IEEE International Conference on Software Analysis, Evolution and Reengineering (SANER)
Conference positioning
IEEE International Conference on Software Analysis, Evolution and Reengineering (SANER) is a top computer-science conference venue for software analysis, reverse engineering, reengineering, evolution, and code intelligence. It rewards a software-analysis paper with practical tool evidence and clear reengineering value. Treat this skill as a fit / venue-selection / re-framing tool for conference submission strategy, not as a substitute for the current year's CFP, author kit, ethics policy, or submission portal.
Because CS conferences change deadlines, templates, page limits, review workflow, artifact rules, AI-use policy, and rebuttal formats every cycle, always verify the live official instructions before making a submission-ready recommendation. Start from the official source anchor recorded for this venue in ../../resources/conference-roster.md and ../../resources/official-source-map.md.
When to trigger
The author names SANER / IEEE International Conference on Software Analysis, Evolution and Reengineering as the target venue.
A manuscript in software analysis needs a conference-fit read before being formatted or submitted.
The paper must be re-framed from journal style or arXiv style into a selective CS conference narrative.
The author needs an evidence-gap, anonymity, artifact, rebuttal, or re-routing diagnosis for this venue.
Best submissions make a precise contribution type visible: algorithm, theorem, system, dataset, benchmark, empirical finding, design artifact, tool, or socio-technical analysis.
The paper should explain why the result matters to SANER's reviewers, not just why it is interesting to the authors' lab or product context.
Position related work against the most recent conference-cycle papers in this venue and its closest siblings; stale comparisons are a common early-review weakness.
If the contribution is interdisciplinary, state which part is CS research and which part is domain evidence.
Venue-specific calibration
Reviewer lens: Treat SANER as a software analysis venue whose reviewers expect the scope and evidence to match its own community. Do not submit a generic CS paper until the introduction names the exact subcommunity, contribution type, and proof or empirical standard.
Contribution hook to foreground: the venue-specific contribution bar.
Scope vocabulary to use naturally in the abstract and introduction: software analysis, reverse engineering, reengineering, evolution, and code intelligence.
Official anchor domain: conf.researchr.org. Quote annual rules only after opening that source and the current-year CFP/author kit.
Close-neighbor routing guardrail
Route to SANER when the claim is about software analysis, reverse engineering, reengineering,
or evolution: the paper should explain how existing systems are understood, transformed,
migrated, repaired, or modernized.
Do not treat SANER as generic ICSE/FSE. If the contribution is mainly testing, route to ISSTA;
if it is maintenance practice over repository histories, compare ICSME; if it is broad SE
theory or automation, compare ICSE/FSE/ASE.
What distinguishes this venue from its closest siblings
What SANER is. The IEEE conference on Software Analysis, Evolution, and Reengineering — program analysis, comprehension, and refactoring.
vs ICSME. ICSME is Software Maintenance and Evolution; the two overlap heavily — route by community/cycle, with SANER leaning analysis/reengineering and ICSME leaning maintenance practice.
vs ICSE/FSE/MSR. ICSE/FSE are the SE flagships and MSR is mining-repositories; pick SANER for analysis/reengineering contributions.
SANER-specific routing detail
Prefer SANER when the paper studies software analysis, evolution, reverse engineering, reengineering, technical debt, migration, repository mining, or program comprehension.
Route testing/fuzzing/bug-finding methods to ISSTA, maintenance-process work to ICSME, and broad automated tool work to ASE when automation is the main novelty.
SANER evidence should expose software-history context, artifacts, analysis validity, evolution scenario, developer relevance, and threats to validity.
Method & evidence bar
Use real programs, benchmarks, proofs, developer studies, or artifacts matched to the contribution type.
For tools, report usability, scalability, false positives/negatives, and reproducible artifact details.
For theory, provide precise definitions and complete proofs; for empirical SE, foreground validity threats.
For SANER, the evidence must support the venue-specific signature: a software-analysis paper with practical tool evidence and clear reengineering value.
Include limitations, negative results, compute/resource reporting, data provenance, and ethics details when they affect the claim.
Structure & house style
State the software-engineering or language problem in terms of developer, program, proof, or runtime consequence.
Keep examples small but nontrivial, then scale evidence to realistic code or formal benchmarks.
Use the current official template exactly; do not guess page limits, font sizes, supplement rules, anonymity exceptions, or camera-ready requirements from old cycles.
The introduction should answer: problem, why now, what is new, why this venue, and what evidence proves the claim.
Put the strongest result in the main paper, not only in the appendix or supplement; reviewers should not have to reconstruct the contribution.
Re-check the current cycle's CFP, author kit, submission system, abstract/paper deadlines, page limits, supplementary-material rules, anonymity policy, dual-submission policy, ethics policy, AI-use policy, artifact/code/data expectations, rebuttal/author-response format, and camera-ready requirements.
Confirm the review workflow and portal: OpenReview / CMT / HotCRP / PCS / START or society portal, as specified for the current cycle.
Check whether accepted papers require in-person presentation, separate registration, artifact badges, proceedings copyright, or post-acceptance release forms.
If the live official instructions conflict with this skill, the official instructions win.
Pre-submission self-check
One sentence states why this manuscript belongs at SANER, using the venue's scope rather than generic "top conference" language.
The claim is calibrated to the evidence: no broader than the datasets, proofs, systems, user studies, deployments, or threat model support.
Related work includes the nearest current-cycle software analysis papers and explains the technical delta.
The paper satisfies the current official template, anonymity, ethics, artifact, and rebuttal requirements.
The main paper is self-contained enough for reviewers to evaluate novelty and correctness without hunting through external links.
Common desk-reject triggers
Toy examples with no evidence on real programs or benchmarks.
Tool paper without artifact clarity or comparison to current systems.
Empirical claims without validity analysis or reproducible data pipeline.
Formatting, anonymity, dual-submission, external-link, or supplement violations under the current-year policy.
A contribution framed for a neighboring field while giving SANER reviewers too little technical or empirical substance.
Re-routing decision
If the paper misses SANER's bar, compare against international-conference-on-software-engineering / acm-international-conference-on-the-foundations-of-software-engineering / ieee-acm-international-conference-on-automated-software-engineering / acm-sigplan-conference-on-programming-language-design-and-implementation. Re-route based on contribution type, not prestige: theory to a theory venue, systems to a systems venue, application-heavy work to a domain venue, and early ideas to workshops or shorter tracks when the official CFP supports them.
Output format
[Fit] High / Medium / Low (one-line reason)
[Target] IEEE International Conference on Software Analysis, Evolution and Reengineering (SANER)
[Contribution type] algorithm / theory / system / dataset / benchmark / empirical / design / security / other
[Main evidence gap] <single most important missing proof, experiment, study, artifact, or policy check>
[Official items to re-check] CFP / author kit / deadline / format / anonymity / ethics / AI-use / artifact / rebuttal / camera-ready
[Top rejection risk] <venue-specific risk>
[Re-route suggestion] <better-matched conference or journal if not a fit>
