brycewang-stanford CoRL Supplementary Material
CoRL supplementary material splits into three channels with different rules and different reader guarantees: the appendix (same PDF, optional reading), the supplementary upload (files and the venue's signature overview video), and — after acceptance — external hosting, because the PMLR proceedings pipeline does not take videos at all. Content placed in the wrong channel either never gets seen or violates a rule.
Channel rules (2026 cycle, corl.org, read 2026-07-08)
| Channel | 2026 rule | Reader guarantee |
|---|---|---|
| Appendix | Optional; follows references in the same PDF; uncounted against the 8 pages | Reviewers are not required to read it |
| Supplementary file(s) | Encouraged for further details; video ≤ 250 MB (strict), ~3 min suggested | Also optional reading; must be anonymous |
| External links during review | Only if fully anonymous — the URL included | Assume most reviewers won't click |
| Camera-ready / PMLR | No video as supplementary; host video/code/data externally, link from the main text or a project page | Permanent record; plan durable hosting |
The uniform consequence of "optional reading": nothing decision-critical may live outside the 8-page body. The body must stand alone; supplementary material corroborates, it never carries.
The video: evidence, not advertisement
For a learned-policy paper the video has a specific evidentiary job — showing that printed success rates correspond to real behavior. Reviewers at this venue watch with a checklist mindset:
- Uncut executions. At least a few complete episodes per headline task with no cuts inside an attempt; jump-cut montages are read as concealment.
- Playback honesty. Label every speed change on screen ("4x"); real-time segments for anything you call reactive or real-time.
- Failure cases. Include representative failures matching your Limitations section — the pairing is checked, and showing them buys credibility that no success reel can.
- Regime labels. Mark sim vs real footage explicitly; a photoreal simulator clip mistaken for hardware, then discovered, poisons the whole packet.
- Anonymity. No faces, badges, lab signage, institution-branded robot livery, or watermarks; mute or scrub audio (voices identify people).
# Fit the strict 250 MB cap without shredding quality (H.264 target ~8 Mbps)
ffmpeg -i raw_cut.mp4 -c:v libx264 -preset slow -b:v 8M -maxrate 10M \
-bufsize 16M -vf scale=1920:-2 -an overview_anon.mp4 # -an strips audio
stat -c '%s bytes' overview_anon.mp4 # verify < 250*1024*1024
# Frame-level anonymity spot check: export stills every 5 s and eyeball them
ffmpeg -i overview_anon.mp4 -vf fps=1/5 frames/check_%03d.png
Suggested three-minute arc: task family and setup (20 s) → method in one diagram (20 s) → uncut successes across tasks/objects (90 s) → failures + limitations (30 s) → generalization or sim-to-real side-by-side (20 s).
The appendix: overflow with a contract
Because reviewers may skip it, apply a simple contract test to every block you move there: if a reviewer never reads this, does any claim in the body lose its support? If yes, it stays in the body (or the claim softens).
Belongs in the appendix: full hyperparameter and architecture tables, per-task result breakdowns behind body-level aggregates, extra qualitative rollouts, prompt lists for language-conditioned systems, rig photographs, dataset datasheets, extended related work.
Does not belong: the only statement of the evaluation protocol, the only sim-to-real numbers, the definition of the success criterion, or the honest version of a claim the body states more boldly.
Code and data attachments during review
- Ship a self-contained, anonymized bundle: training config, evaluation scripts, environment definitions, and a small demo-data sample if the full set is heavy.
- Scrub before zipping — usernames in paths, git history, W&B project names,
internal hostnames, license files naming the lab (
corl-submissionhas the mechanical sweep). - A
READMEat the bundle root mapping files to paper tables costs ten minutes and is the difference between "code provided" and "code checked."
Camera-ready transition (the PMLR pivot)
On acceptance the channels reorganize (deadline: October 12, 2026, 23:59 AoE for the 2026 cycle):
- Appendix merges into the end of the camera-ready PDF (
corl-camera-ready). - The review-time video cannot follow the paper into PMLR — publish it on a project page or stable video host, de-anonymized, and cite the link in the main text.
- Code/data move to their permanent public homes; prefer an archival DOI for
datasets you expect others to benchmark against (
corl-artifact-evaluation).
Assembly checklist
[ ] Body stands alone with supplementary deleted (contract test passed)
[ ] Video: uncut episodes, labeled speeds, failures included, regimes marked
[ ] Video ≤ 250 MB, audio stripped, frame-level anonymity check done
[ ] Appendix in the same PDF, after references, no load-bearing content
[ ] Code bundle anonymized, README maps files → tables
[ ] External links (if any) anonymous including the URL itself
[ ] Post-acceptance hosting plan drafted (PMLR takes no video)
Caps, encouragement language, and the PMLR handoff are all cycle-specific: re-open https://www.corl.org/contributions/instruction-for-authors for the live year before finalizing the bundle.