Event owner lens
Use this record to benchmark whether a comparable event makes the work after the room visible. The score is 36/100, so the next move is to benchmark the weakest pillars before repeating the format.
education training career agenda agenda analysis
Gradient-Based Program Synthesis with Neurally Interpreted Languages - Workshops - Geometry-grounded Representation Learning and Generative
This education training career agenda in Education / Training / Career shows 28 visible agenda rows from gram-workshop.github.io and scores 36/100: a thin but inspectable design signal. 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 education training career agenda, 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 thin outcome architecture band. The strongest visible pillars are Future-of-Work Fit, Participation Architecture, and Problem Specificity; the thinnest visible pillars are Follow Through, Network Design, and Learning Transfer. Visible mechanisms include Participant work, Network design, and Learning transfer. The extracted agenda preview includes 28 visible rows. The most common formats are Workshop, Unknown, and Presentation; the most common inferred purposes are Co Creation, Unknown, and Knowledge Transfer.
Eight-pillar fingerprint
Hover any pillar to see what it measures and, where it scored low, what the agenda is missing.
Participation Architecture?51
Participation Architecture - 51/100. 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?36
Personalization - 36/100. Role, path, goal, preparation, or connection tailoring for participants.
Network Design?10
Network Design - 10/100. 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?35
Learning Transfer - 35/100. Applied practice, feedback, workplace use, refreshers, and 30-90 day transfer.Missing: Build transfer into the agenda through practice, feedback, job aids, reflection, and 30-90 day use cases.
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 (10/100)
Exercises that strengthen it: Fun Trust-Building Group Game for Team Connection - Izzat... · Exciting Group Trust Activity for Building Confidence... · PFP: September 2005
Learning Transfer (35/100)
Exercises that strengthen it: Team Challenge Activity for Group Problem-Solving: Don't... · Thrilling, Quick Elimination Game to Boost Energy - Match... · Creative Brain Teaser & Fun Geometric Team Puzzle - T-Puzzle
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
21 percent of the 28 classified blocks put participants to work; the rest broadcast, show, or handle logistics. That mix is what drives the participation score.
Participant workBroadcastShowcaseLogistics
all eventGRaM Workshop @ ICLR 2026WorkshopCo Creation+
Format · Participant workWorkshopParticipants work on a problem and produce something. The strongest signal of participation architecture.
Evidence basisMediumRead from source
all eventWorkshop on Geometry-grounded Representation Learning and Generative ModelingWorkshopCo Creation+
Format · Participant workWorkshopParticipants work on a problem and produce something. The strongest signal of participation architecture.
Evidence basisMediumRead from source
all eventPanelistsPanelDeliberation+
Format · BroadcastPanelExperts discuss while the audience watches. Surfaces perspective but rarely creates participant work.
Evidence basisMediumRead from source
09:00 to 12:25Morning SessionPresentationKnowledge Transfer+
Format · BroadcastPresentationSpeakers present, the audience receives. Awareness only unless paired with practice or follow-up.
Evidence basisMediumRead from source
09:00 to 09:10Registration & WelcomeOpening RemarksOrientation+
Format · BroadcastOpening RemarksFraming or welcome from the stage. Orients the room, not participatory.
Evidence basisMediumRead from source
09:10 to 09:40Invited TalkPresentationKnowledge Transfer+
Format · BroadcastPresentationSpeakers present, the audience receives. Awareness only unless paired with practice or follow-up.
Evidence basisMediumRead from source
10:00 to 10:10BreakBreakWellbeing+
Format · LogisticsBreakA pacing or recovery block between sessions.
Evidence basisMediumRead from source
10:10 to 11:00Contributed TalksPresentationKnowledge Transfer+
Format · BroadcastPresentationSpeakers present, the audience receives. Awareness only unless paired with practice or follow-up.
Evidence basisMediumRead from source
11:00 to 11:15BeyondMath: AI for Physics and Engineering & Competition AnnouncementsUnknownUnknown+
Format · BroadcastUnknownFormat not classified from the source; treated as a broadcast block by default.
Evidence basisMediumRead from source
11:15 to 11:35Invited Talk onlinePresentationKnowledge Transfer+
Format · BroadcastPresentationSpeakers present, the audience receives. Awareness only unless paired with practice or follow-up.
Evidence basisMediumRead from source
11:35 to 12:25Poster Session APoster SessionShowcase+
Format · ShowcasePoster SessionPresenters display work; attendees browse and ask questions. Some interaction, not structured work.
