circle-symbol
  • Home
  • Call for SIGMOD 2025 Artifacts
  • Call for ARC Members
  • Organization

ACM SIGMOD 2025 Call for Artifacts

A scientific paper consists of a constellation of artifacts beyond the document itself: software, data sets, scripts, hardware, evaluation data and documentation, raw survey results, mechanized test suites, benchmarks, and so on. Often, the quality of these artifacts is as important as that of the document itself. Based on the growing success of the Availability & Reproducibility Initiative (ARI) of previous SIGMOD conferences, we will run again this year an optional artifact evaluation process. All papers presented at SIGMOD 2025 -- accepted for publication PACMMOD Vol. 2(6) and Vol.3(1) -- are encouraged to participate in the artifact evaluation process, as well as papers from the SIGMOD 2025 Industry Track.

The submission process should follow these guidelines so that an artifact associated with a paper is considered for its availability and functionality, along with the reproducibility of the paper’s key results and claims. Please see this quick guide that summarizes the key requirements and guidelines of your submission.

The artifact evaluation has two phases: a single-anonymous phase of reviewing the overall quality of the artifact and a zero-anonymous phase of reproducing the results, during which reviewers are invited to collaborate with authors. At the end of the process, for every successfully reproduced paper the reviewers (and optionally all or some of the authors) are co-authoring a reproducibility report to document the process, the core reproduced results, and any success stories, i.e., cases that during the reproducibility review the artifacts quality was improved.

All accepted SIGMOD research and industry papers are encouraged to participate in artifact evaluation.

Registration and Submission

Submitting the artifacts associated with your accepted SIGMOD paper is a two-step process.

  1. Registration: By the artifact registration deadline, submit the abstract and PDF of your accepted SIGMOD paper, as well as topics, conflicts, and any “optional bidding instructions” for potential evaluators via the artifact submission site: https://sigmod25ari.hotcrp.com/
  2. Submission: By the artifact submission deadline, provide a stable URL or (if that is not possible) upload an archive of your artifacts. If the URL is access-protected, provide the credentials needed to access it. Select the criteria/badges that the ARC should consider while evaluating your artifacts. You will not be able to change the URL, archive, or badge selections after the artifact submission deadline. Finally, for your artifact to be considered, check the “ready for review” box before the submission deadline.

The ARC recommends that you create a single web page at a stable URL that contains your artifact package. The ARC may contact you with questions about your artifacts as needed.

Important Dates

  • Artifact submission deadline: August 26, 2025
  • Sanity-check period: September 1 - September 10, 2025
  • Review Period: September 10 - November 10, 2025
  • Discussion period: November 10 - November 20, 2025
  • Final Badge Decisions: November 20, 2025
  • Finalize Reproducibility Reports: December 15, 2025



ACM SIGMOD 2025 Call for ARC Members

We are looking for members of the Availability and Reproducibility Committee (ARC), who will contribute to the SIGMOD 2025 Availability and Reproducibility review process by evaluating submitted artifacts. ARC membership is especially suitable for researchers early in their career, such as PhD students. Even as a first-year PhD student, you are welcome to join the ARC, provided you are working in a topic area covered by SIGMOD (broadly data management). You can be located anywhere in the world as all committee discussions will happen online.

As an ARC member, you will not only help promote the reproducibility of experimental results in systems research, but also get to familiarize yourself with research papers just accepted for publication at SIGMOD 2025 and explore their artifacts. For a given artifact, you may be asked to evaluate its public availability, functionality, and/or ability to reproduce the results from the paper. You will be able to discuss with other ARC members and interact with the authors as necessary, for instance if you are unable to get the artifact to work as expected. Finally, you will provide a review for the artifact to give constructive feedback to its authors, discuss the artifact with fellow reviewers, and help award the paper artifact evaluation badges. For all successfully reproduced artifact, you will co-author a reproducibility report with your co-reviewers and optionally the authors of the paper to document the process, the core reproduced results, and any success stories, i.e., cases that during the reproducibility review the artifacts quality was improved.

