SIGMETRICS Topic Selection
Decide the venue and track before drafting. SIGMETRICS — the ACM flagship for performance
measurement, modeling, and evaluation of computer systems — rewards a rigorous
performance-evaluation contribution: a stochastic/queueing model with a proven bound, a
principled measurement study, or a learning-for-systems algorithm with guarantees. A
technically strong paper whose real lesson is a built system (route to NSDI/OSDI), a pure network
measurement (route to IMC), or a learning-theory result with no systems payoff (route to
NeurIPS/COLT) is respected and then rejected as out of scope.
The routing question that matters most
The decisive question is rarely "is this about systems performance?" but "is the contribution an
analyzed/measured performance result, or is it something else with performance numbers attached?"
SIGMETRICS wants the why — a model, a proof, a validated methodology — not only a faster system or
a bigger dataset.
Sibling-venue routing table
| Signal in your project |
Better home |
Why |
| A model/policy with a proven performance bound, or a principled measurement/modeling study |
ACM SIGMETRICS |
Its center: rigorous performance evaluation published in POMACS |
| The contribution is a built system; the design/implementation is the point |
NSDI / OSDI / SIGCOMM |
Systems-building venues; SIGMETRICS wants analysis, not a system artifact |
| The whole paper is network measurement (Internet, CDN, topology, traffic) |
IMC |
The dedicated network-measurement venue; single annual deadline |
| Networking with a systems/protocol contribution |
SIGCOMM / NSDI / INFOCOM |
Networking-systems scope |
| A learning-theory result with no systems performance payoff |
NeurIPS / ICML / COLT |
Learning venues; SIGMETRICS Learning track wants a systems angle or systems-relevant guarantees |
| A study too long/deep for 20 pages, or wanting multiple revision rounds |
Performance Evaluation / TON / QUESTA |
Journals with no conference page ceiling and open-ended revision |
Contribution shapes SIGMETRICS rewards
- Stochastic / queueing / scheduling theory — a model of a system's performance with a proven
bound, stability condition, or optimality result, validated numerically (the SOAP lineage).
- Measurement & applied modeling — a principled measurement or simulation methodology and the
characterization it yields about a real system (the Google-Play-study lineage).
- Learning for systems — an online-learning/bandit/RL/control algorithm for a systems problem,
with regret/convergence/sample-complexity guarantees (the learning-to-rank lineage).
- Operational systems — a deployed system in significant real-world use, analyzed with
principled measurement and metrics (the Operational Systems Track; may name the system/org).
The rigor and validation tests
Two quick tests sharpen a borderline verdict:
- Rigor test: does the contribution carry a checkable claim — a theorem, a stated-assumption
bound, a measurement methodology a skeptic would accept — or only "it is faster on our setup"? If
the latter, it is a systems-building paper (NSDI/OSDI), not SIGMETRICS.
- Model-swap / methodology test: if your paper leans on a learner or a specific system, ask
whether the performance-evaluation lesson survives — a guarantee, a validated model, a general
methodology. If the only result is a benchmark score, it is an ML or systems paper wearing a
SIGMETRICS title.
Picking the track (do this at abstract registration)
- Theory: the core is a proof (queueing, scheduling, caching, algorithms, control).
- Measurement & Applied Modeling: the core is data from a real system + a methodology/model.
- Learning: the core is a learning algorithm with analysis, applied to or for systems.
- Operational Systems: the core is a deployed, in-use system; you may reveal its name/org.
Pick one; a second only for genuinely interdisciplinary work (e.g. a learning-theoretic result
validated by measurement). The wrong track routes you to the wrong reviewers.
Cheap reconnaissance before committing
[Scope] scan the last few POMACS issues (dblp, ACM DL) for your subarea and track
-> several recent papers = a reviewer pool exists; none = opening or mismatch
[Rigor] does your headline claim reduce to a theorem, a validated model, or a principled
measurement? -> if not, reconsider SIGMETRICS vs. a systems venue
[Calendar] the next rolling deadline (summer/fall/winter) is ~a quarter away -> route to the
nearest honest fit rather than forcing a rushed proof/measurement
Decision procedure
[Audience] who acts differently if the claim holds? -> systems designers/operators/theorists?
[Claim type] queueing/theory / measurement / learning-with-guarantees / operational
[Rigor gate] is there a checkable performance claim (proof / validated model / methodology)?
[Sibling check] built system -> NSDI/OSDI; pure net-measurement -> IMC; learning-theory-only -> NeurIPS
[Verdict] SIGMETRICS <track> / sibling venue / performance 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 SIGMETRICS, continue with sigmetrics-workflow for the deadline choice and
sigmetrics-writing-style for the paper shape.
