USENIX Security '26 Call for Artifacts

The 35th USENIX Security Symposium will evaluate research artifacts for availability, functionality, and reproducibility.

For USENIX Security '26, paper acceptance is conditional on verification of the availability of the artifacts provided at paper submission time. In other words, all authors of (conditionally) accepted USENIX Security '26 papers (including shepherded papers) are required to openly share their research artifacts or explain their omission. Each artifact provided at paper submission time must be resubmitted to the artifact evaluation committee for availability verification. In particular, authors need to share 1) the original anonymous artifact link they shared during paper submission time, along with the same deanonymized artifact hosted on a platform that supports permanent storage (see below). Authors are also encouraged to submit their artifacts for functionality and reproducibility assessments.

Before submitting your artifact, please carefully read the artifact evaluation information below. Should you have any questions or concerns, you can reach the AEC chairs at [email protected].

Summary:

Authors of (conditionally) accepted papers have to openly share their artifacts at submission time and submit those artifacts for final availability verification after (conditional) paper acceptance, or have convincingly explained in their paper submission why sharing artifacts was not possible. Artifact functionality and reproducibility assessments remain optional.
Artifacts (including for shepherded papers) should be submitted in the same cycle as the (conditionally) accepted paper.
Artifact availability verification starts after the first author notification deadline for each cycle, but before final papers are due.

Important Dates

Cycle 1

Notification to authors (paper): Thursday, December 4, 2025
Shepherding author notification (paper): Thursday, December 18, 2025
Artifacts due for availability verification:

For (Conditionally) Accepted papers: Thursday, December 11, 2025
For (Conditionally) Accepted on Shepherd Approval: Thursday, December 18, 2025

Artifact available decision notification: Tuesday, January 13, 2026
Final papers due: Thursday, January 15, 2026
Artifact functional/reproducible submission deadline: Thursday, January 29, 2026
Artifact evaluation author discussion period: Friday, February 6, 2026, to Wednesday, March 4, 2026
Artifact functional/reproducible decision notification: Wednesday, March 11, 2026
Final appendix files due: Wednesday, March 18, 2026

Cycle 2

Notification to authors (paper): Thursday, May 14, 2026
Shepherding/revision author notification (paper): Thursday, May 28, 2026
Artifacts due for availability verification:

For (Conditionally) Accepted papers: Thursday, May 21, 2026
For (Conditionally) Accepted on Shepherd Approval: Thursday, May 28, 2026

Artifact available decision notification: Tuesday, June 9, 2026
Final papers due: Thursday, June 11, 2026
Artifact functional/reproducible submission deadline: Thursday, June 18, 2026
Artifact evaluation author discussion period: Friday, June 26, 2026, to Wednesday, July 22, 2026
Artifact functional/reproducible decision notification: Wednesday, July 29, 2026
Final appendix files due: Wednesday, August 5, 2026

Artifact Evaluation Information

Overview

A scientific paper consists of a constellation 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 quality of these artifacts is as important as that of the paper itself. To emphasize the importance of such artifacts, the benefits to the authors and the community as a whole, and to promote the availability and reproducibility of experimental results, USENIX Security runs an Artifact Evaluation. While research artifacts are expected to be available at paper submission time and submitted for final availability verification after paper (conditional) acceptance by the above given deadlines, authors of accepted papers can also optionally submit their artifacts for functionality and reproducibility assessments. The AEC will review each submitted artifact and also grant Distinguished Artifact Awards to outstanding artifacts accepted to USENIX Security '26.

Process

Similarly to last year at USENIX Security, the AE will take place in two submission phases: (1) a mandatory AE for continued availability verification after conditional paper acceptance and before the final papers are due (note that the papers' conditional acceptance is subject to successfully passing through the AE for availability verification); (2) an optional AE for functionality and reproducibility after final papers are due. In both cases, the submitted artifacts will be reviewed by the AEC. Artifacts should be submitted in the same cycle as the accepted paper.

