The IEEE/ACM Automated Software Engineering (ASE) Conference series is the premier research forum for automated software engineering. Each year, it brings together researchers and practitioners from academia and industry to discuss foundations, techniques, and tools for automating the analysis, design, implementation, testing, and maintenance of large software systems. ASE 2022 invites high-quality contributions describing significant, original, and unpublished results. Solicited topics include, but are not limited to:
- Requirements and Design
- requirements elicitation and management, traceability analysis;
- architecture and design;
- modeling and model-driven engineering;
- software product lines;
- component-based, service-oriented systems;
- Testing and Analysis
- regression, mutation, model-based testing;
- program analysis;
- program synthesis;
- program repairs
- Tools and Processes
- release engineering and DevOps;
- configuration and release management;
- Agile processes
- Maintenance and Evolution
- debugging and fault-localization;
- refactoring and reengineering;
- reverse engineering;
- software reuse;
- API design and management
- Formal Aspects of Software Engineering
- formal methods, validation and verification;
- programming languages;
- specification languages, DSLs
- AI and Software Engineering
- search-based software engineering;
- recommender systems;
- autonomous and self-adapting systems;
- AI for SE;
- SE for AI
- Software Analytics
- mining software repositories;
- apps and app store analysis
- Human Aspects of Software Engineering
- program comprehension;
- systematic reviews, code inspection;
- human-computer interface;
- software visualization;
- crowd-based software engineering;
- distributed and collaborative software engineering
- Social Aspects of Software Engineering
- green and sustainable technologies;
- software economics;
- ethics in software engineering
- Dependability, Safety, and Reliability
- privacy and security;
ASE welcomes submissions addressing topics across the full spectrum of software engineering and a variety of application domains, including mobile, cloud, blockchains, embedded and cyber-physical systems, parallel/distributed/concurrent systems, probabilistic systems, and ubiquitous/pervasive software systems.
We solicit submissions in two categories:
Technical Research Papers, which describe innovative research in automating software development or automating support to users engaged in software development activities. Papers in this category should:
- clearly describe the extent to which the paper’s contributions can impact the field of software engineering and under which assumptions (if any);
- articulate the novel contribution to the field and carefully support the claims of novelty with citations and discussions of the relevant literature;
- show that the paper’s contributions and/or innovations address its research questions and are supported by rigorous application of appropriate research methods.
Experience Papers, which describe a significant experience in applying automated software engineering technology. Papers in this category should:
- clearly describe a problem of practical importance, explain how the problem was investigated, and in what context;
- present evidence for the paper’s conclusions, explaining the insights or best practices that emerged, tools developed, and/or software processes involved;
- carefully identify and discuss important lessons learned, so that other researchers and/or practitioners can benefit from the experience.
Papers in both categories should:
- discuss the extent to which an independent verification or replication of the paper’s claimed contributions is supported;
- provide sufficient and clear information to understand how the proposed approach works and how data was obtained, analyzed, and interpreted;
- include an adequate use of the English language, absence of major ambiguity, and with clearly readable figures and tables;
- adhere to the formatting instructions provided below.
New Ideas (short) papers are managed and evaluated by a separate track, with its own program committee and deadlines.
Papers submitted to ASE 2022 must not have been published elsewhere and must not be under review or submitted for review elsewhere when being considered for ASE 2022. Authors should be aware of the ACM Policy and Procedures on Plagiarism and the IEEE Plagiarism FAQ.
To check for double submission and plagiarism issues, the chairs reserve the right to (1) share the list of submissions with the PC Chairs of other conferences with overlapping review periods and (2) use external plagiarism detection software, under contract to the ACM or IEEE, to detect violations of these policies. Contravention of the submission policy will be deemed a serious breach of scientific ethics and appropriate action will be taken in all such cases.
The ASE 2022 Research Track will employ a double-anonymous review process. Thus, no submission may reveal its authors’ identities. The authors must make every effort to honor the double-anonymous review process. In particular:
- Authors’ names and affiliated institution names must be omitted from the submission.
- All references to the author’s prior work should be in the third person.
- Authors are encouraged to title their submission differently than preprints of the authors on arXiV or similar sites. During review, authors should not publicly use the submission title.
Further advice, guidance, and explanation about the double-anonymous review process can be found in the Q&A page.
