A thought inspired by Cliff's presentation at the SODA business meeting of keywords appearing often in accepted and rejected papers (with a lot of overlap between the two lists): someone should try teaching one of those Bayesian spam filters how to recognize good algorithms paper titles. I'm not suggesting that any of the papers I saw for the STOC PC fell to the level of spam, and I don't think any committee member would seriously think about using such a tool instead of their eyes, but it might be a useful early warning for authors that the committee is likely to be skeptical about their paper...
2 comments | Leave a comment