Use when packaging code, data, samplers, solvers, and logs for a UAI submission's 50 MB supplementary ZIP or a public post-acceptance release, making probabilistic-inference claims independently runnable while keeping every file double-blind, given that UAI reviewers may open the archive but are not obliged to read it.
Scanned 9/5/2026
Install to Claude Code
npx -y skills add brycewang-stanford/Awesome-Journal-Skills --skill uai-artifact-evaluation --agent claude-codeInstalls into .claude/skills of the current project.
Are you the author of Uai Artifact Evaluation?
Add the live security badge to your README — it updates automatically with every re-scan.
[](https://www.skillsdirectory.com/skills/brycewang-stanford-uai-artifact-evaluation)More formats (shields.io, HTML) on the badges page.
---
name: uai-artifact-evaluation
description: Use when packaging code, data, samplers, solvers, and logs for a UAI submission's 50 MB supplementary ZIP or a public post-acceptance release, making probabilistic-inference claims independently runnable while keeping every file double-blind, given that UAI reviewers may open the archive but are not obliged to read it.
---
# UAI Artifact Evaluation
UAI posted no separate artifact-evaluation track or badge system for the 2026 cycle
(existence of one in later cycles: 待核实). What it did post is sharper than a badge: code
and data release is strongly encouraged, a 50 MB anonymous ZIP rides with the submission,
and reviewers judge whether claims are "backed up convincingly." The artifact's job is to
convert a skeptical probabilistic-ML reviewer's spot-check into confirmation.
## Design for the five-minute skeptic
Because reviewers are explicitly not required to consult supplementary material, assume
whoever opens the ZIP gives it five minutes. Optimize for that reader:
- A top-level `README` that states, in its first ten lines, what claim each script
reproduces and how long it takes.
- One command per headline result, each with a small-scale mode that finishes on a
laptop: a reviewer who reproduces Figure 2 at n=500 in ninety seconds will extend you
trust for the n=50,000 version.
- Pinned dependencies and one canonical entry point. A `Makefile` or single driver
script beats a directory of loose notebooks.
- Expected outputs stored beside the scripts, so "did it work?" needs no judgment.
## What inference artifacts must expose
Probabilistic-modeling papers fail reproduction in venue-specific ways. Package
accordingly:
| Contribution type | Must be in the artifact | Spot-check the reviewer will try |
|---|---|---|
| MCMC / SMC sampler | Seeds, chain configs, convergence diagnostics code | Re-run short chains; compare R-hat and ESS to reported |
| Variational method | ELBO logging, initialization scheme, optimizer settings | Reproduce the ELBO trace shape, not just the endpoint |
| Causal discovery | Graph-generation scripts, SHD/SID evaluation code | Regenerate synthetic graphs; verify metrics on one seed |
| Calibration / conformal | Score functions, split definitions, coverage computation | Recompute empirical coverage at one α |
| Probabilistic programming / PGM inference | Model source, query set, exact-baseline harness | Run the exact baseline on the smallest instance |
| Theory with simulations | Every constant used to instantiate the bound | Check simulation matches theorem conditions |
## Anonymity inside the archive
The double-blind requirement covers all supplementary material explicitly. Archive leaks
are quieter than PDF leaks, so build from a clean export:
```bash
# Build an anonymous artifact from a clean tree, never from the working repo
git archive --format=tar HEAD | tar -x -C /tmp/uai-artifact
cd /tmp/uai-artifact
grep -rniE 'university|\.edu|author|thanks|grant' --include='*.py' --include='*.md' . | head
find . -name '*.ipynb' -exec grep -l '"authors"' {} \; # notebook metadata
rm -rf .git .github; find . -name '.DS_Store' -delete
zip -r ../supplement.zip . && du -h ../supplement.zip # must be ≤ 50 MB (2026 cap)
```
Watch for: license headers with names, `pyproject.toml` author fields, conda environment
exports embedding usernames, wandb/MLflow run URLs tied to an account, dataset paths
containing `/home/<name>/`, and model checkpoints whose training config JSON names a
cluster.
## README skeleton for the archive
The archive's README is the artifact's abstract. A shape that fits the five-minute
reader:
```markdown
# Supplementary code for submission #<OpenReview number>
## Claim → command map (small-scale modes; full-scale flags noted)
| Paper claim | Command | Runtime (laptop) |
|---|---|---|
| Fig. 2 (coverage vs n) | `make fig2-small` | ~2 min |
| Table 1 (SHD, 10 seeds) | `make table1-small` | ~4 min |
| Thm. 3 simulation | `make thm3-check` | ~1 min |
## Environment
- `pip install -r requirements.txt` (pinned versions; Python 3.11)
- No GPU required for small-scale modes.
## Expected outputs
- `expected/` holds reference CSVs; each command prints PASS/FAIL against them.
## Full-scale reproduction
- Flags, hardware used, and total runtime per experiment in `FULL_RUNS.md`.
```
Everything above stays anonymous by construction — no names, no lab conventions in
paths, no acknowledgement of infrastructure that identifies an institution.
## Data that cannot ship
- Under the 50 MB cap, ship generators, not corpora: the script that produces the
synthetic SCMs or the subsampled benchmark, plus checksums for the full data.
- For licensed or private datasets, include the loader, the preprocessing pipeline, the
schema, and summary statistics, and state access terms in the README.
- Never bypass a data-use agreement to help reviewers; explain the constraint instead.
A stated limitation is a clarity point, a violated license is misconduct under the
AUAI code of conduct.
## Licensing notes
- The review-time ZIP needs no license drama, but the post-acceptance release does:
choose deliberately between permissive (MIT/BSD/Apache-2.0) and copyleft, and check
employer policy before the camera-ready deadline forces a rushed default.
- Third-party code vendored into the archive keeps its own license; verify
compatibility now, since reviewers occasionally notice a GPL file inside an
"MIT" archive and read it as carelessness.
- Data licensing is separate from code licensing; a permissive code license does not
launder a restricted dataset.
## After acceptance
Convert the anonymous ZIP into a public artifact worth citing: a tagged repository, an
archival DOI where your institution supports one, a license chosen deliberately, and the
README rewritten from "reviewer instructions" to "user instructions." Link it from the
camera-ready — post-acceptance is when the CFP's release encouragement costs you nothing
and earns citations.
## Output format
```text
[Artifact scope] supplement ZIP / public release / both
[Five-minute path] <command a reviewer runs first, and its runtime>
[Claim coverage] <headline results reproducible / total>
[Anonymity scan] clean / leaks: <files>
[Size] <ZIP size vs current cap>
[Data strategy] shipped / generated / loader-plus-terms
```
Is this your skill, or is something wrong with this listing? Request removal or report an issue. Author removals are honored within 72 hours.
No comments yet. Be the first to comment!