Source: brycewang-stanford/Awesome-Journal-Skills → SIGMETRICS-Skills/skills/sigmetrics-topic-selection/SKILL.md
1---2name: sigmetrics-topic-selection3description: Use when deciding whether a computer-systems performance project belongs at ACM SIGMETRICS or should be routed to IMC, SIGCOMM/NSDI/OSDI, INFOCOM, a learning venue (NeurIPS/ICML), or a performance journal (Performance Evaluation/TON/QUESTA), and when picking the right SIGMETRICS track (Theory / Measurement & Applied Modeling / Learning / Operational Systems).4---567# SIGMETRICS Topic Selection89Decide the venue and track before drafting. SIGMETRICS — the ACM flagship for **performance10measurement, modeling, and evaluation of computer systems** — rewards a **rigorous11performance-evaluation contribution**: a stochastic/queueing model with a **proven bound**, a12**principled measurement study**, or a **learning-for-systems** algorithm with guarantees. A13technically strong paper whose real lesson is a *built system* (route to NSDI/OSDI), a *pure network14measurement* (route to IMC), or a *learning-theory result with no systems payoff* (route to15NeurIPS/COLT) is respected and then rejected as out of scope.1617## The routing question that matters most1819The decisive question is rarely "is this about systems performance?" but **"is the contribution an20analyzed/measured performance result, or is it something else with performance numbers attached?"**21SIGMETRICS wants the *why* — a model, a proof, a validated methodology — not only a faster system or22a bigger dataset.2324## Sibling-venue routing table2526| Signal in your project | Better home | Why |27|---|---|---|28| A model/policy with a **proven performance bound**, or a principled measurement/modeling study | **ACM SIGMETRICS** | Its center: rigorous performance evaluation published in POMACS |29| The contribution is a **built system**; the design/implementation is the point | **NSDI / OSDI / SIGCOMM** | Systems-building venues; SIGMETRICS wants analysis, not a system artifact |30| The whole paper is **network measurement** (Internet, CDN, topology, traffic) | **IMC** | The dedicated network-measurement venue; single annual deadline |31| Networking with a systems/protocol contribution | **SIGCOMM / NSDI / INFOCOM** | Networking-systems scope |32| A **learning-theory** result with no systems performance payoff | **NeurIPS / ICML / COLT** | Learning venues; SIGMETRICS Learning track wants a systems angle or systems-relevant guarantees |33| A study too long/deep for 20 pages, or wanting multiple revision rounds | **Performance Evaluation / TON / QUESTA** | Journals with no conference page ceiling and open-ended revision |3435## Contribution shapes SIGMETRICS rewards3637- **Stochastic / queueing / scheduling theory** — a model of a system's performance with a proven38 bound, stability condition, or optimality result, validated numerically (the SOAP lineage).39- **Measurement & applied modeling** — a principled measurement or simulation methodology and the40 characterization it yields about a real system (the Google-Play-study lineage).41- **Learning for systems** — an online-learning/bandit/RL/control algorithm for a systems problem,42 with **regret/convergence/sample-complexity guarantees** (the learning-to-rank lineage).43- **Operational systems** — a deployed system in significant real-world use, analyzed with44 principled measurement and metrics (the Operational Systems Track; may name the system/org).4546## The rigor and validation tests4748Two quick tests sharpen a borderline verdict:4950- **Rigor test:** does the contribution carry a *checkable* claim — a theorem, a stated-assumption51 bound, a measurement methodology a skeptic would accept — or only "it is faster on our setup"? If52 the latter, it is a systems-building paper (NSDI/OSDI), not SIGMETRICS.53- **Model-swap / methodology test:** if your paper leans on a learner or a specific system, ask54 whether the *performance-evaluation* lesson survives — a guarantee, a validated model, a general55 methodology. If the only result is a benchmark score, it is an ML or systems paper wearing a56 SIGMETRICS title.5758## Picking the track (do this at abstract registration)5960- **Theory:** the core is a proof (queueing, scheduling, caching, algorithms, control).61- **Measurement & Applied Modeling:** the core is data from a real system + a methodology/model.62- **Learning:** the core is a learning algorithm with analysis, applied to or for systems.63- **Operational Systems:** the core is a deployed, in-use system; you may reveal its name/org.6465Pick **one**; a second only for genuinely interdisciplinary work (e.g. a learning-theoretic result66validated by measurement). The wrong track routes you to the wrong reviewers.6768## Cheap reconnaissance before committing6970```text71[Scope] scan the last few POMACS issues (dblp, ACM DL) for your subarea and track72 -> several recent papers = a reviewer pool exists; none = opening or mismatch73[Rigor] does your headline claim reduce to a theorem, a validated model, or a principled74 measurement? -> if not, reconsider SIGMETRICS vs. a systems venue75[Calendar] the next rolling deadline (summer/fall/winter) is ~a quarter away -> route to the76 nearest honest fit rather than forcing a rushed proof/measurement77```7879## Decision procedure8081```text82[Audience] who acts differently if the claim holds? -> systems designers/operators/theorists?83[Claim type] queueing/theory / measurement / learning-with-guarantees / operational84[Rigor gate] is there a checkable performance claim (proof / validated model / methodology)?85[Sibling check] built system -> NSDI/OSDI; pure net-measurement -> IMC; learning-theory-only -> NeurIPS86[Verdict] SIGMETRICS <track> / sibling venue / performance journal, with a one-line reason87```8889Run this before the writing skills; a wrong venue or track decision wastes every later step. When90the verdict is SIGMETRICS, continue with `sigmetrics-workflow` for the deadline choice and91`sigmetrics-writing-style` for the paper shape.9293---9495**Source:** [`brycewang-stanford/Awesome-Journal-Skills`](https://github.com/brycewang-stanford/Awesome-Journal-Skills) → `SIGMETRICS-Skills/skills/sigmetrics-topic-selection/SKILL.md`
thedixitjain