SoCG 2019: List of Accepted Papers
- • Design, analysis, and implementation of geometric algorithms and data structures;
- • Lower bounds on the computational complexity of geometric problems;
- • Mathematical, numerical, and algebraic issues arising in the formulation, analysis, implementation, and experimental evaluation of geometric algorithms and heuristics;
- • Discrete and combinatorial geometry;
- • Computational topology, topological data analysis, and topological combinatorics;
- • Applications of computational geometry in any field.
To ensure that a submission is evaluated on its own merits, authors will need to identify the main strengths of their submission, as captured by four possible paper types. Please consult the last section of this CFP (or the conference web-page) for a detailed description of the paper types and associated evaluation criteria. There are no quotas for the paper types and submissions can be labeled with more than one paper type at the time of submission.
- November 28, 2018 (Wednesday): Abstracts due (23:59 PST)
- December 5, 2018 (Wednesday): Papers due (23:59 PST)
- February 15, 2019 (Friday): Notification of acceptance/rejection
- March 15, 2019 (Friday): Final versions of accepted papers due
- June 18-21, 2019 (Tuesday-Friday): Symposium
Submissions must be formatted in accordance with the LIPIcs proceedings guidelines and not exceed 500 lines, excluding front matter, references, and a clearly marked appendix (further described below). Note that figure and tables are not counted towards the 500 lines, but their captions are. To ensure an accurate line counting, authors must use the LaTeX class file
socg-lipics-v2018, which is a wrapper around the standard class. The class file, as well a document describing the motivation and technicalities behind this class, are available from the SoCG webpage http://computational-geometry.org. Authors should refrain from putting excessive amounts of texts in parts in which lines are not counted automatically. If authors need constructs that contain large amounts of uncounted text, they should compensate for this by reducing the final count accordingly.
Papers should be submitted in the form of an extended abstract, which begins with the title of the paper, each author’s name and affiliation, as well as a short abstract. This should be followed by the main body of the paper that begins with a precise statement of the problem considered, a succinct summary of the results obtained (emphasizing the significance, novelty, and potential impact of the research), and a clear comparison with related work. The remainder of the extended abstract should provide sufficient details to allow the program committee to evaluate the validity, quality, and relevance of the contribution. Clarity of presentation is very important; the entire extended abstract should be written carefully, taking into consideration that it will be read and evaluated by both experts and non-experts, often under tight time constraints. All details needed to verify the results must be provided.
Supporting materials, including proofs of theoretical claims and experimental details, that do not fit in the 500-line limit should be given in an appendix. If more appropriate, the full version may be given as the appendix. In both cases, however, the authors should include in the main part specific pointers to the relevant locations in the appendix. The appendix will be read by the program committee members at their discretion and will not be published as part of the proceedings. Thus, the paper without the appendix should be able to stand on its own. Experimental and implementation results (independent of paper type) must be reproducible and verifiable. Authors of all types of papers are encouraged to put accompanying software and relevant data, if there are any, in a repository accessible to the reviewers. Authors are asked to indicate which of the supporting material will remain publicly available if their papers are accepted.
Submissions deviating from the above guidelines risk being rejected without further consideration.
Results previously published or accepted for publication in the proceedings of another conference cannot be submitted. Simultaneous submissions of the results to another conference with published proceedings are not allowed. Exempted are workshops and conferences without formal proceedings, but possibly with handouts containing short abstracts. Results that have already been accepted (with or without revision) for publication in a journal at the time of their submission to the symposium are not allowed. A paper submitted to a journal but not yet accepted for publication can be submitted to the symposium. In such cases, the authors must mention this on the front page of the submission and clearly identify the status of the journal submission as of November 28, 2018. Format of Accepted Papers
Final proceedings versions of accepted papers must be formatted in accordance with the LIPIcs proceedings guidelines and not exceed 500 lines, excluding a title page and references. These final versions must be submitted by March 15, 2019. If any supporting material (including complete proofs of theoretical claims and experimental details) does not fit in the specified limit, then the full version of the paper containing this information must be referenced in the conference version and made available at a public repository, such as arXiv, by March 15, 2018. Where applicable, we encourage authors to make accompanying software and/or data publicly accessible, with proper references in the paper.
