Total number of respondents: 139 submitted papers + 12 program committee (PC) members, whose answers are shown in blue; green = accepted papers (total=41 or 29%), red = rejected papers.
Clicking will reveal the fraction of answers that were given by authors whose papers were eventually accepted or rejected, respectively. The data was collected from authors by asking them to fill in a form. The figures should be regarded with the usual suspicion that is appropriate for the results of polls and web forms.

Part I

The first part is a poll concerning future SoCG conferences.
If you have submitted several papers, you need to answer these questions only once. (Unless you have a very strong opinion; then you can repeat your answers for each of your submissions.) If you have no strong opinion, you can leave the fields blank.

Submission

How did you like the two-stage electronic submission procedure?
It was confusing.
11 2 | 50%
It was smooth and convenient.
1740 57 | 30%
It was complicated and cumbersome.
32 5 | 60%
It was clear and easy.
2148 69 | 30%
I experienced technical problems with the submission process.
2 2 | 0%

How should the submission at future conferences be handled?

Format of Paper
It would be inconvenient if papers could not be submitted in PDF format.
18426 66 | 30%
It would be inconvenient if papers could not be submitted in PostScript format.
16447 67 | 27%
It would be inconvenient if papers could not be submitted in compressed format.
494 17 | 31%
It would be inconvenient if I could not use color figures.
6231 30 | 21%
I would prefer to submit papers in the final two-column proceedings format, instead of the current one-column format.
14304 48 | 32%
I would prefer to use my own format for submission if the permitted quantity of text would match the two-column format of the final proceedings version.
6103 19 | 38%
Which of the following alternate submission forms would you find useful?
a URL pointer to a technical report or preprint on my homepage
7282 37 | 20%
a pointer to an arXiv preprint
581 14 | 38%
All submissions not adhering to the guidelines (e.g. having more than 10 pages, or being 2-column) should be rejected.
I agree.
7282 37 | 20%
I disagree.
27527 86 | 34%
Submissions must contain all proofs, in an appendix if necessary (without length restriction).
I agree.
20393 62 | 34%
I disagree.
15407 62 | 27%
What would you think about double-blind reviewing for SoCG? (The committee and subreferees do not know the authors of the papers.) (This question was added later and only asked of PC members.)
I would favor it.
4 4 | 100%
I am against it.
5 5 | 100%

Anything else I would like to say: (Specific remarks about the questions above, comments about the submission process or about the conference itself, suggestions for future conferences)
THESE ARE ONLY THE ANSWERS FROM PC MEMBERS. Answers from authors are given at the end of the next section.
7 7 | 100%
It's a pity that applied papers still have such a hard time getting in and that a mix of theory and application is considered "strange".
I think blind reviewing is a good thing, i.e. the committee should know the authors names, but not the subreferees.
the last three questions do not have a yes/no answer: for not adhering to guidelines: 2-column format is too much, but i wouldnt disqualify a 10.5 page long normal format. the idea of having all proofs in an appendix is appealing on one hand, but it is unfair to dump a 50 pages paper on a busy PC member. on second thought, perhaps it is always a good idea to require all proofs - will prevent half-baked papers from showing up. the blind refereeing is ok in principle, but it has drawbacks too: we often say that we dont understand the paper, but we trust X. if we didnt know who X was, then...
(the last 3 questions are a little bit "boolean"...)
On rejecting all papers that don't satisfy format guidelines: In principle, I'd like to reject all such papers, but I don't want to be too rigid. For instance, I wouldn't want to reject an 11 page paper, but I would want to reject a 15 page paper. On submissions containing all proofs: I'm in favor of this if "all proofs" is changed to "all interesting and/or important proofs", but this is such a subjective measure that I'm not sure how it could ever be enforced. On double-blind reviewing: I'm somewhat for this, in principle, but it would depend on how cumbersome it would make the reviewing process. I'm also concerned about how effective this would be in practice --- this is a small enough community that one could probably guess the authors for many of the paper based on known interests, the paper's list of references, and idiosyncrasies of individual writing styles.
Double-blind would make it highly inconvenient to use subreferees: You'd always run the risk of asking an author or coauthor, unless you figured out who the authors are - in which case you'd defeat the purpose of double-blind.
I am afraid that confidence levels were so different among PC members. Maybe some nice guideline is required.

