Return-Path: Received: from WIZARD.OZ.CS.CMU.EDU by A.GP.CS.CMU.EDU id ab12847; 5 Dec 93 22:00:40 EST Date: Sun, 5 Dec 93 21:46:15 EST From: Joseph.Bates@WIZARD.OZ.CS.CMU.EDU To: interactive-fiction@cs.cmu.edu Subject: CFP: papers on Arts and Entertainment for AAAI-94 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)