Regular Research Papers:

• Meng Wang, Shayan Najd: Semantic Bidirectionalization Revisited

• Michael D. Adams, Andrew Farmer, Jos Pedro Magalhes: Optimizing SYB is Easy!

• Sheng Chen, Martin Erwig: Early Detection of Type Errors in C++ Templates

• Étienne Payet, Fausto Spoto: An Operational Semantics for Android Activities

• Gabriel Kerneis, Charlie Shepherd, Stefan Hajnoczi: QEMU/CPC: Static Analysis and CPS Conversion for Safe, Portable, and Efficient Coroutines

• Sean Leather, Johan Jeuring, Andres Löh, Bram Schuur: Type-Changing Rewriting and Semantics-Preserving Transformation

• Jeroen Bransen, Atze Dijkstra, Doaitse Swierstra: Lazy Stateless Incremental Evaluation Machinery for Attribute Grammars

• Andrew Farmer, Christian Hoener Zu Siederdissen, Andy Gill: The HERMIT in the Stream

• Hugo Pacheco, Zhenjiang Hu, Sebastian Fischer: Monadic Combinators for "Putback" Style Bidirectional Programming

• James Cheney, Sam Lindley, Gabriel Radanne, Philip Wadler: Effective Quotation

• Weiyu Miao, Jeremy Siek: Compile-time Reflection and Metaprogramming for Java

• Yukiyoshi Kameyama, Oleg Kiselyov, Chung-Chieh Shan: Combinators for Impure yet Hygienic Code Generation

• Huiqing Li, Simon Thompson, Pablo Lamela Seijas, Miguel Angel Francisco: Automating Property-based Testing of Evolving Web Services

• lvaro Garca-Prez, Pablo Nogueira, Ilya Sergey: Deriving Interpretations of the Gradually-Typed Lambda Calculus

Short/Tool Demonstration Papers:

• Andreea Costea, Asankhaya Sharma, Cristina David: HIPimm: Verifying Granular Immutability Guarantees

• Michael Hanus, Fabian Skrlac: A Modular and Generic Analysis Server System for Functional Logic Programs

• Pedro Martins, Joo Paulo Fernandes, Joo Saraiva, Eric Van Wyk: Generating attribute grammar-based bidirectional transformations from rewrite-rules

PEPM has also established a Best Paper award. The winner will be announced at the workshop.

PEPM has also established a Best Paper award. The winner will be announced at the workshop.

Papers should be submitted electronically via the workshop web site.

Submission Categories and Guidelines

Authors are strongly encouraged to consult the advice for authoring research papers and tool papers before submitting. The PC Chairs welcome any inquiries about the authoring advice.

Regular Research Papers must not exceed 12 pages in ACM Proceedings style (including appendix). Tool demonstration papers and short papers must not exceed 6 pages in ACM Proceedings style (including appendix). At least one author of each accepted contribution must attend the workshop and present the work. In the case of tool demonstration papers, a live demonstration of the described tool is expected. Suggested topics, evaluation criteria, and writing guidelines for both research tool demonstration papers will be made available on the PEPM'14 Web-site. Papers should be submitted electronically via the workshop web site.

Authors using LaTeX to prepare their submissions should use the new improved SIGPLAN proceedings style (sigplanconf.cls, 9pt template).

Important Dates

• Abstract due: Thu, October 10, 2013 (Extended)
• Paper submission: Tue, October 15, 2013, 23:59, GMT (Extended)
• Author notification: Mon, November 11, 2013
• Camera-ready papers due: Tue, November, 19, 2013

Invited Speakers

We are delighted to have the following two invited speakers:

• Michal Moskal (Microsoft Research, USA): Lessons from a Web-Based IDE and Runtime
  
  Abstract At Microsoft Research, we have built a purely web-based IDE called TouchDevelop that enables anyone to pick up a device and start programming. The IDE is geared towards touch based devices without keyboards, ranging from phones, over tablets, to large display screens. Programs can be edited and run on the device without an auxiliary PC. Transitioning between programming on one device, and continuing on another device is seamless. The web application also works offline.
  
  TouchDevelop has been successfully applied to teaching introductory programming classes at the high-school level and at some college level for non-CS majors. For researchers, TouchDevelop provides a green-field platform to explore IDE and programming language design, as well as runtime techniques and distributed data storage abstractions.
  
  In this talk, I will provide an overview of TouchDevelop from a language, IDE, and runtime perspective, while diving into some of the novel techniques enabled by our particular platform.
  
  (Due to some unforseen circumstance, Michal Moskal, a co-developer of TouchDevelop, will be giving this invited talk in place of Manuel Fahndrich.)

• Sven-Bodo Scholz (Heriot-Watt University, UK): Partial Evaluation as Universal Compiler Tool (experiences from the SAC eco system)
  
  Abstract Compilation of high-level languages, be they domain-specific ones or general purpose ones, typically entails rather sophisticated program analyses to facilitate extensive program manipulations and target architecture-specific code generation. This talk shows how several of these techniques can benefit vastly from the use of partial evaluation techniques; it reflects some of the experiences gained in the context of the ecosystem of compiler tools around the programming language SAC (Single Assignment C).
  
  I describe how partial evaluation over the lifetime of the compiler development project has turned into a versatile tool that supports several aspects during the compilation, optimisation and code generation for SAC programs. At three concrete use scenarios in our toolchain: type inference, constraint resolution and application-specific code generation, I demonstrate the gains from partial evaluation. A discussion about limitations, further application potential and possible alternatives concludes the presentation.

