You're reading the public-facing archive of the Category Theory Zulip server.
To join the server you need an invite. Anybody can get an invite by contacting Matteo Capucci at name dot surname at gmail dot com.
For all things related to this archive refer to the same person.
Matteo Capucci (he/him) (Mar 22 2021 at 14:33):Hi people,
I was wondering what are the submission guidelines/requirements for CT2021. On the website, it says the submissions should be 'extended abstracts', but I'm a newbie and that's not very clear to me.
In particular, I suspect there are requirements on the length and exposition style of the 'paper'.
Also, it that going to be the version published in the proceedings? I suspect not, which raises the question on the relationship between this submission and the later paper.
Matteo Capucci (he/him) (Mar 22 2021 at 14:40):By 'I' I really mean me, @Bruno Gavranovic and @Toby Smithe, just to share guilt
Nick Hu (Mar 22 2021 at 14:48):I think CT doesn't have proceedings. It's a maths-style conference
Jules Hedges (Mar 22 2021 at 14:50):fantasises about being able to travel to Italy in summer
Nathanael Arkor (Mar 22 2021 at 14:54):I don't see where it says "extended abstract". As far as I can see, it just says "abstracts of talks". You can see examples of such abstracts for CT2019.
Matteo Capucci (he/him) (Mar 22 2021 at 15:09):Great!
John Baez (Mar 22 2021 at 15:16):Yeah, CT is a math conference, we mathematicians don't do proceedings - we just go to conferences to give talks and chat with our friends.
Fabrizio Genovese (Mar 22 2021 at 15:23):Jules Hedges said:
fantasises about being able to travel to Italy in summer
Oh true, it is supposed to be in Genova this year, right?
Fabrizio Genovese (Mar 22 2021 at 15:23):Well fear not, pandemic-wise we won't be ready at all by the summer xD
Jules Hedges (Mar 22 2021 at 15:28):Well, at least that will save the agonising decision of whether to try to go or not
Matteo Capucci (he/him) (Mar 22 2021 at 15:52):So in math there's no bijection talks-papers? How can reviewers do their job?
Matteo Capucci (he/him) (Mar 22 2021 at 15:53):Conference reviewers
Nathanael Arkor (Mar 22 2021 at 15:58):Matteo Capucci (he/him) said:
So in math there's no bijection talks-papers? How can reviewers do their job?
In computer science, a talk is usually presented after a paper is submitted, so the work is finished (at least to the point of what is written in the paper). In mathematics, talks are frequently given before the work is finished.
Jade Master (Mar 22 2021 at 17:01):It's a good question. What basis will they choose speakers on?
John Baez (Mar 22 2021 at 17:08):Matteo Capucci (he/him) said:
So in math there's no bijection talks-papers? How can reviewers do their job?
Typically talks aren't "reviewed"; the conference organizers just choose talks they like. The attitude is that publishing your proofs in a journal is what really matters; talks are basically just words that vanish into the air.
John Baez (Mar 22 2021 at 17:10):Mathematicians generally find the computer scientists' approach to all these things completely incomprehensible... and vice versa.
Morgan Rogers (he/him) (Mar 22 2021 at 17:29):Speaking as a maths person, this is the first time I've thought of talks as competitive and I don't like it at all.
Matteo Capucci (he/him) (Mar 22 2021 at 18:11):John Baez said:
Mathematicians generally find the computer scientists' approach to all these things completely incomprehensible... and vice versa.
:thinking: I count myself among mathematicians and yet it feels weird. I bet I'll just get used to it.
Joe Moeller (Mar 22 2021 at 18:13):Maybe it's good in this conversation to distinguish between mathematics as a culture and mathematics as a type of thinking.
Matteo Capucci (he/him) (Mar 22 2021 at 18:14):So that's when I realize I've slowy been turning into a computer scientist
Fawzi Hreiki (Mar 22 2021 at 18:18):I think papers tend to get written faster in computer science. In contrast, in mathematics you’ll have a person give 5 or 6 talks on work they’re doing before a preprint even comes out.
