PLDI is a premier forum for all areas of programming language research, including the design, implementation, theory, and efficient use of languages. PLDI seeks outstanding research that has broad appeal and spans the breadth of programming languages. PLDI’s emphases include innovative and creative approaches to compile-time and runtime technology, novel language designs and features, and results from implementations.

Sun 14 Jun

pldi2015-papers
19:30 - 21:00: Research Papers - Welcome Reception at Exhibit Halls A1-B
pldi2015-papers143430300000019:30 - 21:00

Mon 15 Jun

pldi2015-papers
12:30 - 14:00: Research Papers - SIGPLAN Awards Luncheon at Portland 251,257,258
pldi2015-papers143436420000012:30 - 14:00
Lunch
pldi2015-papers
17:15 - 17:40: Research Papers - TOPLAS at PLDI Main RED (Portland 256)
Chair(s): Michelle Strout
pldi2015-papers143438130000017:15 - 17:40
Talk

Tue 16 Jun

pldi2015-papers
08:45 - 09:10: Research Papers - One Minute Madness at PLDI Main BLUE (Portland 254-255)
pldi2015-papers143443710000008:45 - 09:10
Talk
pldi2015-papers
16:00 - 18:00: Research Papers - PLDI Chairs' Report and SIGPLAN Townhall Meeting at PLDI Main BLUE (Portland 254-255)
Chair(s): David Grove
pldi2015-papers143446320000016:00 - 16:30
Talk
File Attached
pldi2015-papers143446500000016:30 - 17:30
Meeting
pldi2015-papers
18:30 - 22:00: Research Papers - PLDI Banquet at Exchange Ballroom
pldi2015-papers143447220000018:30 - 22:00

Wed 17 Jun

pldi2015-papers
08:30 - 09:00: Research Papers - One Minute Madness at PLDI Main BLUE (Portland 254-255)
pldi2015-papers143452260000008:30 - 09:00
Talk

Call for Papers

PLDI is a premier forum for all areas of programming language research, including the design, implementation, theory, and efficient use of languages. PLDI seeks outstanding research that has broad appeal and spans the breadth of programming languages. PLDI’s emphases include innovative and creative approaches to compile-time and runtime technology, novel language designs and features, and results from implementations. Papers are solicited on, but not limited to, the following topics:

  • Language designs and extensions
  • Static and dynamic analysis of programs
  • Domain-specific languages and tools
  • Type systems and program logics
  • Program transformation and optimization
  • Checking or improving the security or correctness of programs
  • Memory management
  • Parallelism, both implicit and explicit
  • Performance and energy analysis, evaluation, and tools
  • Novel programming models
  • Debugging techniques and tools
  • Program understanding
  • Interaction of compilers/runtimes with underlying systems
  • Program synthesis

PLDI welcomes new topics.

Submissions

Please note that formatting requirements for PLDI’15 will be different to previous years. Details can be found in the Instructions for Authors.

The submission deadline is past. The submission site was.

To enable double-blind reviewing, author names and their affiliations must be omitted from submissions, and references to related work by the authors should be in the third person (e.g., not “We build on our previous work …” but rather “We build on the work of …”). However, 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). If you have questions about the logistics for the double-blind reviewing process, please look at the double-blind reviewing FAQ.

Papers must describe unpublished work that is not currently submitted for publication elsewhere as described by SIGPLAN’s Republication Policy. Submitters should also be aware of ACM’s Policy and Procedures on Plagiarism.

Evaluation Criteria

The program committee and the external review committee will evaluate the technical contribution of each submission as well as its general accessibility to the PLDI audience. Papers will be judged on significance, originality, and clarity. The paper must be organized so that it is easily understood by an audience with varied expertise. The paper should clearly identify what has been accomplished, why it is significant, and how it relates to previous work.

Review Process

The PLDI’15 review process will use two phases in order to balance the need for high quality reviews, the growing number of paper submissions, and the practical limits on program committee size. In the first phase, each paper will receive at least three reviews from which the PC and ERC will identify those papers most viable for publication in PLDI’15. Those papers progressing to the second phase will receive a further two reviews. Authors of papers that do not progress will be notified promptly, giving authors as much opportunity as possible to further develop their work. Each phase will have an author response mechanism, on the principle that authors should have the opportunity to respond to each review. The majority of papers will be given the opportunity for author response at the end of the first phase. Some papers may be promoted directly to the second phase without author response (authors of such papers would be notified). Authors are not required nor able to revise their submission after the initial paper submission deadline.

Artifact Evaluation Process

Authors of accepted papers will be invited to formally submit these supporting materials to the Artifact Evaluation process. The Artifact Evaluation process, 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. Additional information will be available on the PLDI AEC web page closer to the submission deadline.

Publication

Authors of accepted papers will be required to sign an ACM copyright release.

AUTHORS TAKE NOTE: All accepted papers will be available in the ACM Digital Library as early as May 30, 2015. The official publication date is the date the proceedings are made available in the ACM Digital Library. The official publication date affects the deadline for any patent filings related to published work.

