Event owner lens
Use this record to benchmark whether a comparable event makes the work after the room visible. The score is 40/100, so the next move is to benchmark the weakest pillars before repeating the format.
applied learning or working session agenda analysis
Gradient-Based Program Synthesis with Neurally Interpreted Languages - Workshops - Scientific Methods for Understanding Deep Learning (Sci4D
This applied learning or working session in Academic / Research / Science shows 27 visible agenda rows from iclr.cc and scores 40/100: a moderate design signal with incomplete evidence. The clearest public signals sit in Future-of-Work Fit and Participation Architecture; the main limits are Follow Through and Network Design. Visible mechanisms include Participant work, Network design, and Learning transfer. The public record does not show follow-up or tracking, so the score should be read as design intent rather... 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 future-of-work fit 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 moderate design signal band. The strongest visible pillars are Future-of-Work Fit, Participation Architecture, and Learning Transfer; the thinnest visible pillars are Follow Through, Network Design, and Personalization. Visible mechanisms include Participant work, Network design, and Learning transfer. The extracted agenda preview includes 27 visible rows. The most common formats are Presentation, Training, and Unknown; the most common inferred purposes are Knowledge Transfer, Skill Building, and Unknown.
Eight-pillar fingerprint
Hover any pillar to see what it measures and, where it scored low, what the agenda is missing.
Participation Architecture?57
Participation Architecture - 57/100. 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?49
Problem Specificity - 49/100. A clear costly problem, objective, decision, or performance target.
Personalization?33
Personalization - 33/100. 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?24
Network Design - 24/100. 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?53
Learning Transfer - 53/100. Applied practice, feedback, workplace use, refreshers, and 30-90 day transfer.
Evidence Maturity?41
Evidence Maturity - 41/100. Baseline, comparison, follow-up, isolation, and attribution confidence.
Future-of-Work Fit?60
Future-of-Work Fit - 60/100. 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 (24/100)
Exercises that strengthen it: Fun Trust-Building Group Game for Team Connection - Izzat... · Exciting Group Trust Activity for Building Confidence... · PFP: September 2005
Personalization (33/100)
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
30 percent of the 27 classified blocks put participants to work; the rest broadcast, show, or handle logistics. That mix is what drives the participation score.
Participant workBroadcastShowcaseLogistics
all eventMain ConferenceUnknownUnknown+
Format · BroadcastUnknownFormat not classified from the source; treated as a broadcast block by default.
Evidence basisLowRead from source
all eventBlog Track PostersPoster SessionShowcase+
Format · ShowcasePoster SessionPresenters display work; attendees browse and ask questions. Some interaction, not structured work.
Evidence basisMediumRead from source
all eventJournal Track PostersPoster SessionShowcase+
Format · ShowcasePoster SessionPresenters display work; attendees browse and ask questions. Some interaction, not structured work.
Evidence basisMediumRead from source
all eventWorkshopsWorkshopCo Creation+
Format · Participant workWorkshopParticipants work on a problem and produce something. The strongest signal of participation architecture.
Evidence basisMediumRead from source
all eventCommunityUnknownUnknown+
Format · BroadcastUnknownFormat not classified from the source; treated as a broadcast block by default.
Evidence basisLowRead from source
5:00 AM - 1:00 PMWorkshop Sun, Apr 26, 2026 • PDT 101 BWorkshopCo Creation+
Format · Participant workWorkshopParticipants work on a problem and produce something. The strongest signal of participation architecture.
Evidence basisMediumRead from source
all eventProject PageUnknownUnknown+
Format · BroadcastUnknownFormat not classified from the source; treated as a broadcast block by default.
Evidence basisLowRead from source
all eventTimezone: America/LosAngelesUnknownUnknown+
Format · BroadcastUnknownFormat not classified from the source; treated as a broadcast block by default.
Evidence basisLowRead from source
5:00 AMInvited Talk - Jeremy Cohen: How does gradient descent work? Jeremy Cohen VideoPresentationKnowledge Transfer+
Format · BroadcastPresentationSpeakers present, the audience receives. Awareness only unless paired with practice or follow-up.
Evidence basisMediumRead from source
5:30 AMInvited Talk - Julia Kempe: Some Insights into LLM Reasoning Julia Kempe VideoPresentationKnowledge Transfer+
Format · BroadcastPresentationSpeakers present, the audience receives. Awareness only unless paired with practice or follow-up.
Evidence basisMediumRead from source
6:00 AMInvited Talk - David Bau: Reading Science Back Out of AI David Bau VideoPresentationKnowledge Transfer+
Format · BroadcastPresentationSpeakers present, the audience receives. Awareness only unless paired with practice or follow-up.
Evidence basisMediumRead from source
6:30 AMCoffee BreakBreakWellbeing+
Format · LogisticsBreakA pacing or recovery block between sessions.
Evidence basisMediumRead from source
7:00 AMContributed Talk - Zeroth-Order Optimization at the Edge of Stability Minhak Song Video LinkPresentationKnowledge Transfer+
Format · BroadcastPresentationSpeakers present, the audience receives. Awareness only unless paired with practice or follow-up.