We expect that each member will evaluate 2-3 artifacts. The duration of evaluating different artifacts may vary depending on its computational cost (to be checked during the "Sanity-Check" period). ARC members are expected to allocate time to choose the artifacts they want to review, to read the chosen papers, to evaluate and review the corresponding artifacts, and to be available for online discussion until artifact notification deadline. Please ensure that you have sufficient time and availability for the ARC during the evaluation period September 10 to November 10 2025. Please also ensure you will be able to carry out the evaluation independently, without sharing artifacts or related information with others and limiting all the discussions to within the ARC.

We expect that evaluations can be done on your own computer (any moderately recent desktop or laptop computer will do). In other cases and to the extent possible, authors will arrange their artifacts so as to run in community research testbeds or will provide remote access to their systems (e.g., via SSH). Please also see this quick guide for reviewers.

How to Apply

If you are interested in taking part in the ARC, please complete this online self-nomination form.

Deadline: June 30, 2025, Anywhere on Earth

You can contact the chairs for any questions.



ACM SIGMOD 2025 Availability & Reproducibility Committee

Chairs [email chairs]

Boris Glavic, University of Illinois, USA

Dirk Habich, TU Dresden, Germany

Holger Pirk, Imperial College London, UK

Manos Athanassoulis, Boston University, USA


Advisory Committee

Juliana Freire, New York University, USA

Stratos Idreos, Harvard University, USA

Dennis Shasha, New York University, USA

Availability and Reproducibility Committee (ARC)

Alexis Schlomer, CMU, USA

Amedeo Pachera, Lyon 1 University, France

Anas Ait aomar, Mohammed VI Polytechnic University, Morocco

Aneesh Raman, Boston University, USA

Anjiang Wei, Stanford University, USA

Anwesha Saha, Boston University, USA

Aoqian Zhang, Beijing Institute of Technology, China

Asim Nepal, University of Oregon, USA

Chi Zhang, Tsinghua University, China

Christos Panagiotopoulos, Harokopio University of Athens, Greece

Chuqing Gao, Purdue University, USA

Dakai Kang, University of California, Davis, USA

Daniel Kocher, University of Salzburg, Austria

Donghyun Sohn, Northwestern University, USA

Feng Yu, National University of Singapore, Singapore

Gaurav Tarlok Kakkar, Georgia Tech, USA

Giorgio Vinciguerra, University of Pisa, Italy

Gourab Mitra, Datometry, USA

Guozhang Sun, Northeastern University, China

Hengfeng Wei, Nanjing University, China

Hubert Mohr-Daurat, Imperial College London, United Kingdom

Ilin Tolovski, Hasso Plattner Institute, Germany

Jiashen Cao, Georgia Tech, USA

Johannes Pietrzyk, TU Dresden, Germany

Junchang Wang, Nanjing University of Posts and Telecommunications, China

Kai Chen, University of Virginia, USA

Kaiqiang Yu, Nanyang Technological University, Singapore

Kriti Goyal, Machine Learning Research Engineer, Apple, USA

Kyle Deeds, University of Washington, USA

Kyoseung Koo, Seoul National University, South Korea

Lam-Duy Nguyen, Technical University of Munich, Germany

Lisa Ehrlinger, Hasso Plattner Institute, Germany

Longlong Lin, Southwest University, China

Lukas Schwerdtfeger, BIFOLD/TU-Berlin, Germany

Maxwell Norfolk, Penn State University, USA

Meng Li, Nanjing University, China

Minxiao Chen, Beijing University of Posts and Telecommunications, China

Mo Sha, Alibaba Cloud, Singapore

Moe Kayali, University of Washington, USA

Muhammad Farhan, Australian National University, Australia

Mukul Singh, Microsoft Research, USA

Niccolò Meneghetti, University of Michigan-Dearborn, USA

Nihal Balivada, University of Oregon, USA

Ouael Ben Amara, The University of Michigan - Dearborn, USA

Qi Lin, Arizona State University, USA

Qiangqiang Dai, Beijing Institute of Technology, China

Qihao Cheng, Tsinghua University, China

Qilong Li, Southern University of Science and Technology, China

Qing Chen, University of Zurich, Switzerland

Qiuyang Mang, UC Berkeley, USA

Rico Bergmann, TU Dresden, Germany

Sabyasachi Behera, Department of Computer Science, University of Illinois Chicago, USA