Mandatory submission of artifacts for availability verification:
First, authors of (conditionally) accepted papers (including Accepted on Shepherd Approval papers) have to openly share their research artifacts by default and submit them for the AE for availability verification before the final papers are due. If, for some reason, artifacts cannot be shared, a detailed justification must be provided at paper submission time and must be validated by the reviewers (i.e., if the reviewers disagree with the justification, the authors have to submit their artifacts, or their paper will be rejected). For example, some artifacts may be subject to licensing restrictions, NDA, or ethical concerns (in some cases, e.g., interview transcripts or zero-day exploits). Even if the full artifacts cannot be shared (e.g., proprietary datasets), the rest of the artifacts (e.g., source code) are still expected to be publicly and permanently shared and submitted for artifact evaluation. (Conditionally) Accepted papers that do not openly share their artifacts without a satisfactory reason will be rejected. In case of doubt, contact the program chairs and AEC chairs beforehand. Each submitted artifact will be reviewed by the Artifact Evaluation Committee (AEC).

All papers submitted to USENIX Security '26 have to discuss the artifacts the authors will make publicly available; the authors should add this discussion in the one additional page allowed for discussing “compliance with the open science policy". The text should refer to results from the main body of the paper and clearly enumerate all artifacts that are made available. The AEC will then verify, during the availability verification phase, that all artifacts that were promised to be made available are publicly and permanently available and that those artifacts correspond to what the authors submitted at paper submission time. The AEC will also ensure that all artifacts corresponding to the paper's main contributions were made available.

Please note that the 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. On the other hand, we do not accept artifacts hosted on personal websites or software development repositories such as GitHub. Please see the artifact submission instructions. In case of any questions, please contact the AEC chairs.

In some cases, sensitive artifacts cannot be made publicly available. In such cases, we recommend that the authors use the “restricted access" features of the recommended platforms. For example, Zenodo supports this feature for researchers to share data in a restricted manner (https://help.zenodo.org/docs/share/access-requests/). This enables artifacts to be permanently available while allowing the authors to keep the access restricted. This “restricted access" feature should only be used for sensitive artifacts; the remaining non-sensitive artifacts have to be shared publicly (i.e., you may have two repositories, one for sensitive artifacts and one for the rest). Restricting the access of non-sensitive artifacts during or after artifact evaluation is a violation of the Call for Artifacts, and the corresponding USENIX Security papers will see their acceptance rescinded.

N.B.: Authors of shepherded papers need to submit their artifacts in the same cycle they submitted their paper in. For example, a shepherded paper in Cycle 1 needs to submit their artifacts to the AEC for availability verification in Cycle 1. Note that the shepherding author notification and the submission deadline for availability verification for those papers are on the same day, so authors should anticipate and plan accordingly.
Optional submission of artifacts for functionality and reproducibility assessments:
Second, authors of accepted papers are encouraged to register their artifacts to also be checked for functionality and reproducibility. Additional information regarding artifact registration (for functionality and reproducibility assessments) and files to be submitted for review are provided here.

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 two of the following: Artifacts 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 paper and then judge if the artifact meets the criteria for each of the requested badges.

Each artifact submission will be reviewed by at least two AEC members. The review is single-blind (i.e., no need to anonymize the artifacts, neither for availability verification nor for functionality and reproducibility assessments) and strictly confidential. All AEC members are instructed to treat the artifact confidentially during and after completing evaluation and to not retain any part of the artifact after evaluation. Artifacts can include models, data files, proprietary binaries, exploits under embargo, etc. If your paper is under embargo during artifact evaluation, please let the AEC chairs know beforehand; you will still need to submit your artifacts for availability verification. Even if authors cannot make their artifacts publicly accessible (e.g., proprietary files), they could still apply for Artifacts Functional and ResultsReproduced. Since we anticipate small glitches with installation and use, reviewers may communicate with authors during artifact evaluation to help resolve glitches while preserving reviewer anonymity. Please make sure that at least one of the authors is reachable to answer questions in a timely manner.

Contact Information

Specific questions about artifact submissions may be sent to the AEC chairs at [email protected]. The chairs will respond to individual questions about the AE process if contacted at least two working days before the artifact submission deadline.

