Godel Prize 2017 Call

The call for nomination for the 2017 Godel Prize is up.  The call is available at http://madhu.seas.harvard.edu/Announce/Goedel2017CFN.html and will be up on the SIGACT web page shortly.  Here's much of it -- key date, February 15, 2017.

The Gödel Prize 2017 - Call for Nominations

Deadline: February 15, 2017

The Gödel Prize for outstanding papers in the area of theoretical computer science is sponsored jointly by the European Association for Theoretical Computer Science (EATCS) and the Association for Computing Machinery, Special Interest Group on Algorithms and Computation Theory (ACM SIGACT). The award is presented annually, with the presentation taking place alternately at the International Colloquium on Automata, Languages, and Programming (ICALP) and the ACM Symposium on Theory of Computing (STOC). The 25th Gödel Prize will be awarded at the 49th Annual ACM Symposium on Theory of Computing, to be held from 19-23 June, 2017 in Montreal, Canada.

The Prize is named in honor of Kurt Gödel in recognition of his major contributions to mathematical logic and of his interest, discovered in a letter he wrote to John von Neumann shortly before von Neumann's death, in what has become the famous "P versus NP" question. The Prize includes an award of USD 5,000.

Award Committee: The 2017 Award Committee consists of  Moses Charikar (Stanford University), Orna Kupferman (Hebrew University), Kurt Mehlhorn (Max Planck Institute), Giuseppe Persiano (Università di Salerno), Omer Reingold (Stanford University) and Madhu Sudan (Chair, Harvard University).

Eligibility: The 2017 Prize rules are given below and they supersede any different interpretation of the generic rule to be found on websites of both SIGACT and EATCS. Any research paper or series of papers by a single author or by a team of authors is deemed eligible if:

• The main results were not published (in either preliminary or final form) in a journal or conference proceedings before January 1st, 2004.
• The paper was published in a recognized refereed journal no later than December 31, 2016.

The research work nominated for the award should be in the area of theoretical computer science. Nominations are encouraged from the broadest spectrum of the theoretical computer science community so as to ensure that potential award winning papers are not overlooked. The Award Committee shall have the ultimate authority to decide whether a particular paper is eligible for the Prize.

Nominations: Nominations for the award should be submitted by email to the Award Committee Chair: madhu@cs.harvard.edu. Please make sure that the Subject line of all nominations and related messages begin with "Goedel Prize 2017." To be considered, nominations for the 2017 Prize must be received by February 15, 2017.

Any member of the scientific community can make nominations. The Award Committee may actively solicit nominations. A nomination should contain a brief summary of the technical content of the paper(s) and a brief explanation of its significance. A printable copy of the research paper or papers should accompany the nomination. The nomination must state the date and venue of the first conference or workshop publication, or state that no such publication has occurred. The work may be in any language. However, if it is not in English, a more extended summary written in English should be enclosed.

To be considered for the award, the paper or series of papers must be recommended by at least two individuals, either in the form of distinct nominations, or one nomination including recommendations from at least two different people.  Additional recommendations may also be enclosed and are generally useful. The Award Committee encourages recommendation and support letters to be mailed separately, without being necessarily shared with the nominator(s). The rest of the nomination package should be sent in a single email whenever possible. Those intending to submit a nomination should contact the Award Committee Chair by email well in advance. The Chair will answer questions about eligibility, encourage coordination among different nominators for the same paper(s), and also accept informal proposals of potential nominees or tentative offers to prepare formal nominations. The committee maintains a database of past nominations for eligible papers, but fresh nominations for the same papers (especially if they highlight new evidence of impact) are always welcome.

Knuth Prize 2017 Call

The call is going out for the 2017 Knuth Prize.  The call will be up on the SIGACT Web page shortly, but until it shows up there here's a pdf.   Key date:  deadline is February 15 for nominations.

Key info (but please read the actual call for full details):
 
The Donald E. Knuth Prize for outstanding contributions to the foundations of computer science is awarded for major research accomplishments and contributions to the foundations of computer science over an extended period of time.

