Reminder: paper submission deadline for AI'12

A reminder that the deadline for submitting papers to the 25th Australasian Joint Conference on Artificial Intelligence (AI) 2012 is 29 June, 2012. This conference will be held in Sydney, Australia, 4-7 December, 2012.

An experiment in open-source textbooks

I am thinking of writing a textbook. Actually, I'm working on three at the moment, one of which is a research monograph, but the one that it most relevant to this post is tentatively titled Intelligent Information Systems, and will cover neural networks, fuzzy systems and evolutionary algorithms at an undergraduate level. I also expect it would be useful for researchers from other disciplines who want to apply methods in computational intelligence to their own research, and to software engineers who want to solve real-world problems with computational intelligence.

In line with this post, I am seriously considering making Intelligent Information Systems available as an open-source textbook. But before I do, I need some encouragement. So I'm asking you, my dear readers, to encourage me. If you think you would assign an open-source textbook on this topic to a class, or that you would buy a self-published textbook, let me know in the comments. If you could see yourself contributing some other way, let me know, too.

It's up to you good folk to push me to do this!

Competition Call for IEEE CIS GOLDs and Students: Pitch your CI Research Idea and Win an iPad 2!!!

The following is cross-posted from the IEEE Computational Intelligence Society blog.

---

The CIS GOLD subcommittee is hosting a “Novel CI Research Idea Pitch” competition during the Student and GOLD reception at WCCI 2012 in Brisbane Australia.

Your Challenge: Design a one-page research proposal of your Computational Intelligence idea and get a chance to pitch your idea to a panel of CI experts and your peers using an “elevator pitch” (3 minute time limit). An “elevator pitch” is a short summary of a research idea. The research area must be “computational intelligence” and the participants must “sell” their idea to the judges to qualify for prizes. A panel of three CI experts will select 3 best pitches and the audience (your peers) will rank 1st, 2nd and 3rdwinner through secret ballot. Prizes will include 1 iPad for 1st winner, certificates and free full year IEEE CIS memberships. Register now for a chance to be heard!

Submission Guidelines: Interested GOLDs and Students should consult the full Brief and Submission Guidelines by going to http://tinyurl.com/cp8kdw8. Registration and submission deadline is June 11th 2012, Midnight EST. (You can register for the competition without submitting the research summary).

Register Now (Space is Limited!): http://tinyurl.com/7tror22

Publishing and perishing under gameable metrics

My alma mater is in the New Zealand news again, and again it is to do with gaming the metrics by which the research performance of New Zealand tertiary institutions are measured. This time, the article describes how many staff with poor publishing records have been made redundant from the university (that is, they have lost their jobs) prior to the assessment later this year. While I have little sympathy for those in permanent lecturing positions who do not publish (see my previous comments here and here) in this case it seems like the staff who have lost their jobs are predominantly teaching staff, or staff who are still developing their research record (see this post from one who lost her job for the same reason some time ago). If that is the case, then I have to say that the university administration is making a mistake.

Teaching takes a lot of time and energy (my last semester teaching at Otago, I was in the office at least six days a week, and often worked from 7:30 in the morning to 9 or 10 at night). The purpose of having teaching-only staff is to take some of that load off of the lecturers so that they can do their research. Indeed, the major thrust of the article is that the redundancies are putting more stress on the remaining staff, as they are having to pick up extra teaching in addition to lifting their own research outputs. While the teaching load could in theory be reduced by hiring contract lecturers (who would not, as I understand it, be assessed) I have already posted on why this is a bad idea.

From my research with evolutionary algorithms, I know that optimising to one criteria or metric seldom results in optimal or robust systems. By optimising their staff to one (flawed and gameable) metric, the University of Otago is reducing the robustness of their institution. The long-term outcome of these redundancies is yet to be seen, but I do not think that it will be good for anyone concerned. Non-performers need to be removed, for sure, but early-career researchers need coaching and leadership to develop. They don't need the great big stick stick of the threat of redundancy waved at them (such threats are more often than not a sign of dysfunctional management, rather than a sign of competent leadership).

Ultimately, only those who set the metrics can resolve this situation. As long as a metric can be gamed, then institutions will game them. In the meantime, people will have their lives upended and their careers destroyed by narrow-minded administrators and cynical political operators who are trying to wring a few more points out of the system to make themselves look good.

The problem with academic journals: An update

 A brief update on the status of the Elsevier boycott (described here): to date, more than 11 000 academics have pledged to not review, submit or do editorial work for any Elsevier journals. My previous post has already described why I oppose such a boycott of a single publisher, and I expect that this boycott is going to cause some unanticipated consequences.

I suspect that this boycott explains why the papers I have under review in Ecological Modelling and Ecological Informatics are taking so long to go through the review process: it's hard enough finding reviewers as it is, and with people refusing to review for Elsevier, it's going to get even harder. That's not punishing Elsevier, that's punishing the researchers who are trying to get their work published and advance their careers.

