Call for Papers:


Abstract or Paper Registration Deadline
February 23, 2024
Final Submission Deadline
March 1, 2024

Scope and Expectations

The scope of ASPLOS 2025 covers all practical aspects related to the three main ASPLOS disciplines: computer architecture, programming languages, and operating systems, as well as closely-related associated areas. We seek original, high-quality research submissions that improve and further the knowledge of applied computer systems, with emphasis on the intersection between the main ASPLOS disciplines. Research submission may be applicable to computer systems of any scale, ranging from small, ultra-low power wearable devices to large scale parallel computers and data centers. We embrace research that directly targets new problems in innovative ways. The research may target diverse goals, such as throughput, latency, energy, and security. Non-traditional topics are encouraged, and the review process will be sensitive to the challenges of multidisciplinary work in emerging areas. We welcome submission of “experience papers” that have a novel component and that clearly articulate the lessons learned. We likewise welcome submissions whereby novelty lies in furthering our understandings of existing systems, e.g., by uncovering previously unknown, valuable insights or by convincingly refuting prior published results and common wisdom. We value submissions more highly if they are accompanied by clearly defined artifacts not previously available, including traces, original data, source code, or tools developed as part of the submitted work. We particularly encourage new ideas and approaches.

Alphabetically sorted areas of interest related to practical aspects of computer architecture, programming languages, and operating systems include but are not limited to:

  • Existing, emerging, and nontraditional compute platforms at all scales
  • Heterogeneous architectures and accelerators
  • Internet services, cloud computing, and datacenters
  • Memory, storage, networking, and I/O
  • Power, energy, and thermal management
  • Profiling, debugging, and testing
  • Security, reliability, and availability
  • Systems for enabling parallelism and computation on big data
  • Virtualization and virtualized systems

A good submission will typically: motivate a significant problem; propose a practical solution or approach that makes sense; demonstrate not just the pros but also the cons of the proposal using sound experimental methods; explicitly disclose what has and has not been implemented; articulate the new contributions beyond previous work; and refrain from overclaiming, focusing the abstract and introduction sections primarily on the difference between the new proposal and what is already available. The latter statement should be interpreted broadly to also encompass studies that broaden our understanding of existing systems (rather than suggest new ones), which may constitute a significant problem in its own right. Submissions will be judged on relevance, novelty, technical merit, and clarity. Submissions are expected to adhere to SIGPLAN’s Empirical Evaluation Guidelines and all the policies specified below.


Authors of resubmitted work must describe in a separate note – to be uploaded to the submission site at submission time – the changes since the previous submission(s). This description helps reviewers who may have reviewed a previous draft of the work to appreciate any improvements to the currently submitted work. Please try to limit this document to one page.

Submissions rejected from ASPLOS must not be submitted to the next two subsequent review cycles. The corresponding restrictions on ASPLOS ‘25 submissions are thus:

  • Papers rejected in 2024 Spring, or earlier, are now eligible for resubmission to ASPLOS.
  • Papers rejected in 2024 Summer may not resubmit until ASPLOS 2025 Summer (or later).
  • Papers rejected in 2024 Fall may not resubmit until ASPLOS 2025 Fall (or later).

These resubmission rules are strict and hold even if a submission has undergone extensive revision.

Major Revisions

In addition to Accept and Reject outcomes, ASPLOS 2025 will offer some submissions a “Major Revision” decision. The authors of such submissions will be given the opportunity to apply a major revision to their work and resubmit it at the camera ready deadline (6 weeks from notification). These submissions will be provided with clear and actionable reviewer feedback for their revision, and they will be typically reviewed by the same reviewers as the original submission. If the revision requirements are satisfactorily met, the revised submission will be accepted.


ASPLOS employs a double-blind review process, keeping author identities concealed from reviewers and vice versa. You must therefore make a good faith attempt to anonymize your submission by avoiding identifying yourself or your institution/affiliation in any of the submitted documents (except in specific fields on the HotCRP submission form designated for this purpose), either explicitly or by implication, e.g., through references, acknowledgments, online repositories that are referenced by the submission, or interaction with committee members.

Do not include a “reference removed for blind review” text or similar in your submission. When it is necessary to cite your own studies, cite them as written by a third party.  Only if that is not possible, they can be uploaded and cited as anonymized supplemental material (see below). This applies to workshop papers that are being extended by your current ASPLOS submission, and related submissions of your own that are simultaneously under review or awaiting publication at other venues. Publication as a technical report or in an online repository does not constitute a violation of this policy, and some other exceptions apply; see the “originality and concurrent submissions” section below for details.

Please make sure not to reveal author and/or affiliation information through side channels and other less obvious means. For example, the metadata included in the PDF should not give away such information. If you’d like to point to a repository of, e.g., the working code of your system (which is great and much appreciated), this repository should, of course, be anonymized. It is okay and often makes sense to create anonymized repositories merely for the sake of an anonymous submission. If your system is already released to the public, rename it in your submission. You should likewise avoid inadvertently revealing affiliation in your submission by identifying your company’s name in situations where, e.g., it is clear that the authors of the submission most probably work for the company that manufactures the device or provides the service that constitutes the topic of your work; instead, please use a generic name, like “a computer server vendor X,” “a cloud service provider Y,” and such like.

If concealing system name or affiliation would make your paper difficult to understand, contact the program chairs to discuss exceptions to this policy. Submissions that are not properly anonymized will likely be rejected without review.

For more details about submission instructions, response period, artifact evaluation, please visit


Please direct any questions to the program co-chairs at