infocom-writing-style

INFOCOM Writing Style

Use this when revising the main paper. INFOCOM papers are read by a broad networking TPC that

spans theory and systems, inside a nine-page IEEEtran budget and (traditionally) with **no

rebuttal**. Two constraints follow: the paper must be legible to both an analyst and a systems

reader, and it must pre-empt the reviewer's objection in the text, because you will not get to

answer it later.

Revision rules

• State the networking problem and the system model first. By the end of the introduction a

reader should know the setting (topology, traffic, constraints), the gap, the contribution

(analysis and/or design), and what improves. Do not open with a technology-trend paragraph.

• Make the model do work. If you formulate an optimization or a Markov/queueing model, its

assumptions must be stated plainly and its results must yield insight or an algorithm — not a

formalism that the evaluation ignores. Reviewers reward a model whose theorem changes what you

build or bound.

• Pair every claim with proportional evidence — a proof for an analytical claim, a

simulation/testbed number with the setup named, or a measurement with its methodology — not

adjectives like "significantly improves."

• Write defensively. Name the assumption a theory reviewer will question and justify it; name

the baseline a systems reviewer will call unfair and tune it; state the regime where your result

does not hold. Because there is no rebuttal, an unaddressed objection becomes a reject.

• Respect the page budget as a design constraint. Nine pages of text (appendices included) is

tight; a proof sketch in the body with the full proof compressed, and a focused evaluation, beat

an over-scoped paper that only fits by cutting the model.

• Maintain double-blind wording in self-citations (third person), tool names, testbed/cluster

identifiers, acknowledgements, and funding.

Networking-paper skeleton

| Section | Job it must do | Common failure |

|---|---|---|

| Intro | Problem, setting, gap, contribution, what improves — by the first column or two | Leads with a trend, not a networking problem |

| System model | Topology, traffic, constraints, assumptions, notation, stated plainly | Assumptions hidden or introduced only in the evaluation |

| Analysis / design | Theorems + proof sketches, or the protocol/algorithm, reproducibly | A model no result uses; a design too thin to re-implement |

| Evaluation | Each claim answered with proportional evidence, honest baselines | Toy topology; untuned baseline; metric that proxies the claim |

| Discussion / limits | The regime where the result holds; deployment caveats | No limits stated (invites the objection you cannot rebut) |

| Related work | Delta-first positioning against the networking literature | Citation catalog with no contrast |

Sentence-level rewrites

| Draft pattern | INFOCOM-safe rewrite |

|---|---|

| "Our scheme significantly improves throughput." | "improves median throughput by X% (95% CI ...) over <tuned baseline> in <topology/scale>" |

| "We prove our algorithm is optimal." | "We prove a (1-1/e) approximation under <stated assumptions>; §V bounds the gap empirically" |

| "We evaluate on a large simulation." | "We simulate <N nodes> in <ns-3/custom>, <traffic model>, <M seeds>; setup in §V-A" |

| "The model captures the system." | "Under assumptions A1-A3 (stated and justified in §III), the model yields Theorem 1" |

| "State-of-the-art performance." | Claim scoped to the topology, traffic, and regime actually tested |

Defensive-writing discipline (no rebuttal)

[Assumption]  which modeling assumption will a theory reviewer challenge? -> justify it in §III
[Baseline]    which comparison will a systems reviewer call unfair? -> tune it, document the budget
[Scale]       does the evaluation reach a realistic size? -> if not, scope the claim and say so
[Regime]      where does the result break? -> state it before a reviewer finds it
-> each objection answered in the PDF, because there is no turn to answer it in a reply

Vignette: compressing an over-scoped analytical paper

A draft with two models, five theorems, and a sprawling evaluation: keep the one model the design

uses, the two theorems that carry the insight (full proofs compressed or sketched), and the two

evaluation figures that test the headline claim; move notation-heavy derivations into a tight

in-budget appendix (remember it counts toward the nine pages); cut the second model to a remark.

The test of a good cut: a reviewer should be able to state your assumptions, your main result, and

why your baseline is fair — from the body alone.

Output format

[Writing diagnosis] clear / under-modeled / over-claimed / evidence-mismatched / over-scoped
[First-page fix] <new framing leading with the networking problem + system model>
[Claim audit] <claim -> proof or simulation/measurement -> proportional? yes/no>
[Defensive gaps] <assumption/baseline/scale/regime objection -> where to pre-empt it>
[Anonymity edits] <self-citations / tool / testbed names / acks to rewrite>