By name: aaai-submission description: Use when auditing an AAAI main technical track submission for OpenReview readiness, double-blind anonymity, page limits, reproducibility checklist, supplementary material, author limits, multiple-submission policy, and AAAI AI-use policy compliance.
AAAI Submission
Use this for an AAAI main technical track submission audit. Reopen the current conference page, Author Kit, CFP, submission instructions, review process page, supplementary-material page, and author policies before giving deadline-ready advice.
Submission audit
- Confirm the target track: Main Track, AI for Social Impact, AI Alignment, or another AAAI program. Track-specific rules can differ.
- Verify OpenReview account/profile readiness, conflicts, author list, subject areas, and submission metadata before the abstract and paper deadlines.
- Check the current AAAI author kit. AAAI-26 submissions used AAAI two-column camera-ready style, US Letter PDF, and 7 pages of technical content plus pages solely for references and the reproducibility checklist.
- Confirm double-blind compliance in the PDF, file names, references to prior work, supplement, code/data, and metadata. Omit acknowledgments in the review version.
- Include the reproducibility checklist after references when current instructions require it.
- Enforce the author submission limit and author-change rules. AAAI-26 limited each author to 10 combined technical-track submissions and did not allow authors to be added after submission.
- Check multiple-submission compliance. An AAAI submission under review cannot simultaneously be under review at another archival venue.
- Apply the current AAAI AI-use policy: editing/polishing author-written text may be allowed, but LLM-generated manuscript text, AI authorship, and AI-generated citations are policy risks.
Blocking risks
- Over-limit technical content or malformed PDF.
- Missing reproducibility checklist.
- Identity leakage in paper, supplement, links, code, data, or prior-work citations.
- Author added after the allowed window.
- Concurrent archival submission.
- Web pointers to mutable supplementary material.
- Policy-violating LLM-generated text, hallucinated references, or plagiarism.
Summary-reject screen
AAAI's large reviewer pool and high volume mean a desk-level or Phase-1 cut is the most likely way to lose, so screen for the mechanical failures first.
| Check | Fast-fail trigger | Where it bites |
|---|---|---|
| Page limit | technical content over the cap | desk return |
| Anonymity | author name in PDF, code, or metadata | policy reject |
| Checklist | missing or contradictory | Phase-1 distrust |
| Dual submission | concurrent archival venue | ethics reject |
Worked vignette
A robotics-learning team has 7 strong technical pages but left an acknowledgments line and a GitHub URL with their lab name in the supplement. The audit flags anonymity as the highest summary-reject risk: the fix order is strip the acknowledgment, replace the link with an anonymous archive, scrub ZIP metadata, then re-export and re-run the anonymity sweep before the paper deadline.
Output format
[AAAI readiness] Ready / Needs fixes / Not ready
[Track] Main / AI for Social Impact / AI Alignment / other
[Blocking checks] <page/anonymity/checklist/supplement/author-limit/dual-submission/AI-policy>
[Highest summary-reject risk] <one issue>
[Fix order] <ordered fixes before submission>