ECAI Artifact Evaluation

Start with a correction that saves authors from importing the wrong workflow: ECAI does not run an ACM/IEEE-style artifact-evaluation track with a separate badge committee. There is no "Artifacts Available / Functional / Reusable / Reproduced" pipeline as at ACM SIGSOFT venues, and no separate artifact deadline to hit after acceptance. In ECAI, the reproducibility story is carried by the paper and its supplement and judged by the same reviewers who read the paper, during the one review round.

That makes the "artifact" a submission-time asset, not a post-acceptance badge chase. Its job is to make the reviewer trust the claim inside a 7-page body. (Confirm on the current call whether the edition adds any optional reproducibility checklist or appendix mechanism — this is 待核实 per cycle and can differ between a standalone ECAI and the joint IJCAI-ECAI 2026.)

Match the artifact to the contribution shape

ECAI is a general-AI venue, so "artifact" means different things:

What "good" looks like at review time

• Anonymized. The supplement is read under double-blind review; strip repository owners, institution names, and system names that identify you (ecai-submission).
• Self-contained. A reviewer opens it once, in a short window; it must run or be readable without chasing dependencies or your lab's private data.
• Decision-critical content stays in the body. The supplement holds support (full proofs, extra tables, code) — not the claim itself. Nothing a reviewer needs to judge the paper may live only in the supplement (ecai-supplementary).
• Proportional. Match effort to the claim: a theory paper's artifact is a rigorous proof appendix, not a Docker image; an empirical paper's artifact is a runnable, seeded package.

A pragmatic checklist (adapt, don't badge-chase)

[ ] Full proofs present for every theorem the body sketches (theory work)
[ ] Code runs from a clean checkout with a documented entrypoint (empirical work)
[ ] Data included or a script fetches a versioned public source; seeds fixed
[ ] Cached model/API outputs included so results do not re-sample at run time
[ ] A short README maps each paper claim/table -> the file that reproduces it
[ ] Archive anonymized: no owner, institution, funding, or system-name leaks
[ ] Total size and runtime reasonable for a reviewer's one-pass read

Do not import the wrong machinery

• No ACM/IEEE badges. Do not promise "Artifacts Evaluated - Reusable" or design around a badge committee — none exists at ECAI. Credibility is reviewer-judged, in-band.
• No separate artifact-track deadline. Everything ships with the paper (abstract 12 Jan / paper 19 Jan for IJCAI-ECAI 2026); there is no later artifact submission.
• Not a leaderboard. ECAI values understanding (a proof, a fair comparison) over a single benchmark number; an artifact that only re-prints a leaderboard score misses the venue's bar (ecai-experiments).

Post-acceptance: make it permanent and open

Once accepted, convert the anonymized supplement into a permanent, open release to match ECAI's open-access ethos:

• Deposit code/data in a DOI-issuing archive (e.g. Zenodo/Software Heritage) with an open license.
• De-anonymize repository owners and restore acknowledgements (ecai-camera-ready).
• Put the permanent link in the camera-ready so the open-access paper points to a stable artifact.

Output format

[Artifact type] proof appendix / runnable code+data / environment+protocol / deployment pipeline
[Anonymity] clean / leaks: <where>
[Claim map] each theorem/table -> proof or reproducing file
[Self-containment] runs/readable in one pass? missing deps: <list>
[Reality check] no ACM/IEEE badge assumed; nothing decision-critical hidden in the supplement
[Post-acceptance] DOI archive + open license + de-anonymized link planned for camera-ready