tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6555947.post108844635690665391..comments2014-01-12T10:46:48.153-07:00Comments on The Geomblog: On gaming program committeesSuresh Venkatasubramaniannoreply@blogger.comBlogger8125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6555947.post-1088770433473611552004-07-02T06:13:00.000-06:002004-07-02T06:13:00.000-06:00Of course, I won't deny that proofs have value bes...Of course, I won't deny that proofs have value besides being a certificate to the truth of the proven statement. What I wanted to say is only that for the purpose of reviewing a paper for a conference, these extra values should be considered secondary, and the primary emphasis should be on the results themselves, not the proofs.Janhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/01545309650727802288noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6555947.post-1088520061892429112004-06-29T08:41:00.000-06:002004-06-29T08:41:00.000-06:00I can't say I agree with what Jan argues: a proof ...I can't say I agree with what Jan argues: a proof is not just a means to an end: it often provides new ideas to add to one's toolkit. We need go no further than Erdos's "book proofs" to appreciate this idea....Sureshhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/15898357513326041822noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6555947.post-108851521133703412004-06-29T07:20:00.000-06:002004-06-29T07:20:00.000-06:00I think not even the criterion in the comment abov...I think not even the criterion in the comment above is always fair: even if the proof can be rediscovered by the reviewer in short time, it might have taken a year of research to discover the right, true statement to prove, and only given that it is easy to find a proof. <br /><br />IMHO reviewers should primarily judge the results, whether they're interesting, new, unexpected, useful etc. etc., and the proofs should just be viewed as means to an end, to certify the truth of the proven statement. From this point of view, which unfortunately is not taken by large parts of the theory community, the simpler a proof is, the better (given, obviously, that the result is of value by itself.)Janhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/01545309650727802288noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6555947.post-1088485492486135282004-06-28T23:04:00.000-06:002004-06-28T23:04:00.000-06:00Could you be more specific about the "many other c...Could you be more specific about the "many other conferences" that give better feedback than theory? I just finished my reviews for OSDI, and while I believe I did a good job, I know that there are plenty of issues I may have missed or just not covered in enough detail. Maybe I haven't been around enough yet, or maybe both OSDI and theory conferences enough to see the differences. If there's a community that's doing much better, though, I'd like to hear about it.<br /><br />-David MolnarAnonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6555947.post-1088472126573266802004-06-28T19:22:00.000-06:002004-06-28T19:22:00.000-06:00ok fair enough. clearly if a new problem has what ...ok fair enough. clearly if a new problem has what appears to be a simple proof, one has the right to question the value of the result IF there are no other mitigating factors (the problem itself is interesting, has applications, etc etc).<br /><br />Of course this doesn't apply to the problem references in Lance's original post, since that paper got a best student paper award from FOCS.Sureshhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/15898357513326041822noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6555947.post-1088470052124695842004-06-28T18:47:00.000-06:002004-06-28T18:47:00.000-06:00Suresh, I don't think we are on the same page
as y...Suresh, I don't think we are on the same page<br />as you imply by "exactly". It is not the duration<br />of the time it took to obtain a simple proof that<br />matters. What matters is whether the problem in<br />question has been studied before by enough people<br />and whether there is an implied interest in the problem.<br />For something new or not well known problem a simple<br />solution might be viewed with caution which is not<br />necessarily a bad thing.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6555947.post-1088451666729430052004-06-28T13:41:00.000-06:002004-06-28T13:41:00.000-06:00exactly: consider the following two situations:
1...exactly: consider the following two situations:<br /><br />1. You have a trivial proof of a claim that took a year to discover<br />2. You have a trivial proof of a claim that took 5 minutes to discover<br /><br />The only way to distinguish between 1 and 2 is if the reviewer is able to prove the claim themselves. For a paper not in one's area, this is not easy. <br /><br />However, although our normative standards might prefer 1 to 2, it is not clear why this should be the case.Sureshhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/15898357513326041822noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6555947.post-1088451234117779652004-06-28T13:33:00.000-06:002004-06-28T13:33:00.000-06:00I don't think that simplicity in itself is viewed
...I don't think that simplicity in itself is viewed<br />negatively by program PCs. In fact if someone has<br />a simple proof/algorithm/result on a well studied<br />open problem it is definitely a plus. The flip side<br />is that if the problem studied is not known <br />to members of the PC or to the wider community of<br />reviewers it becomes difficult to judge. One has to<br />spend time thinking about the problem first to appreciate the difficulty of coming up with a simple<br />proof. Given the short review cycle of conferences,<br />very few people are going to think about the problem<br />by themselves.<br /><br />ChandraAnonymousnoreply@blogger.com