We actively support and encourage all contributing authors to disclose (anonymized and curated) data to increase reproducibility and replicability. Upon submission, authors are asked to make their data available to the program committee (via upload of supplemental material or a link to an anonymous repository) or explain why this is not possible or desirable.
Supplementary material can be uploaded via the HotCRP site or anonymously linked from the paper submission. Please carefully review any supplementary material to ensure it conforms to the double-anonymous policy (described above). For example, code and data repositories may be exported to remove version control history, scrubbed of names in comments and metadata, and anonymously uploaded to a sharing site to support review. One resource that may be helpful in accomplishing this task is this blog post:
Upon acceptance, authors will have the possibility to separately submit their supplementary material to the ASE 2022 Artifact Evaluation track, for recognition of artifacts that are reusable, available, replicated, or reproduced.
If work reported in the paper involves human subjects, authors will be required to affirm compliance with the ACM Policy on Research Involving Humans as part of the submission process: https://www.acm.org/publications/policies/research-involving-human-participants-and-subjects
It is the authors’ responsibility (each author individually and the authors collectively) to comply with and provide evidence of compliance with this Policy. Where local ethical review boards are required, authors are responsible for having their research reviewed and approved by such boards. Authors are also responsible for the overall ethical conduct of their research. All ACM Authors must be prepared to provide documentary evidence to ACM that they have adhered to local ethical and legal standards, as ACM may require documentary evidence of such approval at any time following submission of the Work and prior to or after publication of the Work.
Abstracts and papers must be submitted electronically through the ASE 2022 HotCRP submission site: https://ase2022.hotcrp.com/. All submissions must be in English.
For the abstract submissions, authors are required to specify the title and the abstract of their papers, relevant research areas, and their conflict of interests. This information will be used to select qualified reviewers for each submission. Authors are allowed to augment the paper title/abstract in the full paper submission stage. However, submissions with dummy placeholders for titles/abstracts will be rejected and authors of such submissions will be unable to proceed to the full paper submission stage.
For the full paper submissions, authors are required to upload their paper in the PDF format. It should conform, at time of submission, to the ACM Proceedings Template: https://www.acm.org/publications/proceedings-template. LaTEX users must use the
Submissions must not exceed 10 pages for the main text, including all figures, tables, appendices, etc. Up to two additional pages containing ONLY references are permitted. Submissions that do not adhere to these limits or that violate the formatting guidelines will be desk-rejected without review.
Experience papers should contain the phrase “experience paper” prominently in the abstract, to ensure that they are evaluated appropriately.
Authors are encouraged to try out the HotCRP format checker and/or experimental SIGSOFT Submission Checker to detect violations to the formatting and double-anonymous guidelines. Mind that the tools are based on heuristics. Therefore, they may miss violations or raise false alarms. The requirements listed in this call for papers take precedence over the results of the tools when deciding whether a paper meets the submission guidelines.
Accepted papers will be permitted an additional page of content to allow authors to incorporate review feedback. The page limit for published papers will therefore be 11 pages (including all figures, tables, appendices) plus 2 pages containing only references. Note that all submitted papers must conform to the 10+2 requirement, described above.
After acceptance, the list of paper authors cannot be changed under any circumstances. That is, the list of authors on camera-ready papers must be identical to those on submitted papers. Paper titles cannot be changed except by permission of the Track Chairs and only when referees recommended a change for clarity or accuracy with the paper content.
We strongly encourage authors of accepted papers to archive the research artifacts associated with their ASE papers, including code and data, in a repository with a DOI. Popular open-access repositories include, but are not limited to, Figshare and Zenodo.
If a submission is accepted, at least one author of the paper is required to register for ASE 2022 and present the paper.
If you have any further questions, please contact the PC chairs at email@example.com.
Q/A on the Double-Anonymous Policy
If you have questions not answered below, please contact the program chairs at firstname.lastname@example.org
Q: Why Double-Anonymous?
There are many reasons for a submission track to employ a double-anonymous review process, which have become an accepted practice at many Software Engineering conferences over the past several years. This model is standard in many other communities as well. For more information on the motivation for double-anonymous reviewing, see a list of double-anonymous resources from Robert Feldt, as well as a more formal study of the subject by Moritz Beller and Alberto Bacchelli.
Q: How to prepare your paper for double-anonymous reviewing?
