itcs-topic-selection

ITCS Topic Selection

Decide the venue before drafting, and decide it on the axis ITCS actually selects on. ITCS — the Innovations in Theoretical Computer Science conference — was founded (as Innovations in Computer Science, 2010) to reward conceptual novelty: a new model, a new question, a surprising connection, a direction the field had not thought to take. Its sibling flagships STOC and FOCS reward the deepest, most polished result on questions the field already agrees are hard. A technically strong paper whose real virtue is that it finally proves a known hard theorem is respected and then, often, routed away from ITCS as "not innovative enough" — while a bold, imperfect, genuinely new idea can be accepted here that STOC/FOCS would reject for want of depth.

The routing question that matters most

For most theory papers the decisive question is not "is this good theory?" but "does this paper give the community a new idea, or a stronger result on an existing idea?"

• If a reader's main takeaway is "I hadn't thought to ask that / model it that way / connect those two areas" — that is an ITCS signal.
• If the main takeaway is "they finally proved / improved / tightened X" — that is a STOC/FOCS/SODA signal, however elegant.

Both are valuable; ITCS is simply the venue whose PC is briefed to weight the first over the second. When your paper has both a new idea and deep technical results, you have a genuine choice, and the calendar and community fit break the tie.

Sibling-venue routing table

Conceptual shapes ITCS rewards

• A new model or definition — you hand the community an object it did not have (the non-malleable-codes lineage). The definition is the contribution.
• A new algorithmic or complexity notion — a fresh way to say what "solving" means (the pseudodeterministic lineage), reorganizing questions people already cared about.
• A surprising connection — tools from area X attack a problem in area Y that neither had linked (the "quantum money from knots" lineage).
• A new question at a seam — a problem two mature areas could have posed together but never did (interactive proofs meet learning; verification meets distributed networks).
• A conceptual reframing or "manifesto-with-teeth" — a position that changes what questions look worth asking, backed by at least one theorem so it is not a mere opinion.

The three ITCS acceptance tests

Sharpen a borderline verdict with three quick tests the PC will apply:

• New-question test: after the abstract, does a reader think "I want to work on that" about a question they had not previously posed? If the reaction is instead "impressive that they proved it," the paper is depth-shaped -> STOC/FOCS.
• Not-empty-not-everything test: a new model is only interesting if it is neither trivial nor all-powerful. Do you have at least one crisp result (a separation, a surprising possibility, an impossibility) proving the model is alive? Without it, ITCS reads the paper as a definition in search of a result.
• Survives-the-improvement test: if someone later proves a far stronger theorem inside your model, does your framing still get credit? If yes, the idea is the contribution (ITCS). If your paper's whole value is the current bound, route to a depth venue where the bound is the point.

Evidence maturity, ITCS-style

Fit is necessary but not sufficient — but note ITCS's maturity ladder runs opposite to an empirical venue's. A preliminary, incomplete, bold exploration of a genuinely new model is more ITCS-appropriate than a fully mopped-up version whose novelty has worn off. What ITCS will not accept is a new-model paper with no result at all (a definition with nothing proved) or a "new" question that is actually a known question in disguise. The failure mode here is not "too early" (as at STOC) but "not actually new" — do the related-work delta honestly first (see itcs-related-work).

Cheap reconnaissance before committing

[Novelty]  can you state your contribution as a NEW noun (a model, a notion, a connection)?
           -> yes, and it's checkably new in the literature = ITCS-shaped
           -> it's a better bound/algorithm on an existing noun = STOC/FOCS/SODA
[Scope]    scan the last 2-3 ITCS programs (dblp conf/innovations, LIPIcs) for kindred papers
           -> a cluster of "new model" papers in your area = a reviewer pool exists
[Calendar] ITCS has ONE deadline, early September, notification November, conference January.
           Missed it? the next depth-venue deadline may beat waiting a year for ITCS.

Decision procedure

[Takeaway] is the reader's takeaway a new IDEA or a stronger RESULT?
[Shape]    model / notion / connection / seam-question / reframing -> ITCS lane
[Alive]    do you have >=1 crisp result showing the model is not empty and not everything?
[Sibling]  depth on a known question -> STOC/FOCS; algorithms -> SODA; complexity -> CCC;
           crypto model -> TCC; too long/incremental -> journal (journal submission is
           even allowed simultaneously with ITCS)
[Verdict]  ITCS / sibling venue / journal, with a one-line reason naming the new noun

Run this before the writing skills; a wrong venue decision wastes every later step. When the verdict is ITCS, continue with itcs-workflow for the single-cycle calendar and itcs-writing-style for the innovation-first paper shape.