pods-related-work
GitHub用于审计PODS论文的新颖性与合规性。指导作者对比定理而非罗列文献，覆盖数据库、逻辑及复杂性理论领域，撰写结果导向的差异化分析，维护双盲匿名，并声明版本重叠情况。
Trigger Scenarios
Install
npx skills add brycewang-stanford/Awesome-Journal-Skills --skill pods-related-work -g -y
SKILL.md
Frontmatter
{
"name": "pods-related-work",
"description": "Use when positioning an ACM PODS submission against the database-theory literature across PODS, ICDT, LICS, and the journals (TODS, LMCS, JACM, VLDBJ), writing delta-first contrast that compares results rather than cataloging citations, keeping self-citations double-anonymous, and handling concurrent, arXiv-preprint, and prior-version overlap."
}
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>
Version History
- 9f86f09 Current 2026-07-19 17:16
