infocom-reproducibility

name	infocom-reproducibility
description	Use when strengthening IEEE INFOCOM reproducibility even though the venue runs no formal artifact-evaluation track, covering pinned simulator setups, released code and datasets where possible, complete proofs and parameters within the page budget, IEEE reproducibility-badge options, and consistency between what the paper claims and what a reader could rebuild.

INFOCOM Reproducibility

Use this before submission and again before camera-ready. INFOCOM has no formal artifact-evaluation track (as of 2026-07-09; 待核实 whether a cycle adds one), so reproducibility is a matter of credibility, not a badge you are forced to earn. The goal is that a competent networking reader could rebuild your evidence and reach your conclusions from the paper plus any material you choose to release — which, at a large venue with no rebuttal, is how you convert a skeptical reviewer.

Evidence map

• Map each theorem, algorithm, and reported number to a verifiable location — a proof (in the body or a tight in-budget appendix), a simulator configuration, or a released script/dataset.
• For analytical results, give enough of the assumptions, derivation, and parameters that a reader could re-derive or check the bound. A theorem whose proof is "omitted for space" with no pointer is a weakness a reviewer cannot rebut for you.
• For simulation/measurement, report the simulator and version, topology and traffic model, seeds, number of runs, and the parameters — enough to re-run.
• Releasing code/data is optional but persuasive. Where you can, deposit the simulator scripts, the trace, and the plotting code in a public archive; where you cannot (proprietary traces, privacy), say so and why.
• Keep the paper and any released material consistent: a number in the PDF that no released script or stated configuration produces reads as carelessness.

What "reproducible" means without a badge track

Claim in the paper	Weak reproducibility answer	INFOCOM-persuasive answer
"We prove Theorem 1"	"Proof omitted for space" (no pointer)	Proof sketch in body + full proof in the in-budget appendix or a stated report
"We simulate at scale"	"ns-3 simulation" (no setup)	Named simulator + version, topology/traffic, seeds, runs, CIs; scripts if releasable
"On a real trace"	"a real dataset" (unnamed)	The trace's source and access, preprocessing, and inclusion criteria
"Our policy beats X"	Point estimates only	Seeded runs with CIs; released config so the comparison can be re-run

Because there is no artifact evaluator and (traditionally) no rebuttal, "trust us" does not scale — convert every hand-wave into a stated configuration or a released file.

Provenance and setup pinning

[Analysis]   list assumptions; give full proofs (in-budget appendix or a cited technical report);
             state all parameters used in the theorems
[Simulation] name and version the simulator; pin topology, traffic model, seeds, run count;
             archive the scripts and configs if releasable
[Measurement] record the trace source and dates; document preprocessing, filtering, and confounds
[Compute]    state hardware and runtime so a reader can size a reproduction
[Randomness] log seeds for stochastic steps; say what is and is not deterministic

IEEE reproducibility options (optional, post-decision)

• IEEE offers reproducibility avenues (e.g., IEEE DataPort for datasets, and code/data badges on some IEEE venues) that authors may use to deposit artifacts with a DOI. INFOCOM does not mandate them; treat them as a way to strengthen a released package, and confirm the current cycle's specifics (待核实).
• A public repository with an OSI-approved license and a one-screen README makes a released simulator far more credible than a bare tarball.

Degrees of reproducibility (state the one you achieved)

• Turnkey: one documented command re-runs the simulation and regenerates the key figures.
• Scripted: scripts exist but need documented manual steps or external trace access.
• Descriptive: the paper states assumptions, setup, and parameters precisely enough to rebuild.

For an analytical INFOCOM paper, descriptive plus a full proof is often the honest bar; for a simulation-heavy paper, aim scripted or turnkey so a reviewer's doubt about a number has a public answer.

Consistency and camera-ready pass

• Before submission: every scored number traces to a proof, a stated configuration, or a releasable script; released material (if any) is double-blind (no owner strings or identifying repo).
• Before camera-ready: if you release code/data, swap any anonymized link for a permanent, licensed, DOI-issuing archive, and make the paper's statements match it.

Output format

[Claim inventory] <claim -> proof | configuration | released script>
[Proof completeness] full / sketched-with-pointer / omitted-no-pointer
[Simulation provenance] <simulator+version / topology / seeds / runs / CIs present?>
[Release plan] none / code / data / both, with license and archive
[Reproducibility level] turnkey / scripted / descriptive, stated honestly
[Fixes] <paper additions + release additions before the deadline>