@synsci/cli-darwin-x64 1.1.49

package/bin/skills/hugging-face-paper-publisher/templates/arxiv.md

@@ -0,0 +1,299 @@
+---
+title: {{TITLE}}
+authors: {{AUTHORS}}
+date: {{DATE}}
+arxiv:
+layout: arxiv
+---
+
+# {{TITLE}}
+
+<div class="arxiv-header">
+
+**{{AUTHORS}}**
+
+*Submitted to arXiv: {{DATE}}*
+
+</div>
+
+---
+
+**Abstract**—{{ABSTRACT}}
+
+**Index Terms**—Machine Learning, Deep Learning, Neural Networks
+
+---
+
+## I. INTRODUCTION
+
+**T**HIS paper presents [brief overview of the contribution]. The main contributions of this work are:
+
+- Contribution 1: Description
+- Contribution 2: Description
+- Contribution 3: Description
+
+The rest of this paper is organized as follows: Section II reviews related work, Section III describes the proposed methodology, Section IV presents experimental results, and Section V concludes the paper.
+
+## II. RELATED WORK
+
+### A. Subarea 1
+
+Discussion of relevant prior work in subarea 1.
+
+### B. Subarea 2
+
+Discussion of relevant prior work in subarea 2.
+
+### C. Comparison with Prior Art
+
+Table comparing existing methods:
+
+| Method | Year | Approach | Limitation |
+|--------|------|----------|------------|
+| Method A [1] | 2020 | Description | Issue |
+| Method B [2] | 2021 | Description | Issue |
+| Method C [3] | 2023 | Description | Issue |
+
+## III. METHODOLOGY
+
+### A. Problem Formulation
+
+Let $X = \{x_1, x_2, ..., x_n\}$ be the input space and $Y = \{y_1, y_2, ..., y_m\}$ be the output space. We aim to learn a function $f: X \rightarrow Y$ that minimizes:
+
+$$
+\mathcal{L}(\theta) = \sum_{i=1}^{N} \ell(f(x_i; \theta), y_i) + \lambda R(\theta)
+$$
+
+where $\theta$ represents model parameters, $\ell$ is the loss function, and $R(\theta)$ is a regularization term.
+
+### B. Model Architecture
+
+Describe the model architecture in detail.
+
+**Input Layer**: Description
+
+**Hidden Layers**: Let $h^{(l)}$ denote the activation of layer $l$:
+
+$$
+h^{(l)} = \sigma(W^{(l)}h^{(l-1)} + b^{(l)})
+$$
+
+where $\sigma$ is the activation function, $W^{(l)}$ is the weight matrix, and $b^{(l)}$ is the bias vector.
+
+**Output Layer**: Description
+
+### C. Training Algorithm
+
+**Algorithm 1**: Training Procedure
+
+```
+1: Input: Training data D = {(xi, yi)}
+2: Initialize parameters θ
+3: for epoch = 1 to max_epochs do
+4:     for each mini-batch B ⊂ D do
+5:         Compute loss: L(θ) = 1/|B| Σ ℓ(f(xi; θ), yi)
+6:         Update: θ ← θ - η∇θL(θ)
+7:     end for
+8: end for
+9: Return: Trained parameters θ*
+```
+
+### D. Complexity Analysis
+
+**Time Complexity**: The training algorithm has time complexity $O(NTE)$ where $N$ is the dataset size, $T$ is the number of epochs, and $E$ is the per-example computation cost.
+
+**Space Complexity**: The model requires $O(P)$ space where $P$ is the number of parameters.
+
+## IV. EXPERIMENTS
+
+### A. Experimental Setup
+
+**Datasets**: We evaluate on the following benchmarks:
+
+1. **Dataset A**: Description (size, splits, characteristics)
+2. **Dataset B**: Description
+3. **Dataset C**: Description
+
+**Baselines**: We compare against:
+
+- Baseline 1 [4]: Description
+- Baseline 2 [5]: Description
+- Baseline 3 [6]: Description
+
+**Evaluation Metrics**: Performance is measured using:
+
+- Metric 1: Definition
+- Metric 2: Definition
+- Metric 3: Definition
+
+**Implementation Details**: All experiments are conducted using:
+
+- Framework: PyTorch 2.0
+- Hardware: NVIDIA A100 GPUs
+- Hyperparameters: Learning rate $\eta = 10^{-4}$, batch size $B = 32$, epochs $T = 100$
+
+### B. Quantitative Results
+
+**TABLE I: MAIN RESULTS**
+
+| Method | Dataset A | Dataset B | Dataset C | Average |
+|--------|-----------|-----------|-----------|---------|
+| Baseline 1 [4] | 82.3 | 78.5 | 80.1 | 80.3 |
+| Baseline 2 [5] | 85.7 | 82.1 | 83.9 | 83.9 |
+| Baseline 3 [6] | 88.1 | 85.3 | 86.7 | 86.7 |
+| **Ours** | **91.2** | **88.9** | **90.1** | **90.1** |
+
+Our method achieves state-of-the-art performance across all three benchmarks, with an average improvement of 3.4 percentage points over the previous best method.
