International Symposium on Distributed Autonomous Robotic Systems (DARS)
Conference positioning
International Symposium on Distributed Autonomous Robotic Systems (DARS) is a top computer-science conference venue for distributed robots, multi-robot coordination, swarm robotics, decentralized control, and autonomy. It rewards a multi-robot paper with scalable coordination evidence and clear autonomy assumptions. 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 DARS / International Symposium on Distributed Autonomous Robotic Systems as the target venue.
A manuscript in distributed robots 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 DARS'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 DARS as a multi-robot systems 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: distributed robots, multi-robot coordination, swarm robotics, decentralized control, and autonomy.
Official anchor domain: kuralab.github.io/dars2026. Quote annual rules only after opening that source and the current-year CFP/author kit.
Close-neighbor routing guardrail
Use this profile only when the manuscript's central contribution is genuinely in multi-robot
systems and the author can say why DARS reviewers are the primary audience, not merely a
convenient deadline.
Closest roster neighbors to compare before final routing: robocup (RoboCup), ieee-ras- international-conference-on-humanoid-robots (Humanoids). Break ties by contribution type,
evidence shape, reviewer community, and the current official CFP from
kuralab.github.io/dars2026.
DARS-specific routing detail
Prefer DARS when the contribution is distributed autonomous robotic systems: multi-robot coordination, swarms, decentralized control, field teams, communication, or collective autonomy.
Route humanoid embodiment to Humanoids, competition-league robotics to RoboCup, and general robotics results to ICRA/IROS/RSS when distributed autonomy is not central.
DARS evidence should include team size, communication assumptions, decentralization, coordination failure modes, scalability, and real or realistic multi-robot trials.
Method & evidence bar
Report hardware, simulation, environment, task distribution, reset procedure, and failure cases; embodied evidence must be inspectable.
Compare against meaningful robot-learning, planning, or control baselines under matched assumptions.
Separate simulation gains from real-world transfer and quantify reliability, not only best-case success.
For DARS, the evidence must support the venue-specific signature: a multi-robot paper with scalable coordination evidence and clear autonomy assumptions.
Include limitations, negative results, compute/resource reporting, data provenance, and ethics details when they affect the claim.
Structure & house style
Lead with the robot task and system constraint before the algorithmic component.
Use video or supplementary material only as allowed by the current anonymous-review policy.
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 DARS, 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 multi-robot systems 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
Simulation-only evidence for a claim about real robots.
No clear task distribution, few trials, or missing failure analysis.
A learning curve without robot-specific insight or system integration.
Formatting, anonymity, dual-submission, external-link, or supplement violations under the current-year policy.
A contribution framed for a neighboring field while giving DARS reviewers too little technical or empirical substance.
Re-routing decision
If the paper misses DARS's bar, compare against ieee-international-conference-on-robotics-and-automation / ieee-rsj-international-conference-on-intelligent-robots-and-systems / robotics-science-and-systems / conference-on-robot-learning. 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] International Symposium on Distributed Autonomous Robotic Systems (DARS)
[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>
