2005 HUMIES

$10,000 in PRIZES AT

THE 2^nd ANNUAL (2005) “HUMIES” AWARDS

FOR HUMAN-COMPETITIVE RESULTS

PRODUCED BY GENETIC AND EVOLUTIONARY COMPUTATION

HELD AT THE

GENETIC AND EVOLUTIONARY COMPUTATION CONFERENCE (GECCO)

---

Last updated August 5, 2009

---

2004 2005 2006 2007 2008 2009 2010 Home

---

RESULTS OF THE 2005 “HUMIES” AWARDS

There were 23 entries. Of these, 8 were awarded gold, silver, or bronze awards totaling $9,000. There were 10 honorable mention awards totaling $1,000. The results of the competition are as follows:

Gold, Silver, and Bronze Awards

Prize	Author(s)	Paper(s)	Statement on why result is human competitive	Algorithm type
$2500 — Gold	Stefan Preble Hod Lipson Michal Lipson	Two-dimensional photonic crystals designed by evolutionary algorithms APL05-Preble-Paper.pdf	PrebleLipsonAndLipson.txt	GP
$2500 — Gold	Randy Bartels S. Backus E. Zeek L. Misoguti G. Vdovin I. Chritov N.M. Murnane H.C. Kapteyn Herschel Rabitz	Learning from Learning Algorithms: Applications to attosecond dynamics of high-harmonic generation Shaped-pulse optimization of coherent soft-x-rays	bartels.txt	ES
$0 — Silver	John Koza Sameer Al-Sakran Lee Jones	Automated Re-Invention of Six Patented Optical Lens Systems using Genetic Programming	KozaAl-SakranJonesHC-SupportDoc.txt	GP
$1000 — Silver	Paul Massey John A Clark Susan Stepney	Evolution of a Human-Competitive Quantum Fourier Transform Algorithm Using Genetic Programming	clark.txt	GP
$1000 — Silver	Fulvio Corno Edgar Ernesto Sanchez Sanchez Giovanni Squillero	Evolving Assembly Programs: How Games Help Microprocessor Validation	squilero.txt	UGP
$1000 — Silver	Richard J. Terrile Hrand Aghazarian Michael I. Ferguson Wolfgang Fink Terry Huntsberger Didier Keymeulen Gerhard Klimeck Mark Kordon Seungwon Lee Boris Oks Chris Peay Anastassios Petropoulos Paul von Allmen Karl Yee	Evolutionary Computation Technologies for the Automatic Design of Space Systems Evolutionary Computation applied to the Tuning of MEMS gyroscopes Multi-Objective Evolutionary Algorithms for Low-Thrust Orbit Transfer Optimization	terrile.txt	GA
$500 — Bronze	Moshe Sipper Yaniv Azaria Ami Hauptman Yoanatan Shichel Eran Ziserman	Attaining Human-Competitive Game Playing with Genetic Programming Sipper-IEEE-TSMC.pdf GP-Gammon: Genetically Programming Backgammon Players Sipper-GP-Gammon-Draft.pdf GP-Robocode: Using Genetic Programming to Evolve Robocode Players Sipper-Euro-GP-Robocode.pdf GP-EndChess: Using Genetic Programming to Evolve Chess Endgame Sipper-GP-End-Chess.pdf GP-Gammon: Using Genetic Programming to Evolve Backgammon Players Sipper-GP-Gammon-Final.pdf	sipper.txt	GP
$500 — Bronze	Uli Grasemann Risto Miikkulainen	Effective Image Compression using Evolved Wavelets	grasemann.txt	GA

