Coq platform for research artifact evaluation about platform

[spitters]

As do CPP and ITP of course.

[palmskog]

To my knowledge, neither CPP nor ITP have a dedicated artifact evaluation committee, and doesn't currently provide any guidelines that restrict how artifacts are submitted or handled by any committees. This is why I believe we would have much better success in getting Coq platform adoption to the POPL artifact evaluation.

[tchajed]

This would be great; just to add more data, in POPL 2020, 17 out of the 40 artifacts used Coq.

[MSoegtropIMC]

@palmskog : I am not sure what to do about this. Would you consider this solved by the recent paper by you, @gares and @Zimmi48 ?

[palmskog]

@MSoegtropIMC our paper is only one piece of the puzzle in convincing venues such as TACAS, CPP, etc., to recommend submissions to use the Platform whenever they have a Coq artifact. I expect that the academic side of the Platform team will have to "evangelize" using the Platform for several years more. Hence, I think we should keep this issue open to track progress.

[MSoegtropIMC]

OK, I created a milestone "Longterm"

[palmskog]

For the record, I counted 9 out of 25 accepted CPP 2023 papers using Coq: https://popl23.sigplan.org/home/CPP-2023#event-overview

[MSoegtropIMC]

Do you also have statistics for the other proof systems?

[palmskog]

In CPP 2023, there were:

• 6 Lean papers
• 5 Isabelle/HOL papers
• 2 Agda papers
• 2 F* papers
• 1 other paper