+
+### C. Ablation Study
+
+**TABLE II: ABLATION STUDY RESULTS**
+
+| Configuration | Dataset A | Δ |
+|---------------|-----------|---|
+| Full Model | 91.2 | - |
+| w/o Component A | 88.7 | -2.5 |
+| w/o Component B | 89.4 | -1.8 |
+| w/o Component C | 90.5 | -0.7 |
+
+The ablation study demonstrates that all components contribute to the final performance, with Component A having the largest impact.
+
+### D. Qualitative Analysis
+
+**Fig. 1**: Visualization of learned representations using t-SNE projection.
+
+**Fig. 2**: Example predictions showing correct classifications and failure cases.
+
+### E. Computational Efficiency
+
+**TABLE III: COMPUTATIONAL REQUIREMENTS**
+
+| Method | Parameters | FLOPs | Inference (ms) |
+|--------|------------|-------|----------------|
+| Baseline 1 [4] | 50M | 10G | 8.2 |
+| Baseline 2 [5] | 100M | 25G | 15.7 |
+| Baseline 3 [6] | 200M | 50G | 28.3 |
+| **Ours** | **80M** | **18G** | **12.1** |
+
+Our method achieves superior performance while maintaining reasonable computational costs.
+
+## V. DISCUSSION
+
+### A. Analysis of Results
+
+The experimental results demonstrate that [analysis].
+
+### B. Limitations
+
+Current limitations include:
+
+1. Limitation 1: Description
+2. Limitation 2: Description
+3. Limitation 3: Description
+
+### C. Broader Impact
+
+Potential applications include:
+
+- Application 1: Description
+- Application 2: Description
+- Application 3: Description
+
+**Ethical Considerations**: [Discussion of potential risks and mitigation strategies]
+
+## VI. CONCLUSION
+
+This paper presented {{TITLE}}, which achieves [main achievement]. The key contributions are:
+
+1. Contribution 1: Summary
+2. Contribution 2: Summary
+3. Contribution 3: Summary
+
+Future work will focus on [future directions].
+
+## ACKNOWLEDGMENTS
+
+The authors thank [acknowledgments]. This work was supported by [funding sources].
+
+## REFERENCES
+
+[1] Author A et al., "Paper Title," *Conference Name*, 2020.
+
+[2] Author B et al., "Paper Title," *Journal Name*, vol. X, no. Y, pp. Z-W, 2021.
+
+[3] Author C et al., "Paper Title," *arXiv preprint arXiv:XXXX.XXXXX*, 2023.
+
+[4] Author D et al., "Baseline 1 Paper," *Conference*, 2019.
+
+[5] Author E et al., "Baseline 2 Paper," *Conference*, 2021.
+
+[6] Author F et al., "Baseline 3 Paper," *Conference*, 2023.
+
+---
+
+## APPENDIX A: ADDITIONAL EXPERIMENTS
+
+Supplementary experimental results.
+
+## APPENDIX B: PROOF OF THEOREM
+
+**Theorem 1**: Statement of theorem.
+
+**Proof**: Detailed proof.
+
+## APPENDIX C: HYPERPARAMETERS
+
+Complete list of hyperparameters used in all experiments:
+
+| Hyperparameter | Value | Description |
+|----------------|-------|-------------|
+| Learning rate | $10^{-4}$ | Initial learning rate |
+| Batch size | 32 | Training batch size |
+| Epochs | 100 | Number of training epochs |
+| Optimizer | AdamW | Optimization algorithm |
+| Weight decay | 0.01 | L2 regularization coefficient |
+| Warmup steps | 1000 | LR warmup duration |
+| Dropout | 0.1 | Dropout probability |
+
+---
+
+<style>
+.arxiv-header {
+    text-align: center;
+    margin-bottom: 2em;
+}
+
+body {
+    font-family: 'Computer Modern', serif;
+    line-height: 1.6;
+}
+
+h1 {
+    text-align: center;
+    font-size: 1.8em;
+    margin-top: 1em;
+}
+
+h2 {
+    font-size: 1.3em;
+    margin-top: 1.5em;
+    font-weight: bold;
+}
+
+h3 {
+    font-size: 1.1em;
+    font-style: italic;
+    margin-top: 1em;
+}
+
+table {
+    margin: 1em auto;
+    border-collapse: collapse;
+}
+
+th, td {
+    border: 1px solid #000;
+    padding: 0.5em;
+    text-align: center;
+}
+</style>

package/bin/skills/hugging-face-paper-publisher/templates/ml-report.md

@@ -0,0 +1,358 @@
+---
+title: {{TITLE}}
+authors: {{AUTHORS}}
+date: {{DATE}}
+type: ml-experiment-report
+tags: [machine-learning, experiment-report]
+---
+
+# {{TITLE}}
+
+**Machine Learning Experiment Report**
+
+**Researchers**: {{AUTHORS}}
+**Date**: {{DATE}}
+**Status**: Draft / Final / In Review
+
+---
+
+## Executive Summary
+
+{{ABSTRACT}}
+
+### Key Findings
+- Finding 1
+- Finding 2
+- Finding 3
+
+### Recommendations
+- Recommendation 1
+- Recommendation 2
+
+---
+
+## 1. Objective
+
+### 1.1 Research Question
+
+What specific question are we trying to answer?
