Paper Methodology

Subsection: Problem Formulation

• Define notation: inputs, outputs, symbols
• Formal problem statement
• Keep it concise — 1 paragraph with key equations

Subsection per major component For each component of the pipeline:

• What it does (purpose)
• How it works (mechanism)
• Why this design choice (justification)
• Reference prior work if building on existing methods

Subsection: Key Design Decisions (optional) If there are non-obvious choices, explain them with brief justification.

LaTeX Conventions

For algorithms:

\begin{algorithm}[t]
\caption{Algorithm Name}
\label{alg:name}
\begin{algorithmic}[1]
\REQUIRE Input description
\ENSURE Output description
\STATE Step 1
\STATE Step 2
\IF{condition}
    \STATE Step 3
\ENDIF
\RETURN result
\end{algorithmic}
\end{algorithm}

For equations:

\begin{equation}
    \text{score}(p) = \alpha \cdot f(p) + (1-\alpha) \cdot g(p)
    \label{eq:scoring}
\end{equation}

For figures:

\begin{figure}[t]
    \centering
    \includegraphics[width=\linewidth]{figures/pipeline.pdf}
    \caption{Overview of our approach. [Describe what each part shows.]}
    \label{fig:pipeline}
\end{figure}

Writing Rules

• ~2 to 2.5 pages in two-column format (methodology is typically the longest section)
• Define all notation before using it
• Clearly distinguish what is existing work vs your contribution
• Use \paragraph{Step 1: Name.} for fine-grained structure within subsections
• Include at least one algorithm box or equation
• Reference figures when describing the pipeline
• Be precise enough that someone could reimplement from this section

Output

Write to sections/methodology.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.