Many people believe the following:
FOCS and STOC only take technically hard results on problems that we already agree are worth studying. Papers that are truly innovative, starting new directions, have a very hard time getting into those conferences.This point or view was one of the motivations for ICS.
Is it true? If you ask someone they will give anecdotal evidence. While I don't discount that evidence, especially if it comes from people on the committee, I do wonder if there is a way to study the issue more systematically.
With this in mind I request the following:
- If you know of an innovative paper that DID make STOC or FOCS the then please leave a comment on it. Include the year the paper appeared.
- If you know of a submission that was rejected that was innovative, that the authors would not mind if it was known the paper was rejected, comment on that. Include the approx year the paper was submitted.