# Percom Supplementary > Use when deciding what belongs in an IEEE PerCom paper body versus its dataset/artifact and any appendix, covering the tight IEEEtran 9+1 page budget, the rule that decision-critical evidence stays inside the reviewed pages, double-blind supplementary material, and how to split a human-subjects sensing paper between body and dataset. - Skill: `thedixitjain/percom-supplementary` (Agent Skill) - Install (CLI): `npx skillmds add thedixitjain/percom-supplementary` - Raw SKILL.md: https://api.skillmd.com/api/skills/thedixitjain/percom-supplementary/raw - Safety review: pending - Works with: Claude Code, Claude.ai, OpenAI Codex - Category: AI & ML - Author: thedixitjain (https://skillmd.com/u/thedixitjain) - Updated: 2026-09-08 - Page: https://skillmd.com/skills/thedixitjain/percom-supplementary --- # PerCom Supplementary Use this when assembling PerCom supplementary material. The governing rule is simple and strict: **the paper must be judgeable from the reviewed pages alone.** The dataset and any appendix support the paper; they do not hold the argument. Reviewers read supplementary material at their discretion, so anything the decision depends on lives in the 9 pages — and PerCom's budget is **tight**, which makes the split unforgiving. ## What goes where | Content | Body (within 9-page budget) | Dataset / appendix | |---|---|---| | The pervasive-computing claim and headline result | Yes | — | | Core technique or study design | Yes | Full hyperparameter grids, extra config | | The **cross-subject (LOSO)** headline evaluation | Yes | Full per-subject / per-session tables | | Metrics behind a claim (F1, event-level) | The result + metric named | The computation notebook | | Subject and sensor description | Summary + selection criterion | The complete datasheet | | Raw signals, logs, labels, scripts | — | Yes | | Reproduction instructions | A pointer | The README and run scripts | If a reviewer would need to open the dataset to know whether to accept, the paper is mis-partitioned — move that evidence into the body. ## The 9-page-budget discipline PerCom's IEEEtran budget (**9 pages** technical content + **1 page** references) is a fraction of a single-column ACM budget and counts figures, tables, and any in-paper appendix. Consequences: - The **cross-subject result and its key limitation must be in the body** — they are decision-critical, and reviewers will not go hunting for them. - Long per-subject breakdowns, full hyperparameter grids, additional sensor modalities, and extra ablations go to the dataset/appendix with explicit forward references. - Do **not** use the dataset to smuggle in a result that would not fit — an argument that only closes with material outside the reviewed pages reads as unreviewable. - Compress with editing (tighter figures, merged tables), never by shrinking the font or margins — that is a desk-reject ground at IEEE venues (`percom-submission`). ## Double-blind supplementary rules ```text [No identity] no authors, affiliations, acknowledgements, grants, testbed/lab names, deployment sites, or dataset-owner strings anywhere in the archive or appendix [Anonymized links] the dataset/code link points at an anonymizing host, not a personal repo [Clean archive] no .git history, .DS_Store, credentials, caches, or large irrelevant files [No re-ID media] no photos/video revealing a face, building, or badge that de-anonymizes authors [Opens clean] verify the archive unzips and the README orients a reader in one minute on a fresh machine ``` ## Appendix architecture (when the template allows in-paper appendices) - Remember appendices **count against the 9 pages** — an in-paper appendix trades against the body. Prefer the external dataset/artifact for bulk material. - Order any appendix to mirror the RQ / evaluation order; reviewers navigate by claim, not page. - Keep each appendix section referenced from the body at least once — orphaned material is invisible under discretionary review. ## Vignette: splitting a mixed-modality sensing paper A paper combining wrist-IMU recognition with an ambient-sensor deployment: the body keeps the claim, the study design, the **leave-one-subject-out** headline result with F1 and confidence intervals, the key deployment finding, and a limitations subsection; the dataset/artifact holds the full per-subject tables, the ambient-sensor logs, the labeling protocol with annotator agreement, the device/sampling datasheet, and the analysis notebooks. Nothing decision-critical lives only in the artifact, because artifact inspection is discretionary and the reviewers judge from the 9 pages. ## Output format ```text [Supplement status] ready / needs fixes / not ready [Partition check] anything decision-critical (esp. cross-subject result) outside the body? [Page budget] body within 9 pages? appendices counted? refs within 1 page? yes/no [Anonymity] archive clean of identity + re-identifying media? passed/issues [Body dependency] ``` --- **Source:** [`brycewang-stanford/Awesome-Journal-Skills`](https://github.com/brycewang-stanford/Awesome-Journal-Skills) → `PerCom-Skills/skills/percom-supplementary/SKILL.md`