socc-supplementary

SoCC Supplementary

Use this when assembling SoCC supplementary material. The governing rule is simple and strict: **the

paper must be judgeable from the reviewed pages alone.** The released artifact and any appendix

support the paper; they do not hold the argument. Reviewers read the artifact at their discretion,

so anything the decision depends on — the headline throughput, tail, and cost results — lives in the

body.

What goes where

| Content | Body (within page budget) | Artifact / appendix |

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

| The cloud problem and the contribution | Yes | — |

| Core mechanism or measurement design | Yes | Full config grids, extra parameters |

| Headline throughput / tail / cost results | Yes | Full result tables, secondary regimes |

| The key baseline comparison | The result + baseline named and tuned | The full sweep and raw logs |

| Testbed / trace description | Summary + key parameters | The complete node list, full trace spec |

| Raw logs, workload generators, replay scripts | — | Yes |

| Reproduction instructions | A pointer | The README and run scripts |

If a reviewer would need to open the artifact to know whether to accept — for instance to find the

p99 or the cost breakdown — the paper is mis-partitioned; move that evidence into the body.

The page-budget discipline

SoCC's acmart budget (full: 12 pages of text and figures; short: 6 pages), with

unlimited references, counts figures, tables, and any in-paper appendix. Consequences:

• Keep the tail and cost results and the primary baseline comparison in the body — they are

decision-critical at a cloud venue.

• Long configuration sweeps, per-node breakdowns, and additional workload regimes go to the artifact

with explicit forward references.

• The unlimited-reference allowance is for the bibliography only; it does not let body text or

decision-critical figures escape the 12/6-page limit.

• Do not use the artifact to smuggle in a result that would not fit — an argument that only closes

with material outside the reviewed pages reads as unreviewable.

Dual-anonymous supplementary rules

[No identity]   no authors, affiliations, acknowledgements, grants, cluster names, provider hints,
                or repository owners anywhere in the archive or appendix
[Anonymized links] the availability link points at an anonymizing host, not a personal/corporate repo
[Scrubbed traces]  released traces carry no identifying provenance (org name, internal IDs)
[Clean archive]  no .git history, .DS_Store, credentials, caches, or large irrelevant files
[Opens clean]    verify the archive unpacks and the README orients a reader in one minute on a
                fresh machine

Appendix architecture (when the template allows in-paper appendices)

• Order appendix sections to mirror the result order; reviewers navigate by claim, not page number.
• Keep each appendix section referenced from the body at least once — orphaned material is invisible

under discretionary review.

• Confirm on the current call whether in-paper appendices count against the 12/6-page budget; this

varies and changes the split.

Vignette: splitting a cloud-systems measurement paper

A paper measuring a scheduler on a replayed trace: the body keeps the problem, the mechanism, the

headline throughput/p99/cost results with tuned baselines, the key trade-off figure, and a

limitations paragraph; the artifact holds the replay harness, the (anonymized) trace, the full

config sweep, the per-node logs, and the analysis scripts. Nothing decision-critical lives only in

the artifact, because artifact inspection is discretionary and the reviewers judge from the pages.

Output format

[Supplement status] ready / needs fixes / not ready
[Partition check] anything decision-critical (tail/cost/baseline) outside the body? <none / move: what>
[Page budget] body within 12/6 pages? references-only unlimited allowance respected? yes/no
[Anonymity] archive + traces clean of identity + metadata? passed/issues
[Body dependency] <what a reviewer can decide without opening the artifact>