[If you want to know about how the contest rules work, then click on any blue text in this sentence.]
So, the SIGGRAPH 2002 papers have been announced, and the world pauses in its circuit around the sun as the results are compiled...
The Top Eleven (which sounds more dramatic than "the people with 200 or more points") at this point are:
Points Name & Lab ========================================================= 306.67 Aaron Hertzmann, Super Butter Dog 277.57 Tim Purcell, Wunky Munky Du 265.00 Hugues Hoppe, Shlomo & Hugues 255.24 Ian Buck, The Frys Addicts 243.57 Henrik Wann Jensen, The Vikings 230.00 Zeki Melek, incompressible fluid motion (?) 227.00 Mathieu Desbrun, The cheap ones (quatloos-wise) 218.57 Cyrille Damez 217.67 Brian Curless and David Salesin, Pixel Polytech 202.00 Dave Zareski, Particle Tracers 200.00 Peter Shirley, Utah Polygonistsout of 78 contestants. {My mindless "hire Stanford students" strategy worked fairly well, putting me in 14th place. Actually, this was a tough strategy to follow, since I couldn't afford everyone. I missed some real winners, such as Christoph "20 will get you 45" Bregler. With Stanford having some part in 10 more papers this year, there will be even more rookies to choose from next year, if anyone tries this strategy.}
[Late breaking news: Pete Shirley noticed that he was worthless this year. This was an error on my part, a stray blank space at the end of a line in a data file caused his name and the paper he worked on to be ignored. The results above show him in his proper place. D'oh, and points for Zoran `last person on the list' Popovic didn't get added in; this fix kicked Aaron Hertzmann into first place! Oh, and another, the accent in Bruno Lévy's name made him at first have no points. Oh, and Dani Lischinski was misspelt, as was Norman Badler, so these have now scored. I'll wait a day before sending out an update. If you notice more errors, let me know.]
Things are not over yet: the sketches first authors are worth 20 points each, and will not be announced until June 7th. Recall that Hanspeter Pfister picked up 60 points last year with the Frisken gambit off the back wall, getting a double quoit in the last chukar. Our current leader, Aaron Hertzmann, was in fifth place at this time last year, but picked up 20 points and finished second once the wildcard sketches were tabulated.
Most impressive this year is that the high scores are considerably higher than last year, a solid 100 points higher. It was interesting to see the effect of resubmits: up until the deadline you could submit a new, revised team - only the last team submitted counts as your entry. Tim Purcell's initial team would have put him in 6th place, but his revision netted him an extra 44 points. Others were not so lucky. Of the four other people who revised their team once, only one person moved up, by 28 points; the other three moved down, by 15, 24, and 60 points. Of the two people who revised their teams twice, each final team was lower than the initial team, down by 25 and 45 points. Conclude whatever you wish.
As far as the researchers themselves go, the most cost effective were:
### Value Cost Efficiency Name ============================== 142 65.00 20 3.2500 Fabio Pellacini 334 60.00 20 3.0000 Marc Alexa 297 60.00 20 3.0000 Ken Perlin 38 12.00 5 2.4000 Aseem Agarwala 75 45.00 20 2.2500 Christoph Bregler 548 20.00 10 2.0000 Xianfeng Gu 569 62.00 40 1.5500 Zoran Popovic 324 15.00 10 1.5000 Lorie Loeb 126 30.00 20 1.5000 Douglas DeCarlo 355 15.00 10 1.5000 Mary C. Whitton 555 15.00 10 1.5000 Yanyun Chen 557 15.00 10 1.5000 Ying-Qing Xu 206 15.00 10 1.5000 Ian Buck 345 20.00 15 1.3333 Mark Meyer 479 20.00 15 1.3333 Steve Marschner 226 20.00 15 1.3333 Jan Kautz 512 12.00 10 1.2000 Tom Duchamp 449 60.00 50 1.2000 Ronald Fedkiw 413 12.00 10 1.2000 Paul A. Beardsley 544 12.00 10 1.2000 Wojciech Matusik 564 12.00 10 1.2000 Yung-Yu ChuangThat is, these people gave the most points per Quatloo paid for them. Everyone else was rated 1.0 or less.
The researchers that made the most points overall, regardless of cost, were:
### Value Cost Efficiency Name ============================== 142 65.00 20 3.2500 Fabio Pellacini 569 62.00 40 1.5500 Zoran Popovic 162 60.00 65 0.9231 George Drettakis 449 60.00 50 1.2000 Ronald Fedkiw 334 60.00 20 3.0000 Marc Alexa 195 60.00 100 0.6000 Heung-Yeung Shum 297 60.00 20 3.0000 Ken Perlin 190 50.00 85 0.5882 Henrik Wann Jensen 239 47.00 90 0.5222 Jessica K. Hodgins 75 45.00 20 2.2500 Christoph Bregler 410 45.00 240 0.1875 Pat Hanrahan 53 44.00 50 0.8800 Brian Curless 279 42.00 70 0.6000 Julie Dorsey 40 40.00 70 0.5714 Baining Guo 123 35.00 150 0.2333 Donald P. GreenbergEveryone else scored 30 points or less.
Finally, the most popular researchers were:
Authors, by popularity on teams =============================== 22 Henrik Wann Jensen 16 Michael F. Cohen 12 Ken Perlin 11 Wolfgang Heidrich 11 Ronald Fedkiw 10 Mathieu Desbrun 10 Steve Marschner 10 Zoran Popovic 9 Peter Shirley 9 Paul E. Debevec 9 Frédo Durandranked by the number of labs that hired them. If you're on any of these lists, ask for a raise.
All for now, and keep a Spyonit watcher on the SIGGRAPH sketches page to see how your lab finally stacks up, or just visit here again come mid-June.