice or follow-up.
Evidence basisMediumRead from source
14:00-18:00 There is simply no time during which there aren't a substantial number of people who cannot attend (though the range, as advised by ACM, is the best of the bad options).UnknownUnknown+
Format · BroadcastUnknownFormat not classified from the source; treated as a broadcast block by default.
Evidence basisMediumRead from source
8:00 Finally, we consider what is to us a new model. Each presenter has to present twice: once between and , and once between and . (Or alternatively, any two three-hour blocks, with a gap of ~11hr between first and second presentation.) These particular choices are based on the results of the local-time version of the above survey questionPresentationKnowledge Transfer+
Format · BroadcastPresentationSpeakers present, the audience receives. Awareness only unless paired with practice or follow-up.
Evidence basisMediumRead from source
18:00Row 1, column 0 has the value "18". This means that an attendee in UTC+0 can see a talk by someone from time zone UTC+1 at (in UTC+0) -- this would be the evening presentation by that presenter.PresentationKnowledge Transfer+
Format · BroadcastPresentationSpeakers present, the audience receives. Awareness only unless paired with practice or follow-up.
Evidence basisMediumRead from source
14:00 Row 1, column 2 has the value "9" -- this means that an attendee in UTC+2 can see the talk of a presenter from UTC+1 at 9a (in the attendees time zone of UTC+2). In this case, this would be the morning presentation of that presenter. (Of course they could alternatively go to the evening one, it would just be later for them. In this calculation, we assume everyone wants to go to the one closest to their local time.)PresentationKnowledge Transfer+
Format · BroadcastPresentationSpeakers present, the audience receives. Awareness only unless paired with practice or follow-up.
Evidence basisMediumRead from source
07:00-08:00 As an intuitive "proof" of this model, suppose there is an event just outside your comfort window. In the first case, say it is slightly too early: in your local time zone. The 11hr model means it will also be presented either 11 hr earlier ( in your local time zone) or 11 hr later ( in your local time zone), both of which fall in reasonable times. In the second case, say it is slightly too late: in your time zone. It would then also be presented either 11 hr earlier ( ) or 11 hr later ( ), both of which again fall in reasonable times.UnknownUnknown+
Format · BroadcastUnknownFormat not classified from the source; treated as a broadcast block by default.
Evidence basisMediumRead from source
all eventIf we assume 1000 accepted papers, with the highest density at UTC+1 (which is 25% in our survey), and spread across three days, then 80 papers will be presented in the same 3 hours time window. If we assume we split each into two poster sessions, that's 40 papers per session, which is hopefully not too high. We could also ask people in heavy time zones to shift slightly (eg ask UTC+1 presenters to volunteer to move to UTC+0 or UTC+2). This will be most challenging for poster presenters who overlap with an invited talk because they cannot be split. To mitigate this, we will allow poster presentations to happen on different days, so long as they are still 11hr apart.Poster SessionShowcase+
Format · ShowcasePoster SessionPresenters display work; attendees browse and ask questions. Some interaction, not structured work.
Evidence basisMediumRead from source
The Full Reading
Why It Ranks This Way +
Calibrated from GES design 34/100 and verified 34/100 with no fourth-loop cap.
Reader Takeaway. For a reader, this is a comparison record more than a model to copy: it reads as an applied learning or working session, with the strongest visible signal in learning transfer and participation architecture and the biggest open question around follow through and network design. The practical test is whether the published agenda connects the room to post-event continuation and evidence.
Strongest signals: Learning Transfer, Participation Architecture, and Future-of-Work Fit. Weakest signals: Follow Through, Network Design, and Personalization.
How This Agenda Could Improve +
- Add named owners, dates, implementation checkpoints, and a visible post-event continuation path.
- Replace generic networking blocks with designed introductions, ask-offer exchanges, peer groups, or bridge-building rituals.
- Create role-based paths, prepared questions, tailored breakouts, or participant-specific next steps.
Fastest next move: Add named owners, dated next steps, and a visible continuation path before treating the event as outcome-ready.
Role-Specific Reading +
Sponsor lens
Look beyond exposure. Strong sponsor value would show qualified interaction, problem work, buyer learning, customer evidence, or follow-up. The practical sponsor move is to ask for qualified interaction and post-event proof, not only reach.
Designer lens
The agenda is useful as a pattern sample from icml.cc. Redesign attention should go first to the lowest-scoring pillars; in practice, turn the thinnest agenda blocks into participant work.
Executive lens
Treat the visible agenda as an operating plan. The executive move is to require owners, dates, and evidence before treating the event as strategic. If owners, proof, and follow-through are not visible, the public record does not yet prove strategic movement.
Aggregator lens
Treat the source URL as evidence, not decoration. The data-product move is to label the source boundary clearly before ranking the record before ranking or syndicating the record.
What GES Means Here +
The Gathering Effectiveness Score is a strict 0-100 public-evidence reading of the agenda across eight pillars. It rewards visible participant work, follow-through, transfer, network design, and proof mechanisms more than polish, speaker fame, attendance, or satisfaction.
Visible mechanisms: Participant work, Feedback, Learning transfer.
Evidence boundary: Scores reflect visible agenda/source evidence and should not be read as proof of causal event impact.
Limitations, Score Caps, and Review Flags +
Limitations
- No visible follow-up, progress monitoring, or longitudinal tracking.
- No baseline measurement is visible.
Score caps
- No fourth-loop score cap applied.
Review flags
- No source-backed follow-up, validation, baseline, tracking, or impact evidence.
- No tracking, validation, feedback, or impact measurement found in the visible source text.
- High cleanup rate: many extracted rows were hidden or merged as fragments.
- Original category was unknown; publication category is inferred.
Is this proof the event worked? +
No. This is a strict public-evidence reading of the agenda. Proof would require baseline, comparison, follow-up, attribution, and impact evidence beyond the listing.
What should a reader inspect first? +
Start with the source URL, then compare the eight pillar scores against the agenda rows. The biggest opportunities usually sit in follow-through, evidence maturity, and participant work.
Why publish weak records? +
Weak records are part of the map. They show where public agendas still describe sessions and speakers more often than outcomes, commitments, transfer, or proof.
How should I use the rows? +
Read the agenda rows as the visible design trace: formats, purposes, and evidence labels show what the public source made inspectable, not everything that happened in the room. This is a source-grounded interpretation of the public agenda record, not a copy of the source, and not an endorsement of the event.
Embed the verified badge +
This record is in the hand-verified gold set. Copy the snippet below to embed the verified badge on your own site.
<a href="https://unitedwetransform.com/events/evt_2020_icml_self_improving_language_models_for_evolutionary_program_synthesis_a_ca_a5d6b3"><img src="https://unitedwetransform.com/badge/ges-verified.svg" alt="GES verified by United We Transform" height="40"></a>Where To Go Next
Compare this agenda against other Academic / Research / Science events scored on the same eight pillars.