--- name: iclr-supplementary description: Use when organizing ICLR appendices, supplementary files, anonymous code/data, revised PDFs, private links, and discussion-period updates under OpenReview rules. Use when deciding what stays in the main text versus the appendix, how to label a discussion-period revision so reviewers find changes fast, or how to package anonymous artifacts that remain part of the permanent public record after acceptance. --- # ICLR Supplementary Use this when deciding what belongs in the main PDF, appendix, supplementary files, or private discussion-period links. The goal is to make extra evidence easy to find without hiding the paper's core argument outside the main text. ## Structure - Keep central method, claims, and minimum evidence in the main text. - Put derivations, extended ablations, robustness, extra qualitative examples, hyperparameters, model cards, dataset cards, and ethics details in the appendix. - Use supplementary files for code, data, large tables, logs, demos, and artifacts that do not fit cleanly in the PDF. - Include a one-page appendix map at the start when the appendix is long. - Label discussion-period revisions explicitly so reviewers can find changes quickly. ## Anonymity and access - Remove author names, institutions, usernames, Git remotes, file paths, cloud buckets, and license headers that identify the team. - Avoid links that reveal visitors or owner accounts. Prefer anonymized repositories, static files, or private OpenReview-visible links permitted by the current guide. - Make supplementary filenames descriptive but neutral. - If code cannot be released, state the legal or privacy constraint and provide a smaller reproducibility substitute. ## Main-text versus appendix placement ICLR's single-track format means the main PDF carries the argument and appendices come after references with generous room. The risk is burying decisive evidence where a time-pressed reviewer never looks, while padding the appendix with material that proves nothing. | Content | Belongs in | Why | | --- | --- | --- | | Central claim and its key result | Main text | Reviewers may not open the appendix | | Full proof / extended derivation | Appendix | Needed for rigor, not for the headline | | Hyperparameters, model/dataset cards | Appendix | Reference material, not argument | | Code, logs, large tables, checkpoints | Supplementary ZIP | Too big or interactive for the PDF | | Decisive ablation a claim depends on | Main text | Moving it weakens the narrative | ## Worked vignette A generative-model paper hides its only fairness-of-comparison ablation in Appendix G, so a reviewer concludes the headline gain is unsupported. The fix: promote a compact version into the main text near the claim, leave the full grid in the appendix, and add an appendix map. During discussion the authors upload a revision and label the changelog so the relocation is obvious. ## Reviewer-pushback patterns - "Key evidence is buried." Promote it; an appendix map is not a substitute for main-text placement. - "Cannot tell what changed in the revision." Add a dated changelog at the top of the revised PDF. - "Supplement leaks identity." Re-check file paths, license headers, and remotes before upload. ## Output format ```text [Supplement plan] PDF appendix / ZIP / anonymous repo / private link / no supplement [Main-text dependencies] [Reviewer navigation] [Anonymity risks] [Discussion update note] ```