logging in or signing up s07 Woodwork Download Post to : URL : Related Presentations : Share Add to Flag Embed Email Send to Blogs and Networks Add to Channel Uploaded from authorPOINTLite Insert YouTube videos in PowerPont slides with aS Desktop Copy embed code: (To copy code, click on the text box) Embed: URL: Thumbnail: WordPress Embed Customize Embed The presentation is successfully added In Your Favorites. Views: 81 Category: Entertainment License: All Rights Reserved Like it (0) Dislike it (0) Added: October 18, 2007 This Presentation is Public Favorites: 0 Presentation Description No description available. Comments Posting comment... Premium member Presentation Transcript SODA 2007 PC Report: SODA 2007 PC Report Hal Gabow, PC ChairSlide2: Pankaj Agarwal Dan Bienstock Gerth Brodal Timothy Chan Camil Demetrescu Jeff Erickson Fedor Fomin Sandor Fekete Jason Hartline Ming Kao David Kempe Sanjeev Khanna Samir Khuller Hal Kierstead Ming Li Muthu Muthukrishnan Assaf Naor Igor Pak Seth Pettie Yuval Rabani Tim Roughgarden Bob Sedgewick Kunal Talwar Eric Vigoda Xingxing Yu PC MembersOther Participants: Other Participants Authors: 796 (961) from ≥ 29 countries External Reviewers: 431 (≥ 548) Attendees: 228 preregistered SIAM staff: Kirsten Wilden, Bill Kolata, Sarah Granlund, Joyce Samuels, Linda Thiel Invited Speakers: Philippe Flajolet, Monika Henzinger, Maria Chudnovsky SODA SC: David Johnson, Lenore Cowen Past Chairs: Cliff Stein, Adam Buchsbaum SIGACT Site: Wolf Bein Other Participants: Other Participants Student lunches & Best Paper Award: SIGACT Institutional Sponsors Travel Grants: IBM Research (Nikhil Bansal) More Conference Sponsors: Microsoft Research, Hewlitt-Packard Best Student Paper Award: Best Student Paper Award Making Deterministic Signatures Quickly by Milan Ruzic Tuesday 9:50-10:15Basic Statistics: Basic Statistics Submissions: 382 Accepted: 139 Merged: 4 Withdrawn: 1 Acceptance rate: 36.4% Last year: 31.6%, 138/437Slide7: SODA Submissions, 1990 - 2007 Submissions by Area382 total: Submissions by Area 382 totalAcceptance Rates36.4% overall: Acceptance Rates 36.4% overallSubmissions by Country/Email Affiliation: Submissions by Country/Email Affiliation United States 171 Israel 35 Germany 31 Canada 25 gmail.com 18 Japan 15 France 13 Italy, acm.org 9 yahoo.com 7 China, Hong Kong, Netherlands, Switzerland, United Kingdom 4 Denmark, Greece, India 3 Czech Republic, Finland, ieee.org, Poland, Spain 2 Australia, Brazil, Iceland, Iran, Norway, Portugal, Singapore, South Korea, Sweden, Taiwan 1Affiliation Acceptance Rates: Affiliation Acceptance Rates Australia, Singapore 100% (1/1) Czech Republic, Poland, Switzerland, United Kingdom 50% Japan 47% gmail.com 44% Canada 42% Israel 40% Germany 39% United States 39% acm.org, Denmark, Greece 33% France 31% China, Hong Kong 25% Italy 22% yahoo.com 14% ... ieee.org ... 0% .edu 38%Slide12: Should you submit early? first submission: 63 days early first accepted submission: 17 days early last accepted submission: 8 minutes late last submission: 11 minutes lateSlide13: Should you submit early? first submission: 63 days early first accepted submission: 17 days early last accepted submission: 8 minutes late last submission: 11 minutes late Maintain current mode of procrastination.# Authors per Paperave 2.5: # Authors per Paper ave 2.5Slide15: Have things changed since STOC90 (May 14-16,1990)?Slide16: # Authors per Accepted Paper ave 2.7 2.2Slide17: ave # accepted papers per accepted author 1.1 (max 4) ave # rejected papers per rejected author 1.1 (max 5) STOC 90 Should you write more papers? SODA 07 ave # papers per submitting author 1.2 (max 6) 1.2 (max 3)Slide18: ave # accepted papers per accepted author 1.1 (max 4) ave # rejected papers per rejected author 1.1 (max 5) STOC 90 Should you write more papers? SODA 07 ave # papers per submitting author 1.2 (max 6) 1.2 (max 3) Don’t bother.Slide19: submissions: ave 7.7 words min 2 (accept 2/6) max 19 (accept 0/1) accepts: ave 7.8 min 2, max 18 SODA07 ave 9.8 min 4, max 18 STOC90 submissions: ave 168 words min 11 max 473 accepts: ave 176 min 13, max 466 Abstract Length rejects: ave 164 Title Length Title & Abstract: Short Zinger or Epic?Slide20: submissions: ave 7.7 words min 2 (accept 2/6) max 19 (accept 0/1) accepts: ave 7.8 min 2, max 18 SODA07 ave 9.8 min 4, max 18 STOC90 submissions: ave 168 words min 11 max 473 accepts: ave 176 min 13, max 466 rejects: ave 164 