- 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.
- 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.
-
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:
- 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.)
- 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.)
- 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.
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.)
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
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.
ReplyDeleteThank 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.
ReplyDeleteWhich papers exactly do you object to, and why?
ReplyDeleteUm... there's a list of topics in the first paragraph.
ReplyDeleteRe item 2: I'd suggest that Game Theory is probably one of the paradigms to which algorithms are shifting...
ReplyDeleteAnd... Also in the first paragraph, it still calls for "broadening the reach of theory".
ReplyDeleteIt looks like a great PC! I can't wait for the conference.
Another conference like the upcoming STOC, and we're sure to become a community of clowns.
ReplyDeleteWhat 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.
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.
ReplyDeleteIs it just me or on February 11th did http://focs2008.org/ say that the submission deadline was April 20th?
ReplyDeleteI 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?
ReplyDeleteApril 20th was last year's deadline - someone was probably just momentarily confused.
ReplyDeletehttp://focs2008.org/cfp.html shows the correct 2008 deadline of April 11th.
jelani, you r correct. Previously, the deadline was April 20th and they changed it.
ReplyDelete-- Iftah
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.
ReplyDeleteStatistics 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.
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.
ReplyDeleteIf STOC-FOCS have lost algorithms, what fields are they now the premier conference in?
ReplyDelete