Program Committee

Program Chairs

• Wei-Ngan Chin (National University of Singapore, Singapore)
• Jurriaan Hage (Utrecht University, Netherlands)

Program Committee Members

• Évelyne Contejean (LRI, CNRS, Université Paris-Sud, France)
• Cristina David (University of Oxford, UK)
• Alain Frisch (LexiFi, France)
• Ronald Garcia (University of British Columbia, Canada)
• Zhenjiang Hu (National Institute of Informatics, Japan)
• Paul H J Kelly (Imperial College, UK)
• Oleg Kiselyov (Monterey, USA)
• Naoki Kobayashi (University of Tokyo, Japan)
• Jens Krinke (University College London, UK)
• Ryan Newton (University of Indiana, USA)
• Alberto Pardo (Universidad de la República, Uruguay)
• Sungwoo Park (Pohang University of Science and Technology, South Korea)
• Tiark Rompf (Oracle Labs & EPFL, Switzerland)
• Sukyoung Ryu (KAIST, South Korea)
• Kostis Sagonas (Uppsala University, Sweden)
• Max Schaefer (Nanyang Technological University, Singapore)
• Harald Søndergaard (The University of Melbourne, Australia)
• Eijiro Sumii (Tohoku University, Japan)
• Eric Van Wyk (University of Minnesota, USA)
• Jeremy Yallop (University of Cambridge, UK)

Steering Committee

• Elvira Albert (Complutense University of Madrid, Spain)
• Siau-Cheng Khoo (National University of Singapore, Singapore)
• Oleg Kiselyov (Monterey, CA, USA) [chair]
• Shin-Cheng Mu (Academia Sinica, Taiwan)
• Jeremy G. Siek (University of Colorado at Boulder, USA)
• Simon Thompson (University of Kent, UK)

----------------------------------------------------------------------
                     C A L L   F O R   P A P E R S

                         === P E P M  2014 ===

                        ACM SIGPLAN Workshop on 
             Partial Evaluation and Program Manipulation 
             http://www.program-transformation.org/PEPM14

                          January 20-21, 2014
                           San Diego, CA, USA
                      (Affiliated with POPL 2014)
  
====================================================================

SCOPE

The PEPM Symposium/Workshop series aims to bring together researchers
and practitioners working in the areas of program manipulation,
partial evaluation, and program generation. PEPM focuses on
techniques, theory, tools, and applications of analysis and
manipulation of programs.

The 2014 PEPM workshop will be based on a broad interpretation of
semantics-based program manipulation and continue previous years'
successful effort to expand the scope of PEPM significantly beyond the
traditionally covered areas of partial evaluation and specialization.
The aim is to include practical applications of program transformations 
such as refactoring tools, and practical implementation techniques such 
as rule-based transformation systems. In addition, the scope of PEPM
covers manipulation and transformations of program and system
representations such as structural and semantic models that occur in
the context of model-driven development. In order to reach out to
practitioners, a separate category of tool demonstration papers will
be solicited.

====================================================================

Topics of interest for PEPM'14 include, but are not limited to:

* Program and model manipulation techniques such as: supercompilation,
  partial evaluation, fusion, on-the-fly program adaptation, active
  libraries, program inversion, slicing, symbolic execution,
  refactoring, decompilation, and obfuscation.

* Program analysis techniques that are used to drive program/model
  manipulation such as: abstract interpretation, termination checking,
  binding-time analysis, constraint solving, type systems, automated
  testing and test case generation.

* Techniques that treat programs/models as data objects including
  metaprogramming, generative programming, embedded domain-specific
  languages, program synthesis by sketching and inductive programming,
  staged computation, and model-driven program generation and
  transformation.

* Application of the above techniques including case studies of
  program manipulation in real-world (industrial, open-source)
  projects and software development processes, descriptions of robust
  tools capable of effectively handling realistic applications,
  benchmarking. Examples of application domains include legacy program
  understanding and transformation, DSL implementations, visual
  languages and end-user programming, scientific computing, middleware
  frameworks and infrastructure needed for distributed and web-based
  applications, resource-limited computation, and security.

To maintain the dynamic and interactive nature of PEPM, we will continue 
the category of `short papers' for tool demonstrations and for presentations
of exciting if not fully polished research, and of interesting academic, 
industrial and open-source applications that are new or unfamiliar.

Student attendants with accepted papers can apply for a SIGPLAN PAC 
grant to help cover travel expenses and other support. PAC also offers 
other support, such as for child-care expenses during the meeting or for 
travel costs for companions of SIGPLAN members with physical disabilities, 
as well as for travel from locations outside of North America and Europe. 
For details on the PAC programme, see its web page.

All accepted papers, short papers included, will appear in formal 
proceedings published by ACM Press. In addition to printed proceedings, 
accepted papers will be included in the ACM Digital Library. A special issue 
for Science of Computer Programming is planned with recommended papers 
from PEPM'14.

PEPM has also established a Best Paper award. The winner will be announced 
at the workshop.

====================================================================

SUBMISSION GUIDELINES, CATEGORIES, AND PROCEEDINGS


Authors are strongly encouraged to consult the advice for authoring 
research papers (http://www.program-transformation.org/PEPM14/ResearchPaperAdvice)
and tool papers (http://www.program-transformation.org/PEPM14/ToolPaperAdvice) 
before submitting. The PC Chairs welcome any inquiries about the 
authoring advice.

Regular Research Papers must not exceed 12 pages in ACM Proceedings 
style (including appendix). Tool demonstration papers and short papers must 
not exceed 6 pages in ACM Proceedings style (including appendix). At least one 
author of each accepted contribution must attend the workshop and present 
the work. In the case of tool demonstration papers, a live demonstration of 
the described tool is expected. Suggested topics, evaluation criteria, and 
writing guidelines for both research tool demonstration papers will be made 
available on the PEPM'14 Web-site. Papers should be submitted electronically
via the workshop web site.

Authors using LaTeX to prepare their submissions should use the new improved
SIGPLAN proceedings style (sigplanconf.cls, 9pt template). 