Part II

(1) In each category, it is possible to independently make as many selections as you want (or none at all). However, you should try to select those boxes that best describe your situation, and you should not select every box that might possibly apply. For example, an algorithm for line segments will necessarily deal with the endpoints of those line segments, i.e. points, or possibily the algorithm also works for points by treating them as a special case of a degenerate line segment. but in this case you should check only the box for line segments, in the category Objects below.)

(2) If your paper contains several results/algorithms you can answer the questions below for that aspect of your paper which is most characteristic, in your feeling. For example, the main new achievement of your algorithm is a logarithmic query time, as opposed to a polynomial preprocessing time.
Alternatively, if your paper has several contributions of equal importance, you can check the union of the boxes that you would check for each contribution individually. (For example, an algorithm dealing with points on a line (1d), and another algorithm which handles points in 4d. You can check two boxes in the first category Dimension.)

Dimension

1d
14 5 | 20%
1.5d
2 2 | 100%
2d
2156 77 | 27%
2.5d (polyhedral terrain)
13 4 | 25%
3d
1027 37 | 27%
4d
 0 | 100%
arbitrary (fixed) dimension
1222 34 | 35%
high (variable) dimensions
110 11 | 9%
other spaces (for example, metric spaces)
31 4 | 75%

Objects

points
1938 57 | 33%
lines, planes, hyperplanes, line segments
1133 44 | 25%
polygons, polyhedra
733 40 | 18%
circles, balls, spheres
617 23 | 26%
degree-2 curves and surfaces
39 12 | 25%
higher-degree algebraic curves and surfaces
113 14 | 7%
objects of arbitrary shape, pseudolines, etc.
87 15 | 53%
Convexity
convex shapes only
64 10 | 60%

Geometric Problem

convex hull
39 12 | 25%
Voronoi diagram
28 10 | 20%
Delaunay triangulation
411 15 | 27%
triangulation (other than Delaunay), tilings of space, meshing
314 17 | 18%
pseudotriangulation
13 4 | 25%
arrangement
713 20 | 35%
calculation of distance, area, width etc.
416 20 | 20%
optimization problem:
  • clustering
26 8 | 25%
  • shape matching
15 6 | 17%
  • shape simplification
17 8 | 13%
  • shortest path
44 8 | 50%
  • shortest tree, spanner, or other network design problem
44 8 | 50%
  • other type of optimization problem:
511 16 | 31%
dilation // packing // length of shortest side of rectangle // Geometric Partition Problems // set cover // Triangle area optimization (MaxMin, MinMax) // extremal configuration under certain measure // simultaneous clusters found in several arrangements // finding local or global minima // power assignment // convex programming // optimal strategies for games // protein folding with maximal H-H contacts // optimal characterization // minimize height of a watchtower //
curve and surface reconstruction
46 10 | 40%
geometric modeling
215 17 | 12%
shape analysis (topology or other characteristics)
510 15 | 33%
range searching
52 7 | 71%
motion planning, manipulation of objects
49 13 | 31%
nearest neighbor
29 11 | 18%
visibility, illumination, art gallery
35 8 | 38%
graph drawing, graph embedding
36 9 | 33%
geometric deduction and inference, learning, theorem-proving
4 4 | 0%
other:
111 12 | 8%
combinatorial rigidity theory // packing // finding an object // packing // realizability // intersection of curves // deals with aggregates of geometric data // curve generation, traversal, indexing // folding / dissection // structural characterization and finding an efficient algorithm // geometric path, geometric matching // collision detection

