Asiacrypt 2026 aims to support open and reproducible research within the field of cryptography. As such, authors of accepted papers are invited to submit associated artifacts, such as software or datasets, for review and archiving. The review will be a collaborative process between authors and the artifact evaluation committee (AEC). The goal of the process is not just to evaluate artifacts, but also to improve them. Artifacts that pass successfully through the artifact review process will be publicly archived by the IACR at artifacts.iacr.org.
Authors can choose to have their artifacts evaluated by the Asiacrypt 2026 Artifact Evaluation Committee (AEC) against three badges: Artifacts Available, Artifacts Functional, and Artifacts Reproduced. Each evaluation is optional. This system broadly follows the conventions established in recent years in security research conferences such as USENIX Security and NDSS.
To earn this badge, the AEC must judge that artifacts associated with the paper have been made available for retrieval. Other than making the artifacts available, this badge does not mandate any further requirements on functionality, correctness, or documentation. This is intended for authors who simply wish to make some supplementary material available that supports their paper. Examples include data sets, large appendices, and other documentation.
To earn this badge, the AEC must judge that the artifacts conform to the expectations set by the paper in terms of functionality, usability, and relevance. The AEC will consider four aspects of the artifacts in particular:
Are the artifacts sufficiently documented to enable them to be exercised by readers of the paper?
Do the submitted artifacts include all of the key components described in the paper?
Do the submitted artifacts include the scripts and data needed to run the experiments described in the paper, and can the software be successfully executed?
Are the artifacts are not just functional but of sufficient quality that they could be extended and reused by others?
To earn this badge, the AEC must be able to use the submitted artifacts to obtain the main computational results presented in the paper. In short, is it possible for the AEC to independently repeat the computational experiments and obtain results that support the main claims made by the paper? The goal of this effort is not to reproduce the results exactly but instead to generate results independently within an allowed tolerance such that the main claims of the paper are validated.
The two main goals of the artifact review process are to improve functionality and reusability of artifacts to enable reproduction and extension by the scientific community. Reproducibility, in the context of computational experiments, means that the scientific results claimed can be obtained by a different team using the original authors' artifacts.
The goal of the artifact review process is not to verify the scientific claims in the accepted paper. Rather, the artifact review process aims at ensuring sufficient functionality of the artifact to enable a research team to attempt to reproduce the results, as well as sufficient documentation to allow such attempts after many years have passed.
Examples of this in the field of cryptography include:
Where possible, such as in software-based artifacts relying solely on open-source components, the artifact review process will aim to run the artifact and test harness, and see that it produces outputs that would be required to assess the artifact against results in the paper. For artifacts that depend on commercial tools or specialized physical hardware, the goal of the artifact review process will be to confirm that the artifacts are functional, and could plausibly be used by someone with access to the appropriate tools to reproduce the results.
Reusability means that the artifacts are not just functional, but of sufficient quality that they could be extended and reused by others. Reusable artifacts have clear user and developer documentation, and are well-structured in ways that make them easy to modify or extend.
The artifact review process begins after the paper has been accepted for publication. Only papers accepted to Asiacrypt 2026 will be considered under the artifact review process. Following notification of acceptance (or acceptance with minor revisions) to Asiacrypt 2026, the artifact may be submitted for review.
Once the artifact is submitted, two or more members of the artifact evaluation committee will be assigned to review the artifact. The artifact review process will be a continuous process, and may involve requests from the reviewers for additional help on how to run the artifact, interpret its results, etc. It is acceptable (and expected) that the interaction between the reviewers and the authors leads to the artifact being updated during the review process. Updates that affect scientific characteristics reported in the paper (such as changes to performance) should be clearly documented.
Authors of artifacts that are accepted for archiving will be provided instructions on how to submit the archival version of their artifact.
The complete conflict of interest policy is included on the paper submission page. What follows is an abridged version.
The Asiacrypt 2026 artifact evaluation process follows the same conflict of interest policy as the IACR. A conflict of interest is considered to occur automatically whenever an author of a submitted paper and a reviewer:
Conflicts may also arise for reasons other than those just listed. Examples include closely related technical work, cooperation in the form of joint projects or grant applications, business relationships, close personal friendships, instances of personal enmity. Authors will be asked to identify conflicts of interest with the committee members at time of artifact registration.
The artifact review process will be single-blinded: the authors of the paper and artifact are not anonymous, but the reviewers will be anonymous. Communication between the authors and the reviewers will be facilitated via the HotCRP review site. Authors should not attempt to learn the identities of the reviewers, for example by embedding analytics or tracking elements in the artifact or a website; if you cannot comply with this for some reason out of your control, please notify the chairs immediately to discuss.
If your artifact is accepted, you will be required to grant the IACR a non-exclusive, irrevocable license to distribute the artifact, via an open source license, such as an OSI-approved license; examples are the Apache License 2.0, 2- & 3-clause BSD license, GPL, LGPL, MIT license, MPL 2.0, CDDL and EPL. If your artifact also contains third-party material that you did not create, you must ensure that you have permission to redistribute that material, for example because it is also open source or because you have obtained the appropriate permissions.
It is not a requirement that any patent rights be granted.
An artifact submission shall include:
The artifact itself shall include at least the following files:
Files such as LICENSE and README can be plain text files or Markdown files (preferably Markdown).
Source code files within the artifact are encouraged to be organized, formatted, and documented using best practices and conventions appropriate to the programming language in question. For example: formatted using a consistent style such as PEP8 for Python; documentation of APIs using JavaDoc for Java or Doxygen for C; unit tests using an appropriate framework.
The primary form of the artifact should be as source code, with suitable build scripts and instructions on how to install the appropriate dependencies. For artifacts with complex dependencies or build requirements, the authors are encouraged to also package the artifact in the manner that makes it most amenable to successful execution. Potential formats include:
When in doubt, imagine a first-year grad student in 2035 who is told by their supervisor "See if you can change this artifact from Asiacrypt 2026 to do X."" We want to give them the best chance of success with the least amount of pain.
to be announced
asiacrypt2026artifacts @ iacr.org