ml-paper-writing

SKILL.md

---
name: ml-paper-writing
description: Write publication-ready ML/AI papers for NeurIPS, ICML, ICLR, ACL, AAAI, COLM. Use when drafting papers from research repos, structuring arguments, verifying citations, or preparing camera-ready submissions. Includes LaTeX templates, reviewer guidelines, and citation verification workflows.
version: 1.0.0
author: Orchestra Research
license: MIT
tags: [Academic Writing, NeurIPS, ICML, ICLR, ACL, AAAI, COLM, LaTeX, Paper Writing, Citations, Research]
dependencies: [semanticscholar, arxiv, habanero, requests]
---

# ML Paper Writing for Top AI Conferences

Expert-level guidance for writing publication-ready papers targeting **NeurIPS, ICML, ICLR, ACL, AAAI, and COLM**. This skill combines writing philosophy from top researchers (Nanda, Farquhar, Karpathy, Lipton, Steinhardt) with practical tools: LaTeX templates, citation verification APIs, and conference checklists.

## Core Philosophy: Collaborative Writing

**Paper writing is collaborative, but Claude should be proactive in delivering drafts.**

The typical workflow starts with a research repository containing code, results, and experimental artifacts. Claude's role is to:

1. **Understand the project** by exploring the repo, results, and existing documentation
2. **Deliver a complete first draft** when confident about the contribution
3. **Search literature** using web search and APIs to find relevant citations
4. **Refine through feedback cycles** when the scientist provides input
5. **Ask for clarification** only when genuinely uncertain about key decisions

**Key Principle**: Be proactive. If the repo and results are clear, deliver a full draft. Don't block waiting for feedback on every section—scientists are busy. Produce something concrete they can react to, then iterate based on their response.

---

## ⚠️ CRITICAL: Never Hallucinate Citations

**This is the most important rule in academic writing with AI assistance.**

### The Problem
AI-generated citations have a **~40% error rate**. Hallucinated references—papers that don't exist, wrong authors, incorrect years, fabricated DOIs—are a serious form of academic misconduct that can result in desk rejection or retraction.

### The Rule
**NEVER generate BibTeX entries from memory. ALWAYS fetch programmatically.**

| Action | ✅ Correct | ❌ Wrong |
|--------|-----------|----------|
| Adding a citation | Search API → verify → fetch BibTeX | Write BibTeX from memory |
| Uncertain about a paper | Mark as `[CITATION NEEDED]` | Guess the reference |
| Can't find exact paper | Note: "placeholder - verify" | Invent similar-sounding paper |

### When You Can't Verify a Citation

If you cannot programmatically verify a citation, you MUST:

```latex
% EXPLICIT PLACEHOLDER - requires human verification
\cite{PLACEHOLDER_author2024_verify_this}  % TODO: Verify this citation exists
```

**Always tell the scientist**: "I've marked [X] citations as placeholders that need verification. I could not confirm these papers exist."

### Recommended: Install Exa MCP for Paper Search

For the best paper search experience, install **Exa MCP** which provides real-time academic search:

**Claude Code:**
```bash
claude mcp add exa -- npx -y mcp-remote "https://mcp.exa.ai/mcp"
```

**Cursor / VS Code** (add to MCP settings):
```json
{
  "mcpServers": {
    "exa": {
      "type": "http",
      "url": "https://mcp.exa.ai/mcp"
    }
  }
}
```

Exa MCP enables searches like:
- "Find papers on RLHF for language models published after 2023"
- "Search for transformer architecture papers by Vaswani"
- "Get recent work on sparse autoencoders for interpretability"

Then verify results with Semantic Scholar API and fetch BibTeX via DOI.

---

## Workflow 0: Starting from a Research Repository

When beginning paper writing, start by understanding the project:

```
Project Understanding:
- [ ] Step 1: Explore the repository structure
- [ ] Step 2: Read README, existing docs, and key results
- [ ] Step 3: Identify the main contribution with the scientist
- [ ] Step 4: Find papers already cited in the codebase
- [ ] Step 5: Search for additional relevant literature
- [ ] Step 6: Outline the paper structure together
- [ ] Step 7: Draft sections iteratively with feedback
```

**Step 1: Explore the Repository**

```bash
# Understand project structure
ls -la
find . -name "*.py" | head -20
find . -name "*.md" -o -name "*.txt" | xargs grep -l -i "result\|conclusion\|finding"
```

Look for:
- `README.md` - Project overview and claims
- `results/`, `outputs/`, `experiments/` - Key findings
- `configs/` - Experimental settings
- Existing `.bib` files or citation references
- Any draft documents or notes

**Step 2: Identify Existing Citations**

Check for papers already referenced in the codebase:

```bash
# Find existing citations
grep -r "arxiv\|doi\|cite" --include="*.md" --include="*.bib" --include="*.py"
find . -name "*.bib"
```

These are high-signal starting points for Related Work—the scientist has already deemed them relevant.

