EvoScientist 0.0.1.dev4__py3-none-any.whl → 0.1.0rc1__py3-none-any.whl

EvoScientist/skills/ml-paper-writing/SKILL.md

@@ -1,937 +0,0 @@
----
-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)
-