EuroSys Topic Selection
Use this before serious writing begins. EuroSys is the flagship conference of
the European Chapter of ACM SIGOPS (eurosys.org, rendered 2026-07-08),
running annually since 2006 and seeking papers on all areas of computer
systems — it is a broad-church systems venue, not a niche. The 2026 edition
(the 21st) met in Edinburgh in April; 2027 meets in Rabat. The right question
is rarely "is this systems?" but "is this conference-grade systems, and is
EuroSys the best-positioned jury and calendar slot for it?"
The substance bar
A EuroSys-ready project typically has all four:
- A built thing. An implemented system or substantial modification, not a
simulation of one (measurement and experience papers are the exception, and
must be framed as such).
- A transferable idea. An abstraction, mechanism, or empirically
established principle that outlives this codebase.
- Evidence under realistic conditions. Workloads and scale that resemble
the deployment story being told.
- An articulable insight. One sentence a reviewer can carry into the PC
meeting. Strong engineering without a nameable idea routes to ATC-style
venues or an experience track.
Routing from the EuroSys seat
| Center of gravity |
Stay or route |
Why |
| OS/kernel, runtimes, virtualization, distributed infra |
EuroSys core |
The venue's home ground since 2006 |
| ML systems (serving, training infra) |
EuroSys core, growing |
Recent best papers are LLM-serving systems (e.g., EuroSys '25) |
| Once-a-generation OS-principles result |
Consider SOSP/OSDI too |
Same-family flagships; route by cycle timing and audience |
| Network protocols, measurement of networks |
NSDI / SIGCOMM |
EuroSys reads it as out-of-center networking |
| Hardware/software interface, arch mechanisms |
ASPLOS |
Architecture jury evaluates architecture ideas |
| Storage-stack internals |
FAST first |
Deepest storage jury; EuroSys viable for broader claims |
| Cloud-native ops, serverless economics |
SoCC / Middleware also viable |
Match the paper's altitude to the jury |
| Pragmatic engineering, tool papers |
USENIX ATC |
Idea-density bar differs there |
Two calendar facts sharpen the call: EuroSys's April conference and dual gates
(May and September submissions for 2027) interleave with the SOSP/OSDI and
NSDI cycles, so a systems result can almost always find a flagship gate within
a few months — pick by fit and readiness, never by whichever deadline is
nearest. And a EuroSys rejection blocks the same round for a year, which makes
premature submission genuinely expensive.
Fit self-interrogation
1. Insight test: state the idea in one sentence without naming your system.
2. Jury test: which three published papers would this one sit between?
If ≥2 are EuroSys/SOSP/OSDI papers, EuroSys is plausible.
3. Evidence test: does the current evaluation reach the four-layer stack
(end-to-end / decomposition / cost / boundary)? If not, is it reachable
by the target gate?
4. Regime test: is the claim's deployment story credible to reviewers who
run real infrastructure?
5. Calendar test: which gate (spring/fall) matches the project's maturity,
accounting for the one-year ban if it fails?
Contribution shapes EuroSys publishes
The exemplars library (resources/exemplars/library.md) documents these
shapes across two decades of the venue's own award line:
| Shape |
Award-line instance |
What it must bring |
| General abstraction + engine |
Dryad (2007) |
Proof the abstraction subsumes existing practice |
| Tool with a thesis |
Coccinelle line (2008) |
Validation on the real ecosystem it targets |
| Small mechanism, big evidence |
Delay Scheduling (2010) |
Production-shaped workloads carrying a simple idea |
| Design-space taxonomy |
Omega (2013) |
Vocabulary plus trace-driven comparison |
| Production retrospective |
Borg (2015) |
Transferable lessons including failures |
| ML-infrastructure mechanism |
CacheBlend (2025) |
A systems idea legible without ML expertise |
If the project matches none of these shapes, that is not disqualifying —
but it should prompt a harder look at what the contribution type is
before a EuroSys jury is chosen for it.
Signals you are forcing it
- The contribution sentence contains "we combine" and three technique names
but no invariant or tradeoff.
- The evaluation exists only at benchmark scale while the pitch is production
scale.
- The nearest related work is entirely from another community's venues — the
jury you are choosing has no vocabulary for the delta.
- The plan is "submit to fall EuroSys because SOSP just closed" — deadline
proximity masquerading as venue fit.
When EuroSys is the strategically right flagship
Beyond raw fit, three situations tilt toward EuroSys among the systems
flagships:
- The work speaks to infrastructure and communities strongly represented
on European PCs (e.g., European cloud/telecom operators, EU data-locality
constraints) and benefits from that jury's context.
- The project's maturity curve matches a EuroSys gate now, and waiting for
another flagship's next cycle risks being scooped by a fast-moving line
of work.
- The team wants the artifact culture: sysartifacts badges plus a named
artifact award make EuroSys a strong home for systems whose artifact is
part of the contribution.