Accepted Papers

Title
Media Attached
Media Attached
Media Attached
Media Attached
Media Attached
Media Attached
Media Attached
Media Attached
Link to publication Media Attached
Media Attached
Media Attached
Media Attached
Link to publication Media Attached
Media Attached
Media Attached File Attached
Media Attached
Media Attached
Media Attached
Media Attached
Media Attached
Pre-print Media Attached
Media Attached
Media Attached
Media Attached
Media Attached
Media Attached
Media Attached
Media Attached
Media Attached
Media Attached
Media Attached
Media Attached
Media Attached
Media Attached
Media Attached
Link to publication Media Attached
Media Attached
Media Attached
File Attached
Media Attached
Media Attached
Link to publication Media Attached
Media Attached
Media Attached
Link to publication Media Attached
Media Attached
Media Attached
Media Attached
Media Attached
Media Attached
Media Attached
Media Attached
Media Attached
Media Attached
Media Attached
Media Attached
Media Attached
Media Attached
Media Attached

PLDI 2015- Proceedings of the 36th ACM SIGPLAN Conference on Programming Language Design and Implementation

Full Citation in the ACM Digital Library

SESSION: Distinguished Papers

Automatically improving accuracy for floating point expressions

  • Pavel Panchekha
  • Alex Sanchez-Stern
  • James R. Wilcox
  • Zachary Tatlock

Diagnosing type errors with class

  • Danfeng Zhang
  • Andrew C. Myers
  • Dimitrios Vytiniotis
  • Simon Peyton-Jones

Provably correct peephole optimizations with alive

  • Nuno P. Lopes
  • David Menendez
  • Santosh Nagarakatte
  • John Regehr

SESSION: Correctness

Algorithmic debugging of real-world haskell programs: deriving dependencies from the cost centre stack

  • Maarten Faddegon
  • Olaf Chitil

Automatic error elimination by horizontal code transfer across multiple applications

  • Stelios Sidiroglou-Douskos
  • Eric Lahtinen
  • Fan Long
  • Martin Rinard

Light: replay via tightly bounded recording

  • Peng Liu
  • Xiangyu Zhang
  • Omer Tripp
  • Yunhui Zheng

Many-core compiler fuzzing

  • Christopher Lidbury
  • Andrei Lascu
  • Nathan Chong
  • Alastair F. Donaldson

SESSION: Verification

Mechanized verification of fine-grained concurrent programs

  • Ilya Sergey
  • Aleksandar Nanevski
  • Anindya Banerjee

Verification of producer-consumer synchronization in GPU programs

  • Rahul Sharma
  • Michael Bauer
  • Alex Aiken

Relaxing safely: verified on-the-fly garbage collection for x86-TSO

  • Peter Gammie
  • Antony L. Hosking
  • Kai Engelhardt

Verifying read-copy-update in a logic for weak memory

  • Joseph Tassarotti
  • Derek Dreyer
  • Viktor Vafeiadis

SESSION: Optimization

LaminarIR: compile-time queues for structured streams

  • Yousun Ko
  • Bernd Burgstaller
  • Bernhard Scholz

Optimizing off-chip accesses in multicores

  • Wei Ding
  • Xulong Tang
  • Mahmut Kandemir
  • Yuanrui Zhang
  • Emre Kultursay

Improving compiler scalability: optimizing large programs at small price

  • Sanyam Mehta
  • Pen-Chung Yew

SESSION: TOPLAS

Verification of a cryptographic primitive: SHA-256 (abstract)

  • Andrew W. Appel

SESSION: Concurrency I

Asynchronous programming, analysis and testing with state machines

  • Pantazis Deligiannis
  • Alastair F. Donaldson
  • Jeroen Ketema
  • Akash Lal
  • Paul Thomson

Stateless model checking concurrent programs with maximal causality reduction

  • Jeff Huang

Synthesizing racy tests

  • Malavika Samak
  • Murali Krishna Ramanathan
  • Suresh Jagannathan

The Push/Pull model of transactions

  • Eric Koskinen
  • Matthew Parkinson

SESSION: Synthesis I

Efficient synthesis of network updates

  • Jedidiah McClurg
  • Hossein Hojjat
  • Pavol Černý
  • Nate Foster

Efficient synthesis of probabilistic programs

  • Aditya V. Nori
  • Sherjil Ozair
  • Sriram K. Rajamani
  • Deepak Vijaykeerthy

FlashRelate: extracting relational data from semi-structured spreadsheets using examples

  • Daniel W. Barowy
  • Sumit Gulwani
  • Ted Hart
  • Benjamin Zorn

Synthesizing data structure transformations from input-output examples

  • John K. Feser
  • Swarat Chaudhuri
  • Isil Dillig

SESSION: Concurrency II

Composing concurrency control

  • Ofri Ziv
  • Alex Aiken
  • Guy Golan-Gueta
  • G. Ramalingam
  • Mooly Sagiv

Dynamic partial order reduction for relaxed memory models

  • Naling Zhang
  • Markus Kusano
  • Chao Wang

Monitoring refinement via symbolic reasoning

  • Michael Emmi
  • Constantin Enea
  • Jad Hamza

Preventing glitches and short circuits in high-level self-timed chip specifications

