Loading ...
Sorry, an error occurred while loading the content.

May 29 deadline for entries for $10,000 2006 Human-Competitive Competition at GECCO-2006

Expand Messages
  • John Koza
    CALL FOR ENTRIES FOR $10,000 IN AWARDS—THE 2006 “HUMIES”—FOR HUMAN-COMPETITIVE RESULTS SUBMISSION DEADLINE MONDAY MAY 29, 2006
    Message 1 of 1 , Mar 28, 2006
    • 0 Attachment
      CALL FOR ENTRIES FOR

      $10,000 IN AWARDS—THE 2006 “HUMIES”—FOR

      HUMAN-COMPETITIVE RESULTS

      SUBMISSION DEADLINE MONDAY MAY 29, 2006

      www.human-competitive.org


      Techniques of genetic and evolutionary computation are being increasingly
      applied to difficult real-world problems—often yielding results that are not
      merely interesting, but competitive with the work of creative and inventive
      humans. At the Genetic and Evolutionary Computation Conference (GECCO) in
      2004, $5,000 in 2004 awards for human-competitive results were awarded for
      human-competitive results that had been produced by some form of genetic and
      evolutionary computation in the previous year. Similarly, at GECCO-2005,
      $10,000 in awards for 2005 human-competitive results were awarded.

      Entries are now being solicited for awards totaling $10,000 for 2006 awards
      for human-competitive results that have been produced by any form of genetic
      and evolutionary computation (including, but not limited to genetic
      algorithms, genetic programming, evolution strategies, evolutionary
      programming, learning classifier systems, grammatical evolution, gene
      expression programming, differential evolution, etc.) and that have been
      published in the open literature between June 20, 2005 (the deadline for the
      previous competition) and the deadline for 2006 entries, namely Monday May
      29, 2006. The competition will be held as part of the 2006 Genetic and
      Evolutionary Computation (GECCO) conference. This prize competition is based
      on published results. The publication may be a paper at the GECCO-2006
      conference (i.e., regular paper, poster paper, or late-breaking paper), a
      paper published anywhere in the open literature (e.g., another conference,
      journal, technical report, thesis, book, book chapter), or a paper in final
      form that has been unconditionally accepted by a publication and is “in
      press” (that is, the entry must be identical to something that will be
      published imminently—not an intermediate or draft version that may be
      changed). The publication must meet the usual standards of a scientific
      publication. In particular, the publication must clearly describe a problem,
      the methods used, and the results obtained and must contain sufficient
      information to enable the work described to be replicated by an independent
      person.

      An automatically created result is considered “human-competitive” if it
      satisfies at least one of the eight criteria below.

      (A) The result was patented as an invention in the past, is an improvement
      over a patented invention, or would qualify today as a patentable new
      invention.

      (B) The result is equal to or better than a result that was accepted as a
      new scientific result at the time when it was published in a peer-reviewed
      scientific journal.

      (C) The result is equal to or better than a result that was placed into a
      database or archive of results maintained by an internationally recognized
      panel of scientific experts.

      (D) The result is publishable in its own right as a new scientific result ¾
      independent of the fact that the result was mechanically created.

      (E) The result is equal to or better than the most recent human-created
      solution to a long-standing problem for which there has been a succession of
      increasingly better human-created solutions.

      (F) The result is equal to or better than a result that was considered an
      achievement in its field at the time it was first discovered.

      (G) The result solves a problem of indisputable difficulty in its field.

      (H) The result holds its own or wins a regulated competition involving human
      contestants (in the form of either live human players or human-written
      computer programs).

      Contestants should note that a pervasive thread in most of the above eight
      criteria is the notion that the result meet an “arms length” standard—not a
      yardstick based on the opinion of the author, the author’s own institution,
      or the author’s close associates. “Arms length” may be established in
      numerous ways. For example, if the result is a solution to “a long-standing
      problem for which there has been a succession of increasingly better
      human-created solutions,” it is clear that the scientific community (not the
      author, the author’s own institution, or the author’s close associates) have
      vetted the significance of the problem. Similarly, a problem’s significance
      may be established if the result replicates or improves upon a scientific
      result published in a peer-reviewed scientific journal, replicates or
      improves upon a patented invention, or replicates or improves a result that
      was considered an achievement in its field at the time it was first
      discovered. Similarly, , a problem’s significance may be established if the
      result holds its own or wins a regulated competition involving live human
      players or human-written computer programs. In the absence of a clear “arms
      length” standards, contestants relying only on criterion G (“The result
      solves a problem of indisputable difficulty in its field”) must make a clear
      and convincing case that the “difficulty” is ‘indisputable.”

