SPLASH 2016 - OOPSLA - SPLASH 2016

SPLASH 2016 - OOPSLA - SPLASH 2016
Blogs (9) >>
SPLASH 2016
Sun 30 October - Fri 4 November 2016
Amsterdam, Netherlands
Attending
Restaurant: Fifteen
Venue: Mövenpick Hotel Amsterdam City Centre
Venue: Banquet at Beurs van Berlage
About
Travel
Visas
Amsterdam
Maps
Downloads
Anti-Harassment Policy
Registration
Students
Mobile App
Support Program
Supporters
Program
SPLASH Program
Your Program
Program Overview
Confero Mobile App
SPLASH 2016 Proceedings
Sun 30 Oct
Mon 31 Oct
Tue 1 Nov
Wed 2 Nov
Thu 3 Nov
Fri 4 Nov
Tracks
SPLASH 2016
Keynotes and Awards
OOPSLA
OOPSLA Artifacts
SPLASH-I
SPLASH-E
Doctoral Symposium
Posters
Student Research Competition
PLMW
Workshops
Social Program
Student Volunteers
ORG
Co-hosted Conferences
GPCE
Onward!
Onward!
Onward!
Essays
Onward!
Papers
SLE
Workshops
AGERE
DSLDI
DSM
FOSD
ITSLE
LWC@SLE
META
Mobile!
NOOL
Parsing@SLE
PLATEAU
REBLS
RUMPLE
SA-MDE
SEPS
VMIL
WODA
Co-hosted Symposia
DLS
Scala
Organization
SPLASH 2016 Committees
Organizing Committee
Sponsorship Committee
Steering Committee
Track Committees
OOPSLA
External Program Committee
Program Committee
OOPSLA Artifacts
SPLASH-I
SPLASH-E
Program Committee
Steering Committee
Doctoral Symposium
Posters
Organizing Committee
Program Committee
Student Research Competition
PLMW
Workshops
Organizing Committee
Program Committee
Contributors
People Index
Co-hosted Conferences
GPCE
Organizing Committee
Keynote Speaker
Program Committee
Onward!
Organizing Committee
Steering Committee
Onward! Essays
Onward! Papers
SLE
Keynote Speaker
Organizing Committee
Artifact Evaluation Committee
Program Committee
Workshops
AGERE
Organizing Committee
Program Committee
DSLDI
Organizing Committee
Program Committee
DSM
Organizing Committee
Program Committee
FOSD
Organizing Committee
Program Committee
Steering Committee
ITSLE
Organizing Committee
Program Committee
LWC@SLE
Organizing Committee
Program Committee
META
Keynote
Organizing Committee
Program Committee
Mobile!
Organizing Committee
Program Committee
Steering Committee
NOOL
Organizing Committee
Program Committee
Parsing@SLE
Organizing Committee
PLATEAU
Organizing Committee
Program Committee
REBLS
Organizing Committee
Program Committee
RUMPLE
Organizing Committee
Program Committee
SA-MDE
Organizing Committee
SEPS
Organizing Committee
Program Committee
VMIL
Organizing Committee
Program Committee
Steering Committee
WODA
Organizing Committee
Co-hosted Symposia
DLS
Program Committee
Steering Committee
Scala
Keynote Speakers
Program Committee
Organizing Committee
Series
Series
SPLASH 2026
SPLASH 2025
SPLASH 2024
SPLASH 2023
SPLASH 2022
SPLASH 2021
SPLASH 2020
SPLASH 2019
SPLASH 2018
SPLASH 2017
SPLASH 2016
SPLASH 2015
SPLASH 2014
SPLASH 2013
SPLASH 2012
SPLASH 2011
SPLASH 2010
OOPSLA 2009
OOPSLA 2008
OOPSLA 2007
OOPSLA 2006
OOPSLA 2005
OOPSLA 2004
OOPSLA 2003
OOPSLA 2002
OOPSLA 2001
OOPSLA 2000
SPLASH 2016
series
) /
OOPSLA
SPLASH 2016
About
Program
Accepted Papers
FAQ on Double Blind Reviewing
Instructions for Authors
Call for Papers
OOPSLA seeks outstanding contributions on all aspects of programming languages and software engineering.
Papers may target any stage of software development, including requirements, modeling, prototyping, design, implementation, generation, analysis, verification, testing, evaluation, maintenance, and reuse of software systems. Contributions may include the development of new tools (such as language front-ends, program analyses, and runtime systems), new techniques (such as methodologies, design processes, and code organization approaches), new principles (such as formalisms, proofs, models, and paradigms), and new evaluations (such as experiments, corpora analyses, user studies, and surveys).
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
Wed 2 Nov
Displayed time zone:
Amsterdam, Berlin, Bern, Rome, Stockholm, Vienna
change
10:30 - 12:10
Optimization and Performance
OOPSLA
at
Matterhorn 1
Chair(s):
Jan Vitek
Northeastern University
10:30
25m
Talk
A Compiler for Throughput Optimization of Graph Algorithms on GPUs
OOPSLA
Sreepathi Pai
University of Texas at Austin, USA
Keshav Pingali
University of Texas at Austin, USA
DOI
Pre-print
10:55
25m
Talk
Automatic Parallelization of Pure Method Calls via Conditional Future Synthesis
OOPSLA
Rishi Surendran
Rice University, USA
Vivek Sarkar
Rice University, USA
DOI
11:20
25m
Talk
Portable Inter-workgroup Barrier Synchronisation for GPUs
OOPSLA
Tyler Sorensen
Imperial College London
Alastair F. Donaldson
Imperial College London
Mark Batty
University of Kent
Ganesh Gopalakrishnan
University of Utah
Zvonimir Rakamaric
University of Utah
DOI
Pre-print
11:45
25m
Talk
Parallel Incremental Whole-Program Optimizations for Scala.js
OOPSLA
Sébastien Doeraene
EPFL, Switzerland
Tobias Schlatter
EPFL, Switzerland
DOI
Pre-print
10:30 - 12:10
Semantics and Verification
OOPSLA
at
Matterhorn 2
Chair(s):
Jonathan Aldrich
Carnegie Mellon University
10:30
25m
Talk
Semantics-Based Program Verifiers for All Languages
OOPSLA
Andrei Stefanescu
University of Illinois at Urbana-Champaign
Daejun Park
University of Illinois at Urbana-Champaign
Shijiao Yuwen
University of Illinois at Urbana-Champaign
Yilong Li
Runtime Verification, Inc.
