Call For Entries
for 15th Annual (2018) "Humies" Awards
for Human-Competitive Results
Produced by Genetic and Evolutionary Computation
To be Held at
Genetic and Evolutionary Computation Conference (GECCO)
July 15-19, 2018 (Sunday - Thursday)
in Kyoto, Japan
Entries are hereby solicited for awards totaling $10,000 for
human-competitive results that have been produced by any
form of genetic and evolutionary computation (including, but not
limited to genetic algorithms, genetic programming, evolution
strategies, evolutionary programming, learning classifier systems,
grammatical evolution, gene expression programming, differential
evolution, etc.) and that have been published in the open literature
between the deadline for the previous competition and the deadline for
the current competition.
The competition will be held as part of the Genetic and
Evolutionary Computation (GECCO) conference operated by the
Association for Computing Machinery (ACM) Special Interest
Group (SIG) on Genetic and Evolutionary Computation (SIGEVO).
Entries chosen to be finalists will be made at the conference.
The winners of the awards will be announced during
Wednesday June 6, 2018 Deadline for entries (consisting of
one TEXT file, PDF files for one or more papers, and possible "in
press" documentation (explained below). Please send entries to
koza at human-competitive dot org
Wednesday June 20, 2018 Finalists will be notified by e-mail
Wednesday July 4, 2018 Finalists must submit their presentation
(e.g., PowerPoint, PDF) for posting on the competition's web site.
Send presentations to koza at human-competitive dot org
July 15-19, 2018 (Sunday-Thursday) GECCO conference
Tuesday July 17, 2018 Presentations before judging
committee at public session of the GECCO conference. Finalists should
make a point of double-checking the time and date in the conference's
Thursday July 19, 2018 Announcement of awards at
plenary session of the GECCO conference
PUBLICITY CHAIR: William Langdon
CALL FOR ENTRIES
Techniques of genetic and evolutionary computation are being
increasingly applied to difficult real-world problems often yielding
results that are not merely academically interesting, but competitive
with the work done by creative and inventive humans. Starting at the
Genetic and Evolutionary Computation Conference (GECCO) in 2004, cash
prizes have been awarded for human-competitive results that had been
produced by some form of genetic and evolutionary computation in the
This prize competition is based on published results. The publication
may be a paper published anywhere in the open literature (e.g., the
GECCO conference, any another conference or workshop, journal,
technical report, thesis, book, chapter in edited book).
The competition is open to any paper
(1) published in the open literature between June 7, 2017 (the
deadline for the previous year's competition) and June 6, 2018 (the
deadline for this competition), or
(2) that is in press by the deadline for this competition. "In
Press" means the paper must have been unconditionally accepted for
publication and be identical to that which will be published
imminently without the possibility of any further changes or revision
by the authors or editors. For example, a paper accepted for the
current year's GECCO conference would not have been published by the
deadline for the competition. However, because the paper has already
been unconditionally accepted for publication (and the final
camera-ready version submitted to the conference prior to the deadline
for this competition), a GECCO paper is "in press." If an entry is
"in press," the entry must include a copy of the documentation
establishing that the paper meets this requirement.
The paper must meet the usual standards of a scientific publication in
that it must clearly describe a problem, the methods used to address
the problem, the results obtained, and sufficient information about
how the work was done in order to enable the work to be independently
An automatically created result is considered "human-competitive" if
it satisfies at least one of the eight criteria below.
(A) The result was patented as an invention in the past, is an
improvement over a patented invention, or would qualify today as a
patentable new invention.
(B) The result is equal to or better than a result that was accepted
as a new scientific result at the time when it was published in a
peer-reviewed scientific journal.
(C) The result is equal to or better than a result that was placed
into a database or archive of results maintained by an internationally
recognized panel of scientific experts.
(D) The result is publishable in its own right as a new scientific
result independent of the fact that the result was mechanically
(E) The result is equal to or better than the most recent
human-created solution to a long-standing problem for which there has
been a succession of increasingly better human-created solutions.
(F) The result is equal to or better than a result that was considered
an achievement in its field at the time it was first discovered.
