mobicom-supplementary

MobiCom Supplementary Material

MobiCom gives you a hard 12 double-column pages including figures and tables, with

references and optional appendices (placed after the references) outside the cap. The

skill is placement: what must a reviewer read to judge the contribution, and what can wait

in an appendix without hollowing out the body.

The placement contract

| Content | Where it goes | Why |

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

| Mechanism, headline result, main figures | 12-page body | reviewers judge the contribution here |

| Channel-model derivation, proofs | appendix (after references) | needed for correctness, not for the argument's flow |

| Full protocol / state machine | appendix | body states the idea; appendix has the detail |

| Extended sweeps, extra conditions | appendix | supports, does not carry, the claim |

| Instrument/measurement setup detail | appendix | provenance, not narrative |

| All citations | references (outside cap) | never trimmed for space or anonymity |

The controlling rule: **the body must be self-contained enough to judge novelty and

correctness without the appendix.** An appendix strengthens; it must not be load-bearing.

Reviewers are not obligated to read appendices, so the strongest result cannot live only

there (mobicom-writing-style).

What must stay in the body

• The mechanism, stated with its operating regime.
• At least one headline over-the-air result with its condition and uncertainty.
• The baseline comparison that supports the main claim.
• Enough method that a reviewer can see why the mechanism works.

If moving something to the appendix would make the body's argument incomplete, it stays —

find the page elsewhere by triaging a figure or tightening prose, not by shrinking geometry.

HotCRP fields are part of the submission

The form is not an afterthought; reviewers meet it first:

HotCRP submission fields to treat as content:
  title/abstract  -> verbatim-match the PDF (drift reads as sloppiness)
  topics          -> chosen for the reviewer sub-community you want (routing)
  authors/conflicts -> full list at abstract time for conflict computation
  optional fields -> artifact/ethics declarations per the current CFP (待核实 wording)

Anonymity crosses the body/appendix line

An appendix is still part of the double-blind submission. A channel-model derivation that

names your testbed, a protocol listing with your repository URL, or a measurement appendix

with a site identifier de-anonymizes exactly as a body leak would. Run the blindness sweep

over the appendices too (mobicom-submission).

Rebuttal and revision packets are separate

Do not confuse post-review material with submission supplementary material:

• The rebuttal is a bounded response entered after stage-2 reviews; it is not extra

paper pages and has its own length limit (mobicom-author-response).

• A one-shot revision returns with a change-highlighted PDF and a change summary as

auxiliary material — again outside the 12-page count and governed by the revision

instructions, not the original CFP page rules (mobicom-review-process).

Neither is a place to smuggle content that should have been in the body; both are governed

by their own limits.

Audit checklist

• [ ] Body self-contained: novelty and correctness judgeable without the appendix.
• [ ] Strongest result in the body, not only supplementary.
• [ ] Derivations/protocols/extended results in appendices after references.
• [ ] References complete and outside the cap; none trimmed for anonymity.
• [ ] Appendices passed through the blindness sweep.
• [ ] HotCRP title/abstract/topics/conflicts audited as content.
• [ ] Rebuttal/revision material kept off the page count and to its own limit.

Output format

[Body completeness] can the contribution be judged from the 12 pages alone? y/n
[Placement] content mis-shelved (body<->appendix) with the move
[References] complete + outside cap? y/n
[Anonymity] appendix leaks found
[HotCRP] fields needing attention