SUBMIT YOUR ARTIFACT

Artifact Evaluation Committee

Artifact Evaluation Committee Co-Chairs

Aurore Fass, Inria Centre at Université Côte d’Azur

Deepak Kumar, University of California, San Diego

Christian Wressnegger, Karlsruhe Institute of Technology

Artifact Evaluation Publication Chair

Tiago Heinrich, Max Planck Institute for Informatics

Artifact Evaluation Committee

Eric Ackermann, CISPA Helmholtz Center for Information Security

Shubham Agarwal, Max Planck Institute for Security and Privacy

Iman Alipour, Max Planck Institute for Informatics

Arshia Arya, University of California, San Diego

Md Sadik Awal, Florida International University

Sofiane Azogagh, Université du Québec à Montréal

Alessandro Baccarini, Input Output

Juyang Bai, Johns Hopkins University

Weiheng Bai, University of Minnesota

Leonhard Balduf, Technische Universität Darmstadt

Fabian Bäumer, Ruhr University Bochum

Philipp Beer, TU Wien

Paschalis Bekos, Stony Brook University

Nicola Bottura, Prisma s.r.l.

Jiahao Cao, Tsinghua University

Katharina Ceesay-Seitz, ETH Zurich

M.A.P. Chamikara, CSIRO's Data61

Anish Chand, Louisiana State University

Hongyan Chang, Mohamed bin Zayed University of Artificial Intelligence

Xijia Che, University of Illinois Urbana–Champaign

Bocheng Chen, University of Mississippi

Boru Chen, University of California, Berkeley

Junming Chen, George Mason University

Meng Chen, Zhejiang University

Simin Chen, Columbia University

Yuetian Chen, Purdue University

Shao-Yu Chu, University of California, San Diego

Paul Chung, University of California, San Diego

Jian Cui, University of Illinois Urbana–Champaign

Valentino Dalla Valle, CISPA Helmholtz Center for Information Security

Vishnu Dasu, The Pennsylvania State University

Qing Deng, University of California, Riverside

Zizhuang Deng, Shandong University

Guillaume Didier, Saarland University

Wanning Ding, Syracuse University

Weikang Ding, University of Missouri-Kansas City

Tian Dong, The University of Hong Kong

Jan Drescher, Technische Universität Braunschweig

Hassan El Alami, Howard University

Zachary Espiritu, MongoDB Research

Aurore Fass, Inria Centre at Université Côte d'Azur

Aurore Fass, CISPA Helmholtz Center for Information Security

Fabian Fleischer, Georgia Institute of Technology

Marius Fleischer, NVIDIA

Jie Fu, Stevens Institute of Technology

Julian Funk, Friedrich-Alexander-Universität Erlangen-Nürnberg

Eric García Arribas, TU Graz

Dañiel Gerhardt, CISPA Helmholtz Center for Information Security

Rajdeep Ghosh, Indian Institute of Technology Kharagpur

Gwihwan Go, Tsinghua University

Bernd Gruner, German Aerospace Center (DLR)

Michele Guerra, New York University Abu Dhabi

Keno Hassler, CISPA Helmholtz Center for Information Security

Lipeng He, University of Waterloo

Tiago Heinrich, Max Planck Institute for Informatics

Mathé Hertogh, Vrije Universiteit Amsterdam

Yiwei Hou, University of California, Berkeley

Hongsheng Hu, University of Newcastle

Shengtuo Hu, Palo Alto Networks

Long Huang, University of Michigan

Yujin Huang, The University of Melbourne

Michele Ianni, University of Calabria, Italy

Abdullah Al Ishtiaq, The Pennsylvania State University

Noa Izsak, CISPA Helmholtz Center for Information Security

Malvika Jadhav, University of Florida

Ismat Jarin, University of California, Irvine

Patrick Jattke, ETH Zurich

Fujiao Ji, University of Tennessee, Knoxville

Zhengjie Ji, Virginia Tech

Jinan Jiang, The Hong Kong Polytechnic University

Qisheng Jiang, Duke University

Yibo Jin, The Hong Kong University of Science and Technology

Ehsanul Kabir, The Pennsylvania State University

Kelechi Kalu, Purdue University

Pratik M. Kamble, Binghamton University

Rahul Kande, Advanced Micro Devices (AMD)