Fawzi Hreiki (Mar 22 2021 at 18:21):Also, in some areas of CS (eg ML or algorithms), the research is often supported by (if not totally predicated on) data which people will want to see
Jules Hedges (Mar 22 2021 at 18:26):I wonder if having reviewed talks leads to better talks on average.... or if it leads to worse talks because they're really papers with a talk bolted on as an afterthought
Matteo Capucci (he/him) (Mar 22 2021 at 18:26):What's the alternative? I guess there's also a logistic component in reviewing
Jules Hedges (Mar 22 2021 at 18:29):Joe Moeller said:
Maybe it's good in this conversation to distinguish between mathematics as a culture and mathematics as a type of thinking.
Yeah, this. Most people in MSP and similar groups for example are mathematicians by thinking, but computer scientists by culture. (I never heard of the opposite combination, but I'd guess some Theory A focussed groups could be like that)
Jules Hedges (Mar 22 2021 at 18:30):I had a bit of culture shock in Leipzig, my only time really surrounded by cultural mathematicians
Joe Moeller (Mar 22 2021 at 18:33):I'm a mathematician by culture, and probably mostly a mathematician by thinking as well, with a splash of CS by thinking?
John van de Wetering (Mar 22 2021 at 21:05):John Baez said:
Matteo Capucci (he/him) said:
So in math there's no bijection talks-papers? How can reviewers do their job?
Typically talks aren't "reviewed"; the conference organizers just choose talks they like. The attitude is that publishing your proofs in a journal is what really matters; talks are basically just words that vanish into the air.
Does this mean that the conference organisers could also be like "Oh I saw that person give a talk last year, and it totally sucked. Let's not invite them again", because IMO that might actually force the quality of talks to go up
Cole Comfort (Mar 22 2021 at 23:01):John van de Wetering said:
John Baez said:
Matteo Capucci (he/him) said:
So in math there's no bijection talks-papers? How can reviewers do their job?
Typically talks aren't "reviewed"; the conference organizers just choose talks they like. The attitude is that publishing your proofs in a journal is what really matters; talks are basically just words that vanish into the air.
Does this mean that the conference organisers could also be like "Oh I saw that person give a talk last year, and it totally sucked. Let's not invite them again", because IMO that might actually force the quality of talks to go up
Isn't that true to some extent in all conferences?
Evan Patterson (Mar 22 2021 at 23:19):I think that in competitive CS conferences, it doesn't matter how good or bad your talks are because your acceptance is determined by the reviews of the paper you submitted. In such conferences, the talks really seem like an afterthought, which is unfortunate.
Jason Erbele (Mar 23 2021 at 01:32):I wonder if this culture difference between maths and CS is partially responsible for the wide range of opinions that appeared on the #practice: our work stream, regarding the wisdom of having such a stream.
John Baez (Mar 23 2021 at 04:36):John van de Wetering said:
Does this mean that the conference organisers could also be like "Oh I saw that person give a talk last year, and it totally sucked. Let's not invite them again", because IMO that might actually force the quality of talks to go up
Yes, that's a completely typical thing for conference organizers to say, though phrased more diplomatically, e.g. "Oh I saw that person give a talk last year, and it was not very clear. Let's not invite them again".
Fabrizio Genovese (Mar 23 2021 at 14:34):Evan Patterson said:
I think that in competitive CS conferences, it doesn't matter how good or bad your talks are because your acceptance is determined by the reviews of the paper you submitted. In such conferences, the talks really seem like an afterthought, which is unfortunate.
Yeah, those are the worst. Some conferences are literally full of people presenting there just to get tenure track brownie points, without paying much interest in what everyone else has to say. :smile: Luckily many conferences in the ACT ecosystem have been created by people that were fed up with that system and wanted to avoid it at any cost, and this paid off big time (I'm thinking about QPL and also about ACT, to a slightly minor extent)
Tom Hirschowitz (Mar 23 2021 at 16:19):@Fabrizio Genovese I find this too negative. Even at CS conferences, giving a good talk is crucial for other people to appreciate your work.
Fabrizio Genovese (Mar 23 2021 at 17:08):There are some conferences where you can definitely tell that no one whatsoever cares about being there. In any case, this also depends on the particular community, CS is rather a big field
Jules Hedges (Mar 23 2021 at 17:21):cough LiCS
Jules Hedges (Mar 23 2021 at 17:22):I wonder, is QPL going to be able to maintain its great atmosphere given the current quantum computing hype...
