March 2025 - SEG-staff

Fwd: SI Evening Talk | Speakers for Strategic Cybersecurity: Resilient Cyber Leadership Under Fire
by Timo Kehrer 24 Mar '25

24 Mar '25

... if anybody is interested, it's an online event. Best, Timo -------- Weitergeleitete Nachricht -------- Betreff: SI Evening Talk | Speakers for Strategic Cybersecurity: Resilient Cyber Leadership Under Fire Datum: Mon, 24 Mar 2025 10:29:45 +0000 Von: Schweizer Informatik Gesellschaft (SI) <office(a)swissinformatics.org> Antwort an: Schweizer Informatik Gesellschaft (SI) <office(a)swissinformatics.org> An: timo.kehrer(a)inf.unibe.ch SI Evening Talk | Speakers for Strategic Cybersecurity: Resilient Cyber Leadership Under Fire Resilient Cyber Leadership Under Fire *SI Evening Talk* *Strategic Cybersecurity: Resilient Cyber Leadership Under Fire* Link to registration <https://swissinformatics.us9.list-manage.com/track/click?u=a05d9d95f5ff96dc…><https://swissinformatics.us9.list-manage.com/track/click?u=a05d9d95f5ff96dc…> Dear SI Member, dear SI Friend, For our upcoming SI Evening Talk on Cybersecurity "Strategic Cybersecurity: Resilient Cyber Leadership Under Fire", we've invited two excellent speakers to share their expertise with us: *Prof. Guido Salvaneschi* is an Associate Professor at the University of St.Gallen. He received his PhD from the Dipartimento di Elettronica e Informazione at Politecnico di Milano, under the supervision of Prof. Carlo Ghezzi. His doctoral dissertation focuses on programming methods and language-level techniques for adaptive software. He was a researcher at MIT CSAIL under the supervision of Prof. Barbara Liskov. Before becoming tenured at the Unversity of St. Gallen, he was an assistant professor at TU Darmstadt, where he led the Reactive Software Systems group. IT security is more than just a profession for *Uwe Gempp *– it’s a passion. With a background in software engineering and IT architecture, he recognized early on that sustainable security strategies require not only technical solutions but also a deep understanding of business processes and risks. His goal is to shape security as an enabler that drives innovation rather than hindering it. Over the years, he specialized in Identity & Access Management, Privileged Access Management, as well as Governance & Compliance. After holding software engineering and IT architecture roles at Winterthur Versicherungen and Credit Suisse, he became the CSO at Health Info Net AG. Since 2024, as a Security Officer at Adnovum, he has been driving security innovation, developing tailored solutions for complex IT landscapes, and overseeing the company's ISMS to ensure continuous compliance and resilience. *Join the discussion! Date/Time:* Thursday, 27 March 2025, 17:00 - 18:30 *Location:* online (Link sent after registration) *Language: *English This is a free event, but registration is required. Feel free to share this invitation to colleagues or friends who might be interested in this topic! We look forward to seeing you online! The SI Team Register Here <https://swissinformatics.us9.list-manage.com/track/click?u=a05d9d95f5ff96dc…> Website <http://swissinformatics.org/> LinkedIn <https://swissinformatics.us9.list-manage.com/track/click?u=a05d9d95f5ff96dc…> Instagram <https://swissinformatics.us9.list-manage.com/track/click?u=a05d9d95f5ff96dc…> Facebook <https://swissinformatics.us9.list-manage.com/track/click?u=a05d9d95f5ff96dc…> X (formerly Twitter) <https://swissinformatics.us9.list-manage.com/track/click?u=a05d9d95f5ff96dc…> /Copyright © 2025 Schweizer Informatik Gesellschaft, All rights reserved. For more information, please contact us at:/ office(a)swissinformatics.org Want to change how you receive these emails? You can update your preferences <https://swissinformatics.us9.list-manage.com/profile?u=a05d9d95f5ff96dcd8ca…> or unsubscribe from this list <https://swissinformatics.us9.list-manage.com/unsubscribe?u=a05d9d95f5ff96dc…>. ͏ ͏ ͏ ͏ ͏ ͏ ͏ ͏ ͏ ͏ ͏ ͏ ͏ ͏ ͏ ͏ ͏ ͏ ͏ ͏ ͏ ͏ ͏ ͏

