Skills Soft Skills Structuring Technical Academic Manuscripts

Structuring Technical Academic Manuscripts

v20260724
colt-supplementary
This guide provides best practices for structuring complex academic manuscripts, particularly for conferences requiring a single-PDF submission model. It details how to optimally split content between the limited body (e.g., 12 pages) and the extensive appendix, ensuring that the crucial theorems, proofs, and auxiliary lemmas are presented in a verifiable and highly readable manner for peer reviewers. Key techniques include implementing restatement discipline and writing roadmap paragraphs for clear verification paths.
Get Skill
147 downloads
Overview

COLT Supplementary

COLT's "supplementary material" is the appendix of the same PDF: the 2026 CFP (checked 2026-07-08) capped the main body at 12 PMLR-formatted pages excluding references and put no page limit on references and appendices, with the entire manuscript submitted as a single file. There is no separate upload, no later supplement deadline, and no distinction between "appendix" and "supplement" — which changes how you should architect the document compared to venues with detached supplements.

Consequences of the single-PDF model

  • The appendix is unambiguously part of the reviewed record; referees are choosing to read it, not to download it. Lower the cost of that choice.
  • Nothing can be added after the deadline. A proof hole discovered post-submission cannot be patched by a supplement upload the way an artifact fix sometimes can elsewhere.
  • Length is free but attention is not: a 60-page appendix is normal at COLT, a disorganized one is a soft reject, because the referee's verification budget is the binding constraint.

The 12-page split decision

What must stay in the body:

  • Formal problem setup: the model, the interaction protocol, the adversary or distributional assumptions, and the performance measure — complete, not "see Appendix A for the model."
  • Every main theorem statement, with all hypotheses visible.
  • A proof overview per main theorem: the decomposition, the key lemma, and the step where prior techniques fail. This is what earns the referee's appendix time.
  • The comparison to nearest prior bounds (a small table often beats prose).

What belongs in the appendix: full proofs, auxiliary lemmas, generalized statements, deferred case analyses, extended related work, and any numerical-illustration details.

Appendix architecture that referees can verify

Appendix section Contents Referee use pattern
A. Notation and preliminaries Symbol table, standard inequalities used Consulted repeatedly; keep to 2-3 pages
B. Proof of Theorem 1 Restated theorem, roadmap paragraph, main lemmas, proof Read linearly, checked line by line
C. Proof of Theorem 2 Same pattern Read only if Theorem 2 matters to the referee
D. Auxiliary lemmas Technical facts shared across proofs Jumped to via references
E. Deferred discussion / numerics Extensions, illustration details Skimmed

Ordering rule: appendix sections mirror body theorem order, and each proof section is self-contained modulo Appendix A and D — a referee verifying Theorem 2 must never need to have read the proof of Theorem 1 unless the dependency is real and declared.

Restatement discipline

Restate every theorem and lemma before its appendix proof, with identical numbering, via a restatable environment rather than copy-paste (drift between two hand-maintained copies of a theorem is a notorious COLT embarrassment):

\usepackage{thmtools, thm-restate}

\declaretheorem[name=Theorem]{theorem}

% In the body:
\begin{restatable}{theorem}{mainregret}\label{thm:main}
Under Assumptions 1--2, ALG attains $R_T = O(\sqrt{dT\log K})$.
\end{restatable}

% In Appendix B:
\mainregret*   % re-renders Theorem 1 verbatim, same number
\begin{proof}
We decompose the regret as ... (roadmap sentence first, then the argument).
\end{proof}

Roadmap paragraphs are load-bearing

Open each major appendix proof with 4-6 sentences: the decomposition, what each lemma contributes, where the novelty sits, and which steps are routine. Referees use the roadmap to allocate verification effort; proofs without one get either shallow reads (bad for credit) or suspicious reads (bad for scores).

Vignette: splitting a two-theorem online-learning paper

A draft proves an upper bound (algorithm + potential argument, 14 pages of proof) and a lower bound (instance family + information argument, 9 pages), plus one simulation. The COLT-shaped split:

  • Body: protocol and definitions (2 pp), both theorem statements with remarks (2.5 pp), upper-bound overview with the potential function displayed and one key lemma proved in full (3 pp), lower-bound overview with the instance family drawn as a figure (2 pp), related-work table and discussion (1.5 pp), simulation figure with a two-sentence reading (0.5 pp), intro (1.5 pp) — twelve and a half, so the second remark and one corollary move to the appendix to make twelve.
  • Appendix: A notation; B full upper-bound proof (restated theorem, roadmap, lemmas); C full lower-bound proof; D auxiliary facts; E simulation procedure.
  • The key-lemma-in-body choice is deliberate: proving one central lemma completely in the body demonstrates the paper's proof standard where every referee will read it.

Common appendix defects at COLT

  • Lemma used before it is stated anywhere, forcing a forward hunt.
  • "By a standard argument" covering the one step that is actually new.
  • Notation redefined locally inside an appendix section, colliding with Appendix A.
  • Case analyses whose cases do not visibly exhaust the space.
  • Cross-references into the body by page number instead of by label (page numbers shift when the class file changes at camera-ready).
  • Illustration figures buried between proofs, breaking the verification flow — give numerics their own terminal section.

Cycle-volatility warnings

  • The unlimited-appendix, single-PDF rule is the 2026 formulation; earlier cycles phrased limits differently and later ones may again (待核实 in each CFP).
  • If a cycle ever adds a separate supplement channel or reviewable-code slot, its CFP will say so; do not assume either from this file.

Output format

[Split verdict] body self-contained / decision-critical material trapped in appendix
[Appendix map] <section -> theorem it serves>
[Restatement check] restatable environments / copy-paste risk
[Roadmaps] present for <k>/<n> major proofs
[Top structural fix] <one reorganization with highest referee payoff>
Info
Category Soft Skills
Name colt-supplementary
Version v20260724
Size 6.23KB
Updated At 2026-07-28
Language