  • Stephen Longfield
  • Brittany Nkounkou
  • Rajit Manohar
  • Ross Tate

SESSION: Analysis

DAG inlining: a decision procedure for reachability-modulo-theories in hierarchical programs

  • Akash Lal
  • Shaz Qadeer

Exploring and enforcing security guarantees via program dependence graphs

  • Andrew Johnson
  • Lucas Waye
  • Scott Moore
  • Stephen Chong

Making numerical program analysis fast

  • Gagandeep Singh
  • Markus Püschel
  • Martin Vechev

Tree dependence analysis

  • Yusheng Weijiang
  • Shruthi Balakrishna
  • Jianqiao Liu
  • Milind Kulkarni

SESSION: Semantics I

A formal C memory model supporting integer-pointer casts

  • Jeehoon Kang
  • Chung-Kil Hur
  • William Mansky
  • Dmitri Garbuzov
  • Steve Zdancewic
  • Viktor Vafeiadis

Defining the undefinedness of C

  • Chris Hathhorn
  • Chucky Ellison
  • Grigore Roşu

KJS: a complete formal semantics of JavaScript

  • Daejun Park
  • Andrei Stefănescu
  • Grigore Roşu

Verdi: a framework for implementing and formally verifying distributed systems

  • James R. Wilcox
  • Doug Woos
  • Pavel Panchekha
  • Zachary Tatlock
  • Xi Wang
  • Michael D. Ernst
  • Thomas Anderson

SESSION: Performance

Static detection of asymptotic performance bugs in collection traversals

  • Oswaldo Olivo
  • Isil Dillig
  • Calvin Lin

Autotuning algorithmic choice for input sensitivity

  • Yufei Ding
  • Jason Ansel
  • Kalyan Veeramachaneni
  • Xipeng Shen
  • Una-May O’Reilly
  • Saman Amarasinghe

Helium: lifting high-performance stencil kernels from stripped x86 binaries to halide DSL code

  • Charith Mendis
  • Jeffrey Bosboom
  • Kevin Wu
  • Shoaib Kamil
  • Jonathan Ragan-Kelley
  • Sylvain Paris
  • Qin Zhao
  • Saman Amarasinghe

Profile-guided meta-programming

  • William J. Bowman
  • Swaha Miller
  • Vincent St-Amour
  • R. Kent Dybvig

SESSION: Semantics II

Declarative programming over eventually consistent data stores

  • KC Sivaramakrishnan
  • Gowtham Kaki
  • Suresh Jagannathan

Blame and coercion: together again for the first time

  • Jeremy Siek
  • Peter Thiemann
  • Philip Wadler

Lightweight, flexible object-oriented generics

  • Yizhou Zhang
  • Matthew C. Loring
  • Guido Salvaneschi
  • Barbara Liskov
  • Andrew C. Myers

Relatively complete counterexamples for higher-order programs

  • Phúc C. Nguyễn
  • David Van Horn

SESSION: Logic

Automatic induction proofs of data-structures in imperative programs

  • Duc-Hiep Chu
  • Joxan Jaffar
  • Minh-Thai Trinh

Compositional certified resource bounds

  • Quentin Carbonneaux
  • Jan Hoffmann
  • Zhong Shao

Peer-to-peer affine commitment using bitcoin

  • Karl Crary
  • Michael J. Sullivan

Termination and non-termination specification inference

  • Ton Chanh Le
  • Shengchao Qin
  • Wei-Ngan Chin

SESSION: Parallelism

Celebrating diversity: a mixture of experts approach for runtime mapping in dynamic environments

  • Murali Krishna Emani
  • Michael O'Boyle

Efficient execution of recursive programs on commodity vector hardware

  • Bin Ren
  • Youngjoon Jo
  • Sriram Krishnamoorthy
  • Kunal Agrawal
  • Milind Kulkarni

Loop and data transformations for sparse matrix code

  • Anand Venkat
  • Mary Hall
  • Michelle Strout

Synthesizing parallel graph programs via automated planning

  • Dimitrios Prountzos
  • Roman Manevich
  • Keshav Pingali

SESSION: Potpourri

Zero-overhead metaprogramming: reflection and metaobject protocols fast and without compromises

  • Stefan Marr
  • Chris Seaton
  • Stéphane Ducasse

Finding counterexamples from parsing conflicts

  • Chinawat Isradisaikul
  • Andrew C. Myers

Interactive parser synthesis by example

  • Alan Leung
  • John Sarracino
  • Sorin Lerner

A simpler, safer programming and execution model for intermittent systems

  • Brandon Lucia
  • Benjamin Ransford

SESSION: Synthesis II

Concurrency debugging with differential schedule projections

  • Nuno Machado
  • Brandon Lucia
  • Luís Rodrigues

Synthesis of machine code from semantics

  • Venkatesh Srinivasan
  • Thomas Reps

Synthesis of ranking functions using extremal counterexamples

  • Laure Gonnord
  • David Monniaux
  • Gabriel Radanne

Type-and-example-directed program synthesis

  • Peter-Michael Osera
  • Steve Zdancewic

Overview

This page contains information for authors of papers accepted to appear at PLDI’15.

