---
name: ML Paper Writing
slug: ml-paper-writing-2
category: Writing
description: ML Paper Writing drafts publication-ready ML/AI/systems papers for NeurIPS, ICML, ICLR, ACL, AAAI, COLM, OSDI, NSDI, ASPLOS, SOSP. Use it to turn research repos into structured papers, find and verify citations, and apply conference LaTeX templates.
github: "https://github.com/OpenRaiser/NanoResearch/tree/main/skills/vendor-ai-research/ml-paper-writing"
language: Python
stars: 1357
forks: 95
install: "npx degit https://github.com/OpenRaiser/NanoResearch/tree/main/skills/vendor-ai-research/ml-paper-writing ~/.claude/skills/ml-paper-writing"
installs_to: ~/.claude/skills/ml-paper-writing
source_path: skills/vendor-ai-research/ml-paper-writing/SKILL.md
collection_size: 16
category_size: 1012
collection_url: "https://dirskills.com/collections/OpenRaiser/NanoResearch"
added: 2026-08-19T07:28:02.413Z
last_synced: 2026-08-19T07:28:02.413Z
canonical_url: "https://dirskills.com/skills/ml-paper-writing-2"
---

# ML Paper Writing

ML Paper Writing drafts publication-ready ML/AI/systems papers for NeurIPS, ICML, ICLR, ACL, AAAI, COLM, OSDI, NSDI, ASPLOS, SOSP. Use it to turn research repos into structured papers, find and verify citations, and apply conference LaTeX templates.

**Install:**

```bash
npx degit https://github.com/OpenRaiser/NanoResearch/tree/main/skills/vendor-ai-research/ml-paper-writing ~/.claude/skills/ml-paper-writing
```

## README

# ML Paper Writing for Top AI & Systems Conferences

Expert-level guidance for writing publication-ready papers targeting **NeurIPS, ICML, ICLR, ACL, AAAI, COLM** (ML/AI venues) and **OSDI, NSDI, ASPLOS, SOSP** (Systems venues). 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

### ML/AI Conferences

| 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 |

### Systems Conferences

| Conference | Page Limit | Extra for Camera-Ready | Key Requirement | Template |
|------------|------------|------------------------|-----------------|----------|
| **OSDI 2026** | 12 pages | +2 (14 pages) | Research + Operational Systems tracks | USENIX |
| **NSDI 2027** | 12 pages | varies | Prescreening via Introduction; 3 tracks | USENIX |
| **ASPLOS 2027** | 12 pages (ACM) | varies | Rapid review on first 2 pages; dual cycles | ACM SIGPLAN |
| **SOSP 2026** | 12 pages | varies | Optional artifact evaluation; author response | ACM SIGPLAN |

**Detailed Systems conference info**: See [references/systems-conferences.md](references/systems-conferences.md) for deadlines, track descriptions, submission rules, and format conversion guides.

**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
- **Systems venues**: USENIX uses custom `.sty`; ACM uses `acmart.cls`

**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