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] <new interaction framing> [Claim discipline] <claim -> proof / experiment / limitation> [Compression cuts] <move / delete / merge> [Anonymity edits] <phrases to rewrite>
