THE 2007 “HUMIES”
AWARDS FOR HUMAN-COMPETITIVE RESULTS
PRODUCED BY GENETIC AND EVOLUTIONARY COMPUTATION
Last updated July 11, 2007
1. COMPETITION WINNERS FOR 2007
There were 13 entries for the
Human-Competitive awards in 2007. Five entries were awarded “honorable mention:
and 8 were short-listed and invited to
|
GOLD—$5000 |
Steven Manos Ma Leon Poladian |
|
SILVER—$3000 |
Ami Hauptman Moshe Sipper |
|
BRONZE—$1000 |
Jaume Bacardit Michael Stout Jonathan D. Hirst Kumara Sastry Xavier Llorà Natalio Krasnogor |
|
BRONZE—$1000 |
Xavier Llorà Rohith Reddy Brian Matesic Rohit Bhargava |
2.
ENTRIES
AND RESULTS OF THE 2007 “HUMIES” AWARDS
|
. |
Author(s) |
Paper(s) |
Statement on why result is human
competitive |
Presentation Files |
Awards |
|
1 |
Pierrick Legrand Claire Bourgeois-République Vincent Péan Esther Harboun-Cohen Jacques Levy-Vehel Bruno Frachet Evelyne Lutton Pierre Collet |
|
Invited to |
||
|
2 |
Ami Hauptman Moshe Sipper |
Evolution of an Efficient Search Algorithm for the Mate-In-N Problem in Chess |
|
Silver Award ($3,000) |
|
|
3 |
Steven Manos Ma Leon Poladian |
|
|
|
Gold Award ($5,000) |
|
4 |
Steffen Priesterjahn Oliver Kramer Alexander Weimer Andreas Goebels |
Evolution
of Human-Competitive Agents in Modern Computer Games
|
|
Honorable mention |
Honorable mention |
|
5 |
Mohammad A Abido |
Multiobjective Evolutionary Algorithms for Electric Power
Dispatch Problem Multiobjective Optimal VAR Dispatch Using Strength Pareto
Evolutionary Algorithm Two-Level of Nondominated Solutions Approach To Multiobjective Particle Swarm Optimization |
|
Honorable mention |
Honorable mention |
|
6 |
Christian Gagné Julie Beaulieu Marc Parizeau Simon Thibault |
Human-Competitive
Lens System Design with Evolution Strategies Evolutionary
Algorithms Applied to Lens Design: Case Study and Analysis Lens System Design and Re-Engineering with Evolutionary Algorithms |
|
|
Invited to |
|
7 |
Ronan Cummins Colm O'Riordan |
Evolving local and
global weighting schemes in Information Retrieval Term-Weighting in Information Retrieval using Genetic Programming: A Three-Stage Process |
Honorable mention |
Honorable mention |
|
|
8 |
Jiri Jaros Vaclav Dvorak |
An
Evolutionary Approach to Collective Communication Scheduling Optimum
Topology-Aware Scheduling of Many-to-Many Collective Communications |
|
Honorable mention |
Honorable mention |
|
9 |
Amr Radi Salah Yaseen El-Bakry Mostafa Y. El-Bakry |
Genetic
programming approach for electron-alkali-metal atom collisions Prediction
of Non Linear System in Optics Using Genetic Programming Genetic programming approach for flow of steady state fluid between two eccentric spheres |
|
Invited to |
|
|
10 |
Muhammad Adil Raja Raja Muhammad Atif Azad Colin Flanagan Conor Ryan |
Real-Time,
Non-Intrusive Evaluation of VoIP |
|
Honorable mention |
Honorable mention |
|
11 |
Xavier Llorà Rohith Reddy Brian Matesic Rohit Bhargava |
|
|
Bronze Award ($1,000) |
|
|
12 |
Josh Bongard Hod Lipson |
Automated Reverse Engineering of nonlinear Dynamical Systems |
|
|
Invited to |
|
13 |
Jaume Bacardit Michael Stout Jonathan D. Hirst Kumara Sastry Xavier Llorà Natalio Krasnogor |
Automated
Alphabet Reduction Method with Evolutionary Algorithms for Protein Structure
Prediction |
|
Bronze Award ($1,000) |
3.
DESCRIPTION
AND CALL FOR ENTRIES FOR 2007 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. 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 for human-competitive results were awarded.
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
cla
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 succe
(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 a
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 and will include
· Wolfgang Banzhaf
· Erik
· 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-competitivene
1. DETAILED INSTRUCTIONS FOR ENTERING THE 2007 “HUMIES”
The deadline for 2007 entries is Monday May 28, 2007.
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 addre
(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 submi
(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 2007 Genetic and Evolutionary
Computation (GECCO) conference to be held in
At the GECCO conference, there will be 12-minute oral presentations by the
finalists to the judging committee. The presentations will be open to all
conference attendees at a special se
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 se
Authors generally enter their own work; however, a person may
No prize may be awarded to anyone a
IMPORTANT DATES:
May 28, 2007 (Monday) — 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 (Monday) — Date for presentations before judging
committee at public se
July 11 (Wednesday) — Announcement of awards at morning plenary session of GECCO conference in London.
2. 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
(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. Nonethele
3.
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 succe
(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.
4.
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-competitivene
· 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 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.
· 4,000+
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
· For information on the Genetic Programming book series, see the Call For Book Proposals