--- name: icdm-related-work description: Use when positioning an ICDM (IEEE International Conference on Data Mining) paper's related work - lineage against prior ICDM editions and IEEE data-mining neighbors, the mechanism-contrast novelty sentence, avoiding KDD/SDM/CIKM/WSDM venue misattribution, and citing your own prior work in the third person so the section stays triple-blind-safe. --- # ICDM Related Work Position the paper against the data-mining literature the way an ICDM reviewer reads it: by **mechanism and mining task**, not by benchmark leaderboard. The section has two ICDM constraints — it must contrast your *mechanism* with prior mechanisms, and it must do so without breaking the Research Track's triple-blind anonymity or misattributing sibling-venue work to ICDM. ## Position by mechanism, not by results table - For each closely related method, state what mechanism it uses and the specific thing your mechanism changes: the isolation criterion, the sparsity structure, the walk kernel, the sketch, the update rule. "We also do anomaly detection" is not positioning. - Group prior work by the mining primitive it shares with you, so the reader sees the lineage your contribution extends or breaks. - End the closest-competitor paragraph with a **one-sentence mechanism-contrast**: "Unlike [X], which stores the full graph to compute isolation depth, our sketch estimates it in one pass with a stated error." That sentence is the novelty claim reviewers quote. ## Cite the ICDM lineage where it exists ICDM has durable research lines you can anchor to — random walks with restart, isolation-based detection, sparse linear recommendation, scalable graph systems, corrected time-series averaging (see `resources/exemplars/library.md`). Situating your work in an ICDM line signals venue fit. But cite the paper for its *mechanism*, and verify the edition on dblp before attributing anything. ## The misattribution trap Data-mining fame does not mean ICDM placement. Getting a venue wrong in related work is a credibility hit a data-mining reviewer notices immediately. | Paper / method | Actual venue | Not | |---|---|---| | node2vec, DeepWalk | KDD | ICDM | | LINE (network embedding) | WWW | ICDM | | SMOTE | JAIR (journal) | ICDM | | t-SNE, Kernel Two-Sample Test | JMLR (journal) | ICDM | | Many "SDM" mining papers | SDM (SIAM) | ICDM | Check each citation's venue on dblp; ICDM, KDD, CIKM, WSDM, and SDM overlap in topic and are easy to confuse. ## Keep it triple-blind-safe - Cite your own prior work in the **third person**: "Building on the sketch of [12]," not "building on our sketch of [12]." - Do not signal a research program only your group could have ("in our line of work on X"). - Do not cite an anonymized-breaking preprint by a title that de-anonymizes you; if a concurrent arXiv version exists, follow the current call's policy on declaring it. ## Handle concurrent and recent work - ICDM's June deadline sits after the spring conference season; recent CIKM, WWW, and KDD cycles may contain concurrent work. Acknowledge genuinely concurrent results as concurrent, not as prior art you failed to beat. - Because the whole section lives inside the 10-page all-inclusive cap, prune citations that do not sharpen the mechanism contrast; a padded related-work section costs you body space. ## Vignette: a novelty sentence that survived review An author's first draft said "our method is related to random-walk methods and embedding methods." The revision named the closest competitor's mechanism (full-graph restart computation), stated the delta (single-pass estimation with a bound), verified on dblp that the competitor was an ICDM paper and that a wrongly-cited "ICDM" embedding paper was actually a KDD paper, and rewrote the self-citation in the third person. The section shrank by a third and the novelty claim became a single quotable sentence. ## Output format ```text [Positioning] mechanism-contrast / results-only (fix if results-only) [Novelty sentence] [Venue check] all citations verified on dblp: yes / misattributions found [Anonymity] third-person self-cites: yes / leaks found [Trim list] ```