name: aistats-supplementary
description: Use when preparing AISTATS supplementary material, appendices, proof details, code/data archives, simulation scripts, additional tables, and anonymized artifacts under deadline, size, anonymity, and reviewer-discretion constraints, including how to split a theory-plus-experiments paper between body and supplement.
AISTATS Supplementary
Use this when assembling AISTATS supplementary material. The supplement can support the
paper, but the main submission must remain understandable without it.
Supplement structure
- Put theorem proofs, derivations, extra ablations, simulation details, dataset
documentation, and robustness tables in a clean appendix or supplementary manuscript.
- Put executable assets in a separate archive when current OpenReview forms allow it.
- Respect the current supplementary deadline. AISTATS 2026 placed supplementary-material
submission after the paper deadline but before review.
- Keep all supplementary files double-blind: no authors, institutions, acknowledgements,
private paths, repository owners, grants, or identifying metadata.
- Do not use the supplement to hide essential motivation, core method description, main
theorem statements, or primary empirical results.
- Verify archives open on a clean machine and contain no credentials, cache directories,
large irrelevant files, or hidden OS metadata.
Appendix architecture for proofs
- Order appendix sections to mirror main-text theorem order; statistician reviewers navigate
by theorem number, not by page.
- Restate each theorem before its proof so the appendix reads standalone without flipping
back to the two-column body.
- Standard partition: notation and assumptions, main proofs, auxiliary lemmas, additional
simulations, then real-data details.
- Keep one proof-sketch paragraph per major theorem in the body itself; an AISTATS submission
whose entire argument lives in the supplement reads as unreviewable within the page limit.
- Cross-reference every appendix table and lemma from the body at least once; orphaned
supplement material is invisible to reviewers and wasted under reviewer discretion.
- If the cycle allows appendices inside the main PDF after the references, confirm against
the current instructions whether that or a separate file upload is expected.
What gets opened first
| Supplement item | Inspection likelihood | Practical implication |
|---|
| Proof of the headline theorem | High | Polish it to main-text standard |
| Extra ablation and robustness tables | Medium | Reference each one from the body |
| Code archive | Variable, reviewer discretion | The README must orient a reader in one minute |
| Raw experiment logs | Low | Include for completeness, never rely on them |
Vignette: splitting an optimization paper
A submission proving a convergence guarantee for a stochastic mirror-descent variant, plus
benchmark plots: the body keeps the theorem, the key lemma, the proof roadmap, and two
decision-critical figures; the appendix holds full proofs and step-size sensitivity grids;
the archive carries the seeded experiment runner. Nothing decision-critical lives only in
the archive, because archive inspection at AISTATS is discretionary.
Output format
[Supplement status] Ready / Needs fixes / Not ready
[Files] <appendix/proofs/code/data/logs>
[Deadline] <current supplement deadline and source>
[Anonymity checks] <passed/issues>
[Main-paper dependency] <what breaks if supplement is ignored>