Paper Results

2. Analysis prose (1-2 paragraphs after each table)

• State the main finding: "Our method achieves the highest average F1 of 62.8, outperforming the strongest baseline by 4.2 points."
• Explain patterns: "The improvement is most pronounced on multi-hop datasets (MuSiQue, 2Wiki), where graph traversal provides the largest benefit."
• Note exceptions honestly: "On single-hop QA (NQ, PopQA), dense retrieval remains competitive."

Table Formatting Rules

• \textbf{} for the best result in each column
• \underline{} for the second-best result
• Use \toprule, \midrule, \bottomrule from booktabs (no \hline)
• Include an Avg. column when comparing across datasets
• Use \small or \footnotesize for wide tables
• Consistent decimal places within each metric (1 decimal for F1/EM, 1 for Recall)
• Align numbers on decimal point when possible

Section Structure

\section{Results}
\label{sec:results}

\subsection{Main Results}
% Primary comparison table + analysis

\subsection{Retrieval Performance}
% Recall@k table + analysis (if applicable)

\subsection{Ablation Studies}
% What happens when we remove components? (if applicable)

Writing Rules

• ~1.5 to 2 pages in two-column format
• State findings as facts, not opinions
• Always contextualize numbers: "52.4 F1, a 4.2-point improvement over..."
• Be honest about where the method does not help
• Reference tables in text: "As shown in Table~\ref{tab:name}"
• Do not re-explain the setup — that is in experimental setup
• Compare against the same baselines listed in experimental setup

Output

Write to sections/results.tex. Git add, commit, push.

Writing Style — Humanize Your Output

• No AI tells. Avoid: "notably", "importantly", "it is worth noting", "leveraging", "in recent years", "a growing body of", "comprehensive", "robust", "significant", "crucial", "facilitates", "utilizing", "delve into", "shed light on", "paradigm shift"
• Vary sentence rhythm. Mix short punchy sentences with longer ones. Academic writing has cadence — do not produce uniform sentence lengths.
• Active voice. "We propose" not "A method is proposed". "The model achieves" not "It can be observed that the model achieves".
• Be direct. Cut filler. "X outperforms Y by 4.2 F1" not "It is worth noting that X demonstrates a notable improvement of 4.2 F1 points over Y".
• Sound human. Write as a researcher explaining their work to a peer at a conference — confident, precise, occasionally opinionated. Not a textbook. Not a press release.
• No bullet lists in the paper. Everything must be flowing prose (except contribution lists in the intro).
• NEVER add Co-Authored-By Claude or any AI attribution in commits or paper content.