| 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
[ ] 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
[Budget state] <measured pages incl. appendix vs. track limit>
[Split map] <item → body / appendix / artifact / cut>
[Artifact health] anonymity / README / per-table scripts
[Gaming check] uncounted sections clean?
[Residual risk] <what a no-artifact reviewer would still miss>
