Saying It Better Than I Ever Could: Chuck Klosterman Edition

So that was a long hiatus. But I'm back! My apologies to my legions and legions of fans for being so silent for awhile. Hopefully you will forgive me and trust that I have neglected you for so long because I have been extremely busy. Yes, I know, I'm just a "lazy grad student" but even we get overwhelmed sometimes.

Anyway, in today's episode of "Saying It Better Than I Ever Could", we look to the work of Chuck Klosterman.

Now, I rather enjoy reading Chuck Klosterman, having purchased a number of his books in the last year. He speaks to my weakness for intellectual arguments about (often trivial) pop-culture phenomenon. I must confess, I often don't even know what his point is, but the journey always keeps me engaged. I find myself following along feeling like his argument is important, even if I don't know why*. And I actually mean that as a compliment.

As the beginning of this post suggests, I am not a very prolific writer. Part of the reason for this is that I am busy. Another is captured in the following quote by Klosterman:

"Sometimes writing is like talking to a stranger who's exactly like yourself in every possible way, only (you) realize that this stranger is boring as shit."

- Chuck Klosterman, "Eating the Dinosaur". Scribner, 2009.

I've certainly started and canned a fair share posts. Which is particularly weird considering I have almost no expectation that anyone will actually read what I post. But there is something unsatisfying about posting something to the internet that even I am bored by. It just seems like I'm adding to the clutter.

And I will not stand for that. My standards are higher. At the very least, my fans deserve something like this post: a mediocre piece of work piggy-backing on someone else's talent.

* I am pretty sure Klosterman wrote something in this vein about Radiohead, but I spent the last 40 minutes looking for that quote and came up empty-handed. See, I'm even doing research for these blog posts!

The Symposium on What-Now?

This was written during a 12 hour train ride from Atlanta to New Orleans on July 16.

I have been criss-crossing the continent for most of the summer, with my latest travels taking me to Georgia (the American one). For those of you who consider me a good-for-nothing layabout student, I can assure you that this voyage actually qualifies as "for business." At least part of it.

I was brought to Georgia for the Symposium on Combinatorial Search (SoCS), an annual gathering of computer scientists whose main area of research is combinatorial search. The conference took place in Stony Mountain, Georgia which is approximately 30-45 minutes from Atlanta.

This was certainly a worthwhile event, as many of the top scientists in the field were on hand to present their latest work, discuss ideas for future research, and mingle in a social setting. In some sense, this two-day event is an onslaught of combinatorial search research. Part of this is due to the nine-to-five portion of each day being consumed with podium or poster presentations of state-of-the-art research, but perhaps the most productive portion of the symposium occurs outside of this formal structured component. This is because you eat with the group, you enjoy your coffee breaks with the group, and you wind down the rest of the day with the group (perhaps over a cold pint of Yuengling). And it is during these informal discussions, that many ideas for future research emerges.

Now I'm not going to pretend that I spent 2 and a half days talking only science (the half day coming in the form of an opening reception the night before the main portion of the symposium). It was great to see Zee German again, as I have not had much of an opportunity to speak to him since he left Alberta for his fatherland. And I certainly enjoyed having an opportunity to learn about the personal lives of researchers whom I have only known through their scientific output. But the common interest of all of the people in attendance is that of combinatorial search, and so it was this topic that dominated discussion.

As a PhD student still early into this latest degree and without a thesis topic yet decided upon --- don't worry Ma, this is true of almost everyone at this stage --- such an opportunity to survey the current landscape of your field, find out what people are interested in, and bounce ideas off of top minds, is immensely useful. And it is reasons like this that such symposiums or workshops can be so valuable.

Thoughts on the way back

I was recently travelling around the US, and will be describing and reflecting on a few of my adventures. Some of these posts were actually written during the trip including the following one which I wrote on July 20th.

Oof, I've been on the road a lot recently. This is my second 12 hour train ride in 5 days, and tomorrow I will make the 7 and a half hour plane trip back to Edmonton. So it isn't quite done yet, but the end is in sight. And I must say: I'm glad. While I like to take as many opportunities as I can to travel, it can be both physically and mentally draining. And I am at the point where I need some time to recuperate.

I admit that this isn't a particularly novel sentiment. But it certainly captures my current state of mind which longs for quieter days ahead without customs agents, security checks, early morning cab rides, and being confined to a small amount of space for large quantities of time. But I'm also looking forward to not discovering a new city for a while: to just being comfortable in a place I know well around people I know well.

Killing Time before a meeting with a One Paragraph Movie Review

I try to support Canadian films when I can, but a lame movie is a lame movie. And "Gunless" is a lame movie. The plot is cliched and not really entertaining, the characters are uninteresting, the cinematography is bland, the comic-relief is not funny, and the romance is unconvincing. Even the play on American and Canadian stereotypes is eye-roll inducing. While not unwatchable, it remains lame. Go watch "Canadian Bacon" instead if you are looking for a playful and amusing take on American-Canadian relations and stereotypes.

The Only Good Twitter Accounts are Fake Twitter Accounts

I don't know about you, but I've always found the parody twitter accounts much more entertaining than any real twitter accounts. In that end, I give you the musings of Dick Balenzano, a parody of me, Rick Valenzano.

Dick Balenzano is the creation of Joe Buscemi, who decided to create a character loosely based on me. He initially had it under my name, but I decided to rename the character "Dick Balenzano" since I am hoping that people will be googling for my actual name as a way to find my research, and I do not want them to get confused.

I have contributed from time to time, but I try to write as the character, not as myself. You should be able to tell which tweets are mine (there are very few of them), and which are Joe's since mine of are almost uniformly of lower quality. It turns out it is very difficult to write as a parody of yourself.

Any way, check out the thoughts of Dick Balenzano.  I suspect that if you know me you will be entertained.

Composure

Lost Week is on a brief hiatus, but it is certainly not over. In the meantime, I want to speak about Armando Galarraga.

As you probably already know, Galarraga threw a perfect game Wednesday night. Or at least he did in spirit. On what should have been the final out of the game, Jason Donald hit a ground ball to first baseman Miguel Cabrera who was pulled off the bag by the hit. Cabrera then tossed the ball to Galarraga who touched the bag and recorded the final out. Unfortunately, the first-base umpire, Jim Joyce, didn't see it that way. In the heat of the moment, Joyce blew the call at first and cost Galarraga the perfect game.