1 0

Holiday planning and inova time
by Timo Kehrer 19 Mar '25

19 Mar '25

Dear all, it's getting spring, and summer is approaching. This also means: Time for holiday planning ;-) Please make sure that you will take two weeks of holidays in a row, the HR department is interpreting this rule quite strictly. Doesn't have to be in summer, of course, but any time of the year. In general, as a reminder, make sure to record your holidays and other abscences such as coference trips in inova time! This also holds for those who do not have to record their usual working hours (i.e., Post-Docs, PhD students). Best, Timo

1 0

Fwd: ICSME 2025 Research Papers review assignments
by Timo Kehrer 18 Mar '25

18 Mar '25

Dear all, if anyone wants to serve as sub-reviewer for ICSME 2025, please let me know. These are the papers I got (PDFs attached, please do not share): (79) ADPP: Automated Data-centric Program Partitioning (81) Towards Better Understanding of Code Changes: An Algorithm to Remove Unintended Moves in GumTree (117) Understanding Commercial Low-code Application Bugs (122) Configurable Ensembles for Software Similarity: Challenging the Notion of Universal Metrics (146) Predicting Clone-proneness: An Exploratory Study with Deep Learning Models Best, Timo -------- Weitergeleitete Nachricht -------- Betreff: ICSME 2025 Research Papers review assignments Datum: Mon, 17 Mar 2025 13:48:39 +0100 Von: ICSME Research Papers Track <icsme2025_research(a)easychair.org> An: Timo Kehrer <timo.kehrer(a)inf.unibe.ch> [Sie erhalten nicht häufig E-Mails von icsme2025_research(a)easychair.org. Weitere Informationen, warum dies wichtig ist, finden Sie unter https://aka.ms/LearnAboutSenderIdentification ] Dear Timo Kehrer, Thanks again for serving on the PC of ICSME 2025. This is a rather long email regarding the paper assignments, review instructions and review criteria, but please read it in full as it will make your job as a reviewer easier. We have received 188 submissions. 21 papers were withdrawn by the full paper deadline. We removed 18 other submissions ourselves for which the authors did not submit a full paper. Out of the remaining 149 papers, we desk-rejected 3 papers for violating submission guidelines. This leaves 146 papers for review. Given the PC size, we have assigned 4-5 papers per PC member. You will find your paper assignment at the end of this email. 1) FORMAT AND DOUBLE-BLIND REQUIREMENTS Papers must strictly adhere to the two-column IEEE conference proceedings format. Also, papers must be in PDF, anonymized, and must not exceed 10 pages (including figures and appendices) plus up to 2 pages that contain ONLY references. We have already screened papers regarding these requirements. If you identify any missed cases, please report them to us as soon as possible. For minor format violations (e.g., slightly different font or template), we have decided to handle these during the camera-ready stage. Please note such font/template violations in your reviews, but do not reject a paper because of them. Some papers are shorter than 10 pages. While these are shorter than the typical full paper length, our CfP does not have a minimum page length. Therefore, please judge these papers as full papers (i.e., whether the provided content contains all the necessary information for a full paper) rather than forming your opinion solely based on their length. Also, report to us immediately any missed cases of Conflicts of Interest. We ask you to NOT actively try to determine the authors of the papers. 2) REVIEW FORM Following the tradition of ICSME and other major conferences, our goal is not to reject papers, but to accept them. Therefore, please be *positive* and provide *constructive* reviews. To support you in preparing quality reviews and to provide transparent reviews to authors, the review form on EasyChair includes the following fields (for your convenience we also include the descriptions of fields in the form on EasyChair): * Overall recommendation: Reject, Weak reject, Weak accept, Accept, Accept & nominate for distinguished paper (only use ‘Accept & nominate for distinguished paper’ if you believe a paper is outstanding and should be considered for a Distinguished Paper award) * Reviewer’s confidence: Expert, Knowledgeable, Some familiarity, No familiarity * Paper summary: Brief summary of the paper (as you understand it) * Strengths (bullet list): Summarize the key strengths of the paper, in light of the review criteria. * Weaknesses (bullet list): Summarize the key weaknesses of the paper, in light of the review criteria. * Artifacts: Artifact provided and in line with what is declared in the paper. Artifact provided, but not inline with what is declared in the paper، Artifact not provided, but authors provide a convincing argument as to why it cannot be provided. Artifact not provided, without explanation (or a non-convincing explanation) * Summary comments for authors: Please provide a summary of your assessment to justify your overall recommendation. You may elaborate on the strengths and weaknesses and refer to the evaluation criteria (see below). Please do not mention your overall recommendation in the comments. * Questions for the authors: Please fill in this section ONLY if answers to these questions will affect your score/decision for this paper. Otherwise, clearly indicate "No Questions." * Confidential remarks for the program committee * Review criteria: see below 3) REVIEW CRITERIA For ICSME 2025 we use structured reviews, i.e., there will be a field for each review criterion on the review form. For your convenience, we also explain each criterion in the review form itself. 