HPCA Related Work

Use this to position an HPCA paper against decades of computer-architecture literature. The bar is a related-work section that reads as a lineage with structural deltas, not a citation pile — and one that respects HPCA's two bibliography rules: references are never blinded, and every reference lists all of its authors.

Sweep the whole architecture record

Architecture ideas recur across four venues and forty years. Search the publisher-neutral spine (dblp) plus IEEE Xplore, not a single library:

• dblp HPCA series (dblp.org/db/conf/hpca/) for the venue's own line, and the ISCA/MICRO/ASPLOS series for cross-venue lineage.
• IEEE Xplore for HPCA's published volumes; ACM DL for the ACM-published siblings.
• The HPCA Test of Time Award list for the load-bearing ancestors of your subfield.

A mechanism you think is new often has a named ancestor at HPCA 2003 or ISCA 2006; find it before a reviewer does.

Write lineage, not a pile

Each related-work paragraph should name a prior line, then state the structural delta your paper adds — what changes in the machine or the mechanism, not just that you are "different." Group by mechanism family, not chronologically.

Weak related-work move	Stronger HPCA move
"Many prefetchers exist [3,7,9,12]."	"History prefetchers [X] cover irregular patterns but issue regardless of bandwidth; we gate on measured utilization."
Listing venues and years	Naming the mechanism each prior work uses and where it breaks
Omitting a famous ancestor	Citing it and stating the concrete delta
Blinding your own prior work out	Citing it in the third person, un-blinded

Blind the voice, never the bibliography

Double-blind means the prose must not reveal you, but the references must stay intact:

• Cite your own prior work in the third person ("Prior work [12] proposed …"), never remove it.
• Do not anonymize, omit, or "et al."-abbreviate any reference — HPCA requires each reference to list all its authors, and a missing citation reads as either a gap or a blinding hack.
• Keep acknowledgments and funding out of the submitted version; they return at camera-ready.

The concurrency and preprint question

Recent HPCA guidance asks PC members not to hold arXiv or CAL preprints against a submission. Position honestly against concurrent work you know of, but do not use a preprint to claim priority in a way that de-anonymizes you. When a truly concurrent result exists, name the difference in scope rather than ignoring it.

Build sequence

1. dblp + IEEE Xplore sweep across HPCA/ISCA/MICRO/ASPLOS for the mechanism family
2. Pull the Test-of-Time ancestors of the subfield
3. Draft one paragraph per mechanism line, each ending in a structural delta
4. Blind self-citations to third person; confirm none were dropped
5. Verify every reference lists all authors (HPCA reject trigger otherwise)

Output format

[Coverage] mechanism families cited / families that exist
[Lineage quality] deltas stated / paragraphs
[Missing ancestor risk] <named prior work not yet cited, or none>
[Blinding] self-cites third-person? bibliography intact? (Y/N)
[Author-list check] every reference lists all authors? (Y/N)
[Top gaps] <ordered>

Reopen the current CFP for the preprint policy and the all-authors rule before finalizing — both are per-edition.