Monday, October 10, 2022

[DMANET] SoCG 2023 - Call for papers

Call for papers: 39th SoCG

The 39th International Symposium on Computational Geometry (SoCG 2023) is
planned to be held in Dallas, Texas, June 12-15 2023, as part of the
Computational Geometry (CG) Week. We invite high quality submissions that
describe original research on computational problems in a geometric and/or
topological setting. Topics of interest include, but are not limited to:

- Design, analysis, and implementation of geometric algorithms and data
- Computational complexity of geometric problems;
- Implementation and experimental evaluation of geometric algorithms and
heuristics, including mathematical, numerical, and algebraic aspects;
- Discrete and combinatorial geometry;
- Computational topology, topological data analysis, and topological
- Applications of computational geometry or topology in any field.

SoCG 2023 conference web page (
SoCG 2023 HotCRP submission page (

Important Dates
25 November 2022: Abstracts due (23:59 AoE (anywhere on Earth))
02 December 2022: Papers due (23:59 AoE (anywhere on Earth))
07 February 2023: Notification of acceptance/rejection
16 March 2023: Final versions of accepted papers due
12-15 June 2023: Symposium

Code of Conduct
SoCG is dedicated to providing an environment that is free from harassment,
bullying, discrimination, and retaliation for all participants. All
attendees, speakers, sponsors, and volunteers at our conference are
required to agree with the CG Week code of conduct. If an author has a
conflict of such nature with a potential reviewer, and the author has
sufficient grounds to believe that the review would be negatively biased,
then the author is asked to declare this conflict in HotCRP. You are also
welcome to contact a SoCG SafeTOC advocate who will treat any supporting
information confidentially. For a list of SoCG advocates with contact
information, please refer to CG Week Code of Conduct (

Submission Guidelines
Paper types
When writing or evaluating a SoCG paper, it is important to keep in mind
that there are different types of contributions, each with its own
strengths. 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. PC members and external reviewers
will be asked to take into account these paper types together with their
associated evaluation criteria when they evaluate a paper. There are no
quotas for the paper types and submissions can be labeled with more than
one paper type at the time of submission.

- Mathematical Foundations. A typical paper will contain theorems and
proofs describing new results in discrete or combinatorial geometry,
discrete differential geometry or topology, 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.
- Algorithmic Complexity. 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.
- Experiments and 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.
- Applications. 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.

Double Blind and PC submissions
For the first time, this year's SoCG will employ a lightweight double-blind
reviewing process, and will allow PC members (other than the PC chairs) to
submit to the conference as well. Submissions should not reveal the
identity of the authors in any way. In particular, authors' names,
affiliations, and email addresses should not appear at the beginning or in
the body of the submission. Authors should ensure that any references to
their own related work is in the third person (e.g., not "We build on our
previous work ..." but rather "We build on the work of ..."). Particular
care needs to be taken if there is any accompanying software or data, which
needs to be linked anonymously (for example, via a DropBox folder or
Anonymous GitHub (, perhaps with a subset
of synthetic data if the real data is not anonymized). Upon registering a
submission, the authors will declare conflicts of interest with PC members,
as well as listing email address or domain level conflicts (i.e. "Erin
Chambers (Saint Louis University)", "All (University of Sydney)".) of other
professional or personal conflicts. The purpose of lightweight double-blind
reviewing is to help PC members and external reviewers come to an initial
judgment about the paper without bias, not to make it impossible for them
to discover the authors if they were to try. Authors should feel free to
disseminate their ideas or draft versions of their paper as they normally
would. For example, authors may post drafts of their papers on the web,
submit them to arXiv, and give talks on their research ideas. We encourage
authors with further questions on double-blind reviewing to contact the PC
chairs, or to see the more detailed discussion in the proposal (
that preceded the vote to move to double blind.