====================================================================

IMPORTANT DATES

  Abstract due: Thu, October 3, 2013 (Extended)
  Paper submission: Thu, October 10, 2013, 23:59, GMT (Extended)
  Author notification: Mon, November 11, 2013
  Camera-ready papers due: * to be announced *

====================================================================

INVITED SPEAKERS

We are delighted to announce the following two invited speakers of PEPM 2014:

  Michal Moskal (Microsoft Research, USA)
  Sven-Bodo Scholz (Heriot-Watt University, Scotland)

PROGRAM Co-CHAIRS

  Wei-Ngan Chin, National University of Singapore, Singapore
  Jurriaan Hage, Utrecht University, Netherlands

PEPM 2014 PROGRAM COMMITTEE

  Evelyne Contejean, CNRS, Université Paris-Sud, France
  Cristina David, University of Oxford, UK
  Alain Frisch, LexiFi, France
  Ronald Garcia, U. of British Columbia, Canada
  Zhenjiang Hu, NII, Japan
  Paul H J Kelly, Imperial College, UK
  Oleg Kiselyov, Monterey, USA
  Naoki Kobayashi, University of Tokyo, Japan
  Jens Krinke, University College London, UK
  Ryan Newton, University of Indiana, USA
  Alberto Pardo, U. de la Republica, Uruguay
  Sungwoo Park, POSTECH, South Korea
  Tiark Rompf, Oracle Labs & EPFL, Switzerland
  Sukyoung Ryu, KAIST, South Korea
  Kostis Sagonas, Uppsala University, Sweden
  Max Schaefer, NTU, Singapore
  Harald Sondergaard, Melbourne Univ, Australia
  Eijiro Sumii, Tohoku University, Japan
  Eric Van Wyk, University of Minnesota, USA
  Jeremy Yallop, University of Cambridge, UK

-----------------------------------------------------------------------

POPL 2010

-- JanisVoigtlaender - 18 Jun 2009

• GPCE06-FirstCallForPapers.pdf: Flyer with first call for papers for GPCE'06

Mon-Tue, January 20-21, 2014
San Diego, California, USA
co-located with POPL'14

Sponsored by ACM SIGPLAN

http://www.program-transformation.org/PEPM14

Submissions

10 pages in SIGPLAN proceedings style (sigplanconf.cls) reporting research results and/or experience related to the topics above (PC co-chairs can advise on appropriateness). We particularly encourage original high-quality reports on applying GPCE technologies to real-world problems, relating ideas and concepts from several topics, or bridging the gap between theory and practice.

Papers

Acceptance Rate

Participants

• Abstract due: Thu, October 10, 2013 (Extended)
• Paper submission: Tue, October 15, 2013, 23:59, GMT (Extended)
• Author notification: Mon, November 11, 2013
• Camera-ready papers due: Tue, November, 19, 2013

Electronic Submission

Papers must be submitted electronically in PDF format at

• https://www.easychair.org/conferences/?conf=pepm14

Monday, January 20th, 2014

09:00 - 10:00 Invited Talk

• Michal Moskal: Lessons from a Web-Based IDE and Runtime

10:30 - 12:00 Meta-Programming

• Yukiyoshi Kameyama, Oleg Kiselyov, Chung-Chieh Shan: Combinators for Impure yet Hygienic Code Generation
• James Cheney, Sam Lindley, Gabriel Radanne, Philip Wadler: Effective Quotation
• Weiyu Miao, Jeremy Siek: Compile-time Reflection and Metaprogramming for Java

14:00 - 15:25 Bidirectional Transformations

• Hugo Pacheco, Zhenjiang Hu and Sebastian Fischer: Monadic Combinators for "Putback" Style Bidirectional Programming
• Meng Wang and Shayan Najd: Semantic Bidirectionalization Revisited
• Pedro Martins, Joo Paulo Fernandes, Joo Saraiva and Eric Van Wyk: Generating Attribute Grammar-based Bidirectional Transformations from Rewrite Rules

16:00 - 17:00 Static Analysis and Optimization

• Michael D. Adams, Andrew Farmer, Jose Pedro Magalhaes: Optimizing SYB is Easy!
• Gabriel Kerneis, Charlie Shepherd, Stefan Hajnoczi: QEMU/CPC: Static Analysis and CPS Conversion for Safe, Portable, and Efficient Coroutines

Tuesday, January 21, 2014

09:00 - 10:00 Invited Talk

• Sven-Bodo Scholz: Partial Evaluation as Universal Compiler Tool (experiences from the SAC eco system)

10:30 - 12:00 Program Transformation

• Andrew Farmer, Christian Hoener Zu Siederdissen, Andy Gill: The HERMIT in the Stream
• Sean Leather, Johan Jeuring, Andres Löh, Bram Schuur: Type-Changing Rewriting and Semantics-Preserving Transformation
• Étienne Payet, Fausto Spoto: An Operational Semantics for Android Activities

14:00 - 15:30 Type Systems

• Sheng Chen, Martin Erwig: Early Detection of Type Errors in C++ Templates
• Andreea Costea, Asankhaya Sharma, Cristina David: HIPimm: Verifying Granular Immutability Guarantees
• lvaro Garca-Prez, Pablo Nogueira, Ilya Sergey: Deriving Interpretations of the Gradually-Typed Lambda Calculus.

16:00 - 17:20 Program Analysis/Testing

• Huiqing Li, Simon Thompson, Pablo Lamela Seijas, Miguel Angel Francisco: Automating Property-based Testing of Evolving Web Services
• Michael Hanus, Fabian Skrlac: A Modular and Generic Analysis Server System for Functional Logic Programs
• Jeroen Bransen, Atze Dijkstra, Doaitse Swierstra: Lazy Stateless Incremental Evaluation Machinery for Attribute Grammars

Program Chairs

• Wei-Ngan Chin (National University of Singapore, Singapore)
• Jurriaan Hage (Utrecht University, Netherlands)

Program Committee Members

• Évelyne Contejean (LRI, CNRS, Université Paris-Sud, France)
• Cristina David (University of Oxford, UK)
• Alain Frisch (LexiFi, France)
• Ronald Garcia (University of British Columbia, Canada)
• Zhenjiang Hu (National Institute of Informatics, Japan)
• Paul H J Kelly (Imperial College, UK)
• Oleg Kiselyov (Monterey, USA)
• Naoki Kobayashi (University of Tokyo, Japan)
• Jens Krinke (University College London, UK)
• Ryan Newton (University of Indiana, USA)
• Alberto Pardo (Universidad de la República, Uruguay)
• Sungwoo Park (Pohang University of Science and Technology, South Korea)
• Tiark Rompf (Oracle Labs & EPFL, Switzerland)
• Sukyoung Ryu (KAIST, South Korea)
• Kostis Sagonas (Uppsala University, Sweden)
• Max Schaefer (Nanyang Technological University, Singapore)
• Harald Søndergaard (The University of Melbourne, Australia)
• Eijiro Sumii (Tohoku University, Japan)
• Eric Van Wyk (University of Minnesota, USA)
• Jeremy Yallop (University of Cambridge, UK)

Steering Committee

• Elvira Albert (Complutense University of Madrid, Spain)
• Siau-Cheng Khoo (National University of Singapore, Singapore)
• Oleg Kiselyov (Monterey, CA, USA) [chair]
• Shin-Cheng Mu (Academia Sinica, Taiwan)
• Jeremy G. Siek (University of Colorado at Boulder, USA)
• Simon Thompson (University of Kent, UK)

-- EmirPasalic - 17 Jan 2006

• Please go to their online registration page. You must register an account before being shown the registration details.
• The early registration deadline is Tue, December, 31, 2013.

