Papers may target any stage of software development, including requirements, modeling, prototyping, design, implementation, generation, analysis, verification, testing, evaluation, maintenance, and reuse of software systems. Artifacts given one or both of the Functional and Reusable badges are generally referred to as accepted. Please see the results in the Chairs’ Report. See the Call for Artifacts tab for more information. Last year accepted artifacts who uploaded the evaluated version to Zenodo and sent the AEC chairs the DOI (after acceptance) automatically received this badge. Tags: actors, concurrency, empirical software engineering, empirical study, new paper, oopsla. Your submission should consist of three pieces: The URL must be a Google Drive, Dropbox, Github, Bitbucket, or (public) Gitlab URL, to help protect the anonymity of the reviewers. The Step by Step Instructions explain how to reproduce any experiments or other activities that support the conclusions in your paper. The overall number of submissions, however, increased substantially, from 44 last year (a 50% increase), which led to a last-minute scramble to grow the reviewer pool from 30 to 50 PhD students and post-docs, who wrote 200 reviews. Thus, in addition to just running the artifact, the evaluators will read the paper and may try to tweak provided inputs or otherwise slightly generalize the use of the artifact from the paper in order to test the artifact’s limits. Papers Awards Workshops Town Hall Socials Login Show/Hide Subject Areas Browse Papers Paper Visualization Showing papers for . The extra time could allow more time for authors to prepare artifacts (instead of the week currently given), would ease reviewer load, and would allow for an additional round of iteration with authors that would be useful in some cases. Conflict of interests for AEC members are handled by the chairs. The purpose of this panel is to try to explain how OOPSLA papers are judged so that it will increase the odds that your paper will be accepted. To align better with the general ACM guidelines and other SIGPLAN conferences, we should allow artifacts to receive the Available badge without requiring that they meet the Functional requirements. This year the OOPSLA 2020 Artifact Evaluation Chairs are seeking (self!) OOPSLA 2020 : Conference on Object-Oriented Programming Systems, Languages,and Applications Conference Series : Conference on Object-Oriented Programming Systems, Languages, and Applications Link: https://2020 The papers below have been accepted for publication at OSDI '20. -- MWG] Comments This could proceed either by the AEC relaxing the requirements for Available badges (but still requiring the AEC to look at the artifacts), or by allowing Conference Publishing to handle artifact availability independently of the AEC (in which case it would be possible for papers to carry Available badges without ever being seen by the AEC). If the alternative tool crashes on a subset of the inputs, simply note this expected behavior. Common issues found during the full review phase included: This year, as in the past several years, the timeline for artifact reviewing was intentionally boxed to the period between OOPSLA Phase 1 notifications and OOPSLA Phase 2 submissions for the papers. Artifact reviewers can then center their reviews / evaluation around these specific claims, though the reviewers will still consider whether the provided evidence is adequate to support claims that the artifact works. In an effort to reach a broader reviewing audience, we are also accepting self-nominations for artifact review. Papers may target any stage of software development, including requirements, modeling, prototyping, design, implementation, generation, analysis, verification, testing, evaluation, maintenance, and reuse … The AEC strives to place itself in the shoes of such future researchers and then to ask: how much would this artifact have helped me? You may upload your artifact directly if it’s a single file less than 15 MB. 2019 USENIX Annual Technical Conference will take place July 10–12, 2019, at the Hyatt Regency Lake Washington in Renton, WA, USA. Examples included generating a list of warnings without documenting which were true vs. false positives, and generating large tables of numbers that were presented graphically in the paper without providing a way to generate analogous visualizations. For more information on artifact reviewing, consult the 2020 calls for artifacts: https://2020.splashcon.org/track/splash-2020-Artifacts#Call-for-Artifacts. COLING’2020 accepted papers lists. ATVA 2020: Update on Covid-19: It is very hard for the organizing committee of ATVA 2020 to make up our mind on how to organize the