Iterative Academic Writing
Write academic documents with fact verification, self-evaluate against 14 principles, and iteratively refine until quality criteria are met.
Workflow
┌─────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────┐
│ │
│ [Phase 0] [Phase 1] [Phase 2] │
│ Build Fact ───→ Draft ───→ Evaluate │
│ Base │ │
│ ↓ │
│ Issues Found? │
│ │ │
│ No ───────┴─────── Yes │
│ ↓ ↓ │
│ ✅ Complete [Phase 3] │
│ Plan │
│ │ │
│ ↓ │
│ [Phase 4] │
│ Rewrite │
│ │ │
│ └───→ Phase 2 │
│ (LOOP) │
└─────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────┘
Termination Conditions:
- ✅ Success:
Critical == 0 AND Hallucinations == 0
- ⚠️ Partial:
Iteration == 5 with no hallucinations → output + remaining issues
- ❌ Failure:
Iteration == 5 with hallucinations → cannot publish
19 Principles (14 Original + 5 Naturalness)
Factual Accuracy — HIGHEST PRIORITY
| ID |
Principle |
Violation |
| FA1 |
Fact-based claims |
Claim not in Fact Base |
| FA2 |
No invented numbers |
Metrics/statistics without verified source |
| FA3 |
Verified citations |
Paper reference not WebSearch-verified |
Structure
| ID |
Principle |
Violation |
| ST1 |
Topic-first |
Paragraph starts with background instead of main claim |
| ST2 |
Purpose-driven opening |
Section doesn't state why it exists |
| ST3 |
Implication-focused closing |
Section ends without stating significance |
| ST4 |
Figure/table reference |
Visual used without "Figure X shows..." |
Understandability
| ID |
Principle |
Violation |
| UN1 |
Definition-first |
Technical term used before "X is Y" definition |
| UN2 |
Compare-contrast |
New approach explained without comparing to existing |
| UN3 |
Beginner-friendly |
Requires domain knowledge to understand |
| UN4 |
Coherent flow |
Missing logical connectors between paragraphs |
Format
| ID |
Principle |
Violation |
| FM1 |
Conciseness |
Unnecessary modifiers (매우, very, extremely) |
| FM2 |
Specific numbers |
Vague quantifiers (많은, some, several) |
| FM3 |
Prose only |
Bullet points in body text |
| FM4 |
Abstract-level |
Exposes file paths, function names |
Naturalness
AI-generated writing shows subtly different patterns from human-written writing. The criterion is whether each sentence feels awkward when read aloud.
| ID |
Principle |
Violation |
| NL1 |
No translationese |
English literal-translation structures such as "~하는지와 ~한지를", "~함으로써", "~에 있어서" |
| NL2 |
No excessive rhetoric |
Expressions whose packaging is larger than the content, such as "수렴하고 있다", "관통하는", "혁신적인" |
| NL3 |
One idea per sentence |
Over-compressed sentences that list three or more verbs or put a long clause inside an em-dash |
| NL4 |
No word repetition |
Duplication of the same word in the same sentence or adjacent sentences (e.g., "직접...직접") |
| NL5 |
Conjunction diversity |
"그러나", "따라서", "또한" repeated mechanically at the start of every paragraph |
Issue Classification
🔴 Critical (must fix — blocks completion)
| ID |
Issue |
Principle |
| C1 |
Hallucination — claim not in Fact Base |
FA1/FA2 |
| C2 |
Fact contradiction — claim differs from Fact Base |
FA1 |
| C3 |
Topic-first violation |
ST1 |
| C4 |
Undefined technical term |
UN1 |
| C5 |
Not beginner-friendly |
UN3 |
| C6 |
Logical disconnect between paragraphs |
UN4 |
| C7 |
Bullet points in prose |
FM3 |
| C8 |
Translation-style sentence structure |
NL1 |
🟡 Warning (should fix)
| ID |
Issue |
Principle |
| W1 |
Unverified citation |
FA3 |
| W2 |
Missing compare-contrast |
UN2 |
| W3 |
No implication at section end |
ST3 |
| W4 |
Vague modifiers |
FM1 |
| W5 |
Purpose unclear at section start |
ST2 |
| W6 |
Vague quantifiers |
FM2 |
| W7 |
Code elements exposed |
FM4 |
| W8 |
Figure/table without reference |
ST4 |
| W9 |
Overblown rhetoric |
NL2 |
| W10 |
Overloaded sentence (3+ verbs) |
NL3 |
| W11 |
Word repetition in adjacent sentences |
NL4 |
| W12 |
Mechanical connector pattern |
NL5 |
🔵 Suggestion (optional)
| ID |
Issue |
| S1 |
Add connective words |
| S2 |
Add example/analogy |
| S3 |
Simplify sentence |
Phase 0: Build Fact Base (REQUIRED)
Before writing anything, collect and verify all facts. No claim may appear in the document without a Fact Base entry.