3.1) Originality and novelty The extent to which the contribution is sufficiently original and is clearly explained with respect to the state-of-the-art. Note that originality is not about providing surprising or unexpected results or the complexity of a proposed solution, but how the work advances the body-of-knowledge. If a paper lacks important references, we ask reviewers to provide suggestions, but avoid self-citations. When a reviewer’s own work is extremely relevant, they should always contact the PC co-chairs and provide potential alternatives of other related work. Replications that bring new knowledge are welcome. Do *not* reject papers just because: – the work is preliminary (especially if an idea is very novel) – the work is incremental (we always build on top of previous research) – it reports negative results – the idea is simple – you think some other technique that doesn’t exist yet would be better 3.2) Importance of contribution (significance) The extent to which the paper’s contributions can impact the ﬁeld of software maintenance and evolution, and, if needed, under which assumptions. Do *not* reject papers just because: – it does not include empirical evidence of impact (potential impact is more important) – you don’t like the topic or don’t ﬁnd it interesting (would someone in the community?) – the impact is not immediate for the software industry, the immediate impact may be in the software engineering research community (e.g., methodological contribution) 3.3) Soundness (proper use of research methods) The extent to which the paper’s contributions and/or innovations address its research questions and are supported by rigorous application of appropriate research methods. Papers should employ rigor in their research methodology (including choosing appropriate methods and procedures). Soundness is relative to claimed contributions (e.g., if a paper ﬁnds a correlation, and that is a notable discovery, do not critique it for not also demonstrating causality). Do *not* reject papers just because: – the methods are not the ones you would have selected (are they appropriate?) – the results may not generalize (papers should clearly explain assumptions and scope of contribution) – Balance the novelty with the extent of the evaluation (very novel papers may be more preliminary) Furthermore: – Avoid applying criteria for quantitative methods to qualitative methods or industrial studies (e.g., critiquing a case study for a “small N”). – Avoid critiquing a lack of a statistically significant difference for case study research; a lack of statistical difference can be a discovery, too (but must be supported by enough statistical power). – Avoid asking for the paper to do more than it claims if the demonstrated claims are sufficiently publishable (e.g., “I would publish this if it had also demonstrated knowledge transfer”). – Avoid relying on inexpert, anecdotal judgements (e.g., “I don’t know much about this but I played with it once and it didn’t work”). – Do take into account the effort it took to run the study; this contributes to the value of results. 3.4) Evaluation (where applicable) The paper’s claimed contributions are supported by empirical evidence. Papers claiming improvements (e.g., over state of the art or baseline techniques) should also design proper empirical evaluations to conﬁrm that such improvements are achieved. Judge papers based on the match between claims and evaluation. Do *not* reject papers just because: – further experiments would be possible, if the included ones are sufﬁcient to support the claims some hypothetical baseline was not considered, if such a baseline is not available and is not easily re-implementable – alternative design choices or implementations could provide even larger improvements – there is no empirical evaluation in a paper claiming a purely theoretical contribution (e.g., the authors demonstrate theoretically an improved computational complexity) 3.5) Quality of presentation The quality of writing, including clear descriptions, adequate use of the English language, absence of major ambiguity, clearly readable ﬁgures and tables, and adherence to the formatting instructions provided. Papers should be clear and concise, comprehensible to diverse audiences, contain sufﬁcient information to understand how an innovation works and to understand how data was obtained, analyzed, and interpreted. Do *not* reject papers just because: – it has easily ﬁxable spelling and grammar issues. – it does not use all of the page count – it does not follow a particular paper structure or order of sections Avoid asking for more detail unless you are certain there is space; if there is not enough space, provide concrete suggestions for what to cut. 3.6) Comparison to related work The extent to which the submission adequately reviews the prior literature. Do *not* reject papers just because: – minor prior related work is missing (only if missed work would have altered the study) – non-peer reviewed work (including arXiv preprints, theses, blog posts, or tech reports) or work that has been accepted after the submission deadline (you can point these out to the authors if relevant but they are not alone grounds to reject) 3.7) Replicability (if relevant) The extent to which the paper provides sufficient detail on methods and experiments, and shares information and artifacts that are practical and reasonable to share, to support replication and reproducibility. 