|
|
Computational Intelligence and Co-evolution |
I emailed Franz with this question. The numbers he gave for # of These numbers could hardly be called a steady decline. I'd say they This year there were a few coev papers submitted to other tracks that So, frankly, I'm a little disturbed that the track was dropped 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 > When I spoke with Franz Rothlauf (chair for GECCO 2009) about this, he > What appears to have happened is that people submitted coev papers to > But there is clear interest in coevolution. The tutorials are always > It makes me wonder: What was the average coev researcher's view of > How many people are there out there where coevolution is their primary > Paul.
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.
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.
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).
altogether without first consulting with people who have known, active
interest in the field. Not good.
> gradually decreased (and were especially low this year), GECCO has
> dropped the track ... at least for the time being.
> 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).
> 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.
> 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.
> 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)?
> object of study (as opposed to, say, merely a technique they happen to
> apply to a class of problems of interest)?