Technical Program Committee

Proceedings of the 20th annual international conference on Mobile computing and networking

It is our pleasure to introduce to you the Technical Program of the ACM International Conference on Multimedia 2014. While we built this year's program upon the best practices from previous editions of the conference, we also introduced several adjustments with the goal to define the set of submission areas to reflect the current and emerging research directions in the multimedia field and to improve the quality of the review process and the feedback provided to the authors. Papers were submitted to 14 areas: Big and Broad Multimedia, Deep Learning for Multimedia, Emotional and Social Signals in Multimedia, Media Transport and Delivery, Multimedia and Society, Multimedia and the Crowd, Multimedia Art, Entertainment and Culture, Multimedia HCI and QoE, Multimedia Search and Recommendation, Multimedia Security, Privacy and Forensics, Multimedia Systems and Middleware, Multimodal Analysis and Description, Music, Speech and Audio Processing in Multimedia, and Social Media and Collective Online Presence. This set of areas resulted from revising and expanding the areas from previous years, and based on the discussion within the Technical Program Committee (TPC) that aimed at highlighting new and emerging research directions (e.g., big and broad multimedia, multimedia and society, QoE), promising new technical approaches not traditionally covered at ACM Multimedia (e.g., deep learning), and reaching out to related communities with complementary expertise (e.g., emotional and social signals). At the same time, some areas were discontinued, either due to the sub-standard number of submissions over the past several years (e.g. multimedia authoring and collaboration) or due to the fact that some technologies and platforms have become mainstream and need no special emphasis any more (e.g. mobile and multi-device). For each area, a team of Area Chairs (ACs) was appointed to handle the paper review process. In total, 38 ACs were appointed. The sizes of the teams were defined based on the anticipated number of submissions per area. Consequently, the teams ranged from two to seven ACs. The TPC consisted of both experienced and junior ACs. Also, some ACs were new to the ACM Multimedia venue, with the intention to broaden the ACM Multimedia community and open it up to related communities. ACs were given autonomy to define the Call for Papers (CfP) for their areas, select reviewers, assign papers to them (either manually or through a bidding process), assess papers based on their reviews, and provide initial acceptance recommendation as input for the TPC meeting. The activities of the ACs were steered at the meta level by the following guidelines defined by the TPC Chairs to maximize the program quality: The conference must preserve its unique multimedia character in order to stand out among related scientific venues and attract highest-quality submissions.The papers were handled in a double-blind fashion and for each paper a minimum of three reviews were required.The CfPs for different areas were defined so as to minimize overlap among areas, optimally highlight the focus of individual areas, and maximize the overall topic coverage of the conference program. For this purpose, ACs were requested to share their CfPs with other ACs, and to collaboratively resolve any overlap or ambiguity issues. This resulted in several area-CfP adjustments.ACs were also requested to share their lists of reviewers so as to maximize the level of expertise per area and to make the lists non-overlapping in order to control the review load per reviewer (a reviewer was allowed to participate in multiple areas only with the explicit agreement of the reviewer and the corresponding ACs).ACs were instructed to administratively reject improperly formatted papers and to move papers to other tracks if they believed there was a better fit for the paper. This required the agreement of ACs from both the outgoing and the receiving area.Conflict of Interest (CoI) handling: ACs were allowed to submit at most one full paper and one short paper to their own area. Since the submission system (EasyChair) only allowed the ACs to have access to papers and reviews in their own track, any submission by ACs were moved to a separate meta track, which included only papers with conflicts of interest. All of these papers were handled by another qualified AC, either from the same area or from another area. If the papers co-authored by ACs passed the threshold for discussion during the TPC meeting, the discussion was led by the handling AC and the author-AC was asked to leave the room. An elaborate EasyChair Paper Management Guidelines document was written containing instructions for the ACs on how to implement the TPC Chair's guidelines and how to navigate the submission management system (EasyChair). This Guidelines document will be made available to the SIGMM Director of Conferences to share with future TPCs of the ACM Multimedia conference. As an aside, we would strongly suggest to future TPCs to explore alternative conference management systems as EasyChair presented a number of challenges over the course of this process. Regarding the paper submission and review process, There was no pre-submission of abstracts. This led to a simplification of the submission process, and given the large number of submissions, we feel it did not negatively influence the paper submission process.Submission of full and short papers were separated from each other, with short papers being submitted only after the full paper submission had been closed. This improved the ease of managing different types of submissions, and allowed authors to more easily plan for both full and short papers, if desired. This may be a possible explanation for the noticeable increase in the number of submissions this year.For full papers, we organized a two-stage review process, and authors were invited to submit a rebuttal based on the first stage reviews. The reviewers were then instructed to consider the rebuttal, to revise their reviews accordingly, and to enter discussion with each other aiming to improve review consensus on each paper. The results of the second round reviews and discussion were then summarized by the ACs into meta reviews, which included tentative ACCEPT/REJECT/BORDERLINE recommendations, to be discussed and finalized during the TPC meeting.Compared to 2013, the full paper submission deadline was moved back to the end of March, while keeping the two-stage review process. Despite the significantly shortened review period, all full papers received at least three reviews on time (some as many as six!). We really appreciate the effort by our ACs and reviewers and thank them for the great job they did!Following the successful experience from 2013, an Author's Advocate (AA) role was created to provide authors with an independent channel to express concerns about the quality of the reviews for their papers, and to engage into a discussion with ACs on how to handle these concerns. The AA received requests for mediation for a total of 22 of the full papers (8%). The AA reviewed all the cases and successfully handled them in a collaborative effort with the ACs in charge of the corresponding papers. As a result of the mediation, 4 new reviews were generated and 14 other reviews were revised. The mediation from the AA happened before the TPC meeting, so the material serving as input for the discussions during the meeting did not include any low-quality review.We received 300 full and 397 short papers by the corresponding submission deadlines, or in total 697 papers. After removing improperly anonymized or otherwise invalid papers, 286 full and 393 short papers remained and entered the regular review process. The latter numbers served as the reference for computing the acceptance rate.Based on the first review results for full papers (after notification), 14 papers were withdrawn by the authors and removed from the system, leaving 665 papers in the review processing pipeline: 272 full papers and 393 short papersThis is the number that served as input for TPC meeting. The table below gives a distribution of these papers across areas. Decisions on full and short papers were made at the two-day TPC meeting held at Google Inc. in Mountain View, CA, USA on 18-19 June 2014. Two TPC Chairs and 28 ACs attended the meeting. While not all ACs were requested to be present, it was required that all areas are represented in the meeting. AC-teams per area were requested to agree on their recommendations on all papers in the area before the meeting so the representing AC(s) can lead the discussion for the entire area. On the first day, full papers were handled, and on the second day the short papers together with the discussion on awards nominees. We accepted 55 full and 117 short papers, leading to acceptance rates of 19.2% and 29.8% for full and short papers, respectively. The discussion on both full and short papers was conducted per area, leaving the ACs the opportunity to nominate the papers from their area into the pool of accepted papers. The discussion was at all times plenary, enabling ACs from any area to comment on any paper being discussed from the point of view of their individual expertise, experience, or rating criteria. The discussion went over all areas, and covered all papers flagged for discussion from each area by the ACs, as well as all papers scoring above a certain threshold in terms of their average review score. This way, we made sure to discuss both high-scoring and borderline papers as well as any controversial papers (with large review score discrepancy or with discrepancy between the scores and recommendations from the ACs). The discussion on the papers was intensive, taking into account all the information collected per paper, including reviews, the scores, the authors' rebuttals, the initial recommendations by the ACs (in the form of a meta review) and the reviews performed by other ACs during the meeting. After the meeting the TPC Chairs finalized the program by grouping the accepted papers into sessions, and the ACs finalized the meta reviews to include extra information based on the TPC meeting discussion. The sessions were formed based on research topics and do not necessarily reflect the submission areas. After notification, all accepted full papers were shepherded to make sure that the revised papers adequately addressed reviewers' concerns and the authors implemented any changes promised in their rebuttals. The TPC has done everything in their power to ensure that the technical program of the conference is of the highest possible quality. This would not have been possible without the commitment of the Area Chairs and the reviewers. We would like to thank them for their rigor and engagement, and we look forward to having a strong and engaging technical program in Orlando, FL! We hope you enjoy the program!