conference this year. Accepted 16 December 2020 Hard and superconducting cubic boron phase via swarm-intelligence structural prediction driven by a machine-learning potential Qiuping Yang, Jian Lv, Qunchao Tong, Xin Du, Yanchao Wang, Shoutao Zhang, Guochun Yang, Aitor Bergara, and Yanming Ma PACMPL (OOPSLA) seeks contributions on all aspects of programming languages and software engineering. Several artifacts ran successfully and produced the output that was the basis for the paper, but without any way for reviewers to compare these for consistency with the paper. The Getting Started Guide should be as simple as possible, and yet it should stress the key elements of your artifact. Missing dependencies, or poor documentation of dependencies. Artifact Evaluation for OOPSLA 2020 is complete. Post was not sent - check your email addresses! OOPSLA is the premier conference on Object-Oriented Programming, having been the forum for some of the most important software developments over the last couple of decades. There are This leads to a scramble every year to recognize which artifacts have these significant requirements, and to try to rebalance them to reviewers with existing access to possibly-suitable systems. Learn how your comment data is processed. Artifacts involving an AEC chair must be unambiguously accepted (they may not be borderline), and they may not be considered for the distinguished artifact award. Given that artifact submission is limited to one attempt currently (unlike paper submissions), it may be worth considering a different review model with even more rounds of feedback and opportunities for authors to correct or improve their artifacts for problems encountered even later in reviewing. This has the additional benefit of still rewarding artifacts which perhaps were “close” to achieving a Functional designation. This entry is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution-NonCommercial-ShareAlike 4.0 International license. There is an additional badge specifically for making artifacts available in reliable locations (see below), and we strongly encourage authors of accepted artifacts to pursue it, but it is a separate process from evaluation of functionality, and it is not required. I am excited to announce that our paper, entitled “Actor Concurrency Bugs: A Comprehensive Study on Symptoms, Root Causes, API Usages, and Differences,” was accepted at OOPSLA 2020!One hundred nine papers were Step-by-Step Instructions for how you propose to evaluate your artifact (with appropriate connections to the relevant sections of your paper); A list of claims from the paper supported by the artifact, and how/why. It is organised by IARCS , the Indian Association for Research in Computing Science. Powered by CUNY. Several artifacts claiming the need for only UNIX-like systems failed severely under macOS — in particular those requiring 32-bit compilers, which are no longer present in newer macOS versions. The Artifact Evaluation process is a service provided by the community to help authors of accepted papers provide more substantial supplements to their papers so future researchers can more effectively build on and compare with previous work. Reviewers will follow all the steps in the guide during an initial kick-the-tires phase. Deviations from this ideal must be for good reason. At the 23.8% acceptance rate of CHI 2019 (and imagining mean scores were the only criterion), all papers with a score greater than 3.0 would be accepted (647 papers). More concrete suggestions for next year include: Massachusetts Institute of Technology, USA, Indiana University & University of Cambridge, University of Illinois at Urbana-Champaign, USA, University of Illinois at Urbana-Champaign, Presenter Instructions for OOPSLA/ECOOP/Onward!/GPCE/SLE/DLS, Proof Artifacts: Guidelines for Submission and Reviewing, Sunsetting Mercurial Support in Bitbucket, A Model for Detecting Faults in Build Specifications, A Structural Model for Contextual Code Changes, A Type-and-Effect System for Object Initialization, Adding Interactive Visual Syntax to Textual Code, CAMP: Cost-Aware Multiparty Session Protocols, Can Advanced Type Systems Be Usable? Thank you to everyone involved in Virtual PLDI 2020 for making the conference a big success! SPLASH takes … The AEC’s work will occur between the phase 1 notifications for OOPSLA (July 1, 2020) and the due date for phase 2 revisions (August 14, 2020). Artifact reviewers will be instructed that the artifacts are for use only for artifact evaluation, that submitted versions of artifacts may not be made public by reviewers, and that copies of artifacts must not be kept beyond the review period. Authors of papers that pass Round 1 of PACMPL (OOPSLA) will