acm-conference-on-fairness-accountability-and-transparency - SKILL.md Agent Skill

name: acm-conference-on-fairness-accountability-and-transparency description: Use when targeting ACM Conference on Fairness, Accountability, and Transparency (FAccT) or deciding whether a computer-science manuscript fits this venue. Encodes conference fit, framing, evidence bar, submission-cycle checks, rebuttal posture, and desk-reject risks for responsible AI.

ACM Conference on Fairness, Accountability, and Transparency (FAccT)

Conference positioning

ACM Conference on Fairness, Accountability, and Transparency (FAccT) is a top computer-science conference venue for fairness, accountability, transparency, audits, policy, measurement, and socio-technical AI systems. It rewards a responsible-AI paper whose claims are grounded in both technical measurement and social context. Treat this skill as a fit / venue-selection / re-framing tool for conference submission strategy, not as a substitute for the current year's CFP, author kit, ethics policy, or submission portal.

Because CS conferences change deadlines, templates, page limits, review workflow, artifact rules, AI-use policy, and rebuttal formats every cycle, always verify the live official instructions before making a submission-ready recommendation. Start from the official source anchor recorded for this venue in ../../resources/conference-roster.md and ../../resources/official-source-map.md.

When to trigger

The author names FAccT / ACM Conference on Fairness, Accountability, and Transparency as the target venue.
A manuscript in fairness needs a conference-fit read before being formatted or submitted.
The paper must be re-framed from journal style or arXiv style into a selective CS conference narrative.
The author needs an evidence-gap, anonymity, artifact, rebuttal, or re-routing diagnosis for this venue.

Scope & topic fit

Core fit: fairness, accountability, transparency, audits, policy, measurement, and socio-technical AI systems.
Best submissions make a precise contribution type visible: algorithm, theorem, system, dataset, benchmark, empirical finding, design artifact, tool, or socio-technical analysis.
The paper should explain why the result matters to FAccT's reviewers, not just why it is interesting to the authors' lab or product context.
Position related work against the most recent conference-cycle papers in this venue and its closest siblings; stale comparisons are a common early-review weakness.
If the contribution is interdisciplinary, state which part is CS research and which part is domain evidence.

Venue-specific calibration

Reviewer lens: Treat FAccT as a responsible AI venue whose reviewers expect the scope and evidence to match its own community. Do not submit a generic CS paper until the introduction names the exact subcommunity, contribution type, and proof or empirical standard.
Contribution hook to foreground: the venue-specific contribution bar.
Scope vocabulary to use naturally in the abstract and introduction: fairness, accountability, transparency, audits, policy, measurement, and socio-technical AI systems.
Distinctive fingerprint for reviewer calibration: fairness, accountability, transparency, audits, policy, measurement, socio-technical, venue-specific, contribution, responsible, facctconference.
Official anchor domain: facctconference.org. Quote annual rules only after opening that source and the current-year CFP/author kit.

Close-neighbor routing guardrail

Use this profile only when the manuscript's central contribution is genuinely in responsible AI and the author can say why FAccT reviewers are the primary audience, not merely a convenient deadline.
Closest roster neighbors to compare before final routing: integration-of-constraint- programming-artificial-intelligence-and-operations-research (CPAIOR), aaai-acm-conference- on-ai-ethics-and-society (AIES), european-conference-on-artificial-intelligence (ECAI), medical-image-computing-and-computer-assisted-intervention (MICCAI). Break ties by contribution type, evidence shape, reviewer community, and the current official CFP from facctconference.org.

What distinguishes this venue from its closest siblings

What FAccT is. The ACM Conference on Fairness, Accountability, and Transparency — sociotechnical fairness/accountability of algorithmic systems.
vs AIES. AIES (AAAI/ACM) is broader AI-ethics-and-society; FAccT is more focused on fairness/accountability methods and audits.
Routing. Method-only fairness can fit NeurIPS/ICML; FAccT rewards sociotechnical framing with accountability/transparency at the core.