4) AUTHOR QUESTIONS AND EARLY ACCEPTS/REJECTS When filling in the review form, please use the “Questions for the Authors” field wisely and ask questions *only* if you think that the answers will affect your scores and decision about the paper. Otherwise, clearly indicate "No Questions." Also, author responses will be only required for papers where answers to reviewers’ questions can affect the outcomes. For papers whose decision is already clear, we will send out direct accept/reject notifications at the beginning of the author response period. 5) REVIEW QUALITY ICSME aims for an inclusive and transparent review process. We encourage reviewers to be open, positive and professional: * Review authorship: PC members were invited because of their expertise. Therefore, we expect PC members to author their reviews, asking for sub-reviewers only for additional feedback. This means that reviewers may solicit help from others. However, reviewers should rewrite the review in their own words, and adjust the scores accordingly. The opinions should be represented as the PC member’s opinions, not those of a sub-reviewer. * Be clear about what is missing: Even if, in the view of a reviewer, a paper does not meet the standards required for acceptance, we encourage reviewers to highlight what, in their opinion, would be necessary to make it acceptable for ICSME (while acknowledging that ICSME submissions are subject to the limitations of conference papers regarding lengths, etc.). * Ethical issues: PC members should inform PC co-chairs if they detect any evidence related to plagiarism, concurrent submission, etc. * Update reviews: Reviews can be updated at any time, i.e., we encourage reviewers to follow the submitted reviews of submissions assigned to them and make adjustments even before the official discussion period. In summary, quality reviews are: * Constructive, explicitly identifying the merits of the work, as well as feasible ways of addressing any of its weaknesses. * Insightful, going deeply into the topic and the research methods. * Organized, helping the authors clearly understand the reviewer’s opinions of strengths and weaknesses of the work. * Impartial, demonstrating a commitment to the reviewing criteria of the conference, and not personal interests, speculation, or bias. To protect authors' rights and research confidentiality, ICSME 2025 does not currently allow the use of Generative AI or AI-assisted technologies such as ChatGPT or similar services for peer review. Reviewers, as well as authors and organizers, are expected to uphold the IEEE Code of Conduct. 6) LEAD REVIEWERS / DISCUSSION LEADS You will be designated as the lead reviewer for at most 2 of the papers you review. We ask lead reviewers to do the following: * Check reviews for any issues (e.g., quality, length) and work with reviewers to improve if needed; if necessary, bring issues to our attention. * Kickstart and moderate discussion among the reviewers. * Build consensus where possible. * Make a recommendation on the paper. * Write a meta-review to summarize the discussion among reviewers and explain the rationale behind their final recommendation (do not disclose reviewer identities in the meta-review). 7) REVIEWING TIMELINE * Assignment of papers: March 17, 2025 * First half of reviews due: April 2, 2025 * Second half of reviews due: April 22, 2025 * First review discussion period: April 23, 2025 - April 29, 2025 * Early decisions due: April 30, 2025 * Early decisions notification: May 7, 2025 * Author response period: May 8, 2025 - May 15, 2025 * Final discussion period: May 16, 2025 - May 27, 2025 Thank you again for helping us make ICSME 2025 a success. We appreciate that reviewing is hard work. If you have any questions, please do not hesitate to contact us. Matthias Galster and Dan Hao ICSME 2025 Research Track Program Co-Chairs ============== Paper Assignment ============== (Should the assignment in this email not match the paper assignment in EasyChair, please reach out and report the mismatch.) --------------------------------------------- (79) ADPP: Automated Data-centric Program Partitioning (81) Towards Better Understanding of Code Changes: An Algorithm to Remove Unintended Moves in GumTree (117) Understanding Commercial Low-code Application Bugs (122) Configurable Ensembles for Software Similarity: Challenging the Notion of Universal Metrics (146) Predicting Clone-proneness: An Exploratory Study with Deep Learning Models