Galarraga was just about to pump his fists when he saw the umpire's call. He was clearly excited. But when he saw Joyce extend his hands to indicate his call, he somehow kept it together. Not only did he not get upset, he simply looked amused by the situation. He then collected himself and got the next batter out.

I don't know what's more amazing: how well Galarraga pitched, or how well he managed to keep his composure. This would have been only the 21st time in baseball history that someone threw a perfect game. It is a monumental achievement. And yet he simply shrugged off Joyce's bad call.

Players blow up all the time over missed calls (or calls that they incorrectly interpret as being missed), even at times where it doesn't matter in the slightest. This was a botched call that prevented Galarraga, for at least one game, from reaching a level of excellence that is so rarely achieved. And he shrugged it off!

I had never heard of this guy until last night. Now I have nothing but the greatest of respect for this man. My hat is off to you Armando Galarraga. You may not have thrown a perfect game, but certainly you have reached some sort of pantheon of class.

(By the way, the catch by Austin Jackson to maintain the perfect game in the 9th was just unbelievable. Needs to be seen to be believed. As was Galarraga's grin immediately thereafter)

Lost Week: Pitting Bloggers of Science against Bloggers of Faith

Last Sunday night, Lost ended with a two and a half hour extravaganza. This sparked a fury of conversation between Joe and I which was interrupted by the demands of real life. Neither of us were content to let it end with that, and so we have decided to let the dialogue seep on for awhile. As there is a real void of Lost related discussion on the internet by random people, we thought we would chronicle this discussion online on this here blog. Anyway, be forewarned that we will definitely spoil many major plot points for those of you haven't seen the show and plan on doing so.

The following entry was written by Rick.

You are completely correct to point out that we come from very different approaches to the show. Obviously we have a lot of common ground having known each other for so long. But we do differ slightly in our entertainment tastes, and we did consume this show in a completely different way. When a show ended on a cliffhanger, I could simply start the next episode but putting in the next DVD. You had no such luxury as you had to stay on the edge of your seat for whenever the next episode was delivered.

And perhaps I did the show a disservice watching it in the way I did. I found that consuming it in such a compressed time-span can be a bit overwhelming considering how much conflict is thrown at the viewer.  Because of this, the never-ending onslaught of obstacles did occasionally become tiresome.

As a result, I became somewhat jaded as the seasons wore on, and while I was still entertained, I became less and less convinced they would wrap things up in any over-arching ways. Let me badly abuse a Lost-based metaphor for a second: I was the Shepherdian cynic who was perplexed by your Lockian faith in the producers of the show. I was still enjoying the ride, but I just assumed they would never be able to tie it together.

My main issue with the show was that I felt that in an effort to constantly one-up some previous level of tension and conflict, the producers felt it necessary to keep jumping from one widely divergent sci-fi thread to another. I gave up hope that they ever could achieve narrative closure, which is why I was quite content with what I got.

So where do we take this discussion? From my vantage point, the obvious question is "Where did it all go astray?" which to me is interpreted as "At what point did it become impossible to close enough loose ends?" I suspect your Lockian interpretation will instead be the much more optimistic "What are the main plots points that I needed to be addressed, and could have been if they had a little more time?"

A few final thoughts. Obviously categorizing each of us in the tiny boxes of Locke and Jack is silly. These things aren't binary, and the analogy isn't even particularly apt. I mostly just like writing the word "Lockian." Makes me feel like a big man.

In addition, there is the possibility that the only reason I am bringing up this line of questioning is because I want to point to some specific event in the show that you found bothersome, to which I can respond with "No Joe, we have to go back." After all, I am a simple man with simple pleasures.

Rick

Lost Week: It's Like Shark Week, Except Different in Every Conceivable Way

Last Sunday night, Lost ended with a two and a half hour extravaganza. This sparked a fury of conversation between Joe and I which was interrupted by the demands of real life. Neither of us were content to let it end with that, and so we have decided to let the dialogue seep on for awhile. As there is a real void of Lost related discussion on the internet by random people, we thought we would chronicle this discussion online on this here blog. Anyway, be forewarned that we will definitely spoil many major plot points for those of you haven't seen the show and plan on doing so.

The following entry was written by Joe.

In the words of Dewey Cox “there’s something happening here, what it is ain’t exactly…. obvious”.  That quote correlates well to what I’ve taken away from the show, the finale, what the island was and what the show was really all about. The more I think about, the more I find myself disappointed with the writers’ chosen approach to conclude this amazing and historic show.  

As the urban idiom goes, “haters gonna hate”, but even haters must concede that Lost was an unprecedented (and likely to be unequaled) achievement of network television. It was the antithesis of most network goals in a sea of compartmentalized dramas and cheaply produced reality television. It was expensive, complicated, genre focused and exceptionally serialized to the point where each episode had to be watched in order, and along with 24, really kicked off the TV-on-DVD revolution. A show who’s driving focus ab initio was the finale. This was a show that achieved things in a way that Twin Peaks teased at without the benefit of an endgame (or the internet), and the X-Files flirted with but never embraced the hidden-clues-coming-together-at-the-end-you-have-to-watch-from-ep1-to-really-appreciate kind of storytelling Lost did. It was without hyperbole one of the best examples of what network television can be.

Before I get into things however, some general comments I believe are in order, before we delve into the nitty gritty of specifics throughout this week. For those who don’t know (which is everyone save for 3 people) I will be providing a divergent viewpoint than that of Rick throughout our discourse. I don’t imply viewpoint as in my opinion of the show/finale differs from his (though I suspect it might) but divergent in that I literally viewed the show from a different position than Rick. Not to suggested an air of authenticity or entitlement but I was “hardcore” as the kids say. Starting with the 3rd season four years ago, I was forced to wait a week between my episodes, and then months between seasons. These were incubation periods where the desire to find answers to the shows mysteries multiplied to critical conditions. Cliché though it may be to say, Lost wasn’t just “a show”, there was an entire sub-culture underneath it that the producers actively propagated that communicated to the fans that the island’s mysteries were integral to the show (more on this later). There were dozens of “podcasts” (like radio shows on very specific topics) that tossed theories back and forth and re-caped episodes. There were online interactive stories to occupy hardcore fans during the frequent hiatuses that provided more mysteries to the island. Take a look at some of them at LostPedia and understand how (perhaps other than Star Trek-dom though it lacks the overarching mystery) Lost became a part of audiences lives in a way most shows could never compare. And it is from this viewpoint that I can say the finale of Lost both left me sad to see it go and also significantly disappointed.  

