Archive for the ‘Conferences’ Category
Many computer science fields in France are organised in national, cross-institutional groupes de recherches, not completely unlike the ACM SIGs in the US. The TCS group (“Mathematical Informatics”) encompasses some 400-500 people, as far as I understand.
As in most of Europe, theoretical computer science in France includes many more fields more than US-style theory of computation. Amazingly, they meet once a year for two days, and give well-attended talks to each other. The 2012 meeting had 170 registrants, an impressive number.
This struck me as particularly noteworthy after just attending SODA, where the various subfields of algorithms become increasingly fragmented and estranged, to the point of hostility and mutual incomprehensibility.
At the Paris meeting, a steering committee selects a number speakers from the various working groups in the GDR IM, who give meaty, 45-minutes talks to a general TCS audience: Computational logic, computational geometry, distributed systems, process calculi, extremal graphs, ….
In addition, the meeting includes two 1-hour invited talks recruited outside of the French GdR. Ashwin Nayak talked about communication complexity, and I used to opportunity to present an overview of zeta transform algorithms and applications, culminating in our SODA 2012 result from last week. [slides]
Thanks to everybody who attended, and to the nice organisers for putting me into a disarmingly charming hotel in the middle of the Latin quarter, where you couldn’t swing a dead Marsipulami without hitting a comic store. I had a splendid time.
Based on my quick perusal of list of accepted papers [PDF], here’s a list of papers related to exponential time computation, together with references to online version — I’m probably missing some. Updates are welcome.
- Counting Perfect Matchings as Fast as Ryser [arxiv.org 1107.4466], by Andreas Björklund
- Fixed-Parameter Tractability of Directed Multiway Cut Parameterized by the Size of the Cutset, by Rajesh Chitnis, Mohammadtaghi Hajiaghayi and Dániel Marx
- Co-nondeterminism in compositions: A kernelization lower bound for a Ramsey-type problem [arxiv 1107.3704], by Stefan Kratsch
- Weak Compositions and Their Applications to Polynomial Lower-Bounds for Kernelization [ECCC 2011-072], by Danny Hermelin and Xi Wu
- Subexponential Parameterized Algorithm for Minimum Fill-in [arxiv 1104.2230] by Fedor V. Fomin and Yngve Villanger
- A Satisfiability Algorithm for AC0 [arxiv 1107.3127], by Russel Impagliazzo, William Matthews and Ramamohan Paturi
- Compression via Matroids: A Randomized Polynomial Kernel for Odd Cycle Transversal [arxiv 1107.3068] by Stefan Kratsch and Magnus Wahlström
- Fast zeta transforms for point lattices, by Andreas Björklund, Thore Husfeldt, Petteri Kaski, Mikko Koivisto, Jesper Nederlof and Pekka Parviainen
- Shortest Cycle Through Specified Elements [PDF], by Andreas Björklund, Thore Husfeldt and Nina Taslaman
- Kernelization of Packing Problems, by Holger Dell and Dániel Marx
- Linear Kernels for (Connected) Dominating Set on H-minor-free graphs [PDF], by Fedor V. Fomin, Daniel Lokshtanov, Saket Saurabh and Dimitrios Thilikos
- Bidimensionality and Geometric Graphs [arxiv 1107.2221], by Fedor V. Fomin, Daniel Lokshtanov and Saket Saurabh
An amazing number of kernelisation (and, I presume non-kernelisation) papers. And lots and lots of exciting papers in many other fields as well.
Usually I’m not a big fan of conference merchandise—university branded ball point pens, T-shirts, bags, notepads… But boy, did I change my mind after ICALP 2010!
I saw little reason to unpack the coffee mug we got at the registration desk, and stuffed it in the conference bag. As did everybody else, I think. Only when I came home did I realise that the cup rattled. Was it broken? Intrigued, I opened the box, only to find a piece of chalk! The mug was a blackboard! We could have spent every coffee break eagerly scribbling proofs on our mugs.
The Presburger Award was awarded for the first time in at the Bordeaux ICALP. The award goes to a young scientist, and the 2010 recipient is Mikolaj Bojanczyk from Warsaw for his work in automata theory, logic, and algebra.
The EATCS awards session at ICALP included this award and two more: The Gödel prize and the EATCS award. Each recipient gave a talk, and young Mikolaj faced the thankless task of appearing in a session with some of the best speakers in our field, Sanjeev Arora, Joe Mitchell, and Kurt Mehlhorn, who all gave splendid presentations.
