thedixitjain NAACL Supplementary
An ARR submission bound for NAACL has four storage tiers with different review contracts, and misfiling material across them is a self-inflicted wound. The tiers, from strongest contract to weakest:
| Tier | Counted? | Reviewer obligation | Belongs here |
|---|---|---|---|
| Content pages (8 long / 4 short) | Yes | Must read; sole basis of judgment | Claims, method, main results, decisive analysis |
| Limitations (+ optional ethics) | No | Read and audited | Real scope boundaries, risk discussion |
| Appendix (same PDF, after refs) | No | May consult | Full prompt sets, extra tables, proofs of preprocessing |
| Uploaded supplements (archives) | No | Discretionary | Code, data samples, guidelines, raw outputs |
The operating rule: a reviewer who reads only tier 1 must be able to accept the paper. If a claim's only support lives in tier 3 or 4, the claim is unsupported for decision purposes.
The NAACL-specific space pressure: examples in other languages
Papers on Spanish, Portuguese, Haitian Creole, or Indigenous American languages carry a cost English-only papers never pay: every example needs the original line, a gloss, and a translation — three lines where a monolingual paper spends one. Budget for it deliberately:
- Keep two or three load-bearing glossed examples in the content pages — the ones your error analysis actually turns on.
- Move the example gallery to the appendix, one pointer per phenomenon.
- Never compress by dropping the gloss line; an unglossed example excludes every reviewer who does not read the language, which at a Nations-of-the-Americas venue is a strange own goal.
- Interlinear-gloss LaTeX packages (
gb4e,expex) interact badly with tight column budgets; test early, not the night before.
Limitations: uncounted but not unread
The Limitations section costs no pages, and reviewers check whether the weaknesses they found appear in it. Write it as the paper's honest edge:
- which language varieties and domains the claims do not extend to;
- resource asymmetries (a 7B model per language vs. one multilingual run);
- annotation limits — single-dialect annotators, small agreement samples;
- what the community-data terms prevented you from testing or releasing.
A Limitations section that predicts the reviews reads as mastery; one that lists "compute was limited" reads as filler.
Appendix construction discipline
- Every appendix section gets at least one forward reference from the content pages; unreferenced appendices are invisible.
- Order appendix sections by reference order, not by writing order.
- Tables that exist only to prove thoroughness (per-seed dumps, all-prompt grids) go last, clearly labeled as completeness material.
- Nothing decision-critical enters the appendix after the response window — reviewers scored the paper without it.
Tier migration during revision cycles
Material moves between tiers as the paper evolves, and each direction has a rule:
- Promotion (appendix → body): legitimate any time before upload; after reviews, promote only what the response window discussed — reviewers scored the body they read.
- Demotion (body → appendix): the standard compression move; leave a one-line summary plus pointer at the original location so the argument's spine stays visible.
- Resubmission reshuffles: if a prior cycle's reviewer ignored appendix evidence, the fix is usually promotion plus a change-summary line saying so — not a complaint that the evidence existed.
- Never migrate silently between the reviewed version and camera-ready: the tier map of the accepted paper is part of what was accepted.
Upload-tier packaging check
# Pre-upload sweep of the supplement archive
unzip -l supp.zip | grep -Ei '\.git/|DS_Store|__pycache__|\.ipynb_checkpoints'
# Anonymity: usernames, lab paths, letterheads
unzip -p supp.zip '*.md' '*.py' '*.txt' | grep -nEi '/(home|Users)/[a-z]+|university|lab\b'
# Size and openability on a clean machine
du -h supp.zip && unzip -t supp.zip > /dev/null && echo OK
Allocation walkthrough
A 9.5-page draft on named-entity recognition for three code-switched pairs: the per-pair ablation grid (0.7 pages) moves to the appendix behind one summary row; four of six glossed examples move to an appendix gallery; the dialect-coverage caveat moves out of a footnote into Limitations where it is free; the annotation guidelines PDF and scoring scripts go to the upload tier. Result: 8.0 content pages, no claim orphaned outside tier 1.
Output format
[Tier map] <major item -> tier -> justified?>
[Orphaned claims] <claims supported only outside content pages>
[Gloss budget] <examples kept in body / moved / at risk>
[Limitations audit] <predicted objections covered?>
[Archive sweep] clean / findings
Source: brycewang-stanford/Awesome-Journal-Skills → NAACL-Skills/skills/naacl-supplementary/SKILL.md