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
Source: brycewang-stanford/Awesome-Journal-Skills → ICASSP-Skills/skills/icassp-supplementary/SKILL.md
1---2name: icassp-supplementary3description: 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.4---567# ICASSP Supplementary89Use this when assembling everything around an ICASSP paper that does not fit the four content10pages. The defining constraint: ICASSP has **no reviewed supplement or appendix that decides11acceptance**. The paper must be self-contained in 4+1 pages; anything else is optional material a12reviewer *may* consult but is not obliged to.1314## The three shelves1516| Shelf | What lives here | Reviewer obligation |17|---|---|---|18| Pages 1-4 | The claim, mechanism, and decision-critical results and figures | Must read |19| Page 5 | References, funding acknowledgements, ethical-standards statement only | Must read (references) |20| Optional release | Extended derivations, extra conditions, demo media, code | May consult, not guaranteed |2122If a result decides acceptance, it belongs on pages 1-4. If it merely strengthens or illustrates,23it can live in the optional release — but never assume a reviewer opened it.2425## What "supplementary" means at ICASSP2627- Unlike double-blind ML venues with a reviewed appendix, ICASSP's optional material is usually a28 **public repository or a demo page**, and because review is single-blind it can carry your29 identity from the start.30- Some cycles allow uploading a **multimedia file** (audio, image, or video) with the submission31 through CMS; confirm the current paper kit for accepted formats and size limits before relying32 on it.33- Long proofs and derivations that will not fit four pages typically go to an **extended34 arXiv/technical-report version** cited from the paper, not to a reviewed appendix.3536## Curating multimedia reviewers actually open3738For enhancement, separation, synthesis, restoration, or any perceptual result, a short set of39**listenable or viewable examples** is often the most persuasive artifact:4041- Provide a small, curated set (roughly five), not a dump; pick cases that show both a strength42 and an honest hard case.43- Label each example with its condition (SNR, corpus, or scene) so a reviewer can interpret it.44- For audio, include the input, the output, and a strong-baseline output side by side.45- Scrub embedded metadata only for privacy/consent reasons, not anonymity — single-blind review46 does not require hiding your identity.4748## Keeping the four pages self-contained4950- State each main theorem, algorithm, or system so a reviewer can judge it without the external51 material; a paper whose argument only closes in the arXiv version reads as unreviewable in four52 pages.53- Keep one derivation-sketch line in the body for any result whose full proof you exile to the54 technical report.55- Cross-reference the release from the paper at least once; unlinked material is invisible.5657## Vignette: splitting an image-restoration paper5859A submission proposes a denoiser with a stability argument and a broad evaluation. The body keeps60the method, the key stability statement with a one-line justification, and the two61decision-critical PSNR/SSIM tables; the extended derivation and the full noise-level sweep go to a62cited technical report; a demo page shows five before/after crops with a baseline. Nothing that63decides acceptance lives only off-paper, because ICASSP reviewers are not required to leave the64PDF.6566## Consent and licensing checklist6768```text69[On-paper] claim, mechanism, decision-critical results all in 4+170[Off-paper] derivations / extra conditions / media / code (cited from paper)71[Media] curated set, labeled conditions, baseline shown72[Licensing] corpus/data license permits redistribution of any shipped samples73[Consent] speaker/subject consent cleared for any released recordings or images74```7576## Output format7778```text79[Supplement plan] ready / needs fixes / not ready80[Page budget] 4 content + 1 reference/acks/ethics respected?81[Self-containment] does the paper close without the external material?82[Media] curated / labeled / baseline-anchored83[Release link] present in paper and reachable84```8586---8788**Source:** [`brycewang-stanford/Awesome-Journal-Skills`](https://github.com/brycewang-stanford/Awesome-Journal-Skills) → `ICASSP-Skills/skills/icassp-supplementary/SKILL.md`
thedixitjain