As an author you need to:

  • Prepare a camera-ready version of your paper.
  • Ensure your personal and paper profiles are up to date on this website.
  • Prepare a video abstract of your talk.
  • Prepare your talk.
  • Prepare a poster.

Details of these appear below.

Key Dates:

  • Revisions to shepherds due Fri 6 March, 2015 (shepherded papers).
  • Camera ready copy due Wed April 15, 2015.
  • Video abstract due Fri May 29, 2015.
  • Papers may be available on the ACM Digital Library as early as Sat May 30, 2015.
  • Conference Sat 13 - Wed 17 Jun, 2015.

AUTHORS TAKE NOTE: All accepted papers will be available in the ACM Digital Library as early as May 30, 2015. The official publication date is the date the proceedings are made available in the ACM Digital Library. The official publication date affects the deadline for any patent filings related to published work.

Camera Ready Paper Formatting Instructions

Please carefully follow the instructions in the email you will receive from Conference Publishing on how to format and then submit your camera-ready paper. An overview of those instructions is available here. It is important to note that the camera-ready format (optimized for publication) is different from the submission format (optimized for reviewing).

Accepted papers will be formatted strictly using the default 9pt ACM SIGPLAN format. Please use the style file that you find at the SIGPLAN website. As at Feb 16, the SIGPLAN website offers version 2.8 of the style file (released in July 2013). We are expecting a new version. We hope that SIGPLAN will release the new version in time for the camera-ready deadline. If that happens you will be notified, and asked to use the new version. We are told by the maintainers that the transition to the new version will be easy for you because aside from fixing problems with the copyright notice, it will otherwise produce the same output as version 2.8. Update: as at April 13, the new version is still not available, so you’ll need to make do with the old style file.

Highlights:

  • Default 9pt ACM SIGPLAN format.
  • 10 pages, 9pt, inclusive of bibliography.
  • You may purchase up to two additional pages (USD$150/pp, to be paid when registering for the conference).

Personal and Paper Profiles on researchr.org

All authors of accepted papers should have received an email with a link to activate your account on this website (researchr.org). If you have not already done so, please activate your account. You should use your account to update your personal information and ensure that the details of your paper reported here are correct (link at top right of each page). Specifically:

  • Please update your personal profile.
  • Please ensure the title and abstract of your paper are correct.
  • Please upload additional material associated with the paper such as slides and a link to your video, if you wish.

Presentation

You will have a 25 minute slot for your presentation. You should budget 20 minutes for your talk, plus 4 minutes for questions and a minute for transitions between talks. You should expect your session chair to rigorously adhere to the schedule. Chairs have been asked to display a count-down timer; please check with your chair before your session. You are strongly encouraged to test your equipment in the room in which you will be presenting well before your talk; you should be able to do so during a scheduled break or before the day’s proceedings start. Note that video abstracts will be shown in the last 5-10 minutes prior to each session starting. You will not be able to test your laptop at that time.

The venue has advised us that the rooms will have projectors that natively support the common 4:3 aspect ratio (i.e. not widescreen). You may wish to format your slides accordingly so as to maximise your utilisation of the available screen. (This is unrelated to and does not affect the requirements for video presentations, described below).

Prior to the conference, please check the schedule to confirm when your talk will appear. You should identify yourself to your session chair well before the start of your session.

There is plenty of advice online on how to prepare a good technical talk. Here are a few examples:

Video Abstract

Authors are asked to prepare a 60 second video abstract for each paper (We revised the length down from 90s according to scheduling constraints. If this revision is a major problem for you, please contact the program chair no later than May 1.) PLDI will be multitrack, and the video abstracts will allow attendees a greater opportunity to preview what they might expect at a given session as well as providing you with an additional opportunity to promote your work.

The video abstracts will be used instead of live presentations during one minute madness, which are used to publicising talks in the multi-track PLDI schedule.

You are encouraged to provide a link to your video to publisher Conference Publishing, and they will include it in the conference app (provided by Conference Publishing).

You are also encouraged to include it on the conference website (the site you’re looking at now) by providing a link via your paper’s profile (you can also upload slides and other such material).

Submission

Once your video is ready, please use this form to make it available to the PC chair. Please carefully note the formatting requirements below and the requirement that your link be to a file, not an embedded video (such as youtube). The form is configured to allow you to edit it afterwards, so if your information changes any time before the deadline, please just go back and edit the form. You should feel free to update your video at any time until the deadline. Please contact the PC Chair if you have any questions or concerns.

Requirements

Content

  • Should summarise paper.
  • Should motivate attendance at talk (we have two tracks; try to entice the audience to attend your talk!!)
  • Be creative!

