Paper Introduction

Paragraph 2 — Current Dominant Approach (3-4 sentences) The standard method and what it does well. Cite 2-3 foundational works.

Paragraph 3 — The Gap (3-4 sentences) What current approaches fail at. Cite concrete numbers or failure modes. Make the gap feel urgent.

Paragraph 4 — Our Approach (3-4 sentences) High-level description of what we do. Key insight only — technical details go in methodology.

Paragraph 5 — Contributions

Our main contributions are as follows:
\begin{itemize}
    \item Concrete, verifiable contribution 1
    \item Concrete, verifiable contribution 2
    \item Concrete, verifiable contribution 3
\end{itemize}

Writing Rules

• 1 to 1.5 pages in two-column format
• Every factual claim needs \cite{}
• No subjective language — let numbers speak
• First person plural: "we propose", "we show"
• No forward references to nonexistent figures or tables

Output

Write to sections/introduction.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.