<div dir="ltr">Thanks Bryan,<div><br></div><div>> <span style="color:rgb(0,0,0);font-family:Aptos,Aptos_EmbeddedFont,Aptos_MSFontService,Calibri,Helvetica,sans-serif;font-size:16px;background-color:transparent"> </span><span style="color:rgb(0,0,0);font-family:Aptos,Aptos_EmbeddedFont,Aptos_MSFontService,Calibri,Helvetica,sans-serif;font-size:16px;background-color:transparent">if the papers' contents significantly overlap, there is an ethical case to be made about duplicate submission.</span><span style="color:rgb(0,0,0);font-family:Aptos,Aptos_EmbeddedFont,Aptos_MSFontService,Calibri,Helvetica,sans-serif;font-size:16px;background-color:transparent"> </span></div><div><span style="color:rgb(0,0,0);font-family:Aptos,Aptos_EmbeddedFont,Aptos_MSFontService,Calibri,Helvetica,sans-serif;font-size:16px;background-color:transparent"><br></span></div><div><span style="color:rgb(0,0,0);font-family:Aptos,Aptos_EmbeddedFont,Aptos_MSFontService,Calibri,Helvetica,sans-serif;font-size:16px;background-color:transparent">To be clear -- I don't think the papers' content does not overlap in that manner. The papers are each about a different topic but they use similar approaches and feel like they were written using the same template. </span></div><div><span style="color:rgb(0,0,0);font-family:Aptos,Aptos_EmbeddedFont,Aptos_MSFontService,Calibri,Helvetica,sans-serif;font-size:16px;background-color:transparent"><br></span></div><div><span style="color:rgb(0,0,0);font-family:Aptos,Aptos_EmbeddedFont,Aptos_MSFontService,Calibri,Helvetica,sans-serif;font-size:16px;background-color:transparent">One paper proposes that authors of KV store papers should measure and report how much performance variance occurs if they change the data layout (such as row store vs column store). Another paper proposes that authors should instead report how much variance stems from the choice of compiler or the implementation of key storage primitives such as compression, hashing, etc. </span></div><div><span style="color:rgb(0,0,0);font-family:Aptos,Aptos_EmbeddedFont,Aptos_MSFontService,Calibri,Helvetica,sans-serif;font-size:16px;background-color:transparent"><br></span></div><div><span style="color:rgb(0,0,0);font-family:Aptos,Aptos_EmbeddedFont,Aptos_MSFontService,Calibri,Helvetica,sans-serif;font-size:16px;background-color:transparent">All the papers frame this additional information as a concrete artifact authors should provide -- a "contract" or "certificate". All of the papers have a brief motivation, an explanation of the contract/certificate, an incredibly brief section titled "Evidence" that provides some numbers but no explanation of where they came from, and then 3 pages of analysis explaining the supposed benefit of the approach. They all have appendixes with (IMO) little useful information.</span></div><div><span style="color:rgb(0,0,0);font-family:Aptos,Aptos_EmbeddedFont,Aptos_MSFontService,Calibri,Helvetica,sans-serif;font-size:16px;background-color:transparent"><br></span></div><div><span style="color:rgb(0,0,0);font-family:Aptos,Aptos_EmbeddedFont,Aptos_MSFontService,Calibri,Helvetica,sans-serif;font-size:16px;background-color:transparent">None of the papers I reviewed were any good, although that is obviously just one reviewer's opinion. </span></div><div><span