mobisys-related-work

MobiSys Related Work

Use this to audit novelty and coverage. Reopen the current CFP for dual-submission,

anonymity, and prior-publication rules before advising authors. At MobiSys the failure mode is

usually a too-narrow related-work section that misses a sibling-venue predecessor.

Positioning checks

• Separate the system contribution from an engineering improvement: a new runtime

mechanism, scheduling policy, on-device inference system, sensing service, or platform.

• Cover the mobile-systems lanes below; a bibliography that cites only machine-learning papers

tells a systems reviewer that known mobile-systems work may be getting rediscovered.

• Treat ACM DL, USENIX, and IEEE proceedings as archival unless current rules say otherwise.
• Cite arXiv and workshop versions in a way that preserves double-blind review; do not point

reviewers to identity-revealing pages.

• Use related work to sharpen what is new: a tighter energy budget, a lower latency tail, an

on-device capability that previously required the cloud, or a deployment others only

simulated.

Literature lanes to sweep

| Lane | Typical venues | What MobiSys reviewers check |

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

| Computation offload / edge | MobiSys, MobiCom, NSDI, EuroSys | Whether the nearest offload system is compared or distinguished |

| On-device ML systems | MobiSys, SenSys, MLSys, ASPLOS | Whether prior on-device runtimes/schedulers are acknowledged |

| Mobile OS / runtime | MobiSys, OSDI, SOSP, EuroSys | Whether the platform mechanism has an OS-systems predecessor |

| Mobile sensing / ubicomp | MobiSys, SenSys, IMWUT | Whether the sensing-service line is covered without misfiling |

| Energy / measurement | MobiSys, SenSys, IMC | Whether energy methodology follows established practice |

A related-work section that ignores the SenSys or OSDI predecessor of a mobile-systems idea is

a recognizable MobiSys reject pattern that no amount of on-device polish repairs.

Venue-verification discipline

The mobile-systems canon is easy to misattribute because MobiSys, MobiCom, and SenSys share

the SIGMOBILE umbrella:

• Verify each cited "MobiSys paper" on the ACM DL and dblp by matching the

conf/mobisys record; TaintDroid is OSDI, CenceMe is SenSys, RF-sensing classics are

MobiCom/SIGCOMM (see [../../resources/exemplars/library.md](../../resources/exemplars/library.md)).

• Do not cite a paper as MobiSys from memory; a misattributed venue signals careless

scholarship to a specialist reviewer.

Concurrent-work judgment calls

• Independently concurrent arXiv work: cite neutrally, state the technical difference, and

avoid priority claims reviewers cannot verify.

• Your own workshop (e.g., HotMobile) version: typically non-archival and citable, but verify

against the current CFP and phrase the citation so double-blind review survives.

• When in doubt about the archival status of a venue, declare the overlap in the submission

form rather than gambling on a chair's interpretation.

Positioning vignette

Imagine the paper proposes a thermal-aware on-device inference runtime. Its nearest neighbors:

an on-device DNN scheduler at MobiSys with no thermal model, a mobile-GPU inference framework

at MobiSys tuned for peak not sustained load, and an OS-level DVFS mechanism at OSDI. The

novelty sentence should name all three contrasts — thermal-awareness where the scheduler had

none, sustained-load stability where the GPU framework optimized peak, and application-level

control where the OS mechanism was generic.

Output format

[Eligibility] clear / needs declaration / risky
[Closest lanes] <offload / on-device ML / mobile OS / sensing / energy>
[Nearest 3 works] <work -> distinction>
[Venue-verification risk] <none / misattribution issues>
[Novelty sentence] <MobiSys-ready contribution contrast>