name: ieee-rsj-international-conference-on-intelligent-robots-and-systems description: Use when targeting IEEE/RSJ International Conference on Intelligent Robots and Systems (IROS) or deciding whether a computer-science manuscript fits this venue. Encodes conference fit, framing, evidence bar, submission-cycle checks, rebuttal posture, and desk-reject risks for robotics flagship.
IEEE/RSJ International Conference on Intelligent Robots and Systems (IROS)
Conference positioning
IEEE/RSJ International Conference on Intelligent Robots and Systems (IROS) is a top computer-science conference venue for intelligent robots, embodied systems, perception, navigation, manipulation, and human-robot interaction. It rewards a robotics paper with integrated system validation and credible robot experiments. 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 IROS / IEEE/RSJ International Conference on Intelligent Robots and Systems as the target venue.
- A manuscript in intelligent 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.
Scope & topic fit
- Core fit: intelligent robots, embodied systems, perception, navigation, manipulation, and human-robot interaction.
- 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 IROS'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: Read reviewers as embodied-systems researchers. Hardware, simulation, task distributions, and failure rates matter more than a clean curve alone.
- Contribution hook to foreground: the venue-specific contribution bar.
- Scope vocabulary to use naturally in the abstract and introduction: intelligent robots, embodied systems, perception, navigation, manipulation, and human-robot interaction.
- Distinctive fingerprint for reviewer calibration: intelligent, robots, embodied, perception, navigation, manipulation, human-robot, interaction, venue-specific, contribution, robotics, flagship, ieee-ras.
- Official anchor domain: www.ieee-ras.org. 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 robotics flagship and the author can say why IROS reviewers are the primary audience, not merely a convenient deadline.
- Closest roster neighbors to compare before final routing:
ieee-international-conference-on- robotics-and-automation(ICRA),robotics-science-and-systems(RSS),acm-ieee- international-conference-on-human-robot-interaction(HRI). Break ties by contribution type, evidence shape, reviewer community, and the current official CFP from www.ieee-ras.org.
What distinguishes this venue from its closest siblings
- Sponsorship & cadence. Co-sponsored by IEEE RAS and the Robotics Society of Japan (RSJ) (hence "IEEE/RSJ"), established 1988; one of the largest robotics conferences, with a broad perception-and-systems program — distinct from ICRA, the IEEE-RAS-only flagship.
- Center of gravity. "Intelligent Robots and Systems": perception, sensing, and integrated autonomy at scale; larger, more inclusive program than ICRA in a given year.
- vs RSS. RSS is single-track and selective on foundational models; send theory-forward work there, deployed-system breadth here.
IROS-specific routing detail
- Prefer IROS when the contribution is intelligent robots and systems: perception-action integration, autonomy, robot learning, navigation, manipulation, human-aware robotics, or fielded systems.
- Route broad robotics/automation cycle fit to ICRA, experimental robotics methodology to ISER, and human-interaction studies to HRI/RO-MAN.
- IROS evidence should make system integration, embodied constraints, experiments, reliability, and intelligent behavior under realistic conditions visible.
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 IROS, the evidence must support the venue-specific signature: a robotics paper with integrated system validation and credible robot experiments.
- 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.
Official-cycle checklist
- Open the live official venue page: https://www.ieee-ras.org/conferences-workshops/financially-co-sponsored/iros
- 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 IROS, 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 robotics flagship 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 IROS reviewers too little technical or empirical substance.
Re-routing decision
If the paper misses IROS's bar, compare against ieee-international-conference-on-robotics-and-automation / robotics-science-and-systems / conference-on-robot-learning / acm-ieee-international-conference-on-human-robot-interaction. 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] IEEE/RSJ International Conference on Intelligent Robots and Systems (IROS)
[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>