tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3722233.post117673689749110258..comments2024-03-28T18:17:00.135-05:00Comments on Computational Complexity: Radical change to Conferences by Vijay VaziraniLance Fortnowhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/06752030912874378610noreply@blogger.comBlogger84125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3722233.post-53987849273679955762008-02-15T20:33:00.000-06:002008-02-15T20:33:00.000-06:00Excellent idea. First, let us see what a theory pe...Excellent idea. First, let us see what a theory person does - works out concepts, proves things AND THEN writes this up and sends it to conference. Now what is the big deal in him explaining the work he has already done. In fact the video need not even contain sketches of proofs. <BR/>1. Bias - As if there is no bias today. Instead of stopping this good idea it would be better to propose ways to solve the bias problem. In fact, with videos, a group of people can simultaneoulsy do the review. Here is a theory problem in itself. How to compose review groups (from a larger pool) such that bias is minimized/removed.<BR/>2. Correctness - Once selected, the presenter has to produce a complete paper (complete means matching what the preson claimed in video) which can then be assigned to one reviewer for correctness check. A correctness failure can then go thro a second round of review with more people etc.<BR/>Cost/effort to make videos is not really an issue..ArunJayamhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/07898436187476152096noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3722233.post-30329109702033488362007-04-20T12:16:00.000-05:002007-04-20T12:16:00.000-05:00Anon@82, I love your comment. Especially the endin...Anon@82, I love your comment. Especially the ending, >>>Some wise people substantially edit their papers after acceptance (to remove exaggerated marketing and add explanation), but it's sad that they have to have the first version at all.<<<<BR/><BR/>There had been a lot of discussions, I think initiated by many leaders including David Karger, about the process of STOC/FOCS is too slow. It takes almost half a year when the work was submitted to the work when published. There were several suggestions to speed up the process. One of them is never got challenged, but still not implemented.<BR/><BR/>Publish the accepted submissions at the same time when the list of accept submissions is published.<BR/><BR/>This will also make authors trying to start writing their papers weeks in advance rather than days in advance.<BR/><BR/>The only criticism doing proposal had is that it is not achieving the as many goals as other more complicated proposals, like getting rid of paper proceedings, were achieving. <BR/><BR/>But something is better than nothing. At least publishing the accepted submissions make the communication faster. Since this require almost no additional work, we should start doing this asap, until we are ready to make more revolutionary changes like no paper proceedings. Note that FOCS 2007, already requires to submit the paper electronically.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3722233.post-84386918784110817562007-04-20T11:34:00.000-05:002007-04-20T11:34:00.000-05:00I find talks to be almost entirely useless. Their...I find talks to be almost entirely useless. Their only value is that they sometimes help make up for terrible writing. Lots of academic writers have stupid hang-ups. If they explain their ideas too clearly or admit that they originally had even higher goals, they fear looking less impressive. If they include motivational heuristics, they fear that their writing will be too informal. The net effect is that they publish a dense, formal account and then explain things in talks (where the lack of permanence helps them let their guard down). That's better than never explaining anything, I suppose. However, if someone's talks are easier to understand than their writing, it means their writing is incompetent.<BR/><BR/>10 page limits really don't help, since they turn adding more explanation and motivation into a zero-sum game. The underlying problem behind all of this is that the paper with the best chance of acceptance is very far from the paper that would have the most value to the community after publication. Some wise people substantially edit their papers after acceptance (to remove exaggerated marketing and add explanation), but it's sad that they have to have the first version at all.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3722233.post-26440069107676048072007-04-20T11:15:00.000-05:002007-04-20T11:15:00.000-05:00This is anon 76 again.to anon 79: Hopefully talks ...This is anon 76 again.