MAY 18-21, 2026 AT THE HILTON SAN FRANCISCO UNION SQUARE, SAN FRANCISCO, CA

47th IEEE Symposium on
Security and Privacy

IEEE S&P’26 Call for Artifacts

IEEE S&P’26 will evaluate research artifacts for availability, functionality, and reproducibility.

All authors of accepted IEEE S&P’26 papers are strongly encouraged to openly share their research artifacts for assessments. Each submitted artifact will be reviewed by the Artifact Evaluation Committee (AEC). Before submitting your artifact, please read the Artifact Evaluation Information below. Should you have any questions or concerns, you can reach the AEC chairs at sp26-ae@ieee-security.org

Important Dates

Cycle 1

Cycle 2

Artifact Evaluation Information

Overview

A scientific paper consists of a collection of artifacts that extend beyond the document itself: software, hardware, evaluation data and documentation, raw survey results, mechanized proofs, models, test suites, benchmarks, and so on. In some cases, the public availability and quality of these artifacts is as important as the paper itself. To emphasize the importance of the artifacts that extend beyond the document, the benefits to the authors and the community as a whole, and promote the availability and reproducibility of experimental results, IEEE S&P Symposium runs an Artifact Evaluation (AE) process. Authors of accepted papers are strongly encouraged to submit their artifacts for availability, functionality and reproducibility assessments. The AEC will review each submitted artifact and also grant Distinguished Artifact Awards to outstanding artifacts accepted to IEEE S&P ‘26.

Process

The artifact evaluation will take place as an optional process for availability, functionality and reproducibility after paper notifications are sent out. The submitted artifacts will be reviewed by the AEC. Artifacts must be submitted via the submission form in the same cycle as the accepted paper.

After the AE decisions are made, the final artifacts need to be made available on a platform that supports permanent access. For this purpose, we recommend Zenodo. Other valid hosting options include institutional and third-party digital repositories such as FigShare, Dryad, and Software Heritage. We cannot accept artifacts hosted on personal websites or software development repositories such as GitHub as these cannot guarantee permanent access. Please note that all the final artifact files must be uploaded to the permanent repository to receive the badge, after a successful AE decision. It is not sufficient to just post a pointer to GitHub or to a web site. Please see the Artifact Packaging and Submission Instructions for more details. In case of any questions, please contact the AEC chairs.

Authors define the contents of their artifact submission. For example, software, hardware, data sets, survey results, test suites, mechanized (but not paper) proofs, access to special hardware, and so on. Authors choose which badges their artifact should be evaluated towards, i.e., one or several of the following three categories: Artifact Available, Functional, and Results Reproduced. In general, good artifacts are expected to be: consistent with the paper, as complete as possible, well documented, and easy to (re)use. The AEC will read the author’s instructions and evaluate if the artifact meets the criteria for each of the requested badges.

To facilitate easy evaluation and ensure reproducibility, artifacts that are submitted for Functional and Results Reproduced badges must be formatted following the Artifact Packaging and Submission Instructions. Please note that this includes packaging the artifact in a way that it can be easily ran on a public research infrastructure of the author’s choice. We understand that this is not possible for all artifacts. We will work with authors to identify and accommodate exceptions to this rule.

Each artifact submission will be reviewed by at least two AEC members. The review is single-blind and strictly confidential. All AEC members are instructed to treat the process confidentially during and after completing evaluation. We expect that all artifacts submitted to the evaluation process will be made publicly available via a permanent link after the evaluation. We can support delayed release (e.g., exploits under embargo), but we will not support evaluation of proprietary artifacts that will never be publicly released.

Reviewers may communicate with authors (via HotCRP) during artifact evaluation to help resolve glitches while preserving reviewer anonymity. Please make sure that at least one of the authors is reachable and knowledgeable to answer questions in a timely manner.

Artifact Badges

Available

To earn this badge, the AEC must judge that the artifact associated with the paper has been made available for retrieval permanently and publicly. As an artifact undergoing AE often evolves as a consequence of AEC feedback, authors can use mutable storage for the initial submission, but must commit to uploading their materials to public services (e.g., Zenodo, FigShare, Dryad) for permanent storage backed by a Digital Object Identifier (DOI). Final permanent storage is a condition to receive this badge. Authors are welcome to report additional sources, like GitHub and GitLab, that may ease the dissemination of the artifact and possible future updates.

