CALL FOR ENTRIES FOR 2006 HUMIES

 

$10,000 in PRIZES AT

THE 3rd ANNUAL (2006) “HUMIES” AWARDS

FOR HUMAN-COMPETITIVE RESULTS

PRODUCED BY GENETIC AND EVOLUTIONARY COMPUTATION

HELD AT THE

GENETIC AND EVOLUTIONARY COMPUTATION CONFERENCE (GECCO)

 

Description: Description: Description: Description: Description: C:\Users\John Koza\Documents\7-Web pages-Domain-Hosting\GP-ORG-Pages-Including-HC\hc2006\hclogomf.jpg

Last updated October 22, 2011

CALL FOR ENTRIES TO THE 2006 “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, but competitive with the work of creative and inventive humans.

Entries are now being solicited for awards totaling $10,000 for 2006 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 June 20, 2005 (the deadline for the previous competition) and the deadline for 2006 entries, namely Monday May 29, 2006. The competition will be held as part of the 2006 Genetic and Evolutionary Computation (GECCO) conference. This prize competition is based on published results. The publication may be a paper at the GECCO-2006 conference (i.e., regular paper, poster paper, or late-breaking paper), a paper published anywhere in the open literature (e.g., another conference, journal,  technical report, thesis, book, book chapter), or a paper in 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—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 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).

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 author’s own institution, or the author’s close associates. “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) have 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-2006). The awards and prizes will be announced and presented during the GECCO conference. The judging committee is in formation and 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.

DETAILED INSTRUCTIONS FOR ENTERING

The deadline for 2006 entries is Monday May 29, 2006.

All entries are to be sent electronically to koza@stanford.edu.

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 choice is that you send link(s) to a separate web page on your 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 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 home page, but a link to your specific paper on the publisher’s site).

The judging committee will  review all entries and identify a short list approximately 8–10  finalists for presentation at the 2006 Genetic and Evolutionary Computation (GECCO) conference to be held in Seattle on July 8–12, 2006  (Saturday–Wednesday) in Seattle. Finalists will be notified by Monday June 25, 2006 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 scheduled for Monday July 10, 2006 at the GECCO conference.

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 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 12, 2006, morning plenary session at the GECCO conference. Finalists must submit a presentation in the form of a PowerPoint file or a PDF file by Thursday July 5, 2006 by e-mail to koza@stanford.edu. 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 29, 2006 (Friday) — Entries (consisting of one TEXT file and one or more PDF files) are due by e-mail.

June 25, 2006 (Monday) — Finalists will be notified by e-mail

July 5, 2006 (Wednesday) — Finalists must submit their presentation to (e.g., PowerPoint, PDF) for posting on competition web site.

July 10 (Monday) — Date for presentations before judging committee at public session at GECCO conference in Seattle

July 12 (Wednesday) — Announcement of awards at morning plenary session of GECCO conference in Seattle.

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 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 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.

· 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