name: aamas-supplementary description: Use when preparing AAMAS supplementary material - proofs, extended game and mechanism definitions, extra multiagent experiments, opponent-set details, and the anonymized artifact zip - under the size cap, anonymity, and reviewer-discretion limits, including how to split a game-theory-plus-experiments paper across the 8-page body and the supplement.

AAMAS Supplementary

Use this when assembling AAMAS supplementary material. The supplement can support the paper, but the 8-page main submission must stand on its own; a body that is unintelligible without the appendix reads as unreviewable within the page limit.

Supplement structure

• Put full proofs, extended game and mechanism definitions, extra ablations, opponent-set documentation, and robustness tables in a clean appendix or supplementary document.
• Put executable assets - game code, environments, learning rules - in the anonymized zip when the current OpenReview form allows it.
• Respect the current supplement size cap (25 MB single zip in 2026) and the deadline.
• Keep every supplementary file double-blind: no authors, institutions, acknowledgements, private paths, repository owners, or identifying metadata.
• Do not hide essential motivation, the core game definition, the main theorem statements, or the primary interaction results in the supplement.
• Verify the archive opens on a clean machine and carries no credentials, caches, or OS metadata.

Appendix architecture for proofs and games

• Order appendix sections to mirror the body: game and notation, main proofs, auxiliary lemmas, additional agents/opponents, then extended experiments.
• Restate each theorem and the relevant game before its proof so the appendix reads standalone without flipping back to the two-column body.
• Keep one proof sketch and the full game definition in the body itself; an AAMAS paper whose entire strategic argument lives in the appendix cannot be judged in eight pages.
• Cross-reference every appendix table, lemma, and opponent set from the body at least once; orphaned supplement material is invisible under reviewer discretion.

What gets opened first

| Supplement item | Inspection likelihood | Practical implication | |---|---|---| | Proof of the headline equilibrium/mechanism result | High | Polish to main-text standard | | Extended game or environment definition | High | Reviewers reconstruct the interaction from it | | Extra opponent/population results | Medium | Reference each from the body | | Code/environment archive | Variable, reviewer discretion | README must orient a reader in one minute | | Raw episode logs | Low | Include for completeness, never rely on them |

Vignette: splitting a mechanism-design paper

A submission proving a truthful decentralized mechanism plus a self-play study: the body keeps the mechanism definition, the dominant-strategy theorem, one proof sketch, and the two decision-critical figures (truthfulness under learning and the efficiency gap); the appendix holds full proofs and sensitivity sweeps; the zip carries the game generator and the strategic-deviation harness. Nothing decision-critical lives only in the zip, because archive inspection is discretionary.

Output format

[Supplement status] Ready / Needs fixes / Not ready
[Files] <appendix/proofs/game-defs/code/logs>
[Size/deadline] <current cap and deadline with source>
[Anonymity checks] <passed/issues>
[Main-paper dependency] <what breaks if supplement is ignored>