Please see the POPL'14 website for information regarding transportation and accommodation.

Program Goals

The topics covered by PEPM are listed in the Call for Papers. Please contact one of the program chairs if you have further questions about PEPM's scope.

Original Work

All papers should be original work, and not have been previously published nor have been submitted to, or be in consideration for, any journal, book, conference, or workshop. The novelty requirement is relaxed for Tool Demonstration Papers.

Commendable Qualities

• Clear contributions: The contributions of the paper should be stated explicitly in the introduction of the paper and elaborated in the rest of it. Limitations should be acknowledged; if possible, future work should mention the ways to overcome these limitations.
• Well-written: In particular, the authors should strive to make the paper free from spelling and grammatical mistakes.
• Good examples: Every major point should be illustrated with an example.
• Well-supported claims: Any claims of performance improvements, ease of use, scalability, etc. must be justified by the appropriate evidence, such as computational cost analyses, benchmarks, usability studies, multiple case studies and so on.
• Relevant to real-world problems: Authors should clearly indicate actual real-world scenarios in which they envision their work (when fully mature) being applied. Issues such as scalability, analysis precision, degree of automation, learning curve, etc. that might hinder the use of the technique in practice should be acknowledged and assessed.
• Properly positioned to related work: Submissions should include a related work section that summarizes and contrasts with closely related work. Related work should not simply list previous papers with a brief summary of their contents, nor should it state only the strengths of the submission and the weakness of previous work. A proper related work section should state both the strengths and weaknesses of the submission and indicate situations in which one method might be preferred over another.
• Clear methodology and integration into larger development context: Authors should clearly indicate the steps that users should go through to apply a technique including any manual preprocessing, tool configuration, assessment of output, etc. Moreover, an assessment of how the technique fits into the context of other development tools such as debuggers, test frameworks, integrated development environments, etc. For example, if the proposed technique is a generative programming technique in which users are not expected to read generated code, what mechanisms might be provided to aid debugging of generated code. In another case, how does the transformation interact with the use of library code? Is there any impact on how the system is tested?
• Supporting material: If at all possible, the authors are encouraged to make examples, data, tools or other artifacts presented in the paper freely available online.

Common Flaws

• Lack of simple examples: Every major point in the paper should be illustrated with an example. When introducing a new technique or analysis, it is wholly appropriate to use simple, well-known examples such as the "power function" and the "dot product".
• Lack of realistic examples: The paper will hopefully claim that its technique and analyses scale to real-world problems. These claims should also be illustrated with an appropriate large example. If the example is too large to fully describe in the paper, the paper should give the highlights and refer to the complete explanation online: a web page, a technical report, or well-commented source code.
• Lack of clear correctness notions: the authors should explicitly state what it means for their technique or analysis to be correct. For example, a paper on program transformation must state what properties of programs are preserved by the transformation. The authors should argue, perhaps informally, how their implementation or tool meets or approximates the correctness properties, or give a clear statement of the pre-conditions for the successful application of the technique. Detailed proofs need not be included in the submission but may be referred to in a URL or a technical report.
• Lack of clear methodology: Many papers present techniques without telling what the users have to do, step-by-step, to apply the techniques. Issues such as initial binding-time improvement or refactoring of source code, stubbing out or annotating library methods, etc. are often ignored. As a classic example, many early PEPM papers "swept under the rug" the need for manual binding-time improvements and annotations. As the result, non-experts have had significant trouble applying partial evaluation techniques in practice.
• Poor related work comparisons: Papers often suffer from poor related work comparisons in which authors follow a pattern "our tool is better at TASK-X than tool T1 because ..., our tool is better at TASK-Y than tool T2 because ..." (all the while ignoring the fact that tool T1 has a much broader scope than the authors' tool or that it is in fact better than the authors' tool for many aspects not mentioned in the paper). Authors should strive to give a balanced and fair assessment listing both strengths and weakness of all work considered.

Example Paper Types

• New transformation technique: The most common type of PEPM paper will report on a new analysis/transformation technique. Such papers should include a detailed description of the technique, some sort of formal or informal argument about why the technique is correct, illustrate the technique on interesting examples, and evaluate the effectiveness of the technique.
• Case studies: This type of paper reports on a large-scale application of an existing technique. Such papers should clearly state the insights and the lessons of the study. Was the technique effective? Was it easy to apply? What pitfalls were overcome and what difficulties remain? One must clearly distinguish anecdotal performance claims from rigorously established ones.
• Description of new/interesting domain and potential for effective use of PEPM techniques: This type of paper describes a particular application domain (e.g., middleware, avionics systems, active networks) or a particular development paradigm (e.g., model-driven development) detailing how techniques within the scope of PEPM might be applied effectively in that domain. Special attention should be given to enumerating the problems/challenges of the domain, characteristics that suggest that it might benefit from PEPM techniques, initial attempts at applying those techniques, and questions/challenges to be addressed by future work. Such papers should aim to educate the PEPM community about interesting/fundamental issues of the domain, and give pointers to where they may learn more about the issues.

Short papers

We do encourage submissions of "work in progress" in cases where the submission raises issues that will generate interesting discussions at the meeting, brings new knowledge of a particular application domain or technique to the community, or lays out challenging open problems of high relevance to software engineering practice. Depending on the quality and number of such submissions, we may collect work-in-progress papers into a single session with slightly shorter time slots for each presentation and a longer discussion time at the end of the session.

• Andy Gill, Garrin Kimmell and Kevin Matlage. Capturing Functions and Catching Satellites.
  