style="color:rgb(0,0,0);font-family:Aptos,Aptos_EmbeddedFont,Aptos_MSFontService,Calibri,Helvetica,sans-serif;font-size:16px;background-color:transparent"><br></span></div><div><span style="color:rgb(0,0,0);font-family:Aptos,Aptos_EmbeddedFont,Aptos_MSFontService,Calibri,Helvetica,sans-serif;font-size:16px;background-color:transparent">I'm obviously annoyed because all the papers make more work for the reviewers, but it is also frustrating because it seems like a poor use of time. Even with AI, producing these papers took some thought and work. Perhaps if the authors had focused that effort on a single paper/topic they would have produced something more interesting.</span></div><div><span style="color:rgb(0,0,0);font-family:Aptos,Aptos_EmbeddedFont,Aptos_MSFontService,Calibri,Helvetica,sans-serif;font-size:16px;background-color:transparent"><br></span></div><div><span style="color:rgb(0,0,0);font-family:Aptos,Aptos_EmbeddedFont,Aptos_MSFontService,Calibri,Helvetica,sans-serif;font-size:16px;background-color:transparent">Keith</span></div></div><br><div class="gmail_quote gmail_quote_container"><div dir="ltr" class="gmail_attr">On Tue, Jul 7, 2026 at 1:09 PM Bryan S. Kim <<a href="mailto:bkim01@syr.edu">bkim01@syr.edu</a>> wrote:<br></div><blockquote class="gmail_quote" style="margin:0px 0px 0px 0.8ex;border-left:1px solid rgb(204,204,204);padding-left:1ex"><div class="msg-698155960444833268">




<div dir="ltr">
<div style="font-family:Aptos,Aptos_EmbeddedFont,Aptos_MSFontService,Calibri,Helvetica,sans-serif;font-size:12pt;color:rgb(0,0,0)">
Dear Keith,</div>
<div style="font-family:Aptos,Aptos_EmbeddedFont,Aptos_MSFontService,Calibri,Helvetica,sans-serif;font-size:12pt;color:rgb(0,0,0)">
<br>
</div>
<div style="font-family:Aptos,Aptos_EmbeddedFont,Aptos_MSFontService,Calibri,Helvetica,sans-serif;font-size:12pt;color:rgb(0,0,0)">
Thank you for bringing this up, and we appreciate you going the extra mile to look through even the papers not assigned to you. </div>
<div style="font-family:Aptos,Aptos_EmbeddedFont,Aptos_MSFontService,Calibri,Helvetica,sans-serif;font-size:12pt;color:rgb(0,0,0)">
<br>
</div>
<div style="font-family:Aptos,Aptos_EmbeddedFont,Aptos_MSFontService,Calibri,Helvetica,sans-serif;font-size:12pt;color:rgb(0,0,0)">
Your suspicion about authorship is correct - they are all from the same authors. I cannot definitively say about AI usage, but if the papers' contents significantly overlap, there is an ethical case to be made about duplicate submission. The current CFP has
 some language about simultaneous submission to multiple venues (HS + other venue), but does not cover this specific case (similar papers to a single venue). </div>
<div style="font-family:Aptos,Aptos_EmbeddedFont,Aptos_MSFontService,Calibri,Helvetica,sans-serif;font-size:12pt;color:rgb(0,0,0)">
<br>
</div>
<div style="font-family:Aptos,Aptos_EmbeddedFont,Aptos_MSFontService,Calibri,Helvetica,sans-serif;font-size:12pt;color:rgb(0,0,0)">
Young-ri and I discussed this, and we will keep the papers submitted by these authors in mind. Should more than one of them be leaning toward acceptance (based on the assigned reviews), we will discuss this during the PC meeting over Zoom with all (if not most)
 of the involved reviewers for these papers. </div>
