--- name: pods-reproducibility description: Use when strengthening the verifiability of an ACM PODS paper — a complete claim-to-proof map, self-contained proofs in the at-submission appendix (no external appendices), correctly stated assumptions, honest scope and open cases, the full-version-on-arXiv norm, and consistency between what the paper claims and what the proofs actually establish. --- # PODS Reproducibility Use this before submission and again before camera-ready. For a theory venue, "reproducibility" means **verifiability**: a competent reader can follow every proof and confirm every stated theorem. PODS makes this concrete by requiring the proof **appendix to be incorporated at submission** — there are **no online/external appendices** — so the reviewers can check the mathematics now, not on trust. ## Claim-to-proof map - Map each theorem, lemma, corollary, and reported bound to a **complete proof location** — the body or the appendix. No stated result may lack a full proof somewhere in the submitted PDF. - For each proof, state its assumptions, cite the exact prior lemma or theorem it uses, and do not defer a key step to "the full version" or "a routine argument" when the argument is not routine. - For constructions and algorithms, give enough that a reader could re-derive them: the invariant, the data structure, the parameter settings, and the complexity accounting. - Keep the **assumptions ledger** honest: every conditional result (ETH, OMv, `#P`-hardness) is labeled where it is used, and the model (data vs. combined complexity, cost model) is fixed. - Keep the paper and its proofs **consistent**: an abstract that claims more than the theorems prove, or a corollary that does not follow from the stated theorem, is the contradiction reviewers read as carelessness. ## Verifiability audit | Claim in the paper | Weak (reject-prone) form | PODS-ready form | |---|---|---| | "Theorem: the problem is hard" | Hardness "sketched"; no reduction given | A complete reduction in the appendix, with the source problem cited | | "Our algorithm is optimal" | Upper bound only | Upper bound + matching lower bound, both proved | | "This holds for all such queries" | Proof for the examples shown | A general proof covering every case, or a scoped, honest claim | | "It is easy to see that..." | The hard step waved away | The argument written out, or a precise appendix pointer | | "Full proofs in the full version" | Nothing in the appendix | Complete proofs in the at-submission appendix; arXiv full version optional-but-consistent | "Proof omitted" with no appendix proof is treated at PODS the way "available on request" is treated at a systems venue — as *not provided*. The appendix exists so nothing decision-critical is off-paper. ## Assumptions and scope pinning ```text [Model] fix data model, query class, and complexity/cost measure; use them consistently [Assumptions] label every conditional bound with its conjecture at the point of use [Scope] state exactly which cases the result covers and which remain open — do not overclaim [Dependencies] each proof cites the exact prior result it invokes; no circular lemma chains [Constants] expose hidden dependence on query size / schema / fixed parameters ``` ## Degrees of verifiability (state the one you achieved) - **Complete:** every theorem has a full, self-contained proof in the submitted PDF (body + appendix). This is the PODS default and expectation. - **Scoped:** the main theorems are fully proved; a clearly labeled extension or a corollary is stated with a proof idea and deferred to the journal full version — acceptable only if nothing decision-critical is deferred. - **Conjectural:** a statement is offered as a conjecture with partial evidence — allowed as such, never dressed as a theorem. ## The full-version-on-arXiv norm PODS is an extended-abstract venue: the community norm is to post a **full version on arXiv** (with all proofs and any extended development) and, at camera-ready, DOI-link it to the PACMMOD paper. At submission the arXiv version must not break double-anonymity; keep it anonymized or withhold the link until acceptance. The at-submission appendix, not the arXiv link, is what the reviewers must be able to verify. ## Vignette: a dichotomy paper Consider a paper proving a PTIME/hard dichotomy for a query class. Its verifiability spine: the exact model and query class in preliminaries; the tractable direction as a proved algorithm with complexity; the hard direction as a complete reduction from a cited problem, under a named assumption if conditional; a lemma establishing that the two directions partition the class (completeness); and a scope sentence naming the one extension (e.g. self-joins) left open — every proof in the body or the at-submission appendix, with a consistent arXiv full version prepared for later. ## Consistency and camera-ready pass - Before submission: every stated result traces to a complete proof in the PDF; assumptions are labeled; the appendix is incorporated and anonymized. - Before camera-ready: post the (de-anonymized) full version on arXiv and add the DOI link; ensure the arXiv version's theorems and the PACMMOD version's theorems agree exactly. ## Output format ```text [Claim inventory] complete proof location (body/appendix)> [Verifiability] complete / scoped / conjectural, stated honestly [Assumption gaps] [Scope honesty] [Paper fixes] [Full-version plan] ```