  Abstract: The 2009 ICFP contest required the programming of virtual satellites that obey basic physical laws. The orbital physics of the system ran on top of a simple virtual machine which was customized via a binary provided to contestants. In our talk, we describe the modeling of our simulation environment, with a focus on the compilation and testing infrastructure for the generated binaries. This infrastructure makes novel use of a deeply embedded domain specific language on top of Haskell. In particular, with use of IO-based observable sharing, it is straightforward for a function to be both an executable specification as well as a portable implementation.

Journal special issues of selected papers from PEPM meetings

• Special issue of Higher-Order and Symbolic Computation for PEPM'12, forthcoming
• Special issue of Higher-Order and Symbolic Computation for PEPM'10
• Special issue of Higher-Order and Symbolic Computation for PEPM'09
• Special issue of Science of Computer Programming for PEPM'07, volume 76, number 6, 2011
• Special issue of Higher-Order and Symbolic Computation for PEPM'04, volume 21, numbers 1-2, 2008
• Special issue of Higher-Order and Symbolic Computation for PEPM'02 and ASIA-PEPM'02, volume 17, numbers 1-2, 2004
• Special issue of Higher-Order and Symbolic Computation for PEPM'02, volume 16, number 4, 2003
• Special issue of Higher-Order and Symbolic Computation for PEPM'00, volume 14, numbers 2-3, 2001
• Special issue of Higher-Order and Symbolic Computation for PEPM'99, volume 13, number 4, 2000
• Special issue of Higher-Order and Symbolic Computation for PEPM'99, volume 12, number 4, 1999
• Special issue of New Generation Computing for Partial Evaluation and Program Transformation Day 1999, volume 20, number 1, 2002
• Special issue of Theoretical Computer Science for PEPM'97, volume 248, numbers 1-2, 2000
• Special issue of Lisp and Symbolic Computation for PEPM'94, volume 8, number 3, 1995
• Special issue of New Generation Computing for WPEMC'87, volume 6, numbers 2-3, 1988

• Symposium on Partial Evaluation (virtual). ACM Computing Surveys (CSUR), volume 30, number 3, 1998
• Special issue of Journal of Functional Programming on Partial Evaluation, volume 3, number 3, 1993
• Special issue of Journal of Logic Programming on Partial Deduction, volume 16, numbers 1-2, 1993

• Elvira Albert (Complutense University of Madrid, Spain)
• Siau-Cheng Khoo (National University of Singapore, Singapore)
• Oleg Kiselyov (Monterey, CA, USA) [chair]
• Shin-Cheng Mu (Academia Sinica, Taiwan)
• Jeremy G. Siek (University of Colorado at Boulder, USA)
• Simon Thompson (University of Kent, UK)

Tuorial Submission Format

Proposals must be submitted electronically via e-mail, as plain text or in PDF, according to the following template:

1. Title
   • The title expresses the contents of the tutorial well without being too long.
   • An effective title attracts participants' curiosity.
2. Speaker(s)
   • Give the full name and address of the tutorial speaker(s).
   • If there is more than one speaker, a contact person should be clearly designated.
   • Don't forget to specify the electronic mail address.
3. Abstract (to appear in the Advance Program)
   • The abstract should concisely describe the contents and goals of the tutorial.
   • It should not be longer than 150 words.
4. Outline (to present to the committee the proposed contents of the tutorial)
   • The outline should present a table of contents as a sequence of sections.
   • Each section should be described with a few brief sentences or keywords
   • For each section, an estimate should be given of the time to be spent.
5. Duration
   • Tutorials can be half-day or full-day. Half-day tutorials are preferred.
   • A half-day tutorial lasts for about 3 1/2 hours, including a 1/2 hour break.
   • A full-day tutorial lasts for about 8 hours, including two 1/2 hour breaks, and a 1 hour lunch break.
6. Level
   • The tutorial level can be introductory, intermediate or advanced
7. Required Knowledge (to appear in the Advance Program)
   • The proposal should state the specific knoweldge or skills expected of your participants.
   • The statement should not be longer than 20 words.
8. Expected audience
   • The proposal must describe typical or expected participants.
   • The proposal must outline the benefits to participants (e.g., in use of new skills or application of new knowledge).
9. Extended speaker profile
   • The affiliation, interests, and experience of each speaker must be provided.
   • The profile should clearly explain why the speaker is the right person to give the tutorial.
10. Summary speaker profile (to appear in Advance Program)
    • Provide a short version of the Speaker's profile to be included in the Advance Program.
    • It should not be longer than 40 words.
11. Tutorial resume
    • The Resume describes previous offerings of the tutorial, if any.
    • If previously offered, provide the number and level of previous participants.
    • If available, include ratings of the tutorial as evaluated by previous participants.
12. Equipment requirements
    • The proposal should specify the equipment required.
    • The conference organizers can arrange for slide projectors, video projection facilities, tables, power plugs, and paper boards.
    • Participants may be expected to bring computing equipment.
13. Actual Presentation Materials
    • The proposal may include previously prepared tutorial materials such as slides or handouts: these are not required for submmission, however.
    • Submitted actual presentation materials show depth and maturity of the tutorial.
    • Even for a new tutorial a few sample slides would help the committee judge the expected quality of the presentation.

The tutorial submission should be contained within five pages (excluding any materials submitted under item 13 above). Various parts of the proposal for accepted tutorials may be edited for incorporation in the Advance Program.

Back to the CallForTutorials^?.

Regular Research Papers must not exceed 12 pages in ACM Proceedings style (including appendix). Tool demonstration papers and short papers must not exceed 6 pages in ACM Proceedings style (including appendix). At least one author of each accepted contribution must attend the workshop and present the work. In the case of tool demonstration papers, a live demonstration of the described tool is expected. Suggested topics, evaluation criteria, and writing guidelines for both research tool demonstration papers will be made available on the PEPM'14 Web-site. Papers should be submitted electronically via the workshop web site.

Authors using LaTeX to prepare their submissions should use the new improved SIGPLAN proceedings style (sigplanconf.cls, 9pt template).

Monday, January 18, 2010

Chairs' Welcome: 9:00 - 9:05

Invited Talk 1: 9:05 - 10:05

• Lennart Augustsson: O, Partial Evaluator, Where Art Thou?

