This page provides details about the ESA 2018 Track B Experiment. ESA (European Symposium on Algorithms) is one of the premier conferences on algorithms. It has two tracks: Track A (Design and Analysis) and Track B (Engineering and Applications). The basic setup of the experiments is as follows: there will be two separate PCs for Track B, which will independently review all the submissions to Track B and independently decide on a set of papers to be accepted. After the PCs have done their work, the results will be compared both quantitatively (e.g., overlap in sets of accepted papers) and qualitatively (e.g., typical reasons for differences in the decisions of the two PCs). The results of this comparison will be published. Depending on the outcome, the set of accepted papers for Track B will either be the union of the set of accepted papers from the two independent PCs, or there will be a final round (outside of the experiment) discussing the submissions, where the two PCs reached different conclusions.

Selection of the two PCs

Both PCs have 12 members. Both have the same PC chair. The complete list of members can be found here: http://algo2018.hiit.fi/esa/#pc . The PCs have been set up so as to have an identical distribution with respect to topic, age group, gender, continent in the following sense. The topics are only a rough categorization of what the respective PC members are working on (many work on more than one topic, and topics are not that clear cut anyway).

• Gender: 8 men, 4 women

• Age group: 2 x junior (PhD <= 5 years ago), 4 x relatively junior (PhD <= 10 years ago), 6 x senior

• Continent: 8 x Europe, 4 x Americas (we tried Asia, but weren't successful, sorry for that)
• Topic: 1 x parallel algorithms (junior), 2 x string algorithms (one less senior, one more senior), 2 x computational geometry (one junior, one senior), 2 x operations research (one junior, one senior), 5 x algorithms in general (three junior, two senior)

Reviewing Algorithm

Scores for single review

+2 (accept) I would champion this paper and fight against a rejection no major weaknesses +1 (weak accept) I would support this paper, but not fight against rejection significant weaknesses, but nothing fatal

• 0 (borderline) Hovering between +1 and −1 not sure about the severity / threshold for ESA

−1 (weak reject) Not supporting this paper, but would not fight accept significant weaknesses, but nothing fatal −2 (reject) I wolud oppose this paper and fight against acceptance major weaknesses, not acceptable for ESA Comment : Sometimes there are also +3 (strong accept) and −3 (strong reject). Experience shows that they are of little use for deciding on the set of accepted papers; see the algorithm below.