Format

  • Your video must be made available as a file ( not embedded video via youtube etc).
  • No more than 60 seconds.
  • Use mp4, avi, flv, mov, or wmv encoding (or if that’s not possible, one of the other standard youtube-supported video formats ).
  • 720p (1280 x 720) resolution. (You may need to explicitly configure your screen resolution to 1280 x 720 before recording, and you may need to adjust your presentation tool to ensure that it uses a 16:9 aspect ratio for the video.)
  • Ensure that your recording has good audio and video quality. It will be played to an audience in a large conference room.
  • Avoid including a “title page”. We will prepend a standard title page with title, authors and schedule info.
  • Avoid including your title and authorship on each slide, we will be adding this automatically; there’s no need for you to include it.

If you are unable to meet the formatting requirements, the scripts that compile the videos for one minute madness will automatically rescale videos to 720p format if they are of the incorrect size, and will speed videos up to fit in the allotted 60 seconds if they are over-length.

Tips and Help

Please take care to ensure that the audio and video quality is good. A muffled voice will detract from your video, particularly when amplified in a large conference room.

One way to create your video abstract is to narrate a slide deck. PowerPoint for windows allows you to create videos directly. Otherwise you can use screen capture software, and create a recording as you present your talk on your computer. For many or most such tools, you will need to ensure that you have the aspect ratio of your presentation software set correctly to 16:9, and your screen resolution set to 1280x720. Software for creating such a video is available on most platforms:

There’s lots of advice online on how to create a good video abstract. Here’s a sample:

Remember, for PLDI you only have 90 60 seconds; a very succinct abstract!!

Posters

We will be holding a poster session in conjunction with the PLDI’15 Welcome Reception. The poster session will be on Sunday evening (7:30PM-9:00PM) immediately after the Turing Lecture and will include drinks and light refreshments. The poster session will be for authors of all accepted papers as well as those participating in the Student Research Competition. Posters provide another medium for publicising your work, and poster sessions can be a lot of fun. We strongly encourage you to prepare a poster.

Guidelines and Advice

  • 4‘ x 3’ / ISO A0 (1189mm x 841mm, 47“ x 33”).
  • You can find latex templates here.
  • Some advice on how to prepare a good poster.

General

Q: Why are you using double-blind reviewing?
A: Studies have shown that a reviewer's attitude toward a submission may be affected, even unconsciously, by the identity of the author. We want reviewers to be able to approach each submission without such involuntary reactions as "Barnaby; he writes a good paper" or "Who are these people? I have never heard of them." For this reason, we ask that authors to omit their names from their submissions, and that they avoid revealing their identity through citation. Note that many systems and security conferences use double-blind reviewing and have done so for years (e.g., SIGCOMM, OSDI, IEEE Security and Privacy, SIGMOD). PLDI has done it for several years now. A key principle to keep in mind is that we intend this process to be cooperative, not adversarial. If a reviewer does discover an author's identity though a subtle clue or oversight the author will not be penalized.

Q: Do you really think blinding actually works? I suspect reviewers can often guess who the authors are anyway.
A: Authorship can be guessed correctly sometimes, but imperfect blinding is better than no blinding at all, we believe.

Q: Couldn't blind submission create an injustice where a paper is inappropriately rejected based upon supposedly-prior work which was actually by the same authors and not previously published?
A: Reviewers are held accountable for their positions and are required to identify any supposed prior work that they believe undermines the novelty of the paper. Any assertion that 'this has been done before' must be supported with concrete information which can be checked by the PC Chair and by authors vial the author response mechanism. The author response mechanism exists in part to hold reviewers accountable for their positions; authors can and should correct any such misapprehension.

For authors

Q: What exactly do I have to do to anonymize my paper?
A: Use common sense. Your job is not to make your identity undiscoverable but simply to make it possible for our reviewers to evaluate your submission without having to know who you are. The specific guidelines stated in the call for papers are simple: omit authors' names from your title page, and when you cite your own work, refer to it in the third person. For example, if your name is Smith and you have worked on amphibious type systems, instead of saying "We extend our earlier work on statically typed toads [Smith 2004]," you might say "We extend Smith's [2004] earlier work on statically typed toads." Also, be sure not to include any acknowledgements that would give away your identity.

Q: I would like to provide supplementary material for consideration, e.g., the code of my implementation or proofs of theorems. How do I do this?
A: (see the next question also) On the submission site there will be an option to submit supplementary material along with your main paper. This supplementary material should also be anonymized. Reviewers are under no obligation to look at this material. 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; supplemental material only serves to confirm, in more detail, the idea argued in the paper. Of course, reviewers are free to change their review upon viewing supplemental material (or for any other reason). For those authors who wish to supplement, we encourage them to mention the supplement in the body of the paper. E.g., "The proof of Lemma 1 is included in the supplemental material submitted with this paper."