Coffee break

Session 1: 10:30 - 11:30 (Java/Scala Types)

Session Chair: Jeremy G. Siek (University of Colorado at Boulder)

• Nabil el Boustani and Jurriaan Hage. Corrective Hints for Type Incorrect Generic Java Programs.
• Johannes Rudolph and Peter Thiemann. Mnemonics: Type-safe Bytecode Generation at Run Time.

Coffee break

Session 2: 12:00 - 13:00 (Tools 1)

Session Chair: Peter Thiemann (University of Freiburg)

• Elvira Albert, Miguel Gomez-Zamalloa and German Puebla. PET: A Partial Evaluation-based Test Case Generation Tool for Java Bytecode.
• Martin Hofmann. Igor2 - an Analytical Inductive Functional Programming System.

Lunch

Session 3: 14:30 - 15:30 (Program Transformation)

Session Chair: Elvira Albert (Complutense University of Madrid)

• José Pedro Magalhães, Stefan Holdermans, Johan Jeuring and Andres Löh. Optimizing Generics Is Easy!
• Michele Baggi, María Alpuente, Demis Ballis and Moreno Falaschi. A Fold/Unfold Transformation Framework for Rewrite Theories extended to CCT.

Coffee break

Session 4: 16:00 - 17:00 (Termination)

Session Chair: Stefan Holdermans (Utrecht University)

• Hugh Anderson and Siau-Cheng KHOO. Regular Approximation and Bounded Domains for Size-Change Termination.
• Évelyne Contejean, Pierre Courtieu, Julien Forest, Andrei Paskevich, Olivier Pons and Xavier Urbain. A3PAT, an Approach for Certified Automated Termination Proofs.

Break

Video Talk: 17:15 - 17:40

• Andy Gill, Garrin Kimmell and Kevin Matlage. Capturing Functions and Catching Satellites.

Tuesday, January 19, 2010

Invited Talk 2: 9:00 - 10:00

• Jeremy G. Siek. General Purpose Languages Should be Metalanguages.

Coffee break

Session 5: 10:30 - 11:30 (Innovative Programming)

Session Chair: Nate Foster (University of Pennsylvania)

• Fritz Henglein. Optimizing Relational Algebra Operations Using Generic Equivalence Discriminators and Lazy Products.
• Adrian Riesco and Juan Rodriguez-Hortala. Programming with Singular and Plural Non-deterministic Functions.

Coffee break

Session 6: 12:00 - 13:00 (Synthesis and Compilation)

Session Chair: Jurriaan Hage (Utrecht University)

• Martin Hofmann and Emanuel Kitzelmann. I/O Guided Detection of List Catamorphisms.
• Andrew Moss and Dan Page. Bridging the Gap Between Symbolic and Efficient AES Implementations.

Lunch

Session 7: 14:30 - 15:30 (Haskell Analysis/Transformation)

Session Chair: German Puebla (Technical University of Madrid)

• Christopher Brown and Simon Thompson. Clone Detection and Elimination for Haskell.
• Stefan Holdermans and Jurriaan Hage. Making Stricterness More Relevant.

Coffee break

Session 8: 16:00 - 17:00 (Static Analysis Techniques)

Session Chair: Fritz Henglein (University of Copenhagen)

• Arun Lakhotia, Davidson Boccardo, Anshuman Singh and Aleardo Manacero Júnior. Context-Sensitive Analysis of Obfuscated x86 Executables.
• Xin Li and Mizuhito Ogawa. Conditional Weighted Pushdown Systems and Applications.

Break

Session 9: 17:15 - 18:15 (Tools 2)

Session Chair: Simon Thompson (University of Kent)

• Ivan Lazar Miljenovic. The SourceGraph Program.
• Florian Haftmann. From Higher-Order Logic to Haskell: There and Back Again.

Tool demo paper submissions must satisfy the following requirements.

• The body of the paper must be no longer than 4 pages in length using the two-column ACM Conference style. The body of the paper should give an overview of the tool, the methodology associated with its use, a summary of how the tool has been applied and to what effect, and it should indicate what supporting artifacts (user manual, example repository, downloads, etc.) are available. This material will be included in the PEPM proceedings for accepted tool demos. The paper should include the following two items:
• an appendix (limited to six pages) that gives an outline of the proposed demo presentation (this material will NOT appear in the PEPM proceedings), and
• a URL to a web-site giving documentation and further information about the tool.

Because tool papers have a different format and a different purpose than regular research papers, we would like to (a) describe in more detail the characteristics of a good tool paper, and (b) give the explicit evaluation criteria that will be used by the PEPM program committee when selecting tool papers.

Regular research papers may also describe the details of a particular tool, but note that there are important differences between the contents of a tool demo paper and a research paper that describes a tool. Research papers about tools clearly describe how aspects of the tool (e.g., its architecture, underlying algorithms, combinations of techniques, functionality, etc.) advance the state of the art. This should include a detailed comparison with related work. Moreover, research papers about tools should usually include the results/data of experimental studies that rigorously demonstrate the effectiveness of the claimed scientific advance. On the other hand, the main purpose of a tool demo paper is not to rigorously justify the scientific advances of the tool (although the tool demo paper may contain a concise list of advances or references to other research papers). Rather, a tool demo paper should simply provide concise summary of the current state of a tool and describe how researchers in the PEPM community might apply it effectively.

Below we list the explicit evaluation criteria that will be used by the PEPM committee when selecting tool papers.

