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:
- Is this an ICALP paper at all, versus STOC/FOCS/SODA, a specialized venue (LICS, CCC, SoCG,
CONCUR, ...), or a journal?
- 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.
1---2name: icalp-topic-selection3description: Use when deciding whether a theoretical computer science result belongs at ICALP (EATCS) and, if so, whether it is a Track A (algorithms, complexity, games) or Track B (automata, logic, semantics, theory of programming) paper, and when distinguishing ICALP from the US theory venues STOC, FOCS, and SODA or from a TCS journal by contribution shape, community, and the LIPIcs open-access model.4---56# ICALP Topic Selection78Decide the venue **and the track** before drafting. ICALP — the EATCS International Colloquium on9Automata, Languages, and Programming — is **Europe's flagship theoretical-computer-science10conference** and the annual meeting of the European Association for Theoretical Computer Science. Its11contribution is a **theorem**: a precise statement in a clean model, proved completely. A paper whose12real deliverable is a system, a benchmark result, or an application with no new theorem is respected13and then rejected as out of scope.1415## Two decisions, not one1617Routing to ICALP is genuinely two questions:18191. **Is this an ICALP paper at all**, versus STOC/FOCS/SODA, a specialized venue (LICS, CCC, SoCG,20 CONCUR, ...), or a journal?212. **Which track** — **Track A (Algorithms, Complexity and Games)** or **Track B (Automata, Logic,22 Semantics and Theory of Programming)**?2324Both matter: the tracks have separate program committees and separate HotCRP servers, and Track B25carries a rebuttal while Track A does not.2627## Track A vs Track B2829| Signal in your result | Track |30|---|---|31| A faster algorithm, a better approximation ratio, a new data structure, a fine-grained bound | **A** |32| A complexity lower bound, hardness, or a completeness result about *computation* | **A** |33| Algorithmic game theory, mechanism design, equilibrium computation | **A** |34| Decidability/complexity of a **logic** or a **theory**, model theory of computation | **B** |35| Automata, formal languages, transducers, infinite-state systems (Petri nets/VASS, pushdown) | **B** |36| Semantics of programming languages, lambda calculi, type theory, verification foundations | **B** |37| Concurrency theory, process calculi, category-theoretic semantics | **B** |3839Borderline cases exist (e.g. logic-flavored complexity). Resolve them by **which community should40referee the proof** — the one that will recognize the technique and the prior bound — and by which41track's recent programs contain your subarea.4243## ICALP vs the US theory venues and journals4445| Signal in your project | Better home | Why |46|---|---|---|47| Broad TCS result, ready now, and the February ICALP deadline is the nearest honest fit | **ICALP** | EATCS European flagship; LIPIcs open access; two tracks |48| 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 |49| Core is discrete algorithms / data structures with a SODA fit | **SODA** | SIAM algorithms venue; different community and calendar |50| Logic in computer science specifically (not general Track B breadth) | **LICS** | Dedicated logic venue; overlaps Track B, different community |51| Computational complexity specifically | **CCC** | Dedicated complexity venue |52| Computational geometry | **SoCG** | Dedicated geometry venue |53| 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 |5455ICALP's distinctive pull is **European TCS community + LIPIcs open access + a two-track single56February cycle**. It is not STOC/FOCS/SODA; do not carry their templates, blinding regimes, or57calendars across.5859## Contribution shapes ICALP rewards6061- **A better bound** — a faster algorithm, a smaller approximation ratio, a tighter complexity bound62 than the best known, with the improvement stated against a named prior result.63- **A lower bound / hardness / impossibility** — proving a limitation, conditionally or64 unconditionally, in a precisely defined model.65- **A decidability / complexity classification** — pinning the exact complexity of deciding a logic,66 language, or verification problem (a signature Track B move).67- **A dichotomy or complete characterization** — classifying an entire family rather than one68 instance.69- **A new model or a foundational result** — a clean model with a clear TCS payoff; "foundations" is70 in the name for both tracks.7172## The re-route tests7374- **Theorem test:** strip the implementation and the experiments — is there still a theorem worth75 proving? If not, the paper belongs at an experimental-algorithms, database, or systems venue, not76 ICALP.77- **Prior-bound test:** can you name the best previous bound your result beats? If you cannot, either78 the problem is not yet a recognized ICALP problem, or the contribution is not a bound (an79 `icalp-writing-style` framing fix, or a re-route).80- **Track-referee test:** who should check the proof — an algorithms/complexity person (A) or an81 automata/logic/semantics person (B)? If the honest answer is "a systems/ML/database person," ICALP82 is the wrong venue.8384## Cheap reconnaissance before committing8586```text87[Scope] scan the last two ICALP programs (dblp db/conf/icalp) for your subarea and track88 -> present in Track A/B recently = a reviewer pool exists; absent = opening or mismatch89[Citations] is your bibliography majority TCS venues (ICALP/STOC/FOCS/SODA/LICS/CCC + TCS journals)?90 -> majority applied venues => reviewers read you as a visitor; reconsider the venue91[Calendar] ICALP has ONE annual February deadline; compare with STOC/FOCS/SODA/LICS dates92 -> route to the nearest honest fit rather than waiting a full year for a marginal preference93```9495## Decision procedure9697```text98[Is there a theorem?] strip code/experiments -> new theorem remains? no => not ICALP99[ICALP vs US/journal] European TCS breadth, Feb deadline nearest, open-access wanted? -> ICALP100[Track] bound/algorithm/complexity/games => A ; logic/automata/semantics/verification => B101[Specialized check] pure logic => LICS? pure complexity => CCC? geometry => SoCG?102[Verdict] ICALP Track A / ICALP Track B / sibling venue / journal, with a one-line reason103```104105Run this before the writing skills; a wrong venue *or* track decision wastes every later step. When106the verdict is ICALP, continue with `icalp-workflow` for the calendar and `icalp-writing-style` for107the paper shape.
brycewang-stanford