Skills Development Artifact Submission and Evaluation Guidelines

Artifact Submission and Evaluation Guidelines

v20260724
tacas-artifact-evaluation
This guide outlines the rigorous process for submitting and evaluating research artifacts for academic conferences (TACAS/ETAPS). It details the mandatory two-round evaluation system, covering tool-demonstration papers and general research case studies. Authors must package their work to achieve badges like Available, Functional, and Reusable, ensuring maximum reproducibility and environmental compatibility on a clean virtual machine.
Get Skill
352 downloads
Overview

TACAS Artifact Evaluation

Use this for the artifact track. TACAS treats the artifact as a first-class citizen, and the process differs from most venues in two ways: for tool papers it is mandatory and runs in parallel with paper review, and badging follows the ETAPS Artifact Badge guidelines, decided by the Artifact Evaluation Committee (AEC) and printed on the paper's title page.

The two rounds (know which one you are in)

Round Applies to Timing Consequence
Round 1 — mandatory Regular tool + tool-demonstration papers Submitted right after the paper, evaluated with the PC Outcome feeds the acceptance decision
Round 2 — voluntary Regular research + case-study papers After acceptance notification Earns title-page badges; does not gate acceptance

The consequence for a tool paper is blunt: a package that does not build or run on the clean evaluation VM can cost the paper, not merely a badge. Treat the artifact as a co-equal deliverable due about two weeks after the paper.

The ETAPS Artifact Badges

Badge What it certifies What earns it
Available The artifact is permanently, publicly retrievable Deposit in a DOI-issuing archive (Zenodo, figshare, Software Heritage)
Functional The artifact runs and does what the paper says A clean-VM install, a smoke run, and documented expected outputs
Reusable Others can build on and adapt it The Functional bar plus careful docs, structure, licensing, and generality

The AEC decides which subset a given artifact receives. Available is low-cost, high-value (archive the package); Functional and Reusable require the evaluator's own run to succeed on the provided VM, so the failure mode is always "did not run in their environment," never "the idea was weak."

What the AEC opens first

Claim type First thing inspected Common failure caught
A verification tool The README and one smoke command on the VM Undocumented deps; needs network; only-builds-on-authors'-machine
A benchmark comparison The script that regenerates the headline table Numbers in the PDF no script reproduces
A soundness claim The validation / witness-checking path "Fast" results that were never checked for correctness
A tool-demonstration The documented demo walkthrough The demo the paper describes cannot be driven on the VM

Assume a bounded evaluator time budget on the clean ETAPS VM. Design for the first ten minutes to succeed: a smoke run that finishes fast and prints an expected output.

Packaging plan

[VM-ready]    a package that builds/runs inside the provided VM image, offline, deps vendored
[README]      one screen: what it is, smoke run, per-claim reproduction, expected outputs + runtimes
[Mapping]     an explicit table: paper claim -> script -> expected result
[Benchmarks]  the actual task set vendored (or documented access), not just a pointer
[Validation]  a witness-checking or cross-tool script for any soundness/correctness claim
[License]     an OSI-approved license so the artifact can be badged Reusable
[Archive]     deposit in a DOI-issuing repository for the Available badge (esp. at camera-ready)

Anonymity by category (do not get this backwards)

  • Round-1 tool / tool-demo artifacts are single-blind — they may carry the tool identity and authorship, matching the single-blind paper.
  • Round-2 research artifacts are submitted after acceptance, so anonymity is no longer the concern; but a research review artifact attached to the double-blind paper (if you choose to supply one at submission) must be anonymized — no owner strings, lab names, or identity-revealing repository URLs.

Worked vignette: badging a model-checking tool

A regular tool paper contributes a new checker. To target Available + Functional + Reusable: ship a VM-ready image with the tool prebuilt; a smoke.sh that verifies one small bundled task in under a minute; a reproduce/ directory whose scripts regenerate the benchmark table from logged runs; a claim-to-script mapping in the README; the vendored benchmark set; a witness-validation script for the soundness claim; and an Apache/MIT license. State honestly which results are turnkey and which need the full (slow) benchmark run. Deposit the final version on Zenodo for the DOI.

Calibration

  • The badge set, the round structure, and the VM image are set per edition on the tacas.info artifact page — confirm the current guidelines and image before packaging.
  • Do not conflate the mandatory Round-1 deadline with the voluntary Round-2 or the camera-ready; they are distinct dates.

Output format

[Round] mandatory (tool/tool-demo, PC-parallel) / voluntary (research/case-study, post-acceptance)
[Target badges] Available / Functional / Reusable
[Clean-VM test] does build + smoke run succeed offline on the provided VM? yes/no
[Claim mapping] <claim -> script -> expected result present? yes/no>
[Archive] DOI-issuing deposit ready for Available? yes/no
[Fixes before upload] <ordered list>
Info
Category Development
Name tacas-artifact-evaluation
Version v20260724
Size 5.51KB
Updated At 2026-07-29
Language