• Technical Foundations: In keeping with the overall goals of PEPM, described tools should be based on well-reasoned semantic principles. Even though the shorter length of tool papers will not allow authors to provide significant technical details of the theory underlying the tool, submissions should give a concise summary of the technical foundations and provide references to related work where more technical details are presented.
• Novelty: In contrast with regular PEPM submissions, PEPM tool demo papers may include work that has been published elsewhere. In the ideal case, the technical foundations of the tool will have been published previously, and the submitted PEPM tool paper will report on follow-on work that has produced a robust tool that has been applied to interesting examples. The PEPM program committee will consider accepting tool demo papers that describe tools that have been presented at other conferences/workshops if these conferences/workshops belong to a different community. For example, if a tool has been demonstrated at an operating system conference, the PEPM program committee might also consider accepting the same tool to be shown at PEPM if it is determined that the demo could provide interesting and new insights to the PEPM community. If tool demo papers are submitted for tools that have presented elsewhere, authors should include a statement in the paper that acknowledges previous demos and that justifies the benefits of presenting the tool again for the PEPM audience. In summary, the "novelty" expected of a tool demo paper is not "never been published before or presented elsewhere", but instead "new useful and practical information provided to the PEPM community".
• Stability: PEPM tool demo papers should describe tools with reasonably complete implementations. Tools where significant components are not fully implemented or tested and tools which have not been applied to interesting examples will not be considered. It is expected that tool demos will describe well-engineered internal architectures and interfaces.
• Robustness: Tool demo papers will also be evaluated for evidence of tool robustness. This might include evidence that the tool has been applied to a variety of examples, or used by others outside of the research group that developed the tools.
• Documentation: The tools should be presented on a web-site that includes documentation for installation and a user manual that describes the basic use of the tool, its options, and its application to at least on example.
• Example Repository: Ideally, tools should include a repository of examples (e.g., contained in the tool distribution or available on the tool web site) along with a description of how to run the tool on the examples.
• Publicly Availability: Preference will be given to tools that are freely available (e.g., downloadable from the tool web site) so that other researchers in the PEPM community can independently evaluate the tool. Exceptions may be made for tools from industry and commercial tools that cannot be made publicly available for business reasons.
• Interesting Public Presentation: Evaluation of tool demo papers will include an assessment of the potential quality of the tool demo (e.g., completeness of tool implementation, depth of functionality, quality of user interfaces, application and assessment of interesting examples) as presented in the attached appendix described above that outlines the demo session.

Authors with further questions about the structure, contents, or suitability of a potential tool demo paper should contact the program chairs.

What should a tutorial look like?

In case your tutorial is accepted, the following offers suggestions for preparing and presenting your tutorial.

1. Contents
   • When preparing the tutorial, keep your audience in mind.
   • People don't pay for a tutorial in order to hear things that they already know or that are irrelevant for their work.
   • Don't be vague, don't waste time with lengthy introductions, but speak to the point.
   • Don't try to impress the audience with the amount of your research, but convey practical knowledge and ideas that the participants will find useful for their own work.
   • Whenever possible, use examples and case studies and avoid lengthy abstract passages.
   • Consider demonstrations on video or an overhead panel.
   • In order to get an audience as homogeneous as possible, clearly state which knowledge you expect from the participants in the tutorial description.
2. Slides and notes
   • You will have to prepare tutorial notes for the participants.
   • These handouts usually contain copies of the slides that you show.
   • Use at least a 14 pt (or better an 18 pt) font on all of your slides.
   • A good slide should not just repeat everything you say but summarize your presentation.
   • Use short phrases and keywords instead of full sentences.
   • People cannot read as fast as you speak. Make heavy use of pictures and examples.
   • Use colors where they are helpful, but remember that they will not appear in the black and white handouts.
   • Don't put too much or too little material on a single slide.
   • A good rule of thumb is to spend 3 minutes per slide.
   • Don't include slides that you will skip in the presentation; people will find that annoying.
   • You will have to deliver the tutorial notes in camera-ready form before the conference. The deadline will be announced.
   • To avoid wasting paper, copy two slides on a single page (reduced size). The printed area of such a page must not exceed 27 x 17cm (10.5 x 6.7 inch).
   • In addition to the slide copies, also consider providing full-text handouts (papers, summaries, bibliography, etc.). Participants will appreciate that.
   • The maximum length of the notes for a half-day tutorial should be 50 pages for slide copies and another 20 pages for full-text material. For full-day tutorials these numbers can be doubled.
   • Try to achieve good printing quality.
   • We will add an uniform cover page to all tutorial notes.
   • Put slide numbers on the slides and page numbers on the pages.
3. Presentation
   • The participants expect that your presentation will be much easier to understand than a book about the same subject.
   • Speak clearly and lively. Try to interact with your audience.
   • Encourage the audience to ask questions.
   • A presentation is much more lively if it also includes examples and demonstrations on the blackboard, on video or on an overhead panel.
   • Tutorials should be split into sessions of 1.5 hours each with a 1/2 hour coffee break in between.
   • Don't overrun your tutorial time. After the tutorial the participants will be asked to assess the tutorial with a questionnaire.
   • A good rating will help you when applying for other tutorials in the future.

PEPM Proceedings will be available for free download from ACM DL during the POPL week!

The PEPM Symposium/Workshop series aims at bringing together researchers and practitioners working in the areas of program manipulation, partial evaluation, and program generation. PEPM focuses on techniques, theory, tools, and applications of analysis and manipulation of programs.

The 2014 PEPM workshop will be based on a broad interpretation of semantics-based program manipulation and continue last years' successful effort to expand the scope of PEPM significantly beyond the traditionally covered areas of partial evaluation and specialization and include practical applications of program transformations such as refactoring tools, and practical implementation techniques such as rule-based transformation systems. In addition, the scope of PEPM covers manipulation and transformations of program and system representations such as structural and semantic models that occur in the context of model-driven development. In order to reach out to practitioners, a separate category of tool demonstration papers will be solicited.

Topics of interest for PEPM'14 include, but are not limited to:

• Program and model manipulation techniques such as: supercompilation, partial evaluation, fusion, on-the-fly program adaptation, active libraries, program inversion, slicing, symbolic execution, refactoring, decompilation, and obfuscation.

• Program analysis techniques that are used to drive program/model manipulation such as: abstract interpretation, termination checking, binding-time analysis, constraint solving, type systems, automated testing and test case generation.

• Techniques that treat programs/models as data objects including metaprogramming, generative programming, embedded domain-specific languages, program synthesis by sketching and inductive programming, staged computation, and model-driven program generation and transformation.

• Application of the above techniques including case studies of program manipulation in real-world (industrial, open-source) projects and software development processes, descriptions of robust tools capable of effectively handling realistic applications, benchmarking. Examples of application domains include legacy program understanding and transformation, DSL implementations, visual languages and end-user programming, scientific computing, middleware frameworks and infrastructure needed for distributed and web-based applications, resource-limited computation, and security.

To maintain the dynamic and interactive nature of PEPM, we will continue the category of `short papers' for tool demonstrations and for presentations of exciting if not fully polished research, and of interesting academic, industrial and open-source applications that are new or unfamiliar.