**Step 3: Clarify the Contribution**

Before writing, explicitly confirm with the scientist:

> "Based on my understanding of the repo, the main contribution appears to be [X].
> The key results show [Y]. Is this the framing you want for the paper,
> or should we emphasize different aspects?"

**Never assume the narrative—always verify with the human.**

**Step 4: Search for Additional Literature**

Use web search to find relevant papers:

```
Search queries to try:
- "[main technique] + [application domain]"
- "[baseline method] comparison"
- "[problem name] state-of-the-art"
- Author names from existing citations
```

Then verify and retrieve BibTeX using the citation workflow below.

**Step 5: Deliver a First Draft**

**Be proactive—deliver a complete draft rather than asking permission for each section.**

If the repo provides clear results and the contribution is apparent:
1. Write the full first draft end-to-end
2. Present the complete draft for feedback
3. Iterate based on scientist's response

If genuinely uncertain about framing or major claims:
1. Draft what you can confidently
2. Flag specific uncertainties: "I framed X as the main contribution—let me know if you'd prefer to emphasize Y instead"
3. Continue with the draft rather than blocking

**Questions to include with the draft** (not before):
- "I emphasized X as the main contribution—adjust if needed"
- "I highlighted results A, B, C—let me know if others are more important"
- "Related work section includes [papers]—add any I missed"

---

## When to Use This Skill

Use this skill when:
- **Starting from a research repo** to write a paper
- **Drafting or revising** specific sections
- **Finding and verifying citations** for related work
- **Formatting** for conference submission
- **Resubmitting** to a different venue (format conversion)
- **Iterating** on drafts with scientist feedback

**Always remember**: First drafts are starting points for discussion, not final outputs.

---

## Balancing Proactivity and Collaboration

**Default: Be proactive. Deliver drafts, then iterate.**

| Confidence Level | Action |
|-----------------|--------|
| **High** (clear repo, obvious contribution) | Write full draft, deliver, iterate on feedback |
| **Medium** (some ambiguity) | Write draft with flagged uncertainties, continue |
| **Low** (major unknowns) | Ask 1-2 targeted questions, then draft |

**Draft first, ask with the draft** (not before):

| Section | Draft Autonomously | Flag With Draft |
|---------|-------------------|-----------------|
| Abstract | Yes | "Framed contribution as X—adjust if needed" |
| Introduction | Yes | "Emphasized problem Y—correct if wrong" |
| Methods | Yes | "Included details A, B, C—add missing pieces" |
| Experiments | Yes | "Highlighted results 1, 2, 3—reorder if needed" |
| Related Work | Yes | "Cited papers X, Y, Z—add any I missed" |

**Only block for input when:**
- Target venue is unclear (affects page limits, framing)
- Multiple contradictory framings seem equally valid
- Results seem incomplete or inconsistent
- Explicit request to review before continuing

**Don't block for:**
- Word choice decisions
- Section ordering
- Which specific results to show (make a choice, flag it)
- Citation completeness (draft with what you find, note gaps)

---

## The Narrative Principle

**The single most critical insight**: Your paper is not a collection of experiments—it's a story with one clear contribution supported by evidence.

Every successful ML paper centers on what Neel Nanda calls "the narrative": a short, rigorous, evidence-based technical story with a takeaway readers care about.

