Newsgroups: comp.robotics
Path: brunix!sgiblab!swrinde!cs.utexas.edu!howland.reston.ans.net!europa.eng.gtefsd.com!fs7.ece.cmu.edu!honeydew.srv.cs.cmu.edu!crabapple.srv.cs.cmu.edu!jbates
From: jbates+@WIZARD.OZ.CS.CMU.EDU (Joseph Bates)
Subject: CFP: papers on Arts and Entertainment for AAAI-94
Message-ID: <CHp1H8.37J.1@cs.cmu.edu>
Originator: jbates@WIZARD.OZ.CS.CMU.EDU
Sender: news@cs.cmu.edu (Usenet News System)
Nntp-Posting-Host: wizard.oz.cs.cmu.edu
Organization: School of Computer Science, Carnegie Mellon
Date: Wed, 8 Dec 1993 01:58:17 GMT
Lines: 162

The American Association for Artificial Intelligence has decided
that the 1994 National AI conference should be different than it
sometimes has been perceived in recent years.  AAAI-94 is intended
to emphasize new, exciting, innovative, and controversial research.
The reviewing process has been changed significantly to recognize
this broader spectrum of research.

One aspect of this change is the welcoming of technical papers
on AI, the Arts, and Entertainment.  I will oversee reviews of
papers in this area, and I would like to encourage those of you
working on this and related themes to submit papers to AAAI-94.

The area is potentially broad, and includes basic and applied
study of AI and related technologies (such as artificial life,
neural networks, robotics, and genetic algorithms) in areas such
as:
 - Film and video production
 - Computer graphics and animation
 - Interactive art (in any medium)
 - Interactive fiction and role playing games
 - Simulated worlds, virtual reality, video games
 - Autonomous agents
 - Believable interactive characters
 - Music, sound, and speech
 - Drama and story-telling
 - Robotics, animatronics, toys
 - Theme park applications

The Program Co-Chairs note:

   Whether or not this restores the atmosphere of excitement,
   innovation, controversy, and intellectual engagement we want
   at our conference depends on one crucial variable: YOU.  We
   can accept only papers that are submitted.  So, please submit
   your most important, exciting, interesting, innovative, or 
   controversial papers to the AAAI-94 conference.

I believe this is a rare opportunity.  I hope you will encourage
your colleagues and students to view AAAI-94 in this way, and to
submit an exciting paper in the area of AI, Arts, and Entertainment.

The deadline for submission is January 24.  The detailed Call for
Participation is in the Fall 1993 AI Magazine (page 13).  You may 
also receive information by sending email to NCAI@aaai.org.

Sincerely,
Joseph Bates
School of Computer Science
  and College of Fine Arts
Carnegie Mellon University


:::::::::::::::
The following is reprinted from the Member's Forum of the Fall 1993
issue of AI Magazine.  It describes the review process for AAAI-94,
for those of you who might be interested.


In recent years, there has been increasing concern in the AI community
that the National Conference has become too specialized, that it
focuses narrowly on incremental results of mature research in
particular paradigms, and that it no longer represents the true
diversity of AI research.  Causes of the present situation and
possible responses have produced lively debate at recent Conference
Program Committee meetings, at AAAI Council meetings, and in the AI
Magazine Member's Forum. Some colleagues feel that the conference is
doing a good job upholding high standards for accepted papers;
expanding the conference implies lowering standards. Others feel that
the present standards are high, but also biased toward particular
research paradigms; expanding the conference implies expanding
review criteria, not lowering standards. Some colleagues feel that
a highly selective conference allows researchers to produce
prestigious publications that advance their careers. Others feel that
this function is better served by journals, while the conference
should provide a forum for communication and interaction among a
larger number of researchers. Despite these differences, there is a
growing consensus that the conference has become too conservative and
too exclusive.  It has lost the atmosphere of excitement, innovation,
controversy, and intellectual engagement that characterized earlier
AAAI conferences and, more importantly, that continues to characterize
AI research.

As Program Co-Chairs of the 1994 Conference, we are responding
directly to popular demand for revitalization of the conference. Our
strategy is to expand active participation in the conference to
include a more representative cross-section of the AI community and
its research activities. As indicated in the 1994 Call for Papers (in
this issue of the AI Magazine), we invite submission of papers that:
"describe theoretical, empirical, or experimental results; represent
areas of AI that may have been under-represented in recent
conferences; present promising new research concepts, techniques, or
perspectives; or discuss issues that cross traditional
sub-disciplinary boundaries." We are introducing a new Student
Abstract and Poster session so that pre-PhD students can present their
work in its early stages to their peers and to more senior
researchers. We have expanded review criteria for the technical
program, effectively increasing the number of ways in which a
submitted paper can qualify for acceptance. Most importantly, we have
revised the review procedure to encourage acceptance of a larger
number and broader range of papers, as discussed below. (This
procedure supersedes the one described in the preliminary Call
distributed at AAAI-93.)

1. Each paper will be assigned to three reviewers and a supervising
area chair. Assignments will be based on individuals' prior
identification of papers they are qualified to evaluate (based on
papers' titles, content areas, and electronic abstracts), corrected
for conflicts of interest, and blind to authors' names and
institutions. In the past, each paper received two reviews and, if
necessary, a third tie-breaker. Including a third reviewer and a
supervising area chair will reduce error in the review process and
give a paper two extra chances to get a positive evaluation. Since
positive reviews will carry more weight than negative reviews in the
decision process, this will increase a paper's chance of acceptance.

2. A paper's three reviewers will review it independently. When all of
the reviews have been submitted, they will be redistributed to all
three reviewers and the paper's area chair. The reviewers will then
discuss the paper by electronic mail or telephone and inform the area
chair of any changes in their reviews. However, they are not obliged
to reach consensus and will be instructed to maintain honestly held
evaluations regardless of other reviewers' opinions.  This protocol is
intended to support productive discussion of a paper, while protecting
its positive reviews from the negative biases of group decision
processes.

3. The area chair will review a paper's three reviews and recommend
acceptance or rejection. If two or three reviewers favor acceptance,
the area chair will recommend acceptance. If only one reviewer
favors acceptance, the area chair can still recommend acceptance if,
for example, the area chair: agrees with the positive reviewer, thinks
the positive reviewer makes a good case for acceptance, thinks the
disagreement among reviewers reflects a disagreement in the field, or
thinks the paper would promote interesting discussion in the field.
Area chairs, who will be selected for broad perspective and
open-mindedness as well as for area-specific expertise, will
be encouraged to recommend acceptance of these papers.

4. Area chairs will meet as a group in March, 1994 to discuss all
papers submitted to the conference.  Individuals will defend their
accept/reject recommendations for papers they supervise, with
appropriate adjustments made following group discussion. Area chairs
will work together to insure that we achieve our goal of expanding
conference participation and that we do so in a manner that is
consistent across different sub-disciplines of AI. Final decisions on
all papers rest with the Program Co-Chairs.

The revised review procedure departs significantly from the procedure
employed during the last several years. We think the changes are
warranted by the community's growing demand for a more inclusive and
varied conference and by the failure of previous subtler efforts to
meet this objective. With the revised procedure, we are committed to
accepting more papers and a greater variety of papers for the 1994
conference. Whether or not this restores the "atmosphere of
excitement, innovation, controversy, and intellectual engagement" we
want at our conference depends on one crucial variable: YOU. We can
accept only papers that are submitted.  So, please submit your most
important, exciting, interesting, innovative, or controversial papers
to the AAAI94 conference.

Barbara Hayes-Roth (Stanford)
Richard Korf (UCLA)