Fabrizio Genovese (Mar 23 2021 at 18:24):It really depends on the steering committee imho. For what I recall, @Bob Coecke told me that they (at least up until when I was attending) they decided to not raise the admission bar too much to give PhD students an opportunity to attend and belong. Imho, this is one of the main reason why QPL was so successful and inclusive
Fabrizio Genovese (Mar 23 2021 at 18:25):The feeling you get at QPL is the one of a sort of big family reunion. At least when I was doing my PhD, papers were more an excuse to be able to claim expenses and attend. I mean, they were important, but the real drive was "I want to go there and see all my colleagues/friends"
Bob Coecke (Mar 23 2021 at 18:38):What happened is that submissions went up enormously. We will deal with that by having a full schedule of live talks, and a schedule of pre-recorded talks that gets released earlier. There also will be an industry session now. I see no reason why anything has to change in atmosphere though. The other upshot is that now there are serious sponsors, what also makes things easier for the organisers.
John van de Wetering (Mar 23 2021 at 18:48):Jules Hedges said:
I wonder, is QPL going to be able to maintain its great atmosphere given the current quantum computing hype...
The number of submissions has definitely gone up drastically the last two years. In my view, the stuff that gets submitted is also increasingly mainstream quantum information type stuff. So I think it could happen that it becomes a more prestigious conference. But in any case, the last QPL to have taken place physically had a great atmosphere (and the Slack conversations of QPL2020 were also great)
John van de Wetering (Mar 23 2021 at 18:48):It might also be that the number of submissions has increased so much because there is no requirement to attend physically, so there is a smaller barrier to just submitting your stuff
John Baez (Mar 23 2021 at 20:05):Fabrizio Genovese said:
The feeling you get at QPL is the one of a sort of big family reunion. At least when I was doing my PhD, papers were more an excuse to be able to claim expenses and attend. I mean, they were important, but the real drive was "I want to go there and see all my colleagues/friends"
This is how CT, the big annual category theory conference, feels to me. It's not about getting papers past referees and getting brownie points needed for tenure. It's about the category theory community.
(Some people don't like the feel of the CT conferences, but the last one I went to, CT2019 in Edinburgh, felt very friendly to me.)
Fabrizio Genovese (Mar 23 2021 at 20:21):I don't know about CT, I never attended, but when talking about "friendliness" we should rely on the feedback of the most fragile parts of our community: PhD students, people belonging to minorities, people that are a greater risk of being marginalized/treated badly for whatever reason.
The appreciation for QPL is universal among these categories of attendees. On the contrary, I remember having heard of some people with a tenure track complaining, because in their opinion acceptance should have been stricter. That is understandable, sometimes inclusivity feels like less of a problem for people at the top of the academic pyramid. Which is exactly why I tend to rely on the opinions of those who are at its bottom on these matters. :smile:
Nathanael Arkor (Mar 23 2021 at 20:25):As a (then) first-year PhD student at CT2019, I personally found the atmosphere very welcoming :)
Jade Master (Mar 23 2021 at 22:37):@Fabrizio Genovese said:
The appreciation for QPL is universal among these categories of attendees.
Really? How so?
Jade Master (Mar 23 2021 at 22:38):I'm not saying the contrary, just curious about your reasons.
Fabrizio Genovese (Mar 23 2021 at 22:38):Well, I've never ever heard anyone complaining about it. Maybe I shouldn't have presented it as a factual thing, but literally all the people I spoke with (and they are many) were very happy about it
Fabrizio Genovese (Mar 23 2021 at 22:39):BTW I'm not saying CT isn't good or something, as I said I've never attended so I don't know. But I can only say positive things about QPL.
Jade Master (Mar 23 2021 at 22:41):Ok thanks
Alexander Campbell (Mar 24 2021 at 00:04):John Baez said:
(Some people don't like the feel of the CT conferences, but the last one I went to, CT2019 in Edinburgh, felt very friendly to me.)
As someone who has attended every CT since 2013, I can't imagine what's not to like. (I hope the first half of my sentence doesn't answer the second half :sweat_smile:)
John Baez (Mar 24 2021 at 00:29):I don't go very often because I'm not really a category theorist and it would often require a long trip. But I know that some of my younger colleagues who used to complain about some aspects of CT are now involved in running it.
Bryce Clarke (Mar 24 2021 at 02:20):I also really enjoyed the atmosphere of my first (and only) CT conference in Edinburgh as a PhD student.
