CALL FOR ENTRIES FOR 2004 HUMIES

 

$5,000 in PRIZES AT

THE 1st ANNUAL (2004) “HUMIES” AWARDS

FOR HUMAN-COMPETITIVE RESULTS

PRODUCED BY GENETIC AND EVOLUTIONARY COMPUTATION

HELD AT THE

GENETIC AND EVOLUTIONARY COMPUTATION CONFERENCE (GECCO)

IN SEATTLE, WASHINGTON

 

Description: Description: Description: Description: Description: Description: Description: http://www.genetic-programming.org/hc2005/hclogomf.jpg

 


Last updated September 16, 2004


Recent years have seen significant growth in the theoretical foundations of the field of genetic and evolutionary computation, as evidenced by an increasing number of books on the theory of genetic algorithms and the theory of genetic programming, the proceedings of the Foundations of Genetic Algorithms (FOGA) and Genetic Programming Theory and Applications (GPTP) workshops, and the proceedings of numerous general conferences in the field, such as GECCO. At the same time, the techniques of genetic and evolutionary computation are being increasingly adopted by industry to solve difficult real-world problems. One aspect of the progress in the field of genetic and evolutionary computation is the generation of human-competitive results.

Entries are hereby solicited for awards totaling $5,000 for human-competitive results that have been produced by any form of genetic and evolutionary computation and that have been published in the open literature since July 1, 2003. A special session will be held at the Genetic and Evolutionary Computation Conference (GECCO) in Seattle on Sunday June 27, 2004 at 2:00-3:50 PM to hear short presentations of the entries. After these presentations, the award committee will meet and consider all the entries. The awards and prizes will be announced and presented at a to-be-announced morning plenary session during the Genetic and Evolutionary Computation Conference (GECCO) on Monday, Tuesday, or Wednesday June 28, 29, 30. The publication may be a GECCO paper (i.e., regular paper, poster paper, or late-breaking paper) or a paper published elsewhere in the open literature (e.g., journal, another conference, technical report, thesis, book, book chapter) or a paper that has been accepted in final form and is “in press.”

The prize fund will be divided, as the committee decides, among the entries. Every new result deemed by the committee to be human-competitive for the past year will get some cash award. Depending on the committee’s evaluation of the relative merit of the entries, the prize fund may be divided equally or may be divided so as to reflect a ranking among the results deemed to be human-competitive. The committee may make a division among co-authors, if any, as appropriate for each entry.

Authors are encouraged to nominate their own work. Anyone may call the committee’s attention to particular work by making an entry on behalf of someone else.

Entries must be submitted by e-mail by 5 PM Pacific time on Monday June 21, 2004. An entry consists of

(1) the name, physical address, e-mail address, and phone number of EACH author,

(2) the title of at least one paper published in the open literature describing the work,

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

(4) PDF file of the paper(s), and

(5) a statement specifically identifying one or more of the eight criteria (below) and stating why the result satisfies that criteria. See examples (below) illustrating the form of the statement, and

(6) a full citation of the paper (i.e., publisher, city, date, editor names, if any, etc.)

One of the committee members (John Koza) has been designated as secretary and is available to answer questions and offer advice on constructing entries (and will, consequently, not vote during the committee’s deliberations).

Entries should be sent to koza@genetic-programming.com.

At least one author of the paper must be present to make a short presentation (probably 10-15 minutes) at the special session to be held on Sunday June 27, 2004 at 2:00-3:50 PM at the Genetic and Evolutionary Computation Conference (GECCO) in Seattle. The presentation should briefly describe the work, the result, and why the why the result qualifies as being human-competitive. The committee will announce how it will handle the situation if it receives more entries than can reasonably be presented in this currently scheduled time session. Presenting authors not planning to register or attend the entire GECCO conference may register for one day at the one-day registration rate.

The full awards committee is currently in formation and its membership will be announced. A committee member will not vote on a particular entry if he or she is associated with that entry (e.g., academic advisor, collaborator, co-author, working at the same institution). No cash prize may be awarded to anyone employed by the company providing the prize funds (i.e., Third Millennium Inc.); however, such person’s participation in a result will be noted.

It is anticipated that similar awards may be made at GECCO-2005 in Washington. Special provision will be made in 2005 for a cumulative recognition of all human-competitive results published in previous years.

COMMITTEE

Wolfgang Banzhaf

David E. Goldberg

Erik D. Goodman

Riccardo Poli

John R. Koza (Secretary)

APPENDIX—EIGHT CRITERIA FOR HUMAN-COMPETITIVENESS

For purposes of the awards, an automatically created result is “human-competitive” if it satisfies one or more 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).

SOME EXAMPLES “STATEMENTS” OF HUMAN-COMPETITIVENESS

CRITERIA A & F

Harry Jones of The Brown Instrument Company of Philadelphia patented the PID-D2 controller topology in 1942. The PID-D2 controller was an improvement over the PID controller patented in 1939 by Callender and Stevenson. Because the best-of-run controller from generation 32 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).

CRITERIA B, D, E, F & G

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 Åström-Hägglund tuning rules were another significant development. They outperform the 1942 Ziegler-Nichols tuning rules on the industrially representative plants used by Åström and Hägglund. Åström and Hägglund 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 Åström-Hägglund 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 programming 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. The fact that a problem appears in a college textbook is not alone sufficient to establish the problem’s difficulty or importance. A textbook problem might, or might not, satisfy one or more of the eight criteria.


· The home page of Genetic Programming Inc. at www.genetic-programming.com.

· For information about the field of genetic programming and the field of genetic and evolutionary computation, visit www.genetic-programming.org

· The home page of John R. Koza at Genetic Programming Inc. (including online versions of most published papers) and the home page of John R. Koza at Stanford University

· For information about John Koza’s course on genetic algorithms and genetic programming at Stanford University

· Information about the 1992 book Genetic Programming: On the Programming of Computers by Means of Natural Selection, the 1994 book Genetic Programming II: Automatic Discovery of Reusable Programs, the 1999 book Genetic Programming III: Darwinian Invention and Problem Solving, and the 2003 book Genetic Programming IV: Routine Human-Competitive Machine Intelligence. Click here to read chapter 1 of Genetic Programming IV book in PDF format.

· 3,440 published papers on genetic programming (as of November 28, 2003) in a searchable bibliography (with many on-line versions of papers) by over 880 authors maintained by William Langdon’s and Steven M. Gustafson.

· For information on the Genetic Programming and Evolvable Machines journal published by Kluwer Academic Publishers

· For information on the Genetic Programming book series from Kluwer Academic Publishers, see the Call For Book Proposals

· For information about the annual 2005 Genetic and Evolutionary Computation (GECCO) conference (which includes the annual GP conference) to be held on June 25–29, 2005 (Saturday – Wednesday) in Washington DC and its sponsoring organization, the International Society for Genetic and Evolutionary Computation (ISGEC). For information about the annual 2005 Euro-Genetic-Programming Conference (and the co-located Evolutionary Combinatorial Optimization conference and other Evo-Net workshops) to be held on March 30 – April 1, 2005 (Wednesday-Friday) in Lausanne, Switzerland. For information about the annual 2005 Genetic Programming Theory and Practice (GPTP) workshop to be held at the University of Michigan in Ann Arbor. For information about the annual 2004 Asia-Pacific Workshop on Genetic Programming (ASPGP) held in Cairns, Australia on December 6-7 (Monday-Tuesday), 2004. For information about the annual 2004 NASA/DoD Conference on Evolvable Hardware Conference (EH) to be held on June 24-26 (Thursday-Saturday), 2004 in Seattle.