The question from /u/drahcirenoob cuts to a tension that every reviewer and author feels during the rebuttal period: how much transparency is too much, and when does sharing cross into policy trouble? Our read is straightforward. Submitting additional figures or code through an anonymized repository to support a rebuttal is not against ICML's guidelines, provided the anonymity is genuine and the material directly addresses reviewer concerns. The policy is about preserving double-blind integrity, not about limiting how you clarify your work.
That distinction matters in practice. An anonymized repo like anonymous.4open.science is designed precisely for this kind of exchange, it lets you share code, figures, or even extended analyses without revealing identity. If you strip metadata, avoid naming your institution, and keep the content focused on the questions raised, you are operating within the spirit of the rules. The key is intent and execution. Sharing extra graphs to make your point clearer is a constructive move, not an end-run around the process. Reviewers often appreciate the effort to engage substantively, and a well-organized supplementary figure can reduce ambiguity faster than a paragraph of text ever could.
What we would caution against is treating the repository as a place to dump new experiments or to relitigate settled points. The rebuttal phase is for clarification, not expansion. If your additional material introduces a new line of inquiry or relies on unpublished data that the other reviewers cannot access, you have shifted the goalposts. That is where problems arise, not because you shared, but because you strayed from the narrow purpose of addressing feedback. Stay disciplined. Answer the question asked, show the supporting evidence, and stop there.
For authors reading this, the practical takeaway is simple: use the tools available, but use them with precision. Anonymized repos are a legitimate channel for strengthening your case. Just remember that the goal is not to impress with volume; it is to make your existing claims more convincing. If your added graphs or code do that without breaking anonymity or expanding scope, you are on solid ground. When in doubt, ask the area chair. A quick note to clarify expectations costs little and prevents a misunderstanding that could undermine weeks of work. Clarity is the currency of a fair review, and you can never have too much of it.