dac-supplementary

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