Grigore Roşu
University of Illinois at Urbana-Champaign
DOI
Media Attached
10:55
25m
Talk
Hoare-Style Specifications as Correctness Conditions for Non-linearizable Concurrent Objects
OOPSLA
Ilya Sergey
University College London
Aleksandar Nanevski
IMDEA Software Institute
Anindya Banerjee
IMDEA Software Institute
Germán Andrés Delbianco
IMDEA Software Institute
DOI
Pre-print
Media Attached
File Attached
11:20
25m
Talk
An Operational Semantics for C/C++11 Concurrency
OOPSLA
Kyndylan Nienhuis
University of Cambridge
Kayvan Memarian
University of Cambridge
Peter Sewell
University of Cambridge
DOI
11:45
25m
Talk
Modeling and Analysis of Remote Memory Access Programming
OOPSLA
Andrei Marian Dan
ETH Zurich
Patrick Lam
University of Waterloo, Canada
Torsten Hoefler
ETH Zurich
Martin Vechev
ETH Zurich
DOI
Pre-print
Media Attached
13:30 - 15:10
Language Design and Programming Models I
OOPSLA
at
Matterhorn 1
Chair(s):
Roberto Ierusalimschy
PUC-Rio
13:30
25m
Talk
Extensible Access Control with Authorization Contracts
OOPSLA
Scott Moore
Harvard University
Christos Dimoulas
Harvard University
Robert Bruce Findler
Northwestern University
Matthew Flatt
University of Utah
Stephen Chong
Harvard University
DOI
13:55
25m
Talk
Gentrification Gone too Far? Affordable 2nd-Class Values for Fun and (Co-)Effect
OOPSLA
Leo Osvald
Gregory Essertel
Xilun Wu
Purdue University
Lilliam I Gonzalez Alayon
Purdue University
Tiark Rompf
Purdue University, USA
DOI
14:20
25m
Talk
Incremental Forest: A DSL for Efficiently Managing Filestores
OOPSLA
Jonathan DiLorenzo
Cornell University
Richard Zhang
University of Pennsylvania
Erin Menzies
Kathleen Fisher
Tufts University
Nate Foster
Cornell University
DOI
14:45
25m
Talk
LaCasa: Lightweight Affinity and Object Capabilities in Scala
OOPSLA
Philipp Haller
KTH Royal Institute of Technology
Alex Loiko
Google Stockholm, Sweden
DOI
Pre-print
13:30 - 15:10
Program Synthesis
OOPSLA
at
Matterhorn 2
Chair(s):
Martin Odersky
EPFL, Switzerland
13:30
25m
Talk
Deriving Divide-and-Conquer Dynamic Programming Algorithms using Solver-Aided Transformations
OOPSLA
Shachar Itzhaky
MIT CSAIL
Rohit Singh
MIT
Rezaul Chowdhury
Stony Brook University
Kuat Yessenov
MIT
Yongquan Lu
MIT
Charles E. Leiserson
MIT
Armando Solar-Lezama
MIT CSAIL
DOI
Pre-print
Media Attached
13:55
25m
Talk
Speeding Up Machine-Code Synthesis
OOPSLA
Venkatesh Srinivasan
University of Wisconsin - Madison
Tushar Sharma
University of Wisconsin - Madison, USA
Thomas Reps
University of Wisconsin - Madison and Grammatech Inc.
DOI
Pre-print
Media Attached
14:20
25m
Talk
Automated Reasoning for Web Page Layout
OOPSLA
Pavel Panchekha
University of Washington
Emina Torlak
University of Washington
DOI
Media Attached
14:45
25m
Talk
FIDEX: Filtering Spreadsheet Data using Examples
OOPSLA
Xinyu Wang
UT Austin
Sumit Gulwani
Microsoft Research
Rishabh Singh
Microsoft Research
DOI
Media Attached
15:40 - 17:20
Static Analysis
OOPSLA
at
Matterhorn 1
Chair(s):
Sam Guyer
Tufts University
15:40
25m
Talk
Accelerating Program Analyses by Cross-Program Training
OOPSLA
Sulekha Kulkarni
Georgia Tech
Ravi Mangal
Georgia Institute of Technology
Xin Zhang
Georgia Tech
Mayur Naik
Georgia Tech
DOI
16:05
25m
Talk
An Improved Algorithm for Slicing Machine Code
OOPSLA
Venkatesh Srinivasan
University of Wisconsin - Madison
Thomas Reps
University of Wisconsin - Madison and Grammatech Inc.