<BR/><BR/>to anon 79: Hopefully talks given during a conference have a different purpose than papers submitted to reviewers. In particular, reviewers should be forming their own interpretation of the results of a paper very quickly.<BR/><BR/>People attending a conference have the luxury of forming a fuzzy opinion and coming back to the paper later. And talks and videos are perfect for generating interest and forming fuzzy, often incorrect, opinions :)Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3722233.post-80400961155960655512007-04-20T10:02:00.000-05:002007-04-20T10:02:00.000-05:00To Commentator @ 79.I love talks and I do find the...To Commentator @ 79.<BR/><BR/>I love talks and I do find the additional resource useful. But since this seems to be a logical argument I like to contribute a bit more logic here. There is a difference between a public talk given in a conference and a talk supplied to make review fairer.<BR/><BR/>In public, your talk gives a glimpse of the paper so that the audience can find out whether the paper is relevant/interesting for them to read.<BR/><BR/>Reviewers are required to read the paper for a fair evaluation. Time always has a zero-sum game. If reviewers are already over worked, then by definition the time to watch the talk will come from the time to read the paper. Therefore "substitution" aspect comes in.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3722233.post-79393356011291616842007-04-20T09:44:00.000-05:002007-04-20T09:44:00.000-05:00"A (well written) paper is always better than a sh..."A (well written) paper is always better than a short talk."<BR/><BR/>By this argument, there is no point having talks in conferences, we can just get the proceedings by mail..<BR/><BR/>Recall, that here a video is *not* touted as a substitute for a paper, but only as an additional resource.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3722233.post-62325516867446680632007-04-20T07:39:00.000-05:002007-04-20T07:39:00.000-05:00Neil Postman,a well known media theorist, claims t...Neil Postman,a well known media theorist, claims that audiovisual communication creates merely the illusion of understanding. Here's the obligatory wikipedia reference:<BR/><BR/><I>Postman asserted that by its very nature, television confounds serious issues with entertainment, demeaning and undermining political discourse by making it less about ideas and more about image. He also argues that television is not an effective way of providing education, as it provides only passive information transfer, rather than the interaction that he believes is necessary to maximize learning. </I>Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3722233.post-71943756837841022312007-04-20T05:31:00.000-05:002007-04-20T05:31:00.000-05:00Anon #76 is right.A (well written) paper is always...Anon #76 is right.<BR/>A (well written) paper is always better than a short talk.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3722233.post-1177031966472502852007-04-19T20:19:00.000-05:002007-04-19T20:19:00.000-05:00A well-written paper is always easier to understan...A well-written paper is always easier to understand than a talk. If you think you've gotten some information out of a 10-minute power point talk/video, you're actually worse off, because you think you understand something you really don't.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3722233.post-1177028174644531932007-04-19T19:16:00.000-05:002007-04-19T19:16:00.000-05:00Anonymous@74. Great questions!A thorough compariso...Anonymous@74. Great questions!<BR/><BR/>A thorough comparison brings out literature which is supportive of the work as well as the literature which is not that supportive of the work.<BR/><BR/>A thorough comparison credit the past work properly, even if done by another community. It does make clear what insight was exactly missing and what is provided. It also puts the compromises made upfront.<BR/><BR/>A thorough comparison uses language which highlights the scientific truth. If something is objective then say it objectively. If something is a subjective opinion, then make sure that the personal opinion is not portrayed as a widely believed opinion. For an example, this problem is believed to be the holy grail of computer science.<BR/><BR/>Think of it, if it was not your own theorem then how would you be writing about it? For an example in a book. It is hard but that's the gold standard.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3722233.post-1177026944852494212007-04-19T18:55:00.000-05:002007-04-19T18:55:00.000-05:00What is the line between a thorough comparison wit...What is the line between a thorough comparison with pre-existing research and "marketing junk"? <BR/><BR/>What is the line between describing a technique and "marketing junk"?Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3722233.post-1177026251205928172007-04-19T18:44:00.000-05:002007-04-19T18:44:00.000-05:00Anonymous@69:This is a very good question but irre...Anonymous@69:<BR/><BR/>This is a very good question but irrelavant to present discussion.<BR/><BR/>If you like to know the answer, drop me a separate email. (First name followed by the last initial @ microsoft.com).<BR/><BR/>The anecdote was relevant as an example. You think others do not oversell their papers? I think others also do but I rather not pick examples from others. Some put marketing junk more than others. <BR/><BR/>The anecdote shows that the conferences have become some sort of markets instead of a forum for scientific communication.<BR/><BR/>I think the current interactive nature of web (which is being termed web 2.0) provides revolutionary methods of scientific communication. These methods need to evolve themselves rather than forced as Vijay seems to be conveying here. The motivation must come from masses. <BR/><BR/>Communication->collaboration->communication is a virtuous cycle. Web tools can really make this virtuous cycle fast. If anybody wants to research/implement some of the methods, then I will be more than happy to collaborate on such tools. Again my email is the first name followed by the last initial at microsoft.com.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3722233.post-1177002000255490822007-04-19T12:00:00.000-05:002007-04-19T12:00:00.000-05:00As I am writing up a paper for FOCS, I find this p...<I>As I am writing up a paper for FOCS, I find this page limit of 10 extremely frustrating.</I><BR/><BR/>Strictly enforcing the 10-page limit (for submissions rather than final versions) does not make much sense. The general guideline makes a lot of sense: write the paper in a single column easy-to-read format; make the most important part easily accessible and 'up front'. However, 10 pages of double-column format fits a lot more than 10 pages of single column format.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3722233.post-1176986256899786562007-04-19T07:37:00.000-05:002007-04-19T07:37:00.000-05:00You aren't going to change 40 years of ingrained h...<I>You aren't going to change 40 years of ingrained habits.</I><BR/><BR/>Isn't this exactly what Vijay tries to do in this post?Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3722233.post-1176966056369945282007-04-19T02:00:00.000-05:002007-04-19T02:00:00.000-05:00{\em The whole point of this video thing is lost o...{\em The whole point of this video thing is lost on me. Isn't it just a way of asking for longer abstracts in disguise?} <BR/><BR/>As I am writing up a paper for FOCS, I find this page limit of 10 extremely frustrating. After much economizing, I find it very hard to fit all the ideas inside the page limit. I'd hate to sacrifice the quality of the writeup in order to conform to the limit. <BR/><BR/>My understand is that the page limit is to make the job of the referee easier. Going by this logic, a video would definitely make the referee's job easier while allowing me to communicate my ideas better.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3722233.post-1176960880426913402007-04-19T00:34:00.000-05:002007-04-19T00:34:00.000-05:00Kamal,I am surprised by your admissionregarding yo...Kamal,<BR/><BR/>I am surprised by your admission<BR/>regarding your stoc submission that<BR/>got accepted. Why do people of<BR/>the stature of Vijay and yourself<BR/>need to get down to the level of<BR/>overselling your work? How do<BR/>you expect a pc constrained by<BR/>time to make reasonable decisions<BR/>while authors do all they can to<BR/>obfuscate the true merit of their<BR/>paper?Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3722233.post-1176937148258584952007-04-18T17:59:00.000-05:002007-04-18T17:59:00.000-05:00Instead of requiring videos, people could instead ...Instead of requiring videos, people could instead share their reading notes to enhance their insight of research papers.<BR/><BR/>I've been working on such a service:<BR/><BR/><A HREF="http://studystickies.com" REL="nofollow">http://studystickies.com</A>Amir Michailhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/11532311330603872562noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3722233.post-1176935546952956102007-04-18T17:32:00.000-05:002007-04-18T17:32:00.000-05:00The whole point of this video thing is lost on me....The whole point of this video thing is lost on me. Isn't it just a way of asking for longer abstracts in disguise?<BR/><BR/>AdamAnonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3722233.post-1176932395530965162007-04-18T16:39:00.000-05:002007-04-18T16:39:00.000-05:00Oh for Pete's sakes, polish the write-up and send ...