Nomination Procedure: Anyone in the Theoretical Computer Science community may nominate a candidate. To do so, please send nominations to : knuth.prize.2017@gmail.com with a subject line of Knuth Prize nomination by February 15, 2017. The nomination should state the nominee’s name, summarize his or her contributions in one or two pages, provide a CV for the nominee or a pointer to the nominees webpage, and give telephone, postal, and email contact information for the nominator. Any supporting letters from other members of the community (up to a limit of 5) should be included in the package that the nominator sends to the Committee chair. Supporting letters should contain substantial information not in the nomination. Others may endorse the nomination simply by adding their names to the nomination letter. If you have nominated a candidate in past years, you can re-nominate the candidate by sending a message to that effect to the above address. (You may revise the nominating materials if you desire).

Postdocs (Rabin and other) for this year

The Theory Group at Harvard has put out its ad for postdocs again this year.  It will be our second year for the Rabin Postdoc in theoretical computer science. "Rabin Fellows will be provided with the opportunity to pursue their research agenda in an intellectually vibrant environment with ample mentorship. While interaction with Harvard faculty, students, and visitors is encouraged, Rabin Fellows are free to pursue their own interests."  We also have open postdoc calls for the theory group, for the Center for Research on Computation and Society, and for the Institute for Applied and Computational Science.  More information on all these postdoc opportunities can be found here.  Candidates are encouraged to apply by December 1, although that's not a hard deadline.  Generally, we ask people what postdocs they're interested in, so you should only have to send in your materials once even if you're interested in more than one of these opportunities.

FOCS 16 Workshops/Tutorials Call for Proposals

I'm told that there's a call for proposals up for workshops/tutorials for FOCS 16.
Here's a link to the call for those who are interested....

Deadline is August 31, end of the month.

STOC Theory Fest 2017 (Montreal June 19-23)

As SIGACT chair I announced at the STOC’16 business meeting that starting in 2017, STOC will turn into a 5-day event, a Theory Fest. This idea was discussed at some length in a special session at FOCS 2014 and the business meeting at STOC 2015. Now the event is being planned by a small group (Sanjeev Arora, SIGACT ex-chair Paul Beame, Avrim Blum, and Ryan Williams; who also get guidance from me and STOC’17 PC chair Valerie King). We’re  setting up committees to oversee various aspects of the event.

Below is a brief announcement from the organizing group about their plans! Please feel free to write your suggestions here, though the outline below has been arrived at after a fair bit of deliberation and consultation.

Update:   Here is the web page for STOC 2017:  (http://acm-stoc.org/stoc2017/)

Michael.

------

We’re excited to bring you the Theory Fest in Montreal, June 19-23 2017!

The following are the major features (caveat: subject to tweaking in coming years):

(i)  STOC talks go into 3 parallel sessions instead of two.  Slight increase in number of accepts to 100-110.

(ii)   STOC papers also required to be presented in evening poster sessions (beer/snacks served).

(iii) About 9 hours of plenary sessions, which will include: (a) Three keynote 50-minute talks (usually prominent researchers from theory and nearby fields) (b)  Plenary 20-minute talks selected from the STOC program by the STOC PC ---best papers, and a few others. (c) Plenary 20-minute talks on notable papers from the broader theory world in the past year (including but not limited to FOCS, ICALP, SODA, CRYPTO, QIP, COMPLEXITY, SoCG, COLT, PODC, SPAA, KDD, SIGMOD/PODS, SIGMETRICS, WWW, ICML/NIPS), selected by a committee from a pool of nominations. (Many nominees may be invited instead to the poster session.)

(iv) 2-hour tutorials (three in parallel).

(v)    Some community-building activities, including grad student activities, networking, career advice, funding, recruiting, etc.

(vi)   A day of workshops; 3 running in parallel. (Total of 18 workshop-hours.)

Our hope is that workshop day(s) will over time develop into a separate eco-system of regular meetings and co-located conferences (short or long). In many other CS fields the workshop days generate as much energy as the main conference, and showcase innovative, edgy work.

