Acmmm supplementary

ACM MM Supplementary Material

Use this to plan the ACM Multimedia supplement, which has its own deadline after the paper (in 2026, April 8 versus the April 1 paper deadline). For a multimedia paper the supplement is not an afterthought — it is where the video, audio, and interactive evidence lives.

Body vs. supplement split

The 6–8 page sigconf body carries the argument; the supplement carries what the argument rests on but cannot fit.

Content	Body	Supplement
Core claim, main results table, teaser	Yes	—
The two or three decisive media examples	Yes (stills/short)	Full clips
Extra qualitative media across conditions	—	Yes
Full user-study protocol and per-rater data	Summary only	Yes
Hyperparameters, extra ablations, proofs	Pointer only	Yes
Code / data pointers	Named	Yes

A reviewer must be able to follow the body without the supplement; the supplement then confirms rather than completes the argument.

Packaging media that actually plays

The single most common ACM MM supplement failure is media a reviewer cannot open.

video:  H.264/MP4, standard resolution, plays in a browser/VLC; no exotic codec
audio:  WAV or MP3; label each clip with the claim it supports
demo:   if interactive, provide a recorded fallback video — do not assume the reviewer runs it
size:   keep within the cycle's stated limit; compress rather than omit evidence
index:  a short README mapping each file to the paper claim/figure it supports

Anonymity for double-blind tracks

• Strip author names from filenames, EXIF/media metadata, and any on-screen watermark or slate.
• Remove identifying voices/faces of the authors from demo videos where they would reveal identity, or note that they are incidental.
• Route dataset and code links through an anonymous mirror; a personal or lab URL is a leak.
• The Reproducibility, Open Source Software, and Dataset tracks are single-blind and do not need this — but the main track and Brave New Ideas do.

Make the supplement legible

• Open with a one-paragraph README: what is here, and which paper claim each file supports.
• Order files to follow the paper's sections, not upload order.
• Caption every clip; an unlabeled video is not evidence a reviewer can use.

What reviewers actually open

Reviewers are time-pressed and will not download a 2 GB archive or install a codec. Design for a skim:

• Lead the index with the two or three clips that decide the paper, labeled by claim.
• Keep individual files small enough to stream; compress rather than omit.
• Never make the argument depend on a file the reviewer has to run or build — provide a recorded fallback for any interactive demo.

Format and codec table

Asset	Safe choice	Avoid
Video	H.264/MP4, standard resolution	Exotic/proprietary codecs, 4K walls of clips
Audio	WAV or MP3, labeled	Unlabeled waveforms, lossless dumps for size's sake
Interactive demo	Recorded MP4 fallback + optional code	Assuming the reviewer runs your app
Appendix	PDF, same template family	A zip of loose screenshots

Timing against the paper deadline

The supplement has its own, later deadline (April 8 vs. April 1 in 2026), which is a chance and a trap: do not defer all media to that week, because rendering, compressing, and anonymizing a video library takes longer than expected. Freeze the decisive clips with the paper, and use the extra days for the confirmatory extras, not the core evidence.

Pre-submission checklist

• Every media file opens with common open-source players.
• The index maps each file to a specific figure, table, or claim.
• No author identity in any filename, metadata, watermark, or link (double-blind tracks).
• The body still stands alone if the supplement were removed.
• Total size is within the current cycle's stated cap (待核实 each year).

Output format

[Split] body self-contained / body depends on supplement
[Media playability] all files open / risky: <list>
[Anonymity] clean / leaks: <list>
[Index] each file mapped to a claim / unlabeled: <list>
[Size] within cap / over
[Top fixes] <ordered before the supplement deadline>