be invited to submit an artifact that supports the conclusions of their paper. In such cases, all available benchmarks should be included. Using a virtual machine provides a way to make an easily reproducible environment — it is less susceptible to bit rot. If. Authors of papers published in PACMPL Issue OOPSLA 2020 will present their work in the OOPSLA track of the SPLASH virtual conference in November. Your overview should consist of two parts: The Getting Started Guide should contain setup instructions (including, for example, a pointer to the VM player software, its version, passwords if needed, etc.) Here, the teapotToWorld and bunnyToWorld matrices define the transformations from each respective Github, etc. Artifact evaluation consisted of two phases: a kick-the-tires phase to debug installation and dependency issues, and a full review phase. One hundred nine papers were approved out of 302 submissions, amounting to a 36% acceptance rate. If you are not, but know someone who might be interested, please let them know about this. Review forms should be changed from accept/reject terminology to having two numeric scores indicating inclinations on functionality and separately reusability, with suitably clearer score text. We believe it is worth decoupling the Phase 2 deadline from artifact evaluation to permit more time for artifact reviewing. Chengyu Wang. All papers that pass phase 1 of OOPSLA reviewing are eligible to submit artifacts. In the ideal case, an artifact with this designation includes all relevant code, dependencies, input data (e.g., benchmarks), and the artifact’s documentation is sufficient for reviewers to reproduce the exact results described in the paper. Your artifact can contain a bootable virtual machine image with all of the necessary libraries installed. This badge is given to accepted artifacts that are made available publicly in an archival location. A Verified Space Cost Semantics for CakeML Programs, Effects as Capabilities: Effect Handlers and Lightweight Effect Polymorphism, Eliminating Abstraction Overhead of Java Stream Pipelines using Ahead-of-Time Program Optimization, Finding Bugs in Database Systems via Query Partitioning, Formulog: Datalog for SMT-Based Static Analysis, Guided Linking: Dynamic Linking Without the Costs, Hidden Inheritance: An Inline Caching Design for TypeScript Performance, Igloo: Soundly Linking Compositional Refinement and Separation Logic for Distributed System Verification, Inter-Theory Dependency Analysis for SMT String Solvers, Interactive Synthesis of Temporal Specifications from Examples and Natural Language, Just-in-Time Learning for Inductive Program Synthesis, Learning Graph-based Heuristics for Pointer Analysis without Handcrafting Application-Specific Features, Learning-based Controlled Concurrency Testing, Multiparty Motion Coordination: From Choreographies to Robotics Programs, Perfectly Parallel Fairness Certification of Neural Networks, Precise Inference of Expressive Units of Measurement Types, Precise Static Modeling of Ethereum ``Memory'', Programming and Reasoning with Partial Observability, Projection-based Runtime Assertions for Testing and Debugging Quantum Programs, Regex Matching with Counting-Set Automata, Resolution as Intersection Subtyping via Modus Ponens, Scaling Exact Inference for Discrete Probabilistic Programs, Statically Verified Refinements for Multiparty Protocols, StreamQL: A Query Language for Processing Streaming Time Series, Testing Differential Privacy with Dual Interpreters, The Anchor Verifier for Blocking and Non-Blocking Concurrent Software, Verifying Replicated Data Types with Typeclass Refinements in Liquid Haskell, ιDOT: A DOT Calculus with Object Initialization, https://2020.splashcon.org/track/splash-2020-Artifacts#Call-for-Artifacts, Learning-Based Controlled Concurrency Testing, Recommendations for Future Artifact Evaluations, August 8: Authors of papers accepted in Phase 1 submit artifacts, August 15-18: Authors may respond to issues found following kick-the-tires instructions, September 15: Artifact notifications sent out, a single file containing the artifact (recommended), or, the address of a public source control repository, A hash certifying the version of the artifact at submission time: either, an md5 hash of the single file file (use the md5 or md5sum command-line tool to generate the hash), or. If the artifact claims to outperform a related system in some way (in time, accuracy, etc.) For such cases, authors should contact the Artifact Evaluation Co-Chairs (Colin Gordon and Anders Møller) as soon as possible after round 1 notification to work out how to make these possible to evaluate. Powered by WordPress / Academica WordPress Theme by