DOI
Pre-print
16:30
25m
Talk
Call Graphs for Languages with Parametric Polymorphism
OOPSLA
Dmytro Petrashko
EPFL
Vlad Ureche
EPFL, Switzerland
Ondřej Lhoták
University of Waterloo
Martin Odersky
EPFL, Switzerland
DOI
16:55
25m
Talk
Type Inference for Static Compilation of JavaScript
OOPSLA
Satish Chandra
Samsung Research America
Colin Gordon
Drexel University
Jean-Baptiste Jeannin
Carnegie Mellon University
Cole Schlesinger
Samsung Research America
Manu Sridharan
Samsung Research America
Frank Tip
Samsung Research America
Young-il Choi
Samsung Electronics
DOI
Pre-print
15:40 - 17:20
Programming Frameworks, Tools, and Methodologies
OOPSLA
at
Matterhorn 2
Chair(s):
Emerson Murphy-Hill
Google
15:40
25m
Talk
Purposes, Concepts, Misfits, and a Redesign of Git
OOPSLA
Santiago Perez De Rosso
MIT CSAIL
Daniel Jackson
MIT
DOI
Pre-print
Media Attached
16:05
25m
Talk
Apex: Automatic Programming Assignment Error Explanation
OOPSLA
Dohyeong Kim
Purdue University
Yonghwi Kwon
Purdue University
Peng Liu
Purdue University
I Luk Kim
Purdue University
David Mitchel Perry
Purdue University
Xiangyu Zhang
Purdue University
Gustavo Rodriguez-Rivera
Purdue University
DOI
Media Attached
16:30
25m
Talk
Asserting Reliable Convergence for Configuration Management Scripts
OOPSLA
Oliver Hanappi
Vienna University of Technology
Waldemar Hummer
Vienna University of Technology
Schahram Dustdar
TU Wien
DOI
16:55
25m
Talk
Dependent Partitioning
OOPSLA
Sean Treichler
Stanford University
Michael Bauer
NVIDIA Research
Rahul Sharma
Microsoft Research
Elliott Slaughter
Alex Aiken
Stanford University
DOI
Media Attached
Thu 3 Nov
Displayed time zone:
Amsterdam, Berlin, Bern, Rome, Stockholm, Vienna
change
10:30 - 12:10
Concurrency Analysis and Model Checking
OOPSLA
at
Matterhorn 1
Chair(s):
Thomas Gross
ETH Zurich
10:30
25m
Talk
Directed Synthesis of Failing Concurrent Executions
OOPSLA
Malavika Samak
Indian Institute of Science, Bangalore
Omer Tripp
IBM Research, USA
Murali Krishna Ramanathan
Indian Institute of Science, Bangalore
DOI
Media Attached
10:55
25m
Talk
Maximal Causality Reduction for TSO and PSO
OOPSLA
Shiyou Huang
Texas A&M University
Jeff Huang
Texas A&M University
DOI
11:20
25m
Talk
Stateless Model Checking with Data-Race Preemption Points
OOPSLA
Ben Blum
Carnegie Mellon University
Garth Gibson
Carnegie Mellon University
DOI
Pre-print
Media Attached
11:45
25m
Talk
Precise and Maximal Race Detection from Incomplete Traces
OOPSLA
Jeff Huang
Texas A&M University
Arun Krishnakumar Rajagopalan
Texas A&M University
DOI
Media Attached
10:30 - 12:10
Language Design and Programming Models II
OOPSLA
at
Matterhorn 2
Chair(s):
Olivier Tardieu
IBM Research
10:30
25m
Talk
Automatic Enforcement of Expressive Security Policies using Enclaves
OOPSLA
Anitha Gollamudi
Stephen Chong
Harvard University
DOI
10:55
25m
Talk
Chain: Tasks and Channels for Reliable Intermittent Programs
OOPSLA
Alexei Colin
Carnegie Mellon University
Brandon Lucia
Carnegie Mellon University
DOI
Pre-print
11:20
25m
Talk
GEMs: Shared-Memory Parallel Programming for Node.js
OOPSLA
Daniele Bonetta
Oracle Labs
Luca Salucci
Università della Svizzera italiana (USI)
Stefan Marr
Johannes Kepler University Linz
Walter Binder
University of Lugano
DOI
11:45
25m
Talk
OrcO: A Concurrency-First Approach to Objects
OOPSLA
Arthur Michener Peters
The University of Texas at Austin, Texas, USA
David Kitchin
Google, Inc.