Not disappointed with the final scenes of Jack stumbling to his origin point, or even the non-corporeal dénouement; in actuality I really enjoyed the finale 10 minutes of Lost and think they would have been perfect conclusions if there was more exposition throughout the 6th and final season. Lost was a show that frequently and consciously kept the viewer returning with a tantalizing world of mini-mysteries that the show runners promised time and time again would pay off. We were encouraged to be Lockian men of faith in contrast to Shepherdian viewers who walked away from the proverbial hatch button and assume the show couldn’t deliver on its promises. It’s easy for me to envision that JJ Abrams pitched this show and planned out the first episode and truly did have the foresight to say “and then the show will end with the flashbacks of the final season turning out to be a kind of purgatory with all these season 1 characters and the show ends with a plane taking off with whomever you choose to keep alive and Jack’s closing eye”. I’ll give them that, I think they had that in the bag all along, and it is quite a good conclusion. The problem that I’m beginning to realize is after that point, when JJ handed the show off to Damon Lindeloff and Carlton Cuse, they didn’t understand how to get there properly. They literally built mysteries on top of mysteries to keep viewers coming back only to go into the final season treading water to build to an interesting season ending twist and then said “the show is about the characters more than anything else”. To that I say horseshit (pardon my German). This show made its living on the promises of answering the many mysteries in a satisfying way. It is not simply a “character show” like Grey’s Anatomy or most television shows (not that there’s anything wrong with that).   A show like Friends is a character show, where if one is vaguely familiar with the show they might ask a fan “so who does Rachel end up with in the end?” As a Lost fan who works at a video store I’ve heard a myriad of questions from casual viewers and not one was “So, who does Kate end up with?” or “Will Sun and Jin ever be reunited?” I always hear “do they ever say what the island is?” or “what is the smoke monster?” or “why are there polar bears?”  These questions literally are the show. To abandon the mysteries in the final hour is an incredible disservice to the show even if the character conclusions were flawless.

To conclude my opening statements I put forward the following thesis: the conclusion of Lost provided exceptional, virtually perfect emotional closure to the series but hardly any narrative closure; as a show that built its longevity upon the foreshadowed  unknown being satisfyingly resolved it can only be described as, at best, disappointing.

Now, let’s begin.

A look back at Lost by some random over-educated dudes on the internet

I haven't had cable for a few years now, and even when I did, I didn't follow too many serial dramas. However, about a year ago, a friend of mine, Master Joseph Buscemi, implored me to get in on Lost before the show ended. Even though I respect the Master's opinion on television, movies, and pop culture, I resisted for awhile. I did so mostly because I enjoy being obnoxious, but also because I worried about getting sucked into a huge time-sink. In the end, I finally agreed and I even managed to catch up on the first 5 seasons of the show before the final season began.

Last Sunday night, the series ended with a two and a half hour extravaganza. This sparked a fury of conversation between Joe and I which was interrupted by the demands of real life. Neither of us were content to let it end with that, and so we have decided to let the dialogue seep on for awhile. As there is a real void of Lost related discussion on the internet by random people, we thought we would chronicle this discussion online on this here blog. Anyway, be forewarned that we will definitely spoil many major plot points for those of you haven't seen the show and plan on doing so.



Well, it looks like I (Rick) am kicking of Lost week, but what may turn into something bigger. Here goes: there were two main threads in Season 6: the wrapping up the on-island action with Jacob and the Man in Black being the driving force (I still can't believe they refused to give this guy an actual name); and, the parallel universe. The latter turned out to be a purgatory of sorts for most of the people who were on the island (but conspicuously not all) who constructed it so that they could be together when they go off into the afterlife. At least that's what I think it was. Regardless, I suspect we can agree that it was mostly the writers' way of having their their cake and eating it too.

They needed to be able to kill off characters for dramatic purposes. However, the audience had become quite attached to a number of these people. So the writers also needed a way to be able to treat them lovingly --- to let them ride off into the sunset and live happily ever after. Well, not live, per se. But to go somewhere in the afterlife that we assume is happy. Perhaps back to the island, except this time it is a tropical paradise with monkey butlers, all the food they can eat, and fewer smoke monsters.

To be honest, I think it kind of worked. This may be because my expectations for the show dropped as I got through seasons 4 and 5, but I wasn't really disappointed. But what about the make-up of that group in purgatory? Like I said, there were definitely some conspicuous omissions. Eko probably didn't show up for practical reasons --- I suspect the actor wasn't interested. The actor playing Walt probably looks crazy old by now. But what about Michael? I guess he said his ghost was stuck on the island. I guess. But I didn't Lapidus either (full disclosure: I love Lapidus)? Miles gets to tag along, but nobody thinks about inviting Lapidus? He is the only reason any of you ever got off the island. He saved some of you TWICE! And then there is Sayid, who is just so happy to have found Shannon again. Do things just get really awkward when the two of them run into Nadia
in the afterlife?

Your turn, good sir.

Rick

I do love that movie

Then the Stallion sayeth 'If I can change, and you can change, then everybody can change.' And with that decree, the peoples of the world rejoiced, for the war, known for being of low temperature, had ended. Thanks to the Stallion and his eye, like that of a tiger.

     -- from Paulie's Letters to the Philadelphians

Saying It Better Than I Ever Could: Malcolm Gladwell on Writing

One of the things I have wanted to do with this blog is to highlight particular moments of clarity by writers, filmakers, artists, scientists, or really anybody who captures an idea/notion/belief that I've had/have, but could never express nearly that well. Today, I turn my attention to Malcolm Gladwell.

