pods-reproducibility

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

[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

[Claim inventory] <theorem/lemma -> complete proof location (body/appendix)>
[Verifiability] complete / scoped / conjectural, stated honestly
[Assumption gaps] <any conditional bound unlabeled? any circular dependency?>
[Scope honesty] <open cases stated? overclaim in the abstract? yes/no>
[Paper fixes] <proofs to complete or pointers to add before submission>
[Full-version plan] <arXiv version prepared, anonymized now, DOI-linked at camera-ready>