> 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)?

> > Paul.- Hide quoted text -

> - Show quoted text -