John A. Thywissen
The University of Texas at Austin
William Cook
UT Austin
DOI
Pre-print
13:30 - 15:10
Runtime Support
OOPSLA
at
Matterhorn 1
Chair(s):
Laurence Tratt
King's College London
13:30
25m
Talk
Efficient and Thread-Safe Objects for Dynamically-Typed Languages
OOPSLA
Benoit Daloze
JKU Linz, Austria
Stefan Marr
Johannes Kepler University Linz
Daniele Bonetta
Oracle Labs
Hanspeter Mössenböck
JKU Linz, Austria
DOI
Pre-print
Media Attached
13:55
25m
Talk
Hybrid STM/HTM for Nested Transactions on OpenJDK
OOPSLA
Keith Chapman
Purdue University
Tony Hosking
Australian National University, Data61, and Purdue University
Eliot Moss
University of Massachusetts Amherst
Link to publication
DOI
Pre-print
Media Attached
14:20
25m
Talk
Makalu: Fast Recoverable Allocation of Non-volatile Memory
OOPSLA
Kumud Bhandari
Rice University, USA
Dhruva Chakrabarti
Hans-J. Boehm
Google
DOI
Pre-print
Media Attached
14:45
25m
Talk
Prioritized Garbage Collection: Explicit GC Support for Software Caches
OOPSLA
Diogenes Nunez
Tufts University
Sam Guyer
Tufts University
Emery D. Berger
University of Massachusetts, Amherst
DOI
Pre-print
Media Attached
13:30 - 15:10
Principles, Across the Compilation Stack
OOPSLA
at
Matterhorn 2
Chair(s):
Adam Chlipala
MIT CSAIL
13:30
25m
Talk
Semantic Subtyping for Imperative Object-Oriented Languages
OOPSLA
Davide Ancona
University of Genova
Andrea Corradi
DOI
13:55
25m
Talk
Parsing with First-Class Derivatives
OOPSLA
Jonathan Immanuel Brachthäuser
University of Tübingen, Germany
Tillmann Rendel
University of Tübingen, Germany
Klaus Ostermann
University of Tübingen, Germany
DOI
14:20
25m
Talk
The Missing Link: Explaining ELF Static Linking, Semantically
OOPSLA
Stephen Kell
University of Cambridge
Dominic P. Mulligan
University of Cambridge
Peter Sewell
University of Cambridge
DOI
14:45
25m
Talk
Type Soundness for Dependent Object Types (DOT)
OOPSLA
Tiark Rompf
Purdue University, USA
Nada Amin
EPFL
DOI
Pre-print
15:40 - 17:20
Program Modeling and Learning
OOPSLA
at
Matterhorn 1
Chair(s):
Ondřej Lhoták
University of Waterloo
15:40
25m
Talk
Computing Repair Alternatives for Malformed Programs using Constraint Attribute Grammars
OOPSLA
Friedrich Steimann
Fernuniversität
Jörg Hagemann
Fernuniversität in Hagen
Bastian Ulke
Fernuniversität in Hagen
DOI
Media Attached
16:05
25m
Talk
Probabilistic Model for Code with Decision Trees
OOPSLA
Veselin Raychev
ETH Zurich, Switzerland
Pavol Bielik
Martin Vechev
ETH Zurich
DOI
16:30
25m
Talk
Ringer: Web Automation by Demonstration
OOPSLA
Shaon Barman
UC Berkeley
Sarah E. Chasins
University of California, Berkeley
Rastislav Bodík
University of Washington, USA
Sumit Gulwani
Microsoft Research
DOI
Media Attached
16:55
25m
Talk
Scalable Verification of Border Gateway Protocol Configurations with an SMT Solver
OOPSLA
Konstantin Weitz
University of Washington
Doug Woos
University of Washington
Emina Torlak
University of Washington
Michael D. Ernst
University of Washington
Arvind Krishnamurthy
University of Washington
Zachary Tatlock
University of Washington, Seattle
DOI
Media Attached
Fri 4 Nov
Displayed time zone:
Amsterdam, Berlin, Bern, Rome, Stockholm, Vienna
change
10:30 - 12:10
Typing, in Practice
OOPSLA
at
Matterhorn 1
Chair(s):
Sebastian Erdweg
Delft University of Technology, Netherlands
10:30
25m
Talk
A Practical Framework for Type Inference Error Explanation
OOPSLA
Calvin Loncaric
University of Washington
Satish Chandra
Samsung Research America
Manu Sridharan
Samsung Research America
Cole Schlesinger
Samsung Research America
DOI
Pre-print
Media Attached
10:55
25m
Talk
Dynamically Diagnosing Type Errors in Unsafe Code
OOPSLA
Stephen Kell
University of Cambridge
DOI
Media Attached
11:20
25m
Talk
First-Class Effect Reflection for Effect-Guided Programming
OOPSLA
Yuheng Long
Iowa State University
Yu David Liu
Hridesh Rajan
Iowa State University, USA
DOI
11:45
25m
Talk
Java and Scala's Type Systems are Unsound: The Existential Crisis of Null Pointers
OOPSLA
Nada Amin
EPFL
Ross Tate
Cornell University
Link to publication
DOI
Pre-print
13:30 - 15:10
Bug Detection Analysis and Model Checking
OOPSLA
at
Matterhorn 1
Chair(s):
Ben Livshits
Microsoft Research
13:30
25m
Talk
Finding Compiler Bugs via Live Code Mutation
OOPSLA
Chengnian Sun
University of California, Davis
Vu Le
Microsoft
Zhendong Su
University of California, Davis
DOI
Media Attached
13:55
25m
Talk
Finding Resume and Restart Errors in Android Applications
OOPSLA
Zhiyong Shan
University of Central Missouri, USA
Tanzirul Azim
University of California at Riverside, USA
Iulian Neamtiu
New Jersey Institute of Technology, USA
DOI
Pre-print
14:20
25m
Talk
Low-Overhead and Fully Automated Statistical Debugging with Abstraction Refinement
OOPSLA
Zhiqiang Zuo
University of California, Irvine
Lu Fang
University of California, Irvine
Siau-Cheng Khoo
Harry Xu
University of California, Irvine
Shan Lu
University of Chicago
DOI
Media Attached
14:45
25m
Talk
To Be Precise: Regression Aware Debugging
OOPSLA
Rohan Bavishi
IIT Kanpur, India
Awanish Pandey
IIT Kanpur, India
Subhajit Roy
IIT Kanpur, India
DOI
Accepted Papers
Title
