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>
1---2name: infocom-reproducibility3description: 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.4---56# INFOCOM Reproducibility78Use this before submission and again before camera-ready. INFOCOM has **no formal9artifact-evaluation track** (as of 2026-07-09; 待核实 whether a cycle adds one), so reproducibility10is a matter of **credibility, not a badge you are forced to earn**. The goal is that a competent11networking reader could rebuild your evidence and reach your conclusions from the paper plus any12material you choose to release — which, at a large venue with no rebuttal, is how you convert a13skeptical reviewer.1415## Evidence map1617- Map each theorem, algorithm, and reported number to a **verifiable location** — a proof (in the18 body or a tight in-budget appendix), a simulator configuration, or a released script/dataset.19- For analytical results, give enough of the assumptions, derivation, and parameters that a reader20 could re-derive or check the bound. A theorem whose proof is "omitted for space" with no pointer21 is a weakness a reviewer cannot rebut for you.22- For simulation/measurement, report the simulator and version, topology and traffic model, seeds,23 number of runs, and the parameters — enough to re-run.24- **Releasing code/data is optional but persuasive.** Where you can, deposit the simulator scripts,25 the trace, and the plotting code in a public archive; where you cannot (proprietary traces,26 privacy), say so and why.27- Keep the paper and any released material **consistent**: a number in the PDF that no released28 script or stated configuration produces reads as carelessness.2930## What "reproducible" means without a badge track3132| Claim in the paper | Weak reproducibility answer | INFOCOM-persuasive answer |33|---|---|---|34| "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 |35| "We simulate at scale" | "ns-3 simulation" (no setup) | Named simulator + version, topology/traffic, seeds, runs, CIs; scripts if releasable |36| "On a real trace" | "a real dataset" (unnamed) | The trace's source and access, preprocessing, and inclusion criteria |37| "Our policy beats X" | Point estimates only | Seeded runs with CIs; released config so the comparison can be re-run |3839Because there is no artifact evaluator and (traditionally) no rebuttal, "trust us" does not scale —40convert every hand-wave into a stated configuration or a released file.4142## Provenance and setup pinning4344```text45[Analysis] list assumptions; give full proofs (in-budget appendix or a cited technical report);46 state all parameters used in the theorems47[Simulation] name and version the simulator; pin topology, traffic model, seeds, run count;48 archive the scripts and configs if releasable49[Measurement] record the trace source and dates; document preprocessing, filtering, and confounds50[Compute] state hardware and runtime so a reader can size a reproduction51[Randomness] log seeds for stochastic steps; say what is and is not deterministic52```5354## IEEE reproducibility options (optional, post-decision)5556- IEEE offers reproducibility avenues (e.g., **IEEE DataPort** for datasets, and code/data badges57 on some IEEE venues) that authors may use to deposit artifacts with a DOI. INFOCOM does not58 mandate them; treat them as a way to strengthen a released package, and confirm the current59 cycle's specifics (**待核实**).60- A public repository with an OSI-approved license and a one-screen README makes a released61 simulator far more credible than a bare tarball.6263## Degrees of reproducibility (state the one you achieved)6465- **Turnkey:** one documented command re-runs the simulation and regenerates the key figures.66- **Scripted:** scripts exist but need documented manual steps or external trace access.67- **Descriptive:** the paper states assumptions, setup, and parameters precisely enough to rebuild.6869For an analytical INFOCOM paper, *descriptive plus a full proof* is often the honest bar; for a70simulation-heavy paper, aim *scripted or turnkey* so a reviewer's doubt about a number has a public71answer.7273## Consistency and camera-ready pass7475- Before submission: every scored number traces to a proof, a stated configuration, or a releasable76 script; released material (if any) is double-blind (no owner strings or identifying repo).77- Before camera-ready: if you release code/data, swap any anonymized link for a permanent,78 licensed, DOI-issuing archive, and make the paper's statements match it.7980## Output format8182```text83[Claim inventory] <claim -> proof | configuration | released script>84[Proof completeness] full / sketched-with-pointer / omitted-no-pointer85[Simulation provenance] <simulator+version / topology / seeds / runs / CIs present?>86[Release plan] none / code / data / both, with license and archive87[Reproducibility level] turnkey / scripted / descriptive, stated honestly88[Fixes] <paper additions + release additions before the deadline>89```
brycewang-stanford