---

name: neurips-supplementary description: Use when deciding what NeurIPS material belongs in the main PDF body, the references, text appendices, the mandatory Paper Checklist, the separate code/data ZIP, or an external public artifact, and how to keep every supplemental component anonymous under double-blind review.

NeurIPS Supplementary

Use this skill to prevent two common NeurIPS failures: hiding the main contribution in the appendix and overloading the main paper with details that belong in supplemental material.

Placement rules

• Main paper: problem, contribution, method, essential theory, core experiments, limitations, and enough detail for reviewers to judge correctness.
• References: complete, verified citations; do not rely on AI-generated references without manual verification.
• Text appendices: proofs, derivations, additional ablations, dataset details, model cards, extended limitations, and supporting analyses.
• Checklist: mandatory and placed according to current template instructions.
• Separate ZIP: code, data, scripts, configuration files, logs, lightweight demo assets, or other review artifacts when allowed by current rules.

NeurIPS-specific guardrails

• The supplement does not rescue an unclear main claim. Reviewers are not required to read every supplemental detail.
• Supplementary material must be anonymized during double-blind review.
• Links must preserve anonymous browsing and comply with current policy.
• Code and data that support central claims should include exact commands and environment details, not just a repository dump.

Placement decision table

NeurIPS assembles the final PDF from distinct zones plus a separate review ZIP. Misplacing material is a recurring weakness: a proof that a reviewer cannot find, or a contribution buried where it does not count. Map each item to exactly one home before submission; reopen the current template for the authoritative zone list.

Material	Home	Reason it goes there
Central claim, headline result	Main body	reviewers judge the contribution here
Full proofs and derivations	Text appendix	body states the theorem; appendix carries the proof
Extra ablations, seeds, scaling	Text appendix	supports but does not replace core experiments
Dataset/model cards, datasheets	Text appendix + ZIP	provenance reviewers expect, anonymized
Mandatory Paper Checklist	Template-specified slot	desk-reject risk if missing or misplaced
Runnable code, configs, logs	Separate ZIP	review-only artifact, not body pages
Broader-impact discussion	Main body	a NeurIPS norm reviewers look for, not appendix-only

Datasets & Benchmarks supplement note

For a Datasets & Benchmarks track submission, the datasheet, license, intended-use statement, and hosting/maintenance plan are not optional appendix garnish; they are part of what reviewers score. Keep them anonymized for review and stage a de-anonymized public version for release. Hedge the exact required documentation to the current year's track call.

Worked vignette: a benchmark paper

Authors put their 40-page datasheet, croissant metadata, and loading code only in the appendix and leave the main body to leaderboard tables. A NeurIPS reviewer cannot judge dataset quality from tables alone. The fix: lift provenance, licensing, consent, and intended-use sentences into the main body so the contribution is visible; keep the full datasheet and loaders in the appendix and ZIP; and add one navigation sentence telling reviewers exactly where the documentation lives.

Output format

[Main-paper must stay] <items>
[Move to appendix] <items>
[Move to ZIP/artifact] <items>
[Anonymity fixes] <items>
[Reviewer navigation] <one sentence telling reviewers where to find support>