Accelerating Program Analyses by Cross-Program Training
OOPSLA
Sulekha Kulkarni
Ravi Mangal
Xin Zhang
Mayur Naik
DOI
A Compiler for Throughput Optimization of Graph Algorithms on GPUs
OOPSLA
Sreepathi Pai
Keshav Pingali
DOI
Pre-print
An Improved Algorithm for Slicing Machine Code
OOPSLA
Venkatesh Srinivasan
Thomas Reps
DOI
Pre-print
An Operational Semantics for C/C++11 Concurrency
OOPSLA
Kyndylan Nienhuis
Kayvan Memarian
Peter Sewell
DOI
Apex: Automatic Programming Assignment Error Explanation
OOPSLA
Dohyeong Kim
Yonghwi Kwon
Peng Liu
I Luk Kim
David Mitchel Perry
Xiangyu Zhang
Gustavo Rodriguez-Rivera
DOI
Media Attached
A Practical Framework for Type Inference Error Explanation
OOPSLA
Calvin Loncaric
Satish Chandra
Manu Sridharan
Cole Schlesinger
DOI
Pre-print
Media Attached
Asserting Reliable Convergence for Configuration Management Scripts
OOPSLA
Oliver Hanappi
Waldemar Hummer
Schahram Dustdar
DOI
Automated Reasoning for Web Page Layout
OOPSLA
Pavel Panchekha
Emina Torlak
DOI
Media Attached
Automatic Enforcement of Expressive Security Policies using Enclaves
OOPSLA
Anitha Gollamudi
Stephen Chong
DOI
Automatic Parallelization of Pure Method Calls via Conditional Future Synthesis
OOPSLA
Rishi Surendran
Vivek Sarkar
DOI
Call Graphs for Languages with Parametric Polymorphism
OOPSLA
Dmytro Petrashko
Vlad Ureche
Ondřej Lhoták
Martin Odersky
DOI
Chain: Tasks and Channels for Reliable Intermittent Programs
OOPSLA
Alexei Colin
Brandon Lucia
DOI
Pre-print
Computing Repair Alternatives for Malformed Programs using Constraint Attribute Grammars
OOPSLA
Friedrich Steimann
Jörg Hagemann
Bastian Ulke
DOI
Media Attached
Dependent Partitioning
OOPSLA
Sean Treichler
Michael Bauer
Rahul Sharma
Elliott Slaughter
Alex Aiken
DOI
Media Attached
Deriving Divide-and-Conquer Dynamic Programming Algorithms using Solver-Aided Transformations
OOPSLA
Shachar Itzhaky
Rohit Singh
Rezaul Chowdhury
Kuat Yessenov
Yongquan Lu
Charles E. Leiserson
Armando Solar-Lezama
DOI
Pre-print
Media Attached
Directed Synthesis of Failing Concurrent Executions
OOPSLA
Malavika Samak
Omer Tripp
Murali Krishna Ramanathan
DOI
Media Attached
Dynamically Diagnosing Type Errors in Unsafe Code
OOPSLA
Stephen Kell
DOI
Media Attached
Efficient and Thread-Safe Objects for Dynamically-Typed Languages
OOPSLA
Benoit Daloze
Stefan Marr
Daniele Bonetta
Hanspeter Mössenböck
DOI
Pre-print
Media Attached
Extensible Access Control with Authorization Contracts
OOPSLA
Scott Moore
Christos Dimoulas
Robert Bruce Findler
Matthew Flatt
Stephen Chong
DOI
FIDEX: Filtering Spreadsheet Data using Examples
OOPSLA
Xinyu Wang
Sumit Gulwani
Rishabh Singh
DOI
Media Attached
Finding Compiler Bugs via Live Code Mutation
OOPSLA
Chengnian Sun
Vu Le
Zhendong Su
DOI
Media Attached
Finding Resume and Restart Errors in Android Applications
OOPSLA
Zhiyong Shan
Tanzirul Azim
Iulian Neamtiu
DOI
Pre-print
First-Class Effect Reflection for Effect-Guided Programming
OOPSLA
Yuheng Long
Yu David Liu
Hridesh Rajan
DOI
GEMs: Shared-Memory Parallel Programming for Node.js
OOPSLA
Daniele Bonetta
Luca Salucci
Stefan Marr
Walter Binder
DOI
Gentrification Gone too Far? Affordable 2nd-Class Values for Fun and (Co-)Effect
OOPSLA
Leo Osvald
Gregory Essertel
Xilun Wu
Lilliam I Gonzalez Alayon
Tiark Rompf
DOI
Hoare-Style Specifications as Correctness Conditions for Non-linearizable Concurrent Objects
OOPSLA
Ilya Sergey
Aleksandar Nanevski
Anindya Banerjee
Germán Andrés Delbianco
DOI
Pre-print
Media Attached
File Attached
Hybrid STM/HTM for Nested Transactions on OpenJDK
OOPSLA
Keith Chapman
Tony Hosking
Eliot Moss
Link to publication
DOI
Pre-print
Media Attached
Incremental Forest: A DSL for Efficiently Managing Filestores
OOPSLA
Jonathan DiLorenzo
Richard Zhang
Erin Menzies
Kathleen Fisher
Nate Foster
DOI
Java and Scala's Type Systems are Unsound: The Existential Crisis of Null Pointers
OOPSLA
Nada Amin
Ross Tate
Link to publication
DOI
Pre-print
LaCasa: Lightweight Affinity and Object Capabilities in Scala
OOPSLA
Philipp Haller
Alex Loiko
DOI
Pre-print
Low-Overhead and Fully Automated Statistical Debugging with Abstraction Refinement
OOPSLA
Zhiqiang Zuo
Lu Fang
Siau-Cheng Khoo
Harry Xu
Shan Lu
DOI
Media Attached
Makalu: Fast Recoverable Allocation of Non-volatile Memory
OOPSLA
Kumud Bhandari
Dhruva Chakrabarti
Hans-J. Boehm
DOI
Pre-print
Media Attached
Maximal Causality Reduction for TSO and PSO
OOPSLA
Shiyou Huang
Jeff Huang
DOI
Modeling and Analysis of Remote Memory Access Programming
OOPSLA
Andrei Marian Dan
Patrick Lam
Torsten Hoefler
Martin Vechev
DOI
Pre-print
Media Attached
OrcO: A Concurrency-First Approach to Objects
OOPSLA
Arthur Michener Peters
David Kitchin
John A. Thywissen
William Cook
DOI
Pre-print
Parallel Incremental Whole-Program Optimizations for Scala.js
OOPSLA
Sébastien Doeraene
Tobias Schlatter
DOI
Pre-print
Parsing with First-Class Derivatives
OOPSLA
Jonathan Immanuel Brachthäuser
Tillmann Rendel
Klaus Ostermann
DOI
Portable Inter-workgroup Barrier Synchronisation for GPUs
OOPSLA
Tyler Sorensen
Alastair F. Donaldson
Mark Batty
Ganesh Gopalakrishnan
Zvonimir Rakamaric
DOI
Pre-print
