Call For Papers – ASPLOS’27

Synopsis

ASPLOS, the ACM International Conference on Architectural Support for Programming Languages and Operating Systems, is the premier academic forum for multidisciplinary applied computer systems research spanning hardware, software, and their interaction. It focuses on practical aspects of computer architecture, programming languages, operating systems, and associated areas such as networking and storage.

Please note the following refinements and major changes from previous years, detailed in the rest of the CFP

1. We now state explicitly that submissions will be assessed on the extent to which they advance research in computer architecture, operating systems, or programming languages. It is not sufficient to advance research in another domain while engaging with computer architecture, operating systems, or programming languages.
2. A rapid review round will assess the first two pages only of all submissions with respect to the ASPLOS acceptance criteria and alignment with reviewer expertise (below).
3. If, during the rapid review round, we determine that there is not sufficient expertise within the PC and ERC to review the work, we will promptly return the paper so you can resubmit it elsewhere without being delayed by a full review cycle.
4. No separate abstract submission deadline.

Program Chairs

Abhishek Bhattacharjee, Yale University
Ada Gavrilovska, Georgia Tech
Steve Blackburn, Google DeepMind and Australian National University

Important Dates 

ASPLOS 2027 has two submission deadlines – April and September – which are meant to encourage authors to submit their papers when they are ready. As in recent years, ASPLOS 2027 will allow the authors of some submissions to choose to apply a major revision to their submission in order to fix a well-defined list of problems.
All dates are expressed as AoE (Anywhere on Earth).

April Cycle

• Full paper submission — April 15, 2026
• Author response — July 6 — July 9, 2026
• Notification — July 27, 2026

September Cycle

• Full paper submission — September 9, 2026
• Author response — December 1 — December 4, 2026
• Notification — December 21, 2026

Submission Website

• April Cycle HotCRP

Scope and Expectations

We seek original, high-quality research submissions that improve and further the knowledge of the core ASPLOS disciplines: Operating Systems, Programming Languages, Computer Architecture, and their intersection.

We particularly encourage new ideas and approaches. We embrace research that directly targets new problems in innovative ways. The research may target diverse goals, such as throughput, latency, energy, and security. Non-traditional topics that are centered in the core ASPLOS disciplines are encouraged, and the review process will be sensitive to the challenges of multidisciplinary work in emerging areas. We welcome submission of “experience papers” that have a novel component and that clearly articulate the lessons learned. We likewise welcome submissions whereby novelty lies in furthering our understandings of existing systems, e.g., by uncovering previously unknown, valuable insights or by convincingly refuting prior published results and common wisdom. We value submissions more highly if they are accompanied by clearly defined artifacts not previously available, including traces, original data, source code, or tools developed as part of the submitted work.

Alphabetically sorted areas of interest related to practical aspects of computer architecture, programming languages, and operating systems include but are not limited to:

• Heterogeneous architectures and accelerators
• Internet services, cloud computing, and datacenters
• Memory, storage, networking, and I/O
• Power, energy, and thermal management
• Profiling, debugging, and testing
• Security, reliability, and availability
• Systems for enabling parallelism and computation on big data
• Virtualization and virtualized systems
• Experimental methodologies
• The topics listed above, as applied to existing, emerging, and nontraditional compute platforms at all scales

A good submission will typically: motivate a significant problem; propose a practical solution or approach that makes sense; demonstrate not just the pros but also the cons of the proposal using sound experimental methods; explicitly disclose what has and has not been implemented; articulate the new contributions beyond previous work; and refrain from over-claiming, focusing the abstract and introduction sections primarily on the difference between the new proposal and what is already available. The latter statement should be interpreted broadly to also encompass studies that broaden our understanding of existing systems (rather than suggest new ones), which may constitute a significant problem in its own right. Submissions will be judged on relevance, novelty, technical merit, clarity. Submissions are expected to adhere to SIGPLAN’s Empirical Evaluation Guidelines and all the policies specified below.

Rapid Review Round

ASPLOS’27 will include a double-blind rapid review round that considers only the first two pages of each submission. This round will evaluate how the work advances research in computer architecture, programming languages, operating systems, and their intersection. Papers not advanced from this stage will receive brief feedback.

Authors should be aware that a majority of submissions may not advance past the rapid review, but this process focuses reviewer effort where it can be most effective and ensures high-quality reviews for papers that do. One way to avoid rapid rejection is to take full advantage of multiple deadlines and submit only when the work is truly polished and ready for review.

