POPL 2017

This is the main track of POPL 2017, featuring research papers and invited talks. Please select a tab for more information.

News

The POPL 2017 program is available.

The full POPL 2017 proceedings are accessible.

Accepted Papers

Call for Papers

Scope

The annual Symposium on Principles of Programming Languages is a forum for the discussion of all aspects of programming languages and programming systems. Both theoretical and experimental papers are welcome, on topics ranging from formal frameworks to experience reports. Papers discussing new ideas and new areas are encouraged, as are papers (often called “pearls”) that elucidate existing concepts in ways that yield new insights. We are looking for any submission with the potential to make enduring contributions to the theory, design, implementation or application of programming languages.

The symposium is sponsored by ACM SIGPLAN, in cooperation with ACM SIGACT and ACM SIGLOG.

Evaluation

The Program Committee will evaluate the technical contribution of each submission as well as its accessibility to both experts and the general POPL audience. All papers will be judged on significance, originality, relevance, correctness, and clarity.

Explaining a known idea in a new way may make as strong a contribution as inventing a new idea. Hence, we encourage the submission of pearls: elegant essays that explain an old idea, but do so in a new way that clarifies the idea and yields new insights. There is no formal separation of categories; pearls will be held to the same standards as any other paper.

Each paper should explain its contributions in both general and technical terms, identifying what has been accomplished, explaining why it is significant, and comparing it with previous work. Authors should strive to make their papers understandable to a broad audience. Advice on writing technical papers can be found on the SIGPLAN author information page.

A document that details principles underlying organizational and reviewing policies can be found here.

A document containing frequently asked questions about the reviewing and submission process, especially as it pertains to double-blind reviewing, can be found here.

The Program Committee, displayed to the right, meets face-to-face to make the final selection; the Program Committee is assisted by a larger External Review Committee, also displayed to the right. PC papers are reviewed and selected entirely by the ERC.

Submission guidelines

Prior to the registration deadline, the authors will register their paper by uploading information on the submission title, abstract (of at most 300 words), authors, topics, and conflicts to the conference web site. Papers that are not registered on time will be rejected.

Prior to the final paper submission deadline, the authors will upload their full paper in double blind format and formatted according to the ACM proceedings format. Each paper should have no more than 12 pages of text, excluding bibliography, in 9 pt format. Papers may be resubmitted multiple times up until the deadline. The last version submitted before the deadline will be the version that is reviewed. Papers that exceed the length requirement or deviate from the expected format or are submitted late will be rejected.

Deadlines expire at midnight anywhere on earth on the Important Dates displayed to the right.

Templates for ACM format are available for Microsoft Word and LaTeX at http://www.sigplan.org/Resources/Author (use the 9 pt preprint template). Submissions should be in PDF and printable on US Letter and A4 sized paper.

Submitted papers must adhere to the SIGPLAN Republication Policy and the ACM Policy on Plagiarism. Concurrent submissions to other conferences, workshops, journals, or similar forums of publication are not allowed.

POPL 2017 will employ a lightweight double-blind reviewing process. To facilitate this, submitted papers must adhere to two rules:

1. author names and institutions must be omitted, and
2. references to authors’ own related work should be in the third person (e.g., not “We build on our previous work …” but rather “We build on the work of …”).

The purpose of this process is to help the PC and external reviewers come to an initial judgement about the paper without bias, not to make it impossible for them to discover the authors if they were to try. Nothing should be done in the name of anonymity that weakens the submission or makes the job of reviewing the paper more difficult (e.g., important background references should not be omitted or anonymized). In addition, authors should feel free to disseminate their ideas or draft versions of their paper as they normally would. For instance, authors may post drafts of their papers on the web or give talks on their research ideas. A document answering frequently asked questions should address many common concerns.

The submission itself is the object of review and so it should strive to convince the reader of at least the plausibility of reported results. Still, we encourage authors to provide any supplementary material that is required to support the claims made in the paper, such as detailed proofs, proof scripts, or experimental data. These materials should be uploaded at submission time, as a single pdf or a tarball, not via a URL. Two forms of supplementary material may be submitted.

1. Anonymous supplementary material is available to the reviewers before they submit their first-draft reviews.
2. Non-anonymous supplementary material is available to the reviewers after they have submitted their first-draft reviews and learnt the identity of the authors.

Use the anonymous form if possible. Reviewers are under no obligation to look at the supplementary material but may refer to it if they have questions about the material in the body of the paper.

Artifact Evaluation

Authors of accepted papers will be invited to formally submit supporting materials to the Artifact Evaluation process. Artifact Evaluation is run by a separate committee whose task is to assess how the artifacts support the work described in the papers. This submission is voluntary and will not influence the final decision regarding the papers. Papers that go through the Artifact Evaluation process successfully will receive a seal of approval printed on the papers themselves. Authors of accepted papers are encouraged to make these materials publicly available upon publication of the proceedings, by including them as “source materials” in the ACM Digital Library.

Publication

Final versions of accepted papers are allowed up to 12 pages excluding the bibliography. In addition, at most two additional pages may be purchased at $200 per page. This additional amount will be due at registration for the conference.

AUTHORS TAKE NOTE: The official publication date is the date the proceedings are made available in the ACM Digital Library. This date may be up to two weeks prior to the first day of your conference. The official publication date affects the deadline for any patent filings related to published work. (For those rare conferences whose proceedings are published in the ACM Digital Library after the conference is over, the official publication date remains the first day of the conference.)