![]() Naoki Abe Juan Antonio Rodriguez Aguilar Leman Akoglu Natasha Alechina Ethem Alpaydin Christopher Amato Leila Amgoud Bo An Sercan O. Best Papers from Sister Conferences Accepted Papers.Special Track on AI, the Arts and Creativity Accepted Papers.Special Track on AI for Good Accepted Papers.CALL FOR DIVERSITY AND INCLUSION ACTIVITIES.CALL FOR PAPERS: AI, THE ARTS AND CREATIVITY (SPECIAL TRACK).CALL FOR PAPERS: MULTI-YEAR TRACK ON AI FOR GOOD (SPECIAL TRACK).Sometimes none of the assigned papers was worth a longĭiscussion: that’s life. In the evaluation (whether they were long, active, reactive,Įtc.). For SPC, the quality of the discussions played a major role.In these areas, PC/SPC who made more bids got more papers). Means more work), and partly no, because in some areas theĪverage number of papers per PC/SPC was small (however, even Papers assigned have more chance to be distinguished or The criteria I used imply that PC and SPC members with more.Name on the list, it may just mean that you did not receiveĮnough evaluations, possibly no evaluation at all. Unfortunate enough so that almost none of their reviews wasĮvaluated, and therefore do not figure on the list below. There certainly are outstanding PC and SPC members who were Because more than 80% of the reviews received no evaluation,.No SPC got a level-3 distinguished status. They got the level-3 distinguished status. ![]() Two level-2 distinguished PC members had four evaluations 9, or three 9 and two 8, by at least four different evaluators. ![]() Again, in borderline cases, the number of reviews and the activity in discussions played a role. A evaluation < 5 is normally a veto to the level-2 distinguished status. ![]() In all cases, I checked all reviews and discussions.
0 Comments
Leave a Reply. |
AuthorWrite something about yourself. No need to be fancy, just an overview. ArchivesCategories |