<div style="font-family:Aptos,Aptos_EmbeddedFont,Aptos_MSFontService,Calibri,Helvetica,sans-serif;font-size:12pt;color:rgb(0,0,0)">
<br>
</div>
<div style="font-family:Aptos,Aptos_EmbeddedFont,Aptos_MSFontService,Calibri,Helvetica,sans-serif;font-size:12pt;color:rgb(0,0,0)">
We will definitely keep the Steering Committee in the loop about this. You are right: the current ACM policy places the burden on the reviewers, and we, as members of the research community, need to be concerned about AI abuse cases that would otherwise degrade
 the quality of published research and waste reviewers' effort. </div>
<div style="font-family:Aptos,Aptos_EmbeddedFont,Aptos_MSFontService,Calibri,Helvetica,sans-serif;font-size:12pt;color:rgb(0,0,0)">
<br>
</div>
<div style="font-family:Aptos,Aptos_EmbeddedFont,Aptos_MSFontService,Calibri,Helvetica,sans-serif;font-size:12pt;color:rgb(0,0,0)">
Thank you again. Reviewers like you are what make our research community shine. </div>
<div style="font-family:Aptos,Aptos_EmbeddedFont,Aptos_MSFontService,Calibri,Helvetica,sans-serif;font-size:12pt;color:rgb(0,0,0)">
-Bryan</div>
<div style="font-family:Aptos,Aptos_EmbeddedFont,Aptos_MSFontService,Calibri,Helvetica,sans-serif;font-size:12pt;color:rgb(0,0,0)">
<br>
</div>
<div style="font-family:Aptos,Aptos_EmbeddedFont,Aptos_MSFontService,Calibri,Helvetica,sans-serif;font-size:12pt;color:rgb(0,0,0)">
<br>
</div>
<hr style="display:inline-block;width:98%">
<div id="m_-698155960444833268divRplyFwdMsg">
<div style="direction:ltr;font-family:Calibri,sans-serif;font-size:11pt;color:rgb(0,0,0)">
<b>From:</b> Hotstorage-chairs <<a href="mailto:hotstorage-chairs-bounces@fsl.cs.sunysb.edu" target="_blank">hotstorage-chairs-bounces@fsl.cs.sunysb.edu</a>> on behalf of Keith Smith via Hotstorage-chairs <<a href="mailto:hotstorage-chairs@fsl.cs.sunysb.edu" target="_blank">hotstorage-chairs@fsl.cs.sunysb.edu</a>><br>
<b>Sent:</b> Monday, July 6, 2026 18:57<br>
<b>To:</b> <a href="mailto:chairs26@hotstorage.org" target="_blank">chairs26@hotstorage.org</a> <<a href="mailto:chairs26@hotstorage.org" target="_blank">chairs26@hotstorage.org</a>><br>
<b>Subject:</b> [Hotstorage-chairs] HotStorage paper similarity</div>
<div style="direction:ltr"> </div>
</div>
<div style="direction:ltr">Hi Young-ri, Bryan</div>
<div style="direction:ltr"><br>
</div>
<div style="direction:ltr">I just wanted to raise a potential concern about some of the submissions in case you haven't noticed or nobody else has brought it up.</div>
<div style="direction:ltr"><br>
</div>
<div style="direction:ltr">The last three papers that I reviewed -- papers <a href="https://linkprotect.cudasvc.com/url?a=https%3a%2f%2fhotstorage26.hotcrp.com%2fpaper%2f102&c=E,1,e6XcSBUh2lXx0YK7xzYXWOf5jvnoLgv4_enf1qUUTnniRhGQ48NSr0r5yfxM6O7E92fXfAVI6GhvbrVPFycvBV49giJV0ogqlvwPsW76ud38CEtdsaD4wBM,&typo=1" id="m_-698155960444833268OWA0cf93698-6e6b-e3aa-442a-d24376c482cf" target="_blank">
102</a>, <a href="https://linkprotect.cudasvc.com/url?a=https%3a%2f%2fhotstorage26.hotcrp.com%2fpaper%2f197&c=E,1,Ice3HQzEKOXOs_zEWcFWtqHCHMuIioeUVlpu6ITJkG9FHXYx8nUZkmQG-G5PB3oCBsBr0NNmWByOASD_YYrKGmV80Eizri1W2jcG14hMH_e7auWH4HuAu0ZBitA,&typo=1" id="m_-698155960444833268OWAf51d4afb-8783-3b0b-9d17-c6d207fba6d3" target="_blank">
