11th Annual (2014) "Humies" Awards for Human-Competitive Results Produced by Genetic and Evolutionary Computation

Humies winners!

Gold award

Omid E. David, H. Jaap van den Herik, Moshe Koppel, and Nathan S. Netanyahu Genetic Algorithms for Evolving Computer Chess Programs

Silver award

Justyna Petke, Mark Harman, William B. Langdon, and Westley Weimer
Using Genetic Improvement and Code Transplants to Specialize a C++ Program to a Problem Class

Bronze award

Radek Hrbáček and Vaclav Dvorak
Bent Function Synthesis by Means of Cartesian Genetic Programming

 

www.human-competitive.org

To be held at the 2014 ACM Genetic and Evolutionary Computation Conference (GECCO 2014), July 12-16, 2014, Vancouver, BC, Canada.

Entries are hereby solicited for awards totaling $10,000 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 the deadline for the previous competition and the deadline for the current competition.

The competition will be held as part of the 2014 Genetic and Evolutionary Computation (GECCO) conference. Presentations of entries will be made at the conference. The awards and prizes will be announced and presented during the conference.

Important Dates:

Monday June 2, 2014

Deadline for entries (consisting of one TEXT file and one or more PDF files).
Send entries to
.

Thursday July 3, 2014

Finalists must submit their presentation (e.g., PowerPoint, PDF) for posting on the competition web site.
Send presentations to
.

July 12-16, 2014 (Sat-Wed)

GECCO conference.

Monday July 14, 2014

Presentations before judging committee at public session of the GECCO conference.

Wednesday July 16, 2014

Announcement of awards at plenary session of the GECCO conference.


If you plan to make an entry for this competition, please check the web site at www.human-competitive.org for updated information prior to submitting your entry. If you make an entry, please re-check this web site periodically prior to the conference for additional (and possible changing) information and instructions.

Judging Committee
  1. Erik Goodman
  2. Una-May O'Reilly
  3. Wolfgang Banzhaf
  4. Darrell Whitley
  5. Lee Spector

Call for Entries
Techniques of genetic and evolutionary computation are being increasingly applied to difficult real-world problems -- often yielding results that are not merely academically interesting, but competitive with the work done by creative and inventive humans. Starting at the Genetic and Evolutionary Computation Conference (GECCO) in 2004, cash prizes have been awarded for human-competitive results that had been produced by some form of genetic and evolutionary computation in the previous year.

This prize competition is based on published results. The publication may be a paper at the GECCO conference (i.e., regular paper, poster paper, or any other full-length paper), a paper published anywhere in the open literature (e.g., another conference, journal, technical report, thesis, book chapter, book), 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 without any further changes). The publication may not be an intermediate or draft version that is still subject to change or revision by the authors or editors. The publication must meet the usual standards of a scientific publication in that it must clearly describe a problem, the methods used to address the problem, the results obtained, and sufficient information about how the work was done in order 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 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 satisfy an "arms length" standard -- not a yardstick based on the opinion of the author, the author's own institution (educational or corporate), or the author's own 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 previously patented invention, constitutes a patentable new 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 each of the foregoing examples, the standard for human-competitiveness is being established external to the author, the author's own institution, or the author's close associates. It is also conceivable to rely only on criterion G ("The result solves a problem of indisputable difficulty in its field"); however, if only criterion G is claimed, there must be a clear and convincing argument that the problem's "difficulty" is indeed "indisputable."

The competition will be held as part of the annual Genetic and Evolutionary Computation (GECCO) conference. Presentations of entries are to be made at the conference. The awards and prizes will be announced at the conference.

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 one or more of 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. Prizes are paid by check in U.S. dollars.

For more information, visit www.human-competitive.org.

 

 

 
Important Dates
Judging Committee
Call for Entries
 
 
 
GECCO 2013 site   GECCO 2012 site      GECCO 2011 site    GECCO 2010 site    GECCO 2009 site   GECCO 2008 site   
    GECCO 2007 site     GECCO 2006 site    GECCO 2005 site        GECCO 2004 site    GECCO 2003 site  
     GECCO 2002 site      GECCO 2001 site      GECCO 2000 site      GECCO 1999 site