**Three Pillars (must be crystal clear by end of introduction):**

| Pillar | Description | Example |
|--------|-------------|---------|
| **The What** | 1-3 specific novel claims within cohesive theme | "We prove that X achieves Y under condition Z" |
| **The Why** | Rigorous empirical evidence supporting claims | Strong baselines, experiments distinguishing hypotheses |
| **The So What** | Why readers should care | Connection to recognized community problems |

**If you cannot state your contribution in one sentence, you don't yet have a paper.**

---

## Paper Structure Workflow

### Workflow 1: Writing a Complete Paper (Iterative)

Copy this checklist and track progress. **Each step involves drafting → feedback → revision:**

```
Paper Writing Progress:
- [ ] Step 1: Define the one-sentence contribution (with scientist)
- [ ] Step 2: Draft Figure 1 → get feedback → revise
- [ ] Step 3: Draft abstract → get feedback → revise
- [ ] Step 4: Draft introduction → get feedback → revise
- [ ] Step 5: Draft methods → get feedback → revise
- [ ] Step 6: Draft experiments → get feedback → revise
- [ ] Step 7: Draft related work → get feedback → revise
- [ ] Step 8: Draft limitations → get feedback → revise
- [ ] Step 9: Complete paper checklist (required)
- [ ] Step 10: Final review cycle and submission
```

**Step 1: Define the One-Sentence Contribution**

**This step requires explicit confirmation from the scientist.**

Before writing anything, articulate and verify:
- What is the single thing your paper contributes?
- What was not obvious or present before your work?

> "I propose framing the contribution as: '[one sentence]'. Does this capture
> what you see as the main takeaway? Should we adjust the emphasis?"

**Step 2: Draft Figure 1**

Figure 1 deserves special attention—many readers skip directly to it.
- Convey core idea, approach, or most compelling result
- Use vector graphics (PDF/EPS for plots)
- Write captions that stand alone without main text
- Ensure readability in black-and-white (8% of men have color vision deficiency)

**Step 3: Write Abstract (5-Sentence Formula)**

From Sebastian Farquhar (DeepMind):

```
1. What you achieved: "We introduce...", "We prove...", "We demonstrate..."
2. Why this is hard and important
3. How you do it (with specialist keywords for discoverability)
4. What evidence you have
5. Your most remarkable number/result
```

**Delete** generic openings like "Large language models have achieved remarkable success..."

**Step 4: Write Introduction (1-1.5 pages max)**

Must include:
- 2-4 bullet contribution list (max 1-2 lines each in two-column format)
- Clear problem statement
- Brief approach overview
- Methods should start by page 2-3 maximum

**Step 5: Methods Section**

Enable reimplementation:
- Conceptual outline or pseudocode
- All hyperparameters listed
- Architectural details sufficient for reproduction
- Present final design decisions; ablations go in experiments

**Step 6: Experiments Section**

For each experiment, explicitly state:
- What claim it supports
- How it connects to main contribution
- Experimental setting (details in appendix)
- What to observe: "the blue line shows X, which demonstrates Y"

Requirements:
- Error bars with methodology (standard deviation vs standard error)
- Hyperparameter search ranges
- Compute infrastructure (GPU type, total hours)
- Seed-setting methods

**Step 7: Related Work**

Organize methodologically, not paper-by-paper:

**Good:** "One line of work uses Floogledoodle's assumption [refs] whereas we use Doobersnoddle's assumption because..."

**Bad:** "Snap et al. introduced X while Crackle et al. introduced Y."

Cite generously—reviewers likely authored relevant papers.

**Step 8: Limitations Section (REQUIRED)**

All major conferences require this. Counter-intuitively, honesty helps:
- Reviewers are instructed not to penalize honest limitation acknowledgment
- Pre-empt criticisms by identifying weaknesses first
- Explain why limitations don't undermine core claims

**Step 9: Paper Checklist**

NeurIPS, ICML, and ICLR all require paper checklists. See [references/checklists.md](references/checklists.md).

---

## Writing Philosophy for Top ML Conferences

**This section distills the most important writing principles from leading ML researchers.** These aren't optional style suggestions—they're what separates accepted papers from rejected ones.

> "A paper is a short, rigorous, evidence-based technical story with a takeaway readers care about." — Neel Nanda

### The Sources Behind This Guidance

This skill synthesizes writing philosophy from researchers who have published extensively at top venues:

| Source | Key Contribution | Link |
|--------|-----------------|------|
| **Neel Nanda** (Google DeepMind) | The Narrative Principle, What/Why/So What framework | [How to Write ML Papers](https://www.alignmentforum.org/posts/eJGptPbbFPZGLpjsp/highly-opinionated-advice-on-how-to-write-ml-papers) |
| **Sebastian Farquhar** (DeepMind) | 5-sentence abstract formula | [How to Write ML Papers](https://sebastianfarquhar.com/on-research/2024/11/04/how_to_write_ml_papers/) |
| **Gopen & Swan** | 7 principles of reader expectations | [Science of Scientific Writing](https://cseweb.ucsd.edu/~swanson/papers/science-of-writing.pdf) |
| **Zachary Lipton** | Word choice, eliminating hedging | [Heuristics for Scientific Writing](https://www.approximatelycorrect.com/2018/01/29/heuristics-technical-scientific-writing-machine-learning-perspective/) |
| **Jacob Steinhardt** (UC Berkeley) | Precision, consistent terminology | [Writing Tips](https://bounded-regret.ghost.io/) |
| **Ethan Perez** (Anthropic) | Micro-level clarity tips | [Easy Paper Writing Tips](https://ethanperez.net/easy-paper-writing-tips/) |
| **Andrej Karpathy** | Single contribution focus | Various lectures |