Q: My submission is based on code available in a public repository. How do I deal with this?
A: Making your code publicly available is not incompatible with the double blind process. You should do the following. First, cite the code in your paper, but remove the actual URL and, instead say "link to repository removed for double blind review" or similar. Second, if when writing your author response, you believe reviewer access to your code would help, say so in your author response (without providing the URL), and send the URL to the Program Chair. Third, you are strongly encouraged to submit your work to the Artefact Evaluation track.

Q: I am building on my own past work on the WizWoz system. Do I need to rename this system in my paper for purposes of anonymity, so as to remove the implied connection between my authorship of past work on this system and my present submission?
A: No. The relationship between systems and authors changes over time, so there will be at least some doubt about authorship. Increasing this doubt by changing the system name would help with anonymity, but it would compromise the research process. In particular, changing the name requires explaining a lot about the system again because you can't just refer to the existing papers, which use the proper name. Not citing these papers runs the risk of the reviewers who know about the existing system thinking you are replicating earlier work. It is also confusing for the reviewers to read about the paper under Name X and then have the name be changed to Name Y. Will all the reviewers go and re-read the final version with the correct name? If not, they have the wrong name in their heads, which could be harmful in the long run.

Q: I am submitting a paper that extends my own work that previously appeared at a workshop. Should I anonymize any reference to that prior work?
A: No. But we recommend you do not use the same title for your PLDI submission, so that it is clearly distinguished from the prior paper. In general there is rarely a good reason to anonymize a citation. One possibility is for work that is tightly related to the present submission and is also under review. But such works may often be non-anonymous. When in doubt, contact the PC Chair.

Q: Am I allowed to post my (non-blinded) paper on my web page? Can I advertise the unblinded version of my paper on mailing lists or send it to colleagues? May I give a talk about my work while it is under review?
A: As far as the authors' publicity actions are concerned, a paper under double-blind review is largely the same as a paper under regular (single-blind) review. Double-blind reviewing should not hinder the usual communication of results.

That said, we do ask that you not attempt to deliberately subvert the double-blind reviewing process by announcing the names of the authors of your paper to the potential reviewers of your paper. It is difficult to define exactly what counts as "subversion" here, but some blatant examples include: sending individual e-mail to members of the PC or ERC about your work (unless they are conflicted out anyway), or posting mail to a major mailing list (e.g. TYPES) announcing your paper. On the other hand, it is perfectly fine, for example, to visit other institutions and give talks about your work, to present your submitted work during job interviews, to present your work at professional meetings (e.g. Dagstuhl), or to post your work on your web page. PC/ERC members will not be asked to recuse themselves from reviewing your paper unless they feel you have gone out of your way to advertise your authorship information to them. If you're not sure about what constitutes "going out of your way", please consult directly with the Program Chair.

Q: Will the fact that PLDI is double-blind have an impact on handling conflicts-of interest?
A: Using DBR does not change the principle that reviewers should not review papers with which they have a conflict of interest, even if they do not immediately know who the authors are. Quoting (with slight alteration) from the ACM SIGPLAN review policies document:
A conflict of interest is defined as a situation in which the reviewer can be viewed as being able to benefit personally in the process of reviewing a paper. For example, if a reviewer is considering a paper written by a member of his own group, a current student, his advisor, or a group that he is seen as being in close competition with, then the outcome of the review process can have direct benefit to the reviewer's own status. If a conflict of interest exists, the potential reviewer should decline to review the paper.

For reviewers

Q: What should I do if I if I learn the authors' identity? What should I do if a prospective PLDI author contacts me and asks to visit my institution?
A: If at any point you feel that the authors' actions are largely aimed at ensuring that potential reviewers know their identity, you should contact the Program Chair. Otherwise you should not treat double-blind reviewing differently from regular blind reviewing. In particular, you should refrain from seeking out information on the authors' identity, but if you discover it accidentally this will not automatically disqualify you as a reviewer. Use your best judgment.

Q: The authors have provided a URL to supplemental material. I would like to see the material but I worry they will snoop my IP address and learn my identity. What should I do?
A: Contact the Program Chair, who will download the material on your behalf and make it available to you.

Q: If I am assigned a paper for which I feel I am not an expert, how do I seek an outside review?
A: PC and ERC members should do their own reviews, not delegate them to someone else. If doing so is problematic for some papers, e.g., you don't feel completely qualified, then consider the following options. First, submit a review for your paper that is as careful as possible, outlining areas where you think your knowledge is lacking. Assuming we have sufficient expert reviews, that could be the end of it: non-expert reviews are valuable too, since conference attendees are by-and-large not experts for any given paper. Second, the review form provides a mechanism for suggesting additional expert reviewers to the PC Chair, who may contact them if additional expertise is needed. Please do NOT contact outside reviewers yourself. As a last resort, if you feel like your review would be extremely uninformed and you'd rather not even submit a first cut, contact the PC Chair, and another reviewer will be assigned.

Q: How do we handle potential conflicts of interest since I cannot see the author names?
A: The conference review system will ask that you identify conflicts of interest when you get an account on the submission system. Please see the related question applied to authors to decide how to identify conflicts. Feel free to also identify additional authors whose papers you feel you could not review fairly for reasons other than those given (e.g., strong personal friendship).


