Test of Time Awards
As of RV 2018, the ‘Test of Time Award’ was launched to recognise a paper that is more than 10 years old for the high impact it has left on the community.
Winners of the Award
|RV’21:||“Parametric Identification of Temporal Properties”, LNCS 7186, authored by Eugene Asarin, Alexandre Donzé, Oded Maler, and Dejan Nickovic, presented at RV 2011, San Francisco, CA, USA, September 27-30, 2011.||paper|
|RV’20:||“Valgrind – A Program Supervision Framework”, ENTCS 89(2), authored by Nicholas Nethercote and Julian Seward, presented at RV 2003, Boulder, Colorado, USA, July 13, 2003.||paper|
|RV’19:||“Java-MaC: A Run-time Assurance Tool for Java Programs”, ENTCS 55(2), authored by MoonZoo Kim, Sampath Kannan, Insup Lee, Oleg Sokolsky, and Mahesh Viswanathan, presented at RV 2001, Paris, July 23, 2001.||paper|
|RV’18:||“Monitoring Java Programs with Java PathExplorer”, ENTCS 55(2), authored by Klaus Havelund and Grigore Rosu, presented at RV 2001, Paris, July 23, 2001.||paper|
As of RV 2018, the ‘Test of Time Award’ was launched to recognize a paper presented at RV (including when RV was a workshop from 2001-2009) that is 10 or more years old for the high impact it has left on the community.
RV Chairs’ Role
The chairs of the upcoming RV conference (where the award will be announced) are responsible for running the election process. The chairs initially identify a Selection Committee, which selects candidate papers, and later assists in identifying an Award Committee, which subsequently elects the winner.
Essential participants of the Selection Committee are the chairs of the upcoming RV conference and a number of RV steering committee members. In addition, the Selection Committee can contain other people to help with the identification of candidate papers.
The first short listing automatically includes all papers with >=50 citations + papers manually added by the Selection Committee (with a justification motivating the addition of the paper). Papers that were considered in previous years (but did not make it) can be re-considered. Previous winning papers cannot be re-considered.
The Selection Committee elects the members of the Award Committee, making sure they are not in conflict with the selected papers. Unless there are conflicts, members of the Selection Committee may also be included in the Award Committee. One of the Award Committee members is appointed as the chair.
Defining Conflict of Interest
A person is considered as having a conflict if s/he is the author of one of the selected papers or the direct supervisor of a student who is the author of a selected paper.
Having co-authored some other paper(s) (not on the list) with an author is not considered a conflict of interest. Hence the notion of conflict of interest is weaker than in paper reviewing contexts.
Members of the Award Committee cast their votes (1 vote each + short motivation). Voting is repeated on the best two papers if there are ties. If there is still a tie, the vote of the Award Committee chair counts as two.
The winner(s) is(are) contacted by email. The motivations received during the voting phase are used to explain the reason of the award.
The winner is strongly encouraged to submit an invited paper (receiving a light review with the purpose of improving the paper), and to present it at the conference.