popl-related-work

name	popl-related-work
description	Use when positioning a POPL paper in the semantics, type-systems, and verification literature — stating per-line technical deltas against the nearest formal systems, covering the PACMPL family and LICS/CAV/CPP/TOPLAS neighbors, citing PACMPL-era papers in journal form, and dblp-verifying every classic before it is attributed to POPL.

POPL Related Work

At POPL the related-work section is part of the proof of novelty: reviewers are specialists who know the three closest systems, and the section must say — precisely — what your formalism can do that each of them cannot, or what assumption of theirs you discharge. Venue-form facts below were checked 2026-07-08.

Delta sentences, not tours

Weak: "Much work has studied gradual typing [1-9]." Strong: each nearest neighbor gets a sentence with a technical object in it —

• "[X]'s soundness needs whole-program compilation; our Theorem 5 holds under separate compilation because the logical relation is defined on open terms."
• "Our rules coincide with [Y] on the pure fragment (Prop. 2) and diverge exactly at effect handlers, which [Y] does not treat."

If you cannot write the delta sentence, you have not finished reading the neighbor paper — or the delta does not exist, which is a popl-topic-selection conversation.

The neighborhood map

Where the closest work lives	Typical relationship to your POPL paper
POPL / PACMPL Issue POPL	The direct predecessors; deltas must be theorem-level
ICFP, OOPSLA, PLDI (same PACMPL journal)	Same idea family, different evidence culture — compare formal content, not venue prestige
LICS, CSL, FSCD	The logic-side siblings; cite them for the semantic foundations you build on
CAV, TACAS, CPP, ITP	Verification tools and mechanization techniques; CPP is co-located with POPL itself
TOPLAS, JFP, LMCS	Journal-length versions of conference lines — cite the mature statement when one exists
ESOP, APLAS	The European/Asian PL circuit; recent near-neighbors often debut here

Coverage duty is highest for the last two POPL/PACMPL cycles: a 2026 paper on your exact judgment form, missed, reads as either carelessness or concealment under full double-blind.

Cite the PACMPL era correctly

Since POPL joined PACMPL, "a POPL 2018 paper" is bibliographically a journal article. Get the form right before reviewers do:

@article{RustBelt2018,
  author  = {Jung, Ralf and Jourdan, Jacques-Henri and
             Krebbers, Robbert and Dreyer, Derek},
  title   = {RustBelt: Securing the Foundations of the Rust Programming Language},
  journal = {Proc. ACM Program. Lang.},
  volume  = {2},
  number  = {POPL},
  pages   = {66:1--66:34},
  year    = {2018}
}

Volume anchors verified on the ACM DL: Vol 2 = POPL 2018, Vol 7 = POPL 2023, Vol 10 = POPL 2026.

Verify before attributing

PL folklore misfiles its classics. Check dblp before writing "at POPL": separation logic's canonical paper (Reynolds 2002) is LICS, not POPL; Milner's type polymorphism paper is JCSS 1978; "Theorems for Free!" is FPCA 1989. Genuine POPL landmarks that are safe to cite as POPL — each dblp/ACM-DL verified 2026-07-08 — include Cousot & Cousot 1977 (abstract interpretation), Damas & Milner 1982, Necula 1997 (proof-carrying code), Leroy 2006 (certified compilation), and Jung et al. 2015 (Iris). See resources/exemplars/library.md.

Output format

[Nearest neighbors] <3-5 systems with one-line technical deltas>
[Coverage gaps] <last-two-cycle POPL/PACMPL items not yet cited>
[Attribution audit] <claims of venue/priority verified on dblp? failures listed>
[Citation form] <PACMPL journal-form errors found>