Evidence basisMediumRead from source
7:15 AMContributed Talk - Less Data, Faster Training: sampling bias from small dataset can speed up training Jingwen Liu Video LinkTrainingSkill Building+
Format · Participant workTrainingGuided skill building where participants practice. Counts as participant work and learning transfer.
Evidence basisMediumRead from source
7:30 AMContributed Talk - Optimal scaling laws in learning hierarchical multi-index models Bruno Loureiro Video LinkPresentationKnowledge Transfer+
Format · BroadcastPresentationSpeakers present, the audience receives. Awareness only unless paired with practice or follow-up.
Evidence basisMediumRead from source
7:45 AMPoster Session 1Poster SessionShowcase+
Format · ShowcasePoster SessionPresenters display work; attendees browse and ask questions. Some interaction, not structured work.
Evidence basisMediumRead from source
8:30 AMLunch BreakMealWellbeing+
Format · LogisticsMealA pacing block. Can carry unstructured networking, not scored as participant work.
Evidence basisMediumRead from source
9:30 AMInvited Talk - Richard Baraniuk: The science of self-consuming loops in AI Richard Baraniuk VideoPresentationKnowledge Transfer+
Format · BroadcastPresentationSpeakers present, the audience receives. Awareness only unless paired with practice or follow-up.
Evidence basisMediumRead from source
10:00 AMInvited Talk - Matthieu Wyart: Deriving Neural Scaling Laws from the statistics of natural language Matthieu Wyart VideoPresentationKnowledge Transfer+
Format · BroadcastPresentationSpeakers present, the audience receives. Awareness only unless paired with practice or follow-up.
Evidence basisMediumRead from source
11:00 AMPanel Discussion - Jeremy Cohen, Julia Kempe, David Bau, Richard Baraniuk, Matthieu Wyart Jeremy Cohen ⋅ Julia Kempe ⋅ David Bau ⋅ Richard Baraniuk ⋅ Matthieu Wyart VideoPanelDeliberation+
Format · BroadcastPanelExperts discuss while the audience watches. Surfaces perspective but rarely creates participant work.
Evidence basisMediumRead from source
12:00 PMScience of DL Challenge Winners Presentation VideoPresentationKnowledge Transfer+
Format · BroadcastPresentationSpeakers present, the audience receives. Awareness only unless paired with practice or follow-up.
Evidence basisMediumRead from source
12:15 PMPoster Session 2Poster SessionShowcase+
Format · ShowcasePoster SessionPresenters display work; attendees browse and ask questions. Some interaction, not structured work.
Evidence basisMediumRead from source
all eventMulti-Task Pretraining Drives Representational Convergence Core Francisco Park LinkTrainingSkill Building+
Format · Participant workTrainingGuided skill building where participants practice. Counts as participant work and learning transfer.
Evidence basisMediumRead from source
all eventPretraining with Masked Backstories in a Toy World Sultan Daniels ⋅ Dylan Davis ⋅ Gireeja Ranade ⋅ Anant Sahai LinkTrainingSkill Building+
Format · Participant workTrainingGuided skill building where participants practice. Counts as participant work and learning transfer.
Evidence basisMediumRead from source
all eventDoes LLM Pre-Training Typically Occur at the Edge of Stability? Yuhang Cai ⋅ Haofeng Huang ⋅ Haodong Wen ⋅ Deyi Liu ⋅ Yiyuan Ma ⋅ Kaifeng Lyu LinkTrainingSkill Building+
Format · Participant workTrainingGuided skill building where participants practice. Counts as participant work and learning transfer.
Evidence basisMediumRead from source
all eventUnderstanding Contextual Recall in Transformers: How Finetuning Enables In-Context Reasoning over Pretraining Knowledge Bhavya Vasudeva ⋅ Puneesh Deora ⋅ Alberto Bietti ⋅ Vatsal Sharan ⋅ Christos Thrampoulidis LinkTrainingSkill Building+
Format · Participant workTrainingGuided skill building where participants practice. Counts as participant work and learning transfer.
Evidence basisMediumRead from source
all eventLess Data, Faster Training: sampling bias from small dataset can speed up training Jingwen Liu ⋅ Ezra Edelman ⋅ Surbhi Goel ⋅ Bingbin Liu LinkTrainingSkill Building+
Format · Participant workTrainingGuided skill building where participants practice. Counts as participant work and learning transfer.
Evidence basisMediumRead from source
The Full Reading
Why It Ranks This Way +
Calibrated from GES design 40/100 and verified 40/100 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 future-of-work fit 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: Future-of-Work Fit, Participation Architecture, and Learning Transfer. 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 look for structured introductions, buyer-seller fit, and relationship persistence.
Designer lens
The agenda is useful as a pattern sample from iclr.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, Network design, 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.
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_2026_iclr_cc_virtual_2026_calendar_gradient_based_program_synthesis_with_neurall_342516"><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.