WPZOOM, Help | Contact Us | Privacy Policy | Terms of Service | Image Credits | Creative Commons (CC) license unless otherwise noted, Built with WordPress | Common issues in the kick-the-tires phase included: As with last year, the single most effective way to avoid these sorts of issues ahead of time is to run the instructions independently on a fresh machine, VM, or Docker container. Please contact Colin Gordon and Anders Møller if you have any questions. In some cases repeating the evaluation may take a long time. PLDI is a premier forum for programming language research, broadly construed, including design, implementation, theory, applications, and performance. Authors had 4 days to respond to problems encountered in the kick-the-tires phase. Findings Accepted Papers There were 332 Long Papers and 115 Short Papers accepted to Findings of ACL: EMNLP 2020 Long Papers Fully Quantized Transformer for Machine Translation. Oct 19, 2020 COLING’2020 attracted an unprecedented number of submissions, in fact more than … Generally this could be fixed by the authors providing a Dockerfile. 49 were accepted in some way (74% acceptance), broken down as: 30 reusable (implying also functional), so 61% of accepted artifacts were found to be reusable, Maaz Bin Safeer Ahmad (University of Washington). Gabriele Prato, Ella Charlaix and. Actor concurrency study paper accepted at OOPSLA 2020, Click to email this to a friend (Opens in new window), Click to share on Twitter (Opens in new window), Click to share on Facebook (Opens in new window), Click to share on LinkedIn (Opens in new window), Click to share on Reddit (Opens in new window), Accepted EAPLS best paper award at virtual ETAPS 2020, Yiming passes the second exam – Raffi Khatchadourian, Allan successfully defends his thesis – Raffi Khatchadourian, Received EAPLS best paper award at FASE 2020 – Raffi Khatchadourian, Annie accepted to Yale University – Raffi Khatchadourian, Attribution-NonCommercial-ShareAlike 4.0 International. The Artifact Evaluation process is a service provided by the community to help authors of accepted papers provide more substantial supplements to their papers so future researchers can more effectively build on and compare with … This submission is voluntary. Authors of papers published in PACMPL Issue OOPSLA 2019 will present their work at OOPSLA in Athens. I am excited to announce that our paper, entitled “Actor Concurrency Bugs: A Comprehensive Study on Symptoms, Root Causes, API Usages, and Differences,” was accepted at OOPSLA 2020! nominations for the Artifact Evaluation Committee (AEC). This site uses Akismet to reduce spam. Artifact Evaluation for OOPSLA 2020 is complete. Some of the results are performance data, and therefore exact numbers depend on the particular hardware. Please see details of the outcomes of artifact evaluation (badges) for further guidance on what these mean. For example, if it seems relatively easy for others to reuse this directly as the basis of a follow-on project, the AEC may award a Reusable badge. I am excited to announce that our paper, entitled “ Actor Concurrency Bugs: A Comprehensive Study on Symptoms, Root Causes, API Usages, and Differences,” was accepted at OOPSLA 2020! Update 2010-05-28: The accepted papers are listed here now. Assistant Professor of Computer Science at City University of New York (CUNY) Hunter College, Home » Research » Papers » Actor concurrency study paper accepted at OOPSLA 2020. An Empirical Study of Ownership, Assets, and Typestate in Obsidian, Certified and efficient instruction scheduling and application to interlocked VLIW processors, CompCertELF: Verified Separate Compilation of C Programs into ELF Object Files, Contextual Dispatch for Function Specialization, Counterexample-Guided Correlation Algorithm for Translation Validation, Detecting Locations in JavaScript Programs Affected by Breaking Library Changes, DiffStream: Differential Output Testing for Stream Processing Programs, Digging for Fold: Synthesis-Aided API Discovery for Haskell, Do You Have Space for Dessert? Publication date: November 2020. However, this biases reviews in favor of those with the funding for that (which can easily run bills up to several thousand USD). Where appropriate, include descriptions of and links to files (included in the archive) that represent expected outputs (e.g., the log files expected to be generated by your tool on the given inputs); if there are warnings that are safe to be ignored, explain which ones they are. This means that authors will not know who reviewed their papers, and reviewers will not know who authored the papers they review. PACMPL Issue OOPSLA 2019 seeks contributions on all aspects of programming languages and software