These guidelines were originally created by Michael Hicks for POPL 2012, slightly modified for PLDI 2012 by Frank Tip. They were shortened by Keshav Pingali for PLDI 2014, and modified slightly by Steve Blackburn for PLDI 2015.

NOTE: Please see the Instructions For Accepted Papers for instructions on preparing papers to appear in the proceedings.

The instructions below are only for the submission and review process.


Instructions for Submission to PLDI’15

This document is intended to serve as a sample for submissions to PLDI’15, the 36th Annual ACM SIGPLAN Conference on Programming Language Design and Implementation. We provide some guidelines that authors should follow when submitting papers to the conference.

Introduction

This document provides instructions for submitting papers to PLDI’15. In an effort to respect the efforts of reviewers and in the interest of fairness to all prospective authors, we request that all submissions to PLDI’15 follow the formatting and submission rules detailed below. Submissions that violate these instructions may not be reviewed, at the discretion of the program chair, in order to maintain a review process that is fair to all potential authors.

An example submission (formatted using the PLDI’15 submission format) that contains the submission and formatting guidelines can be downloaded here. The content of this webpage mirrors that of the submission instructions that appear in this template, using this temporary class file with the ‘pldi’ class option; the current sigplanconf style is broken and the revised version was not available at the time of writing. Please do not reuse this classfile for future paper submissions.) The paper submission site is here.

Paper evaluation objectives

The committee will make every effort to judge each submitted paper on its own merits. There will be no target acceptance rate. We expect to accept a wide range of papers with appropriate expectations for evaluation — while papers that build on significant past work with strong evaluations are valuable, papers that open new areas with less rigorous evaluation are equally welcome and especially encouraged. In either case, what is important is that the paper’s claims are no stronger than what is supported by the evaluation. Given the wide range of topics covered by PLDI, every effort will be made to find expert reviewers.

All questions regarding paper formatting and submission should be directed to the program chair.

Highlights

  • Paper must be submitted in printable PDF format.
  • Text must be in a minimum 10pt font (not 9pt).
  • Submission is double blind (see the FAQ on double blind reviewing)
  • In-text citations in author-year style (as used by ACM / TOPLAS).
  • Papers must be at most 11 pages, not including references.
  • There is no page limit for references.
  • Each reference must specify all authors (no et al.).
  • The reviewing process will include two phases.
    • All papers will receive three reviews in the first phase.
    • Those papers identified as most worthy of further consideration will proceed to the second phase and receive an additional two reviews.
    • Authors of papers eliminated in the first phase will be notified promptly.
    • Each phase will have an author response period.
    • Authors will not be required, nor given the opportunity, to revise their submissions after the initial paper deadline.
  • Authors of all accepted papers will be required to give a lightning presentation (about 90 s) and a poster in addition to the regular conference talk.
  • Proceedings may appear in the ACM digital library as early as as early as May 30, 2015.

Submission Preparation Instructions

Submission Formatting

Papers must be submitted in printable PDF format and should contain a maximum of 11 pages of single-spaced two-column text, not including references. In-text citations must follow the ACM / TOPLAS author-year style (‘[Smith 1990]’), as in this document, not the numerical style (‘[1]’) formerly used by PLDI. The rationale for this change is that it improves readability, and space is less of a concern for published proceedings today than it once was. You may include any number of pages for references, but see below for more instructions.

If you are using LaTeX to typeset your paper, then we strongly suggest that you use this temporary LaTeX class file (with the ‘pldi’ class option) and template. If you are using Microsoft Word, you may wish to use this template, which is closely based on Friedrich Steimann’s SIGPLAN template. Whichever tool you use, please ensure you adhere to the guidelines given in the Table below. The conference submission website will use the banal format checker to advise on formatting compliance.

For the convenience of reviewers, all submissions will be automatically watermarked by the paper submission site (example here), so please avoid adding any text in the margins or headers such as footers, headers, or banners, other than the centered page number provided by the template (which is only for the author’s convenience, since the watermarking adds page numbers). The watermarking process strips the submitted pdf of all metadata (thereby removing information which might otherwise identify authors).

Field Value
File format PDF
Page limit 11 pages, excluding references
Paper size US Letter 8.5in × 11in
Top margin 1in
Bottom margin 1in
Left margin 0.75in
Right margin 0.75in
Body 2-column, single-spaced
Column separation 0.25in
Body font 10pt
Tabular font 10pt Times ( or 9pt Helvetica)
Abstract font 10pt
Section heading 12pt, bold
Subsection heading 10pt, bold
Figure width Figures may span either one or two columns
Caption font 10pt
In-text citation Author-year (‘[Smith 1990]’ not ‘[3]’)
References 10pt, no page limit, list all authors’ names