This change balances giving authors a fair opportunity to present their work with being mindful of reviewer effort, which is voluntary and essential to sustaining peer review. ASPLOS’27 follows a model similar to high-impact journals such as Science and Nature, which rely on early screening to allocate reviewer resources efficiently.

Unlike blanket desk-rejection models, the rapid review prioritizes submissions at the architecture–languages–operating systems intersection and those for which the committee can provide high-confidence, expert reviews. Some papers may explore topics for which our community lacks sufficient expertise to provide a fair evaluation; these will be returned early, giving authors a chance to submit to a more suitable venue. Decisions are made collectively by program leadership and are not judgments of the importance or quality of the work.

The rapid review stage concentrates reviewer effort on later stages while still striving for fair and thoughtful feedback. Authors acknowledge that peer review is inherently imperfect but can expect that reviewers will do their best, even if the outcome is personally disappointing. Authors should also ensure that the first two pages are self-contained, as the reviewers will be instructed to refrain from reading beyond the first two pages in the rapid review phase.

Explicit Assessment of Research Advancement

All submissions will be explicitly assessed with respect to the extent to which they advance research in Architecture, Programming Languages and Operating Systems, and the intersection of these fields. Advances made in other domains are not discouraged but such advances are not part of the acceptance criteria.
Submissions which do not significantly advance the core ASPLOS disciplines will not be considered (whether or not they make advances in other fields). We encourage authors of such work to submit the work to a venue directly aligned with the discipline area where their core research contributions lie.

Prompt Return When Appropriate Expertise Is Unavailable

While we will do our best to ensure high-confidence reviews for all submissions, some work inevitably pioneers topics for which our community does not yet have sufficient expertise to enable a thoughtful and fair evaluation. In such cases, rather than locking your paper into the ASPLOS review cycle, we will promptly return it so that you may submit it to a more appropriate venue. This determination will be made early in the process and collectively by the program leadership to ensure it is applied consistently and judiciously. This decision is not a reflection of the importance, quality, or urgency of your work, but rather a recognition that your effort deserves high-confidence reviews. If our volunteer reviewer community is not yet well-equipped to provide that, it would be a disservice to subject your work to our review process and timelines.

Resubmissions

Authors of resubmitted work from ASPLOS or other venues must describe in a separate note—to be uploaded to the submission site at submission time—the changes since the previous submission(s). This description helps reviewers who may have reviewed a previous draft of the work to appreciate any improvements to the currently submitted work. Please try to limit this document to one page.

For resubmitted work that received a “Major Revision” followed by a revised submission, the revision also counts as a submission, so the note should describe changes relative to the revision rather than the original submission.

Submissions rejected from either the rapid round or the main review period of ASPLOS must not be submitted to the next subsequent review cycles and will be desk-rejected otherwise. Thus

• The papers rejected from ASPLOS’26 Spring may be submitted to ASPLOS’27 April
• The papers rejected from ASPLOS’26 Summer may be submitted to ASPLOS’27 September

These resubmission rules are strict and hold even if a submission has undergone extensive revision. If a paper is withdrawn from an ASPLOS cycle after reviews are made available, it is considered “rejected” from that cycle (and cannot be resubmitted to the next two cycles).

Limit on the number of submissions by the same author

The number of submissions by the same author will be limited to 4 submissions per submission cycle. The submissions will be screened after the deadline, and violating authors will be requested to withdraw their submissions until the limit is met.

Major Revisions

In addition to Accept and Reject outcomes, ASPLOS’27 will offer some submissions a “Major Revision” decision. The authors of such submissions will be given the opportunity to apply a major revision to their work and resubmit it at the camera ready deadline (6 weeks from notification). These submissions will be provided with clear and actionable reviewer feedback for their revision, and they will be typically reviewed by some of the same reviewers as the original submission.

Declaring Areas and Topics

Authors should indicate on the submission form the focused topics matching their work. The selection should be as accurate as possible. These will be used for reviewer assignments. Incorrect topic selection will lead to difficulty in assigning suitable reviewers. As mentioned above, lack of suitable reviewers may lead to paper rejection.

Anonymization

ASPLOS employs a double-blind review process, keeping author identities concealed from reviewers and vice versa. You must therefore make a good faith attempt to anonymize your submission by avoiding identifying yourself or your institution/affiliation in any of the submitted documents (except in specific fields on the HotCRP submission form designated for this purpose), either explicitly or by implication, e.g., through references, acknowledgments, online repositories that are referenced by the submission, or interaction with committee members.

