---

name: asplos-workflow description: Use when planning an ASPLOS campaign across the two-deadline cycle — sequencing evidence building, the September 9, 2026 submission gate, author-response windows, the December 21 notification, Major Revision resubmission six weeks later, artifact evaluation, and the April 2027 conference in Crete, with owners per risk.

ASPLOS Workflow

An ASPLOS campaign is a pipeline with two entry gates per edition and a revision side-channel, not a single deadline sprint. All dates below are the verified 2027 cycle (CFP and conference site, checked 2026-07-08); reopen the official pages before committing a team to any of them.

The 2027 cycle as a calendar

| Gate | April cycle | September cycle | |---|---|---| | Full-paper deadline (11:59 PM AoE) | April 15, 2026 — passed | September 9, 2026 — the live gate | | Author response | July 6-9, 2026 — open this week (as of 2026-07-08) | December 1-4, 2026 | | Notification | July 27, 2026 | December 21, 2026 | | Major Revision due | camera-ready deadline, 6 weeks after notification | camera-ready deadline, 6 weeks after notification | | Conference | April 11-15, 2027, Heraklion, Crete, Greece | same |

There is no separate abstract deadline in 2027, and no mid-year third round — the edition moved from three deadlines to two. Missing September means waiting for the next edition's first gate.

Working backward from September 9, 2026

A credible countdown for a systems paper with hardware-dependent evidence:

T-10 weeks (by ~Jul 1)   Freeze the claim list; run asplos-topic-selection;
                         choose evidence instruments (silicon / FPGA / simulator).
T-8 weeks                Evaluation infrastructure done: baselines building,
                         workloads chosen, simulator configs pinned.
T-6 weeks                First full results sweep; kill or descope claims the
                         data will not carry. Start the two-page draft NOW —
                         it is the part rapid review actually reads.
T-4 weeks                Full draft; internal red-team against the rapid-review
                         question set; ablations running.
T-2 weeks                Freeze experiments. Citation-format pass (full names,
                         no "et al.", DOIs). Anonymity sweep.
T-1 week                 HotCRP entry created; PDF uploaded; co-author sign-off.
T-0  Sep 9, 11:59 PM AoE HotCRP status shows *complete*, not draft.

Role assignments that prevent known failures

• Two-page owner — one author owns pages 1-2 as a standalone artifact and rehearses them against asplos-writing-style; rapid review reads nothing else.
• Evidence-integrity owner — keeps the experiment matrix (claims × platforms × baselines) current so the rebuttal window never requires new runs under pressure.
• Compliance owner — template, 11-page geometry, citation full-name rule, GenAI disclosure, HotCRP fields; format violations risk rejection without review.
• Response owner — reserves the response window dates (Dec 1-4 for the September cycle) on every author's calendar at submission time, not after reviews arrive.

Branch planning at notification (December 21, 2026)

1. Accept → switch to asplos-camera-ready immediately; camera-ready lands ~6 weeks out, and artifact evaluation (asplos-artifact-evaluation) runs in parallel with its own appendix and deadlines (2027 AE calendar 待核实).
2. Major Revision → treat as a funded contract, not a consolation: the revision is due at the camera-ready deadline and counts as a submission; scope revision work to exactly what the decision letter requires, tracked in a change log that will become the resubmission note.
3. Reject at rapid review → the diagnosis is almost always positioning: the first two pages did not establish the intersection or the evidence. Fix framing before considering a new venue.
4. Reject after full review → mine the reviews for the evidence matrix, then re-run asplos-topic-selection; some full-review rejects are strong ISCA, SOSP, or PLDI papers mis-aimed at the intersection.

Cross-edition cautions

• The two-deadline structure is itself new for 2027; do not assume it for 2028.
• ASPLOS logistics genuinely change year to year — the 2025 edition (30th, Rotterdam) ran jointly with EuroSys; 2026 (31st) was standalone in Pittsburgh; 2027 is in Crete. Travel, visa, and registration planning must restart per edition (fees and attendance rules for 2027: 待核实).
• Program leadership rotates every edition; there is no standing editorial memory to appeal to. A policy answer from a previous year's chairs is expired.

Hardware lead times are schedule items

Systems evidence has procurement physics that a paper calendar must absorb:

• Cluster or testbed reservations for the T-8 to T-2 sweep window book out weeks ahead; reserve at claim-freeze time, not first-results time.
• FPGA synthesis iterations and simulator calibration runs are days-long serial steps — one redesign late in the countdown costs a week, not an evening.
• Access to pre-production parts (new memory devices, engineering samples) often comes with NDA review of the paper text; start that review before T-4 or it becomes the critical path.

Between notification and Crete

An accepted September-cycle paper has a compressed post-decision runway: camera-ready and any Major Revision work land ~6 weeks after December 21 — squarely across the holiday break, which the six-week plan must acknowledge — followed by artifact evaluation, then travel logistics for an April conference in Greece (visa timelines for some team members exceed the gap; start at notification). Presentation format, registration requirements, and speaker obligations for 2027 were 待核实 at pack-check time: read the acceptance email before assigning the talk.

Pipelining across gates

Teams running multiple projects should treat the two gates as a pipeline: a paper that misses the September evidence bar can target the next edition's first gate with its evaluation matrix already built, while the response and revision windows of a September submission land in December-February — plan author bandwidth so a Major Revision does not collide with the next project's deadline sprint. One person cannot own the revision of paper A and pages 1-2 of paper B in the same six weeks.

Output format

[Cycle chosen] September 2026 / next edition (reason)
[Countdown health] on-track items · at-risk items with dates
[Owners] two-page / evidence / compliance / response — names attached?
[Branch plans] accept · major-revision · rapid-reject · full-reject, one line each
[Calendar holds] Dec 1-4 response window + 6-week revision block reserved? Y/N
[Facts to re-verify] <official pages to reopen before relying on this plan>