Precise and Maximal Race Detection from Incomplete Traces
OOPSLA
Jeff Huang
Arun Krishnakumar Rajagopalan
DOI
Media Attached
Prioritized Garbage Collection: Explicit GC Support for Software Caches
OOPSLA
Diogenes Nunez
Sam Guyer
Emery D. Berger
DOI
Pre-print
Media Attached
Probabilistic Model for Code with Decision Trees
OOPSLA
Veselin Raychev
Pavol Bielik
Martin Vechev
DOI
Purposes, Concepts, Misfits, and a Redesign of Git
OOPSLA
Santiago Perez De Rosso
Daniel Jackson
DOI
Pre-print
Media Attached
Ringer: Web Automation by Demonstration
OOPSLA
Shaon Barman
Sarah E. Chasins
Rastislav Bodík
Sumit Gulwani
DOI
Media Attached
Scalable Verification of Border Gateway Protocol Configurations with an SMT Solver
OOPSLA
Konstantin Weitz
Doug Woos
Emina Torlak
Michael D. Ernst
Arvind Krishnamurthy
Zachary Tatlock
DOI
Media Attached
Semantics-Based Program Verifiers for All Languages
OOPSLA
Andrei Stefanescu
Daejun Park
Shijiao Yuwen
Yilong Li
Grigore Roşu
DOI
Media Attached
Semantic Subtyping for Imperative Object-Oriented Languages
OOPSLA
Davide Ancona
Andrea Corradi
DOI
Speeding Up Machine-Code Synthesis
OOPSLA
Venkatesh Srinivasan
Tushar Sharma
Thomas Reps
DOI
Pre-print
Media Attached
Stateless Model Checking with Data-Race Preemption Points
OOPSLA
Ben Blum
Garth Gibson
DOI
Pre-print
Media Attached
The Missing Link: Explaining ELF Static Linking, Semantically
OOPSLA
Stephen Kell
Dominic P. Mulligan
Peter Sewell
DOI
To Be Precise: Regression Aware Debugging
OOPSLA
Rohan Bavishi
Awanish Pandey
Subhajit Roy
DOI
Type Inference for Static Compilation of JavaScript
OOPSLA
Satish Chandra
Colin Gordon
Jean-Baptiste Jeannin
Cole Schlesinger
Manu Sridharan
Frank Tip
Young-il Choi
DOI
Pre-print
Type Soundness for Dependent Object Types (DOT)
OOPSLA
Tiark Rompf
Nada Amin
DOI
Pre-print
Call for Papers
PAPER SELECTION
Selection Criteria
The program committee will consider the following criteria when evaluating submitted papers:
Novelty
: The paper presents new ideas and/or results and places these ideas and results appropriately within the context established by previous research in the field.
Importance
: The paper contributes significantly to the advancement of knowledge in the field. In addition to more traditional contributions, OOPSLA welcomes papers that diverge from the dominant trajectory of the field.
Evidence
: The paper presents sufficient evidence supporting its claims. Examples of evidence include proofs, implemented systems, experimental results, statistical analyses, case studies, and anecdotes.
Clarity
: The paper presents its contributions, methodology and results clearly.
Selection Process
Since 2013, OOPSLA has been following a two-phase review process, with the goal of improving the quality of accepted papers. The first reviewing phase assesses the papers using the criteria stated above. At the PC meeting a set of papers will be conditionally accepted and all other papers will be rejected.
Authors of conditionally accepted papers will be provided with the usual committee reviews along with a set of mandatory revisions. After approximately two months, the authors will provide a second submission. The second and final reviewing phase assesses how well the mandatory revisions have been performed by the authors and thereby determines the final accept/reject status of the paper. The intent and expectation is that the mandatory revisions can be adequately addressed within two months and hence that conditionally accepted papers will be accepted in the second phase.
The second submission should clearly identify how the mandatory revisions were addressed. To that end, the second submission must be accompanied by a cover letter mapping each mandatory revision request to specific parts of the paper. The absence of this cover letter is grounds for the paper’s rejection.
SUBMISSION
Details on formatting and other submission requirements can be found in the
Instructions for Authors
OOPSLA 2016 submissions must conform to both the ACM Policy on Prior Publication and Simultaneous Submissions and the SIGPLAN Re-publication Policy. In addition, OOPSLA 2016 is implementing a (lightweight)
double-blind submission process
(i.e., authors are anonymous at submission time, though their identity is known during committee deliberations).
Artifact Evaluation
Authors of papers that are conditionally accepted in the first phase will be invited to formally submit supporting materials to the
Artifact Evaluation
process. 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.
Authors of accepted papers are encouraged to make these materials publicly available upon publication of the proceedings, by including them as “source materials” in the ACM Digital Library.
Publication Caveats
Authors of accepted papers will be required to sign an ACM copyright release.
AUTHORS TAKE NOTE
: The official publication date is the date the proceedings are made available in the ACM Digital Library. This date may be up to two weeks prior to the first day of the conference. The official publication date affects the deadline for any patent filings related to published work.