Well, Mikolaj’s speech blew me away. Instead of explaining his research contributions, he devoted the talk to the life and work of fellow Varsovian Mojzesz Presburger (1904–1943).
Not only was this graceful, interesting, and moving, it was also extremely well presented. I say this as somebody who obsesses about presentations.
Mikolaj’s visual aids break the slides metaphor we are used to, no matter which medium—35 mm, overhead transparency, computer projector. You can see Mikolaj’s Presburger Award presentation at his website. Check out his other ICALP 2010 presentation as well: his “slides” pan and zoom about on a single, huge, dynamic canvas. I’ve tried to do something similar a few times, but this is better by orders of magnitude.
I’m at ICALP 2010 in sunny Bordeaux. I have been very busy working on two papers with colleagues who happen to attend ICALP as well, so I have missed a bunch of interesting talks on the first two days already.
I did, however, attend the business meeting, an event that combines various reports from ICALP committees with the general assembly of EATCS, the “European SIGACT.”
I normally enjoy business meetings, but ICALP business meetings are relatively stiff and mind-numbingly boring, with no discussion and no free beers. Still, let me give an incomplete and skewed summary of some of the issues that were mentioned.
EATCS views ICALP as its flagship conference, and ICALP has published with Springer’s LNCS proceedings series for many years – if DBLP is to be trusted, the proceedings from the 4th ICALP (Turku, Finland, 1977) appear as LNCS volume 52. Since a few years ago, Springer has started an LNCS subline called ARCoSS (Springer page about ARCoSS) “in cooperation with” EATCS and ETAPS. These have a nicer cover.
However, it has been unclear in which sense this publication model coincides with the current preferences of the members of EATCS. Just to mention an alternative, the STACS conference now publishes with the LIPIcs series, which is Open Access in the sense that they are available on line and free of charge.
Very commendably, and to my pleasant surprise, EATCS actually implemented a member poll in the Spring of 2010 to determine our opinions on open source publication models, and in particular the outlet for ICALP’s proceedings. The results are online ([poll results at EACTS website]), but for mysterious reasons only accessible to EATCS members. It’s fair to say that there is a large majority of members that would prefer another publication model. For example, only 10% want EATCS to “Publish the proceedings of ICALP as before in a traditional print publication?” To the question “What is the publication model for scientific papers in theoretical computer science that you would prefer to see gain prominence in the near future?”, 83% respond “Open access publication as for LMCS, LIPIcs and EPTCS”
EATCS chairman Burkhard Monien reported that the EATCS Council has now approached Springer about the ICALP proceedings. According to him, Springer has made substantially better offer “very close to open access. We have discussed this carefully in the council.”
I think this is good news. However, I am less than impressed about the speed with which the process will continue. According to Monien, the result of the May 2010 poll were not sufficiently conclusive, so “We’ll ask your opinion again.” This time, there will be mercilessly concrete choices about either (1) going with LIPIcs, or (2) staying with Springer, under specific (and, I assume, new) terms. Monien explained the EATCS council wants to get this right, ICALP is a big steamer, should not go in zig-zag course, and stick to its decisions. He was unsure if the next poll will be implemented in the Fall, but promised “beginning of next year, at the latest.” I’m not holding my breath.
Still, all in all I think this is splendid news, and I’m particularly happy to the the EATCS council involving its members in an important decision process.
ICALP 2010 Organization
The report from the ICALP 2010 organizers was the usual list of statistics. I have become increasingly interested in these details after arranging ALGO 2009 myself. In total, ICALP 2010 has 292 participants, including 55 locals (the latter strikes me as a high number). 200 of these are registrants for ICALP itself, rather than one of the affiliated workshops, 147 pay the full registration fee. Only 3 Swedes and 1 Dane are registered, I wonder which I am.
This ICALP is held in the conference facilities of a large, soul-less hotel in down-town Bordeaux. I’m not a big fan of this kind of conference, and the contrast in atmosphere to the locally organised SWAT I attended in June is enormous. There’s a small lobby to hang out in, with few chairs or tables (let alone blackboards), interaction between attendees is minimal, except for the cliques one is already in. Furthermore, ICALP provides no lunches, so people scatter into small groups and look for a place to eat. Pretty much like the large US conferences.
Also, the Friday banquet is included only for full participants, meaning that many students will not be able to get the 90 Euro dinner ticket reimbursed, and consequently won’t attend. In my experience, this decision is de rigeur for Southern European ICALPs, but I think it is fundamentally misguided. The food better be spectacular.
