[Haskell] ICFP 2025: Call for Papers

[ICFP Publicity]

 PACMPL Volume 7, Issue ICFP 2025

Call for Papers

Accepted papers to be invited for presentation at
The 30th ACM SIGPLAN International Conference on Functional Programming
October 12-18, 2025
Singapore

https://icfp25.sigplan.org/

### Important Dates and Deadlines

Paper Submissions: February 27, 2025
Author Response: April 28 - May 1, 2025
Notifications of Acceptance: May 23, 2025

All deadlines are Anywhere on Earth (AoE).

Conference dates: October 12-18, 2025

### New This Year

For the first time, ICFP will be co-located with SPLASH!
https://conf.researchr.org/home/icfp-splash-2025

Note that the conference will be held in October this year, instead of
September. The conference dates are October 12-18, 2025.

### Scope

PACMPL issue ICFP 2025 seeks original papers on the art and science of
functional programming. Submissions are invited on all topics from
principles to
practice, from foundations to features, and from abstraction to
application. The
scope includes all languages that encourage functional programming,
including
both purely applicative and imperative languages, as well as languages with
objects, concurrency, or parallelism. Topics of interest include (but are
not
limited to):

* Language Design: concurrency, parallelism, and distribution; modularity;
components and composition; meta-programming; macros; pattern matching; type
systems; type inference; dependent types; effect types; gradual types;
refinement types; session types; interoperability; domain-specific
languages;
imperative programming; object-oriented programming; logic programming;
probabilistic programming; reactive programming; generic programming;
bidirectional programming.

* Implementation: abstract machines; virtual machines; interpretation;
compilation; compile-time and run-time optimisation; garbage collection and
memory management; runtime systems; multi-threading; exploiting parallel
hardware; interfaces to foreign functions, services, components, or
low-level
machine resources.

* Software-Development Techniques: algorithms and data structures; design
patterns; specification; verification; validation; proof assistants;
debugging; testing; tracing; profiling; build systems; program synthesis.

* Foundations: formal semantics; lambda calculus; program equivalence;
rewriting; type theory; logic; category theory; computational effects;
continuations; control; state; names and binding; program verification.

* Analysis and Transformation: control flow; data flow; abstract
interpretation;
partial evaluation; program calculation.

* Applications: symbolic computing; formal-methods tools; artificial
intelligence; systems programming; distributed systems and web programming;
hardware design; databases; scientific and numerical computing; graphical
user
interfaces; graphics and multimedia; GPU programming; scripting; system
administration; security.

* Education: teaching introductory programming; mathematical proof; algebra.

Submissions will be evaluated according to their relevance, correctness,
significance, originality, and clarity. Each submission should explain its
contributions in both general and technical terms, clearly identifying what
has
been accomplished, explaining why it is significant, and comparing it with
previous work. The technical content should be accessible to a broad
audience.

PACMPL issue ICFP 2025 also welcomes submissions in two separate categories
—
Functional Pearls and Experience Reports — that must be marked as such when
submitted and that need not report original research results. Detailed
guidelines on both categories are given at the end of this call.

In an effort to achieve a balanced, diverse program, each author may be
listed
as a (co)author on a maximum of four submissions. Authors who require
financial
support to attend the conference can apply for PAC funding
(http://www.sigplan.org/PAC/).

The General Chair and PC Chair may not submit papers. PC members (other
than the
PC Chair) may submit papers.

Please contact the Program Chair if you have questions or are concerned
about
the appropriateness of a topic.

### Full Double-Blind Reviewing Process

ICFP 2025 will use a full double-blind reviewing process (similar to the one
used for ICFP 2024 but different from the lightweight double-blind process
used
in previous years). This means that identities of authors will not be made
visible to reviewers until after conditional-acceptance decisions have been
made, and then only for the conditionally-accepted papers. The use of full
double-blind reviewing has several consequences for authors.

*Submissions*: Authors must omit their names and institutions from their
paper
submissions. In addition, references to authors’ own prior work should be
in the
third person (e.g., not "We build on our previous work ..." but rather "We
build
on the work of ...").

*Supplementary material*: Authors must fully anonymize any supplementary
material (see below). Links to supplementary material on external websites
are
not permitted.

*Author response*: In responding to reviews, authors should not say anything
that reveals their identity, since author identities will not be revealed to
reviewers at that stage of the reviewing process.

*Dissemination of work under submission*: Authors are welcome to disseminate
their ideas and post draft versions of their paper(s) on their personal
website,
institutional repository, or arXiv (reviewers will be asked to turn off
arXiv
notifications during the review period). But authors should not take steps
that
would almost certainly reveal their identities to members of the Program
Committee, e.g., directly contacting PC members or publicizing the work on
widely-visible social media or major mailing lists used by the community.