+
+### 1.2 Success Criteria
+
+How will we measure success?
+
+- **Metric 1**: Target value
+- **Metric 2**: Target value
+- **Metric 3**: Target value
+
+### 1.3 Constraints
+
+- Computational budget
+- Time constraints
+- Data availability
+
+---
+
+## 2. Dataset
+
+### 2.1 Data Description
+
+| Property | Value |
+|----------|-------|
+| **Name** | Dataset name |
+| **Source** | Origin of data |
+| **Size** | Number of examples |
+| **Features** | Feature count and types |
+| **Target** | What we're predicting |
+| **License** | Usage rights |
+
+### 2.2 Data Splits
+
+| Split | Size | Percentage |
+|-------|------|------------|
+| Train | X examples | Y% |
+| Validation | X examples | Y% |
+| Test | X examples | Y% |
+
+### 2.3 Data Quality
+
+- **Missing Values**: Analysis and handling
+- **Outliers**: Detection and treatment
+- **Imbalance**: Class distribution
+- **Preprocessing**: Transformations applied
+
+### 2.4 Exploratory Analysis
+
+Key insights from data exploration:
+
+1. Pattern 1
+2. Pattern 2
+3. Pattern 3
+
+---
+
+## 3. Model
+
+### 3.1 Architecture
+
+Describe the model architecture:
+
+```
+Input → Layer 1 → Layer 2 → ... → Output
+```
+
+### 3.2 Model Specifications
+
+| Component | Configuration |
+|-----------|--------------|
+| **Type** | Model family |
+| **Parameters** | Total count |
+| **Layers** | Number and types |
+| **Activation** | Functions used |
+| **Dropout** | Regularization rate |
+
+### 3.3 Baseline Models
+
+What are we comparing against?
+
+1. **Baseline 1**: Simple baseline (e.g., majority class)
+2. **Baseline 2**: Standard approach (e.g., logistic regression)
+3. **Baseline 3**: Previous best method
+
+---
+
+## 4. Training
+
+### 4.1 Hyperparameters
+
+| Hyperparameter | Value | Rationale |
+|----------------|-------|-----------|
+| Learning Rate | 1e-4 | Tuned via grid search |
+| Batch Size | 32 | GPU memory constraint |
+| Epochs | 100 | Based on validation |
+| Optimizer | AdamW | Standard for transformers |
+| Weight Decay | 0.01 | Regularization |
+| LR Schedule | Cosine | Smooth convergence |
+
+### 4.2 Training Process
+
+```python
+# Training pseudocode
+for epoch in range(num_epochs):
+    train_loss = train_one_epoch(model, train_loader)
+    val_loss = validate(model, val_loader)
+    if val_loss < best_loss:
+        save_checkpoint(model)
+```
+
+### 4.3 Computational Resources
+
+| Resource | Specification |
+|----------|--------------|
+| **Hardware** | GPU model and count |
+| **Memory** | RAM and VRAM |
+| **Training Time** | Hours/days |
+| **Cost** | Estimated compute cost |
+
+### 4.4 Training Curves
+
+Include plots of:
+- Training loss over time
+- Validation loss over time
+- Learning rate schedule
+- Other relevant metrics
+
+---
+
+## 5. Results
+
+### 5.1 Quantitative Results
+
+| Model | Accuracy | Precision | Recall | F1 | AUC |
+|-------|----------|-----------|--------|-------|-----|
+| Baseline 1 | 0.65 | 0.64 | 0.66 | 0.65 | 0.70 |
+| Baseline 2 | 0.78 | 0.77 | 0.79 | 0.78 | 0.82 |
+| **Ours** | **0.89** | **0.88** | **0.90** | **0.89** | **0.93** |
+
+### 5.2 Statistical Significance
+
+- **P-value**: Statistical test results
+- **Confidence Intervals**: 95% CI for key metrics
+- **Multiple Runs**: Mean ± std over N runs
+
+### 5.3 Per-Class Performance
+
+| Class | Precision | Recall | F1 | Support |
+|-------|-----------|--------|-----|---------|
+| Class 1 | 0.90 | 0.88 | 0.89 | 500 |
+| Class 2 | 0.87 | 0.91 | 0.89 | 450 |
+| Class 3 | 0.88 | 0.89 | 0.88 | 550 |
+
+### 5.4 Qualitative Results
+
+#### Success Cases
+
+Examples where the model performs well.
