--- name: podc-artifact-evaluation description: Use when an author expects an artifact-evaluation or badge track at ACM PODC and needs redirecting — PODC has NO artifact track and no ACM badges. This skill converts artifact-culture instincts into what PODC actually evaluates: proof-appendix completeness, model/assumption rigor, and the honest, optional role of any simulation. --- # PODC Artifact Evaluation (there isn't one — read this) If you arrived here expecting an Artifacts-Available / Functional / Reusable / Reproduced badge process, stop: **PODC has no artifact-evaluation track and no ACM badge program.** It is a proofs venue. The object that is "evaluated" is your **theorem and its proof**, and the honesty of your **model and assumptions**. This skill redirects artifact energy into the three things that actually decide a PODC paper's technical standing. ## Why PODC has no artifact track A PODC contribution is a **model, a theorem, and a proof**, not a running system or a dataset. There is nothing for evaluators to install and run to confirm the claim — the claim is confirmed by **reading the proof**. Importing a badge workflow here is a category error: it would evaluate an artifact that is, at most, an optional illustration. (Contrast this with software-engineering or systems venues, where the artifact *is* part of the evidence.) Any simulation you ship is a figure-generator, not proof of correctness (`podc-experiments`, `podc-reproducibility`). ## The three real "evaluations" at PODC ### 1. Proof-appendix completeness (the analogue of "Functional") Just as an SE evaluator checks that an artifact runs, a PODC reviewer checks that the proof *closes*. Make it pass: ```text [ ] Every lemma the main theorem uses is stated and fully proved (or cited with the statement quoted) [ ] No "it is easy to see" or "the remaining case is symmetric" hides a nontrivial step [ ] Base cases of inductions/recursions are present [ ] Named invariants are shown to hold initially and be preserved [ ] The full version is self-contained: no proof depends on an external private note ``` ### 2. Model/assumption rigor (the analogue of "Reusable") An artifact is "Reusable" when others can build on it; a *model* is reusable when it is stated precisely enough that others can prove new results in it and trust yours: ```text [ ] The model box fixes network, timing, faults, adversary, randomness, and cost measure before any theorem [ ] Every assumption the proofs consume is declared in the box (no assumption creep) [ ] No proof silently strengthens synchrony or weakens the adversary mid-argument [ ] Parameter regimes (ranges of n, t, diameter) are stated where results are conditional [ ] Definitions match standard usage, or deviations are flagged explicitly ``` Run the assumption audit from `podc-experiments`; this is the single most common source of a PODC soundness rejection. ### 3. Optional-simulation transparency (the analogue of "Available") If — and only if — your paper includes a simulation, make it transparent, while remembering it establishes nothing: ```text [ ] Labeled as illustrative (a constant, a convergence rate, average-case behavior), not as verification [ ] Parameters, ranges, number of trials, and random seeds reported [ ] Environment pinned (language/version) in the full version or a linked bundle [ ] Any repo/author-page link kept OUT of the anonymized submission (lightweight double-blind) [ ] Added openly only in the camera-ready / arXiv full version ``` ## Mapping artifact instincts to PODC actions | Artifact-venue instinct | PODC equivalent | |---|---| | "Package the code so it runs on a clean machine" | Make the proof close for a reader with only the submission | | "Document dependencies" | Declare every assumption in the model box | | "Provide a claim -> script -> result mapping" | Provide a theorem -> lemma -> proof map with exact cross-refs | | "Deposit in a DOI archive for Available" | Post the full version with all proofs to arXiv | | "Reproduce the headline numbers" | Let a reader re-derive the bound from the stated model | ## What NOT to do - Do not build a Dockerfile, a badge application, or an evaluator README expecting a PODC artifact track — there is none. - Do not present a simulation as if it earned a "Reproduced" badge; PODC has no such badge and the proof is the evidence. - Do not de-anonymize the submission by linking a simulation repository during review. - Do not confuse PODC with software-engineering or systems venues (or with DISC's practice); the proofs-only evaluation model is the point. ## Output format ```text [Reality check] confirmed: PODC has no artifact/badge track; the proof is what is evaluated [Proof completeness] every lemma proved; no hidden steps; self-contained full version? [Model rigor] model box complete; no assumption creep; regimes stated? [Simulation] absent / illustrative-and-transparent (seeds/ranges), no de-anonymizing links? [Fix queue] ```