The purpose of the above restrictions is to help the Program Committee and
external reviewers come to a judgment about the paper without bias, not to
make
it impossible for them to discover the authors’ identities if they were to
try.
In particular, nothing should be done in the name of anonymity that weakens
the
quality of the submission. However, there are occasionally cases where
adhering
to the above restrictions is truly difficult or impossible for one reason or
another. In such cases, the authors should contact the Program Chair to
discuss
the situation and how to handle it. The FAQ on Double-Blind Reviewing
(
https://popl24.sigplan.org/track/POPL-2024-popl-research-papers#FAQ-on-Double-Blind-Reviewing
)
addresses many common scenarios and answers many common questions about this
topic. But there remain many grey areas and trade-offs. If you have any
doubts
about how to interpret the double-blind rules or you encounter a complex
case
that is not clearly covered by the FAQ, please contact the Program Chair for
guidance.

### Preparation of submissions

*Deadline*: The deadline for submissions is Thursday, 27 February, 2025,
Anywhere on Earth (https://www.timeanddate.com/time/zones/aoe). This
deadline
will be strictly enforced.

*Formatting*: Submissions must be in PDF format, printable in black and
white on
US Letter sized paper and interpretable by common PDF tools. All submissions
must adhere to the "ACM Small" template that is available (in both LaTeX and
Word formats) from https://www.acm.org/publications/authors/submissions.

Please download the latest version of the ACM style from
https://www.acm.org/publications/authors/submissions, since the citation
format
has recently been changed.

See also PACMPL’s Information and Guidelines for Authors at
https://pacmpl.acm.org/authors.cfm.

There is a limit of 25 pages for a full paper or Functional Pearl and 12
pages
for an Experience Report; in either case, the bibliography and an optional
clearly marked appendix will not be counted against these limits.
Submissions
that exceed the page limits or, for other reasons, do not meet the
requirements
for formatting, will be summarily rejected.

*Submission*: Submissions will be accepted at https://icfp25.hotcrp.com/

Improved versions of a paper may be submitted at any point before the
submission
deadline using the same web interface.

*Author Response Period*: Authors will have a 96-hour period, starting at
00:00
(midnight) AOE on Monday, 28 April, 2025, to read reviews and respond to
them.

*Appendix and Supplementary Material*: Authors have the option to include a
clearly marked appendix and/or to attach supplementary material to a
submission,
on the understanding that reviewers may choose not to look at such an
appendix
or supplementary material. Supplementary material may be uploaded as a
separate
PDF document or tarball. Any supplementary material must be uploaded at
submission time, not by providing a URL in the paper that points to an
external
repository. All supplementary material must be anonymised.

*Authorship Policies*: All submissions are expected to comply with the ACM
Policies for Authorship that are detailed at
https://www.acm.org/publications/authors/information-for-authors.

*Republication Policies*: Each submission must adhere to SIGPLAN’s
republication
policy, as explained on the web at
http://www.sigplan.org/Resources/Policies/Republication.

### Review Process

This section outlines the two-stage process with double-blind reviewing that
will be used to select papers for PACMPL issue ICFP 2025. Like last year,
ICFP
2025 will adapt a full double-blind reviewing process. More information see
below.

ICFP 2025 will have an Associate Chair who will help the PC Chair monitor
reviews, solicit external expert reviews for submissions when there is not
enough expertise on the committee, and facilitate reviewer discussions.

ICFP 2025 will employ a two-stage review process. The first stage in the
review
process will assess submitted papers using the criteria stated above and
will
allow for feedback and input on initial reviews through the author response
period mentioned previously. As a result of the review process, a set of
papers
will be conditionally accepted and all other papers will be rejected.
Authors
will be notified of these decisions on 23 May, 2025.

Authors of conditionally accepted papers will be provided with committee
reviews
along with a set of mandatory revisions. By 12 June, 2025, the authors
should
provide a second revised submission. The second and final reviewing phase
assesses whether the mandatory revisions have been adequately addressed by
the
authors and thereby determines the final accept/reject status of the paper.
The
intent and expectation is that the mandatory revisions can feasibly be
addressed
within three weeks.

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 cover letter will facilitate a quick second review, allowing for
confirmation of final acceptance within two weeks. Conversely, the absence
of a
cover letter will be grounds for the paper’s rejection.

### Information for Authors of Accepted Papers

* As a condition of acceptance, final versions of all papers must adhere to
the
ACM Small format. The page limit for the final versions of papers will be
increased by two pages to help authors respond to reviewer comments and
mandatory revisions: 27 pages plus bibliography for a regular paper or
Functional Pearl, 14 pages plus bibliography for an Experience Report.