Do not include a “reference removed for blind review” text or similar in your submission. When it is necessary to cite your own studies, cite them as written by a third party. Only if that is not possible, they can be uploaded and cited as anonymized supplemental material (see below). This applies to workshop papers that are being extended by your current ASPLOS submission, and related submissions of your own that are simultaneously under review or awaiting publication at other venues. Publication as a technical report or in an online repository does not constitute a violation of this policy, and some other exceptions apply; see the “originality and concurrent submissions” section below for details.

Please make sure not to reveal author and/or affiliation information through side channels and other less obvious means. For example, the metadata included in the PDF should not give away such information. If you’d like to point to a repository of, e.g., the working code of your system (which is great and much appreciated), this repository should, of course, be anonymized. It is okay and often makes sense to create anonymized repositories merely for the sake of an anonymous submission. If your system is already released to the public, rename it in your submission. You should likewise avoid inadvertently revealing affiliation in your submission by identifying your company’s name in situations where, e.g., it is clear that the authors of the submission most probably work for the company that manufactures the device or provides the service that constitutes the topic of your work; instead, please use a generic name, like “a computer server vendor X,” “a cloud service provider Y,” and such like.

If concealing system name or affiliation would make your paper difficult to understand, contact the program chairs to discuss exceptions to this policy. Submissions that are not properly anonymized will likely be rejected without review.

Anonymized Supplemental Material and Appendixes

Supplemental material and Appendixes may be submitted as part of the submission file and have no page limit. The submission must be self-contained within the page limit, and the supplemental material/appendixes should not be used as a way to circumvent this limit. The reviewers are neither required nor encouraged to read such material when making their decision.

Declaring Conflicts of Interest   

Authors must register all their conflicts in their HotCRP submission page. Conflicts are needed to ensure appropriate assignment of reviewers. If a submission is found to have an undeclared conflict that causes a problem or if a paper is found to declare false conflicts in order to abuse or “game” the review system, the submission will be summarily rejected.

Both people and institutions (companies, universities, and other relevant organizations) may be declared as having a conflict of interest (COI) with respect to an author. Please declare a COI with the following for any author of your submission; please do so with respect to all your conflicts, not just restricted to program committee (PC) and extended review committee (ERC) members, as we may occasionally ask for external reviews from people outside the PC/ERC.

• Your current institution(s) and other institutions that you were affiliated with in the past four years relative to the submission deadline; also, an institution that is about to become your employer.
• Your PhD advisor(s), post-doctoral host(s), PhD students, and post-doctoral advisees; these COIs are forever.
• Family relations by blood or marriage and close personal friends (who may potentially be reviewers); these COIs are likewise forever.
• People with whom you have collaborated in the last four years, including co-authors of accepted/rejected/pending paper submissions and co-PIs of accepted/rejected/pending grant proposals.
• Potential reviewers who shared your primary institution(s) in the last four years, or where one is actively engaged in discussions about employment with the other person’s institution.
• When there is a direct funding relationship between an author and a potential reviewer (e.g., the reviewer is a sponsor of an author’s research on behalf of his/her company or vice versa).
• Among PIs of research structures supported under the same umbrella funding award who (1) participate regularly in non-public meetings sponsored by that umbrella award, and (2) are regularly exposed to presentations or discussions of unpublished work at such meetings.

Do not declare a COI for the following cases:

• You must not declare a COI with a reviewer just because that reviewer works on topics similar to or related to those in your paper.
• “Service” collaborations such as co-authoring a report for a professional organization or an open-source community, serving on a program committee, or co-presenting tutorials, do not themselves create a COI.
• Co-authoring a paper that is a compendium of various projects without direct collaboration among the projects does not constitute a conflict among the authors of the different projects.
• Internships constitute a conflict of interest during the period of employment of the intern, but not thereafter, unless some other provision applies (e.g., co-authorship or ongoing research collaboration after the internship). Graduate students are not presumed to have an automatic COI with their undergraduate institution. On the other hand, prospective graduate students do have a COI with any institution they have applied to if they are actively engaged in discussions with any faculty member at that institution. Once they join an institution to pursue graduate studies, automatic COIs with any other prospective institutions sunset. In all these cases, the collaboration COI above still applies.

When in doubt, contact the program chairs and ask.