Today, I have demonstrated my incredible capacity for procrastination. In order to avoid my work, I have instead done the following: washed the dishes, knee stretches/exercises (which is usually something I procrastinate from and haven't done in months even if I am supposed to do them weekly if not more often), general web surfing, and hey, looky here, a blog post. Any way, in my continuing attempts to avoid "coding" (actually Mizar for those in the know), I picked up a book of essays by Malcolm Gladwell that, let's go with a somewhat obscure reference and call her Lula Mae (at least for now), lent to me. So far, I have only read the preface. In it, Mr. Gladwell drops the following piece of brilliance on us:

"The trick to finding ideas is to convince yourself that everyone and everything has a story to tell. I say trick but what I really mean is challenge, because it's a very hard thing to do. Our instinct as humans, after all, is to assume that most things are not interesting... We filter and rank and judge. We have to. There's just so much out there. But if you want to be a writer, you have to fight that instinct every day. Shampoo doesn't seem interesting? Well, dammit, it must be, and if it isn't, I have to believe that it will ultimately lead me to something that is."

--- Malcolm Gladwell. "What the Dog Saw and other Adventures." Little Brown and Company. 2009.

Gladwell made this remark in a discussion about where his ideas come from. I am obviously not a professional writer, but this is certainly something that I have found has plagued me when trying to come up with ideas for pieces for this blog. When it comes down to it, I don't believe that I am a particularly interesting person. And I don't necessarily mean that in a negative way (well ... maybe slightly). But simply put, I am not James Bond, nor a swash-buckling pirate, nor a jet-setting world-famous explorer. However, this does not mean I cannot write interesting things. Not that I do (or at least, that is up to you), but it is theoretically possible.

I have always aspired to be a better storyteller than I am. Since I am not a professional writer, the opportunities I have to research the lives of others and write about them is limited. But my ability to write about my own experiences is not. The challenge is to take my relatively straightforward existence, and make it interesting to my audience. Discussing the work that I do in a way that is both accessible, and, almost more importantly, exciting to those without the same background as me, is another challenge.

Sometimes I have succeeded in spite of this challenge, but more often I have not. Certainly practice helps in finding ways to make the seemingly unexciting into something interesting. Luckily, I have no shortage of things to procrastinate from.

Back on the Horse or The Continuing Misadventures of Rick

I've kind of neglected this space for awhile. But with this post, I am back with a vengeance! By which I actually mean I will probably continue to write things poorly, sporadically, and not very often.

It's been a very busy week, and in amidst all of my work, I forgot to pay my rent. This occurred for a few reasons. First of all, my memory is comparable to that of an ant. Secondly, February is a short month. Thirdly ... well, I don't have any more. And that second one is weak. When it comes right down to it, I'm just an idiot.

I eventually did remember, but it was not because of any inspired moment of responsibility. No, it was because I needed a 10 minute break from work, and so I picked up the ole guitar. I started to play a few tunes, and somehow picked out "Don't Worry, Be Happy" as a nice place to start. And when I got to the line that said "The landlord say the rent is late," I froze in recognition of my own stupidity.

All I know is that without Bobby McFerrin, my late fee probably would have been even higher than $25 I had to fork over today as I wondered exactly how it was that I function in normal society.

So ... Who Wants to Read About My Research?

I haven't been particularly active in this space lately, and I'll try to rectify that in the near future. In the meantime, I thought I'd post the introduction to my Master's thesis so that anybody who is curious as to my area of research can have a look.

As it is only the introduction it is mainly non-technical. I've also made some additional alterations in an effort to make it as accessible as possible for a non-computer science audience. Anyways, here goes:



Consider the problem of finding a route from one location in a city to another when navigating with a map. Before any travel can begin, a route for travel (or at least a partial route) must be found. Unfortunately, there may be a large number of candidate partial paths that must be considered before a complete route is found.

In this example, a single agent has the task of path finding. In general, all agents — whether they be living or artificial — are faced with some number of tasks to perform. In order to complete these tasks, agents must develop plans for action.
  
The effectiveness with which an agent plans is evaluated in terms of two different measures. The first is the time required to find a plan that will complete the given tasks. The second is the cost of the plan, the value of which will depend on the agent’s objectives. In the case of navigation, the possibilities for plan cost include distance travelled --- if the agent is to find a short path --- or the expected travel time --- if the agent is to find a quick path (ie. when navigating in a map, such an agent would prefer the use of highways over city streets).

In many domains, there is additional information that can be used to inform and thereby speed up planning. For example, when navigating between locations in Edmonton, Canada, it is reasonable to initially disregard routes through distant locations such as Madagascar. Moreover, if the desired destination is east of the starting location, the first routes to consider are naturally those that initially proceed eastward (if such paths exist).

Such information can be used to build heuristics which estimate the cost of the remaining path to the goal from any area in the domain. The field concerned with the development of heuristics and the construction of algorithms that use heuristics for planning is called single-agent search. In this field, planning is performed by building complete plans from some partial plans by a process which is guided by the given heuristic.

Single-agent search remains an important field for research due to the large number of real-world applications in which search algorithms have proven to be effective problem-solving techniques. These applications include autonomous robot navigation, in which heuristics are used to
guide pathfinding [6]; DNA sequence alignment [5]; and, computer games [7].

There is a class of single-agent search algorithms that will provably find the lowest cost solution provided that the heuristic satisfies certain conditions. Unfortunately, as problem domains grow larger, these optimal algorithms will often take too long to find a solution. To address this issue, suboptimal single-agent search algorithms have been developed. These algorithms sacrifice solution quality for a decrease in search time and are ideal when a solution (often near optimal) is needed quickly.

When constructing a single-agent search system, it must first be determined if suboptimal solutions will suffice or if optimal solutions are desired. Another consideration is if planning will precede execution or if the system is to work in real-time, with planning and plan execution being interleaved. The system designer is then faced with decisions regarding the proper selection of an algorithm and a heuristic function for the given domain(s). There are also often subtle choices such as tie-breaking (the order in which equally promising candidate paths are considered) that can significantly affect the planning speed. With all of these possible choices, properly recognizing and evaluating all of the necessary design decisions is a vital aspect of building an effective search system.

