--- name: sigcomm-artifact-evaluation description: Use when packaging an ACM SIGCOMM paper's code, traces, topologies, and configuration for the artifact-evaluation committee — choosing ACM badges (Artifacts Available, Evaluated, Results Reproduced) as claim calibration, building downscaled topologies and trace substitutes, and making a networking testbed result rebuildable by a reviewer. --- # SIGCOMM Artifact Evaluation Use this for the post-acceptance artifact submission. SIGCOMM helped establish artifact evaluation in networking, and the venue's "runnable papers" culture sets a high bar: a committee attempts to build and, where a badge requires it, reproduce your headline result. Reopen the current Call for Artifacts for this edition's exact badge set and dates (待核实 for 2026). ## Badge selection is claim calibration Choose the badges you can honestly support; the badge is a promise about what a stranger can verify, not a participation ribbon. | ACM badge | What it promises | What the AEC will do | |---|---|---| | Artifacts Available | Permanent public retrieval via an archival DOI | Confirm the archive resolves and is complete | | Artifacts Evaluated (Functional) | The artifact builds and runs as documented | Follow your README end to end on their setup | | Results Reproduced | The paper's main results follow from the artifact | Re-run to obtain the headline numbers within tolerance | Aim the highest badge at the result you most want believed, and be candid where hardware or scale makes full reproduction infeasible. ## The networking-specific hard part Generic artifact tooling cannot judge what SIGCOMM evaluators care about most: a result measured on a rack of switches or a wide-area testbed rarely rebuilds on a laptop. Plan for the gap: - **Downscale the topology.** Ship a small emulated or Mininet-style topology that reproduces the *mechanism's* behavior, with a documented map from the downscaled run to the paper's full-scale figure. - **Substitute the trace legally.** If the production trace cannot ship, provide a synthetic or public-trace substitute with the same statistical character, and state exactly which figures used which input. - **Pin the environment.** Kernel and NIC features, switch firmware or programmable-data-plane toolchain versions, and clock/timestamp sources all move results; record them. - **Expose the run count.** Every reported percentile needs its replication count and the seed or workload driver, or the tail cannot be reproduced. ## What evaluators open first ```text artifact/ README # 5-minute smoke run FIRST, then the full path smoke/ # one command -> one small figure that proves it runs topology/ # downscaled + a map to the paper's full-scale setup traces/ # substitute inputs + provenance + which-figure-uses-what configs/ # exact parameters per experiment scripts/ # regenerate each figure from logged results results/ # logged raw outputs the plots are built from ENVIRONMENT.md # kernel/NIC/switch/toolchain versions, hardware ``` Assume the evaluator runs the smoke path first and stops if it fails, so make one command produce one convincing small figure before anything else is polished. ## Vignette: packaging a data-center transport result A paper reports a tail-FCT win on a 128-server testbed. Turnkey plan: a Mininet topology that reproduces the incast dynamic at small scale; a synthetic RPC workload matching the trace's flow-size distribution; a driver that emits the FCT distribution over 20 replays; and a script that plots the 99th percentile directly from logged results so the artifact figure and the paper figure cannot diverge. The README states plainly which numbers are full-scale (paper) and which are downscaled (artifact). ## Output format ```text [Badges sought] available / functional / reproduced — each justified [Smoke path] one command -> one figure? yes/no [Topology] full-scale -> downscaled map documented [Trace handling] shipped / substituted (+ provenance) / described [Environment] kernel/NIC/switch/toolchain pinned [Fixes before AEC upload] ```