More Information
For additional information, clarification, or answers to questions please contact the OOPSLA Chair (
Yannis Smaragdakis
) at
oopsla@splashcon.org
FAQ on Double Blind Reviewing
The following content is strongly based on Mike Hick’s guidelines for POPL 2012, and has been honed by a number of authors including Frank Tip, Keshav Pingali, Richard Jones, John Boyland, and Yannis Smaragdakis.
General
Q: Why are you using double-blind reviewing?
A: Our goal is to give each a reviewer an unbiased “first look” at each paper. Studies have shown that a reviewer’s attitude toward a submission may be affected, even unconsciously, by the identity of the author (see link below to more details). 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., PLDI, ASPLOS, SIGCOMM, OSDI, IEEE Security and Privacy, SIGMOD, ISMM).
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.
For those wanting more information, see the list of studies about gender bias in other fields and links to CS-related articles that cover this and other forms of bias below.
Q: Do you really think blinding actually works? I suspect reviewers can often guess who the authors are anyway.
A: Studies of blinding with the flavor we are using show that author identities remain unknown 53% to 79% of the time (see Snodgrass, linked below, for details). Moreover, about 5-10% of the time (again, see Snodgrass), a reviewer is certain of the authors, but then turns out to be at least partially mistaken. Mike Hicks’s survey of POPL’12 PC and ERC members showed that they were often mistaken or surprised by the author’s identity. So, while sometimes authorship can be guessed correctly, the question is, is imperfect blinding better than no blinding at all? If author names are not explicitly in front of the reviewer on the front page, does that help at all even for the remaining submissions where it would be possible to guess? Our conjecture is that on balance the answer is “yes”.
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: In the approach we are taking for OOPSLA, author names are revealed to reviewers after they have submitted their review and before final decisions are made. Therefore, a reviewer can correct their review if they indeed have penalized the authors inappropriately. Unblinding prior to (or at) the PC meeting also avoids abuses in which committee members end up advancing the cause of a paper with which they have a conflict.
For Authors
Q: What exactly do I have to do to anonymize my paper?
A: 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 main guidelines are simple: omit authors’ names from your title page (or list them as “omitted for submission”), 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: On the submission site there will be an option to submit supplementary material along with your main paper. This supplementary material need not be anonymized, although this is strongly encouraged. 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 and to make clear whether the supplementary material is anonymized or not. E.g., “The proof of Lemma 1 is included in the non-anonymous supplemental material submitted with this paper.”
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, or perhaps even avoid citing past work, so as to remove the implied connection between my authorship of past work on this system and my present submission?
A: No, you must not change the name and you should certainly cite your published past work! 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: Generally no, but the ideal course of action depends on the degree of similarity and on publication status. On one extreme, if your workshop paper is a publication (i.e., the workshop has published a proceedings, with your paper in it) and your current submission improves on that work, then you should cite the (non-anonymized) workshop paper as if it were written by someone else. On the other extreme, if your submission is effectively a longer, more complete version of an unpublished workshop paper (e.g., no formal proceedings), then you should include a (preferably anonymous) version of the workshop paper as supplementary material. 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 about your work (unless they are conflicted out anyway), or posting mail to a major mailing list (e.g., TYPES) or other publicity channel 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 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 OOPSLA is double-blind have an impact on handling conflicts-of interest? When I am asked by the submission system to identify conflicts of interest, what criteria should I use?
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.
As an author, you should list PC members (and any others, since others may be asked for outside reviewers) who you believe have a conflict with you.
For Reviewers
Q: What should I do if I if I learn the authors’ identity? What should I do if a prospective OOPSLA 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 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).
More information about bias in merit reviewing
Kathryn McKinley’s editorial
makes the case for double-blind reviewing from a computer science perspective. Her article cites
Richard Snodgrass’s SIGMOD record editorial
which collects many studies of the effects of potential bias in peer review.
Mike Hicks’s Chair’s Report
describes how POPL’12 used double-blind reviewing and analyzes its effectiveness.
Here are a few studies on the potential effects of bias manifesting in a merit review process, focusing on bias against women. (These were collected by David Wagner.)
There’s the
famous story of gender bias in orchestra try-outs
, where moving to blind auditions seems to have increased the hiring of female musicians by up to 33% or so. Today some orchestras even go so far as to ask musicians to remove their shoes (or roll out thick carpets) before auditioning, to try to prevent gender-revealing cues from the sound of the auditioner’s shoes.
One
study found bias in assessment of identical CVs but with names and genders changed
. In particular, the researchers mailed out c.v.’s for a faculty position, but randomly swapped the gender of the name on some of them. They found that both men and women reviewers ranked supposedly-male job applicants higher than supposedly-female applicants – even though the contents of the c.v. were identical. Presumably, none of the reviewers thought of themselves as biased, yet their evaluations in fact exhibited gender bias. (However: in contrast to the gender bias at hiring time, if the reviewers were instead asked to evaluate whether a candidate should be granted tenure, the big gender differences disappeared. For whatever that’s worth.)
The
Implicit Association Test
illustrates how factors can bias our decision-making, without us realising it. For instance, a large fraction of the population has a tendency to associate men with career (professional life) and women with family (home life), without realizing it. The claim is that we have certain gender stereotypes and schemas which unconsciously influence the way we think. The interesting thing about the IAT is that you can take it yourself. If you want to give it a try, select the Gender-Career IAT or the Gender-Science IAT from here. There’s evidence that these unconscious biases affect our behavior. For instance, one study of recommendation letters written for 300 applicants (looking only at the ones who were eventually hired) found that, when writing about men, letter-writers were more likely to highlight the applicant’s research and technical skills, while when writing about women, letter-writers were more likely to mention the applicant’s teaching and interpersonal skills.
