icalp-topic-selection

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:

1. Is this an ICALP paper at all, versus STOC/FOCS/SODA, a specialized venue (LICS, CCC, SoCG,

CONCUR, ...), or a journal?

1. 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-style framing 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.