You must make every reasonable effort to honor the double-anonymous review process but you do not need to guarantee that your identity is undiscoverable. The double-anonymous aspect of the review process is not to set up an adversarial identity-discovery process. Essentially, the guiding principle should be to maximize the number of people who could plausibly be authors, subject to the constraint that no change is made to any technical details of the work. Therefore, you should ensure that the reviewers are able to read and review your paper without needing to know who any of the authors are. Specifically, this involves at least adhering to the following three points:
- Omit all authors’ names and affiliations from the title page. If you have acknowledgments, do not mention any names or organizations. Take care not to inadvertently include this information in PDF metadata.
- Refer to your own work in the third person. You should not omit or change the names of your own previously published tools, approaches, or systems, because this would clearly compromise the review process; it would also violate the constraint that “no change is made to any technical details of the work”. Instead, refer to the authorship or provenance of tools, approaches, or systems in the third person, so that it is credible that another author could have written your paper.
- Try to avoid relying on supplementary material that is impossible to properly anonymize, such as a companion technical report or thesis (see below), your personal website, or a YouTube channel. We do encourage the careful sharing of suitably anonymized code repositories and datasets, such as through anonymous sharing links (doable via DropBox, for example) to a cleaned and anonymized GitHub repository. Check such data files and repositories carefully for any information that could reveal author identities. It is also possible to submit supplementary material with the paper, but again it is necessary to check the material carefully for anything that can reveal author identity.
Q: Can I submit my work on arXiv?
To comply with the double-anonymous reviewing process, we request that the authors postpone publishing their submitted work on arXiv or similar sites until after the notification of acceptance. If the authors have compelling reasons to nevertheless publish a preprint earlier, this publication cannot take place in the two weeks before or after the ASE submission deadline. Another option is to make a tech report at your institution, which allows someone to cite the work, if needed, but does not have the same degree of visibility. If the program chairs get the impression that the authors frivolously share papers and do not live up to the spirit of the double-anonymous reviewing process, the program chairs can decide to (desk) reject the paper.
Q: Can I disseminate a non-anonymous version of my submitted work by discussing it with colleagues, giving talks, etc.?
You can discuss and present your work that is under submission at small meetings (e.g., job talks, visits to research labs, a Dagstuhl or Shonan meeting) but you should avoid broadly advertising it in a way that reaches the reviewers even if they are not searching for it. For example, you should not discuss your work specifically with members of the program committee and publicize your work on mailing lists or media that are widely shared and can reach the program committee.
Q: I published a previous version of my work on arXiv or as a tech report at my institution. Do I need to cite it, and if so how?
A paper on arXiv or a tech report is not a peer-reviewed publication. If the submission completely subsumes the previous version, then there is no need to cite the previous version at all. We explicitly discourage “anonymous” references (e.g., “ —Reference omitted for double-anonymous review—”: if the cited report is necessary for a reviewer to fully understand the submission, then the relevant material should either be included in the submission, cited in third person, or provided as suitably anonymized supplementary material (such as an anonymized appendix) hosted anonymously. Note that reviewers are not obligated to review such previous material, however, and so you should strive to make your submissions as stand-alone as possible (regardless of the double-anonymous review process).
Q: I previously published an earlier version of this work elsewhere than arXiv. What should I do about citing that previous work?
If the previous work is published in a peer-reviewed venue, then it should be cited, but in the third person so that it is not revealed that the cited work and the submitted paper share one or more authors. This would include posters, but only if the poster is accompanied by a paper in the conference proceedings. Posters that are not represented in the proceedings can be ignored.
Q: What about a PhD or master’s thesis?
It’s perfectly fine to publish work arising from a PhD or master’s degree, and there’s no need to cite it in a submission that is undergoing double-anonymous review because prior dissertation publication does not compromise novelty. In the final camera-ready version of the paper, please do cite the dissertation to acknowledge its contribution. In general, the guideline is that the author’s job is to ensure that the submission is readable and reviewable, without the reviewers needing to know the identities of the submission’s authors. You do not need to make it impossible for the reviewers to discover the authors’ identities. The referees will be trying hard not to discover the authors’ identities, so they will likely not be searching the web to check whether there is a tech report or other unpublished material related to this work.
This Q/A is based on guidelines from recent editions of ASE, ICSE, and ESEC/FSE.