ijcai-supplementary

IJCAI Supplementary

Use this when assembling or auditing IJCAI supplementary material. Reopen the current CFP and

FAQ because deadlines, file types, and size limits are cycle-specific.

Supplement plan

• Separate the Technical Appendix from the Resubmission File. Do not mix prior-review

material into the technical supplement.

• Keep the main paper self-contained; reviewers may choose not to read the appendix.
• Submit supplement and resubmission files by the full-paper deadline. IJCAI-ECAI 2026 did

not use separate later deadlines for these files.

• Respect file type and size rules. IJCAI-ECAI 2026 allowed up to 50MB of supplementary

material in PDF or ZIP format.

• Anonymize every file, archive name, directory name, path, metadata field, license header,

screenshot, notebook output, and URL.

• Verify that ZIPs open, contain deterministic paths, and do not include cache files, hidden

OS files, credentials, API keys, or large irrelevant artifacts.

Placement decision: body, appendix, or ZIP

IJCAI reviewers may never open the supplement, so placement is a scoring decision. Sort each

artifact before assembling.

| Artifact | Where it belongs | Why |

| --- | --- | --- |

| Theorem statement, main result table | 7-page body | Load-bearing; reviewers must see it without the supplement |

| Full proof, extra derivations | Technical Appendix | Supports credibility but not required reading |

| Hyperparameter grids, full per-domain tables | Technical Appendix | Detail that would crowd the body |

| Runnable code, simulator, instance generator | Code/data ZIP | Reproducibility evidence reviewers may sample |

| Prior reviews and rejected version | Resubmission File only | Must stay out of the technical supplement |

Worked vignette: a planning paper's split

A planning paper has a soundness theorem, a 40-domain coverage table, and a planner

implementation. Decision: the theorem statement and a condensed coverage summary stay in the

body; the proof and the full 40-domain table go to the Technical Appendix; the planner plus a

deterministic instance generator and seeds go in the ZIP; nothing from a prior IJCAI rejection

goes anywhere except the Resubmission File. This keeps the paper self-contained while giving a

skeptical search/planning reviewer a re-runnable artifact.

Reviewer pushback and the venue-specific fix

• "Had to open the ZIP to understand the method." Move the missing protocol into the body; the

appendix should deepen, not define, the contribution.

• "Appendix mixes in old reviews." Separate them into the Resubmission File; mixing risks an

anonymity or policy flag.

• "Archive would not open or had absolute paths." Re-zip with relative deterministic paths and

strip OS and cache files before the full-paper deadline, since there is no later upload.

Output format

[Supplement status] Ready / Needs fixes / Not ready
[Files] <technical appendix / code-data zip / resubmission file>
[Deadline coupling] <same as full paper? source needed>
[Anonymity checks] <passed/issues>
[Reviewer dependency] <what breaks if supplement is ignored>