Sadeem Alsudais, King Saud University, Saudi Arabia

Saeed Fathollahzadeh, Concordia University, Canada

Sebastian Baunsgaard, Technische Universität Berlin, Germany

Serafeim Chatzopoulos, ATHENA RC, Greece

Sheng Yao, Hong Kong University of Science and Technology, Hong Kong

Shistata Subedi, University of Oregon, USA

Shuhao Liu, Shenzhen Institute of Computing Sciences, China

Steven Purtzel, Humboldt-Universität zu Berlin, Germany

Supawit Chockchowwat, Google, USA

Suyang Zhong, National University of Singapore, China

Sven Helmer, University of Zurich, Switzerland, Switzerland

Tapan Srivastava, The University of Chicago, USA

Ted Shaowang, The University of Chicago, USA

Thomas Bodner, Hasso Plattner Institute, University of Potsdam, Germany

Tianxing Wu, Southeast University, China

Varun Jana, Penn, USA

Vassilis Stamatopoulos, ATHENA Research Center, Greece

Viktor Sanca, Oracle, USA

Viraj Thakkar, Arizona State University, USA

Wei Zhou, Shanghai Jiao Tong University, China

Wenshao Zhong, TikTok Inc., USA

William Zhang, Carnegie Mellon University, USA

Xiang Lian, Kent State University, USA

Xianghong Xu, ByteDance, China

Xiao He, Bytedance, China

Xiaodong Li, The University of Hong Kong, Hong Kong

Xiaojun Dong, University of California, Riverside, USA

Xiaozhen Liu, University of California, Irvine, USA

Xilin Tang, Cornell, USA

Yafan Huang, University of Iowa, USA

Yan Pang, University of Virginia, USA

Yangshen Deng, Southern University of Science and Technology, China

Yesdaulet Izenov, Nazarbayev University, Kazakhstan

Yi Li, Beijing Jiaotong University, China

Yichuan Wang, UC Berkeley, USA

Yihong Zhang, University of Washington, USA

Yiming Qiao, Tsinghua University, China

Yin Lou, Ant Group, USA

Yingli Zhou, The Chinese University of Hong Kong, Shenzhen, China

Yujie Hui, The Ohio State University, USA

Yuke Li, University of California, Merced, USA

Yuvaraj Chesetti, Northeastern University, USA

Yuxuan Zhu, University of Illinois Urbana Champaign, USA

Zechao Chen, Chongqing University, China

Zezhong Ding, USTC, China

Zhanghan Wang, New York University, USA

Zheng Wang, Huawei Singapore, Singapore

Ziyang Men, University of California, Riverside, USA

Ziyang Zhang, Southern University of Science and Technology, China


Copyright © ACM SIGMOD. All Rights Reserved.

More questions

Dispute: Can I dispute the reproducibility results?

You will not have to! If any problems appear during the reproducibility testing phase, the committee will contact you directly, so we can work with you to find the best way to evaluate your work.

Rejects: What happens if my work does not pass?

Although we expect that we can help all papers pass the reproducibility process, in the rare event that a paper does not go through the reproducibility process successfully, this information will not be made public in any way. So there is no downside in submitting your work!

Quick Guides for Authors

Click here for the latest quick guide for Authors.

Quick Guides for Availability Reviewers

Click here for the latest quick guide for Reviewers.

Quick Guides for Reproducibility Reviewers

Click here for the latest quick guide for Reviewers.