In the case of suboptimal problem solving, additional options arise as almost all applicable algorithms involve some kind of parameterization (where a parameter refers to some sort of numerical setting that can affect algorithm performance). For example, in the weighted variants of A*, IDA*[3], and RBFS [4], the value of the weight parameter must be set. Similarly, beam-search variants like BULB [2] and Beam-stack search [8] require the selection of a value for the beam width parameter.

Any adjustment of these parameter values can change both the solution quality and the search speed. In a few cases, there are theoretical results that indicate how changing a parameter will affect the search (such as the bounds on solution quality in weighted A*, weighted IDA*, and weighted RBFS [4]). Unfortunately, it is much more common that a significant amount of pre-computation is needed so as to determine how different parameter settings affect the search. In practice, parameter values are tested on a set of training examples through a process commonly referred to as parameter tuning. The single parameter setting that satisfies any given constraints on solution quality and exhibits the best average performance is then used in all future runs of the algorithm.

One drawback of parameter tuning is that it generally customizes the search algorithm for a specific problem domain (ie. an algorithm used for navigation may be tuned specifically for city-driving as opposed to for highway driving). As such, the results of this expensive process cannot effectively be transferred across domains — a fact that is of particular concern when designing general search systems such as automated heuristic search planners. In these systems, general heuristics are used to guide a suboptimal search algorithm over many domains. In practice, planners such as HSP [1] commit to a single parameter value that will hopefully be effective over a diverse class of problems.

Parameter tuning also suffers from another deficiency: there is no guarantee that a tuned value will perform well on each individual problem. Tuning only finds the setting that has the best average performance. On a per problem basis, there can be other parameter values which significantly outperform the tuned setting. In this thesis, we will demonstrate that it is often the case that if a search system could properly select the correct parameter setting for each problem, the planning speed over a number of problems can be greatly improved.

In this end, we will consider the dovetailing procedure as an approach to this problem. Dovetailing involves running several independent instances of an algorithm — each of which has a different set of parameter settings — at the same time by interleaving the execution of the instances. The
procedure can also be trivially extended so as to work with multi-processor computers. This aspect of the algorithm is important due to the increasing availability of such machines. As such, we will also analyze the performance of the algorithm when used in this fashion.

The main contributions of this thesis can be summarized as follows:

1. The single-agent search algorithms of WA*, WIDA*, WRBFS, and BULB are described, and the weaknesses of WA*, WIDA*, and WRBFS as suboptimal search algorithms are demonstrated. The behaviour of these algorithms in the sliding tile and pancake puzzles as a function of the weight parameter will also be shown. Similarly, the behaviour of BULB in these domains as a function of the beam width will be demonstrated.
2. Dovetailing is explored as an approach to proper parameter selection. Dovetailing is shown to significantly enhance WIDA* in the domains of the sliding tile puzzle and the pancake puzzle. The parallel version of dovetailing is also shown to exhibit massive improvements in search time when used with this algorithm. In the case of WRBFS, dovetailing without any pre-computation is shown to improve the speed of the algorithm in the sliding tile puzzle domain, and offer comparable performance in the pancake puzzle domain. Dovetailing with WRBFS over different tie-breaking schemes will also improve the quality of the solutions. We will also demonstrate that parallel dovetailing offers an effective parallelization of this algorithm.
3. The sequential version of dovetailing will be shown to decrease the search speed of BULB and WA*, but improve the quality of the solutions when considered over different tie-breaking schemes. The reasons for this behaviour are discussed. The parallel version of dovetailing will also be shown to offer the best performance of all known parallelizations of WA* when higher weights are used in the sliding tile puzzle domain.

Works Cited

[1] Blai Bonet and Hector Geffner. Planning as heuristic search. Artif. Intell., 129(1-2):5–33, 2001.
[2] David Furcy and Sven Koenig. Limited Discrepancy Beam Search. In IJCAI, pages 125–131, 2005.
[3] Richard E. Korf. Iterative-Deepening-A*: An Optimal Admissible Tree Search. In IJCAI, pages 1034–1036, 1985.
[4] Richard E. Korf. Linear-Space Best-First Search. Artif. Intell., 62(1):41–78, 1993.
[5] Matthew McNaughton, Paul Lu, Jonathan Schaeffer, and Duane Szafron. Memory-Efficient A* Heuristics for Multiple Sequence Alignment. In AAAI/IAAI, pages 737–743, 2002.
[6] Anthony Stentz. The Focussed D* Algorithm for Real-Time Replanning. In IJCAI, pages 1652–1659, 1995.
[7] Bryan Stout. Smart moves: Intelligent Pathfinding. Game Developer Magazine, October:28–35, 1995.
[8] Rong Zhou and Eric A. Hansen. Beam-Stack Search: Integrating Backtracking with Beam Search. In Susanne Biundo, Karen L. Myers, and Kanna Rajan, editors, ICAPS, pages 90–98. AAAI, 2005.

By the way, if you'd like to read the whole thing, send me an email and I can pass it along.

ALERT: Blue Jays Rant Coming!

Today's been something of an annoying day. I had to wake up at a reasonable hour as if I have a real job. Then I found out that my move to another apartment is being bumped back to a much more inconvenient date. And all day I have been working on an assignment and it ain't going well.

Long story short, I am in a ranting move. So here goes ...

A few days ago, Keith Law mentioned that when he was with the Blue Jays, JP Ricciardi turned down a trade of Jose Cruz Jr. (retired centre-fielder) for David Wright (current perennial all-star and MVP candidate). Now, in hindsight this was an abysmal decision, but it was at least kind of defensible at the time when Jose Cruz was viewed as being a strong defensive player who might develop his plethora of tools.

I'm not here to apologize or pile on JP; I'll leave that to others. But I do want to know why Keith Law had to confirm this rumour. Does he just hate Jays fans? I mean, the rational side of me (small as it may be) is trying to argue that these non-trades happen all the time, and prospects are always a bit of a gamble.

