hri-topic-selection

HRI Topic Selection

Two decisions precede everything else: is this an HRI paper at all, and **which of the five

tracks** does it enter. HRI is the flagship interdisciplinary venue for human-robot interaction —

it uniquely rewards work that sits between robotics, HCI, psychology, and design. Getting the

venue and track right is the highest-leverage move an author makes, because HRI judges each paper

by the contribution type of its chosen track. Facts below were read from the HRI 2026/2027 calls on

2026-07-09 (see resources/official-source-map.md); reopen the live call before deciding.

The two gating tests

Apply both. HRI wants a person and a robot interacting.

1. Robot-embodiment test. Is there a robot — a physical or virtual embodied agent — that is

central to the study? If the "robot" is really a chatbot, a screen widget, or a disembodied voice

assistant with no embodiment, the interaction lessons usually belong at CHI or a dialogue

venue, not HRI.

1. Human-in-the-loop test. Is a person interacting with the robot, and is the paper's claim

about that interaction? If the contribution is autonomy, control, perception, or learning

evaluated without a human (benchmarks, trajectories, success rates), it belongs at

ICRA/IROS/CoRL, even if the long-term motivation is human-facing.

Pass both and you are plausibly at HRI. Fail the first → CHI (or a design/AI venue). Fail the

second → a robotics/learning venue. Pass both but the human is incidental → reconsider whether the

human study is real or decorative.

Route among the siblings

| If the core contribution is... | Prefer | Why not HRI |

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

| Interaction with an embodied robot, evaluated with people | HRI | — |

| A general HCI/UI interaction with no robot embodiment | CHI | No robot; HRI requires embodiment |

| Robot autonomy/control/perception/learning, no human study | ICRA / IROS / CoRL | No human-in-the-loop; HRI wants the interaction |

| Robot-and-human communication with an engineering-comms framing | RO-MAN | RO-MAN overlaps; HRI is more selective and study-centric — a judgment call, decide by community fit |

| Human-agent interaction where the agent is not a robot | HAI | Embodiment/robot focus is weaker |

| A mature, extended study or synthesis better as an archival article | THRI (journal) | HRI is an 8-page conference paper, not a journal article |

| Early-stage result or new idea, not yet a full study | HRI Late-Breaking Reports | Full papers need a complete, defensible study |

| Bold, provocative, or unconventional work / methods | HRI alt.HRI | The main track expects standard rigor; alt.HRI invites the unorthodox |

The RO-MAN vs HRI and CHI vs HRI calls are the frequent ones. Decide RO-MAN/HRI by

selectivity and evidence culture (HRI leans harder on study design and effect sizes); decide

CHI/HRI by whether the robot's embodiment is doing real work in the interaction.

Then pick the track (this is HRI-specific)

Full papers enter exactly one of five tracks, and are reviewed by the subcommittee matched to

that contribution type. Choose by what your primary contribution is, not by your topic:

• User Studies — new knowledge about human-robot interaction from a study involving people.

The default home for empirical/behavioral work. Reproducibility studies also go here. Typically

the largest track (and may be split into multiple subcommittees).

• Technical — the primary contribution is an algorithm, model, or method, best judged by

component-level testing rather than a full system evaluation (e.g., a perception or behavior-

generation method for interaction).

• Design — the contribution is a designed interaction, artifact, or interface for HRI, with

design insight demonstrated (often with people, but the contribution is the design).

• Theory and Methods — the contribution advances the conceptual foundations of HRI or the

methods by which we do HRI research (frameworks, measures, methodology).

• Systems — the contribution is an integrated robotic system achieving new interactive

capability, evaluated at the system level.

Mismatch is costly: a design contribution shoved into User Studies will be marked down for a weak

study it never claimed to be. If two tracks fit, pick the one matching the contribution you most

want judged, and make that contribution unmistakable on the first page.

The re-label test (does it survive as an HRI paper?)

Ask: if I removed the robot, would the contribution survive? If yes, it is probably a CHI/ML/

psychology paper wearing a robot costume. And: *if I removed the human study, would the contribution

survive? If yes, it is probably an ICRA/IROS systems paper. An HRI paper is one where *both the

robot and the human interaction are load-bearing**.

Calendar as a routing input

HRI runs an annual cycle with an early-fall full-paper deadline. For the 2026 cycle: **abstract

22 Sep 2025, paper 30 Sep 2025 (AoE); alt.HRI 17 Oct 2025; LBR / video / Student Design

8 Dec 2025**; conference March. If the study will not be complete and defensible by the

full-paper deadline, the honest routes are LBR (early-stage) now and a full paper next cycle, or

a different venue — not a thin full-paper submission that a User Studies subcommittee will see

through.

Output format

[Venue decision] HRI / CHI / ICRA-IROS-CoRL / RO-MAN / HAI / THRI / other
[Both gating tests] robot embodiment: yes/no · human-in-the-loop: yes/no
[Re-label test] survives without robot? without human study? (both should be "no")
[Track] User Studies / Technical / Design / Theory and Methods / Systems — why
[If not HRI] recommended venue + reason
[Calendar fit] complete by the full-paper deadline? else LBR/alt.HRI/next cycle