**For deeper dives into any of these, see:**
- [references/writing-guide.md](references/writing-guide.md) - Full explanations with examples
- [references/sources.md](references/sources.md) - Complete bibliography

### Time Allocation (From Neel Nanda)

Spend approximately **equal time** on each of:
1. The abstract
2. The introduction
3. The figures
4. Everything else combined

**Why?** Most reviewers form judgments before reaching your methods. Readers encounter your paper as: **title → abstract → introduction → figures → maybe the rest.**

### Writing Style Guidelines

#### Sentence-Level Clarity (Gopen & Swan's 7 Principles)

These principles are based on how readers actually process prose. Violating them forces readers to spend cognitive effort on structure rather than content.

| Principle | Rule | Example |
|-----------|------|---------|
| **Subject-verb proximity** | Keep subject and verb close | ❌ "The model, which was trained on..., achieves" → ✅ "The model achieves... after training on..." |
| **Stress position** | Place emphasis at sentence ends | ❌ "Accuracy improves by 15% when using attention" → ✅ "When using attention, accuracy improves by **15%**" |
| **Topic position** | Put context first, new info after | ✅ "Given these constraints, we propose..." |
| **Old before new** | Familiar info → unfamiliar info | Link backward, then introduce new |
| **One unit, one function** | Each paragraph makes one point | Split multi-point paragraphs |
| **Action in verb** | Use verbs, not nominalizations | ❌ "We performed an analysis" → ✅ "We analyzed" |
| **Context before new** | Set stage before presenting | Explain before showing equation |

**Full 7 principles with detailed examples:** See [references/writing-guide.md](references/writing-guide.md#the-7-principles-of-reader-expectations)

#### Micro-Level Tips (Ethan Perez)

These small changes accumulate into significantly clearer prose:

- **Minimize pronouns**: ❌ "This shows..." → ✅ "This result shows..."
- **Verbs early**: Position verbs near sentence start
- **Unfold apostrophes**: ❌ "X's Y" → ✅ "The Y of X" (when awkward)
- **Delete filler words**: "actually," "a bit," "very," "really," "basically," "quite," "essentially"

**Full micro-tips with examples:** See [references/writing-guide.md](references/writing-guide.md#micro-level-writing-tips)

#### Word Choice (Zachary Lipton)

- **Be specific**: ❌ "performance" → ✅ "accuracy" or "latency" (say what you mean)
- **Eliminate hedging**: Drop "may" and "can" unless genuinely uncertain
- **Avoid incremental vocabulary**: ❌ "combine," "modify," "expand" → ✅ "develop," "propose," "introduce"
- **Delete intensifiers**: ❌ "provides *very* tight approximation" → ✅ "provides tight approximation"

#### Precision Over Brevity (Jacob Steinhardt)

- **Consistent terminology**: Different terms for same concept creates confusion. Pick one and stick with it.
- **State assumptions formally**: Before theorems, list all assumptions explicitly
- **Intuition + rigor**: Provide intuitive explanations alongside formal proofs

### What Reviewers Actually Read

Understanding reviewer behavior helps prioritize your effort:

| Paper Section | % Reviewers Who Read | Implication |
|---------------|---------------------|-------------|
| Abstract | 100% | Must be perfect |
| Introduction | 90%+ (skimmed) | Front-load contribution |
| Figures | Examined before methods | Figure 1 is critical |
| Methods | Only if interested | Don't bury the lede |
| Appendix | Rarely | Put only supplementary details |