      Presentations of entries will be made at the Genetic and Evolutionary
      Computation Conference (GECCO-2006). The awards and prizes will be announced
      and presented during the GECCO conference. The judging committee is in
      formation and will include

      · Wolfgang Banzhaf

      · Erik Goodman

      · Riccardo Poli

      · John R. Koza

      · Darrell Whitley

      Cash prizes of $5,000 (gold), $3,000 (silver), and bronze (either one prize
      of $2,000 or two prizes of $1,000) will be awarded for the best entries that
      satisfy the criteria for human-competitiveness. The awards will be divided
      equally among co-authors unless the authors specify a different division at
      the time of submission.



      INSTRUCTIONS FOR ENTERING THE 2006 “HUMIES” AWARDS

      The deadline for 2006 entries is Monday May 29, 2006.

      All entries are to be sent electronically to koza@....

      An entry consists of one TEXT file and one or more PDF files.

      The TEXT file must contain the following nine items. Please be very careful
      to include all required information. Contestants are alerted to the fact
      that items 6 and 9 are especially important and will be the main basis by
      which entries will be judged.

      (1) the complete title of one (or more) paper(s) published in the open
      literature describing the work that the author claims describes a
      human-competitive result,

      (2) the name, complete physical mailing address, e-mail address, and phone
      number of EACH author of EACH paper,

      (3) the name of the corresponding author (i.e., the author to whom notices
      will be sent concerning the competition),

      (4) the abstract of the paper(s),

      (5) a list containing one or more of the eight letters (A, B, C, D, E, F, G,
      or H) that correspond to the criteria (see above) that the author claims
      that the work satisfies,

      (6) a statement stating why the result satisfies the criteria that the
      contestant claims (see the examples below as a guide to aid in constructing
      this part of the submission),

      (7) a full citation of the paper (that is, author names; publication date;
      name of journal, conference, technical report, thesis, book, or book
      chapter; name of editors, if applicable, of the journal or edited book;
      publisher name; publisher city; page numbers, if applicable);

      (8) a statement either that “any prize money, if any, is to be divided
      equally among the co-authors” OR a specific percentage breakdown as to how
      the prize money, if any, is to be divided among the co-authors; and

      (9) a statement stating why the judges should consider the entry as “best”
      in comparison to other entries that may also be “human-competitive.”

      The PDF file(s) are to contain the paper(s). The preferred method is that
      you send a separate PDF file for each of your paper(s) relating to your
      entry. Both the text file and the PDF file(s) for each entry will be
      permanently posted on a web page shortly after the deadline date for entries
      (for use by the judges and anyone interested) and will remain posted on the
      web as a permanent record of the competition. If your paper is available on
      your publisher’s web site and your publisher specifically requires that your
      published paper may only appear only on your own personal page, the second
      choice is that you send link(s) to a separate web page on your web site
      containing link(s) to the PDF file(s) of the paper(s) that constitute your
      entry. This separate web page is to contain nothing else, so the interested
      parties may quickly locate your paper(s). If you use this second-choice
      option, you must also supply a link to a permanent web site maintained by
      your publisher where your specific paper may be viewed or purchased (that
      is, not a link merely to the publisher’s home page, but a link to your
      specific paper on the publisher’s site).

      The judging committee will review all entries and identify a short list
      approximately 8–10 finalists for presentation at the 2006 Genetic and
      Evolutionary Computation (GECCO) conference to be held in Seattle on July
      8–12, 2006 (Saturday–Wednesday) in Seattle. Finalists will be notified by
      Monday June 25, 2006 by an e-mail to the corresponding author. Finalists
      must then make a 10-minute presentation to the judging committee at the
      GECCO conference. The presentations are scheduled for Monday July 10, 2006
      at the GECCO conference.

      At the conference, there will be 10-minute oral presentations by the
      finalists before the judging committee. The presentations will be open to
      all conference attendees at a special session (2 hours). The oral
      presentation should primarily focus on why the result qualifies as being
      human-competitive and why the judges should consider the entry as “best” in
      comparison to other entries that may also be “human-competitive” since these
      are the two main standards by which entries will be judged by the judges.
      In this short presentation to the judges, a description of the work itself
      should be decidedly secondary. In other words, the focus is on why the work
      being presented should win a prize—not an explanation or presentation of the
      work itself. The presenting author for each entry must register for the
      GECCO conference. After the oral presentations, the award committee will
      meet and consider the presentations. The awards are will announced at the
      Wednesday July 12, 2006, morning plenary session at the GECCO conference.
      Finalists must submit a presentation in the form of a PowerPoint file or a
      PDF file by Thursday July 5, 2006 by e-mail to koza@.... These
      presentations will be added to the web page for the competition so that the
      judging committee (and anyone else interested) may preview the
      presentations.

