--- name: pods-artifact-evaluation description: Use for the PODS analogue of artifact evaluation — there is no systems artifact track at this theory symposium, so this skill covers formal-claims verification instead: a complete at-submission proof appendix, a claim-to-proof mapping reviewers can check, the full-version-on-arXiv norm, and, only when a paper claims practicality, an honest optional code artifact. --- # PODS Artifact Evaluation Use this to prepare the PODS equivalent of an artifact. **PODS has no artifact-evaluation track in the systems sense and no ACM reproducibility badges** — it is a database-theory symposium. The deliverable that plays the role of an artifact is your **formal-claims package**: a complete, self-contained proof appendix that ships with the submission, a mapping from every stated result to its proof, and, at camera-ready, a **full version on arXiv**. Do not import a systems artifact process; adapt to proof verification. ## The PODS "badges" — what actually certifies a theory paper | Analogue | What it certifies | What earns it | |---|---|---| | Complete proofs (at submission) | Every stated theorem is proved and checkable now | The appendix incorporated in the submitted PDF, with no gap deferred off-paper | | Claim-to-proof mapping | A reviewer can locate the proof of each result quickly | Forward references from each body statement to its body/appendix proof | | Full version on arXiv (at camera-ready) | The community can read the complete development | A de-anonymized arXiv full version, DOI-linked to the PACMMOD paper | | Optional code (only if practicality is claimed) | A secondary empirical illustration reproduces | A small, documented, public repository — never a substitute for a proof | The high-value, low-cost "badge" is **complete proofs in the appendix**: it is what the reviewers verify, and it is entirely in your control. The failure mode at PODS is never "did not run on their machine" — it is "the proof had a gap" or "the claimed proof was not in the PDF." ## What PODS reviewers check first | Claim type | First thing inspected | Common failure caught | |---|---|---| | A complexity bound | The proof of the bound and its matching lower bound | Upper bound only; lower bound "sketched" | | A dichotomy | Completeness — that every case is classified and proved | A tractable sub-class, not a full classification | | A new semantics | Well-definedness and a decidability/complexity result | A definition with no algorithmic content | | A conditional result | Whether the assumption (ETH/OMv/#P) is stated at point of use | Conditional hardness presented as unconditional | Assume a reviewer reads the key proofs in the body and opens the appendix for the deferred ones. Design the appendix so each proof is found and checked without reconstructing context. ## Formal-claims packaging plan ```text [Appendix] complete proofs of every deferred result, in the submitted PDF (acmsmall, unlimited appendix); PODS forbids external/online appendices [Mapping] an explicit body -> proof map: each theorem/lemma forward-references its proof location [Self-contain] each proof restates the claim, lists assumptions, cites the exact prior lemmas used [Assumptions] every conditional bound labeled with its conjecture where it is used [Full version] an arXiv full version prepared: anonymized (or withheld) at submission, public at camera-ready with a DOI link to the PACMMOD article [Optional code] only if the paper claims practicality: a small, documented public repo, clearly secondary, that reproduces the illustrative measurements ``` ## Anonymized submission package vs. public full version - **At submission:** the proof appendix ships inside the anonymized PDF — no author names, acknowledgements, funding, or a named system; any arXiv full version is withheld or anonymized so it cannot reveal authorship. - **After acceptance:** post the de-anonymized full version on arXiv, add the DOI link in the camera-ready, and (if a code illustration exists) make its repository public. This is the PODS analogue of releasing an artifact — a readable full proof, not a runnable badge. ## Worked vignette: packaging a dichotomy paper's claims A paper proves a PTIME/hard dichotomy. To make the formal-claims package airtight: put the tractable algorithm and its complexity proof, the hardness reduction, and the completeness lemma in the body's statements with full proofs in the appendix; add a body-to-appendix map so each theorem points to its proof; label the hardness result with its complexity assumption at the point of use; prepare an arXiv full version with the extended development; and, if the paper also claims the algorithm is practical, add a small optional repository — stated honestly as illustration, not evidence for the theorem. ## Calibration - There is **no separate artifact deadline and no badge** at PODS; the "artifact" obligations are met inside the submitted PDF (proofs) and at camera-ready (arXiv full version). - If a future PODS edition introduces any formal-verification or reproducibility initiative, confirm it on the current call rather than assuming this static picture. ## Output format ```text [Formal-claims readiness] strong / adequate / gap present [Appendix] every deferred proof present in the submitted PDF? yes/no [Claim mapping] proof location present and forward-referenced? yes/no> [Assumptions] [Full-version plan] [Optional code] ```