Submissions must be formatted in accordance with the LIPIcs proceedings
guidelines ( Authors must
use the new LaTeX class file socg-lipics-v2021.cls (version 0.9), with the
option "anonymous"; note that the cls file is a wrapper around the standard
LIPIcs class. The LIPIcs style and instructions are available here (; the class file is
available here (, and
instructions on how to use it are available here (
Submissions must not exceed 500 lines, excluding front matter (title),
references, and a clearly marked appendix (further described below), but
including all other lines (in abstract, algorithms, tables, captions,
etc.). The class files provide line counting which should be accurate in
most cases. Authors should refrain from putting excessive amounts of text
in parts in which lines are not counted automatically. If authors need
constructs that contain uncounted lines of text, they should compensate for
this by reducing the final line count accordingly. It is the sole
responsibility of the authors not to exceed 500 lines even if some lines
are not counted automatically.

Contents of the submission
Papers should be submitted in the form of an extended abstract, which
begins with the title of the paper, 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.

Appendix and additional data
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 and subreviewers 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 materials will remain publicly available if their papers are

Previous or simultaneous submissions
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. In particular,
submissions of papers that have appeared or will be submitted to EuroCG are
allowed, since EuroCG does not publish formal proceedings, while
submissions of papers that have appeared in CCCG are not allowed. 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

Strict guidelines
Submissions deviating from the above guidelines risk being rejected without
further consideration.

Guidelines for reviewers
The guidelines are available here (

Accepted Papers
Presentation, awards, and special issues
An author of each accepted paper will be expected to attend the symposium
and present the paper (approximately 20 minutes). Given the developing
COVID-19 pandemic, the format of both attendance and presentation will be
clarified closer to the event. Awards will be given for the best paper and
for the best student presentation. 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. As in the previous years, the authors of the best
paper will be invited to submit an extended version of their paper to
Journal of the ACM.

Final proceedings versions of accepted papers must respect the same
formatting constraints as the submissions (LIPIcs proceedings format with
socg-lipics-v2021; 500-line limit, excluding front matter and references),
but must not comprise any appendix. 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 the time the final
version is submitted. Where applicable, we encourage the authors to make
accompanying software and/or data publicly accessible, with proper
references in the paper.

Program committee
Anastasios Sidiropoulos, University of Illinois at Chicago, USA
André Nusser, University of Copenhagen, Denmark
Arijit Ghosh, Indian Statistical Institute, India
Arindam Khan, IISc Bangalore, India
Arnaud de Mesmay, CNRS, France
Balázs Keszegh, Alfréd Rényi Institute of Mathematics, Hungary
Benjamin Burton, University of Queensland, Australia
Elizabeth Munch, Michigan State University, USA
Erin Chambers, co-chair, Saint Louis University, USA
Esther Ezra, Bar Ilan University, Israel
Facundo Mémoli, Ohio State University, USA
Günter Rote, Freie Universität Berlin, Germany
Ileana Streinu, Smith College, USA
Jack Snoeyink, University of North Carolina, USA
Jeff Erickson, University of Illinois Urbana-Champaign, USA
Joachim Gudmundsson, co-chair, University of Sydney, Australia
Joseph S. B. Mitchell, Stony Brook University, USA
Ken Clarkson, IBM Almaden Research, USA
Kevin Verbeek, TU Eindhoven, the Netherlands
Konrad Swanepoel, London School of Economics, UK
Linda Kleist, Technische Universität Braunschweig, Germany
Maarten Löffler, Utrecht University, the Netherlands
Mathijs Wintraecken, Institute of Science and Technology, Austria and Inria
Sophia Antipolis Méditerranée, France
Matias Korman, Siemens Electronic design automation, USA
Matya Katz, Ben-Gurion University, Israel
Oswin Aichholzer, Graz University of Technology, Austria
Pat Morin, Carleton University, Canada
Patrizio Angelini, John Cabot University, Italy
Saket Saurabh, IMSc Chennai, India
Uli Wagner, Institute of Science and Technology, Austria
Valentin Polishchuk, Linköping University, Sweden
Yoshio Okamoto, The University of Electro-Communications, Japan

* Contributions to be spread via DMANET are submitted to
* Replies to a message carried on DMANET should NOT be
* addressed to DMANET but to the original sender. The
* original sender, however, is invited to prepare an
* update of the replies received and to communicate it
* via DMANET.