Individual skill
icassp-experiments
Use when designing or auditing ICASSP experiments across signal-processing modalities — matching the metric to the task law (WER, SI-SDR, PESQ/STOI, EER/minDCF, PSNR/SSIM, BER, RMSE), anchoring baselines to current strong methods and standard corpora, sweeping the operating condition, and reporting spread over runs within the four-page limit.
ICASSP-Skills/skills/icassp-experiments/SKILL.md
Source commit 932eb23331721b16e967c59f093781be1928b498
What was checked
- Matches the observed repository HEAD
- Yes
- Scanner rules are current
- No
- Repository scan complete
- No
- Skill scan complete
- Yes
- Observed behavior
- Not checked yet
- Last checked
- Nov 9, 2026
These are observations at the recorded commit, not a guarantee of safety. Review the source before running it.
Install this skill
Choose an agent in your Stack or copy a command below. Commands fetch the pinned commit and copy only this skill directory. Existing destinations are refused. Copying a command does not install anything.
An install command is unavailable: current rules, complete repository and skill scans, an eligible behavior level and a permitted license are required.
Repository context
- Repository stars (not skill ratings)
- 1,410
- Repository last updated
- Sep 27, 2026
- License
- MIT
Observed agent integration: No specific integration evidence. Standard SKILL.md installation does not imply verified compatibility.
- academic-writing Repository topic
- agent-skills Repository topic
- journal Repository topic
- academic-research Repository topic
- ai-agents Repository topic
- anthropic Repository topic
- awesome-list Repository topic
- claude Repository topic
- claude-code Repository topic
- economics Repository topic
- legal Derived category
Files and excerpt
File metadata and permitted, redacted excerpts come from the recorded scan. Source links are pinned to that commit.
Browse files
SKILL.mdcore · 4,547 bytes
Read excerpt
# ICASSP Experiments
Use this before submission when the empirical story is not yet locked. ICASSP reviewers are
subfield experts who know the right metric and the right baseline for your task, so the fastest
route to rejection is the **wrong ruler or a stale comparison**. The four pages force a small
number of decisive experiments, not a large number of weak ones.
## Experiment audit
- Map each empirical claim to a specific table, figure, or condition sweep.
- Use the **field-standard metric** for the task; a novel or convenient metric invites the
"that is not how this task is measured" review.
- Anchor to a **current strong baseline** and a **standard corpus/benchmark**, not to a weak or
dated reference that flatters the result.