Eurocrypt 2025

Call for Artifacts

Artifact badges

Authors can choose to have their artifacts evaluated by the EUROCRYPT 2025 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.

• IACR EUROCRYPT 2025 Artifacts Available: 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.
• IACR EUROCRYPT 2025 Artifacts Functional: 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.
  • Documentation: are the artifacts sufficiently documented to enable them to be exercised by readers of the paper?
  • Completeness: do the submitted artifacts include all of the key components described in the paper?
  • Exercisability: 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?
  • Reusability: means that the artifacts are not just functional but of sufficient quality that they could be extended and reused by others.
• IACR EUROCRYPT 2025 Results Reproduced: 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.

Scope and aims

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:

• Software implementations (performance, formal verification, etc.): The source code of the implementation; a list of all dependencies required and the used versions; the test harness; instructions on how to build and run the software and the test harness; a description of the platform on which the results in the paper were obtained; and instructions or scripts to process the output of the test harness into appropriate summary statistics.
• Hardware implementations, physical attacks against implementations: A precise description of any physical equipment used in the setup; the source code of any software developed for the experiment; a list of all dependencies required; instructions on how to build the software and run the device or carry out the attack; instructions or scripts to process the output and interpret the results.
• Data or other non-code artifacts: Documents or reports in a widely used non-proprietary format, such as PDF, ODF, HTML, text; data in machine-readable format such as CSV, JSON, XML, with appropriate metadata describing the schema; scripts used to process the data into summary form. Where non-standard data formats cannot be avoided, authors should include suitable viewing software.

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.

Timeline and process

The artifact review process begins after the paper has been accepted for publication. Only papers accepted to EUROCRYPT 2025 will be considered under the artifact review process.

Following notification of acceptance (or acceptance with minor revisions) to EUROCRYPT 2025, 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.

Conflicts of interest

The EUROCRYPT 2025 artifact evaluation process follows the same conflict of interest policy as EUROCRYPT, which is the IACR Conflict of Interest Policy. A conflict of interest is considered to occur automatically whenever an author of a submitted paper and a reviewer:

• were advisee/advisor at any time;
• have been affiliated with the same institution in the past 2 years
• have published 2 or more jointly authored papers in the past 3 years; and/or
• are immediate family members.

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. For more information please see the IACR Policy on Conflicts of Interest. Authors will be asked to identify conflicts of interest with the committee members at time of artifact registration.

Submission Instructions and Format

Submissions may be made online at the submission server.

A submission shall include:

• the title and abstract of the accepted paper;
• the authors of the accepted paper and their affiliations;
• email addresses for the contact authors for the artifact;
• the PDF of the submitted paper, or an updated/camera-ready version, if available;
• a brief description of the artifact;
• if the artifact is less than 20MB: a .zip or .tar.gz containing the artifact;
• if the artifact is larger than 20MB: instructions on how to obtain the artifact;
• a link to a Github repository or similar for the artifact, if available, along with the commit/tag of the submission

The artifact itself shall include at least the following files:

• LICENSE: The license(s) under which the artifact is released; Please note that third-party material may require another License file to be included.
• README: The main starting point for anyone attempting to use the artifact. It should include instructions on:
  • dependencies required to build and run the artifact, including specific version numbers of dependencies;
  • instructions for building and running the artifact;
  • options on configuring the artifact to run in different modes, if applicable;
  • instructions on how to interpret the output of the artifact, including which scripts to run if appropriate;
  • an explanation of how the source code is organized

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.

Packaging of the artifact

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:

1. A virtual machine image (Virtualbox, Docker, …) containing the artifact and all dependencies already installed, and the artifact compiled, configured, and ready to run. It is preferable to also include the Dockerfile or script used to create the image if possible.
2. A binary installable package, such as an .rpm or .deb package on Linux, or an MSI Installer on Windows.
3. A video demonstrating the use of the artifact and the results, especially in the case of an artifact that requires commercial software, specialized hardware, or long computation times.
4. A “live notebook” (Jupyter, Sage, etc) for demonstrating a sequence of mathematical calculations, especially of data artifacts.

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 EUROCRYPT 2025 to do X." We want to give them the best chance of success with the least amount of pain.

Artifact review committee