Evidence basisMediumRead from source
all eventSubmissions #0 - #73 · view posters on OpenReviewPoster SessionShowcase+
Format · ShowcasePoster SessionPresenters display work; attendees browse and ask questions. Some interaction, not structured work.
Evidence basisMediumRead from source
12:25 to 17:00Afternoon SessionPresentationKnowledge Transfer+
Format · BroadcastPresentationSpeakers present, the audience receives. Awareness only unless paired with practice or follow-up.
Evidence basisMediumRead from source
12:30 to 14:00LunchMealWellbeing+
Format · LogisticsMealA pacing block. Can carry unstructured networking, not scored as participant work.
Evidence basisMediumRead from source
14:00 to 14:40Panel DiscussionPanelDeliberation+
Format · BroadcastPanelExperts discuss while the audience watches. Surfaces perspective but rarely creates participant work.
Evidence basisMediumRead from source
15:45 to 15:55onlineUnknownUnknown+
Format · BroadcastUnknownFormat not classified from the source; treated as a broadcast block by default.
Evidence basisMediumRead from source
15:55 to 16:05Closing RemarksClosing RemarksOrientation+
Format · BroadcastClosing RemarksClosing framing from the stage. Wraps the event, not participatory.
Evidence basisMediumRead from source
16:05 to 16:55Poster Session BPoster SessionShowcase+
Format · ShowcasePoster SessionPresenters display work; attendees browse and ask questions. Some interaction, not structured work.
Evidence basisMediumRead from source
all eventSubmissions #74 - #133 · view posters on OpenReviewPoster SessionShowcase+
Format · ShowcasePoster SessionPresenters display work; attendees browse and ask questions. Some interaction, not structured work.
Evidence basisMediumRead from source
16:55 to 17:00Wrap UpClosing RemarksOrientation+
Format · BroadcastClosing RemarksClosing framing from the stage. Wraps the event, not participatory.
Evidence basisMediumRead from source
all eventWorkshop dates: April 26, 2026WorkshopCo Creation+
Format · Participant workWorkshopParticipants work on a problem and produce something. The strongest signal of participation architecture.
Evidence basisMediumRead from source
all eventThe call is now closed. We were hosting a benchmark challenge on transient airflow prediction over 3D geometries inspired by Formula 1 front wings, with simulation data provided by BeyondMath. Given a geometry and airflow at previous time points, predict the airflow at future time points. The winner receives the MCML Award (500 € prize). All valid submissions will be published in the workshop proceedings with co-authorship. Submissions are made via pull requests - see the competition website for details. Deadline: April 22, 2026 (AoE).WorkshopCo Creation+
Format · Participant workWorkshopParticipants work on a problem and produce something. The strongest signal of participation architecture.
Evidence basisMediumRead from source
all eventAccepted Papers (OpenReview)UnknownUnknown+
Format · BroadcastUnknownFormat not classified from the source; treated as a broadcast block by default.
Evidence basisLowRead from source
all eventThe call for papers is closed. You can see all the accepted papers on the openreview page ICLR 2026 Workshop GRaM. Congratulations to all the authors!WorkshopCo Creation+
Format · Participant workWorkshopParticipants work on a problem and produce something. The strongest signal of participation architecture.
Evidence basisMediumRead from source
all eventMany real-world datasets have geometric structure, but most ML methods ignore such structure, and treat all inputs as plain vectors. GRaM is a workshop about grounding models in geometry, using ideas from group equivariance to non-Euclidean metrics, to build better, more interpretable representations and generative models.WorkshopCo Creation+
Format · Participant workWorkshopParticipants work on a problem and produce something. The strongest signal of participation architecture.
Evidence basisMediumRead from source
all eventAlison PouplinUnknownUnknown+
Format · BroadcastUnknownFormat not classified from the source; treated as a broadcast block by default.
Evidence basisLowRead from source
all eventSharvaree VadgamaUnknownUnknown+
Format · BroadcastUnknownFormat not classified from the source; treated as a broadcast block by default.
Evidence basisLowRead from source
all eventErik BekkersUnknownUnknown+
Format · BroadcastUnknownFormat not classified from the source; treated as a broadcast block by default.
Evidence basisLowRead from source
The Full Reading
Why It Ranks This Way +
Calibrated from GES design 36/100 and verified 36/100 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 education training career agenda, 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 Problem Specificity. Weakest signals: Follow Through, Network Design, and Learning Transfer.
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.
- Build transfer into the agenda through practice, feedback, job aids, reflection, and 30-90 day use cases.
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 gram-workshop.github.io. 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_c46b54"><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 Education / Training / Career events scored on the same eight pillars.