Functional

To earn this badge, the AEC must judge that the artifact conforms to the expectations set by the paper for functionality, usability, and relevance. Also, an artifact must be usable on other machines than the authors’, including when specialized hardware is required (for example, paths, addresses, and identifiers must not be hardcoded.) The AEC will particularly consider three aspects:

Reproduced

To earn this badge, the AEC must judge that they can use the submitted artifact to obtain the main results presented in the paper. In short, is it possible for the AEC to independently repeat the 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. In the case of lengthy experiments, scaled-down versions can be proposed if clearly and convincingly explained for their significance.

Artifact Evaluation Committee

Cycle 1

David Adei North Carolina State University
Mutahar Ali University of California Irvine
Juyang Bai John Hopkins University
Kaustav Bhattacharjee Pacific Northwest National Laboratory
Evangelos Bitsikas Northeastern University
Noah Brown UNC Chapel Hill
Quinn Burke University of Wisconsin-Madison
Arifa Islam Champa Idaho State University
Janak Chandarana Amazon
Xiang Chen The Hong Kong University of Science and Technology
Yanju Chen University of California San Diego
Phaedra Curlin University of Colorado Boulder
Aritra Dasgupta University of Florida
Sohom Datta North Carolina State University
Dipsy Desai University of Southern California
Kyle Domico University of Wisconsin-Madison
Zachary Espiritu MongoDB Research
Marius Fleischer NVIDIA
Saber Ganjisaffar University of California Riverside
Yuanjun Gong University of Trento
Vaishnavi Gudur Microsoft
Wanda Guo Texas A&M University
Mona Hashemi National University of Singapore
Yujin Huang The University of Melbourne
Michele Ianni University of Calabria
Abdullah Al Ishtiaq The Pennsylvania State University
Felix Klement University of Passau
Wei Kong Zhejiang Sci-tech University
Jinseo Lee KAIST
Kunyang Li University of Wisconsin-Madison
Haodong Li HUST
Xin Liu Florida State University
Puzhuo Liu Ant Group & Tsinghua University
Mingyi Liu Georgia Institute of Technology
Tim Hsuan-Ting Lu University of Wisconsin-Madison
Jie Ma Beihang University
Aleksandr Nahapetyan North Carolina State University
Kevin Nam Seoul National University
Tushar Nayan Florida International University
Jean-Charles Noirot Ferrand University of Wisconsin-Madison
Aaryan Patel University of Wisconsin-Madison
Huiyun Peng Purdue University
Mirza Masfiqur Rahman Purdue University
Ali Ranjbar Pennsylvania State University
Andrew Roberts KTH Royal Institute of Technology
Arul Thileeban Sagayam Bloomberg
Ashfaq Ali Shafin Florida International University
Jade Sheffey University of Massachusetts Amherst
Leming Shen The Hong Kong Polytechnic University
Sachin Shukla Microsoft
Salvatore Signorello Nova University Lisbon
Amit Singha Purdue University
Tong Sun Zhejiang University
Daan Vansteenhuyse DistriNet, KU Leuven
Hulin Wang Arizona State University
Anjiang Wei Stanford University
Liwen Xu ETH Zürich
Dianshi Yang University of Delaware
Tao Yang KAUST
Mingming Zha Indiana University Bloomington
Guangsheng Zhang University of Technology Sydney