Using Generative AI

Authors must abide by the ACM authorship policy, including its rules relating to Generative AI.

“Generative AI tools and technologies, such as ChatGPT, may not be listed as authors of an ACM published Work. The use of generative AI tools and technologies to create content is permitted but must be fully disclosed in the Work. For example, the authors could include the following statement in the Acknowledgements section of the Work: ChatGPT was utilized to generate sections of this Work, including text, tables, graphs, code, data, citations, etc. If you are uncertain ­about the need to disclose the use of a particular tool, err on the side of caution, and include a disclosure in the acknowledgements section of the Work.”

Declaring Authors

Declare all the authors of the submission upfront. Per the ACM authorship policy, anyone listed as an author on an ACM submission must have made substantial intellectual contributions to the work, such as its conception, design, implementation, or analysis. Ensure that your author list complies with this requirement.
Program chairs will typically approve requests to add non-conflicting authors upon submission of major revisions. Changes to author affiliations or to the author list (additions or removals) after submission time—either major revision or regular—are generally not permitted. The only exception is to correct an honest mistake made at the time of submission. In such cases:

• Authors may be added only if they contributed to the original submission in a way consistent with the ACM Policy on Authorship (see above).
• Requests for authorship updates must be rare, well-justified, and accompanied by written consent from all authors (both current and proposed); they must also specify the conflict of interest set of the proposed authors.
• If a proposed author is not a student, the request must additionally include evidence that their involvement satisfies the ACM authorship criteria.
• All requests must be submitted to the program chairs, who may approve or deny them at their sole discretion.

Originality and Concurrent Submissions

By submitting a manuscript to ASPLOS, the authors guarantee that the manuscript has not been previously published or accepted for publication in a substantially similar form in any conference, journal, or workshop. The only exceptions are (1) workshops without archived proceedings such as in the ACM digital library (or where the authors chose not to have their paper appear in the archived proceedings), or (2) venues such as IEEE CAL where there is an explicit policy that such publication does not preclude longer conference submissions. These are not considered prior publications. Technical reports and papers posted on public social media sites, web pages, or online repositories such as arxiv.org are not considered prior publications either. In these cases, the submitted manuscript may ignore the posted work to preserve author anonymity.

The authors additionally guarantee that no manuscript that contains significant overlap with the contributions of the submitted document is or will be under review for any other conference, journal, or workshop during the ASPLOS review cycle for which it was submitted. Violation of any of these conditions will lead to rejection and possibly additional actions against the offending authors.

You should also adhere to the ACM Plagiarism Policy, which covers a range of ethical issues concerning the misrepresentation of other works or one’s own work.
As usual, if in doubt, consult with the program chairs.

Ethical and Other Obligations

• Authors are not allowed to break anonymity when interacting with known ASPLOS PC/ERC members, e.g., by mentioning/identifying work that they plan to submit to ASPLOS or have already submitted and is currently under review.
• Authors are not allowed to contact reviewers or PC/ERC members in order to encourage or solicit them to bid on any submission; to attempt to sway a reviewer or PC/ERC member to review any submission positively or negatively; to contact reviewers or PC/ERC members requesting any type of information about the reviewing process, either in general or specifically about submitted manuscripts; to contact reviewers or PC/ERC members to ask about the outcomes of any submission.
• Authors are not allowed to advertise their work during the period starting two weeks before the submission deadline and ending when the results of the review cycle are publicized. The work includes the submission itself and closely related documents such as technical reports or arxiv.org uploads. Advertisement pertains to such communication channels such as social media, community blogs, and web pages.
• To clarify, authors are indeed allowed to upload their submission to arxiv.org and other such online repositories; the restriction relates to advertising such postings.
• Authors are not allowed to post in the aforementioned channels about the content of the reviews they may have received until the results of the corresponding review cycle are publicized; “shaming” (and thus potentially applying pressure on) reviewers before the review process terminates is considered unethical.
• Authors must abide by the ACM ethics policy.

Violation of these policies might result in rejection of the submission and possible additional action by the ACM.

ACM requires that all submitting authors will be aware of the following policies in particular:
By submitting your article to an ACM publication, you are hereby acknowledging that you and your co-authors are subject to all ACM Publications Policies, including ACM’s new Publications Policy on Research Involving Human Participants and Subjects. Alleged violations of this policy or any ACM Publications Policy will be investigated by ACM and may result in a full retraction of your paper, in addition to other potential penalties, as per ACM Publications Policy.