(G) The result solves a problem of indisputable difficulty in its field.
(H) The result holds its own or wins a regulated competition involving
human contestants (in the form of either live human players or
human-written computer programs).
Contestants should note that a pervasive thread in most of the above
eight criteria is the notion that the result satisfy an "arms length"
standard not a yardstick based on the opinion of the author, the
author's own institution (educational or corporate), or the author's
own close associates. "Arms length" may be established in numerous
ways. For example, if the result is a solution to "a long-standing
problem for which there has been a succession of increasingly better
human-created solutions," it is clear that the scientific community
(not the author, the author's own institution, or the author's close
associates) have vetted the significance of the problem. Similarly, a
problem's significance may be established if the result replicates or
improves upon a scientific result published in a peer-reviewed
scientific journal, replicates or improves upon a previously patented
invention, constitutes a patentable new invention, or replicates or
improves a result that was considered an achievement in its field at
the time it was first discovered. Similarly, a problem's significance
may be established if the result holds its own or wins a regulated
competition involving live human players or human-written computer
programs. In each of the foregoing examples, the standard for
human-competitiveness is being established external to the author, the
author's own institution, or the author's close associates. It is also
conceivable to rely only on criterion G ("The result solves a problem
of indisputable difficulty in its field"); however, if only criterion
G is claimed, there must be a clear and convincing argument that the
problem's "difficulty" is indeed "indisputable."
The competition will be held as part of the annual Genetic and
Evolutionary Computation (GECCO) conference. Entries chosen to be
finalists are to be made at the conference. The awards and prizes will
be announced at the conference.
Cash prizes of $5,000 (gold), $3,000 (silver), and bronze (either one
prize of $2,000 or two prizes of $1,000) will be awarded for the best
entries that satisfy one or more of the criteria for
human-competitiveness. The awards will be divided equally among
co-authors unless the authors specify a different division at the time
Prizes are paid by check in U.S. dollars after the GECCO conference.
The judges may, based on submissions, reallocate the prize amounts and
prize categories within the total amount available for prizes.
DETAILED INSTRUCTIONS FOR ENTERING THE "HUMIES"
If you plan to make an entry into this competition, please check the
web site for updated information and for possible last-minute changes
immediately prior to submitting your entry. Similarly, if you are
selected as a finalist, please re-check the web site prior to the
conference for possible last-minute changes in instructions or
All entries are to be sent electronically to koza at human-competitive
dot org. All entries will be promptly acknowledged, so please make an
inquiry if you do not receive a reasonably prompt acknowledgment
shortly after your submission.
An entry must consist of one TEXT file and one or more PDF files. In
addition, if the paper is "in press" asof the deadline date for
submissions, an additional document must be submitted.
If authors are making multiple entries to the competition, please
submit separate e-mails, each containing the required TEXT file and
PDF file(s) supporting the entry.
The TEXT file must contain the following 11 items. Please be very
careful to include ALL required information. Contestants are alerted
to the fact that items 6 and 9 areespecially important and will be the
main basis by which entries will be judged. The papers and
presentations from earlier competitions (starting in 2004) are posted
at the competition web site at www.human-competitive.org. These
previous entries may be informative and helpful in crafting your
1. the complete title of one (or more) paper(s) published in the open
literature describing the work that the author claims describes a
2. the name, complete physical mailing address, e-mail address, and
phone number of EACH author of EACH paper(s);
3. the name of the corresponding author (i.e., the author to whom
notices will be sent concerning the competition);
4. the abstract of the paper(s);
5. a list containing one or more of the eight letters (A, B, C, D, E,
F, G, or H) that correspond to the criteria (see above) that the
author claims that the work satisfies;
6. a statement stating why the result satisfies the criteria that the
contestant claims (see examples of statements of human-competitiveness
as a guide to aid in constructing this part of the submission);
7. a full citation of the paper (that is, author names; publication
date; name of journal, conference, technical report, thesis, book, or
book chapter; name of editors, if applicable, of the journal or edited
book; publisher name; publisher city; page numbers, if applicable);
8. a statement either that "any prize money, if any, is to be divided
