pldi-supplementary

PLDI Supplementary Material

PLDI's cap is on text pages excluding bibliography in the main submission

(20 for the 2026 cycle); everything else — complete proofs, full benchmark

tables, anonymized implementations — is supporting material whose exact

submission mechanics (appendix inside the PDF vs separate upload, size limits,

reviewer obligations) are reset per cycle and were **not fully visible for 2026

(待核实)**. Decide placement by role first, then check the live CFP for the

mechanics.

Placement by role

| Material | Where it belongs | Why |

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

| Proof sketches of main theorems | Main text | Reviewers judge soundness from the body |

| Full proofs, case analyses | Appendix/supplement | Depth on demand; body states theorem + sketch |

| Headline benchmark results | Main text | The claim lives or dies here |

| Per-benchmark raw tables, extra configurations | Supplement | Evidence of thoroughness, not the argument |

| Anonymized source code | Anonymous link or upload | Early credibility; becomes the AE artifact later |

| Semantics figures too large for the text block | Rethink first | If reviewers need it to follow §4, it is not supplementary |

The governing rule: the 20 pages must carry the whole argument. PLDI

reviewers are typically not obliged to read beyond the main paper, so a proof

step or baseline definition that exists only in the supplement effectively does

not exist for a skeptical reviewer.

Anonymity extends to every byte

The double-blind requirement covers supplements with sharper teeth than the PDF,

because archives carry metadata the paper does not:

# Sweep an anonymized code drop before upload
rm -rf pkg/.git pkg/.github
grep -rniE 'copyright|@[a-z0-9.-]+\.(edu|org|com)|university|author' pkg/ | head
find pkg/ \( -name '*.DS_Store' -o -name '*.orig' -o -path '*__pycache__*' \) -delete
tar tzf pkg.tgz | grep -Ei '/home/|/Users/' && echo "LEAK: user paths in archive"

PL-specific leaks: license headers naming the lab, a build script pulling from a

personal GitHub, benchmark result CSVs with hostname columns, and proof files

whose module comments name the authors. Host anonymized code on an anonymizing

service, never on a "private-but-guessable" lab URL.

Consistency contract with the main PDF

• Numbers quoted in the body must be derivable from supplement tables — same

runs, same aggregation. A geomean in the paper that cannot be recomputed from

the supplementary CSVs reads as fabrication risk, not sloppiness.

• Theorem numbering must match between body and full-proof appendix; renumber

once, late, mechanically.

• If the supplement includes a README, it obeys the same anonymity and

no-forbidden-links rules as the paper.

Timing

Build the supplement with the paper, not the night after the deadline. The

supplement you assemble in a rush is the one that ships a .git directory; and

since the same package matures into the post-acceptance Zenodo artifact

(pldi-artifact-evaluation), early hygiene is compounding interest.

Output format

[Self-containment] can reviewers judge the claim from 20 pages alone? yes/no
[Placement map] item -> body / appendix / code drop
[Anonymity sweep] git dirs / metadata / paths / license headers / hosting
[Consistency] body numbers recomputable from supplement? theorem numbering aligned?
[Mechanics 待核实] appendix-vs-upload rules and size caps from the live CFP