Tell it like it is. Title Length Abstract Length Title & Abstract: Short Zinger or Epic?Slide21: Is a picture worth 1K words? STOC90 SODA07Slide22: Is a picture worth 1K words? STOC90 SODA07 Literacy is down – stick with pictures.Popular Title Words: Popular Title Words All Submissions algorithm, problem, graph, network, approximation, tree, bound, {application, complexity, data, efficient, time}, {optimal, path, random}, {dynamic, game}, {minimum, online, set} Accept algorithm, problem, graph, network, approximation, {tree, bound, efficient}, {random, game} Reject algorithm, problem, graph, network, tree, approximation, {time, complexity}, {application, data, minimum, set} Popular Abstract Words: Popular Abstract Words All Submissions ( ≥ 200 occurrences) algorithm, problem, graph, time, log, result, set, show, approximation, number Accepts algorithm, problem, graph, time, log, result, bound, approximation, show, set, number Rejects problem, algorithm, time, graph, set, number, result, approximation, model, log, bound Slide25: A Random Accepted Abstract 200 words randomly generated from accept dictionary (23983 word-occurrences) We present arbitrary coinciding factors that are hierarchical and use predecessors as well as important jobs. We show there exist revenues that are treasure sales and independent for identical parametric desires. … Our operations are competitive, social, constant and decodable. … The problem of multipass logarithmic circuits is proved hereditary and convergent (STOC'02). … We partially minimize the analysis. … Our queries are negligible. … The solution with randomized competitiveness may possibly give a formula and a path that generalizes parallel counting with terminals (Yen). We begin from models, give algorithms spanning a number of competing random approximation files going to infty. Finally we model memory.Slide26: Is the DM community being appropriately represented at SODA? 3 Questions/Suggestions No, we’d have to become more like other SIAM conferences. No, the DM community doesn’t view SODA as highly as the CS community. “Algorithms” is an incredibly diverse field and devoting SODA to it is fine. Proposal: Broaden the requirement that 1/3 of the PC come from the DM Community, to “1/3 of the PC should come from communities such as discrete math, analysis of algorithms, and other diverse communities as chosen by the PC chair and approved by the SODA SC.”Slide27: Is there a compromise position on “short” papers – the standard research paper vs. a derivation from “The Book”, a startlingly simple solution to a seemingly difficult problem, etc. 3 Questions/Suggestions Yes, allow nontraditional papers but judge all submissions together. No, there are already so many good traditional papers. Short sweet results are already allowed and can be accepted. Proposal: Explicitly encourage such nontraditional papers in the CFP. Please don't exhume this dead horse just to kick the rotting bones around. Again.Slide28: Is there a compromise position on “short” papers – the standard research paper vs. a derivation from “The Book”, a startlingly simple solution to a seemingly difficult problem, etc. 3 Questions/Suggestions Yes, allow nontraditional papers but judge all submissions together. No, there are already so many good traditional papers. Short sweet results are already allowed and can be accepted. Proposal: Explicitly encourage such nontraditional papers in the CFP. Please don't exhume this dead horse just to kick the rotting bones around. Again. nontraditionalSlide29: Could decreasing max abstract length improve the selection process-- eg, 5 page overview/roadmap + (appendix = full conference paper) 3 Questions/Suggestions We already have this in “Intro + (rest of paper)”, a format the community is comfortable with. Deemphasizing the technical details makes selection even harder! Require full version of submissions to be on arXiv. Proposal: SODA submissions should be as described above– Intro Overview/roadmap Appendix = full conference paper, not 10 page abstract. Slide30: Allow 1 or more Best Paper Awards to attract more topnotch papers. Remove author’s name from submissions. It’s very hard to select the bottom third of papers. Encourage more practical papers. Elect the SODA SC. Eliminate paper proceedings. Slide31: Good luck to Shang-Hua Teng and the SODA 08 PC! Thanks for this privelege! You do not have the permission to view this presentation. In order to view it, please contact the author of the presentation.