Poster sessions have been largely missing at STOC, but they have advantages: (a) Attendees can quickly get a good idea of all the work presented at the conference (b) Grads and young researchers get more opportunities to present their work and to interact/network, fueled by beer and snacks. (c)Attendees get an easy way to make up for having missed a talk during the day, or to ask followup questions. (d) Posters on work from other theory conferences broadens the intellectual scope of STOC,

We invite other theory conferences to consider co-locating with the Theory Fest. To allow such coordination, in future the location/dates for the Theory Fest will be announced at least 18 months in advance, preferably 2 years. Even for 2017 it is not too late yet.  

Finally, we see the Theory Fest as a work in progress. Feedback from attendees will be actively sought and used to refashion the event.

  

STOC 2017 (and STOC 2016)

I'm starting to get asked about STOC 2017 dates -- we recently executed the hotel contract, and STOC will be June 18-23 in Montreal.  (It will really "start" the morning of the 19th, but we expect people will be getting to the hotel the 18th.)  Yes, that 5 days of STOC -- expect more announcements about how we'll be filling up those 5 days coming up.

And just a reminder -- STOC 2016 is around the corner, June 19-21, with a joint STOC/SoCG workshop and tutorial day on June 18.  The STOC 2016 page has more info, and even if you haven't signed up, you can still register as a walk-in on-site. 

Class Evaluations, Again

I've not been blogging much, but I have an excuse now that class evaluations have arrived.
  
By posting about the evaluations, the students know I read them.  And perhaps if any future students see this it will inspire them to try to make helpful comments, or at least fill out the evaluation.  This semester I taught the undergraduate Algorithms and Data Structures course, which at a bit over 170 students is the largest class I've taught at Harvard (and the largest the class has been since I've been here).  Let's see how I did on a class this big.

But before beginning, a word from our administration: 

Again this semester, some students may have accessed their course grades before completing their course evaluations. When this has happened in the past, we determined that the effect on evaluations was statistically undetectable, if any. Nonetheless, we wish to assure you that we understand that this semester's Q evaluations will not be 100% comparable to past terms and that the administration will take that fact into consideration when viewing the data.

If anyone can decipher that bit of bureaucratese for me,  please do.  (I admit, I found it amusing.)

Now, my favorite comment of the year:

Mitzenmacher can be a bit intimidating at times (I'm pretty sure he's the only professor under 40 years old whose class I've taken that I'm not on a first-name basis with)...

Whoever you are, you anonymous student you, it's wonderful that somehow you think I'm still under 40.  That was, well, a while ago...   (Also, you can call me Michael.  Mitzenmacher is hard say, and spell.  Maybe calling me Michael will make me seem less intimidating.)

A close second:

Take this course if you want to be good at CS. I also got a girlfriend out of it, so if you're looking for love, this is definitely the class you should take. Chicks dig algorithms.

Yes, they do.  And congratulations.  But seriously, please don't call them "chicks".  Some women find the term offensive, and I would like women in the class to feel welcome and comfortable.  It also makes you seem like you're living in the wrong decade.      

Another good one.  

Definitely the legend his former students make him out to be.

Just to clear, I interpret that as at best a neutral statement, not necessarily a positive one.  (The rest of the evaluation, I think, backs my interpretation.)  On an obviously more negative note: 

He is sarcastic and unhelpful. He even goes out of his way to be snarky and rude to students...

I appreciate the concern, but don't worry, I'm not going out of my way at all... the sarcasm and snark really just come naturally!

And apparently, it's rubbing off.  

This course could be improved by having longer and more difficult problem sets. Having tougher exams would be better too.

Hey, I don't think you've heard.  I'm supposed to be the sarcastic and snarky one. (The student's whole evaluation was like this.  Very funny and original -- surprisingly, nobody's ever done that before, that I can remember.)  At least a partial explanation for the evaluation above, perhaps:  

Piazza was riddled with dumb anonymous question (e.g., "Should my program handle negative ints?" "No, as stated in the assignment."). I think it should be course policy to delete these questions rather than give terse answers; each one causes hundreds of people to receive email notifications and spend tens of seconds digesting the poster's helplessness. I estimate that each poster is choosing to waste about two hours of our collective time rather than reread the assignment or email a TF.