On the other hand, the proceedings are included in the registration, which is another mistake. Many people never even remove the shrink wrap anymore, paper proceedings are just ballast. Moreover, proceedings are easy to reimburse, even for those students who honestly prefer to pay for the privilege to read the absurdly formatted 12 page LNCS amputated paper rather than reading the full version on the web.
The budget for the whole event is slightly over 100,000€, and the organizer received 2,500 emails. Apparently, EATCS maintains some for of organizer’s manual for ICALP; I’d like to see that. (I have seen the ESA/ALGO manual.) These things should be on-line, and allow for feed-back.
The reports from ICALPs various programme committees included the usual absurd statistics, which were useless even by the low standards we are used to. The best paper award (Track A) went to Leslie Goldberg and Mark Jerrum’s result about about Approximating the partition function of the ferromagnetic Potts model. This is, of course, utterly splendid work. In total ICALP Track A received 229 submissions (6 were withdrawn) and accepted 60. Denmark submitted 3.33 papers, 1.17 accepted. Sweden submitted 1.83 and accepted 1.17. Again, I wonder which I am.
The programming for ICALP’s Track A has left me, and many others, completely puzzled, and looks as if it’s the result of a grep script based on paper titles. For example, ICALP had two strongly related results about Cuckoo hashing; but the results appeared in different sessions:
- Martin Dietzfelbinger, Andreas Goerdt, Michael Mitzenmacher, Andrea Montanari, Rasmus Pagh and Michael Rink’s Tight Thresholds for Cuckoo Hashing via XORSAT appeared in session 3 on “Sorting & hashing,” inconceivably scheduled in parallel with the session 3 on “Data structures”. These are the only sessions on data structures in a 5-day, 3-track conference! In parallel!
- Nikolaos Fountoulakis and Konstantinos Panagiotou’s Orientability of Random Hypergaphs and the Power of Multiple Choices appeared in session 5, “Graphs and hypergraphs.”
Michael Hoffmann presented the ICALP 2011 organisation in Zürich. icalp11.inf.ethz.ch . This seems to be an ICALP model closer to my preferences. The conference will be held in in university facilities, at something called CAB from late 19th century, with several large lecture rooms for workshops or parallel tracks, an even larger lecture hall, WLAN, and plenty of working space.
Also, there is no banquet, but rather a number of receptions with plenty of finger food and drinks. As an added benefit, registration fees are expected to be low. Of course, Zürich is “not among the cheapest places”, and prices are even higher than shown last year, because of the exchange rate between Swiss Franc and Euro, which shows high variance.
I will certainly attend, as I am one of the invited speakers. Apparently, I’m speaking on the 5th.
Artur Czumaj presented the plans for ICALP 2012, which (somewhat unusually) is already fixed two years in advance. The dates are July 9–13 2012 in Warwick, for the centenary of Alan Turing’s birth. Thus, ICALP is one of many events in the UK for the Alan Turing year, see the list of events. ICALP will be held on Warwick’s campus, including accommodation and lunches. Satellite events were said to include Wimbledon right before ICALP and the London Olympic games somewhat later.
Possibly this is the right time to start thinking about what we in the greater Copenhagen area (e.g., Sweden and Denmark, or all of Scandinavia) should be doing for the Turing year. Computer Science has far from the pop-sci clout that biology enjoys, but shouldn’t we be able to drum up at least one hundredth of the attention that Darwin got? Ideas are welcome.
For example SWAT 2012 is in the Turing year. We should start branding all our CS-related activities in 2012 as Turing-related, and hopefully concoct some more.
The SWAT conference dinner involved a boat trip to an island near Bergen, with a spectacular seafood dinner of Halibut and Wolffish. Also, initiated by Fedor Fomin, SWAT reverted back to its tradition of pressuring attendants to sing (partitioned into small groups by nationality or country of residence) after the main course. Again, the organisers managed to get the atmosphere exactly right.
- On Monday, Sanjeev Arora talked about semidefinite programming and approximation algorithms. A lot has happened in this field since what he called “first generation” SDP algorithms. Some of the most recent works concerns re-evaluatating the role played by the Unique Games Conjecture.
- On Tuesday, Prabhakar Raghavan, now at Yahoo! Research, talked about quantitative models for user behaviour. He spent some time on models for presenting search results (in particular, images) in two dimensions – which is much less obvious than the top-to-bottom ordering that web pages are presented in. (Left-to-right, row-by-row, is not the right answer for laying out pictures in a grid, because the eye doesn’t move like that.) He used this example to also communicate broader points about the interplay between quantitative sociology, cognitive psychology, and theoretical computer science. Great stuff, and highly interesting to me both because of the “algorithmic lens” propaganda, and because I sometimes give general audience talks about the computer science behind search engines, social networks, etc.
