--- name: cikm-supplementary description: Use when deciding what supporting material accompanies a CIKM submission given budgets that count appendices inside the page limit, structuring the in-PDF appendix versus the anonymously cited artifact, keeping both double-blind, and handling the uncounted GenAI-disclosure and reference sections correctly. --- # CIKM Supplementary CIKM 2026 gives supporting material no free rider: every track's budget counts the appendix **inside** the page limit — 10 pages for full papers, 4/7/4/4 for short/applied/resource/demo — and only the references (full track: up to 2 pages) plus the GenAI Usage Disclosure section sit outside it (source map, 2026-07-08). There is no separate supplementary-upload channel in the verified 2026 calls. The design question is therefore three-way: costed appendix pages, the anonymously cited artifact, or cut. ## The three containers | Container | Costs | Right contents | |---|---|---| | Main body | Budget pages | Everything needed to evaluate the claim unaided | | In-PDF appendix | **Budget pages too** | Only material reviewers must see *during* review that the body cannot hold: a proof, a prompt set, a schema diagram | | Cited anonymous artifact | Zero pages, but discretionary attention | Configs, full hyperparameter grids, extra per-dataset tables, code, data cards | Decision rule per candidate item: *must a reviewer see this to score the paper?* If yes and it is short, appendix — knowing it displaces body content one-for-one. If yes and it is long, restructure the body so a summary suffices, and put the whole in the artifact. If no, artifact or delete. ## Building the anonymous artifact - Host with an anonymity-preserving service (anonymized repository links of the usual kind); the URL, commit history, issue templates, CI badges, and README must not resolve to authors or institutions. - Strip notebook metadata, license headers naming people, internal hostnames, and data paths like `/home/username/` — the classic leak channels. - Structure for a ten-minute reviewer visit: a top-level README mapping paper section → directory, and one script per headline table. Reviewers sample; make the sample they take be the strongest material. - Reference the artifact from the PDF at the point of relevance ("full grids: artifact §3"), not only in a final availability statement, so the pointer is found when the question arises. ## What the uncounted sections may and may not carry The GenAI Usage Disclosure section and the references are outside the budget — and they are not overflow space. Substantive results, extra experiments, or method details placed there violate the sections' declared purposes and read as budget gaming to a panel that sees the trick every year. The disclosure section carries disclosure; references carry references; nothing else. ## Appendix design rules (for the pages you do spend) When appendix pages are budget pages, they must earn their cost like body pages: - Order appendix sections by reference order from the body, and give each a one-line purpose header ("A. Prompt templates used in §4.3") — a reviewer arriving from a citation should land exactly where sent. - No orphans: appendix content never referenced from the body is invisible at best and budget-waste at worst; either reference it or move it to the artifact. - Keep appendix tables to the same caption standard as body tables (protocol, variance, source); reviewers do not lower standards past the references. - Never let the appendix complete an incomplete body argument. The body must stand alone; the appendix substantiates, it does not continue. ## Reviewer-attention economics Plan the material split around how attention actually distributes: | Material location | Realistic reviewer attention | Design consequence | |---|---|---| | Body pages 1-2 | Everyone, carefully | The whole argument, compressed | | Body middle | Everyone, once | Protocol and headline evidence | | In-PDF appendix | Sometimes, when following a specific doubt | Doubt-resolving material only | | Artifact README | A minority, for ~10 minutes | Orientation + strongest single script | | Artifact internals | Rarely, and only if the README earned trust | Completeness, not persuasion | The split fails when persuasion-critical material sits below its audience's attention line — which is why "nothing decision-critical lives only in the artifact" recurs across this pack. ## Worked split: a 13-page full-paper draft A draft holds 9 pages of core, 2 pages of extra per-dataset tables, 1 page of prompts, 1 page of proofs. Target: 10 including appendix. Moves: per-dataset tables → artifact, keeping one summary row per dataset in the body (saves ~1.7 pages); prompts → appendix at half a page by showing one template plus deltas, full set → artifact; proof → appendix, compressed to the lemma statements with the full derivation in the artifact. Result: 10 pages with the review-critical material still in the PDF, and nothing decision-relevant living solely in the artifact — because artifact inspection is at reviewer discretion, never guaranteed. ## Version-consistency discipline Body, appendix, and artifact are three copies of one experimental truth, and they drift independently under deadline pressure. Locks that prevent it: generate paper tables from the same logged results the artifact ships (one source of numbers, two renderings); when a result updates, update body summary, appendix table, and artifact data in the same commit; and record in the artifact README which commit corresponds to the submitted PDF, so a reviewer comparing the two sees agreement, not archaeology. A number that differs between the PDF and the artifact is read as sloppiness at best — and at a venue that reserves automated compliance checking, consistency across submitted surfaces is the cheap kind of integrity to maintain. ## Pre-upload verification ```text [ ] Page count with appendix ≤ track budget (measure, don't estimate) [ ] Artifact URL anonymous end-to-end (open it logged out; check git log) [ ] Every artifact pointer in the PDF resolves to real content [ ] GenAI/reference sections carry only their declared content [ ] Body survives a reviewer who never opens the artifact ``` ## Output format ```text [Budget state] [Split map] [Artifact health] anonymity / README / per-table scripts [Gaming check] uncounted sections clean? [Residual risk] ```