ICDT Reproducibility

At a theory venue, "reproducibility" means verifiability: a competent reader, given your paper, can reconstruct every proof and independently confirm every theorem. There is no dataset to re-run and no benchmark to re-execute — the standard is that nothing is asserted without a checkable argument, and nothing in the published record contradicts the full version. Use this before submission and again before camera-ready.

Verifiability map

• Map each theorem, lemma, and stated bound to a complete proof — in the body or the marked appendix — with every case handled. An unproved "it can be shown" is the theory-venue equivalent of a missing script.
• Pin the model and assumptions exactly: the data model, the query/constraint language, the complexity measure (data vs combined vs query), and any restriction (bounded arity, acyclicity) the proof relies on. A hidden assumption that makes the theorem easier is a correctness defect.
• Ensure definitions are self-contained: every symbol and notion used in a proof is defined in the paper, not assumed from a specific prior paper the referee may not have open.
• Keep the paper internally consistent: a bound stated in the abstract, restated in a theorem, and used in a corollary must be the same bound.

Proof-completeness audit

"It is easy to see" is treated as not shown unless it genuinely is; convert each such line into a one-line argument or move it to the appendix as a short proof.

Matching bounds and tightness

[Upper bound]  algorithm/argument establishing membership in the claimed class, proved
[Lower bound]  a reduction (or game/adversary argument) establishing hardness, proved
[Label]        say which is which, and state explicitly when the two meet (tight)
[Gaps]         if a bound is one-sided, say so honestly rather than implying tightness

A one-sided bound presented as a settled answer is the most common verifiability failure ICDT referees catch — and the most common reason for a Cycle-1 "revise."

Paper / full-version consistency

• Before submission: the single PDF is self-contained; every acceptance-critical claim has a checkable proof inside it (online appendices are not allowed).
• Before camera-ready: post/update the arXiv full version and confirm it states the same theorems and bounds as the LIPIcs paper. If the revision changed a bound, change it in both.
• A published LIPIcs paper whose full version silently proves a weaker (or stronger) result than claimed is a lasting citation hazard; keep them in lockstep (icdt-camera-ready).

Honest labeling

• Distinguish theorem (proved), conjecture (believed, unproved), and open problem (not known) explicitly; a referee reads these words literally.
• State what your result does not cover — the cases outside your class, the measures you did not bound — so no reader over-reads it.
• Attribute reused proof techniques to their source rather than re-deriving them silently.

Output format

[Claim inventory] <each theorem/lemma -> complete proof location>
[Models pinned] data model / language / complexity measure / restrictions stated? yes/no
[Bounds] matched and labeled; one-sided gaps disclosed? yes/no
[Self-contained] all definitions in-paper; no external-appendix dependence? yes/no
[Consistency] LIPIcs paper == arXiv full version on all bounds? yes/no
[Fix queue] <close proof gaps first, then pin models, then align full version>