**Bottom line**: If your abstract and intro don't hook reviewers, they may never read your brilliant methods section.

---

## Conference Requirements Quick Reference

| Conference | Page Limit | Extra for Camera-Ready | Key Requirement |
|------------|------------|------------------------|-----------------|
| **NeurIPS 2025** | 9 pages | +0 | Mandatory checklist, lay summary for accepted |
| **ICML 2026** | 8 pages | +1 | Broader Impact Statement required |
| **ICLR 2026** | 9 pages | +1 | LLM disclosure required, reciprocal reviewing |
| **ACL 2025** | 8 pages (long) | varies | Limitations section mandatory |
| **AAAI 2026** | 7 pages | +1 | Strict style file adherence |
| **COLM 2025** | 9 pages | +1 | Focus on language models |

**Universal Requirements:**
- Double-blind review (anonymize submissions)
- References don't count toward page limit
- Appendices unlimited but reviewers not required to read
- LaTeX required for all venues

**LaTeX Templates:** See [templates/](templates/) directory for all conference templates.

---

## Using LaTeX Templates Properly

### Workflow 4: Starting a New Paper from Template

**Always copy the entire template directory first, then write within it.**

```
Template Setup Checklist:
- [ ] Step 1: Copy entire template directory to new project
- [ ] Step 2: Verify template compiles as-is (before any changes)
- [ ] Step 3: Read the template's example content to understand structure
- [ ] Step 4: Replace example content section by section
- [ ] Step 5: Keep template comments/examples as reference until done
- [ ] Step 6: Clean up template artifacts only at the end
```

**Step 1: Copy the Full Template**

```bash
# Create your paper directory with the complete template
cp -r templates/neurips2025/ ~/papers/my-new-paper/
cd ~/papers/my-new-paper/

# Verify structure is complete
ls -la
# Should see: main.tex, neurips.sty, Makefile, etc.
```

**⚠️ IMPORTANT**: Copy the ENTIRE directory, not just `main.tex`. Templates include:
- Style files (`.sty`) - required for compilation
- Bibliography styles (`.bst`) - required for references
- Example content - useful as reference
- Makefiles - for easy compilation

**Step 2: Verify Template Compiles First**

Before making ANY changes, compile the template as-is:

```bash
# Using latexmk (recommended)
latexmk -pdf main.tex

# Or manual compilation
pdflatex main.tex
bibtex main
pdflatex main.tex
pdflatex main.tex
```

If the unmodified template doesn't compile, fix that first. Common issues:
- Missing TeX packages → install via `tlmgr install <package>`
- Wrong TeX distribution → use TeX Live (recommended)

**Step 3: Keep Template Content as Reference**

Don't immediately delete all example content. Instead:

```latex
% KEEP template examples commented out as you write
% This shows you the expected format

% Template example (keep for reference):
% \begin{figure}[t]
%   \centering
%   \includegraphics[width=0.8\linewidth]{example-image}
%   \caption{Template shows caption style}
% \end{figure}

% Your actual figure:
\begin{figure}[t]
  \centering
  \includegraphics[width=0.8\linewidth]{your-figure.pdf}
  \caption{Your caption following the same style.}
\end{figure}
```

**Step 4: Replace Content Section by Section**

Work through the paper systematically:

```
Replacement Order:
1. Title and authors (anonymize for submission)
2. Abstract
3. Introduction
4. Methods
5. Experiments
6. Related Work
7. Conclusion
8. References (your .bib file)
9. Appendix
```

For each section:
1. Read the template's example content
2. Note any special formatting or macros used
3. Replace with your content following the same patterns
4. Compile frequently to catch errors early

**Step 5: Use Template Macros**

Templates often define useful macros. Check the preamble for:

```latex
% Common template macros to use:
\newcommand{\method}{YourMethodName}  % Consistent method naming
\newcommand{\eg}{e.g.,\xspace}        % Proper abbreviations
\newcommand{\ie}{i.e.,\xspace}
\newcommand{\etal}{\textit{et al.}\xspace}
```

**Step 6: Clean Up Only at the End**

Only remove template artifacts when paper is nearly complete:

```latex
% BEFORE SUBMISSION - remove these:
% - Commented-out template examples
% - Unused packages
% - Template's example figures/tables
% - Lorem ipsum or placeholder text

% KEEP these:
% - All style files (.sty)
% - Bibliography style (.bst)
% - Required packages from template
% - Any custom macros you're using
```

### Template Pitfalls to Avoid

| Pitfall | Problem | Solution |
|---------|---------|----------|
| Copying only `main.tex` | Missing `.sty`, won't compile | Copy entire directory |
| Modifying `.sty` files | Breaks conference formatting | Never edit style files |
| Adding random packages | Conflicts, breaks template | Only add if necessary |
| Deleting template content too early | Lose formatting reference | Keep as comments until done |
| Not compiling frequently | Errors accumulate | Compile after each section |

