[robocup-legged] Suggestions about future qualification

[=?gb2312?B?1dTD97n6?=]

Dear all,


It¡¯s a pity that we haven¡¯t got our second chance to enter the international RoboCup competition. However, we still want to express our thanks and respect to the TC for their arduous work during the qualification process. Also, we have some suggestions about future qualification procedure of this league.

(1) Announce the criterions of the qualification in advance
The criterions each year might differ slightly from previous ones due to the alteration of committee members, so we hope the TC could announce the qualification criterions of the coming year in advance, i.e. not long after competitions of the current year. Although some general topics are mentioned on the website, it is hard for applicants to know what to show for the qualification, especially for new teams. After all, each team has its own research plan, and no one could spend the whole year on coding. The pre-qualified teams can arrange their research schedule just according to date of competition, while for other teams, they obviously have to prepare a lot of things both fit for the qualification criterions and suitable to show. Announcing the criterions in advance can help the new teams get prepared, and certainly can save the TC a lot of time on explaining for the qualification process afterwards.

(2) Announce the detailed qualification results and offer some advice to the teams that have no chance for the competition
As we all know, new teams spend a lot of time preparing for the qualification, hoping not only to enter the final competition, but also to get some valuable advice on future research and development. The qualification process provides such a wonderful chance. From our own experience, we did learn a LOT during and after our first entrance to international RoboCup competitions, which was held in OSAKA last year. As for the teams that have already missed the chance to enter the competition this year, we think they should get another way to learn something, not just a simple rejection of no specific reasons. We would be fully grateful to the TC if you could give specific suggestions to each failed applicant team, because you are most familiar with the competition related technologies and every suggestion you offer will be invaluable for us. Of course giving suggestions to every single applicant team will be a terribly hard job, we all understand that, but still we¡¯re hoping the TC could give a try, at least you can give marks in separating aspects just as the review procedure of submitted papers, so that every applicant team will realize its advantages and disadvantages. 

(3) Give the outline of Scientific Contributions and list the fields that the league is interested in
The aim of RoboCup competition is to promote AI and Robotics research. As for 4-legged league, related technical fields are quite broad. What are the points that the league is focusing on? What are the achievements that will make scientific contributions? For a new team, it¡¯s quite hard to realize and understand. On the other hand, competition performance does not always accord with research achievements, they¡¯re not equal. During the competition a highly efficient gait might be of no use due to vision defect; a team with decisions created by new AI algorithms might be beaten by a team with experienced hand-tuning decisions. What determines a team¡¯s scientific contribution? The quantity and quality of publications, or the actual performance during competitions? There should be a standard. After all, the TC bears responsibility for guiding the research and development of the league. 

(4) Possibly make the qualification more standard and open
The number of applicant teams is getting larger in recent years, therefore it¡¯s more difficult for the TC to make decisions of which teams are qualified for the competition just via discussing on the net, and of course they are carrying heavier burden than ever. So we wonder whether the TC could  consider other leagues¡¯ qualification procedure for reference, i.e. the MSL, and use a stand and complete grading system to evaluate the applicant teams for the final competition. Even could TC allow applicants to participate in part of the grading, so that every team can join the qualification process and realize the real position they are really at. Only in this way can doubt be eliminated, and the TC could pay more attention to technical achievements of the teams, and development of the whole league.

(5) More discussion and documentation on qualification
We suggest that criterions and rules of qualification should be discussed among all league members before the whole beginning of the qualification process. Also, the research interests of the league should be widely discussed. We wish that all members promote the development of 4-legged league, not just a few. And it¡¯s necessary that those criterions and rules be organized into standard documents where there should be not only rules about how the match goes, but also rules for how the qualification goes, or how the TC works. Another thing we noticed is that in the recent years, although the annual review had been reported, it became a summary of the process and results of the competition. The review for each year is an important official document that summarizes the progress in technique and research. It also indicates the research interests of the league. Thus we suggest that the review on technique and research of the year, as well as the criterions of qualification for the next year be reported after each year's competition.


Best reagrd.
TsinghuaHephaestus P.R.China
	
Dr. Zhao Mingguo
Associate Prof.
Lab of Robot intelligent Control,
Dept. of Automation, Tsinghua Unv. P.R.China,
mail:mgzhao at mail.tsinghua.edu.cn,
Tel/Fax:86-010-62794322