Fuzzing'22

The 1st International Fuzzing Workshop (FUZZING) 2022 welcomes all researchers, scientists, engineers and practitioners to present their latest research findings, empirical analyses, techniques, and applications in the area of fuzzing and software testing for automated bug finding.

The workshop will be organized as Phase 1 in a 2-phase preregistration-based publication process. All research papers will be peer-reviewed on the basis of a full-length preregistered report, and acceptance will be based on (i) the significance and novelty of the hypotheses or techniques, and (ii) the soundness and reproducibility of the methodology specified to validate the claims or hypotheses -- but explicitly not based on the strength of the (preliminary) results. More details about the benefits of this process can be found in this blog post co-authored by the workshop organizers: http://fuzzbench.com/blog/2021/04/22/special-issue/

Update (8th June): We are excited to announce that ACM TOSEM has agreed to host the registered reports that have been accepted in Phase 1 of FUZZING'22 in their new Registered Reports track! Please submit the revision of your accepted FUZZING'22 paper under https://mc.manuscriptcentral.com/tosem until 15 June 2022 (chosing "Registered Report" as paper type).

Accepted Registered Reports

Important Dates

Topics of Interest

Submissions are solicited in, but not limited to, the following areas:

Submission Guidelines

The workshop solicits registered reports drafts. A registered report is a full paper sans the evaluation or experiments. Each draft will be reviewed by at least three members of the program committee according to the review criteria mentioned above with the key objective of providing constructive feedback. Accepted drafts are made available to all participants. These drafts will be presented and discussed in detail at the workshop in order for the authors to receive further constructive feedback. After incorporating this feedback, the authors can submit final versions of the Registered Reports for review. Notably, accepted Registered Reports will be invited as full articles in a Special Issue in one of the premier software engineering journals. This invitation is equivalent to an in-principle acceptance in the general pre-registration process. For the final journal article, the authors are expected to conduct the experiments, evaluation, or study as specified in their registered report.

We are currently discussing with top journals regarding the publication of the final papers. Therefore, the deadlines for the submission of registered reports and full journal papers might be delayed, depending on the constraints from the journal.

Submitted report drafts are expected to be a full technical paper sans the full evaluation/experiment results. To assess the feasibility of the experiments, however, we expect some preliminary results in small-scale experiments.

Submitted report drafts should include no more than 8 pages, excluding references. There are no page limits on the references. Papers must be formatted according to the NDSS requirements. Templates are available at https://www.ndss-symposium.org/ndss2022/call-for-papers .

Depending on the authors’ preference, accepted registered report drafts will be published in the workshop proceedings of NDSS through the Internet Society. The proceedings will be submitted for publication in IEEE Xplore.

Update: FUZZING'22 will employ a double-anonymous policy for all submissions. Please ensure that the authors remain anonymous in your submission. For more details on this policy, please email us or consult this excellent FAQ. (Due to the short notice, we will not desk-reject a submission in violation of this policy. Instead, we will ask the authors to update the submission with an anonymized revision.)

Submission

Report drafts can be submitted at: https://easychair.org/conferences/?conf=fuzzing22

Preregistration FAQ

Q: Accepting papes without considering the outcome of the experiments sounds like “lowering the bar” for publication. Won’t this lead to low-quality papers?
A: No. In fact, we strongly believe that the process will lead to higher quality papers with a stronger focus on the significance/novelty of the proposed approach and the soundness and reproducibility of the evaluation. Specifically, moving the in-principle acceptance to a time *before* the evaluation is conducted i) improves the soundness of the evaluation (based on early reviewer feedback) and ii) ensures that the evaluation is free of bias (e.g., HARKing).

Q: Does this mean that you can publish negative results too? What is the point of that?
A: Yes. Compared to the existing publication model, our preregistration-based model will also allow the publication of negative results, i.e., results that show that a proposed approach does indeed not work or a reasonable hypothesis does not hold. However, given that reviewers deemed the investigation to be worthwhile and the evaluation methodology to be sound, we are convinced that the publication even of negative results will not only avoid redundant efforts across the community but also enrich our understanding of the problem under investigation. Like for positive results, we ask that authors thoroughly analyze the underlying reasons for negative results and provide an interpretation.

Q: Can I modify the idea or the experimental protocol after in-principle acceptance in Stage-1? If yes, how much can be changed?
A: Yes. The registered report serves as an agreement on the minimal experiment and any deviation must be clearly justified. You are allowed to change the paper and the experimental protocol within reason. For instance, if the results point to an optimization opportunity for a proposed technique, you are welcome to implement and evaluate the benefit of the optimization. If the results call for a deeper investigation of certain aspects of the proposal, you are welcome to add further research questions. Any such deviation from the experimental protocol must be explained in a Summary of Changes which will be subject to review in Stage-2. For larger deviations from the evaluation protocol or when in doubt, you are welcome to request permission to follow an alternative evaluation protocol.

Q: What if my idea gets “scooped” after my registered report is published?
A: The registered report is published and “active”, i.e., the community knows that you are working on the project laid out in the registered report. The “scoop” would be pretty obvious. Even if related work is published after the in-principle acceptance is granted in Stage-1, this will not influence the final acceptance decision for your paper in Stage-2. The accepted registered report is a joint commitment by the authors and the reviewers.

Q: What if I cannot finish the experiments and finalize the paper before the final submission deadline?
A: There is indeed a deadline for submitting the final version of your paper. If you need an extension, please provide an explanation for this extension anda suggestion for a new deadline. Extensions are normally granted but require a reasonable justification. If a deadline expires without submission, the registered report becomes “inactive” and the in-principle acceptance is withdrawn. The paper is not considered “under review” anymore and can be submitted elsewhere.

Q: What if my final paper gets rejected? Can I submit to other venues? What if the other venue rejects the paper claiming that the idea has already been published in the registered report?
A: Unless inactive, withdrawn, or rejected/accepted in Stage-2, an accepted registered report is considered as a full paper currently “under review” and cannot be submitted elsewhere. Once the report is withdrawn, rejected, or inactive, you can submit the final paper elsewhere. You can think of the registered report as a workshop paper without evidence or only preliminary results. Conferences or journals often publish extensions of workshop papers. There should be no difficulty submitting the full paper despite the publication of the registered report.

Q: Stage 1 is double-anonymous: Reviewers do not know the authors and vice versa. Yet, Stage 2 is single-anonymous: Reviewers know about the authors for each submission. How does this influence the final decision?
A: Stage 2 merely serves as a confirmation that the agreed experimental protocol has been followed and that deviations are explained. Since this judgment is objective, we believe that the risk of reviewer bias is sufficiently low in Stage 2.

Organizing Committee

Program Committee

Artifact Evaluation Committee