### Quick Template Reference

| Conference | Main File | Key Style File | Notes |
|------------|-----------|----------------|-------|
| NeurIPS 2025 | `main.tex` | `neurips.sty` | Has Makefile |
| ICML 2026 | `example_paper.tex` | `icml2026.sty` | Includes algorithm packages |
| ICLR 2026 | `iclr2026_conference.tex` | `iclr2026_conference.sty` | Has math_commands.tex |
| ACL | `acl_latex.tex` | `acl.sty` | Strict formatting |
| AAAI 2026 | `aaai2026-unified-template.tex` | `aaai2026.sty` | Very strict compliance |
| COLM 2025 | `colm2025_conference.tex` | `colm2025_conference.sty` | Similar to ICLR |

---

## Conference Resubmission & Format Conversion

When a paper is rejected or withdrawn from one venue and resubmitted to another, format conversion is required. This is a common workflow in ML research.

### Workflow 3: Converting Between Conference Formats

```
Format Conversion Checklist:
- [ ] Step 1: Identify source and target template differences
- [ ] Step 2: Create new project with target template
- [ ] Step 3: Copy content sections (not preamble)
- [ ] Step 4: Adjust page limits and content
- [ ] Step 5: Update conference-specific requirements
- [ ] Step 6: Verify compilation and formatting
```

**Step 1: Key Template Differences**

| From → To | Page Change | Key Adjustments |
|-----------|-------------|-----------------|
| NeurIPS → ICML | 9 → 8 pages | Cut 1 page, add Broader Impact if missing |
| ICML → ICLR | 8 → 9 pages | Can expand experiments, add LLM disclosure |
| NeurIPS → ACL | 9 → 8 pages | Restructure for NLP conventions, add Limitations |
| ICLR → AAAI | 9 → 7 pages | Significant cuts needed, strict style adherence |
| Any → COLM | varies → 9 | Reframe for language model focus |

**Step 2: Content Migration (NOT Template Merge)**

**Never copy LaTeX preambles between templates.** Instead:

```bash
# 1. Start fresh with target template
cp -r templates/icml2026/ new_submission/

# 2. Copy ONLY content sections from old paper
# - Abstract text
# - Section content (between \section{} commands)
# - Figures and tables
# - Bibliography entries

# 3. Paste into target template structure
```

**Step 3: Adjusting for Page Limits**

When cutting pages (e.g., NeurIPS 9 → AAAI 7):
- Move detailed proofs to appendix
- Condense related work (cite surveys instead of individual papers)
- Combine similar experiments into unified tables
- Use smaller figure sizes with subfigures
- Tighten writing: eliminate redundancy, use active voice

When expanding (e.g., ICML 8 → ICLR 9):
- Add ablation studies reviewers requested
- Expand limitations discussion
- Include additional baselines
- Add qualitative examples

**Step 4: Conference-Specific Adjustments**

| Target Venue | Required Additions |
|--------------|-------------------|
| **ICML** | Broader Impact Statement (after conclusion) |
| **ICLR** | LLM usage disclosure, reciprocal reviewing agreement |
| **ACL/EMNLP** | Limitations section (mandatory), Ethics Statement |
| **AAAI** | Strict adherence to style file (no modifications) |
| **NeurIPS** | Paper checklist (appendix), lay summary if accepted |

**Step 5: Update References**

```latex
% Remove self-citations that reveal identity (for blind review)
% Update any "under review" citations to published versions
% Add new relevant work published since last submission
```

**Step 6: Addressing Previous Reviews**

When resubmitting after rejection:
- **Do** address reviewer concerns in the new version
- **Do** add experiments/clarifications reviewers requested
- **Don't** include a "changes from previous submission" section (blind review)
- **Don't** reference the previous submission or reviews

**Common Conversion Pitfalls:**
- ❌ Copying `\usepackage` commands (causes conflicts)
- ❌ Keeping old conference header/footer commands
- ❌ Forgetting to update `\bibliography{}` path
- ❌ Missing conference-specific required sections
- ❌ Exceeding page limit after format change

