hpca-supplementary

HPCA Supplementary

Use this to triage material across the destinations HPCA actually provides. HPCA has

no open-ended supplementary upload culture: material lives in one of four places, and

putting it in the wrong one either wastes body pages or leaks anonymity.

The four destinations

1. The 11-page body. Only what the argument needs to stand: the characterization,

the mechanism, and the headline evidence. Everything a reviewer must read to

believe the claim.

1. The appendix (within the submitted PDF's allowance). Extended methodology,

additional sensitivity studies, proofs of any modeled bounds — material a reviewer

may consult, kept out of the core argument.

1. The anonymized artifact mirror. Code, configs, scripts, and reduced-input

runs, with all identity scrubbed and links anonymized, so a reviewer can inspect

during the window.

1. The post-acceptance public release. The de-anonymized, badge-ready artifact on

the AE HotCRP after acceptance, plus any licensed-workload recipes.

Where does each thing go?

| Material | Destination | Note |

|---|---|---|

| Mechanism description, headline results | Body | The paper's core |

| Extra sensitivity sweeps, extended methodology | Appendix | Referenced from the body |

| Simulator, configs, regen scripts | Anonymized mirror | Fully scrubbed for review |

| Machine-state logs, raw output | Anonymized mirror / appendix | Provenance for silicon |

| Licensed-workload recipes + checksums | Post-acceptance release | Cannot ship the suite itself |

| De-anonymized artifact + README | Post-acceptance release | Badge round on AE HotCRP |

Keep anonymity intact across destinations

The most dangerous leaks happen in the material around the paper:

• Scrub author names, institution paths, and repo owners from the mirror; anonymize

every artifact URL in the PDF.

• Strip identifying metadata from config files, commit authorship, and notebook

fields.

• Keep acknowledgments, funding, and any AI-use disclosure phrased so they do not

de-anonymize (the disclosure stays anonymous until camera-ready).

• Never blind the bibliography or drop a reference's authors to save space — that is

a reject trigger, not an anonymity fix.

Stage for the window

Between submission and the rebuttal/revision window, keep a staging shelf: extra

experiments a reviewer might request, pre-run and ready to fold in. The window is

short and combined (respond and revise), so material assembled in advance is the

difference between answering an objection and deferring it.

Triage pass

1. Body carries only what the claim needs — move the rest to appendix/mirror
2. Appendix holds referenced extras, not orphan material
3. Mirror is fully anonymized (names, paths, URLs, metadata)
4. Licensed workloads reduced to recipes+checksums for later release
5. Staging shelf holds pre-run likely-requested experiments
6. Bibliography intact: no blinding, all authors listed

Output format

[Body discipline] core-only? (Y/N)
[Mirror anonymity] fully scrubbed? (Y/N)
[Destination errors] <material in the wrong place>
[Window readiness] staging shelf populated? (Y/N)
[Bibliography] intact and author-complete? (Y/N)
[Fixes] <ordered>

Reopen the current CFP and AE page for the submitted-PDF appendix allowance and the

release mechanics — both are per-edition.