Ameer Kashani, DENSO

Mugdha Khedkar, Heinz Nixdorf Institute, Paderborn University

Joseph Khoury, Louisiana State University

Dongwook Kim, Yonsei University

Jiwon Kim, Purdue University

Juhee Kim, Seoul National University

Sungwoo Kim, Purdue University

Robin Kirchner, Technische Universität Braunschweig

Maynard Koch, Technische Universität Dresden

Zsolt Kucsvan, University of Twente

Ashish Kumar, The Pennsylvania State University

Deepak Kumar, University of California, San Diego

Seoyoung Kweon, University of California, San Diego

Verena Lachner, University of Innsbruck

Guilhem Lacombe, Verimag and Université Grenoble-Alpes

Felix Lange, Paderborn University

Jinseo Lee, Korea Advanced Institute of Science and Technology (KAIST)

Seungju Lee, Princeton University

Ahmed Lekssays, Qatar Computing Research Institute

Jiate Li, University of Southern California

Kunlin Li, The Hong Kong University of Science and Technology (Guangzhou)

Kunyang Li, University of Wisconsin—Madison

Peiyang Li, Ant Group and Tsinghua University

Xiang Li, George Mason University

Ying Li, University of California, Los Angeles

Youpeng Li, The University of Texas at Dallas

Junkai Liang, Peking University

Kyungchan Lim, University of Maryland, College Park

Elizabeth Lin, North Carolina State University

Zhengyao Lin, Carnegie Mellon University

Zilong Lin, University of Missouri-Kansas City

Changming Liu, Google

Junming Liu, Max Planck Institute for Security and Privacy

Junrui Liu, University of California, Santa Barbara

Mengling Liu, The Hong Kong Polytechnic University

Mingyi Liu, Georgia Institute of Technology

Puzhuo Liu, Ant Group and Tsinghua University

Side Liu, Tulane University

Xuanming Liu, Zhejiang University

Yichen Liu, University of Illinois Urbana–Champaign

Yupei Liu, The Pennsylvania State University

Minjun (Elena) Long, University of Virginia

Feng Luo, The Hong Kong Polytechnic University

Kaixuan Luo, The Chinese University of Hong Kong

Muxi Lyu, University of California, Berkeley

Xingyu Lyu, University of Massachusetts Lowell

Binhao Ma, University of Missouri-Kansas City

Jie Ma, Beihang University

Kai Ma, Huazhong University of Science and Technology

Xiaoyue Ma, George Mason University

Zuchao Ma, The Hong Kong Polytechnic University

Marcel Maehren, Ruhr University Bochum

Noah Mauthe, CISPA Helmholtz Center for Information Security

Federico Mazzone, University of Twente

Yassine Mekdad, Florida International University

Sepehr Mirzaei, Saarland University

Atefeh Mohseni-Ejiyeh, University of California, Santa Barbara, and Harness

Hamza Mouhcine, Qatar Computing Research Institute

Jonas Mücke, Technische Universität Dresden

Antonio Muñoz, University of Malaga

Nima Naderloui, University of Connecticut

Hocheol Nam, Korea Advanced Institute of Science and Technology (KAIST)

Kevin Nam, Seoul National University

Tushar Nayan, Florida International University

Nurlan Nazaraliyev, University of California, Riverside

Ravan Nazaraliyev, University of California, Riverside

Niklas Niere, Paderborn University

Jean-Charles Noirot Ferrand, University of Wisconsin—Madison

Paul Olivier, LAAS-CNRS

Fariba Osali, Max Planck Institute for Informatics

Yumingzhi Pan, Southeast University

David Pape, CISPA Helmholtz Center for Information Security

Giuseppe Parrella, University of Salerno

Huiyun Peng, Purdue University

Zifan Peng, The Hong Kong University of Science and Technology (Guangzhou)

