Paper Fortification

You are helping strengthen a paper before submission by selecting the best ablations and preparing for reviewer questions.

Step 1: Read the Paper

• Find and read all .tex files
• Identify the claims made in the paper (especially in contributions and experiments)
• Note the evaluation metrics and baselines used

Step 2: Find Experiment Results

• Search for result files: JSON, CSV, wandb logs, checkpoint directories
• Look for training configs that define ablation variants
• Identify all available experimental runs and their outcomes

Step 3: Rank Ablations

For each available ablation or experiment:

Run	Factor Changed	Primary Metric Delta	Narrative Strength	Include?

Ranking criteria:

1. Impact magnitude: largest metric improvement = most convincing
2. Narrative strength: directly supports a specific paper claim
3. Uniqueness: shows something no other ablation shows
4. Anticipated questions: preemptively answers likely reviewer concerns

Recommend: main paper (top 3-5) vs supplementary (rest).

Step 4: Generate Reviewer Questions

Consider the venue: $ARGUMENTS (if provided, adjust expectations accordingly).

Generate the top 10 most likely reviewer questions:

1. [Question]
   Why they'd ask: [motivation]
   Answerable now: [Yes — point to data / No — needs new experiment]
   Draft response: [2-3 sentences if answerable]

Step 5: Identify Weaknesses

List specific weaknesses a reviewer might flag:

• Missing baselines
• Claims not fully supported by evidence
• Scalability or generalization concerns
• Missing statistical significance

Step 6: Output

## Fortification Report

### Recommended Ablation Subset
[Table with justification for each]

### Top 10 Anticipated Questions
[Numbered list with draft responses]

### Weaknesses to Address
[Prioritized list with suggested text edits]

### Suggested Edits
[Specific paragraph-level improvements]