Thursday, February 9, 2017

Snowbird any one?

Emily Riehl and Friends Invite for the Workshop on Homotopy Type Theory below.













 Dear all,

This is a reminder that from June 4-10, 2017, there will be a workshop
on Homotopy Type Theory, organized as part of the AMS Mathematics
Research Communities program and held in the Snowbird Resort in Utah.

The goal of the workshop is to bring together advanced graduate
students and postdocs having some background in one (or more) areas
such as algebraic topology, category theory, mathematical logic, or
computer science, with the goal of learning how these areas come
together in homotopy type theory, and working together to prove new
results. Basic knowledge of just one of these areas will be sufficient
to be a successful participant. The organizers are particularly
interested in using this workshop as an opportunity to improve the
diversity in the HoTT community in all aspects.

For more information about the workshop, including the list of sample
topics that participants may be working on and the registration
information, please see the website:

http://www.ams.org/programs/research-communities/2017MRC-1

All accepted into the program will receive financial support (room and
board at the Snowbird Resort and up to $650 towards airfare). The
application deadline is *March 1st, 2017.*

The majority of the positions are allocated to U.S. citizens and
people who are affiliated with U.S. institutions, but a smaller number
are also open to international participants.

If you have any questions, please feel free to contact any of the organizers.

Dan Christensen, Chris Kapulkin, Dan Licata, Emily Riehl, Mike Shulman

Monday, January 16, 2017

Women in Logic, the workshop June, 19th 2017

The workshop Women in Logic was approved by the LiCS committee. the website is up, has been for at least a month, but I have been very slow, with Christmas and New Year, etc.

So now, please check out and let me know of any issues with the website https://sites.google.com/site/firstwomeninlogicworkshop/home

Also please submit your paper, if you're a woman (or has a female co-author) and the paper is logic-related.
and please talk to your friends interested in Logic and in gender issues about it!

(I was an unbeliever on these kinds of meetings, but seeing the responses that Women in Machine Learning, Women in Computability, Women in Topology, Women in Number Theory, etc, got, it has to be worth trying our own version.)

Wednesday, November 2, 2016

Repeat invitations in ASL conference series

Now that we have some idea of the general trends in the proportions of male and female speakers over time in each of the four ASL conference series, let's look at the question of whether male and female speakers receive repeat invitations at similar rates. I'm going to ask this question two different ways.

Are the proportions of male and female speakers who speak more than once at ASL conferences similar?

The answer to this question appears to be yes for the conference series for which such an analysis is possible. Here are tables of the basic data (please note that all talks mentioned in this post are invited talks):


Annual Meetings Logic Colloquium
Men Women Men Women

1 talk 127 18 213 20
2+ talks 49 6 77 9
Percentage: 2+ talks 27.84% 25% 26.55% 31.03%


AMS/ASL APA/ASL
Men Women Men Women

1 talk 93 20 63 6
2+ talks 24 2 19 3
Percentage: 2+ talks 20.51% 9.09% 23.17% 33.33%

I used a chi-square test to determine whether women and men speak more than once at these meetings at statistically distinguishable rates.

When I carried out this analysis, I found that the p-value for the Annual Meetings is 0.9611, and the p-value for the Logic Colloquium is 0.7648. There is no reason to reject the hypothesis that multiple invitations are issued to men and women at the same rate!

However, I can't carry out this analysis for the AMS/ASL and APA/ASL meetings. The reason is that in general, a reliable chi-square analysis can't be done unless each category has at least 5 people in it. Only 2 women have given more than one talk since 1995 at an AMS/ASL meeting, and only 3 women have given more than one talk since 1998 at an APA/ASL meeting. In fact, only 9 distinct women have spoken at APA/ASL meetings in this time, so there is no way there could have been at least 5 women in both of these categories. It doesn't say anything very good about the number of women who are asked to speak at these meetings multiple times if there aren't enough for me to do a chi-square test.

Now let's ask another, related question:

Are the proportions of male and female speakers who speak n times at ASL conferences similar for each n?

