Edbt supplementary

EDBT Supplementary

Use this when assembling EDBT supplementary material. The governing rule is simple and strict: the paper must be judgeable from the reviewed pages alone. The artifact and any appendix support the paper; they do not hold the argument. Reviewers open the artifact at their discretion, so anything the decision depends on lives in the body.

What goes where

Content	Body (within page budget)	Artifact / appendix
The problem, contribution, and what it enables	Yes	—
Core mechanism / system design	Yes	Full parameter grids, extra configs
The headline results and the scope/overhead	Yes	Full result tables, secondary sweeps
The evaluation setup a claim depends on	Named in the body	The complete harness and logs
Workload / dataset summary + derivation	Summary + criterion	The full derivation scripts and data
Raw logs, build scripts, containers	—	Yes
Reproduction instructions	A pointer	The README and run scripts

If a reviewer would need to open the artifact to know whether to accept, the paper is mis-partitioned — move that evidence into the body.

The page-budget discipline (per shape)

EDBT's budget depends on the paper shape (EDBT 2022 CFP; reverify per cycle): Regular and Experiments & Analysis papers ≤12 pages; Vision papers ≤6; references are unlimited and do not count. Consequences:

• References do not eat your budget — cite generously; the constraint is body text, figures, tables, and in-body appendices.
• Keep the headline result tables and the scope/overhead discussion in the body — they are decision-critical.
• Long parameter sweeps, per-configuration breakdowns, and full harness output go to the artifact with explicit forward references.
• 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.

Reproducibility-forward supplementary rules

[Runnable]     the artifact builds and runs from its README on a clean machine; a demo run succeeds
[Provenance]   dataset versions, workload derivation, engine build/commit, and seeds are pinned
[Consistency]  every body number traces to a script in the package
[Clean archive] no stray credentials, caches, or huge irrelevant files; (if double-blind) no
                identity strings, owner paths, or cluster names
[Opens clean]  verify the archive unpacks and the README orients a reader in one minute

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

• Order appendix sections to mirror the evaluation's structure; reviewers navigate by result, 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-body appendices count against the page budget (they usually do) versus supplementary material attached separately; this changes the split.

Vignette: splitting a distributed-systems paper

A paper contributing a query-processing operator and its evaluation: the body keeps the problem, the mechanism, the headline latency/scalability results with variance, the overhead-on-skew-free case, and a scope subsection; the artifact holds the container/build recipe, the workload-derivation scripts with pinned dataset versions, the full parameter sweeps, the raw logs, 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
[Shape + budget] Regular | Experiments-&-Analysis | Vision — body within limit?
[Partition check] anything decision-critical outside the body? <none / move: what>
[Reproducibility] artifact runnable + provenance pinned + consistent with paper? yes/no
[Clean archive] (if double-blind) identity-free; no stray files? passed/issues
[Body dependency] <what a reviewer can decide without opening the artifact>