FYI: Because the submissions to the coevolution track at GECCO have
gradually decreased (and were especially low this year), GECCO has
dropped the track ... at least for the time being.
When I spoke with Franz Rothlauf (chair for GECCO 2009) about this, he
pointed out the steady decline, which surprised me. Every year, I
count the coev papers in the proceedings and until this year, they
seemed relatively steady (around 12 or so).
What appears to have happened is that people submitted coev papers to
other tracks, of course. Also, several of us with active interests
in coevolution research are in the same place in our careers: very
early, post-PhD. This means that conference submissions aren't
particularly appealing to us at present, and we haven't necessarily
had the opportunity to build a program sufficiently large to drag ...
er, encourage ... GRAs into the field. Sevan, Anthony, Edwin, and I
had no coev papers in GECCO this year. I haven't published a coev
paper in a conference since 2006.
But there is clear interest in coevolution. The tutorials are always
well attended, as are (usually) the sessions. The group is small but
relatively active (this past year being somewhat depressed). And
there are a few new researchers with serious interest in
coevolutionary algorithms.
It makes me wonder: What was the average coev researcher's view of
the track? For those of us interested in coev theory, we have (as of
last year) an uncomfortable choice (the EC theory track or the coev
track). For those interested in applications of coev, I suppose they
are similarly split between the general GA or RWA tracks and coev.
Perhaps there is no niche for coev (pun intended)?
How many people are there out there where coevolution is their primary
object of study (as opposed to, say, merely a technique they happen to
apply to a class of problems of interest)?
I emailed Franz with this question. The numbers he gave for # of submisions, starting in 2003 I believe, were: 14, 18, 18, 12, 24, 8. He mentioned that GECCO likes to have about 20 submissions to its active tracks, but that theory is an exception.
These numbers could hardly be called a steady decline. I'd say they are the result of noise (expected fluctuations in a number that small) and who was chairing the track. It's also curious that theory is excepted from the 20-submissions constraint.
This year there were a few coev papers submitted to other tracks that could have just as well appeared in the coev track. I tend to feel that the number of submissions is a function of the level of activity of the track chair -- an aggressive track chair could have solicited papers from people who have submitted coev papers in the past and probably upped the number of submissions. I was never harrassed to submit a paper, for instance, though if poked often enough I probably would have (knowing I was going to be there anyway for the tutorial).
So, frankly, I'm a little disturbed that the track was dropped altogether without first consulting with people who have known, active interest in the field. Not good.
On Fri, Jul 18, 2008 at 12:45 PM, R. Paul Wiegand <p...@tesseract.org> wrote:
> FYI: Because the submissions to the coevolution track at GECCO have > gradually decreased (and were especially low this year), GECCO has > dropped the track ... at least for the time being.
> When I spoke with Franz Rothlauf (chair for GECCO 2009) about this, he > pointed out the steady decline, which surprised me. Every year, I > count the coev papers in the proceedings and until this year, they > seemed relatively steady (around 12 or so).
> What appears to have happened is that people submitted coev papers to > other tracks, of course. Also, several of us with active interests > in coevolution research are in the same place in our careers: very > early, post-PhD. This means that conference submissions aren't > particularly appealing to us at present, and we haven't necessarily > had the opportunity to build a program sufficiently large to drag ... > er, encourage ... GRAs into the field. Sevan, Anthony, Edwin, and I > had no coev papers in GECCO this year. I haven't published a coev > paper in a conference since 2006.
> But there is clear interest in coevolution. The tutorials are always > well attended, as are (usually) the sessions. The group is small but > relatively active (this past year being somewhat depressed). And > there are a few new researchers with serious interest in > coevolutionary algorithms.
> It makes me wonder: What was the average coev researcher's view of > the track? For those of us interested in coev theory, we have (as of > last year) an uncomfortable choice (the EC theory track or the coev > track). For those interested in applications of coev, I suppose they > are similarly split between the general GA or RWA tracks and coev. > Perhaps there is no niche for coev (pun intended)?
> How many people are there out there where coevolution is their primary > object of study (as opposed to, say, merely a technique they happen to > apply to a class of problems of interest)?
as an alternative, I see that there is no coevolution track at CEC
next year. Special session submissions close Sept 1
(http://www.cec-2009.org/sessions.shtml). And it's in Trondheim next
year - interesting location! Tutorial proposals are open until Dec 1.
On Jul 19, 1:20 am, "Anthony Bucci" <abu...@gmail.com> wrote:
> I emailed Franz with this question. The numbers he gave for # of
> submisions, starting in 2003 I believe, were: 14, 18, 18, 12, 24, 8.
> He mentioned that GECCO likes to have about 20 submissions to its
> active tracks, but that theory is an exception.
> These numbers could hardly be called a steady decline. I'd say they
> are the result of noise (expected fluctuations in a number that small)
> and who was chairing the track. It's also curious that theory is
> excepted from the 20-submissions constraint.
> This year there were a few coev papers submitted to other tracks that
> could have just as well appeared in the coev track. I tend to feel
> that the number of submissions is a function of the level of activity
> of the track chair -- an aggressive track chair could have solicited
> papers from people who have submitted coev papers in the past and
> probably upped the number of submissions. I was never harrassed to
> submit a paper, for instance, though if poked often enough I probably
> would have (knowing I was going to be there anyway for the tutorial).
> So, frankly, I'm a little disturbed that the track was dropped
> altogether without first consulting with people who have known, active
> interest in the field. Not good.
> On Fri, Jul 18, 2008 at 12:45 PM, R. Paul Wiegand <p...@tesseract.org> wrote:
> > FYI: Because the submissions to the coevolution track at GECCO have
> > gradually decreased (and were especially low this year), GECCO has
> > dropped the track ... at least for the time being.
> > When I spoke with Franz Rothlauf (chair for GECCO 2009) about this, he
> > pointed out the steady decline, which surprised me. Every year, I
> > count the coev papers in the proceedings and until this year, they
> > seemed relatively steady (around 12 or so).
> > What appears to have happened is that people submitted coev papers to
> > other tracks, of course. Also, several of us with active interests
> > in coevolution research are in the same place in our careers: very
> > early, post-PhD. This means that conference submissions aren't
> > particularly appealing to us at present, and we haven't necessarily
> > had the opportunity to build a program sufficiently large to drag ...
> > er, encourage ... GRAs into the field. Sevan, Anthony, Edwin, and I
> > had no coev papers in GECCO this year. I haven't published a coev
> > paper in a conference since 2006.
> > But there is clear interest in coevolution. The tutorials are always
> > well attended, as are (usually) the sessions. The group is small but
> > relatively active (this past year being somewhat depressed). And
> > there are a few new researchers with serious interest in
> > coevolutionary algorithms.
> > It makes me wonder: What was the average coev researcher's view of
> > the track? For those of us interested in coev theory, we have (as of
> > last year) an uncomfortable choice (the EC theory track or the coev
> > track). For those interested in applications of coev, I suppose they
> > are similarly split between the general GA or RWA tracks and coev.
> > Perhaps there is no niche for coev (pun intended)?
> > How many people are there out there where coevolution is their primary
> > object of study (as opposed to, say, merely a technique they happen to
> > apply to a class of problems of interest)?
|
