| name | ase-supplementary |
| description | Use when deciding what belongs in the 10-page ASE (IEEE/ACM Automated Software Engineering) paper body versus the artifact and supplementary material, splitting content by decision-criticality so nothing that decides acceptance lives outside the reviewed pages under the 10+2 budget. |
ASE Supplementary
Split content by decision-criticality. ASE gives you 10 pages of body (plus 2 for
references), and reviewers judge the paper on those pages. The artifact and any supplementary
material support reproduction and reuse — they do not carry the argument. The failure mode is
exiling a decision-critical result to the artifact and assuming reviewers will dig for it; they
judge what is in the body.
The decision-criticality rule
- In the body (must be within 10 pages): anything a reviewer needs to accept the paper — the
automated task, the technique, the headline results on real subjects, the closest baseline
comparison, the key ablation, and the central threats argument.
- In the artifact / supplement: everything needed to reproduce or reuse — full configurations,
complete result tables, extra subjects, proofs, additional plots, raw logs, and cached model
outputs.
If a result decides acceptance, it lives in the body even if space is tight; cut elsewhere.
What each container is for
| Content | Where | Why |
|---|
| Task, technique, headline evaluation, closest-baseline comparison, key ablation | Body (≤10 pp) | Decision-critical; reviewers score these |
| Central threats-to-validity argument | Body | Construct/oracle validity is judged, not reproduced |
| Data Availability Statement | Body, after Conclusions, inside 10 pp | Mandatory and reviewed |
| Full config files, seeds, environment | Artifact | Reproduction detail, not an argument |
| Complete/extra result tables, extra subjects | Artifact / supplement | Support, not headline |
| Proofs, derivations too long for the body | Artifact / supplement (if the venue permits) | Verification detail |
| Raw logs, cached LLM outputs, dataset snapshots | Artifact | Provenance and reuse |
The reviewer-behavior reality
- Reviewers may open the artifact to check a claim, but they will not reconstruct a headline
result from raw logs. State every acceptance-deciding number in the body with a pointer to where
the artifact backs it.
- A pointer to the artifact is a promise the body's claim is verifiable — not a substitute for
stating the claim.
- Keep the body self-contained: a reader who never opens the artifact should still be able to
judge the contribution.
Anonymity across containers
- The supplement and artifact are part of the double-anonymous submission: scrub tool names that
encode your identity, repository owners, and file paths.
- A result table in the artifact that reveals your institution's cluster paths is as much a leak as
a name on the PDF.
Space-recovery moves (before cutting content)
[Figures] merge redundant plots; one figure that carries the argument beats three that decorate.
[Tables] move exhaustive per-subject tables to the artifact; keep the summary with effect sizes.
[Prose] delete literature-tour sentences; related work is a delta argument, not a survey.
[Config] move full configurations to the artifact; keep the one setting that matters in the body.
[Roadmap] cut over-signposting; the arc should be visible without a paragraph announcing it.
Output format
[Decision-critical in body?] task / technique / headline results / baseline / key ablation / threats — all present within 10pp?
[Data Availability] in body, after Conclusions, inside 10pp?
[Artifact-only] configs / extra tables / proofs / logs / cached outputs -> not decision-critical?
[Self-contained] judgeable without opening the artifact? yes/no
[Anonymity] supplement + artifact scrubbed of identity? yes/no