As I said before, the way real change will come about is by the top researchers supporting open-access journals. At least one of the people who could do this has just done so: Winston Hide, an associate editor at the highly-ranked Elsevier journal Genomics has just resigned from the editorial board, with the avowed intention of focusing his energies on open-access alternatives. I can only hope that some of the top researchers in computational intelligence will do the same.

Call for papers: INNS-WC 2012

INNS-WC2012 – 2012 International Neural Network Society Winter Conference


Bangkok, Thailand, October 3-5, 2012

http://inns.sit.kmutt.ac.th/wc2012/

Important Dates

Paper submission deadline:                May 31, 2012
Notification of acceptance:                June 30, 2012
Camera-ready paper:                        July 31, 2012

The 3rd International Neural Network Society Winter Conference (INNS-WC2012) will be held in Bangkok, Thailand, on October 3-5, 2012. INNS-WC2012 aims to bring together scientists, practitioners, and students worldwide, to discuss the past, present, and future challenges and trends in the area of natural and machine intelligence. This event has been a bi-annual conference of the International Neural Network Society (INNS) to provide a forum for international researchers to exchange latest ideas and advances on neural networks and related discipline. INNS-WC2012 solicits contributions to the following tracks in natural and machine intelligence and related areas:

• INNS-WC general track: Trends in Natural and Machine Intelligence
• INNS Symposium on Nature Inspired Creativity (SoNIC2012)
• INNS Symposium on Vision and Image Processing (SoVIP2012)
• INNS Symposium on Data Analytics and Competitions (SoDAC2012)

Prospective authors are invited to submit original, high quality manuscripts of up to twelve (12) pages electronically. Short papers of 4-6 pages will also be considered. The submission must conform to the Elsevier Procedia Computer Science format. All accepted papers will be published in the proceedings of INNS-WC2012 as anElsevier Procedia Computer Science open access volume (indexed by EI, Scopus and Conference Proceedings Citation Index - formerly ISI Proceedings). Extended version of selected papers may be invited for publication in special issues of international journals after the conference. All submissions will be checked by VeriGuide for originality.

The range of topics for the general conference track on

"Trends in Natural and Machine Intelligence" includes but is not limited to

• Autonomous machine learning
• Neural network theory & models
• Computational neuroscience
• Cognitive models
• Brain-machine interfaces
• Embodied robotics
• Evolutionary neural systems
• Neurodynamics
• Neuroinformatics
• Neuroengineering
• Neural hardware
• Neural network applications
• Pattern recognition
• Machine vision
• Speech science and technology
• Collective intelligence
• Hybrid systems
• Self-aware systems
• Data mining
• Sensor networks
• Agent-based systems
• Computational biology
• Bioinformatics
• Artificial life

---

SoNIC2012

The range of topics for the INNS Symposium on Nature Inspired Creativity (SoNIC2012) includes but is not limited to

• Application of Nature Inspired Computing in Creative Industries:
• Creative computing for digital media
• Computer aided design
• Computer generated special effects for film
• Cartoon animation
• Games
• Music
• Edutainment, etc.
• Art and Cognition:
  • Art and the Brain
  • Creative process
  • Emotion and meaning in paintings, music, sculptures, poetry, etc.
• Generative Art:
  • Systems that create drawings, images, animations, sculptures, poetry, text, graphic designs, musical pieces, sound-fonts, sound effects, film music, etc.
• Aesthetic evaluation:
• Aesthetic analysis of film, image, music, sound, sculpture, etc.
  

---

SoVIP2012

The range of topics for the INNS Symposium on Vision and Image Processing (SoVIP2012) includes but is not limited to:

• Low-level image processing
• Feature extraction and image description
• Image classification and clustering
• 3D sensing and depth measuring systems
• 3D object modeling and reconstruction
• Tracking and surveillance
• Motion estimation
• Human gesture recognition
• Human motion analysis
• Human face detection and tracking
• Human-robot interactions
• Robot intelligence
• Humanoid and mobile robotics
• Video indexing and retrieval
• Intelligent compression of massive imaging data
• Bio-medical imaging applications
• Bio-robotics
• Biometrics

---

SoDAC2012

The range of topics for the INNS Symposium on Data Analytics and Competitions (SoDAC2012) includes but is not limited to:

• Business intelligence
• Air quality and environmental issues
• Chemo-informatics
• Social networks and analytics
• Speech prosody
• Geo-informatics
• Neuro-informatics
• Internet and web analytics
• Data visualization techniques
• Data quality analysis
• Decision support and analytics
• Knowledge management and discovery
• Advanced database analytics
• Content and information retrieval
• Modeling and simulation of complex systems
• Optimization techniques
• Bio-data analysis
• Complex scheduling problems
• Scalability of data analysis 
• Data competitions

---

Collocated Conferences

• The 3rd International Conference on Computational Systems-Biology and Bioinformatics (CSBio2012 - www.csbio.org)
• The 11th International Conference on Bioinformatics (InCoB2012 - www.incob2012.org)

IEEE CIS Facebook Photo Competition

The IEEE Computational Intelligence Society are running a photo competition on Facebook. See the flyer below to find out how to enter.

