No coevolution track at GECCO next year - Computational Intelligence and Co-evolution

Message from discussion No coevolution track at GECCO next year
MIME-Version: 1.0
Date: Sat, 19 Jul 2008 04:10:22 -0700 (PDT)
In-Reply-To: <1a035ac60807181020u63de11efne67a0ad70fc4204d@mail.gmail.com>
References: <53e9358c-590e-49a1-9235-85bdb36a4c9f@d1g2000hsg.googlegroups.com> 
	<1a035ac60807181020u63de11efne67a0ad70fc4204d@mail.gmail.com>
User-Agent: G2/1.0
Message-ID: <db321cc8-f716-4427-8ca2-580850def7f9@c2g2000pra.googlegroups.com>
Subject: Re: No coevolution track at GECCO next year
From: phi <PhilipHings...@gmail.com>
To: Computational Intelligence and Co-evolution <coevolve@googlegroups.com>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable

I agree - that seems rough justice ...

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=A0am, "Anthony Bucci" <abu...@gmail.com> wrote:
> I emailed Franz with this question. =A0The 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. =A0I'd say they
> are the result of noise (expected fluctuations in a number that small)
> and who was chairing the track. =A0It'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. =A0I 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. =A0I 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. =A0Not good.
>
> On Fri, Jul 18, 2008 at 12:45 PM, R. Paul Wiegand <p...@tesseract.org> wr=
ote:
>
>
>
>
>
> > 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. =A0Every 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. =A0 Also, several of us with active interests
> > in coevolution research are in the same place in our careers: =A0very
> > early, post-PhD. =A0This 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. =A0Sevan, Anthony, Edwin, and I
> > had no coev papers in GECCO this year. =A0I haven't published a coev
> > paper in a conference since 2006.
>
> > But there is clear interest in coevolution. =A0The tutorials are always
> > well attended, as are (usually) the sessions. =A0The group is small but
> > relatively active (this past year being somewhat depressed). =A0And
> > there are a few new researchers with serious interest in
> > coevolutionary algorithms.
>
> > It makes me wonder: =A0What was the average coev researcher's view of
> > the track? =A0For those of us interested in coev theory, we have (as of
> > last year) an uncomfortable choice (the EC theory track or the coev
> > track). =A0For 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 -
>