atc-submission

ATC Submission

Run this audit before uploading to the ATC HotCRP site (atc26.hotcrp.com). ATC 2026 is the first

ACM SIGOPS Annual Technical Conference — the continuation of the former USENIX ATC — so the

process changed in the handover: a new two-round, extended-abstract review, a June deadline,

a Hong Kong / November conference, and ACM Open Access publication. Every number below was

read from the ATC 2026 SIGOPS call and the USENIX ATC '25 pages on 2026-07-09 via search renderings

(see resources/official-source-map.md); treat them as a one-cycle snapshot and reopen the live

call first.

The paired upload (the thing authors miss)

ATC's first review round judges a two-page extended abstract, uploaded **together with the full

paper** in one HotCRP submission:

• The extended abstract gives the motivation and contribution and is **for review only — it is not

published**.

• It must stand on its own: a round-one reviewer may read only the abstract, and a round-two

reviewer may read only the paper. Neither may assume the other.

• A copy of the introduction can serve as the abstract **only if it fits two pages and reads

self-contained** — usually it needs tightening, not just truncation.

If your submission has a strong paper but a weak, dependent abstract, you can be cut in round one

before anyone opens the PDF. Audit the abstract as hard as the paper.

Format and page budget

• Two-column format: text block 178 × 229 mm (7 × 9 in), 10-point Times Roman (or

similar) on 12-point single-spaced leading, A4 or US letter. This is the classic USENIX systems

layout; whether the SIGOPS edition mandates the USENIX template file or an ACM equivalent is

待核实 — confirm on the call.

• Page budget: full papers ≤ 12 pages, short papers ≤ 6 pages, excluding references and

appendices but including all text, figures, tables, and footnotes.

• Reviewers are not required to read appendices; nothing that decides acceptance may live only

in an appendix (see atc-supplementary).

Double-blind sweep

ATC review is double-blind: reviewer and author identities are mutually concealed. Because

systems papers lean on code, testbeds, and system names, the leak surface is wide:

# Mechanical pass on the submission PDF and any anonymized artifact archive
pdfinfo paper.pdf | grep -Ei 'author|creator|producer'
pdftotext paper.pdf - | grep -nEi 'github\.com/[a-z0-9-]+|gitlab|zenodo\.org/record|acknowledg|grant|our (prior|previous) (system|work)' | head
unzip -l artifact.zip | grep -Ei '\.git/|\.DS_Store|/home/|/Users/|hostname' | head
grep -rniE 'university|@[a-z0-9.]+\.edu|cluster [a-z0-9-]+|internal-|corp\.' artifact/ --include='*.md' --include='*.sh' | head

The systems-specific leaks: a system named after your group or product, a cluster hostname in a log

or config, a git remote inside a zipped repo, an acknowledgments/funding line, and citing your own

prior system as "our system X." Cite your own work in the third person and never write

"reference removed for blind review." Mirror any linked repository behind a blind service before

upload.

Desk-risk triage

| Finding at audit time | Severity | Real fix |

|---|---|---|

| No extended abstract, or it does not stand alone | Round-one failure | Write/tighten a self-contained 2-page abstract; verify it reads without the paper |

| Main text over the 12/6-page budget | Desk-reject-grade | Cut or move to an appendix; references/appendices do not absorb body text |

| Format altered (margins, column width, shrunk font) | Desk-reject ground | Recompile to the two-column spec; recover space editorially |

| Identity leak in PDF, artifact, system name, or self-citation | Anonymity violation | Re-anonymize, re-host, scrub metadata, third-person self-cites |

| Same work under review elsewhere | Concurrent-submission exposure | Withdraw one venue; verify the current concurrent-submission wording |

| Claims with no runnable evidence | Scored weakness | Add the anonymized artifact and a claim-to-experiment map |

Final-week order of operations

1. Freeze the system and results early; prose can churn, the measurements cannot.
2. Write the extended abstract last but audit it first — read it cold, without the paper, and check

the problem, contribution, testbed, and result all land in two pages.

1. Run the double-blind checks on the final PDF, the final extended abstract, and the

final artifact archive — not on drafts.

1. Fill every HotCRP field — topic tags that match your evidence, conflicts for every coauthor's

institution and recent collaborators — a day early; late conflicts are the classic midnight

failure.

1. Confirm the exact deadline day on the SIGOPS call (renderings disagree on 1 vs. 10 June 2026

— 待核实) and target AoE, not local midnight.

1. Re-download both uploaded PDFs and read them cold to confirm they are the files you meant.

Reverify each cycle

• The exact June deadline day, the abstract/paper pairing rule, and whether the two-round model

persists.

• The page budget and which template file (USENIX vs. ACM) is required (待核实).
• Whether the Deployed Systems / experience track is offered (待核实), the artifact-track timing,

concurrent-submission wording, and any AI-disclosure rule.

• ACM Open Access / APC terms and waivers.

Output format

[ATC submission status] ready / blocked / needs work
[Extended abstract] present and self-standing? yes/no
[Format] pages used (body/refs), two-column template compliance
[Anonymity] clean / leaks: <where>
[Artifact] anonymized runnable package linked? claim-to-experiment map present?
[Fix queue] <ordered, with owners and dates before the early-June AoE cutoff>