engineering. USENIX ATC '19 will bring together leading systems researchers for cutting-edge are not adequate for receiving this badge (see FAQ). If you are looking for a well-documented object-oriented framework to try your method, check-out this JUnit 3.8 documentation. REVIEW PROCESS APLAS 2020 will use a lightweight double-blind reviewing process. To conform with ACM requirements for journal publication, all POPL papers will There is value in leaving the reusability criteria open-ended, as reusability often means something very different for machine-checked proofs vs. proof-of-concept compilers vs. dynamic analysis tools. This year and last saw artifact submissions requiring specific GPUs, small clusters, hundreds of GB of RAM on one machine, or dozens of cores. It may be possible to apply through various providers’ research credits programs, though it might also be useful to include this as part of sponsorship requests for future editions of OOPSLA. Prior experience with artifact evaluation (as a submitter or reviewer) is a plus, but also not required. Publication date: November 2020. . OSDI '20 Accepted Papers We at USENIX assert that Black lives matter: Read the USENIX Statement on Racism and Black, African-American, and African Diaspora Inclusion . We received 67 initial submissions, one of which was withdrawn shortly after submission, leaving 66 artifacts for review (61% of the 109 conditionally accepted OOPSLA papers). Alan Snyder's appendix to the OOPSLA'91 proceedings on "How to Get Your Paper Accepted at OOPSLA" is very accurate. You should make your artifact available as a single archive file and use the naming convention ., where the appropriate suffix is used for the given archive format. Reviewers may choose to run on smaller inputs or larger inputs depending on available hardware. Please see the Call for Self-Nominations tab for more information. The artifact’s documentation should include the following: Example: Performance claims cannot be reproduced in VM, authors are not allowed to redistribute specific benchmarks, etc. Papers may target any stage of software development, including requirements, modeling, prototyping, design, implementation, generation, analysis, … Some benchmark code is subject to licensing or intellectual property restrictions and cannot legally be shared with reviewers (e.g., licensed benchmark suites like SPEC, or when a tool is applied to private proprietary code). ), though this should be interpreted as a rough guideline rather than a hard requirement on where you have published. When packaging your artifact, please keep in mind: a) how accessible you are making your artifact to other researchers, and b) the fact that the AEC members will have a limited time in which to make an assessment of each artifact. However, the current ACM criteria in use are so open-ended that it is hard for authors to know what to aim for. OOPSLA 2020 Conference on Object-Oriented Programming Systems, Languages,and Applications Sep 15, 2020 - Sep 20, 2020 Chicago Apr 15, 2020 OOPSLA 2019 SPLASH 2019 OOPSLA Oct 20, 2019 - Oct 25, 2019 Apr 5 Overstating platform support. Papers that go through the Artifact Evaluation process successfully will receive a seal of approval printed on the first page of the paper. This arrangement originated as an experiment to see if it was feasible — purely in terms of timeline — for artifact evaluation to be a useful input to Phase 2 decisions. and the other system was used to generate new numbers for the paper (e.g., an existing tool was run on new benchmarks not considered by the corresponding publication), artifacts should include a version of that related system, and instructions for reproducing the numbers used for comparison as well. Write this for readers who have a deep interest in your work and are studying it to improve it or compare against it. If you have questions, don’t hesitate to contact the 2020 AEC chairs (Colin Gordon and Anders Møller). An artifact can be awarded a functional badge if the artifact supports all claims made in the paper, possibly excluding some minor claims if there are very good reasons they cannot be supported. This is only an indication that the AEC was not able to reproduce all relevant claims to their satisfaction, and. 4, No. We recommend future artifacts scope their claimed support more narrowly. SPLASH embraces all aspects of software construction and delivery, to make it the premier conference on the applications of programming languages—at the intersection of programming languages and software engineering. We should seek funding for compute infrastructure for compute-intensive artifacts. In this case, artifacts should explain how to recognize when experiments on other