On behalf of the IEEE/ACM International Conference on Hardware/Software-Codesign and System Synthesis (CODES+ISSS) Technical Program Committee, we would like to welcome you to the 10th CODES+ISSS. The CODES+ISSS is the premier conference for system-level synthesis and design ranging from embedded systems to large-scale systems and beyond, systems of systems, with a focus on the design of hardware, software, and tools. In 2012, we continue the tradition of maintaining a high-quality forum for active discussion on current and innovative topics on system synthesis and design that bring together the latest in academic and industrial research and development. We carried out a rigorous review process and a face-to-face Technical Program Committee meeting and selected 48 papers among 163 submissions with an acceptance rate of 29%. The Technical Program Committee carefully reviewed all papers with an average of 4 reviews per paper. The entire review process strictly obeyed the blind review policy, and the Technical Program Committee meeting was carefully conducted considering conflict of interest of the Technical Program Committee members. The Technical Program Committee members selected the a part of high-quality papers, and a part of high-quality papers were not accepted because this year CODES+ISSS paper selection was highly competitive. As interaction between presenters and other conference attendees is extremely important in CODES+ISSS, we organize poster sessions during the last 30 minutes of every session to encourage extensive interaction among the speakers and audiences. The CODES+ISSS is part of the growing Embedded Systems Week (ESWEEK) that has been positioned as the premier international event in embedded systems research and development. The CODES+ISSS is complemented by two other flagship sister conferences: EMSOFT (International Conference on Embedded Software) and CASES (International Conference on Compliers, Architecture and Synthesis for Embedded Systems). Registrants to ESWEEK may attend sessions in any of the three conferences. The technical programs of the three conferences, including keynotes, special sessions, panels, tutorials and workshops, have been carefully planned to avoid major overlaps and complement each other. In 2012, the CODES+ISSS Technical Program Committee compose 16 regular sessions, one of which is a joint session with the CASES Program Committee, two special sessions, and three tutorials. We implemented a two-stage selection process of the special sessions again in 2012. Special session proposals have been submitted to the Program Committee, presented and evaluated at the Program Committee meeting. We selected the best two proposals such as TLM verification and system-level design consisting of five contributions each. The special session paper presentation will be followed by a panel discussion with the special sessions organizers. In addition, the CODES+ISSS Technical Program is completed by two tutorials organized in the context of ESWeek.

Welcome to MobiSys 2014, the 12th Conference on Mobile Systems, Applications, and Services. This year's technical program covers a wide range of topics in mobile systems. The program both deepens our understanding of several long-standing problems and explores an expanding set of emerging mobile applications and technologies. Topics include automated user-interface exploration, efficient resource usage, gesture recognition, localization, privacy and security, wearable computing, wireless networks, and more. We are thrilled to begin the technical program with a keynote talk by Professor James Landay of Cornell NYC Tech. Dr. Landay has been a leading researcher on human-computer interaction and ubiquitous computing for over twenty years. After the keynote, we have an exciting technical program that includes 25 full-length technical papers chosen by the technical program committee (TPC) from 185 submissions. As interest in the conference has grown over the last several years, so too has the review load for MobiSys TPCs. To reduce the number of reviews each TPC member had to write, we augmented the TPC with an external review committee (ERC) of experts. Most ERC members reviewed six papers during the initial round of the review process. Our review process consisted of three rounds of decisions. During the first round, all submissions received three or four reviews, each written by a member of the TPC or ERC. If a reviewer recommended that a paper be accepted, the paper advanced to the second round. During the second round, papers received three or four additional reviews, almost entirely from the TPC. At the end of the second round, reviewers discussed each remaining paper online to determine whether it should advance to the third round of decisions. The third round of decisions occurred during an all-day face-to-face meeting of the TPC. By the conclusion of this meeting, the TPC had identified the 25 papers in the program. Finally, all accepted papers were shepherded by a TPC member to ensure that the final manuscripts met the standards of the committee. We took strict precautions throughout the review process to avoid conflicts of interest. Furthermore, as the TPC chairs, we did not submit papers to avoid conflicts of interest.

I am drafting this editorial from the second IEEE International Conference on Software Testing, Verification and Validation (ICST 2009), where I am serving as the program co-chair. STVR has committed to publishing a special issue each year of the best papers published in this important new testing conference. Since this editorial was due during the conference, I decided to write about the conference management. In the 1990s, technical program committee (TPC) meetings were almost always in person, with a part of the TPC meeting for one or two days to choose papers to be accepted. In recent years, online TPC meetings have become more common. I have seen both versions conducted well, and I have also seen significant mistakes with both versions. Here I present some of my observations and thoughts on why this trend is occurring and how to run online TPC meetings well. The two models offer significant differences in terms of travel, duration and communication mode. In-person meetings require most people to fly and spend two or three days in a hotel. Online TPC meetings require no travel. In-person meetings usually last for one or two days; more time escalates the monetary and time costs beyond feasibility. Online TPC meetings usually last for two or three weeks. In-person meetings are synchronous, where every attendee is engaged in the discussion at the same time, faceto-face. Online TPC meetings are asynchronous, where messages are submitted and later read. These differences allow the relative advantages and disadvantages to be analyzed. In-person TPC meetings are incredibly expensive, both in terms of time and money. These costs were less important in the 1980s, when most TPCs were largely drawn from one continent. However, we now have truly global communities, and flying from my home in Virginia to a meeting in Hong Kong or from Tokyo to London is simply too expensive. My observation is that most in-person TPC meetings have 30% attendance or less. The short duration of an in-person meeting means that there is very little time to think during the discussion. The program chairs (PCs) must enforce deadlines of a few minutes per paper, so that every decision becomes rushed. There is very little time for extra reading of the paper, thoughtful reflection on the results or additional reviews to be requested. The result is that more weight is given to TPC members who (1) have lots of travel funds and (2) are more aggressive in a discussion. An in-person TPC meeting, on the other hand, requires little or no travel. Thus it saves money (as well as the environment). This increases participation; I have seen 90% or more of TPC members join online discussions. The longer time duration and the asynchronous discussion can lead to more reflection and thoughtful comments as well as more egalitarian discussions. Comments are recorded; thus, a side-effect is that offhand inappropriate remarks are less common and much less influential. However, online meetings come with some risks. While we have more time to participate, it is easy for TPC members to make the meeting low priority, and not to join actively in the discussion. It is also easy for TPC members to look only at the papers they reviewed; instead of everyone being forced to synchronously focus on a single paper at a time; online meetings allow us to pick and choose which papers to asynchronously focus on. We also lose some depth of communication without facial expressions and body language. Do not assign too many papers to the TPC members. Nobody can afford the time to write more than about 10 high quality reviews for a conference. If TPC members are assigned 15, 20 or 30 papers, the quality of the reviews will unavoidably be low, and over time, so will be the quality of the conference. After reviews are in, mark the papers initially to have lots of ‘open for discussion’, and few ‘probable rejects’ and ‘probable accepts’. Making lots of initial decisions will depress the discussion, whereas TPC members will actively discuss papers with no default decision. (At ICST, we accepted the rule that three positive reviews resulted in a default decision of ‘probable accept’ and three negative reviews resulted in a default decision of ‘probable reject’; this left the majority of the papers in the middle.) Allow TPC names to be associated with the comments during the discussion. People are more comfortable talking when they know who they are talking with. Hiding names will depress the discussion. Assign a moderator for each paper. Choosing the most negative reviewer will bias the discussion against the paper; choosing the most positive reviewer will bias the discussion in favor of the paper. Explicitly ask TPC members to join discussions on papers that they did not review. Divide responsibility for monitoring papers among the PCs, but do not take complete ownership. Each PC should feel comfortable in monitoring the discussion on any paper. Monitor the discussion on every paper and prod the participants when the discussions go stagnant. This is crucially important for the success of an online meeting! If the reviewers are deadlocked, invite additional reviewers. ICST often uses steering committee members for this, but other members of the TPC can also help. A subtle point is that average opinions often trend downwards during discussions. Reviewers tend to be conservative, and would rather be wrong in voting against a good paper than be wrong in voting for a poor paper. The PCs can watch for this tendency and add comments to give the group a reality check. The PCs must read every review and every comment, and be prepared to ask reviewers to rethink or rewrite reviews.

Welcome to ACM MobiCom 2015, the 21st Annual International Conference on Mobile Computing and Networking. MobiCom is the premier forum for publishing and presenting cutting-edge research in mobile systems and wireless networks. The technical program this year features 38 outstanding papers that cover a wide variety of topics including energy, sensing, security, wireless access, applications, localization, Internet of things, mobile cloud, measurement and analysis. We created a new Experience track this year to encourage authors to present extensive experiences with implementation, deployment, and operations of mobile ncomputing and wireless networks. One of the accepted papers is an Experience paper on cellular networks. This year's call for papers attracted 207 qualified submissions from across the globe that were carefully reviewed by 46 Technical Program Committee (TPC) members (+2 TPC chairs) along with a selected group of external experts. The TPC was formed with the goal of covering diverse research expertise as well as diverse perspectives and approaches. The TPC included researchers from 12 countries including China, France, Germany, India, Italy, Singapore, South Korea, Spain, Sweden, Switzerland, UK, and USA. 25% of the members were female, the highest ever in the history of MobiCom. We also had broad industry participation with TPC members from Alcatel-Lucent, Google, HP, IBM, Microsoft, NEC, and Telefonica. The paper review process was double-blinded and carried out in three phases. In the first phase, each paper was reviewed by at least three TPC members, and the top 112 papers were selected for the second phase. In addition to reviewer scores, reviewer confidence and normalization with respect to other papers in a reviewer's pile, were also considered in selecting papers. In the second phase, each paper was reviewed by at least two more reviewers followed by an online, often intense, discussion, producing 68 papers for the final phase. The final TPC meeting was held on May 28th and 29th in Salt Lake City, Utah. These 68 papers were organized by their topic areas, and discussed at length at the meeting. Eventually, 38 papers were shortlisted for inclusion in the program and a shepherd from the TPC was assigned to each of these papers. As the last step, each of the shortlisted papers was shepherded through a "blind" process where the authors interacted with all the reviewers and the shepherd to address the review comments without knowing the reviewers' or the shepherds' identities. The end result is an exciting technical program composed of 38 very high quality papers. During the review process, Prof. Robin Kravets, the TPC co-chair of MobiCom 2013, handled the papers that were co-authored by TPC chairs, and those that had conflict-of-interest with both TPC chairs. To ensure fairness and preserve the anonymity of all authors and reviewers, the assignment of reviewers, the reviews and discussions of these papers were done out of band without any exposure to the TPC chairs.

Welcome to Beijing and to ACM MobiCom 2009, the 15th Annual Conference on Mobile Computing and Networking. MobiCom has become the premier venue for top quality research in mobile computing and networking, and the entire organizing committee has attempted to assemble for you a top-notch technical program consisting of papers, posters, demos, keynote lectures and a panel on cutting-edge topics in wireless networking and mobile computing. We hope you have a stimulating, enjoyable, and fruitful experience at the conference! The centerpiece of the conference, the technical program, consists, as in past years, a thought-provoking mixture of systems and theory papers. These span the gamut of topics in wireless networking, touching upon mobile phones, mesh networks, body area networks, infrastructure-based wireless networks, and on-chip wireless communication! The technical program consists of 30 papers, selected from 282 submissions received from 30 countries worldwide, after a thorough two-stage review process in which we received a total of 956 reviews, or about 3.4 reviews on average per paper! At the program committee meeting in Los Angeles, we discussed 65 papers before converging on the final program. There were two features of the review process that deserve mention. First, we selected an associate technical program committee consisting of junior academic researchers, as well as senior researchers from industry and government labs. They brought valuable perspective to the second-stage of the review process. Second, a group of researchers in Asia organized a shadow technical program committee. The shadow PC process was designed to expose junior researchers in Asia to submissions to a top notch conference. Its process was completely decoupled from the main technical program, and did not influence the selection of the papers for the technical program. Paper authors were given the option of choosing to have their papers reviewed by the shadow PC, and about half the submitted papers elected to do so. If the technical program is a success, it will be entirely due to the efforts of a very energetic group of researchers who formed the main technical program committee (TPC)! Each TPC member reviewed nearly 25 papers, participated in constructive electronic discussions before the program committee meeting, and attended or called into the TPC meeting from different parts of the globe. The meeting itself was infused with vigorous debate and thoughtful discussion, and remained lively till the very end, an indication of the TPC's dedication to upholding MobiCom's reputation as the premier mobile computing and networking conference! Coordinating the logistics of a TPC meeting for a top-tier conference is a difficult endeavor, and we could not have done it without the help of Gertrude Lewis and Justin Collins.

Welcome to MobiHoc 2007, the Eighth ACM International Symposium on Mobile Ad Hoc Networking and Computing, and to beautiful Montreal, Quebec, Canada! The first MobiHoc was held in 2000 in Boston, MA, as a workshop affiliated with the ACM MobiCom conference. Since then, MobiHoc has continued to evolved, first into a two-day separate symposium, and then into a three-day symposium, proceeded by a full day of tutorials. This year marks another change for MobiHoc, in its co-location with MobiCom. The co-location of the two conferences provides attendees with a unique opportunity to attend both programs, as well as joint plenary sessions. A total of 146 papers were submitted to the conference this year, from which the Technical Program Committee (TPC) selected the best 27 papers to make up the final program. As an indication of the international reach of the conference, this year's submitted papers came from authors in 24 different countries. The final program contains papers from 7 of these countries. Many of the papers submitted were of very high quality, and it is the committee's job to determine the top papers that are best suited for the conference. All submitted papers were judged based on their quality through double-blind reviewing, where the identities of the authors were withheld from the reviewers. The review process included first and second round reviews. Each paper received three to four independent first round reviews. This was followed by a second round review process, during which the reviewers participated in an online discussion about the merits of the paper. The goal was to reach consensus on the recommendation for the paper, which could be either accept, reject, or discuss during the TPC meeting. Additional reviews were sought prior to the program committee meeting in the case of papers that had reviews with diverging opinions or where no consensus could be reached during the second round review phase. Each paper was assigned a TPC Lead. Based on the online discussion, the TPC Lead entered an accept/discuss/reject recommendation for the paper. Prior to the meeting, each paper had between four and five reviews (including the TPC Lead recommendation) from program committee members. The TPC meeting was held in Boston, MA on April 13th . Approximately 45 papers were discussed during the full day meeting. Each TPC member reviewed an average of 11 papers before the meeting and was the TPC lead for three papers. In addition, many TPC members completed additional reviews during the course of the meeting. We sincerely appreciate and thank the program committee for their time, effort and enthusiasm. The quality of the conference is testament to their expertise and dedication. We thoroughly enjoyed working with them.

Welcome to MobiHoc 2007, the Eighth ACM International Symposium on Mobile Ad Hoc Networking and Computing, and to beautiful Montréal, Québec, Canada! The first MobiHoc was held in 2000 in Boston, MA, as a workshop affiliated with the ACM MobiCom conference. Since then, MobiHoc has continued to evolved, first into a two-day separate symposium, and then into a three-day symposium, proceeded by a full day of tutorials. This year marks another change for MobiHoc, in its co-location with MobiCom. The co-location of the two conferences provides attendees with a unique opportunity to attend both programs, as well as joint plenary sessions. A total of 146 papers were submitted to the conference this year, from which the Technical Program Committee (TPC) selected the best 27 papers to make up the final program. As an indication of the international reach of the conference, this year's submitted papers came from authors in 24 different countries. The final program contains papers from 7 of these countries. Many of the papers submitted were of very high quality, and it is the committee's job to determine the top papers that are best suited for the conference. All submitted papers were judged based on their quality through double-blind reviewing, where the identities of the authors were withheld from the reviewers. The review process included first and second round reviews. Each paper received three to four independent first round reviews. This was followed by a second round review process, during which the reviewers participated in an online discussion about the merits of the paper. The goal was to reach consensus on the recommendation for the paper, which could be either accept, reject, or discuss during the TPC meeting. Additional reviews were sought prior to the program committee meeting in the case of papers that had reviews with diverging opinions or where no consensus could be reached during the second round review phase. Each paper was assigned a TPC Lead. Based on the online discussion, the TPC Lead entered an accept/discuss/reject recommendation for the paper. Prior to the meeting, each paper had between four and five reviews (including the TPC Lead recommendation) from program committee members. The TPC meeting was held in Boston, MA on April 13th . Approximately 45 papers were discussed during the full day meeting. Each TPC member reviewed an average of 11 papers before the meeting and was the TPC lead for three papers. In addition, many TPC members completed additional reviews during the course of the meeting. We sincerely appreciate and thank the program committee for their time, effort and enthusiasm. The quality of the conference is testament to their expertise and dedication. We thoroughly enjoyed working with them.

On behalf of the Technical Program Committee, we would like to welcome you to ACM MobiHoc 2015 in Hangzhou, China. ACM MobiHoc is the premier international symposium dedicated to addressing challenges emerging from wireless networking and computing. The highly selective technical program has traditionally brought together a unique blend of researchers and practitioners, thereby influencing the direction of a wide range of wireless networking research areas. We hope that you will find the conference intellectually stimulating. We are delighted to report that this year's program continues the tradition of excellence set by this conference over the years. We received 250 submissions, which has made it extremely challenging to select only 37 papers for presentation and inclusion in the proceedings. At such a selective acceptance rate (14.8%) many of the papers that we could not accept are of high quality and we are certain that many of them will appear in the near future at other top-tier conferences. The paper selection process was handled by the Technical Program Committee (TPC). The TPC included 65 excellent members with expertise spanning all the major areas relevant to the conference scope. In particular, the TPC was composed of members from 16 countries and included 11 members from research labs and industry. The 250 submitted papers went through a first phase of reviews followed by a very active online discussion phase. Then, several papers went through a second review phase. The reviews were provided by the TPC members and, when needed, a few reviews were provided by external expert reviewers. At the end of this process and based on the results of the online discussion, 12 papers were accepted and 46 papers were further discussed at the TPC meeting that was held on Feb. 28, 2015 at Columbia University in New York. Following the discussions at the meeting, 25 additional papers were accepted. Ten of the accepted papers were assigned shepherds who volunteered to assist the authors during the process of preparing the final version. The work of the TPC was outstanding and we thank all the members for the time and efforts they dedicated to the paper selection process and to attending the meeting. These efforts make this wonderful conference possible. We are pleased with the strong technical program of the conference, represented by the papers in these proceedings. The conference program covers a wide range of topics, including routing, scheduling, algorithms, performance evaluation, dynamic spectrum access, cellular networks, sensor networks, mobile applications and crowdsensing, security, and wireless systems. This year's program is preceded by a set of seven workshops. It continues the tradition of having keynote talks from outstanding leaders in the field, and it includes a poster/demo session. The keynote speakers are Prof. Ness B. Shroff, the Ohio Eminent Scholar in Networking and Communications at The Ohio State University, Prof. Wen Gao, Vice President of the NSF of China, and Prof. Andrea Goldsmith, the Stephen Harris Professor in the School of Engineering, Professor of Electrical Engineering at Stanford University.

On behalf of the Technical Program Committee, welcome to the 2008 IEEE RFIC Symposium. The RFIC Symposium is a leading-edge IEEE technical conference dedicated to the advancement of integrated circuits and sub-systems for RF, wireless, broadband communications, and many other emerging applications. The RFIC Technical Program Committee has worked diligently to select the best papers to assemble a high quality technical program this year. These papers will be presented in several technical sessions. The RFIC Symposium also features a student paper contest. The three best student papers will be selected by the Technical Program Committee and the awards will be presented in the Plenary Session. This year the RFIC Symposium begins on Sunday, June 15th with workshops at the advanced and tutorial level addressing RF technology and design and integration, at both system and circuit levels. The Plenary Session will be held on Sunday evening, following the workshops. Two leading experts from the RFIC industry will share their views during the plenary session. The RFIC Reception will follow immediately after the plenary session, providing a relaxing time for all to mingle with old friends and catch up on the latest news. In addition to the technical sessions on Monday and Tuesday, the RFIC Symposium also features 2 panel sessions and 12 workshops. The Monday lunch panel session entitled Millimeter-wave IC: Is silicon winning? Is GaAs still alive? has panelists from both industry and academia debating the future of Millimeter wave IC using GaAs and Si technologies. The Tuesday lunch’s panel session is a co-sponsor program with the IMS. The title Cognitive Radio for Open Access and White Space is posed to stimulate interactive discussions with the audience! The workshops on Sunday cover a wide range of topics from system to device technologies. This year, by popular demand, the hottest and latest subcommittee is added to the RFIC Technical Program. This subcommittee focuses on Millimeter Wave ICs using Silicon substrates. The interest in RFIC technology, and the venue offered by the Symposium to showcase the latest advancements, continues to make the RFIC Symposium the venue of choice for both industry and academia to meet, discuss results and exchange ideas. The 2008 Technical Program Committee keeps working diligently toward the goal of strengthening the technical quality and scope of the program, while maintaining and improving the legacy left by the previous Symposia. This would not be possible without holding the interest of professionals like you and gaining the trust of all the authors who submitted their work to the RFIC Symposium.

On behalf of the Organizing Committee, we would like to welcome you to the third edition of the IEEE Vehicular Networking Conference (IEEE VNC 2011) in Amsterdam, the Netherlands. IEEE VNC is a unique conference sponsored by both the IEEE Communications Society and the IEEE Intelligent Transportation Systems Society. It brings together these generally distinct communities to facilitate learning and to benefit from each others’ vast experience in the respective fields. The organizing committee spent countless hours and worked diligently to make this conference possible and to put together a comprehensive, high-quality program. Producing a conference is always a team effort involving many volunteers, and we would like to thank the team that made IEEE VNC 2011 possible. In particular, we are greatly indebted to our Technical Program Committee (TPC) co-chairs, Frank Kargl, Falko Dressler, Hiroshi Shigeno, and Eylem Ekici, as well as to their TPC members. The TPC co-chairs compiled a very interesting program with highly respected and distinguished invited speakers, a very interesting, and hopefully lively, panel, and an excellent technical program. The conference received 93 submissions of which 23 were accepted for final presentation to form the core of the technical program. Sixteen submissions were accepted as work-in-progress for poster sessions. Our TPC co-chairs collected over 300 reviews for the received submissions from reviewers from all parts of the world. Seventy-six of the paper authors come from Europe, 24 from North America, and 30 from Asia. Of the accepted papers and posters, 70 percent come from academia and 30 percent from industry. We thank Stefan Dietzel for doing an excellent job as a publication chair and for providing a lot of help with the organization. Volunteers from University of Twente helped with many of the local arrangements. We also would like to thank Henning Schulzrinne for helping to produce the proceedings. The staff of IEEE, in particular Bruce Worthman and Alicia Zupeck, helped with handling the finances and with making logistics arrangements. We would like to thank them for their support. The organizing committee would like to acknowledge the generous financial support from Toyota InfoTechnology Center that helped us to keep the registration fees at a reasonable rate. We also thank the University of Twente for supporting IEEE VNC 2011 financially. Last but not least, we would like to take this opportunity to express our gratitude to the IEEE Communications Society and IEEE Intelligent Transportation Systems Society for their joint sponsorship of the conference. We hope that all attendees will enjoy the scientific and social program, as well as the beautiful and lively city of Amsterdam. Welcome to IEEE VNC 2011! Onur Altintas, Wai Chen, and Geert Heijenk VNC 2011 General Chairs

It is our great pleasure to welcome you to the 8th International Conference on emerging Networking EXperiments and Technologies (CoNEXT'12). CoNEXT started in 2005 and has now grown into one the premier venues, sponsored by ACM SIGCOMM, for the dissemination of cutting-edge research in all areas of networking. We are both thankful for the opportunity to Chair the Technical Program Committee for the conference. Here are a few facts and figures for this year's CoNEXT program. We received a record submission of 176 papers, representing an increase of 10% over 2011. For the first time, CoNEXT will have a full 3-day program: these encouraging signs reflect the vibrant activity in our community. A highly skilled and dedicated technical program committee (TPC) of 53 researchers from academia and industry selected the papers to be included in the technical program, after a thorough reviewing process. Five papers were early rejected, because they were out of scope or did not conform to the submission guidelines. During the first round of the review process, each of the 171 papers received three reviews. The resulting 99 most competitive submissions received two additional reviews during a second round (some papers received additional reviews when the consensus among the five reviewers indicated the need for additional input). This second round was followed by an extensive on-line discussion phase over a couple of weeks, after which 59 papers were chosen to be discussed for inclusion in the final program at the TPC meeting, held at the Shannon Laboratory at AT&T Labs-Research in Florham Park, NJ on September 15, 2012. This 9-hour meeting was attended in person by 34 TPC members (other TPC members participated by phone) and resulted in 31 accepted papers that will be presented as part of this year's three-day conference in Nice. Paper notifications and reviews were emailed within hours of the end of the TPC meeting. Every paper was shepherded by a TPC member, to help authors improve the paper and incorporate the useful suggestions for improvement from the TPC.

Welcome to the ACM e-Energy 2013 Conference being held in Berkeley, California! As Co-Chairs of the Technical Program Committee (TPC), we are delighted to introduce this year's very strong technical program. The program committee accepted 22 full papers selected from 76 submissions in addition to 16 posters and 2 demos. These represent a substantial and diverse body of work that showcases the rapid maturation of work in our field. This year's program includes papers ranging from building energy management to picogrids and data center energy management to false data injection in grid estimation systems to energy storage systems and electric vehicle charging. ACM e-Energy is truly a global conference - both submitted and accepted papers, posters and demos have authors hailing from 20 countries. Interestingly, the final program has only two papers with affiliations to US institutions. We were fortunate to work with an outstanding technical program committee of 29 members from around the world that brought a diverse range of expertise to the table. Members of the PC were drawn from 11 countries on 4 continents, with substantial representation from Europe as well as the US. The hallmark of a high quality conference is a thoughtful and careful review process that provides valuable feedback to all authors, and ACM e-Energy definitely met that high bar. We are extremely grateful for the hard work, and the very thorough and insightful paper reviews, provided by TPC members. ACM e-Energy used a two-round review process, with a first round of three reviews for each paper. Papers that did not receive a high-confidence review in the first round or received reviews with high variance were assigned additional reviews in a second round of reviewing. After the second round, we initiated online discussions on all submitted papers. The thoughtful asynchronous discussion of papers in advance of the TPC meeting allowed us to discuss 38 papers in depth during an online, day-long TPC meeting that crafted the final program. We believe that the collective efforts of the TPC has created an extremely strong and technically vibrant program that will greatly interest and inspire all attendees while setting a high standard for subsequent editions of the conference.

Welcome to the ACM e-Energy 2014 Conference being held in Cambridge, UK. As Co-Chairs of the Technical Program Committee (TPC), we are delighted to introduce this year's technical program. The program committee accepted 23 full papers selected from 112 submissions in addition to 20 posters / short papers posters and 2 demos. The substantial increase in submissions illustrates the rapid growth of our field. This year's program includes papers covering topics from building energy management to picogrids, from energy optimization in computer systems to electric vehicle charging, from wind energy management to demand response systems and analysis. ACM e-Energy is truly a global conference -- both submitted and accepted papers, posters and demos have authors hailing from over 20 countries. We were fortunate to work with an outstanding technical program committee of 35 members from around the world that brought a diverse range of expertise to the table. Members of the PC were drawn from 4 continents. The hallmark of a high quality conference is a thoughtful and demanding review process that provides valuable feedback to all authors, and ACM e-Energy definitely met that high bar. We are extremely grateful for the hard work, and the very selective and insightful paper reviews, provided by TPC members. In a few cases, we also asked the expertise of external reviewers, who are gratefully acknowledged here. ACM e-Energy used a two-round review process, with a first round of three reviews for each paper. Papers that did not receive a high-confidence review in the first round or received reviews with high variance were assigned additional reviews in a second round of reviewing. After the second round, we initiated online discussions on all submitted papers. The thoughtful asynchronous discussion of papers in advance of the TPC meeting allowed us to discuss 38 papers in depth during an online, day-long TPC meeting that crafted the final program. We believe that the collective efforts of the TPC has created an extremely strong and technically vibrant program that will greatly interest and inspire all attendees while setting a high standard for subsequent editions of the conference.