| Line 8: | Line 8: | ||
---- | ---- | ||
| − | {| style="width: | + | {| style="width: 97%" border="0" cellpadding="20" cellspacing="1" |
|- | |- | ||
| − | | style="width: | + | | style="width: 30%" valign="top" | <div class="span4"> |
<span style="font-size:large">'''<span style="font-family: tahoma,geneva,sans-serif">Important dates</span>'''</span> | <span style="font-size:large">'''<span style="font-family: tahoma,geneva,sans-serif">Important dates</span>'''</span> | ||
| − | *CGO paper decision | + | *CGO paper decision: <strike>'''10 Nov 2014'''</strike> |
| − | *Artifact submission | + | *Artifact submission: <strike>'''18 Nov 2014 AoE'''</strike> |
| − | *Technical clarification: ''' | + | *Technical clarification: '''10-12 Dec 2014''' |
| − | *Decision announced: ''' | + | *Decision announced: '''16 Dec 2014''' |
<span style="font-size:large">'''<span style="font-family: tahoma,geneva,sans-serif">Packaging guidelines</span>'''</span> | <span style="font-size:large">'''<span style="font-family: tahoma,geneva,sans-serif">Packaging guidelines</span>'''</span> | ||
| Line 30: | Line 30: | ||
The review process is described in detail [http://www.artifact-eval.org/review-process.html here]. | The review process is described in detail [http://www.artifact-eval.org/review-process.html here]. | ||
</div> | </div> | ||
| − | | style="width: | + | | style="width: 37%" valign="top" | |
<span style="font-size:large">'''<span style="font-family: tahoma,geneva,sans-serif">Artifact Evaluation Committee (AEC)</span>'''</span> | <span style="font-size:large">'''<span style="font-family: tahoma,geneva,sans-serif">Artifact Evaluation Committee (AEC)</span>'''</span> | ||
| Line 50: | Line 50: | ||
Artifacts have been already evaluated at several conferences and workshops including recent [http://pldi14-aec.cs.brown.edu PLDI 2014], [http://2014.splashcon.org/track/splash2014-artifacts OOPSLA 2014] and [http://adapt-workshop.org/2014 ADAPT 2014]. Our eventual goal is to develop the common evaluation methodology gradually and collaboratively. See [http://artifact-eval.org artifact-eval.org] and [http://c-mind.org/reproducibility c-mind.org/reproducibility] for more details. | Artifacts have been already evaluated at several conferences and workshops including recent [http://pldi14-aec.cs.brown.edu PLDI 2014], [http://2014.splashcon.org/track/splash2014-artifacts OOPSLA 2014] and [http://adapt-workshop.org/2014 ADAPT 2014]. Our eventual goal is to develop the common evaluation methodology gradually and collaboratively. See [http://artifact-eval.org artifact-eval.org] and [http://c-mind.org/reproducibility c-mind.org/reproducibility] for more details. | ||
| − | | style="width: | + | | style="width: 30%" valign="top" | |
<span style="font-size:large">'''<span style="font-family: tahoma,geneva,sans-serif">Above threshold</span>'''</span> | <span style="font-size:large">'''<span style="font-family: tahoma,geneva,sans-serif">Above threshold</span>'''</span> | ||
Revision as of 08:52, 8 December 2014
 |
Artifact Evaluation for CGO'15 |
| Important dates
Packaging guidelines We use the following guidelines for artifacts. Because we want to encourage as many of you as possible to submit, these are only guidelines, not hard rules. Of course, if the material you want us to evaluate is fairly standard, following these suggestions will greatly simplify our lives. After all, remember: You want us to be able to evaluate your artifact, don't you? How to submit Please read the guidelines on what to submit. Please upload your submission to EasyChair (common with PPoPP). Review process The review process is described in detail here. |
Artifact Evaluation Committee (AEC) Chairs:
Advisory board:
Committee members:
Prior Artifact Evaluation Artifacts have been already evaluated at several conferences and workshops including recent PLDI 2014, OOPSLA 2014 and ADAPT 2014. Our eventual goal is to develop the common evaluation methodology gradually and collaboratively. See artifact-eval.org and c-mind.org/reproducibility for more details. |
Above threshold Here will be a list of papers with artifacts above threshold. cTuning foundation provided a cash prize of 500$ for a distinguished artifact from CGO or PPoPP. Discussions We consider AE as a continuous learning curve. If you have questions or comments and suggestions on how to improve packaging and reviewing process, please get in touch or use our public Google or LinkedIn groups.
|
Sponsors and supporters
