sensys-submission

SenSys Submission

Order the checks by how permanent the mistake is. A paper aimed at the wrong deadline, or a

first-deadline reject re-entered without its required revision, is bounced before a reviewer ever

opens it — nothing recovers that. Formatting and anonymity slips, by contrast, are fixable right

up to upload. So the audit below front-loads the irreversible gates and leaves the mechanical

sweeps for last. Treat every number as the 2026/2027 snapshot; the live HotCRP /deadlines page

overrides it.

Gate 1 — the deadline is real and yours

SenSys submits through a per-edition HotCRP instance (e.g. sensys27.hotcrp.com) and offers

two deadlines per cycle, each fully reviewed on its own. Confirm on the deadlines page:

• Whether the open deadline is the first or the second, and which edition it feeds — a

mid-cycle submission competes for that edition's program, not one already decided.

• Whether this edition requires abstract registration ahead of the paper, and its date.
• That the cutoff is AoE, then convert it to each coauthor's wall clock — a Paris or New York

time printed on the page is nobody's local midnight.

The resubmission gate is the one authors miss: if you are re-entering a first-deadline reject at

the second deadline, the submission is **invalid without a substantive revision and a "Response

to Reviewers"** tying each prior concern to a concrete change (sensys-author-response). A

repackaged reject is a desk reject.

Gate 2 — the geometry is legal

| Item | Rule (2027 cycle) | How to check |

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

| Full paper | ≤ 12 pages including figures and tables | Count the compiled PDF |

| Short paper | ≤ 6 pages (vision/experience track) | Confirm which track you entered |

| References | unlimited, beyond the cap | Nothing load-bearing tucked among them |

| Appendices | optional, after references, beyond the cap | Nothing a reviewer must read to believe the claim |

| Template | ACM double-column, geometry from the class file | Diff against the template; never resize by hand |

At SenSys the cap pressure is figures — power traces, latency CDFs, and testbed schematics eat

the body. Relieve it by cutting content, not by \vspace tricks or shrinking a measurement plot

past legibility; production and reviewers both notice. The exact template version and font floor

are 待核实 for the cycle — read the CFP.

Gate 3 — nobody can tell whose paper it is

Beyond the standard anonymization (no names, affiliations, funding lines, or acknowledgments;

third-person self-citation; references intact), SenSys papers leak identity through their

hardware and deployments. Sweep the exact upload candidate:

# 1. text + metadata identity
pdftotext final.pdf - | grep -niE 'acknowledg|funded by|grant no|@[a-z]+\.(edu|com)'
pdfinfo final.pdf | grep -iE 'author|creator|producer'
# 2. paths and un-blinded artifact hosts
grep -rniE 'github\.com/[a-z0-9_-]+|zenodo\.org|/home/[a-z]+|/Users/[a-z]+' *.tex figures/
# 3. the SenSys-specific tell: a nameable site, testbed, or deployment
pdftotext final.pdf - | grep -niE 'our (lab|building|campus|deployment|testbed)|[A-Z][a-z]+ Hall|room [0-9]+|IRB'

Strings are the easy part. A "30-node testbed across our engineering building" beside a photo of

a distinctive atrium narrows to one group; soften identifying specifics to scale-descriptive

language. And every artifact URL must resolve to a blinded repo or an author-stripped Zenodo

deposit. A machine finds the strings; only a human reading for implication catches the rest —

hand the PDF to a non-author and ask what lab they'd guess.

Gate 4 — the form and the policies

The HotCRP record is read before the PDF: title and abstract must match the paper word for word;

topic tags steer the paper toward the sensing / embedded / IoT / on-device-AI reviewers you want

bidding, so pick for reviewer fit rather than breadth; and the full author list is registered for

conflict computation even while the PDF stays blind — a late author addition after assignment is a

chairs-level problem. Declare conflicts exactly as the site defines them. Then clear the policy

gates: no concurrent submission elsewhere; a stated delta for any overlapping workshop or poster;

human-subjects and third-party-infrastructure handling addressed (wording 待核实); and the cycle's

AI-use rule read live rather than assumed.

Run-of-show

T-8d  account on the right instance + deadline; form fields drafted; conflicts entered
T-7d  abstract registered if required; topic tags chosen for reviewer fit
T-2d  content freeze; Gates 2-3 run on the near-final PDF; resubmission packet attached
T-1d  coauthors sign off; HotCRP title/abstract match the PDF verbatim
T-0   upload → status ready; then re-download the stored file and open it — only server bytes count

Report back

[Gate1] instance + first/second deadline + edition fed + AoE cutoff in local time
[Gate2] full/short track + page/column/template verdict
[Gate3] mechanical hits + human-read verdict (deployment + artifact-link giveaways)
[Resub] revision + Response-to-Reviewers attached? (second-deadline re-entry only)
[Gate4] form verbatim-match + conflicts + dual-sub/ethics/AI each cleared or flagged
[Open]  live blockers, most-permanent first, each with an owner and hours-to-fix