| name | mobicom-writing-style |
| description | Use when drafting or revising a MobiCom paper for house style — putting the wireless/mobile mechanism and its operating regime on the first page, pairing every claim with over-the-air measurement, replacing superlatives with percentiles and intervals, and fitting the argument into the double-column 12-page body. |
MobiCom Writing Style
A MobiCom paper reads as a mechanism justified by measurement. The first page states a
wireless or mobile-networking problem, the mechanism that addresses it, and the measured
evidence — before any implementation detail. The double-column 12-page body is for the core
argument; derivations, protocols, and extra results go to references and appendices.
The first-page arc
Put this in the abstract and first page, in order:
- The wireless/mobile pain — the concrete condition that breaks existing designs
(a fade under mobility, interference, a spectrum constraint, an energy limit).
- Why existing mechanisms fall short — each prior approach gets a specific, named
failure tied to the condition, not "prior work is limited."
- The mechanism — what is new, stated as a networking/PHY-MAC/routing/sensing
mechanism, with its operating regime named (distance, mobility, channel, power).
- The measured evidence — the headline result with its condition and its uncertainty,
not a bare "up to N×."
- Why it matters for mobile networking — the community-level payoff.
See ../../resources/worked-examples/01-introduction.md
for a before→after that executes this arc.
Name the operating regime
The single most common wireless-writing failure is a claim with an unstated envelope. Every
headline claim carries its regime:
| Vague | MobiCom-calibrated |
|---|
| "achieves high throughput" | "sustains X at 1-4 m NLOS under pedestrian mobility" |
| "low power" | "energy-per-bit within the harvested budget at Y% duty cycle" |
| "robust to interference" | "holds delivery above threshold at Z dB co-channel interference" |
| "works in real settings" | "measured over the air in a furnished room with walkers" |
A reviewer cannot fault — or reward — a claim whose conditions are hidden. Stating the
regime is not hedging; it is the claim.
Claims are paired with evidence
Every major claim maps to a proof, a figure, a measured condition, or a reproducibility
location. Build the map before submitting:
Claim -> evidence pairing (fill for each headline sentence):
"decodable through fades" -> Fig. 3 (delivery vs walker path) + channel traces
"within energy budget" -> Fig. 4 (energy-per-bit) + instrument note (App. B)
"no dedicated carrier" -> system description Sec. 3 + power measurement
An unpaired claim is either cut or demoted to future work.
Percentiles, not superlatives
- Report distributions and confidence intervals, not single best runs or unqualified
maxima. "Up to N×" without the spread behind it is a review risk (
mobicom-experiments).
- Prefer the median and a tail over the mean alone when the metric is delivery or
latency; wireless distributions are skewed.
- Avoid "significantly" as prose; show the interval and let it speak.
Fitting the double-column 12 pages
- Figures and tables count against the 12; a radio-testbed diagram and three CDFs is
real page budget. Triage content, never geometry (
mobicom-submission).
- The body carries the mechanism and its headline evidence; channel-model derivations,
full protocols, extended sweeps, and instrument details go to appendices after the
references, outside the cap (
mobicom-supplementary).
- Keep the introduction's roadmap to one or two sentences; over-signposting substitutes for
argument.
- Do not put the strongest result only in an appendix — reviewers should not reconstruct the
contribution from supplementary material.
Prose discipline
- Lead sections with the finding, then the method — not a chronological lab diary.
- Name the abstraction or mechanism once and use the name consistently.
- Separate engineering effort from research contribution: building a testbed is
work, but the contribution is the mechanism it demonstrates.
Revision checklist
Output format
[First page] mechanism + regime present? y/n — what is missing
[Regime] which headline claims lack a stated envelope
[Claim map] unpaired claims listed for cut-or-support
[Superlatives] flagged phrases -> distribution/interval replacement
[Page budget] over/under 12; what to move to appendix
