diff --git a/doc/paper/ICTAI25/introduction.tex b/doc/paper/ICTAI25/introduction.tex
index 857acb1c3da112c121b57f35d6442eb41cd22970..4df9819c38ea367c38cf60e4a71c4b918985aa7e 100644
--- a/doc/paper/ICTAI25/introduction.tex
+++ b/doc/paper/ICTAI25/introduction.tex
@@ -25,11 +25,14 @@ this study assesses the capabilities of models such as
 \texttt{Llama3}~\cite{grattafiori24arxiv},
 \texttt{Mistral-Small}~\cite{jiang24arxiv},
 \texttt{DeepSeek-R1}~\cite{deepseekai25arxiv}, and
-\texttt{Qwen3}~\cite{bai23arxiv}. While Morge~\cite{morge25paams} evaluates GAs
-on economic rationality and strategic reasoning, we focus on their ability to
+\texttt{Qwen3}~\cite{bai23arxiv}. %While Morge~\cite{morge25paams} evaluates GAs
+%on economic rationality and strategic reasoning,
+We focus on their ability to
 make credible one-shot decisions, generate human-like strategies, adapt to their
 environment, and coordinate in social interactions\footnote{All code, prompts,
-  and data traces are available in a public repository~\cite{pygaamas}.}.
+  and data traces will be available in a public repository.}.
+%All code, prompts,
+%  and data traces are available in a public repository~\cite{pygaamas}.
 %These capabilities are evaluated through a series of
 %tightly controlled and theoretically well-understood games.
 The contributions of this work are as follows:
diff --git a/doc/paper/ICTAI25/morge25ictai.pdf b/doc/paper/ICTAI25/morge25ictai.pdf
index 51451a25dbe268df3e7c9250f8719444539f0179..72881f457581c628c99ce3481df2b0f41d34a4cc 100644
Binary files a/doc/paper/ICTAI25/morge25ictai.pdf and b/doc/paper/ICTAI25/morge25ictai.pdf differ
diff --git a/doc/paper/ICTAI25/morge25ictai.tex b/doc/paper/ICTAI25/morge25ictai.tex
index 6f2f73b94231d3d27de4ed609d79f8057f4f34d0..88f87c05c5e5ecc7d4854b1594fa6f9f9e8a5cab 100644
--- a/doc/paper/ICTAI25/morge25ictai.tex
+++ b/doc/paper/ICTAI25/morge25ictai.tex
@@ -12,17 +12,24 @@
 % use a multiple column layout for up to three different
 % affiliations
 
-\author{\IEEEauthorblockN{St\'ephane Bonnevay}
-\IEEEauthorblockA{\textit{Lizeo, UCBL, CNRS, INSA Lyon, ERIC} \\
-F-69007 Lyon, France \\
-Stephane.Bonnevay@univ-lyon1.fr}
-\and
-\IEEEauthorblockN{Maxime Morge}
-\IEEEauthorblockA{\textit{UCBL, CNRS, INSA Lyon, UMR 5205 LIRIS} \\
-F-69622 Villeurbanne, France \\
-Maxime.Morge@univ-lyon1.fr}
+\author{\IEEEauthorblockN{Anonymous}
+\IEEEauthorblockA{\textit{Affiliation} \\
+Address\\
+Mail}
 }
 
+
+% \author{\IEEEauthorblockN{St\'ephane Bonnevay}
+% \IEEEauthorblockA{\textit{Lizeo, UCBL, CNRS, INSA Lyon, ERIC} \\
+% F-69007 Lyon, France \\
+% Stephane.Bonnevay@univ-lyon1.fr}
+% \and
+% \IEEEauthorblockN{Maxime Morge}
+% \IEEEauthorblockA{\textit{UCBL, CNRS, INSA Lyon, UMR 5205 LIRIS} \\
+% F-69622 Villeurbanne, France \\
+% Maxime.Morge@univ-lyon1.fr}
+% }
+
 % make the title area
 \maketitle
 
diff --git a/doc/paper/ICTAI25/related.tex b/doc/paper/ICTAI25/related.tex
index 83399065bdafac2a5e9e5b907dbf6f92fc7a74dd..bc3c972afad9b176ddf0cb0a32dd81d047b28716 100644
--- a/doc/paper/ICTAI25/related.tex
+++ b/doc/paper/ICTAI25/related.tex
@@ -71,11 +71,11 @@ failing, for instance, to adopt basic conventions such as alternation in the
 Battle of the Sexes game. To address this, they propose prompting agents to
 imagine possible actions and their consequences before deciding. However, this
 conditional reasoning proves effective mainly for smaller models and may degrade
-performance in larger ones due to added complexity~\cite{pygaamas}. While Akata
-\textit{et al.} attribute these failures to limited predictive ability and a
-tendency to rigidly favor preferred options, we argue that the most fundamental
-cause is GAs' inability to incorporate their beliefs into the decision-making
-process when selecting actions.
+performance in larger ones due to added complexity. %~\cite{pygaamas}
+While Akata \textit{et al.} attribute these failures to limited predictive
+ability and a tendency to rigidly favor preferred options, we argue that the
+most fundamental cause is GAs' inability to incorporate their beliefs into the
+decision-making process when selecting actions.
 % Akata \textit{et al.}~\cite{akata23arxiv} study the behavior of GAs playing
 % finitely repeated games, confronting them with simple yet credible strategies or
 % with other GAs. They identify a major behavioral flaw: GAs lack coordination. In
@@ -105,13 +105,18 @@ Matching Pennies game, where opponent strategies are both minimal and credible.
 Moreover, their study is not
 reproducible: the code is unavailable, and the experiments rely exclusively on
 proprietary LLMs. In contrast, we make our code, prompts,
-and datasets openly available~\cite{pygaamas}, and we focus on open-weight
-models that can run on standard hardware.
+and datasets openly available, and we focus on open-weight
+models that can run on standard hardware. %~\cite{pygaamas}
 % , which required significant computational resources and resulted in
 % substantial carbon costs. Furthermore, we reduce environmental impact by
 % prompting LLMs to generate algorithmic strategies, as in~\cite{willis25arxiv},
 % rather than issuing multiple one-shot queries.
 
+While Morge~\cite{morge25paams} evaluates GAs
+on economic rationality and strategic reasoning, we focus on their ability to
+make credible one-shot decisions, generate human-like strategies, adapt to their
+environment, and coordinate in social interactions.
+
 Hua \textit{et al.}~\cite{hua24arxiv} show that GAs deviate from rationality as
 game complexity increases, and highlight the role of communication in fostering
 coordination. We find that while communication may boost short-term