* Authors of accepted submissions will be required to agree to one of the
three
ACM licensing options, one of which is Creative Commons CC-BY publication;
this is the option recommended by the PACMPL editorial board. A reasoned
argument in favour of this option can be found in the article Why CC-BY?
published by OASPA, the Open Access Scholarly Publishers Association. The
other options are copyright transfer to ACM or retaining copyright but
granting ACM exclusive publication rights.

* PACMPL is a Gold Open Access journal, and authors are encouraged to
publish
their work under a CC-BY license. Gold Open Access guarantees permanent free
online access to the definitive version in the ACM Digital Library, and the
recommended CC-BY option also allows anyone to copy and distribute the work
with attribution. Gold Open Access has been made possible by generous
funding
through ACM SIGPLAN, which will cover all open access costs in the event
authors cannot. Authors who can cover the costs may do so by paying an
Article
Processing Charge (APC). PACMPL, SIGPLAN, and ACM Headquarters are committed
to exploring routes to making Gold Open Access publication both affordable
and
sustainable.

* ACM Author-Izer is a unique service that enables ACM authors to generate
and
post links on either their home page or institutional repository for
visitors
to download the definitive version of their articles from the ACM Digital
Library at no charge. Downloads through Author-Izer links are captured in
official ACM statistics, improving the accuracy of usage and impact
measurements. Consistently linking to the definitive version of an ACM
article
should reduce user confusion over article versioning. After an article has
been published and assigned to the appropriate ACM Author Profile pages,
authors should visit http://www.acm.org/publications/acm-author-izer-service
to learn how to create links for free downloads from the ACM DL.

* The official publication date is the date the papers 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.

* Authors of each accepted submission are invited to attend and be
available for
the presentation of that paper at the conference. The schedule for
presentations will be determined and shared with authors after the full
program has been selected.

*ORCID*: ORCID provides a persistent digital identifier (an ORCID iD) that
you
own and control, and that distinguishes you from every other researcher:
https://orcid.org/. ACM now require an ORCID iD for every author of a
paper, not
just the corresponding author. So, the author who is filling out the
permission
form should make sure they have the ORCID iDs for all of their coauthors
before
filling out the form. Any authors who do not yet have an ORCID iD can go to
https://orcid.org/register to have one assigned.

### Artifact Evaluation

Authors of papers that are conditionally accepted in the first phase of the
review process will be encouraged (but not required) to submit supporting
materials for Artifact Evaluation. These items will then be reviewed by an
Artifact Evaluation Committee, separate from the paper Review Committee,
whose
task is to assess how the artifacts support the work described in the
associated
paper. Papers that go through the Artifact Evaluation process successfully
will
receive a seal of approval printed on the papers themselves. Authors of
accepted
papers will be encouraged to make the supporting materials publicly
available
upon publication of the papers, for example, by including them as "source
materials" in the ACM Digital Library. An additional seal will mark papers
whose
artifacts are made available, as outlined in the ACM guidelines for artifact
badging.

Participation in Artifact Evaluation is voluntary and will not influence the
final decision regarding paper acceptance.

### Special categories of papers

In addition to research papers, PACMPL issue ICFP solicits two kinds of
papers
that do not require original research contributions: Functional Pearls,
which
are full papers, and Experience Reports, which are limited to half the
length of
a full paper. Authors submitting such papers should consider the following
guidelines.

### Functional Pearls

A Functional Pearl is an elegant essay about something related to functional
programming. Examples include, but are not limited to:

* a new and thought-provoking way of looking at an old idea
* an instructive example of program calculation or proof
* a nifty presentation of an old or new data structure
* an interesting application of functional programming techniques
* a novel use or exposition of functional programming in the classroom

While pearls often demonstrate an idea through the development of a short
program, there is no requirement or expectation that they do so. Thus, they
encompass the notions of theoretical and educational pearls.

Functional Pearls are valued as highly and judged as rigorously as ordinary
papers, but using somewhat different criteria. In particular, a pearl is not
required to report original research, but, it should be concise,
instructive,
and entertaining. A pearl is likely to be rejected if its readers get
bored, if
the material gets too complicated, if too much-specialised knowledge is
needed,
or if the writing is inelegant. The key to writing a good pearl is
polishing.

A submission that is intended to be treated as a pearl must be marked as
such on
the submission web page and should contain the words "Functional Pearl"
somewhere in its title or subtitle. These steps will alert reviewers to use
the
appropriate evaluation criteria. Pearls will be combined with ordinary
papers,
however, for the purpose of computing the conference’s acceptance rate.

### Experience Reports

The purpose of an Experience Report is to describe the experience of using
functional programming in practice, whether in industrial application, tool
development, programming education, or any other area.

