/ase-submission

name: ase-submission
description: Use when auditing an ASE (IEEE/ACM Automated Software Engineering) research-track submission for HotCRP readiness, covering the ACM acmart sigconf template and the 10+2 page budget, double-anonymous review, the mandatory Data Availability Statement, the early-rejection stage before rebuttal, and desk-reject triage before the deadline.

ASE Submission

Run this audit before uploading to `ase26.hotcrp.com`. ASE research papers are published in the proceedings of the **IEEE/ACM International Conference on Automated Software Engineering**, indexed in **both IEEE Xplore and the ACM Digital Library**. Every number below was read from the ASE 2026 research-track call on 2026-07-09 via search renderings of the `conf.researchr.org` URLs (see `resources/official-source-map.md`); treat them as a one-cycle snapshot and reopen the live call first.

Calendar and portal

• **Portal:** HotCRP at `ase26.hotcrp.com`. NIER, Tools-and-Datasets, and Journal-First each have

their own site/track — do not upload a research paper to the wrong one.

• **ASE 2026 research dates:** submission **26 March 2026**, notification **25 May 2026** (Munich,

Oct 12-16 2026). The exact abstract-registration deadline that precedes the full-paper deadline is **待核实** — confirm it, because a missed abstract registration can forfeit the submission slot.

• As of 2026-07-09 the ASE 2026 notification has passed; the next *submission* target is ASE 2027

(host/dates **待核实**). Reverify the whole calendar before acting.

Format and page budget

• **Template:** for ASE 2026, the ACM Primary Article (Proceedings) Template —

`\documentclass[sigconf,review,anonymous]{acmart}`. Note the ASE nuance: because the conference is **dual IEEE/ACM sponsored**, the mandated template has varied across editions (an IEEE two-column format in some years, ACM `acmart` sigconf for 2026). Confirm which the current call requires before you format anything — carrying an old IEEEtran or acmart habit forward is a classic ASE mistake.

• **Page budget:** **10 pages** for all content — text, figures, tables, and appendices — **plus 2

pages** for references only. There is no unlimited appendix inside the paper; anything a reviewer must read to judge the work lives inside the 10 pages.

• **Mandatory Data Availability Statement:** placed **after the Conclusions** and **inside the

10-page limit**. It is not optional and it is not free space — budget for it.

• Accepted papers are typically allowed **one additional content page** for revisions; do not

pre-spend it in the submission.

Double-anonymous sweep

ASE runs **double-anonymous** review: author names and affiliations are omitted and prior work is cited in the third person. Automated-SE papers leak identity through their *tools* more than their prose, so the surface is wide:

# Mechanical pass on the submission PDF and any anonymized artifact archive
pdfinfo paper.pdf | grep -Ei 'author|creator|producer'
pdftotext paper.pdf - | grep -nEi 'github\.com/[a-z0-9-]+|gitlab|zenodo\.org/record|acknowledg|grant' | head
unzip -l artifact.zip | grep -Ei '\.git/|\.DS_Store|/home/|/Users/' | head
grep -rniE 'university|@[a-z0-9.]*\.edu|our (tool|group|lab)|named after' artifact/ --include='*.md' | head

The ASE-specific leaks: a **tool named after your lab or a prior project**, a screenshot of an IDE showing a username, a Data Availability link pointing at a personal GitHub, commit metadata inside a zipped repository, subject-system paths under `/home/<you>/`, and self-citations phrased in the first person. Re-host the tool and dataset behind an anonymizing service *before* upload.

Data Availability and open science at submission time

• The **Data Availability Statement is required** and reviewed. State what exists (tool, dataset,

scripts, logs), where it will live after acceptance, and provide an **anonymized** link or upload now.

• "Available upon request" reads as a scored weakness, not a neutral choice. If you genuinely cannot

share (industrial confidentiality, license limits), say so and why.

• For automated-SE tools: pin the exact commit, subject-system versions/SHAs, configuration, and

seeds; cache any LLM outputs now — they cannot be reconstructed at review time.

Desk-risk triage

| Finding at audit time | Severity | Real fix | |---|---|---| | Content over 10 pages (refs are separate) | Desk-reject-grade | Cut or move to the artifact; the 2 reference pages do not absorb body text | | Wrong template (IEEEtran when ACM `acmart` is required, or vice versa) | Named desk-reject ground | Recompile in the mandated template; recover space editorially | | No Data Availability Statement, or it sits outside the 10 pages | Policy violation | Add it after Conclusions, inside the budget | | Identity leak in PDF, artifact, or tool name | Anonymity violation | Re-anonymize and re-host; scrub PDF metadata | | Abstract not registered by the earlier date | No submission slot exists | Nothing fixes this post-deadline — calendar it now | | Same study under review elsewhere | Dual-submission exposure | Withdraw one venue; verify the current concurrent-submission wording |

Final-week order of operations

1. Freeze the body early; references can churn, the argument cannot. 2. Register title/abstract/authors/conflicts before the (earlier) abstract deadline. 3. Anonymize the tool and dataset, re-host behind an anonymizing service, and write the Data Availability Statement after Conclusions. 4. Run the mechanical anonymity checks on the *final* PDF and the *final* archive, not drafts. 5. Fill every HotCRP field — area tags that match your automation, conflicts for every coauthor's institution and recent collaborators — a day early; late conflicts are the classic failure. 6. Re-download the uploaded PDF and read it cold to confirm it is the file you meant.

Reverify each cycle

• The required template (IEEE two-column vs. ACM `a