pods-related-work

PODS Related Work

Use this to audit novelty and eligibility. PODS reviewers are close to the database-theory literature

and expect to see exactly where your result sits relative to the nearest prior result — a

comparison of theorems, not a list of papers. Reopen the current PODS call for the resubmission,

anonymity, and prior-publication rules before advising authors.

Positioning checks

• Separate the mathematical novelty from the effort. What is new: a bound that was open, a

dichotomy that completes a partial classification, a semantics nobody had defined, a lower bound

matching a known upper bound? Name the theorem-level delta.

• Cover the theory lanes. PODS reviewers expect the database-theory venues and the relevant

logic/complexity literature, not only the papers nearest your technique (see the table). A

bibliography missing the obvious prior classification reads as unaware.

• Write delta-first at the level of results. Each closely related paper gets one sentence naming

what it proved and one naming how your result differs — a stronger bound, a broader class, a

matching lower bound, a removed assumption. Compare theorems, do not summarize abstracts.

• Preserve lightweight double-anonymity. Cite your own prior work in the third person and never

link reviewers to an identity-revealing arXiv preprint, homepage, or named system.

• Declare overlap with any prior conference/workshop version, an ICDT/journal version, or a

concurrent submission; do not re-submit an already-published theorem as new.

Database-theory literature lanes

| Lane | Typical venues | What PODS reviewers check |

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

| Database theory (symposia) | PODS, ICDT | Whether the nearest prior bound/dichotomy/semantics is compared or subsumed |

| Logic & finite model theory | LICS, ICALP, CSL | Whether the logical tools and expressiveness results are credited to origin |

| Complexity (when a bound rests on it) | STOC, FOCS, CCC | Whether the complexity-theoretic assumption (ETH, OMv, #P) is stated correctly |

| Theory journals | TODS, LMCS, JACM, VLDBJ | Whether the full/journal treatment of a topic is engaged, not just the extended abstract |

| Systems DB (when relevant) | SIGMOD, VLDB, ICDE | Whether a practically motivated problem's systems context is acknowledged |

A bibliography that cites only your own thread of papers tells a reviewer the delta may be smaller than

claimed; one that reaches ICDT, the logic venues, and the journal versions signals command of the field.

Delta-first positioning vignette

Suppose the paper proves a dichotomy for a query-evaluation problem. Its nearest neighbors: an

earlier paper giving tractability for a sub-class (positive, but not a classification), a hardness

result for one specific query (negative, but isolated), and a journal survey conjecturing the

boundary. The novelty sentence should name all three contrasts — a complete classification where the

first had only a sub-class, a general lower bound where the second had one query, and a proof where

the survey had a conjecture.

Concurrent and prior-version judgment calls

[Concurrent arXiv work]  cite neutrally, state the precise result-level difference, avoid
                         unverifiable priority claims; keep the citation double-anonymous
[Your ICDT/workshop ver] declare it; state what the PODS paper adds (a matching lower bound, the
                         general case, full proofs) beyond the earlier extended abstract
[Journal full version]   if a journal version exists or is in submission, disclose it; PODS is an
                         extended abstract venue and overlap must be stated
[Archival status unclear] declare the overlap in the submission rather than guessing a chair's reading

Eligibility red flags

• Substantial overlap with a theorem already published by the same authors (self-plagiarism / double

publication risk).

• A "new" result that re-proves a known bound with a cosmetic change of model and no new consequence.
• Citations exclusively to systems venues, signaling a paper that may be a systems result reframed

without the theory a PODS reviewer expects.

Output format

[Eligibility] clear / needs declaration / risky
[Lanes covered] <db-theory / logic-FMT / complexity / journals / systems-when-relevant>
[Nearest 3 results] <prior result -> one-line theorem-level delta>
[Archival-overlap risk] <none / declare: which prior version>
[Novelty sentence] <PODS-ready contribution contrast against the nearest prior theorem>