Artifact Evaluation Criteria

Evaluation Criteria for Artifact Evaluation

The RTSS 2025 artifact evaluation criteria are similar to those previously used by other conferences in their repeatability and AE processes. Submissions will be judged based on three criteria—coverage, instructions, and quality, as defined below—where each criterion is assessed on the following scale:

  • significantly exceeds expectations (5),
  • exceeds expectations (4),
  • meets expectations (3),
  • falls below expectations (2),
  • missing or significantly falls below expectations (1).

Each artifact is evaluated independently by multiple evaluators according to the listed objective criteria. In order to be judged “repeatable”, an artifact must generally “meet expectations” (average score of 3 or more), and must not have any missing elements (no scores of 1). The higher scores (“exceeds” or “significantly exceeds expectations”) will be considered aspirational goals, not requirements for acceptance.

Coverage

What fraction of the appropriate figures and tables are reproduced by the artifact?

The focus is on figures or tables in the paper containing computationally generated or processed experimental evidence used to support the claims of the paper. Other figures and tables, such as illustrations or tables listing only parameter values, are not considered in this assessment.

Note that satisfying this criterion does not require that the corresponding figures or tables be recreated in exactly the same format as they appear in the paper, merely that the data underlying those figures or tables be generated faithfully in a recognizable format.

A repeatable element is one for which the computation can be rerun by following the instructions provided with the artifact in a suitably equipped environment. Furthermore, an extensible element is one for which variations of the original computation can be run by modifying elements of the code and/or data. Consequently, necessary conditions for extensibility include that the modifiable elements be identified in the instructions or documentation, and that all source code must be available and/or involve calls to commonly available and trusted software (e.g.: Windows, macOS, Linux, C or Python standard libraries, Matlab, etc.).

The categories for this criterion are:

  • None (significantly falls below expectations / 1): No element is repeatable.
  • Some (falls below expectations / 2): There is at least one repeatable element.
  • Most (meets expectations / 3): The majority (at least half) of the elements are repeatable.
  • All repeatable or most extensible (exceeds expectations / 4): All elements are repeatable or most are repeatable and easily modified. Note that if there is only one computational element and it is repeatable, then this score should be awarded.
  • All extensible (significantly exceeds expectations / 5): All elements are repeatable and easily modified.

Instructions

This criterion is focused on the instructions intended for other practitioners that seek to recreate the paper’s computationally generated results. The categories for this criterion are:

  • None (missing / 1): No instructions were included in the artifact.
  • Rudimentary (falls below expectations / 2): The instructions specify a script or command to run, but little else.
  • Complete (meets expectations / 3): For every computational element that is repeatable, there is a specific instruction which explains how to repeat it. The environment under which the software was originally run is described.
  • Comprehensive (exceeds expectations / 4): For every computational element that is repeatable, there is a single command or clearly defined short series of steps that recreate the element almost exactly as it appears in the published paper (e.g., file format, fonts, line styles, etc. might not be identical, but the content of the element is the same). In addition to identifying the specific environment under which the software was originally run, a broader class of environments is identified under which it could run.
  • Outstanding (significantly exceeds expectations / 5): In addition to the criteria for a comprehensive set of instructions, explanations are provided for:
    • all the major components / modules in the software,
    • important design decisions made during implementation,
    • how to modify / extend the software, and/or
    • what environments / modifications would break the software.

Quality

This criterion explores the means provided to infer, show, or prove trustworthiness of the software and its results. While a set of scripts which exactly recreate, for example, the figures from the paper certainly aid in repeatability, without well-documented code it is hard to understand how the data in that figure was processed, without well-documented data it is hard to determine whether the input is correct, and without testing it is hard to determine whether the results can be trusted.

If there are tests in the artifact which are not included in the paper, they should at least be mentioned in the instructions document. Documentation of test details can be put into the instructions document or into a separate document in the artifact.

The categories for this criterion are:

  • None (missing / 1): There is no evidence of software documentation or testing.
  • Rudimentary documentation (falls below expectations / 2): The purpose of most files is documented (preferably within the file, but otherwise in the instructions or a separate README file).
  • Comprehensive documentation (meets expectations / 3): The purpose of almost all files is documented. Within source code files, almost all classes, methods, attributes and variables are given lengthy clear names and/or documentation of their purpose. Within data files, the format and structure of the data is documented; for example, in comma-separated value (CSV) files there is a header row and/or comments explaining the contents of each column.
  • Comprehensive documentation and rudimentary testing (exceeds expectations / 4): In addition to the criteria for comprehensive documentation, there are identified test cases with known solutions which can be run to validate at least some components of the code.
  • Comprehensive documentation and testing (significantly exceeds expectations / 5): In addition to the criteria for comprehensive documentation, there are clearly identified unit tests (preferably run within a unit-test framework) which exercise a significant fraction of the smaller components of the code (individual functions and classes) and system-level tests which exercise a significant fraction of the full package. Unit tests are typically self-documenting, but the system level tests will require documentation of at least the source of the known solution.