2 1

Fwd: WG: Erfassen der Bau- und Unterhaltsbedürfnisse 2026
by Timo Kehrer 15 Mar '25

15 Mar '25

Please let me know if there are any requests (see below). It's in German, sorry, but AI translators will help... -------- Weitergeleitete Nachricht -------- Betreff: WG: Erfassen der Bau- und Unterhaltsbedürfnisse 2026 Datum: Mon, 3 Mar 2025 16:43:06 +0100 Von: Grunder, Priska (INF) <priska.grunder(a)unibe.ch> An: INF-DG-DOSI <dosi.inf(a)unibe.ch> Guten Nachmittag Wir haben wieder die Gelegenheit unsere Bau- und Unterhaltsbedürfnisse für 2026 einzugeben. Im Anhang eine Übersicht, welche der Eingaben aus früheren Jahren noch am Laufen sind. Diese müssen nicht neu eingegeben werden. Bitte gebt mir Eure Wünsche bis am Mittwoch, 9. April 2025 per Mail an. Alle Bedürfnisse, die nach dem 9.4.25 angegeben werden, können nicht mehr berücksichtigt werden. Danke und beste Grüsse Priska Grunder *Von:*Betrieb und Technik, Bau und Unterhalt <bub.bt(a)unibe.ch> *Gesendet:* Freitag, 28. Februar 2025 11:48 *An:* Grunder, Priska (INF) <priska.grunder(a)unibe.ch> *Betreff:* Erfassen der Bau- und Unterhaltsbedürfnisse 2026 Bau- und Unterhaltsbedürfnisse 2026 Klicken Siehier <http://clink.unibe.ch/m/1/90965240/p1-b25059-b35394fcbde146c5952894e9d3f209…> wenn Sie Probleme haben die Email zu lesen. *Erfassen der Bau- und Unterhaltsbedürfnisse 2026* Geht an: Geschäftsführende Direktorinnen und Direktoren aller Institute und Kliniken der Universität Bern Zur Information an: Sachbearbeiterinnen und Sachbearbeiter Personal aller Institute und Kliniken der Universität Bern Ausgenommen sind Universitäre Kliniken mit Standort Inselareal und einzelne Areale und Organisationseinheiten mit Verteiler nach Absprache. Sehr geehrte Damen und Herren Mit diesem Schreiben erhalten Sie von Bau und Unterhalt (BU) die notwendigen Informationen, zum Ablauf und zur Erfassung der Bau- und Unterhaltsbedürfnisse (BUB), an der Universität Bern. Dieses Informationsschreiben dient dazu, alle Organisationseinheiten über den allgemeinen Ablauf der Gesuchsanmeldung zu orientieren. Alle Institutionen, welche in den letzten Jahren bereits Gesuche eingereicht haben, werden von BU über die gemeldete Kontaktperson Bau (K-Bau) in den nächsten Tagen mit zusätzlichen Informationen separat angeschrieben. Sie müssen in diesem Fall keine weiteren Schritte unternehmen. Wenn Ihre Institution zum ersten Mal einen BUB einreichen, respektive eine neue Kontaktperson Bau (K-Bau) melden möchten, gehen Sie wie folgt vor: * Bestimmen Sie eine zuständige Person im Institut, welche alle Bau- und Unterhaltsbedürfnisse intern sammelt und nach Prioritäten bei BU im System erfasst. Eine Ansprechperson im Institut vereinfacht die Kommunikation und kann Doppelspurigkeit vermeiden. Diese Kontaktperson Bau (K-Bau) muss über kein bauliches/technisches Fachwissen verfügen. Es geht um den administrativen Teil des Prozesses. * *Link zum Anmeldeformular für K-Bau*: CAFM-Applikationen - Berechtigungsantrag <http://clink.unibe.ch/c/7/eyJhaSI6OTA5NjUyNDAsImUiOiJwcmlza2EuZ3J1bmRlckB1b…> Unter «Antrag für» ist «_BUB-Planon_» auszuwählen. Pro Organisationseinheit kann in der Regel nur eine Kontaktperson erfasst werden. * Bei der Erfassung von Anträgen im System ist zu beachten, dass Baubedürfnisse, welche strukturelle Änderungen an Räumen und Haustechnikanlagen erfordern (z.B. Umbauten, Umnutzungen, Versetzen / Abbrechen von Wänden, neue Medienanschlüsse, Klimatisierung, usw.) ausführlich begründet werden müssen. Das Erfassen von planbaren Bau- und Unterhaltsbedürfnissen für das *Jahr 2026*, ist bis und mit *Donnerstag, 10. April 2025 *möglich. Verspätet eintreffende Anträge können nicht mehr berücksichtigt werden. Die Eingabefrist ist mit dem für die bauliche Ausführung zuständigen Amt für Grundstücke und Gebäude (AGG) abgesprochen. Nach Ablauf der Frist werden die Gesuche aufgearbeitet und dem AGG übergeben. Wo möglich, wird BU die Situation vor Ort zusammen mit Ihnen und dem AGG vor den Semesterferien besichtigen. Das Umsetzen der bewilligten Gesuche ist im Laufe des nächsten Jahres vorgesehen. Dank diesem Zeitplan ist es möglich, viele der eingereichten Gesuche noch im laufenden Jahr genauer abzuklären und Untersuchungen in Auftrag zu geben. Das AGG hat dadurch einerseits die Möglichkeit die Kostensicherheit bei der Budgetierung zu erhöhen und andererseits aufgrund des fortgeschrittenen Planungsstandes auch grössere Massnahmen innerhalb eines Kalenderjahres zu realisieren. Für Rückmeldungen zu bereits realisierten oder nicht mehr aktuellen Massnahmen, die als abgeschlossen zu bezeichnen sind, danken wir Ihnen. Mit diesen Informationen unterstützen Sie uns, die Datenbank aktuell zu halten. Haben Sie Fragen zum Ablauf oder dem Vorgehen? Sie finden die zuständige Person Bau und Unterhalt für die entsprechende Liegenschaft auf der Website (Bau und Unterhalt <http://clink.unibe.ch/c/7/eyJhaSI6OTA5NjUyNDAsImUiOiJwcmlza2EuZ3J1bmRlckB1b…>) im Dokument "Zuständigkeit BU nach Liegenschaft". Besten Dank für die Kenntnisnahme und Ihre geschätzte Mitarbeit. Freundliche Grüsse Bau und Unterhalt ©2025 Universität Bern Impressum <http://clink.unibe.ch/c/7/eyJhaSI6OTA5NjUyNDAsImUiOiJwcmlza2EuZ3J1bmRlckB1b…> Rechtliche Hinweise <http://clink.unibe.ch/c/7/eyJhaSI6OTA5NjUyNDAsImUiOiJwcmlza2EuZ3J1bmRlckB1b…><http://clink.unibe.ch/c/7/eyJhaSI6OTA5NjUyNDAsImUiOiJwcmlza2EuZ3J1bmRlckB1b…> Universität Bern Hochschulstrasse 6 3012 Bern Logo Universität Bern (schwarz) <http://clink.unibe.ch/c/7/eyJhaSI6OTA5NjUyNDAsImUiOiJwcmlza2EuZ3J1bmRlckB1b…>