Algorithmic Question

construction
2457 81 | 30%
enumeration
214 16 | 13%
sampling
27 9 | 22%
geometric primitives (problems of constant size)
15 6 | 17%
other:
310 13 | 23%
distance computation // error measure // eigenvectors // robustness // robustness // reconfiguration of trees // computing Betti numbers // set cover // optimization // output-sensitive non-intersection queries (reporting problems) on aggregated data // Handling one-pass, streaming data // approximation // approximation

Progress

Work on the problems addressed in the paper is finished.
613 19 | 32%
Work on the problems addressed in the paper will continue.
2967 96 | 30%
Work on the problems addressed has started recently.
519 24 | 21%
The problem has a long history.
1327 40 | 33%
The results reported in this paper are preliminary.
17 8 | 13%

This is a new problem that has not been considered before.
723 30 | 23%
This is the first solution to a problem which has been posed as an open problem
1013 23 | 43%
  • publicly, in a lecture or at a workshop/conference
77 14 | 50%
  • in the literature
58 13 | 38%
  • privately
16 7 | 14%
The problem has been considered previously. Compared to previous solutions, the result (algorithm/theorem) is
1847 65 | 28%
  • faster
1229 41 | 29%
  • more general
1131 42 | 26%
  • simpler, easier to implement
528 33 | 15%
  • easier to describe
215 17 | 12%
  • easier to understand
113 14 | 7%
  • better
921 30 | 30%
  • easier to analyze/prove
18 9 | 11%
  • more reliable/robust
322 25 | 12%
  • not better, but different (an alternative approach)
24 6 | 33%
  • worse
1 1 | 0%
  • uses less space.
36 9 | 33%

Algorithmic Problem Setting

classical (static off-line; all data is known in advance)
1967 86 | 22%
data structure (preprocessing and query)
815 23 | 35%
dynamic or on-line (insertion and deletion)
37 10 | 30%
kinetic (data in motion)
45 9 | 44%
data streams
22 4 | 50%
oracle models, black-box models, information-based complexity
11 2 | 50%
noisy data, data with errors, imprecise or fuzzy data
25 7 | 29%
external memory, caching
2 2 | 100%
parallel computing
2 2 | 0%
other computational model (e.g. quantum computing, optical computing, special hardware):
3 3 | 0%
floating point // floating point // commodity graphics hardware

Characteristics of Solution

approximation
1428 42 | 33%
randomized
59 14 | 36%
heuristic (with no guaranteed (optimal, correct) solution)
8 8 | 0%

Type of Running Time

finite (undecidable/decidable/computable)
34 7 | 43%
NP-hard/exponential, NP
24 6 | 33%
P (polynomial)
819 27 | 30%
low-order polynomial
1728 45 | 38%
linear
514 19 | 26%
sublinear
12 3 | 33%
(poly-)logarithmic or sublogarithmic
36 9 | 33%
constant
2 2 | 0%
subconstant
 0 | 100%
The running time of the algorithm is not analyzed.
211 13 | 15%

Combinatorial Geometry

The focus of the paper lies in combinatorial geometry.
1016 26 | 38%
A substantial part of the paper deals with some question(s) of combinatorial geometry.
923 32 | 28%
Type of Question:
  • geometric complexity of geometric objects or data structures
715 22 | 32%
  • counting and enumeration
211 13 | 15%
  • other structural questions for of a set of combinatorial objects, (e.g. connectivity, flipping in triangulations)
516 21 | 24%
  • lower bounds
47 11 | 36%
  • upper bounds
813 21 | 38%
  • pure existence
22 4 | 50%
  • other:
13 4 | 25%
robustness // robustness // computational topology // Euler characteristic

Application Area, Motivation

biomolecules
417 21 | 19%
cartography, GIS
612 18 | 33%
graphics
328 31 | 10%
CAD, computer-aided design (and manufacturing, etc.)
726 33 | 21%
image processing
214 16 | 13%
robotics
822 30 | 27%
statistics
19 10 | 10%
other:
918 27 | 33%
shape matching // packing // Data mining // simulation // computer games, animation // packing // visualization // manifold learning // Communication networks // Medicine, Radiation Therapy and Surgery // facility location // shape learning with minimal a priori knowledge // wireless // FEM calculation // simulation // network design // information retrieval // graph drawing // graph encoding // querying databases with aggregated data (e.g., VLSI, financial, etc.) // database, scientific computing, mathematics // games // Mesh generation // Data mining // scientific data analysis // sensor networks // moving finite element methods