Thank you for this comment;  it's a rare comment that addresses a challenging issue.  I continue to be ambivalent about Piazza.  It's very useful for students to be able to ask questions and get reasonably timely responses.  On the other hand, the ease of being able to ask questions leads to the issue you raised, as well as other similar problems.  (Students don't see many private questions of the form, "Is this an OK answer to this question...")  I'm not sure deleting the question is the correct response;  I can only imagine the reaction.  Already, people find my terse answers to some questions off-putting, or even "sarcastic" and "snarky"....
  
Now for some other useful comments.   

better handwriting would be nice.

Not the first time I've heard that complaint, although surprisingly it was rarely mentioned this year;  I did try to be better at the board.  But it's good to be reminded, frequently.    

Maybe integrate into Canvas or disregard it completely, it was weird having some stuff in one place and other stuff on the other.

Thank you for the useful comment.  Canvas is the tool we are being pushed at Harvard to use for course management, and for a class of this size, I felt forced to use it;  having students e-mail in assignments just wasn't going to be functional.  But Canvas really, really sucks, and caused at least as many problems as it solved (probably more).  I'd have liked more comments about Canvas, or really some advice on whether it's worth using at all.  

An odd comment: 

really sucks not having a good textbook for those of us who learn better on our own than in lecture;

Comments like this always make me wonder.  I do not require a textbook, but recommend both CLRS and Kleinberg-Tardos if students want one;  both books line up reasonably well with probably 2/3 of the course.  Did this student buy one of those?  I don't know.  I also find most things I teach have pretty good articles available on Wikipedia.  Many students in their comments appreciated the lectures (and the lecture notes), but for those who don't, there are certainly other resources available.   
  
Now some good responses to the question:  What did you learn?  How did this course change you?

Algorithms are fun! I'm good at theory!

Awesome!   

...I now view computer science as more than just coding. It is the art of problem-solving.

Awesome! 

Some truth in advertising:

Very useful course for anyone who wants to learn how to solve problems in the most computationally efficient way possible. That said, this course is not for everyone. Some will find it difficult.

Some, indeed.  Perhaps I can find another student who can clarify the above description.... 

This class is insanely hard (like really, really, really hard); don't let anyone tell you otherwise. I spent maybe 40-50 hours per week on the psets, and the tests (the midterm and final) were brutal.

To be fair, I don't think most students are spending 40-50 hours per week on the problem sets, and the self-reported numbers suggest not also.  But point taken, the class is hard.  (Some will find it difficult.)   

As usual, the overall summary is that the reviews contain a mix of positive and negative.  Let's end with some more positive ones, so I can think positive thoughts about the fact I'll be teaching this very large class again next year: 

Really interesting course material presented clearly. There was a nice balance of breadth and depth, and I liked the focus on randomized algorithms and the last couple lectures on topics tying the course together. Such a good class - thank you!

 No, no -- thank you!

Mitzenmacher is very good at responding quickly on Piazza, and often his responses are quite funny.

Thank you!  Some people apparently don't seem to get our sense of humor.  Same thing happens at home with the wife and kids -- they don't think I'm funny either.  

Professor Mitzenmacher is a great lecturer and provides lots of insight into algorithms. Problem sets are very well written, and most if not all problems are very thought-stimulating and are an apt level of difficulty. I also enjoyed the programming assignments -- it was great to physically code things and get a hands-on approach to the algorithms we learned.

For programming assignments 2 and 3, I would have hoped that Professor Mitzenmacher grade them as well--the TFs seem to be following a rubric and it is difficult for them to reward other inisghts and rather take off many points for more minor issues.

Thank you for the nice comments!  I'm glad you were happy with my grading of the first programming assignment, but you really want me grading all of them???  (Hmmm... actually, maybe I'll think about grading PA3....)

Lastly, professor Mitzenmacher is incredibly nice and fun to talk to if you get the chance.

Thank you!  But please, don't let the secret out....

Let's end with this summary, answering what you would want to tell future students:  

You probably have to take this. Cheer up! First of all, it's not nearly as bad as everyone says...

Thank you, I think?***



(***This last backhanded compliment reminds me of a joke from when I was a kid, quoting from https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/F_Troop

Another running gag involves dialogue between Sergeant O'Rourke and Agarn. In many episodes O'Rourke says to Agarn, "I don't know why everyone says you're so dumb". After several lines of dialogue later, and occasionally after a commercial break, Agarn finally replies, "Who says I'm dumb?".

