ECAI Supplementary Material

ECAI's defining constraint is the 7-page body (references are the only overflow: 1 page in a standalone ECAI, 2 pages in IJCAI-ECAI 2026). There is no unlimited in-paper appendix: the paper is exactly its 7 pages plus references. A separate supplement can carry proofs, extra tables, and code — but it is optional reading for reviewers, so the split must be made by decision-criticality, not convenience.

The one rule

Anything a reviewer needs in order to judge the paper must be in the 7-page body. The supplement holds support and detail, never the claim, the core argument, or the key evidence.

Reviewers may or may not open the supplement, and they read it under time pressure. If your central result only becomes convincing after page 7, the paper is under-argued.

Belongs in the body (7 pages)

• The problem statement, contribution, and the claim in precise form.
• The core of the argument: the main theorem statement and proof idea, or the main experimental result with the comparison that supports the claim.
• The key table/figure a reviewer uses to decide, with enough of the protocol to trust it.
• Threats/limitations that bear on whether the claim holds.

Belongs in the supplement (anonymized)

• Full proofs the body sketches (typical for KR/theory/argumentation/planning work).
• Additional experiments, ablations, and per-domain/per-dataset breakdowns beyond the headline.
• Code, domain files, seeds, configs, and cached outputs (ecai-reproducibility).
• Extended related-work discussion that does not fit the reference budget.
• Hyperparameter grids, dataset statistics, and preprocessing details.

The decision-criticality test

For each block ask: "If a reviewer skipped this, could they still fairly judge the contribution?"

• No → it is decision-critical → keep it in the body, compress elsewhere to fit.
• Yes → it supports/details the claim → supplement.

A frequent ECAI mistake is exiling the proof idea or the baseline comparison to the supplement to save space. Those are decision-critical; cut prose, merge figures, or tighten notation instead.

Compression tactics before you exile content

The tension is real at 7 pages. Recover space editorially before demoting anything critical:

• Merge related figures; use one multi-panel figure instead of three.
• State lemmas compactly; move only routine proof steps to the supplement, keep the idea in-body.
• Cut roadmap/signposting sentences; the body is too short to preview itself section by section.
• Tighten related work to delta-first positioning (ecai-related-work).
• Move verbose hyperparameter tables out; keep the one setting that matters in the text.

Double-blind and anonymity

The supplement is read under double-blind review — anonymize it exactly as the PDF (strip repository owners, institution and funding lines, system names). A de-anonymizing supplement risks a summary reject (ecai-submission, ecai-reproducibility).

Format and mechanics (verify per cycle)

• Confirm on the current call whether and how a supplement is submitted (a separate file/archive vs. an appendix mechanism), the size limit, and whether reviewers are told it is optional. These differ between a standalone ECAI and the joint IJCAI-ECAI 2026 — treat as 待核实 until the call confirms.
• Do not use the reference pages as a spillover for body text; they are for references (plus, in 2026, an optional ethics statement).

Output format

[Body budget] 7 pages; decision-critical content all inside? yes/no
[In body] problem, contribution, main theorem/idea or main result + supporting table
[In supplement] full proofs / extra experiments / code+data / extended related work
[Criticality check] anything decision-critical currently outside the body? <list -> move in>
[Anonymity] supplement clean / leaks: <where>
[Mechanics] supplement format/size per current call confirmed (待核实 if not)