10 Honorable Mentions

Prize	Author(s)	Paper(s)	Statement on why result is human competitive	Algorithm type
$100 – Honorable Mention	Jonathan Wright Yi Zhang	An Ageing Operator and Its Use in the Highly Constrained Topological Optimization of HVAC System Design	WrightAndZhang.txt	GA
$100 – Honorable Mention	Joc Cing Tay Nhu Binh Ho	Evolving Dispatching Rules for Solving the Flexible Job-Shop Problem	binh.txt	GP
$100 – Honorable Mention	Josh Bongard	Reinventing the Wheel: An Experiment in Evolutionary Geometry	bongard.txt	GA
$100 – Honorable Mention	Kuntinee Maneeratana Kittipong Boonlong Nachol Chaiyaratana	Multi-objective optimisation by co-operative co-evolution	chaiyaratana.txt	GA
$100 – Honorable Mention	Daniel Howard Joseph Kolibal	Solution of differential equations with Genetic Programming and the Stochastic Bernstein Interpolation	howard.txt	GP
$100 – Honorable Mention	Maarten Keijzer Martin Baptist Vladan Babovic Javier Uthurburu	Determining Equations for Vegetation Induced Resistance using Genetic Programming	keijzer.txt	GP
$100 – Honorable Mention	Shail Patel Ian Stott Manmohan Bhakoo Peter Elliott	Patenting Evolved Bacterial Peptides	patel.txt	GA
$100 – Honorable Mention	Lukas Sekanina Michal Bidlo	Evolutionary Design of Arbitrarily Large Sorting Networks Using Development	sekanina.txt	GA
$100 – Honorable Mention	Zheng Yi Wu Thomas M. Walski	Optimizing Water System Improvement for a Growing Community	wu.txt	GA
$100 – Honorable Mention	LTC Terry O'Donnell MAJ Jim Hunter 1LT Richard Barton Terence Bullett Steven Best	Genetic Hybrid Antenna Fills the Gap	odonnell.txt	GA

5 Other Entries

Author(s)	Title(s)	Statement on why result is human competitive	Algorithm type
Anil Patel David Davis Jim Ouimette Charlie Guthrie Dave Tuk John Williams Tai Nguyen	Optimizing Cyclic Steam Oil Production with Genetic Algorithms SPE-Paper-Summary.doc	davis.txt	GA
Zong Woo Geem	Optimal Cost Design of Water Distribution Networks using Harmony Search	geem.txt	MHA
Gregory S. Hornby Seiichi Takamura Takashi Yamamoto Masahiro Fujita	Autonomous Evolution of Dynamic Gaits with Two Quadruped Robots	hornby.txt	GA
Yuji Sato Ryutaro Kanno	Event-Driven Learning Classifier Systems for Online Soccer Games	sato.txt	LCS
Trichy M Kethara Pasupathy Ravi Teja SeethamRaju Robert G. Wilhelm	Evolutionary algorithm for the placement of fluid power valves on a valve stand	seethamraju.txt	GA

CALL FOR ENTRIES FOR THE 2005 “HUMIES” AWARDS

Techniques of genetic and evolutionary computation are being increasingly applied to difficult real-world problems—often yielding results that are not merely interesting and impressive, but competitive with the work of creative and inventive humans.

At the Genetic and Evolutionary Computation Conference (GECCO) in Seattle in June 2004, $5,000 in 2004 awards for human-competitive results were awarded for six human-competitive results that had been produced by some form of genetic and evolutionary computation in the previous year. These six results brought the total number of identified human-competitive results produced by genetic and evolutionary computation to 42 (as of September 2004).

Entries are now being solicited for awards totaling $10,000 for 2005 awards for human-competitive results that have been produced by any form of genetic and evolutionary computation (e.g., genetic algorithms, genetic programming, evolution strategies, evolutionary programming, learning classifier systems, grammatical evolution, etc.) and that are published in the open literature between July 1, 2004 and the deadline for 2005 entries is Monday June 20, 2005. 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 in final form that has been unconditionally accepted and is “in press” (that is, the entry must be identical to something that will be published momentarily and not an intermediate draft version).

An automatically created result is “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 ¾ 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).

Presentations of entries will be made at the Genetic and Evolutionary Computation Conference (GECCO-2005). The awards and prizes will be announced and presented during the GECCO conference. The 2005 judging committee is in formation and will include

· Wolfgang Banzhaf (Editor-in-Chief of Genetic Programming and Evolvable Hardware journal)

· David Goldberg (past chair of International Society of Genetic and Evolutionary Computation)

· Erik Goodman (chair of International Society of Genetic and Evolutionary Computation)

· Riccardo Poli (GECCO-2004 Chair)

· Una-May O’Reilly (GECCO-2005 Chair)

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 will divide the prize money equally among co-authors.

