ICASSP Related Work

Use this to audit novelty and positioning. ICASSP is single-blind, so you cite normally — no anonymized references, no hiding your own prior work. Reopen the current call only for dual-submission and prior-publication rules. The four-page limit makes related work a precision instrument, not a survey.

Positioning checks

• Separate the signal-processing novelty (a new estimator, transform, representation, objective, architecture, or resource) from an engineering improvement.
• Compare against both the IEEE SPS journal literature and the conference literature; a reviewer from the relevant technical committee knows both.
• Position against the nearest current-cycle work, not a five-year-old baseline; ICASSP reviewers work in the subfield and notice a stale comparison immediately.
• Because review is single-blind, cite your own prior work in normal first person and make the incremental delta explicit rather than obscuring it.

Literature lanes table

A bibliography that cites only ML venues and no SPS journals tells a committee reviewer the paper may be rediscovering a known signal-processing result — a recognizable weakness that benchmark strength does not repair.

The sibling-venue attribution trap

Signal-processing landmarks are scattered across venues, and misattributing one is a credibility hit. Common confusions to check before citing:

• Papers you think are ICASSP that are actually Interspeech (much of the speech-synthesis and self-supervised-speech canon) or journal papers (TASLP separation work).
• ICIP for image results and EUSIPCO/WASPAA for European and audio-workshop results.
• Verify each cited venue against dblp (conf/icassp/, journals/) rather than trusting memory; see ../../resources/exemplars/library.md for the guard list.

Positioning vignette

Suppose the paper proposes a low-complexity beamformer for a hearing device. Its nearest neighbors: a TASLP paper with higher complexity, a prior ICASSP paper with a similar structure but no latency budget, and an ML paper with a black-box network. The novelty sentence should name all three contrasts — lower complexity than the journal method, an explicit latency budget the prior ICASSP work lacked, and interpretability the black-box model lacked — in one or two sentences, because four pages cannot afford a paragraph per contrast.

Concurrent-work judgment

• Independently concurrent arXiv work: cite neutrally, state the technical difference, and avoid priority claims a reviewer cannot verify.
• Your own workshop or prior-conference version: cite it in first person and state exactly what this paper adds, since single-blind review does not require hiding it.
• If a venue's archival status is unclear for dual-submission purposes, declare the overlap rather than gambling on an organizer's interpretation.

Output format

[Novelty type] estimator / transform / representation / objective / architecture / resource
[Nearest 3 works] <work -> venue (verified) -> technical delta>
[Lane coverage] SPS journals / ICASSP+conf / siblings / ML — gaps?
[Attribution risk] <any venue to re-verify on dblp>
[Novelty sentence] <one ICASSP-ready contribution contrast>