 )

SODA Information

Phil Klein passed on that there's a delay at SIAM in getting the SODA 2017 CFP up, and of course we want to get out the relevant information out to the community.  So he asked me to post the following:   

SODA 2017: The official SIAM symposium webpage is http://siam.org/meetings/da17/. This page does not yet have the call for papers. (My understanding is that the call for papers has yet to be approved by some SIAM staff who are out this week.) The deadlines are as follows: July 6 (short abstract and paper registration), July 13 (full submission).

The symposium will take place on January 16-19, 2017, in Barcelona, Spain.

For now, you can visit http://cs.brown.edu/~pnk/#soda17 for the basic information (deadlines, submission site, and program committee).

David Johnson

I was sad to learn that David Johnson passed away.  David was a leader in the theoretical computer science community for decades, both in his research and in his dedicated service to the community.  He is a role model, and should continue to be, especially for those who believe that theoretical computer science has a large role to play in the scientific world. 

Lance has already written a post describing David's long, inspiring list of accomplishments.  I encourage you all to read it. 

Distinguished Service Award

Nominations are open for the SIGACT Distinguished Service Prize.

More information is available at the SIGACT web site.  

Here's the key info:

Nominations

Nominations can be made by any member of the Theory of Computing community and should contain a statement of no more than 500 words explaining why the candidate deserves the award. The nomination can also include an additional separate listing of service activities, additional support letters, and other supplemental material such as a pointer to the candidate's CV. The nomination must include the name, postal address, phone number, and e-mail address of the nominator. Nominations are to be submitted electronically in PDF format by April 1, 2016, to the chair of the selection committee, Lane A. Hemaspaandra, at lane@cs.rochester.edu. Please put "SIGACT Distinguished Service Award Nomination" in the subject line.

Graduating Bits Announcement

Boaz asked me to remind people about ITCS, and in particular the Graduating Bits Event.  Just in time for those of us reading application folders....

ITCS 2016 will be held at MIT this year Jan 14-16. As in past years, we will hold a "graduating bits" event where students and postdocs that looking for positions can give a short presentation about themselves and their work. This can be a great way to let people know what you've been up to. See http://www.boazbarak.org/itcs16bits/ for more details. 

If you are interested in participating, please send Boaz Barak ( b@boazbarak.org )  an email with the subject "Graduating bits" and the following information:

1) Name, Affiliation, status (student/postdoc)

2) Photo of yourself (web quality - no huge files please).

3) A short paragraph (3-4 sentences) about yourself and your research.

4) Homepage URL

5) Your presentation - 4 slides in PDF format, of which the first slide should be a title slide.

There is no deadline per se, but the presentations will be scheduled in the order of submissions so it’s “first comes first served”. I will also maintain a website with the photos and slides of all presenters, which should be a useful resource for anyone looking to hire theoretical computer scientists this year.

Yes, We Have Postdocs This Year

The Harvard Theory of Computation group has postdocs.  This year, besides our usual general call for postdocs, we are also inaugurating the Michael O. Rabin Postdoctoral Fellowship in Theoretical Computer Science.  This new fellowship has its own independent funding, so that researchers can do whatever they want, working with whomever they want, once they get here. 

Oh, there's also our postdocs at Harvard's Center for Research on Computation and Society, and Harvard's Center of Mathematical Sciences and Applications also. 

Please apply!

Yes, We're Hiring This Year

Harvard's CS search ad is apparently up and out.  We're eagerly awaiting applications....

https://academicpositions.harvard.edu/postings/6497

The Harvard John A. Paulson School of Engineering and Applied Sciences
seeks applicants for a position at the tenure-track level in Computer
Science, with an expected start date of July 1, 2016.

This is a broad faculty search and we welcome applicants in all areas
of computer science, including applicants whose research and interests
connect to such areas as engineering, medicine, and the social
sciences. We are particularly interested in candidates working in the
broad areas of machine learning, human-computer interaction,
programming languages, and systems (including networking,
architecture, and databases).

