Subject: [GP] 2007 human-competitive competition for $10,000 at GECCO-2007 in London
From: "John Koza" <[email-masked]>
To: "gp-list" <[email-masked]>
Date: Wed, 31 Jan 2007 17:52:20 -0800
List-Id: <genetic_programming.yahoogroups.com>

CALL FOR ENTRIES FOR
       $10,000 IN AWARDS - THE 2007 "HUMIES" - FOR
             HUMAN-COMPETITIVE RESULTS
       SUBMISSION DEADLINE MONDAY MAY 28, 2007
              www.human-competitive.org

              to be held as part of the

  GENETIC AND EVOLUTIONARY COMPUTATION CONFERENCE
                     (GECCO-2007)

   July 7-11, 2007 (Saturday-Wednesday) - London
              Organized by ACM SIGEVO
    http://www.sigevo.org/gecco-2007/index.html

Techniques of genetic and evolutionary computation are being
increasingly applied to difficult real-world problems - often yielding
results that are not merely interesting, but competitive with the work
of creative and inventive humans. At the Genetic and Evolutionary
Computation Conference (GECCO) in 2004, $5,000 in 2004 awards for
human-competitive results were awarded for human-competitive results
that had been produced by some form of genetic and evolutionary
computation in the previous year. Similarly, at GECCO-2005 and 
GECCO-2006, $10,000 in awards were made for human-competitive results.

Entries are now being solicited for awards totaling $10,000 for 2007
awards for human-competitive results that have been produced by any form
of genetic and evolutionary computation (including, but not limited to
genetic algorithms, genetic programming, evolution strategies,
evolutionary programming, learning classifier systems, grammatical
evolution, gene expression programming, differential evolution, etc.)
and that have been published in the open literature between May 29, 2006
(the deadline for the previous competition) and the deadline for 2007
entries. The competition will be held as part of the 2007 Genetic and
Evolutionary Computation conference (GECCO) . This prize competition is
based on published results. The publication may be a paper at the
GECCO-2007 conference (i.e., regular paper, poster paper, or
late-breaking paper), a paper published anywhere else in the open
literature (e.g., another conference, journal, technical report, thesis,
book, book chapter), or a paper in unchangable final form that has been
unconditionally accepted by a publication and is "in press" (that is,
the entry must be identical to something that will be published
imminently in precisely the form submitted for this competition, and not
an intermediate or draft version that may be changed). The publication
must meet the usual standards of a scientific publication. In
particular, the publication must clearly describe a problem, the methods
used, and the results obtained and must contain sufficient information
to enable the work described to be replicated by an independent person.

An automatically created result is considered "human-competitive" if it
satisfies at least one of the eight criteria below.

(A) The result was patented as an invention in the past, is an
improvement over a patented invention, or would qualify today as a
patentable new invention.

(B) The result is equal to or better than a result that was accepted as
a new scientific result at the time when it was published in a
peer-reviewed scientific journal.

(C) The result is equal to or better than a result that was placed into
a database or archive of results maintained by an internationally
recognized panel of scientific experts.

(D) The result is publishable in its own right as a new scientific
result - independent of the fact that the result was mechanically
created.

(E) The result is equal to or better than the most recent human-created
solution to a long-standing problem for which there has been a
succession of increasingly better human-created solutions.

(F) The result is equal to or better than a result that was considered
an achievement in its field at the time it was first discovered.

(G) The result solves a problem of indisputable difficulty in its field.

(H) The result holds its own or wins a regulated competition involving
human contestants (in the form of either live human players or
human-written computer programs).

Contestants should note that a pervasive thread in most of the above
eight criteria is the notion that the result meet an "arms length"
standard - not a yardstick based on the opinion of the author, the
opinion of peopel in the author's own institution, or the author's close
associates or collaborators. "Arms length" may be established in
numerous ways. For example, if the result is a solution to "a
long-standing problem for which there has been a succession of
increasingly better human-created solutions," it is clear that the
scientific community (not the author, the author's own institution, or
the author's close associates) has vetted the significance of the
problem. Similarly, a problem's significance may be established if the
result replicates or improves upon a scientific result published in a
peer-reviewed scientific journal, replicates or improves upon a patented
invention, or replicates or improves a result that was considered an
achievement in its field at the time it was first discovered. Similarly,
a problem's significance may be established if the result holds its own
or wins a regulated competition involving live human players or
human-written computer programs. In the absence of a clear "arms length"
standards, contestants relying only on criterion G ("The result solves a
problem of indisputable difficulty in its field") must make a clear and
convincing case that the "difficulty" is "indisputable."

