Helsinki, here I come!

[gusl]

Dear Gustavo Lacerda, Peter Spirtes, Joseph Ramsey, Patrik Hoyer

on behalf of the UAI2008 Program Committee, we are pleased to inform you that your paper #180:

Discovering Cyclic Causal Models by Independent Components Analysis

has been accepted to be presented at The 24th Conference on Uncertainty in Artificial Intelligence as a plenary talk.

Instructions for preparing and submitting the camera-ready copy, and for paying any potential extra page charges will be posted soon on the conference web page at http://uai2008.cs.helsinki.fi/

My team's other paper (in which I'm a secondary author) was accepted as a poster, even though it had higher marks for "Overall Recommendation": 9,7,7 vs my 6,7,7.

Is there a significant difference in prestige between giving a talk and presenting a poster? Isn't it published in the proceedings either way, in such a way that an outsider cannot tell whether it was accepted as a talk?

My theory about NESCAI reviews being the harshest seems to be confirmed. Andy and Mark had a similar experience (accepted to ICML, rejected by NESCAI).

Comments

[mdinitz.livejournal.com]

Congratulations!

[gustavolacerda.livejournal.com]

And you are one of the acknowledgees!

[bhudson.livejournal.com]

Congrats!

Now I just need a few of those luck-rays.