- On Wednesday, Dana Randall talked about phase transitions in sampling algorithms and underlying random structures. This was right in the middle of the interplay between statistical physics and theoretical computer science that I am currently fascinated by. The talk was an algorithms-friendly introduction filled with rapidly mixing Markov chains, crisp combinatorics, Ising and Potts models, and colloids (which I hadn’t seen before.)
I am attending SWAT in surprisingly sunny Bergen.
The biannual SWAT is the oldest European conference devoted to algorithms. (ICALP is a lot older, and STACS slighly, but both have a wider focus.) It rotates around the Scandinavian countries (with a single exception in 2006) and in 2010 Bergen is, again, the host.
Bergen has a large algorithms group with a bunch of postdocs and graduate students, and this makes a large difference for organising a successful conference. A lot of heart and energy has gone into this, and the atmosphere is absolutely splendid. Even the weather in Bergen seems to, so far, play along.
The Sunday evening reception was on a roof terrace, with live music, wine, and snacks. Several activities were arranged for Monday evening, and I was lucky to be among the handful of people who went sailing on a small sailing boat, late in the evening, under the Northern sun, with a view of beautiful Bergen and the surrounding coastline. Brilliant.
At the business meeting, Magnus Halldorson reported on the steering committee’s thoughts about SWAT. Four changes have been implemented at SWAT 2010:
- Name change. SWAT’s name is now “Scandinavian Symposium and Workshops on Algorithm Theory,” rather than “Scandinavian Workshop on Algorithms Theory.” The “workshop” monicker in the original name has been a recurring problem for SWAT attendants who tried to secure travel money, looks bad on CVs outside of our narrow community, and even made it difficult for previous local organisers to attract outside funding.
- Economy. SWAT registration fees are seldom cheap because of the high prices in Scandinavia, and Norway is currently extra expensive due to currency exchange rates. Still, the steering committee wants SWAT to remain economically viable for a large number of attendants. The local organisers managed to secure significant outside funding, so that registration fees only make up 30% of the total revenue. Most of the money came from the Norwegian Research Council and Bergen University.
- Time slot. SWAT 2010 takes place around Midsummer, rather than the traditional week “before ICALP,” typically the first week of July. I think the SWAT 2010 date makes a lot of sense, but it is unclear whether this will be a long term change. A show of hands from the attendants at the business meeting was slightly in favour of the earlier time slot.
- International conference. The steering committee made it clear that SWAT is an international conference with an international PC and no special attention paid to Scandinavian papers. (I note that this SWAT has a total of zero papers from Sweden and Finland.) Moreover, the programme committee and the organising committee are completely de-coupled.
I think these decisions represent a very welcome re-alignment of how SWAT views itself. The attendees of the business meeting seemed to be happy as well.
PC chair Haim Kaplan gave a short overview of the work of the programme committee. The most interesting point is that SWAT 2010 attracted 78 submissions this year, which is markedly less than for previous SWATs. This year, the SWAT submission deadline was before the notification of SOCG 2010 because of the June time slot, which may account for a decrease of the number of submissions in computational geometry, traditionally a thematic focus of SWAT.
A brief discussion was devoted to publication models for contributed SWAT papers; currently the conference is published in Springer’s LNCS series.
Petteri Kaski successfully invited SWAT 2012 to Helsinki.
This is part 3 in a series of 3 posts on ALGO 2009, largely repeating the organiser’s report from the business meeting. This is the least serious part.
One of the small details that I tried to micro-manage are name tags. For some reason, name tags at many conferences display the attendee’s name in very small letters, and leave most of the tag’s area either white, or taken up by the logo of the conference or venue. (Professional name tag designers typically optimise something else than ease of identification of the attendee. That’s their job, and they are good at it. But it’s not the job I want done.) ALGO had nice, legible name tags, and we also tried to double-check various diacritics.
One the other hand, the batch-driven production from a spreadsheet to the final tag messed up some affiliations, for reasons that remained a mystery. Incidentally, I don’t really understand the value of displaying the affiliation on the tag anyway, they seem to serve mostly as an ice-breaker for conversations. (Maybe we should put people’s hobbies on the tags instead.) From that perspective, a wrong affiliation works at least as well.
