icdt-supplementary

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 <url>" 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>