1 0

Fwd: SympGraph 25
by Timo Kehrer 13 Mar '25

13 Mar '25

Dear all, if anybody is extensively working with graphs, there will be a symposium just next door in August, with low entry barrier for participation / presentation. Best, Timo -------- Weitergeleitete Nachricht -------- Betreff: SympGraph 25 Datum: Thu, 6 Mar 2025 08:07:44 +0100 Von: Riesen, Kaspar (INF) <kaspar.riesen(a)unibe.ch> An: Riesen, Kaspar (INF) <kaspar.riesen(a)unibe.ch> Dear Colleagues, I hope this email finds you well. I am writing to inform you about the upcoming *1st Swiss Symposium on Graph-Based Representation in Computer Science (SympGraph 25),* a symposium dedicated to graph representations in computer science, which will take place on August 21 this year at the University of Bern (https://sympgraph25.inf.unibe.ch). The overarching goal of SympGraph is to bring together PhD students and other interested researchers who are conducting research in any form using graphs as the underlying data structure. SympGraph offers participating PhD students a platform to present their current research projects, e.g. in a poster session or in the form of short oral presentations. Two talks by renowned experts in the field of graph-based data analysis will provide a framework for general exchange among peers. The symposium will provide new insights for the doctoral students' own research and – in the best case – the exchange will lead to new collaborations. We would be grateful if you could forward this information to your PhD students and postdocs who might be interested in attending or submitting contributions. We thank you in advance for your support and look forward to welcoming your students and postdocs at SympGraph 2025. Kind regards, Kaspar ------------------------------------------------------- PD Dr. Kaspar Riesen Head of the Pattern Recognition Group Institute of Computer Science Faculty of Science University of Bern, Switzerland kaspar.riesen(a)unibe.ch -------------------------------------------------------

1 0

2025

2024

2023

2022

SEG-staff March 2025