This
study reports experience from an ecology journal that switched from non-blind to blind reviewing
. After the switch, they found a significant (~8%) increase in the acceptance rate for female-first-authored submissions. To put it another way, they saw a 33% increase in the fraction of published papers whose first author is female (28% -> 37%). Keep in mind that this is not a controlled experiment, so it proves correlation but not causation, and there appears to be controversy in the literature about the work. So it as at most a plausibility result that gender bias could be present in the sciences, but far from definitive.
Snodgrass’ studies includes some of these, and more.
Instructions for Authors
For fairness reasons, all submitted papers should conform to the formatting instructions. Submissions that violate these instructions may be rejected without review, at the discretion of the Program Chair.
Submission Site
Please take a moment to read the instructions below before using the
submission site
. Note that camera ready versions will be collected by Conference Publishing Consulting.
Double-Blind Submission
OOPSLA 2016 is using a
mandatory
double-blind submission process
Concurrent Submissions
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
Format
Submissions should use the
ACM SIGPLAN Conference Format
10 point font
, using the font family
Times New Roman
and
numeric
citation style. All submissions should be in PDF format. If you use LaTeX or Word, please use the ACM SIGPLAN Templates provided
here
, making sure to use 10 point fonts (e.g., for LaTeX, set the 10pt option in the \documentclass command). For other document preparation systems, please follow the
declarative description of the SIGPLAN formatting guidelines
, also applying the extra OOPSLA requirements (e.g., 10pt, Times New Roman, numeric citations).
Please include page numbers in your submission. Setting the preprint option in the LaTeX \documentclass command generates page numbers. Ensure that your submission is legible when printed on a black and white printer. In particular, please check that colors remain distinct and font sizes are legible.
For LaTeX, you can retrieve
modified SIGPLAN conference paper templates
that automatically enforce the above requirements, as well as double-blind submission, if you use the right flag (“1stsubmission”) on your paper’s header.
Page Limit
To ensure that papers stay focused on their core contributions, for the initial submission, the main part of the paper (excluding bibliographic references) should be no longer than 13 pages. There is no page limit for bibliographic references and appendices, and, therefore, for the overall submission. However, reviewers are not obligated to read the appendices, so the main part of the paper should be self contained.
If the paper is accepted, the final submission will be limited to 20 pages, including appendices. (The 13-page limit for the main body of the paper no longer applies.)
Publication (Digital Library Early Access Warning)
AUTHORS TAKE NOTE
: The official publication date is the date the proceedings are made available in the ACM Digital Library. This date may be up to two weeks prior to the first day of the conference. The official publication date affects the deadline for any patent filings related to published work.
Important Dates
AoE (UTC-12h)
Wed 2 - Fri 4 Nov 2016
Conference
Fri 26 Aug 2016
Camera ready
Wed 3 Aug 2016
Final decision notification
Tue 19 Jul 2016
Second round submission deadline
Wed 1 Jun 2016
Author notification (1st phase)
Thu 19 - Sat 21 May 2016
Author Response
Wed 23 Mar 2016 23:59
Research Paper Submissions
External Program Committee
Davide Ancona
University of Genova
David Bacon
Google
Hans-J. Boehm
Google
Michael D.
Bond
Ohio State University
John Boyland
University of Wisconsin, Milwaukee
Julian Dolby
IBM Research
United States
Michael D.
Ernst
University of Washington
Stephen J
Fink
IBM
United States
Jeffrey S.
Foster
University of Maryland, College Park
United States
Yossi Gil
Israel Institute of Technology
Thomas Gross
ETH Zurich
Shriram Krishnamurthi
Brown University
United States
Doug Lea
State University of New York (SUNY) Oswego
Mira Mezini
TU Darmstadt
Germany
Emerson Murphy-Hill
Google
United States
Bruno C. d. S.
Oliveira
University of Hong Kong
Erez Petrank
Technion
Bill Pugh
University of Maryland, College Park
Jeremy G.
Siek
Indiana University
United States
Éric Tanter
University of Chile
Chile
Eli Tilevich
Virginia Tech
Martin Vechev
ETH Zurich
Bulgaria
Tobias Wrigstad
Uppsala University
Sweden
Program Committee
Yannis Smaragdakis
Program Chair
University of Athens
Jonathan Aldrich
Carnegie Mellon University
Emery D.
Berger
University of Massachusetts, Amherst
United States
Gilad Bracha
Google
Israel
Michael Carbin
MIT
Shigeru Chiba
University of Tokyo
Wei-Ngan Chin
National University of Singapore
Singapore
Stephen Chong
Harvard University
United States
Işıl Dillig
UT Austin
Sophia Drossopoulou
Imperial College London
United Kingdom
Patrick Eugster
Purdue University
United States
Robert Bruce
Findler
Northwestern University
United States
David Grove
IBM Research
United States
Shan Shan
Huang
Logicblox
Richard Jones
University of Kent
Milind Kulkarni
Purdue University
Julia Lawall
Inria/LIP6
Ben Livshits
Microsoft Research
Anders Møller
Aarhus University, Denmark
James Noble
Victoria University of Wellington, New Zealand
Klaus Ostermann
University of Tübingen, Germany
Jens Palsberg
University of California, Los Angeles
Sukyoung Ryu
KAIST, South Korea
Korea, South
Caitlin Sadowski
Google
Manu Sridharan
Samsung Research America
Olivier Tardieu
IBM Research
Frank Tip
Samsung Research America
United States
Laurence Tratt
King's College London
United Kingdom
Tijs
van der Storm
CWI & University of Groningen
Netherlands
Jan Vitek
Northeastern University
Switzerland
Fri 24 Apr 18:38