Re: [SwarmFest2004] Re: [Directors] swarmfest paper evaluations: can't all be talks!

[Rick Riolo]

re the PSO paper:

actually, my objection is not that its not agent-based,
but that its not a *modeling* paper.
i thought the unifying theme is, to quote the cfp:
   ...multi-agent modeling including...

basically this paper is proposing a change to a
search algorithm to make it maybe search better.
i would similarly not look favorably on papers
that were about improving NN's, EAs, etc.
do we really want to move toward accepting any
papers about improved versions of NNs, GAs, etc?
if not any, how do we decide which to accept and which not?

My answer:
i think its reasonable to accept papers about such tools
when they are used in a modeling context:   using
a cultural algorithm in the Village model, using NN's
to control agents in a market model, etc.
So if they would have made the case that this improvement
to this technique makes it better in some modeling context,
i would see it as suitable for a talk.

(you might ask: why did i not just Reject this paper?
that's a good question!  if we didn't have enough room
for all the postes we want, this would be one
of the first papers i'd reject.)

All that said...
if people feel it fits in with the collective view of SwarmFest,
we can move it to a talk status.
if, as the (few) responses we have seen indicate,
the feeling is we go with all 20min talks,
we do have a bit of time to play with.

(tho having this be a talk does use up some of that free time
you were pushing for, glen! ;-)

- r


Rick Riolo                           address@hidden
Center for the Study of Complex Systems (CSCS)
4477 Randall Lab
University of Michigan         Ann Arbor MI 48109-1120
Phone: 734 763 3323                  Fax: 734 763 9267
http://cscs.umich.edu/~rlr

On Thu, 8 Apr 2004 address@hidden wrote:

> Date: Thu, 8 Apr 2004 01:31:53 -0700
> From: address@hidden
> To: address@hidden
> Subject: [SwarmFest2004] Re: [Directors] swarmfest paper evaluations:
>     can't all be talks!
>
>
> Thanks for making my edits, Rick.
>
> I'd like to push for the following to be a talk and not
> just a poster.
>
>  > Tim Hendtlass <address@hidden> and
>  >    Tom Rodgers <address@hidden>
>  > Discrete Evaluation and the Particle Swarm Algorithm.
>  > (full paper)  N
>  > Review-1: gepr                         20 > 30
>  > Review-2: rlr                          Poster > 15min (is it ABM?)
>  > Review-3: alex                         Poster > 15min
>  > [note from alex: we've had the particle swarm people before,
>  > and it's always borderline as to whether it's really ABM,
>  > it's more of a technique like GAs or NNs that a model of
>  > something per se, but it's worth a poster slot and maybe
>  > a 15min talk if we had time]
>
> I understand that it's not considered "agent-based"; but, I think
> "abm" is starting to become overly specific and it isn't a good
> thing for us to restrict ourselves to that limited definition.
>
> Particle swarm optimization is another example of fine-grained,
> distributed, problem solving and _should_ be as big a part of
> our community as any other specific algorithm (like GAs or ANNs).
>
> We're slowly becoming too "object-oriented" and and too much of
> a tool-driven or tech-driven.  In the same sense that we want
> "swarm" to mean more than the objective-c "reference implementation",
> we want this style of problem solving to continue to include
> things like swarm optimization and discrete dynamics.
>
> Besides, Eric is the keynote speaker. [grin]
>
> glen
>
> _______________________________________________
> SwarmFest2004 mailing list
> address@hidden
> http://www.swarm.org/mailman/listinfo/swarmfest2004
>