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>
Source: brycewang-stanford/Awesome-Journal-Skills → PODS-Skills/skills/pods-reproducibility/SKILL.md
1---2name: pods-reproducibility3description: 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.4---567# PODS Reproducibility89Use this before submission and again before camera-ready. For a theory venue, "reproducibility" means10**verifiability**: a competent reader can follow every proof and confirm every stated theorem. PODS11makes this concrete by requiring the proof **appendix to be incorporated at submission** — there are12**no online/external appendices** — so the reviewers can check the mathematics now, not on trust.1314## Claim-to-proof map1516- Map each theorem, lemma, corollary, and reported bound to a **complete proof location** — the body17 or the appendix. No stated result may lack a full proof somewhere in the submitted PDF.18- For each proof, state its assumptions, cite the exact prior lemma or theorem it uses, and do not19 defer a key step to "the full version" or "a routine argument" when the argument is not routine.20- For constructions and algorithms, give enough that a reader could re-derive them: the invariant, the21 data structure, the parameter settings, and the complexity accounting.22- Keep the **assumptions ledger** honest: every conditional result (ETH, OMv, `#P`-hardness) is23 labeled where it is used, and the model (data vs. combined complexity, cost model) is fixed.24- Keep the paper and its proofs **consistent**: an abstract that claims more than the theorems prove,25 or a corollary that does not follow from the stated theorem, is the contradiction reviewers read as26 carelessness.2728## Verifiability audit2930| Claim in the paper | Weak (reject-prone) form | PODS-ready form |31|---|---|---|32| "Theorem: the problem is hard" | Hardness "sketched"; no reduction given | A complete reduction in the appendix, with the source problem cited |33| "Our algorithm is optimal" | Upper bound only | Upper bound + matching lower bound, both proved |34| "This holds for all such queries" | Proof for the examples shown | A general proof covering every case, or a scoped, honest claim |35| "It is easy to see that..." | The hard step waved away | The argument written out, or a precise appendix pointer |36| "Full proofs in the full version" | Nothing in the appendix | Complete proofs in the at-submission appendix; arXiv full version optional-but-consistent |3738"Proof omitted" with no appendix proof is treated at PODS the way "available on request" is treated at39a systems venue — as *not provided*. The appendix exists so nothing decision-critical is off-paper.4041## Assumptions and scope pinning4243```text44[Model] fix data model, query class, and complexity/cost measure; use them consistently45[Assumptions] label every conditional bound with its conjecture at the point of use46[Scope] state exactly which cases the result covers and which remain open — do not overclaim47[Dependencies] each proof cites the exact prior result it invokes; no circular lemma chains48[Constants] expose hidden dependence on query size / schema / fixed parameters49```5051## Degrees of verifiability (state the one you achieved)5253- **Complete:** every theorem has a full, self-contained proof in the submitted PDF (body + appendix).54 This is the PODS default and expectation.55- **Scoped:** the main theorems are fully proved; a clearly labeled extension or a corollary is stated56 with a proof idea and deferred to the journal full version — acceptable only if nothing57 decision-critical is deferred.58- **Conjectural:** a statement is offered as a conjecture with partial evidence — allowed as such,59 never dressed as a theorem.6061## The full-version-on-arXiv norm6263PODS is an extended-abstract venue: the community norm is to post a **full version on arXiv** (with all64proofs and any extended development) and, at camera-ready, DOI-link it to the PACMMOD paper. At65submission the arXiv version must not break double-anonymity; keep it anonymized or withhold the link66until acceptance. The at-submission appendix, not the arXiv link, is what the reviewers must be able to67verify.6869## Vignette: a dichotomy paper7071Consider a paper proving a PTIME/hard dichotomy for a query class. Its verifiability spine: the exact72model and query class in preliminaries; the tractable direction as a proved algorithm with complexity;73the hard direction as a complete reduction from a cited problem, under a named assumption if74conditional; a lemma establishing that the two directions partition the class (completeness); and a75scope sentence naming the one extension (e.g. self-joins) left open — every proof in the body or the76at-submission appendix, with a consistent arXiv full version prepared for later.7778## Consistency and camera-ready pass7980- Before submission: every stated result traces to a complete proof in the PDF; assumptions are81 labeled; the appendix is incorporated and anonymized.82- Before camera-ready: post the (de-anonymized) full version on arXiv and add the DOI link; ensure the83 arXiv version's theorems and the PACMMOD version's theorems agree exactly.8485## Output format8687```text88[Claim inventory] <theorem/lemma -> complete proof location (body/appendix)>89[Verifiability] complete / scoped / conjectural, stated honestly90[Assumption gaps] <any conditional bound unlabeled? any circular dependency?>91[Scope honesty] <open cases stated? overclaim in the abstract? yes/no>92[Paper fixes] <proofs to complete or pointers to add before submission>93[Full-version plan] <arXiv version prepared, anonymized now, DOI-linked at camera-ready>94```9596---9798**Source:** [`brycewang-stanford/Awesome-Journal-Skills`](https://github.com/brycewang-stanford/Awesome-Journal-Skills) → `PODS-Skills/skills/pods-reproducibility/SKILL.md`