---

name: ppopp-review-process description: Use when reasoning about how a PPoPP submission is evaluated, covering double-blind review, the Program Committee plus External/Extended Review Committee model, TPMS reviewer matching, the author-response rebuttal, the accept/reject decision with automatic poster consideration, and how PPoPP's process differs from PLDI's and CGO's.

PPoPP Review Process

Model the pipeline before interpreting any single review. PPoPP runs a single-round, double-blind conference review with a scheduled author-response rebuttal and an unusual safety net: papers not accepted for a talk are automatically considered for posters. The most consequential mental shift for authors arriving from a journal-style venue is that there is (as verified) no guaranteed revise-and-resubmit round — the rebuttal is your one written turn, so it must land.

Process model

• Submission and review run on HotCRP with double-blind anonymity: author identities are hidden from reviewers and reviewer identities from authors.
• Papers are read by the Program Committee and an External/Extended Review Committee (ERC); declare conflicts against both pools. Reviewer assignment may use the Toronto Paper Matching System (TPMS), so your abstract and topic tags shape who reads you.
• After the initial reviews there is a fixed author-response period (PPoPP 2026: 27–29 October 2025). Authors respond within a word cap; reviewers then discuss and decide.
• The primary decision is accept / reject for a regular presentation. Whether an explicit intermediate "Revision" category is offered in a given cycle is 待核实 — do not assume it.
• Automatic poster consideration: submissions not accepted for a talk are automatically considered for the poster track, with a two-page summary in the proceedings.

What PPoPP reviewers weigh

Axis	What they check	Common failure
Parallelism as the contribution	Is the concurrency/parallel-performance the point?	A compiler/theory result wearing a parallel costume (a CGO/POPL reroute)
Correctness under concurrency	Races, linearizability/progress, the memory model	"It passed my tests" with no argument about interleavings
Scalability	Speedup curves, core sweeps, NUMA/GPU, saturation	One thread count; a win that vanishes on another topology
Baseline honesty	Comparison to the strongest real competitor	Beating a strawman or the authors' own unoptimized code
Measurement rigor	Variance, warm-up, pinning, repeated runs	A single-run bar chart with no error bars
Reproducibility	Enough to re-run; an artifact	Hardware and topology unstated

Reading a decision

Decision	What it means	Author move
Accept (talk)	Contribution and evidence hold	Camera-ready + artifact; do not reopen scope
Poster (auto-considered)	The idea is of interest but not a full talk this cycle	Decide in advance whether the 2-page proceedings summary is worth it
Reject	Structural: wrong scope, weak baseline, no scaling story	Reframe or reroute (CGO/PLDI/ASPLOS/SC or a later round)
"Revision" (if offered — 待核实)	Repairable gaps within a bounded window	Treat as an R&R; make or explicitly decline every request with evidence

The strategic reading: because there is (as verified) one written turn, design the submission so its weakest point is answerable in the rebuttal with a number you already have (a pre-run baseline, an extra core-count) rather than something requiring a month of new machine time.

How PPoPP differs from its siblings

• vs. PLDI/CGO: those judge a language/compiler contribution; PPoPP judges the parallel-program behavior. A great pass with a thin scaling story fails here and would pass there. Different template too (PPoPP two-column acmart sigplan, 10 pages).
• vs. POPL: POPL rewards the concurrency proof itself; PPoPP wants the proof plus a measured parallel system. A pure logic is a POPL paper.
• vs. ASPLOS/HPCA: those own the machine; a PPoPP reviewer reads your hardware as the platform, not the result, and will discount a win that is really a microarchitecture artifact.

Where author leverage actually exists

[Before submission]  abstract + topic tags -> TPMS/PC matching        (largest early lever)
[Initial reviews]    factual corrections, a pre-run number, a clarified interleaving argument
[Rebuttal]           the decisive turn: answer "does it scale?" and "baseline X?" with data
                     already in hand, within the word cap
[After reject]       no appeal; reroute to a co-located sibling or the next round

A rebuttal moves borderline papers when it supplies a scaling point or a baseline a reviewer said was missing; it does not move papers when it argues taste or promises future experiments. The classic PPoPP loss is a reviewer asking "how does this behave at 128 cores / on a second GPU?" and the authors having only the one machine's numbers.

Reading a review packet

Weight reviews before answering. A review that cites your speedup figure, your baseline choice, and your correctness argument was read closely; answer each reviewer on the axis they raised — correctness reviewers with an interleaving argument, performance reviewers with a number. A review that only questions novelty has left soundness to the others; do not spend your word budget there.

Misreadings to avoid

• Assuming a revise-and-resubmit safety net — as verified there is one written turn; the rebuttal is not a placeholder.
• Treating the poster path as failure — the two-page proceedings summary is a real, citable outcome; decide about it deliberately.
• Ignoring the ERC — external reviewers carry real weight and real conflicts.
• Projecting last year's cadence — round count, rebuttal timing, and any "Revision" category are decided per edition.

Output format

[Process stage] pre-submission / awaiting reviews / rebuttal / decided
[Decision] accept / poster / reject / revision(if offered), with the driving criterion
[Criterion map] each review point -> parallelism-as-point | correctness | scalability | baseline | measurement | reproducibility
[Leverage plan] the rebuttal number or correction that can actually change the outcome
[Forbidden moves] identity leak / promised-but-unrun experiments / arguing taste