Skip to the Main Content

Note:These pages make extensive use of the latest XHTML and CSS Standards. They ought to look great in any standards-compliant modern browser. Unfortunately, they will probably look horrible in older browsers, like Netscape 4.x and IE 4.x. Moreover, many posts use MathML, which is, currently only supported in Mozilla. My best suggestion (and you will thank me when surfing an ever-increasing number of sites on the web which have been crafted to use the new standards) is to upgrade to the latest version of your browser. If that's not possible, consider moving to the Standards-compliant and open-source Mozilla browser.

October 27, 2025

Applied Category Theory 2026

Posted by John Baez

The next annual conference on applied category theory is in Estonia!

For more details, read on!

The conference particularly encourages participation from underrepresented groups. The organizers are committed to non-discrimination, equity, and inclusion. The code of conduct for the conference is available here.

Deadlines

  • Registration: TBA
  • Abstracts Due: 23 March 2026
  • Full Papers Due: 30 March 2026
  • Author Notification: 11 May 2026
  • Adjoint School: 29 June – 3 July 2026
  • Conference: 6 – 10 July 2026
  • Final versions of papers for proceedings due: TBA

Submissions

ACT2026 accepts submissions in English, in the following three tracks:

  1. Research

  2. Software demonstrations

  3. Teaching and communication

The detailed Call for Papers is available here.

Extended abstracts and conference papers should be prepared with LaTeX. For conference papers please use the EPTCS style files available here. The submission link is here.

Reviewing is single-blind, and we are not making public the reviews, reviewer names, the discussions nor the list of under-review submissions. This is the same as previous instances of ACT.

Program Committee Chairs

  • Geoffrey Cruttwell, Mount Allison University, Sackville
  • Priyaa Varshinee Srinivasan, Tallinn University of Technology, Estonia

Program Committee

  • Alexis Toumi, Planting Space
  • Bryce Clarke, Tallinn University of Technology
  • Barbara König, University of Duisburg-Essen
  • Bojana Femic, Serbian Academy of Sciences and Arts
  • Chris Heunen, The University of Edinburgh
  • Daniel Cicala, Southern Connecticut State University
  • Dusko Pavlovic, University of Hawaii
  • Evan Patterson, Topos Institute
  • Fosco Loregian, Tallinn University of Technology
  • Gabriele Lobbia, Università di Bologna
  • Georgios Bakirtzis, Institut Polytechnique de Paris
  • Jade Master, University of Strathclyde
  • James Fairbanks, University of Florida
  • Jonathan Gallagher, Hummingbird Biosciences
  • Joe Moeller, Caltech
  • Jules Hedges, University of Strathclyde
  • Julie Bergner, University of Virginia
  • Kohei Kishida, University of Illinois, Urbana-Champaign
  • Maria Manuel Clementino, CMUC, Universidade de Coimbra
  • Mario Román, University of Oxford
  • Marti Karvonen, University College London
  • Martina Rovelli, UMass Amherst
  • Masahito Hasegawa, Kyoto University
  • Matteo Capucci, University of Strathclyde
  • Michael Shulman, University of San Diego
  • Nick Gurski, Case Western Reserve University
  • Niels Voorneveld, Cybernetica
  • Paolo Perrone, University of Oxford
  • Peter Selinger, Dalhousie University
  • Paul Wilson, University of Southampton
  • Robin Cockett, University of Calgary
  • Robin Piedeleu, University College London
  • Rory Lucyshyn-Wright, Brandon University
  • Rose Kudzman-Blais, University of Ottawa
  • Ryan Wisnesky, Conexus AI
  • Sam Staton, University of Oxford
  • Shin-Ya Katsumata, Kyoto Sangyo University
  • Simon Willerton, University of Sheffield
  • Spencer Breiner, National Institute of Standards and Technology
  • Tai Danae Bradley, SandboxAQ
  • Titouan Carette, École Polytechnique
  • Tom Leinster, The University of Edinburgh
  • Walter Tholen, York University

Teaching & Communication

  • Selma Dündar-Coecke, University College London, Institute of Education
  • Ted Theodosopoulos, Nueva School

