Late-Breaking Results (LBR) describe preliminary results of ongoing research or incremental work that present new ideas, concepts, systems, or approaches that focus on methods, techniques, and tools that support designing and developing interactive systems.

LBR are intended for eliciting useful feedback on early-stage or incremental work that can benefit from discussions with colleagues in the EICS community. We welcome papers that are suitable for demonstration at the conference and supplementary videos showing the system in action is encouraged. LBR will be published in the conference's companion proceedings and made available in the ACM DL.

LBR papers will be published as a 6-page paper in double-column format generated by ACM TAPS. For review, we ask authors to submit using the single column template that is provided here (Section 2). Please, at the review stage, don't use the old double-column format but the new one-column submission format. In the single column review format, we expect submissions to be approximately 8–12 pages and up to about 5,000 words. Page limits do not include references.

Submissions advance the state of the art of the engineering of interactive systems. Topics include, but are not limited to:

• Modeling, specification and analysis of interaction and interactive systems
• Model-based development of interactive software
• Requirements engineering for interactive systems
• Methods, processes, principles and/or tools for building interactive systems (e.g., design, implementation, prototyping, evaluation, verification and validation, testing)
• Software architectures for interactive systems
• Formal methods within interactive systems engineering
• Certification issues of methods, tools, and processes to create interactive systems
• Frameworks, toolkits, domain-specific languages and APIs for interactive systems
• Languages and notations for describing user interfaces and interactions
• Integrating engineering issues in the design process of interactive systems
• Engineering design tools
• Engineering evaluation tools
• Supporting design in interactive development processes
• Computational-Interaction Systems and Techniques
• Interactive data-driven systems
• Engineering interactive applications with emerging technologies (e.g., adaptive, context-aware, tangible, haptic, touch and multitouch input, voice, gestures, EEG, multimodal input, mobile and wearable systems, AI, augmented, mixed, virtual, and extended realities, large language models, chat bots, humanoid robots, etc.)
• Engineering hardware/software integration in interactive systems (e.g., fabrication and maker processes, physical computing, cyber-physical systems…)
• Engineering interactive systems for various users (e.g., children, elderly, people with disabilities,…)
• Engineering interactive systems for various application domains (e.g., accessibility, health, home, entertainment, desktop, avionics, space, nuclear, civil protection, law enforcement, emergency services and calamity management...)
• Engineering interactive systems for specific properties (user experience, usability, safety, security, dependability, …)
• Engineering smart interactive systems (e.g. recommending, adaptive, intelligent)
• Building Human-centred AI systems (integrating explainable AI, intelligible design, human-in-the-loop, adaptive and context-aware, interactive agents…)

Authors are kindly requested to include references reporting the correct publication to facilitate the citation indexing, in particular for conferences publishing papers on journals such as PACM. For instance, a (fictional) full paper presented at EICS 2023 should be referenced as follows.

John Doe, Jane Smith. 2023. Enhancing User Experience in Interactive Systems. Proc. ACM Hum.-Comput. Interact. 7, EICS, Article 123 (jun 2023), 16 pages, https://doi.org/10.1145/123456

Please do not refer to the paper as follows:

John Doe, Jane Smith. 2023. Enhancing User Experience in Interactive Systems. In Proc. of the 15th Symposium on Engineering Interactive Computing Systems (EICS 2023), 16 pages, https://doi.org/10.1145/123456

Go to top

Should you have any doubt about your Late Breaking Result proposal please contact the chairs (lbr2024@eics.acm.org)

Go to top

The papers review process is based on reviewing where the identities of both the authors and reviewers are kept hidden (but ACs know these details). Authors are expected to remove author and institutional identities from the title and header areas of the paper, as noted in the submission instructions (Note: changing the text color of the author information is not sufficient). Also, please make sure that identifying information does not appear in the document’s meta-data (e.g., the ‘Authors’ field in your word processor’s ‘Save As’ dialog box). In addition, we require that the acknowledgments section be left blank as it could also easily identify the authors and/or their institution.

Further suppression of identity in the body of the paper is left to the authors’ discretion. We do expect that authors leave citations to their previous work unanonymized so that reviewers can ensure that all previous research has been taken into account by the authors. However, authors are required to cite their own work in the third person, e.g., avoid “As described in our previous work [10], ... ” and use instead “As described by [10], ...”

If you for some very specific reasons have challenges with writing the paper in an anonymous way, please contact the track chairs you are planning to submit to and ask for advice. In order to ensure the fairness of the reviewing process, we use a review process where external reviewers don’t know the identity of authors, and authors don’t know the identity of external reviewers. In the past few years, some authors have decided to publish their submissions in public archives prior to or during the review process. These public archives have surpassed in reach and publicity what used to happen with tech reports published in institutional repositories. The consequence is that well-informed external reviewers may know, without searching for it, the full identity and institutional affiliation of the authors of a submission they are reviewing. While reviewers should not actively seek information about author identity, complete anonymization is difficult and can be made more so by publication and promotion of work during the review process. While publication in public archives is becoming standard across many fields, authors should be aware that unconscious biases can affect the nature of reviews when identities are known. EICS does not discourage non-archival publication of work prior to or during the review process but recognizes that complete anonymization becomes more difficult in that context.

Go to top