--- name: icra-supplementary description: Use when planning ICRA supplementary material, which in this venue means primarily the video attachment — 180 seconds, 20 MB, submitted in fixed PaperPlaza windows — plus external code links; covers storyboarding, showing failures, anonymization of footage, and what may never live only outside the 6+2-page PDF. --- # ICRA Supplementary At most ML conferences "supplementary" means an unlimited appendix PDF. ICRA has no such thing: the 2026-cycle rules cap the reviewed document at 6 content pages plus 2 reference-only pages, with no appendix upload. What ICRA has instead is the **video attachment** — a robotics-native evidence format with hard specs (≤ 180 seconds, ≤ 20 MB, mpeg/mp4/mpg in 2026) and its own submission windows. This skill treats the video as the serious scientific artifact it is. ## The self-containment rule Because reviewers are not obligated to open anything beyond the PDF, and because there is no appendix: - Every load-bearing definition, equation, protocol detail, and result **must be in the 6 pages**. The video may demonstrate; it must never be the only place a claim is supported. - External links (project page, code) are pointers to *optional corroboration*. Under the double-anonymous policy they must also be anonymized or omitted. - The test: delete the video and all links mentally — does the paper still prove its claims? If no, restructure the body, not the supplement. ## What the video is for Robotics reviewers watch the attachment early, often before reading past the abstract. It answers questions text cannot: | Reviewer question | Video answer | |---|---| | Is this real hardware or renders? | continuous, uncut executions | | Is the demo cherry-picked? | multiple trials, varied conditions, a counter on screen | | How fast is it really? | wall-clock timestamps, explicit "1× speed" labels | | What does failure look like? | one or two failure clips with a caption naming the cause | | Is a human secretly helping? | wide shots showing the full workspace and no puppeteer | ## Storyboard for 180 seconds ```text 0:00-0:10 title card: paper title only (no authors — double-anonymous) 0:10-0:30 task + platform in one wide continuous shot 0:30-1:30 core capability: 3-5 uncut executions, varied instances, on-screen labels: condition, trial number, 1× speed 1:30-2:10 the money comparison: baseline vs method, same task instance, side by side if possible 2:10-2:35 a failure case, honestly labeled with the taxonomy category from the paper's failure table 2:35-3:00 generalization montage (may be sped up — label "4×"), closing card pointing to the paper, nothing else ``` Rules the storyboard encodes: label every speed change (silent speed-ups are treated as deception when caught); prefer uncut takes over montage for the core claim; synchronize the video's trial conditions with the paper's tables so a reviewer can cross-reference; show failure deliberately — it converts the video from advertisement into evidence. ## Meeting 20 MB without looking like 2005 180 seconds under 20 MB means roughly 900 kbps total — tight but workable: - Encode H.264 (in an mp4 container per the allowed formats), 720p, high-profile two-pass; drop the audio track entirely (narration goes into captions, which also survive muted review viewing and avoid voice de-anonymization issues). - Avoid 60 fps; robotics motion reads fine at 24-30 fps and halves bitrate. - Static title cards and captions compress to nearly nothing; noisy handheld footage does not — use a tripod, lock exposure. - Verify the final file on the actual spec: duration ≤ 180 s, size ≤ 20 MB, extension among the allowed three, plays in a stock player. ## Anonymization of footage Video leaks identity faster than text (2026-cycle double-anonymous rules): - Sweep frames for lab posters, door signs, safety-vest logos, license plates, reflections in glass, and named equipment tags; blur or reshoot. - No voice-over (voiceprints identify); no bystanders' faces without masking. - Strip container metadata (`ffmpeg -map_metadata -1` on the final pass) — the encoder tag can carry a username. ## Project pages and external links A public project page is standard robotics practice *after* acceptance but a liability during double-anonymous review: - If the page already exists (earlier arXiv release), do not link it from the submission; reviewers finding it on their own is tolerated, you leading them there is a violation pattern. - An anonymized mirror (no lab name in domain or footer) may be linked if the cycle's rules permit external material at all — reread the current CFP. - Plan the public page for acceptance week: paper, final video, artifact link, BibTeX with the IEEE Xplore DOI (`icra-camera-ready` stages this flip). ## Windows and logistics In the 2026 cycle videos were accepted only during two windows (Aug 5-Sep 9 and Sep 17-22, 2025, 23:59 Pacific) — note the second window closes *after* the paper deadline, a grace period for editing but not for shooting. Bank raw footage throughout the experimental campaign (`icra-reproducibility` ties clips to trial logs); deadline-week shooting produces both worse videos and worse anonymity discipline. Verify the current year's windows and specs on the year-site before scheduling the edit. ## Pre-upload checklist 1. Paper passes the self-containment test with video deleted. 2. Storyboard beats present: uncut core, labeled speeds, comparison, failure. 3. Trial conditions on screen match table conditions in the paper. 4. Spec check: ≤ 180 s, ≤ 20 MB, allowed container, plays everywhere. 5. Anonymity sweep of frames, captions, metadata complete. 6. Upload inside the posted window; confirmation archived. ## Output format ```text [Self-containment] pass / fail — claims living only in video: [Storyboard audit] uncut-core / speed-labels / comparison / failure: y/n each [Spec] s, MB, — compliant: y/n [Anonymity] frame sweep, captions, metadata: clean / leaks: [Window] target window — footage ready by: [Cross-reference] video trials ↔ paper tables consistent: y/n ```