<I>Oh for Pete's sakes, polish the write-up and send the thing to another conference. </I><BR/> <BR/>Oh, it already appeared in another good conference a while ago. I don't dwell on this in the least bit, it just so happened that it was relevant to a comment made by Eldar about quality in STOC/FOCS.<BR/><BR/>The responses were, however, quite interesting in themselves. Two people argued that it really didn't happen (the referees were speaking in tongues), and about yours there is little to say after that colorful signature.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3722233.post-1176929685018430142007-04-18T15:54:00.000-05:002007-04-18T15:54:00.000-05:00Paul, I agree that good videos are difficult and e...Paul, I agree that good videos are difficult and expensive. We have a whole team working on this. Even then they typically need 24 hours notice to be able to record a talk.<BR/><BR/>In the business world it is a popular saying is that ideas are dime a dozen, it is the execution stupid (the usage of "stupid" as in KISS). Youtube is no proof here for easyness, the videos on youtube are quite different. All youtube is proving is that this a widely considered idea. We need to ask two questions ourselves.<BR/><BR/>1. Why it is not already happening?<BR/><BR/>2. If it is really that easy, then why did not Vijay first created sample videos on his own paper and then write this post with links to the sample videos as proof?<BR/><BR/>The answer to both the questions are related. It is not happening because either our scientific world has not yet seen the value and/or the because of our inherent lazy nature, the amount of work needed is non-trivial and/or there is not enough motivation. It easy to say than actually do.<BR/><BR/>I do not personally think STOC/FOCS should make video as a requirement. As Milena suggested people who wants to create video can always create the videos and include the links in their submissions. If video is really helpful then it may increase the chance of acceptance.<BR/><BR/>Flickr and digital photography predates videos by a long margin. If picture is thousand word, then people could always have added several pictures in the end as an appendix or a link to PPT or a picture folder. If people are not already doing thousand words, why would people do millions? Certainly a video could be an appendix. In fact one could embed a link in PDF. In case the reviewer is reviewing the paper online, he/she does not even have to type the link but simply click it.<BR/><BR/>So video should be a personal choice and I welcome people to create one. I am in FOCS committee, and I promise to watch the videos of the papers assigned to me, even though looking at the appendix is an optional thing.<BR/><BR/>The other issue Vijay is pointing is about the STOC/FOCS review process. Vijay is claiming that STOC/FOCS review process is broken. I agree to some extent but I do not think it is only the process itself. It is sometimes the authors. Let me take a concrete example.<BR/><BR/>I submitted three papers this upcoming STOC. The least worthy of them got accepted. The one on which even the authors have disagreement. I think the fault lies with the authors of the papers and pretty much any other review process with video or no-video would have resulted in the same outcome. We as authors of the accepted paper included a lot of marketing junk in the paper. There was so much marketing junk that it was bordering lies. The statements like the algorithms we are proposing are already proposed 30 years ago were included but not highlighted. Why we authors choose to put a lot of marketing junk? The answer is that we knew that our reason why this paper is important is not going to convince the committee members who would want to see some "new" technical details and not only "new" philosophical details aka "perspective". When "perspective", which we think is very important, is the main value of the paper then it becomes a hard sell.<BR/><BR/>As Mohammad said above, the low hanging fruit to improve the STOC/FOCS papers is to cut the marketing junk off. Many of us submit essentially "work in progress" instead of "completed work". Why can't we wait for the next conference?<BR/><BR/>There have been various suggestions I have heard to improve this process. One of them is to epublish all the submissions just like archiving. We in industry could be disadvantaged a bit in terms of patentability, but I am personally willing to take that little disadvantage.<BR/><BR/>Another was to epublish all the accepted submissions at least from the time the results were announced till the time conference happens. This will also speed up the scientific discovery process by speeding up the spread of the knowledge.