Proceedings of the 11th international conference on Architectural support for programming languages and operating systems

Abstract

It is my pleasure to introduce the program for the Eleventh International Conference on Architectural Support for Programming Languages and Operating.Authors submitted 245 abstracts resulting in 169 full paper submissions this year, the largest number ever. The program committee selected 24 papers for inclusion in this proceedings, for an acceptance rate of 14%. The submissions and selected papers reach the ASPLOS goal of going beyond the sometimes artificial boundaries between architecture, operating systems, and programming languages to solve and understand problems in the performance, reliability, security, and power of computer systems.In the first round of reviewing, I assigned each paper two committee member reviewers, and each of them requested one or more reviews. For the 112 papers with a significant number of positive reviews or conflicting reviews, I then assigned an additional committee member reviewer and in a few cases, external reviews. Thus, each paper had at least 4 reviews and all papers discussed at the committee meeting had 5 reviews, with 3 from committee members. There were 827 total reviews, for an average of 4.9 reviews per paper.Authors had a 3 day rebuttal period in which they could address reviewer comments. Most reviews were available before the rebuttal period, but several reviews came in during or after this period. The committee members referred to the rebuttal responses during the committee meeting. In a few cases, the rebuttal responses influenced the final decisions in both directions.The committee meeting was held in Austin on May 10, 1pm--8pm, and May 11, 9am--2pm. All but two of the committee members attended in person, and these two participated via conference phone. We applied a strict conflict-of-interest policy whereby committee members left the room or hung-up for papers with authors with whom the committee member had co-authored in the past 5 years, or held an advisee-advisor relationship, or was from the same institution, or was a co-author.Program committee members were encouraged to submit, and could submit up to 2 papers. 11 paper submissions were from committee members. The committee discussed these papers on the second day, after selecting over half of the program. The committee held the first accepted paper of a committee member to the same conference standard as other papers, and the second paper to a higher standard. The committee selected 5 committee authored papers, 2 of these from one committee member.Program committee members volunteered to shepherd four papers to ensure reviewer comments were well addressed. The committee was very pleased with the quality and diversity of topics in this resulting program here. We hope you find them interesting as well.