icalp-supplementary
GitHub指导 ICALP 论文在15页正文与附录间的拆分策略。确保正文包含模型、定理及核心思想以说服审稿人，附录存放完整证明供验证。避免内容缺失或冗余，保证可追溯性与双盲评审合规性。
Trigger Scenarios
Install
npx skills add brycewang-stanford/Awesome-Journal-Skills --skill icalp-supplementary -g -y
SKILL.md
Frontmatter
{
"name": "icalp-supplementary",
"description": "Use when splitting an ICALP (EATCS) theory paper between the 15-page main body and the clearly labelled appendix \/ full version — deciding what a referee must see in the body versus what may be deferred, ensuring every deferred proof is actually present and findable, and keeping the split consistent with lightweight double-blind review."
}
ICALP Supplementary (the body / appendix / full-version split)
ICALP gives you a 15-page body (excluding references and a clearly labelled appendix) plus an appendix that may hold omitted proofs or a full version, read at the program committee's discretion. The whole game is deciding what goes where: the body must let a referee judge and follow the paper; the appendix must let them verify it. Getting this split wrong — either cramming proofs into the body or hiding the substance in an unread appendix — is a common, avoidable weakness.
The governing principle
The body earns the referee's belief; the appendix earns their verification.
- The body contains the model, the theorem statements, the main ideas, the key lemmas, and enough of the central proof that a referee can see why it is true and that it is nontrivial.
- The appendix / full version contains the complete proofs, routine cases, and technical details a referee consults to confirm correctness.
- "At the PC's discretion" means the appendix is not guaranteed to be read — so nothing whose significance the referee must weigh may live only there.
What must be in the body
- The model and definitions needed to state the results.
- All headline theorem statements, positioned against prior bounds.
- The main technical idea — the new lemma or technique that makes the result work — at least in proof-sketch form with the key step shown.
- Enough structure that every deferred proof has a clear pointer ("full proof in Appendix B.2").
What may be deferred to the appendix / full version
- Complete proofs whose ideas are sketched in the body.
- Routine or standard arguments, long case analyses, and calculations.
- Auxiliary lemmas whose statements the body can cite.
- Supporting computation / certificates (see
icalp-experiments,icalp-reproducibility).
The two failure modes
| Failure | Symptom | Fix |
|---|---|---|
| Over-stuffed body | Every proof crammed into 15 pages; unreadable, over-budget | Move complete proofs to the appendix, keep sketches + key lemmas in the body |
| Hollow body | Body states theorems, all proofs (incl. the key idea) dumped in an unread appendix | Bring the central technique and the main lemma's proof idea into the body |
The hollow body is the more dangerous: referees judge on the body, and a paper whose substance they cannot see reads as either thin or evasive, even if the appendix is perfect.
Completeness and findability
- Every deferred proof must actually exist in the appendix / full version. "Proof omitted" with no
full version is a soundness failure, not a space saving (
icalp-reproducibility). - Deferred proofs must be findable: label appendix sections to match the body's pointers so a referee spends seconds, not minutes, locating a step.
- Keep the submission appendix and any public full version consistent in content.
Double-blind consistency
- The appendix / full version is part of the anonymous submission: no author names, acknowledgements, grant numbers, or de-anonymizing links there either.
- If you host a full version on arXiv, refer to it as "the full version" without the identifying handle
during review (
icalp-submission).
Worked split: a two-theorem paper
An algorithm (Thm 1) and a matching conditional lower bound (Thm 2). Body: the model; both theorem statements with the prior-bound comparison; the algorithm's design and the one key invariant proved; the reduction's construction and its intuition. Appendix / full version: the full correctness proof and complexity analysis of the algorithm; the complete case analysis of the reduction; a computer-checked verification of the gadget. Result: a referee can judge significance and follow both ideas from the body, then verify every detail in the appendix.
Output format
[Body budget] <=15pp excl. refs + appendix; over/under
[In body] model / theorem statements / key technique / main-lemma idea: all present? gaps
[Deferred] complete proofs, routine cases, computation — each with a body pointer? yes/no
[Hollow-body check] is the central idea visible in the body (not only the appendix)? yes/no
[Completeness] every deferred proof actually present and findable? yes/no
[Anonymity] appendix/full version scrubbed and referenced without de-anonymizing? yes/no
[Fix queue] <ordered moves between body and appendix>
Version History
- 9f86f09 Current 2026-07-19 15:53
