*James Lee finishes up from Victoria.*

Still at the business meeting (with a 15-item agenda), Cynthia explains that another rule of thumb was in place for STOC’08: If a program committee member said "this is my *favorite* submission," then the paper was marked for acceptance, barring a severe negative reaction from the other committee members.

Next, Bobby Kleinberg tells us about the "TheoryWiki" project, whose goal is to organize a community-wide effort to improve the presence and quality of TCS on Wikipedia. This seems like a fantastic goal. To rant tangentially while I have the chance: Unfortunately, a large contingent of our community recently contributed to the Springer Encyclopedia of Algorithms. There were various area editors who put together a list of possible articles, and then solicited authors to write them. The area editors were not paid. The authors were not paid. On the other hand, the default was for the copyright on all materials to be handed over to Springer, who will create a huge and potentially useful volume, and then sell it at very expensive prices. I agreed to write my article, but I complained quite a bit first. I was told that the process was too far along to change anything. I asked Springer if I could put it on Wikipedia. They said no. Finally, I said: I am writing an article. I am putting it in the public domain. I will give you permission to distribute it however you like; take it or leave it. They took it. Unfortunately, most authors did not make similar deals, and a tremendous amount of time and effort has been wasted (or, in the least, vastly underutilized).

Adam Kalai announces that STOC 2010 will be in Boston (where he and Yael will be joining the newly formed MSR New England). Allan Borodin reads the conceptual manifesto. Despite a lot of dissent expressed in private conversations, Mikkel Thorup is the only one to speak up. He argues that, while new models should be valued, we might also want to appreciate the kind of algorithms that are running on millions of computers around the world right now.

I’ll end with some talks I enjoyed from the rest of the conference:

- Chris Umans gives a near-linear time algorithm to compute the composition of two multivariate polynomials over finite fields of small characteristic. This leads to asymptotically faster algorithms for factoring
*univariate*polynomials over finite fields. The composition algorithm is inspired by the Parvaresh-Vardy and Guruswami-Rudra codes. (According to Chris, the “small characteristic” assumption has recently been lifted.) - Ishai, Kushilevitz, Ostrovsky, and Sahai disprove a well-known conjecture of Mansour, Nisan, and Tiwari by showing that 2-universal hash functions (from n bits to n bits) can be computed by circuits of linear size. Expander codes are the primary tool. (Their ultimate goal is more efficient crypto primitives.)
- Adam Kalai gave an entertaining talk on "The myth of the folk theorem," joint work with Borgs, Chayes, Immorlica, Mirrokni, and Papadimitriou. The "Folk Theorem" is a collection of results from game theory which describe the Nash equilibria in
*repeated games*, i.e. where the same one-shot game is played over and over. The "myth" of the folk theorem is that finding Nash equilibria in repeated games is easy, and it's true for two players: There is a poly-time algorithm. The authors show that once the repeated game has three players, though, finding a Nash equilibrium becomes PPAD-complete, just as in the one-shot case. The reduction from 2-NASH is pretty simple, and comes with the fantastically apt name of the "Actor-Critic game" (which, in the talk, was played by actors Jason and Nicole, and critic Lance). - Shachar Lovett gives an explicit construction of pseudorandom generators against low-degree polynomials over finite fields, improving over the work of Bogdanov and Viola who did this for d=2 and d=3. Lovett uses the sum of 2^d eps-biased generators (these are pseudorandom against linear functions). His analysis involves the Gowers norms, which measure the bias of random “derivatives” of a function. In very recent work, Viola has shown that one need only sum d eps-biased generators. Viola’s work does not use the Gowers norms, and is simply based on the bias of the polynomial to be fooled.
- Spielman and Srivastava show that every n-vertex graph can be sparsified to a (weighted) subgraph containing only O(n log n) edges, where the sparse version preserves all Rayeligh quotients of the Laplacian up to a (1+eps) multiplicative error. In particular, the weights of all cuts in the sparse version are the same up to 1+eps. They also give a near-linear time randomized algorithm to sample the sparse subgraph. The sample probability of an edge is proportional to its
*effective resistance*in the electrical network defined by the graph. They analyze the sampling procedure using work of Rudelson on central limit theorems for sums of rank-one matrices.

I'm an admin on Wikipedia, very interested in boosting the presence of TCS on Wikipedia, and interested in learning more about this TheoryWiki project you speak of. Where do I go to find it?

ReplyDeleteI would contact one of the organizers of the project: Scott Aaronson, Andrej Bogdanov, Eli Ben-Sasson, Bobby Kleinberg, and Christos Papadimitriou.

ReplyDeleteIn addition to Wikipedia, why not also have a TCS presence in the Chatbot Game?

ReplyDeletehttp://chatbotgame.com

ReplyDeleteIn addition to Wikipedia, why not also have a TCS presence in the Chatbot Game?

http://chatbotgame.com

I just tried it.

Chatbot:What would you like to talk about?Me:Computational complexityChatbot:Why don't you ask me a question?Me:Does P equal NP?Chatbot:The P vs NP problem is essentially asking if it is possible to quickly verify a solution then is it also possibly to quickly find it?Me:Yes, that's correct. So what's the answer?Chatbot:Knock knockrofl!

ReplyDeleteokay, I'm pretty sure that a) that can't be improved upon, and b) that's how I'm answering anyone who asks me whether P = NP from now on.

I also wrote an entry for the Encyclopedia of Algorithms and I have not yet signed the copyright form, which may or may not have been sent to me.

ReplyDeleteI think everyone can put the articles on their webpages with the usual disclaimers or links to the actual encyclopedia. What is Springer going to do about it?

Of course it would be easier if they were all in the public domain AND all in one place ...