Type of Contribution

new algorithmic technique
1744 61 | 28%
new proof, new proof technique
1028 38 | 26%
new paradigm
612 18 | 33%
new problem
524 29 | 17%
new definition, new concept
723 30 | 23%
revisits or simplifies some old solution/problem
419 23 | 17%
none of the above
43 7 | 57%

Visualization

There is a video demonstrating the result of the paper.
5 5 | 0%
There is an applet or computer program demonstrating the result of the paper.
517 22 | 23%

Where is the focus of the paper?

Algorithm
algorithm design and analysis (theoretical level)
2448 72 | 33%
  • The algorithm is only a conceptual tool (for a combinatorial proof or a proof of an existential statement, for example).
24 6 | 33%
  • The algorithm is implemented, and the program can be used for serious applications.
522 27 | 19%
  • The algorithm is implemented as a prototype.
726 33 | 21%
  • The algorithm is not implemented.
1522 37 | 41%
  • The algorithm will never be implemented.
 0 | 100%
experimental or empirical comparison
118 19 | 5%
average-case analysis, probablilistic analysis
12 3 | 33%
exact computation
720 27 | 26%
other approaches to robustness, numerical accuracy
12 12 | 0%
other implementation issues:
4 4 | 0%
certified topology (certified Delaunay graph) // adaptive approach to exact computation // Algorithm is implemented and is planned to be released for public use in near future // certified topology
software issues
3 3 | 0%
Mathematics
combinatorial geometry
1230 42 | 29%
geometry of curves and surfaces
820 28 | 29%
topology
517 22 | 23%
other geometric questions
412 16 | 25%
Applications
applications outside geometry
524 29 | 17%
level of detail // bioinformatics, graphics, statistics // robust statistics // medical image segmentation, data mining // robotics, computer games // visualization // biomolecular unfolding // scientific visualization such as volume rendering. Sorting has its own applications esp. in data stream mining problems // Radiation Treatment of Cancer Patients // scientific simulations, reverse engineering, medical imaging // robotics, spatial databases and GIS // Diagram Layout // Bioinformatics // GIS, Geographic Information Retrieval // protein structure analysis // graph drawing // often used for visualization in the biological sciences // database, geographical information systems, scientific computing, mathematics // multimedia // game theory // meshing in scientific simulations, finite element methdos, visualizations // Databases, Data streams, Sensor networks // computational biology // data mining // transcendental number theory // scientific computing, graphics // Subdivision of volume meshes, multivariate spline analysis // sum sets // computer graphics and robotics

Mathematical Techniques

linear algebra (beyond elementary analytic geometry)
210 12 | 17%
algebra
616 22 | 27%
combinatorics
1029 39 | 26%
graph theory
715 22 | 32%
probability
411 15 | 27%
calculus, differential geometry
312 15 | 20%
topology
719 26 | 27%
other:
46 10 | 40%
Mathematical Morphology, Fuzzy set // geometry // approximation theory // complexity theory // geometry // Mathematics for Voronoi and Delaunay geometry // number theory // optimization // transcendental number theory // integral geometry

A few Questions for Statistics

How many authors does the paper have? (see also raw data)
1
517 22 | 23%
2
1942 61 | 31%
3
827 35 | 23%
4
58 13 | 38%
5
32 5 | 60%
6
11 2 | 50%
10
1 1 | 0%
How many authors are students?
0
2230 52 | 42%
1
1557 72 | 21%
2
410 14 | 29%
4
1 1 | 0%
How many authors work in academia (excluding students)?
0
17 8 | 13%
1
1649 65 | 25%
2
1327 40 | 33%
3
911 20 | 45%
4
3 3 | 0%
5
11 2 | 50%
6
1 1 | 100%
How many authors work in industry?
0
3789 126 | 29%
1
49 13 | 31%
3
1 1 | 100%
From which country(ies) are the authors? (see cartograms)
4198 139 | 29%

