--- name: kdd-workflow description: Use when planning a KDD project calendar across the venue's two submission cycles per year, including cycle choice, abstract-then-paper deadline pairs a week apart, rebuttal capacity planning, the Resubmit-to-next-cycle loop, ADS evidence lead times, and ACM e-rights/TAPS camera-ready scheduling for SIGKDD. --- # KDD Workflow Use this as the project-management layer. KDD's calendar is structurally different from single-deadline ML venues: **two cycles per year**, each with an abstract deadline about one week before the paper deadline (2026 anchors: Jul 24/Jul 31, 2025 and Feb 1/Feb 8, 2026, AoE), a rebuttal window inside review, and a Resubmit outcome that connects the cycles into a pipeline. Plan the pipeline, not a single date. KDD is an ACM conference, not a journal: no standing editor, leadership rotates per edition (the KDD 2026 committee roster lives on the conference site; individual names 待核实 before citing), and the cost surface is registration plus, under ACM Open, a possible APC for authors at non-participating institutions — with a temporary 65% ACM subsidy announced for 2026. Verify all money facts against current pages. ## Cycle-choice decision | Situation | Choose | Reasoning | |---|---|---| | Evidence complete, paper drafted | Nearest cycle | Waiting adds staleness risk in fast subfields | | Core result solid, ablations/scale runs missing | Next cycle | Rebuttal cannot carry links, so missing evidence has no delivery channel later | | Prior cycle returned Resubmit | Next cycle, always declared | Addressed resubmissions carry better odds per the CFP; the forum id travels with you | | ADS paper, launch too recent to measure | Cycle after the measurement window closes | The desk-check needs quantified post-launch numbers, not projections | ## Pipeline milestones (per cycle) - **T-10 weeks — evidence lock plan**: four-axis experiment plan agreed (`kdd-experiments`); ADS measurement windows already running. - **T-6 weeks — mechanism freeze**: no new components after this point; ablation matrix enumerable. - **T-4 weeks — draft in acmart**: writing directly in the two-column format; scale runs queued (cluster time is the real deadline for large-data papers). - **T-2 weeks — artifact freeze**: anonymized repository built fresh, cited in the PDF, smoke-tested on a clean machine (`kdd-artifact-evaluation`). - **T-1 week — abstract deadline**: title/abstract/authors/track registered; all co-author OpenReview profiles complete (five-year history, DBLP, ORCID — chasing this is a named person's job). - **T-0 — paper deadline**: submission audit (`kdd-submission`); ADS deployment quantification pointed to; resubmission declarations attached. - **Review window — rebuttal capacity**: reserve author-days in advance; per-review responses under a link ban are writing-intensive (`kdd-author-response`). - **Decision — branch**: Accept → e-rights + TAPS + APC status check (`kdd-camera-ready`); Resubmit → change-summary plan against the review contract; Reject → routing decision (`kdd-topic-selection`). ## The Resubmit loop as a plan ```yaml # kdd-pipeline.yaml - one paper, tracked across cycles paper: streamhive track: research cycle_history: - cycle: 2026-C1 outcome: resubmit contract: # concerns named in reviews = next cycle's spec - temporal-split rebuild (R2) - decay-mechanism ablation (R1) - scale claim beyond 10M edges (R3) - cycle: 2026-C2 changes_summary_page: drafted # mandatory first page of the PDF prior_forum_id: declared new_evidence: [table5_ablation, 2.1B_run, rebuilt_splits] owners: profiles_gate: # co-author OpenReview completeness artifact_freeze: rebuttal_window: ``` The discipline: the review contract is written down the day reviews arrive, and every contract item maps to a change-summary line before the next cycle's abstract deadline. ## Failure modes on this calendar - Treating the abstract deadline as soft: at KDD it gates the submission and the track choice; a placeholder abstract in the wrong track is a real incident. - Discovering an incomplete co-author profile on paper-deadline day — the one blocker that requires someone else's login to fix. - Queuing the largest-scale run after the draft: at KDD the scale run *is* the contribution evidence, not a garnish, and clusters have queues. - Winning a Resubmit and then re-litigating the reviews instead of executing the contract — the returning AC checks the named concerns first. - Forgetting that notification and camera-ready dates for the current cycle were never verified (待核实) and promising co-authors a calendar the venue never published. ## Vignette: one paper, three cycles, two tracks A team's trajectory that the pipeline model handles cleanly: Cycle 1, the sampling method goes to Research and draws a Resubmit with three named concerns. Between cycles, the method also ships inside the company's ranking system. Cycle 2 now offers a fork: return the Research paper with the contract executed, or wait one more cycle and submit the deployed system to ADS with a real measurement window. The pipeline answer: do both, sequenced — Research resubmission in Cycle 2 (the contract items are done and Resubmit standing decays with staleness), ADS submission the following cycle once the post-launch window closes. Two papers, two tracks, no dual-submission conflict, each riding the evidence it actually has (`kdd-topic-selection` governs the fork; `kdd-related-work` governs the overlap declarations between them). ## Capacity planning numbers Planning heuristics — replace with your team's observed values after one cycle: - Rebuttal window: one author-day per review for text-only responses; double it if any new run is permitted and needed. - Anonymized artifact build from a mature internal repo: 2-3 days including the clean-machine smoke test, dominated by de-identification review. - ADS measurement window: whatever the CFP demands is a floor; credible pre/post or A/B windows are typically weeks, which is why the ADS decision happens a quarter early, not a deadline-month early. - Profile-gate sweep across N co-authors: an hour of work, a week of waiting on other people — start it at abstract-minus-two-weeks. ## Output format ```text [Pipeline stage] planning / evidence / drafting / submitted-C / rebuttal / decision-branch [Cycle target] [Critical path] [Resubmit contract] [Money checks] ACM Open status / APC exposure / registration (待核实 items flagged) [Owner map] profiles: / artifact: / rebuttal: ```