<BR/><BR/>These are some methods of public accountability. If your submission is going to be public, it is likely to be cleaner for the reviewers too.<BR/><BR/>Let us pluck the low hanging fruits and leave the rest on the evolution. If people like they could include links to the videos in upcoming FOCS submissions as an appendix. If there is not enough time, post the links to your webpages later. There is a chance that a reviewer may watch the video. Esepcially if, as claimed, that video could simplify and improve the job of reviewing.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3722233.post-1176926295164241982007-04-18T14:58:00.000-05:002007-04-18T14:58:00.000-05:00Oh for Pete's sakes, polish the write-up and send...Oh for Pete's sakes, polish the write-up and send the thing to another conference. Either SODA/CCC/ICALP/SOCG/whatever or the next STOC/FOCS that comes up. They can't have dingbats on the committee every time.<BR/><BR/>Everybody gets a raw deal once in a while, but if your result is an elegant solution to a longstanding open problem then surely another PC will appreciate this.<BR/><BR/>---STFUAGBTWAnonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3722233.post-1176925364257052972007-04-18T14:42:00.000-05:002007-04-18T14:42:00.000-05:00The theorem statement or the proof has to be above...<I>The theorem statement or the proof has to be above certain threshold and then there is the issue of competition and the taste of the particular PC. </I><BR/><BR/>Here's that canard again. If the statement was uninteresting they could have easily said so. If you have served in PCs you know by now that reviewers are quite candid about their opinions given the blind nature of the review process.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3722233.post-1176923274499946872007-04-18T14:07:00.000-05:002007-04-18T14:07:00.000-05:00There are plenty of papers in STOC/FOCS with rathe...There are plenty of papers in STOC/FOCS with rather easy proofs. The theorem statement or the proof has to be above certain threshold and then there is the issue of competition and the taste of the particular PC. The system is not perfect for sure but perhaps the following summarizes the issue faced by the PC (borrowed<BR/>from Suresh Venkat's blog). <BR/><BR/>http://www.paulgraham.com/judgement.htmlAnonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3722233.post-1176921801163330802007-04-18T13:43:00.000-05:002007-04-18T13:43:00.000-05:00If people were not investing most of their energie...<I>If people were not investing most of their energies on conferences, then journal publications might be faster.<BR/>Further, if the delay in journal publications is the prime factor here, why not try to improve this, instead of suggesting things like "video clips for talks", etc.?</I><BR/><BR/>You aren't going to change 40 years of ingrained habits. You also haven't addressed my other point that many of the organizations running journals have been bad actors w.r.t. easy dissemination of results. (They have different interests from researchers in the field.) So... in addition to replacing conferences by journals you would need to replace most of the organizations producing them as well. Good luck getting this to work!Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3722233.post-1176921257035089332007-04-18T13:34:00.000-05:002007-04-18T13:34:00.000-05:00I am really surprised by the number of people obje...I am really surprised by the number of people objecting to videos..<BR/><BR/>Firstly, videos are no alternative for papers(conference or journal). The videos only aid the reader. I do not see anything wrong in making use of the technology available today to have more effective dissemination of ideas.<BR/><BR/>One can have the video deadline a week after the paper deadline. That way, authors can concentrate on the video after the paper is completely ready.<BR/><BR/>Admitted, it is easy to handwave proofs in a video. But the real proofs will be written in the paper anyway. <BR/><BR/>I havent been in the conference committee anytime.. but my guess is that for any given paper only a few of the committe members have read the paper. With a video talk, it is possible for the entire committee to get a quick overview of the paper. I think this can only aid in making better decisions.<BR/><BR/>Even if sending videos to program committee is not agreeable, at least the actual conference talks should be videographed and put up on the web.<BR/><BR/>Journals have their own advantages in terms of correctness of proofs etc. But conference system is not as broken as it is made out to be.. <BR/>It really does not matter if other fields(math) value journals more, we do not have to ape them.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.com