Presentations of entries will be made at the Genetic and Evolutionary
Computation Conference (GECCO-2007). The awards and prizes will be
announced and presented during the GECCO conference. The judging
committee is in formation, but will include

- Wolfgang Banzhaf
- Erik Goodman
- Riccardo Poli
- John R. Koza
- Darrell Whitley

Cash prizes of $5,000 (gold), $3,000 (silver), and bronze (either one
prize of $2,000 or two prizes of $1,000) will be awarded for the best
entries that satisfy the criteria for human-competitiveness. The awards
will be divided equally among co-authors unless the authors specify a
different division at the time of submission.

INSTRUCTIONS FOR ENTERING THE 2007 "HUMIES" AWARDS

The deadline for entries is Monday May 28, 2007.

All entries are to be sent electronically to [email-masked].

An entry consists of one TEXT file and one or more PDF files.

The TEXT file must contain the following nine items. Please be very
careful to include all required information. Contestants are alerted to
the fact that items 6 and 9 are especially important and will be the
main basis by which entries will be judged.

(1) the complete title of one (or more) paper(s) published in the open
literature describing the work that the author claims describes a
human-competitive result,

(2) the name, complete physical mailing address, e-mail address, and
phone number of EACH author of EACH paper,

(3) the name of the corresponding author (i.e., the author to whom
notices will be sent concerning the competition),

(4) the abstract of the paper(s),

(5) a list containing one or more of the eight letters (A, B, C, D, E,
F, G, or H) that correspond to the criteria (see above) that the author
claims that the work satisfies,

(6) a statement stating why the result satisfies the criteria that the
contestant claims (see the examples below as a guide to aid in
constructing this part of the submission),

(7) a full citation of the paper (that is, author names; publication
date; name of journal, conference, technical report, thesis, book, or
book chapter; name of editors, if applicable, of the journal or edited
book; publisher name; publisher city; page numbers, if applicable);

(8) a statement either that "any prize money, if any, is to be divided
equally among the co-authors" OR a specific percentage breakdown as to
how the prize money, if any, is to be divided among the co-authors; and

(9) a statement stating why the judges should consider the entry as
"best" in comparison to other entries that may also be
"human-competitive."

The PDF file(s) are to contain the paper(s). The preferred method is
that you send a separate PDF file for each of your paper(s) relating to
your entry. Both the text file and the PDF file(s) for each entry will
be permanently posted on a web page shortly after the deadline date for
entries (for use by the judges and anyone interested) and will remain
posted on the web as a permanent record of the competition. If your
paper is available on your publisher's web site and your publisher
specifically requires that your published paper may only appear only on
your own personal page, the second non-preferred choice is that you send
link(s) to a SEPARATE web page on your personal web site containing
link(s) to the PDF file(s) of the paper(s) that constitute your entry.
This separate web page is to contain  nothing else, so the interested
parties may quickly locate your paper(s). If you use this second-choice
non-preferred option, you must also supply a link to a permanent web
site maintained by your publisher where your specific paper may be
viewed or purchased (that is, not a link merely to the publisher's main
home page, but a link to the specific web page on the publisher's site
containing your paper).

The judging committee will  review all entries and identify a short list
of approximately 8-10  finalists for presentation at the Genetic and
Evolutionary Computation (GECCO) conference. Finalists will be notified
by Monday June 25, 2007 by an e-mail to the corresponding author.
Finalists must then make a 10-minute presentation to the judging
committee at the GECCO conference. The presentations are currently
scheduled for Monday July 9, 2007.

At the conference, there will be 10-minute oral presentations by the
finalists before the judging committee. The presentations will be open
to all conference attendees at a special session (2 hours). The oral
presentation should primarily focus on why the result qualifies as being
human-competitive and why the judges should consider the entry as "best"
in comparison to other entries that may also be "human-competitive",
since these are the two main standards by which entries will be judged
by the judges.  In this short presentation to the judges, a description
of the details of the work itself should be decidedly secondary. In
other words, the focus is on why the work being presented should win a
prize -- not an explanation or presentation of the work itself. The
presenting author for each entry must register for the GECCO conference.
After the oral presentations, the award committee will meet and consider
the presentations. The awards are will announced at the Wednesday July
11, 2007, morning plenary session at the GECCO conference. Finalists
must submit a presentation in the form of a PowerPoint file or a PDF
file by Wednesday July 4, 2007 by e-mail to [email-masked]. These
presentations will be added to the web page for the competition so that
the judging committee (and anyone else interested) may preview the
presentations.

Authors generally enter their own work; however, a person may make an
entry on behalf of someone else; however, the entry must be complete in
every respect and the entry must be made with the consent of the actual
authors (one of whom must be willing to make a presentation of their
work).

