Kdd Supplementary

KDD Supplementary

Use this when distributing material across the three containers a KDD submission actually has: the 8 content pages, the optional appendix after the references, and the repository cited in the PDF. KDD has no separate supplement upload deadline in the 2026 pattern — the appendix travels inside the submission PDF — which makes the split decision a writing-time decision, not a deadline-week one.

The container model

The asymmetry between submission and camera-ready is the planning trap: an appendix that balloons to 15 pages at submission must shrink to fit references + appendix within 3 pages of the 12-page proceedings version. Anything you are not prepared to delete or migrate to the repository later should not be load-bearing in review.

What belongs where

Content pages — everything a reviewer needs to score the paper: the mechanism, the main comparison table, the mechanism-isolating ablation, complexity statements, the deployment metrics (ADS). The KDD failure pattern is a body that reads like an extended abstract with "see Appendix" doing the arguing; reviewers score what they can see in eight pages.

Appendix — proofs of stated propositions, full hyperparameter grids, per-dataset result breakdowns, extra case studies, prompt/feature inventories, dataset documentation. Order it by reference-frequency from the body, restate each claim before its proof, and reference every appendix table from the body at least once — orphaned appendix material is invisible under reviewer discretion.

Repository — anything executable, anything larger than a page of tables, extended logs, and full configs. Remember the one-way door: the repo must be cited in the PDF at submission because rebuttals cannot introduce links (see kdd-artifact-evaluation).

Resubmission special page

A paper returning after a Resubmit decision prepends a one-page summary of changes as the first page of the PDF, alongside the previous OpenReview forum id in the form. Treat that page as the highest-value real estate in the resubmission:

Summary of Changes (Resubmission of forum <id>)

R1-W1 "no ablation isolating the decay mechanism"
  -> New Table 5 (Sec 5.3): decay ablation across all datasets.
R2-W1 "temporal leakage suspected in splits"
  -> Splits rebuilt time-ordered (Sec 4.2); all tables regenerated;
     headline delta changed from +4.1 to +3.3, conclusions unchanged.
R3-W2 "claims exceed tested scale"
  -> Claim scoped to <=2.1B events (Abstract, Sec 1); added 2.1B-event run.
Unaddressed: R2-W3 (user study) - out of scope, argued in Sec 6.

Point-by-point, mapped to sections, honest about what changed numerically and what was declined — this is the page the new area chair reads first.

Appendix triage pass (pre-deadline)

1. List every appendix section with the body reference(s) that point to it; delete sections with zero inbound references or add the reference.
2. For each, ask: if a reviewer never opens this, does any scored dimension drop? If yes, promote its key row/claim into the body.
3. Mark each section's camera-ready fate now: migrate-to-body, compress, move-to-repo, or cut — the 3-page cap arrives with acceptance.
4. Anonymity-sweep the appendix with the same rigor as the body; grant numbers and internal system names hide in appendix footnotes.

Vignette: splitting a graph-systems paper

A submission proposes a partitioning scheme for distributed GNN training with a cost-model analysis, twelve datasets, and a parameter study. The split that survives both review and the eventual 3-page cap:

• Body: the partitioning mechanism with its one algorithm block, the cost-model proposition (statement plus intuition), the main table on the five most informative datasets, the mechanism ablation, and the scaling figure.
• Appendix: the cost-model proof, the remaining seven datasets' rows, the full parameter sweep, and cluster configuration details — each referenced from the body ("full results in Appendix A.2").
• Repository: the partitioner implementation, per-dataset configs, the raw sweep logs, and the plotting scripts.
• Camera-ready fates decided at submission time: proof → compress to one column; seven-dataset table → move to repo with a pointer; parameter sweep → cut, summary sentence stays.

Nothing in the appendix is load-bearing for the score; everything in it answers a question a reviewer might ask. That is the target state.

Appendix anti-patterns seen at this venue

• The overflow appendix: paragraphs that clearly belong to Section 4 but were pushed out at the page limit, complete with dangling "as discussed above" references. Reviewers read it as a 9th content page smuggled past the budget.
• The dataset dump: twenty per-dataset tables with no summary statistic in the body; the body should carry the aggregate, the appendix the breakdown.
• The unreviewed method: a "practical extension" appearing only in the appendix and then claimed in the conclusion — claims live where reviewers score them.
• The stale appendix: numbers regenerated in the body but not in the appendix after a late pipeline fix; run the consistency diff before upload.

Cycle-volatile mechanics to reconfirm

• Whether the current cycle caps appendix length at submission or allows separate supplementary uploads in the OpenReview form (待核实 per cycle).
• Whether reviewers are instructed that appendix reading is optional — assume yes and write the body accordingly.
• The exact camera-ready arithmetic: the 9-content/3-refs+appendix/12-total split is the 2026 rule; later cycles may rebalance it.

Output format

[Container split] body: <sections> / appendix: <sections> / repo: <items>
[Standalone test] body scoreable without appendix: yes / no -> <promotions needed>
[Orphan check] appendix sections w/o body references: <list or none>
[Camera-ready fates] <section -> migrate/compress/move-to-repo/cut>
[Resubmission page] present + point-by-point / N-A
[Anonymity] appendix + repo sweep: clean / findings