197</a>, and <a href="https://linkprotect.cudasvc.com/url?a=https%3a%2f%2fhotstorage26.hotcrp.com%2fpaper%2f209&c=E,1,WlCyBqG6PmeFVNBh0hyrclBwnqxS7WDazVALqvL4Vco-mzOUe5dqrF60_dOim79QvLMT2U7e_bIJ3LYIwrWzQczfEdDe4_ZpYgvuJ0QZ0HQkdA,,&typo=1" id="m_-698155960444833268OWA5731976c-90a8-2239-2342-f0cd23716730" target="_blank">
209</a> -- were strikingly similar. They all describe a similar concept applied to different areas. The papers have similar structure, similar language, and similar flaws. In addition to the papers I've reviewed, at least 4 other papers (based on a quick scan)
 seem to match the pattern (<a href="https://linkprotect.cudasvc.com/url?a=https%3a%2f%2fhotstorage26.hotcrp.com%2fpaper%2f22&c=E,1,ZpulObutuYh9lsWZPK4XfQDFOMLzsAWwCyhYwYmy9C2wVrugWOphjMZ57zzbSuOf5bYPT-SPyf7spCImuCljctoPCdHj3OVbeEFGbfF9pDNc_tu7Ww,,&typo=1" id="m_-698155960444833268OWAd4da2855-5fc2-6876-3339-cd03f012a149" target="_blank">22</a>,
<a href="https://linkprotect.cudasvc.com/url?a=https%3a%2f%2fhotstorage26.hotcrp.com%2fpaper%2f40&c=E,1,wpe7fuwwN_cWaUpFpaJBIXSEk-VO0dfnI-KwyIQiImJ_SkGS5RWy8IyILGHxSSJhIoCuaLIjVeIElhGr5JVNDB4DYnpYgOwT2w8C56twfns8zGAvrFg,&typo=1" id="m_-698155960444833268OWA1786c0d2-4849-c6a4-35f3-f38b5a2465e0" target="_blank">
40</a>, <a href="https://linkprotect.cudasvc.com/url?a=https%3a%2f%2fhotstorage26.hotcrp.com%2fpaper%2f49&c=E,1,MWzCQxvJqcp6tRrlhdcU7rX1k2O5kSqQbb6gymqkIt8oBDXHyAmQcEyz5ImRzD3e7z_vRf5wvycXXFrL9OkgCqh_GBTAm12KbYWlP3xXCMX1Q3M,&typo=1" id="m_-698155960444833268OWAc23a2a96-b2f4-1447-de52-e8724d793c4d" target="_blank">
49</a>, and <a href="https://linkprotect.cudasvc.com/url?a=https%3a%2f%2fhotstorage26.hotcrp.com%2fpaper%2f117&c=E,1,ihjEoPGpc6SBxfHMXwy7W8dc1iiRj7zCpz62M9Qjddh5T43kgSpiPLYQ8B5MqQi3hRxboYEuF5SHvUi-LLIWYx8M14MO9aZQPUdlSbPyzZywznKnqubcjnoAS0Li&typo=1" id="m_-698155960444833268OWA3f46257f-7803-add8-151f-7d6de98c6f50" target="_blank">
117</a>). I can explain the similarities if you want.</div>
<div style="direction:ltr"><br>
</div>
<div style="direction:ltr">Given the strong similarities I suspect they are all by the same author(s). In this day and age, it seems likely they were largely AI generated, but that's hard to tell, and anyway the ACM
<a href="https://www.acm.org/publications/policies/new-acm-policy-on-authorship" id="m_-698155960444833268OWA72b0b70d-324e-1828-1545-e37015b88d01" target="_blank">
author guidelines</a> explicitly say authors can use AI to generate the text of their paper without disclosing that.</div>
<div style="direction:ltr"><br>
</div>
<div style="direction:ltr">So I don't have reason to believe that the author(s) here have violated the rules. And I'm not asking you all to do something about it (unless something here strikes you as illegitimate). </div>
<div style="direction:ltr"><br>
</div>
<div style="direction:ltr">Still I wanted to point this out, in case you haven't noticed this. And I would suggest that the Steering Committee might want to consider changes to the submission guidelines for future years. In particular, I'm concerned that
 it is too easy for authors to spam a workshop like HotStorage with AI generated submissions, since the ACM allows the undisclosed use of AI in writing papers, and a position paper does not need to have original research content (where AI use would have to
 be disclosed).</div>
<div style="direction:ltr"><br>
</div>
<div style="direction:ltr">Keith</div>
</div>

</div></blockquote></div>