In the analysis above, I didn't distinguish between speakers who spoke two, three, four, or five times: I combined all of these into a single "2+" category. Let's see what it looks like when I don't combine these categories:


Annual Meetings Logic Colloquium
Men Women Men Women

1 talk 127 18 213 20
2 talks 38 6 48 7
3 talks 10 0 25 2
4 talks 0 0 3 0
5 talks 1 0 1 0


AMS/ASL APA/ASL
Men Women Men Women

1 talk 93 20 63 6
2 talks 22 2 12 3
3 talks 2 0 5 0
4 talks 0 0 2 0

As you can see, I cannot analyze this data statistically for any conference: there simply aren't enough people in most of the categories. I'll just note that while 49 men have given more than two talks in any of these series, only 2 women have: 3.92% of the people who have given more than two talks in a single ASL conference series in the time frames I considered were women.

Summary: In the conference series in which enough women have given multiple talks to analyze, there is no statistically significant difference in the rates at which women and men are asked to give more than one talk. However, this analysis is only possible in two of the four series. Furthermore, when we consider not only whether male and female speakers give more than one talk but also how many invitations they receive, no series can be analyzed statistically, but women seem to be underrepresented among speakers who are invited more than twice.

It's worth noting that if I considered invited talks in all of these ASL conference series together, my findings might be different. I might look at this someday: at this point, the data in this spreadsheet is not consistently formatted, and that makes this particular analysis very difficult.

Next up: The ASL adopted its statement on women in logic at the Annual Meeting in 2012. Let's see if that seems to have had any effect on the proportion of female speakers at ASL meetings since then.

Thursday, October 27, 2016

Marta Bunge short post on the international Category Theory meeting

I have asked several people to help with data and impressions on the gender inequality in Logic. I reckon that if we all do a little we can end up with lots of valuable information: on numbers, on ways of changing the status quo, on tips and tricks to survive and improve our environment.

Marta Bunge wrote

In response to a previous suggestion of yours, Valeria De Paiva, I have been perusing the proportion of women among the invited speakers in the International Category Theory Conferences (CT) since the year 2000, and came up with the following figures (Women/Total): CT 2000 (0/5), CT 2006 (1/5), CT 2007 (0/8), CT 2008 (1/7), CT 2009 (0/5), CT 2010 (1/6), CT 2011 (1/6), CT 2013 (2/6), CT 2014 (2/6), CT 2015 (3/6), CT 2016 (2/6), CT 2017 (0/6). In order to know whether this an adequate proportion of women invited speakers one would need the additional information of the total number of category theorists who deserve to be so invited and of how many among those are women. Before the year 2000 there was no invited speakers list at the International CT meetings, but some speakers were given an hour as opposed to half an hour. I have not done a search for these, as the data for most of them are no longer available. There is recently an article in the journal Nature about the presence of women in science and on how to improve what seems to be an unfair situation, which I believe. I hope that someone more qualified than I can do this since I believe it is important for our field. Without a shadow of a doubt I consider Andree C. Ehresmann as someone who has done a lot for our field - not just by continuing the work of Charles Ehresmann by publishing his Oeuvres Completes and continuing with the journal Cahiers de Topologie et Geometrie Differentielle (Categoriques), but by encouraging many researchers in our field - both men and women. She certainly deserves mention as a woman and a mathematician. I leave you with that. All the best.

I need to do some more with this information.


Saturday, October 22, 2016

Logic Colloquium, 1993-2016

It's time to take a look at the last type of ASL meeting: the Logic Colloquium. Here are the factors I'm considering:
  • Time span: I'm going back to 1993 for the very simple reason that that is the earliest meeting for which I can get a speaker list using Hofstra's level of access to the Bulletin of Symbolic Logic, where the meeting summaries are published.
  • Types of talks: I am considering all plenaries (except for Gödel lectures) and tutorials. I left the tutorials out of my analysis for the Annual Meetings because they haven't been an annual occurrence. They seem to happen each year at Logic Colloquia, so I didn't see a reason to exclude them.
  • Numbers v. proportions: As always, proportions!
And as always, let's start with a basic scatterplot with a regression line:

The equation of the regression line is
proportion = 0.003680(year) - 7.281694,
but once again, the R2 values are really low (0.1223 without adjustment, lower with). However, I got a nice surprise when I looked at the residuals. Usually, the years that are flagged as unusual are the years in which the proportion of female speakers is relatively high. This time, two of the flagged years were 2008 and 2011—the only years since 2006 with no female speakers—while the other was 2014, the only year in which the proportion of female speakers topped 20% (it was 30.8% that year).

