--- name: AAMAS Writing Style slug: aamas-writing-style category: Writing description: Revise an AAMAS paper to highlight interaction contributions, name solution concepts, ensure game legibility, pair claims with proofs or experiments, fit the 8-page limit, and maintain double-blind wording. github: "https://github.com/brycewang-stanford/Awesome-Journal-Skills/tree/main/AAMAS-Skills/skills/aamas-writing-style" language: Stata stars: 880 forks: 106 install: "git clone https://github.com/brycewang-stanford/Awesome-Journal-Skills" added: 2026-07-20T06:49:41.227Z last_synced: 2026-07-29T06:37:41.520Z canonical_url: "https://dirskills.com/skills/aamas-writing-style" --- # AAMAS Writing Style Revise an AAMAS paper to highlight interaction contributions, name solution concepts, ensure game legibility, pair claims with proofs or experiments, fit the 8-page limit, and maintain double-blind wording. **Install:** `git clone https://github.com/brycewang-stanford/Awesome-Journal-Skills` ## README # AAMAS Writing Style Use this when revising the main paper. AAMAS papers need a compact statement of why an *interaction* result matters and enough detail for a game theorist and an empiricist to both validate it. ## Revision rules - Put the interaction contribution on the first page: the multiagent problem, why single-agent or centralized fixes fail, the mechanism or learning rule, the strategic property, and the evidence. - Name the solution concept or incentive property (Nash, correlated, coarse-correlated, no-regret, dominant-strategy truthful, Pareto); an unnamed "equilibrium" is a review flag. - Make the game legible: agents, actions, information structure, and payoffs stated once and clearly. - Pair every major claim with a proof sketch, a self-play or population experiment, or a deployment result. - Use the 8-page body for the core argument and push long proofs, extra opponents, and extended ablations to the appendix (references are unlimited, so cite generously). - Keep double-blind wording in self-citations, prior-system references, acknowledgements, and artifact descriptions. ## Interaction-first discipline - State early why the result is genuinely multiagent - what breaks if the other agents are frozen into a static environment. If nothing breaks, the AAMAS framing does not hold. - Give each theorem a body-level proof sketch; the appendix proof supports the sketch but never replaces it. - Keep the game's information structure visible; who knows what and when is where multiagent proofs live or die. - Separate a *proved* strategic property from an *observed* one; mixing "is truthful" and "appears cooperative" in one paragraph is a credibility leak here. ## Sentence-level rewrites | Draft pattern | AAMAS-safe rewrite | |---|---| | "Our agents outperform the baselines..." | "reduce social cost by X (SE Y) over Z seeds against held-out opponents" | | "The agents reach equilibrium..." | "converge to a coarse-correlated equilibrium (Def. 2) under Assumptions 1-3" | | "The mechanism is fair and efficient..." | "is dominant-strategy truthful (Thm. 1) with efficiency loss bounded by ... (Thm. 2)" | | "In a multiagent setting..." | Name the game, the number of agents, and the information structure | ## Vignette: compressing into eight two-column pages A draft with two theorems, a mechanism, six figures, and a sprawling related-work section: keep both theorem statements with one sketch each, the mechanism definition, and the two decision-critical figures (truthfulness-under-learning and the efficiency gap); compress related work into precise contrasts; move secondary lemmas and four figures to the appendix with forward references. The test of a good cut: a reviewer reconstructs the whole interaction argument without opening the supplement. ## Output format ```text [Writing diagnosis] clear / interaction-buried / concept-unnamed / overloaded [First-page fix] [Claim discipline] proof / experiment / limitation> [Compression cuts] [Anonymity edits] ```