Student attendants with accepted papers can apply for a SIGPLAN PAC grant to help cover travel expenses and other support. PAC also offers other support, such as for child-care expenses during the meeting or for travel costs for companions of SIGPLAN members with physical disabilities, as well as for travel from locations outside of North America and Europe. For details on the PAC programme, see its web page.

All accepted papers, short papers included, will appear in formal proceedings published by ACM Press. In addition to printed proceedings, accepted papers will be included in the ACM Digital Library. A special issue for Science of Computer Programming is planned with recommended papers from PEPM'14.

PEPM has also established a Best Paper award. The winner will be announced at the workshop.

Follow this link for the complete Call for Papers. There is also a more compact plain-text version.

History
Previous Meetings
Journal Special Issues
Statistics

• MyName^? - myname@site.edu

Note: It is helpful to insert your name in alphabetical order (by first name -- ignore the "Main.") -- then you can find your name (or not) more easily if you wish to remove it or confirm that you are on the list.

Related topics: TWikiUsers, TWikiRegistration

TWiki.PEPM14 Web Preferences

The following settings are web preferences of the TWiki.PEPM14 web. These preferences overwrite the site-level preferences in TWikiPreferences, and can be overwritten by user preferences (your personal topic, i.e. TWikiGuest in the TWiki.Main web)

GPCE variables:

• Set URLPEPM14 = http://www.program-transformation.org/PEPM14
• Set URLFLYER = ?
• Set URLFLYERALT = ?
• Set URLPOPL14 = http://popl.mpi-sws.org/2014/
• Set URLLOCAL = ?
• Set URLNICE = ?

• Set PAPERPRESUBMISSION = Thu, October 10, 2013 (Extended)
• Set PAPERSUBMISSION = Tue, October 15, 2013, 23:59, GMT (Extended)
• Set PAPERNOTIFICATION = Mon, November 11, 2013
• Set PAPERCAMERAREADY = Tue, November, 19, 2013

• Set EARLYREGISTRATION = Tue, December, 31, 2013
• Set LATEREGISTRATION = * to be announced *

• Set CONFERENCEDAYS = Mon-Tue, January 20-21, 2014

• Set VENUE = San Diego, California, USA

Preferences:

• Set WEBTITLE = ACM SIGPLAN 2014 Workshop on Partial Evaluation and Program Manipulation
• Set SHORTWEBTITLE = PEPM2014

• List of topics of the TWiki.PEPM14 web:
  • Set WEBTOPICLIST = Home | Changes | Index | Search | Go

• Web specific background color: (Pick a lighter one of the StandardColors)
  • Set WEBBGCOLOR = #D0D0D0

• Exclude web from a web="all" search: (Set to on for hidden webs)
  • Set NOSEARCHALL =

• Default template for new topics and form(s) for this web:
  • WebTopicEditTemplate^?: Default template for new topics in this web. (Site-level is used if topic does not exist)
  • TWiki.WebTopicEditTemplate: Site-level default template
  • TWikiForms: How to enable form(s)
  • Set WEBFORMS =

• Users or groups who are not / are allowed to view / change / rename topics in the PEPM14 web: (See TWikiAccessControl)
  • Set DENYWEBVIEW =
  • Set ALLOWWEBVIEW =
  • Set DENYWEBCHANGE =
  • Set ALLOWWEBCHANGE = PepmGroup
  • Set DENYWEBRENAME =
  • Set ALLOWWEBRENAME = PepmGroup

• Users or groups allowed to change or rename this WebPreferences topic: (I.e. TWikiAdminGroup)
  • Set ALLOWTOPICCHANGE = TWikiAdminGroup PepmGroup
  • Set ALLOWTOPICRENAME = TWikiAdminGroup PepmGroup

• Web preferences that are not allowed to be overridden by user preferences:
  • Set FINALPREFERENCES = WEBTOPICLIST, DENYWEBVIEW, ALLOWWEBVIEW, DENYWEBCHANGE, ALLOWWEBCHANGE, DENYWEBRENAME, ALLOWWEBRENAME

Notes:

• A preference is defined as:
  6 spaces * Set NAME = value
  Example:
  • Set WEBBGCOLOR = #FFFFC0
• Preferences are used as TWikiVariables by enclosing the name in percent signs. Example:
  • When you write variable %WEBBGCOLOR% , it gets expanded to #D0D0D0 .
• The sequential order of the preference settings is significant. Define preferences that use other preferences first, i.e. set WEBCOPYRIGHT before WIKIWEBMASTER since %WEBCOPYRIGHT% uses the %WIKIWEBMASTER% variable.
• You can introduce new preferences variables and use them in your topics and templates. There is no need to change the TWiki engine (Perl scripts).

Related Topics:

• TWikiPreferences has site-level preferences.
• TWikiUsers has a list of user topics. User topics can have optional user preferences.
• TWikiVariables has a list of common %VARIABLES%.
• TWikiAccessControl explains how to restrict access by users or groups.

• Topic index: List of PEPM14 topics in alphabetical order.
  |All|A|B|C|D|E|F|G|H|I|J|K|L|M|N|O|P|Q|R|S|T|U|V|W|X|Y|Z|
  | All topics in BookView |

• Jump to topic: If you already know the name of the topic, enter the name of the topic into the GoBox at the top

• WebChanges: Find out what topics in PEPM14 have changed recently

• How to edit text:
  • Make changes to topics in GoodStyle,
  • Learn the TextFormattingRules, and
  • Have a look at the TextFormattingFAQ

HistoricalStatistics for TWiki.PEPM14 Web

Notes:

• Do not edit this topic, it is updated automatically. (You can also force an update)
• TWikiDocumentation tells you how to enable the automatic updates of the statistics.
• Suggestion: You could archive this topic once a year and delete the previous year's statistics from the table.

• RoadMap^?
• WebIndex: all topics in the PEPM14 web
• WebSearch: find topics

Tracking activity

• WebNews: selected changes
• WebChanges: recent changes
• WebNotify: email notification of changes
• WebStatistics: usage counts

Look and feel

• WebPreferences: values of variables
• WebContents^?: web specific entries in the side bar