Reproducibility of experiments is crucial to foster an atmosphere of open, reusable and trustworthy research. To improve and reward reproducibility and to give more visibility and credit to the effort of tool developers in our community, authors of accepted papers will be invited to submit possible artifacts associated with their paper for evaluation, and based on the level of reproducibility they will be awarded one or more badges.

The goals of the artifact evaluation are manifold. We want to encourage authors to provide more substantial evidence to their papers and to reward authors who aim for reproducibility of their results, and therefore create artifacts. Also, we want to give more visibility and credit to the effort of tool developers in our community. Furthermore, we want to simplify the independent replication of results presented in the paper and to ease future comparisons with existing approaches.

Artifact submission is optional. Papers that are successfully evaluated will be awarded one or more artifact badges, but the result of the artifact evaluation will not alter the paper’s acceptance decision. We aim to assess the artifacts themselves and not the quality of the research linked to the artifact, which has been assessed by the iFM 2024 program committee already. The goal of our review process is to be constructive and to improve the submitted artifacts. Only if an artifact cannot be improved to achieve sufficient quality in the given time frame or if it is inconsistent with the paper, it should be rejected.

Important Dates

All dates are Anywhere on Earth (AoE, UTC -12).

Reviewing Criteria

All artifacts are evaluated by the artifact evaluation committee. Each artifact will be reviewed by at least two committee members. Reviewers will read the accepted paper and explore the artifact to evaluate how well the artifact supports the claims and results of the paper.

Important: There will be no smoke-test, as in our experience it is not useful if the authors tested their artifact properly.

Available Badge

The available badge is the bare minimum that an artifact should allow: a binary with instructions how to run a problem are sufficient for this badge.

Functional Badge

The official description has more details, but you should reproduce a part of the paper in the virtual environment you picked (Docker / VM).

Reusable Badge

The artifact needs a description how to reproduce the work outside of the virtual environment you picked (Docker / VM) and even better describe how to use the tool for another purpose.

Assessment Phase

In the assessment phase, reviewers will try to reproduce any experiments or activities and evaluate the artifact w.r.t. the questions detailed above. The final review is communicated using EasyChair.

Awarding Authors may use all granted badges on the title page of the respective paper. iFM awards the evaluation and availability badges of EAPLS. The availability badge will be awarded if the artifact is made permanently and publicly available and has a DOI. We recommend services like Zenodo or figshare for this. Also, the artifact needs to be relevant and add value beyond the text in the paper.

The evaluation badge has two levels, functional and reusable. Each successfully evaluated artifact receives at least the functional badge. The reusable badge is granted to artifacts of very high quality.

Artifacts that are not exercisable, as, for example, protocols used for empirical studies, will be evaluated only according to the Available badge, as Functional and Reusable badges are not applicable.

Artifact Submission

An artifact submission consists of

  1. An abstract, to be written directly in EasyChair, that:
  2. A PDF file of the most recent version of the accepted paper, which may differ from the submitted version to take reviewers’ comments into account. Please also look at the Artifact Packaging Guidelines below for more detailed information about the contents of the artifact.
  3. A DOI of the artifact, as a link to a repository that provides a DOI such that Zenodo, figshare, or Dryad.
  4. We need the checksum to ensure the integrity of your artifact. You can generate the checksum using the following command-line tools:
  5. sha256sum <file>  # Linux
    CertUtil -hashfile <file> SHA256  # Windows
    shasum -a 256 <file>  # macOS

The abstract and the PDF file of your paper must be submitted via EasyChair:

If you cannot submit the artifact as requested or encounter any other difficulties in the submission process, please contact the artifact evaluation chairs prior to submission.

Packaging Guidelines

Your artifact should contain the following elements:

  1. the main artifact, i.e., data, software, libraries, scripts, etc. required to replicate the results of your paper and any additional software required by your artifact including an installation description in the README. We recommend using a Docker image, but you can also use an OVA file based on Ubuntu 24.04 LTS.
  2. A LICENSE file describing the rights. Your license needs to allow the artifact evaluation committee members to download and evaluate the artifact, e.g., download, use, execute, and modify the artifact for the purpose of artifact evaluation. Please refer to typical open-source licenses. Artifacts without an open-source license are also accepted, but a type of license needs to be specified, which allows the committee to assess the artifact. For quick help about possible licenses, visit
  3. The README file should introduce the artifact to the user, i.e., describe what the artifact does, and guide the user through the installation, set up tests, and replication of your results. Ideally, it should contain:

We provide an example README based on the CAV24-AE README available on Zenodo:

In case your experiments cannot be replicated inside Docker or a VM, please contact the Artifact Evaluation Committee chairs before submission. Possible reasons may include the need for special hardware (FPGAs, GPUs, clusters, robots, etc.), software licensing issues. In any case, you are encouraged to submit a complete artifact. This way, the reviewers have the option to replicate the experiments in the event they have access to the required resources.

In case your artifact requires more than 8 hours (or more memory) to reproduce, please provide:

  1. The full set of log files you obtained.
  2. The limited set of log files you obtained when running the artifact. This should not be the directory where the log files are produced by your experiments in the artifact!
  3. The directory where the log files are produced by your experiments in the artifact.
  4. Your scripts should allow to reproduce the results for the subset from the artifact and the full set.

The structure of those three directories should be similar so that the reviewers can compare the log files (while being aware than the cluster might or might not be faster than the machine the artifact is executed on).

If you decide to use a VM, make sure that it does not use the internet by including all packages (therefore, no sudo apt install XXX is allowed inside a VM).

Recommendations for Authors

Recommendations for Reviewers

As there is no smoke test, the reviewers might have to debug a little bit. Some important remarks:

Artifact Evaluation Committee

The artifact evaluation chairs are:

The artifact evaluation program committee members are: