PLDI 2015 - Research Papers - PLDI 2015

PLDI 2015 - Research Papers - PLDI 2015
PLDI 2015
Sat 13 - Wed 17 June 2015
Portland, Oregon, United States
Attending
Venue: Oregon Convention Center
Venue: Exchange Ballroom
Hotel and Travel Information
Student Travel Support
Registration
SIGPLAN Conference Anti-Harassment Policy
Student Volunteers
Program
PLDI Program
Your Program
Sat 13 Jun
Sun 14 Jun
Mon 15 Jun
Tue 16 Jun
Wed 17 Jun
Tracks
PLDI 2015
FCRC Plenary Speakers
Artifact Evaluation
Tutorials
Research Papers
Student Research Competition
Workshops
ARRAY
ARRAY
ARRAY
CHIUW
CHIUW
CHIUW
PLOOC
PLOOC
PLOOC
SOAP
SOAP
SOAP
WAX
WOW
X10
X10
X10
Co-hosted Symposia
Scala
Scala
Scala
Organization
PLDI 2015 Committees
Organizing Committee
Track Committees
Artifact Evaluation
Research Papers
Program Committee
Research Papers
External Review Committee
Contributors
People Index
Workshops
ARRAY
Program Committee
CHIUW
Program Committee
PLOOC
Program Committee
SOAP
Program Committee
WAX
Organizers
Program Committee
WOW
Program Committee
X10
Program Committee
Co-hosted Symposia
Scala
Program Committee
Series
Series
PLDI 2026
PLDI 2025
PLDI 2024
PLDI 2023
PLDI 2022
PLDI 2021
PLDI 2020
PLDI 2019
PLDI 2018
PLDI 2017
PLDI 2016
PLDI 2015
PLDI 2015
series
) /
Research Papers
PLDI 2015
About
Program
Accepted Papers
Proceedings
Instructions For Accepted Papers
FAQ on Double Blind Reviewing
Instructions for Authors
Surveys
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.
Dates
Program Display Configuration
Close
You're viewing the program in a time zone which is different from your device's time zone
change time zone
Sun 14 Jun
Displayed time zone:
Tijuana, Baja California
change
19:30 - 21:00
Welcome Reception
Research Papers
at
Exhibit Halls A1-B
19:30
90m
Welcome Reception and Poster Session
Research Papers
Mon 15 Jun
Displayed time zone:
Tijuana, Baja California
change
09:00 - 11:00
Distinguished Papers
Research Papers
at
PLDI Main BLUE (Portland 254-255)
Chair(s):
Steve Blackburn
Australian National University
09:00
15m
Day opening
Opening and Welcome
Research Papers
Steve Blackburn
Australian National University
David Grove
IBM Research
09:15
25m
Talk
Automatically Improving Accuracy for Floating Point Expressions
Research Papers
Pavel Panchekha
University of Washington
Alex Sanchez-Stern
University of Washington
James R. Wilcox
University of Washington
Zachary Tatlock
University of Washington, Seattle
Media Attached
09:40
25m
Talk
Diagnosing Type Errors with Class
Research Papers
Danfeng Zhang
Cornell University
Andrew Myers
Dimitrios Vytiniotis
Microsoft Research, Cambridge
Simon Peyton Jones
Microsoft Research, Cambridge
Media Attached
10:05
25m
Talk
Provably Correct Peephole Optimizations with Alive
Research Papers
Nuno P. Lopes
Microsoft Research
David Menendez
Rutgers University
Santosh Nagarakatte
Rutgers University
John Regehr
University of Utah
Pre-print
Media Attached
10:30
20m
Talk
One Minute Madness
Research Papers
12:30 - 14:00
SIGPLAN Awards Luncheon
Research Papers
at
Portland 251,257,258
12:30
90m
Lunch
SIGPLAN Awards Luncheon
Research Papers
Jan Vitek
Northeastern University
14:00 - 15:40
Verification
Research Papers
at
PLDI Main BLUE (Portland 254-255)
Chair(s):
Zachary Tatlock
University of Washington, Seattle
14:00
25m
Talk
Mechanized Verification of Fine-grained Concurrent Programs
Research Papers
Ilya Sergey
IMDEA Software Institute
Aleksandar Nanevski
IMDEA Software Institute
Anindya Banerjee
IMDEA Software Institute
Link to publication
Media Attached
14:25
25m
Talk
Verification of Producer-Consumer Synchronization in GPU Programs
Research Papers
Rahul Sharma
Stanford University
Michael Bauer
NVIDIA Research
Alex Aiken
Stanford University
Media Attached
14:50
25m
Talk
Relaxing Safely: Verified On-the-Fly Garbage Collection for x86-TSO
Research Papers
Peter Gammie
NICTA
Tony Hosking
Australian National University, Data61, and Purdue University
Kai Engelhardt
UNSW and NICTA
Link to publication
Media Attached
15:15
25m
Talk
Verifying Read-Copy-Update in a Logic for Weak Memory
Research Papers
Joseph Tassarotti
Carnegie Mellon University
Derek Dreyer
MPI-SWS
Viktor Vafeiadis
MPI-SWS, Germany
Media Attached
14:00 - 15:40
Correctness
Research Papers
at
PLDI Main RED (Portland 256)
Chair(s):
Jens Palsberg
University of California, Los Angeles
14:00
25m
Talk
Algorithmic Debugging of Real-World Haskell Programs: Deriving Dependencies from the Cost Centre Stack
Research Papers
Maarten Faddegon
University of Kent, UK
Olaf Chitil
University of Kent, UK
Media Attached
14:25
25m
Talk
Automatic Error Elimination by Multi-Application Code Transfer
Research Papers
Stelios Sidiroglou-Douskos
MIT CSAIL
Eric Lahtinen
MIT CSAIL
Fan Long
MIT CSAIL
Martin C. Rinard
MIT
Media Attached
14:50
25m
Talk
Light: Replay via Tightly Bounded Recording
Research Papers
Peng Liu
Purdue University
Xiangyu Zhang
Purdue University
Omer Tripp
IBM Thomas J. Watson Research Center
Yunhui Zheng
IBM Research
Media Attached
15:15
25m
Talk
Many-Core Compiler Fuzzing
Research Papers
Nathan Chong
University College London
Alastair F. Donaldson
Imperial College London
Andrei Lascu
Imperial College London
Christopher Lidbury
Imperial College London
Media Attached
16:00 - 17:40
Concurrency I
Research Papers
at
PLDI Main BLUE (Portland 254-255)
Chair(s):
Santosh Nagarakatte
Rutgers University
16:00
25m
Talk
Asynchronous Programming, Analysis and Testing with State Machines
Research Papers
Pantazis Deligiannis
Imperial College London
Alastair F. Donaldson
Imperial College London
Jeroen Ketema
Akash Lal
Microsoft Research India
Paul Thomson
Imperial College London
Media Attached
16:25
25m
Talk
Stateless Model Checking Concurrent Programs with Maximal Causality Reduction
Research Papers
Jeff Huang
Texas A&M University
Media Attached
16:50
25m
Talk
Synthesizing racy tests
Research Papers
Malavika Samak
Indian Institute of Science, Bangalore
Murali Krishna Ramanathan
Indian Institute of Science, Bangalore
Suresh Jagannathan
Purdue University
Media Attached
17:15
25m
Talk
The Push/Pull model of transactions
Research Papers
Eric Koskinen
IBM TJ Watson Research Center
Matthew J. Parkinson
Microsoft Research, UK
Media Attached
16:00 - 17:15
Optimization
Research Papers
at
PLDI Main RED (Portland 256)
Chair(s):
Michelle Strout
Colorado State University
16:00
25m
Talk
LaminarIR: Compile-Time Queues for Structured Streams
Research Papers
Yousun Ko
Yonsei University
Bernd Burgstaller
Yonsei University
Bernhard Scholz
The University of Sydney
Media Attached
16:25
25m
Talk
Optimizing Off-Chip Accesses in Multicores
Research Papers
Wei Ding
Pennsylvania State University
Xulong Tang
Penn State
Mahmut Taylan Kandemir
Pennsylvania State University
Yuanrui Zhang
Intel
Emre Kultursay
Pennsylvania State University
Media Attached
16:50
25m
Talk
Improving Compiler Scalability: Optimizing Large Programs at Small Price
Research Papers
Sanyam Mehta
University of Minnesota
Pen-Chung Yew
University of Minnesota
Media Attached
17:15 - 17:40
TOPLAS
Research Papers
at
PLDI Main RED (Portland 256)
Chair(s):
Michelle Strout
Colorado State University
17:15
25m
Talk
Verification of a Cryptographic Primitive: SHA-256
Research Papers
A:
Andrew W. Appel
Princeton
Tue 16 Jun
Displayed time zone:
Tijuana, Baja California
change
08:45 - 09:10
One Minute Madness
Research Papers
at
PLDI Main BLUE (Portland 254-255)
08:45
25m
Talk
One Minute Madness
Research Papers
09:15 - 10:55
Concurrency II
Research Papers
at
PLDI Main BLUE (Portland 254-255)
Chair(s):
Suresh Jagannathan
Purdue University
09:15
25m
Talk
Composing Concurrency Control
Research Papers
Ofri Ziv
Tel Aviv University
Alex Aiken
Stanford University
Guy Golan-Gueta
Yahoo Labs
G. Ramalingam
Microsoft Research
Mooly Sagiv
Tel Aviv University
Media Attached
09:40
25m
Talk
Dynamic Partial Order Reduction for Relaxed Memory Models
Research Papers
Naling Zhang
Virginia Tech
Markus Kusano
Virginia Tech
Chao Wang
Virginia Tech
Media Attached
10:05
25m
Talk
Monitoring Refinement via Symbolic Reasoning
Research Papers
Michael Emmi
Constantin Enea
LIAFA, Université Paris Diderot
Jad Hamza
LIAFA, Université Paris Diderot
Media Attached
10:30
25m
Talk
Preventing Glitches and Short Circuits in High-Level Self-Timed Chip Specifications
Research Papers
Stephen Longfield
Cornell University
Brittany Nkounkou
Cornell University
Rajit Manohar
Cornell University
Ross Tate
Cornell University
Media Attached
09:15 - 10:55
Synthesis I
Research Papers
at
PLDI Main RED (Portland 256)
Chair(s):
Kathleen Fisher
Tufts University
09:15
25m
Talk
Efficient Synthesis of Network Updates
Research Papers
Jedidiah McClurg
University of Colorado Boulder
Hossein Hojjat
Cornell University
Pavol Cerny
University of Colorado Boulder
Nate Foster
Cornell University
Pre-print
Media Attached
09:40
25m
Talk
Efficient Synthesis of Probabilistic Programs
Research Papers
Aditya Nori
Microsoft Research, UK
Sherjil Ozair
IIT Delhi
Sriram Rajamani
Microsoft Research
Deepak Vijaykeerthy
Microsoft Research
Media Attached
10:05
25m
Talk
FlashRelate: Extracting Relational Data from Semi-Structured Spreadsheets Using Examples
Research Papers
Dan Barowy
University of Massachusetts Amherst
Sumit Gulwani
Microsoft Research
Ted Hart
Microsoft Research
Benjamin Zorn
Microsoft Research
Media Attached
10:30
25m
Talk
Synthesizing Data Structure Transformations from Input-Output Examples
Research Papers
Jack Feser
Rice University
Swarat Chaudhuri
Rice University
Işıl Dillig
University of Texas, Austin
Media Attached
14:00 - 15:40
Analysis
Research Papers
at
PLDI Main BLUE (Portland 254-255)
Chair(s):
Yannis Smaragdakis
University of Athens
14:00
25m
Talk
DAG Inlining: A Decision Procedure for Reachability-Modulo-Theories in Hierarchical Programs
Research Papers
Akash Lal
Microsoft Research India
Shaz Qadeer
Microsoft Research
Media Attached
File Attached
14:25
25m
Talk
Exploring and Enforcing Security Guarantees via Program Dependence Graphs
Research Papers
Andrew Johnson
Harvard University
Lucas Waye
Harvard University
Scott Moore
Harvard University
Stephen Chong
Harvard University
Media Attached
14:50
25m
Talk
Making Numerical Program Analysis Fast
Research Papers
Gagandeep Singh
ETH Zurich, Switzerland
Markus Püschel
ETH Zurich
Martin Vechev
ETH Zurich
Media Attached
15:15
25m
Talk
Tree Dependence Analysis
Research Papers
Yusheng Weijiang
Purdue University
Shruthi Balakrishna
Purdue University
Jianqiao Liu
Purdue University
Milind Kulkarni
Purdue University
Media Attached
14:00 - 15:40
Semantics I
Research Papers
at
PLDI Main RED (Portland 256)
Chair(s):
Hans-J. Boehm
Google
14:00
25m
Talk
A Formal C Memory Model Supporting Integer-Pointer Casts
Research Papers
Jeehoon Kang
Seoul National University
Chung-Kil Hur
Seoul National University
William Mansky
University of Pennsylvania
Dmitri Garbuzov
University of Pennsylvania
Steve Zdancewic
Viktor Vafeiadis
MPI-SWS, Germany
Media Attached
14:25
25m
Talk
Defining the undefinedness of C
Research Papers
Chris Hathhorn
University of Missouri
Chucky Ellison
University of Illinois
Grigore Roşu
University of Illinois at Urbana-Champaign
Media Attached
14:50
25m
Talk
KJS: A Complete Formal Semantics of JavaScript
Research Papers
Daejun Park
University of Illinois at Urbana-Champaign
Andrei Stefanescu
University of Illinois at Urbana-Champaign
Grigore Roşu
University of Illinois at Urbana-Champaign
Media Attached
15:15
25m
Talk
Verdi: A Framework for Formally Verifying Distributed System Implementations
Research Papers
James R. Wilcox
University of Washington
Doug Woos
University of Washington
Pavel Panchekha
University of Washington
Zachary Tatlock
University of Washington, Seattle
Xi Wang
University of Washington
Michael D. Ernst
University of Washington
Thomas Anderson
University of Washington
Media Attached
16:00 - 18:00
PLDI Chairs' Report and SIGPLAN Townhall Meeting
Research Papers
at
PLDI Main BLUE (Portland 254-255)
Chair(s):
David Grove
IBM Research
16:00
30m
Talk
PLDI Chairs' Report
Research Papers
David Grove
IBM Research
Steve Blackburn
Australian National University
Eric Eide
University of Utah
John Regehr
University of Utah
File Attached
16:30
60m
Meeting
ACM SIGPLAN Townhall Meeting
Research Papers
Jan Vitek
Northeastern University
18:30 - 22:00
PLDI Banquet
Research Papers
at
Exchange Ballroom
18:30
3h30m
PLDI Banquet
Research Papers
Wed 17 Jun
Displayed time zone:
Tijuana, Baja California
change
08:30 - 09:00
One Minute Madness
Research Papers
at
PLDI Main BLUE (Portland 254-255)
08:30
30m
Talk
One Minute Madness
Research Papers
09:15 - 10:55
Performance
Research Papers
at
PLDI Main BLUE (Portland 254-255)
Chair(s):
Mary Hall
University of Utah
09:15
25m
Talk
Automated Detection of Performance Bugs via Static Analysis
Research Papers
Oswaldo Olivo
Işıl Dillig
University of Texas, Austin
Calvin Lin
UT Austin
Media Attached
09:40
25m
Talk
Autotuning Algorithmic Choice for Input Sensitivity
Research Papers
Yufei Ding
North Carolina State University
Jason Ansel
Massachusetts Institute of Technology
Kalyan Veeramachaneni
Massachusetts Institute of Technology
Xipeng Shen
North Carolina State University
Una-May O’Reilly
Massachusetts Institute of Technology
Saman Amarasinghe
MIT
Link to publication
Media Attached
10:05
25m
Talk
Helium: Lifting High-Performance Stencil Kernels from Stripped x86 Binaries to Halide DSL Code
Research Papers
Charith Mendis
MIT CSAIL
Jeffrey Bosboom
MIT CSAIL
Kevin Wu
MIT CSAIL
Shoaib Kamil
MIT CSAIL, USA
Jonathan Ragan-Kelley
Stanford
Sylvain Paris
Adobe
Qin Zhao
Google
Saman Amarasinghe
MIT
Media Attached
10:30
25m
Talk
Profile-Guided Meta-Programming
Research Papers
William J. Bowman
Northeastern University
Swaha Miller
Cisco Systems, Inc
Vincent St-Amour
Northeastern University
R. Kent Dybvig
Cisco Systems, Inc
Link to publication
Media Attached
09:15 - 10:55
Semantics II
Research Papers
at
PLDI Main RED (Portland 256)
Chair(s):
Robert Bruce Findler
Northwestern University
09:15
25m
Talk
Declarative Programming over Eventually Consistent Data Stores
Research Papers
KC Sivaramakrishnan
University of Cambridge
Gowtham Kaki
Purdue University
Suresh Jagannathan
Purdue University
Media Attached
09:40
25m
Talk
Blame and coercion: Together again for the first time
Research Papers
Jeremy G. Siek
Indiana University
Peter Thiemann
University of Freiburg
Philip Wadler
University of Edinburgh
Media Attached
10:05
25m
Talk
Lightweight, Flexible Object-Oriented Generics
Research Papers
Yizhou Zhang
Cornell University
Andrew Myers
Barbara Liskov
MIT
Guido Salvaneschi
TU Darmstadt
Matt Loring
Cornell University
Media Attached
10:30
25m
Talk
Relatively Complete Counterexamples for Higher-Order Programs
Research Papers
Phúc C. Nguyễn
David Van Horn
University of Maryland, College Park
Media Attached
14:00 - 15:40
Parallelism
Research Papers
at
PLDI Main BLUE (Portland 254-255)
Chair(s):
Sara Baghsorkhi
Intel Labs
14:00
25m
Talk
Celebrating Diversity: A Mixture of Experts Approach for Runtime Mapping in Dynamic Environments
Research Papers
Murali Krishna Emani
The University of Edinburgh
Michael F. P. O'Boyle
University of Edinburgh
Media Attached
14:25
25m
Talk
Efficient Execution of Recursive Programs on Commodity Vector Hardware
Research Papers
Bin Ren
Pacific Northwest National Laboratories
Youngjoon Jo
Purdue University
Sriram Krishnamoorthy
Pacific Northwest National Laboratories
Kunal Agrawal
Washington University in St. Louis
Milind Kulkarni
Purdue University
Media Attached
14:50
25m
Talk
Loop and Data Transformations for Sparse Matrix Code
Research Papers
Anand Venkat
University of Utah
Mary Hall
University of Utah
Michelle Strout
Colorado State University
Media Attached
15:15
25m
Talk
Synthesizing Parallel Graph Programs via Automated Planning
Research Papers
Dimitrios Prountzos
The University of Texas at Austin, Texas, USA
Roman Manevich
Ben-Gurion University of the Negev
Keshav Pingali
University of Texas, Austin
Media Attached
14:00 - 15:40
Logic
Research Papers
at
PLDI Main RED (Portland 256)
Chair(s):
Nate Foster
Cornell University
14:00
25m
Talk
Automatic Induction Proofs of Data-Structures in Imperative Programs
Research Papers
Duc-Hiep Chu
National University of Singapore
Joxan Jaffar
National University of Singapore
Minh-Thai Trinh
National University of Singapore
Media Attached
14:25
25m
Talk
Compositional Certified Resource Bounds
Research Papers
Quentin Carbonneaux
Yale University
Jan Hoffmann
Yale University
Zhong Shao
Yale University
Link to publication
Media Attached
14:50
25m
Talk
Peer-to-peer Affine Commitment using Bitcoin
Research Papers
Karl Crary
Carnegie Mellon University
Michael J. Sullivan
Media Attached
15:15
25m
Talk
Termination and Non-Termination Specification Inference
Research Papers
Ton Chanh Le
National University of Singapore
Shengchao Qin
Teesside University
Wei-Ngan Chin
National University of Singapore
Media Attached
16:00 - 17:40
Synthesis II
Research Papers
at
PLDI Main BLUE (Portland 254-255)
Chair(s):
Işıl Dillig
University of Texas, Austin
16:00
25m
Talk
Concurrency Debugging with Differential Schedule Projections
Research Papers
Nuno Machado
INESC-ID / Instituto Superior Técnico, Universidade de Lisboa
Brandon Lucia
Carnegie Mellon University
Luís Rodrigues
Universidade de Lisboa, Instituto Superior Técnico, INESC-ID
Media Attached
16:25
25m
Talk
Synthesis of Machine Code from Semantics
Research Papers
Venkatesh Srinivasan
University of Wisconsin - Madison
Thomas Reps
University of Wisconsin - Madison and Grammatech Inc.
Media Attached
16:50
25m
Talk
Synthesis of ranking functions using extremal counterexamples
Research Papers
Laure Gonnord
University of Lyon & LIP, France
David Monniaux
CNRS, VERIMAG
Gabriel Radanne
Université Denis Diderot Paris 7, PPS
Media Attached
17:15
25m
Talk
Type-and-Example-Directed Program Synthesis
Research Papers
Peter-Michael Osera
University of Pennsylvania
Steve Zdancewic
Media Attached
16:00 - 17:40
Potpourri
Research Papers
at
PLDI Main RED (Portland 256)
Chair(s):
Tiark Rompf
Purdue & Oracle Labs
16:00
25m
Talk
Zero-Overhead Metaprogramming: Reflection and Metaobject Protocols Fast and without Compromises
Research Papers
Stefan Marr
Inria, France
Chris Seaton
Oracle Labs / University of Manchester
Stéphane Ducasse
INRIA Lille
Media Attached
16:25
25m
Talk
Finding Counterexamples from Parsing Conflicts
Research Papers
Chinawat Isradisaikul
Cornell University
Andrew Myers
Media Attached
16:50
25m
Talk
Interactive Parser Synthesis by Example
Research Papers
Alan Leung
University of California, San Diego
John Sarracino
University of California, San Diego
Sorin Lerner
University of California, San Diego
Media Attached
17:15
25m
Talk
A Simpler, Safer Programming and Execution Model for Intermittent Systems
Research Papers
Brandon Lucia
Carnegie Mellon University
Benjamin Ransford
University of Washington
Media Attached
Accepted Papers
Title
ACM SIGPLAN Townhall Meeting
Research Papers
Jan Vitek
A Formal C Memory Model Supporting Integer-Pointer Casts
Research Papers
Jeehoon Kang
Chung-Kil Hur
William Mansky
Dmitri Garbuzov
Steve Zdancewic
Viktor Vafeiadis
Media Attached
Algorithmic Debugging of Real-World Haskell Programs: Deriving Dependencies from the Cost Centre Stack
Research Papers
Maarten Faddegon
Olaf Chitil
Media Attached
A Simpler, Safer Programming and Execution Model for Intermittent Systems
Research Papers
Brandon Lucia
Benjamin Ransford
Media Attached
Asynchronous Programming, Analysis and Testing with State Machines
Research Papers
Pantazis Deligiannis
Alastair F. Donaldson
Jeroen Ketema
Akash Lal
Paul Thomson
Media Attached
Automated Detection of Performance Bugs via Static Analysis
Research Papers
Oswaldo Olivo
Işıl Dillig
Calvin Lin
Media Attached
Automatically Improving Accuracy for Floating Point Expressions
Research Papers
Pavel Panchekha
Alex Sanchez-Stern
James R. Wilcox
Zachary Tatlock
Media Attached
Automatic Error Elimination by Multi-Application Code Transfer
Research Papers
Stelios Sidiroglou-Douskos
Eric Lahtinen
Fan Long
Martin C. Rinard
Media Attached
Automatic Induction Proofs of Data-Structures in Imperative Programs
Research Papers
Duc-Hiep Chu
Joxan Jaffar
Minh-Thai Trinh
Media Attached
Autotuning Algorithmic Choice for Input Sensitivity
Research Papers
Yufei Ding
Jason Ansel
Kalyan Veeramachaneni
Xipeng Shen
Una-May O’Reilly
Saman Amarasinghe
Link to publication
Media Attached
Blame and coercion: Together again for the first time
Research Papers
Jeremy G. Siek
Peter Thiemann
Philip Wadler
Media Attached
Celebrating Diversity: A Mixture of Experts Approach for Runtime Mapping in Dynamic Environments
Research Papers
Murali Krishna Emani
Michael F. P. O'Boyle
Media Attached
Composing Concurrency Control
Research Papers
Ofri Ziv
Alex Aiken
Guy Golan-Gueta
G. Ramalingam
Mooly Sagiv
Media Attached
Compositional Certified Resource Bounds
Research Papers
Quentin Carbonneaux
Jan Hoffmann
Zhong Shao
Link to publication
Media Attached
Concurrency Debugging with Differential Schedule Projections
Research Papers
Nuno Machado
Brandon Lucia
Luís Rodrigues
Media Attached
DAG Inlining: A Decision Procedure for Reachability-Modulo-Theories in Hierarchical Programs
Research Papers
Akash Lal
Shaz Qadeer
Media Attached
File Attached
Declarative Programming over Eventually Consistent Data Stores
Research Papers
KC Sivaramakrishnan
Gowtham Kaki
Suresh Jagannathan
Media Attached
Defining the undefinedness of C
Research Papers
Chris Hathhorn
Chucky Ellison
Grigore Roşu
Media Attached
Diagnosing Type Errors with Class
Research Papers
Danfeng Zhang
Andrew Myers
Dimitrios Vytiniotis
Simon Peyton Jones
Media Attached
Dynamic Partial Order Reduction for Relaxed Memory Models
Research Papers
Naling Zhang
Markus Kusano
Chao Wang
Media Attached
Efficient Execution of Recursive Programs on Commodity Vector Hardware
Research Papers
Bin Ren
Youngjoon Jo
Sriram Krishnamoorthy
Kunal Agrawal
Milind Kulkarni
Media Attached
Efficient Synthesis of Network Updates
Research Papers
Jedidiah McClurg
Hossein Hojjat
Pavol Cerny
Nate Foster
Pre-print
Media Attached
Efficient Synthesis of Probabilistic Programs
Research Papers
Aditya Nori
Sherjil Ozair
Sriram Rajamani
Deepak Vijaykeerthy
Media Attached
Exploring and Enforcing Security Guarantees via Program Dependence Graphs
Research Papers
Andrew Johnson
Lucas Waye
Scott Moore
Stephen Chong
Media Attached
Finding Counterexamples from Parsing Conflicts
Research Papers
Chinawat Isradisaikul
Andrew Myers
Media Attached
FlashRelate: Extracting Relational Data from Semi-Structured Spreadsheets Using Examples
Research Papers
Dan Barowy
Sumit Gulwani
Ted Hart
Benjamin Zorn
Media Attached
Helium: Lifting High-Performance Stencil Kernels from Stripped x86 Binaries to Halide DSL Code
Research Papers
Charith Mendis
Jeffrey Bosboom
Kevin Wu
Shoaib Kamil
Jonathan Ragan-Kelley
Sylvain Paris
Qin Zhao
Saman Amarasinghe
Media Attached
Improving Compiler Scalability: Optimizing Large Programs at Small Price
Research Papers
Sanyam Mehta
Pen-Chung Yew
Media Attached
Interactive Parser Synthesis by Example
Research Papers
Alan Leung
John Sarracino
Sorin Lerner
Media Attached
KJS: A Complete Formal Semantics of JavaScript
Research Papers
Daejun Park
Andrei Stefanescu
Grigore Roşu
Media Attached
LaminarIR: Compile-Time Queues for Structured Streams
Research Papers
Yousun Ko
Bernd Burgstaller
Bernhard Scholz
Media Attached
Light: Replay via Tightly Bounded Recording
Research Papers
Peng Liu
Xiangyu Zhang
Omer Tripp
Yunhui Zheng
Media Attached
Lightweight, Flexible Object-Oriented Generics
Research Papers
Yizhou Zhang
Andrew Myers
Barbara Liskov
Guido Salvaneschi
Matt Loring
Media Attached
Loop and Data Transformations for Sparse Matrix Code
Research Papers
Anand Venkat
Mary Hall
Michelle Strout
Media Attached
Making Numerical Program Analysis Fast
Research Papers
Gagandeep Singh
Markus Püschel
Martin Vechev
Media Attached
Many-Core Compiler Fuzzing
Research Papers
Nathan Chong
Alastair F. Donaldson
Andrei Lascu
Christopher Lidbury
Media Attached
Mechanized Verification of Fine-grained Concurrent Programs
Research Papers
Ilya Sergey
Aleksandar Nanevski
Anindya Banerjee
Link to publication
Media Attached
Monitoring Refinement via Symbolic Reasoning
Research Papers
Michael Emmi
Constantin Enea
Jad Hamza
Media Attached
One Minute Madness
Research Papers
Opening and Welcome
Research Papers
Steve Blackburn
David Grove
Optimizing Off-Chip Accesses in Multicores
Research Papers
Wei Ding
Xulong Tang
Mahmut Taylan Kandemir
Yuanrui Zhang
Emre Kultursay
Media Attached
Peer-to-peer Affine Commitment using Bitcoin
Research Papers
Karl Crary
Michael J. Sullivan
Media Attached
PLDI Banquet
Research Papers
PLDI Chairs' Report
Research Papers
David Grove
Steve Blackburn
Eric Eide
John Regehr
File Attached
Preventing Glitches and Short Circuits in High-Level Self-Timed Chip Specifications
Research Papers
Stephen Longfield
Brittany Nkounkou
Rajit Manohar
Ross Tate
Media Attached
Profile-Guided Meta-Programming
Research Papers
William J. Bowman
Swaha Miller
Vincent St-Amour
R. Kent Dybvig
Link to publication
Media Attached
Provably Correct Peephole Optimizations with Alive
Research Papers
Nuno P. Lopes
David Menendez
Santosh Nagarakatte
John Regehr
Pre-print
Media Attached
Relatively Complete Counterexamples for Higher-Order Programs
Research Papers
Phúc C. Nguyễn
David Van Horn
Media Attached
Relaxing Safely: Verified On-the-Fly Garbage Collection for x86-TSO
Research Papers
Peter Gammie
Tony Hosking
Kai Engelhardt
Link to publication
Media Attached
SIGPLAN Awards Luncheon
Research Papers
Jan Vitek
Stateless Model Checking Concurrent Programs with Maximal Causality Reduction
Research Papers
Jeff Huang
Media Attached
Synthesis of Machine Code from Semantics
Research Papers
Venkatesh Srinivasan
Thomas Reps
Media Attached
Synthesis of ranking functions using extremal counterexamples
Research Papers
Laure Gonnord
David Monniaux
Gabriel Radanne
Media Attached
Synthesizing Data Structure Transformations from Input-Output Examples
Research Papers
Jack Feser
Swarat Chaudhuri
Işıl Dillig
Media Attached
Synthesizing Parallel Graph Programs via Automated Planning
Research Papers
Dimitrios Prountzos
Roman Manevich
Keshav Pingali
Media Attached
Synthesizing racy tests
Research Papers
Malavika Samak
Murali Krishna Ramanathan
Suresh Jagannathan
Media Attached
Termination and Non-Termination Specification Inference
Research Papers
Ton Chanh Le
Shengchao Qin
Wei-Ngan Chin
Media Attached
The Push/Pull model of transactions
Research Papers
Eric Koskinen
Matthew J. Parkinson
Media Attached
Tree Dependence Analysis
Research Papers
Yusheng Weijiang
Shruthi Balakrishna
Jianqiao Liu
Milind Kulkarni
Media Attached
Type-and-Example-Directed Program Synthesis
Research Papers
Peter-Michael Osera
Steve Zdancewic
Media Attached
Verdi: A Framework for Formally Verifying Distributed System Implementations
Research Papers
James R. Wilcox
Doug Woos
Pavel Panchekha
Zachary Tatlock
Xi Wang
Michael D. Ernst
Thomas Anderson
Media Attached
Verification of a Cryptographic Primitive: SHA-256
Research Papers
A:
Andrew W. Appel
Verification of Producer-Consumer Synchronization in GPU Programs
Research Papers
Rahul Sharma
Michael Bauer
Alex Aiken
Media Attached
Verifying Read-Copy-Update in a Logic for Weak Memory
Research Papers
Joseph Tassarotti
Derek Dreyer
Viktor Vafeiadis
Media Attached
Welcome Reception and Poster Session
Research Papers
Zero-Overhead Metaprogramming: Reflection and Metaobject Protocols Fast and without Compromises
Research Papers
Stefan Marr
Chris Seaton
Stéphane Ducasse
Media Attached
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.
Proceedings
The full PLDI 2015 proceedings are freely available via ACM OpenTOC at
Instructions For Accepted Papers
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:
Mark Hill
Jennifer Widom
Jonathan Shewchuk
Nick Nethercote
Mike Dahlin
Emily Lakdawalla
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:
Linux:
Freeseer
, and a recent list of
editing software
, which concludes that
blender
’s video editing
features
may be the best option.
Mac OS X: use QuickTime’s
built-in
recording feature or
Camtasia
Windows: from
PowerPoint
(note that this technique does not work for MacOS PowerPoint), or
Camtasia
There’s lots of advice online on how to create a good video abstract. Here’s a sample:
How to make a good video abstract
Make a video abstract for your research
Coming soon to a journal near you: video abstracts
Don’t be shy, create a video abstract
Create a video abstract
How to create a video abstract (youtube)
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.
FAQ on Double Blind Reviewing
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.
Instructions for Authors
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
Surveys
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)
Program Committee
Steve Blackburn
Program Chair
Australian National University
Australia
David Bacon
Google
Sara Baghsorkhi
Intel Labs
Michela Becchi
University of Missouri
Eric Bodden
Fraunhofer SIT and TU Darmstadt
Mila
Dalla Preda
University of Verona, Italy
Lieven Eeckhout
Ghent University, Belgium
Alexandra (Sasha)
Fedorova
Simon Fraser University
Robert Bruce
Findler
Northwestern University
United States
Kathleen Fisher
Tufts University
Nate Foster
Cornell University
Ben Hardekopf
UC Santa Barbara
Matthias Hauswirth
University of Lugano
Shan Lu
University of Chicago
Kathryn S
McKinley
Microsoft Research
Ana Milanova
Rensselaer Polytechnic Institute
Santosh Nagarakatte
Rutgers University
Toshio Nakatani
IBM Research, Tokyo
Erez Petrank
Technion
Ruzica Piskac
Yale University
John Regehr
University of Utah
Tiark Rompf
Purdue & Oracle Labs
Manu Sridharan
Samsung Research America
Guy L.
Steele Jr.
Oracle Labs
Michelle Strout
Colorado State University
Lingjia Tang
University of Michigan
Sam Tobin-Hochstadt
Indiana University
Tayssir Touili
CNRS, Paris, France
Peng Wu
Huawei America Lab
Harry Xu
University of California, Irvine
United States
Greta Yorsh
Queen Mary University of London
Zheng Zhang
Rutgers University
External Review Committee
Eddie Aftandilian
Google
Jade Alglave
University College London
France
Saman Amarasinghe
MIT
Emery D.
Berger
University of Massachusetts, Amherst
United States
Rastislav Bodík
UC Berkeley
Hans-J. Boehm
Google
CF Bolz-Tereick
King's College London
Michael D.
Bond
Ohio State University
Michael Burke
Rice University
Martin Burtscher
Texas State University
Calin Cascaval
Qualcomm Research
John Cavazos
University of Delaware
Bor-Yuh Evan
Chang
University of Colorado Boulder
Swarat Chaudhuri
Rice University
Haibo Chen
Shanghai Jiao Tong University
Wenguang Chen
Tsinghua University
Perry Cheng
IBM Research
Yifeng Cheng
Peking University
Albert Cohen
INRIA
Byron Cook
Microsoft Research
William Cook
† 2021
UT Austin
Saumya Debray
University of Arizona
Brian Demsky
University of California, Irvine
Joseph Devietti
University of Pennsylvania
Dave Dice
Oracle Labs
Işıl Dillig
University of Texas, Austin
Thomas Dillig
University of Texas, Austin
Chen Ding
University of Rochester
United States
Amer Diwan
Google
Derek Dreyer
MPI-SWS
Sophia Drossopoulou
Imperial College London
United Kingdom
Susan Eisenbach
Imperial College London
Xiaobing Feng
ICT CAS
Stephen J
Fink
IBM
Cormac Flanagan
UC Santa Cruz
Matthew Flatt
University of Utah
Daniel Frampton
Microsoft
Stephen N.
Freund
Williams College
Patrice Godefroid
Microsoft Research
Ganesh Gopalakrishnan
University of Utah
R. Govindarajan
Korea Advanced Institute of Science and Technology
Thomas Gross
ETH Zurich
Dan Grossman
University of Washington
Sumit Gulwani
Microsoft Research
Rajiv Gupta
UC Riverside
Sam Guyer
Tufts University
Jungwoo Ha
Google
Mary Hall
University of Utah
Matthew Hammer
University of Colorado, Boulder
United States
Stefan Hanenberg
University of Duisburg-Essen
Germany
Tim Harris
Oracle Labs
Michael Hind
IBM Research
Martin Hirzel
IBM Research
Tony Hosking
Australian National University, Data61, and Purdue University
Australia
Hiroshi Inoue
IBM Research - Tokyo
Japan
Suresh Jagannathan
Purdue University
Somesh Jha
University of Wisconsin, Madison
Ranjit Jhala
University of California, San Diego
Pramod Joisha
Hewlett-Packard
Richard Jones
University of Kent
Jaakko Järvi
Texas A&M University
Mahmut Taylan
Kandemir
Pennsylvania State University
Paul H J
Kelly
Imperial College London
Andrew Kennedy
Microsoft Research
Milind Kulkarni
Purdue University
Doug Lea
State University of New York (SUNY) Oswego
Sorin Lerner
University of California, San Diego
Ondřej Lhoták
University of Waterloo
Ben Liblit
University of Wisconsin–Madison
Ben Livshits
Microsoft Research
P. Madhusudan
University of Illinois at Urbana-Champaign
Simon Marlow
Vijay Menon
Google
Leo Meyerovich
Graphistry
Eliot Moss
University of Massachusetts Amherst
United States
Todd Mytkowicz
Microsoft Research
Anders Møller
Aarhus University
Satish Narayanasamy
University of Michigan
Rupesh Nasre
IIT Madras, India
Iulian Neamtiu
University of California, Riverside
United States
James Noble
Victoria University of Wellington
Michael Norrish
NICTA
Australia
Nate Nystrom
University of Lugano
Robert O'Callahan
Mozilla Corporation
Rei Odaira
IBM Research - Tokyo
Guilherme Ottoni
David Padua
University of Illinois at Urbana-Champaign
Jens Palsberg
University of California, Los Angeles
Mathias Payer
Purdue University
Liechtenstein
Keshav Pingali
University of Texas, Austin
Alex Potanin
Victoria University of Wellington
New Zealand
Shaz Qadeer
Microsoft Research
Xiaokang Qiu
MIT
Lawrence Rauchwerger
Texas A&M University
Behnam Robatmili
Qualcomm Research
Atanas Rountev
Ohio State University
Vijay Saraswat
IBM TJ Watson Research Center
Susmit Sarkar
University of St Andrews
Jennifer B.
Sartor
Ghent University
Koushik Sen
University of California, Berkeley
Peter Sewell
University of Cambridge
Xipeng Shen
North Carolina State University
United States
Tatiana Shpeisman
Intel Labs
Jeremy G.
Siek
Indiana University
Jeremy Singer
University of Glasgow
Yannis Smaragdakis
University of Athens
Armando Solar-Lezama
MIT
United States
Matthew Sottile
Galois, Inc.
Michael Spear
Lehigh University
Bjarne Steensgaard
Microsoft
Zhendong Su
University of California, Davis
United States
Peter Sweeney
IBM Research
Frank Tip
Samsung Research America
United States
Laurence Tratt
King's College London
Mandana Vaziri
IBM Research
Martin Vechev
ETH Zurich
T. N.
Vijaykumar
Purdue University
Christian Wimmer
Oracle Labs
Tobias Wrigstad
Uppsala University
Thomas Wuerthinger
Oracle Labs
Jingling Xue
UNSW Australia
Eran Yahav
Technion
Fri 24 Apr 22:45