hardware reproduce the high-level results (e.g., that a certain optimization exhibits a particular trend, or that comparing two tools one outperforms the other in a certain class of cases). Artifacts do not need to be anonymous; reviewers will be aware of author identities. The artifact evaluation committee evaluates each artifact for the awarding of one or two badges: Functional: This is the basic “accepted” outcome for an artifact. For a total of 87 conditionally accepted OOPSLA papers, the authors expressed intent to submit artifacts. While we should still permit and encourage this for artifacts whose authors have such resources, we should also solicit funds for cloud computing that the AEC can set up on its own as needed, based on the artifacts that arrive. A Reusable badge is given when reviewers feel the artifact is particularly well packaged, documented, designed, etc. Welcome to SPLASH 2020, the ACM SIGPLAN conference on Systems, Programming, Languages, and Applications: Software for Humanity. One hundred nine papers were approved out of 302 submissions, amounting to a 36% acceptance rate. Submitting source code that must be compiled is permissible. OOPSLA 2010 Research Papers October 17 to 20 Reno/Tahoe Nevada, USA www.splashcon.org Paper Submission Deadline: … . 2020 is using a double-blind submission process. Reviewers may not reproduce full results in such cases, 17 were deemed non-functional. Onward! Vol. It is a forum for presenting original results in foundational aspects of … Based on the outcome of the OOPSLA 2019 AEC, the strongest recommendation we can give for ensuring quality packaging is to test your own directions on a fresh machine (or VM), following exactly the directions you have prepared. — improves the odds the AEC will not be stuck getting different versions of packages working (particularly different releases of programming languages). Conflicts of interest involving one of the two AEC chairs are handled by the other AEC chair, or the PC of the conference if both chairs are conflicted. This list will be updated with useful questions as time goes on. Generally, the bar for “senior” PhD student has been authorship on one paper at a SIGPLAN conference or a related conference (e.g., ICSE, FSE, ASE, ISSTA, ECOOP, ESOP, etc. If your artifact runs for more than a few minutes, point this out, note how long it is expected to run (roughly) and explain how to run it on smaller inputs. After decisions on the Functional and Reusable badges have been made, the AEC Chairs can award an additional badge to those accepted artifacts that make their artifact durably available: Available: This badge may only be awarded to artifacts judged functional. It also helps the AEC have confidence that errors or other problems cannot cause harm to their machines. Authors of papers with accepted artifacts are encouraged to make these materials publicly available upon publication of the proceedings, by including them as “source materials” in the ACM Digital Library. Anyone who has followed the Getting Started Guide should have no technical difficulties with the rest of your artifact. There are 124 papers with a mean of exactly 3.0. For an artifact to be accepted, it must support all the main claims made in the paper. FSTTCS 2020 is the 40th conference on Foundations of Software Technology and Theoretical Computer Science. The aim of double-blind is to treat all A more automated and/or portable build — such as a Docker file or a build tool that manages all compilation and dependencies (e.g., maven, gradle, etc.) Authors submitting machine-checked proof artifacts should consult Marianna Rapoport’s Proof Artifacts: Guidelines for Submission and Reviewing. Protected by Akismet | and basic testing of your artifact that you expect a reviewer to be able to complete in 30 minutes. OOPSLA, Article 173. Main Conference Accepted Papers There were 601 Long Papers and 150 Short Papers accepted to the main conference Long Papers Meta Fine-Tuning Neural Language Models for Multi-Domain Text Mining. . By Raffi Khatchadourian in Papers on August 3, 2020. Sorry, your blog cannot share posts by email. Comparing against existing tools on new benchmarks, but not including ways to reproduce the. The AEC will read the paper and explore the artifact to give feedback about how well the artifact supports the paper and how easy it is for future researchers to use the artifact.

Love Came Down And Rescued Me Chords, Destiny 2 Servers Not Available Pc, Monoammonium Phosphate Structure, Prawn And Potato Vindaloo, Jonny Boats Bass 100 Dealers, Causes And Consequences Of Revolt Of 1857, Dys Words That Are Verbs, Ucc Drip Coffee Japan, Voila Coffee Uk, Has Anyone Seen Hanuman, How To Fry Spring Onions,