Unfortunately, the sports fan in me wants to go on table-flipping rampage (which has been shown by science to be the second best kind of rampage after the Rambo-like rampage). DAVID WRIGHT!? REALLY?! Keith Law, why must you taunt me? It's bad enough that the team this year was terrible, but you just had to poor the salt that is David Wright on those wounds? Next, you'll remind me about the Lincecum for Rios non-trade and that Roy Halladay is probably leaving. Or that the Leafs are 1-7-1, Toronto FC just got embarassed in a do-or-die game, the Argos are a disaster, and the Raptors may go games without getting a single rebound. I really don't need this right now, Keith Law, I really don't.

I also don't want to kick Steve Phillips while he is down, but this is just more evidence that he was a terrible GM. At least JP can say he wasn't familiar with Wright --- Phillips doesn't have that luxury. And yet, when he goes on television as a baseball analyst, I'm supposed to take his opinion seriously?

But let this be a lesson for new Blue Jays GM Alex Anthopoulos. Alex, do yourself a favour. Determine who are the worst GM's in the game (I suggest starting with that fella in San Francisco), and get on their good side. Then call them weekly with ridiculous trade offers. Particularly, offer aging players whose skills are degrading for shiny young prospects. Somehow these trades happen far more often than they should, and its about time the Blue Jays benefitted from the stupidity of other teams.

In this episode of "The Good, the Bad, and the Rick," our intrepid hero admits to being thoroughly confused by Michael Haneke

I apologize to all of my readers who were anxiously waiting with baited breath for the next word to burst forth from the deep recesses of my cold and forgotten heart. Fear no more, for I have returned from whence I came!

By which I mean the last few weeks have been quite eventful and I have not had the opportunity to write anything. Not that I have any real excuse. I was only defending my thesis, and then celebrating the successful defense of my thesis, and then concurrently looking for an apartment. And in the midst of all this, I also managed to watch 5 movies in the last two weeks. I'm not sure if I will have a post on each, but I will certainly address a few of them. Today, I thought I'd tackle "The White Ribbon" and my opinion of the three Michael Haneke films that I've seen over the last year.

I am not sure where I first heard of the film "Funny Games" (specifically "Funny Games US"), but however that was, something about the description stuck with me. So when I stumbled across a copy of it in the used bin at the local Rogers Video about 8-12 months ago, I decided it was worth a purchase.

And I was right. The basic story of the film follows the home invasion of an upper-middle class family's cabin. But instead of hitting your regular horror movie plot points, this film basically subverts all your expectations about the genre and points out the viewers sadism for even wanting to watch such a film.

"Funny Games" also represents one of the most uncomfortable viewing experiences of my life. Not because it is overly violent --- there is little actual on-screen violence --- but because Haneke builds the tension to levels that I am not used to. My stomach was essentially squirming the entire time, and even when there is a brief respite, Haneke quickly pulls it away. It is a beautifully filmed movie, but it is a painful experience, particularly considering what Haneke suggests my interest in watching such a film says about me.

Even if it was a difficult film to watch, its brilliance made me eager check out Haneke's other work. So when a local theatre was showing Haneke films for an entire week, I rounded up some friends --- Zee German, Minnesota, The Greatest TA of All Time (you sir, are a brilliant and talented man, and I don't only say so because you might be marking my assignment at this very moment), and Soul-Patch* --- and we headed over to watch "The Seventh Continent." As we left the theatre, Zee German and Minnesota claimed it was the worst movie they had ever seen. I tried playing the contrarian (I'm a bit of a jerk that way), but I have to admit, I also hated it.

The film follows a middle-class family living a regular, and what Haneke suggests is a boring and unfulfilling life. So they, well let us say, change their situation.

"The Seventh Continent" is also difficult to watch, but that is mostly because ever scene goes on about 10 times longer than it should. It's one thing to have long scenes that build tension --- and to be fair, there are some tense/heart-breaking scenes. But is is another to show 5 straight minutes of someone literally flushing money down the toilet from a single camera angle

And so it was with trepidation that I went to watch Haneke's "The White Ribbon" during the Edmonton Film Festival last week.  The movie had won the Palme D'Or at Cannes and so a bunch of us were interested. But I was so disappointed in "The Seventh Continent" that I expected the worst.

"The White Ribbon" follows some weird and tragic events that happen in a small village in Germany in 1913.
But in the end, I didn't connect with film at all. I found the story to not be particularly interesting, and I came out not having any idea what Haneke was trying to say.

I did enjoy his stark black-and-white cinematography. In particular, Haneke seems to love to allow the camera to linger on shot in which all characters have left, only to allow them to re-enter the frame from where they came. I also appreciate that all characters are given heaps of depth. But I really have no idea know what it was all building to.

I suspect a European audience will get much more out of it than I did, just because of the cultural background and history that the film assumes. I had no idea until about halfway through the movie that the year was 1913 (my guess was about 15 years off), and I wonder if this would have been immediately obvious to someone from that continent.

I do appreciate that Haneke doesn't spoon-feed his audience with this film, but it feels like he goes too far the other way. It is almost like the film is deliberately frustrating. For that reason, I am less than impressed. It is certainly hard for me to recommend a movie that I did not get, or even really enjoy.

In the end, I am left with an odd opinion of Haneke. I remain staunchly in favour of "Funny Games" and staunchly in opposition to "The Seventh Continent." "The White Ribbon" simply left me cold (perhaps by flying right over my head). But after seeing all three films, I can't say I have nearly as much interest in seeking out any further Haneke films as I once did.

Note: Some internet chatter I have seen suggests "The White Ribbon" is about how the seeds of fascism and Nazism were sown in the young generation. I suppose I can kind of see that if I cross my eyes and squint.  However, I maintain that even if this is indeed Haneke's message, he has obfuscated it far too much. Again, maybe this was all obvious for a European audience, but I completely missed it when I saw the film, and I would be lying if I didn't admit that I am having a hard time seeing it now.

* Soul-Patch is a pretty cool nickname (it makes him sound like a cop in a 70's blaxpoitation film), but it isn't accurate, and I'm pretty sure I can do better. Next time, I promise will.