Important update on ACMs new open access publishing model for 2026 ACM Conferences!

Starting January 1, 2026, ACM fully transitioned to Open Access. All ACM publications, including those from ACM-sponsored conferences, will be 100% Open Access. Authors will have two primary options for publishing Open Access articles with ACM: by leveraging the ACM Open institutional model or by paying Article Processing Charges (APCs). With over 2,600 institutions already part of ACM Open, the majority of ACM-sponsored conference papers will not require APCs from authors or conferences (currently, around 76%).
Authors from institutions not participating in ACM Open will need to pay an APC to publish their papers, unless they qualify for a financial waiver. To find out whether an APC applies to your article, please consult the list of participating institutions in ACM Open and review the Policy on Discretionary APC Waivers. Keep in mind that waivers are rare and are granted based on specific criteria set by ACM.

Formatting and Editing

We will use the same format template for submission and camera-ready versions. Submissions must be printable PDF files. When creating your submission, you must use the ACM’s acmart Latex class available on the official ACM site, with sigplan, anonymous, and review options. The review option enables line numbering which assists reviewers in making feedback concrete and specific. Your main LaTeX file should have the following structure:

% use the base acmart.cls
% use the sigplan proceeding template with the default 10 pt fonts
% nonacm option removes ACM related text in the submission. 
\documentclass[sigplan,anonymous,review,nonacm]{acmart}
 

% enable page numbers
\settopmatter{printfolios=true}
 

\begin{document}
\title{...}
 

\begin{abstract}
...
\end{abstract}
 

\maketitle % should come after the abstract
 

% add the paper content here
 

% use the ACM bibliography style
\bibliographystyle{ACM-Reference-Format}
\bibliography{...}
 

\end{document}

Your final submission should visually look similar to this sample produced from the zip file above.

“Squeezing” Space is Forbidden. Refrain from tweaking the aforementioned template and from formatting your text in a manner that violates its settings. Notably, refrain from squeezing additional space, e.g., by using \vspace or packages that manipulate vertical space. The template already generates a very dense document, and you must not make it denser. Your submission will be visually and automatically inspected using tools developed for this purpose, and it will be rejected if you violate the formatting policy, even if your PDF passed the HotCRP format check (which is unable to verify much of the requirements).

Page Layout and Limit. Full submissions must not exceed 11 pages of single-spaced two-column text. This page limit applies to all text, figures, tables, and footnotes. The only exceptions are the bibliographic references section and the appendices, which are not included in the page limit. Note that the submission must be self-contained within the page limit, allowing reviewers to evaluate the work without having to consider any external or supplementary material outside this limit. The reviewers greatly value conciseness, so if you can describe your work with fewer pages than the limit, please do. All pages should be numbered.

Page Limit of Accepted Papers and Major Revisions. The authors of an accepted paper are allowed to use two additional pages in the camera-ready version beyond the aforementioned page limit. The same applies to major revisions, to accommodate added experiments and such. In addition to this +2 automatic page limit increase, authors of accepted papers may purchase 1–2 more pages, if they wish (payment will be processed when registering to the conference).

Font Size, Tables, and Figures. The submission’s text must use a 10pt font (not 9pt) or bigger. Labels, captions, and text within figures, graphs, and tables must use reasonable font sizes that, as printed, do not require extra magnification beyond “100%” to be legible. In particular, text inside figures/tables should generally use what appears to readers as a 9pt font or bigger after any intra-document scaling has been applied. Fonts appearing smaller than 8pt are not permitted. As noted, this and other requirements are not checked automatically by the HotCRP format checker, so it is the authors’ responsibility to check it. Figures can and should use colors but should also be color-blind friendly. Spacing between figures/tables/captions/text should be determined by the latex template.

References. Because references do not count against the page limit, the space they occupy should not be “optimized” away. Notably, the full, non-abbreviated first and last names of all co-authors of all citations must be specified (no “et al.”). The reference citations within the submission (numbers in square brackets) should be hyperlinked to the corresponding items in the references section, to ease the job of reviewers. Also, reviewers will very much appreciate clickable links (preferably DOIs) associated with each entry in your references section.

Specifications. The following table specifies some of the main typeset requirements. Use our mandatory latex template and follow the above instructions to make sure that these and other formatting requirements are met.