---

## Citation Workflow (Hallucination Prevention)

**⚠️ CRITICAL**: AI-generated citations have ~40% error rate. **Never write BibTeX from memory.**

### The Golden Rule

```
IF you cannot programmatically fetch a citation:
    → Mark it as [CITATION NEEDED] or [PLACEHOLDER - VERIFY]
    → Tell the scientist explicitly
    → NEVER invent a plausible-sounding reference
```

### Workflow 2: Adding Citations

```
Citation Verification (MANDATORY for every citation):
- [ ] Step 1: Search using Exa MCP or Semantic Scholar API
- [ ] Step 2: Verify paper exists in 2+ sources (Semantic Scholar + arXiv/CrossRef)
- [ ] Step 3: Retrieve BibTeX via DOI (programmatically, not from memory)
- [ ] Step 4: Verify the claim you're citing actually appears in the paper
- [ ] Step 5: Add verified BibTeX to bibliography
- [ ] Step 6: If ANY step fails → mark as placeholder, inform scientist
```

**Step 0: Use Exa MCP for Initial Search (Recommended)**

If Exa MCP is installed, use it to find relevant papers:
```
Search: "RLHF language model alignment 2023"
Search: "sparse autoencoders interpretability"
Search: "attention mechanism transformers Vaswani"
```

Then verify each result with Semantic Scholar and fetch BibTeX via DOI.

**Step 1: Search Semantic Scholar**

```python
from semanticscholar import SemanticScholar

sch = SemanticScholar()
results = sch.search_paper("attention mechanism transformers", limit=5)
for paper in results:
    print(f"{paper.title} - {paper.paperId}")
    print(f"  DOI: {paper.externalIds.get('DOI', 'N/A')}")
```

**Step 2: Verify Existence**

Confirm paper appears in at least two sources (Semantic Scholar + CrossRef/arXiv).

**Step 3: Retrieve BibTeX via DOI**

```python
import requests

def doi_to_bibtex(doi: str) -> str:
    """Get verified BibTeX from DOI via CrossRef."""
    response = requests.get(
        f"https://doi.org/{doi}",
        headers={"Accept": "application/x-bibtex"}
    )
    response.raise_for_status()
    return response.text

# Example
bibtex = doi_to_bibtex("10.48550/arXiv.1706.03762")
print(bibtex)
```

**Step 4: Verify Claims**

Before citing for a specific claim, access the paper and confirm the attributed claim actually appears.

**Step 5: Handle Failures Explicitly**

If you cannot verify a citation at ANY step:

```latex
% Option 1: Explicit placeholder
\cite{PLACEHOLDER_smith2023_verify}  % TODO: Could not verify - scientist must confirm

% Option 2: Note in text
... as shown in prior work [CITATION NEEDED - could not verify Smith et al. 2023].
```

**Always inform the scientist:**
> "I could not verify the following citations and have marked them as placeholders:
> - Smith et al. 2023 on reward hacking - could not find in Semantic Scholar
> - Jones 2022 on scaling laws - found similar paper but different authors
> Please verify these before submission."

### Summary: Citation Rules

| Situation | Action |
|-----------|--------|
| Found paper, got DOI, fetched BibTeX | ✅ Use the citation |
| Found paper, no DOI | ✅ Use arXiv BibTeX or manual entry from paper |
| Paper exists but can't fetch BibTeX | ⚠️ Mark placeholder, inform scientist |
| Uncertain if paper exists | ❌ Mark `[CITATION NEEDED]`, inform scientist |
| "I think there's a paper about X" | ❌ **NEVER cite** - search first or mark placeholder |

**🚨 NEVER generate BibTeX from memory—always fetch programmatically. 🚨**

See [references/citation-workflow.md](references/citation-workflow.md) for complete API documentation.

---

## Common Issues and Solutions

**Issue: Abstract too generic**

Delete first sentence if it could be prepended to any ML paper. Start with your specific contribution.

**Issue: Introduction exceeds 1.5 pages**

Split background into Related Work. Front-load contribution bullets. Methods should start by page 2-3.

**Issue: Experiments lack explicit claims**

Add sentence before each experiment: "This experiment tests whether [specific claim]..."

