TEAL is a venue for work on tools for learning about logic. Our goal is to take advantage of the many groups of people who will be coming together for FLoC. Our anti-goal is to create yet another publication venue. We hope to have a lively, interactive event that focuses on exchanging knowledge and helping grow this community.
| 0900-0905 | Intro |
| 0905-0925 | Plenary 1 |
| 0925-0945 | Plenary 2 |
| 0945-1005 | Plenary 3 |
| 1005-1020 | Coffee Break |
| 1020-1100 | Shared-Time Demo 1 |
| 1100-1105 | Teardown |
| 1105-1125 | Plenary 4 |
| 1125-1145 | Plenary 5 |
| 1145-1330 | Lunch |
| 1330-1350 | Plenary 6 |
| 1350-1410 | Plenary 7 |
| 1410-1415 | Setup |
| 1415-1455 | Shared-Time Demo 2 |
| 1455-1510 | Coffee Break |
| 1510-1530 | Plenary 8 |
| 1530-1540 | Plenary–1 |
| 1540-1550 | Plenary–2 |
| 1550-1555 | Setup |
| 1555-1635 | Shared-Time Demo 3 |
| 1635-1700 | Discussion |
“Plenary–” are shorter slots because they present work by the chairs.
You are welcome to email the chairs at teal-2026@googlegroups.com. Please give us 2–3 days to respond.
If after that time you still haven’t heard from us, it is possible there’s an email issue, so please feel free to email us directly.
The submission process is now over and we have announced decisions. Information about submission and categories are included below for archival purposes.
TEAL welcomes work on tools for learning about logic. Tools can be of many forms: tutors, restricted versions of standard logic tools, and more. They can be used at many levels: university, industrial, and more. If in doubt, you can always reach out to the chairs to check whether your work is in scope.
TEAL is not limited to papers! You can submit in any of the following categories:
If you have an idea that doesn’t fit any of the above categories, feel free to discuss it with the chairs. We will definitely consider other interesting proposals! But please do this early in the cycle, not near the deadline.
The submission form will ask you to indicate what kind of activity you are proposing. If you propose more than one, please submit each one separately, since they will be considered independently. You can submit the same work to more than one category if it really makes sense, but please do so within limits!
These should describe the artifact (software, website, book, etc.) to be demoed. The submission should explain what the presentation is likely to entail. Please note that we will have a very limited number of slots for Plenary demos, so we may accept a submission only in a Shared-Time slot. Accepted submissions will receive a demo slot.
If you know you want a specific kind of demo slot, just submit for that. If you are willing to accept either, please submit twice, once for each (you can just copy-and-paste your submission), and let us know you’re submitting to both.
These should crisply describe the topic and explain why it might lead to an interesting discussion. A topic might either be a statement of a position (asserting some claim) or a question (e.g., asking the community how it has managed to address some problem). Like a good research question, a good discussion topic should ideally not have a binary answer but instead allow for a range of views. Furthermore, a topic on which almost everyone might agree (e.g., that there is insufficient funding) is not likely to be interesting! If possible, please also include the names of potential people who might participate (e.g., as co-panelists), and tell us why they’d be interesting. Accepted submissions will receive a plenary discussion slot.
These are works strongly tied to the theme of the workshop and hence of real interest to attendees, but have already been published elsewhere. These submissions will not become part of the formal academic record of the workshop; their only trace will be a listing in the program. Authors are therefore welcome to submit an already-published paper whose copyright they may or may not own. The submission should be preceded by a cover sheet that describes why this paper is relevant, and indicates where and when it was published. The cover sheet should be in the format below, but you do not need to reformat the previously-published paper; you can instead just append its PDF (which can exceed our page limit). Accepted papers will receive a plenary presentation slot. However, please strongly consider submitting these as demos instead! It would help if your cover sheet could explain why a demo is not better.
These should be in the usual form of a scientific paper. They must be original, unpublished work that has not been submitted for publication elsewhere. Research papers are likely to have a proper evaluation, while experience reports will be more anecdotal. While we are open to experience reports, without a proper summary of portable lessons, these papers often prove to be unedifying, so we are less excited about them. The interesting ones are likely to be experimental offerings that try out new things, not routine offerings. Accepted papers will receive a plenary presentation slot.
All accepted submissions (excluding Repeat Papers) will be made available through the conference site.
Novel submissions (excluding Repeat Papers) must be at most 15 pages (excluding bibliography and potential appendices). We anticipate that Discussion Topic submissions might be on the shorter end of this range, but all the others are likely to be at least 5 pages long and probably longer. For submissions that have several screenshots, we recommend having 1–2 key ones in the main submission body and putting the remainder in an appendix.
Please use the Dagstuhl LIPIcs format.
Please submit using https://submissions.floc26.org/teal/.
There is no need to anonymize submissions. It is anyway meaningless for Repeat Papers, and for many other kinds of submissions also, either hard or unhelpful. If, however, you feel the need to anonymize (e.g., you want to make a provocative submission), you may do so.
At least one of the authors of each accepted submission is required to attend in the workshop. While we recognize that attendees may be interested in multiple simultaneous workshops, we would still appreciate presenters also attending and giving feedback to others, not only popping in just for their presentation.