Google Analytics

Tuesday, February 26, 2008

FOCS 2008 Call For Papers is available

FOCS call for papers is out: here and here. (These look the same but the websites I was emailed look different.)
  1. I have never been able to differentiate FOCS from STOC and most people say STOC-FOCS as though it is one word. If someone else knows of a difference they had in the past, please enlighten.
  2. The content of both of them have changed over time. In Complexity its gone from more logic-based to more combinatorics-based. In Algorithms I expect that its changed but don't know the paradigm shift. If somone else does, please enlighten.
  3. When I have knowledge of a paper (e.g., I'm a co-author or proofread it carefully for the author) that is rejected from COMPLEXITY and go to the conference, I have one of the following opinions afterwards:
    1. There is NO paper here that is so obviously worse than mine that it should have been turned down and mine should have gotten in. (This is quite common.)
    2. There ARE papers that are obviously worse than mine and should have been turned down, and mine should have gotten in. (This is very rare.)
  4. By contrast, for STOC-FOCS, I usually have a hard time telling how a paper compare with ones that make it. It can be hard to compare a paper in (say) Complexity with one in (say) Algorithms.

15 comments:

  1. I am a complexity person, but from what I have heard and seen, it seems the paradigm shift in algorithms is from STOC/FOCS being a top algorithms conference to it being a crappy venue, which accepts few algorithms papers based on trends and politics. Many algorithms people say they only submit to SODA these days.

    ReplyDelete
  2. Thank God they dropped the part about "expanding the borders of theory." Another conference like the upcoming STOC, and we're sure to become a community of clowns.

    ReplyDelete
  3. Which papers exactly do you object to, and why?

    ReplyDelete
  4. Um... there's a list of topics in the first paragraph.

    ReplyDelete
  5. Re item 2: I'd suggest that Game Theory is probably one of the paradigms to which algorithms are shifting...

    ReplyDelete
  6. And... Also in the first paragraph, it still calls for "broadening the reach of theory".

    It looks like a great PC! I can't wait for the conference.

    ReplyDelete
  7. Another conference like the upcoming STOC, and we're sure to become a community of clowns.

    What on earth are you talking about? Based on the list of accepted paper titles, I can't even detect any serious influence of the "expanding the borders of theory" business. Of course some titles sound more interesting than others, but I did not see a single title that could reasonably be described as befitting a community of clowns.

    Um... there's a list of topics in the first paragraph.

    I can't tell whether this is intended to refer to a list of clownish topics, but in any case I don't know which paragraph it is talking about.

    ReplyDelete
  8. I totally agree with #anon1. I have also known some of the smartest people I've ever met now consider stoc/focs as crappy venues and prefer submitting very good algo papers to soda.

    ReplyDelete
  9. Is it just me or on February 11th did http://focs2008.org/ say that the submission deadline was April 20th?

    ReplyDelete
  10. I also saw them previously say that the deadline was April 20 and it is somewhat not nice of them to change it. Also, since the stoc deadline was Nov 20, this gives us 4 and 2/3 months between the deadlines. Why aren't they spaced out better?

    ReplyDelete
  11. April 20th was last year's deadline - someone was probably just momentarily confused.

    http://focs2008.org/cfp.html shows the correct 2008 deadline of April 11th.

    ReplyDelete
  12. jelani, you r correct. Previously, the deadline was April 20th and they changed it.
    -- Iftah

    ReplyDelete
  13. I have also known some of the smartest people I've ever met now consider stoc/focs as crappy venues and prefer submitting very good algo papers to soda.

    Statistics show that people submitting algorithms papers to SODA average a full 20 IQ points higher than those submitting to FOCS/STOC. Their papers are given a fair and complete evaluation that transcends trends or politics, and nobody ever faces a disappointing rejection. Furthermore, none of their grapes are ever sour.

    ReplyDelete
  14. To the people griping about STOC/FOCS being a "crappy venue for algorithms," what are the topics you think are overemphasized? This is a zero-sum game; obviously you can't accept more algorithms papers without rejecting something else.

    ReplyDelete
  15. If STOC-FOCS have lost algorithms, what fields are they now the premier conference in?

    ReplyDelete