---

name: aistats-artifact-evaluation description: Use when packaging AISTATS code, data, proofs, simulation scripts, notebooks, random seeds, and logs as anonymous supplementary evidence or public post-acceptance artifacts, even when there is no separate artifact badge. Covers what statistically minded AISTATS reviewers inspect first and how to make Monte Carlo studies turnkey.

AISTATS Artifact Evaluation

Use this for evidence packaging around AISTATS. The venue centers on artificial intelligence, statistics, and machine learning, so artifacts should make statistical and computational claims inspectable.

Artifact plan

• Decide what evidence reviewers need: proof details, derivations, simulation scripts, benchmark code, datasets, preprocessing, hyperparameter sweeps, random seeds, logs, or qualitative examples.
• Keep decision-critical evidence in the main paper or appendix; optional run files can live in supplementary material.
• Anonymize repository history, paths, notebook metadata, license headers, organization names, cluster paths, grants, and commit authors.
• Include a minimal reproduction map: environment, dependencies, hardware, commands, expected outputs, runtime, seeds, and known nondeterminism.
• For restricted data, give enough provenance and processing detail for credible reproduction without violating data-use terms.
• After acceptance, replace anonymous archives with public, licensed, citable artifacts when feasible.

What AISTATS evidence reviewers open first

Claim type	First artifact inspected	Common failure caught
Convergence rate or regret bound	Proof appendix and constants	Condition used in the proof but missing from the theorem statement
Monte Carlo simulation	Seeded simulation script	Plots cannot be regenerated because seeds and replication counts are absent
Benchmark comparison	Training and evaluation configs	Baseline tuning budget undocumented
Bayesian or MCMC method	Sampler diagnostics and chain logs	No convergence statistics or trace evidence anywhere

Because AISTATS reviewers are often statisticians, they will rerun a small simulation far more readily than they will retrain a deep model, so make synthetic studies turnkey before polishing anything else.

Worked vignette: packaging a Monte Carlo study

A hypothetical submission proposes a doubly robust treatment-effect estimator with a root-n normality guarantee, validated on synthetic causal data plus two real benchmarks.

• Ship the data-generating process as one parameterized script rather than constants buried in notebooks, so reviewers can vary n, dimension, and confounding strength.
• Record the replication count and the exact seed sequence used for every coverage and bias table; AISTATS-style claims about interval coverage are meaningless without them.
• Emit tables directly from logged results so the PDF numbers and artifact numbers cannot drift apart.
• State explicitly where the simulated regime satisfies the theorem assumptions and where it deliberately violates them, since that mapping is what statistical reviewers grade.

Calibration anchors

• Supplementary inspection at AISTATS is at reviewer discretion; assume only the README and one entry script get opened, and design accordingly.
• Upload size limits and accepted formats vary by cycle; verify against the current OpenReview submission form rather than past years.

Output format

[Artifact role] anonymous supplement / camera-ready release / public archive
[Contents] <code/data/proofs/logs/notebooks>
[Anonymity risks] <paths/metadata/licenses/URLs>
[Reproduction level] turnkey / scripted / descriptive / weak
[Fixes before upload] <ordered list>