Pump Up the Jam

Today, I did a departmental talk on the research I did for my Master's thesis. In the hour before the talk, instead of fiddling with my slides, I prefer to watch videos on the internet to both clear my head and pump me up. For your own inspirational needs, I include a list of similar movies below:

Our first entry comes from Jackie Chan in the movie Miracles. Let me begin by saying that until this scene, this film is terrible. Just atrocious. The plot is nonsensical even for a Jackie Chan film, which generally only act as vehicles for his action/comedy scenes. But then he starts fighting seemingly a 100 men in a rope factory, and the film totally redeems itself. This may be the quintessential Jackie Chan scene. He is constantly being beaten up, but you know he is never going to get seriously hurt - or at least his movie character doesn't - and there are plenty of great physical gags along the way. For some reason, the dubbing is just terrible in all the clips I can find. Don't worry, there is very little talking in this clip. But that music is just awful!



Keep in mind, Jackie Chan famously does his own stunts, as do all the other characters in this film. Just incredible.

The second instalment on our list comes from the late great Warren Zevon. While this song may not pump you up, its a great tale about a hockey goon who just wants to score a goal. Unfortunately, he just isn't very good at the sport. It is kind of like Rudy - just with a puck.

Below is a live version of the song. I love the reactions from the crowd as they slowly get sucked into the song.



If you don't smile when Buddy scores and the crowd goes wild, I am pretty sure you are dead inside.

Finally, we have the cream of the crop. It is a montage of Wendel Clark highlights set to Metallica. You really can't ask for much more to pump you up, although it obviously helps that I grew up a Leafs fan.



I didn't appreciate Wendel Clark as much as I should have. I have never liked goons, even if Warren Zevon has made me reconsider my position, and I think that as a kid, I misunderstood Wendel's role on the team. I think this was mostly because I was young, impressionable, and he seemed to get a similar adulation from the crowd as did Tie Domi (who I really didn't like). In retrospect, that wasn't fair to Wendel, but not Domi - I still hate that guy. Wendel was never sent on the ice with the express purpose of fighting. Sure, it happened - a lot actually - but it was never a sideshow. It was always borne out the natural emotion of the game. And being tough certainly wasn't his only talent, as he was a hell of a hockey player. This last point is the key for me. I hate goons clogging up roster spots. But if you are tough and can play, I am plenty happy.

So thank you Wendel for all your years of service to the Leafs. And also for inspiring this video which can any Leaf fan raring to go - even if it is for an academic talk.

The Remnants of a Tall Man

A little over a month ago, a good friend of mine - we'll call him Minnesota, although I was very tempted to go with Al Franken - left Edmonton for greener (or at the very least warmer) pastures. While he was gathering his possessions for the move, he collected a bag of random things that he didn't want to bother taking with him. He gave this bag to me as a parting gift under the condition that I catalogue its contents and post it on the internet. I do so below:

• A stack of 8.5x11 lined paper
• A fancy pad of paper. When I say fancy, I mean it has an insignia on every page. The insignia involves a set of scales and a book. There is also a website address, but the site is written in German. As this is one of the many languages I cannot read, I am going to assume that our departed American friend was a member of the German equivalent of the Free Masons.
• Regular and Large Envelopes
• Stamps. Which are convenient given the above combination of envelopes and paper.
  
• Skat score sheets. Skat is a three-player German card game that is horribly complicated but still a lot of fun to play. Many a night ended with a several hour session of playing this game with Minnesota and Zee German (another good friend and Minnesota's roommate). Since these score sheets generally reflect poorly on me - although I at least had a positive score on this last one - let's move on.
• A bag from IJCAI. This was the main component of the conference swag they handed out. I now have two, and I use them for carrying groceries. I like that the bags identify me as a scientist and give me some much needed hippie cred as they allow me to avoid using plastic bags.
  
• A cribbage set. I have no idea how this game works aside from the fact that it involves playing cards and a horse-track looking thing. 
  
• A half-used bag of balloons. When Zee German moved out of our apartment building early in the summer, we felt it would be hilarious to fill Minnesota's room with balloons (well, Zee German thought it would be hilarious - I thought it would be kinda funny and am perpetually a sidekick). Any way, this was before it took a painful hour of blowing up about 100 balloons by hand. At that point we decided to stop with only half of the bag of balloons being gone, not because more balloons wouldn't be funnier (they most definitely would), but because the additional funny was not worth any more of that excrutiatingly tedious job. I hoped Minnesota would make our effort worthwhile and respond by angrily flipping tables, but he mostly took it in stride. Although it was great to hear that for several weeks thereafter (I may have my timeline wrong, but this is my story dammit), he was occasionally awoken by a balloon popping when the sun got to it.
  
• Sunscreen. I appreciate gifts that help prevent cancer.
• Two Books for Online Poker. What can I say, I hang out with degenerate gamblers. Well, to be fair, these books aren't really indicative of this. For these gentlemen, online poker does not really count as gambling considering how well-prepared they are (as many do poker-related research) and consequently how often they win. No, what makes these people degenerate gamblers is their willingness to bet money on flips of a coin, Mario Kart, or Bomberman.
  
• A Picture Frame. In which, I should have put the money I won playing Bomberman. I remain the only person who has won money off Minnesota in this game. And I plan on lording over this tiny victory for a long time. However, instead of framing my winnings, this gambling debt was wiped free in exchange for:
• A Deep Fryer. Technically, this wasn't in the bag, but I am including it anyways. I like to call it the Minnesota Memorial Deep Fryer. In this end, our tall friend signed it before he left. It became quite notorious at parties during which eventually something silly would end up being deep fried. During occasions like these, I enjoy remembering how much education the lot of us have.
• Rolls for coins.
• Skin Moisturizer.
  
• Half a bottle of olive oil. The cook in me was very happy about this.
  
• Poker Chips. Did I mention I hang out with degenerate gamblers? I am pretty sure I could get people betting on a game involving that cribbage horse-track in which I use dice to advance the "horses." On that note, I don't see anything morally offensive about running an illegal gambling parlour as a way to supplement my research funding. It is for the benefit of science after all. And perhaps an HDTV.
  
• A 3 1/2" floppy disc drive. When Minnesota arrived in Edmonton, he brought along his desktop computer. In order to save space, he pulled all the components out of the casing. He didn't bother buying a new case in Edmonton, and instead just had his computer innards strewn (carefully) on the floor beside his desk. He then brought the computer back to into the US the same way it came in. But I guess the floppy disc drive didn't make the cut.
  