Content

Double Blind

Reviewing will be double blind; therefore, please do not include any author names on any submitted documents except in the space provided on the online submission form. Please take time to read the PLDI FAQ on Double Blind Reviewing, which gives a more comprehensive and authoritative account than this short paragraph. If you are improving upon your prior work, refer to your prior work in the third person and include a full citation for the work in the bibliography. For example, if you happened to be Collins and McCarthy, building on your own prior work, you might say something like: “While prior work [Backus et al. 1960; Collins 1960; McCarthy 1960] did X, Y, and Z, this paper additionally does W, and is therefore much better.” Do NOT omit or anonymize references for blind review

Figures and Tables

Ensure that the figures and tables are legible. Please also ensure that you refer to your figures in the main text. Many reviewers print the papers in gray-scale. Therefore, if you use colors for your figures, ensure that the different colors are highly distinguishable in gray-scale.

References

There is no length limit for references. Each reference must explicitly list all authors of the paper. Papers not meeting this requirement will be rejected. Authors of NSF proposals should be familiar with this requirement. Knowing all authors of related work will help find the best reviewers. Authors are encouraged (but not required) to include DOIs in their references. Hyperlinked DOIs make the referenced work much more accessible to the reader and greatly assist automatic document analysis. Since there is no length limit for the number of pages used for references, there is no need to save space here.

Paper Submission Instructions

Declaring Authors

Enter all authors of the paper into the online paper submission tool upfront. Addition/removal of authors once the paper is accepted will have to be approved by the program chair, since it potentially undermines the goal of eliminating conflicts for reviewer assignment.

Supplementary Material

The paper submission website will allow authors to upload an additional document containing material that supplements the paper (such as an extended proof or extensive results). However, it is essential that authors understand that: a) reviewers are not obliged to read the supplement, and b) the supplement must be fully anonymised

Areas and Topics

PLDI is a broad conference. It is not limited to the design and implementation of programming languages, but reflects the diversity of the whole of SIGPLAN. If you are unsure whether your work falls within scope for PLDI, please check the call for papers and if still in doubt, check with the program chair.

Concurrent Submissions and Workshops

By submitting a manuscript to PLDI’15, authors guarantee that they are adhering to the SIGPLAN Republication Policy. Please ensure that you are familiar with it. Violation of any of these conditions will lead to rejection.

As always, if you are in doubt, it is best to contact the program chair.

Finally, we also note that the ACM Plagiarism Policy covers a range of ethical issues concerning the misrepresentation of other works or one’s own work.

Early Access in the Digital Library

The PLDI’15 proceedings may be available on the ACM Digital Library as early as May 30, 2015. Authors must consider any implications of this early disclosure of their work before submitting their papers.

Acknowledgements

This document is based heavily on ones prepared for previous conferences and we thank their program chairs; in particular, Sandhya Dwarkadas (ASPLOS’15), Sarita Adve (ASPLOS’14), Steve Keckler (ISCA’14), Christos Kozyrakis (Micro’13), Margaret Martonosi (ISCA’13), Onur Mutlu (Micro’12), and Michael L. Scott (ASPLOS’12).

References

J. W. Backus, F. L. Bauer, J. Green, C. Katz, J. McCarthy, A. J. Perlis, H. Rutishauser, K. Samelson, B. Vauquois, J. H. Wegstein, A. van Wijngaarden, and M. Woodger. Report on the algorithmic language ALGOL 60. Commun. ACM, 3(5):299– 314, May 1960. ISSN 0001-0782. doi: 10.1145/367236.367262.

G. E. Collins. A method for overlapping and erasure of lists. Commun. ACM, 3(12):655–657, December 1960. doi: 10.1145/367487.367501.

L. Lamport. LaTeX: A Document Preparation System. Addison- Wesley, Reading, Massachusetts, 2nd edition, 1994.

J. McCarthy. Recursive functions of symbolic expressions and their computation by machine, part I. Commun. ACM, 3(4): 184–195, April 1960. doi: 10.1145/367177.367199.

We are using surveys to help us improve PLDI. Thank you to all of those who took the time to complete the survey.

Author Survey

Notification letters for PLDI’15 submissions included an invitation to complete an author survey. Results of the author survey can be found here. Responses are broken down according to the context the response was made in (after phase one rejection, after phase two rejection, and after acceptance). Unsurprisingly, these different cohorts had quite different perspectives on many of the questions.

Reviewer Survey

The PC and ERC were invited to complete a reviewer survey. Results of the reviewer survey can be found here. Responses are broken down according to the committee on which the respondant served.

Important Dates
Mon 18 May 2015
PLDI Early Registration Deadline
Wed 15 Apr 2015
Camera Ready Deadline
Thu 5 Feb 2015
Phase 2 Notification
Sun 18 - Wed 21 Jan 2015
Phase 2 Author Response
Fri 19 Dec 2014
Phase 1 Notification
Sun 14 - Wed 17 Dec 2014
Phase 1 Author Response
Thu 13 Nov 2014
Submissions due 23:59 Thu UTC (12:59am Fri CET, 6:59pm Thu EST, 3:59pm Thu PST)