| name | micro-writing-style |
| description | Use when drafting or revising a MICRO paper's prose and structure — building the characterization-motivated introduction, budgeting 11 appendix-free pages, drawing the mechanism walkthrough a microarchitect can re-implement, and pairing every speedup claim with its area, storage, and power cost line. |
MICRO Writing Style
A MICRO paper is an engineering argument: this pattern exists in real workloads,
here is a piece of hardware that exploits it, here is what it costs, here is what it
pays. The style rules below encode how the microarchitecture community reads.
The four-beat argument
- Characterization beat. Open with measured evidence that the exploitable
behavior exists — a miss-pattern histogram, a stall-cycle breakdown, a
reuse-distance CDF — from real workloads, before any mechanism appears. MICRO
reviewers trust a paper that observed the machine before modifying it.
- Insight beat. One sentence naming the property your hardware will exploit
("dead blocks announce themselves by burst-then-silence access"). If the insight
sentence could headline three different mechanisms, sharpen it.
- Mechanism beat. A block diagram plus a walkthrough at the level of tables,
counters, comparators, and state machines — detailed enough that a reader could
size the SRAM. Include the storage budget table (bits per entry × entries).
- Accounting beat. Speedup is half a result. The other half: area or storage
overhead, power, added latency on the critical path, and what happens on the
workloads the mechanism does not help (the tax on non-beneficiaries).
Page budget for 11 content pages, no appendix
The 2026 guidelines permit no appendix, so the body must be self-sufficient — proofs
of concept, sensitivity sweeps, and methodology detail all compete for the same 11
pages (references are unlimited and free).
| Section | Pages | Non-negotiable content |
|---|
| Intro + characterization | 2.0 | Motivating data figure by page 2 |
| Background / threat model | 1.0 | Only what the mechanism needs |
| Mechanism | 2.5 | Block diagram, walkthrough, storage table |
| Methodology | 1.0 | Simulator, configs, workloads, power model — exact versions |
| Evaluation | 3.0 | Headline result, ablations, sensitivity, overhead accounting |
| Related work + conclusion | 1.5 | Deltas against nearest mechanisms |
Squeezing tricks (\vspace, tightened lists, sub-9pt figure text) are barred by the
guidelines and checked visually — recover space by cutting content, not leading.
Sentence-level calibration
- Tie every performance number to its instrument: "8.4% geomean speedup on SPEC
CPU2017 rate-1 in cycle-level simulation" — never let a simulated number read
as a silicon number.
- Prefer mechanism verbs (filters, throttles, bypasses, coalesces) over marketing
verbs (unlocks, revolutionizes, dramatically improves).
- State the baseline aggressively and early: "against an 8-way OoO core with a
state-of-the-art stride+SMS prefetcher" beats "against a baseline core."
- Quantify the negative space: which workload class regresses, by how much, and why
the mechanism's guard logic bounds it.
Figure discipline
Fig. 1 motivating characterization (the "why" figure) — page 1-2
Fig. 2 mechanism block diagram (the "what" figure) — mechanism section
Fig. 3 headline bar chart, geomean marked, baseline = 1 — first evaluation page
Fig. 4+ ablation / sensitivity, one question per figure
Every figure: axis labels >= 9pt after scaling; caption states config + workload set.
A MICRO reader flips to Fig. 2 and Fig. 3 before reading a word — both must stand
alone with their captions.
Naming and terminology conventions
- Name the mechanism once, early, and use the name relentlessly. MICRO papers
are remembered by mechanism name (UCP, McPAT, DaDianNao); a design referred to
as "our approach" for eleven pages has no handle for reviewers to discuss it by.
- Keep the community's units: IPC and speedup for performance, MPKI for
misses/branch events, KB/mm² for cost, nJ/pJ per access for energy. Converting
a miss-rate percentage where the reader expects MPKI adds friction.
- "Baseline" means the unmodified reference machine; "prior work" means the best
published competitor — never blur the two in prose or legends.
- Threat-model vocabulary (for security mechanisms): attacker capability, channel,
and what is explicitly out of scope, stated before the mechanism, not after.
Title and abstract conventions
The title should carry the mechanism name plus the structure touched
("Ghostline: Demand-Triggered Dead-Block Reclamation for Shared LLCs") — searchable
by the structure, memorable by the name. The abstract executes the four beats in
miniature, each beat with a number attached; see
resources/worked-examples/01-introduction.md for a full before → after.
Anti-patterns the PC flags
- Characterization-free introductions that open with "Moore's law" boilerplate.
- Mechanisms described only in prose, with no sizeable structure — unimplementable.
- Evaluation sections that tour benchmarks instead of answering ordered questions.
- Overhead numbers missing, or buried in a sentence instead of a table row.
- IPC arithmetic averaged instead of geomean'd, or speedup over an unnamed baseline.
- "Details omitted due to space" — with no appendix allowed, that reads as "details
do not exist."
Revision passes, in order
- Argument pass — do the four beats appear, in order, with a number each?
- Claim-audit pass — every performance sentence checked for instrument
label, baseline name, and metric correctness (geomean, MPKI).
- Skeptic pass — a co-author plays the methodology-forensics reviewer
(
micro-review-process) and attacks configs, sampling, and baselines; fix in
text what they had to ask about.
- Compression pass — apply
micro-supplementary triage until the body sits
at 11 pages without squeezing tricks.
- Format pass — the
micro-submission gate table, on paper, by eye.
Output format
[Argument beats] characterization / insight / mechanism / accounting: present-missing each
[Insight sentence] <quoted from draft, or ABSENT>
[Storage budget table] present at bit-level: yes / no
[Cost line] area-storage-power-latency all quantified: yes / partial / no
[Page budget] section over/under vs table above
[Figure audit] Fig1 motivates / Fig2 rebuildable / Fig3 geomean+baseline: pass-fail
[Calibration issues] <list of simulated-vs-silicon or baseline-vagueness sentences>
