2019Q3 Reports: Tutorial Chairs - Revision history

Apalmer at 20:31, 19 July 2019

2019-07-19T20:31:21Z

← Older revision		Revision as of 20:31, 19 July 2019
Line 13:		Line 13:

	As we recognize current problems of demographic imbalance in the field, we particularly encouraged submissions from members of under-represented groups in computational linguistics.		As we recognize current problems of demographic imbalance in the field, we particularly encouraged submissions from members of under-represented groups in computational linguistics.

	Moreover, we made sure that tutorials are not "self-invited talks" and that they covered at least 50% other people's work. To check for this, we asked for the tutorial slides to be prepared one month prior to the date of the tutorial.		Moreover, we made sure that tutorials are not "self-invited talks" and that they covered at least 50% other people's work. To check for this, we asked for the tutorial slides to be prepared one month prior to the date of the tutorial.

Apalmer at 20:31, 19 July 2019

2019-07-19T20:31:02Z

← Older revision		Revision as of 20:31, 19 July 2019
Line 5:		Line 5:


	The tutorial call was coordinated between three conferences: ACL, ~~EMNLP~~, and ~~NAACL~~. ~~In addition~~ to ~~distributing the open call~~, ~~we actively recruited tutorial proposals that we thought were likely to be of interest. In total~~, ~~the joint call received 46 proposals. Proposals were evaluated by the tutorial chairs from all three conferences~~.		The tutorial call was coordinated between three conferences: ACL, NAACL, and EMNLP-ICJNLP. We looked for proposals in all areas of computational linguistics, broadly conceived to include related disciplines such as linguistics, speech, information retrieval, and multimodal processing.

	~~Each conference selected its top 8 tutorial~~ proposals~~, with an emphasis on quality, diversity, and likely audience interest. Some overlaps in preferences led to a negotiation process in order to ensure that each conference would have a selection~~ of tutorials ~~with~~ a ~~good balance of introductory and~~ cutting-edge ~~tutorials, as well as balance between theoretical vs. applied tutorials~~ (~~while keeping presenter location preferences in mind~~). We also had to account for the fact that some authors were affiliated with more than one successful tutorial proposal. To achieve this balance, we ended up accepting nine tutorials for ACL, instead of our original goal of eight tutorials. Many thanks to the local organizers (Alessandro Lenci, Bernardo Magnini, and Simonetta Montemagni) for making that possible.		We invited proposals for two types of tutorials: (a) cutting-edge and (b) introductory:

			* Cutting-edge: tutorials that cover advances in newly emerging areas not previously covered in any ACL/EMNLP-IJCNLP/NAACL related tutorial.
			* Introductory: tutorials that provide introductions to related fields that are potentially relevant to the computational linguistics community (e.g. bioinformatics, social media, human language processing, machine learning techniques).

	In the ~~end~~, nine tutorials were ~~selected~~ for ACL 2019:		As we recognize current problems of demographic imbalance in the field, we particularly encouraged submissions from members of under-represented groups in computational linguistics.

			Moreover, we made sure that tutorials are not "self-invited talks" and that they covered at least 50% other people's work. To check for this, we asked for the tutorial slides to be prepared one month prior to the date of the tutorial.


			In addition to distributing the open call, we actively recruited tutorial proposals that we thought were likely to be of interest. The joint call received a total of 46 proposals, which were evaluated by the tutorial chairs from all three conferences.

			First, each conference selected its top 8 tutorial proposals, with an emphasis on quality, diversity, and likely audience interest. Some overlaps in preferences led to a negotiation process in order to ensure that each conference would have a selection of tutorials with a good balance of introductory and cutting-edge tutorials, as well as balance between theoretical and applied tutorials (while keeping presenter location preferences in mind). We also had to account for the fact that some authors were affiliated with more than one successful tutorial proposal. To achieve this balance, we ended up accepting nine instead of eight tutorials for ACL. We are very thankful to the local organizers (Alessandro Lenci, Bernardo Magnini, and Simonetta Montemagni) for making that possible.


			The following tutorials were accepted for ACL 2019:

	* T1: Latent Structure Models for Natural Language Processing, by Andre F. T. Martins, Tsvetomile Mihaylova, Nikita Nangia, and Vlad Niculae		* T1: Latent Structure Models for Natural Language Processing, by Andre F. T. Martins, Tsvetomile Mihaylova, Nikita Nangia, and Vlad Niculae
Line 22:		Line 34:
	* T9: Storytelling from Structured Data and Knowledge Graphs: An NLG Perspective, by Abhijit Mishra, Anirban Laha, Karthik Sankaranarayanan, Parag Jain, and Saravanan Krishnan		* T9: Storytelling from Structured Data and Knowledge Graphs: An NLG Perspective, by Abhijit Mishra, Anirban Laha, Karthik Sankaranarayanan, Parag Jain, and Saravanan Krishnan

