Sun 22 - Fri 27 October 2023 Cascais, Portugal

Accepted Papers

Accelerating Fuzzing through Prefix-guided Execution
A Gradual Probabilistic Lambda Calculus
Algebro-geometric Algorithms for Template-based Synthesis of Polynomial Programs
Aliasing Limits on Translating C to Safe Rust
Automated Translation of Functional Big Data Queries to SQL
A verification methodology for the Arm® Confidential Computing Architecture
Back to Direct Style: Typed and Tight
Bidirectional Objected-Oriented Programming: Towards Programmatic and Direct Manipulation of Objects
Compositional Security Definitions for Higher-Order Where Declassification
Deep Learning Robustness Verification for Few-Pixel Attacks
Enabling Bounded Verification of Doubly-Unbounded Distributed Agreement-Based Systems via Bounded Regions
Exact Recursive Probabilistic Programming
Fat Pointers for Temporal Memory Safety of C
Fluent APIs in Functional Languages
Generating Proof Certificates for a Language-Agnostic Deductive Program Verifier
Grounded Copilot: How Programmers Interact with Code-Generating Models
Hybrid Multiparty Session Types: Compositionality for Protocol Specification through Endpoint Projection
Improving Oracle-Guided Inductive Synthesis by Efficient Question Selection
Languages With Decidable Learning: A Meta-Theorem
Live Pattern Matching with Typed Holes
Lower Bounds for Possibly Divergent Probabilistic Programs
Modular Component-based Quantum Circuit Synthesis
Outcome Logic: A Unifying Foundation for Correctness and Incorrectness Reasoning
Proof Automation for Linearizability in Separation Logic
Pushing the Limit of 1-Minimality of Language-Agnostic Program Reduction
Randomized Testing of Byzantine Fault Tolerant Algorithms
Regular Expression Matching Using Bit Vector Automata
Solving Conditional Linear Recurrences for Program Verification: The Periodic Case
User-Customizable Transpilation of Scripting Languages
Verification-Preserving Inlining in Automatic Separation Logic Verifiers
Verus: Verifying Rust Programs using Linear Ghost Types

Call for Papers

The OOPSLA issue of the Proceedings of the ACM on Programming Languages (PACMPL) welcomes papers focusing on all practical and theoretical investigations of programming languages, systems and environments. 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. Contributions may include the development of new tools, techniques, principles, and evaluations.

  • OOPSLA 2022 will have two separate rounds of reviewing, with Round 1 submission deadline: October 28, 2022 and and Round 2 submission deadline: April 14, 2023
  • In each round, papers will have a final outcome of Accept, Revise, or Reject—see Review Process for details.

Papers accepted at either of the rounds will be published in the 2023 volume of PACMPL(OOPSLA) and invited to be presented at the SPLASH conference in October 2023.

Review Process

PACMPL(OOPSLA) has two rounds of reviewing. The final outcome of each round can be one of Accept, Revise or Reject.

Accept: Accepted papers will appear in the 2023 volume of PACMPL(OOPSLA).

Revise: Papers in this category are invited to submit a revision to the next round of submissions with a specific set of expectations to be met. When authors resubmit, they should clearly explain how the revisions address the comments of the reviewers. The revised paper will be re-evaluated, and either accepted or rejected. Resubmitted papers will retain the same reviewers throughout the process. Papers with a Revise outcome in Round 2 and an Accept outcome in the subsequent Round 1 will appear in the 2024 volume of PACMPL(OOPSLA).

Reject: Rejected papers will not be included in the 2023 volume of PACMPL(OOPSLA). Papers in this category are not guaranteed a review if resubmitted less than one year from the date of original submission. A paper will be judged to be a resubmission if it is substantially similar to the original submission. The judgment that a paper is a resubmission of the same work and whether, in this case, it will be reviewed or not is at the discretion of the Chair. Obviously, this same policy applies to papers that were rejected for inclusion in the 2022 volume of PACMPL(OOPSLA).

Each round of reviewing consists of two phases. The first phase evaluates the papers and results in an early notification of Reject, Revise, or Conditional Accept. During the first phase, authors will be able to read their reviews and respond to them. The second phase is restricted to conditionally accepted papers. Authors must make a set of mandatory revisions. The second phase assesses whether the required revisions have been addressed. The outcome can be Accept, Revise or Reject.


