icalp-topic-selection
GitHub用于判断理论计算机科学成果是否适合投稿至ICALP会议，并区分Track A（算法、复杂性）与Track B（自动机、逻辑）。同时协助区分ICALP与STOC/FOCS/SODA等美国会议及期刊的差异。
Trigger Scenarios
Install
npx skills add brycewang-stanford/Awesome-Journal-Skills --skill icalp-topic-selection -g -y
SKILL.md
Frontmatter
{
"name": "icalp-topic-selection",
"description": "Use when deciding whether a theoretical computer science result belongs at ICALP (EATCS) and, if so, whether it is a Track A (algorithms, complexity, games) or Track B (automata, logic, semantics, theory of programming) paper, and when distinguishing ICALP from the US theory venues STOC, FOCS, and SODA or from a TCS journal by contribution shape, community, and the LIPIcs open-access model."
}
ICALP Topic Selection
Decide the venue and the track before drafting. ICALP — the EATCS International Colloquium on Automata, Languages, and Programming — is Europe's flagship theoretical-computer-science conference and the annual meeting of the European Association for Theoretical Computer Science. Its contribution is a theorem: a precise statement in a clean model, proved completely. A paper whose real deliverable is a system, a benchmark result, or an application with no new theorem is respected and then rejected as out of scope.
Two decisions, not one
Routing to ICALP is genuinely two questions:
- Is this an ICALP paper at all, versus STOC/FOCS/SODA, a specialized venue (LICS, CCC, SoCG, CONCUR, ...), or a journal?
- Which track — Track A (Algorithms, Complexity and Games) or Track B (Automata, Logic, Semantics and Theory of Programming)?
Both matter: the tracks have separate program committees and separate HotCRP servers, and Track B carries a rebuttal while Track A does not.
Track A vs Track B
| Signal in your result | Track |
|---|---|
| A faster algorithm, a better approximation ratio, a new data structure, a fine-grained bound | A |
| A complexity lower bound, hardness, or a completeness result about computation | A |
| Algorithmic game theory, mechanism design, equilibrium computation | A |
| Decidability/complexity of a logic or a theory, model theory of computation | B |
| Automata, formal languages, transducers, infinite-state systems (Petri nets/VASS, pushdown) | B |
| Semantics of programming languages, lambda calculi, type theory, verification foundations | B |
| Concurrency theory, process calculi, category-theoretic semantics | B |
Borderline cases exist (e.g. logic-flavored complexity). Resolve them by which community should referee the proof — the one that will recognize the technique and the prior bound — and by which track's recent programs contain your subarea.
ICALP vs the US theory venues and journals
| Signal in your project | Better home | Why |
|---|---|---|
| Broad TCS result, ready now, and the February ICALP deadline is the nearest honest fit | ICALP | EATCS European flagship; LIPIcs open access; two tracks |
| Top-tier breakthrough aimed at the US theory community, STOC/FOCS timing fits | STOC / FOCS | ACM/IEEE flagships; different calendar, single-column ACM/IEEE style |
| Core is discrete algorithms / data structures with a SODA fit | SODA | SIAM algorithms venue; different community and calendar |
| Logic in computer science specifically (not general Track B breadth) | LICS | Dedicated logic venue; overlaps Track B, different community |
| Computational complexity specifically | CCC | Dedicated complexity venue |
| Computational geometry | SoCG | Dedicated geometry venue |
| Result too long, or wants a definitive journal version of record | journal (JACM, TALG, TCS, LMCS, ...) | No conference page ceiling; some ICALP papers later have journal versions |
ICALP's distinctive pull is European TCS community + LIPIcs open access + a two-track single February cycle. It is not STOC/FOCS/SODA; do not carry their templates, blinding regimes, or calendars across.
Contribution shapes ICALP rewards
- A better bound — a faster algorithm, a smaller approximation ratio, a tighter complexity bound than the best known, with the improvement stated against a named prior result.
- A lower bound / hardness / impossibility — proving a limitation, conditionally or unconditionally, in a precisely defined model.
- A decidability / complexity classification — pinning the exact complexity of deciding a logic, language, or verification problem (a signature Track B move).
- A dichotomy or complete characterization — classifying an entire family rather than one instance.
- A new model or a foundational result — a clean model with a clear TCS payoff; "foundations" is in the name for both tracks.
The re-route tests
- Theorem test: strip the implementation and the experiments — is there still a theorem worth proving? If not, the paper belongs at an experimental-algorithms, database, or systems venue, not ICALP.
- Prior-bound test: can you name the best previous bound your result beats? If you cannot, either
the problem is not yet a recognized ICALP problem, or the contribution is not a bound (an
icalp-writing-styleframing fix, or a re-route). - Track-referee test: who should check the proof — an algorithms/complexity person (A) or an automata/logic/semantics person (B)? If the honest answer is "a systems/ML/database person," ICALP is the wrong venue.
Cheap reconnaissance before committing
[Scope] scan the last two ICALP programs (dblp db/conf/icalp) for your subarea and track
-> present in Track A/B recently = a reviewer pool exists; absent = opening or mismatch
[Citations] is your bibliography majority TCS venues (ICALP/STOC/FOCS/SODA/LICS/CCC + TCS journals)?
-> majority applied venues => reviewers read you as a visitor; reconsider the venue
[Calendar] ICALP has ONE annual February deadline; compare with STOC/FOCS/SODA/LICS dates
-> route to the nearest honest fit rather than waiting a full year for a marginal preference
Decision procedure
[Is there a theorem?] strip code/experiments -> new theorem remains? no => not ICALP
[ICALP vs US/journal] European TCS breadth, Feb deadline nearest, open-access wanted? -> ICALP
[Track] bound/algorithm/complexity/games => A ; logic/automata/semantics/verification => B
[Specialized check] pure logic => LICS? pure complexity => CCC? geometry => SoCG?
[Verdict] ICALP Track A / ICALP Track B / sibling venue / journal, with a one-line reason
Run this before the writing skills; a wrong venue or track decision wastes every later step. When
the verdict is ICALP, continue with icalp-workflow for the calendar and icalp-writing-style for
the paper shape.
Version History
- 9f86f09 Current 2026-07-19 15:53
