| name | dac-supplementary |
| description | Use when deciding what belongs inside the six reviewed pages of an ACM/IEEE Design Automation Conference (DAC) Research Manuscript versus in an external repository, given DAC's tight 6+1 budget, its references-only seventh page, the double-blind constraint on any linked material, and the absence of a formal reviewed-appendix or artifact-badging track. |
DAC Supplementary Material
Use this to split content between the reviewed pages and anything external. DAC's constraint is
severe and specific: the manuscript is 6 pages of body plus one references-only page, and unlike
some venues DAC does not provide an unlimited reviewed appendix or a formal artifact-evaluation
track (待核实 per cycle). The governing rule follows directly: anything that decides
acceptance must fit inside the six body pages, because a reviewer is neither obligated to nor
guaranteed to open external material.
The decision-criticality test
For each piece of content, ask: would a reviewer need this to be convinced the contribution is real
and the QoR claim is fair? If yes, it belongs in the body. If it merely lets a motivated reader
reproduce or extend the work, it can live externally.
| Content | Where it goes | Why |
|---|
| The headline QoR results and the mechanism | Body (6 pages) | Decision-critical; reviewers judge on these |
| Per-benchmark result table for the main claim | Body | The fairness of the comparison is the paper |
| The key ablation | Body | Attribution of the gain is decision-critical |
| Full hyperparameter grids, extra corners, exhaustive per-instance logs | External repo | Supports reproduction, does not decide acceptance |
| Source code, scripts, generated datasets | External repo | Reproducibility, not a reviewed deliverable |
| Extra proofs/derivations too long for six pages | External repo, with the result stated in-body | The claim must stand in-body; detail can be external |
The seventh page is references only
DAC's most mechanical rule: the one extra page holds references and nothing else. Do not treat
it as an appendix — an extra figure, a paragraph, or a table there is grounds for desk rejection
(../dac-submission). Plan the technical argument to end cleanly at page six.
External material under double-blind
If you link a repository, dataset, or artifact at review time, it must be anonymized exactly
like the PDF:
- No author names, institution names, or lab-named tools in the repo, README, or commit metadata.
- Host on an anonymizing service or a fresh anonymous mirror; a personal GitHub URL de-anonymizes.
- Strip cluster paths, internal server names, and vendor-flow fingerprints from any logs or scripts
you include.
- Remember reviewers may not open it — so external material can only strengthen a paper that
already stands on its six pages, never rescue one that does not.
What DAC does not have (plan accordingly)
- No formal reviewed appendix — do not write "see the appendix" for anything decision-critical;
there is no guaranteed extra reviewed space beyond the six pages.
- No standing ACM artifact-badging track for research manuscripts (待核实) — so an artifact
earns you credibility and citations, not a badge; build it for reproducibility and community use,
not for a review score (
../dac-artifact-evaluation, ../dac-reproducibility).
Compression before relegation
Before moving something out, try to earn its space in the body: convert a prose result to a
compact table, merge two figures, cut standard EDA background the reviewers already know. Six dense
double-column pages hold more than first drafts assume.
Output format
[Split audit] each item -> body (decision-critical) / external (reproduction) / cut
[Seventh page] references only, no body content? yes/no
[External anon] linked repo/dataset/artifact anonymized? reviewer-optional acknowledged? yes/no
[Stands alone] does the paper convince on its six pages without external material? yes/no
[Compression] space reclaimed before relegating anything? yes/no