Aspect	Requirement
file format	PDF with numbered pages
page limit	11 pages, not including references
paper size	US Letter 8.5in x 11in
top margin	1in
bottom margin	1in
left margin	0.75in
right margin	0.75in
column separation	0.333in
body	2-column, single-spaced
body font size	10pt
abstract font	10pt
section heading font	12pt, bold
subsection heading font	10pt, bold
space between section heading and text	≥ 6pt
caption font	9pt
fonts in figures and tables	≥ 8pt, preferably ≥ 9pt
reference entries	8pt; no page limit; list full names of all author (no “et al.”); include link to document (preferably DOI); make references to citations clickable
appendices	do not count towards the page limit

Submissions that violate any of these restrictions might be rejected without being reviewed.

Author Response Period

ASPLOS 2027 will provide an opportunity for authors to respond to reviews prior to final consideration of the submissions at the program committee meeting; see exact dates specified above. Authors should generally focus their rebuttal on (1) correcting factual errors in the reviews and (2) directly addressing questions posed by reviewers. There is no hard word limit to a rebuttal, but reviewers are not expected to read beyond 800 words. In the interests of completeness, authors may write longer responses, but it is essential that their substantive response is self-contained and less than 800 words.

When a major revision is a realistic possibility, in addition to clarifying the submitted work, rebuttals may describe new experiments and data, if doing so addresses the reviewers’ concerns. Rebuttals are optional but strongly encouraged, and their absence might indicate to reviewers that authors are not interested in improving the work.

Accepted Papers

Submissions selected by the program committee will be conditionally accepted, subject to revision and approval by a committee member acting as a shepherd. Accepted papers will be allowed two additional pages in the proceedings at no charge. We expect that one author of each accepted paper will physically attend the conference and present the work in a dedicated time slot (unless all authors have difficulty traveling due to such serious limitations as visa restrictions, care-giving responsibilities, and disability). By default, all accepted papers will be made available online to registered attendees before the conference at a date that depends on the review cycle. Papers accepted to the spring and summer deadlines will be published in separate volumes in advance of the conference.

ACM requires that all authors of accepted papers will adhere to the following policy. Please ensure that you and your co-authors obtain an ORCID ID, so you can complete the publishing process for your accepted paper. ACM has made a commitment to collect ORCID IDs from all published authors to improve author discoverability, ensure proper attribution, and contribute to ongoing community efforts around name normalization; your ORCID ID will help in these efforts.

Artifact Evaluation 

Artifact evaluation will continue in 2027 as has become a tradition at ASPLOS. Please refer to the ASPLOS 2027 AEC web page for more information.

Poster and Lightning Sessions

In addition to the regular presentations, the program may include poster and lightning sessions. If those are included, details can be found here when they become available.

Wild and Crazy Ideas Session

The program will also tentatively include a WACI session. Details will become available later. 

Best Paper Award

The committee will select a handful of papers to receive a Best Paper Award. The decision may or may not be communicated to the winning authors prior to the official announcement at the opening session of the conference.

Program and Registration

Complete program and registration information will be available on the conference website as soon as it becomes available.

Confidentiality

All submissions will be treated as confidential prior to publication. Rejected submissions will be permanently treated as confidential.

Acknowledgement

Several ideas in this document and parts of the text have been taken from previous conferences, so we thank their program chairs. In particular, Mark Silberstein, Harry Xu, and Benjamin Lee (ASPLOS’26), Chris Rossbach, Martha Kim and Adrian Sampson (ASPLOS’25),  Dan Tsafrir and Madan Musuvathi (ASPLOS ‘24), Natalie Enright Jerger and Michael Swift (ASPLOS ’23), Shan Lu and Thomas Wenisch (ASPLOS ’22), Emery Berger and Christos Kozyrakis (ASPLOS ’21), Luis Ceze and Karin Strauss (ASPLOS ’20), Emmett Witchel and Alvy Lebeck (ASPLOS ’19), Dahlia Malkhi and Dan Tsafrir (ATC ’19), Ricardo Bianchini and Vivek Sarkar (ASPLOS ’18), John Carter (ASPLOS ’17), Yuanyuan Zhou (ASPLOS ’16), Sandhya Dwarkadas (ASPLOS ’15), Sarita Adve (ASPLOS ’14), Steve Keckler (ISCA ’14), Margaret Martonosi (ISCA ’13), Onur Mutlu (MICRO ’12), and Michael L. Scott (ASPLOS ’12).

Questions?

Please direct any questions to the program co-chairs at asplos2027pcchairs@gmail.com.