Possible topics for an Experience Report include, but are not limited to:

* insights gained from real-world projects using functional programming
* comparison of functional programming with conventional programming in the
context of an industrial project or a university curriculum
* project-management, business, or legal issues encountered when using
functional programming in a real-world project
* curricular issues encountered when using functional programming in
education
* real-world constraints that created special challenges for an
implementation
of a functional language or for functional programming in general

An Experience Report is distinguished from a normal PACMPL issue ICFP paper
by
its title, by its length, and by the criteria used to evaluate it.

* Both in the papers and in any citations, the title of each accepted
Experience
Report must end with the words "(Experience Report)" in parentheses. The
acceptance rate for Experience Reports will be computed and reported
separately from the rate for ordinary papers.
* Experience Report submissions can be at most 12 pages long, excluding
bibliography.
* Each accepted Experience Report will be presented at the conference, but
depending on the number of Experience Reports and regular papers accepted,
authors of Experience Reports may be asked to give shorter talks.
* Because the purpose of Experience Reports is to enable our community to
understand the application of functional programming, an acceptable
Experience
Report need not add to the body of knowledge of the functional-programming
community by presenting novel results or conclusions. It is sufficient if
the
report describes an illuminating experience with functional programming, or
provides evidence for a clear thesis about the use of functional
programming.
The experience or thesis must be relevant to ICFP, but it need not be novel.

The review committee will accept or reject Experience Reports based on
whether
they judge the paper to illuminate some aspect of the use of functional
programming. Anecdotal evidence will be acceptable provided it is
well-argued
and the author explains what efforts were made to gather as much evidence as
possible. Typically, papers that show how functional programming was used
are
more convincing than papers that say only that functional programming was
used.
It can be especially effective to present comparisons of the situations
before
and after the experience described in the paper, but other kinds of evidence
would also make sense, depending on context. Experience drawn from a single
person’s experience may be sufficient, but more weight will be given to
evidence
drawn from the experience of groups of people.

An Experience Report should be short and to the point. For an industrial
project, it should make a claim about how well functional programming
worked and
why; for a pedagogy paper, it might make a claim about the suitability of a
particular teaching style or educational exercise. Either way, it should
produce
evidence to substantiate the claim. If functional programming worked in this
case in the same ways it has worked for others, the paper need only
summarise
the results — the main part of the paper should discuss how well it worked
and
in what context. Most readers will not want to know all the details of the
experience and its implementation, but the paper should characterise it and
its
context well enough so that readers can judge to what degree this
experience is
relevant to their own circumstances. The paper should take care to
highlight any
unusual aspects; specifics about the experience are more valuable than
generalities about functional programming.

If the paper not only describes experience but also presents new technical
results, or if the experience refutes cherished beliefs of the
functional-programming community, it may be better to submit it as a full
paper,
which will be judged by the usual criteria of novelty, originality, and
relevance. The Program Chair will be happy to advise on any concerns about
which
category to submit to.

### About PACMPL

Proceedings of the ACM on Programming Languages (PACMPL
https://pacmpl.acm.org/)
is a Gold Open Access journal publishing research on all aspects of
programming
languages, from design to implementation and from mathematical formalisms to
empirical studies. Each issue of the journal is devoted to a particular
subject
area within programming languages and will be announced through publicised
Calls
for Papers, like this one.

### ICFP Organizers

General Chair:
Ilya Sergey (NUS)
Program Chair:
Dominique Devriese (KU Leuven)
Associate Program Chair:
Peter Thiemann (University of Freiburg)
Workshops Co-Chairs:
Ben Greenman (University of Utah)
Chandrakana Nandi (Certora)
Artifact Evaluation Co-Chairs:
Benoît Montagu (INRIA)
Lionel Parreaux (HKUST)
Industrial Relations Chair:
Daniel Winograd-Cort (Nectry Inc.)
Student Volunteer Chair:
Joe Watt (Institute for Infocomm Research, A*STAR)
SRC Co-Chair:
Kuen-Bang Hou (Favonia) (University of Minnesota)
Publicity Chair:
Sam Westrick (NYU)
Diversity Co-Chairs:
Alejandro Russo (Chalmers, DPella)
KC Sivaramakrishnan (Tarides, IIT Madras)
Web Chair:
Jules Jacobs (Cornell)
Doctoral Symposium Chair:
Conrad Watt (Nanyang Technological University)
Programming Contest Organizer:
Liam O'Connor (Australian National University)
SIGPLAN Conference Manager:
Neringa Young
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://mail.haskell.org/pipermail/haskell/attachments/20241104/5c5d8ed3/attachment-0001.html>