Daniel Pöllmann, ETH Zurich and Lucerne University of Applied Sciences and Arts

Juefei Pu, University of California, Riverside

Siliang Qin, Institute of Information Engineering, Chinese Academy of Sciences

Vaishnavi Raghavajosyula, Max Planck Institute for Informatics

Shoupeng Ren, Zhejiang University

Arman Riasi, Virginia Tech

Mohamadreza Rostami, Technische Universität Darmstadt

Florian Roudot, University of Rennes

Bonan Ruan, National University of Singapore

Amit Samanta, University of Utah

Sambhav Satija, University of Wisconsin—Madison

Shayan Shabihi, University of Maryland, College Park

Leming Shen, The Hong Kong Polytechnic University

Zewei Shi, The University of Melbourne and CSIRO's Data61

Ye Shu, University of California, San Diego

Sachin Shukla, Microsoft

Sachin Kumar Singh, University of Utah

Amit Singha, Purdue University

Devansh Srivastav, CISPA Helmholtz Center for Information Security

Tim Leonhard Storm, Paderborn University

Tong Sun, Zhejiang University

Guofeng Tang, Singapore Management University

Fabian Thomas, CISPA Helmholtz Center for Information Security

Yunpeng Tian, The Hong Kong Polytechnic University

Dominic Troppmann, CISPA Helmholtz Center for Information Security

Yu-Jye Tung, The Pennsylvania State University

Mughees Ur Rehman, Virginia Tech

Corban Villa, University of California, Berkeley

Arturo Villacañas, Independent Researcher

Guruprasad Viswanathan Ramesh, University of Wisconsin—Madison

Ryan Vrecenar, Sandia National Laboratories

Chenkai Wang, University of Illinois Urbana–Champaign

Chenyi Wang, University of Arizona

Lihua Wang, University of New South Wales

Longxiang Wang, City University of Hong Kong

Yaofei Wang, Hefei University of Technology

Zihan Wang, The University of Queensland and CSIRO's Data61

Thom Wiggers, PQShield

Annika Wilde, Ruhr University Bochum

Luca Wilke, Microsoft Research

Christian Wressnegger, Karlsruhe Institute of Technology (KIT)

Stanley Wu, University of Chicago

Yuwei Xiao, Linkedin

Zhikang Xie, The University of Hong Kong

Peiran Xu, University of California, Los Angeles

Tianshi Xu, Peking University

Ziqing Yang, CISPA Helmholtz Center for Information Security

Shenglong Yao, Georgia Institute of Technology

Taeung Yoon, University of Illinois Urbana–Champaign

Zi-Quan You, Institute for Network Sciences and Cyberspace, BNRist, Tsinghua University

Jiahao Yu, Northwestern University

Jiangrui Yu, Peking University

Jiongchi Yu, Singapore Management University

Jiping Yu, Tsinghua University

Mehtab Zafar, National University of Singapore

Mingming Zha, Indiana University Bloomington

Xiao Zhan, Universitat Politècnica de València and University of Cambridge

Bo Zhang, Northwestern Polytechnical University

Bosi Zhang, Huazhong University of Science and Technology

Junqi Zhang, University of Science and Technology of China

Shenyi Zhang, Wuhan University

Tingwei Zhang, Cornell Tech

Xiang Zhang, Tianjin University

Xiaohan Zhang, Fudan University

Xin Zhang, Peking University

Zhiyu Zhang, Institute of Information Engineering, Chinese Academy of Sciences

Zhou Zhang, Beihang University

Kunsong Zhao, The Hong Kong Polytechnic University

Yao Zhao, Victoria University

Xia Zhou, Zhejiang University

Yi Zhou, Amazon Web Serivce

Jinhao Zhu, University of California, Berkeley

Zeyang Zhuang, The Chinese University of Hong Kong

Haodi Zou, University of California, San Diego

Yunkai Zou, Nankai University