Best Paper Awards in Computer Science since 1996

[kilburn]

Please don't link to google scholar. Link to the conference websites directly if you can, or otherwise to DBLP [1].

Most of these conferences are open access and make a good effort to get the papers they publish to the widest audience possible. Google scholar typically hot-links the PDFs, and keeps them invisible link-wise. This is slowly eroding the conference's "web reputation" (based on links primarily) and keeps funneling users to the big corps, something we really don't need these days ;)

[1] https://dblp.uni-trier.de/

[andrepd]

Thank you, I didn't know about that website!

[cs702]

Thank you for doing this!

Quick suggestion:

Please consider including best paper awards from NeurIPS (e.g., https://nips.cc/Conferences/2017/Awards).

[toxik]

Unrelated but NIPS changing name to NeurIPS has just drawn more attention to the alleged inappropriateness of its former name.

[boulos]

While not as "top tier" as siggraph, HPG (the merger/successor of Graphics Hardware and the Ray Tracing Symposium) has a reasonable best paper list: https://www.highperformancegraphics.org/2019/best-paper/

As a note, the first paper listed when it's 1. 2. 3. was the "best" paper (the others were runners up).

[jacques_chester]

This list is a reminder that the work done by researchers and the work done in industry have profoundly little overlap, outside of a handful of high-profile examples.

If the giants would like to do us all a massive favour: pay the IEEE and ACM for worldwide, perpetual, ongoing rights to their libraries. Because right now that vast ocean of literature is basically invisible to practitioners.

[chrisseaton]

> This list is a reminder that the work done by researchers and the work done in industry have profoundly little overlap, outside of a handful of high-profile examples.

I'm not sure what you mean - this list seems to contain a healthy mix of academic and industrial work. Big names like Google, Facebook, Microsoft, Oracle, are all represented.

And why is it invisible to practitioners? Most tech companies will have a membership of these libraries anyway.

[currymj]

most articles from after about 2000 have a version on arxiv, if the conferences and venues aren't already open access. in CS this is almost always substantially the same work as gets published in a conference or journal.

Google Scholar the title in quotes and you will almost always find either the arXiv PDF or a version from the author website, conveniently linked along with well-formatted bibliographic information.

also re ACM, an unlimited-access subscription to every ACM publication runs $198/year with an ACM professional membership (cheaper for students), if you have a moral objection to just using sci-hub.

don't know if there's something similar for IEEE.

things are way better in CS than basically any other field. not to say there aren't huge obstacles to connecting researchers and practitioners. but access to journals doesn't have to be one, once you know the same tricks grad students use when not on campus wifi.

[nickpsecurity]

Another option is posting them to tech forums more often and/or voting them up for visibility. I was posting CompSci here as submissions and comments. Comments got attention with submissions mostly invisible. We had quite a few of these papers in main article on Lobsters since they upvote CompSci a lot. My default spot for CompSci papers now. There might be sub-Reddits with some of them, too.

Gotta get the work out there ourselves instead of hoping the big companies will do it for us. Probably best to straight-up build stuff with it rather than telling people about it. Also, they'll listen more when someone brings data that improves their operations.

[hnaccy]

Just use sci-hub.

[robotresearcher]

Most of those papers’ first authors were in industry shortly afterwards. Most grad students go directly to industry and take their knowledge with them.

[AndrewKemendo]

The by-instituion ranking is particularly interesting: https://jeffhuang.com/best_paper_awards.html#institutions

Some of those are obvious if you've been in the field a while, but I think it's notable that big names like Intel, Harvard and NASA are so lowly ranked when compared to others on the list.

Also Notable, none of the big names in the field won any of these: Jeff Dean, Geoff Hinton, Yann Lecun, Andrew Ng, Yoshua Bengio, Jurgen Schmidhuber etc...

[azhenley]

Jeff Dean has won paper awards. For example, he won the Best Paper Award at EuroSys 2018: http://eurosys2018.org/awards/

Andrew Ng has too: http://www.robotics.stanford.edu/~ang/papers.php

This list just contains a very small number of conferences.

[bytematic]

Harvard isn't known for its CS, many state schools I would personally go to over it.

[vowelless]

Great list, with a lot of work put in there! In particular, the breakdown by institutions is very interesting -- https://jeffhuang.com/best_paper_awards.html#institutions

Related, the most cited CS papers (although very dated at this point ...):

http://citeseer.ist.psu.edu/stats/articles

[acbart]

CS Education venues never show up on these lists. In some cases, it's intentional and in others it's accidental. Either way, I wonder if we'll ever see the same respect as our peers in CS. It's a weird spot to be in.

[azhenley]

I think it’ll change with the rise of ICER and the recent push from SIGCSE to have a research track.

Quite a few faculty job postings have even been for CS Ed researchers :)

[LeanderK]

doesn't look too good for german institutions (or europe in general) :( I thought it we are just not really that important in machine learning, but other disciplines are similiar. Any physicist here? Are german institutions more visible in physics? They always appear to have quite big physics faculties.

[chrisseaton]

A lot of these people are European, or working in European locations such as MSR's Cambridge lab, but they do tend to be working for American institutions. The failure is our institutions, not our people.

[xpuente]

Seems like computer architecture is not computer science. Nice.

[amelius]

Note that Microsoft Research is far above any other companies in the list (see last table on the page).

[adolfont]

Read Alfie Kohn to understand how such a list is stupid.

[mlevental]

man this is fantastic - thanks a lot jeff!

[jeanlou]

I'm surprised this list does not include David Lowe seminal paper on SIFT: "Distinctive Image Features from Scale - Invariant Key points"

[karxxm]

No VIS?