Final Question about the Paper

The paper is characterized very well by the above classification.
1959 78 | 24%
The paper does not fit at all into this classification.
18 9 | 11%

Anything else I would like to say: (Comments about the submission process or about the conference itself, suggestions for future conferences)
816 24 | 33%
Regarding last question in Part I: I do not think it would be practical to impose that papers have ALL PROOFS, given the "extended abstract" nature of the SoCG conference submission. But authors should be ENCOURAGED to provide an arXiv or url link to as-complete-as-possible versions of their papers, to help the committee in making the decision.
The submission process was clear and easy, but the restriction of not being able to change the abstract later makes an early registration less attractive. I wonder if you have statistics about the time between the first registration step and the second. Submission process: I disagree on rejecting papers on formal grounds without looking at proportionality or appropriateness. Not all proofs need to be there, but the important or non-obvious should if the statement might otherwise be questionable or may lead to a rejected paper. Also the page numbers need a limitation, but 11 instead of 10 pages (separate title page ;-) are not the issue. In particular since we have appendices, which I find important. I would appreciate a more realistic page limit oriented at the final proceeding space, either by submitting in this final style or some equivalent larger page budget. For refereeing, a larger page budget but with 11pt and sufficient margins would be more convenient.
The submitted work is a generalization of some earlier works. I had trouble expressing this fact in this questionnaire.
Regarding the two-stage submission procedure: I cannot remember if it was cumbersome. It was two months ago. About the format: as an author, both PS and PDF are fine with me. As a referee I much prefer PDF because the files are smaller and because printing errors are much less frequent than with PS. Questions about criteria for accepting/rejecting submissions: I have strong opinions about it but I have doubts about whether it is appropriate to give such opinions while the PC is still at work.
same reviews apply to our submission on semi-algebraic curves
The submission process was much smoother in comparison to the process in last year's SoCG. As for the length restriction: If the submission is slightly longer than the limit (say the references end only in page 11), this is still OK. However, in case of major deviations, the submission should be rejected. However, I prefer that the submission have the final format used in the proceedings. This way the final version is likely to be more similar to the refereed one.
copied from submission on algebraic curves
Submission process was great. Collecting feedback and statistics is a good idea too.
annoying poll!
This paper presents one aspect of my Ph.D. thesis.
Some aspects of the paper are not characterized particularly well by the above classification. Covering, packing, and independent set are standard optimization problems that can appear in a geometric setting. Here the optimization problem was covering. The full glory of the algorithmic setting was "abstractly geometric", as in the VC dimension. Such a category might be an alternative in the "dimension" category. Nice questionnaire. Issues that might come up at the business meeting might also be considered here, in an advisory way. For example, a poll on conference location would have a different bias than the one at the business meeting. Submission via pointer to arXiv preprint would encourage use of the arXiv server, simplify the job of collecting submissions, and underline the peculiarity of submitting to a conference in order to publicize a paper that is already easily available world-wide.
Some pre-submission details whether emphasis is on certain applied / theory issues would be helpful -- e.g., will there be a biogeometry session?
The proposed algorithm is currently implemented as a prototype. However, we expect that the implementation will be at the stage of serious applications around the time of SoCG conference.
This survey was very annoying.
This survey is even more annoying the second time around.
Part I: I think one answer was missing for: How did you like the two-stage electronic submission procedure? Answer: It was OK (the listed ones were either on one side or the other) A general wish on future submission procedures: that they are as easy as possible, and don't take more than 10 (real) minutes. Part II. I think this survey could be further improved and also made shorter (regarding final question above). A wish about the statistics which will be prepared: to report accurately on the number of algorithms which will be never implemented. I hope the statistics will be made available and distributed to the participants during the symposium (or at least posted on the web).
Please add explanation to the above fields. Some of them are not self explanatory.
This form does not provide ample options. For example: 1. Running time (no option to specify results that are linear/polynomial in one parameter - an important one, while treating other parameters as constant, etc.) 2. # of authors does not account for part time students working in industry (therefore numbers dont add up). 3. Final Question about the paper - only the two extremes are available as options (very well OR does not fit at all).
The above questions is great, but it clearly has many holes for our particular paper. I would be happy to suggest refinements of your categories for this purpose. Thanks, Chee
The paper uses BSP trees, Segment trees, and Sweep Planes heavily. Thus, it could be considered a data structure paper, as well as an algorithms paper.
The offered categories reflect a traditional view of the work done in computational geometry and need some expansion into computational topology.
Quite a few times I would wish there were additional categories.
It would be absurd to _require_ that the submission be formatted differently than the final paper. And a huge waste of time, too.
no author can have more than two papers in one conf submission