An author of each accepted paper will be expected to attend the symposium and present the paper (approximately 20 minutes). An award will be given to the best paper, and if it is of interest to a broad audience, its authors will be invited to submit an extended version of it to the Journal of the ACM. Authors of a selection of papers from the symposium will be invited to submit extended versions of their papers to special issues of Discrete & Computational Geometry and Journal of Computational Geometry.
- Hee-Kap Ahn, Pohang Univ. of Science and Technology, South Korea
- Alexandr Andoni, Columbia University, USA
- Sunil Arya, Hong Kong Univ. of Science and Technology, China
- Gill Barequet (co-chair), Technion—Israel Inst. of Technology, Israel
- Mark de Berg, TU Eindhoven, Netherlands
- Prosenjit Bose, Carleton University, Canada
- Frédéric Cazals, INRIA Sophia Antipolis-Méditerrané, France
- Tamal K. Dey, The Ohio State University, USA
- Kyle Fox, Univ. of Texas at Dallas, USA
- Joachim Gudmundsson, Univ. of Sydney, Australia
- Chaya Keller, Ben Gurion University, Israel
- Stephen Kobourov, Univ. of Arizona, USA
- Francis Lazarus, CNRS Grenoble, France
- Clément Maria, INRIA Sophia Antipolis-Méditerranée, France
- Tillmann Miltzow, Utrecht University, Netherlands
- Zuzana Patáková, Inst. of Science and Technology, Austria
- Amit Patel, Colorado State University, USA
- Raimund Seidel, Saarland University, Germany
- Christian Sohler, TU Dortmund, Germany, and Google, Switzerland
- Noam Solomon, Harvard University, USA
- Subhash Suri, Univ. of California at Santa Barbara, USA
- Kasturi Varadarajan, Univ. of Iowa, USA
- Birgit Vogtenhuber, Graz Univ. of Technology, Austria
- Bei Wang, University of Utah, USA
- Yusu Wang (co-chair), The Ohio State University, USA
Matias Korman, Tufts University, USA
When writing or evaluating a SoCG paper, it is important to keep in mind that there are different types of contributions, each with their own strengths. Results of all kinds (theoretical and practical) need to be reproducible and verifiable. To ensure that each submission is evaluated on its own merits, authors need to identify the main strengths of their submissions, as captured by four possible paper types. These paper types are described in detail below, together with their associated evaluation criteria. These criteria will serve as the basis for all reviews, both by PC members and by external subreviewers, and for the subsequent discussion in the PC. There are no quotas for the paper types and submissions can be labeled with more than one paper type at the time of submission.
A typical paper will contain theorems and proofs describing new results in discrete or combinatorial geometry, or in topological combinatorics. The paper will primarily be evaluated on its technical depth, the importance of the results, the elegance of the solution, the connection of the problem studied to computational geometry and topology, and the potential future impact on algorithm development.
A typical paper will contain algorithms, data structures, theorems, proofs, or lower bound constructions describing new results on computational geometry problems. The paper will primarily be evaluated on the (mathematical or computational) relevance and importance of the problem studied, its technical depth, the elegance of the solution, and the potential future impact of the results or the proposed new methods and techniques.
Experimental & Implementation
A typical paper will make a clear contribution to the implementation and evaluation of geometric algorithms, such as exact, approximate, or algebraic computation, algorithms engineering, or the experimental evaluation of competing algorithmic approaches. The paper will primarily be evaluated on the completeness and the expected impact of the proposed implementation, the soundness of the experiments, the quality and quantity of testing, and on the general amount of knowledge gained.
A typical paper will describe the modeling and algorithmic choices made when developing or adapting computational geometry techniques for an application area. The paper will be primarily evaluated on the soundness of the modeling decisions, the ingenuity of the solution, the effectiveness of the proposed method, and the expected impact in the application area. One might also consider the lesson learned regarding the applicability or suitability of computational geometry tools to the specific area.