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

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>