Organizing Committee

  • Pawel Sobocinski, Tallinn University of Technology
  • Priyaa Varshinee Srinivasan, Tallinn University of Technology
  • Sofiya Taskova, Tallinn University of Technology
  • Kristi Ainen, Tallinn University of Technology

Steering Committee

  • John Baez, University of California, Riverside
  • Bob Coecke, University of Oxford
  • Dorette Pronk, Dalhousie University
  • David Spivak, Topos Institute
  • Michael Johnson, Macquarie University
  • Simona Paoli, University of Aberdeen

Posted at October 27, 2025 4:56 PM UTC

TrackBack URL for this Entry:   https://golem.ph.utexas.edu/cgi-bin/MT-3.0/dxy-tb.fcgi/3618

8 Comments & 0 Trackbacks

Re: Applied Category Theory 2026

That program committee is bigger than half the conferences I’ve been to.

Posted by: Tom Leinster on October 27, 2025 10:29 PM | Permalink | Reply to this

Re: Applied Category Theory 2026

If everyone in the program committee submits a paper, we just need an algorithm to choose a random derangement (fix-point-free permutation) to decide who referees whose papers.

Posted by: John Baez on October 28, 2025 11:41 AM | Permalink | Reply to this

Re: Applied Category Theory 2026

Easy. Pick independent random numbers X 1,,X 43X_1, \ldots, X_{43} uniformly in [0,1][0,1], then sort them in ascending order to get a permutation σ\sigma such that X σ(1)<X σ(2)<<X σ(43)X_{\sigma(1)} \lt X_{\sigma(2)} \lt \cdots \lt X_{\sigma(43)}. This algorithm gives a uniform random permutation in S 43S_{43}. If σ\sigma turns out to have fixed points, throw it out and start over.

The probability that a random permutation is a derangement is very close to 1/e1/e, so on average you’ll need to do the picking and sorting steps ee times to get a derangement, which is not too bad.

(I leave it as an exercise for the reader to generalize this algorithm for committees of sizes other than 43.)

Posted by: Mark Meckes on October 28, 2025 8:04 PM | Permalink | Reply to this

Re: Applied Category Theory 2026

Not that it matters for N=43 but I wonder what the performance over/under is between this and Fischer Yates shuffle.

Posted by: Ana N Mouse on October 30, 2025 5:41 PM | Permalink | Reply to this

Re: Applied Category Theory 2026

not just a derangement. Wouldn’t you want a permutation without any 2 cycles? A reviews B and B reviews A.

Posted by: RodMcGuire on November 4, 2025 4:46 PM | Permalink | Reply to this

Re: Applied Category Theory 2026

That’s a good point. Same idea works, but will take just a little longer. Generate a random permutation (by whichever method) and reject it if it has 1- or 2-cycles. The probability that there are no 1-cycles and also no 2-cycles is about e 1e 1/2=e 3/2e^{-1} e^{-1/2} = e^{-3/2}, so on average you’d need to generate e 3/24.5e^{3/2} \approx 4.5 permutations to get an acceptable one.

Exercise for the reader: identify the series of nn-Café posts from not too long ago that discuss the result I’m using to get these numbers.

Posted by: Mark Meckes on November 5, 2025 12:59 AM | Permalink | Reply to this

Re: Applied Category Theory 2026

While the likelihood of reviewer collusion probably decreases as the length of reviewer cycles increases it can’t be ruled out. I can imagine 3 people late at night sitting at a bar realizing they are reviewing each other’s papers, maybe even 4 people. The simple solution for 43 authors reviewing each other is just to construct a 43-cycle. It is quick, easy, and there are zillions of them.

Posted by: RodMcGuire on November 6, 2025 4:16 AM | Permalink | Reply to this

Re: Applied Category Theory 2026

True. In fact it’s quicker and easier to generate a random cycle than to generate a uniform random derangement by the method I suggested. And it appears that there are about 1.4 sexdecillion 43-cycles.

Posted by: Mark Meckes on November 6, 2025 10:18 PM | Permalink | Reply to this

Post a New Comment