equally among the co-authors" OR a specific percentage breakdown as to
how the prize money, if any, is to be divided among the co-authors;
9. a statement stating why the authors expect that their entry would
be the "best," and
10. An indication of the general type of genetic or evolutionary
computation used, such as GA (genetic algorithms), GP (genetic
programming), ES (evolution strategies), EP (evolutionary
programming), LCS (learning classifier systems), GE (grammatical
evolution), GEP (gene expression programming), DE (differential
11. The date of publication of each paper. If the date of publication
is not on or before the deadline for submission, but instead, the
paper has been unconditionally accepted for publication and is in
press by the deadline for this competition, the entry must include a
copy of the documentation establishing that the paper meets the "in
The PDF file(s) are to contain the paper(s). The strongly preferred
method is that you send a separate PDF file for each of your paper(s)
relating to your entry. Both the text file and the PDF file(s) for
each entry will be permanently posted on a web page shortly after the
deadline date for entries (for use by the judges, conference
attendees, and anyone else who is interested) and will remain posted
on the web as a permanent record of the competition. If your paper is
only available on the publisher's web site and your publisher
specifically requires that your published paper may appear only on
your own personal page, the second choice is that you send link(s) to
a separate web page on your web site containing link(s) to the PDF
file(s) of the paper(s) that constitute your entry. This separate web
page is to contain nothing else, so the interested parties may quickly
locate your paper(s). If you use this second-choice option, you must
ALSO supply a link to a permanent web site maintained by your
publisher where your specific paper may be viewed or purchased (that
is, not a link merely to the publisher's general home page, but a link
to the specific web page containing your paper on the publisher's
site). Keep in mind that the objective is to guarantee a permanent
record of the entries and to make it easy for anyone to locate your
Generally, only one paper should be submitted. More than one paper
should be submitted only if no single paper fully describes the
specific result or method. Note that this competition involves
specific results published in the past year, and it NOT an evaluation
of the author's entire body of work over period of years. Note that
this is a competition involving a result that satisfies the criteria
for being "human-competitive" as defined herein.
The judging committee will review all entries and identify a short
list of finalists for presentation at the GECCO conference. Finalists
will be notified by an e-mail to the corresponding author. Please
acknowledge receipt of this message, so the judges know that you
received your notice. Finalists must then make a short oral
presentation to the judging committee at a public session of the GECCO
conference. The presentations will be held on one of the early days of
the conference, and the winners will be announced a day or two later
at the conference.
Finalists must submit their presentation (e.g., a PowerPoint, PDF) by
e-mail to koza at human-competitive dot org. All submissions will be
promptly acknowledged, so please make an inquiry if you do not receive
a reasonably prompt acknowledgment. These presentations will be posted
on the web page for the competition. oral presentation (usually about
10 minutes) by the finalists to the judging committee. The
presentations will be open to all conference attendees at a special
session of the conference. The oral presentation should primarily
1. why the result qualifies as being human-competitive and
2. why the judges should consider the entry as "best" in comparison to
other entries that may also be "human-competitive."
In this short oral presentation to the judges, a description of the
work itself is decidedly secondary. By the time of your presentation,
the judges will be familiar with the papers. Thus, the focus of the
presentation is on reasons why the work being presented should win a
prize not an explanation or presentation of the work itself.
In the unlikely event that a presenter is scheduled to make a
presentation elsewhere at the GECCO conference at the same time,
please notify the judging committee, so they can rearrange time slots.
After the oral presentations, the award committee will meet and
consider the presentations.
The presenting author for each entry must register for the GECCO conference.
A judge will recuse himself or herself if he or she is closely
associated with a finalist (e.g., a current academic advisor, current
collaborator, co-author with the finalist of related work).
Additional information is at www.human-competitive.org
Prof. W. B. Langdon,
Department of Computer Science
University College London
Gower Street, London WC1E 6BT, UK
2018 Humies http://www.human-competitive.org/call-for-entries
choose your background
A Field Guide to Genetic Programming
GP EM http://www.springer.com/10710
GP Bibliography http://www.cs.bham.ac.uk/~wbl/biblio/