FAccT-specific routing detail

Prefer FAccT when the contribution is fairness, accountability, transparency, governance, audit methodology, sociotechnical evaluation, or harm analysis for algorithmic systems.
Route broader AI ethics and policy work to AIES, collaboration/social-platform studies to CSCW, and pure ML methods to ML venues unless accountability or fairness is central.
FAccT evidence should specify stakeholders, harm model, data provenance, audit design, normative choices, and practical governance implications.

Method & evidence bar

Compare against current strong baselines and explain exactly what changes in the algorithm, objective, data, or inference procedure.
Report ablations that isolate the claimed mechanism; do not rely on aggregate benchmark wins alone.
Document data, compute, hyperparameters, model selection, and failure cases so the result can be reviewed as science rather than demo output.
For FAccT, the evidence must support the venue-specific signature: a responsible-AI paper whose claims are grounded in both technical measurement and social context.
Include limitations, negative results, compute/resource reporting, data provenance, and ethics details when they affect the claim.

Structure & house style

Frame the contribution as a reusable idea: method, theory, benchmark, dataset, system, or socio-technical finding.
Separate main claims from exploratory results; reviewers at top AI venues punish overclaiming and hidden cherry-picking.
Use the current official template exactly; do not guess page limits, font sizes, supplement rules, anonymity exceptions, or camera-ready requirements from old cycles.
The introduction should answer: problem, why now, what is new, why this venue, and what evidence proves the claim.
Put the strongest result in the main paper, not only in the appendix or supplement; reviewers should not have to reconstruct the contribution.

Official-cycle checklist

Open the live official venue page: https://facctconference.org/
Re-check the current cycle's CFP, author kit, submission system, abstract/paper deadlines, page limits, supplementary-material rules, anonymity policy, dual-submission policy, ethics policy, AI-use policy, artifact/code/data expectations, rebuttal/author-response format, and camera-ready requirements.
Confirm the review workflow and portal: OpenReview / CMT / HotCRP / PCS / START or society portal, as specified for the current cycle.
Check whether accepted papers require in-person presentation, separate registration, artifact badges, proceedings copyright, or post-acceptance release forms.
If the live official instructions conflict with this skill, the official instructions win.

Pre-submission self-check

One sentence states why this manuscript belongs at FAccT, using the venue's scope rather than generic "top conference" language.
The claim is calibrated to the evidence: no broader than the datasets, proofs, systems, user studies, deployments, or threat model support.
Related work includes the nearest current-cycle responsible AI papers and explains the technical delta.
The paper satisfies the current official template, anonymity, ethics, artifact, and rebuttal requirements.
The main paper is self-contained enough for reviewers to evaluate novelty and correctness without hunting through external links.

Common desk-reject triggers

Leaderboard-only novelty with weak explanation of why the method works.
Unclear data contamination, missing baselines, or evaluation that cannot be reproduced.
Claims about safety, fairness, health, or society without matching evidence and limitations.
Formatting, anonymity, dual-submission, external-link, or supplement violations under the current-year policy.
A contribution framed for a neighboring field while giving FAccT reviewers too little technical or empirical substance.

Re-routing decision

If the paper misses FAccT's bar, compare against neural-information-processing-systems / international-conference-on-machine-learning / international-conference-on-learning-representations / aaai-conference-on-artificial-intelligence. Re-route based on contribution type, not prestige: theory to a theory venue, systems to a systems venue, application-heavy work to a domain venue, and early ideas to workshops or shorter tracks when the official CFP supports them.

Output format

[Fit] High / Medium / Low (one-line reason)
[Target] ACM Conference on Fairness, Accountability, and Transparency (FAccT)
[Contribution type] algorithm / theory / system / dataset / benchmark / empirical / design / security / other
[Main evidence gap] <single most important missing proof, experiment, study, artifact, or policy check>
[Official items to re-check] CFP / author kit / deadline / format / anonymity / ethics / AI-use / artifact / rebuttal / camera-ready
[Top rejection risk] <venue-specific risk>
[Re-route suggestion] <better-matched conference or journal if not a fit>