The Computer Science program at Harvard University is experiencing a
period of strong growth and expansion following an extraordinary gift
in support of new faculty from alumnus and former Microsoft CEO Steve
Ballmer, ‘77, and the largest gift in the University’s history,
received from John A. Paulson, M.B.A. ’80, in support of SEAS.

Computer Science at Harvard benefits from outstanding undergraduate
and graduate students, world-leading faculty, an excellent location,
significant industrial collaboration, and substantial support from the
Harvard Paulson School. Information about Harvard’s current faculty,
research, and educational programs in computer science is available at
http://www.seas.harvard.edu/computer-science. The associated Institute
for Applied Computational Science (http://iacs.seas.harvard.edu)
fosters connections among computer science, applied math, data
science, and various domain sciences at Harvard through its graduate
programs and events.

Candidates are required to have a doctorate or terminal degree by the
expected start date. In addition, we seek candidates who have a strong
research record and a commitment to undergraduate teaching and
graduate training.

Required application documents include a cover letter, cv, a statement
of research interests, a teaching statement, and up to three
representative papers. Candidates are also required to submit the
names and contact information for at least three and up to five
references, and the application is complete only when three letters
have been submitted. We encourage candidates to apply by December 15,
2015, but will continue to review applications until the position is
filled. Applicants will apply on-line at
https://academicpositions.harvard.edu/postings/6497

We are an equal opportunity employer and all qualified applicants will
receive consideration for employment without regard to race, color,
religion, sex, sexual orientation, gender identity, national origin,
disability status, protected veteran status, or any other
characteristic protected by law.

This Year's Andreessen-Horowitz Meeting

Andreessen Horowitz had another Academic Roundtable, which I've written about in previous years (here, here). 

For me, the most exciting session was on Virtual and Augmented Reality (VR/AR).  It made me sit up and take notice. 

Matthew Turk started with an introduction, likening augmented reality systems to giving people superpowers.  Then he discusses his Augmented Reality system for remote communication.  Imagine something wrong with your car;  you call up a repairperson with your phone.  Instead of just sending video, your phone also sends information building up a 3-D model of what's being viewed.  So the repairperson can manipulate that 3-D model, essentially poking around the car looking at things independently, and then sending you annotated information (like "flip this switch", and circling the switch in an image from the model).  It looked pretty useful.

Steven Seitz then talked about Google's Jump and Cardboard projects.  Jump is a relatively cheap circular camera system that lets you take 360 degree "surround-sound" type video.  Cardboard let's you take your phone, put it in an Viewmaster style cardboard box, and view these 360 degree videos.  I got to try it, and it's amazing;  you really feel like you're in the middle of a scene.  It's "immersive", which appears to the one of the buzzwords for VR/AR experiences.  A scene when you're in barn surrounded by horses in their stalls really had the feel of being in a barn surrounded by horses.  You have to be careful -- you tend to turn and walk a bit as you're in the scene, which can be a recipe for trouble (like walking into a pool with your cell phone).   I didn't realize how "soon" this type of VR experience will be mainstream.

Derek Belch of STRIVR talked about his company, which is bringing virtual reality systems to sports training.  So the quarterback can practice passing plays, getting the mental training without having to have a team physically out on the field.  Besides showing off their innovative system, he talked about building a company in this space. 

There were some other great talks -- several others, but to name just a couple, Michael Jordan of Berkeley talked about the theory of combining differential privacy with statistical inference, and Jason Mars of the University of Michigan talked about Sirius, their open-source intelligent personal assistant  

The meeting always makes the whole startup idea seem very exciting.  However, during Marc Andreessen's fireside chat session (no actual fire), they said the dominant failure case for failed startups coming out of universities is where a professor starts a company on an interim basis, and tries to hand it off to others.  There is no substitute for the "core team" being full time devoted to the startup.  (The "core team" doesn't have to include the professor, it could be students, of course.)   

The fireside chat also talked about CS education, and what it meant that CS was becoming mainstream.  How do we design a more open CS education, so people know enough to use and develop/create things on computers without being "computer scientists"?  How should we think of movements like the recent activity in New York, where Mayor de Blasio has said that all the city's public schools will be required to offer computer science to all of their students? 

Overall, again, I'm glad I had the chance to go.