Submitted papers (including resubmissions) must be at most 23 pages in 10 point font. There is no page limit on references. No appendices are allowed on the main paper, instead authors can upload supplementary material with no page or content restrictions, but reviewers may choose to ignore it. The PACMPL templates used for SPLASH (Microsoft Word and LaTeX) can be found at the SIGPLAN author information page. In particular, authors using LaTeX should use the acmart-pacmpl-template.tex file (with the acmsmall option). Papers are expected to use author-year citations. Author-year citations may be used as either a noun phrase, such as “The lambda calculus was originally conceived by Church (1932)”, or a parenthetic phase, such as “The lambda calculus (Church 1932) was intended as a foundation for mathematics”.

PACMPL uses double-blind reviewing. Authors’ identities are only revealed if a paper is accepted. Papers must

  1. omit author names and institutions,
  2. use the third person when referencing your work,
  3. anonymise supplementary material.

Nothing should be done in the name of anonymity that weakens the submission; see the DBR FAQ. When in doubt, contact the Review Committee Chairs.

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. Submissions are expected to comply with the ACM Policies for Authorship.


Authors should indicate with their initial submission if an artifact exists, describe its nature and limitations, and indicate if it will be submitted for evaluation. Accepted papers that fail to provide an artifact will be requested to explain the reason they cannot support replication. It is understood that some papers have no artifacts.


PACMPL is a Gold Open Access journal, all papers will be freely available to the public. Authors can voluntarily cover the article processing charge ($400), but payment is not required. The official publication date is the date the journal are made available in the ACM Digital Library. The journal issue and associated papers may be published up to two weeks prior to the first day of the conference. The official publication date affects the deadline for any patent filings related to published work.


Selection Criteria

We consider the following criteria when evaluating papers:

Novelty: The paper presents new ideas and results and places them appropriately within the context established by previous research.

Importance: The paper contributes to the advancement of knowledge in the field. We also welcome papers that diverge from the dominant trajectory of the field.

Evidence: The paper presents sufficient evidence supporting its claims, such as proofs, implemented systems, experimental results, statistical analyses, case studies, and anecdotes.

Clarity: The paper presents its contributions, methodology and results clearly.


Q: Are artifacts required?

No! It is understood that some papers have no artifacts. But if an artifact is not provided when the claims in the paper refer to an artifact, the authors must explain why their work is not available for repetition.

Q: Can a paper be accepted if the artifact is rejected?

Yes! The reasons for rejecting an artifact are multiple and often stem from the quality of the packaging.

Double-Blinding Submissions (Authors)

Q: What exactly do I have to do to anonymize my paper?

Use common sense. Your job is not to make your identity undiscoverable but simply to make it possible for 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: Should I change the name of my system?


Q: My submission is based on code available in a public repository. How do I deal with this?

Cite the code in your paper, but remove the URL and, instead say “link to repository removed for double blind review”. If you believe reviewer access to your code would help during author response, contact the Review Committee Chairs.

Q: I am submitting an extension of my workshop paper, should I anonymize reference to that work?

No. But we recommend you do not use the same title, so that it is clearly distinguishes the papers.

Q: Am I allowed to post my paper on my web page or arXiv? send it to colleagues? give a talk about it? on social media?

We have developed guidelines to help navigate the tension between the normal communication of scientific results and actions that essentially force potential reviewers to learn the identity of authors. Roughly speaking, you may discuss work under submission, but you should not broadly advertise your work through media that is likely to reach your reviewers. We acknowledge there are gray areas and trade-offs. Things you may do:

  • Put your submission on your home page.
  • Discuss your work with anyone not on the review committees or reviewers with whom you already have a conflict.
  • Present your work at professional meetings, job interviews, etc.
  • Submit work previously discussed at an informal workshop, previously posted on arXiv or a similar site, previously submitted to a conference not using double-blind reviewing, etc.

Things you should not do:

  • Contact members of the review committee about your work, or deliberately present your work where you expect them to be.
  • Publicize your work on social media if wide public [re-]propagation is common (e.g., Twitter) and therefore likely to reach potential reviewers. For example, on Facebook, a post with a broad privacy setting (public or all friends) saying, “Whew, OOPSLA paper in, time to sleep” is okay, but one describing the work or giving its title is not appropriate. Alternately, a post to a group including only the colleagues at your institution is fine.

Reviewers 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 are unsure about what constitutes “going out of your way”, please contact the Review Committee Chairs.