Part III: Questions for Program Committee Members

The bidding process

Which of the following features (bugs?) of the bidding process did you find useful?
summaries ("abstracts")
12 12 | 100%
subject categories (1. Geometric algorithms: design. 2. Geometric algorithms: analysis. 3. Geometric data structures ... 17. Applications)
2 2 | 100%
looking at papers before the submission deadline
4 4 | 100%

Five categories for bidding (++,+,~,-,conflict) is too much.
1 1 | 100%
Five categories for bidding are too few.
 0 | 100%
Five categories for bidding are o.k.
11 11 | 100%

The reviewing process

Specifying a confidence level for the evaluation (range 0-3)
  • This feature can be dropped as far as I am concerned.
1 1 | 100%
  • It was convenient.
3 3 | 100%
  • It was important.
8 8 | 100%
Giving separate grades in different categories (technical strength, presentation, etc.)
  • This feature can be dropped as far as I am concerned.
5 5 | 100%
  • It was convenient.
5 5 | 100%
  • It was important.
2 2 | 100%
What did you think of papers with accompanying video and multimedia submissions?
  • I did not notice any accompanying video and multimedia submissions with the papers I looked at.
6 6 | 100%
  • I found them useful.
3 3 | 100%
  • I did not find them useful.
3 3 | 100%
In general, do you think it is a good idea to encourage papers with accompanying video and multimedia submissions?
  • Yes.
6 6 | 100%
  • No.
6 6 | 100%

The discussion process

Normalized scores in addition to original scores
  • This feature can be dropped as far as I am concerned.
3 3 | 100%
  • They were convenient.
7 7 | 100%
  • They were important.
2 2 | 100%
History of status changes
  • This feature can be dropped as far as I am concerned.
2 2 | 100%
  • It was convenient.
2 2 | 100%
  • It was important.
8 8 | 100%
List of paper scores, alphabetical by title
  • This feature can be dropped as far as I am concerned.
5 5 | 100%
  • They were convenient.
6 6 | 100%
  • They were important.
1 1 | 100%
List of paper scores by paper number
  • This feature can be dropped as far as I am concerned.
 0 | 100%
  • They were convenient.
6 6 | 100%
  • They were important.
6 6 | 100%
List of paper scores, sorted by standard deviation of scores
  • This feature can be dropped as far as I am concerned.
3 3 | 100%
  • They were convenient.
8 8 | 100%
  • They were important.
1 1 | 100%
Any useful/important features that I could think of. (besides having the total count in each category prominently displayed at all times)
2 2 | 100%
For the bidding process it would be very nice to have a page that lists the abstracts and gives you the opportunity to bid just under each abstract. I had to have two windows open, one with the abstracts, one with the bidding, which was pretty annoying (especially after clicking on the wrong button and losing all bids entered so far ... :-\
Having a clear and standarized way of separating the PC person opinions from subreferees opinions

A discussion phase of three weeks is too long.
1 1 | 100%
Three weeks of discussion are too short.
 0 | 100%
Three weeks of discussion are just right.
11 11 | 100%