• 2 window blinds. 
• CFL towels. They gave these away for free at an Eskimos game. This may have been the game in which we saw a drunken fellow flip off a cop and then fall 4 flights of stairs directly into a concrete railing. This resulted in an audible gasp from the crowd which eventually erupted into laughter when it became clear the man did not seriously injure anything but his dignity. Sometimes, I just love karma.

I was also given a fake sword that was used as part of a Halloween costume. I also accidentally stole Minnesota's XBox by neglecting to remind him that he had left it at my apartment for nearly a year. I swear that was a mistake and that I am not playing it right this instant.

Anyway, thanks for the grab bag and good luck with your new job in that much warmer climate.

Update: In some not-so-private correspondence, Zee German made an excellent point. I forgot to mention Minnesota's philanthropic efforts. Along with the bag I was given,  Minnesota gave me two garbage bags of items to give to the poor. I did not go through those bags carefully except to throw the contents in a bin for a particular charity. I noticed some clothes and bedding, but nothing particularly exciting. Regardless, I salute Minnesota for this act in the name of the betterment of society. You truly are a king among men.

Commenting Guidelines: Anonymous Commenting

I fully encourage commenting of pretty much any kind or form. Feedback is definitely appreciated, and I only plan on deleting comments if they become overly inflammatory (ie. racist, sexist, etc.) or if they are the work of spammers.

However, I would appreciate if you avoided the use of anonymous commenting. Don't get me wrong, you can use all the false pseudonyms you want. From my perspective, the game of guessing the commenter from the fake name is a fun one.

I'm not even asking you to maintain a consistent identity or use a real name. You may do so if you wish (it is kind of helpful for me in tracking readers), or you may not. I just want some additional context to your comment, even if it is fake.

I will not actually turn off the use of anonymous commenting, quite frankly because I don't care that much. I would just prefer that you yourself make the decision to turn down that option and I encourage you to be creative in your name selection.

Note, commenting anonymously on this post is neither original nor funny. It is actually quite lame. I just thought I'd give you a heads up in case you thought you were really clever.

"I Personally Know Rick. Do I Have to Worry About Appearing On Sarcastic Robots in an Unflattering Manner?"

Why, that is an excellent question Jimmy, and a lot of people have asked us about this (ed. note, this statement is false both because no one has asked and because we don't know anyone named Jimmy (also note that this blog has no editor and we have no problem using nested parentheses)). But we here at Sarcastic Robots appreciate that while we (strictly speaking, I) have decided to use our real names and identities - again, there is only actually one of us - on this here blog, you have not signed over your right to internet anonymity simply by being acquainted with the aforementioned Rick Valenzano.

In this end, the real names of persons involved in any stories recounted will be redacted and replaced with false monikers or vague pronouns*. While the context will often let other acquaintances of Rick Valenzano in on the identities of the characters mentioned, be advised that this will only occur in situations in which we would be comfortable recounting said "adventures" in a regular social gathering with the names intact (ie. non-digital person-to-person interactions). As we plan on mostly avoiding stories in which anyone except Rick Valenzano (our inspiration and muse (and author (see, we're doing the parentheses thing again, I warned you))) appears ridiculous, you should be free and in the clear. The one exception being in the case of us being out for sweet, sweet revenge.

* Note, we will use the real names of individuals where it is of clear benefit to them (ie. if they want readers to contact them), or if they otherwise ask us to divulge their identities (which seems unnecessary, but who knows what you people want).

On this Episode of "Cinematastic with Rick": District 9

Let me start off with the following: I enjoyed watching District 9 and felt it was well worth the price of admission. Now let me temper that statement: rarely have I ever found myself both impressed and disappointed by the same film, and somehow District 9 did just that.

The good: the premise is fantastic. The main idea behind the film is that an alien ship has broken down over Johannesburg, at which point the aliens are herded off their ship and into a ghetto of sorts. However, the locals don't like the presence of the aliens and have the government relocate the aliens farther from the city. The first half of the film follows a particular bureaucrat named Wikus Van De Merwe (played by Sharlto Copley) as he heads the effort to inform the aliens of the impending relocation.

Most of this part of the movie is filmed in a documentary style as it follows the work of Wikus and the private corporation that has been given the task of moving the aliens. Is Wikus a standard bumbling bureaucrat at an evil corporation who only gets his job through nepotism? Of course he is. Does Copley go over-the-top with his performance? A little bit. But at the same time, I was still entranced by the plot, pacing, and cinematography.

The main problem I had with the film is that the script takes this brilliant idea and bringing it right back on to the beaten path. While the first half brings up a lot of interesting issues regarding apartheid, the treatment of refugees, and immigation, the last half simply follows the standard action movie formula.

Don't get me wrong, I like action movies, and the director, Neill Blomkamp, plays the formula very well. But he relies too heavily on well-worn cliches. While the originality of the film actually makes this predictable turn somewhat unpredictable, I have to say I still came out of the film disappointed. It just feels too much like strong film that should have been a sci-fi classic.

What are others saying about this movie? Rottentomatoes finds that a strong proportion of movie critics favourably reviewed this film. Of those I pay attention to, the reaction is somewhat more lukewarm. Interestingly enough, it is also for a divergent set of reasons too.

While Alan Bacchus loved the final action set piece, but he is less than impressed with the characterization of Wikus and found the mix of documentary and non-documentary styles distracting. Will Leitch similarly loves the concept and look as I do, but was dissapointed with cliched action ending. Roger Ebert agrees, and adds that he feels that aside from a few specific exceptions, the aliens are difficult to sympathize with.

By the way, be sure to check out the short film Alive in Joburg, also by Blomkamp, on which this movie is based. This wonderful short distills the premise into 6 minutes, but certainly leaves a lot of room for expansion. In this end, I do appreciate the attempt to extend the ideas into a feature-length film. And while District 9 is certainly well-done, I can't help but feel it is also something of a missed opportunity.

By the way, I need a name for these movie review segments and so I'd love to here of your suggestions in the comments. Also, if you've seen the movie, I'd like to hear what you think about it.