icassp-supplementary
GitHub指导ICASSP论文投稿时如何分配4+1页正文与补充材料。因无审稿附录，需确保正文自包含核心论证，将推导、代码及多媒体示例等作为可选公开资源，以优化单盲评审体验。
Trigger Scenarios
Install
npx skills add brycewang-stanford/Awesome-Journal-Skills --skill icassp-supplementary -g -y
SKILL.md
Frontmatter
{
"name": "icassp-supplementary",
"description": "Use when deciding what goes in the four ICASSP pages versus a public release, given that ICASSP has no reviewed appendix — managing the 4+1 budget, curating optional multimedia (audio, image, video) that reviewers may open, hosting derivations and extra results externally, and keeping the main paper self-contained under single-blind review."
}
ICASSP Supplementary
Use this when assembling everything around an ICASSP paper that does not fit the four content pages. The defining constraint: ICASSP has no reviewed supplement or appendix that decides acceptance. The paper must be self-contained in 4+1 pages; anything else is optional material a reviewer may consult but is not obliged to.
The three shelves
| Shelf | What lives here | Reviewer obligation |
|---|---|---|
| Pages 1-4 | The claim, mechanism, and decision-critical results and figures | Must read |
| Page 5 | References, funding acknowledgements, ethical-standards statement only | Must read (references) |
| Optional release | Extended derivations, extra conditions, demo media, code | May consult, not guaranteed |
If a result decides acceptance, it belongs on pages 1-4. If it merely strengthens or illustrates, it can live in the optional release — but never assume a reviewer opened it.
What "supplementary" means at ICASSP
- Unlike double-blind ML venues with a reviewed appendix, ICASSP's optional material is usually a public repository or a demo page, and because review is single-blind it can carry your identity from the start.
- Some cycles allow uploading a multimedia file (audio, image, or video) with the submission through CMS; confirm the current paper kit for accepted formats and size limits before relying on it.
- Long proofs and derivations that will not fit four pages typically go to an extended arXiv/technical-report version cited from the paper, not to a reviewed appendix.
Curating multimedia reviewers actually open
For enhancement, separation, synthesis, restoration, or any perceptual result, a short set of listenable or viewable examples is often the most persuasive artifact:
- Provide a small, curated set (roughly five), not a dump; pick cases that show both a strength and an honest hard case.
- Label each example with its condition (SNR, corpus, or scene) so a reviewer can interpret it.
- For audio, include the input, the output, and a strong-baseline output side by side.
- Scrub embedded metadata only for privacy/consent reasons, not anonymity — single-blind review does not require hiding your identity.
Keeping the four pages self-contained
- State each main theorem, algorithm, or system so a reviewer can judge it without the external material; a paper whose argument only closes in the arXiv version reads as unreviewable in four pages.
- Keep one derivation-sketch line in the body for any result whose full proof you exile to the technical report.
- Cross-reference the release from the paper at least once; unlinked material is invisible.
Vignette: splitting an image-restoration paper
A submission proposes a denoiser with a stability argument and a broad evaluation. The body keeps the method, the key stability statement with a one-line justification, and the two decision-critical PSNR/SSIM tables; the extended derivation and the full noise-level sweep go to a cited technical report; a demo page shows five before/after crops with a baseline. Nothing that decides acceptance lives only off-paper, because ICASSP reviewers are not required to leave the PDF.
Consent and licensing checklist
[On-paper] claim, mechanism, decision-critical results all in 4+1
[Off-paper] derivations / extra conditions / media / code (cited from paper)
[Media] curated set, labeled conditions, baseline shown
[Licensing] corpus/data license permits redistribution of any shipped samples
[Consent] speaker/subject consent cleared for any released recordings or images
Output format
[Supplement plan] ready / needs fixes / not ready
[Page budget] 4 content + 1 reference/acks/ethics respected?
[Self-containment] does the paper close without the external material?
[Media] curated / labeled / baseline-anchored
[Release link] present in paper and reachable
Version History
- 9f86f09 Current 2026-07-19 15:54
