Agent Skills
› brycewang-stanford/Awesome-Journal-Skills
› stoc-artifact-evaluation
stoc-artifact-evaluation
GitHub指导STOC论文证据对象规划。因STOC无独立AE流程，核心为arXiv/ECCC全文版本。需明确定理、附录证明及计算辅助步骤的证书（如SAT/ILP）发布规范，强调代码可复现性与环境锁定，确保学术严谨性。
Trigger Scenarios
咨询STOC论文的artifact提交要求
规划理论计算机科学论文的证据链
处理包含计算机辅助证明的STOC投稿
Install
npx skills add brycewang-stanford/Awesome-Journal-Skills --skill stoc-artifact-evaluation -g -y
SKILL.md
Frontmatter
{
"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>
Version History
- 9f86f09 Current 2026-07-19 17:39