Reminder: paper submission deadline for CISE 2012

A reminder that the deadline for papers submitted to the 4th International Conference on Computational Intelligence and Software Engineering (CISE) 2012 is 11 June 2012. This conference will be held in Wuhan, China, December 14-16, 2012.

Call for papers: Fuzz-IEEE 2013

The deadline for submitting papers to the IEEE Conference on Fuzzy Systems (Fuzz-IEEE) 2013 is 5 January, 2013. This conference will be held in Hyderabad, India, 7-10 July, 2013.

Call for papers: IJCNN 2013

The deadline for submitting papers to the IEEE International Joint Conference on Neural Networks (IJCNN) 2013 is February 1, 2013. This conference will be held in Dallas, Texas, August 4-9, 2013.

Call for papers: CEC 2013

The deadline for submitting papers to the IEEE Congress on Evolutionary Computation (CEC) 2013 is February 15, 2013. This conference will be held in Cancun, Mexico, June 20-23, 2013.

Call for papers: EvoStar 2013

The paper submission deadline for EvoStar 2013 is 1 November, 2012. This conference will be held in Vienna, Austria, 3-5 April, 2013.

Deadline extension: UKCI 2012

The paper submission deadline for the 12th UK Annual Workshop on Computational Intelligence (UKCI) 2012  has been extended to May 31, 2012. This workshop will be held in Edinburgh, Scotland, UK, 5-7 September, 2012.

Reminder: conference paper deadline for NIPS 2012

A reminder that the deadline for submitting papers to Neural Information Processing Systems (NIPS) 2012 is 2 June 2012. This conference will be held at Lake Tahoe, Nevada, 3-6 December, 2012.

Reminder: submission deadline for ELM 2012

A reminder that the deadline for submitting papers to the International Symposium on Extreme Learning Machines (ELM) 2012 is 1 June, 2012. This symposium will be held in Singapore 11-13 December, 2012.

There's no un-gameable metric

I've been a bit quiet on the blog front lately, mostly because I've been working like a dog on several projects, including writing tools for ecological modelling, re-working some websites, and fulfilling my duties both as guest editor of my special issue of Evolving Systems on Applications of Evolving Connectionist Systems, and as vice-chair of the IEEE CIS Social Media Subcommittee. It was also school holidays the last two weeks here in South Australia, and I was able to spend some quality time with my little girl.

Never fear, I'm working on several new blog posts on a variety of topics, including: the relationship between computational intelligence and data mining; further thoughts on doing a PhD (a follow-up to this post); my thoughts on the value of a computational intelligence degree; and my thoughts on collaborating with other researchers. The topic of today's post, though, is assessing academics and universities.

My alma mater has been in the New Zealand news lately (see here and here) after the release of a report by accounting firm KPMG that suggests that Otago had gamed the New Zealand government research assessment process to give themselves a higher score than they were entitled to.

The Performance-Based Research Funding (PBRF) framework rates the research outputs of eligible staff and uses those ratings, along with metrics of institutional performance such as number of research degrees completed, to assign an overall score to the institution. Staff can be rated as R (research inactive - bad for this exercise), C (research active / good), B (very good) or A (world-class). The fewer R's and C's an institution has, and the more B's and A's, the better the institution's score. Something like 25-30% of an institution's income will be determined by this score. There is also the huge marketing advantage of an institution scoring highly in relation to the other universities: in the first PBRF round in 2004, Auckland University made a lot of the fact that their staff were, on average, ranked highest in the country, while Otago made a lot of the fact that they were ranked highest as an institution. This is despite the government of the day clearly saying that PBRF wasn't supposed to be used for such comparisons, or as a management tool.

Eagle-eyed readers may have noticed the term "eligible staff" earlier in the previous paragraph: it is this facet of the process that Otago is accused of gaming.

The accusation is that Otago inappropriately classified staff it knew would get low scores as ineligible for assessment, and thus artificially boosted its ranking compared to other New Zealand institutions. Otago is also accused of firing, or pushing into retirement, staff based on their anticipated PBRF score. The vice-chancellor denies these accusations, and the whole thing is turning into a "he said / she said" situation.