[Note:  Andreessen-Horowitz doesn't pay me anything, or even suggest I blog about their meeting.  But they do pay for expenses for people they invite.]  

One Lecture Down....

CS125, the "new", "honors-ish" Algorithms and Complexity course, got off to a good start today.  The room was full with not enough seats for people, the students asked good questions and responded well to questions asked, and we got through the amount of material I expected.  It's year 2 of the class, which is easier than year 1 in some ways (lots of material prepared), and possibly harder in others (some thinking about what needs to be tweaked or fixed from year 1).  We'll see how things shake out next week, but I'm expecting we'll be in the 30-40 student range, like last year.  I can never tell if I managed to scare students off or make them want to take it.  (The challenge is that I want to do both;  scare off people without sufficient background, but interest students who do but might not realize it and might not even be Computer Science majors.)  Pleasantly, I felt very excited during and after the lecture, and will try to hold on to that positive energy.  

In other, much much stranger news, Harvard's CS50 appears to have a "backlash" movement, as described in today's Crimson article.  Apparently, according to some, there's intense "social pressure" to take CS50, and students need to be told that it's OK not to take the class.  I find this quite odd and, from my vantage point, misguided.  (Of course, I'm not a college freshman.)  I can't recall any such organized movement against Economics 10 at Harvard, which has been for decades now the most popular class at Harvard, although even when I was a student there was something one could potentially call cult-like about it.  (Cult of Wall Street....)  But that didn't mean people complained;  if you didn't want to take the class, you didn't, not really a thing.  Sure, the CS department here has been actively trying to attract students for decades -- CS50 was a good-sized class even before David Malan took over -- and David has just been very successful at it, with a combination of organization, interesting material, vision, and, yes, good marketing.  Naturally, here in CS, we believe that in our idealized world nearly all undergraduates would have a CS course as part of their liberal arts education, and we provide several other entry courses besides CS50.  I was initially thinking the movement described in the article was just a joke, and maybe I'm being April Fooled, but I'm not sure where those responsible are coming from.

And speaking of bringing in students to CS, Ben Golub and Yaron Singer are doing a new Econ-CS class at Harvard (counts for either;  also good for Applied Math majors) simply entitled Networks.  I'm a bit jealous -- this is a class I've thought about teaching also, but was busy and happy teaching algorithms -- but hopefully now that they've started it up it means I'll get a chance to teach it some year(s) down the line.

More insight into whether our enrollment numbers are still rising (is that still possible?) next week...

 

CACM Viewpoints on Theory and Experiments

There's a fun pair of viewpoints in the September CACM by Jeffrey Ullman and myself on experiments in computer science research, with him addressing systems conferences(/people) being far too focused on experiments as the research validation methodology, and me addressing theory conferences(/people) being almost strangely averse to experimental results.  (This link may bring you a digital version of his viewpoint, and this link to mine.)  I hope they might be interesting reading or food for thought.  As someone who works in both camps, I find this separation -- which we both seem to think is growing -- worrisome for the future of the CS research community.   

We actually wrote these up about a year ago (or maybe longer).  Jeff wrote something on the topic on Google+, and I responded.  I think he got drafted into writing something for CACM, and then I got drafted in later.  There was a pretty thorough reviewing process, with a couple of back and forth rounds;  then there was a non-trivial wait for publication.  This seems OK to me -- I'm glad CACM has a non-trivial queue of items for publication.  Overall it was a thorough and reasonably pleasant publication experience, and it's appealing that CACM offers a platform for these types of editorial comments.

SIGACT Meeting, Some Stuff

As some of you know, I was recently elected to the position of SIGACT (ACM Special Interest Group on Algorithms and Computation Theory) Chair.  So some part of this blog will be devoted to issues related to SIGACT for the next few years.  Comments and opinions are, naturally, extremely welcome.  

I'm on the train back from an orientation meeting for new chairs, and the SIG Board meeting.  Here are some things mostly from the orientation meeting, in a semi-random order.