Output format
[Verdict] EuroSys-ready / EuroSys-plausible after gaps / route elsewhere
[Insight sentence] <the transferable idea, system name omitted>
[Neighbor triangulation] <three papers this would sit between>
[Best-fit gate] spring / fall 2027+ with readiness rationale
[If routing away] <venue + the specific mismatch driving it>
1---2name: eurosys-topic-selection3description: Use when deciding whether a systems project belongs at EuroSys — the ACM SIGOPS-Europe flagship spanning OS, distributed systems, storage, cloud, virtualization, security, and ML systems — or routes better to SOSP, OSDI, NSDI, ASPLOS, ATC, FAST, or SoCC, and how the April slot and dual deadlines affect that call.4---56# EuroSys Topic Selection78Use this before serious writing begins. EuroSys is the flagship conference of9the European Chapter of ACM SIGOPS (`eurosys.org`, rendered 2026-07-08),10running annually since 2006 and seeking papers on **all areas of computer11systems** — it is a broad-church systems venue, not a niche. The 2026 edition12(the 21st) met in Edinburgh in April; 2027 meets in Rabat. The right question13is rarely "is this systems?" but "is this *conference-grade* systems, and is14EuroSys the best-positioned jury and calendar slot for it?"1516## The substance bar1718A EuroSys-ready project typically has all four:1920- **A built thing.** An implemented system or substantial modification, not a21 simulation of one (measurement and experience papers are the exception, and22 must be framed as such).23- **A transferable idea.** An abstraction, mechanism, or empirically24 established principle that outlives this codebase.25- **Evidence under realistic conditions.** Workloads and scale that resemble26 the deployment story being told.27- **An articulable insight.** One sentence a reviewer can carry into the PC28 meeting. Strong engineering without a nameable idea routes to ATC-style29 venues or an experience track.3031## Routing from the EuroSys seat3233| Center of gravity | Stay or route | Why |34|---|---|---|35| OS/kernel, runtimes, virtualization, distributed infra | EuroSys core | The venue's home ground since 2006 |36| ML systems (serving, training infra) | EuroSys core, growing | Recent best papers are LLM-serving systems (e.g., EuroSys '25) |37| Once-a-generation OS-principles result | Consider SOSP/OSDI too | Same-family flagships; route by cycle timing and audience |38| Network protocols, measurement of networks | NSDI / SIGCOMM | EuroSys reads it as out-of-center networking |39| Hardware/software interface, arch mechanisms | ASPLOS | Architecture jury evaluates architecture ideas |40| Storage-stack internals | FAST first | Deepest storage jury; EuroSys viable for broader claims |41| Cloud-native ops, serverless economics | SoCC / Middleware also viable | Match the paper's altitude to the jury |42| Pragmatic engineering, tool papers | USENIX ATC | Idea-density bar differs there |4344Two calendar facts sharpen the call: EuroSys's April conference and dual gates45(May and September submissions for 2027) interleave with the SOSP/OSDI and46NSDI cycles, so a systems result can almost always find a flagship gate within47a few months — pick by *fit and readiness*, never by whichever deadline is48nearest. And a EuroSys rejection blocks the same round for a year, which makes49premature submission genuinely expensive.5051## Fit self-interrogation5253```text541. Insight test: state the idea in one sentence without naming your system.552. Jury test: which three published papers would this one sit between?56 If ≥2 are EuroSys/SOSP/OSDI papers, EuroSys is plausible.573. Evidence test: does the current evaluation reach the four-layer stack58 (end-to-end / decomposition / cost / boundary)? If not, is it reachable59 by the target gate?604. Regime test: is the claim's deployment story credible to reviewers who61 run real infrastructure?625. Calendar test: which gate (spring/fall) matches the project's maturity,63 accounting for the one-year ban if it fails?64```6566## Contribution shapes EuroSys publishes6768The exemplars library (`resources/exemplars/library.md`) documents these69shapes across two decades of the venue's own award line:7071| Shape | Award-line instance | What it must bring |72|---|---|---|73| General abstraction + engine | Dryad (2007) | Proof the abstraction subsumes existing practice |74| Tool with a thesis | Coccinelle line (2008) | Validation on the real ecosystem it targets |75| Small mechanism, big evidence | Delay Scheduling (2010) | Production-shaped workloads carrying a simple idea |76| Design-space taxonomy | Omega (2013) | Vocabulary plus trace-driven comparison |77| Production retrospective | Borg (2015) | Transferable lessons including failures |78| ML-infrastructure mechanism | CacheBlend (2025) | A systems idea legible without ML expertise |7980If the project matches none of these shapes, that is not disqualifying —81but it should prompt a harder look at what the contribution *type* is82before a EuroSys jury is chosen for it.8384## Signals you are forcing it8586- The contribution sentence contains "we combine" and three technique names87 but no invariant or tradeoff.88- The evaluation exists only at benchmark scale while the pitch is production89 scale.90- The nearest related work is entirely from another community's venues — the91 jury you are choosing has no vocabulary for the delta.92- The plan is "submit to fall EuroSys because SOSP just closed" — deadline93 proximity masquerading as venue fit.9495## When EuroSys is the *strategically* right flagship9697Beyond raw fit, three situations tilt toward EuroSys among the systems98flagships:99100- The work speaks to infrastructure and communities strongly represented101 on European PCs (e.g., European cloud/telecom operators, EU data-locality102 constraints) and benefits from that jury's context.103- The project's maturity curve matches a EuroSys gate now, and waiting for104 another flagship's next cycle risks being scooped by a fast-moving line105 of work.106- The team wants the artifact culture: sysartifacts badges plus a named107 artifact award make EuroSys a strong home for systems whose artifact *is*108 part of the contribution.109110## Output format111112```text113[Verdict] EuroSys-ready / EuroSys-plausible after gaps / route elsewhere114[Insight sentence] <the transferable idea, system name omitted>115[Neighbor triangulation] <three papers this would sit between>116[Best-fit gate] spring / fall 2027+ with readiness rationale117[If routing away] <venue + the specific mismatch driving it>118```
brycewang-stanford