**Issue: Reviewers find paper hard to follow**

- Add explicit signposting: "In this section, we show X"
- Use consistent terminology throughout
- Include figure captions that stand alone

**Issue: Missing statistical significance**

Always include:
- Error bars (specify: std dev or std error)
- Number of runs
- Statistical tests if comparing methods

---

## Reviewer Evaluation Criteria

Reviewers assess papers on four dimensions:

| Criterion | What Reviewers Look For |
|-----------|------------------------|
| **Quality** | Technical soundness, well-supported claims |
| **Clarity** | Clear writing, reproducible by experts |
| **Significance** | Community impact, advances understanding |
| **Originality** | New insights (doesn't require new method) |

**Scoring (NeurIPS 6-point scale):**
- 6: Strong Accept - Groundbreaking, flawless
- 5: Accept - Technically solid, high impact
- 4: Borderline Accept - Solid, limited evaluation
- 3: Borderline Reject - Solid but weaknesses outweigh
- 2: Reject - Technical flaws
- 1: Strong Reject - Known results or ethics issues

See [references/reviewer-guidelines.md](references/reviewer-guidelines.md) for detailed reviewer instructions.

---

## Tables and Figures

### Tables

Use `booktabs` LaTeX package for professional tables:

```latex
\usepackage{booktabs}
\begin{tabular}{lcc}
\toprule
Method & Accuracy ↑ & Latency ↓ \\
\midrule
Baseline & 85.2 & 45ms \\
\textbf{Ours} & \textbf{92.1} & 38ms \\
\bottomrule
\end{tabular}
```

**Rules:**
- Bold best value per metric
- Include direction symbols (↑ higher is better, ↓ lower is better)
- Right-align numerical columns
- Consistent decimal precision

### Figures

- **Vector graphics** (PDF, EPS) for all plots and diagrams
- **Raster** (PNG 600 DPI) only for photographs
- Use **colorblind-safe palettes** (Okabe-Ito or Paul Tol)
- Verify **grayscale readability** (8% of men have color vision deficiency)
- **No title inside figure**—the caption serves this function
- **Self-contained captions**—reader should understand without main text

---

## References & Resources

### Reference Documents (Deep Dives)

| Document | Contents |
|----------|----------|
| [writing-guide.md](references/writing-guide.md) | Gopen & Swan 7 principles, Ethan Perez micro-tips, word choice |
| [citation-workflow.md](references/citation-workflow.md) | Citation APIs, Python code, BibTeX management |
| [checklists.md](references/checklists.md) | NeurIPS 16-item, ICML, ICLR, ACL requirements |
| [reviewer-guidelines.md](references/reviewer-guidelines.md) | Evaluation criteria, scoring, rebuttals |
| [sources.md](references/sources.md) | Complete bibliography of all sources |

### LaTeX Templates

Templates in `templates/` directory: **ICML 2026**, **ICLR 2026**, **NeurIPS 2025**, **ACL/EMNLP**, **AAAI 2026**, **COLM 2025**.

**Compiling to PDF:**
- **VS Code/Cursor**: Install LaTeX Workshop extension + TeX Live → Save to auto-compile
- **Command line**: `latexmk -pdf main.tex` or `pdflatex` + `bibtex` workflow
- **Online**: Upload to [Overleaf](https://overleaf.com)

See [templates/README.md](templates/README.md) for detailed setup instructions.

### Key External Sources

**Writing Philosophy:**
- [Neel Nanda: How to Write ML Papers](https://www.alignmentforum.org/posts/eJGptPbbFPZGLpjsp/highly-opinionated-advice-on-how-to-write-ml-papers) - Narrative, "What/Why/So What"
- [Farquhar: How to Write ML Papers](https://sebastianfarquhar.com/on-research/2024/11/04/how_to_write_ml_papers/) - 5-sentence abstract
- [Gopen & Swan: Science of Scientific Writing](https://cseweb.ucsd.edu/~swanson/papers/science-of-writing.pdf) - 7 reader expectation principles
- [Lipton: Heuristics for Scientific Writing](https://www.approximatelycorrect.com/2018/01/29/heuristics-technical-scientific-writing-machine-learning-perspective/) - Word choice
- [Perez: Easy Paper Writing Tips](https://ethanperez.net/easy-paper-writing-tips/) - Micro-level clarity

**APIs:** [Semantic Scholar](https://api.semanticscholar.org/api-docs/) | [CrossRef](https://www.crossref.org/documentation/retrieve-metadata/rest-api/) | [arXiv](https://info.arxiv.org/help/api/basics.html)

**Venues:** [NeurIPS](https://neurips.cc/Conferences/2025/PaperInformation/StyleFiles) | [ICML](https://icml.cc/Conferences/2025/AuthorInstructions) | [ICLR](https://iclr.cc/Conferences/2026/AuthorGuide) | [ACL](https://github.com/acl-org/acl-style-files)