1)  For people who have issues with ACM publication practices, some news.  First, they've moved to a model where conferences can maintain links to papers so that they are freely accessible.  STOC is/will be doing this, for example, so there will be a "permanent" STOC conference page each year with links to the STOC papers.  Similarly, authors can generate an "Author-izer" link for their web page giving people access to each of their ACM papers.  (I think there is a limit there of one such link per author.)  In any case, making publications more freely accessible is an issue ACM is dealing with, and the direction appears quite positive.

2)  There's other publication issues being considered, including whether/how conference papers can be published as journal articles in computer science (what should be the conference-journal relationship?), and some other forward thinking about publication models.  [There will be editorial and some viewpoints in the September CACM issue.]

3)  On the more mundane side, ACM is re-doing its website.  There is a preview at preview.acm.org , and they are desirous of feedback.  (On most browsers, there should be a feedback link over on the right hand side of the page.)

4)  The ACM is starting to do book series.  You can get more information at books.acm.org , and they are looking for authors.

5)  The ACM has a student research competition (beyond the CRA stuff) -- information at src.acm.org .  We may look to see if we can incorporate this into STOC (or another theory conference).

6)  For those interested in logic and computation, or formal methods in computer science (broadly defined), you may be interested in (and not yet have heard about) SIGLOG (The ACM Special Interest Group on Logic and Computation), which formally came into being about a year ago.  Please consider joining.  

There was plenty of other stuff, but it was primarily administrative information that would bore you.

The High Cost of Conferences

At some point, I'm convinced the "conference structure" is going to fall apart.

Case in point -- I haven't bought my tickets yet for SIGCOMM because, unless I'm missing something, a schedule isn't up yet, and unfortunately, because ACM has scheduled a SIG chair meeting overlapping with SIGCOMM (which I don't understand also, but perhaps beside the point), I want to see what's going on when at the conference to plan my timing.   

6+ weeks out, round trip tickets from Boston to London are over $2500 on nonstop economy flights.  And those don't seem to be on US carriers;  since I have to stop back through New York for this other meeting, and I need to find a US carrier (or figure out if this is a case where it's an exception to what is the currently believed NSF policy), tickets look to be well over $3000.  Then there's registration, hotel, etc. 

At some point, this becomes unsustainable, I think.

SoCG Proceedings

The 31st International Symposium on Computational Geometry has its proceedings available online here.

I point this out because the SoCG proceedings were managed by LIPIcs, the Leibniz International Proceedings in Informatics.  I've been on the editorial board for LIPIcs for several years.  The goal was to establish an open but professional publication mechanism that would be affordable in comparison to what was being offered by standard publishing programs.  From the announcement in 2009:

Schloss Dagstuhl Leibniz Center for Informatics (LCI) establishes a new series of conference proceedings called Leibniz International Proceedings in Informatics (LIPIcs). The objective of this series is to publish the proceedings of high-quality conferences in all fields of computer science, and LCI institutes an Editorial Board to oversee the selection of the conferences to be included in this series.

The proceedings in the LIPIcs series will be published electronically and will be accessible freely and universally on the internet, keeping the copyrights of the authors, and under an open access license guaranteeing free dissemination. To face the cost of electronic publication, a one-time fee will be required from the conference organizers. This fee will be kept to a minimum, thought to cover the costs of LCI, thanks in particular to a sharing of the workload between LCI and the conference organizers. 

LIPIcs has been, I think, growing in visibility and success, in terms of attracting more conferences.  If you're looking for a different approach to publishing proceedings for your conference that seems more in line with what many I've heard want from their conference proceedings, I encourage you to take a look.  It may not be for everyone, but we expect it may be useful for more conferences than are currently using it.  

More Good News for SEAS

About six months ago, I was able to point to a nice gift from Steve Ballmer for Computer Science at Harvard.  Today, more good news, this time for all of the Harvard School of Engineering and Applied Sciences:  a $400 million gift from John Paulson, which (at least for now) is the largest donation to Harvard in its history. 

Not surprisingly, there's extensive new coverage, starting with the Harvard Gazette, the Harvard Crimson, and the New York Times.

While I'm not aware of the details of the effects on our budget, it's clearly great for us long-term, and will help us continue to innovate and grow.   

Also, for those interested, a recent Q&A with Harry Lewis from the Crimson, who's been acting as Interim Dean for SEAS.