--- name: soda-supplementary description: Use when organizing the back matter of a SODA (ACM-SIAM Symposium on Discrete Algorithms) submission — there is no supplementary channel, so appendix architecture inside the single no-page-limit PDF does the supplement's job; covers front/back matter split, appendix ordering, and external-archive references. --- # SODA Supplementary Material SODA has **no supplementary upload**: no ZIP slot, no separate appendix deadline, no reviewer-optional attachments. One PDF on HotCRP, with no page limit, carries everything (2027 cycle, checked 2026-07-08 via the SIAM SODA27 submission page). So "supplementary material" at SODA is an *internal layout question*: how to architect a 40-80 page document so that a triaging PC member, a assigned referee, and a rebuttal-window author can each navigate it. ## The two-tier document Think of the submission as front matter (what every reader reads) and back matter (what the assigned referee verifies), with an explicit contract between them: | Tier | Typical span | Contents | Reader promise | |---|---|---|---| | Front | pages 1-10ish | Title-page abstract, result statements, technique overview, prior-bound comparison, proof roadmap | Self-contained: a PC member can judge significance without back matter | | Back | the rest | Full proofs in dependency order, deferred cases, calculation appendices, computational-check descriptions | Complete: no step outsourced to "standard arguments" that are not | The contract fails in both directions: front matter that cannot be judged alone reads as disorganized; back matter that a referee cannot verify reads as wrong. ## Appendix architecture rules - **Order by dependency, not by section of first mention.** A referee verifies linearly; forward references inside proofs multiply their working memory. - **Restate before proving.** Use `thm-restate` or manual restatements so each appendix proof begins with the exact claim, eliminating page-flipping: ```latex \usepackage{thm-restate} % Front matter: \begin{restatable}{theorem}{maindet}\label{thm:main} There is a deterministic $O(m\log^3 n)$-time algorithm for ... \end{restatable} % Back matter: \maindet* % restates Theorem 1 verbatim, then the full proof follows \begin{proof} ... \end{proof} ``` - **One notation table, early.** Long documents die by drifting notation; a table after the introduction, and a rule that appendices introduce no new symbols without it, keeps a 60-page argument navigable. - **Name the appendices by claim**, not "Omitted Proofs": "Appendix C: Proof of the Lower Bound (Theorem 3)" lets the referee jump straight from the rebuttal ledger to the page. - **Case-heavy arguments get a case index**: a small table listing each case, its page, and its one-line resolution. ## What lives outside the PDF Only material that *cannot* be prose belongs elsewhere, referenced from the paper: - Machine-verification archives (certificates, checkers) at an anonymity-safe URL — see `soda-artifact-evaluation` for packaging and the anonymity rules. - Implementation companions with benchmark data, if any — the paper cites them as color, and reviewers owe them nothing. - The arXiv full version is *not* an external supplement at submission time: what you submit to HotCRP must itself be complete. Never write "see the full version" in a SODA submission — you are already submitting it. ## Navigation aids for a long reviewed document An uncapped PDF is read on screens, out of order, by people hunting specific claims during rebuttal season. Invest in navigability the way capped-venue authors invest in compression: ```latex \usepackage[colorlinks=true,linkcolor=blue,citecolor=blue]{hyperref} \usepackage[capitalize,nameinlink]{cleveref} % "Lemma 4.2" links whole % After the introduction: \tableofcontents % legitimate in an uncapped venue % In the appendix preamble, a claim index: % Theorem 1 -> proved in Appendix B (p. 24) % Theorem 2 -> proved in Appendix C (p. 31), uses Lemmas C.1-C.4 % Lemma 4.1 -> proved inline (p. 12) ``` - A table of contents is not decoration here — it is the referee's map, and its section titles should narrate the argument ("Bounding the recourse of the overlay"), not name genres ("Analysis, continued"). - The claim index (theorem → proof location) is the same artifact as the claims ledger in `soda-reproducibility`; generate both from one source. - PDF bookmarks come free with `hyperref`; check they render, since some reviewers navigate exclusively through them. ## Habits imported from capped venues that misfire here | Imported habit | Why it misfires at SODA | |---|---| | "Proof deferred to the supplementary material" | There is no supplement; the phrase signals template reuse from another venue | | Squeezing to 12 pages and dropping proofs | Uncapped submission: dropped proofs read as gaps, not thrift | | Separate anonymous ZIP with the appendix | No such upload exists; appendix rides in the PDF | | Supplement written after the deadline | Nothing can be added after July; the PDF is the whole record | | Appendix as a dumping ground of drafts | Referees read it; unpolished back matter damages the front matter's credibility | ## Pre-upload back-matter audit 1. Grep the PDF text for "full version," "supplementary," and "omitted" — each hit is either a broken promise or a leftover from another venue's template. 2. Verify every front-matter theorem has a back-matter proof and vice versa (no orphan lemmas proving nothing that is claimed). 3. Check the dependency order: no proof uses a lemma proved later without an explicit forward pointer. 4. Compile with links on (`hyperref`) and click every `\ref` in the appendix. 5. Confirm the whole document — appendices included — passes the anonymity sweep. ## Output format ```text [Back-matter verdict] Navigable / Needs restructuring / Incomplete [Contract check] [Orphans] [Ordering] [External references] ```