Did Otago really do this? I honestly don't know. I do know that when I was working at Otago in 2004 (the first PBRF assessment round), I was assessed fully, and fairly, even though it would have been pretty easy to classify me as ineligible for assessment. I don't think my score in PBRF at the time was particularly helpful to their overall ranking, but maybe it wasn't too harmful, either. My point is, this entire drama shows that there is no metric of academic performance, of an individual, an institution, or a publication, that can't be gamed. That is, there is no metric that can't be manipulated so that an individual, institution or publication gets a higher score than they otherwise would. Journals can boost their impact factor by asking authors to cite articles from within that publication (and I have had editors ask me to do this). Individuals can boost their h-index by auto-citations, or by organising a special issue and asking every author to cite a review article they have written. Institutions can raise their assessment by head-hunting the top-performers in their fields, or by hiding staff from assessment. Some might argue that it is only prudent to game metrics whenever possible: after all, the future employment prospects of an academic, or the future financial security (and, therefore, job security of staff of) an institution depends on getting a good score on whatever metric is being used. As long as no rules are being broken, and the questions are being answered honestly, what's the harm? If there is wiggle-room, or room for gaming of the metric, isn't it the assessor's fault for designing an inexact metric? Others might argue that adherence to the spirit of the assessment is more important, more fair, and that gaming should be avoided.

This all means that there is no one metric you can use to assess an academic. You have to look at the entire picture: you have to look at their publication count; where they have published; what fields they have published in; how much teaching they have done; their teaching assessments; the quality of their institution; and their service to their institution(s), to professional societies, and to the community. I hope that one day I will rate highly in all of those areas, but for now, don't judge me just by my h-index alone.

The future of universities

Or, why contract lecturers are probably a bad idea.

The last time I was job-hunting, I noticed a number of positions advertised as "sessional" or "contract" lecturers. These were positions where a person would present a few lectures a week for a certain course, for a fixed period of time, then leave the institution. In this article, the use of contract lecturers in American universities is described as a crisis, where quality of teaching is suffering and the highly-skilled educators end up severely under-paid. While administrators justify this as a way of cutting monetary costs, the educational costs are huge.

Firstly, contract lecturers are not available for struggling students. This is because they are seldom paid full-time, which makes it difficult to find time for out-of-class student consultation: people don't like to work for nothing.

Secondly, the fly-by-night nature of contract lecturers prevents them from forging bonds with cohorts of students: the students see them for one course, then never see them again. In other words, the contract lecturer has no motivation and little opportunity to see their students as anything other than faceless blobs that sit in the lectures absorbing information. This is not conducive to high-quality teaching.

This also makes it harder to recruit post-graduate students. I vividly remember the first time I was lectured by the man who would go on to be my PhD supervisor: I was a first-year undergraduate, sitting in a lecture theatre on a cold Dunedin evening, and he described a world of computational intelligence that I knew right then was a world I wanted to explore myself. I knew that if I worked hard in my first and second year courses, I would be able to do his third-year honours-track course, and if I did well in third-year, I could do his fourth-year honours course, and if I did well in that, I could do a PhD with him. If he had been a fly-by-night contract lecturer, would I have been as inspired? I probably would have skipped honours and gone into the workforce straight after third year. While that might have placed me in a slightly better financial position, my life would be much less rich than it is now.

While I don't have evidence for it, I suspect that contract lecturing does not overall attract the best teaching talent. Now, I'm not trying to denigrate contract lecturers, and I know several people who have worked as contract lecturers to support themselves while looking for post-docs, immediately after completing their PhDs. But as a highly-trained professional (which is what anyone with a PhD is) it is hard to justify taking a contract lecturer position if there are any other options available. I never even bothered applying for the contract lecturing positions I saw advertised, even though I was capable of doing them well, simply because it was not worth my while to shift myself and my family to do the job. If I were a single man, perhaps I could embrace the digital nomad lifestyle, and drift about doing contract lecturing here and there. But with a family to support, including a primary-school age daughter, it simply is not an option.

On the flip side, contract lecturing can provide a way for junior staff to get some experience lecturing. Also, technology is getting to the point where the lecturer no longer has to be in the same physical location as the class: the success of the Khan Academy and open courses (like the courses run by Sebastian Thrun) has shown that it is possible to have a class that is far away from the instructors. If the option to teach remotely were there, it might be easier to get top-talent as contract lecturers. I wouldn't mind being a contract lecturer if it meant I didn't have to relocate. That is, I wouldn't mind the job so much if I didn't have to move to do it. Of course, the alienation between lecturer and student that I discussed above could become even greater.

I think that the use of contract lecturers is probably going to increase, especially for first-year or general "service" courses, like for introductory programming or basic web development. But for more advanced under-graduate courses, or for post-graduate teaching, permanent staff are absolutely essential, due to the multi-year nature of post-graduate study. This also requires a level of specialisation that contract lecturers simply cannot develop: they are treated like interchangeable parts, which is no way to treat anyone, let alone someone who you expect to teach, and to inspire, students.