+
+#### Failure Cases
+
+Examples where the model fails and why.
+
+---
+
+## 6. Analysis
+
+### 6.1 Ablation Study
+
+| Configuration | Score | Change |
+|---------------|-------|--------|
+| Full Model | 0.89 | - |
+| - Feature Set A | 0.85 | -0.04 |
+| - Feature Set B | 0.87 | -0.02 |
+| - Augmentation | 0.86 | -0.03 |
+
+### 6.2 Error Analysis
+
+What types of errors is the model making?
+
+1. **Error Type 1**: Frequency and cause
+2. **Error Type 2**: Frequency and cause
+3. **Error Type 3**: Frequency and cause
+
+### 6.3 Feature Importance
+
+Which features matter most?
+
+| Feature | Importance | Notes |
+|---------|------------|-------|
+| Feature 1 | 0.35 | Most predictive |
+| Feature 2 | 0.28 | Secondary signal |
+| Feature 3 | 0.15 | Marginal impact |
+
+---
+
+## 7. Robustness
+
+### 7.1 Cross-Dataset Evaluation
+
+How does the model generalize to other datasets?
+
+| Dataset | Score | Notes |
+|---------|-------|-------|
+| Original | 0.89 | Training distribution |
+| Dataset A | 0.82 | Similar domain |
+| Dataset B | 0.71 | Different domain |
+
+### 7.2 Adversarial Robustness
+
+Performance under adversarial conditions.
+
+### 7.3 Fairness Analysis
+
+Performance across demographic groups or sensitive attributes.
+
+---
+
+## 8. Deployment Considerations
+
+### 8.1 Model Size
+
+- **Parameters**: Total count
+- **Disk Size**: MB/GB on disk
+- **Memory**: Runtime memory usage
+
+### 8.2 Inference Speed
+
+| Batch Size | Latency | Throughput |
+|------------|---------|------------|
+| 1 | 10ms | 100 QPS |
+| 8 | 45ms | 178 QPS |
+| 32 | 150ms | 213 QPS |
+
+### 8.3 Production Requirements
+
+- **Dependencies**: Software requirements
+- **Infrastructure**: Hardware needs
+- **Monitoring**: What to track in production
+- **Fallback**: Backup strategy
+
+---
+
+## 9. Conclusions
+
+### 9.1 Summary
+
+Key takeaways from the experiment.
+
+### 9.2 Did We Meet Objectives?
+
+| Objective | Status | Notes |
+|-----------|--------|-------|
+| Objective 1 | ✅ Met | Achieved target |
+| Objective 2 | ⚠️ Partial | Close to target |
+| Objective 3 | ❌ Not Met | Needs more work |
+
+### 9.3 Lessons Learned
+
+What did we learn from this experiment?
+
+1. Lesson 1
+2. Lesson 2
+3. Lesson 3
+
+---
+
+## 10. Next Steps
+
+### 10.1 Short-term (1-2 weeks)
+
+- [ ] Task 1
+- [ ] Task 2
+- [ ] Task 3
+
+### 10.2 Medium-term (1-2 months)
+
+- [ ] Task 1
+- [ ] Task 2
+- [ ] Task 3
+
+### 10.3 Long-term (3+ months)
+
+- [ ] Task 1
+- [ ] Task 2
+- [ ] Task 3
+
+---
+
+## References
+
+1. Reference 1
+2. Reference 2
+3. Reference 3
+
+---
+
+## Appendix
+
+### A. Hyperparameter Search
+
+Results from hyperparameter tuning.
+
+### B. Additional Experiments
+
+Supplementary experiments not included in main text.
+
+### C. Code
+
+Links to code repositories:
+- Training code: [link]
+- Evaluation code: [link]
+- Model checkpoint: [link]
+
+### D. Data Card
+
+Detailed data documentation following standard practices.
+
+### E. Model Card
+
+Model documentation following responsible AI practices.