icalp-supplementary

name	icalp-supplementary
description	Use when splitting an ICALP (EATCS) theory paper between the 15-page main body and the clearly labelled appendix / full version — deciding what a referee must see in the body versus what may be deferred, ensuring every deferred proof is actually present and findable, and keeping the split consistent with lightweight double-blind review.

ICALP Supplementary (the body / appendix / full-version split)

ICALP gives you a 15-page body (excluding references and a clearly labelled appendix) plus an appendix that may hold omitted proofs or a full version, read at the program committee's discretion. The whole game is deciding what goes where: the body must let a referee judge and follow the paper; the appendix must let them verify it. Getting this split wrong — either cramming proofs into the body or hiding the substance in an unread appendix — is a common, avoidable weakness.

The governing principle

The body earns the referee's belief; the appendix earns their verification.

• The body contains the model, the theorem statements, the main ideas, the key lemmas, and enough of the central proof that a referee can see why it is true and that it is nontrivial.
• The appendix / full version contains the complete proofs, routine cases, and technical details a referee consults to confirm correctness.
• "At the PC's discretion" means the appendix is not guaranteed to be read — so nothing whose significance the referee must weigh may live only there.

What must be in the body

• The model and definitions needed to state the results.
• All headline theorem statements, positioned against prior bounds.
• The main technical idea — the new lemma or technique that makes the result work — at least in proof-sketch form with the key step shown.
• Enough structure that every deferred proof has a clear pointer ("full proof in Appendix B.2").

What may be deferred to the appendix / full version

• Complete proofs whose ideas are sketched in the body.
• Routine or standard arguments, long case analyses, and calculations.
• Auxiliary lemmas whose statements the body can cite.
• Supporting computation / certificates (see icalp-experiments, icalp-reproducibility).

The two failure modes

Failure	Symptom	Fix
Over-stuffed body	Every proof crammed into 15 pages; unreadable, over-budget	Move complete proofs to the appendix, keep sketches + key lemmas in the body
Hollow body	Body states theorems, all proofs (incl. the key idea) dumped in an unread appendix	Bring the central technique and the main lemma's proof idea into the body

The hollow body is the more dangerous: referees judge on the body, and a paper whose substance they cannot see reads as either thin or evasive, even if the appendix is perfect.

Completeness and findability

• Every deferred proof must actually exist in the appendix / full version. "Proof omitted" with no full version is a soundness failure, not a space saving (icalp-reproducibility).
• Deferred proofs must be findable: label appendix sections to match the body's pointers so a referee spends seconds, not minutes, locating a step.
• Keep the submission appendix and any public full version consistent in content.

Double-blind consistency

• The appendix / full version is part of the anonymous submission: no author names, acknowledgements, grant numbers, or de-anonymizing links there either.
• If you host a full version on arXiv, refer to it as "the full version" without the identifying handle during review (icalp-submission).

Worked split: a two-theorem paper

An algorithm (Thm 1) and a matching conditional lower bound (Thm 2). Body: the model; both theorem statements with the prior-bound comparison; the algorithm's design and the one key invariant proved; the reduction's construction and its intuition. Appendix / full version: the full correctness proof and complexity analysis of the algorithm; the complete case analysis of the reduction; a computer-checked verification of the gadget. Result: a referee can judge significance and follow both ideas from the body, then verify every detail in the appendix.

Output format

[Body budget] <=15pp excl. refs + appendix; over/under
[In body] model / theorem statements / key technique / main-lemma idea: all present? gaps
[Deferred] complete proofs, routine cases, computation — each with a body pointer? yes/no
[Hollow-body check] is the central idea visible in the body (not only the appendix)? yes/no
[Completeness] every deferred proof actually present and findable? yes/no
[Anonymity] appendix/full version scrubbed and referenced without de-anonymizing? yes/no
[Fix queue] <ordered moves between body and appendix>