FAST '27 Call for Artifacts | USENIX

A scientific paper consists of a constellation of artifacts that extend beyond the document itself, possibly including software, hardware, evaluation data, documentation, survey results, mechanized proofs, models, test suites, and benchmarks. In some cases, the quality of these artifacts is as important as the document itself. FAST '27 will continue the artifact evaluation process established in FAST '24 for all accepted papers.
The artifact evaluation process will consider the availability and functionality of artifacts associated with their corresponding papers, along with the reproducibility of the paper's key results and claims with these artifacts. Artifact evaluation is single-blind. Artifacts will be held in confidence by the evaluation committee. We encourage all the authors to publish their artifacts to benefit the broader community.
All accepted FAST papers are encouraged to participate in artifact evaluation. Because the time between paper acceptance and artifact submission is short, we strongly encourage authors to start preparing their artifacts for evaluation while their papers are still under consideration by the FAST Program Committee. See the Submitting an Artifact section for details on the submission process.
Participation in artifact evaluation is optional, although we hope all accepted papers will take part. Artifact evaluation will begin only after paper acceptance decisions have already been made. The decision of artifact evaluation does not affect the paper acceptance decision. However, we encourage authors to make the best efforts to obtain the “Results Reproduced” badge.
Questions about the process can be directed to fast27aec@usenix.org.
Note: In the rather common event of questions or discrepancies in using or understanding the artifacts, at least one contact author for the submission must be reachable via email and respond to questions in a timely manner during the artifact evaluation period.
The dissemination of artifacts benefits science and engineering. Their availability encourages reproducibility and enables authors to build on top of each others' work. It can also unambiguously resolve questions about cases not addressed by the original authors. It also confers direct and indirect benefits to the authors themselves, such as a fresh set of eyes checking the experimental setup steps or confirming that someone other than the authors can use the released code.
The goal of artifact evaluation is to incentivize authors to invest in their broader scientific community by producing artifacts that illustrate their claims, enable others to validate those claims, and accelerate future scientific progress by providing a platform for others to start from. A paper with artifacts that pass the artifact evaluation process is recognized in two ways: first, with badges displayed on the USENIX website and the paper’s first page, and second, with an appendix detailing the artifacts.
Each paper sets up certain expectations and claims of its artifacts based on its content. The artifact evaluation committee (AEC) will read the paper and judge whether the artifacts match those criteria. Thus, the AEC will decide whether the artifacts do or do not "conform to the expectations set by the paper." Ultimately, the AEC expects that high-quality artifacts will be:
Authors will be invited to submit their artifacts after their papers have been accepted for publication at FAST. Because the time between paper acceptance and artifact submission is short, the AEC chairs encourage authors to start preparing their artifacts for evaluation while their papers are still under consideration by the FAST Program Committee. See the guidelines for packaging artifacts later in this document.
At artifact submission time, a submitter will choose the criteria by which their artifacts will be evaluated. The criteria correspond to three badges that can be awarded to a paper. An artifact can meet the criteria of one, two, or all three of the following badges:
After the artifact submission deadline, members of the AEC will download each artifact package, read the accepted paper, install the artifacts (where relevant), and evaluate the artifacts. AEC members may communicate with artifact authors—through HotCRP to maintain the evaluators' anonymity—to resolve minor issues and ask clarifying questions. Authors must respond to messages from the AEC in a timely manner for their artifacts to be effectively considered.
The AEC will complete its evaluation and notify the authors of the outcomes. Authors can use the time between notification and the final paper deadline to incorporate feedback and artifact details into the final versions of their papers. This is intended to allow authors to include the feedback from the AEC at their option.
When the AEC judges that an artifact meets the criteria for one or more of the badges listed above, those will appear on the final version of the associated paper. In addition, the authors of the paper should add an Artifact Appendix of up to two pages to their publication. The goal of the appendix is to describe and document the artifact in a standard format. The template for the appendix is available here.
The AEC will try to accept any kind of digital artifact that authors wish to submit: software, infrastructure as a code (e.g., Terraform, Ansible), data sets, survey results, test suites, mechanized proofs, etc. Paper proofs will not be accepted because the AEC lacks the time and often the expertise to review paper proofs carefully. Physical objects, e.g., computer hardware, cannot be accepted due to the difficulty of making the objects available to members of the AEC. (If your artifact requires special hardware, consider if/how you can make it available to evaluators, e.g., by providing ssh access.)
The submission of an artifact does not give the AEC permission to publicize its content. AEC members may not publicize any part of your artifact during or after completing an eval