      Authors generally enter their own work; however, a person may make an entry
      on behalf of someone else; however, the entry must be complete in every
      respect and the entry must be made with the consent of the actual authors
      (one of whom must be willing to make a presentation of their work).

      No prize may be awarded to anyone associated with any member of the judging
      committee (e.g., academic advisor, collaborator, co-author of the work
      involved) or the company donating the prize funds (i.e., Third Millennium
      On-Line Products Inc.).



      IMPORTANT DATES:

      May 29, 2006 (Friday) — Entries (consisting of one TEXT file and one or more
      PDF files) are due by e-mail.

      June 25, 2006 (Monday) — Finalists will be notified by e-mail

      July 5, 2006 (Wednesday) — Finalists must submit their presentation to
      (e.g., PowerPoint, PDF) for posting on competition web site.

      July 10 (Monday) — Date for presentations before judging committee at public
      session at GECCO conference in Seattle

      July 12 (Wednesday) — Announcement of awards at morning plenary session of
      GECCO conference in Seattle.




      EXAMPLE OF A “STATEMENT” USING CRITERIA A & F

      This is an illustrative example of a “statement” as to which an entry in
      the competition should be considered to be “human-competitive.”

      Harry Jones of The Brown Instrument Company of Philadelphia patented the
      PID-D2 controller topology in 1942. The PID topology was a significant
      invention in the field of control engineering and is in industrial use
      today. The PID-D2 controller was an improvement over the PID controller
      patented in 1939 by Callender and Stevenson. Because the genetically evolved
      controller has proportional, integrative, derivative, and second derivative
      blocks, it infringes the 1942 Jones patent. Referring to the eight criteria
      for establishing that an automatically created result is competitive with a
      human-produced result, the rediscovery by genetic programming of the PID-D2
      controller satisfies the following two of the eight criteria:

      (A) The result was patented as an invention in the past, is an improvement
      over a patented invention, or would qualify today as a patentable new
      invention.

      (F) The result is equal to or better than a result that was considered an
      achievement in its field at the time it was first discovered.

      The rediscovery by genetic programming of the PID-D2 controller came about
      six decades after Jones received a patent for his invention. Nonetheless,
      the fact that the original human-designed version satisfied the Patent
      Office’s criteria for patent-worthiness means that the genetically evolved
      duplicate would also have satisfied the Patent Office’s criteria for
      patent-worthiness (if only it had arrived earlier than Jones’ patent
      application).




      ADDITIONAL EXAMPLE OF A “STATEMENT” USING CRITERIA B, D, E, F & G

      This is another illustrative example of a “statement” as to which an entry
      in the competition should be considered to be “human-competitive.”

      The 1942 Ziegler-Nichols tuning rules for PID controllers were a significant
      development in the field of control engineering. These rules have been in
      widespread use since they were invented. The 1995 Åström-Hägglund tuning
      rules were another significant development. They outperform the 1942
      Ziegler-Nichols tuning rules on the industrially representative plants used
      by Åström and Hägglund. Åström and Hägglund developed their improved tuning
      rules by applying mathematical analysis, shrewdly chosen approximations, and
      considerable creative flair. The genetically evolved PID tuning rules are an
      improvement over the 1995 Åström-Hägglund tuning rules. Referring to the
      eight criteria for establishing that an automatically created result is
      competitive with a human-produced result, the creation by genetic
      programming of improved tuning rules for PID controllers satisfies the
      following five of the eight criteria:

      (B) The result is equal to or better than a result that was accepted as a
      new scientific result at the time when it was published in a peer-reviewed
      scientific journal.

      (D) The result is publishable in its own right as a new scientific
      result—independent of the fact that the result was mechanically created.

      (E) The result is equal to or better than the most recent human-created
      solution to a long-standing problem for which there has been a succession of
      increasingly better human-created solutions.

      (F) The result is equal to or better than a result that was considered an
      achievement in its field at the time it was first discovered.

      (G) The result solves a problem of indisputable difficulty in its field.



      EXAMPLE OF SOMETHING THAT MAY BE “DIFFICULT,” BUT NOT “HUMAN-COMPETITIVE”

      Although the solution produced by genetic and evolutionary computation for
      this problem is, in fact, better than a human-produced solution, that fact
      alone does not qualify the result as “human-competitive” under the eight
      criteria for human-competitiveness. For example, the fact that a problem
      appears in a college textbook is not alone sufficient to establish the
      problem’s difficulty or importance or “human-competitiveness.” A result is
      “human-competitive” if it satisfies one or more of the 8 criteria listed
      above. A textbook problem might, or might not, satisfy one or more of the
      eight criteria.



      Dr. John R. Koza
      E-Mail: john@...
      URL: www.johnkoza.com
    Your message has been successfully submitted and would be delivered to recipients shortly.