s07 Woodwork Download Post to : URL : Related Presentations : Share Add to Flag Embed Email Send to Blogs and Networks Add to Channel Uploaded from authorPOINTLite Insert YouTube videos in PowerPont slides with aS Desktop Copy embed code: (To copy code, click on the text box) Embed: URL: Thumbnail: WordPress Embed Customize Embed The presentation is successfully added In Your Favorites. Views: 81 Category: Entertainment License: All Rights Reserved Like it (0) Dislike it (0) Added: October 18, 2007 This Presentation is Public Favorites: 0 Presentation Description No description available. Comments Posting comment... Premium member Presentation Transcript SODA 2007 PC Report: SODA 2007 PC Report Hal Gabow, PC ChairSlide2: Pankaj Agarwal Dan Bienstock Gerth Brodal Timothy Chan Camil Demetrescu Jeff Erickson Fedor Fomin Sandor Fekete Jason Hartline Ming Kao David Kempe Sanjeev Khanna Samir Khuller Hal Kierstead Ming Li Muthu Muthukrishnan Assaf Naor Igor Pak Seth Pettie Yuval Rabani Tim Roughgarden Bob Sedgewick Kunal Talwar Eric Vigoda Xingxing Yu PC MembersOther Participants: Other Participants Authors: 796 (961) from ≥ 29 countries External Reviewers: 431 (≥ 548) Attendees: 228 preregistered SIAM staff: Kirsten Wilden, Bill Kolata, Sarah Granlund, Joyce Samuels, Linda Thiel Invited Speakers: Philippe Flajolet, Monika Henzinger, Maria Chudnovsky SODA SC: David Johnson, Lenore Cowen Past Chairs: Cliff Stein, Adam Buchsbaum SIGACT Site: Wolf Bein Other Participants: Other Participants Student lunches & Best Paper Award: SIGACT Institutional Sponsors Travel Grants: IBM Research (Nikhil Bansal) More Conference Sponsors: Microsoft Research, Hewlitt-Packard Best Student Paper Award: Best Student Paper Award Making Deterministic Signatures Quickly by Milan Ruzic Tuesday 9:50-10:15Basic Statistics: Basic Statistics Submissions: 382 Accepted: 139 Merged: 4 Withdrawn: 1 Acceptance rate: 36.4% Last year: 31.6%, 138/437Slide7: SODA Submissions, 1990 - 2007 Submissions by Area382 total: Submissions by Area 382 totalAcceptance Rates36.4% overall: Acceptance Rates 36.4% overallSubmissions by Country/Email Affiliation: Submissions by Country/Email Affiliation United States 171 Israel 35 Germany 31 Canada 25 gmail.com 18 Japan 15 France 13 Italy, acm.org 9 yahoo.com 7 China, Hong Kong, Netherlands, Switzerland, United Kingdom 4 Denmark, Greece, India 3 Czech Republic, Finland, ieee.org, Poland, Spain 2 Australia, Brazil, Iceland, Iran, Norway, Portugal, Singapore, South Korea, Sweden, Taiwan 1Affiliation Acceptance Rates: Affiliation Acceptance Rates Australia, Singapore 100% (1/1) Czech Republic, Poland, Switzerland, United Kingdom 50% Japan 47% gmail.com 44% Canada 42% Israel 40% Germany 39% United States 39% acm.org, Denmark, Greece 33% France 31% China, Hong Kong 25% Italy 22% yahoo.com 14% ... ieee.org ... 0% .edu 38%Slide12: Should you submit early? first submission: 63 days early first accepted submission: 17 days early last accepted submission: 8 minutes late last submission: 11 minutes lateSlide13: Should you submit early? first submission: 63 days early first accepted submission: 17 days early last accepted submission: 8 minutes late last submission: 11 minutes late Maintain current mode of procrastination.# Authors per Paperave 2.5: # Authors per Paper ave 2.5Slide15: Have things changed since STOC90 (May 14-16,1990)?Slide16: # Authors per Accepted Paper ave 2.7 2.2Slide17: ave # accepted papers per accepted author 1.1 (max 4) ave # rejected papers per rejected author 1.1 (max 5) STOC 90 Should you write more papers? SODA 07 ave # papers per submitting author 1.2 (max 6) 1.2 (max 3)Slide18: ave # accepted papers per accepted author 1.1 (max 4) ave # rejected papers per rejected author 1.1 (max 5) STOC 90 Should you write more papers? SODA 07 ave # papers per submitting author 1.2 (max 6) 1.2 (max 3) Don’t bother.Slide19: submissions: ave 7.7 words min 2 (accept 2/6) max 19 (accept 0/1) accepts: ave 7.8 min 2, max 18 SODA07 ave 9.8 min 4, max 18 STOC90 submissions: ave 168 words min 11 max 473 accepts: ave 176 min 13, max 466 Abstract Length rejects: ave 164 Title Length Title & Abstract: Short Zinger or Epic?Slide20: submissions: ave 7.7 words min 2 (accept 2/6) max 19 (accept 0/1) accepts: ave 7.8 min 2, max 18 SODA07 ave 9.8 min 4, max 18 STOC90 submissions: ave 168 words min 11 max 473 