Sources to Check
| Source Type |
What to Extract |
Verification Method |
| Code/config files |
Parameters, settings |
Direct file inspection |
| Result files |
Metrics, numbers |
Direct file inspection |
| Papers/references |
Citations, claims |
WebSearch verification |
| External facts |
Dates, statistics |
WebSearch verification |
Fact Base Format
## Fact Base
### ✅ Verified Facts
| ID | Claim | Source | Verification |
|----|-------|--------|--------------|
| F1 | Learning rate is 0.03 | config.yaml:12 | Code inspection |
| F2 | Titans paper published 2025 | arXiv:2501.00663 | WebSearch |
| F3 | BERT has 110M parameters | Original paper | WebSearch |
### ❌ Unverified (DO NOT USE IN DOCUMENT)
| Claim | Reason |
|-------|--------|
| "15% improvement" | No result file found |
| "State-of-the-art performance" | No benchmark comparison |
Fact Base Rules
- Every number must have a source — no invented statistics
- Every citation must be WebSearch-verified — no hallucinated papers
- Unverified claims are forbidden — cannot appear in document
- When in doubt, don't include — omission > hallucination
Phase 1: Draft
Process
- Design structure: Outline sections with core message for each
- List technical terms: Prepare "X is Y" definitions for all jargon
- Write with constraint: Every factual claim must reference Fact Base
Internal Fact Check (while writing)
✍️ Writing: "LTPO uses learning rate 0.03"
→ Fact check: F1 ✓ → OK to include
✍️ Writing: "This achieved 15% improvement"
→ Fact check: NOT IN FACT BASE ❌ → DO NOT WRITE
→ Alternative: "Experiments were conducted to measure improvement" (no number)
Output
- Draft document
- Technical term definitions used
- Fact Base reference log
After Draft
→ Proceed to Phase 2 (Evaluate)
Phase 2: Evaluate
Step 1: Hallucination Check (FIRST PRIORITY)
Extract every factual claim and verify against Fact Base:
### Claim Verification
| Location | Claim | Fact Base ID | Status |
|----------|-------|--------------|--------|
| Para 1 | "learning rate 0.03" | F1 | ✅ Verified |
| Para 2 | "15% improvement" | — | ❌ HALLUCINATION |
| Para 3 | "Titans (2025)" | F2 | ✅ Verified |
Step 2: Principle Check
Check each paragraph against all 14 principles.
Output Format
## Evaluation (Iteration N/5)
### Fact Check Summary
- Total claims: 15
- Verified: 12
- Hallucinations: 2 ← MUST BE 0 TO PASS
### 🔴 Critical (N)
- [C1] Para 2: "15% improvement" — NOT IN FACT BASE
- [C1] Para 4: "outperforms baseline by 2x" — NOT IN FACT BASE
- [C4] Para 3: "SAE" used without definition
### 🟡 Warning (N)
- [W2] Section 2: No compare-contrast for new method
- [W4] Para 1: "significantly" is vague
### 🔵 Suggestion (N)
- [S1] Para 2→3: Add transitional phrase
### Status: CONTINUE (2 hallucinations, 1 other critical)
Decision Logic
IF hallucinations > 0 OR critical_issues > 0:
→ Status: CONTINUE
→ Proceed to Phase 3 (Plan)
ELSE:
→ Status: COMPLETE
→ Output final document
Phase 3: Plan
Priority Order (STRICT)
- Hallucinations (C1, C2) — fix first, blocks everything
- Other Critical (C3-C7) — fix second
- Warnings (W1-W7) — fix if iteration budget allows
Fix Planning Format
For each issue:
### Issue: [C1] Para 2 — "15% improvement" hallucination
**Cause**: Wrote number without verifying source
**Fix Options**:
Option A (Remove claim):
- Before: "이를 통해 15%의 성능 향상을 달성했다."
- After: "실험 결과 성능 향상을 확인하였다." (no specific number)
Option B (Verify and update):
- Action: Check results.json for actual metric
- If found: Add to Fact Base with source, update sentence
- If not found: Use Option A
**Selected**: Option A (no results file available)
After Planning
→ Proceed to Phase 4 (Rewrite)
Phase 4: Rewrite
Process
- Apply all planned fixes in priority order
- Re-verify every claim against Fact Base
- Ensure no new hallucinations introduced
- Update Fact Base if new verified facts discovered
After Rewrite
→ Return to Phase 2 (Evaluate)
This creates the iteration loop.
Termination Conditions
| Condition |
Action |
Critical == 0 AND Hallucinations == 0 |
✅ Success — Output final document |
Iteration == 5 AND Hallucinations == 0 |
⚠️ Partial — Output current + list remaining warnings |
Iteration == 5 AND Hallucinations > 0 |
❌ Failure — Cannot publish; list unverifiable claims |
On Success
Output the final document and offer to address remaining Suggestions.
On Failure
## ❌ Cannot Publish
The following claims could not be verified and must be removed or verified externally:
| Claim | Location | Reason |
|-------|----------|--------|
| "15% improvement" | Para 2 | No source found |
| "2x faster" | Para 5 | No benchmark data |
Please provide sources for these claims or approve their removal.
Hallucination Types Reference
| Type |
Example |
How to Detect |
| Invented numbers |
"15% improvement" |
Not in Fact Base |
| False attribution |
"Smith et al. showed..." |
WebSearch finds no such claim |
| Fabricated details |
"Published in March 2024" |
Date not verifiable |
| Exaggerated claims |
"Significantly outperforms" |
No comparative data |
| Causal hallucination |
"X caused Y" |
No evidence for causation |
| Citation hallucination |
"arXiv:2401.99999" |
Paper doesn't exist |
Progress Report Template
━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━
ITERATIVE ACADEMIC WRITING — Progress Report
━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━
[Phase 0] Fact Base: 12 verified facts, 2 unverified (excluded)
━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━
[Iteration 1/5]
━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━
Phase 1: Draft ✓
Phase 2: Evaluate
→ Hallucinations: 2 | Critical: 1 | Warning: 3
→ Status: CONTINUE
→ Proceed to Phase 3
Phase 3: Plan ✓
→ Priority: Fix 2 hallucinations first
→ Proceed to Phase 4
Phase 4: Rewrite ✓
→ Removed unverified claims
→ Return to Phase 2
━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━
[Iteration 2/5]
━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━
Phase 2: Evaluate
→ Hallucinations: 0 | Critical: 0 | Warning: 2
→ Status: COMPLETE ✅
✅ Document finalized
Remaining: 2 warnings (optional to fix)