Cycle 2

David Adei North Carolina State University, USA
Olawale Akanji Boston University, USA
Eyhab Al-Masri University of Washington, USA
Mutahar Ali University of California, Irvine, USA
Juyang Bai Johns Hopkins University, USA
Weiheng Bai University of Minnesota, USA
Andrew Bao University of Minnesota, USA
Kaustav Bhattacharjee Pacific Northwest National Laboratory, USA
Evangelos Bitsikas Northeastern University, USA
Noah Brown University of North Carolina, Chapel Hill, USA
Yifeng Cai Peking University, China
Sine Canbolat Kaya Karlsruhe Institute of Technology, Germany
Arifa Islam Champa Idaho State University, USA
Janak Chandarana Amazon, Inc., USA
Hongkai Chen Arizona State University, USA
Yanju Chen University of California, San Diego, USA
Paul Chung University of California, San Diego, USA
Phaedra Curlin University of Colorado, Boulder, USA
Muhammad Danish University of New Mexico, USA
Aritra Dasgupta University of Florida, USA
Sohom Datta North Carolina State University, USA
Saurabh Deochake SentinelOne, Inc., USA
Dipsy Desai University of Southern California, USA
Janhavi Deshpande Salesforce Security, USA
Kyle Domico University of Wisconsin-Madison, USA
Zachary Espiritu MongoDB Research, USA
Zheyun Feng University of New Hampshire, USA
Marius Fleischer NVIDIA, USA
Saber Ganjisaffar University of California, Riverside, USA
Yuanjun Gong University of Trento, Intaly
Sanket Goutam Stony Brook University, USA
Keyan Guo University at Buffalo, USA
Wanda Guo Texas A&M University, USA
Ankit Gupta New York University, USA
Yifeng He University of California, Davis, USA
Mahdieh Heidaripour Augusta University, USA
Michele Ianni University of Calabria, Italy
Abdullah Al Ishtiaq Pennsylvania State University, USA
Malvika Jadhav University of Florida, USA
Kathiresan Jayabalan IEEE, USA
Fujiao Ji University of Tennessee, Knoxville, USA
Qinhong Jiang Hong Kong Polytechnic University, China
Wei Kong Zhejiang Sci-Tech Unviersity, China
Jinseo Lee KAIST, Korea
Haodong Li Huazhong University of Science and Technology, China
Kunlin Li Hong Kong University of Science and Technology, China
Ying Li University of California, Los Angeles, USA
Zichuan Li University of Illinois, Urbana-Champaign, USA
Qishen Sam Liang University of Southern California, USA
Mingyi Liu Georgia Institute of Technology, USA
Puzhuo Liu Ant Group & Tsinghua University, China
Xin Liu Florida State University, USA
Feng Luo Hong Kong Polytechnic University, China
Jie Ma Beihang University, China
Zhongkui Ma University of Queensland, Australia
Gnaneswara Marupilla Independent researcher
Khosro Moeini Boston University, USA
Akshata Kishore Moharir Microsoft, Inc., USA
Aleksandr Nahapetyan North Carolina State University, USA
Kevin Nam Seoul National University, Korea
Sidhant Narula Old Dominion University, USA
Bhakti Narvekar Walmart, Inc., USA
Steven Ngo University of California, Irvine, USA
Jean-Charles Noirot Ferrand University of Wisconsin-Madison, USA
Abanisenioluwa Orojo Baylor University, USA
Aaryan Patel University of Wisconsin-Madison, USA
Huiyun Peng Purdue University, USA
Rupesh Prasad Analog Devices, Inc, USA
Mohammad Jamshir Qureshi Purdue University (USA)
Ali Ranjbar Pennsylvania State University, USA
Andrew Roberts Tallinn University of Technology, Estonia
Arul Thileeban Sagayam Bloomberg, Inc., USA
Rishit Saiya PricewaterhouseCoopers, Inc., USA
Ashfaq Ali Shafin Florida International University, USA
Jade Sheffey University of Massachusetts, Amherst, USA
Leming Shen Hong Kong Polytechnic University, China
Sachin Shukla Microsoft Security Research, USA
Salvatore Signorello Nova University Lisbon, Portugal
Amit Singha Purdue University, USA
Kunsheng Tang University of Science and Technology of China, China
Caner Tol Worcester Polytechnic Institute, USA
Daan Vansteenhuyse KU Leuven, Belgium
Hulin Wang Arizona State University, USA
Lihua Wang University of New South Wales, Australia
Liwen Xu ETH Zurich, Switzerland
Dianshi Yang University of Delaware, USA
Ruining Yang Stony Brook University, USA
Tao Yang King Abdullah University of Science and Technology, Saudi Arabia
Yuxiang Yang Tsinghua University, China
Junseung You Seoul National University, Korea
Jiongchi Yu Singapore Management University, Singapore
Bowen Zhang Hong Kong University of Science and Technology, China
Guangsheng Zhang University of Technology Sydney, Australia
Lupeng Zhang National Technical University, Singapore
Kunsong Zhao Hong Kong Polytechnic University, China