itcs-reproducibility

ITCS Reproducibility

"Reproducibility" at a pure-theory venue means one thing: **a competent, skeptical reader can

verify every central claim from the paper alone.** There is no code to rerun and no dataset to

re-mine — the analogue of a reproducibility package is a **complete, self-contained, correctly

attributed proof. ITCS makes this concrete in its call: submissions must include complete

proofs of all central claims** (in an appendix if needed). This skill is the discipline that

makes the mathematics checkable, which — since ITCS has no rebuttal — is also your only

defense against a reviewer who gets stuck.

Completeness: every central claim is fully proved

• No "proof omitted," no "proof is standard," no "see the full version" for anything a

reviewer must check to believe the result. Deferring a routine calculation to an appendix is

fine; deferring the load-bearing lemma is a reproducibility failure and, at ITCS, a likely

reject.

• Distinguish proved from assumed. Every step is either proved here or cited to a precise

prior result. A theorem that quietly relies on an unproved claim is the theory analogue of a

package that silently calls a missing dependency.

• Prove the anchoring result in full. For a new-model paper, the separation/possibility result

that shows the model is alive is exactly what a reviewer will try hardest to break — give it the

most complete treatment in the paper.

Self-containment: definitions and notation

• Define every symbol and model parameter before use. A reviewer should verify a theorem

statement without opening your prior papers — which lightweight double-blind would expose

anyway (see [itcs-related-work](../itcs-related-work/SKILL.md)).

• State the exact model, not "the usual one." Small variations in a definition (adaptive vs.

non-adaptive, worst-case vs. average, the quantifier order) change what is true; pin them down.

• Restate borrowed results you rely on. Quote the precise statement (and its hypotheses) of an

external theorem you invoke, so a reviewer sees exactly what you assume and can check the fit.

Dependency provenance: pin what you borrow

The theory analogue of "pinning versions" is precise citation of the results you build on:

• Cite each borrowed theorem to a specific venue, year, and statement number — not a vague "it is

known that."

• Flag any dependency on a recent, unrefereed, or conditional result (an arXiv/ECCC preprint,

a conjecture, an unpublished personal communication). A result standing on an unverified

preprint should say so; its correctness is then explicitly conditional.

• Separate assumptions (P != NP, a hardness assumption, a conjecture) from theorems, and

make every conditional result's hypothesis unmissable in its statement.

The full version as the durable record

Under lightweight double-blind, authors are encouraged to post the full version to arXiv,

ECCC, or the IACR ePrint Archive. Treat it as the permanent, complete record:

• The full version and the submission must agree. Divergent theorem statements or proofs

between the two invite a reviewer to trust the wrong one. Keep them in sync, and say in the

submission that a full version exists.

• **Put genuinely long proofs in the full version and an appendix** the PC can read — a proof a

reviewer must consult to judge the paper cannot live only in an external preprint they are not

obligated to open (see [itcs-supplementary](../itcs-supplementary/SKILL.md)).

• Keep the preprint's identity handling consistent with your strategy — posting is allowed and

common, but the submitted PDF still omits author names.

The checkability passes (run before upload)

[Completeness]  every central claim has a full proof present (appendix ok)? no "omitted"/"standard"?
[Self-contain]  every symbol/model/parameter defined before use? theorem statements parseable alone?
[Dependencies]  each borrowed result cited to venue+year+statement number? unrefereed deps flagged?
[Assumptions]   every conditional theorem states its hypothesis in the statement?
[Consistency]   abstract bound = theorem bound = proof bound; quantifier order uniform?
[Full version]  submission and arXiv/ECCC/ePrint version agree? existence noted?

Common failure modes

| Symptom | Why it fails at ITCS | Fix |

|---|---|---|

| Central lemma "proof omitted" | Violates the complete-proofs requirement | Include the full proof (appendix) |

| Theorem parseable only with your prior paper | Not self-contained; anonymity risk too | Define everything in-paper |

| "It is known that ..." with no cite | Dependency unpinned; reviewer cannot check | Cite venue/year/statement |

| Relies on a preprint silently | Correctness is conditional but hidden | State the conditional dependency |

| Preprint proof differs from submission | Reviewer trusts the wrong version | Sync the two |

Output format

[ITCS checkability status] verifiable / gaps
[Completeness] central claims fully proved (list any "omitted")
[Self-containment] definitions complete? statements parseable alone? yes/no
[Dependencies] borrowed results pinned? unrefereed/conditional ones flagged? yes/no
[Full version] posted and consistent with submission? yes/no
[Fix queue] <ordered, load-bearing gaps first>