stoc-artifact-evaluation

name	stoc-artifact-evaluation
description	Use when deciding what evidence objects a STOC (ACM Symposium on Theory of Computing) paper must ship, given that STOC runs no artifact-evaluation track — the durable artifact is the public full version on arXiv/ECCC, plus verifiable certificates whenever a proof leans on computation, and optional mechanization.

STOC Artifact Evaluation

STOC has no artifact-evaluation committee, no badges, and no code-upload channel: nothing of that kind appears in the STOC 2026 Call for Papers (checked 2026-07-08). Importing an ML-conference artifact checklist would answer questions this venue never asks. But STOC is not artifact-free either — the 2026 CFP expects accepted authors to place the full paper, with all proofs, on arXiv or ECCC by camera-ready. So the venue's real artifact policy is: the extended abstract advertises; the public full version is the object of record. Plan your evidence around that split.

The STOC evidence stack

Evidence object	Lives where	Consumed by	Binding?
Theorem statements + overview	First 12 pages of the submission	The whole PC, guaranteed	Yes — the reading contract
Complete proofs	Appendix of the submission; later the arXiv/ECCC full version	Assigned reviewers; posterity	Yes — correctness rests here
Certificates for computer-assisted steps	Appendix description + released checker	Any skeptic with a laptop	Yes, if a proof step depends on them
Illustration code (plots, small searches)	Public repository linked from the full version	Casual readers	No
Mechanized proofs (Lean, Coq, Isabelle)	Repository + a coverage statement in the paper	Formal-methods-inclined readers	No, but rising in credibility value

When computation is inside the proof

The one place STOC treats code with journal-referee seriousness is a computer-assisted step: an exhaustive case check, a SAT/ILP-certified combinatorial fact, an interval-arithmetic bound, a verified base case for an induction. House expectations, drawn from how such papers are read:

• State in the theorem's proof, not a footnote, that a step is machine-checked, and characterize the computation: search space, pruning logic, runtime, and what exactly the program's output certifies.
• Prefer computations that emit a certificate checkable by independent code (a DRAT proof from a SAT solver, an explicit combinatorial witness) over "our program found no counterexample."
• Ship the checker with the full version. arXiv accepts ancillary files, which is the cleanest venue-native mechanism:

# arXiv ancillary files ride inside the source tarball under anc/
mkdir -p anc
cp verify_certificate.py certificate.drat anc/
tar czf stoc-full.tar.gz full-version.tex macros.tex refs.bib anc/
# arXiv lists anc/* as downloadable ancillary files next to the paper

• Pin the environment in one line ("Python 3.12, no dependencies; verified independently with drat-trim") — a skeptic should reproduce the check in minutes, because at least one will try.

The full version as the artifact of record

Before camera-ready (and ideally before submission, since theory reviewers routinely search for the full version even under double-blind), audit it as you would a released artifact:

• Completeness: no proof step deferred to "the full version" inside the full version; that document is the end of the chain.
• Self-containment: definitions and notation resolve internally; a reader must not need the extended abstract open in a second window.
• Versioning: arXiv revisions are the community's errata mechanism. When a bug is found post-publication, the corrected arXiv version plus a changelog note in the abstract field is standard practice; silent replacement is not.
• Anonymity timing: if the full version goes up before notification, keep it consistent with the double-blind submission rules of the current cycle (待核实 each year — the interaction between preprint posting and STOC's newly adopted anonymization is exactly the kind of policy that gets refined).

Worked vignette: a construction found by search

Suppose a submission's key lemma asserts that a particular 11-vertex gadget with a rare expansion property exists, and the gadget was found by a randomized search over labeled graphs. The evidence plan under STOC norms:

• The lemma's proof in the appendix presents the gadget explicitly (adjacency list in a figure) and verifies its property analytically where feasible; if the property check is itself a finite computation, the proof says exactly what was computed and by what procedure.
• The search program is credited in one sentence and never trusted: "the gadget was located by simulated annealing; its properties are verified below."
• A 25-line standalone checker that re-verifies the property from the adjacency list ships as an arXiv ancillary file with the full version.
• Nothing about the search's hyperparameters, runtime, or seed enters the paper — those matter only when a nonexistence claim rests on the search, which would move the computation into the certified-proof-step regime.

Optional strengtheners, priced honestly

• A Lean/Coq mechanization of a central lemma is a strong credibility signal in the current theory climate (STOC 2026's TheoryFest even hosted a workshop on AI and theorem-proving), but state coverage precisely: which statements, which axioms, what remains informal. Overclaiming formality is worse than none.
• A reference implementation of a new algorithm helps readers, but do not let it drift into benchmark claims the paper does not make — that invites the question of why the paper is not at an experimental venue.
• The STOC 2026 opt-in LLM pre-submission feedback experiment (full paper due November 1, output visible only to authors) is a free adversarial reader for rigor, not an artifact process; treat its output as hints to verify, never as verification.

Quick decision rubric

• Claim depends on a computation → certified proof step: determinism, certificate, independent checker, all shipped. Non-negotiable.
• Computation only found something humans then verified → one sentence of credit; the found object carries the weight.
• Code merely illustrates → public repository after acceptance, linked from the full version; keep it out of the reviewed pages.
• Someone suggests an "artifact appendix" with environment tables → decline; that is another venue's ritual and reads as venue confusion here.

Output format

[Evidence stack] <object -> location -> binding or optional>
[Computer-assisted steps] none / certified (checker shipped?) / uncertified <- fix
[Full-version audit] complete / gaps: <list>
[Mechanization] none / partial (coverage stated?) / full
[Release plan] <arXiv/ECCC timing, anc files, repository>