Closely related to the layout of the name tag are the mechanics of the badge holder. After obsessing over this for many years I have concluded that the pin–clip combo is the way to go, so that’s what we got. We even told people to not clip the badge to their trousers. It was perfect, nothing could go wrong, everything was prepared for the one conference where you wouldn’t have to squint or use x-ray vision to read the name of whats-his-name-I-think-we-met-at-ICALP-last-year.
Alas, it was not enough. A seemingly unrelated decision destroyed all my careful planning: We decided to hand out multi-ride ticket to the Copenhagen subway system, attached to ITU-branded key bands. (This was to prevent the tickets from being accidentally lost in the pile of written material we handed out to attendees.)
Driven by their desire to remain anonymous, and a perverse predilection for craftsmanship, many enterprising attendees carefully removed the ticket from the key band, and attached their name tag instead, thereby constructing the mothership of all that is evil about name badges: they dangled at belly button height, typically obscured behind tables or under jackets, and they swivelled around their single, ill-constructed joint, displaying the badge’s empty back side more often than the laws of probability theory predict.
Next time I’ll tatoo the name on people’s forehead.
The etiquette about open laptops during talks is very much unclear in the CS community. We politely asked people to avoid accessing the internet during sessions, and if so, to do it from the back row so as to annoy the speaker and the rest of the audience as little as possible. Several attendees told me they were happy about this decision; the auditoriums were certainly relatively free of open laptops. I remain uncertain about how to handle this – I can get a lot of work done while half-way listening to a talk, and the alternative is to stay out of the lecture room…
One thing I decided against, for fear of committing a social mistake, was to send instructions to the speakers about how we would have liked the talks at ALGO. Namely, more accessible.
Talk quality at our conferences is generally high: clear, readable, well-presented, entertaining. However, most of the speakers vastly overestimate the audience’s level of familiarity with the subject. This makes it very difficult to attend a presentation to learn something, in particular about a field in which you aren’t an expert already.
One of the problems is that talks are grouped into thematically related sessions. This seems to imply that everybody in the room is already an expert about “latest derandomisation tricks in quantum I/O kernelisation,” so why bother explaining the basics again? An earlier rumination of Michael Mitzenmacher about the STOC 2009 schedule already touched on the bold idea of mixing sessions at random. (But this may introduce more problems than it solves.)
The smaller events at ALGO, such as WAOA and IWPEC, are technically highly specialised workshops in the first place, pitched at an expert audience. So how do we turn this around? It would be great if ALGO attendees could “stay for IWPEC” to finally find out what “this FTP-stuff” is all about – but the atmosphere has the exact opposite effect. Similarly, I talked to a WAOA attendee who was frustrated about the O-part being largely incomprehensible. (The attendee was there for the A-part.) How do we solve this? Clearly, not every IWPEC talk can define treewidth again, but my ambition with ALGO was to reduce balkanisation, not contribute to it.
Many of the “too difficult” talks are given by students. There are a number of reasons for this – students assume that everybody knows what they do (I did), students need to demonstrate that they’re smart and did a difficult thing, some students lack the broad overview to be able to place their subfield into a broader ensemble, previous talks have been given only at departmental seminars, where everybody else is equally interested in derandomising quantum I/O kernelisation, etc. Maybe for this target audience, a “Here’s what we’d like your talk to be”-letter could have done a lot of good.
This is part 2 in a series of 3 posts on ALGO 2009, largely repeating the organiser’s report from the business meeting.
For some conference attendees, this has already become a drinking game: the part where the organiser entertains with useless statistics.
I have probably the best number ever: the total height of the ALGO attendees is 283m, discounting those that didn’t give us their measurements at registration. (We needed these to plan ALGO 2009’s social event, a short bicycle trip to Copenhagen city hall.)
Number of participants
More interestingly, in particular to later organisers of ALGO: the budget. When planning an event like this, the big open question is how many people will actually show up. Previous ALGO organisers were very helpful in giving us their numbers, but it’s hard to use them for prediction. Previous ALGOs hosted ESA, WAOA, and ATMOS, but in 2006 and 2008, ALGO also hosted WABI, the Workshop on Algorithms in Biology, which is a large conference. We did attract IWPEC to ALGO 2009 (two dozen talks), but it is unclear how many extra attendees this produces – ESA itself had several tracks of IWPECish presentations, so there is a lot of speaker overlap. In the end, we were able to match the Karlsruhe numbers, even without WABI, and without the large number of local attendees Karlsruhe presumably had.
