sigmetrics-supplementary

SIGMETRICS Supplementary

Use this when assembling SIGMETRICS supplementary material. The governing rule is simple and strict: the paper must be judgeable from the reviewed pages alone. Appendices and the artifact support the paper; they do not hold the argument. Reviewers read the artifact at their discretion, so anything the decision depends on — the theorem statements, their assumptions, and the headline validation — lives in the body.

What goes where

If a reviewer would need to open the artifact (or dig into an appendix) to know whether the central claim holds, the paper is mis-partitioned — move that evidence into the body.

The page-budget discipline

SIGMETRICS's acmsmall budget (2026: 20 pages of technical content including tables and figures; plus unlimited references) is single-column and finite for everything except references. Consequences:

• Keep every theorem statement, its assumptions, and the one figure showing analysis-vs-simulation agreement in the body — they are decision-critical.
• Full proofs typically go to an appendix; confirm on the current call whether appendices count against the 20 pages or attach separately, because that changes the split.
• Do not use the appendix or artifact to smuggle in a result that would not fit — a bound whose proof only closes in supplementary material the reviewer may not read reads as unreviewable.

Double-anonymous supplementary rules

[No identity]   no authors, affiliations, acknowledgements, grants, cluster paths, group/system
                names, or trace provenance revealing the institution -- except in the Operational
                Systems Track, which may name the system/org
[Anonymized links] any code/data link points at an anonymizing host, not a personal repo
[Clean archive]  no .git history, .DS_Store, credentials, caches, or large irrelevant files
[Opens clean]    verify the archive unzips and a README orients a reader in one minute on a fresh
                machine (what the model is, how to regenerate a figure, how to check a proof)

Appendix architecture

• Order appendix sections to mirror the paper: proofs in theorem order, then extended validation.
• Keep each appendix section referenced from the body at least once — orphaned proofs and sweeps are invisible under discretionary review.
• A proof appendix should restate the theorem and its assumptions at the top, so it is checkable without flipping back to the body.

Vignette: splitting a proof-plus-measurement paper

A paper with a scheduling theorem and a trace-driven evaluation: the body keeps the model, the theorem statements with assumptions, the proof ideas, the headline analysis-vs-simulation figure, and the main trace-driven comparison with effect sizes; the appendix holds the full proofs and an assumption-sensitivity sweep; the artifact holds the seeded simulator, the trace-processing scripts with pinned provenance, and the analysis notebooks. 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 (theorem/assumption/headline validation) outside the body? <none / move: what>
[Page budget] body within 20 pages? appendices counted correctly per the call? yes/no
[Anonymity] archive + appendix clean of identity + metadata? passed/issues (note Operational-track exception)
[Body dependency] <what a reviewer can decide without opening the artifact>