brycewang-stanford ICDT Supplementary Material
Decide what goes in the body, what goes in the appendix, and — the ICDT-specific constraint — accept that there is no online supplement. ICDT allows a clearly marked appendix inside the submission PDF, read at the discretion of the program committee, but it does not allow online/external appendices. So everything a referee could need to certify your theorem must be in the one PDF, and you must write the body assuming the appendix might not be read.
The one hard rule
The 15-page body (excluding references) must let a referee judge that the result is correct and significant on its own. The appendix supplies the full proofs for the referee who chooses to check them. Nothing decision-critical may depend on material outside the submitted PDF.
Because online appendices are forbidden, you cannot offload proofs to arXiv "for the reviewers." The full version on arXiv is for readers after publication; the reviewed object is the single PDF.
What belongs where
| Content | Location | Reason |
|---|---|---|
| Definitions, models, main theorem statements | Body | The referee must have them to judge the claim |
| Proof ideas / sketches of the main results | Body | Enough to make correctness plausible without the appendix |
| Full, detailed proofs | Marked appendix | Read at the PC's discretion; keep the body within budget |
| Routine lemmas and calculations | Appendix | Necessary but not illuminating in the body |
| A worked example that clarifies the construction | Body | High-value, checkable by hand; earns its space |
| Extended related work, tables of cases | Appendix | Useful reference, not needed to follow the argument |
| Anything that decides acceptance | Body (at least in sketch) | A referee who skips the appendix must still be convinced |
Writing for "read at the PC's discretion"
Referees may or may not open the appendix, so:
- Self-contained body: each main theorem has, in the body, either a proof or a sketch detailed enough that a referee believes it is provable and sees the key step.
- Signposted appendix: label appendix sections to match the theorems ("Appendix A: Proof of Theorem 3"), so a referee checking one claim finds it instantly.
- No forward-dependence on the appendix for understanding — the body should never say "see the appendix for what this means"; definitions and statements are in the body.
- The appendix is proofs, not new results — do not smuggle an additional theorem into the appendix to dodge the page limit; a result that matters belongs in the body.
What the appendix is not
- Not an online link. No "additional experiments/proofs available at " for the review — the URL both breaks the no-online-appendix rule and can de-anonymize you.
- Not overflow for a too-long paper. If the body cannot state the contribution in 15 pages, the fix is compression or splitting the result, not exiling half the argument to the appendix.
- Not a dumping ground — an unreadable 40-page appendix is as unpersuasive as no proof; keep it organized and referee-navigable.
The full version (separate from the appendix)
Keep a full version with all proofs, typically on arXiv, for after acceptance. It is the
permanent scholarly record and the thing the camera-ready references — but it plays no role in the
anonymous review, where only the single PDF counts. See icdt-camera-ready for linking it and
icdt-reproducibility for keeping it consistent with the published version.
Output format
[Body self-sufficiency] every acceptance-critical claim provable-from-the-body (>= sketch)? yes/no
[Appendix] present, clearly marked, signposted per theorem? yes/no
[No-online-appendix] zero external links required for review? yes/no
[Budget] body <= 15 pages excl. refs? yes/no
[Fix queue] <move X to body / compress Y / no external dependence>