iclr-supplementary

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

[Supplement plan] PDF appendix / ZIP / anonymous repo / private link / no supplement
[Main-text dependencies] <claims that must move back into main text>
[Reviewer navigation] <appendix map and file names>
[Anonymity risks] <paths, metadata, links, licenses>
[Discussion update note] <short changelog if revised>