No prize may be awarded to anyone associated with any member of the
judging committee (e.g., academic advisor, collaborator, co-author of
the work involved) or the company donating the prize funds (i.e., Third
Millennium On-Line Products Inc.).

IMPORTANT DATES:

May 28, 2007 (Mondday) -- Entries (consisting of one TEXT file and one or
more PDF files) are due by e-mail.

June 25, 2007 (Monday) -- Finalists will be notified by e-mail

July 4, 2007 (Wednesday) -- Finalists must submit their presentation to
(e.g., PowerPoint, PDF) for posting on competition web site.

July 9, 2007 (Monday) -- Date for presentations before judging 
committee at public session at GECCO conference 

July 11, 2007 (Wednesday) -- Announcement of awards at morning 
plenary session of GECCO conference.

EXAMPLE OF A "STATEMENT" USING CRITERIA A & F

This is an illustrative  example of a "statement" as to which an entry
in the competition should be considered to be "human-competitive."

Harry Jones of The Brown Instrument Company of Philadelphia patented the
PID-D2 controller topology in 1942. The PID topology was a significant
invention in the field of control engineering and is in industrial use
today. The PID-D2 controller was an improvement over the PID controller
patented in 1939 by Callender and Stevenson. Because the genetically
evolved controller  has proportional, integrative, derivative, and
second derivative blocks, it infringes the 1942 Jones patent. Referring
to the eight criteria for establishing that an automatically created
result is competitive with a human-produced result, the rediscovery by
genetic programming of the PID-D2 controller satisfies the following two
of the eight criteria:

(A) The result was patented as an invention in the past, is an
improvement over a patented invention, or would qualify today as a
patentable new invention.

(F) The result is equal to or better than a result that was considered
an achievement in its field at the time it was first discovered.

The rediscovery by genetic programming of the PID-D2 controller came
about six decades after Jones received a patent for his invention.
Nonetheless, the fact that the original human-designed version satisfied
the Patent Office's criteria for patent-worthiness means that the
genetically evolved duplicate would also have satisfied the Patent
Office's criteria for patent-worthiness (if only it had arrived earlier
than Jones' patent application).

ADDITIONAL EXAMPLE OF A "STATEMENT" USING CRITERIA B, D, E, F & G

This is another illustrative example of a "statement" as to which an
entry in the competition should be considered to be "human-competitive."

The 1942 Ziegler-Nichols tuning rules for PID controllers were a
significant development in the field of control engineering. These rules
have been in widespread use since they were invented. The 1995
stršm-HŠgglund tuning rules were another significant development. They
outperform the 1942 Ziegler-Nichols tuning rules on the industrially
representative plants used by stršm and HŠgglund. stršm and HŠgglund
developed their improved tuning rules by applying mathematical analysis,
shrewdly chosen approximations, and considerable creative flair. The
genetically evolved PID tuning rules are an improvement over the 1995
stršm-HŠgglund tuning rules. Referring to the eight criteria for
establishing that an automatically created result is competitive with a
human-produced result, the creation by genetic programming of improved
tuning rules for PID controllers satisfies the following five of the
eight criteria:

(B) The result is equal to or better than a result that was accepted as
a new scientific result at the time when it was published in a
peer-reviewed scientific journal.

(D) The result is publishable in its own right as a new scientific
result--independent of the fact that the result was mechanically created.

(E) The result is equal to or better than the most recent human-created
solution to a long-standing problem for which there has been a
succession of increasingly better human-created solutions.

(F) The result is equal to or better than a result that was considered
an achievement in its field at the time it was first discovered.

(G) The result solves a problem of indisputable difficulty in its field.

EXAMPLE OF SOMETHING THAT MAY BE "DIFFICULT," BUT NOT "HUMAN-COMPETITIVE"

Although the solution produced by genetic and evolutionary computation
for this problem is, in fact, better than a human-produced solution,
that fact alone does not qualify the result as "human-competitive" under
the eight criteria for human-competitiveness. For example, the fact that
a problem appears in a college textbook is not alone sufficient to
establish the problem's difficulty or importance or
"human-competitiveness." A result is "human-competitive" if it satisfies
one or more of the 8 criteria listed above. A textbook problem might, or
might not, satisfy one or more of the eight criteria.

 
Yahoo! Groups Links

<*> To visit your group on the web, go to:
    http://groups.yahoo.com/group/genetic_programming/

<*> Your email settings:
    Individual Email | Traditional

<*> To change settings online go to:
    http://groups.yahoo.com/group/genetic_programming/join
    (Yahoo! ID required)

<*> To change settings via email:
    mailto:[email-masked] 
    mailto:[email-masked]

<*> To unsubscribe from this group, send an email to:
    [email-masked]

<*> Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to:
    http://docs.yahoo.com/info/terms/