Now let's compare the regression line to the LOWESS (locally weighted scatterplot smoothing) plot:

Of all the LOWESS plots I've done for different meetings, this one seems to be closest to linear, suggesting a relatively steady rate of improvement. On the other hand, it's consistently flatter than the others.

Summary: The proportion of female speakers is consistently low here—it's only topped 20% once—but there are far fewer years in which there have been no female speakers at all than in any of the other conference series and, in fact, these meetings have a higher average number of female speakers than any of the others. This may be in part because Logic Colloquium Program Committees have historically tended to invite more speakers than other Program Committees: there were between 13 and 29 invited speakers at each Logic Colloquium I looked at, while there were never more than 13 speakers at any of the other meetings in the years I studied. The more speakers you have, the less likely it is that none of them will be women, but the proportion of speaker who are women still isn't very high.

Next up: I'll look at the number of repeat invitations issued to women and to men in each of these conference series. Are the same women asked over and over again? Are women reinvited less often than men? Let's find out.

Wednesday, October 12, 2016

APA/ASL Meetings, 1998-2016

Sorry about the delay, everyone—it took me a while to learn how speakers are chosen for APA/ASL meetings. It's time for an analysis of how the representation of women among speakers at these conferences has changed over time. I'm considering the same factors as before:
  • Time span: My useful data only goes back to 1998, so that's where I'm starting. If people are interested, I can dig up reliable data going back farther. Please note that some of the meetings are listed as happening in a year when they didn't actually occur. Due to scheduling, sometimes there are two APA/ASL meetings in one year and none in the next; in those cases, I listed the second meeting as having occurred the next year. You'll notice that there's no data from 2013; I'll explain that soon.
  • Types of talks: I am considering every talk at an APA/ASL meeting except (1) the contributed talks and (2) the talks on education. This is a departure from my norm: for the Annual Meetings and the AMS/ASL meetings, I considered only plenaries. So why am I making this change?

    My goal has always been to consider the program committees' speaker selection. At the Annual Meetings and the AMS/ASL meetings, the program committee only selects the plenary speakers; while there have been some tutorials, I've chosen to look at the types of talks that occur regularly. At the APA/ASL meetings, the program committee is responsible for choosing the speakers for not only plenary talks but special sessions. The only exceptions are the sessions on education: the speakers for those are apparently chosen by one person and then approved by the committee, so I've left them out. There is no data from 2013 because the only speakers that year were in an education session.

  • Numbers v. proportions: Once again, I'm considering proportions. If I were to point out that that there were three female speakers in each of 2008 and 2009, it would give a very different impression from pointing out that 37.5% of the speakers in 2009 and 23.1% of the speakers in 2008 were women.
Before I even show you a regression plot, I'd like to point out one thing about the 18 meetings I considered:
  • Number with 0 women: 11
  • Number with 1-3 women: 7
This is the only set of meetings I've looked at so far where it's more usual to have a meeting with no invited female speakers than a meeting with any. Now here's the customary linear regression:
The equation of the regression line is
proportion = 0.007065(year) - 14.090829,
but, once again, don't read too much into this. The R2 values are too low to suggest that this model is a plausible one (0.08987 without adjustment, lower with). When I looked at the residuals, the years 2003, 2008, and 2009 were all flagged. Those were the only years between 1998 and 2010 in which any women at all spoke.

Looking at a LOWESS (locally weighted scatterplot smoothing) plot helps us understand the trends in this data more easily. The high proportion of women in 2003 is treated as a clear anomaly when considered in the context of the years surrounding it in which there was no female representation at all, and the proportion of women begins to rise slowly in about 2008.

Summary: This is the most consistently low representation of women I've seen in any ASL meeting series so far. The percentage of female speakers hasn't gone over 17% since 2009, and there have been no female speakers at 11 of the 18 meetings considered. While this does seem to be improving, that improvement is generally limited to having one female speaker each year (there hasn't been more than one at a meeting since 2009).

Next up: Logic Colloquium!