	~~There were~~ two difficulties ~~with the process~~. First, the process of balancing tutorials across conferences was ~~quite~~ complex and ~~may have been easier if we had taken a more systematic approach~~. Second, for those ~~of us~~ new to the tutorial process, there was ~~quite a bit of~~ uncertainty about ~~which~~ steps ~~need~~ to be taken, and when. Fortunately the group of six tutorial co-chairs included several who have done this ~~many times~~ before and were able to ~~illuminate~~ the process, ~~but this strikes me (Alexis) as over-reliance~~ on unwritten institutional memory. We suggest preparing a written guide for future tutorial ~~co-~~chairs. This could ~~live in~~ the ACL wiki and be updated over time as appropriate.		We would like to point to two difficulties. First, the process of balancing the tutorials across conferences was complex and required negotiation efforts between the tutorial chairs of the different conferences. Second, for those new to the tutorial process, there was some uncertainty about what steps needed to be taken and when. Fortunately, the group of six tutorial co-chairs included several who have done this before and were able to help the rest in the process, based on unwritten institutional memory. We suggest preparing a written guide for future tutorial chairs. This could be hosted on the ACL wiki and updated over time as appropriate.

Apalmer at 18:33, 19 July 2019

2019-07-19T18:33:56Z

← Older revision		Revision as of 18:33, 19 July 2019
Line 13:		Line 13:

	* T1: Latent Structure Models for Natural Language Processing, by Andre F. T. Martins, Tsvetomile Mihaylova, Nikita Nangia, and Vlad Niculae		* T1: Latent Structure Models for Natural Language Processing, by Andre F. T. Martins, Tsvetomile Mihaylova, Nikita Nangia, and Vlad Niculae
	* T2: Graph-Based Meaning Representations: Design and Processing, by Alexander Koller, Stephan ~~OEpen~~, and Weiwei Sun		* T2: Graph-Based Meaning Representations: Design and Processing, by Alexander Koller, Stephan Oepen, and Weiwei Sun
	* T3: Discourse Analysis and Its Applications, by Shafiq Joty, Giuseppe Carenini, Raymond Ng, and Gabriel Murray		* T3: Discourse Analysis and Its Applications, by Shafiq Joty, Giuseppe Carenini, Raymond Ng, and Gabriel Murray
	* T4: Computational Analysis of Political Texts: Bridging Research Efforts Across Communities, by Goran Glavas, Federico Nanni, and Simone Paolo Ponzetto		* T4: Computational Analysis of Political Texts: Bridging Research Efforts Across Communities, by Goran Glavas, Federico Nanni, and Simone Paolo Ponzetto

Apalmer: Draft of 2019 ACL tutorials report

2019-07-19T18:33:39Z

Draft of 2019 ACL tutorials report

New page

Tutorial chairs

* Preslav Nakov, Qatar Computing Research Institute, HBKU
* Alexis Palmer, University of North Texas

The tutorial call was coordinated between three conferences: ACL, EMNLP, and NAACL. In addition to distributing the open call, we actively recruited tutorial proposals that we thought were likely to be of interest. In total, the joint call received 46 proposals. Proposals were evaluated by the tutorial chairs from all three conferences.

Each conference selected its top 8 tutorial proposals, with an emphasis on quality, diversity, and likely audience interest. Some overlaps in preferences led to a negotiation process in order to ensure that each conference would have a selection of tutorials with a good balance of introductory and cutting-edge tutorials, as well as balance between theoretical vs. applied tutorials (while keeping presenter location preferences in mind). We also had to account for the fact that some authors were affiliated with more than one successful tutorial proposal. To achieve this balance, we ended up accepting nine tutorials for ACL, instead of our original goal of eight tutorials. Many thanks to the local organizers (Alessandro Lenci, Bernardo Magnini, and Simonetta Montemagni) for making that possible.

In the end, nine tutorials were selected for ACL 2019:

* T1: Latent Structure Models for Natural Language Processing, by Andre F. T. Martins, Tsvetomile Mihaylova, Nikita Nangia, and Vlad Niculae
* T2: Graph-Based Meaning Representations: Design and Processing, by Alexander Koller, Stephan OEpen, and Weiwei Sun
* T3: Discourse Analysis and Its Applications, by Shafiq Joty, Giuseppe Carenini, Raymond Ng, and Gabriel Murray
* T4: Computational Analysis of Political Texts: Bridging Research Efforts Across Communities, by Goran Glavas, Federico Nanni, and Simone Paolo Ponzetto
* T5: Wikipedia as a Resource for Text Analysis and Retrieval, by Marius Pasca
* T6: Deep Bayesian Natural Language Processing, by Jen-Tzung Chien
* T7: Unsupervised Cross-Lingual Representation Learning, by Sebastian Ruder, Anders Sogaard, and Ivan Vulic
* T8: Advances in Argument Mining, by Katarzyna Budzynska and Chris Reed
* T9: Storytelling from Structured Data and Knowledge Graphs: An NLG Perspective, by Abhijit Mishra, Anirban Laha, Karthik Sankaranarayanan, Parag Jain, and Saravanan Krishnan

There were two difficulties with the process. First, the process of balancing tutorials across conferences was quite complex and may have been easier if we had taken a more systematic approach. Second, for those of us new to the tutorial process, there was quite a bit of uncertainty about which steps need to be taken, and when. Fortunately the group of six tutorial co-chairs included several who have done this many times before and were able to illuminate the process, but this strikes me (Alexis) as over-reliance on unwritten institutional memory. We suggest preparing a written guide for future tutorial co-chairs. This could live in the ACL wiki and be updated over time as appropriate.