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.

No member of the awards committee may be associated with any entry (e.g., academic advisor, collaborator, co-author). No cash prize may be awarded to anyone employed by the company donating the prize funds (i.e., Third Millennium On-Line Products Inc.); however, a result may be entered by such person (but not for cash prize).

INSTRUCTIONS FOR MAKING ENTRIES FOR THE 2005 “HUMIES” AWARDS

The deadline for 2005 entries is Monday June 20, 2005.

All entries (see below for detailed instructions) are to be sent electronically to banzhaf@cs.mun.ca

At the 2005 Genetic and Evolutionary Computation Conference (GECCO-2005) to be held in Washington, DC on June 25–29 (Saturday-Wednesday), 2005, short oral presentations (probably 10 minutes) by the finalists will be heard by an awards committee and conference attendees at a special session (2 hours). If the number of entries exceed 11, the awards committee (or a subcommittee thereof) will create a short list of about 11 finalists who will be invited to make oral presentations at the session at the GECCO conference. The oral presentation should primarily focus on why the result qualifies as being human-competitive and only secondarily on the nature of the work itself. In other words, the focus is on why the work being presented should win a prize and not an explanation of the work itself. After the oral presentations, the award committee will meet and consider the presentations. The presenting author for each entry must register for the GECCO conference. The session for presenting human-competitive entries is tentatively scheduled for 10:15 AM – 12:15 AM on Tuesday June 28, 2005, at the GECCO conference in Washington. Participants in the competition should take care to double-check the time and date of this session with the official GECCO conference schedule in case of a possible schedule change (GECCO-2005). People making entries will be notified by e-mail several days after the deadline for entries as to whether or not they are being invited to make a presentation at the session. If a participant in the competition is traveling and therefore unable to receive an e-mail just before the GECCO conference or is unable to receive e-mail at the GECCO conference, the participant should take care to check with the awards committee on site at the conference concerning the question of scheduling of his or her presentation. The awards are tentatively scheduled to be announced at the Wednesday June 29 morning plenary session at the GECCO conference.

This competition is for human-competitive results that have been produced by any form of genetic and evolutionary computation (e.g., genetic algorithms, genetic programming, evolution strategies, evolutionary programming, learning classifier systems, grammatical evolution, etc.) and that are published in the open literature between July 1, 2004 and the deadline for 2005 entries (June 20, 2005). This prize competition is based on published results. 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 in final form that has been unconditionally accepted in this final form and is “in press” (that is, the entry must be identical to something that will be published momentarily, has a definite and certain citation, and not an intermediate draft version).

An entry consists of two files (one TEXT file and one PDF file).

The TEXT file must contain the following seven items:

(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, physical mailing address, e-mail address, and phone number of EACH author of EACH paper,

(3) the name of the corresponding 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 that criteria (use the examples below as a guide as to possible forms of this “statement”), and

(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).

The PDF file(s) are to contain the paper(s). The first choice is that you send a separate PDF file for each of your paper(s) relating to your work. However, if your publisher requires that your published paper may only appear on your own home page, the second choice is that you send link(s) to the web page containing a PDF file of your paper(s). Be sure that the paper is alone on the web page or easily found on the web page.

Both the text file and the PDF file(s) for each entry will be posted on a web page shortly after the deadline date for entries (for use by the judges and anyone interested) and remain posted on the web as a permanent record of the competition.

Authors are encouraged to enter their own work. 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).

ADDITIONAL EXAMPLE OF A “STATEMENT” USING 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).

ADDITIONAL EXAMPLE OF A “STATEMENT” USING 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.

---

· For information about the annual Genetic and Evolutionary Computation Conference (GECCO) operated by the Association for Computing Special Interest Group on Genetic and Evolutionary Computation (SIGEVO)

· For information about the annual Human-Competitive Awards (the “humies”) in genetic and evolutionary computation offered at the annual Genetic and Evolutionary Computation Conference (GECCO)

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

· The home page of John R. Koza (including online versions of most published papers)

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

· For information about Electoral College reform and National Popular Vote

· 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.

· 5,000+ published papers on genetic programming 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

---