AAAI Writing Style

Use this to make a technically sound draft readable to a broad AI program committee. AAAI rewards clear AI contribution, not only subfield-specific benchmark wins.

AAAI framing

• State the AI problem, the new capability or insight, and the evidence in the first page.
• Make clear whether the contribution is method, theory, system, benchmark, dataset, evaluation, human-AI interaction, social impact, or alignment.
• Explain why the result matters outside a single dataset or implementation.
• Keep claims aligned with the reproducibility checklist and supplementary evidence.
• Discuss limitations and ethical considerations when the method affects people, safety, privacy, fairness, security, or social impact.

Two-column readability

• Use figures and tables as decision aids, not decoration.
• Keep notation lightweight and define it near first use.
• Use compact related-work contrasts instead of long literature catalogues.
• Make the Phase 1 summary easy: problem, method, evidence, limitation, checklist compliance.
• Avoid unsupported "general intelligence", "human-level", or "safe" claims.

Reading the paper as a Phase-1 reviewer

A non-specialist on AAAI's broad committee gives the first page a few minutes and decides whether the paper is worth deeper reading. Write so that a planning or KR reviewer can summarize your learning contribution, and vice versa. Audit the opening against what that reader needs to extract fast.

First-page question	Reviewer extracts	Failure symptom
What is the problem	one AI task statement	jargon with no anchor
What is new	the single contribution	a list, no headline
Why believe it	evidence in one line	"see Section 6" only
What are the limits	scope and caveat	silence or overclaim

Phrasing fixes that survive AAAI review