accepts: ave 176 min 13, max 466 rejects: ave 164 Tell it like it is. Title Length Abstract Length Title & Abstract: Short Zinger or Epic?Slide21: Is a picture worth 1K words? STOC90 SODA07Slide22: Is a picture worth 1K words? STOC90 SODA07 Literacy is down – stick with pictures.Popular Title Words: Popular Title Words All Submissions algorithm, problem, graph, network, approximation, tree, bound, {application, complexity, data, efficient, time}, {optimal, path, random}, {dynamic, game}, {minimum, online, set} Accept algorithm, problem, graph, network, approximation, {tree, bound, efficient}, {random, game} Reject algorithm, problem, graph, network, tree, approximation, {time, complexity}, {application, data, minimum, set} Popular Abstract Words: Popular Abstract Words All Submissions ( ≥ 200 occurrences) algorithm, problem, graph, time, log, result, set, show, approximation, number Accepts algorithm, problem, graph, time, log, result, bound, approximation, show, set, number Rejects problem, algorithm, time, graph, set, number, result, approximation, model, log, bound Slide25: A Random Accepted Abstract 200 words randomly generated from accept dictionary (23983 word-occurrences) We present arbitrary coinciding factors that are hierarchical and use predecessors as well as important jobs. We show there exist revenues that are treasure sales and independent for identical parametric desires. … Our operations are competitive, social, constant and decodable. … The problem of multipass logarithmic circuits is proved hereditary and convergent (STOC'02). … We partially minimize the analysis. … Our queries are negligible. … The solution with randomized competitiveness may possibly give a formula and a path that generalizes parallel counting with terminals (Yen). We begin from models, give algorithms spanning a number of competing random approximation files going to infty. Finally we model memory.Slide26: Is the DM community being appropriately represented at SODA? 3 Questions/Suggestions No, we’d have to become more like other SIAM conferences. No, the DM community doesn’t view SODA as highly as the CS community. “Algorithms” is an incredibly diverse field and devoting SODA to it is fine. Proposal: Broaden the requirement that 1/3 of the PC come from the DM Community, to “1/3 of the PC should come from communities such as discrete math, analysis of algorithms, and other diverse communities as chosen by the PC chair and approved by the SODA SC.”Slide27: Is there a compromise position on “short” papers – the standard research paper vs. a derivation from “The Book”, a startlingly simple solution to a seemingly difficult problem, etc. 3 Questions/Suggestions Yes, allow nontraditional papers but judge all submissions together. No, there are already so many good traditional papers. Short sweet results are already allowed and can be accepted. Proposal: Explicitly encourage such nontraditional papers in the CFP. Please don't exhume this dead horse just to kick the rotting bones around. Again.Slide28: Is there a compromise position on “short” papers – the standard research paper vs. a derivation from “The Book”, a startlingly simple solution to a seemingly difficult problem, etc. 3 Questions/Suggestions Yes, allow nontraditional papers but judge all submissions together. No, there are already so many good traditional papers. Short sweet results are already allowed and can be accepted. Proposal: Explicitly encourage such nontraditional papers in the CFP. Please don't exhume this dead horse just to kick the rotting bones around. Again. nontraditionalSlide29: Could decreasing max abstract length improve the selection process-- eg, 5 page overview/roadmap + (appendix = full conference paper) 3 Questions/Suggestions We already have this in “Intro + (rest of paper)”, a format the community is comfortable with. Deemphasizing the technical details makes selection even harder! Require full version of submissions to be on arXiv. Proposal: SODA submissions should be as described above– Intro Overview/roadmap Appendix = full conference paper, not 10 page abstract. Slide30: Allow 1 or more Best Paper Awards to attract more topnotch papers. Remove author’s name from submissions. It’s very hard to select the bottom third of papers. Encourage more practical papers. Elect the SODA SC. Eliminate paper proceedings. Slide31: Good luck to Shang-Hua Teng and the SODA 08 PC! Thanks for this privelege!