And it was wonderful getting to meet many of PhD students in the CT community.
Matteo Capucci (he/him) (May 13 2021 at 13:58):Hi people, I was checking abstract template and easychair form for CT2021: is it true that I must pick a single author to submit to a joint work?
Nathanael Arkor (May 13 2021 at 14:02):The author field is for the speaker. You can include the coauthors in the abstract itself.
Matteo Capucci (he/him) (May 13 2021 at 14:19):Oh I see, fair enough. Thanks :)
Nick Hu (Jun 29 2021 at 15:35):Is this event going to be entirely online?
Nathanael Arkor (Jun 29 2021 at 15:36):No – it's a hybrid event.
Nick Hu (Jun 29 2021 at 15:41):If I'm planning to go in person, do I still need to provide a pre-recorded talk?
Nathanael Arkor (Jun 29 2021 at 15:47):The organisers haven't indicated that a pre-recorded talk will be necessary in that case, no.
Edit: apparently there are multiple tracks: see below.
Nick Hu (Jun 29 2021 at 15:54):Does anyone have any decent feel for the feasibility of international travel in August? It seems the current restrictions (at least for travel from the UK to Italy) are set to expire on the 30th of July.
Ivan Di Liberti (Jun 29 2021 at 20:19):I'll just speak for my self. I'll try to be there and I won't go further with any commitment.
Amar Hadzihasanovic (Jun 29 2021 at 21:19):I got offered a 10 minutes prerecorded talk... is that also your case @Nick Hu ?
Amar Hadzihasanovic (Jun 29 2021 at 21:20):Honestly it seems quite pointless? I was expecting 30 minutes session like any other year.
Nick Hu (Jun 29 2021 at 21:20):@Amar Hadzihasanovic Yes me too. Are there stratified tiers for talks? It doesn't mention anything on the website as far as I can tell, and the schedule for 2019 had everyone giving 30 minute talks
Amar Hadzihasanovic (Jun 29 2021 at 21:21):Yes, apparently there's 20-25 minutes talks that will be broadcast or given in person at the conference, and then there's prerecorded 10 minutes talks.
Nick Hu (Jun 29 2021 at 21:24):Is there official information about this somewhere? You're the second person other than me I've heard of getting a 10 minute prerecorded talk session
Amar Hadzihasanovic (Jun 29 2021 at 21:25):I have heard from two people who got into the “higher” tier. The message they received is
It will be included in the part of the programme that runs from 9 to 17 CEST (UTC+2) every day. During that part of the programme talks are broadcast live in the lecture rooms at DIMA in Genoa for the participants on site, and via the conference video-service for the participants online.
Amar Hadzihasanovic (Jun 29 2021 at 21:26):Please consider also that we shall be very strict with the times of each accepted talk allowing precisely 25 minutes, necessarily including questions and technical delays. I strongly suggest that you make sure the talk you prepare lasts at most 20 minutes.
Nick Hu (Jun 29 2021 at 21:30):I guess it's effectively a virtual poster session
Amar Hadzihasanovic (Jun 29 2021 at 21:31):Yes, I think the suggestion that it's a replacement for the “parallel sessions” is a bit insulting.
Amar Hadzihasanovic (Jun 29 2021 at 21:33):I hope there is a good reason, because replacing the parallel sessions with this seems like a terrible idea.
Amar Hadzihasanovic (Jun 29 2021 at 21:35):This is not a CS conference with proceedings where the talk is optional; it's all about communication.
Nick Hu (Jun 29 2021 at 21:35):I agree that nobody is going to watch a bunch of unscheduled prerecorded talks... people struggle enough with online full-length live scheduled talks enough as it is already
Nathanael Arkor (Jun 29 2021 at 21:37):Oh, the prerecorded talks are not even part of the schedule? That seems very unideal :oh_no:
Nick Hu (Jun 29 2021 at 21:38):To be honest, I'm not 100% sure, but that's my reading of:
It will be included in the part of the programme when recorded videos are made available on the conference platform to be viewed by all the participants at appropriate times as an online version of "parallel sessions". [Participants will not have the problem of overlapping talks.]
Amar Hadzihasanovic (Jun 29 2021 at 21:39):Yes, my reading of “to be viewed at appropriate times” is “participants will be invited to watch them when they feel like it”.