AAAI Supplementary

Use this when deciding what belongs in the main paper, technical appendix, multimedia appendix, or code/data ZIP. AAAI supplementary material is due with the paper and should be treated as immutable once submitted unless current instructions say otherwise.

Supplement structure

• Keep the central contribution, method, core results, and checklist-relevant evidence in the main

paper.

• Put proofs, extra ablations, extended qualitative examples, implementation details, and additional

error analysis in the technical appendix.

• Put videos, audio, interactive demos, or visualizations in a multimedia appendix only when they are

technically necessary.

• Put scripts, datasets, logs, model configs, and checkpoints in code/data ZIPs.
• Add a compact appendix map so reviewers can find support for each disputed claim.

Anonymity and immutability

• Remove identity from file names, metadata, paths, Git history, author comments, and license

headers.

• Do not use web pointers for extra material if current AAAI rules disallow them.
• Submit final, uncorrupted files. Do not rely on rebuttal to repair missing content.
• Keep the supplement consistent with the reproducibility checklist.

Where each item belongs

A broad-AI reviewer will skim the appendix, not study it, so placement decides whether evidence is actually seen. Anything a claim depends on belongs in the main paper; the appendix only deepens it.

Reviewer-pushback patterns

• "The key result is only in the appendix." Fix: promote it to the main paper; AAAI reviewers are not

obligated to find a load-bearing claim buried in supplement.

• "Supplement contradicts the checklist." Fix: reconcile every appendix number with the checklist

before submission, since neither can be edited later.

• "Multimedia is huge but adds nothing." Fix: drop spectacle clips; include video only when it is the

evidence, not decoration.

Worked vignette

A vision paper hides its ablation table in the ZIP and leaves only a teaser figure in the paper. The navigation map exposes the gap: a disputed claim points to a file a skimming reviewer will miss. The fix moves the ablation summary into the main paper, keeps full per-class numbers in the technical appendix, and scrubs the ZIP's metadata so nothing deanonymizes the immutable supplement.

Output format

[Supplement plan] technical appendix / multimedia appendix / code-data ZIP / none
[Main-paper dependencies] <material that must not be hidden in supplement>
[Navigation map] <claim -> supplement file/section>
[Anonymity risks] <paths, metadata, links, ownership>
[Submission risk] <missing/corrupt/too large/not allowed>