Registrants by type
The number of attendees doesn’t give full information for the budget, because students pay far less. ALGO budgets over the last four years operate with the number 57% for the number of expected regular participants. At ALGO 2009, we had some 75 students, so the number of regular participants is in fact slighly above 60%. We tried to make student participation as attractive as possible, but it seems to be difficult to attend ALGO just for the event, without a paper. (Or is Copenhagen sufficiently attractive for the advisor, not the student, to attend?)
Length of stay
Another constant throughout the ALGO budgets from previous years is the assumption that an attendee stays for 3 days. (You need this to calculate the number of lunches.) We asked attendees at on-line registration to tell us their expected date of arrival and departure, and asked them to confirm these dates when they collected their name tags. If these numbers are to be trusted, more than half of the participants actually stayed for the full week; in particular, they gluttonously devoured all the food they actually paid for. This would be a huge success from the perspective of us wanting to organise a large, monolithic 5-day event. Of course, since we have to order all these lunches, there is very little wiggle room left in the budget.
Finally, the budget. For paying 180 participants, we budgeted with something like 500,000 Danish kroner, or roughly 65,000 euros. Most of the expenses are food. This includes lunches, coffee, breakfast, and some cakes during the day. After the business meeting on Monday, we provided snacks and drinks at ITU. The social event was a bicycle trip through Copenhagen, the main expense is renting some 200 bicycles. ITU provided the rooms for free, and most of the staff. (We had to find some help with registration.)
The only expense that could have been reduced is the invited speakers. First, ALGO had a lot. 7 invited speakers for an event with less than 200 registrants cost a lot of money per ticket. In even years, ESA “pays” for 2 invited speakers on the first three days, WABI gets the third. We decided to have 3 speakers on the first three days anyway, and 2 speakers per day for Tuesday and Friday, which hopefully transformed these days into very attractive experiences and made many people stay beyond ESA. Of course, all of this is expensive.
Should I do this again, I would probably be less generous. A possible model would be to let invited speakers pay for their own travel. (This is something that the speaker can easily find funding for anyway.) I understand that other conferences use that model, or at least put a cap on the travel reimbursement.
This is part 1 in a series of 3 posts on ALGO 2009, largely repeating the organiser’s report from the business meeting.
Here’s what the ALGO week looked like, from 7 September to 11 September 2009:
Without WABI, the ESA conference has the first three days to itself – an alternative would have been to give three full days to IWPEC and let it overlap, at least partially. Given the IWPEC submissions that might have been a better idea.
More critical is the situation before the conference proper, when all the various PCs have to coördinate their activities. It has been decided that ESA waits for ICALP’s decisions, so with Springer’s deadline for conference production, the available time slots are pretty tight. For the organiser this means that the deadline for early registration has to be pretty late, which makes it hard to produce a realistic final budget. Also, we were unable to hold hotel rooms longer than the first week of July, which was before WAOA’s notification. This turned out to be no problem, hotel rooms were still plentiful.
Still, all the PCs had to work under very tight conditions. Moving the ICALP PC meeting to the left a bit, and possibly moving the ALGO conference date farther into mid- or late September would remedy this.
One of our early decisions was to view ALGO as a monolithic, five-day event, rather than a smörgåsbord of workshops and events for which to register (and get billed) separately. This is a hard decision that has many consequences for organisation, financing, dealing with PCs, etc.
- Student registration covers social events. The social events are an important part of the conference, in particular for students. Therefore, I’m never really happy with conferences where student registration does not cover the joint dinner or the social events. Many institutions make it much harder to get reimbursement for a dinner ticket than an exorbitant conference fee. Thus, we slightly under-priced participation for students, and slightly over-priced participation for regular attendees.
- No separate workshop registration. ALGO 2009 participants paid the same, whether they stayed for five days including all social events, or whether they just popped by for their own talk and left the same day. This made it attractive to stay for more days, which is what we want, but probably also prevented some people from attending.
In the end, I think we made the right decision. We had lots of attendees, and many stayed for many days. However, the ATMOS workshop is probably hurt by this: it’s a 1-day event, even trying to attract relevant industry, and the full ALGO participation fee is just too high for that. In hindsight, I believe a separate “1-day, no fun”-registration, for exactly half the price of the full ALGO registration, is the proper way to go.
We decided early on to have ALGO at the university, during the semester. I like this a lot better than using a dedicated conference venue or a hotel; the atmosphere is nicer, and we’re sending important signals in both directions. The possible downside is that ALGO 2009 was crowded (which I like), and that we had to make some compromises with respect to lecture rooms that would otherwise not have been an issue.
It’s also dirt cheap.